| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the Sunni/Shi'ite divide, and what ought to be done about it:
The charge will be made (for all I know, is already being made by assorted imams, muftis, qadis, ayatollahs, or for that matter assorted presidents-for-life and kings-for-a-day, beglerbegs and princes and local pashas) that everything was wonderful between Shi'a and Sunnis until those bad Americans arrived.Americans did not cause the Sunni-Shi'a split. That split goes back to the first century of Islam, back to 661 A.D. The United States did not exist then. The American government was not behind the massacre at Karbala. The American government was not around to promote Sunni persecution of Shi'a, which led the latter to find a weapon in the religiously-sanctioned dissimulation known as "taqiyya" -- a weapon of deception. "War is deceit," said Muhammad. Deception comes naturally to those conducting Jihad and trying, as long as they can, to keep the Infidels unwary so that both Da'wa and demographic conquest can proceed without effective opposition.
It was not the Americans who over the entire life of modern Saudi Arabia have caused the Wahhabi (Sunni) Muslims to persecute and humiliate the Shi'a, now living in the oil-bearing eastern province of al-Hasa. It was not the Americans who forced the Sunni Arab rulers of Bahrain to lord it over the more than 70% of the population which is both Shi'a and Persian in origin. It was not the American government that over the entire life of modern Pakistan has convinced the Sunni members of Jaish-e-Jangvi and Sepaha-e-Sapir to attack Shi'a mosques, to find and execute Shi'a professionals, and in short to make war, in the name of the "real" Sunni Islam, on the Shi'a of Pakistan. It was not the American government that persuaded the Taliban to persecute and kill the Hazaras of Afghanistan because they were Shi'a.
And in Iraq, for the past three years, the Americans have everything they could to defuse Sunni-Shi’a hostility, despite its usefulness in distracting from the Jihad. That is, they did everything except one thing, the one thing that made the open expression of that hostility inevitable. And that one thing was the initial act of invading and destroying the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein.And when will this charge be raised the loudest, in the most hysterical voice? It will be raised precisely when the Americans finally -- not a moment too soon -- leave Iraq, leave hopeless Iraq, leave tarbaby Iraq, leave drain-on-our-men-money-materiel Iraq, to dissolve, slowly, into its own vilayets of violence. And of course it is only when the Americans leave that the full force of Shi'a desire to even the score against the Sunnis, and not take it anymore, will be unleashed -- without worrying about the reaction of Geneva-Convention-sticklers among the American forces.
American policy should not depend upon the ability, or willingness, of "Iraqis" (i.e. Sunni and Shi'a Arabs, and Kurds) to be "Iraqis." They won't be. Or if they will be, it will only be because we are no longer there to favor the "other side" -- for Shi'a think we are favoring the Sunnis, and the Sunnis think we are favoring the Shi'a. As currently presented, American policy appears to be in the hands not of Americans, but of Iraqis. We have assured them, so President Talebani says, that the Americans will stay for just as long as the Iraqis want and need them. Really? Is that how we are deciding our policy -- letting the "Iraqis" decide what American soldiers and Marines, what Reservists and National Guard troops, what vast expenditures of money, will still be misallocated and squandered? Which Iraqis? And for what reasons having everything to do with personal and sectarian or ethnic group advantage, and very little, if anything, to do with the perceived good of something called "Iraq," will they make their decision? Is the fact that the Iraqis" are "not ready" that will determine the fate of our men, the use of our money, the positioning of our equipment? Their "readiness" for what, exactly? For a nation-state that is bound to be riven by hostilities that will not end?
Everyone should be attacking this idiotic "as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down" policy. It makes no sense. It cannot work. There are not a sufficient number of people in Iraq who think of themselves solely, or mainly, as "Iraqis." And that cannot be accomplished by General Petraeus or whatever combination of generals have succeeded him in the hopeless task of creating a sufficient number of units (oh, they might manage to create one or two) of soldiers who are willing to go out on missions entrusting their safety, if they are Shi'a, to Sunni fellow-soldiers, or if Sunnis, to Shi'a fellow-soldiers, or if Kurds to Arab fellow-soldiers. This will never happen on anything but a very small scale.
The failure to be fully informed about the origin and depth of Sunni-Shi'a hostility is not a minor matter. American lives and American money are both being squandered because this is not a subject that has been given its due. It has not been given its due because it does not fit, did not fit, with the other assumptions made by the Big Planners who planned all this, from the remarkably ignorant "weapons systems analyst" (ignorant of Islam, ignorant about the effects of culture and history, ignorant even of what that phrase "Oriental fatalism" means) Paul Wolfowitz, to Bernard Lewis whose influence has been made so much of (grateful former students, or rather acolytes, in the Pentagon, for whom Lewis is the Final Authority on everything), to Bush, a sentimentalist, a confused but obstinate man, whose obstinate confusion is forcing others to unnecessarily risk their lives in what is not a mission, but a mirage in the desert. Or if we were to trade that desert-dwelling metaphor for something marshier to accommodate the Shatt al-Arab, then a will-o'-the-wisp that flickers, flickers, flickers, as you trudge towards it and as you seem to approach it, disappears.
There are very few "Iraqis" as we would like that word to be understood. There are many Sunni Arabs, and Shi'a Arabs, and Kurds (who are mostly Sunni, but for them, at this point, that is irrelevant). And the Kurds do not feel "Iraqi." And the Shi'a feel that they make up 60-65% of the population, and most of the oil is in the south, and the Sunnis lorded it over them for so long, and why should the Shi'a not lord it over the Sunnis, as they have the votes, and this is a "democracy" -- or if they do not lord it over, then to take the south and whatever else they can grab, and all the oil save what the Kurds may possess in the north? And if the Shi'a were sensible, they would support the Kurdish demands in Kirkuk and even Mosul, in order to weaken the Sunni Arabs. They wish to leave for their former masters the Western Desert, and that Sunni isosceles triangle, while Baghdad would remain a place of permanent contention, which -- if the Iranians were to supply basiji and money -- might be seized for the greater glory of Shi'a Islam. But it would be a permanent affront to the Sunnis that the seat of Haroun al-Rashid should be in Shi'a, semi-Persian hands -- and the game would continue.
When the Administration uses the word "Iraqi" as in such phrases as "we are training the Iraqis" or "the Iraqi army" or "the Iraqi police," one wonders about the continued indifference to reality. Few "Iraqis" (though perhaps most of those "Iraqis-in-exile" whom the Administration relied on) would call themselves "Iraqis" and by that use, mean to include, as equal in their claims and rights, the other sectarian or ethnic groups in Iraq. Kurds do not use the word "Iraqi" very much now; their sights are set elsewhere. When the Shi'a use the word "Iraq" they mean an "Iraq" where the Shi'a will rule, their power obtained through the ballot box, because they constitute between 60-65% of the population. Their notion of "democracy" is close to winner-take-all, and the American attempt to make them see things differently will run up against the resentments that have built up, not in the last few years, not in the last ten years, not in the last 30 years, not since 1932, when the British left, but over centuries in which the Sunnis have oppressed Shi'a, sometimes less and sometimes more (just as in India, the Hindus were oppressed by Muslim masters, sometimes less -- as under Akbar, an sometimes more, as under Aurangzeb).
When the phrase "when the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down" is used, one immediately should ask: "Which Iraqis"? Would it be the "Iraqis" in the Badr Militia of SCIRI (Al-Hakim, Managing Director)? Would it be the Sadr militia, that is to say the Mahdi army of the los-de-abajo urban poor who listen to that obvious demagogue Moqtada al-Sadr, who is so resentful of the Islamic book-learning of those high-falutin' ayatollahs? ("What does the Ayatollah Sistani have that I don't have? I'll show him" -- so thinks, or tries to think, Moqtada al-Sadr). Would it be the Kurdish pesh merga, or would it be the former pesh merga, now in the "Iraqi army" -- units that alone have performed well enough to earn the praise of American officers? Would it be whatever Sunni militias have been formed out of the former Sunni officers-and-men from the Iraqi army that was dissolved?
How can, with a straight face, anyone involved in Iraqi policy continue to talk about the "Iraqi army" and the "Iraqis" standing up, while "we stand down"? It makes no sense. It ignores a reality that goes back to the history of Islam.
Even in New York City, Shi'a are being threatened by Sunnis.
And if Sunnis can threaten Shi'a in New York, and suppress Shi'a in Saudi Arabia's eastern province, in Bahrain, in Kuwait, in Yemen (where the two sects are nearly evenly divided), who have largely made up those "Iraqi army" units, and murder them in Pakistan, is that -- from the viewpoint of Infidels -- bad, or good? Would it be bad, or good, for Infidels trying to stave off the global Jihad, if Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran were to fight a sectarian war in Iraq? Was the Iran-Iraq War, which used up the energies and money and military equipment of both Iraq and Iran for eight critical years (1980-1988), a good thing, or a bad thing -- for the Infidels?
The Iran-Iraq War was undeniably a Good Thing for Infidels. The removal of all American troops, as fast as they can be removed, would lead to a situation that can only be a Good Thing for Infidels. Were there to be low-level hostilities between Shi'a and Sunni, or open warfare, it would be a Good Thing for Infidels. Were that warfare to attract support on the Sunni side from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arabs, supplying mainly money and weapons, and men from Egypt and Syria and Jordan, and on the Shi'a side attract men, money, equipment and attention from the Islamic Republic of Iran, it would be a Good Thing for Infidels. And how wonderful it would be for the Christians of Lebanon (and even the Druse and the old-line Sunnis would be pleased) if Hezbollah bezonians were drawn off to fight, and disappear into, the conceivable cauldron of Sunni-Shi'a fighting in Iraq.
Meanwhile, the Western world, which apparently needs lesson after lesson in the nature of Islam, in the violence and aggression of Islam, will watch. It will watch not with the "Americans" present to blame, but without the Americans who, in fact, were the only force intent, for so long, on keeping the sectarian and ethnic peace. Just look at the way that Condoleeza Rice has continually discouraged the Kurds, possibly out of the inability of the Americans to comprehend why a free Kurdistan would weaken that Islamic state which presently is the most dangerous, Iran, by attracting the support of Kurds in Iran, and by serving as a model for other non-Persian minorities, such as the Azeris and Baluchis, to demand autonomy or more from the Persians who run things from Tehran. And a free Kurdistan, it has been suggested here more than a hundred times, would also inspire other non-Arab Muslims, such as the Berbers, to make their own demands, or to begin to view Islam as what it always was: the Arab religion, the vehicle for Arab supremacism.
Tell you what, Pentagon. I need money. I need a better car. I need a better computer. I need to pay medical insurance. I've been reading that you have a lot of money to spend, hundreds of billions, on this "war on terror." Send me a little. And by return mail, I will send you a Complete Guide to Countering the Instruments of Jihad. Qital, or Combat. The Wealth Weapon. Da'wa. Demographic Conquest. And everything else. With specific and realistic policy prescriptions for every continent. Only $9.95 while supplies last.
Of course, there is P & H. And Postage and Handling, I'm afraid, will come to one million dollars. Not much postage, I admit, but a lot of handling. Can you swing it, Pentagon, ole buddy? Possibly you don't yet know how to turn on a dime in Iraq, but if you spare that dime for me, I'll tell you.
Offer available only in the continental United States.
Posted by Robert at March 7, 2006 5:39 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Thanks for setting the record straight...and will the real Iraqi please stand up!
Posted by: champ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 7, 2006 6:02 PM
Georgetown or Harvard could funnel some Saudi money your way. If they had any of the, how you say?, cojones, they would.
It appears we're fighting Iranian special forces in Iraq already. Statements from Rumsfeld, and ABC News reports, suggest something big is happening as we speak. Yesterday was another round of shaped charge stories followed by Iranian special forces today. Ominous warnings are suddenly coming from every department. I think the White House has something planned for Iran sooner rather than later.
Rice seems to have tapped into the State Department Kool Aid. Abandon hope all ye who enter there.
Clearly the Kurds are the closest approximation of an ally in the region. I wish that made me feel they are less likely to get a raw deal.
The stories coming from Iraq suggest the military forces quelled the recent violence without any sectarian violence. But the police seem to be filled with militias. As an outside observer I find it difficult to reconcile without thinking recent stories about the army are overstated to some degree.
What interesting times.
at March 7, 2006 6:15 PM
"sectarian violence" within the military.
Obviously there was nothing but sectarian violence on the streets.
Posted by: Beagle at March 7, 2006 6:17 PM
Even in New York City, Shi'a are being threatened by Sunnis.
-------------
We need to pull our troops into the strongholds in Iraq and into the Kurd lands in Iraq.
and then
Let the Shi'a and the Sunnis war. If they war, it could sufficiently destablize the region and create a full scale relegious war between these Islamic sects and when it is over then correct the problems in the Middle East.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
at March 7, 2006 6:50 PM
Too bad you are not advising the Defense Dept. Hugh. Your 'opponent' John Esposito is busy advising the Saudis.
John Esposito Brainstorms How Islam Can Conquer America in Saudi Arabia
Posted by: John Sobieski at March 7, 2006 7:26 PM
l think the Saudi Royal Family, and other royal kingdoms, they are real scared of the iranians nutbars. these monsters have no qualms about killing fellow muslims!they will go through the motions of the UN stuff, but sooner than later iranian president and company has to go!
Posted by: Lulu at March 7, 2006 7:59 PM
Kurds know they will need to keep the north, and let the sunnis and shites fight for the rest, till none stand, or only sane ones are alive to make peace with the kurds.
Posted by: Lulu at March 7, 2006 8:00 PM
Millions of Cats. Wanda Ga'g. 1928.
Posted by: Hugh at March 7, 2006 8:15 PM
For those interested here is a a little illustrated account of the start of the endless civil war within The Peaceful Nation of Islam
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2006/03/politically-incorrect-guide-moslems.html
Posted by: shiva at March 7, 2006 9:01 PM
Very timely post Hugh.
Just yesterday I endured the taqiyya and lies of a couple of Iraqi women who traveled all the way to America to spread disinformation [url=http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/06/1424239&mode=thread&tid=25#transcript]Here[/url]
What pissed me off most is that the interviewer asked the "beach" if she was Sunni or Shi'a and she obfuscated and avoided the question.
" I asked you during the break, Faiza, are you Sunni or Shia?"
Response:
FAIZA AL-ARAJI: I don't like this question. I'm Iraqi. And I'm insisting I am Iraqi. I don't want to use these new titles, have been entered Iraq after Bremer. When he entered Iraq he put this division for the Iraqi people. And we refuse it
And they go on to blame the "occupation" for the sectarian violence, but they actually imply that it is a "false flag operation".
I also watch MOSAIC daily on Link TV, and is dejure for the Iranian's via the news (Al Alam and IRIB2) to blame the west for sectarian violence, sometimes going so far as to actually claim that it was MOSSAD/CIA/MI6.
BTW, Faiza al Araji is a Shi'a,her Hijab was wrapped in particular Shi'a style.
So she would be obfuscating for SCIRI, who as you know is a client of and supported by Iran. SCIRI runs Iran.. it is the Ayatollahs and al Ja'afari.
Posted by: Nariz at March 7, 2006 9:31 PM
Mr. Fitzgerald has much knowledge and as I read his words I learn more about the religious and ethnic dynamics of the Eurasian Balkans. However, James Baker once said that there is only one reason for any involvement in the Mid East: oil.
All of the issues of sectarian, ethnic and Jihad conflict will become moot when oil is removed from the picture. But oil is still central to the picture and the world economy will descend into cahos if the region descends into chaos. We must change this picture:
We must develop-invent alternative energy via an "Energy Manhattan Project." Necessity tells us what is right on this matter. But meanwhile the U.S. cannot let the region descend into chaos and Iran (which could become internally more unstable than Iraq) must not get nukes. The region is a complex maze with one road out: alternative energy.
JihadWatch.org + AlternativeEnergyWatch.org = the end of mirages + a farewell to Loonytoon Rage
at March 7, 2006 10:04 PM
John Sobieski - thank you for that link about Esposito's comments. Reading them it is impossible not to detect something he shares in common with Karen Armstrong, in public comments she has also made in the past. What they appear to me to have in common, is that they truly believe they are are taking a superior moral position here in tryng to prevent a second holocaust. It is abundantly clear that they both view the Muslims as the "new Jews". Those who follow this site will be familiar with that theme by now but I am utterly convinced that this is a major issue that needs more direct confrontation, in order to provide some moral clarity on this issue that appears to be a source of so much confusion. Rather than assuming, as the blogger you linked to does, that Esposito is ill-intentioned - it would seem to be more useful to imagine that he actually means well, and to deal with him and other like-minded folks from there.
A poster here - I wish I could recall who - very aptly stated some time ago - that Muslims have essentially "hijacked" the holocaust language from the Jews. There is abundant evidence for that claim, for example, in the way they keep trying to promote sort of similarity between the fact that many westerners do not countenance holocaust denial with the claim that the cartoons should not have been published. Or even more obviously in the way they call Israeli's Nazi's. (There's really many examples that someone could explore of this phenomenon). It's also apparent in the way they have seized on the term "Islamophobia" which bears a great deal of similarity to the term "Judeophobia".
But 6 million Jews WERE slaughtered and nary a dozen Muslims have actually been "slaughtered" in the west. And Jews factually presented NO threat whatsoever, while Muslims have already provided abundant evidence both historically and in the present that they DO represent a threat - their minority status aside. And to further rub salt in the wounds of Jews by Muslims trying to claim some parallel victim status, the fact is that as the Muslim influence in the west grows, things factually DO get more and more dangerous for JEWS!.
So this equivalence is absolute crap. It is thoroughly manufactured and depends entirely on a confluence between well-intentioned (I'm going to cede that point for the sake of argument) westerners, seeking to avoid a second holocaust, and completely cynical Muslims who are manipulating the well-known western guilt about the fact that westerners DID indeed perpetrate a very real holocaust - in order to bring about their own holocaust of the Jews (and then they came for...).
I think it was Dr. Pepper (if not step forward whoever you were) - who commented a while back about the tendency to fight a second Maginot line (egads - was that what it was?) - in any case, the point being, that people are unable to think AFRESH! Yes, history has a tendency to repeat itself but you can't be so locked into the assumption that it will unfold in the exact same way that you fail to see all the ways in which the new battle is completely different and unexpected.
How can we put to rest this notion that the Muslims are the new Jews? Obviously they aren't. They would very much love to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth and they make that fact abundantly and vocally clear every single day. The only way in which Muslims resemble Jews is in their minority status in the west. But look at history. The Muslims have actually succeeded brilliantly in conquering the world - through violence, and reducing every place they prevailed into a 3rd world hellhole - despite the fact that they started out as a minority everwhere.
This difference between Muslims and Jews should be so crystal clear to every westerner. But apparently, as Sobieski's link above and as previous links to Armstrong's remarks indicate, and well frankly, as so many unspoken assumptions among well-meaning westerners have revealed - this is not at ALL obvious. In fact, it's SO unobvious as to qualify as a very very major source of confusion in the defense against the global jihad. My fondest hope would be that other folks, who are more articulate and certainly better versed in history! - would pick up this ball and run with it. Lay it out for us please. Help us to see that just because Muslims are a minority doesn't mean that our fight against the jihad is in any sense similar to what westerners did to the Jews. Because this very good desire NOT to repeat the same mistakes of the past creates a great deal of confusion which constitutes a very real and very serious impediment to fighting the jihad.
I know. OT. sorry.
Posted by: Caroline at March 7, 2006 10:08 PM
(Whoops. That was way more off -topic that I realized. By the time I was done reading the link and typing I thoroughly forgot what thread I was on. My apologies. Feel free to delete for off-topicness beyond the pale...:-))
Posted by: Caroline at March 7, 2006 10:25 PM
"James Baker once said that there is only one reason for any involvement in the Mid East: oil.
All of the issues of sectarian, ethnic and Jihad conflict will become moot when oil is removed from the picture. But oil is still central to the picture and the world economy will descend into cahos if the region descends into chaos."
-- from a posting above
James Baker has never paid the slightest attention to Islam. He has never shown any sign that he recognizes it as a threat, a menace to Infidels. Nor did he, when he was in the government, ever show any interest in an energy policy that went beyond trusting our "staunch ally" Saudi Arabia. His Baker Center has received large amounts of money from the grateful Saudis. His law firm, Baker & Botts, does a good business with Arab clients. Baker himself shows no signs of understanding how, long ago, by imposing a gasoline tax that would steadily rise, the American government might have so easily recaptured part of the oligopolistic rents that OPEC managed to charge -- possibly recapturing a trillion dollars or more.
And Baker has no sympathy for Israel. Decades ago, as a Princeton undergraduate, he wrote a thesis on why it was unwise to recognize the state of Israel. Knowing nothing, and remaining in that state of ignorance, about Islam, he obviously does not realize the permanent unacceptability of Israel's existence, as an Infidel sovereign state, to Muslims, or perhaps he simply doesn't care. In any case, he also doesn't care, if he thought things through, if the Muslims seize control of what Christians call the Holy Land, which is exactly what would happen if Israel were defeated.
If Carter was our worst president, and Brzezinski the worst national security adviser, Baker was certainly the worst -- well, the worst of whatever successive positions he held. The entire Western world has suffered from bad leadership as the menace of Islam, unrecognized and still undefined, grew and grew-- but those three take the cake.
As for some postied relation between "chaos in the region" and "chaos in the world economy" -- this is a baseless worry. The Iran-Iraq War lasted eight years, but after an iniitial interruption in supplies, they promptly resumed. The Western world would not stomach any major removal of oil from the market. If Shi'a in al-Hasa were to revolt, the West would simply seize those oilfields, and there is nothing the Saudis could do about it. And the oil could be sold, and revenues kept "in escrow" for the Saudis or others deemed worthy recipients (how about the world's poor oil-consuming nations, as a way of buying their support, and compensating them for all the years of OPEC's oligopolistic rents? That would make sense.)
Fears of chaos in the oil markets inevitably arising from political upheaval are hysterical, and false, and promoted by the Saudis and other OPEC members, for their own obvious purposes.
Posted by: Hugh at March 7, 2006 10:52 PM
Hugh,
1) I'm not saying I agree with Baker on anything but his comment that there is only one reason to be involved in the Mid East: Oil. (The Devil speaks at least one truth?)
2)I think Iran is being geopolitically contained on all sides because of the fear that they will get nukes. The U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is part of this containment policy. Iran ( which could become more unstable than Iraq) will not be allowed to get nukes.
3) There is only one road out of the maze based on the Devil's truth re the only reason to be involved in the Mid East: Oil. Alternative Energy is the road out. All problems in the region become moot when that happens.
4) You have a great sweep of knowledge re many matters that impact this region. I do not claim to have your depth of knowledge-yet. However, I stand my ground re the road out of this madhouse (alternative energy) and think there are sound geopolitical reasons to contain Iran at this time.
Posted by: Frank at March 7, 2006 11:34 PM
I have to hope that these recent battles between sunnis and shiites (and whatever other nutcases are out there) will, at some point, enlighten Iraq as to the vile character of its religious leaders. Could the "religion" implode upon itself? I doubt it at this time, but I am hopeful that one day it will.
However, in the meantime I mourn the present loss of American life and resources poured into a country and region that is not worthy of either.
http://islamistheproblem.blogspot.com/
at March 8, 2006 12:55 AM
@Frank...
"JihadWatch.org + AlternativeEnergyWatch.org = the end of mirages + a farewell to Loonytoon Rage"
I agree 200%. While the terrorists hone their skills at what they are good at, we should increase the pace of things at which we are good at; rational thinking+research+economy and faster.
THat will put an end to the hydraulic despotism caused by oil and the world will be a better place (except for the oil-only economies). And it will make the islamists stop whining about oil plunder.
Posted by: csa bill at March 8, 2006 1:17 AM
Shiva, the link that you provided seems to be a fairly large load of Shi'ite propaganda.
The Sunni Yazid (son of Mu'awiya) is portrayed as a snarling mustached villain straight out of vaudeville:
Yazid neither had command over his passions nor could rule a according to the book of God and the precepts of the Prophet.
His public ridicule of Islam was strongly hated and abhored by the people. But Muawiyah had managed to buy allegiance for Yazid from almost all important people by intimidation and bribery.
Thus Yazid, sunk in wine and soaked in debauchery became the head of religion and state.
While one can almost see the flowing white robes of the virtuous and noble Shi'ite Husain:
Husayn's fight for truth is a glorious chapter of recorded history and a scintillating example of human greatness. He fought against oppression and tyranny for the glory of mankind. He upheld the principles of equality, liberty and universal brotherhood of man which is the basic teaching of Islam.
The tense piano music swells up:
[Husain] held [his infant son] in his arms and brought him infront of Yazid's army. Instead of providing him with water, Hurmala bin Kahil, on orders of Omar bin Sa'ad, shot the baby with an arrow, killing him in the arms of his father.
To summarize:
People who cherish Islamic ideals ... will derive fruitful guidance from the actions of Muhammad, Ali, Hasan and Husayn for whom war becomes a distasteful and defensive action and not a means of territorial and material aggrandisement.
What a load of b*llcr*p. I'm really not interested in the arcane excuses that Moslems have for killing Moslems. I'm only interested in stopping Moslem-on-non-Moslem violence. If you think JW readers will be sympathetic to Shi'a propaganda, you are sadly mistaken.
Posted by: special_guest at March 8, 2006 1:34 AM
The USA had a policy of enriching Saudi Arabia through foreign aid disguised as oil payments and Foreign Tax Credits as far as 1951. The policy was maintained by both Democrats and Republicans. Its origins and actual workings are explained grosso modo in the posts below [with a readng list]:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/09/kindly-making-arabia-rich.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/09/left-part-of-solution-or-part-of.html
Now, the question is did they want to enrich the Saudis and other Arabs, or did the Saudis control them? Baker's policies somewhat resemble those of Zbig Brzezinski who worked for a Democratic president. By the way, the so-called "Left" doesn't seldom talked of the specifics of US Saudi policy.
Caroline,
Many Jews believe that the Europeans have become so fond of Arabs and welcome hearing atrocity stories from the Arabs and about Israel as a way of divesting themselves of any sense of guilt over the Holocaust or other Judeophobia. Or we might say, pro-Arabism, pro-"palestinism" is a way of rejecting any guilt over the Holocaust, historical Judeophobia, etc.
Now, the first step in refuting the attitude that you attribute to Esposito and Karen Armstrong is to point out that Arabs, particularly Haj Amin el-Husseini, the British-appointed mufti of Jerusalem, took part in the Holocaust, etc. Then, you can point out the first 20th century genocide, that of the Armenians, which was the work of Muslims, albeit with aid from the German and Austro-Hungarian empires. After that, you can go back to India, the Bulgarian massacres, etc. Of course, you should never let any pro-Arab get away with claiming to be the "new Jews," when Muslim leaders actively participated in the Holocaust and when the Arabs oppressed Jews for more than a thousand years.
[see many recent posts on my blog]
at March 8, 2006 2:45 AM
the first sentence of the previous entry should say: "as far back as 1951"
Posted by: Eliyahu at March 8, 2006 2:46 AM
Is it that the Global War on Terror is being waged by those who have little understanding of whats happening? Or are we too scared to really face up to them and tell them so? Are we doing a taqiyya here? Calling Islam a religion of peace?
Sunni and Shia can never peacefully co-exist because both ideologies call for the annihilation of the other.Free rational thinking people cannot co-exsit peacefully with either Shia or Sunni.
It is a 1400 year old declared war and we are on the defensive and losing to the mad Koran-&-Gun wielding hordes.
Robert, we need you in the War Room.
at March 8, 2006 4:49 AM
Eliyahu - thanks for pointing me to your posts. They addressed exactly what I was referring to - minority control of a majority. And of course the Sunni's in Iraq managed the same thing with the Shia. Such a small percentage of Muslims in the west and they're already exerting influence way beyond their numbers. It's quite incredible how they manage to do this time and again. Now I am feeling even more outraged that they have the damn gall to level the charge of "Islamophobia". (P.S. John Sobieski - didn't realize that was YOUR blog. Egads, will look more carefully before I leap next time...)
Posted by: Caroline at March 8, 2006 5:57 AM
Re: Posted by: csa bill -
You make a good point about science. The Industrial Revolution (at core a revolution of transport) and the Communication Revolution (especially of the past 40 years) has us colliding with some Gremlins here and there in the region.
Science will provide the road out if people become "Johnny-One-Notes" on the issue and make an "Energy Manhattan Project" a very good issue for politicians seeking office. If enough people demand this (alternative energy) no special interest will be able to stop it. Public opinion matters, particularly in the USA.
Posted by: Frank at March 8, 2006 8:40 AM
The irony of history is that Shia and Sunni in Iraq were united concerning overthrowing the British, but now we see that they are pitted against one another in the aftermath of the removal of the Ba'ath regime.
This has less to do with religious differences, in the absence of security, people in the Middle East will look to religion for a sense of comfort and some sense of stability/security which is missing in their lives right now.
Ironically, the US invasion empowered the forces of the Islamists. I think it was premature to rush to democratic elections in the Arab world, continuing support of oligarchies is not in our best interest though either.
We should have first cultivated a culture of democracy before rushing to elections. Elections can be counter-productive to Western interests, and once the results go against our interests, we have to seat there and not do anything because any protest will be seen as hypocrisy.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 9:42 AM
Hugh,
are you saying that the jerks in the Whitehouse and fools like me who voted them in are clueless, well intentioned fools? How terrible and true! What is really galling are all the gung ho right wing jerks, like at LGF or the Anti-Idiot Rot, who constantly put down Muslims and Arabs. Then they do a volte face and claim "our" Iraqis are freedom loving, grateful friends. These are the same ignoramuses who wanted to attack France in 2003, then they defend Bushco's Dubai port deal by saying how we have to support our "allies"! Basically, the whole almost the whole GOP morphed into some Limbaugh, brain dead, knee jerk robots.
at March 8, 2006 10:59 AM
My solution is to help the Kurds take over the whole show, form a new Kurdistan and use them as a wedge between and against the Shiites and the Sunnis
Posted by: Dumbo at March 8, 2006 11:03 AM
Latino,
"We should have first cultivated a culture of democracy before rushing to elections. Elections can be counter-productive to Western interests, and once the results go against our interests, we have to seat there and not do anything because any protest will be seen as hypocrisy."
Good point, we have to get them into at least the 18th century b4 they can be trusted to run things by themselves. Until then. they need Saddams to keep them under control.
Posted by: Dumbo at March 8, 2006 11:05 AM
Turkey would not tolerate a Kurdistan in the neighborhood.
Furthermore, this would incite Kurds in Tukey to clamor for more self-autonomy from Ankara.
Another thing with partition is that most of the petroleum is located in Shia Iraq and Kurdistan, which would leave the Sunnis out of the loop, which would not be acceptable to them.
Posted by: Latino at March 8, 2006 11:52 AM
Latino said
We should have first cultivated a culture of democracy before rushing to elections.
This is making the common assumption (see the current Administration's policy) that "they" are just like "us". Muslims are following the same path down history as non-Muslims, they are just behind us by a few centuries.
But Muslims are not following the same path, they are following a completely different path than non-Muslims. Given time, they will not "catch up" to us and have democracy and freedom and plurality and civil rights and education etc. etc. No, given time their goals will get further and further from ours. We are headed North-West and they are headed South-East, to use an analogy.
But here is where the analogy fails (other than it is a spherical planet and we would eventually meet on the other side of the Earth...): if they were heading off in a physically different direction, that would be great, since they would be further from us and would be unable to commit violence against us. But they're still here, we're still here, and they're throwing larger and larger objects at us.
Wishing that their values were similar to ours will not make it so.
Giving our values (peace/freedom/democracy/etc.) to them will not work; if given the freedom to vote in a democracy, they will elect to re-impose the straight-jacket of theocracy and Sharia on themselves. That's not going to change tomorrow, or next week, or next year, on in the next century, the way things stand.
Forcing our values on them as a (benevolent) occupying force has not worked.
Our only goal should be to contain the jihadists, so that they are unable to commit violent acts against us. If they want to kill each other till the end of time over which caliph should have succeeded which caliph, who cares? If they want to live their lives according to 7th Century standards by rigidly following the Qur'an, that should be fine with us. Conversely, if they want to educate their children in something other than memorizing the Qur'an, or allow women to vote, or give non-Muslims the same rights and status as Muslims, that should be fine with us too.
For G*d's sake, give up this grotesque joke of building a Western democracy in a unified Iraq. Come out and admit that Islam does not wish us well, that they have deeply ingrained and well-documented religious reasons for not wishing us well, for seeing us as less-than-human.
Posted by: special_guest at March 8, 2006 2:31 PM
This has less to do with religious differences
Liar.
I don't think you are an ignorant innocent. You know all right.
Posted by: Yojimbo at March 8, 2006 2:54 PM
Turkey's lack of tolerance for a sovereign Kurdistan is quite irrelevant. They've become a post Cold War stone anchor. If the national leadership has enough backbone to remind Erdogan and Co. of the easily removable support the U.S. kindly exerts in favor of Turkish inclusion in the E.U., not to mention considerable military aid, that dog can be brought to heel. Iraqi Sunni acceptance? LOL!....ah, good one. Supporting establishment of Kurdistan already implies not giving one quark's worth of a damn about what those whiny savages think. The Kurds have already demonstrated that they have will exercise far less restraint when dealing with Sunni troublemakers than we have. Next time the Arabs won't have jets, Hind attack helicopters, and nerve gas.
Posted by: Eisenhund at March 8, 2006 4:17 PM
"The irony of history is that Shia and Sunni in Iraq were united concerning overthrowing the British, but now we see that they are pitted against one another in the aftermath of the removal of the Ba'ath regime.
This has less to do with religious differences, in the absence of security, people in the Middle East will look to religion for a sense of comfort and some sense of stability/security which is missing in their lives right now."
-- from a poster above
The differences between Sunni and Shi'a do not depend on an absence of "stability/security." They go back 1300 years, to the beginning of Islam, as does the Arab supremacist ideology within Islam that has caused the Kurds so much pain and anguish, and not only in the decades of Saddam Hussein's rule.
The Shi'a tribes were not "united" with the Sunnis ever. They were a permanent source of worry in the 1920s, when the Sunni elites of Baghdad were entrusted with power by the British. See the Letters of Gertrude Bell. They never acquiesced to Sunni rule, but had that rule forced upon them. Later, the ideology of Ba'athism proved appealing as a way of disguising what was a Sunni despotism, but one available to those non-Sunnis (some Shi'a and Kurds and even a Christian or two, were in the Ba'athist elite). The main point of the article above stands: the Sunni and Shi'a have, in both time (for 1300 years) and space (in Pakistan and Afghanistan, in the Yemen and in Bahrain, in Saudi Arabia and in Lebanon) been hostile to each other, and the claim that Shi'a are not true Muslims is not one made only by Zarqawi; Wahhabis take that as a matter of course.
What is of note is that this poster, who has claimed to be a true-blue thoroughly loyal Amercian (loyal to what? to the Infidel nation-state? To the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment rights of individuals?), but also insists he is deeply committed to an Islam that, upon inspection, turns out to be so far form the real, mainstream Islam as to earn a Jarmuschian title: My Own Private Islam.
And at this thread, suddenly, he is also quitee concerned to insist that Sunni and Shi'a will naturally get along -- if only they are provided with "stability" and "security" by the Americans, and of course regards with horror the idea that those Americans have no duty to provide either "stablity" or "security" and those Sunni and Shi'a will have to get along, or not, as they are capable of. Infidels should welcome ethnic and sectarian fissures in Iraq, and should do nothing to discourage them (nothing need be done to encourage them, either -- they are there, and will always be there).
And curiously, he also reacts with alarm at the very idea of a free and independent Kurdistan, claiming that the Turks will squash it and, by implication, there is no way for the American government to accept a fait accompli. Oh yes there is. The government of Turkey needs support, diplomatic and military and economic, from the American government, and there are many ways to obtain Turkish acceptance of a free Kurdistan, and even to point out how collaboration between Turkey and this new state, with an American guarantee of no territorial demands being made on Turkey by Kurdistan, could work in American, that is Infidel, favor.
But this is something that the suddenly far less confused Muslim poster has definite views about -- obviously he worries that others might find what I have set out to be both realistic and attractive as a course of action.
Not quite such an innnocent after all.
Nota bene.
at March 8, 2006 4:48 PM
"Hugh,
are you saying that the jerks in the Whitehouse and fools like me who voted them in are clueless, well intentioned fools?"
-- from a posting above
Many voted for Bush the second time round, when we had seen a good deal of his confusion over Islam, back in 2004, assuming that the Americans would be leaving Iraq quite soon, for surely he or others in the Admnistration realized it was time to go, that Iran beckoned, and the islamization of Europe beckoned, and the need to describe the enemy better than that phrase "war on terror" manages to do, beckoned. Those people were wrong. But the choices were not good. And one kept having faith in --- oh, Rumsfeld, or someone as yet unknown. Possibly one cannot quite believe that Bush is the nitwit he is, and that Karen Hughes is the nitwit she is, and that all the rest of them are so obstinately weddded to this course, for several reasons. One is that they do not know how to admit they were wrong about Islam, and do not want to admit they were wrong about the specifics of Iraq, its permanent fissures that no American presence can do anything but temporarily paper over. A second is sentimentalism, for sentimentalists deplore such ideas as "let them fight each other" or "we shouldn't worry about a civil war - we should greet a civil war in Iraq as having the potential to be like the Iran-Iraq War that was such a drain on Muslim countries, financially and militarily, and so useful, therefore, to the Infidel world, which back in 1980-88 still had no idea of the scope of the menace presented by Islam.
We all make mistakes. My votes have been one long series of disappointments and mistakes. Perhaps the fault is in the system that allows, in politics, survival of the misfittest, and drives the clearest-minded, who cannot stand what one has to do to rise high in politics, away.
A problem.
Posted by: Hugh at March 8, 2006 4:57 PM
Hugh: "for sentimentalists deplore such ideas as "let them fight each other""
Yes, I admit it. I am a sentimentalist ("liberal" at heart I reckon). My only objection to the plan you've laid out here for months on end, in post after post, has been its ruthless Machiavelian nature. But it would seem that REALITY may be destined in the end to take care of that sentimental squeemishness. I can endorse something that benefits us as 'infidels' but only if a course of action that does so is not purely Machiavellian in nature. It would seem that that particular reservation is covered by any circumstance in which we no longer have any realistic control over the outcome. And that would certainly appear to be the case in Iraq, despite our best intentions. Ergo, if we are confronted with something that is inevitable and that we cannot control and which, furthermore, benefits us, then why should we resist? Especially when, in the end, we can blame it on the Tao, while at the same time effortlessly flowing with it?
Posted by: Caroline at March 8, 2006 8:41 PM
Caroline
It may be machivellian, but we needn't be the ones to say it. Especially since implementing it is so simple - just pull out. Not in the style of a "We are occupiers, not liberators" tone of a Dennis Kuchinich or Howard Dean, but more in the tone of "We've done our job, now you (Iraqis) do yours".
I supported ousting Saddam and de-fanging Iraq. We achieved a lot of things - that, finding Abu Abbas, seeing Abu Nidal killed a few weeks before the invasion started (who knows whether that would have happened had the invasion not been contemplated), killing Udai and Qusai Hussein, capturing Saddam himself, and as the great one himself put it, enabled the Shia-Sunni divide to come into the open. Once Saddam was captured, we should have simply turned him over to the Shia/Kurds, and started rapid troop reductions. In fact, that would have been a good time for Pres Bush to stand on that ship with the "Mission Accomplished" banner.
The part that I didn't support was the project of converting Iraq into a democracy - as news snippets here have shown, that has turned into a nightmare for Chaldean and Assyrian Christians. Also, almost all major Shia leaders - Jaffari, Chalabi, al Sadr have been allies of Iran. How has that worked to our advantage? Also, by having troops there, we have been pretty much the unpaid militia of the Shia (at least we were paid for the 1991 Kuwait war by al Sabah).
The other major problem is that by being there, we are responsible to ensure the following, none of which are in our interest:
- Maintain a cease-fire between Shia, Sunni and Kurds
- Keep Kurdistan from bolting from Iraq
- Keep Shia from massacring Sunni
- Protect Iraqi (Shia) leaders from Sunni
- Keep Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria from interfaring
By not having troops there, Kurdistan would be free to declare independence if it wanted to. That may yet happen, if the Shia are unhappy with Talabani trying to oust Jaafari, and try to remove Talabani as president. Similarly, if Iran is drawn into Iraq, that makes them busier there, as opposed to their atomic science project, while the Saudis, instead of devoting their money to madrassas here and Pakistan, would need to divert money, men and materials in support of the Sunni. A Shia Iraq would inspire a similar uprising in KSA and Bahrein. And I'd rather have Syria interfare in Iraq than in Lebanon - the Syrian Alawite Baathists supporting the Shia, the Syrian Sunni masses supporting the Iraqi Baathists, Hizbullah supporting Moqtada al Sadr, and a great deal of pressure being taken off the Lebanese forces of Sameer Gaegae and off Israel.
If we were out of there, all of the above could happen, and nobody could blame us (except for demanding that we move in, a la Bosnia, but how much credibility would they have, since they can't claim that it hasn't been tried).
My only disagreement with Hugh is that in a related but separate post, he anticipated that if the Iranian project is taken down, Azeris, Kurds, Baluchis and Arabs would turn against the Persians. While I have no problems with Azeri or Kurdish areas breaking away (and Baluchi unrest - only if it inspires something similar in Makran), there are enough Arab countries, all strengthening that ultimate vehicle of Arab supremacy, Islam. The last thing we need is another oil-rich Arab regime in Khuzestan. That's one place where I'd rather see Persian - Shia or non-Muslim - oppress Arab - Shia or Sunni.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 9, 2006 2:05 AM
The invasion of Iraq was a window of opportunity to opening up Iranian influence in the region.
Ayatollah al-Sistani, a voice of restraint among the Shia faithful, is an Iranian. Iran and Iraq have a long historical relationship dating back to antiquity, the recent animosities under Ba'ath regime were a departure from the past.
However, since the Samarra bombings, al-Sistani has issued statements that encourage militias taking justice into their own hands. That would be bad, as long as the Shia are patient and willing to allow foreign troops on their soil, Iraq can be a win-win siuation for the United States. If we lose their support along the way, I believe an immediate exit will have to be in order.
Posted by: pikachu at March 10, 2006 10:17 AM
Infidel, the Baluchs have more issues with the Punjabi dominated government of Pakistan and seeking greater autonomy from Islamabad than grievances with Teheran.
Posted by: pikachu at March 10, 2006 10:19 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)