A civil war in Islam?

[Sarajevo071]

Hi Sarajevo,

Sorry, it's tax day in Canada, so my reply issomewhat limited .

Hi Marct,

No problem here. You answers are valued in any length.

Hmmm, on he whole, yes, I do find it "piquant" (probably a better word than paradoxical) that this is happening. I would point out, however, that Sheik Hamed Al-Ali in his April 4 fatwah came very close to saying the same thing. While I don't read Arabic (yet - I'm just starting to learn it), memri has English translations available here. While he doesn't describe ISI as engaging in a civil war, he does state that they are perilously close to "doing the Devil's work".

On Westerners talking abot Islam, what do you expect ? Muslim's talk about the West, often when they have no idea about its background. This is a human universal - the creation of an "other".

HAhahaha ! Point taken. You are right again.

To be honest, I never heard of that Sheik and don’t know how influential he is, but I do know that number other groups and individuals are taking similar line and talking against what’s going on.

But one needs to know fabric of those groups and have deep knowledge of what’s going on (and why) to judge everything and came with right conclusions of what’s going on. Here is one example:

Recently, it was one attack on Kurds (bus was stopped and people was killed), and looking on that criminal act by self we get picture of senseless killing going on and on…

In truth, that was revenge of absolutely brutal killing of Kurd teen girl who fail in love, convert to Islam and got married. Her own family betrays her, turn her to villagers who strip her naked, beat her up, stomp her and then stone her to death! Make a note- that was some Kurd sect, not a Muslims.

All that crime was recorder and posted like a message to other Kurds, and between all those morons you can even see some police officers standing on the side and watching. My point here, having all that in mind reasons violence can be different and then so they “justification” and opposition.

Okay, a quick comment here. Analytically it is imperative that we distinguish between types of warfare. In the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, we saw one of the worst types of warfare being practiced - you know this better than I do . Afghanistan was a different type of operation and, while far from a "clean" war, it was and is a lot "cleaner" than that being practiced by the Taliban. Iraq is, in many ways, a much less "clean" war, and that IMHO probably has to do with idiocy at the top (i.e. the belief that everything would be great once Saddam was gone) than it does with the actions of coalition troops.

Too few troops, stupid policies like de-Baathification and disbanding the Iraqi army were just a recipe for disaster. We have maybe 2 -3 reports of coalition troops going juramenado, and how many reports of supposedly "good Muslim" groups doing the same? 100? 1000? 10,000?

Were the Americans naive to assume that everything would be perfect with Saddam out of power? Of course, and no one believes that any more; I suspect most people never believed it to begin with. This is not the capture of Jerusalem, this is a series of bloody minded people evening old scores and outside extremists coming in to sir up the pot, and everyone blames the Americans (sorry, that really makes me mad).

I dare to say that none is questioning of taking out Saddam but WAYS to do that and REASONS why and why now?

Iraqi generals approach CIA with plan to take out Saddam and all they needed is guaranties that USA will take down sanctions and recognize them/new government. But Washington shut them down.

Why do you think that is? Why they refuse military coup without American blood spilled but they decide to invade under FAKE reasons and during that killed and still killing scores of Iraqis (after sanctions which killed 500,00 Iraqi kids)?! Reason is simple… If Iraqis take out Saddam them self there would be no reason for USA Military to occupied Iraq and take over oil fields.

And, when you talking outsiders and spreading the blame for killings, where are you putting Western outsiders who start all this and gave those extremists chance to rise up and do all this!? Something that was imposible under Saddam. That’s reason why many people now saying it was better under Saddam (like they use to say in Yugoslavia that it was better under Tito)… Like it or not, US invasion bring terror and death in Iraq in this scale.

Saddam needed to be killed by Iraqis (not this revenge killing by Shiites) or some “unexplained” sniper bullet or rocket. Not to tear yet another country in pieces and then blame victims for it and leave them out to dry.

If that thing was done right, you will be surprised with public Muslim reaction and support. And lack support to AQ.

I agree, it's a hard thing to do - but look at who is doing the indiscriminate killing.

Marc

I am looking and I know who stared, why, how and I know those killings was UNKNOWN before US invasion. But, that’s not point here.

Question was - if U.S. and NATO troops killing so many Muslims (and Marct, there is more cases then just a few) how they can support or allied with them!? Don’t you making alliances with someone who is NOT killing you?