Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (188163)	6/2/2006 8:30:08 PM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Too bad you don't see Israeli settlers the same serious way as they are more the problem with what's going on. Get them all off Palestinian Land and you might be surprised by the results.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (188163)	6/5/2006 11:11:34 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>> So what's your point? Do you think I show favoritism for any form of armed private militia that exists? I think you show favoritism in that you use nut case positions and/or far-flung religious statements of one group to justify military campaign against a some cultures/countries whereas you support a localized action when it comes to equivalent statements that relate to Jews and Judaism. >> However, GOING BACK TO MY POINT, what conditions are going to be necessary for the Jaysh Al-Mahdi forces to be disbanded?? Mahdism (if we can call it that) is a fatalistic messianic movement born out of desperation. Over the centuries, there have been a few Mahdist movements (and not just amongst the Shia). In virtually every case they started under extraordinary disparate conditions and died down when normalcy returned. You have a fairly rich set of precedences to draw from. I don't expect Sadr's case to be any different. There is no chance for a Shia movement to become as big of problem as AQ, for the simple reason that the Shia are such a small minority in Islam. They simply do not have the reach that Sunnis do. Furthermore, there are many built in safe guards in Shia that prevent Jihadist world wars. For starters, the Shia are prevented to wage Jihad except under the leadership of the "Righteous" Imam, which presently is Mahdi (Messiah). Since Mahdi is on a different plane of existence until Allah returns him to this world, Shia may not wage international Jihad. From time to time, you get some cleric calling the public to arms by claiming to have been in touch with Mahdi. The last such Shia revolt was incited by Bab (pronounced Bob) in 1850 which eventually evolved into the pacifist movement of Baha'i. When it comes to Sadr, some of his principles are in direct violation of Shia foundations. For example, Sadr claims that the only rightful leader of Iraqi Shia is his father. However the Shia may not hold on to the leadership of a dead Marja'. They believe in the need for a living leader to interpret the religion according to the time. This is one of the fundamental differences between the Shia and Sunnis. Sadr is of course aware of this. It is just that he cannot claim religious leadership as he does not have scholar standing for it. So he has to use the cover of his father's standing. His movement is not so much religious as it is political and must be seen as such. Your question then becomes, "what conditions are necessary for disbandment of an armed political group". And the answer is that they will not disband, but they may evolve into a pure political movement. From Ireland to Spain to Tamil the solution has always been in addressing the underlying issues in a political forum. ST