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: cnyndwllr who wrote (216105)	2/3/2007 2:57:29 PM
From: Sultan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Sunnis are fighting for their survival as a subculture, a religion and a sect. This is all about power.. And not about Sunni survival as such.. True that in Iraq, Sunnis are minority but in global Islam, Shia are only 15%.. en.wikipedia.org They have majorities in just few countries, such as Iraq, Iran etc. but by and large if you study Islamic history, Shia have always been the persecuted minority.. In Iraq, when Sunnis attacked one of Shia's Holy sites, which started this round of Shia/Sunni carnage , they knew exactly what they were doing.. So you have bombs going up literally every day in Shia markets, neighberhoods and mosques etc.. and then you hear about Shia militia rounding up and killing sunnis etc.. Moderates on both sides are the casualties and are refugees.. This month, Muharram and it's history is timely and relevant to understand seeds of Sunni/Shia conflict in Iraq (going back 1400 years) if you want to look that up.. Fringe elements on both side, Sunnis and Shias have tainted Islam.. Al Qaeda is 100% Sunnis.. And their founding philosophy is based on Saudi Arabia's Wahabism. A particularly intolerant, narrow and virulent outlook.. So called fundamentalists.. Any where AlQaeda operates, being Shia is enough for you get killed.. FWIW..

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (216105)	2/3/2007 3:12:18 PM
From: Sultan	Respond to of 281500

Cleric Seeks End to Sectarian Violence By BUSHRA JUHI, Associated Press Writer 4 hours ago BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's top Shiite cleric called Saturday for Muslim unity and an end to sectarian conflict, his first public statement in months on the worsening security crisis. In statement issued by his office, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani noted that differences between Sunnis and Shiites have existed for centuries but should not be the cause for bloodshed. "Everyone realizes the desperate need for unity and for renouncing divisions, avoiding sectarian fanaticism and avoiding arousing sectarian disputes," the statement said. The Iranian-born cleric called on all Muslims to work to overcome sectarian differences and calm the passions, which serve only "those who want to dominate the Islamic country and control its resources to achieve their aims." Al-Sistani, who is in his late 70s, has emerged as one of the most influential figures in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 because of his stature within the majority Shiite community. But his calls for calm following the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra last February proved ineffective in preventing a surge in Shiite-Sunni bloodletting. Since then he has largely refrained from public statements as the wave of sectarian killings has swept the country. His last public statement was issued Oct. 20, in which he lauded efforts of Sunni and Shiite clerics to stop sectarian violence. In the latest statement, al-Sistani accused some unspecified individuals and groups of working to widen the schism among Muslims and foment sectarian differences. Al-Sistani was apparently referring to Abdullah bin Jabrain, a key member of Saudi Arabia's clerical establishment, who last month joined a chorus of other senior figures from the hardline Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam that considers Shiites as infidels. Bin Jabrain described Shiites as "the most vicious enemy of Muslims." "Regrettably, it has been noticed that some individuals and some groups are working totally contrary to (reconciliation) by strengthening the divisions and deepening the sectarian disputes among Muslims," The statement said. "They have increased their efforts in recent days after the escalation of the political conflicts aimed at gaining more authorities in the region." He said those groups had sought to tarnish "a specific sect and reduce the rights of its followers and making others afraid of it."

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (216105)	2/3/2007 3:15:52 PM
From: Sultan	Respond to of 281500

Just another daily occurrence... Bomber kills as many as 121 in Baghdad By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer 23 minutes ago BAGHDAD, Iraq - A suicide truck bomber struck a market in a predominantly Shiite area of Baghdad on Saturday, killing as many as 121 people among the crowd buying food for evening meals, one of the most devastating attacks in the capital since the war started.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (216105)	2/5/2007 10:49:03 AM
From: one_less	Respond to of 281500

>>>Rough, you say, based on your concept of man's "Natural right" to freedom, that in Iraq America should "Oppose tyrannous groups (insurgencies) in support of greater liberty and justice for all.">>> ”Let's take a look at that. Freedom belongs to those who value it enough to fight and die for it, or at least sacrifice something of real value for it. It must be taken, and, once taken, it must be jealously guarded guarded from power. And it certainly can't be given by the people of one culture to the people of another through force of arms. “ Freedom may be won through hard fought struggle and often at great sacrifice, but liberty is a natural human condition. ”But, for the sake of argument, let's assume we somehow have the awesome power to "create a free and democratic Iraq." That rings some bells, doesn't it? I have never tried to claim we have any power, to give, create, or impose freedom on Iraq; and I don’t believe we do. ”Who do we "free?" Do we "free" the majority Shiites to live the way they want even if that means far less freedom for the Sunnis to live the way they want? You do understand that in that culture it is a tradeoff, don't you? Think about it. When you're dealing with intolerant, hateful and oppressive societies with substantial minorities, more power in one camp can result in terrible oppression in another. I understand the power struggles. The insurgent forces and radical terrorists are not engaged in a struggle for their own freedom, they are oppositional extremists who desire the same thing, domination and rule over Iraq. The possible consequences of success for these extremist groups include genocide at the worst and oppression at the least for the defeated. It would almost certainly precipitate other Nations joining into the fray in attempts to reverse such outcomes. The fact is that in Iraq the struggle that best qualifies as a struggle to be free is the one you want America to quash with force of arms and in the name of freedom; the struggle of the THE SUNNI INSURGENTS. The Sunni insurgents are entangled with Al-Qaeda forces. You must know what the goal of this group is by now. The Sunnis are fighting for their survival as a subculture, a religion and a sect. You may not understand that but they certainly do, and the only effective means of opposition is armed opposition to a Shiite majority that has proven itself intolerant, oppressive and brutal. The Sunni population is by far the largest and most powerful group of people on the planet, except when we group the Western Allies as one entity. The question at this point is whether or not the surrounding nations of Majority Sunni populations will be officially drawn into the conflict in Iraq. The Sunni insurgents are trying to make that happen, there is no question about that. The Shi’ite insurgents are trying to get Iran and Syria more involved. Iraq isn't ready for "freedom" in the sense of "democracy." The test of true individual freedom in a democratic government requires that the majority understands that the freedom to live the way you want requires allowing others the right to live their own values. Shiites haven't met that test with respect to the Sunnis, nor have the Sunnis met that test with respect to the Shiites, nor will they anytime soon. (Although I suspect I'd much rather live under Sunni rule than Shiite rule.) Unfortunately the term “democracy” has been co-opted by the west. There is no inherent contradiction between Islam and democracy in the pure sense. However, the connotation has become something perceived as the West trying to shove foreign culture down the throats of middle easterners. Likewise the basic principles of Islam practiced within a peaceful community is a benevolent concept but the way radicals present it to Western culture, and even conservative Arab culture, is quite offensive to us. The unwillingness to allow others that right is the Achilles heel of many religious conservatives who say they want freedom when what they really want is the right to legislate "family values," including American religious conservatives. There is no right to rise up in a marauding horde and conquer regions of the Earth, to tyrannize the masses who live there with some fascist form of government; and, it would be a misnomer to label that process as a fight for freedoms. And what is it that motivates a substantial majority of Sunni AND Shiite to APPROVE of the killing of American troops? That is a simple question with a complex answer … one that would be answered differently by nearly every person you asked. Its like asking whether people think we are doing a good job with public education. The majority would say no but their rational would be vastly different. Or it is like asking who wants peace. Nearly everyone would raise their hand, which does not mean they agree with you on what needs to happen next. Do you think it might have something to do with what freedom means, to them, not to you? No, I am absolutely certain that it does not have to do with the differences in how we define freedoms. I have had long talks with Muslims about freedom and there is no confusion there. As with all things involving human interaction, freedom is a multifaceted shades of gray, chess game concept, not a slogan. I wish it was more simple but it isn't. Ed I disagree Ed. I agree that it should not be a slogan but liberty is a very simple concept which is the natural right and condition of all human beings. Each of us sees that issue best where and when human beings are unjustly denied personal liberty. The term ‘Freedom’ when politicized may change meanings as powerful groups abuse the term but the unadulterated term means one thing and one thing only.