Saturday, 9 February 2013
Feb. 8, 2013...
- The country's sectarian tensions erupt anew, threatening vital U.S. interests.
This is how the comically-named Kimberley Kagan concludes her vaporings:
"Over the past year, the situation in Iraq has become explosive while sectarian sentiment and armed violence in neighboring nations have escalated dramatically. Americans have become accustomed to watching Iraq approach the precipice and draw back. But circumstances have changed with the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and Maliki’s year-long efforts to intimidate his opponents through political, judicial and military maneuvers. If Maliki does not accept many of the protesters’ reasonable demands and allow meaningful Sunni participation in government, prospects for stopping Iraq’s descent into sectarian conflict are grim."
Why, from the viewopoint of Muslims, would that "descent into sectarian conflict" be considered "grim"?
Was the Iran-Iraq War a good thing, or a bad thing?
When Sunnis and quasi-Shia (Alawites) fight in Tripoli, Lebanon, is that good, or bad?
Ahmadinejad keeps prating, as do so many Iranian Shi'a, about "Muslim unity" and in Egypt the other day he visited Al-Azhar and found himself being chastised and rebuffed by the Sunni clerics there. Other members of ruling class in the Islamic Republic of Iran are similarly whistling in the "Muslim Unity" dark, unable to recognize or admit that Shi'a will continue to be attacked by Sunnis (in Iraq, where they have no intention of allowing the Shia to rule over them, and in Lebanon -- see Tripoli -- and in Yemen, where Shi'a are depicted as agents of Iran, and in Pakistan, where several uber-Sunni groups have as their purpose in life fomenting and carrying out attacks on Shi'a, and in Bahrain, where the Shi'a majority is kept down by the Sunni rulers and their Pakistani mercenaries, and Saudi Arabia, where the Sunni clerics rant about the Shi'a, and the government marginalizes them, and watches them, in the Eastern Province, and makes preparations to suppress them at the first sign of real rebellion.
But that's all good. That divides and demoralizes, that weakens, the Camp of Islam.
The kimberly-kagans of this world, stuck in their Iraq-enthusiasm rut, can't understand that. It's permanently beyond them. So be it.
Posted on 02/09/2013 9:19 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
9 Feb 2013
Islam is the only major religion that does not teach the universal brotherhood of man. Now why would all of those other religions do that? Could it be that over millenia there has been a common sense realization that people need to respect each other somewhat in order for society to function?
I find it interesting that the one religion that refuses to adopt such gentle virtues is implicated in so much conflict.
9 Feb 2013
I have no idea what religions -- there are so many, big and little, does or does not teach this "universal brotherhood of man" stuff, but bomfoggery cuts no ice with me. What matters is: in which faith is hatred of others inculcated, since I don't share that (or any) faith, and am therefore among those others. That's what counts.
9 Feb 2013
Hugh, I realize that you are not religious, but my assertion, which I am reasonably confident about (I don't claim great expertise there), that the "major" religions teach universal brotherhood, is merely meant as an observation about human common sense. It is not meant as an endorsement of religion in general.
I'm sure that there are plenty of irreligious people with the same ability to see the wisdom in the Golden Rule. Somehow Islam missed the message.
11 Feb 2013
Decades ago, tiny Israel somehow, by heroic effort, managed to rescue and to take in the majority of the mortally-imperilled Jews from Iraq, and also those from Yemen. And those from Egypt, and North Africa, and Syria, and Persia...
Cannot still-majority-Christian (at least in name) countries of what used to be Western - and, too, Eastern - 'Christendom' - exert themselves to open the gates of hope - and of life - for the remaining Christians of Iraq, and whatever Mandeans still remain, and for that matter, for the Christians of Syria, among whom are many who have already fled once, from Iraq? Cannot we have an 'Operation Magic Carpet' that will whisk them away to Australia, Canada, the USA, to a dozen countries in Western Europe, perhaps even to countries in Central Europe, and to the Russian Federation; and maybe to certain mostly-Christian countries in Africa (newborn-and-struggling South Sudan, along with Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania) that would like to import a lot of Christians who would be terribly grateful, and who are used to hard times and hard work and among whom are quite a few educated professionals (doctors and such) and whose influx by the thousands would, into the bargain, tip the local demographic decisively against the Mohammedans?
In a sane world, many of the world's Infidel-majority states would combine to rescue the non-Muslims of Iraq, and of Syria (and, too, the Copts of Egypt) from out of the murderous maelstrom that a large swathe of dar al Islam is rapidly becoming; and then, having extracted these vulnerable people, they would seal the borders, and stand well back.
A further geostrategical thought: in a different, saner world, the only military aid being poured into the Levant by the world's Infidels (besides that given to the Jewish state of Israel) might have been given jointly by the heirs of Eastern and of Western Christendom, to the Christians of Lebanon to enable them to absorb, arm and train all those thousands - tens of thousands - perhaps, if all really goes pear-shaped, hundreds of thousands - of Syrian and Iraqi Christians who are and will be flooding across their borders. If a Muslim Kosovo made up of 'persecuted' and 'refugees' could be carved out and aided and armed, why not an entirely non-Muslim Mont Liban redivivus, filled with those who have indeed and genuinely been persecuted and driven from their homes?
11 Feb 2013
Christina, rescuing the non-Muslim remnants of these hell-holes might be construed as Islamophobic.