 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Richard Bridge Date: 27 Jun 14 - 06:45 PM Our reportage says: -- "Amer Deghayes, 20, grew up in Brighton, enjoying lessons in media and film at college, and going swimming. But now he believes it is his "duty" to fight for rebels in Syria's civil war, and will not leave until the job is done. Deghayes has gone to fight the "holy war" for rebel groups against Bashar al Assad's regime." But in the 30s, young people from all around the world, many communists (not strictly a religion but certainly a belief), went to Spain to fight against German-assisted fascists, for the International Brigade. We regard them as heroes. Why do we fear that people like Deghayes are terrorists? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/why-im-fighting-syrias-civil-3775190#ixzz35siQuK5f Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: GUEST Date: 27 Jun 14 - 07:09 PM Principle. Principle. Principle. We don't have any, any more. The barbarians attacked- emergency- some French intellectual called it art, shock horror how could anybody do that to us. We (we being the rich west) seldom see the world as others see it. And when our comforts are challenged, we don't do as we say very often. Oil. Democracy. Free markets. Free expression. Surely fine things. Nigeria/ Biafra. Chile/ Nicaragua. Algeria (hey I bet you don't remember that one). Then the CIA helped to create the Taliban to destroy the best government Afghanistan has ever known. Then there's underemployment at home, and discrimination in jobs.. and finally, the magnet of manly action abroad against decadent stagnation at home (read Rupert Brooke). No hope at home, wielding the sword of justice abroad. Which would you choose? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Janie Date: 27 Jun 14 - 08:05 PM Wouldn't it be nice if life was simple and choices were clear, unambiguous, and never had unintended or unforeseen consequences? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: GUEST,Musket Date: 28 Jun 14 - 03:10 AM Bridge is right. (Sorry, let me rephrase that.). Bridge's source document makes an interesting comparison. (That's better.) When the trade unionist Jack Jones died, politicians on all sides lamented the passing of a man so principled, he fought in Spain. Some of the people on Mudcat reckon all Muslims are potential terrorists yet I am sure they have at some point in a folk club applauded when hearing McColl's Ballad of Jamie Foyer. Any ex soldier may know of ex colleagues going on to fight as mercenaries for the highest bidder. Every war crimes trial in The Hague gestures references to assistance by Western mercenaries for dictators and despots. It's just that idealistic young men make better story lines than wage earning mercenaries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 28 Jun 14 - 03:55 AM The rebel Free Syria Army ask foreign fighters to stay away. They are ordinary Muslim folk fighting for a more just and democratic government for their country. The jihadists are not fighting for any kind of democracy. They do not believe in it. As Richard says, they are fighting a "holy war" against the infidel Shia and Christian, to impose an Islamist regime under extreme Sharia. The fear is that they have the same aspirations for us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Jim Carroll Date: 28 Jun 14 - 04:18 AM It is an interesting statement, if a little fogged with emotive terms like 'martyrdom' and 'duty'. I know from hearing stories from childhood of Spain, that those who went to fight there were a motley crew, made up of Jews who were concerned about what was happening in Germany, idealistic liberals, intellectuals like Orwell and Cauldwell, trades unionists, vague lefts, hardened Marxists, Irish, Sots and general Republicans.... ll fighting under the 'Anti fascist banner. Like the war itself, there was no definite identifiable ideology to those who volunteered. My father was a liberal left Catholic republican, an ex-choirboy, a Liverpool Collegiate student with a promising future - somewhat contrarily, he was a professed pacifist (all very confusing). For those who went, the rise of Fascism in Europe was the deciding and uniting factor. The parallels of Spain and Syria are unavoidable, as far as I'm concerned; the failure of the major powers to intervene and the somewhat lukewarm response of the Soviet Union, coupled with the internal conflicts and power struggles within the Republican forces. My father returned home wounded and traumatised; after eighteen months in prison and hospital in Spain, he was considered a security risk in Britain, was labelled 'a premature anti-Fascist' and was blacklisted from work. Potential employers would receive a visit from the police and be informed of his 'record'; eventually, in desperation, he became a navvy with John Laing, so my sister and I never got to know him properly until I was 10 years old. Incidentally, he was excommunicated from his religion, but by then, he had lost his faith, so he regarded that as the medal he never received from fighting in Spain. To me, he will always be a hero, and, while I have reservations regarding the motivations and beliefs of some of those fighting in Syria, I tend to regard them the same. They are doing something they consider necessary in making up for another great betrayal. Syria kicked off as part of The Arab Spring - hopefully it will achieve some of those aspirations of ending Middle East feudalism. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 28 Jun 14 - 04:32 AM The Jihadists are fighting AGAINST democracy and FOR theocracy and religious persecution. They are committing unspeakable atrocities. They hate us every bit as much as they hate the Shia. They have nothing in common with the International Brigade. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 28 Jun 14 - 04:40 AM The Independent last Sunday "Mr Barrett is co-author of a new report, released this month, which states that the Syrian war "is likely to be an incubator for a new generation of terrorists" and reveals that more than 12,000 foreign fighters have gone to Syria since the war began. That is more than the 10,000 who went to Afghanistan during the decade-long jihad against Russian occupation. One in four foreign fighters in Syria is from the West – part of a global phenomenon, with fighters from more than 80 countries represented on the battlefield. Yet the number is greater than official estimates which, the report says, tend to "underestimate the true numbers because would-be foreign fighters who wish to keep their activities secret have little trouble in getting to Syria without anyone knowing, and while there can conceal their identities". The authors suggest that one in nine foreign fighters could become domestic terrorists. If this ratio is applied to the current estimates of fighters in Syria, the conflict there will have already spawned more than 1,300 terrorists – dozens of whom are British." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/syria-civil-war-mi6-fears-the-jihadist-enemy-within-9554429.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 28 Jun 14 - 04:44 AM Daily Telegraph last week. "British Islamists have travelled abroad to fight before in recent years, including to Chechnya, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Libya. But Syria has attracted more foreign jihadists than any previous conflict, with Britain supplying the greatest number of recruits. To put Mr Cameron's warning into context, we should consider that over the past 10 years 34 terrorist plots connected to Pakistan have been foiled in Britain. Several would have caused mass casualties had they succeeded. The security services think the potential threat from Isis is greater. And, in any case, as the July 7 bombings in London showed in 2005, it only needs four extremists prepared to commit suicide to cause carnage on the transport system of Europe's biggest city. In Syria and now Iraq, al-Qaeda recruiters are on the look-out for the next generation of terrorists. Finding out who they are is the main preoccupation of British intelligence." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10914803/Are-the-British-jihadists-going-to-turn-their-guns-on-us.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Musket Date: 28 Jun 14 - 05:18 AM Jihad vs overthrow of despot by disaffected population? Interesting moot point. A bit like USA and UK teaming up with USSR to overthrow nazis. Or us both looking to Iran to help stop the Isis movement. Perhaps we would be interested in hearing what Saudi Arabia is doing to help stem the tide? Mmmm. My enemy's enemy and all that. Still, when you pick and choose newspaper articles, articles with inflammatory "going to turn their guns on us" does tend to mask the simple truth that Muslims are fighting "Islamist" terrorists in the main. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 28 Jun 14 - 05:53 AM No. It is now a three way fight. The jihadists are fighting both Assad's forces and the Free Syria Army |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Van Date: 28 Jun 14 - 06:05 AM I always wonder what the estimates are based on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: akenaton Date: 28 Jun 14 - 07:09 AM Although we are at separate ends of the UK political spectrum, I agree 100% with Keith's no nonsense evaluation of the situation in Syria. The Islamists hate "liberal" western values, even more than they hate other branches of their religion and before long all will be absorbed into an Islamic Caliphate and moderate voices will be silenced. This is a grave danger and only ideological fools like a few on these pages would consider support of such action. These people believe all who do not support Islam should be exterminated. All the Eastern dictators, from Saddam through Gaddafi to Assad, warned us of the danger from Islamist terror, but we preferred to believe that we could set up exploitable Western style democracies in these countries......The result has been chaos and terror. Our politicians made serious errors in Middle Eastern policy and people like Blair, Hague and Cameron should be called to account. In Russia, Putin realised the danger of Islamic terrorism having experience of fighting jihadists in Chetnia and Afghanistan, where Russia's defeat was assisted by the West. Western "democracy" is NOT exportable.....our participation should be against all terrorism and not as political expediency. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Ed T Date: 28 Jun 14 - 08:03 AM ""Pick a target, shoot it, and call it the enemy."" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: akenaton Date: 28 Jun 14 - 08:07 AM Ed... your incessant printing of quotations without explanation is becoming extremely tiresome. If you have a point to make why don't you just do so, you are usually civil, if somewhat devious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Lighter Date: 28 Jun 14 - 08:17 AM There was an unavoidable moral ambivalence about Stalin too - in 1941-45. Politics makes strange bedfellows, who screw each other. It's all part of life's rich pageant. The friend of the enemy of my friend's enemy may not be my enemy or my friend. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Musket Date: 28 Jun 14 - 08:22 AM I said it is mainly Muslim soldiers fighting jihadists and Keith says no, that it is a three way fight. Now I'm even more confused. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Ed T Date: 28 Jun 14 - 08:35 AM ""Just open your eyes, And realize, the way it's always been. Just open your mind And you will find The way it's always been. Just open your heart And, that's a start"" The Balance, Moody Blues ""Polarize and vilinize, that's a propaganda plan used to support all warfare and conflict. It often involves "demonizing the enemy with the public"". Society should always be wary about those who promote conflict, and for what reasons...and give room to be skeptical of potential propaganda. There is often a perception of security through conflict with a perceived enemy-a belief that "attacking this enemy" protects local democracies - but there are some recent examples (such as in Iraq ) of how people were misled not just with the tactics and the strategy, but the main goals and benefits of many secret and poorly thought out foreign policies. "" "It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Ed T Date: 28 Jun 14 - 08:42 AM I see no reason for me to take any advice (or insults) from you seriously Ake. The number of people commenting negatively on your many questionable posts serve to establish your record and position well (But, you are free, as I am to post as you may). If you dont like my posts, you are free to pass them by without reading, fella. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: akenaton Date: 28 Jun 14 - 09:01 AM I didn't say I disagreed with your quotations Ed, just that I did not understand the point you were trying to make by printing them. Had I know that you were quoting notable philosophers or experts in political science like the Moody Blues, I wouldn't have bothered taking you to task. "Devious"...an insult?......You need to get out more. :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 28 Jun 14 - 09:25 AM I said it is mainly Muslim soldiers fighting jihadists and Keith says no, Keith never did. It is true. In Iraq and Syria the Holy War is against the wrong kind of Muslims. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Ed T Date: 28 Jun 14 - 09:41 AM If you dont understand quotes, or choose not to look for meaning, that is your personal issue to deal with, Ake. As this is a music website, I suspect most here (but, obviously not you) would have some capacity to think deep and explore a variety of meanings in lyrics, poems, or quotes. If seeing things diferently from a narrow, right wing viewpoint represents deviousness, well, maybe it is not an insult. If smoking you out of your "foxhole" exposing "sketchy" opinions and unkind theories on large groups of people is devious, well, I guess I am guilty, Ake. You are right that your insult was very pale compared to many you have garnered,and possibly earned, on Mudcat. But, nonetheless that comparison does not exclude your intentional one as an uncalled-for personal insult...which is against the posting rules (which you have referred to when you were the target on many occasions). I decided some time ago it was not worth my time, nor grey-matter interest, in discussing anything directly with you Ake. As I suspect it is the same with you...just leave me out of your posting gunsight and posting games, whatever they may be. I make a request that, you dont address me and I will give you the same respect. A good start may be for you not to read any posts from me, as they seem to give you some stress or confusion....but, that is your call, of course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Musket Date: 28 Jun 14 - 12:16 PM Keith never did it is true..... Wrong kind of Muslims now. Beer and the Brazil Chile match methinks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 28 Jun 14 - 12:25 PM The Jihadists of ISIS and al Qaeda groups are Sunni and the "infidels" they fight is Syria and Iraq are Shia. Is that simple enough for you to grasp Musket? Sorry I can't draw pictures for you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Musket Date: 28 Jun 14 - 12:33 PM Tell me Keith, do you write scripts for Viz magazine? Major Misunderstanding being one character that springs to mind.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: pdq Date: 28 Jun 14 - 12:33 PM only 1 in 8 Syrians is Shiite |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Jim Carroll Date: 28 Jun 14 - 03:57 PM "In Iraq and Syria the Holy War is against the wrong kind of Muslims." "Infidels" I really wasn't going to bother until you and Ake had finished your two-man Nuremberg Rally, but for **** sake, go and read something before you make this into another of your Whitehall Farces. The inter-Muslim fighting has nothing to do with religion - it is an argument about tactics, political domination and territory. Stop making thing up you bleeding halfwit INTER-REBEL CONFLICT Wonder if Morcamb and Wise is on the tele - must go and look - at least they have a decet scriptwriter Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: GUEST,Troubadour Date: 28 Jun 14 - 08:51 PM Perhaps if we suggest that the rivers of honey may have dried up with the collapse of bee colonies, and the 72 virgins just MIGHT be Catholic nuns, with horsewhips! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: GUEST,Troubadour Date: 28 Jun 14 - 08:57 PM I still find myself wishing that we had minded our own business and kept our intrusive noses OUT of the affairs of the Middle East altogether. We can no longer claim any moral credibility for our interference, when said interference depends entirely upon the presence or absence of valuable resources. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: GUEST,Musket Date: 29 Jun 14 - 02:44 AM I can always find you someone willing to dress up as a nun with a horsewhip if you wish? You'll have to use your imagination concerning the virgin aspect though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Jun 14 - 02:51 AM "I still find myself wishing that we had minded our own business and kept our intrusive noses OUT of the affairs of the Middle East altogether." Abso-******-lutely - that's what the U.N. is supposed to be about Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: akenaton Date: 29 Jun 14 - 03:55 AM But what about our mission to spread "freedom and democracy"......and "equality"... :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 29 Jun 14 - 03:56 AM You who deny that it has become a sectarian conflict are seriously out of touch with reality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Jun 14 - 04:31 AM "out of touch with reality." You've had the facts on what the conflicts are about - prove otherwise. At the same time, I suggest you take a look at the full definition of Jihadism - in all its aspects. There is no indication whatever that this is the 'holy war' you people have distorted it to be. I take it Ake's hit-and-run intervention is a sarcastic one? Maybe we should start a bit nearer home before we set out to 'civilise' the world (as we did once before!!) - pretty much the root of the present mess Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Ed T Date: 29 Jun 14 - 06:19 AM 'Deus vult' - "God wills", was the cry used from the first crusade onwards and was the main cry heard when the crusaders were fighting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: akenaton Date: 29 Jun 14 - 06:28 AM and "OH my God!" in the main cry heard on Mudcat when Ed posts his "quotable quotes"....... :0( |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Ed T Date: 29 Jun 14 - 07:03 AM Get an actual life Ake. Trolling does not look good on you- and reveals your purpose on this site. Could it be you are looking for a new demon, as you have no threads to post your anti homosexual bunk and Orwell hero worship crap? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Ed T Date: 29 Jun 14 - 07:31 AM "A student of Syrian affairs soon becomes used to paradox. A comparatively small country, narrowly chauvinistic and jealous of its national sovereignty, Syria is nevertheless the repository, and has often been the origin, of oecumenical and transcendental ideas about Arab unity. Its society is one of the most heterogeneous in the Middle East and yet its leaders have been the proponents of a radical integrative political movement: Arab Nationalism. It has kindly and hospitable inhabitants, but it is also a police state where a man can be locked up indefinitely without a trial. Your Syrian friends are your friends for life, but a curious current of xenophobia runs through the country. Syrians love culture and natural beauty, but the ugliness of many Syrians towns and their architecture has to be seen to be believed." ― David Roberts, The Ba'th and the Creation of Modern Syria |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Jun 14 - 07:31 AM Trolling does not look good on you- Oh - I don't know!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Ed T Date: 29 Jun 14 - 07:34 AM Doubletalk? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Musket Date: 29 Jun 14 - 08:04 AM And who are they Keith? Putting words in the keyboards of others again? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 29 Jun 14 - 08:55 AM Musket, you ridiculed me for referring to the sectarian inter-Muslim conflict. This was you, "Keith never did it is true..... Wrong kind of Muslims now. Beer and the Brazil Chile match methinks." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: GUEST,keith a Date: 29 Jun 14 - 09:02 AM Reuters "A report presented on Tuesday to the U.N. Human Rights Council said foreign Sunni jihadi militants and funds had poured into Syria where rebel factions including ISIL were wantonly abusing civilians in zones they controlled. "A regional war in the Middle East draws ever closer. Events in neighbouring Iraq will have violent repercussions for Syria," the investigators' report said. "Growing numbers of radical fighters are targeting not only Sunni (Muslim) communities under their control but also minority communities including the Shi'ites, Alawites, Christians, Armenians, Druze and Kurds," it said of Syria. Its reference to Sunni militants targeting Sunni civilians involved forceful pressure on Sunni women to comply with sharia (Islamic religious law) and acts of revenge against Sunnis who had served in the Syrian government." http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/17/us-syria-crisis-warcrimes-idUSKBN0ES10S20140617 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Jun 14 - 09:31 AM "Wrong kind of Muslims now." Repetition of lie doesn't make it any more true - you have the given reasons, which you will continue to ignore. Stick to the football - you don't have to think about that Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 29 Jun 14 - 09:48 AM Jim, it is a sectarian war between Shia and Sunni Muslims. Your Wikipedia link is hardly evidence against. Even Musket will not back you on this. Guardian earlier this month, "A leader of Jabhat al-Nusra in Damascus, who called himself Abu Hafs, said: "These Shia fighters have been in Syria since the beginning of the revolution fighting with the regime. We know that Iran and Iraq are sending fighters to Syria – only now it has become public." Jabhat al-Nusra, which includes large numbers of foreign fighters in its ranks, has made little effort to hide its hatred of the Shia branch of Islam and its willingness to attack shrines that are important to its followers. Groups that fight under the banner of the Free Syria Army, however, are much less inclined to view the Shia as a theocratic foe, regarding them instead as a powerful backer of their main enemy, the regime. "Now, they are in Qusair," said Abu Hafs. "They kill everyone they see on their way, even children. They slaughter them by knives. We are in a continuous fight with them in Damascus and Qusair. "We worship God and they worship graves, but we also avoid attacking religious sites. A week ago, the Syrian army was hiding behind a church – we cancelled our attack in order not to destroy the church." Abu Hafs's claim to be a protector of shrines is derided by Shia fighters. One of them, Jamal al-Ali, a member of Hezbollah who had volunteered to fight with Abu Fadl al-Abbas, said: "You have to know that the aim of these rebels is to destroy the Alawite state in Syria and to start that they have to destroy all the shrines. They are issuing endless calls for jihad against Hezbollah and Abu Fadl al-Abbas. Back in Baghdad, Sadiq is preparing for a second bid at jihad. Hoping to make his next trip more successful than the last, he is waiting for a chaperone – a Lebanese woman based in the US – to take him to Beirut and finally back to Syria. Whatever their motivations, the undeniable outcome is that both sides are now in open war across an ancient sectarian faultline in place since the schism in Islam emerged nearly 1,400 years ago." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/04/syria-islamic-sunni-shia-shrines-volunteers |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 29 Jun 14 - 09:51 AM (my italics) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Musket Date: 29 Jun 14 - 10:06 AM Interesting. Wahabi interest and funding of terror is an angle you haven't cut and pasted yet. Your choice of simplistic stories based on easy explanations of a complicated situation says more about your capacity for understanding than a quest for understanding. I don't understand either, but at least I try to take in the many aspects rather than just those that suit my prejudice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: akenaton Date: 29 Jun 14 - 10:39 AM Another cop out? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 29 Jun 14 - 11:09 AM I was not offering an easy explanation, any more than the Guardian or Reuters were. I was showing Jim that the conflict has long been seen as a sectarian holy war. Sunnis and Shias regarding each other as "the wrong kind of Muslims" or not Muslims at all. Care to make fun of that again Musket? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Jun 14 - 11:20 AM What -? A millenia and-a-half-year-old schism as proof that the present fighting has anything to do with religion You have obviously dredged the web for evidence and you come up with a reference only to a divide we are already aware of. As the article says "open war across an ancient sectarian fault line" - sort of like Catholics fighting Protestants in Ireland, which you insisted wasn't religious - once again, can't have it both ways. Religion may have divided the sects 15,00 years ago - nowhere is it shown that this is what the conflict is about now - any more than the Irish Troubles were about religion. The West might like to make the war a religious issue - it would get them off the hook nicely for their own role in supporting manipulative extremist groups in the past, Irag, Afghanistan, B#blanket support for Israel in Palestine, et al, plus the Guantanamo concentration camp and decades of general abuse of Muslims. Doesn't add up as far as the evidence goes, no matter how many italicised lines from cut-'n-pastes. Defiitely should have stayed with the football RELIGION AND CONFLICT IN SYRIA Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 29 Jun 14 - 11:49 AM Jim, that essay is not dated but clearly pre-dates the involvement of Hezbollah or ISIS and so is hopelessly out of date. I do not think you will find anyone today saying the conflict is not a sectarian one. You are on your own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 29 Jun 14 - 12:08 PM Gareth Stansfield, a professor of Middle East politics at the U.K.'s University of Exeter, and a former senior political adviser for the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), explores the history of the current turmoil and what it could mean in the months and years ahead. " Personally I think you see a catastrophic civil war among Sunnis and Shiites. When you have an organization like ISIS dragging people out of cars, asking them to prove that they are Sunnis and not Shiites, and beheading them when they can't prove that, then you've got a clear problem. When 1,700 men get executed all at once for being Shiite, that's a very big sectarian problem. There are crucifixions going on in Syria by this group. When you have this level of atrocity—this is like former Yugoslavia on speed—you can surely bet that the Shiite militias will be just as harsh when they come back. They're not averse to being full-on sectarian as well. It's very difficult to rewind these sorts of atrocities. The ancient battle of Karbala and the killing of Ali's sons becomes very real and very powerful in the modern setting, especially when both sides want to push it. It doesn't matter if Western observers sit on the sideline and say there are still forces of moderation in Iraq. I think it's way beyond that. The rhetoric on both sides is extremely inflammatory, extremely sectarian, and the atrocities that are happening every day are just furthering that agenda. It is about these ancient hatreds turning into modern realities. The fact that it's actually taking place in the birthplace of the schism absolutely gives it added impetus and meaning." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140618-iraq-shiite-sunni-isis-militants-maliki-borders/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Ed T Date: 29 Jun 14 - 12:33 PM "British Islamists have travelled abroad to fight before in recent years, including to Chechnya, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Libya. But Syria has attracted more foreign jihadists than any previous conflict, with Britain supplying the greatest number of recruits." Kinda sounds like the Christian Crusades if the past, just with another religious group in the lead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Musket Date: 29 Jun 14 - 12:39 PM For being on the other side, not for being a sub sect of a sub sect of one of two main sects, of which there are two or three, depending on who you ask and under which country's laws you ask it. Religion... Christian, Muslim whatever. No point in identifying causes and looking at scripture for answers, religious justification for atrocity is the art of moving the goalposts anyway. Reading superstitious people talking of other superstitions being a cause rather than a means says something about what is wrong with society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 29 Jun 14 - 02:40 PM a cause rather than a means So, you are saying that religion is the "means" of the conflict but not the "cause" of it. Er, what does that means Musket? Are you saying it is sectarian or not sectarian? Are they killing people for being "the wrong kind of Muslim" or not. You ridiculed me for saying it, but it is what is happening. You were wrong, and I was right. As ever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Jun 14 - 03:09 PM "You are on your own." I suppose the rest of those who are posting here are on their own too. You've dug yourself into a bit of a hole here If this is a religious conflict because two different sects of Muslims are fighting each other, then Ireland was a Christian conflict because two branches of Christianity were fighting each other. If it is a "wrong kind of Muslim" war Britain hasn't anything to worry about anyway as Britain is a Christian country - whew - there's a relief!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Musket Date: 29 Jun 14 - 03:25 PM No, they are killing because those who want secular power and land / people to own told old men to tell them to. Thick cunt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Jun 14 - 03:33 PM You appear to have dug yourself into a bit of a hole (again) here. If this is a religious conflict because two sects of Islam are fighting each other, then The Troubles was a Christian war as two Christian sects were fighting each other - you insisted it wasn't. If it is a "wrong kind of Muslim " war, Britain has nothing to worry about anyway as it isn't a Muslim country - whew - there's a relief!!! You cited the Glasgow bombings earlier: "Glasgow bombing "The prosecution said he had masterminded the attacks as a revenge for the role of British and American troops in the invasion and occupation, including the bombing onslaught on Baghdad in March 2003 that began the war, witnessed by Abdulla on a visit to his family in the Iraqi capital." and also London: "With early 'al-Qaeda' attacks, such as that on American embassies in 1998 and even 9/11 itself, the broad motivations of those responsible were clear. Bin Laden made his own agenda clear in a series of public statements. The Islamic world was under attack from a belligerent West set on the domination and humiliation of Muslims, he said, and it was every believer's religious duty to fight back. It was not a case of 'hating freedom', he claimed, but of desiring freedom from supposed American-led oppression. He repeatedly listed the various parts of the world - Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, Afghanistan and, latterly, Iraq - where he felt Muslims were oppressed: "You are on your own." Just who is supporting your case here? Back on your "I win, you lose" thing again I said I was not going to nause up another thread by feeding your ego by responding to your inanities - that remains the case. You've been given masses of authoritative documentation showing what kind of war it is (try following some of the links in the Wiki article you've dismissed out-of-hand and you'll find more)- you've responded with a couple of cut-'n-pastes that actually say nothing substantial Produce something substantial and stop ignoring the points made - or go and watch another football match Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Ed T Date: 29 Jun 14 - 04:27 PM Quite often firmly behind many conflicts, regardless of what may seem at the forefront, are economic, tribal, and power issues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 29 Jun 14 - 04:37 PM Jim, the Irish troubles were not about religion. The IRA were not fighting to make everyone Catholic, they wanted to end British rule and create a united, secular Ireland. Thee were no cries of "God is Catholic/Protestant" or "Transubstantiation is true/false." Obviously Jim, you have failed to find anything to support your lone view that the conflict is not a religious one. That is because you are alone, even on this forum. You lose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Jun 14 - 04:35 AM Britain has nothing to worry about anyway as it isn't a Muslim country - whew - there's a relief!! Naive in the extreme. Holy war is fought against unbelievers. That includes the wrong kind of Muslim, all other religions, and atheists. There are now hundreds with UK passports and addresses, hardened to inflicting torture and murdering the helpless, and they will be home soon. I doubt any will be coming to Clare though, so whew, that is a relief for you anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Jun 14 - 05:32 AM "the Irish troubles were not about religion. No they weren't - they were two Christian factions fighting about something else - as is Syria. "Thee were no cries of "God is Catholic/Protestant" What...? The Troubles were based on the deliberate setting up of six counties as a Protestant state - the outbreak of bloody conflict came about by the inequalities brought about by that division. Watch this space, we're due for a display of religious triumphalism in thirteen days time. "Holy war is fought against unbelievers." You said it was against Muslims - has Britain become Muslim? "That is because you are alone, even on this forum." I suppose you realise that you always claim this when you run out of excuses? So what anyway - I'm not in this for "winning" - as far as I am concerned, these discussions are about exchanging opinions and knowledge in the hope of learning from those exchanges. The fact that you treat them as arm-wrestling matches says what needs to be said. You've been given the documented and researched evidence for all this over and over again - all you have are denials. Contribute to the discussion with facts or let those who wish to do so without your intervention Do not fuck up another thread - I'm off Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: bobad Date: 30 Jun 14 - 07:57 AM (Reuters) - As jihadists storm through the Sunni heartlands of Iraq towards Baghdad, where a Shi'ite government they regard as heretic clings on, they have lifted the veil on deep sectarianism which has also stoked the fires of Syria's civil war and is spilling over into vulnerable mosaic societies such as Lebanon. The sectarian genie is now well out of the bottle, eclipsing traditional inter-state rivalries that plague the Middle East - even if these still play a part in the drama. Sectarian genie is out of the bottle from Syria to Iraq |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Jun 14 - 01:47 PM Thought I'd ask again on this thread IS THIS ABOUT RELIGION? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Jun 14 - 02:29 PM No it is not Jim. It is just inter-community sectarianism. The communities are the descendants of the plantationists, and the descendants of the indigenous. Too long winded. You can call them Catholics and Protestants, but the accepted terms are now Nationalist and Unionist, or Republican and Loyalist for the militant extremists. The disputes between them have nothing to do with religion, but about rule from Dublin or London. In both cases secular. Religion does not come into it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Jun 14 - 03:11 PM "It is just inter-community sectarianism." No it isn't - it has never been, and you established tht for us last time the question it was raised - it is about whether Britain or Ireland as a whole rules the sic counties - the divide is on sectarian liennes, just as it is in Syria and Iraq - who rules - nothing to do with religion both are described as 'sectarian' in the press, nether are about religion. Surely you are not claiming that the conflict isn't divided on religious lines? Not eve you would be that crass - but on the other hand.... there is a face to be saved here if you are going to score you full quota of points!! What's the war-cry of the 'Billy Boys' - "Home Rule is Rome Rule" I seem to remember, or "fuck the Pope". There was an a privately produced album some years ago entitled 'The Pope's a Darkie" - very secular!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Teribus Date: 01 Jul 14 - 03:44 AM " it is about whether Britain or Ireland as a whole rules the sic counties - the divide is on sectarian liennes{sic}" Really Christmas? Then how come 52% of the Northern Irish Catholics support union with Great Britain. Support for union with the Republic of Ireland by the population in the North has never been lower (~14%). Now in their new Caliphate you have ISIS gunmen pulling people from cars and from their homes demanding "proof" that they are Sunni Muslims - if they are not, they are shot (That from an eye witness who hid and saw his entire family wiped out) it can't get more sectarian than that - one sect of the "religion of peace" having declared a war of annihilation on another sect of the "religion of peace". No-one in the world oppresses Muslims more than other Muslims recorded fact that can be easily demonstrated: - 80% of the Muslims killed in Iraq between March 2003 and December 2011 were killed by Muslims. - 100% of the Muslims killed in Iraq since January 2012 have been killed by Muslims. - 100% of the Muslims killed in Syria since March 2011 have been killed by Muslims. By the way the actual reason for Osama bin Laden's antipathy towards the "West" and the "USA" in particular, according to Osama bin Laden himself, related to the fact that in 1990 when Saddam Hussein entered Kuwait and then in response to international outcry he threatened the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia King Fahd bin Abdulaziz Al Saud refused Osama bin Laden's offer to defend the Kingdom and instead opted for the multi-national force offered by the international community under US leadership which brought non-Muslim troops onto Saudi soil to defend the holiest sites of the Muslim religion - S.F.A., to do with oppression. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 14 - 04:24 AM Do you know what "Jihad" means Jim? It means "Holy War." The clue is, sort of, in the name Jim. Sectarian does not always mean a religious divide. The sectarianism in Ireland is between the Nationalists and the Unionists and its roots are in History not religion.. The sectarianism in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. is between Sunni and Shia Muslims, and its roots are in Islam. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Musket Date: 01 Jul 14 - 04:43 AM No. Jihad means jingoism affected to get people to do your fighting for you. A bit like "For King and Empire!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 14 - 05:05 AM Is that your own, made up, uninformed opinion Musket, or does anyone else in the whole world hold it? If the former, whatever made you think that anyone else in the world would want to know it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 Jul 14 - 06:04 AM "Do you know what "Jihad" means Jim?" It actually means struggle and it includes against injustice and oppression Is comes in several stages, only one of which includes military struggle. It includes submission to God (as in all religions), peace to fellow humans, spiritual struggle (major), armed struggle (minor) Armed struggle is divided between defence and aggression. "The sectarianism in Ireland is between the Nationalists and the Unionists and its roots are in History not religion.." Please do not be stupid. In 1922, Ireland was partitioned - that partition was deliberately drawn to guarantee a Protestant majority in the six Northern counties - originally it was to include the whole of the nine counties of Ulster, but three were removed because it would have given Catholics the majority. Instantly, the leadership of the North declared that it would be a Protestant State loyal to Britain. The root cause of Ireland's continuing problems was the creation of a sectarian state based on religion. There were regular specifically anti-Catholic riots in the North throughout the period from the Treaty right up to today - nowadays, the blood-lettings take place around this time of year, but in the past they have included random attacks and burnings Catholic houses, campaigns to persuade employers not to employ Catholics. The Civil Rights demonstrations which led to the violence of the 70s and 80s were aimed at redressing the inequalities between Catholics and Protestants, specifically voting rights, housing and employment. The peaceful civil rights marches were attacked by Ulster Protestant Loyalists and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who deliberately routed them through stone-throwing mobs. "The sectarianism in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. is between Sunni and Shia Muslims, and its roots are in Islam" The sectarianism in all these countries has its roots in the Arab Spring, The Arab Israeli conflict and the West's oil protecting intervention into all these countries - religion per se has no part n any of it other than to identify the various sides of the conflict. All terrorism that has taken place towards Britain and America has been directed at U.S. policy in Iraq in particular and the Middle East in General - you have already been given the accepted knowledge of the London and Glasgow bombings - 9/11 is far to well known and accepted to bother mentioning. Do you have a local lending library - if so, do you know where it is? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 14 - 06:23 AM So the 9/11 attackers and the 7/7 bombers and all the rest were victims, and we were the aggressors. And Syria is our fault too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Teribus Date: 01 Jul 14 - 06:40 AM "The sectarianism in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. is between Sunni and Shia Muslims, and its roots are in Islam" - Keith A "The sectarianism in all these countries has its roots in the Arab Spring, The Arab Israeli conflict and the West's oil protecting intervention into all these countries - religion per se has no part n any of it other than to identify the various sides of the conflict." - Christmas Okay then folks decide for yourself: "The historic background of the Sunni–Shia split lies in the schism that occurred when the Islamic prophet Muhammad died in the year 632, leading to a dispute over succession to Muhammad as a caliph of the Islamic community spread across various parts of the world, which led to the Battle of Siffin. The dispute intensified greatly after the Battle of Karbala, in which Hussein ibn Ali and his household were killed by the ruling Umayyad Caliph Yazid I, and the outcry for his revenge divided the early Islamic community. Today there are differences in religious practice, traditions, and customs, often related to jurisprudence. Although all Muslim groups consider the Quran to be divine, Sunni and Shia have different opinions on hadith." My tuppence worth says that the sects in "sectarian" in this case ARE solely religious and the go back way BEFORE any bloody Arab Spring. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 Jul 14 - 06:45 AM "So the 9/11 attackers and the 7/7 bombers and all the rest were victims, and we were the aggressors." Who the **** said that? I said that their motivation was revenge for military attacks - nothing to do with religion whatever, as you have claimed Are you totally incapable of conducting an honest discussion? - now that really was a rhetorical question - you are noted for your dishonesty - as displayed here Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Ed T Date: 01 Jul 14 - 07:57 AM ""Lee Smith's new short book, The Consequences of Syria, is about how we got here. Lee is a friend of mine. He and I met nine years ago in Beirut and have traveled elsewhere in the region together. We argue about the Middle East sometimes, but we agree with each other often enough that our arguments are interesting and productive."" The Consequences of Syria |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Musket Date: 01 Jul 14 - 08:28 AM Yes, I did say that Keith. Stating an opinion is, in your words, making things up. That's about as much as anybody needs to know about you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 14 - 08:53 AM Is it an informed opinion or just plucked out of the air? If it has no basis in reality and you alone hold it because everyone else knows much more about it than you do, why should anyone want to know what you dream up in your empty little head. How about supporting your view like the rest of us do? The difference is, we can. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Moral ambivalence about Syria From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 Jul 14 - 10:32 AM "How about supporting your view like the rest of us do?" What!!!! Since when have you supported your arguments with anything but hastily gathered, and usually undigested cut-'n- pastes Your usual response is to deny real information that has been given to you - as you are doing at this very moment Jim Carroll |
