Bombing Mosques in Iraq
Altway
The people who did so cannot possibly have been Muslim.
One wonders who could possibly benefit from this.
It looks more like the work of foreign agents -
the sort of thing the CIA would do.
Hamid S. Aziz
mika perala
wrote:
Sunnis and shiias may kill each other but wouldn't damage each others
mosques?
mika
Victor
Muslims are always pinned on the "dirty kaffirs" (despite the fact that
pious Muslims commit mass-murders of civilians in Iraq and all over the
world on a daily basis). The complete inability of Muslims to engage in
self-criticism means they are forever doomed to poverty and
backwardness.
sedl...@cotse.net
You seem to be suggesting that the Sunnis and Shiites would
not commit atrocities to each other, or their places of worship.
Many news reports throughout a long history contradict such a notion.
To imply, with no proof whatsoever, that it was more likely to
have been the work of any single group appears disingenuous
to me. Why not suggest the Jews did it? Or even Danish cartoonists?
Am I saying it could NOT have been the work of the CIA? No, but
I would not claim they did it, while having no proof thereof. Furthermore,
would it not be to the disadvantage of the CIA to undermine the USA's
own attempts to bring civil order to the country? I don't follow how
such actions would help their cause, I mean.
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_violence_in_Iraq
Last, I suspect virtually any act of barbarity can be justified
by those who believe they are acting in accordance with (their)
God's wishes. Bin Laden, when speaking of the many Muslims
who were killed in the World Trade Center airplane attacks replied
that the Muslims shouldn't have been in those buildings!
And how do terrorists justify the bombs that kill innocent children?
That response I will leave to them, as I cannot fathom a single
acceptable explanation.
Vladimir Youssef Hattaat
Or, the sort of thing someone who wants to start up a civil war between
the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq would do. And someone who abducts young
men's families and blackmails them into becoming suicide bombers would
do. And someone who murders truck drivers, construction workers and
newspaper interviewers in front of cameras with a machete would do.
Someone who sends suicide bombers among young men who are in line to
sign up to become policemen would do. Someone who sets afire the only
wealth of Iraqi people, the oil wells would do. Someone who is
determined to do anything to prevent Iraq from recovering and
rebuilding itself from the debris it is in after 30 years of war would
do. For example; someone like Al Zarqawi would do.
If you read the news; 99% of the Iraqis murdered in the past year were
killed by suicide bombers, car bombs and Arab gunmen who shoot random
people, government officials, university teachers etc. Everyday there
is a news story from Iraq that some suicide bomber again killed some
dozens of men, women and children. The newspapers dont even bother to
give it in the front page anymore. People got used to it. Muslims all
over the world still curse America for organizing operations like they
did in Fallujah to get Al Zarqawi. For Muslims everything happens in
the world has just one actor: the evil Zionist Jewish Crusader Plotter
Kaffir Conspirator. It can not be any other way. It must be either the
CIA, Mossad, or the KGB. Even the Illuminatti, Skull&Bones, Reptilians
and the KFC.
Long live the Iraqi Resistance. Thanks to Al Zarqawi for all his
services for the Iraqi people. His services will not be forgotten in
history. He is not even Iraqi himself but he loves Iraqis so much he
dedicated his life in this cause to help Iraq. May Allah be pleased
with him and with his fellow freedom fighters. Ameen.
karld...@deletethisverizon.net
wrote:
>It is impossible for any Muslim to justify the bombing of mosques.
This certainly looks like the ultimate Muslim excuse for any evil deed
perpetrated by another Muslim. Hey, for your information, all
Christians are good people too, so Christians can't be blamed for any
evil deeds either, e.g. murdering their co-religionists, burning
churches, etc. Does that make sense to you?
Mike
I heard of the bombing of the mosques in Iraq with probably the same
sense of incredulity as you have. It is inconceivable to me that those
who engaged in this activity, whether part of the bombing of the
Samarra mosque or the "reprisals" which followed it, can have any
justifcation for what they did whatsoever.
But I cannot agree that those who did this "cannot possibly have been
Muslim". Certainly their actions go against the whole thread of Islam
as a whole. But it is quite possible for someone to believe in God and
the Prophet and still do the Wrong Thing. One clear example of this is
that the reprisals against Sunni mosques were clearly done by groups of
Iraqi Shias. Do these actions stop these people being Muslim, or does
it just mean that they are misled? Is is possible for the people who
took revenge to reflect on what they have done to their brother Muslims
- those who took no part in bombing the Samarra mosque - and realise
they have behaved foolishly and evilly?
It is quite clear who benefits from the bombing and subsequent attacks
on mosques - the insurgents who wish to destablilise Iraq so they can
force the Americans and their allies to leave, stage a coup themselves,
and set up the form of government they want to see in Iraq. I would
guess this would either be on the lines of the Taliban in Afghanistan
or the previous regime run by Saddam Hussein. Certainly it is likely to
wrest control of the country from the Shias who are finally beginning
to see some sort of increase in their political influence.
Bombing the Samarra mosque is not something the Americans/CIA would
want to see happen. It creates further unrest when they are trying -
desperately - to maintain order and provide some stability so that the
current regime in Iraq can operate without their being in the country.
No. The only foreign agents who might be involved in the Samarra
bombing are likely to be middle-eastern in origin, and bitterly opposed
to the current movement of Iraqi governance towards favouring the Shia
majority.
Mike.
John Eristu
It is obvious that it is dja vu. It is part of the dirty war that
EuroAmerica has been waging agains Muslims.
Of course it is a work of hired hands. Such crime was inconceiveable by
Muslims, and did not happen even during the more trying times over the past
years.
However the frustration of EuroAmerica at gradually losing initiative has
grown into desperation and lunaticism. They have now stooped so low as to
try out the lowest level of existence in their conscience. But beware, you
donot know how much lower the EuroAmeica can sink. In so doing they are
digging a geave for themselves. In that grave they will rest indeed, but
never in peace!
Even Hitler did not stoop so low. He is accused of killing the Jews but not
bombing the places of worship.
"Altway" <alt...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dtitgi$b52$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Zuiko Azumazi
news:dtlil6$4g2$1...@emma.aioe.org...
<snip> ...
> It is obvious that it is dja vu. It is part of the dirty war that
> EuroAmerica has been waging agains Muslims.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
As an observation, if you are not on the side of the "Euro-Americans"
(whatever that may mean) and, at the same time, not on the side of Muslims,
then what side are you on in this "deja vu" polemic? Haven't the appalling
violent events and atrocities in Iraq happened frequently before, throughout
it's chequered history? If that is true -and I think it is - then what is
being currently experienced cannot be deemed as a new situation, can it?
--
Peace
--
If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what
is said is not what is meant, then what ought to be done remains undone.
[Confucius]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
hajj abujamal
<sedl...@cotse.net> wrote at soc.religion.islam:
> You seem to be suggesting that the Sunnis and Shiites would
> not commit atrocities to each other, or their places of worship.
> Many news reports throughout a long history contradict such a
> notion.
Internecine violence among muslims is neither rare nor unexpected,
and sectarian rivalry is often the apparent basis for it. In Iraq,
however, this "Sunni/Shi'ah" divide is not even apparent, except in
the propaganda that plays in the West. Neither the Shi'a of Iraq, nor
the Sunnis of Iraq, believe that anyone other than the occupation
forces were behind the bombing of the masjid, and the only attacks on
Sunnis were carried out by masked bandits protected and escorted by
the uniformed soldiers of the occupation-supported regime. That's the
reality on the streets of Iraq that does not appear in "news reports"
where support for the occupation is crucial, like in America. All of
the indigenous demonstrations and protests have been directed at the
occupation forces and their puppet government.
> To imply, with no proof whatsoever, that it was more likely to
> have been the work of any single group appears disingenuous
> to me. Why not suggest the Jews did it? Or even Danish cartoonists?
The coalition of the wanton is heterogeneous, and to single out
any particular faction among them is more a matter of proven and
historical expertise ~ such as the American expert organizer of South
American death squads, Negroponte, who is now sitting in Baghdad ~
than of any particular ethnicity or nationalism.
To believe, against all evidence to the contrary, that it is a
sectarian battle between Shi'a and Sunni populations, is merely a
matter of operant conditioning and incessant propaganda. Whether
Sunni or Shi'ah, the faith of the people of Iraq is Islam, not the
predatory despotism of mercantile corporatism, which was regarded as a
common enemy when it supported Saddam and even moreso after his removal.
I do not see it as likely to change in the foreseeable future, but
ignoring the realities in favor of a pipe dream does not change either
the realities or the pipe dream.
was-salaam,
abujamal
Altway
"Mike" <hu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>> It is impossible for any Muslim to justify the bombing of mosques.
> But I cannot agree that those who did this "cannot possibly have been
Muslim". Certainly their actions go against the whole thread of Islam
as a whole.
Comment:-
You misunderstand.
I was using the word Muslim in its meaning
not as a label for a set of people.
I am perfectly aware that the people who are called muslim have
abandoned Islam to various degrees.
And I am also perfectly aware that being human the people
share the same limitations as anyone else.
Human beings in general can be provoked and manipuated
into hysterics and extreme mindless violence.
And I am perfectly aware that there are people and regimes
who like to do this.
Hamid S. Aziz
Zuiko Azumazi
news:dtitgi$b52$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
<snip> ...
> It is impossible for any Muslim to justify the bombing of mosques. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Who could disagree with this sentiment? Are there really any discerning
subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, prepared to justify these bombings and
slaughter?
<snip> ...
> The people who did so cannot possibly have been Muslim. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Here I disagree, because not so long ago I brought up the whole question of
endemic violence in the Iraq in SRI. To reiterate what I said elsewhere:-
Extract:-
"As a backdrop, what springs to mind in the complex Iraq context is what the
historian Hanna Batatu wrote about the massacre after of the Peace Partisans
Conference on the 6th March 1959:-
"For four days and nights Kurds and Yezidis stood against Arabs; Assyrian
and Aramian Christians against Arab Muslims; the Arab tribe Albu Mutaiwit
against the Arab tribe of Shamar; The Kurdish tribe of Gargariyyah against
Arab Albu Mutaiwit; the peasants of Mosul country against their landlords;
the soldiers of the Fifth Brigade against their officers; the periphery of
Mosul against its centre; the plebeians of the Arab quarter of al Makkawi
and Wadi Hajjar against Arab aristocrats of the Arab quarter of al Dawwsah;
and within the quarter of Bab al Baid, the family of al Rajabou against its
traditional rivals the Agawhar ... [Hanna Batatu - "The Old Social Classes
and Revolutionary Movements of Iraq" p. 866]
How do reduce this often violent and traditional rivalry into an Islamic
context? Do the participants actually know or remember what the "purpose"
is? Aren't they purely acting out of revengeful habit? When is revenge a
"Success or Failure" or even a "good"? Is ignorance of the endemic violence
in modern Iraqi history therefore an adequate excuse for generalisations? To
quote another Iraqi, Said K. Aburish:- "In Iraq, the crowds recalled every
single shred of hatred in the violent history of a violent land."
Enough said."
End extract.
<snip> ...
> One wonders who could possibly benefit from this. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Iraq has always been an extremely violent land going back into antiquity. To
say or deny that this endemic violence, sectarian or otherwise, is not part
of Iraqi traditional culture because the majority of its people are Muslim,
Sunni or Shia, is totally inaccurate and misleading in the extreme. It's
like asking in hindsight who benefited from Hanna Batatu's above description
of the "Peace Partisan - Massacre" in 1959, certainly not the CIA, I would
presume?
"One wonders who could possibly benefit from this"? The traditional Iraqi
men of violence and hatred, acting out of revengeful habit, would be the
most obvious candidates based on its ferocious "sectarian" history. Can
anyone not remember the Iraq versus Iran "sectarian" war, fought between
Muslims, a couple of decades ago?
--
Peace
--
The most perfidious manner of injuring a cause is to vindicate it
intentionally with fallacious arguments. [Friedrich Nietzsche]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Altway
<sedl...@cotse.net> wrote
>>It is impossible for any Muslim to justify the bombing of mosques.
The people who did so cannot possibly have been Muslim.
> You seem to be suggesting that the Sunnis and Shiites would
not commit atrocities to each other, or their places of worship.
Many news reports throughout a long history contradict such a notion.
> To imply, with no proof whatsoever, that it was more likely to
have been the work of any single group appears disingenuous
to me. Why not suggest the Jews did it? Or even Danish cartoonists?
Comment:-
I did say it could be any foreign agents.
I did wonder who would benefit.
I did not say it was the CIA.
But I am reminded of the policy of "Divide and Rule" that was conducted by
the British in India. When there were Hindu /Muslim or Shiah/Sunni riots
there were very often Agents Provoceurs behind it. Though they were
native Indians they were paid by agents of the British Government.
But these days the instigators are much more able to conceal themselves.
Hamid S. Aziz
Altway
"Anjum" <anj...@msn.com> wrote
> > It is impossible for any Muslim to justify the bombing of mosques.
> We need to stop blaming the "others" and recognize that there is a
cancer within us that is far more dangerous than the extrenal dangers,
which are often imaginative and magnified due to insecurities and
fears.
Comment:-
I am perfectly aware that Muslims have degenerated,
that there is a "cancer" within the community.
I have pointed this out time and again.
But are you implying that it is a Muslim or Islamic characteristic to
justify
bombing of mosques? Is it not a departure from Islam?
I am also aware that people all over the world are prone to be whipped up
into hysterics and into mindless violence.
(I would call this an example of Satans work and those who whip up such
troubles are Satan's agents. i.e. I would define these events as such).
This is not just a characteristic of Muslims, though they should have been
better.
I am reminded of the policy of "Divide and Rule" that was conducted by
the British in India. When there were Hindu /Muslim or Shiah/Sunni riots
there were very often Agents Provoceurs behind it. Though they were
native Indians they were paid by agents of the British Government.
The events in Iraq seem to me to be exactly the same.
But obviously the subsequent actions of Muslims is their own fault.
Hamid S. Aziz
Zuiko Azumazi
news:43FF62BA...@muslimamerica.net...
> <sedl...@cotse.net> wrote at soc.religion.islam:
Salaam Abujamal,
<snip> ...
> The coalition of the wanton is heterogeneous, and to single out
> any particular faction among them is more a matter of proven and
> historical expertise ~ such as the American expert organizer of South
> American death squads, Negroponte, who is now sitting in Baghdad ~ <snip>
...
Comment:-
>From what I've read, I don't believe that there are any doubts, even amongst
Muslims, that there is an very active and violent insurgency going on in
Iraq. As far as I can gauge, the insurgents themselves identify their cause
as being a fight against the "old-enemy", that is the traditional rivalry
between 'Arab versus Iranian' or 'Sunni versus Shia', tribe versus tribe, et
al. Isn't the underlying question, then a matter of who holds the ultimate
"political power" or the ascendancy in Iraq?
Isn't the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the "coalition" being used as a
perfidious vindication by the respective political factions, striving for
this ultimate power? The concomitant reality is that the "occupation" caused
a 'regime change'. In other words, it caused the demise of Sunni ascendancy
and the insurgents want to delusively redress that now historical reality.
Taking all the events into consideration, does anyone believe that the
insurgents can, by force of arms, win their battle against the political
majority or will of the Iraqi populace? Is it feasible to turn back the
historical clock to a despised regime that was a despotic tyranny? Isn't
this nightmarish insurgency then but an impractical "pipe-dream"?
As David Easton eruditely put it:-
" ... facts and values are logically heterogeneous. The factual aspect of a
proposition refers to a part of reality; hence it can be tested by reference
to the facts. In this way we check the truth. The moral aspect of a
proposition, however, expresses only the emotional response of an individual
to a state of real or presumed facts."
--
Peace
--
In times of profound change, the learners inherit the earth, while the
learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no
longer exists. [Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Zuiko Azumazi
news:dtitgi$b52$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
<snip> ...
> It is impossible for any Muslim to justify the bombing of mosques.
> The people who did so cannot possibly have been Muslim.
> One wonders who could possibly benefit from this.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
As a further observation, this proposition has all the hallmarks of a
classic "Is-Ought" problem, in the context, that no one believes that
Muslims *ought* to be killing other Muslims or bombing mosques in Iraq. The
unfortunate reality *is* that they are, and no amount of sophistic illusion
is going to change that indisputable fact.
David Hume was quite clear about it (i.e Is-Ought problem). In a celebrated
passage which deserves to be quoted in full he said:
"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always
remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of
reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations
concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that
instead of the usual copulation's of propositions, is, and is not, I meet
with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.
This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For
as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation,
'its necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same
time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable,
how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely
different from it." [David Hume "A Treatise on Human Nature"; 2nd edn, ed.
L. A. Selby-Bigge (Oxford University Press, 1978) p. 469]
--
Peace
--
Negative findings are sometimes as important as positive ones, since they
cut down the total universe of ignorance. [F. N. Kerlinger]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Denis Giron
It seems to me that you toe the line of being in denial. If you wish to
declare the people who did this non-Muslims, fine, but that does not
mean they did not consider themselves Muslims. But let us run a thought
experiment:
(1) Is it possible that *SOME* Muslims think it is okay to engage in
violence against Mushrikeen and/or Munaafiqeen? The answer is yes.
(2) Would such Muslims be against committing acts of violence against
the places of worship of these perceived Mushrikeen or Munaafiqeen just
because they call these places of worship "masaajid"? I think the
answer is clearly no.
(3) Are there some Muslims who consider the Shias to be Mushrikeen or
Munaafiqeen? Yes.
Put all these in place, and you have grounds on which a person who
considers himself a Muslim might feel justified in attacking a Shia
masjid. Not all Muslims believe it is wrong to attack or demolish a
building just because some kaafir decided to call it a masjid. In fact,
I have heard and read stories (admittedly in anti-Wahabi polemics
authored by Muslims of a different stripe) about 19th century Wahabis
in Arabia destroying the places of worship, shrines, or tombs revered
by Muslims whom they considered apostates, non-believers, hypocrites or
polytheists.
And despite what Hajj AbuJamal wrote elsewhere in this thread, some
people in Iraq actually believe that radical Sunnis were behind this in
some capacity. Some in Iraq have blamed al-Qaida. Regardless, there is
a word for the sort of radical Sunnis who might be capable of
committing such a crime, and it is on the lips of many Arabs (i.e. it
is not some Western construct created in the back room at Fox News):
takfeeriyeen (تكفيريين).
And in response to Abu Jamal, if everyone in Iraq knows that this was
done by Occupation forces, who were all those Shia attacking Sunni
masaajid and saying such was justified because the Sunnis "attacked the
house of the Imam"? Perhaps they only get their information from Fox
News as well? Of course the answer is no. The more realistic answer is
that *some* Muslims and/or Arabs (both inside and outside of Iraq)
speculate that Western agents were behind the bombing of the golden
masjid, but even some of those still mix "takfeerees" into the plot
some how (e.g. Shaykh Hassan NasrAllaah saying that America was behind
the bombing, but still saying that a few "radical Sunnis" played a
role).
John Eristu
I have read all the responses in this thread. The responders seem to have
quickly assumed the 'hyped lie' that Shias and Sunnis are at logger heads in
Iraq. This was presumably the objective of the perpetrators of the crime,
that Shias and Sunnis be conceived as being enemies and fall into this trap,
i.e. walk into a secterian war blindly. However the Iraqis have surprised
its enemies one more time: they have refused to fight each other. Instead
they are focusing on the real enemy: the occupiers.
The occupiers have obviously failed in another one of their ambitions, and
their dirty tricks have failed to cause the explosion they were waiting to
observe.
Previously there have been similar provocatioons over past couple of years,
but Iraqis steadfastly refused to fight among themselves. The same is true
this time. Theperpetrators of the crime are the occupation forces. The
insurgents are far more sophisticated than to fall for such tactics.
It is time that WuroAmerica learns its foolishness and greed, and resolves
to mend its aggressive exploitations of the world, at this time the Muslim
World. Otherwise the EuroAmerica is going to end up torn apart with a
beggar's bowel in hand.
And Muslims will surprise every one again. They will be forgiving and
generous enough to put loaves of bread in that beggar's bowel; but they will
never again allow the beggar to deceive its way to occupation.
"Altway" <alt...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dtitgi$b52$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
John Eristu
My response below:
"Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4400d8ee$0$17406$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> "John Eristu" <Eri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dtlil6$4g2$1...@emma.aioe.org...
>
> <snip> ...
>> It is obvious that it is dja vu. It is part of the dirty war that
>> EuroAmerica has been waging agains Muslims.
> <snip> ...
>
> Comment:-
> As an observation, if you are not on the side of the "Euro-Americans"
> (whatever that may mean) and, at the same time, not on the side of
> Muslims,
The basic premises is WRONG. It is never the objective to be on one side or
another. You do not take sides in your pursuit of the TRUTH.
> then what side are you on in this "deja vu" polemic? Haven't the appalling
Deja Vu refers to the past behavior of the dirty hands of the EuroAmerica.
It here means that we have just seen another one of their abominable seeds.
> violent events and atrocities in Iraq happened frequently before,
> throughout
We are here not to examine the anatomy of the iraqi history. The topic here
is the attempt by the occupiers to cause a secterian strife in Iraq. It is
that event that is under discussion. Instead of analyzing it in abstract, it
is far more scientific to examine the 'experiment' that the occupiers have
conducted over the 3 years.
> it's chequered history? If that is true -and I think it is - then what is
> being currently experienced cannot be deemed as a new situation, can it?
Indeed it is a new situation. It is FOREIGN phenomenon, disconnected from
the Iraqi people. The OCCUPATION is the situation, a new situation. The poor
Iraqis have no way out, except to live under the foreign boynets.
>
> --
> Peace
> Zuiko Azumazi
> azu...@hotmail.com
>
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> I have read all the responses in this thread. The responders seem to have
> quickly assumed the 'hyped lie' that Shias and Sunnis are at logger heads
in
> Iraq. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Putting aside the sensational headlines in the lurid media, what
authoritative books, have you recently read, regarding the contemporary
history of Iraq?
Isn't your expressed sentiment, a bit like saying commentators, Muslim or
otherwise, like to think they shape events; whereas, in reality it's the
other way round? What makes you conclude that there isn't any lasting enmity
between Sunni and Shia, or between Arab and Iranian, going back to the
beginnings of Islam?
Notwithstanding the current violence, it's self-evident that some Iraqi's,
Muslim or otherwise, will tell you the troubles that others cause for them.
At the same time they will not truly reveal the troubles they make for
themselves. Isn't it also true that most people, Iraqi's included, just want
their rights - until you try to trample on them. Then all they want is
revenge! Did you actually read my earlier thread about this self-sufficing
'revenge' angle:
news:44012fd4$0$13496$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Zuiko Azumazi
> "Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4400d8ee$0$17406$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Salaam John;
<snip> ...
> The basic premises is WRONG. It is never the objective to be on one side
> or another. You do not take sides in your pursuit of the TRUTH.
<snip> ...
Comment:
Then I must ask whose undeclared "TRUTH" side are you on, since it's quite
possible that both sides are pursuing the truth as they see it. Although,
intellectualisation won't, in the final analysis, settle the truth by
consensus between these ancient rivals and sectarian.contenders. I'm not
even sure in these volatile Iraqi circumstances whether anyone can know the
truth.or what is false.
<snip> ...
> Deja Vu refers to the past behavior of the dirty hands of the EuroAmerica.
> It here means that we have just seen another one of their abominable
> seeds.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Are you talking about the "golden" historic period of glorious imperialism
and empire? Do you see "EuroAmerica" solely in that antediluvian light? One
needs to be very careful with respect to this "dirty hands" rationale since
there has been several important "empires" under Islam.
<snip> ...
> We are here not to examine the anatomy of the iraqi history. The topic
> here is the attempt by the occupiers to cause a secterian strife in Iraq.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Which raises the awkward question, hasn't Muslim sectarian strife always
been there in Iraq, bubbling away under the surface and occasionally
bursting into revengeful violence between e.g. Sunni and Shia? Is that
ancient enmity and sectarian strife not the cause that the present unjust
occupation has brought to the fore?
<snip> ...
> It is that event that is under discussion. Instead of analyzing it in
> abstract, it is far more scientific to examine the 'experiment' that the
> occupiers have conducted over the 3 years.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Do you consider what the Iraqi's have seriously written themselves about
their own
contemporary history to be in the "abstract" (i.e. consider a concept
without thinking of a specific example; consider abstractly or
theoretically)? How can actual events themselves become "abstract"?
<snip> ...
> Indeed it is a new situation. It is FOREIGN phenomenon, disconnected from
> the Iraqi people. The OCCUPATION is the situation, a new situation. The
> poor Iraqis have no way out, except to live under the foreign boynets.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Would you say that the Iraqi people haven't been under constant foreign
influence since it was founded as an independent sovereign state after the
demise of the Ottoman Empire Would you then say that the bordering Islamic
states Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, aren't foreign influences?
--
Peace
--
It takes a long time to acquire the art, but life is short, the crisis
rapid, experimentation dangerous, the cure uncertain. [Hippocrates: The
first Aphorism]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
John Eristu
> Comment:
> Then I must ask whose undeclared "TRUTH" side are you on, since it's quite
> possible that both sides are pursuing the truth as they see it. Although,
> intellectualisation won't, in the final analysis, settle the truth by
> consensus between these ancient rivals and sectarian.contenders. I'm not
> even sure in these volatile Iraqi circumstances whether anyone can know
> the
> truth.or what is false.
We need to digress here. What is the meaning of TRUTH?
If people are seeing the Truth, that does not mean that they are seeing the
same thing.
Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi has a nice parable to illustrate this point. He uses
an Elephant in the pitchdark. And there are human hands exploring what an
Elephant is. Their understanding of the Truth depends on the part of the
Elephant they they happen to touch.
The point is that your rephrased question also is wrong. Truth can be
different as seen by different people. Yet there are no sides to be taken.
> Comment:-
> Are you talking about the "golden" historic period of glorious
> imperialism
> and empire? Do you see "EuroAmerica" solely in that antediluvian light?
> One
> needs to be very careful with respect to this "dirty hands" rationale
> since
> there has been several important "empires" under Islam.
I see EuroAmerica as it behaves today.
I have no justification in attributing the sins of their fore fathers to the
people of EuroAmerica of today. It is what they do themselves.
You can dwell on the past if you so prefer, but I have pressing needs to
move forward. Not disregarding history, but inspite of it.
>
> Comment:-
> Which raises the awkward question, hasn't Muslim sectarian strife always
> been there in Iraq, bubbling away under the surface and occasionally
> bursting into revengeful violence between e.g. Sunni and Shia? Is that
> ancient enmity and sectarian strife not the cause that the present unjust
> occupation has brought to the fore?
You are losing perspective, the relative sizes, etc.
Yes there is sectarianism in all isms. That is a common background that we
have to work with.
What stands well above this background is the dirty actions of EuroAmerica
today.
>
> Comment:-
> Do you consider what the Iraqi's have seriously written themselves about
> their own
> contemporary history to be in the "abstract" (i.e. consider a concept
> without thinking of a specific example; consider abstractly or
> theoretically)? How can actual events themselves become "abstract"?
Give me examples of what you are trying to make a point about.
>
> Comment:-
> Would you say that the Iraqi people haven't been under constant foreign
> influence since it was founded as an independent sovereign state after the
> demise of the Ottoman Empire Would you then say that the bordering Islamic
> states Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, aren't foreign influences?
>
That is a diversion, an unhealthy one for this discussion.
We are talking about FOREIGN OCCUPATION. Not about foreign influence.
Zuiko Azumazi
Salaam John,
<snip> ...
> We need to digress here. What is the meaning of TRUTH?
> If people are seeing the Truth, that does not mean that they are seeing
the
> same thing.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Without getting to technical, generally, there are two forms of "newsgroup"
truth. One is the obligation for every commentator to say what they mean and
mean what they say. In contrast the other form of 'truth' depends not on the
veracity of what commentators say but on the validity of what commentators
mean. It's the latter kind of 'truth' which mainly concerns us when people
are discussing Islam and habitual Muslim behaviour.
The leading issue then becomes how can subscribers, Muslim or otherwise,
know the truth and how can subscribers ever tell whether something is true
or false?
This question isn't a "digression" it's a departure point upon which all
debate is based.
I'm sure, as a regular subscriber, you understand the distinct difference
between "crooked thinking" and "straight thinking". It's those in the
unscrupulous "crooked thinking" community (and we all know who these
recidivists are) who negatively criticise Islam based on invalid assumptions
and bigoted generalisations are the ones that "intellectually" exploit
unaware subscribers.
The other question you raised is history and its concomitant tradition. Can
anyone pragmatically avoid its consequences and behavioural habitudes,
Islamic or otherwise? Is Iraq a traditional society or not? Is there any
doubt? As George Santayana said: "Those who cannot remember the past are
doomed to repeat it."! But that's another story worth the telling by other
more proficient subscribers. Is it not?
--
Peace
--
Add a few drops of malice to a half truth and you have an absolute truth.