The growing mess that is Iraq

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Yes, it's the U.S.'s indiscriminate murder of 'moderate peace-loving Muslims' (a.k.a. 'collateral damage' in a 'war' that they made up based in nothing) that has fuelled the hatred of the west, I suspect, and continued drone bombing isn't helping.

Actually, the whole ISIS kerfuffle is the whole reason why such things as the American Occupation of Iraq happened -- to try to keep a state like that forming

This Islamofascism is a very old Belief System -- the largest empire in the world was them -- it lasted some 1,300 years -- some of our ancestors were likely their slaves and/or Janissaries

America even encountered a bit of them early on in their existence...when their ships kept on getting attacked by Muslim pirates from the Barbary coast (members of the Ottoman Empire)...these state sponsored pirates would take a ship and hold the people for ransom or to be sold into slavery.

Its a really interesting part of American history...you should check it out, perhaps by starting here "The Treaty of Tripoli"

What is happening with ISIS shows again how a much smaller group, less well-armed, more incompetent, can be dangerous and effective. The same thing happened with Mohammad -- he was a nobody who tried threatening the local chiefs and kings and was laughed at...and he showed them the errors of their ways. They are really trying to save the world.

And yes, the bombing doesn't help (y)

It really is a fascinating time to be alive

(For a timeline of this empire, check out here, with footnotes and cites)
 
Last edited:
Yes, it's the U.S.'s indiscriminate murder of 'moderate peace-loving Muslims' (a.k.a. 'collateral damage' in a 'war' that they made up based in nothing) that has fuelled the hatred of the west, I suspect, and continued drone bombing isn't helping.
I read that Isis - the seeds of this ideology- goes all the way back to first world war (pre?) - a British Lord and a Wahabbi prince (or Imam - I don't remember details except the British helped set the course a long time ago) doing business. The Wahabbi was not moderate - he was strict but good for business. I will try to find the article but it traces the roots of this particular brand of extremism which is not related to drones. Plus, Isis is coming out of Syria (no drone attacks yet) where rebels were armed to defeat Assad - and they spun off into this incarnation.
 
Last edited:
Quotes from both the Bible and the Koran have been used to justify all kinds of evil

It seems that justifying things like murder, genocide, hate is easy and mainstream...I just look at people's responses in Waterfall's thread on the bad things g_d did in the OT

And most of us are moderates

Its so easy

Perhaps one reason is that we love our states too much? Our states who provide for our education, our survival, our jobs, our community, our comfort?
 
Last edited:
It also can be said that the break up of the ME into such states as Iraq & Iran were an attempt to stymie the Islamofascists and why Israel is so important.
 
It's not a case of moderate Muslims turning into extremists because they are pissed off. At least not for the most part. Not with Isis. I think they're a different animal. These people are an extreme branch and they are also recruiting originally non Muslims from foreign countries. Their ideology is: anyone who is not one of them should convert or die. It's not even about geopolitics in their minds. How you can negotiate peacefully with that I have no idea.
 
I read that Isis - the seeds of this ideology- goes all the way back to first world war (pre?) - a British Lord and a Wahabbi prince (or Imam - I don't remember details except the British helped set the course a long time ago) doing business. The Wahabbi was not moderate - he was strict but good for business. I will try to find the article but it traces the roots of this particular brand of extremism which is not related to drones. Plus, Isis is coming out of Syria (no drone attacks yet) where rebels were armed to defeat Assad - and they spun off into this incarnation.


If my memory serves me right, Wahabbism is the Islamic fundamentalist sect popular In Saudi Arabia and elsewhere on the Arabian Peninsula. The Saudi princes are said to be supportive of it, and are, perhaps the financiers of ISIS.
 
It all just gives me the creeps. They are not necessarily aware of their own history. However, I think the world needs to protect innocent people from dying at the hands of Isis no matter 'who started it' way back when.
 
@chansen "Yep, secularism has neutered Christianity in a way that hasn't happened to Islam in many Islamic countries"

"
most of the people who have died as a result of war, have done so in the Twentieth Century
and most of the killing was done in the name of secular ideologies...

Remembering Professor Johnson and his statement, “Organized religion has caused more suffering, wars and violence than any other cause”? Professor Johnson just baited his students, and as the good professor tells us, “Almost all the students raise their hands in agreement.”

“I then demand that they provide dead bodies as evidence. They usually mention the Crusades and one or two other religious wars they might have heard of but in none of their examples can they come up with a million deaths…I then point out that most of the people who have died as a result of war, have done so in the Twentieth Century and that most of the killing was done in the name of secular ideologies. I then ask them who is the ‘baddest’ of them all. Most guess Hitler. I then tell them that he is rated #3. Some then guess Stalin and I inform them that most scholars place him at #2 with 20 million killed. Almost no one gets #1 who, of course, is Mao who starts with an estimated 40 million. I then point out that the top two were Communists and Hitler was a radical proponent of Social Darwinism. All of these ideologies are based on atheistic systems.”[11]

Matthew White, a librarian who has done a tremendous amount of study in genocide/war issues, and is the author of the on-line Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century, gives this Q&A response to the question of “religion.”

“Q: Is religion responsible for more violent deaths than any other cause?

A: No, of course not – unless you define religion so broadly as to be meaningless. Just take the four deadliest events of the 20th Century – Two World Wars, Red China and the Soviet Union – no religious motivation there, unless you consider every belief system to be a religion.”[12]

Maj. John P. Conway, studying at the US Army Command & General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, commented in an article “War and Religion: Is Religion to Blame?”

“Most times, it can be argued that religion may play a key and significant role in the conduct of warfare on a psychological and cultural level, but is it the cause of warfare? Do nations, states and kingdoms wage war over religion? Is religion a primary cause of conflict between governments? Many have argued that it is. Another popular statement is, ‘Religion has been the cause of more wars than any other factor throughout history.’ This is commonly accompanied by ‘people have been killing each other in the name of God for centuries.’ Upon closer examination, these statements exude an element of mythology versus fact…A fundamental analysis of past wars commonly attributed to ‘religion,’ as the causal factor, may reveal an uninformed and reactionary misjudgment. Throughout the course of history, the cause of warfare between sovereign states, kingdoms, and governments is attributable to many factors, but can rarely be attributed to ‘religion’ as is so often the assertion.”[13]

Maj. Conway continues,
“…it becomes apparent that those who make the claim ‘religion has been the cause of more wars than any other factor in history’ may speak from ignorance or have ulterior motives for the assertion. Further, this type of assertion seems rooted in anti-religion posturing…Men and nations have a history of warfare and the root of conflict is power and gain…Occasionally war is fought over religion, as is perhaps the case during the reformation period in Europe. More often than not however, the cause of war can't be laid at the door of religion.”[14]

Certainly religion plays a motivational and ruse factor in various conflict scenarios (all kinds of pretexts can be used in inciting and snow-balling hostilities, in 1969 soccer played a key role in exploding tensions between Honduras and El Salvador), but as a whole the main cause of the major genocides and wars of the last one hundred years lie outside of purely religious stimulus. Moreover, even wars that contain a deep religious element often have multiple causations, including economic, political, and territorial grievances.

None of this is to say that religion is innocent when it comes to strife. Historically we can cite the Crusades, the Reformation genocides, and the mass slaughters done in the name of Allah – such as during the Wars of Apostasy.[15] And in modern times we can see the effects of Catholic-Protestant clashes in the British Isles, Hindu-Islamic hostilities in India, the Islamic-Christians slaughters in Sudan, Buddhist-Hindu warfare in Sri Lanka, Moslem-Christian fighting in Indonesia, and the constant struggle in the Middle East between Israel and her Moslem neighbours. However, in terms of the largest concentration of outright killing capacity, communism, national socialism, and imperial expansionism – all power struggles based on centralist methodologies – have been the grandest contributor to war and human-caused mass death. Nothing else comes even remotely close.

Clearly, to exert that “religion is the cause of all war and strife” demonstrates a severe degree of historical naivety, or deeply distorted emotional blinders, or the outright broadcasting of disinformation for an ulterior motive (see Maj. Conway’s above quote).

... For the students of Mr. Johnson’s class, naivety is the most probable reason for their belief in this religion-war mythology. But for others, ulterior motives exist."
 
Last edited:
Ahhh, Mao, Stalin and Hitler have made an entrance! Very good. I wonder if they walked into a bar?

Mao and Stalin, both communists, shared a political ideology where religion was seen as a competitor for peoples' faith. Stalin, particularly, was very religious in his youth in the Orthodox church. Over time, he replaced Jesus with Marx. He traded one book, for another.

Hitler as well was very religious. Germany was never a secular state, and the Nazi hatred of Jews was partly fuelled by Christian fervour. The Vatican itself did not retract the common Catholic accusation that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus until 1965.

If you look at secular countries like Norway, or rapidly secularizing countries like Canada, and see Mao, Stalin, and Hitler in them, then I'm sorry, but I can't help you. You're too far gone.
 
I agree with chansen. I think all ideologies are either religious or pseudo-religious, based, as they are, on some kind of absolutist belief system. Norway, which not so long ago was staunchly Lutheran, now is largely secular, but leads the world when it comes to practicing social and environmental responsibility. In the words of the famous travel writer Rick Steve, who is of Norwegian origin, "good government has replaced religion." All get together for the good of all. The ancient Roman dream of a republic, where the public decides what is good for the public, may yet come true. Not just for Norway but for the whole world.
 
The problem with wars and religion is that religion is so often used to politicize one group of people against another. Extremism has popped up out of the most devestated, least attended to, places, also. Isil probably started as a combination of these things and is now purely religious ideology. But I think, if it weren't for religion - the combination of poverty and devastation plus politicization would lead to other excuses for wars - other ideologies. It is the weapons of war that make utterly devestating wars possible to commit, though, unfortunately. Ban weapons, not religions.
 
I think that weapons are merely the symptom. What we need to 'ban' is the impulse towards aggression that afflicts humanity.
I agree, but unfortunately in the thick of things as they are, that won't work with this group in the short term. That is a long term goal - always working on it - for thousands of years people have been working on it.
 
RELIGIOUS OR NOT ... the Dalai Lama makes some good points around the machinery of war ....

  • There are people with destructive intentions in every society, and the temptation to gain command over an organization capable of fulfilling their desires can become overwhelming.
  • No matter how malevolent or evil are the many murderous dictators who can currently oppress their nations and cause international problems, it is obvious that they cannot harm others or destroy countless human lives if they don't have a military organization accepted and condoned by society.
  • It is not only during times of war that military establishments are destructive. By their very design, they were the single greatest violators of human rights, and it is the soldiers themselves who suffer most consistently from their abuse. After the officers in charge have given beautiful explanations about the importance of the army, its discipline and the need to conquer the enemy, the rights of the great mass of soldiers are most entirely taken away. They are then compelled to forfeit their individual will, and, in the end, to sacrifice their lives.
  • As long as there are powerful armies there will always be danger of dictatorship. If we really believe dictatorship to be a despicable and destructive form of government, then we must recognize that the existence of a powerful military establishment is one of its main causes.
  • Militarism is also very expensive. Pursuing peace through military strength places a tremendously wasteful burden on society. Governments spend vast sums on increasingly intricate weapons when, in fact, nobody really wants to use them. Not only money but also valuable energy and human intelligence are squandered, while all that increases is fear.
  • Moreover, once an army has become a powerful force, there is every risk that it will destroy the happiness of its own country.
 
Last edited:
The problem with wars and religion is that religion is so often used to politicize one group of people against another. Extremism has popped up out of the most devestated, least attended to, places, also. Isil probably started as a combination of these things and is now purely religious ideology. But I think, if it weren't for religion - the combination of poverty and devastation plus politicization would lead to other excuses for wars - other ideologies. It is the weapons of war that make utterly devestating wars possible to commit, though, unfortunately. Ban weapons, not religions.
Religion is a great tool for a military or a militia to use. It can teach the young soldiers that God is with them, and against the enemy. If God is against the enemy, then you are killing in the name of God, and you absolve yourself of the guilt of killing. Or, at least you can try.

We don't need to ban religions. We just need to make them less powerful and have them taken less seriously. That will remove religion from the list of tools that can be used to inspire young soldiers, because it has no effect on them.

Besides, trying to ban religions will probably have the opposite effect. If I wanted to grow Christianity, I would try to ban it. Instead, let's have open discussions about religion, and let religion try to defend itself. When that happens, religion shrinks on its own.
 
Chansen: "Instead, let's have open discussions about religion, and let religion try to defend itself. When that happens, religion shrinks on its own.

Hermann: "good government has replaced religion." All get together for the good of all. The ancient Roman dream of a republic, where the public decides what is good for the public, may yet come true. Not just for Norway but for the whole world.

Inna: "...we love our states too much? Our states who provide for our education, our survival, our jobs, our community, our comfort?

Let's have open discussions about government/state/politics and let government/state politics try to defend it itself ... are our states/governments/politicians really providing for public education, public survival, public jobs, public community, public comfort ? Are government/state/politicians ever agreeable to following their own standards as set for 'their' public ... if the public is going to decide what is good for the public ... I would suggest that we start following the advice of Chris Hedges ... "We must discredit and disrupt the system of faux politics that characterizes the corporate state. If we engage as citizens, rather than as spectators, if we reclaim politics, we might have a chance."
 
How do innocent people stop Isis non-militarily without getting killed? Do people here think the situation is too far gone (it's interesting we just started hearing about this group a few months ago and now they're one of the world's biggest problems?) because I don't see them as being a group with any sort of terms that can be sanely and reasonably negotiated...I.e. "follow our extreme ideology or die" is not a reasonable position. I wish that were not the case...that there was some sort of peaceful solution in sight...but what else are people being threatened to do in this situation but seek military protection? I haven't heard any other good short term ideas. I think everyone agrees that preventing extremism in the first place is by far preferable, but that won't help the problem that exists now.:confused:
 
This particular group are "one of the world's biggest problems" largely in the eyes of western media.
 
Back
Top