Quantcast
Middle East Thread - Page 3 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content

Welcome to the new and improved TLW!

 

Some of you may experience issues logging in and will get an 'incorrect password' error. Don't worry, you haven't typed it in wrong and your password hasn't been changed. You will need to reset it though in order to log in. Click the reset password link and you will receive an email with your new temporary password. Once logged in, you need to choose a new password (or restore to your old one) otherwise you will be locked out again.

 

If you have an out of date email address linked to your account, then you won't receive the new password. If that's the case then you'll need to email me (dave @liverpoolway.co.uk) or send me a tweet @theliverpoolway and I'll update your password manually. 

 

Any other problems or questions just let me know.

 

Thanks

Dave

Red Phoenix

Middle East Thread

Recommended Posts

I think the biggest ideological ambiguity is what the Koran permits or doesn't permit.  At best it is unclear while at worst it can be seen to incite violence.

 

Those who want to kill seem to find refuge in the teachings of the Koran.

 

I'm not sure who the authoritative voice of the Islam world would be to clarify that this is clearly not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow the money.

 

By taking out Bin Laden the US 'cut off the snakes head' in the words of some analysts. This was done by taking away a large fundraiser with huge connections,this is a good strategy. The problem is that with Al Qaeda financially restrained its donors will have looked elsewhere,maybe ISIS? I dont know,but the common enemy is still there in the eyes of these people,the USA and the West in general.

As for benign dictators,i suspect this is why we got here in the first place.

I think that this is about more than money, and not primarily about the West.

 

Some of this is about the revenge of the Sunni's in Iraq who have done badly since Saddam lost power, and the Shia's in Iran are less than impressed at their growth.

 

That ISIS gathered cash and military hardware during their fighting in Syria shows how complex this issue is, and how a Western notion of good v bad is pretty redundant.

 

The ISIS insurgency is a Middle East problem that the Middle East will need to sort out. Empowering Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Turkey and Iran to do so is the smart move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biggest ideological ambiguity is what the Koran permits or doesn't permit.  At best it is unclear while at worst it can be seen to incite violence.Those who want to kill seem to find refuge in the teachings of the Koran.I'm not sure who the authoritative voice of the Islam world would be to clarify that this is clearly not the case.

Like Christianity, I guess it depends on who you listen to.

 

I think it would be a huge mistake to assume that ISIS enjoys popular support amongst the people and governments of the Levant beyond the anarchy and chaos of Syria and Iraq ( where the West has not covered itself in glory).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Christianity, I guess it depends on who you listen to.I think it would be a huge mistake to assume that ISIS enjoys popular support amongst the people and governments of the Levant beyond the anarchy and chaos of Syria and Iraq ( where the West has not covered itself in glory).

But where's the condemnation from the moderates? I don't really see any Christian fundamentalists chopping off heads and crucifying, and any that do go towards that way are generally regarded as nutcase sand called such. To me that doesn't happen in Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow the money.

 

By taking out Bin Laden the US 'cut off the snakes head' in the words of some analysts. This was done by taking away a large fundraiser with huge connections,this is a good strategy. The problem is that with Al Qaeda financially restrained its donors will have looked elsewhere,maybe ISIS? I dont know,but the common enemy is still there in the eyes of these people,the USA and the West in general.

As for benign dictators,i suspect this is why we got here in the first place.

 

And all that appears to have happened is that 5 angrier and more poisonous heads have grown back in it's place. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But where's the condemnation from the moderates? I don't really see any Christian fundamentalists chopping off heads and crucifying, and any that do go towards that way are generally regarded as nutcase sand called such. To me that doesn't happen in Islam.

 

It would have taken a long time to chop of the amount of heads that shock & awe dealt with in Iraq. More efficient to do it from a jet and socially engineer people to think that it's not a big deal.

 

I don't particularly feel that religion is a big motivator for all of that crew but some of them definitely saw it as the new crusades. The top fella at Blackwater was a proper religious nut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But where's the condemnation from the moderates? I don't really see any Christian fundamentalists chopping off heads and crucifying, and any that do go towards that way are generally regarded as nutcase sand called such. To me that doesn't happen in Islam.

Fair comment.

 

But as Stu Monty suggests, the West has not been big on either condemning Israel's massacres in Gaza, or its own excesses in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

An F16 or B52 does the killing job just as efficiently without the unpleasantness of actually seeing your victim die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair comment.

 

But as Stu Monty suggests, the West has not been big on either condemning Israel's massacres in Gaza, or its own excesses in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

An F16 or B52 does the killing job just as efficiently without the unpleasantness of actually seeing your victim die.

 

And I'd venture that if you'd have beheaded people in Fallujah, instead of lobbing nuclear weapons at them, then there'd be a lot less birth defects going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But where's the condemnation from the moderates? I don't really see any Christian fundamentalists chopping off heads and crucifying, and any that do go towards that way are generally regarded as nutcase sand called such. To me that doesn't happen in Islam.

 

When they were handing out leaflets in Oxford Street the other day they were challeneged by moderate muslims who were threatened.

 

Google Christian fundamentalist terrorism and you will find plenty of examples of Christians killing others. Factor in terrorism aimed at abortion clinics in the US. And then look at who funds the Republican party and Tea Party in the US. You don't need to strap semtex to yourself when you can fund control of one of the world's biggest armies.

 

None of which excuses the actions of ISIS which are a problem that needs dealing with. But if you want to deal with Islamic extremisim you have to follow the money. And the money leads to Saudi Arabia. Now ask yourself why is it the Saudi's cosy up to the West and buy plenty of arms from us, but on the other hand fund Islamic terrorism. They are busy playing both sides while staying out of it, and yet both sides are willing to play along.

 

I think it suits the Saudi's to direct the extremists away from themselves and point them in our direction, and to leave the West to try and curb it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Saudi Royal Family are supposed to be officially considered infidels by ISIS and on the long term list for over-throwing. Wouldn't surprise me if they are paying ISIS off in the short-term whilst both sides figure out how to destroy the other in the long-term.

 

One side is likely to end up regretting it all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But where's the condemnation from the moderates? I don't really see any Christian fundamentalists chopping off heads and crucifying, and any that do go towards that way are generally regarded as nutcase sand called such. To me that doesn't happen in Islam.

 

It doesn't sell any newspapers to  middle England to worry about publicising stuff like that.

 

 

 

Egypt's top religious authority condemns ISIMuslims conduct taraweeh prayers as they gather specially for Lailat al-Qadr, at Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo July 24, 2014.(Reuters)

Reuters, Cairo

Tuesday, 12 August 2014

Egypt's top religious authority condemned the armed group Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) which has taken over parts of Iraq and Syria, describing it on Tuesday as a corrupt, extremist organisation that is damaging Islam.

“An extremist and bloody group such as this poses a danger to Islam and Muslims, tarnishing its image as well as shedding blood and spreading corruption,” said Grand Mufti Shawqi Allam, Egypt's most influential Muslim cleric, the state news agency MENA reported.

The comments came as the Vatican called on Muslim religious leaders to take a “clear and courageous stance” and condemn “unspeakable criminal acts” by ISIS.

The grand mufti's view represents the opinion of Al Azhar, one of the world's oldest seats of Muslim learning, which influences the opinions of Muslims worldwide.

ISIS  has declared a Muslim caliphate in the territory it has captured in Iraq and Syria. It sees all Shi'ite Muslims as heretics and boasted of killing hundreds of captive Shi'ite soldiers in June.

An Iraqi government minister said on Sunday that ISIS fighters had killed hundreds of Iraq's minority Yazidis, burying some alive and taking women as slaves.

In comments made during a visit by former Lebanese prime minister Fouad Siniora, Allam said ISIS's actions strengthened the hand of those who wanted to harm Islam.

“[They] give an opportunity for those who seek to harm us, to destroy us and interfere in our affairs with the [pretext of a] call to fight terrorism,” Allam said.

Last week, the United States bombed ISIS targets in northern Iraq, saying it was protecting the Kurdish autonomous region and trying to prevent what U.S. President Barack Obama called a potential genocide of religious minorities.

------------------------------
 
 
UK imams condemn Isis in online video
  •  

Leading UK-based Shia and Sunni imams and clerics have filmed avideo message urging young British Muslims against fighting in Iraq and Syria.

They say their film is designed to be distributed online and via social media to counter "digital propaganda" put out by Isis and other extremist groups.

It comes amid concern about radicalised Britons who are travelling abroad.

Abu Muntasir, from the Ipswich-based charity Jimas, describes Isis as "evil" and urges people not to "get mixed up".

Jihadi videos posted online are one of the main tools used by the militant group Isis (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) to recruit and radicalise people.

About 500 Britons are believed to have become involved in fighting in Syria and Iraq with the group.

An Isis video featuring three Britons emerged last month

Sayed Ali Rizvi, head of the Majlis Ulama-e-Shia organisation, says in the video the UK is "united under various colours, nationalities, cultures and creeds".

He says Isis "are cowboys. They don't represent the religion and are not qualified to represent the religion... We are Muslims united against Isis, against terrorism, against atrocity, against pain and suffering."

Imam Maulana Shahid Raza of Leicester Central Mosque, a leading Sunni cleric, accuses Isis of trying to create corruption and discord within the Muslim world.

London-based Ayatollah Seyed Fazel Milani also condemns the militant group in the video, adding: "We benefit from opinions of others and experience and that's why it is very important to have this unity."

And another Leicester Imam, Ibrahim Mogra, the assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, appears in the film, appealing to British Muslim communities to fight sectarian division and extremism.

Online movement

The production of the four-minute video, which has been be posted on the imamsonline.com website, was organised by the Faith Associates consultancy.

Its chief executive Shaukat Warraich said: "The leaders of the Islamic faith within the UK felt it was their responsibility to spread the message of peace and unity outside of the mosque and galvanise an online movement, urging British Muslims to think twice about travelling to conflict zones to fight."

Earlier this month, the same leaders were behind an open letter signed by more than 100 imams from urging British Muslims not to travel to war-torn regions.

It called on communities "to continue the generous and tireless effort to make aid donations during Ramadan to help people in Iraq and Syria "in a safe and responsible way", and warned them about going there themselves.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think the biggest ideological ambiguity is what the Koran permits or doesn't permit.  At best it is unclear while at worst it can be seen to incite violence.

 

Those who want to kill seem to find refuge in the teachings of the Koran.

 

I'm not sure who the authoritative voice of the Islam world would be to clarify that this is clearly not the case.

 

The problem we have here is that Muhammad was not averse to slaughtering people en masse, and Islam was spread by conquest. Groups like Islamic State can rightfully claim to be following in the footsteps of their Prophet.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem we have here is that Muhammad was not averse to slaughtering people en masse, and Islam was spread by conquest. Groups like Islamic State can rightfully claim to be following in the footsteps of their Prophet.

A charge equally as true of Christianity.

 

ISIS appear to be fundamentalist opportunists, not standard bearers for Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem we have here is that Muhammad was not averse to slaughtering people en masse, and Islam was spread by conquest. Groups like Islamic State can rightfully claim to be following in the footsteps of their Prophet.

You can say that of any religion that includes the Old Testament - Judaism, Christianity, Islam. David, Solomon and most of the Kings liked a good old slaughter at some point - usually on the advice of a handy prophet or two. In fact I seem to remember that most of the promised land was originally taken by force by either Saul or David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A charge equally as true of Christianity.

 

I guess I must have missed all those massacres perpetrated by Jesus.

 

ISIS appear to be fundamentalist opportunists, not standard bearers for Islam.

 

They're clearly standard bearers for a particularly virulent strain of Islam.

 

You can say that of any religion that includes the Old Testament - Judaism, Christianity, Islam. David, Solomon and most of the Kings liked a good old slaughter at some point - usually on the advice of a handy prophet or two. In fact I seem to remember that most of the promised land was originally taken by force by either Saul or David

 

Oh, I won't be defending other religions at all. With that said, the other Abrahamic faiths did benefit somewhat from the enlightenment. Whereas Islam, certainly in the Middle East, appears to have gone backwards since then. I guess we can thank Saudi oil for a lot of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I must have missed all those massacres perpetrated by Jesus.They're clearly standard bearers for a particularly virulent strain of Islam.

The Crusades and Inquisition passed you by?

 

ISIS are no more representative of Islam than any number of madcap American Christian fundamentalists are representative of Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Crusades and Inquisition passed you by?

 

ISIS are no more representative of Islam than any number of madcap American Christian fundamentalists are representative of Christianity.

In Strontiums defence here, in the New Testament, Jesus himself did preach a doctrine of non violence, which was in contrast to a lot of the old Testament. If he was real then I'm not sure he would have approved of a lot of the stuff done in his name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Strontiums defence here, in the New Testament, Jesus himself did preach a doctrine of non violence, which was in contrast to a lot of the old Testament. If he was real then I'm not sure he would have approved of a lot of the stuff done in his name.

I think that would be true of Islam as well. And what the Israeli's do in Gaza is hardly Christian.

 

I am no particular defender of Islam. I just don't think that Islam should be judged by the actions of a relatively small number of extremists who have exploited a situation that the West largely created in Iraq.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that would be true of Islam as well. And what the Israeli's do in Gaza is hardly Christian.

 

I am no particular defender of Islam. I just don't think that Islam should be judged by the actions of a relatively small number of extremists who have exploited a situation that the West largely created in Iraq.

 

You sure sound like a defender of Islam.

 

It is undeniable that Islam has taken a battering since 9/11, much of it justified.

 

From Indonesia to Morocco to Washington there have been numerous atrocities committed in its name. You say by a small minority, but I ask - how small?  Not very I imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sure sound like a defender of Islam.

 

It is undeniable that Islam has taken a battering since 9/11, much of it justified.

 

From Indonesia to Morocco to Washington there have been numerous atrocities committed in its name. You say by a small minority, but I ask - how small? Not very I imagine.

Your muddled numbers aside,how much of the atrocities committed by Washington and backed by London were attributed to the Christian 'God' also?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the rise of fundamentalism is linked to the West's attitude to Muslims in general. I've never lived near a Muslim community but am told by people who did that you very rarely saw a burkha until the 'war on terror', and that in the 70s and 80s they'd go out of their way to try and assimilate, wearing western clothes, getting involved in local politics etc.

 

I think the feeling of being vilified and under siege has allowed more hardline elements to gain control, as they always do in times like this.

 

When I was a kid you couldn't fart near the concept of immigration without someone giving you a funny look, these days it's openly encouraged to say people should 'learn the language' and 'fit in'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×