Sunnis Targeting al-Qaida......Maybe there is hope?

[ekrem]

democracy and individual rights are self interest as well, unlike dying for allah.

From view of a westerner yes you are true.
But things change in other regions of the world.
Look to Russia: ordinary people there are happy with "guided democracy".
Or Palestine bringing Hamas to victory. Or Egypt with Islam brotherhood.
Or Iraq. What would be outcome if there is a full-democratic election in Nuclear-Pakistan?
So US is good with Dictators, allthough i appreciate Musharaf he is to be classified as "Dictator" where Mubarak is definately one.

Transforming western system planned in a building in West-world by West-view does not have to be successfull.

 

[dilloduck]

killing Al-Qaeda or throwing them out of regions, does not make Sunni your ally. Even when this action is in US interest. It is more of a self-interest.

Sorta like Turkey being our "ally" ?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

From view of a westerner yes you are true.
But things change in other regions of the world.
Look to Russia: ordinary people there are happy with "guided democracy".
Or Palestine bringing Hamas to victory. Or Egypt with Islam brotherhood.
Or Iraq. What would be outcome if there is a full-democratic election in Nuclear-Pakistan?
So US is good with Dictators, allthough i appreciate Musharaf he is to be classified as "Dictator" where Mubarak is definately one.

Transforming western system planned in a building in West-world by West-view does not have to be successfull.

Yeah. They're happy with totalitarianism, because if they complain they disappear. Fuck you and your evil.

 

[ekrem]

Sorta like Turkey being our "ally" ?

This equatation is to simple verbalized. Turkey does not kill Americans, allthough being majority Sunni and fighting Al-Qaeda.

But Sunni in Iraq killed Americans, and the fact Sunni are now fighting Al Qaeda does not disqualify possibility that Sunnites in Iraq will kill further Americans, when they think it is in their interest.

So fighting Al Qaeda and fighting "occupier" from Sunnite view has to be divided in 2 seperate cases, i think.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This equatation is to simple verbalized. Turkey does not kill Americans, allthough being majority Sunni and fighting Al-Qaeda.

But Sunni in Iraq killed Americans, and the fact Sunni are now fighting Al Qaeda does not disqualify possibility that Sunnites in Iraq will kill further Americans, when they think it is in their interest.

So fighting Al Qaeda and fighting "occupier" from Sunnite view has to be divided in 2 seperate cases, i think.

Let's have a round of applause for Islam, the conciliatory religion of peace.

 

[dilloduck]

This equatation is to simple verbalized. Turkey does not kill Americans, allthough being majority Sunni and fighting Al-Qaeda.

But Sunni in Iraq killed Americans, and the fact Sunni are now fighting Al Qaeda does not disqualify possibility that Sunnites in Iraq will kill further Americans, when they think it is in their interest.

So fighting Al Qaeda and fighting "occupier" from Sunnite view has to be divided in 2 seperate cases, i think.

I think being an ally when it is in your best interest is exactly what Turkey is doing.

 

[deaddude]

Did you interview every sunni?

Did not have to, if you would bother to read RWA you would notice that the article provides me with enough information to say that these Sunnis were, until recently, allied with Al Quieda.

 

[ekrem]

I think being an ally when it is in your best interest is exactly what Turkey is doing.

Let me say something more to Sunnites killing Al-Qaeda in Anbar.
Al-Qaeda's philosohy is not only, but also, against Shiites. Wahabites even prefer Jew or Christ then a Shiite, from their view the 2 mentioned before are also religions based on the book, while they do not count Shiites as such. Heretic a-like in Christian transistion.

Of course Al-Qaeda is not because of Shiites in Iraq. But Bombing shiites has 2 goals for them:
1. Preventing progress in Iraq to harm US.
2. gearing up inner Shia-Sunnite war first in Iraq which will then, secondly, broaden beyond Iraq.

In a Shia-Sunnite war Suniite states which is the majority in all Muslim States will assist actively Sunnites in Iraq whilst Iran as the only existing majority Shia country will assist Shiites in Iraq.
Now in a time where Iran debate is gearing up in international arena such a Shia-Sunni war would have a very high possibilty that Sunnite states will actively assist USA by marching/bombing Iran.

Al-Qaeda is trying to install theirself in islamic world as leader, only representative.
All Muslim-governments are in this strategy dispensable.
This of course does not exclude time-based co-operation between Al-Qaeda and an arab government, when both think in current time cooperation is benefitial for both of them takeing them a step nearer to their goals.

With all this talking of Achmadinajad Iran is trying to become leader in a united Shia-Sunni world against West. And they point success, i think, with all their rehtoric to get admiration by Sunnite arabs who are frustrated against the west and which are represented in their own country by US-installed dictators: "Country who gives head to Superpower and the Israelis --- IRAN"...

Iran and Al-Qaeda are therefore competitors, and Iran has logically by being a state (and acrually a ressource rich ) much more advatages against asymetric AL-Qaeda.
Plus Iran is Shiites whilst Al-Qaeda consists of Sunnites, extreme Wahabites and others.
This fact accelarates competition between both and further: AL-Qaeda will never gain that influence in Shiite-Iran with this agenda.

Achmadinajad was elected by majority in Iran. He is in contrast to arab dictators firm in his saddle whilst arab US-installed Dictators are standing on shaky foots. Look at Egypt or Pakistan.
When Mullah-state Iran is being bombed to history there is only Sunnite world which AL-Qaeda will concentrate on.
From their strategy they have taken a step forward when Iran is switched off.


So Al-Qaeda will remain by bombing Shiites in Iraq, not only to harm US goal of peacefull Iraq, but also to gear up Shiite-Sunnite war.
Neighbouring countries of Iraq have no interest in Shiite-Sunnite war in Iraq. All might opened their political canals to cool things down in Iraq.

Sunnite as classificarion: Insurgent but useing terror since occupation had common interests with Al-Qaeda, classification: Terrorist.
But now Sunnites joined parliament and they will make a cut with co-operation with AL-Qaeda. And Al-Qaeda even attacking now Sunniites because they joined political process.
And sunnite insurgents who are now hunting Al-Qaeda is a sign for dominant Shiites in Iraq that this cut is not only cheap-talk.
Without cut/seperation of Sunnites from Al-Qaeda, Shias will make no difference in their retaliation when Shias are bombed by Al-Qaeda.
Without seperation for Shia militias then Sunnites are Al-Qaeda.



Anyway this does not make Sunnite ally of USA.
Hope it was someway understandable.

 

[dilloduck]

Let me say something more to Sunnites killing Al-Qaeda in Anbar.
Al-Qaeda's philosohy is not only, but also, against Shiites. Wahabites even prefer Jew or Christ then a Shiite, from their view the 2 mentioned before are also religions based on the book, while they do not count Shiites as such. Heretic a-like in Christian transistion.

Of course Al-Qaeda is not because of Shiites in Iraq. But Bombing shiites has 2 goals for them:
1. Preventing progress in Iraq to harm US.
2. gearing up inner Shia-Sunnite war first in Iraq which will then, secondly, broaden beyond Iraq.

In a Shia-Sunnite war Suniite states which is the majority in all Muslim States will assist actively Sunnites in Iraq whilst Iran as the only existing majority Shia country will assist Shiites in Iraq.
Now in a time where Iran debate is gearing up in international arena such a Shia-Sunni war would have a very high possibilty that Sunnite states will actively assist USA by marching/bombing Iran.

Al-Qaeda is trying to install theirself in islamic world as leader, only representative.
All Muslim-governments are in this strategy dispensable.
This of course does not exclude time-based co-operation between Al-Qaeda and an arab government, when both think in current time cooperation is benefitial for both of them takeing them a step nearer to their goals.

With all this talking of Achmadinajad Iran is trying to become leader in a united Shia-Sunni world against West. And they point success, i think, with all their rehtoric to get admiration by Sunnite arabs who are frustrated against the west and which are represented in their own country by US-installed dictators: "Country who gives head to Superpower and the Israelis --- IRAN"...

Iran and Al-Qaeda are therefore competitors, and Iran has logically by being a state (and acrually a ressource rich ) much more advatages against asymetric AL-Qaeda.
Plus Iran is Shiites whilst Al-Qaeda consists of Sunnites, extreme Wahabites and others.
This fact accelarates competition between both and further: AL-Qaeda will never gain that influence in Shiite-Iran with this agenda.

Achmadinajad was elected by majority in Iran. He is in contrast to arab dictators firm in his saddle whilst arab US-installed Dictators are standing on shaky foots. Look at Egypt or Pakistan.
When Mullah-state Iran is being bombed to history there is only Sunnite world which AL-Qaeda will concentrate on.
From their strategy they have taken a step forward when Iran is switched off.


So Al-Qaeda will remain by bombing Shiites in Iraq, not only to harm US goal of peacefull Iraq, but also to gear up Shiite-Sunnite war.
Neighbouring countries of Iraq have no interest in Shiite-Sunnite war in Iraq. All might opened their political canals to cool things down in Iraq.

Sunnite as classificarion: Insurgent but useing terror since occupation had common interests with Al-Qaeda, classification: Terrorist.
But now Sunnites joined parliament and they will make a cut with co-operation with AL-Qaeda. And Al-Qaeda even attacking now Sunniites because they joined political process.
And sunnite insurgents who are now hunting Al-Qaeda is a sign for dominant Shiites in Iraq that this cut is not only cheap-talk.
Without cut/seperation of Sunnites from Al-Qaeda, Shias will make no difference in their retaliation when Shias are bombed by Al-Qaeda.
Without seperation for Shia militias then Sunnites are Al-Qaeda.



Anyway this does not make Sunnite ally of USA.
Hope it was someway understandable.

Thanks for the work you put into the explanation of the Islamic politics of the region however my point was that all the tribes in the area have thier own best interest in mind--including Turkey. The US just hopes Iraq can pull together as a nation so we can get the hell out of there. Then the Sunnis, Shias, Wahabbis and all the other Wannabes can just have at it.

 

[nukeman]

Thanks for the work you put into the explanation of the Islamic politics of the region however my point was that all the tribes in the area have thier own best interest in mind--including Turkey. The US just hopes Iraq can pull together as a nation so we can get the hell out of there. Then the Sunnis, Shias, Wahabbis and all the other Wannabes can just have at it.

I dont think that you would want the Sunnis and Wahabbis to be in power in Iraq anytime in the near future. These are some of the more extreme fundamentalist branches of Islam. If the US really wants to have more stability the Shias are by far the most understanding and liberal of the Islamic faiths. Many Shias protest the violence in the mid-east eveyday around the world but for some reason it never makes our media here in the US. Most US muslums are Shia that is why they are able to live and work here without too many problems. They are by far much more accomadating and willing to have open dialogue with Christians and Jews where the Sunnis would just as soon slit your throat for being an infadel.

It all come down to how they inturpret the Koran much like some of our more nutball Christian sects that take a hard line approach to the Bible..

 

[dilloduck]

I dont think that you would want the Sunnis and Wahabbis to be in power in Iraq anytime in the near future. These are some of the more extreme fundamentalist branches of Islam. If the US really wants to have more stability the Shias are by far the most understanding and liberal of the Islamic faiths. Many Shias protest the violence in the mid-east eveyday around the world but for some reason it never makes our media here in the US. Most US muslums are Shia that is why they are able to live and work here without too many problems. They are by far much more accomadating and willing to have open dialogue with Christians and Jews where the Sunnis would just as soon slit your throat for being an infadel.

It all come down to how they inturpret the Koran much like some of our more nutball Christian sects that take a hard line approach to the Bible..

It's up to the Iraqis. They have a mandate to form a government. Who runs it
is up to them. The US just wants it to be a place that isn't a haven for anti American terrorism. If they can manage to be nice to each other, that would be cool too.

 

[ekrem]

I dont think that you would want the Sunnis and Wahabbis to be in power in Iraq anytime in the near future. These are some of the more extreme fundamentalist branches of Islam. If the US really wants to have more stability the Shias are by far the most understanding and liberal of the Islamic faiths. Many Shias protest the violence in the mid-east eveyday around the world but for some reason it never makes our media here in the US. Most US muslums are Shia that is why they are able to live and work here without too many problems. They are by far much more accomadating and willing to have open dialogue with Christians and Jews where the Sunnis would just as soon slit your throat for being an infadel.

It all come down to how they inturpret the Koran much like some of our more nutball Christian sects that take a hard line approach to the Bible..

Hello. Allthough what i written above must not be the only trueness i ask you to read above post again.
When Saddam was in power representative for Sunnites, Iraq was secular. With Christs in high state positions such as Tariq Aziz who was a Chaldean Christ. Sunnites in Iraq are no Wahabites.
Allhough Iyad Allawi being Shia, his voters are mainly Sunnites. US and UK is backing him being a secular. In a secular system such things happen, that even Suniites vote a Shia. While by religion parties Shia will vote a Shia party, and Sunnite will vote a Sunnite party in religion system.

Also US backed in past Adnan Pachachi also being a Sunnite.
And Kurds in North Iraq are also mainly Sunnites but they are to fullfill their goals makeing politics out of nationalism and not religion. But this might change also.

Wahabites are very fundamentalist. Puritan interpretation of Islam. But they come from Saudi-Arabia, from UK-Installed Saud family.
And Al-Qaeda greatly consists of people who were raised up in a country where such puritan interpretation is being state ideology. Not only from Saudi-Arabia of course, but looking to nationality of 9.11. attackers does give a trend to acknowledge this conclusion.

What Saudi-Arabia is in Sunnite world, Iran is in Shiite world. 2 extremes.
The other Shiite state is Syria, accurate Syrian government is Shiite whilst majority of people in Syria is Sunnite. But Syria is not that extreme as Iran is.
Assad has had schooling in London and is open to some influences from western culture.

 

[deaddude]

Thanks for the work you put into the explanation of the Islamic politics of the region however my point was that all the tribes in the area have thier own best interest in mind--including Turkey.

Which makes them in no way different from the majority of other countries.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Which makes them in no way different from the majority of other countries.

Yes. We're all the same. Freedom=tyranny.

 

[dilloduck]

Which makes them in no way different from the majority of other countries.

Exactly--allies stick together for when it benefits them all. Some take the friendship a bit more seriously than others and have more respect for the alliance.

 

[deaddude]

Yes. We're all the same. Freedom=tyranny.

How do you equate me saying "the majority of countries have their own interests at heart" with me saying "Freedom= tyranny." I really would like to get a glimpse of your thought process so I will spell it out for you.

Step 1. deaddude said "the majority of countries have their own interest at heart"

Step 2. ?

Step 3. deaddude thinks that "Freedom=tyranny"

What in Gods name is Step 2.

 

[ekrem]

Which makes them in no way different from the majority of other countries.

Exactly wouldn't have countries interests Iran would not finance Hizbullah, or US-Presidents would not shake Saudi Prince's hand with a smile in both faces.


Turkey is there not different. Of course these regions are our neighbours it is natural we have interests in these regions, not only from security point like for USA but also from commerce.
So putting Saddam under embargo "Oil-for-food" for example did lead for Turkey loose one of its main Trade partner that time for nearly a decade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

How do you equate me saying "the majority of countries have their own interests at heart" with me saying "Freedom= tyranny." I really would like to get a glimpse of your thought process so I will spell it out for you.

Step 1. deaddude said "the majority of countries have their own interest at heart"

Step 2. ?

Step 3. deaddude thinks that "Freedom=tyranny"

What in Gods name is Step 2.

"Everyone has their own self interest at heart" -- Statements like this are indicative of the "so who are we to say we're right" idiocy. And if you believe that, then you believe freedom = tyranny. All clear?

 

[trobinett]

Really, these types of conversations are interesting, but only on a purely intellectual level.

When the shit hits the fan, anywhere in the world, all these cute little debates, and conversations come to an end, and the call goes out to the good old USA to bail yet, the worlds ass out one more time.

What happens if WE decide its not in OUR best interest?

I`m sure I`m not the only one, that has grown weary of the debates, and the second guessing of the United States policy in the middle east.

So, keep on talkin, and the day may yet come when the call goes out, and NO ONE IS LISTENING. :talk2:

 

[deaddude]

"Everyone has their own self interest at heart" -- Statements like this are indicative of the "so who are we to say we're right" idiocy. And if you believe that, then you believe freedom = tyranny. All clear?

Not terribly.

Where do you make the jump between admitting a possiblity that we could be wrong and equating freedom with tyranny.

Again let me spell it out for you

Step 1. Person X says, I do not know if what we are doing is right

Step 2. ?

Step 3 Person X Believes that Freedom = Tyranny.