Can someone explain the Iraqi factions...
Discussion
...in 'Janet & John' terms.
Maybe I'm a bit thick, but I can't be the only one in the world that doesn't understand the various religious and politcal differences of all the various different Muslims groups in Iraq.
Can anyone explain it in just a few sentences - as though I were a 12 yr old!
Maybe I'm a bit thick, but I can't be the only one in the world that doesn't understand the various religious and politcal differences of all the various different Muslims groups in Iraq.
Can anyone explain it in just a few sentences - as though I were a 12 yr old!
The sunnis are the minority, who ruled during the Saddam era. The others are Shiites, who are the majority, and 'repressed' by Saddam. No idea who else there is...
The sunnis are, as far as I know, the ones responsible for most of the nasty stuff.
All extremely lay man type stuff..
And there are the Kurds too, but I think they want a seperate country for themselves.
>> Edited by andy mac on Tuesday 16th August 19:30
The sunnis are, as far as I know, the ones responsible for most of the nasty stuff.
All extremely lay man type stuff..
And there are the Kurds too, but I think they want a seperate country for themselves.
>> Edited by andy mac on Tuesday 16th August 19:30
Trust Auntie Beeb to give a decent low-down...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2002/conflict_with_iraq/default.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2002/conflict_with_iraq/default.stm
andy mac said:
The sunnis are the minority, who ruled during the Saddam era. The others are Shiites, who are the majority, and 'repressed' by Saddam. No idea who else there is...
The sunnis are, as far as I know, the ones responsible for most of the nasty stuff.
So the Sunnis are shites, but the Shiites have a sunny disposition? It is confusing, isn't it...
Never looked at it that way!!Ok (my understanding)
The Kerds own the north and were fought mainly for oil as they wanted to split Iraq and allow themselfs to create their own country in the Northen part, these are the poor sods who started a political uprising and were left by Mr Bush Snr. to face the wrath.
The Shias were the most persicuted by the Sunnis and mainly own the south and are a much simpler people.
The Sunnis are the smallest of the group BUT were the main saddam supporters and controllers of the old country and hate the Kerds.
Biggest problem with the Sunnis is that they opposed the vote and would not stand hence they now are even smaller politically and as the oil fields are north/south they get the centre (ie sod all) and are NOT amused.
The Kerds own the north and were fought mainly for oil as they wanted to split Iraq and allow themselfs to create their own country in the Northen part, these are the poor sods who started a political uprising and were left by Mr Bush Snr. to face the wrath.
The Shias were the most persicuted by the Sunnis and mainly own the south and are a much simpler people.
The Sunnis are the smallest of the group BUT were the main saddam supporters and controllers of the old country and hate the Kerds.
Biggest problem with the Sunnis is that they opposed the vote and would not stand hence they now are even smaller politically and as the oil fields are north/south they get the centre (ie sod all) and are NOT amused.
As usual, colonialism has a large part to play in the current unrest. Iraq as we know it today is largely a construct of European powers, mainly Britain, it has to be said.
These European formed countries in Africa and the Middle East often lumped together peoples of very different cultures, religions or tribes to suit the Europeans' administrative needs. Now that these countries have been "handed back" to their original inhabitatnts, they find it very difficult to integrate properly in that they have been "handed back" a country that didn't eveolve "naturally" but was forced upon the naytive peoples by their colonial masters.
I am pretty convinced that the root cause of much of Africa's current troubles is down to these, sometimes arbitary, European imposed boundaries of the 18th and 19th centuries.
These European formed countries in Africa and the Middle East often lumped together peoples of very different cultures, religions or tribes to suit the Europeans' administrative needs. Now that these countries have been "handed back" to their original inhabitatnts, they find it very difficult to integrate properly in that they have been "handed back" a country that didn't eveolve "naturally" but was forced upon the naytive peoples by their colonial masters.
I am pretty convinced that the root cause of much of Africa's current troubles is down to these, sometimes arbitary, European imposed boundaries of the 18th and 19th centuries.
So all the problems in the Middle East, Africa et al are as a direct result of Colonialism, which since Britain had the largest Empire the World has ever known, means that we British arte effectively to blame.
Great.
But why just stop at Colonialism, since this only occured WEF the 16th & 17th Centuries. What about the French invasion in 1066 ? The earlier Roman Invasions ? Gengus Khan, Alexander the Great ?
Such a simplistic & frankly naive view is broadly in line with the current mantra, which dictates that nobody is responsible for their own actions & its always someones elses fault.
Great.
But why just stop at Colonialism, since this only occured WEF the 16th & 17th Centuries. What about the French invasion in 1066 ? The earlier Roman Invasions ? Gengus Khan, Alexander the Great ?
Such a simplistic & frankly naive view is broadly in line with the current mantra, which dictates that nobody is responsible for their own actions & its always someones elses fault.
If these silly Middle Eastern types could get bloody *religion* out of their heads, they could stop fighting each other and everybody else and the world would be a much nicer place.
What is it about the Middle Eastern psyche that makes the so susceptible to a few lines of nonsense written centuries ago? Is it a desire to follow something, a lack of independent will?
What is it about the Middle Eastern psyche that makes the so susceptible to a few lines of nonsense written centuries ago? Is it a desire to follow something, a lack of independent will?
As has been said, the Sunni moslems are a minority, the Shia moslems are the majority. The Kurds inhabit the north of Iraq (as well as other countries, including eastern Turkey) and would like their own country. It is further complicated by the fact that most Kurds are Sunni moslems.
NB Don't confuse Sunni and Shia with Sonny and Cher. That may offend.
Unlike MILF, I think the colonialism point made by Eric Mc does have some validity (though it is certainly not the cause of "all problems in the Middle East, Africa et al"
. Many political frictions within ME/African countries are undoubtedly the result of tribal conflicts, and the faction in control can exercise its prejudices in the name of the state (genocide, persecution etc).
But whilst many tribal factions have indeed been grouped together under one nation arbitrarily imposed by a colonial power, there is nothing to say that these factions would not be at each others' throats today if there had been no colonialism at all. The root cause of the problems between tribal factions is the hatred these tribal factions have for one another, not colonialism itself.
NB Don't confuse Sunni and Shia with Sonny and Cher. That may offend.
Unlike MILF, I think the colonialism point made by Eric Mc does have some validity (though it is certainly not the cause of "all problems in the Middle East, Africa et al"
. Many political frictions within ME/African countries are undoubtedly the result of tribal conflicts, and the faction in control can exercise its prejudices in the name of the state (genocide, persecution etc). But whilst many tribal factions have indeed been grouped together under one nation arbitrarily imposed by a colonial power, there is nothing to say that these factions would not be at each others' throats today if there had been no colonialism at all. The root cause of the problems between tribal factions is the hatred these tribal factions have for one another, not colonialism itself.
Eric Mc said:
As usual, colonialism has a large part to play in the current unrest. Iraq as we know it today is largely a construct of European powers, mainly Britain, it has to be said.
These European formed countries in Africa and the Middle East often lumped together peoples of very different cultures, religions or tribes to suit the Europeans' administrative needs. Now that these countries have been "handed back" to their original inhabitatnts, they find it very difficult to integrate properly in that they have been "handed back" a country that didn't eveolve "naturally" but was forced upon the naytive peoples by their colonial masters.
I am pretty convinced that the root cause of much of Africa's current troubles is down to these, sometimes arbitary, European imposed boundaries of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Identity, albeit postcolonial identity or not, is the key to these issues. Groups, clans, tribes, whatever you wish to call them are never clumped together, black and white. Such boundaries that are broken down by any influence, be it war, invasion, colonialism etc, are responsible for a regigging of groups and identities. Likewise the independence of a country or state breaks boundaries of groups too - often embryotic colonies or factions are born as a result of disruption, and, as Eric says, are once again broken down when independence is 'granted' and those groups are expected to digress back to the identities they carried before. It simply doesn't happen, specifically over longer periods of time, say over generations.
I think it is often the minor factions and groups who lack a 'place' or 'identity' that cause the most problems. Those who hover above the boundaries of set factions are those who are most miserable, and those who are likely to create havoc.
If you've never read Salman Rushdie's 'Shame', then I would recommend it, because this has a go at trying to represent the amalgamation and degradation of groups and what really happens to those that hover on the border lines with no real identity at all.
There's my bolax for the day. But I just find it interesting.
Many of the previously moderate sunni kurds became radicalised after the first gulf war. A combination of sanctions and the lack of Saddams iron grip gave rise to a more Sulfi/Wahabbi (not japanese green mustard) type of islamic practice. I'm currently reading this book by jason burke which is excellent, it gives you a very good picture of the complexities of modern radical islam.
www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1850433968/qid=1124272871/sr=8-2/ref=pd_ka_2/202-1169517-7604603
www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1850433968/qid=1124272871/sr=8-2/ref=pd_ka_2/202-1169517-7604603
MilnerR said:
Many of the previously moderate sunni kurds became radicalised after the first gulf war. A combination of sanctions and the lack of Saddams iron grip gave rise to a more Sulfi/Wahabbi (not japanese green mustard) type of islamic practice. I'm currently reading this book by jason burke which is excellent, it gives you a very good picture of the complexities of modern radical islam.
www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1850433968/qid=1124272871/sr=8-2/ref=pd_ka_2/202-1169517-7604603
You need to get out more mate
MilnerR said:
Many of the previously moderate sunni kurds became radicalised after the first gulf war. A combination of sanctions and the lack of Saddams iron grip gave rise to a more Sulfi/Wahabbi (not japanese green mustard) type of islamic practice. I'm currently reading this book by jason burke which is excellent, it gives you a very good picture of the complexities of modern radical islam.
www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1850433968/qid=1124272871/sr=8-2/ref=pd_ka_2/202-1169517-7604603
I take issue with Sufi being used as an example of radicalism. It really isn't. Sufism is spiritualistic Islam and is rooted in a mixture of a number of philosophies entangled with Islam, such as Buddism. It's also a very poetic and creative type of Islam.
Wahabbi-ism is an ultra extreme form of Sunni Islam, that is being used now to radicalise, all over the world. It has been encouraged by the Saudis and then flourished in Afganistan, melded together with CIA training became a tool for terroism.
Raify said:
Slightly O/T for a moment.
968, you seem to know a great deal (more than me anyhow!) about Islam. I was thinking about reading some sort of book about it / the Qu'ran. Know of any good / balanced ones?
Cheers, Nathan
Difficult question.... First thing to say, would be read a translation of the Quran itself. Arthur Arberry's translation is a good start.
It's also very important to understand the history and social context of Arabia at that time, and there are very good books written by a Nun (oddly enough) called Karen Armstrong, about the time and a particularly good biography of Muhammed, which contains a number of revelations about the prophet which would be a big surprise to most people who have pretty pre-conceived ideas about him.
That would be a good start......
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff