Wave Of Violence Across Iraq Kills More Than 100, Injures Hundreds

[Steely Dan]

The culture of the region is steeped in a long tradition of violence.

As is the culture of every region of this planet populated by humans.

Yep them Quakers and Amish go at it hammer and tongs, as do the Hare Krishnas and Jains.

[folium]

The culture of the region is steeped in a long

tradition of violence.

As is the culture of every region of this planet

populated by humans.

Yep them Quakers and Amish go at it hammer

and tongs, as do the Hare Krishnas and Jains.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum//public/style_e

moticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/

As ever an over-focus on religious groups (and tiny ones to boot) and ignoring the wider picture spoils your argument.

The Quakers and Amish originated in Europe and spread to N. America, neither region being unknown to profound violence and even genocide.

The Jains and Hare Krishna hail from S.Asia again hardly renowned as a cradle of peace and harmony.

Humans are a nasty lot and resort to violence at frequent opportunities. No geographical region( (or major religion) is immune to this failing.

[Steely Dan]

As ever an over-focus on religious groups (and tiny ones to boot) and ignoring the wider picture spoils your argument.

The Quakers and Amish originated in Europe and spread to N. America, neither region being unknown to profound violence and even genocide.

The Jains and Hare Krishna hail from S.Asia again hardly renowned as a cradle of peace and harmony.

Humans are a nasty lot and resort to violence at frequent opportunities. No geographical region( (or major religion) is immune to this failing.

Your nothing to see here stance never ceases to amuse me. Take a look at the U.S joint counter-terrorism figures to see some cultures are more problematic than others. It does show the Shia Muslims need to raise their game somewhat if they plan to compete with their Sunni rivals, as the Iatest Iraq violence illustrates.

[GiHadOrange]

Never believe in a statistics that has an edit button right on top right.

And what makes you think that we should count and consider only that as violence what the U.S. calls terrorism?

[folium]

As ever an over-focus on religious groups (and tiny ones to boot) and ignoring the wider picture spoils your argument.

The Quakers and Amish originated in Europe and spread to N. America, neither region being unknown to profound violence and even genocide.

The Jains and Hare Krishna hail from S.Asia again hardly renowned as a

cradle of peace and harmony.

Humans are a nasty lot and resort to violence at frequent opportunities. No

geographical region( (or major religion) is immune to this failing.

Your nothing to see here stance never ceases to amuse me. Take a look

at the U.S joint counter-terrorism figures to see some cultures are more

problematic than others. It does show the Shia Muslims need to raise their

game somewhat if they plan to compete with their Sunni rivals, as the

Iatest Iraq violence illustrates.

Crass comments aside, you again fixate on religion and conveniently ignore the fact that these terrorist acts are largely occurring in just 2 countries (Afghan & Iraq) thanks to the clash of Civilizations crew and their disastrous campaigns waged in these 2 countries.

[Steely Dan]

Crass comments aside, you again fixate on religion and conveniently ignore the fact that these terrorist acts are largely occurring in just 2 countries (Afghan & Iraq) thanks to the clash of Civilizations crew and their disastrous campaigns waged in these 2 countries.

Just in case it's escaped your attention most Muslims are killed by other Muslims in bouts of mutual Islamophobia, which pre-date any western intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan by centuries. Also 3000 odd deaths on 9/11 came without western presence in the aforementioned Countries. Furthermore although Iraq and Afghanistan are both descending into chaos Islamist violence spans the globe; from the Philippines and Thailand to flare ups in Russia and China, not to mention Saharan Africa or Nigeria so perhaps we have quite a few more people believing in the clash of civilizations than a few American neocons.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Steely Dan

[folium]

Crass comments aside, you again fixate on religion and conveniently ignore the fact that these terrorist acts are largely occurring in just 2

countries (Afghan & Iraq) thanks to the clash of

Civilizations crew and their disastrous campaigns

waged in these 2 countries.

Just in case it's escaped your attention most

Muslims are killed by other Muslims in bouts of

mutual Islamophobia, which pre-date any

western intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan by

centuries. Also 3000 odd deaths on 9/11 came

without western presence in the aforementioned

Countries. Furthermore although Iraq and

Afghanistan are both descending into chaos

Islamist violence spans the globe; from the

Philippines and Thailand to flare ups in Russia

and China, not to mention Saharan Africa or

Nigeria so perhaps we have quite a few more

people believing in the clash of civilizations than

a few American neocons.

Well it's nice to see you coming over historical, thought you weren't too much into that!

Well western powers have been involved in Afghan and Iraq/mesopotamia in recent history since the 1860's . I will leave out Alexander the Great's incursions/ occupations of both countries as that predates Islam and doesn't really help your argument.

So do please explain your outbursts of "mutual islamophobia" (whatever that could possibly mean, do you mean sectarian strife?) that have killed most Muslims prior to the mid 19th century.

Returning to your quoted terrorism stats I presume they were from the. 2010 report published in 2011. Thus the pertinent campaigns are those in Iraq/Afghan.

As we have discussed before Islamic terrorism in Europe has been luckily/pathetically inept in the last 30 years compared to the efforts of Irish nationalists, even with their significant "successes" on the London tubes/bus and Spanish trains.

Similarly 9/11 has been the sole significant mass casualty event on US soil and anyway you were highlighting stats for 2010?

Ironically it has been the inept political handling and constant mission creep of the Clash of Civilizations crew that have ensured the dismal failure of both.campaigns in Iraq/Afghan as reflected in the stats you quote.

[Steely Dan]

So do please explain your outbursts of "mutual islamophobia" (whatever that could possibly mean, do you mean sectarian strife?) that have killed most Muslims prior to the mid 19th century.

Returning to your quoted terrorism stats I presume they were from the. 2010 report published in 2011. Thus the pertinent campaigns are those in Iraq/Afghan.

As we have discussed before Islamic terrorism in Europe has been luckily/pathetically inept in the last 30 years compared to the efforts of Irish nationalists, even with their significant "successes" on the London tubes/bus and Spanish trains.

Similarly 9/11 has been the sole significant mass casualty event on US soil and anyway you were highlighting stats for 2010?

Ironically it has been the inept political handling and constant mission creep of the Clash of Civilizations crew that have ensured the dismal failure of both.campaigns in Iraq/Afghan as reflected in the stats you quote.

Mutual Islamophobia. Well lets just say any non-complimentary or non-deferential comment about Islam from non-Muslims is greeted in some quarters by howls of 'Islamophobe', whilst when Muslims deign to blow each other up in large numbers barely any condemnation or even comment is made, save to shrug and blame it on the west for interfering.

Indeed I listed a few of the troubled areas where Muslims are killing either infidels or fellow Muslims where there has been no western intervention just to show the falseness of this argument.

Iraq is a disaster because as with Libya and Syria a secular tyrant was the only thing saving the population from Islamist rule, which is arguably worse than that of a secular tyrant. Perhaps this is what other posters meant when stating the culture was always prone to violence. Compare and contrast with the aftermath when say Nicolae Chauchesku was removed from power. No truck bombs destroying markets and such like followed, draw your own conclusions why, but the answer is obvious even though you intently avoid recognizing the elephant in the room.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Steely Dan

[folium]

So do please explain your outbursts of "mutual islamophobia" (whatever that could possibly mean, do you mean sectarian strife?) that have killed most Muslims prior to the mid 19th century.

Returning to your quoted terrorism stats I presume they were from the. 2010 report published in 2011. Thus the pertinent campaigns are those in

Iraq/Afghan.

As we have discussed before Islamic terrorism in Europe has been

luckily/pathetically inept in the last 30 years compared to the efforts of

Irish nationalists, even with their significant "successes" on the London

tubes/bus and Spanish trains.

Similarly 9/11 has been the sole significant mass casualty event on US soil

and anyway you were highlighting stats for 2010?

Ironically it has been the inept political handling and constant mission

creep of the Clash of Civilizations crew that have ensured the dismal failure

of both.campaigns in Iraq/Afghan as reflected in the stats you quote.

Mutual Islamophobia. Well lets just say any non-complimentary or non-

deferential comment about Islam from non-Muslims is greeted in some quarters by howls of 'Islamophobe', whilst when Muslims deign to blow each other up in large numbers barely any condemnation or even comment

is made, save to shrug and blame it on the west for interfering.

Indeed I listed a few of the troubled areas where Muslims are killing either

infidels or fellow Muslims where there has been no western intervention

just to show the falseness of this argument.

Iraq is a disaster because as with Libya and Syria a secular tyrant was the

only thing saving the population from Islamist rule, which is arguably worse

than that of a secular tyrant. Perhaps this is what other posters meant

when stating the culture was always prone to violence. Compare and

contrast with the aftermath when say Nicolae Chauchesku was removed

from power. No truck bombs destroying markets and such like followed,

draw your own conclusions why, but the answer is obvious even though

you intently avoid recognizing the elephant in the room.

Notice you avoided addressing your historical inaccuracies and where did your terrorism stats come from and for what year and for that year how many occurred in Iraq or Afghan (it's probably bard to separate out the Afghan related Incidents in Pakistan so that might improve your stance somewhat.

So secular despots or dictators are more to your liking? While Romania may not have imploded post-Ceaucescu, Yugoslvia did a pretty impressive job post Tito with some 140,000-160,000 dead and over 7 million displaced, but I suppose that was all due to the Muslim Bosniaks?

Re casting Muslims as a "culture of violence", sticking with the Balkans it would seem there are grounds for identifying a cultures of violence there

and to underline that it is not just a Muslim issue check out the Ustase and

their enthusiasm for butchering over 500,000 non Catholics during WW2. Even the Nazis were shocked!

"Cultures of violence" could also be identified in Russia, China, Ireland, Mexico, Guatemala, Rwanda, Burundi, most Polynesian islands pre colonialism, Glasgow on a Friday night etc etc, to name a few non Muslim countries with a predilection for violence that seems to be part of their history/ culture.

[maidu]

As ever an over-focus on religious groups (and tiny ones to boot) and ignoring the wider picture spoils your argument.

The Quakers and Amish originated in Europe and spread to N. America, neither region being unknown to profound violence and even genocide.

The Jains and Hare Krishna hail from S.Asia again hardly renowned as a cradle of peace and harmony.

Humans are a nasty lot and resort to violence at frequent opportunities. No geographical region( (or major religion) is immune to this failing.

Your nothing to see here stance never ceases to amuse me. Take a look at the U.S joint counter-terrorism figures to see some cultures are more problematic than others. It does show the Shia Muslims need to raise their game somewhat if they plan to compete with their Sunni rivals, as the Iatest Iraq violence illustrates.

Interesting graph. Does it include the many clashes within Africa also? Congo, Mali, the Somalia, Libya, Rwanda, ad nauseum....

Ironically it has been the inept political handling and constant mission creep of the Clash of Civilizations crew that have ensured the dismal failure of both.campaigns in Iraq/Afghan as reflected in the stats you quote.

The campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan waged by 'western powers' can be seen in different ways, as 'glass half full or half empty' or somewhere in between. Unfortunately, those two countries and their neighbors have been and will continue to be rife with dire problems. Whether their problems would be less or more without western intervention is debatable. If you were a woman there, or had daughters in either of those countries, you'd probably welcome western interference. If you wanted to have a whisper of hope in any sort of democratic process or a modicum of freedom of speech/thought, you'd probably be glad to see the Saddam and the Taliban getting their butts smacked.

[chooka]

Good to see the western democracy model enforced upon these people is working well for them.

Western nations have to learn stop medling in the affairs of others. At least Saddam kept his country in check and unfortunately because he didn't tow the U.S line he was assasinated which, with thanks to the U.S has thrown the country into turmoil.

[Credo]

I think some of the neighbors of Saddam are probably quite happy for the meddling. He certainly caused plenty of problems in the neighborhood. Remember the Iran-Iraq War and Kuwait?

[Steely Dan]

Notice you avoided addressing your historical inaccuracies and where did your terrorism stats come from and for what year and for that year how many occurred in Iraq or Afghan (it's probably bard to separate out the Afghan related Incidents in Pakistan so that might improve your stance somewhat.

So secular despots or dictators are more to your liking? While Romania may not have imploded post-Ceaucescu, Yugoslvia did a pretty impressive job post Tito with some 140,000-160,000 dead and over 7 million displaced, but I suppose that was all due to the Muslim Bosniaks?

Re casting Muslims as a "culture of violence", sticking with the Balkans it would seem there are grounds for identifying a cultures of violence there

and to underline that it is not just a Muslim issue check out the Ustase and

their enthusiasm for butchering over 500,000 non Catholics during WW2. Even the Nazis were shocked!

"Cultures of violence" could also be identified in Russia, China, Ireland, Mexico, Guatemala, Rwanda, Burundi, most Polynesian islands pre colonialism, Glasgow on a Friday night etc etc, to name a few non Muslim countries with a predilection for violence that seems to be part of their history/ culture.

A reminder (in case it were needed), this thread is about Muslims killing fellow Muslims in Iraq post any western involvement there. It is true that geographically and historically speaking most of humanity has behaved with extreme violence at one time or another, but this is all a big red herring.

Now in 2012 a huge proportion of the violence stems from extremists who follow Sunni Islam. This is different from local and unrelated trouble spots such as the IRA in Ireland or the Basque separatists in Spain. To underline, it is jihad which is the common denominator. Only days ago British and Italian journalists were released in Syria having been held hostage by Islamic extremists, some of whom had Birmingham accents! This rent 'a' jihaddist trend where extremists spanning the globe turn up to blow up civilians in Iraq or stone to death adulterers in Mali is the blight to which I refer. This is happening today, as oppose to the Nazis decades ago or the Spanish inquisition hundreds of years ago.

Indeed Muslims are probably suffering from this ideology more than anyone else, however sadly some seem intent on clouding the issue in any and every way in order not to address this uncomfortable fact.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Steely Dan

[simple1]

I think some of the neighbors of Saddam are probably quite happy for the meddling. He certainly caused plenty of problems in the neighborhood. Remember the Iran-Iraq War and Kuwait?

And the USA certainly helped Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war that he initiated.