I saw this the other day and thought it deserved center stage. We have criticized Muslims in the past for not speaking out against extremism, so I felt it only fair to lend a helping hand to someone doing just that. Even if it is only on this humble blog.
83 comments:
Syria
Iraq
This is not my sandwich
"We have criticized Muslims in the past for not speaking out
against extremism…"
A lot of that criticism comes from people who routinely ignore all statements from Muslims who do go out of their way to explicitly reject extremism. Just for one instance--the mosque in Phoenix which was the religious home of the would-be-terrorists in Garland, Texas, that mosque issued a public statement, and I believe there was also a sermon from the pulpit, denouncing the two guys who tried to invade the cartoon competition in Garland. You didn't hear about that from the clowns who went to protest at that mosque though.
This is not my sandwich
:)
Hmmm...always cryptic.
Just for one instance--the mosque in Phoenix which was the religious home of the would-be-terrorists in Garland, Texas, that mosque issued a public statement, and I believe there was also a sermon from the pulpit, denouncing the two guys who tried to invade the cartoon competition in Garland. You didn't hear about that from the clowns who went to protest at that mosque though.
Extremists come in many flavors. Words of support for the sermon would have been a better idea.
Philae is awake!.
"Words of support for the sermon would have been a better idea."
Perhaps more to the point: I recall IRA bombings against London and various other acts of terrorism in my youth. I don't recall widespread howling about American Catholic congregations supposed silence on the subject nor any suggestions that they had to go on record denouncing the IRA.
I'm afraid I don't know much about the IRA, but wasn't that group more intent on removing anything British from Northern Ireland rather than focusing on religious differences? People accuse the US of making war on Islam but it seems that Islam, in the form of ISIL and its supporters, is attempting to make war on...well, just about everyone, in the name of Islam? Perhaps it should come as no surprise that some people are intent on finding out what Islam means to its followers.
Jurassic World opened this weekend. I went and made my contribution to the opening weekend box office receipts. Very good, and fun to watch on the big screen. It perhaps did not have as much humor, or interesting interaction between characters, as the original Jurassic Park, but still very good. :)
"Perhaps it should come as no surprise that some people are intent
on finding out what Islam means to its followers."
People who were intent on finding out what it means to its followers would be asking its followers what it means. I hadn't noticed a lot of that happening.
I thought we were originally discussing how ‘We have criticized Muslims…for not speaking out against ISIS’. Which is a different subject entirely.
Okay, this is totally pissing me off. Using impressionable kids is cowardly.
People who were intent on finding out what it means to its followers would be asking its followers what it means. I hadn't noticed a lot of that happening.
No, not with that group outside the mosque in AZ. There wasn't a whole lot of listening going on either. If there had been they would have noticed the sermon.
I thought we were originally discussing how ‘We have criticized Muslims…for not speaking out against ISIS’. Which is a different subject entirely.
Yes. And we should be offering our support to those Muslims who are just as disgusted with ISIL's behavior as we are. So those people on news shows, which is who I was thinking about when I wrote that, should maybe consider a little equal time for those who are speaking out. Because they have a right to be heard.
Btw, did you catch 60 Minutes last night? They had a piece on radical Islam followers in Britain. It reminded me of that Republican(was it Jindal?) who talked about no go places in Europe for those who didn't believe in Sharia law. While the areas they talked about didn't seem quite that extreme, there apparently are areas where residents have set up some kind of patrols to try to get people to follow some Islamic law, such as women covering up and no smoking or alcohol use. They showed them confronting some people on the street about those issues. I wasn't too impressed with the 60 Minutes reporter. She told the fellow they were interviewing that he had the right to do what he wanted to in his own home and speak his beliefs, but when he then turned to her and told her she should cover up her response was rather tongue tied. What she should have said was that while he had a right to his beliefs he didn't have the right to infringe on her beliefs(in not covering up). She also should have made clear that while he had the right to do what he wanted to do in his own home, he didn't have the right to break the laws in Britain to do it.
Lee: "A lot of that criticism comes from people who routinely ignore all statements from Muslims who do go out of their way to explicitly reject extremism."
I've heard many muslims denounce IS and I believe most are sincere. Those that choose to ignore those voices against extremism because they want to further the idea that "no muslims speak out" are IMO contributing to the problem. Muslim voices against IS and extremism should not be ignored but put forth as good examples for muslims and non-muslims alike.
But there is also a problem with sayig one thing to western media and another in private sessions in the mosque. That's not to say all or most muslim figureheads do that, but those that do will tend to seek out positions as leaders in the muslim community. At least in Europe we've seen such examples.
The aim for both the muslim community and society in general must be work together to weed out such infiltrators from positions of religous authority. How exactly thst is to be done and done in a way that doesn't turn into a witch hunt is a questiion that I have no clear answer to.
"Btw, did you catch 60 Minutes last night?"
I caught the latter part of that report. It was on when I was channel surfing past it, and I stopped and caught the last probably ⅔ of it. I noted that the old guy who was the target of the piece has been picked up and is now out on bail, and that the young guy (smart ass who told the reporter she should cover up) has fled Britain for ISIS controlled Syria just a jump ahead of having his bail revoked and being placed back in police custody.
"So those people on news shows, which is who I was thinking
about when I wrote that…"
Yeah, those are the ones I was thinking about too. Sean Hannity had that older Brit Muslim on his radio show several weeks back, trying to incite him into saying outrageous things and then portray him as average Islam. My point was that you'll not hear Hannity, nor any of those other folks who're criticizing Muslims for ‘not speaking out’, ever mention it when Muslims do speak against ISIS. They never mention that, and then they come around on their shows and tell their audience that the ‘nobody ever hears Muslim speak out against extremism. Well, nobody who listens to FoxNews ever hears about it, ‘cause FoxNews never reports on it when it happens. (Nobody else seems to consider it a big enough deal to make a big deal over it, so they also don't generally consider it newsworthy when it happens.)
Tell me… When's the last time you heard any reporting on what's going on inside American mosques? Either pro or anti ISIS? It's just not considered newsworthy by most news organizations.
I do know this… We keep grabbing guys who've been trying to either join ISIS or blow up something, and find they keep getting their explosives from the FBI, only to get picked up by said FBI driving a car load of inert fake-explosive to their intended target. Happens every couple of months or so. That's not by accident. They keep getting turned in by other Muslims who're tellin’ the feds they need to be watchin’ this or that particular fella who's started to talk crazy.
Way back in ‘91, just after the 9/11 incidents, the FBI started sending agents into mosques disguised as worshipers, trying to find who were the dangerous ones. They quit that program rapidly for 3 reasons: #1. It offended the hell outta the congregations, not mention the Imams, who didn't like being under surveillance at church. #2. Turned out to be totally unnecessary. Muslims were coming to them, and saying--"Need to keep a watch on this guy; he's talkin’ crazy talk.". #3. Offending the hell outta Muslims at worship was likely to put an end to item # 2, as loyal, peaceful Muslims begin to think maybe the crazy talk might be warranted. Even the FBI figured that out.
"I've heard many muslims denounce IS and I believe most are sincere."
I don't think we get as much of that over here, because most Muslims don't think they need to make a point of it--sorta goes without sayin’ that ISIS is the bad guys. Isn't that obvious? But, we've got a radical reactionary element who, like you mentioned, and Lynnette mentioned before you, keep wanting to bang that ‘you never hear them denounce ISIS’ drumbeat. Apparently, Lynnette's been hearing those folks' chatter starting to make it off of FoxNews and Radio-Right-Wing into the general population. I haven't heard much of that around here, except among the FoxNews/Radio-Right-Wing followers, but she's closer to a large Muslim population than I am, so maybe it's gaining greater traction in her area than local to me.
"…but those that do will tend to seek out positions as leaders in the
muslim community."
They're gettin’ turned in too.
Lee: "They're gettin’ turned in too."
Not so much here. Here they're usually found only after having sent a couple kids to IS-territory. When the kids' parents freak out.
We're getting relatively fewer of those too. Maybe a hundred made it to Syria/Iraq, another hundred they say tried and didn't make it, or are under surveillance on the theory they may try.
Tell me… When's the last time you heard any reporting on what's going on inside American mosques? Either pro or anti ISIS? It's just not considered newsworthy by most news organizations.
The only thing they seem to consider newsworthy is if there is some kind of community backlash against a mosque or Islamic center being built. What happens inside is, for the most part, protected under freedom of religion. I say for the most part because any hate speech probably would not be.
I do know this… We keep grabbing guys who've been trying to either join ISIS or blow up something, and find they keep getting their explosives from the FBI, only to get picked up by said FBI driving a car load of inert fake-explosive to their intended target. Happens every couple of months or so. That's not by accident. They keep getting turned in by other Muslims who're tellin’ the feds they need to be watchin’ this or that particular fella who's started to talk crazy.
The United States is their home, protecting it from the crazies is in their interest.
Offending the hell outta Muslims at worship was likely to put an end to item # 2, as loyal, peaceful Muslims begin to think maybe the crazy talk might be warranted. Even the FBI figured that out.
Well, at least they're teachable. :)
You will find crazies where ever you go. Look at the guy who had an ax to grind against the Dallas police for a child custody issue and went on a rampage recently. Another copycat crazy.
When the kids' parents freak out.
That just shows that parents need to keep a closer eye on their kids, especially their internet activities. If you care for someone you can't just let them be suckered into being used as cannon fodder by some bearded thug who is living in the 7th century. Despite what they may think, teenagers do not know everything.
P.S.
In this case "tough love" may mean calling the authorities.
But, we've got a radical reactionary element who, like you mentioned, and Lynnette mentioned before you, keep wanting to bang that ‘you never hear them denounce ISIS’ drumbeat. Apparently, Lynnette's been hearing those folks' chatter starting to make it off of FoxNews and Radio-Right-Wing into the general population.
It's not prevalent, but every once in a while you'll run across it in the oddest places. This issue isn't really at the forefront of people's thoughts, except in the newsy community. Then it will pop up once in a while.
"What happens inside is, for the most part, protected under freedom
of religion."
I have heard talk that the Imams are often rather more conservative than the congregations, and that this is trending the congregations towards the more conservative interpretations. I've read that this is largely caused by heavy Saudi financing both of the building of mosques and especially the compensation of the preachers.
The Wiki article on the Saudi, Wahabi trust for North America indicates they're also heavily involved in hostile takeovers of more moderate mosques.
Completely off topic but this clip is hilarious. A young girl working in a store in Finland shows how shoplifters should be dealt with:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNByEOjehMM&feature=youtu.be
Outnumbered by two guys she peppersprays one and drags his ass back into the store and hits the alarm-button.
NAIT finances and holds titles to mosques, Islamic schools, and other real estate to safeguard and pool the assets of the American Muslim community, develops financial vehicles and financial products that are compatible with both Shari'ah and American law, publishes and distributes Islamic literature, provides legal advice to Muslim organizations, and facilitates and coordinates Islamic community projects.[3]
In this statement the "American law" wording is the most critical. No organization is above the law, and that includes religious ones of any flavor.
Wahabi trust for North America indicates they're also heavily involved in hostile takeovers of more moderate mosques.
Perhaps it would be of value to consider a law against foreign funding of religious organizations within the United States. Isn't there some law against accepting foreign donations for political contributions?
I'm impressed, Marcus, with that girl's tenacity. For awhile there it looked like she was playing tug of war with that guy's friend. lol! She has "true grit".
Not so impressed with some of the commenters on the thread below that video though. It appears to be infested with racists. *sigh*
"In this statement the ‘American law’ wording is the most critical."
Or, maybe not. As we have recently seen in the proliferation of financial instruments on Wall Street, and especially during the last economic melt down, there's not much in the way of ‘American law’ on the regulation of financial instruments that survived the de-regulation frenzy beginning in the Reagan years and continuing through the Clinton administration.
"No organization is above the law, and that includes religious ones
of any flavor."
That's not as clear as you seem to think it is. Mennonites and Amish are exempt from manditory child education requirements; Quakers can't be drafted into the military (nor Mennonites nor Amish nor Jehovah's Witnesses); some American Indians are free to possess and use traditional psychedelic drugs; I could go on….
"Perhaps it would be of value to consider a law against foreign
funding of religious organizations within the United States."
As much as I am emotionally opposed to Wahabi evangelizing within the United States, I am unable to support trying to curtail it by law. It is as true of Christian sects as Islamic ones, the fundies tend to be the ones most involved with evangelizing and proselytizing. That's just the way it is. Wahabi trying to spread their influence within America is just one of those things we're gonna havta learn to live with as the price and one peril of living in a free society.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I didn't bother with the comments, but it occurred to me immediately that the girl would likely have gotten the shit kicked out of her if she'd tried that tug-of-war with a bud from the hood in New York City or Los Angeles, or bunch of places in between.
"Wahabi trying to spread their influence within America is
just one of those things we're gonna havta learn to live with as the price
and one peril of living in a free society."
At least we can count on them being anti-ISIS for the time being.
I didn't bother with the comments, but it occurred to me immediately that the girl would likely have gotten the shit kicked out of her if she'd tried that tug-of-war with a bud from the hood in New York City or Los Angeles, or bunch of places in between.
Me too. Although my scenario involved a gun being used. "True grit" has to be used judiciously, if only to survive to fight another day. :)
Lynnette: "Not so impressed with some of the commenters on the thread below that video though. It appears to be infested with racists. *sigh*"
Apparently it went viral on far-right webpages soon after it was made public on more mainstream sites. So folks who focus on the skincolour of the perps instead of the bravery of the girl (which is what ought to be highlited) rushed in to spam the comment section. Sigh indeed.
Lee: "I didn't bother with the comments, but it occurred to me immediately that the girl would likely have gotten the shit kicked out of her if she'd tried that tug-of-war with a bud from the hood in New York City or Los Angeles, or bunch of places in between."
Probably in many places over here as well. She must've decided she had the upper hand somehow.
But while it might not be good advice to tell lone girls in a store to follow her example, because of the potential harm that might cause them, it was refreshing to see I thought.
Mennonites and Amish are exempt from manditory child education requirements; Quakers can't be drafted into the military (nor Mennonites nor Amish nor Jehovah's Witnesses); some American Indians are free to possess and use traditional psychedelic drugs; I could go on….
Except in those cases the law was adjusted by lawmakers to apparently accommodate some religious practices whose intent isn't to harm anyone (psychedelic drugs aside). For the religious organization to do the adjusting is not within their purview.
That's just the way it is. Wahabi trying to spread their influence within America is just one of those things we're gonna havta learn to live with as the price and one peril of living in a free society.
I still disagree. Being part of a free society does not mean allowing foreign money in to support an agenda of a foreign country. The same principal that would not allow the acceptance of foreign political contributions applies to religion as well if religion is the dominate political focus of the foreign country in question, as it is in Saudi Arabia.
At least we can count on them being anti-ISIS for the time being.
Only to the extent that the House of Saud is threatened. If they were ever to fall to ISIL then the connections here would be used for ISIL's benefit.
But while it might not be good advice to tell lone girls in a store to follow her example, because of the potential harm that might cause them, it was refreshing to see I thought.
Yes. :) In her situation she was apparently able to judge correctly whether she could respond as she did safely. A resourceful young woman to be applauded. Reminded me of the mother in Baltimore.
"Except in those cases the law was adjusted by lawmakers to
apparently accommodate some religious practices…"
Actually, the government tried to apply compulsory education requirements to the Amish, who took it clear to the Supreme Court and won there. I believe the Indians went to court over their use of controlled substances too (I think I'll disagree with your apparent assertion that they intend to harm people with the religious use of peyote and psilocybin.)
"The same principal that would not allow the acceptance of foreign
political contributions applies to religion as well if…"
I understand your argument, but do not agree.
There is some evidence, by the way, that ‘peace pipes’ were originally packed with pot.
In a move I did not see coming for today, Donald Trump has announced this morning as a candidate for the GOP nomination for President.
Geronimo was born on this day in 1829 (or so it is said, Geronimo probably didn't know the exact day, or maybe even the year, he was born and probably just made one up to satisfy the publisher of his autobiography).
There is some evidence, by the way, that ‘peace pipes’ were originally packed with pot.
Hmmm...that might help mellow out the users, that's for sure. :)
Donald Trump has announced this morning as a candidate for the GOP nomination for President.
Yes, I saw that. Apparently he has a lot of time to waste...
I didn't realize there was such unhappiness in the EU marriage.
(H/T Petes)
A very good interview with Emma Sky about Iraq, Syria & the current situation. I knew there was a reason I never liked Joe Biden.
"A very good interview with Emma Sky about Iraq…"
I get "Content Unavailable please check back later".
Try again, it seemed to work this morning. The interview is in a post on Musings on Iraq blog. Emma Sky worked with the US military in Irbil. She was opposed to the Iraq invasion, but when Britain put out a request for help in rebuilding the country she went. She has a book out, which I may look for. She is highly critical of Joe Biden's role in what went wrong in Iraq starting in 2010, thinking Hilary Clinton would have done a better job in handling Iraq at that time. She is also, I think, perhaps seeing the usefulness of "Pax Americana". While that doesn't mean she agrees with invading countries, it's just that what she sees with the shredding of Middle East stability is so awful. She also has a solution, in general terms, to regaining stability in the Middle East.
I did try again; it decided to work. I got maybe 5 minutes into before I hit my bullshit limit and gave it up. (I looked her up and found she described herself as an activist and a political advisor; read: spinmiester, which helped explain the major bullshitting she engages in). If she goes on to propose a solution in general terms, it must come later in the piece. Maybe I should wade through it to the end, and see what she proposes.
Talked for damn near twenty minutes and I don't think she ever actually answered a single one of the interviewer's questions until near the end when she did opine that ‘Britain's role in the world is diminishing’, whatever that means. But it is what the interviewer asked.
Her ‘general solution’ appears to have been that ‘you have to have a regional policy’.
To say I was unimpressed would be an understatement.
I got maybe 5 minutes into before I hit my bullshit limit and gave it up.
Can you be specific on the bullshit? And, yes, she is upfront about having been opposed to the Iraq war and being an activist. But her understanding of the region appears quite extensive. The only thing that kind of bugged me was when she talked about the Iraqis calling her "Ms. Bell" as a reference to Gertrude Bell. That seemed a little like inflating her standing. It was actually the interviewer that kind of irritated me, especially when he appeared to cut her off when she began to talk about her opinion of "Pax Americana".
Her solution, as far as I could tell, was that the region needs to be brought back into a balance between the Sunni and Shia, which I suppose we all realize.
... she did opine that ‘Britain's role in the world is diminishing’, whatever that means.
I'm thinking she's been listening to our military somewhere along the line, because that came after she mentioned that about Great Britain reducing its military spending, and quite possibly having to integrate some of their people with ours if ever we needed to fight together.
Another thing, and I've noticed this before with another activist who has worked with our military, she was less critical of them than you would expect. I get the feeling that she came to appreciate their efforts more so than she was expecting to. But, I suppose I would have to read her book to see if I was right. You, obviously, had another impression entirely.
"Can you be specific on the bullshit?"
Her downplaying the ethnic tensions is a start.
No, wait a minute--we'll start with her assertion that Ramadi "held out for almost a year" against ISIS. They held out a couple of days, and left massed goodies for ISIS to pick up just like in Mosul. But, getting back to the Sunni/Shia thing…
She is apparently eager to overlook the Shia/Sunni conflict, the Shia uprising against Saddam's Sunni government and its consequent mass Shia graves scattered about the country. She likewise doesn't acknowledge the Kurdish/Arab conflict, or that the Kurds were in a constant state of revolt from the first Gulf War on through the second one; they never reconciled after the mass graves Saddam inflicted on them (almost as bad as what he did to the Shia).
The notion that Obama handed off the decision making to Biden is another joke--I have no idea how the hell she intends to pull that story off except to those truly credulous.
The notion that Allawi could have formed a government is equally ludicrous. The Kurds had the balance of power there, and they despised Allawi, who likewise despised them. No way in hell. And she spent her early time in Iraqi Kurdistan--she knew that.
About there is where I checked out the first time.
Just a quick change of subject, as I have this in my computer's memory...
What do you think of the Greece situation? Wall Street is laying odds at 75% that Greece will default. How do you think that is going to play on this side of the water if it comes to pass? Besides the shakes the stock market has been experiencing for the past few days, that is.
She is apparently eager to overlook the Shia/Sunni conflict, the Shia uprising against Saddam's Sunni government and its consequent mass Shia graves scattered about the country.
I think she does mention the mass graves and alludes to Saddam's behavior in stoking the fires, but I will admit she does seem to think for the most part that Sunnis and Shia were able to live together for centuries without too much mass slaughter. But she does not mention the Iran/Iraq War which killed a substantial number of people.
No, wait a minute--we'll start with her assertion that Ramadi "held out for almost a year" against ISIS.
Well, it did only fall recently, and I do believe that ISIL had been nibbling at its edges for a while. However, I am not sure how seriously they attempted to gobble it up until now. They seemed to have other targets in mind, Bayji being one.
She likewise doesn't acknowledge the Kurdish/Arab conflict, or that the Kurds were in a constant state of revolt from the first Gulf War on through the second one; they never reconciled after the mass graves Saddam inflicted on them (almost as bad as what he did to the Shia).
This is true. And it is questionable if the Kurds would have worked within the Iraqi governmental framework as long as they did if Saddam's Army had not been disbanded. Long memories there.
The notion that Obama handed off the decision making to Biden is another joke--I have no idea how the hell she intends to pull that story off except to those truly credulous.
She does mention that we were in a hurry to withdraw, which indeed would have been something that Obama, not Biden, would have been instrumental in the decision making on. I think perhaps her weak point was in not understanding the situation with the SOFA. We couldn't stay without one, really.
However, wasn't Biden involved in meetings in Iraq with various leaders there around about that time? Wasn't he in effect negotiating for us at the time?
The notion that Allawi could have formed a government is equally ludicrous. The Kurds had the balance of power there, and they despised Allawi, who likewise despised them. No way in hell.
I don't know much about the politics of that situation. Would the Kurds favor a government in Baghdad influenced by Iran to one influenced by Allawi? (Which, of course, is what they got.) Did they really believe that would fly with most Sunni politicians? Or were they so focused on secession that they didn't consider what would be left?
"I think she does mention the mass graves and alludes to
Saddam's behavior in stoking the fires…"
Very casually in passing. She doesn't mention the Shia uprising at all and only admits that Saddam ‘mass murdered people’, glossing over the fact that it was specifically Shia people in those mass graves. She rather clearly says that these are ‘not ancient hatreds’; what she doesn't say is that the conflict has only been suppresed so long as the power of the Ottoman Empire kept it tamped down (and then the Brits following them). Left to their own devices, they've been waiting 700 years to have this fight and get this settled between themselves.
"However, wasn't Biden…in effect negotiating for us at the time?"
Blame the messenger?
"I don't know much about the politics of that situation."
Allawi was a secular Shia who had primarily Sunni support in the beginning. His theory was that the Arab Sunni and Shia needed a common enemy to unite them and the Kurds were a natural choice. They'd simply take back Kirkuk (where Saddam had displaced the Kurds with Shia settlers, and the Kurds had been rapidly reversing that process), and then they'd have that Kurdish oil to give to the Sunni and everybody'd be happy (everybody that mattered to Allawi). Understandably, the Kurds were inclined to think that secession was a better idea. In point of fact, they've always thought that secession was the best idea and have been working towards that goal for years too.
"…the Greece situation."
I'm not sure what to think about that beyond wondering if the Masters of the Universe have offloaded enough of the Greek debt onto their customers to allow the default to proceed now. I've always thought that it was only being delayed long enough for them to offload as much of the Greek debt they carried as possible onto their customers. If that's been done now, then they'll let the Greek default proceed apace. (Possible also they just think they've run out ways to get the Greeks to coöperate in putting it off any longer while they tinker further with the books.)
Remember, the suffering of the Greeks (which is what your article focuses upon) is not considered a relevant factor by the creditors.
I honestly don't know how big a hit that'll be to the European or world economies--I think it's probably being overblown by the current holders of the debt so's to give them time to cover more of their exposure there.
"…long enough for them to offload as much of the Greek debt they
carried as possible onto their customers."
Or taxpayers; the IMF, the ECB, guarantees by whomever was willing to step up to get fleeced.
I went back and listened to the section where she was talking about the election in 2010. Apparently it was Odierno who believed that there could be a deal brokered by the US between Allawi and Maliki to form a government. Maliki had actually lost the election by 2 seats and Allawi's block had won, but apparently wasn't strong enough to form a government by themselves. But Biden was the one who wanted to support Maliki because he believed he would be able to deliver on a SOFA. But that turned out not be the case. Maliki of course then proceeded to eliminate his rivals and sideline Sunni politicians, leading to the rise of the extremist Sunni group ISIS. She was very critical of Iraqi leaders blowing the opportunity they had to create a more democratic government.
However, I do have to wonder if anything would have prevented the rise of ISIS if the Baathists had actually planned some of this, as the one article you linked to a while back seemed to imply.
She rather clearly says that these are ‘not ancient hatreds’;...
Well, the Sunni/Shia split is rather ancient, but I don't know about the outright hatred. I rather think much of that started under Saddam and was exacerbated by the invasion. At least in the sense that it was allowed to be exposed to the light of day. The debaathification might not have been so deep if it hadn't been for Shia insistence in the form of people like Chalabi. It was in effect a reprisal on their part that we went along with.
"…long enough for them to offload as much of the Greek debt they
carried as possible onto their customers."
Or taxpayers; the IMF, the ECB, guarantees by whomever was willing to step up to get fleeced.
That sounds like much of Europe.
I honestly don't know how big a hit that'll be to the European or world economies--
I guess that is the $64,000 question. (Although with inflation I suppose that figure should be higher. I'm not sure how long ago that phrase came into being.)
"She was very critical of Iraqi leaders blowing the opportunity they
had to create a more democratic government."
They did not consider it an opportunity; they considered it an imposition. They shed it as soon as we left.
"Well, the Sunni/Shia split is rather ancient, but I don't know about
the outright hatred."
Something we agree upon. I think the hatred level is ginned up and down to match the conflict level, to keep the troops workin’ as ordered. This is about power and who wields it. In Arab social tradition the winners are the guys who give the orders when the dust settles, the losers are the guys who don't. Dead people don't give orders, so by definition the dead guys lost. Much simpler system than the Western compromise and reconciliation stuff.
Ashton Carter, who may turn out to be a little too blunt and abrasive to last long as Secretary of Defense, has said that the United States simply cannot find enough ‘moderate’ volunteers to train up as a fighting force in the Syria/Iraq theatre. They just ain't there.
No comment yet from John McCain or Lindsey Graham, or any of the rest of the neo-con remnants.
I think I rather like this Pope.
They did not consider it an opportunity; they considered it an imposition. They shed it as soon as we left.
Then they shouldn't blame us for the mess they are in. They in effect just reverted to what they have done for years, which got them Saddam and his ilk.
I think the hatred level is ginned up and down to match the conflict level, to keep the troops workin’ as ordered. This is about power and who wields it.
I agree.
...the United States simply cannot find enough ‘moderate’ volunteers to train up as a fighting force in the Syria/Iraq theatre. They just ain't there.
So, I guess we have a choice of less moderate or extreme.
These guys seem to be doing okay against ISIL.
"Then they shouldn't blame us for the mess they are in."
And yet they do.
Lee: "I'm not sure what to think about that beyond wondering if the Masters of the Universe have offloaded enough of the Greek debt onto their customers to allow the default to proceed now. I've always thought that it was only being delayed long enough for them to offload as much of the Greek debt they carried as possible onto their customers."
That was probably the main concern, I completely agree with that analysis.
Lee: "If that's been done now, then they'll let the Greek default proceed apace."
I believe the "short term priority" may well be achieved. But longer term it may yet be in the interests of said masters to have Greece remain in the EU. If for no other reason than because a Grexit and any possible domino-effects would be unpredictable.
Lee: "Remember, the suffering of the Greeks (which is what your article focuses upon) is not considered a relevant factor by the creditors."
You're quite right.
Lee: "I honestly don't know how big a hit that'll be to the European or world economies--I think it's probably being overblown by the current holders of the debt so's to give them time to cover more of their exposure there."
I think it would probably look something like the 08 financial crisis but on a smaller scale. Markets will fall with 10's of percentage units, interest rates will rise initially, possibly some over-leveraged markets (like maybe the swedish housing market) will crash, but after a pretty short period of intense volatility things will settle down. And when the dust clears the rich will have gotten richer still and the rest comparatively poorer. Business as usual.
"‘I don’t get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or my
pope,’ former Florida Governor Jeb Bush said on Tuesday…"
New Republic
It kinda goes without saying that Bush doesn't take economic advice from mainstream economists either, nor scientific advice from the scientific consensus.
Still, it was a huge mistake to invade Iraq in 03. The US owes us europeans for that mistake. The US should pay for all refugees from its wars. Both in the near areas and those coming into the EU. The US ows the EU many, many billons for the refugees the US have been creating for ur contries.
The only fair way to settle things would be boats where tens of thousands a boat could go to the USA. Like in the old days. Anyone from Africa who gets across the mediterrnian we ship to Boston. Great! For all involved.
Right?
"The US owes us europeans for that mistake."
I don't think so. If we could get your coöperation, European coöperation that is, we could, together, establish safe zones, refugee zones, within the affected areas. It would be better if we could also get Arab coöperation, although that'll probably never happen, and we could probably proceed without that. But, it requires spending on military items, and NATO involvement, and all that other stuff ya'll don't like. So, ya get what ya get.
"Still, it was a huge mistake to invade Iraq in 03."
Kinda depends on how ya look at it. We had al-Qaeda before; they were fixated on spectacular attacks on the U.S. mainland. Now we got ISIS; they're fixated on staying alive in the Middle East. Seems an improvement from my perspective.
The US should pay for all refugees from its wars.
I suspect that a large portion of the refugees from the Middle East in Europe are from Syria, where we never intervened at all.
If we could get your coöperation, European coöperation that is, we could, together, establish safe zones, refugee zones, within the affected areas.
Ahhhh, so you have come around to my thinking on safe zones, I see.:)
Not so much. You think we should try to open some. I think it'll be an absolute disaster if we try to do it--needs a NATO flag to drag Turkey into compliance.
If Turkey has more horrible days like this they might consider it.
The odd part of that is that the Turks were holding people back into ISIS controlled areas. Doesn't look good for them be siding with ISIS like that.
And it still leaves the problem of getting the European countries to consider doin’ somethin’.
Hmmm...a lifeline for Greece or just sinking deeper into the muck?
And it still leaves the problem of getting the European countries to consider doin’ somethin’.
In actuality it may be to their advantage to help keep people in their own countries if at all reasonably possible, considering the potential for massive problems with large influxes of migrants. The problem, like Iraq before, is getting a stable functioning government running. A start may be by creating some kind of UN sponsored protectorate with NATO teeth behind it. Something that might have worked in Iraq if people had been of a mind to try it.
"In actuality it may be to their advantage to help keep people in
their own countries…"
Are you of the opinion that this argument is likely to lead the Europeans to actually do something?
Like everyone else they won't do something until the cost for themselves is steeper than is comfortable. By then the solution will not be so easy, if there even is one.
They've got the coverage of the First Emanuel service since the Roof shootings on CNN. I have to say that the music they play is a lot different than what I have heard at my church services. Much more lively.
Been a busy weekend so far. Now I'm off to do a few chores before going to my brother's for a Father's Day BBQ and then a play. (Forgot about Father's Day when I made the date for the play.)
It is eight days and counting, I believe, for Greece's default deadline. Here are some Greek voices on their dilemma.
A Greek default is inevitable. It's just a question of whether or not enough of the debt has been shifted onto the public.
I am starting to wonder, looking at some of what those people had to say, if an exit from the EU wouldn't be a good thing, at least for Greece. The only question then would be how close they move towards Russia and its sphere of influence.
Russia couldn't afford the Cubans; they can't afford the Greeks. It's a bluff.
Hmmm...so if the Russians load up their "balance sheet" with debt ridden countries with poor economies they will slowly sink beneath the weight? Sounds a bit like a Trojan horse type of scenario. :)
The Russians aren't going to "load up" on any costs for carrying Greece. Right now they're talking big about a big new investment in an energy pipeline across Greece that's never gonna happen; just talk; all bluff.
Post a Comment