Does this news from the Middle East surprise anyone here?

[babek-]

1. Iraq is an artificial created country. It was cut out of the Osman Empire after WW1 and 3 different ethnical/religious groups were mixed together.
But these groups - the kurds, the sunnites and the shi ites never built something like a national identity.
To keep control over such people you need an opressing regime.

First Iraq was a british colony/protectorate with a puppet regime in form of a monarchy. These kings and their group in power were sunnites - a minority of the iraqis. The majority of the shi ites and the kurds were supressed by this regime.

Also when Iraq became independant and a monarchy. Then it became a societ influenced republic with the Baath party and this went on to Saddam.

In all this time since its existence Iraq was ruled by the sunnites and supressing the shi ites and the kurds.

And this was OK for the other arab countries, because these were also sunnites. The only nation who was opposing the sunnite regimes of Iraq was Iran.
This has historical reasons. Iranians are not the same race like the semite arabs. When Iran was conquered by islamic arabs in the 7th century the arabs tried to assimilate the iranians. They did this succesful with old countries like Syria or Egypt. The people there adopted the religion and the language and became "Arabs".
The iranians started a long fight against this invaders. And they were succesful. So today Iran is not speaking the arab language but the iranian Farsi. The arab writing was expanded by new letters. Even the islamic religion in Iran was modified. The shi ite Islam has many elements of the old iranian religion of the Sassanid Empire integrated. Even the iranian mullahs wear robes and turbans like the old fire-priests of the old Empire.
Since these days there were bitter fightings between the two islamic religions - who consider the others as heretics.
The wars between the sunnite Osman Empire and the Iranian Empire in the 15th century also were fought because of these reasons.

Now to Iraq. There are close relations of the SE-part of Iraq and Iran. Take historical maps and you know why.
These region was once part of the old iranian empire. The holy shi ite sites and the old capital city of the Sassanid Empire are in these regions. The people there are shi ites and no sunnites.

And so its logical that Iran always tried to get control over these people and  territory. Not only after 1979. But also before under the Shahs of the Kadshar and Pahlevi dynasty.

But the political system of Iraq was making this very difficult. The iraqi shi ites were under control by the iraqi secret services and supressing systems of the sunnite regime.

This changed after the liberation of Iraq by the USA.
Not only Saddam was deposed but also his complete supressing system. The intelligence services (and Iraq had more than one - controlling and terrorizing the people) were disbanded. Army and police officers were fired and replaced by mostly shi ites.

The democratic elections have brought the majority of the iraqis - the shi ites - to power.
Its also no wonder that Al-Maliki is giving friendly statements about Iran - he has close relationsships to the iranian regime. Just check his life under the Saddam regime and where he lived in that time.

The sunnite Al Kaida terror organization tries to use the loss of power of the sunnites to get more influence in Iraq. All the suicide attacks in Iraq, which killed actually 100 people day by day in the last month were done by the sunnites. There are no shi ite suicide attacks.
And look at the targets: Shi ite mosques, Shi ites market places, Recruiting stations of the army and police in shi ite regions. Even shi ite funerals.

The shi ites strike back with killer troops who hunt down sunnites.

So its no wonder that the shi ite iranians are sending weapons to Iraq to help their friends.

And because an independant kurd country would destabilze the NATO-partner Turkey there cant be allowed that the artificial construction Iraq will be splitted in 3 parts.

So this fighting will go on for a very long time.
The sunnite arab countries will support the Sunnite fighters and Al Kaida.
The iranians will support the shi ite fighters.
And others will support the kurd fighters.

Nothing new in history.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by babek-

To keep control over such people you need an opressing regime.
 

So let me get this straight, shredding up people in meat grinders (Saddam) is "okay" by the European community, but a picture of a US Soldier with an iraqi prisoner in a dog collar is "horrendous!" ???

Mmmmmkay...

[babek-]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
So let me get this straight, shredding up people in meat grinders (Saddam) is "okay" by the European community, but a picture of a US Soldier with an iraqi prisoner in a dog collar is "horrendous!" ???

Mmmmmkay...

Interesting interpretation.

But how do you make a link between my sentence "To keep control over such people..." and Saddam, the europeans and the Abu Ghraib crimes by the US-military there ?

I wrote that Iraq was created after WW1, that 3 totally different groups were mixed together. And that their colony-masters (UK) solved this problem by installing an opressing regime which was recruited from the sunnite minority.

There was no judgement in this sentence - like that I consider it "good" or "horrendous".

Just the analysis that if you want to keep people under control who dont have a national identity that you then need an opressing regime.

And these opressing regimes in Irak - from the UK-colony to the kingdom - to the soviet-model-democracy under Saddam - was always an opressing regime of a minority which ruled over the majority in Iraq.

This ended with the US-liberation.

[red26]

how does India threaten the security of the United States? Just because the majority of liquer stores and 7-11s in this country are owned by Hindu's doesn't constitute a threat to this country.

Because like I said there all in this together, Of course you mess with one of them you mess with the whole giant littler box over there. You cant trust any of them there all the same. They all call us Ifendels. And them owning all of our stores dosent matter if there quicky marts or not it's a take over with out ever casting a bullet.

[Yeager]

This ended with the US-liberation.
====
Yes, and an emboldened and nukular savvy Iran is stepping up to the plate to feast on the mess created by the US-liberation.  Talk about a catostrophic blunder.  Bush will go down in history for one thing, and one thing only.  And the United States finally comes to terms with its unenviable position as the last great frontier.

[babek-]

Yes - the politic of Bush has destroyed two of the most important enemies of the shi ite Iran: Iraq - ruled by the sunnite minority of Saddam and Afghanistan - ruled by the sunnite Taliban.

No wonder that the sunnite Al Kaida is attacking like a mad dog shi ite targets in Iraq - hoping to change the fact that now the shi ite majority in Iraq is ruling Iraq.

That the shi ites in iraq - who have been supported by Iran so long - have closer relationship to iranians than to Mr. Bush is logical.

Just check the life of Mr. Al Maliki.
He was hunted by Saddam secret police, fled to Iran in the 80ties and fought on the side of the iranians against the Saddam Regime during Iran-Iraq-War.
No wonder that he has many friends in Iran.

And the recent statements of Mr. Talabani are also very interesting.

Bush has indeed changed the political balance at the Persian Gulf.
And to be honest: I am not sorry about this, because he eliminated two enemies of Iran.

[Viking]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
So let me get this straight, shredding up people in meat grinders (Saddam) is "okay" by the European community, but a picture of a US Soldier with an iraqi prisoner in a dog collar is "horrendous!" ???

Mmmmmkay...

The answer is simple: We hold you to a higher standard than Saddam and his sons. However if you prefer to be compared to such people and regimes we can lower our opinions of you accordingly. If you prefer.

[oboe]

I think this book The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End would confirm and expound on what babek- has said.

babek-, if you don't mind my asking, why do your sympathies lie with Iran?

[dmf]

So it takes abc international saying that to actually get somebody's attention?
It should be a given that every muslim country is gonna help anybody killing Americans until were out of there.

[babek-]

Originally posted by oboe
I think this book The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End would confirm and expound on what babek- has said.

babek-, if you don't mind my asking, why do your sympathies lie with Iran?

Maybe because I am an iranian

[Skuzzy]

OT:  Ahhh, Rip is paranoid.  I have done my job.  NEXT!

[culero]

Originally posted by Viking
The answer is simple: We hold you to a higher standard than Saddam and his sons. However if you prefer to be compared to such people and regimes we can lower our opinions of you accordingly. If you prefer.

Count me among the many who would reply "As you wish, your opinion of us doesn't matter to me".

culero

[lazs2]

ya know viking...

If it would shut up the guys from countries that are and have been doing.....  nothing...

I would certainly be willing to have a national vote in Iraq.... one question only..

"Do you want the Americans to leave at this time?"

lazs

[Eagler]

babek
since you are one of them ... gotta ask ... why are the people in that region so arse backwards that they'd rather kill each other instead of living peacefully with one another? Are that that ignorant as to not be able to stop and see the absurity of it all?

[oboe]

Originally posted by babek-
Maybe because I am an iranian

I see.   I was mislead by your location in Germany.   Obviously you've got guts to admit to being an Iranian on this BB; I hope the community can stay civil toward you.