What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

From Muhammad to ISIS:Iraq's full story (1 Viewer)

This is very interesting, and manages to be a bit entertaining (as juch as it can be) as well as very informative

thanks a lot for this

 
Officer Pete Malloy said:
tom22406 said:
Was hoping for our resident historian and middle east expert to chime in but so far nothing.
Click to expand...
:lmao:

How about this. I used to have to teach a unit on Islam to 7th graders. I give it my stamp of approval.
Click to expand...
Who are you?

 
tom22406 said:
Was hoping for our resident historian and middle east expert to chime in but so far nothing.
Click to expand...
If you're referring to me, I'm hardly that. But it's very informative and seems factual. However, there is one very important point that it missed, IMO: Although he discusses Sykes-Picot, their agreement had to be ratified by the British and French governments, and in England's case, Winston Churchill, who at that time (just after the Great War ended) was Colonial Secretary. Although Sykes and Picot drew the lines of Iraq, they did not determine that the Sunnis, who were and still are a minority of the population, would be in charge. That was Churchill's idea. Why was this done? Because Iran was largely Shiite, and Churchill believed that a powerful Sunni nation on their border would serve to inhibit Iranian geographical ambitions. Churchill's entire foreign policy, both here and elsewhere, was based on surrounding the most powerful enemy with buffer states that inhibited it: so a powerful Iran and Turkey stop Russia from moving south, a powerful France and Czechoslovakia stop Germany from expanding, a powerful Korea and Indochina inhibit China, etc. This would allow trade to flow, and he believed, freedom to expand, which was good for England and good for the United States. It's a lesson he preached continually between the wars and after World War II.

The reason this is so important is because the Iraqi buffer lasted until we removed it in 2004 when we eliminated the Sunni government and attempted to impose a democracy. Any election in Iraq guarantees a Shiite majority- not a democracy of course, but a Shiite dictatorship aligned with Iran, which is what we brought about. This is exactly what Churchill warned us against. Now we are reaping the whirlwind.

 
timschochet said:
tom22406 said:
Was hoping for our resident historian and middle east expert to chime in but so far nothing.
Click to expand...
If you're referring to me, I'm hardly that. But it's very informative and seems factual. However, there is one very important point that it missed, IMO: Although he discusses Sykes-Picot, their agreement had to be ratified by the British and French governments, and in England's case, Winston Churchill, who at that time (just after the Great War ended) was Colonial Secretary. Although Sykes and Picot drew the lines of Iraq, they did not determine that the Sunnis, who were and still are a minority of the population, would be in charge. That was Churchill's idea. Why was this done? Because Iran was largely Shiite, and Churchill believed that a powerful Sunni nation on their border would serve to inhibit Iranian geographical ambitions. Churchill's entire foreign policy, both here and elsewhere, was based on surrounding the most powerful enemy with buffer states that inhibited it: so a powerful Iran and Turkey stop Russia from moving south, a powerful France and Czechoslovakia stop Germany from expanding, a powerful Korea and Indochina inhibit China, etc. This would allow trade to flow, and he believed, freedom to expand, which was good for England and good for the United States. It's a lesson he preached continually between the wars and after World War II.

The reason this is so important is because the Iraqi buffer lasted until we removed it in 2004 when we eliminated the Sunni government and attempted to impose a democracy. Any election in Iraq guarantees a Shiite majority- not a democracy of course, but a Shiite dictatorship aligned with Iran, which is what we brought about. This is exactly what Churchill warned us against. Now we are reaping the whirlwind.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the type of reply I was looking for and thanks for sharing.

I knew you love your history and would have a slightly different take.

 
timschochet said:
tom22406 said:
Was hoping for our resident historian and middle east expert to chime in but so far nothing.
Click to expand...
If you're referring to me, I'm hardly that. But it's very informative and seems factual. However, there is one very important point that it missed, IMO: Although he discusses Sykes-Picot, their agreement had to be ratified by the British and French governments, and in England's case, Winston Churchill, who at that time (just after the Great War ended) was Colonial Secretary. Although Sykes and Picot drew the lines of Iraq, they did not determine that the Sunnis, who were and still are a minority of the population, would be in charge. That was Churchill's idea. Why was this done? Because Iran was largely Shiite, and Churchill believed that a powerful Sunni nation on their border would serve to inhibit Iranian geographical ambitions. Churchill's entire foreign policy, both here and elsewhere, was based on surrounding the most powerful enemy with buffer states that inhibited it: so a powerful Iran and Turkey stop Russia from moving south, a powerful France and Czechoslovakia stop Germany from expanding, a powerful Korea and Indochina inhibit China, etc. This would allow trade to flow, and he believed, freedom to expand, which was good for England and good for the United States. It's a lesson he preached continually between the wars and after World War II.

The reason this is so important is because the Iraqi buffer lasted until we removed it in 2004 when we eliminated the Sunni government and attempted to impose a democracy. Any election in Iraq guarantees a Shiite majority- not a democracy of course, but a Shiite dictatorship aligned with Iran, which is what we brought about. This is exactly what Churchill warned us against. Now we are reaping the whirlwind.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if Churchill had made sure the borders were drawn better we would have had a buffer country while also having a much more peaceful Middle East.

And frankly I don't like the idea of putting dictators in powers just so we feel better. That kind of thinking got us where we are today (see Iran, Mosaddegh).

 
cstu said:
timschochet said:
tom22406 said:
Was hoping for our resident historian and middle east expert to chime in but so far nothing.
Click to expand...
If you're referring to me, I'm hardly that. But it's very informative and seems factual. However, there is one very important point that it missed, IMO: Although he discusses Sykes-Picot, their agreement had to be ratified by the British and French governments, and in England's case, Winston Churchill, who at that time (just after the Great War ended) was Colonial Secretary. Although Sykes and Picot drew the lines of Iraq, they did not determine that the Sunnis, who were and still are a minority of the population, would be in charge. That was Churchill's idea. Why was this done? Because Iran was largely Shiite, and Churchill believed that a powerful Sunni nation on their border would serve to inhibit Iranian geographical ambitions. Churchill's entire foreign policy, both here and elsewhere, was based on surrounding the most powerful enemy with buffer states that inhibited it: so a powerful Iran and Turkey stop Russia from moving south, a powerful France and Czechoslovakia stop Germany from expanding, a powerful Korea and Indochina inhibit China, etc. This would allow trade to flow, and he believed, freedom to expand, which was good for England and good for the United States. It's a lesson he preached continually between the wars and after World War II.

The reason this is so important is because the Iraqi buffer lasted until we removed it in 2004 when we eliminated the Sunni government and attempted to impose a democracy. Any election in Iraq guarantees a Shiite majority- not a democracy of course, but a Shiite dictatorship aligned with Iran, which is what we brought about. This is exactly what Churchill warned us against. Now we are reaping the whirlwind.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if Churchill had made sure the borders were drawn better we would have had a buffer country while also having a much more peaceful Middle East.

And frankly I don't like the idea of putting dictators in powers just so we feel better. That kind of thinking got us where we are today (see Iran, Mosaddegh).
Click to expand...
It's certainly a troublesome notion. However, it's important to note that in the case of Iraq, we didn't install any dictators. We removed one, which I believe was unwise, and we attempted to install a democracy, which I also believe to be unwise. One person one vote does not create democracy, no matter how many American politicians display purple thumbs. A democracy is impossible in Iraq under the current circumstances, and we failed to realize that.

The only analogy I can offer is this: imagine if the United States had 2 political parties: the Catholic Party and the Protestant Party. And 99% of all Protestants voted for the Protestant Party, and 99% of all Catholics voted for the Catholic Party. Imagine further that the Catholic Party campaigned on a platform of promoting Catholics and suppressing all Protestants, atheists, Jews, and any other non-Catholic, while the Protestant Party campaigned on a platform of offering equal representation to "minority groups" but once in power (as they would be, given the numbers) proceeded to suppress all non-Protestants. Would this be anything close to a democracy? Would a democracy even be possible?

Now in the case of Mossadegh, that's a different story. Ike and Dulles were concerned that he was being promoted by Soviets who wanted northern Iran to be separated and "returned" to Russia. And this was at the height of the Cold War. So we re-installed the Shah. Probably a mistake, but it was magnified into a far greater event than it actually was during the propaganda by leftists in the aftermath of the Iranian revolution in 1978. And it's still believed by many people today that our ousting of Mossadegh led to the revolution and hatred of us in the region. This is extremely simplistic and not really so. Fundamentalist Mullahs like Khomeini hated Mossadegh and were very happy when the Shah returned. It was only the Shah's White Revolution, which was an attempt to modernize Iran and give women there human rights, which alienated the mullahs and eventually led to the Shah's overthrow. Contrary to progressive thought, the Iranian revolution was not against American imperialism, it was against western liberal idealism.

 
timschochet said:
cstu said:
timschochet said:
tom22406 said:
Was hoping for our resident historian and middle east expert to chime in but so far nothing.
Click to expand...
If you're referring to me, I'm hardly that. But it's very informative and seems factual. However, there is one very important point that it missed, IMO: Although he discusses Sykes-Picot, their agreement had to be ratified by the British and French governments, and in England's case, Winston Churchill, who at that time (just after the Great War ended) was Colonial Secretary. Although Sykes and Picot drew the lines of Iraq, they did not determine that the Sunnis, who were and still are a minority of the population, would be in charge. That was Churchill's idea. Why was this done? Because Iran was largely Shiite, and Churchill believed that a powerful Sunni nation on their border would serve to inhibit Iranian geographical ambitions. Churchill's entire foreign policy, both here and elsewhere, was based on surrounding the most powerful enemy with buffer states that inhibited it: so a powerful Iran and Turkey stop Russia from moving south, a powerful France and Czechoslovakia stop Germany from expanding, a powerful Korea and Indochina inhibit China, etc. This would allow trade to flow, and he believed, freedom to expand, which was good for England and good for the United States. It's a lesson he preached continually between the wars and after World War II.

The reason this is so important is because the Iraqi buffer lasted until we removed it in 2004 when we eliminated the Sunni government and attempted to impose a democracy. Any election in Iraq guarantees a Shiite majority- not a democracy of course, but a Shiite dictatorship aligned with Iran, which is what we brought about. This is exactly what Churchill warned us against. Now we are reaping the whirlwind.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if Churchill had made sure the borders were drawn better we would have had a buffer country while also having a much more peaceful Middle East.

And frankly I don't like the idea of putting dictators in powers just so we feel better. That kind of thinking got us where we are today (see Iran, Mosaddegh).
Click to expand...
It's certainly a troublesome notion. However, it's important to note that in the case of Iraq, we didn't install any dictators. We removed one, which I believe was unwise, and we attempted to install a democracy, which I also believe to be unwise. One person one vote does not create democracy, no matter how many American politicians display purple thumbs. A democracy is impossible in Iraq under the current circumstances, and we failed to realize that.

The only analogy I can offer is this: imagine if the United States had 2 political parties: the Catholic Party and the Protestant Party. And 99% of all Protestants voted for the Protestant Party, and 99% of all Catholics voted for the Catholic Party. Imagine further that the Catholic Party campaigned on a platform of promoting Catholics and suppressing all Protestants, atheists, Jews, and any other non-Catholic, while the Protestant Party campaigned on a platform of offering equal representation to "minority groups" but once in power (as they would be, given the numbers) proceeded to suppress all non-Protestants. Would this be anything close to a democracy? Would a democracy even be possible?

Now in the case of Mossadegh, that's a different story. Ike and Dulles were concerned that he was being promoted by Soviets who wanted northern Iran to be separated and "returned" to Russia. And this was at the height of the Cold War. So we re-installed the Shah. Probably a mistake, but it was magnified into a far greater event than it actually was during the propaganda by leftists in the aftermath of the Iranian revolution in 1978. And it's still believed by many people today that our ousting of Mossadegh led to the revolution and hatred of us in the region. This is extremely simplistic and not really so. Fundamentalist Mullahs like Khomeini hated Mossadegh and were very happy when the Shah returned. It was only the Shah's White Revolution, which was an attempt to modernize Iran and give women there human rights, which alienated the mullahs and eventually led to the Shah's overthrow. Contrary to progressive thought, the Iranian revolution was not against American imperialism, it was against western liberal idealism.
Click to expand...
While I have a lot of trouble with what you said in your previous post, the thought that even the recent Arab Spring was in any way a good thing was a massive, massive reporting blunder by most of the Western media. There were many political outlets that praised social media and other democratic forms of information dissemination as a positive thing in and of itself without regard for what the ends might be.

There were massive polls conducted by either Gallup or Pew in years prior that should have served as a warning to anybody with a modicum of intelligence, knowledge about the region, or even just mere curiosity as to what the revolutions might bring. I mean, anyone old enough to have seen what happened in Iran might have questioned what was about to happen in Egypt and Libya.

 
I was optimistic about the Arab Spring, not necessarily because it would bring about true democracy but because for the first time in memory, young Arabs were talking about things that weren't related to either religion or hatred of Israel- their demands were for better jobs, more economic prosperity, better representation, and more freedom. These were NOT the ideas that led to the Iranian revolution, or for that matter any other movement in the Arab world, and I took it as a promising sign that it still might be possible to inculcate Muslim society with western ideas.

I remain optimistic, though early returns aren't good. But it remains to be seen what the long term effects of the Arab Spring will turn out to be.

 
Just finished the whole thing. Completely fascinated and terrified all in the same moment. Wow.

 
timschochet said:
I was optimistic about the Arab Spring, not necessarily because it would bring about true democracy but because for the first time in memory, young Arabs were talking about things that weren't related to either religion or hatred of Israel- their demands were for better jobs, more economic prosperity, better representation, and more freedom. These were NOT the ideas that led to the Iranian revolution, or for that matter any other movement in the Arab world, and I took it as a promising sign that it still might be possible to inculcate Muslim society with western ideas.

I remain optimistic, though early returns aren't good. But it remains to be seen what the long term effects of the Arab Spring will turn out to be.
Click to expand...
Economic prosperity, in the minds of many, does not mean increased freedom. Especially in a region that was exceptionally accepting of fascistic economic and social models. I also think saying "more freedom" is nebulous. More freedom for what? Self-determination? What if that self-determination is theocratic? I will agree that returns are early, but ISIS and raping in the streets are not positive indicators.

Like I said, I read a bunch of polls around the time of the revolution, and it looked awful. People should pay attention to what the citizens of a state are saying, and then judge accordingly.

 
brohans is there anything that tom puts up a link to that is bad it is either yoga pants or a great history lesson i say that tom takes it to the bank and you can take that to the bank

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
tom22406 said:
Ran into this blog and figured I would share,thought it was very informative and a good but long read

http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/09/muhammad-isis-iraqs-full-story.html

Would love to hear some thoughts on this and how accurate you feel it is.
Click to expand...
This is a very long, very interesting and thorough blog piece and worth reading.
Click to expand...
Glad you got something out of it.I hope everyone takes a little time to do the same,it did open my eyes to quite a few things.

 
Just read ingredient 1 and learned that Muhammad is no different than his followers of today...You don't like what I am preaching ...I will kill you!

ETA: and the Muslims couldn't get along and agree on anything.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
finished reading it over lunch today it is a great article thank you tom take that to the bank

 
Great read. He breaks it down into such simple terms. He clarified and/or taught me a few things about the two main reasons why this part of the world is so messed up today: religious conflict and western imperialism. Still have no idea how to fix it, but sure seems like re-drawing the boundaries might be a good start? :shrug:

 
I'll throw this out there.

Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, Abu is essentially 'son', and Abd means born of or essentially 'father'. You see this a lot in the Old Testament... Barabas (son of the father), Barsabas (again, variation on son of the father...), Barnabas, Barnagas... all these names appear in the New Testament as Jewish names and appear to be variations of the 'abas/abbas' theme.

In today's Palestine, Abu Abbas, leader of the PLO, is a similar sort of pseudonym meaning 'son of the father.'

Anyway what I find interesting there is "Abd Allah" as his father. - 'Allah' is a variation on a similar rooted word as 'Allelujah', or 'Praise to God', which is Jewish in derivation. - I think it's interesting his father's name was Allah, maybe that was a common name back then or maybe it was made up after his death, not sure, but I wonder if his family had a sort of history of messiahism or zealotry or something like that.

Further, if not, most people in that area back then were polytheist, except for the Jews and the Christians. It's interesting to me that his father had a name which was essentially equivalent to a word with a Hebraic root, the same that is seen in Allelujah.

Could Mohammed have come from montheistic roots, maybe even a Jewish family himself? The Koran is obviously rife with the rivalry with local Jewish tribes at the time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem is that Muhammad didn’t appoint a successor before he died, or if he did, he didn’t get the word out to everyone.
Click to expand...
For all the revelations that Gabriel handed down, doesn't it seem odd that he and God failed to mention this one bit?

The early Christian church could have faced the same dilemma, but Peter (the Rock) was obviously looked to by Jesus as his successor.

 
It was on one of these solo retreats in 610 AD that Muhammad was for the first time visited by the angel Gabriel. As the story goes, Gabriel recited messages to Muhammad that were directly from God, which Muhammad memorized. Over the years, Gabriel would continue to visit Muhammad with messages, Muhammad continued to commit them to memory, and later, he would recite the memories to his followers, who would then write them down, and that became the Quran.
Click to expand...
I've always found this bit odd too.

So Mo doesn't get the word from God. No.

He gets it from Gabriel, who tells it to Mo.... who doesn't write it down then. No, he waits years and years... then he still doesn't write it down himself. No. Mohammed tells his confidante (name escapes me) who then writes down the information provided by Gabriel. That original text is lost but like the New Testament it is more or less retranscribed repeatedly. At one point the Caliphs - who are the family that was originally at war with Mohammed - take over transcription and there may have been political agenda written into the text, because they had always been the power in the region, even before Mohammed.

So basically we are looking at at least four degrees of separation from the actual word of God.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So father-in-law Abu took over as Caliph, while son-in-law Ali watched from the sidelines and Group B seethed.
Click to expand...
Also odd. - Mohammed did have a child, a daughter. Now isn't she the real heir to his message? No. The family that Mohammed marries into takes over. And again that family ends up dealing with Mohammed's enemies, the Quresh, who go on to be the caliphs and again they take over responsibility for the transcription of the holy text. The Quresh were the tribe in power before Mohammed came on the scene, so we basically have is a kind of coup taking hold of the holy messenger's, you know, message. This makes the Shiite's anger more understandable.

Oddly enough the Quresh are supposedly descended from the Hebrew tribe descended from Ishmael.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The problem is that Muhammad didnt appoint a successor before he died, or if he did, he didnt get the word out to everyone.
Click to expand...
For all the revelations that Gabriel handed down, doesn't it seem odd that he and God failed to mention this one bit?

The early Christian church could have faced the same dilemma, but Peter (the Rock) was obviously looked to by Jesus as his successor.
Click to expand...
A lot less of a big deal for the Christians though because they were kind of a fringe group where the Arabs under Mohammad were a massive political force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chadstroma
From Chicago to CFB Championship Game- Help Me Plan
Replies
21
Views
629
ChiefD
ChiefD
Ministry of Pain
Coffee set to skyrocket in 2025 - $12 per cup anyone?
Replies
41
Views
2K
Fat Nick
Fat Nick
Chadstroma
Brain Storm Help with a Youth Football Program
Replies
28
Views
492
Chadstroma
Chadstroma

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top