Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Saddam is dead.
123
Saddam is dead.
2006-12-31, 12:29 PM #81
Originally posted by Darth_Alran:
there! is that un-pulled-out-of-my-*** enough for you?
Good, you paraphrased the Wikipedia article for us. But what does it mean?

Approximately 85% of the world's Muslims are Sunni and 15% are Shi'a. If the Sunnis wanted to exterminate the Shi'ites as you are suggesting, what has stayed their hand? And for that matter, why didn't Saddam Hussein - a Sunni - want to exterminate his Shi'ite population?

Please explain. I am clearly not as smart with the geopolitics as you are. :saddowns:
2006-12-31, 12:42 PM #82
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Good, you paraphrased the Wikipedia article for us. But what does it mean?

Approximately 85% of the world's Muslims are Sunni and 15% are Shi'a. If the Sunnis wanted to exterminate the Shi'ites as you are suggesting, what has stayed their hand? And for that matter,

you know what this may be my fault for not articulating enough. :P i didnt say they wanted to exterminate eachother, i said thay have been fighting and killing each other, i cant say for sure as i am not muslim, but i dont think they are fighting with the intent to exterminate, more likely over control. but then thats just a guess and i could be wrong.
Quote:
why didn't Saddam Hussein - a Sunni - want to exterminate his Shi'ite population?

[sarcasm] maybee he was too busy killing kurds?[/sarcasm]
seriously it didnt seem sadam was too concerned over the cliphate, maybee he didnt have any reason to "exterminate his shi'ite population" again i dont personally know the guy so i could be WAY off.
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2006-12-31, 12:51 PM #83
Originally posted by Jon`C:
I am clearly not as smart with the geopolitics as you are. :saddowns:

nah, i just got that from wikipedia ;)
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2006-12-31, 12:58 PM #84
Well, duhh. And in the last few minutes, to boot.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2006-12-31, 1:31 PM #85
Originally posted by Darth_Alran:
you know what this may be my fault for not articulating enough. :P i didnt say they wanted to exterminate eachother, i said thay have been fighting and killing each other, i cant say for sure as i am not muslim, but i dont think they are fighting with the intent to exterminate, more likely over control. but then thats just a guess and i could be wrong.
Traditionally they fought over control of Islam. Being the undisputed leader of the Muslim faith is an incredibly powerful position, especially when you consider the implications surrounding great jihads.

In modern times this isn't as big a deal as the overall cultural gulf. It has less to do with religious differences as it does with political differences. Wahhabism is starting to gain a foothold in Iraq thanks to Saudi-Arabia's influence. Baathism is still a popular movement even though it was (retardedly and through an act of utter incompetence) banned by the US military. The new government is supported by the Shi'ite and Kurd minorities, which has (to a certain extent) left the Sunni majority feeling unrepresented.
In addition to that, Iran is predominantly Shi'ite, Syria is still Baathist and Saudi-Arabia is largely Sunni. A lot of the people who are fighting in Iraq are from outside the country, which basically boils down to Iran, Saudi-Arabia and Syria fighting over their piece of the Iraqi pie.

This is a whole huge grab bag of geopolitical issues and has very little (or nothing) to do with a strict religious divide. Looking at it as a continuation of an ancient holy war is short-sighted and shallow. I imagine you are also the kind of person who believes the American Civil War was started because of slavery and WW2 was started to save those poor Jewish people.

Quote:
[sarcasm] maybee he was too busy killing kurds?[/sarcasm]
seriously it didnt seem sadam was too concerned over the cliphate, maybee he didnt have any reason to "exterminate his shi'ite population" again i dont personally know the guy so i could be WAY off.
You didn't read my posts nor did you read the wikipedia article you mangled to the point of illegibility.

1.) Baathism advocates secular government. That means the Sunni majority (which Saddam was a member of) did not exercise authority to restrict the religious freedoms of the Shi'ite minority. Religion had very little or nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of Iraq, which is an enormous contrast to other Middle Eastern countries like Saudi-Arabia or Iran (the latter, in spite of its democratic elections, still retains an ayatollah as the head of state). Indeed, the United States once considered the secular government of Saddam Hussein to be one of its most trusted and stable allies in the Middle East.

2.) If you think what Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds was bad, wait until Turkey moves in. Turkey is not a nice place once you leave the modernized cosmopolitan areas. Turkey has draconian laws forbidding visible ethnic differences and has treated its own Kurd minority harshly. They will not tolerate the formation of an independent Kurdistan. The US government isn't trying to keep Iraq together for kicks.
2006-12-31, 1:45 PM #86
Originally posted by Darth_Alran:
seriously it didnt seem sadam was too concerned over the cliphate, maybee he didnt have any reason to "exterminate his shi'ite population" again i dont personally know the guy so i could be WAY off.


You're attributing the current violence to conditions relating to the origins of Islam, which is not the case. Yes, Sunni and Shi'a have had differences from the very beginning, which have at multiple times lead to bloodshed, but it has not been a constant war. Certainly not for extermination.

If Islam did not seek to destroy the other religions in its territory (Jews, Christians, Hindus, Zoroastrians etc) or heterodox offshoots such as the Druze or Alawites, why would it seek to destroy other Muslims? Not to mention that historically, Twelve Imam Shi'ites (the majority) were uninterested in political power.

This form of Sunni/Shi'ite fighting started in the 20th century. In the early 1900s, the House of Saud, with the support of the Wahhabi movement took control of the Arabian peninsula. The Wahhabis are ultra-orthodox Sunnis who find Shi'a, Sufism or just about any interpretation of the Holy Qu'ran and the Sunna and Hadith of the Prophet that does not meet theirs completely heretical. They deported all Shi'ites, and banned the teaching of principles that do not agree with their view of Islam and Shari'a.

A few years later, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, an Arab national movement began to grow. The foremost feature of this is secularism, a completely European concept. Look at national movements of the same time, in Germany, Italy and Spain. Adolf Hitler was hugely influential among Arab nationals, the Arabic translation of Mein Kampf was wildly popular. The Nazis liked that many Muslims (not necessarily just Arabs) could be easily swayed into hating Jews, France and Britain. The foremost national movement was Baath Parties, which arose in Syria. They added their own racist agendas, such as a hatred for Persians, who make up the majority of the Shi'ite population. A hatred for Persians turned quickly into a disdain for Shi'a, which became seen as non-Arab.

Now Saddam's Baath Party strongly differed from the earlier parties, but the basis is still there. If you follow the history, it doesn't flow very well. These events are only related to earlier Sunni/Shi'a fighting by twisting history, which is exactly what happened, for the profit of individuals, and not for the religion of Islam.

(edit: Jon was writing the same time I was, and covered most of the points I did.)
:master::master::master:
2006-12-31, 3:40 PM #87
ok. i probably made a mistake with lumping together traditional religious differences and modern political and cultural differences, and i apologise on that point. however all i was saying in the first place is that violence in nothing new to the area, of course the death of sadam is going to spark more violence. however if you are a country (or rather a new government, iraq is not a new country) that is trying to establish itself and you start doing or not doing what a political or religious body tells you because of the threat of violence they will just keep making demands and threatening more violence.
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2006-12-31, 4:40 PM #88
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Um... what?

I crunched some numbers. Approximately 1/3 of homicides were triggered by arguments. About 1/5 were felonies (involving rape, theft, narcotics, essentially the kind of crime you're trying to describe). Gang-related violence accounted for about 1/20th and the remainder are unknown or unsolved (which really doesn't help to validate the legal system as a source of deterrant, does it?)

Less than 1% of all homicide cases involve multiple offenders killing multiple victims, which indicates that the Sicilian mafia shootout in an Italian restaurant isn't a major problem.

Data from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/overview.htm

The data on that site shows that most murders are a 'heat of the moment'-type deal, except in the case of the felony murders which often result from botched attempts at other crimes that do not carry the death penalty (armed robbery, burglary). Hell, the DOJ website even says that people from the southern states are 4 times more likely to react violently to an argument or an insult! That doesn't sound like a group of people who are afraid of the death penalty!


Snarkiness aside, the following US states both still have the death penalty and have executed more than 30 people since 1976: Texas (366), Virginia (95), Oklahoma (81), Missouri (66), Florida (60), North Carolina (42), Georgia (39), South Carolina (35), Alabama (34).

Murder rates:
Texas: 6.2
Virginia: 6.1
Oklahoma: 5.3
Missouri: 6.9
Florida: 5.0
North Carolina: 6.7
Georgia: 6.2
South Carolina: 7.4
Alabama: 8.2

This is with an average national homicide rate of 5.6.

Data from: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/


Some states with the death penalty have a homicide rate lower than the national average. Some of the states have a homicide rate higher than the national average. So what do these numbers prove? Absolutely nothing! There is no demonstratable correlation between having the death penalty and either increasing or reducing the incidence rate of homicides. These numbers illustrate how execution does not deter murderers any more than incarceration.

Furthermore, Canada (a first-world country in North America with no death penalty and a society principally influenced by American media) has a murder rate of 2.04 per 100,000 compared to the Americans' (a first-world country in North America with death penalty and a society principally influenced by American media) of 5.6.

I shouldn't have had to type this all out. Jesus. The information is out there and you'd know this already if you spent even 5 minutes looking into it.


I beg your pardon, sir, but I don't believe you've actually been reading my posts. This is not a debate, I am not trying to make points. This is not my opinion.



Well, if you'd take a page out of your own book, and read my post a bit more carefully, you'd notice something interesting.

I'm not talking about death penalty. I'm talking about the fact that we have to do something about murders weather we kill them or not.
2006-12-31, 8:24 PM #89
As much as I didn't like the guy, I still feel bad for him. Nobody should have to know their life is ending.
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2006-12-31, 8:41 PM #90
Your life is ending. Ha!
2006-12-31, 9:29 PM #91
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
I'm talking about the fact that we have to do something about murders weather we kill them or not.

:downs:
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2006-12-31, 10:01 PM #92
I predict.. Rain!
2006-12-31, 11:17 PM #93
You don't even understand the topic.

Let alone the ramifications of his death.

Please stay away from serious topics or good discussions downsboy.
2006-12-31, 11:54 PM #94
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
Your life is ending. Ha!


:( You ruined my new years.

:gbk:
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2007-01-01, 12:07 AM #95
Hahaahahaha, everyone here has been dying since the day they have been borns.
2007-01-01, 12:23 AM #96
Me doubly so.
2007-01-01, 6:24 PM #97
Originally posted by finity5:
Although I think he deserved to die for what he did in the past, I think we have no right to march into a country, detain their leader, put him on trial, and execute him. :rolleyes:


The U.S. neither tried no executed him. That was done by the Iraqi people.
Little angel go away
Come again some other day
Devil has my ear today
I'll never hear a word you say
2007-01-01, 6:46 PM #98
Apparently, U.S. officials tried to delay the execution by a couple weeks (but failed).
一个大西瓜
2007-01-01, 7:04 PM #99
Originally posted by Tiberium_Empire:
Me doubly so.



So you'll die double fast?

Awesome.
123

↑ Up to the top!