Shrine bombing

[Aileron]

I know I'm late on this one. This is just such a perfect demonstration of the nature of hatred.

 

The Jihadists hate the United States. They fueled that hatred until they wanted a massive war of all muslims vs all westerners. They use perverted interpretations of their holy texts in order to justify their actions. (Even the term "Jihad" should be by definition a war in which you only target your enemies' military, in hopes of converting the civilian population.) Now that its becoming clear to them that not all muslims have been consumed by the same hatred that the Jihadists have, in this case the Shiites. Thus, they now hate any muslim that does not support their hatred.

 

If they continue down this path, they will soon hate Islam itself for being the religion of those who did not support their cause. Then, they will hate Allah for being the God of the religion of those that did not support their cause. After that, they will hate all of existence for the universe not catering to their hatred. Finally, they will hate and destroy themselves for not being strong enough to destroy all of existence. Hatred always leads to the destination of self destruction, and this case is likely no exception.

 

The fact that they are going down this path is abundantly clear. That shrine was a holy place for all of Islam, and they destroyed it. Only those who hate Islam would destroy it. If they truly lived up to their claims, they would sooner sacrifice their war than see that place destroyed, with a handfull of exceptions, this situation not being one of them.

 

This bombing makes it perfectly clear what our enemy is. Suffice to say that we should come down on these Jihadists and show neither mercy nor pity, though we must be carefull not to fall to our own hatred.

[MonteZuma]

This is not about Jihad. This isn't just about religion or the US occupation. This isn't about hatred either. The enemy is not clear at all. There are forces at work here that haven't been identified. There is something going on outside the green zone and the US and others don't have a handle on what it is yet.

 

I suspect that there is a power struggle going on. People want to lock in a big slice of the pie. This might be about religious authority, wealth or raw political power or a combination of all three. I suspect that people may be using religious divides as a tool to stir up trouble and nuetralise whatever is in their way.

[»Ducky]

If they continue down this path, they will soon hate Islam itself for being the religion of those who did not support their cause. Then, they will hate Allah for being the God of the religion of those that did not support their cause. After that, they will hate all of existence for the universe not catering to their hatred. Finally, they will hate and destroy themselves for not being strong enough to destroy all of existence. Hatred always leads to the destination of self destruction, and this case is likely no exception.

Oh man... haha.

 

A man walks down the street and steps in bubblegum. He stops and looks towards the trap that awaits a next victim. No one steps in it.

He, Santa Claus and Hitler rob the 7/11 because of it.

 

 

That had just about as much logical flow as your statement.

[Aileron]

Ducky, that wasn't supposed to be a logical flow, just an observation. Hatred is not logical, and those who suc!@#$%^&* to it do not follow logic. There's no logical reason to strap a bomb to yourself and blow up a group of civilians, so if we wich to understand their motives, we must take into account that they have thrown logic out the window long ago.

 

 

Monte, my point is that this shrine bombing does indeed make it clear that the motivation is hatred. No one will make money or gain power by this action. While it did cause a large amount of violence, it doesn't weaken democratic Iraq's control at all, as a matter of fact it kinda strengthens it because forces that were previously somewhat united against the Iraqi government will now be fighting each other.

 

If they wanted wealth, power, or to accomplish military objectives they would have used that bomb to attack a US base or something. Clearly their target was neither the US, nor the Iraqi government, but Islam itself. For an Islamic terrorist to attack Islam, the motivation can only be hatred or pride...those are the only two emotions that are powerfull enough, illogical, cause self-destructive action, and would be relevant in this case. Indeed there's no logical reason to rule out pride at this point, but I'd put my money on hatred.

[MonteZuma]

Ducky, that wasn't supposed to be a logical flow, just an observation. Hatred is not logical, and those who suc!@#$%^&* to it do not follow logic. There's no logical reason to strap a bomb to yourself and blow up a group of civilians, so if we wich to understand their motives, we must take into account that they have thrown logic out the window long ago.

I think you are oversimplifying the situation.

 

Monte, my point is that this shrine bombing does indeed make it clear that the motivation is hatred. No one will make money or gain power by this action. While it did cause a large amount of violence, it doesn't weaken democratic Iraq's control at all, as a matter of fact it kinda strengthens it because forces that were previously somewhat united against the Iraqi government will now be fighting each other.

Anything that encourages sectarianism serves to weaken the fragile Iraqi 'democracy'. People who have been marginalised by the democratic process have much to gain by destabilising the government.

 

If they wanted wealth, power, or to accomplish military objectives they would have used that bomb to attack a US base or something.

Bombing a US base would not destabilise the Iraqi government or encourage sectarianism as much as bombing a symbolic shrine. Attacking the US will not cause division amongst Iraqis.

 

Clearly their target was neither the US, nor the Iraqi government, but Islam itself.

The target was a shrine. A sectarian symbol. It wasn't Islam.

 

For an Islamic terrorist to attack Islam, the motivation can only be hatred or pride...those are the only two emotions that are powerfull enough, illogical, cause self-destructive action, and would be relevant in this case. Indeed there's no logical reason to rule out pride at this point, but I'd put my money on hatred.

The driver that causes Iraqis to attack each other is power, not hatred.

[Aileron]

Sectarian strife goes against the objective of "getting the US our of Iraq" though. If they really wanted to win, they would be trying to unify Iraq against us.

 

I mean, the most they could cause is civil war, in which case we could just choose our favorite faction, help them win, and convince them to install a democracy when they finally achieve victory.

 

You are right in that this action does fulfill the insurgent's objectives though. When Bush gave his "Mission Accomplished" speech, the democratic cat was already out of the bag. Since then, there is no way Iraq would ever go back to a dictatorship, and the insurgent's only objective has been to raise the cost of the victory which has already been obtained.

 

To that end this action makes sense. Civil war would only increase the chances of a democracy forming over the long term, but that was already given years ago. All the insurgents care about now is raising the cost in blood.

 

My hypothesis is still correct though...only pride or hatred can motivate people to harm others just for its own sake.

[MonteZuma]

Sectarian strife goes against the objective of "getting the US our of Iraq" though. If they really wanted to win, they would be trying to unify Iraq against us.

They can't unify because they live in a sectarian society with a lot of anamosity - and individuals/groups that don't want to share power.

 

I mean, the most they could cause is civil war, in which case we could just choose our favorite faction, help them win, and convince them to install a democracy when they finally achieve victory.

The problem is the 'victory' would be temporary if the underlying problems are not resolved. The US doesn't want to stay in Iraq forever.

 

...there is no way Iraq would ever go back to a dictatorship, and the insurgent's only objective has been to raise the cost of the victory which has already been obtained.

I don't think that it is possible to say that Iraq will never become a dictatorship again. The insurgents and suicide bombers do not simply want to raise the cost of victory. Civil war most definitely does not increase the chances of a successful and independant democracy emerging in Iraq.

 

My hypothesis is still correct though...only pride or hatred can motivate people to harm others just for its own sake.

This is a contradiction in terms. If they are "harming others for its own sake" then there is no need for 'motivation'. Pride may be a factor, especially for the grunts that carry out the dirty work. Hatred is a product of some other motivating force, probably insecurity and fear. I suspect that some people in Iraq are whipping up hatred to advance their aims to secure more power.

 

And if you are so sure that your hypothesis is correct, then you should call it a law.

[Aileron]

Even clashing sects could possibly be unified against a large outside force. The British and Soviet attempts at invading Afghanistan are two of many proofs that this can happen.

 

In this case the victory we want is stable democracy, so if our situation is victory then the underlying issues have indeed been solved.

 

The insurgents and suicide bombers can't form a dictatorship. The most they could ever hope to form is a shadow government, because they can't hope to build occupation forces needed to control a government. A democracy will be formed with or without them.

 

The only way they could rise to power again is to be voted into it, but that's not going to happen with sectarian strife. The Shi'ites will vote for Shi'ites and the Sunnis will vote for Sunnis. Since Shi'ites are the majority ethnicity, Shi'ites will be voted into office.

 

This government probably won't respect the rights of the minorities, but majority rule is better than the totalitarian minority rule that was previous. It won't be a perfect democracy, but it will be close enough to one that we could let them develop the rest on their own.

 

To use SeVeR's example, by the time this is done we will have brought Iraq from the 12 century to the 1950s. The resulting democracy certainly have flaws in that it won't respect minorities, but will be good enough that it will develop on its own in a reasonable timeframe under subtle international pressure.

[MonteZuma]

Even clashing sects could possibly be unified against a large outside force. The British and Soviet attempts at invading Afghanistan are two of many proofs that this can happen.

Yeah. And look what happened there? Then end result was Taliban rule. In any case, unification isn't happening in Iraq.

 

In this case the victory we want is stable democracy, so if our situation is victory then the underlying issues have indeed been solved.

Defeating the enemy in battle does not result in stability or democracy. The proof of that pudding is present-day Iraq. In any case, what we want more than a stable democracy in Iraq is the defeat of terrorism and better global security. A civil war won't help on that score.

 

The insurgents and suicide bombers can't form a dictatorship. The most they could ever hope to form is a shadow government, because they can't hope to build occupation forces needed to control a government. A democracy will be formed with or without them.

I disagree. I suspect that the sectarian fighting could very easily lead to the emergence of a new military strongman as soon as the US pulls out.

 

The only way they could rise to power again is to be voted into it, but that's not going to happen with sectarian strife. The Shi'ites will vote for Shi'ites and the Sunnis will vote for Sunnis. Since Shi'ites are the majority ethnicity, Shi'ites will be voted into office.

If it was as simple as that, the government in Iraq would not adequately represent the people and peace would never come.

 

This government probably won't respect the rights of the minorities, but majority rule is better than the totalitarian minority rule that was previous.

Why do you think this is better?

 

It won't be a perfect democracy, but it will be close enough to one that we could let them develop the rest on their own.

Not if one third of the population feels marginalised. That is a recipe for disaster.

[SeVeR]

To use SeVeR's example, by the time this is done we will have brought Iraq from the 12 century to the 1950s. The resulting democracy certainly have flaws in that it won't respect minorities, but will be good enough that it will develop on its own in a reasonable timeframe under subtle international pressure.

I doubt they'd suddenly become a perfect copy of a 1950's democracy. They'll still feel hatred and will seek to discriminate against the other tribes. The dawn of democracy in Iraq only seemed to enhance the pre-existing hatred as a result of the acts of terrorists to thwart America's plans.. Saddam ruled with an iron fist and kept them in check while they still held their prejudices against other tribes but wouldn't act on them.

 

A democracy isn't going to suddenly erase that hatred and cause society to accept everyone as equal and i feel the pre-existing hatred has now been escalated.

 

I am still optimistic though; If the terrorists eventually get into their thick heads that America will pull out once the Iraqi army can control everything they should stop bombing places... at least until the Americans leave.

[Aileron]

That's the very reason I compaired it to the 50s...during that time period racism and hate were a big part of it. That's also why I think its good enough, because we didn't need any violent revolutions (riots and shootings notwithstanding) to advance from the 1950s to today. The point is that while a racist Shi'ite dominated democracy wouldn't be perfect, it would be good enough that we could withdraw troops and let them sort out the rest on their own. History has shown that majority ruled racism can evolve into true democracy, but minority ruled racism cannot.

 

Defeating the enemy in battle does not result in stability or democracy. The proof of that pudding is present-day Iraq.

You can't use a statement to prove itself. Besides, we don't know the result of the Iraqi War yet, so you couldn't use that statement even if we were talking about another country.

 

The point about Afghanistan is that they probably would not have been able to fight off the British nor the Soviets if they were in a state of civil war. They needed a unified leadership, the Taliban, to do it. I don't think there is a single historical case of a nation successfully fighting both a civil war and an outside invader. Infact, some of the biggest territorial gains have been made when the aggressor nation moved in while the losing nation was fighting themselves.

 

Your overall point about how military defeat may not necessarily equal total defeat is true though. However, in this specific case Hussein's rule was only by military force. Without that presence, there is at best room for a democracy and at very worst a power vacuum that can only be filled by the groups large enough to dominate. So, worst case scenario is strict majority rule, which can be made to into a democracy.

[MonteZuma]

History has shown that majority ruled racism can evolve into true democracy, but minority ruled racism cannot.

This doesn't make sense. Minority rule is not democracy. A democracy can exist in a racist society. What do you mean by 'true' democracy? One that is like the US?

 

You can't use a statement to prove itself.

The proof is not in the statement. It is in the situatoin that exists in present day Iraq.

 

Besides, we don't know the result of the Iraqi War yet, so you couldn't use that statement even if we were talking about another country.

I can. The comprehensive defeat of Saddam Hussein and his supporters has not produced stability. The opposite has occured.

 

worst case scenario is strict majority rule, which can be made to into a democracy.

The worst case scenario is anarchy. The worst likely scenario is civil disruption for many tears and the emergence of a new dictatorship from the ashes.

[LearJett+]

I can. The comprehensive defeat of Saddam Hussein and his supporters has not produced stability. The opposite has occured.

Did you really expect everything to just be O.K. right after Saddam was ousted?

 

Normally you make sound statements, Monte, but right now you're just shooting out opinions. Yes, there is civil disruption in present-day Iraq. This was predictable and expected. The question is what will happen after this disruption. You have just as much proof to say that a dictator will rise as I do that a democracy will rise.

[MonteZuma]

Did you really expect everything to just be O.K. right after Saddam was ousted?

No. I expected Iraq to become a mess. I was right. I thought the invasion was a bad idea.

 

Normally you make sound statements, Monte, but right now you're just shooting out opinions.

My views on Iraq have been consistent. There is nothing wrong with shooting out opinions.

 

Yes, there is civil disruption in present-day Iraq. This was predictable and expected.

The commitment and resilience of the insurgency was not expected by the war planners before the invasion.

 

The question is what will happen after this disruption. You have just as much proof to say that a dictator will rise as I do that a democracy will rise.

The only historic example of an invading and occupying force successfully installing a stable democracy in a large country that I can think of is Japan. But culturally, Iraq and Japan are completely different. I can't see any evidence or indication anywhere that makes me think Iraqi democracy will be successful.

 

And how can we talk about the future without stating an opinion?

[Aileron]

Yeah, I guess the war planners only !@#$%^&*umed that the insurgency would only be old loyalists to Saddam and that they wouldn't be importing foreign jihadists. On the other had maybe they saw this coming and figured it would be better to have those jihadists attack our soldiers in Iraq than have them attack our civilians around the globe.

 

 

This doesn't make sense. Minority rule is not democracy. A democracy can exist in a racist society. What do you mean by 'true' democracy? One that is like the US?

 

I am considering two types of dictatorship: One in which the government represents the majority and another in which it represents the minority. A true democracy is not mere majority rule, but also includes several mechanisms to allow minorities certain rights.

 

The Baathists were a minority ruled dictatorship. They were only of the Sunni race and stood for putting everyone in Iraq that wasn't Sunni - % of the population, under their thumb.

 

True democracy in Iraq would mean all the races cooperating together.

 

Now, if this turns out badly what we would get is a majority ruled dictatorship with a democratic mask. It wouldn't be real democracy, more like the majority !@#$%^&*erting their will on the minority all the time.

 

With the Shi'ites, about 60% of the population, oppressing the Sunnis. That's still a step better, at very least because before % were being oppressed and now it would be only 20%. More importantly though if you leave two people alone for a long enough amount of time they will disagree about something. Thus, if the Shi'ites were left to rule Iraq, it would not take long before at very least two political parties formed. Once that happens, there will be two 30% factions competing, and suddenly appealing to the 20% Kurdish and Sunnis populations will look interesting. Both political parties would start appealing to minorities just to beat the other. If more than two political parties formed, then the minority faces would get their rights in flat votes.

 

This is !@#$%^&*uming ofcourse the government in question officially grants basic life and liberty even to minorities. If one of their stated purposes is genocide, they will ofcourse never grant rights to minorities. I'm not takeing this possibility into account due to its unlikelyhood.

[MonteZuma]

Yeah, I guess the war planners only !@#$%^&*umed that the insurgency would only be old loyalists to Saddam and that they wouldn't be importing foreign jihadists. On the other had maybe they saw this coming and figured it would be better to have those jihadists attack our soldiers in Iraq than have them attack our civilians around the globe.

The advancing troops encountered a stronger-than-expected civilian guerilla force. The insurgents are not just outsiders.

 

They were only of the Sunni race and stood for putting everyone in Iraq that wasn't Sunni - % of the population, under their thumb.

It isn't that simple.

 

True democracy in Iraq would mean all the races cooperating together.

Are they races or are they religious groups?

 

Now, if this turns out badly what we would get is a majority ruled dictatorship with a democratic mask. It wouldn't be real democracy, more like the majority !@#$%^&*erting their will on the minority all the time.

If the leaders are elected, it won't be a dictatorship. If it isn't majority-ruled, it won't be a democracy.

 

With the Shi'ites, about 60% of the population, oppressing the Sunnis. That's still a step better, at very least because before % were being oppressed and now it would be only 20%. More importantly though if you leave two people alone for a long enough amount of time they will disagree about something. Thus, if the Shi'ites were left to rule Iraq, it would not take long before at very least two political parties formed. Once that happens, there will be two 30% factions competing, and suddenly appealing to the 20% Kurdish and Sunnis populations will look interesting. Both political parties would start appealing to minorities just to beat the other. If more than two political parties formed, then the minority faces would get their rights in flat votes.

That sounds good in theory.

 

This is !@#$%^&*uming ofcourse the government in question officially grants basic life and liberty even to minorities. If one of their stated purposes is genocide, they will ofcourse never grant rights to minorities. I'm not takeing this possibility into account due to its unlikelyhood.

Nobody's stated purpose is genocide. If Iraq turns even uglier, I doubt that it will be because of the elected government. They already hold power and will want to legitimise their position. Any disruption will more than likely be caused by insurgents and political groups or individuals that didn't win the elections or didnt participate in the elections.

[Aileron]

Well, the theory doesn't work if there's genocide going on...Nazi Germany and Bosnia are proof of that...the genocidal's ability to simply kill off minorities works faster than the time it takes for a split in the majority to form. However, as you said, no one's stated purpose is genocide. The likelihood is indeed so small in this case that we can safely just assume it won't happen.

 

I was just plugging a logical hole in my theorey.