This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Sunni-Shia Divide Explained
Via The Council on Foreign Relations,
Sunni and Shia Muslims have lived peacefully together for centuries. In many countries it has become common for members of the two sects to intermarry and pray at the same mosques. They share faith in the Quran and the Prophet Mohammed's sayings and perform similar prayers, although they differ in rituals and interpretation of Islamic law.
But...
An ancient religious divide is helping fuel a resurgence of conflicts in the Middle East and Muslim countries.
Struggles between Sunni and Shia forces have fed a Syrian civil war that threatens to transform the map of the Middle East, spurred violence that is fracturing Iraq, and widened fissures in a number of tense Gulf countries. Growing sectarian clashes have also sparked a revival of transnational jihadi networks that poses a threat beyond the region.
Islam's schism, simmering for fourteen centuries, doesn't explain all the political, economic, and geostrategic factors involved in these conflicts, but it has become one prism by which to understand the underlying tensions. Two countries that compete for the leadership of Islam, Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran, have used the sectarian divide to further their ambitions. How their rivalry is settled will likely shape the political balance between Sunnis and Shias and the future of the region, especially in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Bahrain.
Alongside the proxy battle is the renewed fervor of armed militants, motivated by the goals of cleansing the faith or preparing the way for the return of the messiah. Today there are tens of thousands of organized sectarian militants throughout the region capable of triggering a broader conflict. And despite the efforts of many Sunni and Shia clerics to reduce tensions through dialogue and counterviolence measures, many experts express concern that Islam's divide will lead to escalating violence and a growing threat to international peace and security.
»
- 27390 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
So, Council on Foreign Relations, your wars in the Middle East had nothing to do with this? Do you really think we're that stupid? Oh, of course. You do think we are that stupid.
P.S. Your mercenaries, Xe f/k/a Blackwater, broke the window in the picture above.
The Official Organ Spokes-Entity of the New World Order.
Propaganda Tavistock Style
No, they took out Harvey Organ sometime Thursday evening.
Here's all you need to know:
There are two groups of Muslims who like to kill each other for religious reasons.
Not if you leave them alone and don't bomb them, invade their countries and proactively incite religious and ethnic hatred as part of your empire strategy.
It's too late for that. they're so crazy they think they're going to "win". they need to be put down like mad dogs. and make the "religion" an illegal cult; worldwide; no place to hide. Convert or die. it can be done. you'd have to put on a nice demonstration in Saudi Arabia and another one in Pakistan to get the idea across; that could either surrender unconditionally or surrender unconditionally; but it can be done; and it should be done. This so called "Islam" is just a mental disease.
There's a lot of people here in Australia who agree with you.
They have started implementing your strategy by attacking muslim women and children on the streets.
Which also shows they are just about as brave as you.
I already went to one war; got one bullet hole; I'm 72; what do you want me to do ? I didn't say anything about attacking women and children; what are you talking about?
His Aussie friends would find lots of violent parallels in the Koran. Maybe they should convert and join ISIS in SYria.
Good morning, Tel-Aviv!
I thought the strife between the Shia and Sunni was not just simmering for the past 1400 years, let us not forget the battles between the Persians and the Ottomans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Persian_Wars
The two states were arch rivals, and were also divided by religious grounds, the Ottomans being staunchly Sunni and the Safavids being Shia. A series of military conflicts ensued for centuries during which the two empires competed militarily for control over eastern Anatolia, the Caucasus, and Mesopotamia (Iraq).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Zuhab was a pretty key treaty arising from all these conflicts.
What is interesting is that Turkoman tribes played key roles in the Persian military and were key to successes over their Ottoman brethren. TURK vs TURK lol.
Although the Safavid rulers and citizens were of native stock and continuously reasserted their Iranian identity, the power structure of the Safavid state was mainly divided into two groups: the Turkic-speaking military/ruling elite—whose job was to maintain the territorial integrity and continuity of the Iranian empire through their leadership—and the Persian-speaking administrative/governing elite—whose job was to oversee the operation and development of the nation and its identity through their high positions. Thus came the term "Turk and Tajik", which was used by native Iranians for many generations to describe the Persianate, or Turko-Persian, nature of many dynasties which ruled over Greater Iran between the 12th and 20th centuries, in that these dynasties promoted and helped continue the dominant Persian linguistic and cultural identity of their states, although the dynasties themselves were of non-Persian (e.g. Turkic) linguistic origins. The relationship between the Turkic-speaking 'Turks' and Persian-speaking 'Tajiks' was symbiotic, yet some form of rivalry did exist between the two. As the former represented the "people of the sword" and the latter, "the people of the pen", high-level official posts would naturally be reserved for the Persians. Indeed, this had been the situation throughout Persian history, even before the Safavids, ever since the Arab conquest.[106] Shah Tahmasp introduced a change to this, when he, and the other Safavid rulers who succeeded him, sought to blur the formerly defined lines between the two linguistic groups, by taking the sons of Turkic-speaking officers into the royal household for their education in the Persian language. Consequently, they were slowly able to take on administrative jobs in areas which had hitherto been the exclusive preserve of the ethnic Persians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_dynasty#Turks_and_Tajiks
Just what we need- the CFR explaining to us in their calm NPR voice the root cause of conflict in the middle east. All the while neglecting to mention that they master over the conflict in true hegelian fashion.
dup
Your use of the mutually inclusive "they" says it all... that ridiculous 'us and them' mentality is your undoing.
It is EXACTLY us OR them, and the sooner you leave your "can't we all just get along, I'm OK, you're OK, everyone should be able to do what they want", mentality, behind, the closer you'll be to a solution.
It IS us OR them.
I feel sad for you...
Whereas here in the UK, Muslim perverts are grooming non-Muslim children for their sex parties in the streets.
Is it so? KIKE.
It's funny how people like you blame us. Take some time to study Islamic history. Under the first 2 caliphates Muslims exterminated all the Christians and Jews in the Middle-East. They killed all the Zoroastrians in the former Persian Empire. They went to India and murdered 80,000,000 Hindus and 20,000,000 Buddhists. They conquered North Africa and wiped out the Christians there, crossed into Spain and murdered and enslaved all the European Christians up into France and Portugal. The Ottoman Turks drove into eastern Europe, The Balkans, Macedonia, and the Austria-Hungarian Empire. They killed 250,000,000 to 275,000,000 people long before our empire strategy even existed. I'm not saying we're doing the right thing, but Muslims are not victims.
Finally, someone who isn't talking out his ass!
This is not unique to Islam. Recall the forced conversions of "pagans" across Europe by genocidal Christians, the Dark Ages the continent was plunged into under the Catholic Church, and the Crusades as well as the Spanish Inquisition. That's not yet getting into the fact that this was repeated once more in the Americas during the colonization period/the era of the Conquistadors.
It is more accurate to say that these Abrahamic religions, in general, continuously manifest themselves as a systemic risk to social harmony, civilness and political stability the world over. These religions actively seek to turn the working class against itself, they openly advocate the discrimination of women, homosexuals and non-believers, and they have a profoundly regressive influence on education and social progress.
Some seem to think that anti-theism, atheism or even secularism are radical positions in themselves. But this is only true in so far that they are a wholly proportionate response to the virulent intolerance, hatred and divisions which these Abrahamic faiths appear to wantonly foster among the world's peoples.
It's not just Abrahamic religions...don't forget Genghis Khan and many others of his ilk.
Perhaps it is simply the nastiness of humanity, not necessarily a religious thing. When, in all of recorded history, have disparate groups of people lived in harmony for extended periods of time. Did the American Navajos get along well with their neighbors? Did the Aztecs ever indulge in violence against other local tribes? Did Rome conquer Western Europe using love and rational thought to win over the natives' hearts and minds? Animals fight within their own species for various reasons, like mating rights. Humanity just came up with more reasons to fight other humans, and developed technology to do it far more effectively.
You're showing your bigoted ignorance I'm afraid. The Dark Ages were caused by ... your friends and mine! ... the Muslims, when they invaded Europe and brought along the old convert-or-die we'll-take-your-children-and-sell-them-in-the-slave-markets thang.
Your premise is correct but the numbers seem a bit high
You might want to read a little about the History of Islam before making such bold assertions. Even if what you state were true, you'd still be projecting the fundamentalist qualities of individual Caliphs to an entire religion... that is a logical fallacy.
Are you suggesting that Muslims who did not adhere to the 'fundamentalist qualities of individual Caliphs' were not being true to Islam? You seem to be saying that said Caliphs were adhering closely to the Quran, whilie the less religious were more peaceful. Or am I missing your intent? Self-described Christians who kill, torture, etc. are not following anything written in their scriptures. Self-described Islamists like ISIS do seem to be doing what the Quran says they should do. What exactly did you mean, then, by 'fundamentalist qualities'?
YOU might want to read a little about the History of Islam.
IF Islam (or muslims) follow the Koran, it is their OBLIGATION, their sacred duty, to exterminate us.
Anyone not knowing this is too ignorant to be part of the conversation.
Anyone can comment, here, of course.
But to paint their entire dogma as just belongiong to the "extremists" leaves your credibility suspect.
Anyone who objectively looks at the history of Islam and concludes that they are victims is either a fool or a liar. Of the latter, I suspect that many are actually named Mohammad, but posting under a western-sounding pseudoname.
From the very beginning, Islam was a death cult, founded by a ranting lunatic who started off as a gigolo, then became a murderer, rapist and pedophile. Their practices are specifically designed to whip their followers into a homocidal rage while denying them the outlets (wine, women, song) that other cultures use to chill out. Within Islam, the opportunity to think critically has also been severely diminished; lets face it: starving yourself for a month each year and praying 5X per day takes its toll. They regularly execute "apsotates" who have the unmitigated gall to want to leave the religion--these are probably the only ones who, despite all the social obstacles, have woken up to the brutish reality that is Islam. Throughout their long history, Muslims have never really been at peace with anyone--they may seem peaceful for extended periods when even they realize they are at a military disadvantage.
Recently, they have gotten very good at obfuscation, thanks to help from the MSM, who let them claim victim status while launching genocidal attacks on others. If this sounds nightmarishly horrible, it is--and I've left an awful lot out. Despite all this, I can help but wonder if Westerners are even more stupid than Muslims, as we are in denial about their intentions and seem content to let them vigorously colonize our homelands.
Hey, I thought you called yourself las vegas Dave.
He wears different skullkcaps to confuse the crowd
Obviously the above reader is unfamiliar with the Abbasid period, the poetry of Hafez, Sufisim of Rumi. 'Objectively' - my arse.
Oh, uh, okay. So there was a period where some Muslims actually eeked out some "poetry". I guess that excuses all the genocide, pillaging, forced conversions, and mayhem. WTF was I thinking?
You kind is aplague,a virus upon humanity.Endless falsification.
Sorry.
Under the first 2 caliphates Muslims exterminated all the Christians and Jews in the Middle-East.
Bullshit. Which dynasties? The Ummayads and the Abbasids? The Ummayads weren't interested in converting non-Arabs purely because that would mean bringing large groups of people from a upper tax band to a lower tax band (go read up on what 'jizyah' is). Mass conversions only occured during the Abbassid period and that was 300 years after the Arab/Muslim conquests.
They killed all the Zoroastrians in the former Persian Empire.
Proof? Last I recall they still some living in current day under Mullah-dominated Iran.
They went to India and murdered 80,000,000 Hindus and 20,000,000 Buddhists.
Proof? And even if true Hindus still remain a majority - again reason: Sultans don't like less people paying 'jizyah' by converting to Islam.
They conquered North Africa and wiped out the Christians there,
Proof? Alot of those christians were Arians - Islam and Arianism had alot in common.
crossed into Spain and murdered and enslaved all the European Christians up into France and Portugal.
And the Christian Kingdoms likewise did the same, there's accounts of Christian slaving parties enslaving Morrocan women and forcing them to convert so their enslavers could marry them.
You Yanks and half-informed comments, go get your history from academic sources (i.e. journals) instead of one-eyed polemics from some conspiracy site.
"And even if true Hindus still remain a majority"
Oh well, that's alright then, the ones that died clearly don't matter.
"there's accounts of Christian slaving parties enslaving Morrocan women and forcing them to convert so their enslavers could marry them"
Proof?
Shia vs Sunni has been going on for a long time. Muslim vs Hindu has been sparking violence for a long time. Oil policy has not helped but these groups will not be at peace until one or the other is gone. That of course is not going to happen. It is disappointing but amusing to see all the conspiracy theorists in full throat all the time here. The jihadists must be a special kind of stupid to be so easily manipulated by the JOOOOS, and the CIA.
And if the conspiracy theorists have it all figured out and are so much smarter than the Jooooos, how come they do not rule the world instead of the Jooooos?
Islam has never been at peace with anybody. Islam is a political system disguised as religion. And a corrupt and tyrannical one to boot. The proof is in front of your face and in history.
http://thereligionofpeace.com/
Grimaldus
How naive and uninformed you are. Start with the Battle of Karbala in the year 680 and proceed from there through Wahabism in the 1700s to today.
CFR..
those cats are evil...
and i remember balckwater in iraq...those guys were arrogant...until a road side bomb took out their vehicle...hear their deaths never even made the news...
Xe is what happens to the soliders who join up for the wrong reasons. And they get paid well for making that "mistake." U.S. taxpayers and honorable soldiers train them to be killers for a mission. Oligarchs hire them to be killers for their mission.
you speak the truth..
Actually, Blackwater kicked arab ass like no other. Check the mission records if you really want truth. Not arguing that they should not have been there. Can't speak to the arrogance bit could be quite possible.
Grimaldus
Ok, sensible proposition, recent geo-political meddling caused this...and then you begin to read history...and realise that Muslims were doing this in AD610, were always doing this, only stopped when they ran out of money or territory to conquer, or encountered a force that resisted.
Always.
1404 years of this.
Always.
What others do does not matter, this is the true face of Islam.
you know it's just propaganda because it never mentions wahhabism/salafism.
if it is not, then why would they not mention wahhabism/salafism? i should think it would be pretty important to discuss the sect that dominates the most holy city for the entire religion and also discuss it's intimate relationship with the political entity known as the house of saud, don't you?
if they know the truth and they wanted you to have it they would have told you so.
if they have the truth and tell you something different you know they don't want you to know the truth also.
information advantage/disparity is competitive advantage. comparative information advantage/disparity guides the masses who suffer from a deficit of information; they are ignorant, and either accept at face value such reported information, or are too confused by its complexities to meaningfully act against it. those that can manipulate this existing game of relative information advantage, can frame other games, such as economic and political games, as religious games to enlist the support of the ignorant, and win competitions that rewards those living practically to enoy this life rather than the next one. thus, we see it benefits elites to both have religion and to manipulate it to their advantage.
of course, this is just one field of information that these groups manipulate, and by manipulate i mean that in the most literal sense of the word: "a skillful handling of objects". by group, i simply mean those organizations that inhabit the strategic space in which manipulating information yields competitive advantage. i would also note that far from needing to be a unified grand conspiracy, the mere existence of a theoretical region of informational advantage more or less necessitates the actualization of actors to populate it due to the mechanism of evolutionary competition: whatever it takes to send your genetic material into the future.
you can read about those other manipulations in other cfr and cfr-type articles if you want. remeber though, information introduced is a positive attempt to change or reinforce existing belief whereas an information omission can be a positive attempt to leave beleifs unchanged. unconscious omissions of information should be thought of as strategic externalities that could eventually lead to the failure of the strategy, and possibly even the loss of the game.
...back to Leraconteur though, buddy, I think you either ought to humbly go back the formative stages of your "authority" with regards to islamic history, or admit some kind of weird shilldom on your part. god knows that strategic prudence practically demands that disinfo agents pop up on a page like this that threatens the strategic information advantage of the CFR. the truthful will respond with humility and efforts to bring their beliefs into as much factual coherence with reality as possible, while the shills and disinfo bots will necessarily eschew directly refuting the key propositions of opposing arguments and resort to lesser forms of disagreement such as ad hominem attacks or other forms of logical fallacy.
What is this juvenile bullshit?
THEY HAVE THE TRUTH?
Can't you read and decide for yourself, or must you believe what someone else tells you?
This tendency for some here to assign omniscience to those in power, is just bizarre.
So what if what they say is counter to what I know. What they say,WHAT YOU SAY is irrelevant.
I read and decide for myself - what they say and want is not germaine.
Why you care what they want you to know, is a mystery.
You need to go back and read histories written pre-CFR, pre-NWO, pre-16th C, and read what Muslims and Islam did then, before anyone you would assign as being responsible, ever existed.
They always did this. Always. People noticed in the 8th AD, and that had NOTHING to do with the CFR.
You need to expand your knowledge past the most recent millenium, to pre-AD1000.
if wikipedia has the truth (the indisputable existence of wahhabism/salafism), then i'd certainly imagine that the CFR has access to that resource as well.
i would have down-voted you immediately but you opened with a quote, which is conincedentally a well-known hack to prevent voting on a comment on this message board.
the weak point in your most recent argument is your insistence that our present time has meaningful relation to the situation "pre-AD1000".
it should suffice to say that times have changed alot since then.
LOL, you are citing Wikipedia as a source of "truth"??
so if wikipedia was to posit the existence of the color blue, would you discount it on mere fact of it being documented by wikipedia?
your logic is fucking weak and you clearly have fallen off the slippery slope, bro.
Always did this? What crock of shit! Put it this way sunshine the during the Abbassid period the muslim world was so far ahead your western forefathers would have been considered an unwashed illiterate barbarian by the average Baghdadi. Fast forward to 500 years and under the Ottoman Sultan of Suleiman the middle east was in peace, the Ottomans a 100 years later put an end to Sunni-Shia bloodletting by a famous peace treaty. That peace however began unravelling in the 19th century when the Brits decided to take the murderous wahabbis under the wing. Fast forward 100 years and the offspring of this petro-takfirism metamorphasised into ISIL after the removal of Saddam. Not it wasn't always like this you fuck. Am lying you say? Riddle me this Sherlock - would there be ISIL if Saddam was still in power? Would there be AlQaeda in Mali and Libya if Qadaffi was in power? True violence has been there in the Middle East for a long time but this bloodletting by ISIL go all the way back to Langley.
Does not matter if it is or not, a broken clock is correct twice a day.
I look at anything that Muslims and Islam do, with a perspective guided by what they have done for 1400 years. They were constantly at war within and without by Day 1. Fighting now is just a continuation of what they have always done.
You are locking in on the CFR but ignoring the broader reality that predates the CFR by a millenium.
As opposed to the Christian West which has been singing kumbiah since the ascension and demonstrating their Christianity by the love they show for one another. Hell, even since just the end of World War ll, how many lives has the US stolen and how many rivers of blood have they been the torrential source of?
IN both Syria and Iraq, there was peace and intermarriage between Sunni and Shia until the JooSA took their chosen masters orders, as good little shabbos, and destroyed those two countries, unleashing Hell upon their people Iraq, perhaps the most advanced Arab country in terms of education and infrastructure, was deliberately bombed almost back to the stone age. Syria, like Iraq, governed by a secular regime, given its limited resouces, created a country largely at peace with itself, and, until Bashar al Assad took up the neo-liberal economic agenda, there was little strife and tension in the country. Let's not forget Lybia, a country where certainly much of the countrys oil partimony was invested in improving the country and providing benefits for the people, again destroyed and left horrifically divided by unleashing the monsters the US is supposedly mortally opposed to. The same monsters who killed the US ambassador to Lybia, and who Pres Putin referred to in Syria as "liver eaters". The same monsters that Ghadaffi was seeking to suppress, and who the "West" loaned an Air Force to to destroy Ghadaffis forces whenever they raised they heads to take the battle to the savages.
I'm not suggesting that Saddam was a nice man who loved children and was kind to animals. But I'm sure if Iraqis could have him back tomorrow and turn the clock back 11 years, they would do so probably almost unanimously. As for Ghadaffi, what a strange man, I think you would have to assume, from his public behaviour, that he was not quite right in the head. Nevertheless, much of Lybias wealth was invested in the country and shared with the people to the considerable benefit. The great irrigation project which he had build and which had the capability to transform the countrys agriculture I believe has been destroyed. It is what the West does. It only knows to destroy. If that is not Satanic, what in Hell is?????
That's what our glorious Western Christian civilisation has done. As the Bible has it, look not at the speck in your neighbours eye, until you clear the log from your own.
Do not overlook the root of the problem: humanity. You seem to attribute much of the world's anguish to "Western Christian civilization", without stopping to recognize that little or nothing the West has done for a century or more has anything to do with Christianity per se. True, leaders do tend to wrap themselves in religion to enlist the sympathies of their subjects, but religion has nothing to do with root causes in the US. Perhaps the closest America came to a religiously inspired war was the Civil War, but there certainly were lots of other, more worldly considerations besides liberating the slaves.
Religions are best judged by what their originating documents say. Does the Quran advocate violence? From what I've read, it certainly does. Does the Torah advocate violence? Certainly it states that God directed the Israelites to wipe out certain specific tribes/peoples who lived within their Promised Land, but some scholars have claimed that it was a type of racial cleansing, designed to eradicate the giants that the scouts sent by Moses saw there. If there are other Jewish scriptures that advocate conquest and violence in a generic way, I am unaware of them. Then to Christianity: I have never heard anyone point to a single passage in the New Testament that advocates the kind of violence exhibited by Islamists through the ages. Indeed, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire not by the sword but by entirely peaceful means. A proper understanding of the New Testament shows that forced conversion to Christianity is meaningless. Further, Calvinism - one of the several strains of Christian thought - asserts that God has chosen those who will become true Christians, so I see little cause for forced conversions if Calvin is correct. Returning to my opening statement, Calvinism is based, in part, on the concept of human depravity. While it is tempting to judge religions on the actions of self-proclaimed adherents, we must recognize that doing so does not give a true picture of the religion itself.
Perhaps some christian theologian could help me with a query: when Jesus in the book of Matthew 'I bring the sword not peace' was he reffering to an allegorical sword? Or was this a deliberate textual alteration inserted by christian scribes?
so, once again, how do you account for the existence of wahhabism/salafism, which has been an enemy to both shi'a and sunni islam, and currently sits at the right hand of the most powerful islamic military/political entity in the region?
honestly, you've not even used the word "wahhabism" or "salafism" in your "rebuttals", so how could you be meaningfully refuting the central propositions of my argument?
You know what the biggest kicker is? Before the Saudi found oil under their ground, and the Brits decided to recognise them, to export and finance their extremist version of Islam the vast majority of muslims followed Sufi Islam (ie the religion of Rumi). Once the oil gusher started though and you soon found takfiris all around the muslim world with ISIS being the most recent incarnation of this group.
Sunni and Shia Muslims have lived peacefully together for centuries.
Not in Iraq they haven't.
How do you know?
'Iraq' hasn't even existed for one century yet. It was a creation of the colonial powers after WWI.
...you mean the Iraq that the British created following the first world war?
Cast back your mind to the first few years of Operation Iraqi Bkqwhatever, sectarian tension was the goal as evidenced by the ops, BLACK and otherwise. After the Golden Mosque bombing in Samarra, no one could deny it was the US stoking these things. And that was what, 2006?
And here we are debating, nearly 10 years later, if that's what we've indeed been up to the ENTIRE TIME. The mysteries of ISIS, etc.
Anyone who knows a good slice of muslims from around the world also knows that these divisions are fake. Mais oui, we poor sobs are destined for teh ebola camps lest our plaintive voice be herd.
Shia and Sunni got along had gotten along in an uneasy peace until the US/UK/Zionist Deep State thrust Israel into the center of the Middle East.
Israel and its zombie Golem the US now make sure that the Shia/Sunni conflict remains active, classical tactic of making your enemies fight amongst themselves. Reading Yinon makes it clear that Israel will seek chaos in all of the surrounding Muslim states.
ISIS was created and is run by the US/Mossad/UK/SA for that reason, will control of oil resources the ultimate reward.
ISIS is the biggest false flag ever envisioned and carried out. Everything you see in the MSM is redirection to keep your eye off the ball. Interesting that ISIS makes almost no pronouncements or threats to Israel isn;t it?
Congratulations, you win the Heinrich Himmler Award for most frenetic & absurd rabid anti-jewish propagaanda !
Soooo your saying Saddam loved him some Shia? Ha Ha made me laugh.
Check your history.
Grimaldus
Correction: Sadly, they KNOW the majority of people are that stupid
It is of course just a coincidence that the CFR is over 70% Jewish.
The CFR? Really?
Yeah, more lies from Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin.
They lost badly against the Mongols , and were lucky to survive at all .
They did not have a Hazmat suit .
Liquidity breaks down when most are dead or fled .
Unfortunately , they cannot suspend Ebola .
With your paper worthless , you might sonn need the poor mans Hazmat suit .
This has been historically battle proven . It might save some lives
Regards
Andre
xxxxxxx
http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2011/07/rotting-clothing.html
https://www.academia.edu/8743634/Ancient_Mongolian_Hazmat_Suit
It is ethnic divide also: Persians vs Arabs
Why can't they all just get along?
"many experts express concern that Islam's divide will lead to escalating violence and a growing threat to international peace and security."
Nah. They've loved each other so much for so many years, this too shall pass, quickly and easily. Like a bowling ball through a midget's swollen anal pore.
PS. Anybody heard a peep from the Hadji's 'bout the Ebola?
PSS If they only had a common enemy rain fire and brimstone upon their heads from above, like an alien invasion.... er wait....
If they only had a common religion and cultural traits to bind them together.... oh.... Darn!
If ... oh nebvertherfugmind... just leave 'em alone to kill one another and everybody'll be happier.
PSSSSS Some communities to be organized, mayhaps?
I actually prefer your pssss instead of pppps
Its like psssss, there's more but don't tell.
Or that cat joke. How did you know the cat was dead johnny?
I pissed in his ear. What?
Yeah. Psssss'd and he didn't wake up.
knukles; you're too funny.
Kill them all, then the differences between their primitive cults is irrelevant, and the world will be much safer for civilized humans.
Yeah, and right after, let's kill everyone who ever advocated genocide, right?
well, that doesn't follow logically. I see you feel strongly about it but it doesn't address the question of whether or not genocide might be a good idea. In the case of Hitler and the Jews, Gypsies, etc, it was a bad idea, because they were smarter and harder working even than Germans. So that was a genocide that was wrong; because it was decided on by a nut. But maybe it would be a good idea to have a real religious war and just win it; survivors, a small minority can kiss the bible, and forswear any allegiance to any other sky daddys, (they're all bullshit, but if you're going to have a religous war, I suppose you have to have a sky daddy to represent your side). then all Korans are burned; penalty for ownership or study; death, etc. etc. and presto. problem solved. You could start by just declaring that it wasn't a religion because it wasn't old enough, (as good an excuse as any), and it was a "dangerous cult"; which seems to be true enough. t hen just use a little strategy like a hiroshima yield device directly air burst over the hole black rock they pray to on black rock day when there are some 150,000 of them all in one place; and assasinate the Saudi rulers if necessary; just put an end to it. right now you're just encouraging these medieval cultists by supporting them in Europe and other places and pretending that its a religion and deserves respect and all this other bullshit.
A lot of people just don't get your brand of humor.
Killing a cancer on the species is species healthcare, not "genocide".
They don' t have to be islamic cult worshipers, they could be harmless Buddhists instead. Do to them what they did to spread all around the world and are still doing today - kill all who will not convert to Buddhism :-))
Right! We were peacefully cooking our hamburgers and watching all the antibiotics make our wife's asses morbidly larger, when the Prez told us we need to bring freedoom to these guys in the caves.
We then spent trillions on trying to make these cavemen understand our way of life. But no, despite all the goodness of our hearts, they still hate us for our freedoms.
Thus, we the civilized Western world absolutely need to send the poor (that is our proud Army and Navy, fighting for the banksters) and show the cavemen what is the Western civilization all about.
At a fifty percent casulty rate, with some nuclear shock and awe; they'd capitulate. everybody does.
Cui bono?
I think war is GDP positive.
I know this is super random, but does ZeroHedge have networking/social events? I am sure we have a solid representation in NYC, Boston, DC etc. It would be great to meet some fellow zero hedgers.
would be great but, if mkultra is any example, such gatherings would be a prime target for state surveillance, and who wants to deal with that shit?
furthermore, what would the unifying belief for zero hedgers be anyways? that everyone dies eventually (the slogan/motto)?
i guess if i had to say what i think it is, at it's core I would say that the unifying belief of z'h-ers is that math is a real thing and that tangible stuff exists that is scarce relative to other actual things.
good luck getting people to sign up for the email list, although, i am pretty certain even registering for an account on here will get your surveilled. surveilled if you do or don't, if the gov't isn't careful, the implied threat might take on a boy who cried wolf type character ;)
I don't mix well with human beings.
Blackwater > XE > Academi
MoreFaceLiftsThenMuthaFukkenJoanRivers.
I just pray the Baptists don't ever decide to turn on the Methodists...
Yeah, we Presbyterians are sick and tired of those asshole Baptists. Whack 'em all.
Puhleeze, this is all BS.
The whole world is crazy. You think that's crap??? Look who's #1 in college football...Mississippi State..WTF???
So, we are ALL crazy, and it's not a competition, so relax.
Wait...Mississippi has a university?
[Biloxi Catholic School survivor]
Old Miss.
Sunni and Shia have been killing each other since the day Mohammed died. Until there's a Muslim Renaissance they will forever be stuck in medievil times.
That assessment was written a couple of years ago by a Muslim who lamented Islam never went through a much needed period of enlightenment.
Horrible article and superficial video that avoids the real cause of the rift: power and money.
In simple terms, the Sunni Shia divide is nothing less than the largest and oldest gang war in the world. This has gone on for centuries and will continue to go on for centuries (or until they get nukes). It will only end when one side totally destroys and enslaves the other.
In a nutshell: Mohammed is the leader of Islam. Takes over territory including present day Iraq, Saudi and even kicks Byzantine ass in Turkey. (Khalid Bin Walid is an Islamic General whose strategy WWII Erwin Rommel studied and modeled.)
Mohammed dies with no successor. Everyone expects his nephew Ali (Shia) will get the seat. Instead, while Ali is burying his dead uncle, a greedy businessman named Abu Bakr (Sunni) takes the seat. Ali comes back and finds Abu Bakr in his chair. Abu Bakr tells him possession is 9/10ths the law and kiss the ring.
Ali says, over my dead body. Abu Bakr says, if you insist.
They have been fighting a gang war ever since.
To understand the what is occuring now in the Middle East you must understand the Sunni Shia rift.
the purported sunni-shia divide paradigm is misleading because it fails to account for the existence and even possibly pre-eminence of wahhabism/salafism.
Sufism contained all the "enlightenment" one could need.
From the point of view of universal awareness, the West is pretty much lagging behind. Which could help to account for why the Western ideas have led the world in death and destruction for the last 800 years.
i agree with you, but, since they don't have meaningful political power, they are mostly a non-player in this game.
You are correct. Furthermore, your comment contains a very powerful explanation of why we, humans, are fucked. The mere existance of such notions as "political power", and the emphasis placed on its acquision and maintenance, for that matter, ensures that much.
you should post more, i like the cut of your jib, sir.
The one valuable claim this article makes, Step 1, is that the conflict between Sunni and Shia communities, at least on the scale of 1000 years or less, is of very recent origin.
Step 2 is to admit it is a manufactured conflict.
Step 3 is to look for "the real cause of the rift: power and money," and examine it in detail.
The article doesn't get past step 1.
You, dogis, get Step 3, but you somehow missed or skipped Steps 1 and 2. Which seems strange to me.
When you see all three steps you have the tools to see that the situation isn't hopeless at all, it just takes teaching, organizing and mobilizing people to act together against the common enemy, the Empire.
Much as Assad has been doing, fairly successfully considering the quarter million armed-to-the-hilt fanatics and mercenaries the Empire has unleashed on Syria.
Without Step 1 and 2, the possibility of using your understanding of Step 3 to help effect positive change is little to none.
Anybody who thinks Islamic infighting is "manufactured" is utterly ignorant of Islamic history.
These people have been fighting amongst themselves since the day Mohammed died. The only thing they seem to love more than killing each other is killing Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or pretty much anyone else that has gotten in their way for 1400 years.
These are historical facts. Tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions, slaughtered in the name of the "Prophet". It is a mind boggling legacy, much of which has been stuffed into the Memory Hole, but it is easily discoverable if one bothers to do a little digging. This book is a great place to start: Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization, by John J. O'Neil.
Buckaroo Banzai, your historic revisionism is... appalling. even though I agree with your premise of not being manufactured. exploited might be the better word
"these people have been fighting among themselves..." like who? Christan denominations have fought... moar, among themselves. example: the Thirty_Years'_War
Islamic forces conquered the Eastern Roman Empire, North Africa and reached to France and Austria. Sure, lots of blood flowed, as in all conquests. But the real history of all the places they conquered, be them in Spain, Sicily, the Balkans, etc. etc. is not what you find in this book of yours
note for example that the standard procedure during Islamic conquest was to ask populations to either convert or pay a poll tax. discrimination, yes. slaughter? no
if you are really interested (in case you you really want to challenge your prejudices) in what happened in the last 1400 years between Christians and Muslims, I'd suggest you start with this man, who's history is very, very relevant to all muslim denominations, the Kurds and the region where those fights currently are: Saladin
his banner, Saladin's Eagle, still flies on both Kurdish and Egyptian ensignia
note how Christian commanders of the Crusades like the Western Emperor or the English King were praising him... while fighting him
in short, most Crusaders would have found your position versus Islam a tad... simplistic and crude
Ghordius, your ability to whitewash Islam's infomous history through obfuscation is truely remarkable. "Look! Over there! Its a..."
Which worldview advocates the historical behaviour we see? Which worldviews condone their historical activity? Which are acting in line with (or drawing logical conclusions to) their initial foundations?
Ask the right questions and the world neatly divides into those who are merely acting in line with their worldview and those who are living contrary to it.
Your "but, but, the Christians did that" doesn't work.
.
USSA in a nutshell.
Your ignorance is dangerous and appalling. No wonder Europe is a sinkhole of moral relativism that has been overrun by Muslim filth.
Nice try, KIKE>
What, you work at Disney?
I thought it was common knowledge that all the violence in the ME is caused by Youtube.
Doesn't every major religion experience divisions from time to time?
Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants, Orthodox and Reconstructionist Jews...
We all have far more similarities than differences, but all it takes is one asshole to stab or shoot somebody, and it's on.
Teach your children to hate, wait 20 years...repeat.
Well, this is a real problem because Saudi Arabia, for sure, and probably other sources of finance, provide these schools in places like Pakistan that train young people to be suicide bombers, etc. etc. and in all cases to hate; as for education, forget it; they just learn to repeat phrases from the Koran. So, if western civilization had it's shit together, these would all be stopped and as much as possible of the brainwashing reversed. but this idea of pretending that this violent ignorant cult is a religion and has some kind of right; like they do in the UK is crazy. I think we should have a religious war and we should win it and be done with it.
I'm certain of one thing, the U.S. & the West getting involved in this internecine conflict was a tragic mistake.
We got involved out of goodness of our hearts and because we didn't want them to hate us for our freedoms.
But lo and behold, Arabs will always bite on the soft, friendly Anglo Saxon helping hand. They always did.
It wasn't, exactly, a "mistake".
More like a decsion that led to lots of pain and death and shit for the little people, with wealth and power for a few.
CFR? Seriously ZH?
So when they -- a Shia and a Sunni -- intermarry, is the child a Shunni?
Just asking.
Sure. It is like:
Cock and Never fucked one Roach before.
You get cockroach.
.
Shitcakes vs. Screwies...it's tempting to just sit back and watch them kill each other without interfering. But better yet, let's speed up the pace of them eliminating one another by nuking 'em just like you would use a can of Raid on battling cockroaches.
MAJORITY DOES RULE!
That IS Democracy.
And that's why our country is so fucked up.
We don't even have 'representative' democracy in this 'republic'.
It's rule by the wealthiest.
http://goldtradercommentsaugust2010.blogspot.com/
And Yugoslavia was a nice peacefully place just as long as Tito kept a gun pointed to everyone's head. The Sunni Shia divide is a large part of what feeds the flames but even more so is the insufferable and unsurmountable tribalism. T.E. Lawrence figured it out over 90 years ago. Hasn't changed a whole lot in the intervening decades.
.
Volumes here. Now pull back to global perspective.
Which Zio rabble rouser wrote this shite?
I gave it a 1 since I cannot give it less.
Does't matter which. You know what to do.
i liked it better when we wanted to kill all jews. there are way too many muslims spread out over way too much land to win this fight. jews are easy; take out israel, nyc,dc, la, brussels and london and that would wrap it up. these idiots have opened up a killer bees' nest of trouble messing with muslims.
One thing sunni and shia have in common; they don't know anything about God, the Absolute Truth. Indeed, that's very funny. Basically they're just agnostic. Indeed, atheists who like to project their stupidity upon others. Like the fake, atheistic Christians who demand; "ONLY!!! Jesus".
Wait til they all find out the Whahabbi's are Jews!
http://m.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/10/26/the-doenmeh-the-middle-ea...
The Council on Foreign Relations... need I say more?
Brookings may well be both more influential and more detrimental to human life and liberty - irrespective of ethnic origin or peculiar religious mythos.
...I guess the same can be said of the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the Committee of 300, the Club of Rome etc. etc.
Needed my sunglasses for that.
Lotta shiny fuckin' tin-foil there.
Sunglasses afford no advantage to the blind...
That's right, it's all the Saudis and Irans fault. The US had nothing to do with it.
Once I saw that it was a CFR documentary.. I closed it.. more PROPAGANDA + L I E S !!!
The Council on Foreign Relationsh tells the US politicans what to do.
Everything's clear.
Finally, a post that actually makes sense.
You're sure as hell missing a lot though.
posted the other day, a little off topic, but worth a look....
The Covert Origins of ISISIn my view, fwiw, there are more than one group of actors, more than one motive, but most here are wise enough to know that the tale told by the US .gov is not the truth and nothing but the truth. Certainly, out of 1.2 billion muslims, you have extremists, but Malaysia and Indonesia, for example, massive Muslim countries, are both moderate and stable - although basically Sunni monoliths.
As to Iran, the difference is really nationalistic for most actors. Nor is the rank and file of "ISIS" necessarily expecially religious - if not there simply for a paycheck, they are nationalists unhappy with their puppet government.
The US and UK have without doubt played sunnia against shia, and one ought to at least entertain the possibility that ISIS, like "the base" before it, enjoyed American weaponry, logistics, and other support, and largely acted as a proxy for US/UK interests.
The US invasions of Islamic countries have certainly been a catalyst for the major upheavals we are seeing today, but these invasions are just the latest chapters in the centuries-long coming apart of Islamic societies and the massive dislocation they have undergone as a result of the rise of Western commercial and mlitary power and the exposure - often imposed by force - to Western ideas. The fact is that the traditional 7th century mentality/culture of the pre-modern world and Western mentality/culture are a toxic explosive mix, and there was no way this was going to happen in peace and harmony. I fear that we have a very long period of violent cultural/religious wars (cultural from the Western viewpoint; religious from the Islamic) ahead of us and there are no assurances about who, if anyone, will win.
With rare exception, everyone in the Middle East just got along until after the Ottoman Empire was broken up. Muslims, Jews, Christians, pagan idol worshippers, etc. Of course there were advantages to being part of an "in group" and disadvantages to being part of an "out group", but they did NOT go around killing each other other!!! Since then, intra-Muslim sectarian violence has been a very successful application of "divide and conquer" by Western, monied, oil hungry powers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_Council_on_Foreign_Relations
enough said....
A true whos-who list of treasonous scum.
Divide and Conquer needs no explanation.
You lost me on the very first sentence "Sunni and Shia Muslims have lived peacefully together for centuries." Horse crap. Sunni and Shia have been fighting each other for centuries. next article please...
It was the rather sudden increase in oil wealth that started back in the 1970s that brought about a larger rift as competing factions battled to win access to that new loot. Because Sunnis and Shiites support opposing groups, there would naturally be a rift. Religion has little to do with it.
It's not the different flavors of ice cream that make you a fat.
It's the ice cream.
A group of people can always be paid to conduct murder in the name of whoever---WHO is paying them is the only question.
No offensive campaign is fuled by political or religious fervor--it is fuled by money.
Sunni say allah wipe buttocks with left hand... Shia say with right....
Living peacefully together for centuries. True, apart from when they were merrily slaughtering one another.
The most important sentence of that video is around 7:26...