Sunni's Vs. Shiite's - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Sunni's Vs. Shiite's
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Posted by hardcore trancer on Jan-29-2007 01:28:

Sunni's Vs. Shiite's

As everyone already knows,the middle east is a disaster right now and I dont see any sign of peace near in sight.

What I find really disturbing is seeing how the muslims in the region have turned against eachother and it has become and Sunni Vs. Shiite war and it is spreading fast.

My question is if Iraq wasnt invaded in the first place,would we still be having this war in the muslim world?
Is this something that the Bush Admin wanted in the first place?Destabilizing the region and attempting to shift the peoopls attention from fighting the U.S. presence in the region and to fight eachother instead?

Distabalization in the middle east is def helping Israel to be out of harms way,you have people in Lebenon fighting eachother,you have Palestinians killing eachother.

Did something/certain country triger all this to happen?or is it just a huge coincidence all happening at the same time?

Posted by Magnetonium on Jan-29-2007 01:48:

On an interesting note, under Saddam Hussein, Sunnis and Shiites lived together in peace. I guess that's one of the very few accomplishments of the Saddam era.

I don't think peace can happen there either. Only a tough leader can bring them together again. Until then there will always be somebody on either side unhappy with their share of the pie. Plus American presence is only adding fuel to the fire.

Posted by jonSun on Jan-29-2007 02:02:

quote:
Originally posted by Magnetonium

On an interesting note, under Saddam Hussein, Sunnis and Shiites lived together in peace. I guess that's one of the very few accomplishments of the Saddam era.

Well i wouldnt call it an accomplishment because Sadaam had them living in peace by fear. He basically had them in check, thats all. Plus Sadaam supported the Sunni's & was a Sunni. He did alot of barbaric things to the Shias in Iraq. The Sunni's were & are a minority in Iraq. And now many of the Sunnis dont know what to do cause they lost power & the Shias have power & many are pissed & want revenge. So i think the way Sadaam had things is partly to blame for the situation now. But the dumbfuck Bush administraition didnt think too much of that before invasion. Or they might of thought much into it cause they have what they wanted. A long dragged out war & this Sunni vs Shia conflict is a great way to keep the money flowing from american taxpayers to Bush's buddies.

Posted by tathi on Jan-29-2007 02:11:

A destabilised Middle East does not help Israel at all. When Israel collectively punished Lebanon by destroying the majority all of its civilian infrastructure it shot itself in the foot, even the Israelis here agree with that. Ask yourself this: Are Hezbollah more or less powerful after Israel "changed the face of the middle east" by wiping Hezbollah out? The result of the war is that it fermented even more Arab enmity towards Israel (i didnt think it was possible) and showed the world what Israel precision bombing is like (dropping carpet bombs in civilian areas, deliberately targetting non-combatants and civilian convoys trying to flee the conflict, etc)

Civil Wars and Failed States are breeding grounds for extremist groups because of lawlessness, poverty, lack of work, and utter despair. Palestine being the prime example; if the Palestinians had the same infrastructure, access to clean water, food, education, and standard of living as the Israeli Poppulation do you think elements within the Palestinian poppulation would be so willing to give up everything they had by blowing themselves up as compared to those now that live in utter despair in the squallid refugee camps?

Hypothetically speaking if Iraq wasn't invaded and Saddam was toppled in the near future then yes i think there would still be a civil war between Sunni and Shiites with many deaths but i doubt it would be anywhere near the scale that it has reached now, im of the opinion that the US army has exacerbated the problem.

Posted by Magnetonium on Jan-29-2007 02:26:

quote:
Originally posted by jonSun
Well i wouldnt call it an accomplishment because Sadaam had them living in peace by fear. He basically had them in check, thats all. Plus Sadaam supported the Sunni's & was a Sunni. He did alot of barbaric things to the Shias in Iraq. The Sunni's were & are a minority in Iraq. And now many of the Sunnis dont know what to do cause they lost power & the Shias have power & many are pissed & want revenge. So i think the way Sadaam had things is partly to blame for the situation now. But the dumbfuck Bush administraition didnt think too much of that before invasion. Or they might of thought much into it cause they have what they wanted. A long dragged out war & this Sunni vs Shia conflict is a great way to keep the money flowing from american taxpayers to Bush's buddies.

I was hoping I could get away with my post realizing this same thing after I was done. You're absolutely 100% right and I agree ;-) I am glad you understand well the situation in Iraq ;-) If peace was attained in Iraq right now, American forces would have to relinquish their control ;-)

quote:
Originally posted by tathi
A destabilised Middle East does not help Israel at all. When Israel collectively punished Lebanon by destroying the majority all of its civilian infrastructure it shot itself in the foot, even the Israelis here agree with that. Ask yourself this: Are Hezbollah more or less powerful after Israel "changed the face of the middle east" by wiping Hezbollah out? The result of the war is that it fermented even more Arab enmity towards Israel (i didnt think it was possible) and showed the world what Israel precision bombing is like (dropping carpet bombs in civilian areas, deliberately targetting non-combatants and civilian convoys trying to flee the conflict, etc)

Hmmmm .... ??? Hezbollah was far from defeated in the Lebanon campaign earlier last year. Hezbollah might have got hit hard in parts close to the border with Israel, but Israel's failure to wipe them out in a short campaign was a tremendous loss to America's allies. After the media got in the action, Israelis have been embarrassed by hitting civilian targets and ruining Lebanon's infrastructure. As a result, Hezbollah actually got more supporters because Lebanese saw that it was an Israeli aggression against their country. Hezbollah won that war. They actually won it the minute they capptured the 3 soldiers, knowing that Israel to launch a ill-planned and disastrous bombing campaign of Lebanon which was portrayed as act of aggression by all countries, except the usual American-led coalition.

Now Hezbollah, heavily funded, is taking credit for rebuilding Lebanon and has doubled its representation in the Lebanese parliament. Bravo, Israel, bravo.

Posted by Shakka on Jan-29-2007 02:54:

I don't think Sunni/Shiite tension or conflict is anything new. I think we're all just more aware of it these days.

Posted by Krypton on Jan-29-2007 03:50:

The question of going into iraq is still debatable, but if we withdraw right now, there will be mass killings on a massive scale. We have to support the government, and take out the sectarian militias in Iraq.

Posted by hardcore trancer on Jan-29-2007 03:52:

Awesome replies guys

I know the Sunni's and Shiites have been in war many times in the past,but it is just that it is happening at a large scale and all at the same time,just seems a little strange.

After all when it comes to the U.S. this is a perfect excuse for them to show the world how important it is for them to be in the region and not to leave,and thats why I wonder if they are responssible for this sunni and shiites war perhaps indirectly?

Posted by hardcore trancer on Jan-29-2007 03:56:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
The question of going into iraq is still debatable,

How so?what else is there to debate?

quote:
but if we withdraw right now, there will be mass killings on a massive scale. We have to support the government, and take out the sectarian militias in Iraq.

With the U.S troops staying or leaving things will not change unfortunatly,it is too late I believe.I think the U.S has a much bigger agenda there that goes beyond Iraq,god knows what it is tho.

Posted by Krypton on Jan-29-2007 04:18:

quote:
Originally posted by hardcore trancer
How so?what else is there to debate?

Well, nevermind, it's not debatable anymore is it..

quote:
With the U.S troops staying or leaving things will not change unfortunatly,it is too late I believe.I think the U.S has a much bigger agenda there that goes beyond Iraq,god knows what it is tho.

That's speculation.

Posted by Q5echo on Jan-29-2007 04:45:

Shakka's right. this Sunni/Shia phenomenon is nothing new, however in Iraq, this exasperation today was the idea of a very calculating and cold blooded killer.

he knew the only way to beat the occupying forces was to pit the existing population against one another. it worked fantastically unfortunately. it's effectiveness unseen.

so while the occupying forces rebuild this country with one of the most magnanimous and selfless gestures from one country to another in history, he can sit back and kill DEFENCELESS INNOCENTS IN A MOSQUE OR A MARKET OR A GAS STATION and watch the world media turn it around on the occupying forces. it was genius.

i'm not gonna stand for it. i'm not gonna give in and give up my hope from whence i started. i'm not gonna let this coward get away with it. i'm gonna fight it as best i can because i know this phenomenon, the peaceful Sunni/Shia model works all over the Middle East now as it has for centuries.

then i'm gonna leave.

Sunni/Shia also fight together in Iraq. that tells me how morally bankrupt his idea of pitting Sunni and Shia together was as well

quote:
NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. and Iraqi forces killed 250 gunmen in a fierce battle involving U.S. tanks and helicopters on the outskirts of the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf on Sunday, a senior Iraqi police officer said.

The day-long battle was continuing after nightfall, Colonel Ali Nomas told Reuters, as tens of thousands of pilgrims converged on the nearby city of Kerbala for the climax of the Ashura commemorations.

A U.S. helicopter was shot down in the fighting, Iraq security sources said. The U.S. military declined comment. A Reuters reporter saw a helicopter come down trailing smoke.

Shi'ite political sources said the gunmen appeared to be both Sunni Arabs and Shi'ites loyal to a cleric called Ahmed Hassani.

Posted by music_flick on Jan-29-2007 06:56:

a friend of bush in the avatar is kind of cool

Posted by tathi on Jan-29-2007 22:40:

quote:
Originally posted by Magnetonium
Hmmmm .... ??? Hezbollah was far from defeated in the Lebanon campaign earlier last year. Hezbollah might have got hit hard in parts close to the border with Israel, but Israel's failure to wipe them out in a short campaign was a tremendous loss to America's allies. After the media got in the action, Israelis have been embarrassed by hitting civilian targets and ruining Lebanon's infrastructure. As a result, Hezbollah actually got more supporters because Lebanese saw that it was an Israeli aggression against their country. Hezbollah won that war. They actually won it the minute they capptured the 3 soldiers, knowing that Israel to launch a ill-planned and disastrous bombing campaign of Lebanon which was portrayed as act of aggression by all countries, except the usual American-led coalition.

Now Hezbollah, heavily funded, is taking credit for rebuilding Lebanon and has doubled its representation in the Lebanese parliament. Bravo, Israel, bravo.[/COLOR]

It was sarcasm, remember the US and Israeli speil about how they had "changed the face of the middle east" by removing Hezbollah as an excuse to collectively punish the Lebanese civilians

Posted by Magnetonium on Jan-29-2007 23:54:

quote:
Originally posted by tathi
It was sarcasm, remember the US and Israeli speil about how they had "changed the face of the middle east" by removing Hezbollah as an excuse to collectively punish the Lebanese civilians

Just to let you know, I really appreciate your and everyone else's support on this Palestinian issue. Their side of the story needs to be heard. They need help, and current Israeli tactics are not helping.

Posted by occrider on Jan-30-2007 06:06:

Re: Sunni's Vs. Shiite's

quote:
Originally posted by hardcore trancer
What I find really disturbing is seeing how the muslims in the region have turned against eachother and it has become and Sunni Vs. Shiite war and it is spreading fast.

My question is if Iraq wasnt invaded in the first place,would we still be having this war in the muslim world?

This is actually a very interesting topic, and it's one that I think that you answer your own question with a word you use throughout your entire post ... destabilization. I think the elements for civil strife were in place in Iraq, and ARE in place in much of the middle east. The thing that keeps societies cohesively together is a central governemnt that perpetuates societal order. That order may come through a suppressive, brutal, dictatorial regime through violence, or it may come through the power of "democracy" but people either have faith or fear in their government. In most instances, regardless of whether it's the middle east or not, it's some balance in between. A power vacumn, as we definitively see in Iraq and we're starting to see in Lebanon, merely exacerbate domestic societal conflicts.

Sorry, but I'm willing to say that any Israeli that is enjoying what will likely be civil strife in Lebanon due to their completely botched invasion is a fucking retard. Not only was it a failed tactical operation but it failed to acheive any strategic goals. Meanwhile it drew support away from teh western government while attracting syrian/hezbollah support among a primarily Christian nation. Clusterfuck of the year.

quote:

Shakka's right. this Sunni/Shia phenomenon is nothing new, however in Iraq, this exasperation today was the idea of a very calculating and cold blooded killer.

he knew the only way to beat the occupying forces was to pit the existing population against one another. it worked fantastically unfortunately. it's effectiveness unseen.

What? Who? Effectiveness unseen ... obviously this administration didn't skip a beat in unequivocably winning a war they committed to. So why all the talk of defeat?

quote:

so while the occupying forces rebuild this country with one of the most magnanimous and selfless gestures from one country to another in history, he can sit back and kill DEFENCELESS INNOCENTS IN A MOSQUE OR A MARKET OR A GAS STATION and watch the world media turn it around on the occupying forces. it was genius.

i'm not gonna stand for it. i'm not gonna give in and give up my hope from whence i started. i'm not gonna let this coward get away with it. i'm gonna fight it as best i can because i know this phenomenon, the peaceful Sunni/Shia model works all over the Middle East now as it has for centuries.

then i'm gonna leave.

Sunni/Shia also fight together in Iraq. that tells me how morally bankrupt his idea of pitting Sunni and Shia together was as well

You've started taking drugs ...

Posted by Q5echo on Jan-30-2007 06:16:

Re: Re: Sunni's Vs. Shiite's

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
So why all the talk of defeat?

i don't know. it's easier than success, i guess. what isn't?

quote:
You've started taking drugs ...

maybe i should.

Posted by occrider on Jan-30-2007 06:24:

Re: Re: Re: Sunni's Vs. Shiite's

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
i don't know. it's easier than success, i guess. what isn't?

With Iraq? Setting the bar low enough for 2008. I think we're going to need more magnetic ribbon stickers to get us through this.

Posted by Q5echo on Jan-30-2007 06:57:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Sunni's Vs. Shiite's

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
I think we're going to need more magnetic ribbon stickers to get us through this.

sure.

anyway, there are some people dying to be free somewhere over there. thanks for your support, but no thanks.

Posted by occrider on Jan-31-2007 05:32:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sunni's Vs. Shiite's

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
sure.

anyway, there are some people dying to be free somewhere over there. thanks for your support, but no thanks.

What support? I never supported any of this debacle, and I would never so cheaply sacrifice the lives of my fellow countrymen so there's no need for you to reject support that I never gave.

Posted by MisterOpus1 on Jan-31-2007 06:12:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sunni's Vs. Shiite's

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
What support? I never supported any of this debacle, and I would never so cheaply sacrifice the lives of my fellow countrymen so there's no need for you to reject support that I never gave.

Where ya been? Sabbatical? Or just slowly but surely weening yourself off this forum, old man?

Posted by occrider on Jan-31-2007 06:37:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sunni's Vs. Shiite's

quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Where ya been? Sabbatical? Or just slowly but surely weening yourself off this forum, old man?

Aloof with work ... but I'm always lurking . However, I'm completely weened by now. Kinda scary since I always likened that to the coming of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse

Posted by Fir3start3r on Jan-31-2007 06:42:

Re: Sunni's Vs. Shiite's

quote:
Originally posted by hardcore trancer
As everyone already knows,the middle east is a disaster right now and I dont see any sign of peace near in sight.

What I find really disturbing is seeing how the muslims in the region have turned against eachother and it has become and Sunni Vs. Shiite war and it is spreading fast.

My question is if Iraq wasnt invaded in the first place,would we still be having this war in the muslim world?
Is this something that the Bush Admin wanted in the first place?Destabilizing the region and attempting to shift the peoopls attention from fighting the U.S. presence in the region and to fight eachother instead?

Distabalization in the middle east is def helping Israel to be out of harms way,you have people in Lebenon fighting eachother,you have Palestinians killing eachother.

Did something/certain country triger all this to happen?or is it just a huge coincidence all happening at the same time?

Hasn't Israel been having problems since it's inception?

And the Muslim on Muslim thing has been going on for quite some time; it was only Saddam's ruthlessness that was keeping everything in check for the past 30yrs.
(although I eluded to this quite some time ago)

Posted by Q5echo on Jan-31-2007 06:54:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sunni's Vs. Shiite's

Posted by shaolin_Z on Jan-31-2007 22:10:

So I orginally posted this here, but yesterday ended up deleting a whole bunch of my post and threads. Don't ask why. All I'm going to say is that I'm seriosuly considering leaving this place for good. Luckily, there's still a copy of this in a thread by Opus. So I'm posting it here once again:

What I find interesting is the fact that all this sectarian violence didn't really start or atleast escalate (and was close to non-existant) before the burial site of Imam Hussein, his family, tribe, and companions was supposedly blown up by some crazy Sunnis according to the mainstream media (after the Iraq invasion began). It makes absolutely no sense for any sect, regardless of how fanatical and insane, to do that. Let me explain why by giving you a brief history of the Shia Sunni divide.

When Muhammad was near his dead, he expressed his wish and will of Ali, the first young male converts to Islam, a close campanion, cousin, and son-in-law, to be his successor (Caliph i.e spiritual leader of the Muslim world). Now Umar ibn al-Khattāb, who was a prominent and powerful tribe leader before he converted to Islam (and also an important leitenant), didn't want this. He claimed that Muhammad was too old and ill for his decision (and will), of Ali being his succesor, to be taken seriously.

[Backround knowledge:

Muhammad's father died six months after his birth and his mother when he was only six years old. He was taken in and looked after by his uncle Abu Talib, the leader of the Hashim clan of the Quraish tribe, the most powerful in Mecca. He started preaching Islam while he was still alive but was left alone becuase of who his Uncle was, a feared and respeceted tribe leader of the most powerful clan of the Quraish tribe. Muhammad and early convert to Islam had to migrate from Mekkah to Medina in the early days of Islam due to ever increasing and severe presecution. It got to the point where torture, muredering new converts to Islam (who were mostly slaves and the poor), and assanination attempts on Muhammad by the pagan tribes of Mekkah became common place. What you have to know to make sense of this is the fact that paganism, tribal conflict (which usually didn't end for generations once started), slavery, burial of new born daughters, the status of women as mere property, theft, murder, and hedonistic excess was common in pre-Islamic Arabia. Mekkah, before Islam, was a center of pagan worship, as it contained the sacred well of Zamzam and a small ancient temple, the Ka'aba. The Ka'aba was filled with pagan idols at that point. All sorts of pagan ritutals, worship, sex orgies, sacrafice, and other pagan activity took place there. A hand full of few power tribes known as Banu Quraish owned the Kabbah, which at that point was a center of paganism. Pagan pilgirims from all over the Arab world came there to worship who payed large sums of money to them to be able to gain access to the Ka'aba. Their wealth, status, and power largely depended on the status quo, which was total paganism. Muhammad's preaching of the belief in one God and Islamic values was a threat to all of it. Muslims were heavily persecuted in early Islamic history and basically had to constantly be on the run from persecution and annihalation in order to practice their religion freely.

...skip a bunch...

Later when Islam spread and Muhammad returned to Mekkah, he destroyed all of the idols in the Ka'aba and it became the most holy mosque in Islam, in the direction of which Muslims face when they pray. And it became the center of Muslim pilgramidge.

In order to make things a little easier to follow for late and reference, these are some subclans of Banu Quraish:

Banu Abd al-Manaf � sub-clan of Quraish
Banu Hashim � sub-clan of Banu Abd Manaf, clan of Muhammad and Ali.
Banu Taim � sub-clan of Quraish, clan of Abu Bakr (somtimes confused with Banu Tamim)
Banu Adi � sub-clan of Quraish, clan of Umar ibn al-Khattab
Banu Asad � sub-clan of Quraish, clan of Abd-Allah ibn al-Zubayr and Khadijah ]

After Muhammad's death, the differences that had previously lain dormant amongst the Meccan immigrants (the Muhajirun) and the Medinan converts (the Ansar), threatened to break out and split the Ummah (Muslim Nation). This sparked great controversy over who should be Muhammad's successor. Umar apparently lost it (wheater genuine or disingenuos) and became hysterical when Muhammad passed away, delaying the decision making process that would have in most probability ended up with Ali being selected as first Calioh. This (conveniently) lasted until his buddy Abu Bakar (another big shot) returned from some business trip or something. There was a huge controversy over who should become Caliph. Umar apparently lost it when Muhammad died and refused to allow his barial. He became hysterical (wheater genuine or disingenuos), delaying the decision making process that would have in most probability ended up with Ali being selected as first Caliph. This (conveniently) lasted until his buddy Abu Bakar (another big shot before converting to Islam) returned from some business trip or something.

The Ansar met in Medina to discuss whom they would support as their new leader. When Abu Bakr was informed of the meeting, he, Umar and a few others rushed to prevent the Ansar from making a "premature decision." During the meeting Umar declared that Abu Bakr should be the new leader, and declared his allegiance to Abu Bakr. After the meeting at Saqifah, the Muslims who were not present had to be informed of the decision taken by the group. Many of them refused to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr, as did Ali, as they (rightly) believed (in accordance with the Prophet's will) that Ali, was the obvious choice for leader. They became to be known as the Shi'at Ali (the party of Ali) by their enemies. It took six months of threat and pressure to force the refusers to submit to Abu Bakr. Umar roamed the streets of Medina with his warriors to coerce people into submission. Being a hothead, he even threatened to burn down Fatima's house (the Prophet's daughter and Ali's wife) unless Ali came out and submitted to Abu Bakr. Ali refused and requested his privacy to be respected. Umar pushed his way into the house. Fatima, who was heavily pregnant, and trying to prevent Umar from breaking in, was crushed behind the door. She miscarried her unborn son.

At one point, there was even a civil war. Eventually Ali reluctantly gave in to prevent Muslims loyal to him and the Prophets will from being persecuted, and to not detroy the unity of the Ummah right after the Prophet passed away, pretty messed up state of affairs. So Abu Bakr became first Caliph, succeeded by Umar as second Caliph, Uthman as third, and finally Ali as forth. But Ali's caliphate only lasted five years, ended with his assasination and then the assaination of his eldest son, Hasan ibn Ali.

So basically, this is what lead to the Shiia Sunni divide, although they didn't call themselves Shiia and Sunni at the time.

Mu�āwīyah ibn Abī Sufyān, the founder of the Umayyad dynasty of caliphs, engaged in a civil war against Ali and met with considerable military success, including the seizure of Egypt. He assumed the caliphate after Ali's assassination in 661 and reigned until 680.

...skip some more...

His son Yazid succeded him in the line of the Umayyads dynasty of caliphs, who was also fairly tyranical and corrupt. The persecution of Shi'iat al Ali continued. At one point, it became so severe that they were basically being denied water (and it's pretty damn hard to survive in a desert without any). The divide between the two groups was intesified when he was opposed and criticized by the Ali's son, the Prophets grandson, Imam Husayn bin Ali. Yazid responded to criticism with force, killing many of his campanion, family members, and Muslims loyal to him. This started the battle of Karbala (which is in Iraq), where he Imam Husayn was martered, including lots of his friends, followers, and family. Him and his followers were burried there.

The terms Shiia and Sunni as sectarian labels came in to use much later. The Shiias believe Ali to be the rightful successor of Muhammad and Yazid to an illegitimate tyrant responsible for murdering Imam Husayn. The Sunnis, on the other hand, are the passive masses submitting to power and accepting status quo. Sunnis condemn the killing of Imam Husayn, being the Prophets grandson and all, but still recoznige Yazid as a legitimate Caliph and make excuses like "he wasn't responsible for it, his generals were."

...

Anyways, now that you know all that and understand the nature of the Shiia Sunni divide, which is basically political and not really religious, since Islam as a religion was already complete and fully revealed before Muhammad died, it makes absolutely no sense for any Sunni group or splinter sect, no matter how fanatical and crazy, to go desecrate the burial site of the Prophet's grandson. That's fairly sacreligious for them too. I guess it's analagous to Christians, Jews, or Muslims blowing up Jerusalem; not going to happen, it's a holy site to all of them. So my money on whoever was responsible for it are on the CIA/MI-5/6/other intel agency payroll, if not one of the groups themselves; a false flag opertaion to fuel endless sectarian violence, which is what's taking place rightnow. That gives an excuse to keep troops there and build permanent military bases. And it's not like false flag ops are anything new when it comes to how modern states such as Russia/former Soviet Union, the US etc. and their intelligence agencies. Before the Iraq war, no one cared if you were Shiia or Sunni. But now Shiia and Sunnis are getting shot and blown up at check point by militia men for belonging to the wrong sect, given away by their last name (which makes their tribal origin obvious, and hence if they're Shiia or Sunni).

So, I hope that helped shed some light on the issue.

But in case some of you don't know what a flase flag op is:

quote:

From Wikipedia

False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own.

You can read more about those there. But here's just a few examples of false flag ops in recent history:

1953, Opertaion Ajax (CIA coupe in Iran workring in tandem with MI6):

Overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadeq via multiple staged terrorist attacks on mosques (bombimg) & gunning down civilians, demonstrations, propaganda, and provocations branding Mossadeq as a communist, including a false flag op which where the home of a prominent Sheiks was bombed. The weirdest propanganda operation included handing out phony bills during while the choas ensued which read "Up with Mossadeq, Up with communism, Down with Allah." This ofcourse happened after Mossadeq attempted nationalized Iran's oil which British pertoleum wanted to monopolize. Then ofcourse we all know who came into power... that's right, the Shah, who was a brutal dictator with his secret police (SAVAK, again thanks to CIA) and torture chambers etc.

1943 - 1983, Operation Gladio, NATO's "stay behing operation" (funded mostly by CIA, a key figure being in Operation Gladio being the CIA founder Allen Dulles):

This is really an umbrella name for multiple false flag ops in non just Italy, but around the world, including Western Europe, Latin America, and Asia, which was blamed on the communists during the 'Red Scare.' The target where mostly civilian and public areas, including trains, bubes, schools, school buses etc. A particularly bloody incident was the Bologna Massacre in Italy on August 2nd, 1980 after which some Italian official broke their silence about it.

I'm sure many of you already know about he Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 where an American destroyer was attacked. Well, phone conversation tapes between President Lyndon Johnson and Defence Secretary Robert McNamara realeased by LBJ Presidential Library in 2001 reveal how they were openly discussing using it to expand the War in Vietman after which congress authorized the Tonkin Resolution. In 2005 the NSA declassified it's official history on the Gulf of Tonkin incident which revealed how CIA and intelligence agency officers deliberately falsified intel blaming Vietnamese partol boats for attacking the ship when in reality the didn't eventhough they where being fired on by US forces.

October 6th, 1976 Cuban Flight 455 (passanger airliner planted with C4): Declassified CIA document reveal that the bombers of the flight were given US visas days before the bombing and were employed by guess who. Luis Posada Carriles, who was involved in the bombing, was a CIA agent.

Those are the only ones that come to mind at the moment, but I'm sure you guys can dig up numerous more examples.

Anyways, point is, false flag ops are standard procedure so I seriously doubt it wasn't a false flag op, as it makes absolutely no sense for any group, no matter how fanatical and extereme, to decesrate the Prophets grandson's and companions graves and bomb the mosque. No, I obviously can't prove this. Neigther were any of those examples known or proveable until years (more like decades) after when internal documents were declassified.

EDIT: One decalssified document that some of you should be familiar with by now, Operation Northwoods discusses in great detail of conducting false flag ops in order to go to was with Cuba. Here's some of the content listed on wikipedia:

quote:

The suggestions included:

Starting rumors about Cuba by using clandestine radios.
Staging mock attacks, sabotages and riots at Guantanamo Bay and blaming it on Cuban forces.
Firebombing and sinking an American ship at the Guantanamo Bay American military base � reminiscent of the USS Maine incident at Havana in 1898, which started the Spanish-American War � or destroy American aircraft and blame it on Cuban forces. (The document's first suggestion regarding the sinking of a U.S. ship is to blow up a manned ship and hence would result in U.S. Navy members being killed, with a secondary suggestion of possibly using unmanned drones and fake funerals instead.)
"Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type [sic] planes would be useful as complementary actions."
Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Staging a "terror campaign", including the "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees
"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute sic to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized."
Burning crops by dropping incendiary devices in Haiti, Dominican Republic or elsewhere.

James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his Body of Secrets thus:

�Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."

Guess why this didn't take place or go through, Kennedy objected and didn't allow it.

Posted by Magnetonium on Jan-31-2007 22:15:

Shaolin, I love that movie, wink wink ;-) awesome documentary! One of my favourite movies ever.

Pages (2): [1] 2 »