Iraq - where is the rest of the Muslim world now?

The more I consider this the more unfair it seems ZZ. On the news tonight Iraqi helicopter pilots risking their lives to airlift people off the mountain. Consider also The Free Syrian Army which has been fighting not only IS but also Assad over the last three years. The immense difficulties of maintaining peace in Lebanon a country torn asunder by war. We have not experienced living under this kind of pressure.

 

I bet they're undercutting British businesses whilst offering a higher quality service as well!

 

There are many posters on here that argue their case, you havn't criticised them. Are you saying that they have a more informed opinion than me? If so, how did you form this opinion? Is it informed?

So if was to look back on your posts, you will only have given opinions on what you know 100%? Would that still an opinion, or is it just stating fact?

If you don't want to hear opinions, surely you should not be on a forum, but should be factual publications. You dont want me to express my opinion, but you are quite happy for others to do so.

In my OP I asked questions. Why would I ask a question if I knew all the answers?

When I asked the questions in the OP, I was expecting to see many answers and examples of where the Muslim world was getting involved. Very little of that came up, apart from a hidden away section on Aljazeers, which (as far as I could see, up till then) weren't mentioning the awful atrocities, but just the battles. But, they do say that the Muslims are threatening with death, those Christians that do not convert to Islam. Yet Moose blames the Americans, and you dont want me to ask why Muslims just let this continue.

Since I posted, an Egyptian Muslim leader has, indeed, condemned everything, and that is welcome. Squibba has also let me know about a Muslim who gave someone some shoes on a bus in Canada, some assistance from Muslims to a Bradford synagogue, as well as calling me a fool as I refer to the "Muslim World" even though it is an accepted term. Is that being informed?

Jordan and Saudi Arabia have over 600 attack aircraft, and something like 40 Hercules and Galaxy transport aircraft, why are they not helping? Why are they letting the US, France and Britain do this when they just sit on their hands. Is a bit of political difficulty more important than muslims and christians being murdered in their 000's in their own lands. Moose, just mentioned the Iraqi pilots are risking their lives to help the evacuation, but condemns the US arms, yet seems to ignore that the pilots are US trained and flying US supplied helicopters.

Of course, as I expected, as soon as the middle east is mentioned we get the usual suspects that blame the US and the West for everything that goes wrong there, and go back only as far as they need to implicate them, ignoring what has happened since, and for 100's of years before. You may think that these people are more "informed" than me, but most this thread has been about me wanting action taken to stop the genocide, whilst others prefer to just point the blame at the States.

 

I haven't responded to any other poster here, because I do not care about America or oil or blah blah blah, I read your OP and responded to that because as far as I am concerned the OP was unfair and unreasonable and I wanted to tell you that is what my opinion was. Plus, the idea that all Muslims are collectively responsible was, in my opinion, also entirely wrong and unfair. Muslims@muslims.com :]]

Those were my points, solely to yourself. I don't think anybody here is informed, myself included, which is precisely why I think jumping to the conclusion that all Muslim countries in the region are somehow complicit in genocide is quite a big farking jump.

 

No one 'prefers' to blame the United States. We'd all prefer the US to show consistent moral leadership.

You determinedly fail to understand the nature of the atrocities committed by the Allies in 20 years of meddling in Iraq nor research the breadth of Muslim opinion or the complexities of the issue. Certainly there are countries like the Gulf State whose attitudes are at the least ambiguous. But guess what? They are also our allies. We have to put our own house in order lest we continually repeat mission creep so creepy we wish we'd never got involved.

I salute the bravery of US and UK personnel assisting the humanitarian effort. I don't know if it's just them because only we really have the capability or if we are excersising a 'no-fly' zone. There will be without question individual states whose Governments care little for the fate of minorities, but they do not represent 'Muslims' any more than the KKK represent you. Name them if you like after duly diligent research.

 

So, once again, you dont like to hear my opinion as you think it is "uninformed", yet you think I should hear your opinion, even though you say it is "uninformed".

Right.

As for your other point on collective responsibility. Obviously, I dont think that every Muslim is personally responsible. But I do think that the Muslim powers that be, in the region have a collective responsibility to try stop genocide carried out by Muslims in their region and that they can do more. Particularly when, as everyone is keen to point out, that intervention from the West rarely helps in the long term.

I really am baffled at why so many on here disagree with me on the above point. It just seems, so sensible, so morally right, so ****ing obvious!

 

Perhaps you should take the time to read through the thread again then. If I posited a sloppily worded statement that 99% of people took issue with, I might try and understand why that happened rather than continually shift the goal posts. Chances are its not because 99% of people approve of genocide or think that genocide is better than american involvement! You'd have to be a special kind of person to think that!

 

I've had a quick look through again.

Around 20 different posters, 3 seem to agree, 11 dont and about 6 seem somewhat uncommital on that particular subject. So not quite the 99% that we thought.

From those who clearly disagree with me, I cannot see anyone actually saying that they believe that the Muslim world should do more to prevent the genocide, which is my main point in my post above. Please correct me if I am wrong. (I'm sure you will).

Any talk about "justifying genocide" only started because some of you tried to deflect the initial questions by suggesting that it was all caused by the US rather than the actual perpetrators themselves.

In what way have I shifted the goalposts? Is trying to shift the blame onto the West a pretty big example of "shifting the goalposts"? When I first started the thread I wasn't implying that I had seen every single article/blog ever written on the subject, but I had spent some time looking for condemnation of the atrocities from Muslim governments or groups and they certainly were not readily available. That is why I asked the questions. What has since been brought to my attention, is certainly small fry in the big scheme of things.

 

Can someone add a poll to the thread with two options:

Genocide is good
Genocide is bad

Just to clear up any ambiguity here.

 

3 out of 20 isn't very good ZZ. Maybe it would have helped if you had talked about Governments from the off rather than rattle on about 'Muslims' like some big eejit. The thing is you meant it as your OP, whilst clearly being concerned about genocide, was a proxy for the contention moaning Muslims STFU about your 'oppression'.

 

Genocide is a bad thing; it kills off wildlife including bees which are vital to making stuff grow

Farmers should be banned from using it

 

Just be certain my stance is clear. Yes the Arab world should do something, no we should not step in if they don't.

 

It's 9 out of 20, not 3.

But I cannot talk just about governments, because I am being honest when I believe that the answer is best coming from the Muslims led nation's and Muslim groups. You think that makes me an idiot? Why is everyone so precious about the mention of Muslims? Why does Squibba get all offended and start posting articles on a Muslim offering someone some shoes in Canada?

Muslims are killing Muslims and Christians, surely they should be at the forefront of stopping it, so that there is no need for the West to become involved at all.

I've said several times that I would be saying the same if it was a problem elsewhere.

 

You're either deliberately not responding to PG's point correctly or you haven't taken in what he has said.

He is not asking you to listen to his uninformed opinion on Iraq or anyone's reaction to Iraq. He is precisely saying that he isn't talking about that and instead only responding to you because he is uninformed.

What he IS commenting on is your opening post, but mot on the level of saying he is more informed than you or whatever. He is stating the very simple fact that you started the debate from a point of contention against what you call the Muslim world's reaction to the crisis. Because you are essentially guessing the reaction of the 'Muslim world', he is criticising you. He is not saying he knows more than you or less than you, he is merely pointing out the fact that your opening post assumed certain things. I'm sure if it was phrased differently or if your line of questioning after the OP was less accusatory, etc he'd be less interested in bringing up this point.

Can you see what PG is saying now? He is not telling you to listen to his uninformed view, he is saying pretty much the opposite - the point he is making is not about the Middle East or whatever, it is about you and your initial statement.

 

But what do you have to say about Christians killing Muslims in the invasion by bombing and then torturing them in Abu Ghraib? Could you describe this as 'Christians were killing Muslims?'

I wouldn't. I would say it was Allied Forces. In this case it's the wrong emphasis to say 'Muslims' as if to delineate them from other humans. It's IS.

 

352, I am certainly not trying to ignore his point.

He is criticising my opening post because I cant possible know everything that is going on. Yes, I get that.

I presume, as the latter part of my post was actually asking questions, which I repeated several times later, he must be referring to my phrase "they just sit on their hands in silence" in the OP. For the record, When I said "sit in silence" that doesn't mean that not one Muslim in the world uttered a bit of condemnation (Did anyone actually think I meant that?), it means "relative" silence. I still havn't seen such condemnation apart from what the Egyption guy said, which was reported after my OP.

So I would say, how does he know that I am not right, if he is so uninformed himself. How can he also say "I'm sure than there is widespread condemnation in all the rags in the Middle East" if he is so uninformed? He is basing his criticism on something he admits he knows little about himself.

In any case, I have no issue with that anyway. He can disagree all he likes as I don't expect anybody to know something 100% before they express an opinion. Because if they waited for 100% knowledge then it wouldn't be opinion, it would be fact. Discussing matters of which we are maybe a bit unsure about oneself, is the best sort of discussion. In my view, it is a shame that others don't see it that way.

 

I give up.

 

It's that or ZZ turns us all into gibbering maniacs.

 

The genocide is being carried out, as far as I know, in the name of Islam, isn't it? That is why they are trying to convert Christians into Muslims or killing them, isn't it? IS stands for Islamic State, doesn't it? Would saying genocide is being committed by the Islamic State be any better? I'm quite happy to use that particular expression if you prefer, where I can.

Regarding Abu Ghraib, did you not notice that the powers that be have tried and punished those that were guilty as those events broke the law? Also, the Allied Forces is made up of many different religions so referring to them as Christians would be wrong anyway. Allied Forces killing Iraqi's would be correct.

 

Good, because I am not on a general anti Muslim crusade here, even though you (and others) are trying to make out I am. So your little articles on a Muslim giving someone his shoes on a bus is not relevant in the slightest - any more than an article on a suicide bombing by a Muslim. It just isn't relevant to this thread.

I am specifically critical of their lack of action re this genocide, etc in Iraq, at this time. Nothing more.

 

Argentina, the Philippines and Ghana stood by and watched this happen. Blood on their hands.

 

As far as I know Ghana sent in a special forces team, so you are wrong. THIS IS ONLY AN OPINION

 

Don't blame the Philippines either. There was a Pacquiao fight going on when all that happened.

 

Then, apparently, it has no place on this forum.

 

Except of course, as anyone can see, its not presented as an opinion. Its presented as established fact to support an accompanying opinion. Saying its an opinion and using a weak prefix doesn't change its meaning. As far as I know of course.

 

Christian Argentina invaded the Falklands leading to the deaths of 100's of Christians. And what did 'Christian' Iceland do despite having no land mass in-between them and the conflict zone? I'll tell you what. Nothing the Puffin chomping bar stewards. When will the Christian in-fighting ever cease?

 

So when you posted this..

"To address your second point first, not many people are bothered about whether it is defence or aggression from Israel. The controversy lies in the excessive, punitive, counterproductive and indiscriminate nature of it."

How do you know that "not many people are bothered..." did you speak to them all personally? If not, how dare you express a falsehood without knowing 100% of the facts! It has no place on this forum.

If, when you read my OP, you honestly thought I was implying that I had seen every media article, blog in existence -ever, then I think you ought to read it again. But, at least it explains why you prefer to have a go at me, rather than just discussing the point of the OP. Nothing useful to say, personally attack the poster instead.

 

Instead of all this childish sarcasm, why don't you answer my question that you seem to be avoiding. You were annoyed at me using the word "muslim" so I asked you...

"The genocide is being carried out, as far as I know, in the name of Islam, isn't it? That is why they are trying to convert Christians into Muslims or killing them, isn't it? IS stands for Islamic State, doesn't it? Would saying genocide is being committed by the Islamic State be any better? I'm quite happy to use that particular expression if you prefer, where I can."

What is your answer?

 

I thought it was a complex combination of interfaith and intrafaith schisms as well as regional ethnic problems? With Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish, Christian, Iraqi, syrian, Turkish and whole other host of self -identifying and divergent groups. Or in other words, Muslims! Yeah!

 

I've definitely answered you - I think it should be the 'Islamic State' and not 'Muslims'. There is an interesting side to the point though.

The sad act, spoilt, western, facist, racist, wannabe Jihadists from outside of Syria and Iraq would no doubt say 'yes' - they are the Muslims killing apostates and infidels in their 'holy' cause. They are the Muslims in entirety because only they are true Muslims and any true Muslim would do what they do. They seek to speak for the millions who do not take part and wish to generalise their beliefs and experiences as that of all Muslims. They would be pleased if the word 'Muslim' were synonomous with violent jihadist.

But of course most Muslims can't abide war and conflict and just want to get on with their own lives and families. Some have a wholly different and peaceful interpretation of their religion. Some Muslims won't especially care about this crisis, but then some Christians won't either or spare a single thought for the Christian child in Africa that dies almost every minute from hunger or preventable disease. Both Christians and Muslims may be more inclined towards the suffering of their 'own' but they don't have a monopoly. Some Muslims may not be able to see the grief of others because oppression of Muslims has hardened their hearts - and a few may believe, like you suspect, that no Muslim crime can ever match that of the West and Israel and would seek to make excuses.

But none of these behaviours is unparalleled across the width of western experience, just think of ignorant America with it's fundamentalist Christians and militia racists. Seeking to casually address 'Muslims' when you would never do it for 'Christians' is distorting.

And it's true as well that I tend to seek causes in the behaviour of the West. The West has been the dominant influence in the middle east for more than a century. The conflicts involving IS are in many ways about removing that yoke. Al Quaeda had as a no 1 objective above all others the removal of American troops from the 'Holy Lands'. We may now have seen the high watermark of western domination (we can't control the region anymore) but the echoes carry on. IS pull the trigger, but the gun was made elsewhere.

 

Although not directed at me, here's my take:

IS are using Islam as a recruiting method and as justification of their actions. As far as I see it, it's actually just a radical group who want to build an empire. For instance, the self-proclaimed caliph (leader) is more interested in people worshipping him than the Prophet Muhammad. They then use preaching and brainwashing to convince their followers, or potential followers, to believe that the Quran says that they are the rightful leaders and that by supporting them they are being true Muslims.

They're clever people taking advantage of religion, the vulnerable and fear to build up their own Kingdom. They're not the definition of Islam, they're just power-mad lunatics who have got hold of a lot of weapons.

However I now think your phrasing was an innocent mistake, and you meant to imply that countries in the Middle-Eastern region are not doing enough. Rather than saying that Islam as a religion is responsible, which is how I first read it.

 

A simple read through the thread in question gave me legitimacy to say thay. Only squabba and the northern irish guy seemed bothered about it. Which I explicitly mentioned!

 

As to your second point, my issue is not that you haven't read every article. Its that you obviously read none!

 

On the third point, there is nothing personal at all. I correct factual errors inany threads. The difference is most other people make these errors in good faith and accept the correction on face value. They don't seemingly just pick a 'fact' out of thin air to substantiate an opinion and then get all nuts about it. You don't read newspapers from that region, you don't speak the local language, you apparently can't use google and most British newspapers wouldn't report on coverage ininor middle Eastern countries. Its acceptable you wouldn't know what's happening, but its somewhat dishonest to pretend that you would. Thats not ridiculous is it?

 

An impressive post, Moose. But rather pointless.

In the initial OP, i had already acknowledged that ISIS were deemed to be extreme and not true Muslims according to moderates. I have never said anything different. But they are committing these crimes in the name of Islam and so, if they they think it is important enough to try and stop the genocide, then they are the best to do it. Not the West.

If they do not think it is worth stopping the genocide, then they could idly sit back on their hands and ignore the problem which, on the face if it, is pretty much what they are doing.

Whether I call them Muslims, Islamists, the Islamic State, is pretty much immaterial to my central point, and it is just being pedantic.