4 ms·

I feel like the burden of proof is definitely on the people suggesting that this was inevitable. The west, lead by the US, has been destabalizing the middle ea

I feel like the burden of proof is definitely on the people suggesting that this was inevitable. The west, lead by the US, has been destabalizing the middle east since the 1940's in order to pillage their natural resources and it continues to this day. This is their clear motive, stated in writing. Here [1] is an FOIA'd email to Hillary's private server from a French aide where they are found casually talking about overthrowing Gadaffi in order to look after their interests in global oil markets, regional monetary dominance, and to make their military look good for the sake of internal political posturing. This email changed the way I saw the world so much. I used to hear people say this sort of thing and think, "Well, it's the internet. Lots of crazy people out there. I guess what they're saying is plausable, but I don't believe that our government is making such a conscious, concerted effort." But it's hard to look at an email like that, served from a .gov domain, and think that the cheap oil we get from destabalizing this region is just a pleasant side-effect of pursuing an honest humanitarian goal. And this isn't something new. It started with the Red Line Agreement in the 20's, where we entitled ourself to middle eastern oil. This became another agreement and into another, but the point is that we wanted their oil, and their political climate was in turmoil. All it takes is one nationalist movement to shut down a pipeline and our economy goes to hell. Turns out there's a very simple solution: throw muscle at it. Don't risk someone unfriendly getting into power by reducing power all-together through destabalization and make sure that those who are in charge are effectively puppets. [1]: They actually retroactively took this email off foia.state.gov, so a cached version will have to do... : http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/110402-France-client-gold-State-Dept.pdf http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/...

cm2187 11y ago
So you are suggesting that when sunni extremists kill 50 people with a bomb in a shia market in Iraq, it is because of Western oil contracts?
- nickysielicki 11y ago
  Indirectly, but yes, absolutely. This region has been robbed of its ability to develop. The governments are dysfunctional by design. Is it any surprise that the people would start to identify more with their church than their government? It's local. It has set values and rules. I'm not saying this accounts for centuries-old conflicts. But Sunni and Shia get along without killing each other in other parts of the world-- what's different about the middle east?
  - avar 11y ago
    > But Sunni and Shia get along without killing each other in other > parts of the world-- what's different about the middle east? I happily admit my ignorence on this issue, but after some quick searching I couldn't find any demographic maps of Sunni/Shia populations that didn't exactly overlap with the current conflict-areas between Sunni/Shia in the Middle-East: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00maplinks/overview/sunnishia/sunnishia.html http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00maplinks/over... http://thegulfblog.com/tag/sunni-shia-middle-east-map/ http://thegulfblog.com/tag/sunni-shia-middle-east-map/ I.e. where else in the world is there a mixed Sunni/Shia population? Nowhere? Isn't that what's different about the Middle-East in this regard?
    - nickysielicki 11y ago
      Muslims are only about 20% of the world's population, and only about 10% of that are Shia. So it's unrealistic to expect to find places where there's an even split. With that being said, 15-20% of the Shia Muslims in the world live in the Americas, believe it or not. [1] Granted, all the Muslim sects together make up a minuscule portion of the population of the Americas, so it's reasonable to argue that this isn't a fair comparison. The difference in my eyes is that Muslims in the Americas have governments they can depend on for arbitration. [1]: http://shianumbers.com/shias-in-americas.html?m http://shianumbers.com/shias-in-americas.html?m
      - avar 11y ago
        You're asserting that US interference in the Middle-East has caused present Sunni-Shia conflict, which may well be correct. But I think your supporting point of "it doesn't happen in other parts of the world" is weak. Of course they aren't tracking down and killing each other in the US, because they're both minority groups and probably rarely even run into each other. That doesn't say anything about whether they would be doing so if they were both in the majority and their sectarian conflicts were the dominant aspect in society. > The difference in my eyes is that Muslims in the Americas have > governments they can depend on for arbitration. So if the governments in the Americas collapsed do you think the Sunnis and Shias there would go right back to systematically killing each other? Could you e.g. say the same thing about the Amish and the Mormons? Or is there a pre-existing divede between these people that really has nothing to do with external factors? You can't both say that Sunni & Shia conflict happens in certain areas of the world because of US foreign policy, and also suggest that Sunni & Shia conflicts would arise between Muslims living in the US who aren't subject to US foreign policy.

cm2187 11y ago

So you are suggesting that when sunni extremists kill 50 people with a bomb in a shia market in Iraq, it is because of Western oil contracts?

nickysielicki 11y ago
Indirectly, but yes, absolutely. This region has been robbed of its ability to develop. The governments are dysfunctional by design. Is it any surprise that the people would start to identify more with their church than their government? It's local. It has set values and rules. I'm not saying this accounts for centuries-old conflicts. But Sunni and Shia get along without killing each other in other parts of the world-- what's different about the middle east?
- avar 11y ago
  > But Sunni and Shia get along without killing each other in other > parts of the world-- what's different about the middle east? I happily admit my ignorence on this issue, but after some quick searching I couldn't find any demographic maps of Sunni/Shia populations that didn't exactly overlap with the current conflict-areas between Sunni/Shia in the Middle-East: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00maplinks/overview/sunnishia/sunnishia.html http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00maplinks/over... http://thegulfblog.com/tag/sunni-shia-middle-east-map/ http://thegulfblog.com/tag/sunni-shia-middle-east-map/ I.e. where else in the world is there a mixed Sunni/Shia population? Nowhere? Isn't that what's different about the Middle-East in this regard?
  - nickysielicki 11y ago
    Muslims are only about 20% of the world's population, and only about 10% of that are Shia. So it's unrealistic to expect to find places where there's an even split. With that being said, 15-20% of the Shia Muslims in the world live in the Americas, believe it or not. [1] Granted, all the Muslim sects together make up a minuscule portion of the population of the Americas, so it's reasonable to argue that this isn't a fair comparison. The difference in my eyes is that Muslims in the Americas have governments they can depend on for arbitration. [1]: http://shianumbers.com/shias-in-americas.html?m http://shianumbers.com/shias-in-americas.html?m
    - avar 11y ago
      You're asserting that US interference in the Middle-East has caused present Sunni-Shia conflict, which may well be correct. But I think your supporting point of "it doesn't happen in other parts of the world" is weak. Of course they aren't tracking down and killing each other in the US, because they're both minority groups and probably rarely even run into each other. That doesn't say anything about whether they would be doing so if they were both in the majority and their sectarian conflicts were the dominant aspect in society. > The difference in my eyes is that Muslims in the Americas have > governments they can depend on for arbitration. So if the governments in the Americas collapsed do you think the Sunnis and Shias there would go right back to systematically killing each other? Could you e.g. say the same thing about the Amish and the Mormons? Or is there a pre-existing divede between these people that really has nothing to do with external factors? You can't both say that Sunni & Shia conflict happens in certain areas of the world because of US foreign policy, and also suggest that Sunni & Shia conflicts would arise between Muslims living in the US who aren't subject to US foreign policy.