Religious fanaticism in Iraq

[Black Dog]

With US forces massing outside Fallujah, 35 marines swayed to Christian rock music and asked Jesus Christ to protect them in what could be the biggest battle since American troops invaded Iraq last year.

"You are the sovereign. You're name is holy. You are the pure spotless lamb," a female voice cried out on the loudspeakers as the marines clapped their hands and closed their eyes, reflecting on what lay ahead for them.

...

The marines then lined up and their chaplain blessed them with holy oil to protect them.

"God's people would be annointed with oil," the chaplain said, as he lightly dabbed oil on the marines' foreheads.

[kimmy]

I guess when they heard they'd be fighting Allah's warriors, they figured having some holy mojo on their side would even things out.

I heard that there are 15,000 US soldiers involved in the assault on Fallujah, so 35 out of 15,000 sounds like a pretty small proportion. One wonders what portion of the Fallujah rebels could be classified as religious fanatics?

-kimmy

[Slavik44]

wow, next thing you know they will be strapping bombs onto their shoulders and blowing people up, but if they did, they would no longer be fanatics.

[Black Dog]

I heard that there are 15,000 US soldiers involved in the assault on Fallujah, so 35 out of 15,000 sounds like a pretty small proportion. One wonders what portion of the Fallujah rebels could be classified as religious fanatics?

Dunno. The reason I posted this article was to make a point about the popular consensus on the situation in Iraq. Most of the conventional wisdom brands the Iraqi insurgency as "Islamofascist terrorists", followers of an extreme religious doctrine who believe there's is a Holy War. I suspect that, while such elements exist within the insurgency, they are the minority.

Now, I have little doubt the Marines in the article are the minority (though there are undoubtebly far more than the ones mentioned), yet the commonalities between the opossing religious elements are largely ignored. In other words: both sides have small elements of religious extremism within their ranks who believe God is on their side, yet only one side is uniformly branded with the religious extreimist label.

[kimmy]

I guess I could buy into that argument if I did believe it was just a small minority of the insurgents that are religious extremists, or that there was a significant number of Christian extremists among the US forces, or that religious extremism was a motivating factor behind the US actions in Iraq. But I don't believe any of those things, and so I feel that a comparison of the US army to the insurgents falls flat.

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

And what message did it send to their allies in the Iraq army who, possibly, might hear the female voice or hear of the riualistic preparations?

[kimmy]

And what message did it send to their allies in the Iraq army who, possibly, might hear the female voice or hear of the riualistic preparations?

I didn't say I thought it was smart. I just don't think the comparison Black Dog is trying to make is accurate.

FWIW, If I was sending people into harm's way, I wouldn't feel right about telling them what spiritual preparations they're allowed to perform. If I'm telling people to risk their lives on my behalf, they can play their Amy Grant records and yell "Ah'm talkin' bout JEEEEZUS!" all night long. They can sacrifice live chickens to the Goat God. Whatever they feel they need to do is fine with me. I'm asking for too much from them already. Asking them to defer their spiritual needs to avoid offending sensibilities on top of what I'm already is asking is just too much.

What message might their Iraqi allies get from hearing a female voice or all the talkin'bout JEEEEEzus? Probably something along the lines of "we have different beliefs from you." What the Iraqi allies decide to do with that information is up to them, of course, but it is a reflection of them, not on the US soldiers. I understand that they're not as tolerant of other religions and cultures as we in the west. But 150 years ago, Turkish muslims fought alongside Christians from England and France in the Crimean War. Why would it have been acceptible then but not now?

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

That was not directed against you, Kimmy. It was a general comment. Now that you have brought it up, though, it is important.

The US army is an occupying force and that means a shift in military behaviours is required. Perhaps the Sepoy rebellion in India is a lesson in what can happen when it is not just armies fighting side by side against an common enemy nation.

[kimmy]

I'm not a historian, obviously but if my understanding of that event is correct, the mutiny was sparked when British officers had the Indian soldiers prepare their rifles using a grease that the Indians believed to be made from beef tallow. I'm not sure that the event, as described, would be as offensive to Muslims as the beef-tallow musket-wadding was to the Hindu soldiers.

I believe that under Islam, Christians are recognized ("people of the Book") and permitted to worship privately. An open-air event with loud music, loud praise, and open display of religious symbols is probably pushing the bounds of what is acceptible, but unless I have things completely wrong, I believe the Muslims' own scripture requires some tolerance of Christian worship.

-kimmy

[Black Dog]

Portrait of a crusader.

[Guest eureka]

The British offended both Hindus and Muslims because some Muslims thought the grease was from pork fat.

The point, thouhj. is that the British were occupiers and, in this instance, forgot what had made their empire so successful. That is, they had always, in permanent occupations, been very careful of local traditions and beliefs. Their foreign service and military were trained and carefully overseen in this trust.

That event in India led to the British government taking over from the East India Company's army and instituting a more direct control but a more careful and considerate one.

The Americans have never learned this and their Empire is doomed to be short lived since they always end up in the messes of Vietnam and Iraq and like situations: the resentments of Central America where they could not even maintain commercial control.

Perhaps their problem is that they grew up too fast and still have the youthful idea that older nations can not tell them anything.

A misspent youth leads to more rapid deterioration - or so my joints tell me.

[August1991]

Eureka, this whole "crusader/imperialist" comparison is wrong. The US is not building an empire, and Americans are not crusaders.

White Anglo Saxon Protestants administered India from Calcutta. The Raj was British. They intended to stay permanently.

The Crusaders built fortifications with an intent to administer the Holy Land permanently. Europeans managed Jerusalem for almost 200 years.

The US has no such ambitions in Iraq for the simple reason that the US is not an imperial power.

Elsewhere on this forum, posters are drawing dramatic differences between Canadians and Americans. Linda McQuaig is vociferous in stating that we must defend Canadian sovereignty. (IOW, Canadian sovereignty exists.)

If Americans show no success (nor even effort) in colonizing Canadians or forcing Canada into an American empire, then I see less reason for them to start building an empire half way around the world.

If you want to play around with the words "empire" and "imperialism", go ahead. But don't confuse your new definitions with the British Raj or the Crusaders.

[caesar]

If Americans show no success (nor even effort) in colonizing Canadians or forcing Canada into an American empire, then I see less reason for them to start building an empire half way around the world.

What has that to do witht heir wishing to control Iraq and its resources. They do already pretty much control ours.

[Guest eureka]

Of course America is Imperial and crusading. It has been from its beginnings.

Amerrica had designs on Canada long ago. They were thwarted by military resistance. America's present boundaries were established by conquest of territories beyond its "rightful" claims. America fought Spain for territory and held the territory for some time.

The present "Empire" is merely different from the original ideas of empire. It is an economic one: not so very different than that the British were founding in the 17th. century which turned into something more traditional. Economic empire is the only form posible in these times.

America is crusading. Isn't that what it proclaims to the world in its determination to spread American values to peoples who would not give two cents for an American value?

Of course, we know that it wants to spread those values only to obtain compliant client states as an adjunct to Empire.

[kimmy]

Portrait of a crusader.

Ooooh, he's got a cross! Must be another religious fanatic!

Out of curiousity, Black Dog, what about the event you refered to in the original post do you characterize as "fanaticism"?

-kimmy

[kimmy]

The British offended both Hindus and Muslims because some Muslims thought the grease was from pork fat.

I think my earlier post might have been unclear. I'd like to just take a moment to repair an ambiguous phrase.

When I said:

I'm not sure that the event, as described, would be as offensive to Muslims as the beef-tallow musket-wadding was to the Hindu soldiers.

What I meant was:

"I'm not sure that the Christian celebration this week amongst US soldiers (as described in Black Dog's article) would be as offensive to Muslims as the beef-tallow musket-wadding was to the Hindu soldiers."

I hadn't been aware that there were Muslims among the Sepoy, but as I said I'm no historian.

You might be right in that they're both examples of cultural insensitivity. But I do feel there's a difference. Asking Hindus to handle beef-tallow grease (or Muslims to handle pork-fat, as you mention) is an affront to their religion. On the otherhand, allowing Christians to worship is actually spelled out in Islam. "Dhimmis". I'm not sure if it's specified in the Quran or the Hadiths, but it's a tradition that goes all the way back to Mohammed, so Christians worshipping (albeit loudly) shouldn't be an affront to Muslims.

-kimmy

[barbarosa]

yes islam is highky tolerant to all religions we say u worship in your way and well do it in ours after all were praying to the same god

but i must say one thing even thogh america is not an imperialist crusader the people at the head of it are

remember there is no "we"when it comes to coroprate american politics its either top 8%of salary makers or dilussional middle class