Osama bin Laden's Faith

[Darth Yoshi]

What sect of Islam does Osama belong to? I couldn't find anything helpful.

[Kuja]

Shiite Muslim IIRC.

[Acclamator]

A shite muslim?

How apt a name.

[Darth Wong]

Fundie. What more classification do you need?

[Darth Yoshi]

I know he's a fundie, but Shiite fundies and Sunni fundies are different, except the part where they generally try to kill each other. The reason for this is I have to do a paper on why the US shouldn't go to war, and I need to know if it's possible for the Sunni Iraqi gov't to ally with bin Laden.

[Stormbringer]

I know he's a fundie, but Shiite fundies and Sunni fundies are different, except the part where they generally try to kill each other. The reason for this is I have to do a paper on why the US shouldn't go to war, and I need to know if it's possible for the Sunni Iraqi gov't to ally with bin Laden.

It's possible if they're pissed off enough with the US and it's allies. But in general they don't mix.

[HemlockGrey]

Damn. Did the teacher actually say 'Write a paper on why the US shouldn't go to war' or did you pick that topic?

[Darth Yoshi]

Expos. Write a paper on why the US should or shouldn't go to war. That's what she said. At least it doesn't have to be descriptive, just objective.

[Guest]

Um, isn't OBL from Saudi Arabia or Yemen, which is sunni?

[Stormbringer]

Um, isn't OBL from Saudi Arabia or Yemen, which is sunni?

He's from Suadia Arabia and has ancestoral roots in Yemen. I beleive both have a Sunni majority but nearly as large Shiite population.

[Guest]

Who cares carpet bomb the fuck outta the rag heads. Problem solved.

[Stormbringer]

Who cares carpet bomb the fuck outta the rag heads. Problem solved.

Congratulations, you're as bad as Bin Laden. Not every Arab is a rabid fundy nutcase. To condem everyone of them is to fall into the same trap as every other bigot.

There are a lot nutcase extremist and they shold be put down like the rabid dogs they so resemble. But not every Arab simply because they exist.

[Steve]

I think the US should go to war.

First Baghdad, then Damascus, then Riyadh.

Tehran will be taken care of by democratic resistance forces that Bush should be backing.

[phongn]

Imperium Americana, Steve?

[Kuja]

Who cares if they're pro- or anti-America as long as they're peaceful and don't murder they're own populations?!

[Stormbringer]

Who cares if they're pro- or anti-America as long as they're peaceful and don't murder they're own populations?!

Amen, they don't have to like us, heck most of the don't and with good reason. But they ought to act sane.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

On a related note, what's with all those people saying such ists attacks are commited because the people are poor? The hijackers have middle-class roots, bin Laden is a billionaire, and poverty has almost nothing to do with it!

[Enlightenment]

Who cares if they're pro- or anti-America as long as they're peaceful and don't murder they're own populations?!

When dealing with Islamic nuts a net decline in population numbers is a good thing. They don't warrant any concern until they start killing other people rather than just each other.


To answer the original question, bin Laden belongs to the Wahhabi sect. Wahhabi are the extreme fundamentalists of the Islamic world and are neither Shiite or Sunni. Do serious research on this point -- posting to sd.net isn't research.

[Darth Wong]

On a related note, what's with all those people saying such ists attacks are commited because the people are poor? The hijackers have middle-class roots, bin Laden is a billionaire, and poverty has almost nothing to do with it!

It has nothing to do with Bin Laden's wealth. It's about the generally decrepit state of the Arab world in conjunction with the sense of divine entitlement that comes from their insane belief that some invisible man in the sky favours them and wants them to run roughshod over all other nations.

But of course, we're not supposed to blame religion, the last sacred cow, for anything, so I guess it's about poverty.

[Stormbringer]

But of course, we're not supposed to blame religion, the last sacred cow, for anything, so I guess it's about poverty.

Arguingwhich religion is best is like five year olds beating each other up over who has a better invisible friend.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What sect of Islam does Osama belong to? I couldn't find anything helpful.

He's from the Wahhabi branch of Sunni Islam, just like the entire population of Saudi Arabia. It's the worst of the worst of Islam.

Here's some information on the Wahhabis.. From a Turk who wants to restore the Caliphate no less - Wahhabis are reviled even by other Muslims.

http://www.naqshbandi.org/ottomans/wahhabis.htm

Some of their popular beliefs include the banning of all innovation in the 18th century, in addition to the strict interpetation of Islamic Law and its application to any country they rule, etc. When they took over Saudi Arabia, the first thing the House of Saud did (They're all Wahhabis), was dynamite Muhammed's Tomb. I'm not kidding. You see, they believe that tombstones are idolatry, so any of them, including the tomb of the Prophet himself, needs to go, since it might be worshipped. That's how fanatical they are.

They're the Muslim versions of Puritans, and in fact they make Puritans seem quite liberal.

I fully support the war against Iraq - As long as our real goal is to use Iraq as a staging ground to invade Saudi Arabia. They're the real bloody threat in that region, pumping a considerable amount of their oil money into Wahhabi madrassas around the Sunni Islamic world to teach their fanatical brand of Islam to as many young Muslim children as possible. They need to go or the civilized world will never be safe.

[Steve]

What can I say, Phong? Marina's converted me.

[Enlightenment]

They're the real bloody threat in that region, pumping a considerable amount of their oil money into Wahhabi madrassas around the Sunni Islamic world to teach their fanatical brand of Islam to as many young Muslim children as possible. They need to go or the civilized world will never be safe.

It's not going to happen. The Saudis are great friends to the Republican party and to the Bush family in particular. Not only do the three groups share puritanical views of theistic religion (although of course their loyalty is to differrent versions of god) they are equally devoted to the all-consuming god of money. Shubby and the ChickenOilHawks won't touch Saudi because it would mean damaging the only thing they care about: their net worth.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

They're the real bloody threat in that region, pumping a considerable amount of their oil money into Wahhabi madrassas around the Sunni Islamic world to teach their fanatical brand of Islam to as many young Muslim children as possible. They need to go or the civilized world will never be safe.

It's not going to happen. The Saudis are great friends to the Republican party and to the Bush family in particular. Not only do the three groups share puritanical views of theistic religion (although of course their loyalty is to differrent versions of god) they are equally devoted to the all-consuming god of money. Shubby and the ChickenOilHawks won't touch Saudi because it would mean damaging the only thing they care about: their net worth.

I disagree - If for cynical reasons. But then all of politics and foreign affairs are very cynical things.

Remember firstly that the USA is a major oil producer too. So we are not invading Iraq simply for cheap oil, because if oil prices go too low it will hurt our economy. But the Iraqi reserves are quite extensive; and likewise there is no guarantee that the Islamic Republic of Iran is much longer for this world, especially after Iraq falls.

Between Iranian and Iraqi production increases it could cause just the drop in oil prices that would be disastrous to our domestic oil industry. Unless, of course, some other major oil reserve had been removed from the market.

Enter Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud is indeed our principle enemy, and recent studies in the USA including government ones have been daring enough to say so. Yes, the Republican Party has a fundamentalist wing so to speak, but it is not the one in control, and neither does it lack a perception of reality - Which fundamentalist Islam does, lacking an age of enlightenment to divest religion from the concept of the world in its most basic form. Finally, that fundamentalist wing has no love for Islam, regardless.

The House of Saud would be easy to isolate; it at one time tried to overwhelm most of the Gulf Emirates and the Sultanate of Oman and the Kingdom of Jordan remains largely loyal to us. The possibility of someone else gaining control of the Hejaz in the long term might bring us the Muslim allies we need for any invasion - Control of the spiritual center of Islam is something that Islam has fought over in the past and certainly can do so in the future, especially when puritan fanatics possess it now. The Yemenis lost Asir to the Sauds; the litanies against the Wahhabis go on and on.

So, really, if we can get enough oil pumping out of Iraq, we can indeed contemplate the strangulation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia without undue economic consequences - Indeed, avoiding them! - And so the war and economics go hand-in-hand. If the downfall of the Iranian Ayatollahs is obtained, as I predict, within a year of our occupation of Iraq, then we shall see the perfect situation for an embargo of the KSA without economic side-effects; quite the contrary, oil prices (combined with judicious technological aide to the right countries, and drilling here and there), might be just where we want them...

If we think in the long term, essentially, we can in fact win this war while making it economically profitable, and I mean win this war as in completely eradicating Islamic terror, including entering the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia after it has been appropriately weakened, or baiting them into attacking us or one of our allies.

[Enlightenment]

If only the oil problem were so simple as to only involve US national and global economic interests...

We appear to be looking at this from different angles. While you're looking at the broader economic consequences of adding Iraq to and removing Saudi from production loop I'm looking at the personal economic consequences for the Bush family and the chickenhawks.

Members of the US administration have a lot of personal financial links with Saudi oil production. If Saudi Arabia is stepped on these people stand to lose a lot of money even if the broader economic consequences have been minimized as a result of the conquest of Iraq. The Bush clan isn't about to put national security above its own bank balance so touching Saudi is out of the question.

Indeed, looking at the noise coming out of the administration war drums WRT Iraq, there's a disturbing number of signs that the Iraqi conquest is mostly a way to make Shrubby and Cheney richer (and keep the easily distracted US public patriotic and distracted on election day) rather than anything intended to make the world a safer place. For instance, the post-conquest plans for oil production currently involve the Iraqi opposition-in-exile being returned to power and tearing up existing oil production contracts with European firms and handing out new contracts to--wait for it--friends of Shrubby.

This administration's middle-east policy (such as it is) has absolutely nothing to do with security and everything to do with lining the pockets of Shubby and his oil buddies.