Today's New York Times reports on escalating sectarian conflict in northern Iraq between Sunnis and Kurds. I'm sure Robert Spencer would be on the case, spouting his nonsense about religious wars, except that the Kurds happen to be Sunni as well!
Ah, yes, but Robert the history major can find examples in history of clashes between the Kurds and other Sunnis. Indeed there have been clashes, but that's because most of the Sunnis in the Middle East are Arab, while the Kurds are not. Ethnic and tribal identity--not religion--is the source of the conflict.
Saladin was a Sunni Muslim of Kurdish descent, and I'm sure Spencer can find some ancient conflict over territory to convince his gullible followers that the Sunni-Kurd clash has been going on for centuries. Actually this is nonsense, but fortunately for Spencer none of his readers actually knows what any of the internecine Islamic conflicts were about. So Spencer relies on the argumentum ad ignorantium: the argument that relies on the ignorance of the reader.
In reality, the clash in northern Iraq between the Kurdish Sunnis and the Sunni Arabs is no more about religion than the clash in Baghdad between the Shia and the Sunni. No theological issues are involved whatsoever. In the latter fight, one group used to be in and is out out, and the other group which was out is now in. Both groups want to be in charge, and that's why they are fighting.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. The fact is that you asked if anyone could name 2 wars that the Sunni & Shia have fought, and Spencer answered. You didn't think there were any, and he produced a lengthy list. Spencer: 1 - D'Souza: 0.
So, rather than apologizing for your complete ignorance, now you shift the focus away from your humilitating defeat, and attribute to Spencer something he never said, and then ridicule him for saying it! Nice try, but it is your argument that relies on the ignorance of the reader.
You must think that everyone is so dumb that we won't figure out the sleight of hand you just tried to pull. Sorry, but I saw it, and others will too.
David at 3:19PM on May 30th 2007
2.
I don't think anyone would suggest that the Kurdish/Sunni conflict is religious, even Robert Spencer, because that's a completely idiotic statement. Mainly because the Kurd's are an ethnic group, not a religious sect, so the two can't really have what is defined as a "religious" conflict. Even someone with limited knowledge of the situation in Iraq would know that.
The Sunni and Shia, however, are both religious sects, and their fight can be defined as a religious war, at least in the past few years. The civil war in Iraq as we know it today didn't start until the bombing of the Shiite mosque in Samarra by Sunni's (al Qaeda Sunni's, presumably). In response, several Sunni mosques were destroyed, and many Sunni religious leaders were intentionally targetted.
Ever since then the violence has spiked drastically, the death squads started targetting any adult male Sunni they could get their hands on, with the only distinguishing reason for killing them being their religious affiliation.
Then we have the execution of Saddam, where several Shia guards made a big deal about secretly filming it and making a political statement in the process espousing the superiority of the followers of Ali. An isolated incident perhaps, or a rather telling remark.
I guess no conflict ever has really been religious at all if you're going to define it so narrowly. It may not be the only reason for this fight, but it's a big reason, and it's been a part of all of the conflicts Spencer mentioned.
Peter at 4:13PM on May 30th 2007
3. You say, "Today's New York Times reports on escalating sectarian conflict in northern Iraq between Sunnis and Kurds."
Well that was just a lie. I used 'Find on this Page' on the New York Times page for the word 'sectarian'... guess how many times the word comes up...
So poor Mr. D'Souza is down to outright lying. He imagines that any fighting in Iraq among the indigenous population is 'sectarian violence'...
After all that education that he paid for it is unlikely that he does not know the meaning of the word 'sectarian' so I'm guessing that he imagines that some of his supporters might not know.
NY Times seems to know, Spencer is sure to know, that leaves you poor simpleton readers who imagine D'Souza to be the master debater that he thinks he is left to be fooled.
Straw man... look it up.
pboyfloyd at 5:31PM on May 30th 2007
4. Dinesh posed a supposedly unanswerable question to Spencer and Spencer answered it. D'Souza, always the historical revisionist, now provides one example, an example from current history from the laughable NY Times no doubt, to support his revised point and we are to believe that this example renders Spencer's original answer and correction to D'Souza's point invalid?
Utter nonsense Dinesh
Spencer 3 D'Souza 0
in this ongoing debate
The answer to D'Souza's logic?...well you have to buy the next baseless book of his to find out, of course. D'Souza accuses Spencer of the relying on the reader's ignorance to sustain his argument, where in reality, it is D'Souza himself who is guilty of the charge.
Dinesh is obviously educated beyond his intelligence.
awake at 2:35PM on May 31st 2007
5.
Also, the term "sectarian" refers to a war between religious sects, and the Times never used that term in their article. That was just you, and it's an incorrect usage of it.
Peter at 4:31PM on May 31st 2007
6. Wow that last comment made me howl out loud! Dinesh uses a word that implies religious conflict in a column about how it's not a religious conflict! LOL!
And Dinesh, you have the nerve to ask me what you misattributed to Spencer? Do you even read what you write?!? Seriously!
David at 7:10PM on May 31st 2007
7.
Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of Robert Spencer in the slightest. But this conflict has already evolved into something more than just a fight for power in Iraq. The seeming willingness of the Sunni insurgency to negotiate a peace for political concessions and a withdrawal of American forces is a very hopeful sign, but the conflict itself has been divided upon religious lines, whether the persons be innocent or soldiers of the opposing army, and that in a major way makes it a religious conflict.
I think Dinesh oversimplifies the reasons for the Sunni insurgencies fight: This isn't just a fight between native Sunni's and native Shia's: Many within the Sunni insurgency are foreign fighters who have no stake in the future of the country of Iraq other than to expel Americans. Many of those are not necessarily associated with Al Qaeda, either, but are there to represent Islamic doctrine instead of the Al Qaeda agenda.
Peter at 4:16AM on Jun 1st 2007
8. The central issue is whether radical Islamic militants are being tolerated and supported by sovereign states. If they are, then these states must be confronted, whether or not Islam is best represented by "ideal Islam of the Koran" a la Mr. Spencer or an "existential Islam of history" a la D'Souza. Both of you need to stop making smoke where there is no fire. Focus on the problem and quit the petty personalities conflict.
David Kleykamp at 8:50PM on Jul 8th 2007