Quick background
Sunni Muslims: Largest group, they believe the other sects have departed from the teachings of the Qu'ran
Shi'a Muslims: 2nd largest group, believe their sect is very much apart of the Sunni caliphs, but put a different weighting on certain aspects of Islam.
The hardcore Sunnis and Shi'as hate each other. Because religion is very much a part of their lives, many Islamic governments are led by the hardcore followers of these sects. In addition, the Middle East's oil resources give access to wealth, but it is restricted to the upper classes within each country.
Here's a thought:
The economic disparity between the classes puts undue stress on a religious-based dispute between the Sunni's and Shi'a's. Arguably a religious "civil war" has been fought in both open warfare and via unconventional means at several points in history, countries, and from different classes in the Muslim society. Unconventional warfare has been a direct result of innovations due to lack of resources from the lower castes in the societies - a good example of what I'm referring to is the invention of the IED.
So given the friction between religious sects, the inequity of wealth distribution, and influential leadership able to declare a jihad, what would the Middle East be without unifying against Israel? I believe that if Israel wasn't dropped on their front door, the Muslim opinion of the US would be much different. So if Israel & the US wasn't a catalyst for unification, would the Muslim society find another country fill that role? Does the Middle East need Israel to be the boogeyman to avoid a religious civil war? Does the Muslim society always need a boogeyman?
I believe that Israel is using this hatred for it's own benefit as well, so it's almost a sick kind of co-dependency.
Thoughts?
Sunni Muslims: Largest group, they believe the other sects have departed from the teachings of the Qu'ran
Shi'a Muslims: 2nd largest group, believe their sect is very much apart of the Sunni caliphs, but put a different weighting on certain aspects of Islam.
The hardcore Sunnis and Shi'as hate each other. Because religion is very much a part of their lives, many Islamic governments are led by the hardcore followers of these sects. In addition, the Middle East's oil resources give access to wealth, but it is restricted to the upper classes within each country.
Here's a thought:
The economic disparity between the classes puts undue stress on a religious-based dispute between the Sunni's and Shi'a's. Arguably a religious "civil war" has been fought in both open warfare and via unconventional means at several points in history, countries, and from different classes in the Muslim society. Unconventional warfare has been a direct result of innovations due to lack of resources from the lower castes in the societies - a good example of what I'm referring to is the invention of the IED.
So given the friction between religious sects, the inequity of wealth distribution, and influential leadership able to declare a jihad, what would the Middle East be without unifying against Israel? I believe that if Israel wasn't dropped on their front door, the Muslim opinion of the US would be much different. So if Israel & the US wasn't a catalyst for unification, would the Muslim society find another country fill that role? Does the Middle East need Israel to be the boogeyman to avoid a religious civil war? Does the Muslim society always need a boogeyman?
I believe that Israel is using this hatred for it's own benefit as well, so it's almost a sick kind of co-dependency.
Thoughts?
