Ahmaud Arbery's Murderer On His Way To His Dirt Nap

[Hutch Starskey]

I have to laugh when I see little radicals, who've never risked a hair on their precious little heads, talk about my 'pap and grandpap' etc.

My parents were FDR liberals -- from the working class, not intellectuals, not even high school graduates -- and they taught me to believe in racial equality from the get-go.

Which is why I, as a high school student (segregated school) was in the first sit-in at Weingarten's supermaket in Houston (it had segregated lunch counters), picketted Foley's Department Store (it wouldn't hire Blacks), went door-to-door with petitions to abolish the poll tax, took part in 'stand-ins' at the segregated movie theatres in downtown Houston, and spent 'Freedom Summer' (1964) registering Blacks to vote in Fayette County, Tennessee -- where I had two scary 'close encounters' with white racists, one a car chase -- they were in a convertible and threw their tire iron and other things at us, only breaking off when we reached the Black area where we were staying -- ... the other encounter, at night, when I stupidly took a walk down the isolated country road that ran in front of the Black home we were staying in [when you're young, you're dumb] and encountered two whites in a pickup truck -- I'm sure I broke the world record for the 100-yard dash and ended up lying motionless in the middle of a cotton field. They were probably drunk and didn't get out of their vehicle to find me. God looks after his idiots.

And by the way: during the winter of 1964, there were several big public meetings at my university to publicize what was happening in Fayette County (Google 'Tent City' if you're interested). Hundreds and hundreds of students attended, almost all supportive of the fight to register Blacks to vote in that Black-majority county, where they had been denied the vote.

Then the academic year came to an end, and it was time to actually 'go Souith'. But something happened then: three civil rights workers in Mississippi (right over the line from Fayette County) disappeared.

And those hundreds and hundreds of white liberals who had crowded into the auditorium to hear about, and support, the voter registration drive? Hmmm.... when it was time to go down South, where civil rights workers might disappear ... their number had shrunk to about 50.

So I've had the number of big-mouth white liberal boys and girls for a long time. Malcolm X was right about white liberals. (And a lot of other things to.) Deeds, not words.

And, that goes for patriots today, if any of you are reading this: talk is good, destroying these snotty little leftist june-bugs online is fun ... but hard times are coming, and we must act. This means, at the moment, preparing your familiy with all the necessaries, and then organizing with like-minded people in your area.

Cool story, bro.
Doesn’t quite mesh with your defense of white supremacists though.

 

[Faun]

I disagree with you and the other gentleman Mark ATL

Arbery was being questioned for trespassing into a property. There was video footage of him walking around the property. The MacMichaels attempted a citizens arrest.

It’s a matter of logic and common sense what happens when somebody has a shotgun and they see somebody that they know has trespassed on property they want a question and then that person tries to wrestle with a shotgun. Well obviously a situation is going to occur that’s basically life or death. What if Arbery decided not to wrestle away the shotgun? these are legitimate questions that the media should be asking and the way I see it is the media caved into the far left when it came to cases like this ..they are to be ashamed of themselves. Please statistic show us that only a few unarmed white people and unarmed Black people have bad encounters with cops in my my girls were not cops apparently one of them the other one was a retired cop. But isn’t it a case that citizens of the neighborhood have a right to defend their neighborhood?



I feel bad for arbery , But a responsible adult must look at the McMichaels and they cannot make a knee-jerk reaction and call them racist …we have to look at the whole picture here. I would want to see video evidence of the McMichaels constantly using the N-word maybe some video evidence of them at a KKK meeting then sure I’ll agree that they’re racists and we could have a situation here. But I haven’t seen what you are apparently seeing or what you are imagining perhaps.

The absolute bottom line is the media makes it out as if the McMichaels intentionally went around hunting blacks. It’s just not the case none of them (mcmichaels and arbery )woke up that morning expecting the situation to occur that’s why a sentence of a few years at max is appropriate. People have to remove emotions from this case and the media did a bad job how emotions were involved there how they was rioting. Seemingly the jurys verdict was influenced by the media … that should never happen.

LOL

It doesn't matter why those yokels wanted to question Arbery. Arbery had absolutely no duty to answer to them.

They chased him through a neighborhood, threatened to blow his head off, hit him with a vehicle, and ultimately sandwiched him in between the two vehicles; at which point, Travis committed felony aggravated assault by pointing a shotgun at Arbery as he ran from Bryan, towards the McMichaels. Arbery had every legal right in the state of Georgia to defend himself from that threat.

And of your ponderance of what might have happened had Arbery not fought for his life? We'll never know and that matters not. It matters not because also according to Georgia law, Arbery had the legal right to stand his ground. Which at that precise moment, is what he chose to do. It was Arbery who was engaged in self-defense, not Travis. You tacitly admitted as much yourself when you said, "well obviously a situation is going to occur that’s basically life or death." It was Travis who drew a shotgun as Arbery was running in his direction (again, to get away from Bryan who was chasing him in his own vehicle). And it wasn't just Arbery charging at Travis as he turned in front of the truck. Travis too moved towards Arbery. The two men confronted each other. The difference? By that time, Travis had already committed an aggravated assault and handed Arbery the legal right to defend his own life.

 

[Doug1943]

You're leaving out many grave details which justify the shoot. Intentionally, no doubt, to condemn the shooter.

1. A huge mob converged on the Capitol. Capitol Police, in communication by police radio, heard that some people in that mob were armed.

2. Many in that mob became violent and attacked Capitol police who fought, and failed, to keep that violent mob out.

3. Capitol Police, in contact by radio communication, were aware of the brutality, danger and escalation of the situation.

4. Many among that violent mob broke into the Capitol, smashing doors and windows.

5. It became so dire, all of Congress, VP and staff had to be evacuated for their own safety.

6. During that period of evacuation, as it became evident that rioters had entered the Capitol, Capitol police, whose job it is to protect lawmakers and staff, setup makeshift barricades with furniture to keep that violent mob out. At one entrance to the House chamber, police had to draw their service weapons when rioters busted a window being barricaded. Police were not fucking around while lawmakers were still inside the chambers.

7. On the other side of the House chamber, at an entrance to the Speaker's Lobby, the mob there became outraged at the sight of lawmakers being evacuated, yelling, "they're getting away! They're getting away!" And began beating the glass despite there being police right there, in front of the doors, which were in front of another makeshift barricade.

8. That situation became so virulent, some of the police guarding that door had to be replaced with more heavily armed cops to keep that mob out of the House chamber until everyone inside could be safely evacuated.

9. During that transition, that mob became even more violent and began smashing the barricaded doors and windows leading into the Speaker's Lobby. On the other side of that barricade was a door to the House chamber just feet away and not barricaded.

10. Some House members and staff were still holed up inside the House chamber who had not yet been evacuated to safety from that violent mob. That violent mob, in the process of breaking into the House chamber, was a dire threat to those members of Congress and their staff.

11. Also on the other side of that barricade were Capitol police who were prepared to use lethal force, just like the other cops inside the House chamber, to keep that mob out until all were safely evacuated. Lt. Byrd was one of those cops who then drew his service weapon.

12. Police were yelling at that violent mob to 'get back!'

13. A rioter broke out a window that was maybe 6 feet away from the unbarricaded door to the House chamber. House members still inside, a cop whose job it was to keep them out, and a violent mob trying to break in. Benedict Babbitt, ignoring police commands to get back, forges ahead and climbs up to where the window was busted out by that violent mob, of which Ashes was a member. As she's breaching the police barricade, being the first member of that barricade to break through, Lt. Byrd, vastly outnumbered by a violent mob violently breaking in, had no choice but to resort to lethal force to keep that mob out, shooting the first person to break through. His actions worked as only then did the rest of that violent mob cease being violent and backed down.

You left all of that out.

Okay, fair enough. You're saying that under those circumstances, it's fine for the police to shoot to kill. No warning shots, just aim at their heads and fire. Well, that's an opinion. It's how the police work in many Third World countries, too, so you've got lots of precedents on your side.

Now ... if it had been an AntiFa'/BLM mob doing the same thing ... reports that some of them were armed (as they were in Kenosha, for example), raging angry at the government, seeking to attack elected representatives ... would it have been correct for the police to open fire on them, the way Mr Byrd did?

Before you answer, remember that nothing has changed in America. Black youth are desperately seeking work, studying hard in school, and unjustifiably, just because they're Black, being stopped and shot dead by police for no other reason than White Supremacy.

So we can expect riots in the future. We had our one Rightwing Riot ... a lone exception to dozens of riots in America over racial injustice, going back about fifty years. There will be more, count on it.

And in those riots, under circumstances essentially the same as 6 January, you are in favor of the police opening fire? Or at least, you will support them if any of them make that decision?

 

[Doug1943]

Cool story, bro.
Doesn’t quite mesh with your defense of white supremacists though.

"Doesn't quite mesh?" What does that mean? You think it's not true?

 

[MarcATL]

LOL

It doesn't matter why those yokels wanted to question Arbery. Arbery had absolutely no duty to answer to them.

They chased him through a neighborhood, threatened to blow his head off, hit him with a vehicle, and ultimately sandwiched him in between the two vehicles; at which point, Travis committed felony aggravated assault by pointing a shotgun at Arbery as he ran from Bryan, towards the McMichaels. Arbery had every legal right in the state of Georgia to defend himself from that threat.

And of your ponderance of what might have happened had Arbery not fought for his life? We'll never know and that matters not. It matters not because also according to Georgia law, Arbery had the legal right to stand his ground. Which at that precise moment, is what he chose to do. It was Arbery who was engaged in self-defense, not Travis. You tacitly admitted as much yourself when you said, "well obviously a situation is going to occur that’s basically life or death." It was Travis who drew a shotgun as Arbery was running in his direction (again, to get away from Bryan who was chasing him in his own vehicle). And it wasn't just Arbery charging at Travis as he turned in front of the truck. Travis too moved towards Arbery. The two men confronted each other. The difference? By that time, Travis had already committed an aggravated assault and handed Arbery the legal right to defend his own life.

All these crystal clear facts and you still have legions of rightwing white people who simply cannot bring themselves to see the truth.

Imagine the injustice our black brothers and sisters faced during the Civil Rights Movement and before.

Society was simply hostile to them. History does it no justice.

 

[Faun]

Okay, fair enough. You're saying that under those circumstances, it's fine for the police to shoot to kill. No warning shots, just aim at their heads and fire. Well, that's an opinion. It's how the police work in many Third World countries, too, so you've got lots of precedents on your side.

Now ... if it had been an AntiFa'/BLM mob doing the same thing ... reports that some of them were armed (as they were in Kenosha, for example), raging angry at the government, seeking to attack elected representatives ... would it have been correct for the police to open fire on them, the way Mr Byrd did?

Before you answer, remember that nothing has changed in America. Black youth are desperately seeking work, studying hard in school, and unjustifiably, just because they're Black, being stopped and shot dead by police for no other reason than White Supremacy.

So we can expect riots in the future. We had our one Rightwing Riot ... a lone exception to dozens of riots in America over racial injustice, going back about fifty years. There will be more, count on it.

And in those riots, under circumstances essentially the same as 6 January, you are in favor of the police opening fire? Or at least, you will support them if any of them make that decision?

Police are not allowed to fire warning shots. That's not an opinion, so who knows why you'd even throw that out there?

As far as Kenosha, Someone did shoot and kill 2 individuals and it was determined in court that too was a justifiable shoot. Do you even realize you're helping my position, not your own, with that example?

As far as riots, such as the BLM riots....

Some rioters were killed by police. The left did not hail the dead rioter as a "patriot." They did not condemn the cops who fired as "murderers." And for clarity's sake, when I say the "left," I don't mean every single individual on the left. There's nothing that everyone on the left agrees with each other; just like those on the right. What I mean by "left," is by and large.


As far as where I stand on similar situations in riots, I condemned the BLM riots repeatedly. I supported the protests but condemned the violence. Police should protect innocent people being gravely threatened by others, using lethal force when necessary.

 

[Chillicothe]

No warning shots, just aim at their heads and fire.

--------------------------------------------------
Hyperbole much?
No warning shot? In the Capitol of the United States of America with civilians all around? Hundreds if not thousands.
Sure. Why not?
It's the movie-thing to do.

'Aim at the head'........and the good poster knows that how?
He coulda been aiming for her foot.....but he's a bad shot?
He coulda been aiming at center mass......but got her in the neck as she lunged forward?

Does it matter? He was aiming to stop a mob coming through that doorway and assaulting, capturing, killing the Congressional Representatives and their staffers that he took an oath to protect.
And his shot was good. It stopped the mob he needed to stop.

The policeman shot a shrouded figure with a backpack who was leading a violent mob. And leading that mob despite warnings to back off, to not enter.

Ashli Babbitt chose....chose!.... to be the tip of the spear. The 'point man' of the assault force.
It got her dead.

Ashli Babbitt is dead because of Ashli Babbitt.
May her family find peace.

And may the RightieTightie Trumpworld quit draggin' her poor corpse around the internet in another attempt to advance one of their partisan polemics. Shame.

 

[Faun]

All these crystal clear facts and you still have legions of rightwing white people who simply cannot bring themselves to see the truth.

Imagine the injustice our black brothers and sisters faced during the Civil Rights Movement and before.

Society was simply hostile to them. History does it no justice.

I can't image. I'm not black. I am Jewish and my people were enslaved several thousand years ago and I still celebrate their freedom every year. Passover is our Juneteenth.

 

[Zincwarrior]

It's like no matter the thread someone will bring up Trump or BLM/Antifa by page three.

 

[SavannahMann]

This event underlines the importance for every patriot to KNOW THE LAW. It's not what is morally right that counts, it's WHAT THE LAW IS that counts.

These men thought they were making a "Citizen's Arrest" of a potential thief, (Arbery had at least one previous conviction for shoplifting.) There had been burglaries in the area. So they may well have been right. But that is irrelevant.

Every patriot should read at least the Wiki article:
[ Citizen's arrest - Wikipedia ]

Now ... suppose Ahmed Arbury had been white, doing the exact same things, and his killers had been black. 75 years ago in Georgia they may well have been lynched before a trial, and would certainly have been convicted if they lived long enough to stand trial.

Today, though, I believe they would have been acquitted.

These men should have been convicted of something ... ignorance of the law is no excuse ... but this was not a murder.

However, America is hurtling towards a situation in which justice will take second place to politics, as it does in most Third World and authoritarian countries.

Therefore: learn the law, and prepare for what's coming.

They wouldn’t have been acquitted at any time past 1978 in Georgia.

 

[Doug1943]

The Gulf States have a very low crime rate. I was very safe going anywhere in the country even after dark. Assault, theft and violent crime are very rare.

Yes, what you're saying is true. I've heard that from other people who have lived in Islamic countries, and it's something Americans should know.
However, are you saying that muderous sectarian violence between Sunni's and Shia's doesn't happen, or is extremely rare?

Did you read the Wiki article? Actually, it's not fair of me to ask you to do this. It's a very long article. (And a very interesting one. I learned a lot that I didn't know before. Anyone interested in what's happening in the world should read it. Americans know almost nothing about the Islamic world, which is a pity. Read the article!

Here: Shia–Sunni relations - Wikipedia


In the meantime, I'll extract some snippets from the Wiki piece, so that you can comment on them. (I've left out a lot: for example, the efforts of Sunni and Shia leaders to stop the violence; the alleged role of the United States in fomenting it. Everyone should read the whole article.)

But the question is, Sunni-Shia violence against each other.
How bad is it?

Shia–Sunni relations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In recent years, Sunni–Shia relations have been increasingly marked by conflict, particularly the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. Sectarian violence persists to this day from Pakistan to Yemen and is a major element of friction throughout the Middle East and South Asia. Tensions between communities have intensified during power struggles, such as the Bahraini uprising, the Iraqi Civil War, the Syrian Civil War, the War in Iraq (2013–2017), and the formation of the self-styled Islamic State of Iraq and Syria that has launched a genocide against Shias.
.
.
.
Following this period, Sunni–Shia strife has seen a major upturn, particularly in Iraq and Pakistan, leading to thousands of deaths. Among the explanations for the increase are conspiracies by outside forces to divide Muslims, the recent Islamic revival and increased religious purity and consequent takfir, upheaval, destruction and loss of power of Sunni caused by the US invasion of Iraq, and sectarianism generated by Arab regimes defending themselves against the mass uprisings of the Arab Spring.



Many in the Muslim world explain the bloodshed as the work of conspiracies by outside forces—"the forces of hegemony and Zionism which aim to weaken [Arabs]" (Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Yusuf al-Qaradawi), unspecified "enemies" (Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), or "oppressive pressure by the imperialist front." (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad).
.
.
.

The Shia suffered indirect and direct persecution under post-colonial Iraqi governments since 1932, erupting into full-scale rebellions in 1935 and 1936. Shias were also persecuted during the Ba'ath Party rule, especially under Saddam Hussein. It is said that every Shia clerical family of note in Iraq had tales of torture and murder to recount. In 1969 the son of Iraq's highest Shia Ayatollah Muhsin al-Hakim was arrested and allegedly tortured. From 1979 to 1983 Saddam's regime executed 48 major Shia clerics in Iraq. They included Shia leader Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr and his sister. Tens of thousands of Iranians and Arabs of Iranian origin were expelled in 1979 and 1980 and a further 75,000 in 1989.

The Shias openly revolted against Saddam following the Gulf War in 1991 and were encouraged by Saddam's defeat in Kuwait and by simultaneous Kurdish uprising in the north. However, Shia opposition to the government was brutally suppressed, resulting in some 50,000 to 100,000 casualties and successive repression by Saddam's forces. The governing regimes of Iraq were composed mainly of Sunnis for nearly a century until the 2003 Iraq War.


Some of the worst sectarian strife ever has occurred after the start of the Iraq War, steadily building up to the present. The war has featured a cycle of Sunni–Shia revenge killing—Sunni often used car bombs, while Shia favored death squads.

According to one estimate, as of early 2008, 1,121 suicide bombers have blown themselves up in Iraq. Sunni suicide bombers have targeted not only thousands of civilians, but mosques, shrines, wedding and funeral processions, markets, hospitals, offices, and streets. ...

Takfir motivation for many of these killings may come from Sunni insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Before his death Zarqawi was one to quote Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, especially his infamous statement urging followers to kill the Shia of Iraq, and calling the Shias "snakes". An al-Qaeda-affiliated website posted a call for "a full-scale war on Shiites all over Iraq, whenever and wherever they are found." Suicide bombers continue to attack Iraqi Shia civilians, and the Shia ulama have in response declared suicide bombing as haraam (against God, or "forbidden")
.
.
.
Unfortunately, from 1987 to 2007, "as many as 4,000 people are estimated to have died" in Shia-Sunni sectarian fighting in Pakistan", 300 being killed in 2006. Amongst the culprits blamed for the killing are Al-Qaeda working "with local sectarian groups" to kill what they perceive as Shia apostates, and "foreign powers ... trying to sow discord." Most violence takes place in the largest province of Punjab and the country's commercial and financial capital, Karachi. There have also been conflagrations in the provinces of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan and Azad Kashmir,[ with several hundreds of Shia Hazara killed in Balochistan killed since 2008.

Arab states especially Saudi Arabia and GCC states have been funding extremist Deobandi Sunnis and Wahhabis in Pakistan, since the Afghan Jihad. Whereas Iran has been funding Shia militant groups such as Sipah-e-Muhammad Pakistan, resulting in tit-for-tat attacks on each other. Pakistan has become a battleground between Saudi Arabia-funded Deobandi Sunni and Wahhabis and Iran-funded Shia resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent Muslims.


Some see a precursor of Pakistani Shia–Sunni strife in the April 1979 execution of deposed President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto on questionable charges by Islamic fundamentalist General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. Ali Bhutto was Shia, Zia ul-Haq a Sunni.

Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization that followed was resisted by Shia who saw it as "Sunnification" as the laws and regulations were based on Sunni fiqh. In July 1980, 25,000 Shia protested the Islamization laws in the capital Islamabad. Further exacerbating the situation was the dislike between Shia leader Imam Khomeini and General Zia ul-Haq.

Shia formed student associations and a Shia party, Sunni began to form sectarian militias recruited from Deobandi and Ahl al-Hadith madrasahs. Preaching against the Shia in Pakistan was cleric Israr Ahmed. Manzoor Nomani, a senior Indian cleric with close ties to Saudi Arabia published a book entitled Iranian Revolution: Imam Khomeini and Shiism. The book, which "became the gospel of Deobandi militants" in the 1980s, attacked Khomeini and argued the excesses of the Islamic revolution were proof that Shiism was not the doctrine of misguided brothers, but beyond the Islamic pale.

Anti-Shia groups in Pakistan include the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan, offshoots of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI). The groups demand the expulsion of all Shias from Pakistan and have killed hundreds of Pakistani Shias between 1996 and 1999. As in Iraq they "targeted Shia in their holy places and mosques, especially during times of communal prayer." From January to May 1997, Sunni terror groups assassinated 75 Shia community leaders "in a systematic attempt to remove Shias from positions of authority."[ Lashkar-e-Jhangvi has declared Shia to be "American agents" and the "near enemy" in global jihad.

An example of an early Shia–Sunni fitna shootout occurred in Kurram, one of the tribal agencies of the Northwest Pakistan, where the Pushtun population was split between Sunnis and Shia. In September 1996 more than 200 people were killed when a gun battle between teenage Shia and Sunni escalated into a communal war that lasted five days. Women and children were kidnapped and gunmen even executed out-of-towners who were staying at a local hotel.

"Over 80,000 Pakistani Islamic militants have trained and fought with the Taliban since 1994. They form a hardcore of Islamic activists, ever-ready to carry out a similar Taliban-style Islamic revolution in Pakistan.", according to Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid.


Shia–Sunni strife in Pakistan is strongly intertwined with that in Afghanistan. The anti-Shia Afghan Taliban regime helped anti-Shia Pakistani groups and vice versa. Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan, have sent thousands of volunteers to fight with the Taliban regime and "in return the Taliban gave sanctuary to their leaders in the Afghan capital of Kabul."

Shia–Sunni strife inside of Afghanistan has mainly been a function of the puritanical Sunni Taliban's clashes with Shia Afghans, primarily the Hazara ethnic group.

In 1998 more than 8,000 noncombatants were killed when the Taliban attacked Mazar-i-Sharif and Bamiyan where many Hazaras live. Some of the slaughter was indiscriminate, but many were Shia targeted by the Taliban. Taliban commander and governor Mullah Niazi banned prayer at Shia mosques and expressed takfir of the Shia in a declaration from Mazar's central mosque:

Last year you rebelled against us and killed us. From all your homes you shot at us. Now we are here to deal with you. The Hazaras are not Muslims and now we have to kill Hazaras. You must either accept to be Muslims or leave Afghanistan. Wherever you go, we will catch you. If you go up we will pull you down by your feet; if you hide below, we will pull you up by your hair.

Assisting the Taliban in the murder of Iranian diplomatic and intelligence officials at the Iranian Consulate in Mazar were "several Pakistani militants of the anti-Shia, Sipah-e-Sahaba party."


In Nigeria—the most populous country in Africa—until recently almost all Muslims were Sunni. As of 2017, estimates of the number of Nigeria's 90–95 million Muslims who are Shia vary from between 20 million (Shia estimate), to less than five million (Sunni estimate) but according to Pew research center, less than 5% of the Muslim population in Nigeria are Shia.

In the 1980s, Ibrahim El-Zakzaky—a Nigerian admirer of the Iranian Revolution who lived in Iran for some years and converted to Shia Islam—established the Islamic Movement of Nigeria. The movement has established "more than 300 schools, Islamic centers, a newspaper, guards and a `martyrs’ foundation`". Its network is similar to that of Hezbollah in Lebanon, with a focus on Iran, its Supreme Leader, and fighting America as the enemy of Islam. According to a former U.S. State Department specialist on Nigeria, Matthew Page, the Islamic Movement receives "about $10,000 a month" in Iranian funding. Many of the converted are poor Muslims.

The Shia campaign has clashed with Saudi Arabian, which also funds religious centers, school, and trains students and clerics, but as part of an effort to spread its competing Wahabbi interpretation of Islam. According to Wikileaks, "Saudi cables" released in 2015 "reveal concern" about "Iran-driven Shiite expansion from Mali, Mauritania, Burkina Faso and Nigeria" to Shia Islam has taken place in Nigeria since the Iranian Revolution.

Shia Muslims protest that they have been persecuted by the Nigerian government. In 1998 Nigerian President General Sani Abacha accused Ibrahim El-Zakzaky of being a Shia. In December 2015 the Nigerian government alleged that the Islamic Movement attempted to kill Nigeria's army chief-of-staff. In retaliation, troops killed more than 300 Shiites in the city of Zaria. Hundreds of El-Zakzaky's followers were also arrested. As of 2019, El-Zakzaky was still imprisoned.

Islam is the dominant religion in Indonesia, which also has a larger Muslim population than any other country in the world, with approximately 202.9 million identified as Muslim (88.2% of the total population) as of 2009.

The majority adheres to the Sunni Muslim tradition mainly of the Shafi'i madhhab. Around one million are Shias, who are concentrated around Jakarta. In general, the Muslim community can be categorized in terms of two orientations: "modernists," who closely adhere to orthodox theology while embracing modern learning; and "traditionalists," who tend to follow the interpretations of local religious leaders (predominantly in Java) and religious teachers at Islamic boarding schools (pesantren). In Indonesia, in 2015, Sunni clerics denounced the Shia as "heretics", and the mayor of Bogor proposed banning the Shia Ashura holy day. The Shia community has also been subject to hate campaigns and intimidation, with fears of this escalating into violence.

Malaysia claims to be a tolerant Islamic state, however since 2010 it has banned the preaching of Shia Islam, with a "particular ferocity" and warns against Shiism with its, "evil and blasphemous beliefs".

.
.
.

As of March 2015, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (or ISIS/ISIL, Daesh), a Salafi jihadi extremist militant group and self-proclaimed caliphate and Islamic state led by Sunni Arabs from Iraq and Syria, had control over territory occupied by ten million people in Iraq and Syria, as well as limited territorial control in some other countries. The United Nations has held ISIS responsible for human rights abuses and war crimes, and Amnesty International has reported ethnic cleansing by the group on a "historic scale", including attacks on Shia Muslims.

According to Shia rights watch, in 2014 ISIS forces killed over 1,700 Shia civilians at Camp Speicher in Tikrit Iraq, and 670 Shia prisoners at the detention facility on the outskirts of Mosul. In June 2014, the New York Times wrote that as ISIS has "seized vast territories" in western and northern Iraq, there have been "frequent accounts of fighters’ capturing groups of people and releasing the Sunnis while the Shiites are singled out for execution". The report listed questions ISIS uses to "tell whether a person is a Sunni or a Shiite"—What is your name? Where do you live? How do you pray? What kind of music do you listen to?

After the collapse of the Iraqi army and capture of the city of Mosul by ISIS in June 2014, the "most senior" Shia spiritual leader based in Iraq, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who had been known as "pacifist" in his attitudes, issued a fatwa calling for jihad against ISIS and its Sunni allies, which was seen by the Shia militias as a "de facto legalization of the militias’ advance". In Qatari another Shiite preacher, Nazar al-Qatari, "put on military fatigues to rally worshipers after evening prayers," calling on them to fight against “the slayers of Imams Hasan and Hussein” (the second and third Imams of Shia history) and for Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Shia militias fighting ISIS have also been accused of atrocities. Human Rights Watch has accused government-backed Shia militias of kidnapping and killing scores of Sunni civilians in 2014.

Now, this seems pretty significant to me. But if it's all lies, or highly exaggerated, it would be interesting to hear the other side.

 

[surada]

Yes, what you're saying is true. I've heard that from other people who have lived in Islamic countries, and it's something Americans should know.
However, are you saying that muderous sectarian violence between Sunni's and Shia's doesn't happen, or is extremely rare?

Did you read the Wiki article? Actually, it's not fair of me to ask you to do this. It's a very long article. (And a very interesting one. I learned a lot that I didn't know before. Anyone interested in what's happening in the world should read it. Americans know almost nothing about the Islamic world, which is a pity. Read the article!

Here: Shia–Sunni relations - Wikipedia


In the meantime, I'll extract some snippets from the Wiki piece, so that you can comment on them. (I've left out a lot: for example, the efforts of Sunni and Shia leaders to stop the violence; the alleged role of the United States in fomenting it. Everyone should read the whole article.)

But the question is, Sunni-Shia violence against each other.
How bad is it?

Shia–Sunni relations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now, this seems pretty significant to me. But if it's all lies, or highly exaggerated, it would be interesting to hear the other side.

Yes, Sunni Shia violence is very rare in the Gulf States.

 

[Doug1943]

Police are not allowed to fire warning shots. That's not an opinion, so who knows why you'd even throw that out there?

As far as Kenosha, Someone did shoot and kill 2 individuals and it was determined in court that too was a justifiable shoot. Do you even realize you're helping my position, not your own, with that example?

As far as riots, such as the BLM riots....

Some rioters were killed by police. The left did not hail the dead rioter as a "patriot." They did not condemn the cops who fired as "murderers." And for clarity's sake, when I say the "left," I don't mean every single individual on the left. There's nothing that everyone on the left agrees with each other; just like those on the right. What I mean by "left," is by and large.


As far as where I stand on similar situations in riots, I condemned the BLM riots repeatedly. I supported the protests but condemned the violence. Police should protect innocent people being gravely threatened by others, using lethal force when necessary.

Okay, fair enough. (I didn't know that police couldn't fire warning shots. Interesting.)

You condemn the violence that occurred during the BLM riots, I condemn the violence that occurred on 6 January.

You support the police killing violent protestors under the situation that Mr Byrd was in and I will assume from that, that when future riots occur sparked by police/Black encounters, you will support the police killing the rioters if they are in similar situations.

So we're in agreement, except that I believe that the situation that Byrd was in did not justify lethal force at that point -- and I note that he was the only policeman who killed someone -- , and wouild not justify lethal force in a similar situation were the police facing Leftist rioters ... but now we have a precedent, and I believe the bar has been lowered. And of course every riot will be different.

I also agree that the Left, like the Right, is composed of lots of different currents and groups, some of which are in strong disagreement with each other.

It's tempting for know-nothings on my side to condemn everyone on your side as 'commies', and for know nothings on your side to condemn everyone on my side as 'white supremacists'. [I think that the 'white supremacist' jibe is less honorable than the 'commies' slur, but let that pass.

Many people find it hard to think. All that confusing information, so little of it available as cartoons ...

Well, it's a cold civil war and in wars one always demonizes the other side. And if we think it's bad now. wait until it goes hot.

 

[MarathonMike]

How sad you have to lie and falsely claim Ashes Targetpractice was shot for "banging on a door."

But like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

How sad you make a joke about an unarmed woman shot point blank in the face by a cowardly, panicked Officer Byrd.

 

[Doug1943]

Yes, Sunni Shia violence is very rare in the Gulf States.

Well, yes. For obvious reasons. Some advantages to having a hard-fist monarchy in charge of things. At least the trains run on time.

Of course, we might want to ask the Shia's living there what they think. (I assume you're following convention and not including the Yemeni Republic as a Gulf State.)

Here's that old inconvenient Wikipedia again, on Shia's in Saudi Arabia:

In 1987, following the deaths of over 300 during a demonstration by Iranian pilgrims in Mecca during the Hajj pilgrimage, Khomeini "denounced the House of Saud as "murderers" and called on all loyal Shiites in the Kingdom to rise up and overthrow them", further alarming Saudi officials. After oil pipelines were bombed in 1988, the Saudi government accused Shiites of sabotage [and] executed several. In collective punishment restrictions were placed on their freedoms and they were further marginalized economically. Wahhabi ulama were given the green light to sanction violence against Shia. Fatwas were passed by the country's leading cleric, Abdul-Aziz ibn Baz denouncing Shia as apostates from Islam

As of 2006, more militant Saudi Wahhabi clerics were circulating a petition calling for an intensification of sectarian violence against Shiites, while the official religious establishment was calling for them to renounce their "fallacious" beliefs voluntarily and embrace "the right path" of Islam, rather than be killed, expelled, or converted by violence.
.
.
.
In modern-day Saudi Arabia, the Sunni rulers limit Shiite political participation to "notables", according to scholar Vali Nasr. These notables benefit from their ties to power, and in return are expected to control their community. Much political activity takes place outside these parameters. Since 1979, hundreds of Saudi Shiites have been jailed, executed, and exiled.

[ Shia Islam in Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia ]

And elsewhere? Read through that snippet from Wiki. Wouldn't you say that Sunni's and Shia's have a pretty violent relationship with each other?

Look, I'm not blaming 'Islam' for this. It's pretty much the human norm to behave this way. It has taken the Europeans many long centuries to evolve towards the Rule of Law, state neutrality towards religion, toleration of minority views.

Americans think their little corner of the world and their brief period of ascendancy in history, with resulting social progress, is the norm.

When Muslims bomb the Boston Marathon, killing and maiming people, we don't expect riots targetting and killing Muslims.
[ Boston Marathon bombing - Wikipedia ]

When white joggers are shot by a Black man, we don't find whites holding mass protests. (Hell we don't even hear about it if we live in the US, given our Pravda-style media when it comes to race. Here's a British report: [ Dad-of-three shot while jogging in Atlanta's richest section Buckhead ]

America's not like the Third World. Yet.

 

[surada]

Well, yes. For obvious reasons. Some advantages to having a hard-fist monarchy in charge of things. At least the trains run on time.

Of course, we might want to ask the Shia's living there what they think. (I assume you're following convention and not including the Yemeni Republic as a Gulf State.)

Here's that old inconvenient Wikipedia again, on Shia's in Saudi Arabia:


[ Shia Islam in Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia ]

And elsewhere? Read through that snippet from Wiki. Wouldn't you say that Sunni's and Shia's have a pretty violent relationship with each other?

Look, I'm not blaming 'Islam' for this. It's pretty much the human norm to behave this way. It has taken the Europeans many long centuries to evolve towards the Rule of Law, state neutrality towards religion, toleration of minority views.

Americans think their little corner of the world and their brief period of ascendancy in history, with resulting social progress, is the norm.

When Muslims bomb the Boston Marathon, killing and maiming people, we don't expect riots targetting and killing Muslims.
[ Boston Marathon bombing - Wikipedia ]

When white joggers are shot by a Black man, we don't find whites holding mass protests. (Hell we don't even hear about it if we live in the US, given our Pravda-style media when it comes to race. Here's a British report: [ Dad-of-three shot while jogging in Atlanta's richest section Buckhead ]

America's not like the Third World. Yet.

The Shia in Arabia are mostly successful. They work in the oil sector and are well represented in the merchant class. My friend Ali Naimi president of ARAMCO is Shia.

 

[playtime]

couldn't be fast enough.

 

[Doug1943]

How sad you make a joke about an unarmed woman shot point blank in the face by a cowardly, panicked Officer Byrd.

These people have no honor. They are beneath contempt.

But not everyone on the Left is like that. And I've seen similar slimey comments by people on the Right when something similar happened to their opponents. (For example, Rush Limbaugh's disgraceful gleeful reporting on deaths from Aids for awhile, which he later stopped and regretted, donating $10 000 to the Paediatric Aids Foundation. I don't expect similar regrets from our Lefties though.)

 

[Doug1943]

The Shia in Arabia are mostly successful. They work in the oil sector and are well represented in the merchant class. My friend Ali Naimi president of ARAMCO is Shia.

That's good to hear. So all the quoted things about Sunni fundamentalist clerics telling them to convert or die, the executions, etc are false?

 

[surada]

That's good to hear. So all the quoted things about Sunni fundamentalist clerics telling them to convert or die, the executions, etc are false?

Yep. Most people who write about Saudi Arabia have never been there. A few of the real sensational experts have spent a long week end in the kingdom.