|
Bin Laden and Al Baghdadi were Sunni's and would oppose General S within the region, but would be allies against infidel's (non-muslims) when the reason would benefit both.
One was a Shia Iranian General responsible for supporting proxy Shia militias in Syria, Iran, etc - aka Quds. The other an Iraqi Shia Militia Commander responsible for suppressing Sunni's and Kurds in Iraq (the ones that are protesting current Iraqi government, and the ones that did not vote in Parliament for for the removal of US military presence).
Iran's Shias would like total control of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East (meaning submission to Shia's tenets), then the rest of humanity. The Sunni's (ISIS, ISIL) would like the same control (meaning submission to Sunni tenets). The fighting Muslim's believe they benefit from victory in life (spoils of war), or in death where great rewards await them in their heaven. In Jihad, they win either way. This Islamic ideology seems very poisoness from a western logical and spiritual point of view - but Islam is a monotheistic ideology and arguments to the contrary are not considered by devout Muslims.
Is there strategic interest for the west in the Middle East? There always has been, and likely will be for a long time. I would hope our media would smarten up and pick up this religious context, along with the Kurd's and Armenian's situation, also persecuted by Muslim based governments.
Sorry to bore you all... but this context overlays all that is happening in the Middle east. I don't remember learning about this stuff in History or Social Studies in High School...
|