Iraq: On The Brink Of Civil War?

[multi]

Sectarian tensions in Iraq took a turn for the worse on 22 February when armed men detonated explosives inside the Golden Mosque in Samarra, home to a revered Shi'ite shrine, blowing the roof off the building. Iraqi leaders have scrambled to contain the ensuing retaliatory attacks by Shi'a, amid rising fears that the country could be on the brink of civil war. At least six Sunnis have been killed already in retaliatory attacks, and nearly 30 Sunni mosques attacked.

Two of the 12 Shi'ite imams -- Imam Ali al-Hadi, who died in 868 A.D., and his son, Imam Hasan al-Askari, who died in 874 A.D. -- are buried at the mosque. The complex also contains the shrine of the 12th imam, al-Mahdi, who is said to have gone into hiding through a cellar in the complex in 878, and is expected to return on Judgment Day.

Both the Ansar Al-Sunnah Army and the Mujahedin Shura Council -- an alliance of terrorist groups that includes Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda-affiliated group (see RFE/RL Iraq Report," 27 January 2006) -- are suspected in the attack. Both groups have insurgents operating in Samarra, and have claimed responsibility for attacks against U.S. and Iraqi forces there in recent weeks. Just like the assassination of revered Shi'ite Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim in Al-Najaf in 2003, no group has claimed responsibility for the Samarra attack.

The Shi'ite Response

Shi'ite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani immediately called for seven days of mourning following the attack, and urged Shi'a to take to the streets in peaceful demonstrations protesting the attack. The cleric, who rarely appears in public, could be seen on Iraqi state television in a meeting with other leading ayatollahs.

The mass demonstrations -- tens of thousands took to the streets of Baghdad, Al-Najaf, Kut, Al-Kufah, and Samarra -- were accompanied by violence. Reprisal attacks against Sunnis were reported across the country.
more..

[tambourine-man]

Makes you wonder if someone actually wants a Civil War?

[theknife]

wasn't the brink about a year and a half ago?

memo to the Bush administration: the US-Iraq War is over - Iran won.

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by multi

Sectarian tensions in Iraq took a turn for the worse on 22 February when armed men detonated explosives inside the Golden Mosque in Samarra, home to a revered Shi'ite shrine, blowing the roof off the building. Iraqi leaders have scrambled to contain the ensuing retaliatory attacks by Shi'a, amid rising fears that the country could be on the brink of civil war. At least six Sunnis have been killed already in retaliatory attacks, and nearly 30 Sunni mosques attacked.

Two of the 12 Shi'ite imams -- Imam Ali al-Hadi, who died in 868 A.D., and his son, Imam Hasan al-Askari, who died in 874 A.D. -- are buried at the mosque. The complex also contains the shrine of the 12th imam, al-Mahdi, who is said to have gone into hiding through a cellar in the complex in 878, and is expected to return on Judgment Day.

Both the Ansar Al-Sunnah Army and the Mujahedin Shura Council -- an alliance of terrorist groups that includes Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda-affiliated group (see RFE/RL Iraq Report," 27 January 2006) -- are suspected in the attack. Both groups have insurgents operating in Samarra, and have claimed responsibility for attacks against U.S. and Iraqi forces there in recent weeks. Just like the assassination of revered Shi'ite Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim in Al-Najaf in 2003, no group has claimed responsibility for the Samarra attack.

The Shi'ite Response

Shi'ite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani immediately called for seven days of mourning following the attack, and urged Shi'a to take to the streets in peaceful demonstrations protesting the attack. The cleric, who rarely appears in public, could be seen on Iraqi state television in a meeting with other leading ayatollahs.

The mass demonstrations -- tens of thousands took to the streets of Baghdad, Al-Najaf, Kut, Al-Kufah, and Samarra -- were accompanied by violence. Reprisal attacks against Sunnis were reported across the country.
more..

OK

In short for christians it would mean blowing up the dome of the Vatican

Fucking big issue, how come it's keeps being minimised like that?

[theknife]

Originally Posted by miss_silver

OK

In short for christians it would mean blowing up the dome of the Vatican

well put, Miss S... i doubt if many consider it in those terms.

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by miss_silver

OK

In short for christians it would mean blowing up the dome of the Vatican

or burning down a southern baptist church? i mean there's only one vatican, but it seems like there must be a thousand "sacred mosques." every time you turn around they're bitching about another one.

haven't they heard? there is no god. just the mall, porn and tv.

- js.

[multi]

Originally Posted by miss_silver

blowing up the dome of the Vatican

do you mean 'dome of the rock' ?

On August 21, 1969, an Australian, Michael Dennis Rohan, set the Al-Aqsa mosque on fire. Rohan was a reader of The Plain Truth magazine published by the Worldwide Church of God headed by Herbert W. Armstrong, which was best known for its radio and television programs called The World Tomorrow featuring his son Garner Ted Armstrong. Rohan had read an editorial in the June 1967 edition by Herbert W. Armstrong, concerning rebuilding of the Temple on Temple Mount. The article implied that the present structures would have to be removed and then when a new Temple had been built a series of events would take place resulting in the return of Jesus as the Messiah. This interpretation of prophetic events is now common within Fundamentalist Christianity, but was almost exclusive to the Worldwide Church of God at that time. Herbert W. Armstrong claimed that Rohan was not a member of the church, only a subscriber to the magazine. The incident made worldwide news and The Daily Telegraph newspaper in London pictured Rohan on its front page with a folded copy of The Plain Truth sticking out of his outside jacket pocket.

The Arab world and the USSR (see role of the Soviet Union) blamed Israel for the incident and Yassar Arafat constantly used it as the foundation of his attacks on Israel. Several Arab and Islamic media agencies, including the Jordanian News Agency[7], IslamOnline[8], and Palestine Chronicle[9], incorrectly reported that Rohan was Jewish. However, Herbert W. Armstrong was not a stranger to King Hussein and he had been working with Jordanian government to put his daily radio program called The World Tomorrow on their AM and shortwave stations that broadcast from the Jordanian West Bank. That contract had been negated due to the Six Day War and the sudden capture of the Jordanian radio stations by Israel.

Israeli sources claim that Israeli firemen attempting to extinguish the blaze were hampered by Arabs who mistakenly believed that the fire hoses contained petrol rather than water[10]; Ikrima Sabri claims that Palestinian efforts to put out the fire were obstructed by Israel[11].

On February 1, 1981, an article "Islam Reborn" written by Don A. Schanche appeared in the Opinion section of The Los Angeles Times. It related the following information:

The Islamic conference, for example, was born in a worldwide surge of Muslim outrage over the August, 1969, burning of Jerusalem's Al Aksa mosque, third holiest shrine in Islam after Mecca and Medina, by a deranged Australian Jew, who many Muslims believed was a pawn in a Zionist plot. The call to gather in Rabat, Morocco, to unify and do something to redress the outrage drew only 25 of the more than 40 nations in the world with Muslim majorities. With only one cause to unite them, the kings and presidents talked for only a day and issued a call for the restoration of Arab sovereignty over Jerusalem and other territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Then they adjourned. The meeting and the newly founded organization were all but ignored by the rest of the world.... Last week, with its membership now grown to 42, but attendance weakened by the suspension of Egypt and Soviet-occupied Afghanistan and the pointed absence of Iran and Libya, the Islamic conference went a long way toward achieving its long-sought goal of power in unity.

On April 11, 1981, an American-born Israeli Jewish soldier named Alan Harry Goodman entered the Al-Aqsa Mosque and started firing randomly, killing two Palestinians.

In recent years many complaints have been voiced by Israelis about Muslim construction and excavation on and underneath the Temple Mount, and by Muslims about Israeli excavations, two under the Temple Mount, the rest around it[12]. It is ironic that for a time Ambassador College which was the liberal arts educational institution of the Worldwide Church of God, regulary provided students and money during summer breaks to assist with these excavations.

Some claim that this will lead to the destabilization of the retaining walls of the Temple Mount, of which the Western Wall is one, and/or the al-Aqsa Mosque, and allege that one side is doing so deliberately to cause the collapse of the sacred sites of the other. Israelis allege that Palestinians are deliberately removing significant amounts of archaeological evidence about the Jewish past of the site and claim to have found significant artifacts in the fill removed by bulldozers and trucks from the Temple Mount. Muslims allege that the Israelis are deliberately damaging the remains of Islamic-era buildings found in their excavations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Mount

[floydian slip]

the one that just blew was the most scared shia mosque

the dome of the rock (the gold dome in jerusalem) is the 3rd most sacred for all of islam, the first two being in mecca and medina. (i think) but it is built on the wreckage of the 1st and 2nd temples(judiasm). they say the third one must be rebuilt to usher in the end of days.

[pisser]

Iraq..civil war..Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

[theknife]

the godfather of modern conservativism finally figures out what some of us knew four years ago:

February 24, 2006, 2:51 p.m.
It Didn’t Work

"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes — it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that “The bombing has completely demolished” what was being attempted — to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.

Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.

The Iraqis we hear about are first indignant, and then infuriated, that Americans aren't on the scene to protect them and to punish the aggressors. And so they join the clothing merchant who says that everything is the fault of the Americans.

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elucidates on the complaint against Americans. It is not only that the invaders are American, it is that they are "Zionists." It would not be surprising to learn from an anonymously cited American soldier that he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from each others' throats.

A problem for American policymakers — for President Bush, ultimately — is to cope with the postulates and decide how to proceed.

One of these postulates, from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom.

The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence.

This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure. It can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates. After all, they govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in much of Asia. The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and antidemocratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail — in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) which we simply are not prepared to take? It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn't work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates. To do that would be to register a kind of philosophical despair. The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism.

Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy.

He will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies.

Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.

guess that makes him a Bush-hating, cut-and-run, anti-American closet liberal, no?
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley.asp

[Mazer]

I don't know what's more retarded, that the president of Iran called us Zionist, or that Buckley actually quoted him to support his argument.

[theknife]

rightie heros die hard

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by Mazer

I don't know what's more retarded, that the president of Iran called us Zionist, or that Buckley actually quoted him to support his argument.

why is buckley quoting him "retarded"?

- js.

[Mazer]

Because any time Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about Zionists what he means is Jews, specifically Israelis. Among the many reasons cited by the Bush administration for invading Iraq, establishing a Jewish Zion was never one of them and we all know that. Since he got elected last year Ahmadinejad has said some deeply stupid things and if I wanted to make a point he would be the last person I'd quote.

Before today I've never read anything Buckley wrote, but it's obvious from his words that Democrats aren't the only people prone to defeatism. That doesn't surprise me when I consider our society's obsession with bad news.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Because any time Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about Zionists what he means is Jews, specifically Israelis. Among the many reasons cited by the Bush administration for invading Iraq, establishing a Jewish Zion was never one of them and we all know that. Since he got elected last year Ahmadinejad has said some deeply stupid things and if I wanted to make a point he would be the last person I'd quote.

Before today I've never read anything Buckley wrote, but it's obvious from his words that Democrats aren't the only people prone to defeatism. That doesn't surprise me when I consider our society's obsession with bad news.

well, technically, if you want to go by the definition of Zionism, it would be accurate to characterize the US as Zionist to some degree: "Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel". sounds like us, no?

meanwhile, the neocon dream in Iraq is dead, but i see you're still nursing that Iraqi liberation/democracy fantasy. nevertheless, it's not surprising to see more and more righties jump overboard and swim away from the ship. are they defeatist or just realistic? there is a general weariness on the right - 5 years of defending this president and his dreamy foreign policy has taken it's toll. the undercurrent is that it's long past time to put some grown-ups back in charge of the country.

[Mazer]

I'll readily accept that defintion of Zionism, but my point was that Ahmadinejad sees things differently. The man says things that make even Palestinians cringe.

And to be clear, I never saw things the way the neocons did. They thought the war in Iraq was some kind of geopolitical strategy to decrease oil prices, globalize the reigion, and eventually infiltrate Iraq and its neighbors with American style capitalism. Now that they're begining to realize their presumptions were wrong from the start they want to bury thier heads in the sand and pretend none of this ever happened. So why doesn't Bush start backpedaling like the other neocons? The answer is because he isn't a neocon and he never was. And I can just see the increduous look on your face now but it's true.

What we're witnessing in Iraq are the growing pains of a burgeoning democracy. The fact that Iraq didn't automatically revert to civil war after this bombing and the violence that insued demonstrates an incredible level of self restraint and their resolve to remain civilized. I know that those of you who thought failure was a foregone conclusion from the start will never believe it until you see it. Well my friends I'm afraid you're going to have to wait a few decades, and by then I might not be around to say I told you so, not that I would. There are some in Iraq who are ungreatful for this war just as there are in the United States, but they're diehard conservatives and that ain't a bad thing. Iraq will need those people to preserve Iraq's heritage and national identity in the years to come. The forces of globalization will come down upon Iraq and they must resist the temptation to become more like us, so when I read about Iraqis resisting I'm actually glad, so long as they resist peacfully. We haven't won over their hearts and minds, we never needed to; they'll eventually come to understand that they can govern themselves and still be themselves.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

And to be clear, I never saw things the way the neocons did. They thought the war in Iraq was some kind of geopolitical strategy to decrease oil prices, globalize the reigion, and eventually infiltrate Iraq and its neighbors with American style capitalism. Now that they're begining to realize their presumptions were wrong from the start they want to bury thier heads in the sand and pretend none of this ever happened. So why doesn't Bush start backpedaling like the other neocons? The answer is because he isn't a neocon and he never was. And I can just see the increduous look on your face now but it's true.

no, i could easily believe that Bush isn't really a neocon, because i think Bush doesn't really have the critical thinking skills to arrive at a political philosophy on his own. i just think his own messianic complex dovetailed neatly with the neocon philosophy of those he surrounded himself with (his father's crew, as it were) - they needed a puppet, he needed a movement. but he can't backpedal because he bet everything on this race and the horses have long since left the gate.

What we're witnessing in Iraq are the growing pains of a burgeoning democracy. The fact that Iraq didn't automatically revert to civil war after this bombing and the violence that insued demonstrates an incredible level of self restraint and their resolve to remain civilized. I know that those of you who thought failure was a foregone conclusion from the start will never believe it until you see it. Well my friends I'm afraid you're going to have to wait a few decades, and by then I might not be around to say I told you so, not that I would. There are some in Iraq who are ungreatful for this war just as there are in the United States, but they're diehard conservatives and that ain't a bad thing. Iraq will need those people to preserve Iraq's heritage and national identity in the years to come. The forces of globalization will come down upon Iraq and they must resist the temptation to become more like us, so when I read about Iraqis resisting I'm actually glad, so long as they resist peacfully. We haven't won over their hearts and minds, we never needed to; they'll eventually come to understand that they can govern themselves and still be themselves.

i don't necessarily disagree with any of this but i feel strongly, as i always have, that the iraqis have to figure this thing out for themselves and there is no good reasons why americans have to die while they do. that being said, i think your understandiing of why we are there and what our intentions are is naive - we are building permanent bases there because we intend to stay. the goal is not liberation but hegemony.

[theknife]

and here's some red meat for the house troll:

I believe it is my patriotic duty to urge a different path to protecting America's security: To focus on al Qaeda, which is an imminent threat, and to use our resources to improve and strengthen the security and safety of our home front and our people while working with the other nations of the world to contain Saddam Hussein. . . .

Had I been a member of the Senate, I would have voted against the resolution that authorized the President to use unilateral force against Iraq - unlike others in that body now seeking the presidency.

That the President was given open-ended authority to go to war in Iraq resulted from a failure of too many in my party in Washington who were worried about political positioning for the presidential election.

The stakes are so high, this is not a time for holding back or sheepishly going along with the herd.

To this day, the President has not made a case that war against Iraq, now, is necessary to defend American territory, our citizens, our allies, or our essential interests.

The Administration has not explained how a lasting peace, and lasting security, will be achieved in Iraq once Saddam Hussein is toppled.

I, for one, am not ready to abandon the search for better answers.

As a doctor, I was trained to treat illness, and to examine a variety of options before deciding which to prescribe. I worried about side effects and took the time to see what else might work before proceeding to high-risk measures. . . .

We have been told over and over again what the risks will be if we do not go to war.

We have been told little about what the risks will be if we do go to war.

If we go to war, I certainly hope the Administration's assumptions are realized, and the conflict is swift, successful and clean. I certainly hope our armed forces will be welcomed like heroes and liberators in the streets of Baghdad.

I certainly hope Iraq emerges from the war stable, united and democratic.

I certainly hope terrorists around the world conclude it is a mistake to defy America and cease, thereafter, to be terrorists.

It is possible, however, that events could go differently, . . . .

Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.

Anti-American feelings will surely be inflamed among the misguided who choose to see an assault on Iraq as an attack on Islam, or as a means of controlling Iraqi oil.

And last week's tape by Osama bin Laden tells us that our enemies will seek relentlessly to transform a war into a tool for inspiring and recruiting more terrorists.

There are other risks. Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.

Howard Dean, one month after the invasion of Iraq....who now, in retrospect, turns out to have been right about virtually everything.

[albed]

So why don't you provide quotes where he was right instead of that pile of crap there with all the "I certainly hope" statements.


I do remember the - "...And then we're going to Washington, D.C. to take back the White House, Yeeeeeaaaaaargh!" - that didn't turn out to be so right.


But really you should be rubbing your 'Dean was right' schtick into the faces of the democrats who decided against running him for the presidency and chose pro-war candidates instead.