Bombings in Iraq

[a_unique_person]

Hundreds dead, no attempt to claim responsibility. It appears to be an attempt to cause civil war between Shiite and Sunni.

I just can't understand who and why? They seem to be well organised and disciplined.

[demon]

A short article by Robert Fisk - he proves reason has not yet died out completely in the British press.

A Convenient Carnage
All This Talk of Civil War, Now This
By ROBERT FISK
The Independent

Odd, isn't it? There never has been a civil war in Iraq. I have never heard a single word of animosity between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq.

Al-Qa'ida has never uttered a threat against Shias - even though al-Qa'ida is a Sunni-only organisation. Yet for weeks, the American occupation authorities have been warning us about civil war, have even produced a letter said to have been written by an al-Qa'ida operative, advocating a Sunni-Shia conflict. Normally sane journalists have enthusiastically taken up this theme. Civil war.

Somehow I don't believe it. No, I don't believe the Americans were behind yesterday's carnage despite the screams of accusation by the Iraqi survivors yesterday. But I do worry about the Iraqi exile groups who think that their own actions might produce what the Americans want: a fear of civil war so intense that Iraqis will go along with any plan the United States produces for Mesopotamia.

I think of the French OAS in Algeria in 1962, setting off bombs among France's Muslim Algerian community. I recall the desperate efforts of the French authorities to set Algerian Muslim against Algerian Muslim which led to half a million dead souls.

And I'm afraid I also think of Ireland and the bombings in Dublin and Monaghan in 1974, which, as the years go by, appear to have an ever closer link, via Protestant "loyalist" paramilitaries, to elements of British military security.

But the bombs in Karbala and Baghdad were clearly co-ordinated. The same brain worked behind them. Was it a Sunni brain? When the occupation authorities' spokesman suggested yesterday that it was the work of al-Qa'ida, he must have known what he was saying: that al-Qa'ida is a Sunni movement, that the victims were Shias.

It's not that I believe al-Qa'ida incapable of such a bloodbath. But I ask myself why the Americans are rubbing this Sunni-Shia thing so hard. Let's turn the glass round the other way. If a violent Sunni movement wished to evict the Americans from Iraq - and there is indeed a resistance movement fighting very cruelly to do just that - why would it want to turn the Shia population of Iraq, 60 per cent of Iraqis, against them? The last thing such a resistance would want is to have the majority of Iraqis against it.

So what about al-Qa'ida? Repeatedly, the Americans have told us that the suicide bombers were "foreigners". And so they may be. But can we have some identities, nationalities? The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has talked of the hundreds of "foreign" fighters crossing Saudi Arabia's "porous" borders.

The US press have dutifully repeated this. The Iraqi police keep announcing that they have found the bombers' passports, so can we have the numbers?

We are entering a dark and sinister period of Iraqi history. But an occupation authority which should regard civil war as the last prospect it ever wants to contemplate, keeps shouting "civil war" in our ears and I worry about that. Especially when the bombs make it real.

http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk03022004.html

[a_unique_person]

I don't know if I agree with it. Saddam was a Sunni, wasn't he? And they are a minority in the Shias. Saddam was partial to favouring his own side against the other.

But the article doesn't give any clue as to who is behind the bombings.

[Ed]

Who will benefit, even if the odds are small, from chaos? Who would not get absolute power in a democratic Iraq who would really want it? I would guess religious fundies of one stripe or another.

[a_unique_person]

There is also violence in Pakistan. Would Muslim extremists want to start a bloody war between Muslim sects? This could spread across the Muslim world. Hardly taking on the Great Satan, and seriously damaging Muslim interests and unity.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Would Muslim extremists want to start a bloody war between Muslim sects? This could spread across the Muslim world. Hardly taking on the Great Satan, and seriously damaging Muslim interests and unity.

You almost make it sound like a bad thing.....

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal


You almost make it sound like a bad thing.....

Innocent people will be dying.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Innocent people will be dying.

Will be? They already are, and in many cases purposefully. Maybe this will open up their eyes to abandon their barbaric and backwards religion.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal


Will be? They already are, and in many cases purposefully. Maybe this will open up their eyes to abandon their barbaric and backwards religion.

I hope all religions will be obsolete one day, and that we can replace them with something better. Apart from that, it is business as usual. The more barbaric aspects of Islam are rationalised out by the more mature societies. Eg, Bosnia was Muslim but very western in it's lifestyle. Xianity, if it follow the likes of Mel, is headed back to the dark ages.

[Captain_Snort]

I assume you are refering to the most recent bombing. I was watching the BBC news and the newsteam that went to cover it was almsot lynched as the crowd thought they were US, and all blamed the US for the attack. They did not think that fellow Muslims could perpetrate such an offence on the Shiite most holy day.

I have my doubts about US Foreign policy, but even I cannot see this.

[Captain_Snort]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I hope all religions will be obsolete one day, and that we can replace them with something better. Apart from that, it is business as usual. The more barbaric aspects of Islam are rationalised out by the more mature societies. Eg, Bosnia was Muslim but very western in it's lifestyle. Xianity, if it follow the likes of Mel, is headed back to the dark ages.

Yes the Muslim forces in Bosnia did many evil things, and where in the majority, but the Serbs and Croats I do believe had backing from outside forces, When did the ethnic cleansing start? in a muslim enclave in the south east of Bosnia. If you had had that perpetrated on you, would you not go down to there level? I would and want vengeance.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Captain_Snort
I assume you are refering to the most recent bombing. I was watching the BBC news and the newsteam that went to cover it was almsot lynched as the crowd thought they were US, and all blamed the US for the attack. They did not think that fellow Muslims could perpetrate such an offence on the Shiite most holy day.

I have my doubts about US Foreign policy, but even I cannot see this.

I have specifically avoided making any accusations. If you are going to believe in conspiracies, it helps to have even a hint of evidence. That is why I was wondering if anyone else had any ideas. The US spooks have been averse to planting bombs that have killed innocent civilians before, but I seriously doubt that they would have anything to gain from this. The situation is so unstable, it could go any way. I can believe the crowd was blaming the US. So the US bombing could hardly be productive from that point of view. Also, the more turbulent the area is, the harder is to get out gracefully. If the US leaves with Iraq in a total shambles, it will be totally humiliating for the US.

There has already been a comment that if the Muslim world goes to war with itself, who cares. That is a possibility, but there is no guarantee of that, it just too risky a policy if that is what is behind the bombings.

So I am still wondering, who stands to benefit? Osama? Would he really benefit from deaths of so many Muslims?

The old guard from Saddam? They have certainly not worried too much in the past about sacrificing their own for their own needs. But the competency of them is pretty lacking. These bombings appear to be the work of someone who knows what they were doing.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Captain_Snort


Yes the Muslim forces in Bosnia did many evil things, and where in the majority, but the Serbs and Croats I do believe had backing from outside forces, When did the ethnic cleansing start? in a muslim enclave in the south east of Bosnia. If you had had that perpetrated on you, would you not go down to there level? I would and want vengeance.

I was saying that the Bosnian Muslims were very civilised, certainly much more so than the thugs and criminals who ran Serbia, (who, I believe, the Serbs have now kicked out. (except for the woman with the big tits.)).

[crocodile deathroll]

http://www.nostalgiacentral.com/images_tv/comedy/Norm16_3.jpg
Originally posted by a_unique_person
There is also violence in Pakistan. Would Muslim extremists want to start a bloody war between Muslim sects? This could spread across the Muslim world. Hardly taking on the Great Satan, and seriously damaging Muslim interests and unity.

This is what General (Storman Norman) Schwarzkopf most feared if he made a final push to Baghdad to oust Saddam Hussein. It would destabilize the whole region

http://www.nostalgiacentral.com/images_tv/comedy/norman_43.JPG
"I'm am the other Storman Norman"

[a_unique_person]

Some very flattering snaps there, croc.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
There is also violence in Pakistan. Would Muslim extremists want to start a bloody war between Muslim sects? This could spread across the Muslim world. Hardly taking on the Great Satan, and seriously damaging Muslim interests and unity.

Power is power. In dieing, innocents are martyrs. All is well. Remember your Milton.

[Captain_Snort]

Originally posted by a_unique_person




There has already been a comment that if the Muslim world goes to war with itself, who cares. That is a possibility, but there is no guarantee of that, it just too risky a policy if that is what is behind the bombings.

So I am still wondering, who stands to benefit? Osama? Would he really benefit from deaths of so many Muslims?

(EDITED)


Who cares? well, the whole western world who rely upon Oil for a start....


And Osama, if it is him behind it. General chaos is always good for extreme groups to capitalise on, for example the chaos in the Weimar republic and the rise of Hitler and his Nazis.

[Garrette]

From Robert Fisk's article:

Odd, isn't it? There never has been a civil war in Iraq. I have never heard a single word of animosity between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq.

Never a civil war in Iraq? Well, yes, if you limit your observations to the creation of Iraq by the western powers after WWI. Since then, it's been ruled with an iron hand, so there haven't been civil wars. Of course, that ignores the constant in-fighting of the Kurds and then the subsequent genocide perpetrated on them by Saddam. It also ignores Saddam's efforts against the Swamp Arabs, mostly if not totally Shiia.

More than that, it ignores that what is now Iraq is the birthplace of war between Sunni and Shiia as it is the birthplace of the Shiia.

Karbala is where the Imam Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Muhammed, was killed in a massive battle between the Sunni and the newly founded Shiia. Ashura, the holiday that culminated yesterday, commemorated that event. The history of relations between Shiia and Sunni is one of strife, not peace.

And if Fisk has never heard a word of animosity between Shiia or Sunni, then I wonder which Iraq he has been in. I'm here. I've heard it, first hand. It's not rampant, I'll grant that, but where it exists it is deep-rooted, exacerbated by but not originating with Saddam's treatment of the Shiia.

The people here are like most others. Generally, they will voice dislike of others without intending to act upon it so long as they are left to themselves. But they are also subject--imo moreso here than in many other areas--to the irrational fervor that religious extremism brings. Even those who are not themselves fundamentalists can find themselves swayed by and following the fundamentalists. McCarthyism was like that. Christianity was like that and still slightly is. Islam is like that now in this region.

Who conducted the bombings and why? I don't know, though I have speculations. But who actually did it is less important than the beliefs it will spawn and the reactions to it. My Iraqi friends and colleagues, the most senior of whom are well-connected Shiia, speak of a growing tide of rage against the Sunni for committing this type of act and against the US for allowing it to happen. People like Sistani in Karbala and Al Sattr in Baghdad are the only hopes to contain the tide should it begin to strain against the reigns of occupation; it may not target the US but may not abide US interference.

I'm rambling a bit and so the above undoubtedly has holes in it, but I felt like spouting.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Garrette


Never a civil war in Iraq? Well, yes, if you limit your observations to the creation of Iraq by the western powers after WWI. Since then, it's been ruled with an iron hand, so there haven't been civil wars. Of course, that ignores the constant in-fighting of the Kurds and then the subsequent genocide perpetrated on them by Saddam. It also ignores Saddam's efforts against the Swamp Arabs, mostly if not totally Shiia.

More than that, it ignores that what is now Iraq is the birthplace of war between Sunni and Shiia as it is the birthplace of the Shiia.

Karbala is where the Imam Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Muhammed, was killed in a massive battle between the Sunni and the newly founded Shiia. Ashura, the holiday that culminated yesterday, commemorated that event. The history of relations between Shiia and Sunni is one of strife, not peace.

And if Fisk has never heard a word of animosity between Shiia or Sunni, then I wonder which Iraq he has been in. I'm here. I've heard it, first hand. It's not rampant, I'll grant that, but where it exists it is deep-rooted, exacerbated by but not originating with Saddam's treatment of the Shiia.

The people here are like most others. Generally, they will voice dislike of others without intending to act upon it so long as they are left to themselves. But they are also subject--imo moreso here than in many other areas--to the irrational fervor that religious extremism brings. Even those who are not themselves fundamentalists can find themselves swayed by and following the fundamentalists. McCarthyism was like that. Christianity was like that and still slightly is. Islam is like that now in this region.

Who conducted the bombings and why? I don't know, though I have speculations. But who actually did it is less important than the beliefs it will spawn and the reactions to it. My Iraqi friends and colleagues, the most senior of whom are well-connected Shiia, speak of a growing tide of rage against the Sunni for committing this type of act and against the US for allowing it to happen. People like Sistani in Karbala and Al Sattr in Baghdad are the only hopes to contain the tide should it begin to strain against the reigns of occupation; it may not target the US but may not abide US interference.

I'm rambling a bit and so the above undoubtedly has holes in it, but I felt like spouting.

Just reading that I can now imagine Bush staring up to the heavens, praying
"Tell me God, why did you choose such a Goddam a**hole of a place to create our oil fields?"