An Najaf, yet again

[Darth Rotor]

There is apparently yet another battle going on in the vicinity of An Najaf, Iraq. It is the home to one of the holiest sites of Shia Islam, the beautiful Iman Ali Mosque. Details on the importance of that mosque at the wikipedia link.

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

What is unclear at the moment is who attacked the government forces: Sunni, a Shia militia, a mix of both, or another party.

In related news, there was apparently a tip off of a plot to kill the Grand Ayatollah Al Sistani. Not sure if these two events are related, but if so, it makes me think that perhaps a Shia militia is involved. (Perhaps not.)

Al Sistani and Al Sadr do not see eye to eye, but for the life of me, I can't see Al Sadr ordering a hit on his rival. IMO, he'd lose massive support were it done, and his being behind it revealed. Some describe the Grand Ayatollah Al Sistani as "a Shia Pope." Seems a decent parallel, if inexact.

According to early reports, two US helicopter crewmen were lost when their helicopter was shot while down supporting the fight.

I expect there will be more on this as follow-on reports arrive.

DR

[Cylinder]

In related news, there was apparently a tip off of a plot to kill the Grand Ayatollah Al Sistani. Not sure if these two events are related, but if so, it makes me think that perhaps a Shia militia is involved. (Perhaps not.)

Surely you meant to say Sunni. (And - yes - I will call you Shirley! :) Probably equally as likely is Iranian operatives. The Grand Ayatollah Sistani is something like the Pope to Roman Catholics - the direct representative and spiritual descendant of the Prophet (PBUH) on Earth.

Al Sistani and Al Sadr do not see eye to eye, but for the life of me, I can't see Al Sadr ordering a hit on his rival. IMO, he'd lose massive support were it done, and his being behind it revealed.

More like a fatal move, IMHO, in its most literal sense.

Some describe the Grand Ayatollah Al Sistani as "a Shia Pope." Seems a decent parallel, if inexact.

I guess I should read the whole post before hitting the Quote button. It is an inexact analogy. The Grand Ayatollah (in Shia Islam) is a spiritual descendant of the Prophet. The Pope is the spiritual descendant of St. Peter. There is only one Pope whose word was infallible until recent history. A Grand Ayatollah still pretty much dictates canon but I don't know if infallibility is part of the dogma. There can be more than one Grand Ayatollah.

[Darth Rotor]

Surely you meant to say Sunni. (And - yes - I will call you Shirley! :) Probably equally as likely is Iranian operatives. The Grand Ayatollah Sistani is something like the Pope to Roman Catholics - the direct representative and spiritual descendant of the Prophet (PBUH) on Earth.



More like a fatal move, IMHO, in its most literal sense.



I guess I should read the whole post before hitting the Quote button. It is an inexact analogy. The Grand Ayatollah (in Shia Islam) is a spiritual descendant of the Prophet. The Pope is the spiritual descendant of St. Peter. There is only one Pope whose word was infallible until recent history. A Grand Ayatollah still pretty much dictates canon but I don't know if infallibility is part of the dogma. There can be more than one Grand Ayatollah.
I am not convinced that Shia militia are all fighting on the same side, and not just in the larger sense like SCIRI and Al Mahdi Army. The Grand Ayatollah's influence has been eroding significantly since spring 2004, though he's still a BMII. (Big Man In Iraq.)

I imagine a clearer picture will be forthcoming in a few days. As the dust settles, or as the fight intensifies, as it has on a number of occasions in and around An Najaf.

If the Imam Ali shrine gets significantly damaged, there is going to be some serious crap coming down.

DR

[Ziggurat]

Reports I've seen indicated that the fighters were planning on attacking Shia pilgrims. That sort of thing would be well beyond the kind of internal factional rivalry I would expect within the Shia community, even if Sistani and Sadr (for example) were to come to blows, but is right up the alley of Sunni terrorists.

[Darth Rotor]

Reports I've seen indicated that the fighters were planning on attacking Shia pilgrims. That sort of thing would be well beyond the kind of internal factional rivalry I would expect within the Shia community, even if Sistani and Sadr (for example) were to come to blows, but is right up the alley of Sunni terrorists.
That would be "Sunni Freedom Fighters" to you, mister. ;)

DR

[Ziggurat]

That would be "Sunni Freedom Fighters" to you, mister. ;)

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! :boxedin:

[Garrette]

Reports on NPR this morning stated clearly they were Sunni fighters set to ambush Shiia pilgrims. 300+ Sunni militants killed, and an elaborate camp set up, including field hospital.


Mao, Phase 3, anyone?

[Darth Rotor]

Reports on NPR this morning stated clearly they were Sunni fighters set to ambush Shiia pilgrims. 300+ Sunni militants killed, and an elaborate camp set up, including field hospital.


Mao, Phase 3, anyone?
Touche. :)

Thanks for the clarification, though I only give NPR and reports that come from MNCI about an 80% reliability rate. It is in the interests of the sitting government to assert that all "insurgents" are Shia. That said, given the terrain and the pilgrimate (and isn't Al Shura going on about now?) I'll bet the over on NPR having good sources.

ETA: "We don't need no stinking Mao."

To paraphrase the Marxist dogma on this matter (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lin-biao/1965/09/peoples_war/ch07.htm), and thus save dann the work . . .
Islamist dogma has pointed out that, in the epoch since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, anti-imperialist revolution in any colonial or semi-colonial country is no longer part of the old bourgeois, or capitalist world revolution, but is part of the new world revolution, the Islamist world revolution.

Islamist dogman has formulated a complete theory of the Islamic revolution. This revolution, which is different from all others, can only be, nay must be, a revolution against imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism waged by the broad masses of the people under the leadership of the mullahs.

The revolution can only be, nay must be, led by the Faithful and the genuinely revolutionary party armed with Islamist dogma, and by no other class or party.

This means that the revolution embraces in its ranks not only the workers, peasants and the urban petty bourgeoisie, but also the national bourgeoisie and other patriotic and anti-imperialist democrats.

DR

[Garrette]

Touche. :)

Thanks for the clarification, though I only give NPR and reports that come from MNCI about an 80% reliability rate. It is in the interests of the sitting government to assert that all "insurgents" are Shia. That said, given the terrain and the pilgrimate (and isn't Al Shura going on about now?) I'll bet the over on NPR having good sources.

DRAgreed.

BBC said the same thing, which lends even more credibility.

[Garrette]

News reports now contradict the reports of it being Sunni.

Apparently, a self-styled Mahdi led the group and has been killed. By definition, that's Shiia, unless I'm badly misremembering.

[Darth Rotor]

News reports now contradict the reports of it being Sunni.

Apparently, a self-styled Mahdi led the group and has been killed. By definition, that's Shiia, unless I'm badly misremembering.
The fight in An Najaf with which I am far more familiar, August 2004, was mostly a Shia operation. The bullet not put in Sadr's head in August of 2003 looks more and more like a blown opportunity.

Then again, that's speculative history again. "What if Stonewall Jackson isn't shot a Chancellorsville?"

I suspect another ******** would have arisen from Sadr's ashes. Iraq produces meglomaniacs by the sackful these days. As the brain drain of moderates seems to continue, the polarization further congeals. Those who talk about a partition of Iraq seem to be acknowledging the "inveitable forces of history" that Marx might point to were he alive to see how this was playing out. :rolleyes:

It seems that to a certain extent, moderates are ill placed in politics, per one of Rush Limbaugh's tired lines. If you aren't passionate enough about a position, someone with superior passion and energy will get his position.

It's a matter of will, not justice.

What are you willing to fight for? What are you willing to kill for? What are you willing to die for?

DR