Maybe this is exactly what Iraq needs -- a total, brutal, indiscrimate, and bloody stamp-down of the Sunni minority.
Part of the problem with such a quick, and relatively painless victory (to nearly all Iraqis) by the Coalition forces. That quick and painless victory meant that the Sunnis didn't have the message kicked into their heads that they had lost.
Now will innocent Sunnis get killed in a brutal civil war. Yeah, of course. Do I care? Not for one fucking minute. This is a situation the Sunnis wanted, now they can reap their just rewards.
The senior Sunni leadership has refused to aid, for the most part, the task of building a new, free, and democratic Iraq. As a result, they have now, finally, brought down on their people a shit-storm. A shit-storm the Sunni leadership has ben trying to provoke for 2 1/2 years.
To the Sunnis in Iraq, well, it sucks to be you. Your life for the next couple of years is going to be hell. Can't say you don't deserve it.
How many times does the MSM have to scream chaos in Iraq before you stop listening to them.
The Iraqi bloggers I read are saying things have quietened down. Friday prayers, usually the ripest time for launching mayhem, just passed rather peacefully.
Shia leader al-Hakim is appealing for calm, not revenge. As is religious leader Sistani.
Yes, there were outbreaks of violence. But the holiest shrine in the Shia world just got destroyed. If anything, I'm struck by the lack of violent response. If the Shia and Sunnis can't be launched into civil war after this, it's likely they never will.
An excellent column by Richard Gwyn in the Star, Feb 24:
"`Clash of civilizations' really a feud over Islam"
[External Link]
Excerpts:
'"What brings more prejudice against Islam?" journalist Jihad Momani asked recently in a column in the Jordanian newspaper Shihan, "these (Danish) caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras?"
Momani's brave question was brilliant because it goes to the heart of one of the central issues of our time: Is there in Islam, not in the religion itself but in its contemporary version — and by no means in all of its contemporary version — something that is inherently accepting of violence?
To put the question another way: Is the so-called "clash of civilizations" not between the West and Islam but rather within Islam, between moderates and extremists, with the moderates too often losing because too many of them lack the bravery and moral brilliance of someone like Momani?..
Even more so now, this kind of inquiry is justified as a consequence of this week's attack on, and destruction of, the al-Askari shrine at Samarra in Iraq. Here, where four of the Prophet's descendants are buried, is one of Islam's holiest shrines.
What happens inside the building is worship, prayer and meditation. This quiet place, where so many Muslim pilgrims have gone over the centuries, has now been turned into a pile of rubble by other Muslims.
The deed was done to Shia Muslims. It was almost certainly the work of Sunni Muslims. It was done beyond the least doubt by some Muslims to other Muslims. Since then, more than 100 Muslims have been killed in retaliation by other Muslims and some two dozen mosques have been attacked by Muslims.
There is nothing unusual in this phenomenon. The overwhelming majority of the deaths now occurring in Iraq as a result of the insurgency are now of Muslims killed by other Muslims...'
Mark
Ottawa
"There is nothing unusual in this phenomenon. The overwhelming majority of the deaths now occurring in Iraq as a result of the insurgency are now of Muslims killed by other Muslims...' "
Sounds like the palestinians went to the same school.
"The deed was done to Shia Muslims. It was almost certainly the work of Sunni Muslims."
Yes. But over the past couple of years the Iranians have been helping the Sunni "insurgency" and that was against Shia mosques and people, not just American troops.
Don't forget that for the extremists any "co-lateral" damage is written off to martyrdom.
That's the way Iran's President sees things, even wiping out the very Palestinians to get rid of Israel.
They will murder as many "martyrs" to obtain their objective.
With all sincere modesty, I have too say this is no surprise too people like myself who have actually studied Islam and its history....
Sad too say, it would seem some of our elected officials in the U.S. Government and State Department seem to be lacking any serious knowledge of this ideology that so drives the people of Iraq and fifty other nations...
Muhammed was barely dropped dead before the Sunnis and Shias started happily slaughtering one another....and this will never end...
I have a Kurdish friend here in Calgary....he is an apostate from Islam and considers himself an Athiest.....
It is his viewpoint, and I sadly agree, that the Americans should simply move thier military to Kurdistan (northern iraq) and simply let the Sunnis and Shias wipe each other out....for this is what the want too do...
Now understand, this takes Nothing away from what the Troops have accomplished there....they have rid the world of a madman and now they have a reliable safe ally in the Kurds where the American troops can feel secure and safe and from where they can closely monitor the nutty islamic hordes all around that part of the world...
The left might, in their great stupidity and ignorance, think they might have scored politically if Iraq descends into its inevitable hellhole, but they of course couldn't be more wrong!!
The U.S. gave the Islamic hordes a very valid chance at a peaceful democracy.....and not unexpectedly the Islamic hordes are going to ruin it for themselves!!
America still did the right thing going in regardless of the actions of the religion of peace!!!
"The left might, in their great stupidity and ignorance, think they might have scored politically if Iraq descends into its inevitable hellhole, but they of course couldn't be more wrong!! "
Will you guys never get it!? The left is not happy in any way at what is happening. It's just a bit of "I told you so". In fact, when I discussed this over a year ago I was described as a neo-trotskyite nay-saying traitor who just didn't understand how democracy trumps 1500 years of tribal rivalry. Now you guys are proposing to let them have at it as the natural end-game of this exercise? We set this up. We did it voluntarily, clumsily, and with no sense for how other cultures and religions differ from "us". The "moonbats" have been pointing this out since before the war started. Fine, we removed a bad man from power but this is our fault and was as predictable as the sunrise; as predictable as the yugoslavian conflict after the Soviet troops left, as predictable as the spin-off of the islamic republics from the defunct USSR, as predictable as our surrogate jihadist armies in Afghanistan turning against us because we still had infidel boots on the ground in their holy land. Yes, "We told you so", but this is very much a case where I'm sorry we were right.
Jeff
Clearly the terrorist activity in Ireland over several decades is proof that Christianity is at heart a religion of violence. Not to mention the clash between Catholics and Protestants in France.
Do you guys even listen to yourselves? Religion is a convenient way to organize groups of people when what is really at heart is power and money. Islam is as much at fault for this is Christianity was in Ireland, i.e. not very much.
Actually Spike your a complete ignoramus on both Islam and Christianity...
In Ireland, they are not debating Papal infallibility and the sacrements.....they are divided along religious lines but religion has nothing to do with this...it is about economics and power in Ireland...
Now for Islam, the debate between Shia and Sunni is completely Islamic and inherently so....
If you had actually studied Islam, you would know that but since you are reared in moral equivication, you spout the usual leftist idiocy!!
This fight begun almost immediatately after muhammed happily dropped dead.....and has been ongoing for 1400 years....it has everything to do with Islam proper....
I would suggest reading the Quran or Sira or Sahih Hadiths but that might actually involve learning something!!
The Bush Crime Family has got to go. Help impeach them now.
_____________________
The Case for Impeachment: Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush. By Lewis H. Lapham.
A country is not only what it does—it is also what it puts up with, what it tolerates. —Kurt Tucholsky
On December 18 of last year, Congressman John Conyers Jr. (D., Mich.) introduced into the House of Representatives a resolution inviting it to form “a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.” [Snip]
Before reading the report, I wouldn't have expected to find myself thinking that such a course of action was either likely or possible; after reading the report, I don't know why we would run the risk of not impeaching the man. We have before us in the White House a thief who steals the country's good name and reputation for his private interest and personal use; a liar who seeks to instill in the American people a state of fear; a televangelist who engages the United States in a never-ending crusade against all the world's evil, a wastrel who squanders a vast sum of the nation's wealth on what turns out to be a recruiting drive certain to multiply the host of our enemies. In a word, a criminal—known to be armed and shown to be dangerous. Under the three-strike rule available to the courts in California, judges sentence people to life in jail for having stolen from Wal-Mart a set of golf clubs or a child's tricycle. Who then calls strikes on President Bush, and how many more does he get before being sent down on waivers to one of the Texas Prison Leagues?
Read the full article here: [External Link]
The US removed a "madman" so they could let civil war blossom? Is that the official party line now? What happened to victory = democracy in Iraq?
Why is someone who criticizes Bush a "liberal?" Can't you distance yourself for just one moment from your fearless leader and realize the world of shit we have brought to the Iraqi people?
Saddam was no saint, but the incompetence of Bush led to civil war in Iraq. And now thousands of innocent people are caught in the ensuing bloodshed. All while *real* madmen dictators remain in power.
It was so fucking predictable! But everyone who criticized was labeled a "liberal" or a "democrat" or whatever. Oh nooo. You can't be an independent or just an average worried citizen. You have to be one of those liberal Nazis. One that Ann Coulter wishes death upon.
Bush supporters are so caught in the personality and cult of Bush that they have no idea what they stand for today. War is peace, Ignorance is strength. Four legs good, two legs better.