moron99 Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 I keep wondering - "who would do such a thing?" Who would destroy a thousand year old piece of history in order to influence a two year old politic???? I would like to blame Queda but it's not like them. Only a building was hurt. Queda likes to kill people. I would like to blame insurgents but it's not like them either. They blow stuff up close to where they live. But they don't blow up their own tourist attraction. I'm tempted to blame Iranian agents but this seems to risky for them. They are in a position of relative strength and it would be dumb to risk that strength. Same with Badr. It's tempting to blame the americans just because they are so easy to blame. But their ambassador has been working hard for two months to close sectarian divides and this really hurts him. The american soldiers wouldn't be allowed to do something that hurts the ambassador efforts. So it's down to three suspects. Sadrists who want to make power grab, baathists who want to keep sunni from joining government, or rogue operators acting without higher approval. What do the people in Iraq think? Who do they think would commit this act? Why would anyone do this??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salim Posted February 25, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 Intersting points by Moron99.. Let me translate this into arabic. I want to expand coverage ترجمه تسؤالات مورون99 اعلاه " اتسائل عمن يمكن ان سكون خلف هذه الاحداث؟ من يرغب في تدمير قطعه تاريخيه عمرها اكثر من الف عام فقط للتاثير على مجريات عمرها سنتان؟؟؟" اتمنى ان القي اللوم على القاعده ولكن يبدو لي انه ليس اسلوبهم. حصر الاضرار بالابنيه ليس من اهدافهم . انهم يستهدفون عاده ايقاع اكبر عدد من القتلى. يمكن ان يكونو المتمردون ولكنه لايبدوا اسلوبهم ايضا. انهم يفجرون في المناطق القريبه عليهم ولكنهم لايفجرون معالم تراثهم السياحي. ربما هم الايرانيون ولكنها خطوه ربما تكون ذات مخاطر كبيره عليهم. انهم في موقع قوه وربما مثل هذه الامور تقلب الامر عليهم . وكذلك قوات بدر ممتعا ان نلقيها على الامريكان لانه من السهوله اللقاء اللوم عليهم. ولكن سفيرهم عمل ليلا ونهارا خلال اللشهرين الماضيين لردم الصدع الطائفي وامر كهذا يضر بتلك الجهود الجنود الامريكان لايمكنهم التصرف خالرج تلك السياسه لذا فانها ستنحصر بثلاثه متهمين , الصدريين اللذين يطمحون لفرض سيطرتهم, البعثيين لانهم يعملون على ابعاد السنه عن العمليه السياسيه , او عصابات صغيره تعمل بدون تنسيق واوامر عليا ..ماذا يعتقد العراقيون؟ من يرونهم خلف هذه العمليه؟ من ممكن ان يعملها؟ ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moron99 Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 What I believe the average american thinks: The shia and sunni are two sides of same coin. Each of them spits at the other but neither one is willing to accept what the other wants. There will be no peace until each is willing to accept the other for what they are, as they are. Each of them thinks that they can force the other into submission. But you can not force another to become what you wish. Nor can you force another to trust you with their future. Trying to force the other will only result in another saddam and another inevitable spiral towards war. It is not justice for Iraqis. Whether the new saddam is shia or sunni or kurd or any other sect ... it is still not justice. You can keep fighting or you can lay down your weapons work towards a shared future. In time you will again embrace the differences as a source of strength. The healing can not start until the shia and sunni stop spitting upon each other. The shia must forgive sunni and baathi of their past sins. The condition for forgiveness is to accept a shared government and to bear no arms against it or anyone who supports it. Upon this condition the shia must stop seeking the death of people for past crimes and they must purge themselves of sectarian death squads. The sunni must be willing to forgoe their belief in entitlement and they must be willing to pursue their goals within the framework of shared governance. Upon this acceptance they must purge themselves of terrorists and insurgents. Then there will be peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airedale Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 I am hearing a lot of people say "This all smells of burning down the Reichstag to blame someone else." As more events unfold, I become less inclined to disagree. I heard on the radio two days ago a statement I find hard to believe. Nobody was killed in the bombing. OK, so a few people,dressed in Iraqi police uniforms storm in, plant the bombs and they go off! But nobody was killed ? Is that true? Was anybody injured ? A Sunni controlled mosque is targetted as if IED's were placed by "freedom fighters" and the western media never gave a "body count" of that sensational blast. Truely, it was intended to be a media event. Precisely staged with great care and organized by sombody "on the inside". ( with or without direct permission of the mosque's Sunni clerics ) It had to be an "inside job" but which "inside" group would take great pains to make sure nobody would get killed in a country where IED's are reported daily by the western media? As for the reference to the Reichstag comparison, blowing up the Reichstag was an attempt to gain the nazi's more credibility,more legitimacy, was it not ? I would like those inside Iraq to give their opinions as to why the western media reported nobody was killed in the bomb blast. What are the odds nobody was killed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baghda Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 The questions raised by Moron99 need to have a seperate post for importance.. Please visit http://baghdadee.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=593 Under hot topics for comments.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salim Posted February 25, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 Today the final official figures of total damages over the last two days came as follows 1- One Sunni Mosque got occupied for three ours before get back to sunni clergy . 2- Three Sunni and Shia Mosques got burned 3- twenty one Sunni and Shia Mosques were attacked with damages. 4- Thirty Sunni and Shia Mosques were attacked with nop damages. Total fatalaties is 117 .. For those who don't know Iraq.. There are more than 20 thousandf mosques in Iraq. There are more than 25 million people living over there. Today on Iraqia TV, The american ambassador in Iraq had a detailed talk.. It was very good and timely speached to answer many critical question about the American policy.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moron99 Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 As for the reference to the Reichstag comparison, blowing up the Reichstag was an attempt to gain the nazi's more credibility,more legitimacy, was it not ? Of course this is debatable since there is no proof. And I am no history professor so some of the details may be incorrect. but my understanding is .... Reichstag is one of the most historic and revered buildings in Germany. It is the house of parliment. The Nazis set it on fire and blamed the communists. In response Hitler arrested all communists, declared an emergency, suspended constitutional rights, and deployed his stormtroopers to seize control of key buildings and areas. The german people thought the nazis were protecting them from outsiders and hitler bacame dictator. In short, the nazis staged the fire in order to declare an emergency, attack their enemies, and seize power. shame of it is ... the germans were fooled and hitler became dictator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airedale Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 As for the reference to the Reichstag comparison, blowing up the Reichstag was an attempt to gain the nazi's more credibility,more legitimacy, was it not ? Of course this is debatable since there is no proof. And I am no history professor so some of the details may be incorrect. but my understanding is .... Reichstag is one of the most historic and revered buildings in Germany. It is the house of parliment. The Nazis set it on fire and blamed the communists. In response Hitler arrested all communists, declared an emergency, suspended constitutional rights, and deployed his stormtroopers to seize control of key buildings and areas. The german people thought the nazis were protecting them from outsiders and hitler bacame dictator. In short, the nazis staged the fire in order to declare an emergency, attack their enemies, and seize power. shame of it is ... the germans were fooled and hitler became dictator. Here you go Moron99, http://jarrarsupariver.blogspot.com/#2 Theory #2 on a list of speculations Sorry to all others, I only don't know if there is an Arabic translation for the link Theory 2: The Reichstag Theory Perpetrator: The Mehdi Army (aka Sadr's Thugs) Purpose: To have a cause-celeb to rally their faithful, sweep them into power, and purge the Sunni Arabs and other infidels from Iraq. In 1933 Germany, just before an election in which the Nazis were running on an anti-Communist platform, Hitler sent his thugs to set fire to the German government building and symbol of its democracy, The Riechstag. The Nazis blamed the Communists and used the event to sweep Hitler to power. There is a lot to recommend this theory: All the stories of black pajamas attacking Sunnis all over Baghdad. It has a proven history of success. Who believes this story? Errr...hard to say. Everybody and nobody. It's doesn't seem to be in any Iraqi's interests to buy this story. Even those who see Sadr as culpable prefer to see him as an arm of the Jaffari's Internal Ministry or Iran. But there are some exceptions: IraqPundit seems to see Sadr behind this. Anyway,Omar at Iraq the Model, senses in the Iraqi Defense Ministers most recent statement that he is through jacking with Sadr's thugs: The defense minister added that they are working in the government on activating the counter-terrorism laws which includes "arresting anyone who's found guilty of provoking violence". (emphasis Omar's) hope Omar is right. We'll see. Personally, though, this theory is my favorite backup theory. the other theories; Saturday, February 25, 2006 Who Did It? Theory 1: The Chaos Theory Theory 3: The Government Plot Theory Theory 4: The Tehran Theory Theory 5: The Great Satan Theory I say the clerics of the mosque must be closely watched and interviewed. They have to have an inside opinion as to why it was bombed and why no injuries resulted. my theory #6, The Frustration of strange bed fellows Things are not panning out for a certain group that was cooperating with Saddam .... .... during his reign Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest سامرا: دروس الماضي والمفترق الحا Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 http://www.elaph.com/ElaphWeb/ElaphWriter/2006/2/131159.htm In Arabic.. Lessons from Samarra.. By iraqi writer Dr. Alshakarchee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest نذر الحرب الأهلية في العراق اثر Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 http://www.radiosawa.com/RadioSawaAudio.as...e=ram&id=797563 In arabic .. Interesting interview with Sunni Arab General Wafeeq Alsamarrae, Politician Sunni Dr. Dhafer Alani ans Shiekh Alasadee "Shia scholar" نذر الحرب الأهلية في العراق اثر تفجير ضريح الامام الهادي Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salim Posted February 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11597322/ Msnbc report is echoing a wish list! The question is why this Arab reporter of Washington post is trying his best to show the exaturated claims by some political Sunni factionist religous parties ..By the way the photo is for the Shia family members who were killed by Alqaeda terrorist in Baquba "The Qaeda Already confirmed the killing" The official numbers were released yesterday by the Sunni Arab Defence minster in his media confrence with minister of Interior.. So which police that released these numbers , almost same time the minister was talking? This incident proved one thing..While there are so many who work hard to ignite a civil war, Iraqis proved again to the world that they are so iminent to it.. I talked to so many Iraqis inside Iraq, some living in the hot spot, all confirmed one point :They are care about their neighbors, what ever this neighbor is, as far they care for their kids.! A civil war can die out in 24 hours ? So the question is who are these people that wish and work for it? We know for Sure that the libral media in the west is one of them.. May be it is part of the American local political war. May be it a reflect to the inerest and policy of some faction in middel east who think that Chiotic situation in Iraq is to the best of their strategic inerest.. May be they are looking for bringing attention .. All of above is possible but for sure this media is looking for it.. Please have a look to Any libral media reports in the last four days and compare it with absolutely calm situation after the spark day.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BahirJ Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 From my point of view, this report has few facts and lies at the same time. It was using the facts to presents the lies and to justify giving the Sunnia Arabs more an excess to their electoral shares in the govenment. It is also targetting the constitution as s recipe for Iraq disintegration, and the last election as a total fraud. Its sound like an analysis any member of Iraqi Sunni Scholars. The conclusion was to ignore all the efforts made so far on the political front and trast from scratch. Your comments are more than welcome. Bahir The Next Iraqi War? Sectarianism and Civil Conflict Middle East Report N°52 Read The Full Report Here 27 February 2006 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The bomb attack on a sacred Shiite shrine in Samarra on 22 February 2006 and subsequent reprisals against Sunni mosques and killings of Sunni Arabs is only the latest and bloodiest indication that Iraq is teetering on the threshold of wholesale disaster. Over the past year, social and political tensions evident since the removal of the Baathist regime have turned into deep rifts. Iraq’s mosaic of communities has begun to fragment along ethnic, confessional and tribal lines, bringing instability and violence to many areas, especially those with mixed populations. The most urgent of these incipient conflicts is a Sunni-Shiite schism that threatens to tear the country apart. Its most visible manifestation is a dirty war being fought between a small group of insurgents bent on fomenting sectarian strife by killing Shiites and certain government commando units carrying out reprisals against the Sunni Arab community in whose midst the insurgency continues to thrive. Iraqi political actors and the international community must act urgently to prevent a low-intensity conflict from escalating into an all-out civil war that could lead to Iraq’s disintegration and destabilise the entire region. 2005 will be remembered as the year Iraq’s latent sectarianism took wings, permeating the political discourse and precipitating incidents of appalling violence and sectarian “cleansing”. The elections that bracketed the year, in January and December, underscored the newly acquired prominence of religion, perhaps the most significant development since the regime’s ouster. With mosques turned into party headquarters and clerics outfitting themselves as politicians, Iraqis searching for leadership and stability in profoundly uncertain times essentially turned the elections into confessional exercises. Insurgents have exploited the post-war free-for-all; regrettably, their brutal efforts to jumpstart civil war have been met imprudently with ill-tempered acts of revenge. In the face of growing sectarian violence and rhetoric, institutional restraints have begun to erode. The cautioning, conciliatory words of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the Shiites’ pre-eminent religious leader, increasingly are falling on deaf ears. The secular centre has largely vanished, sucked into the maelstrom of identity politics. U.S. influence, while still extremely significant, is decreasing as hints of eventual troop withdrawal get louder. And neighbouring states, anxious to protect their strategic interests, may forsake their longstanding commitment to Iraq’s territorial integrity if they conclude that its disintegration is inevitable, intervening directly in whatever rump states emerge from the smoking wreckage. If Iraq falls apart, historians may seek to identify years from now what was the decisive moment. The ratification of the constitution in October 2005, a sectarian document that both marginalised and alienated the Sunni Arab community? The flawed January 2005 elections that handed victory to a Shiite-Kurdish alliance, which drafted the constitution and established a government that countered outrages against Shiites with indiscriminate attacks against Sunnis? Establishment of the Interim Governing Council in July 2003, a body that in its composition prized communal identities over national-political platforms? Or, even earlier, in the nature of the ousted regime and its consistent and brutal suppression of political stirrings in the Shiite and Kurdish communities that it saw as threatening its survival? Most likely it is a combination of all four, as this report argues. Today, however, the more significant and pressing question is what still can be done to halt Iraq’s downward slide and avert civil war. Late in the day, the U.S. administration seems to have realised that a fully inclusive process – not a rushed one – is the sine qua non for stabilisation. This conversion, while overdue, is nonetheless extremely welcome. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad’s intensive efforts since late September 2005 to bring the disaffected Sunni Arab community back into the process have paid off, but only in part. He is now also on record as stating that the U.S. is “not going to invest the resources of the American people to build forces run by people who are sectarian”. Much remains to be done, however, to recalibrate the political process further and move the country on to a path of reconciliation and compromise. First, the winners of the December 2005 elections, the main Shiite and Kurdish lists, must establish a government of genuine national unity in which Sunni Arab leaders are given far more than a token role. That government, in turn, should make every effort to restore a sense of national identity and address Iraqis’ top priorities: personal safety, jobs and reliable access to basic amenities such as electricity and fuel. It should also start disbanding the militias that have contributed to the country’s destabilisation. The U.S. has a critical role to play in pressuring its Iraqi war-time allies to accept such an outcome. States neighbouring Iraq as well as the European Union should push toward the same goal. Secondly, substantive changes must be made to the constitution once the constitutional process is reopened one month after the government enters office. These should include a total revision of key articles concerning the nature of federalism and the distribution of proceeds from oil sales. As it stands, this constitution, rather than being the glue that binds the country together, has become both the prescription and blueprint for its dissolution. Again, the U.S. and its allies should exercise every effort to reach that goal. Thirdly, donors should promote non-sectarian institution building by allocating funds to ministries and projects that embrace inclusiveness, transparency and technical competence and withholding funds from those that base themselves on cronyism and graft. Fourthly, while the U.S. should explicitly state its intention to withdraw all its troops from Iraq, any drawdown should be gradual and take into account progress in standing up self-sustaining, non-sectarian Iraqi security forces as well as in promoting an inclusive political process. Although U.S. and allied troops are more part of the problem than they can ever be part of its solution, for now they are preventing – by their very presence and military muscle – ethnic and sectarian violence from spiralling out of control. Any assessment of the consequences, positive and negative, that can reasonably be anticipated from an early troop withdrawal must take into account the risk of an all-out civil war. Finally – and regrettable though it is that this is necessary – the international community, including neighbouring states, should start planning for the contingency that Iraq will fall apart, so as to contain the inevitable fall-out on regional stability and security. Such an effort has been a taboo, but failure to anticipate such a possibility may lead to further disasters in the future. RECOMMENDATIONS To the Winners of the December 2005 Elections: 1. Strongly condemn sectarian-inspired attacks, such as the bombing of the al-Askariya shrine in Samarra but also reprisal attacks, and urge restraint. 2. Establish a government of national unity that enjoys popular credibility by: (a) including members of the five largest electoral coalitions; ( dividing the key ministries of defence, interior, foreign affairs, finance, planning and oil fairly between these same lists, with either defence or interior being given to a respected and non-sectarian Sunni Arab leader, and the other to a similar leader of the United Iraqi Alliance; © assigning senior government positions to persons with technical competence and personal integrity chosen from within the ministry; and (d) adopting an agenda that prioritises respect for the rule of law, job creation and provision of basic services. 3. Revise the constitution’s most divisive elements by: (a) establishing administrative federalism on the basis of provincial boundaries, outside the Kurdish region; and ( creating a formula for the fair, centrally-controlled, nationwide distribution of oil revenues from both current and future fields, and creating an independent agency to ensure fair distribution and prevent corruption. 4. Halt sectarian-based attacks and human rights abuses by security forces, by: (a) beginning the process of disbanding militias, integrating them into the new security forces so as to ensure their even distribution throughout these forces’ hierarchies, at both the national and local levels; ( continuing to build the security forces (national army, police, border guards and special forces, as well as the intelligence agencies) on the basis of ethnic and religious inclusiveness, with members of Iraq’s various communities distributed across the hierarchies of those forces as well as within the governorates; © ensuring that the ministers of defence and interior, as well as commanders and senior officers at both the national and local level are appointed on the basis of professional competence, non-sectarian outlook and personal integrity; and (d) establishing an independent commission, accountable to the council of deputies, to oversee the militias’ dismantlement and the creation of fully integrated security forces. 5. In implementing de-Baathification, judge former Baath party members on the basis of crimes committed, not political beliefs or religious convictions, and establish an independent commission, accountable to the council of deputies, to oversee fair and non-partisan implementation. Both former Baathis and non-Baathis suspected of human rights crimes or corruption should be held accountable before independent courts. To the Government of the United States: 6. Press its Iraqi allies to constitute a government of national unity and, in particular, seek to prevent the defence and interior ministries from being awarded to the same party or to strongly sectarian or otherwise polarising individuals. 7. Encourage meaningful amendments to the constitution to produce an inclusive document that protects the fundamental interests of all principal communities, as in recommendation 3 above. 8. Assist in building up security forces that are not only adequately trained and equipped, but also inclusive and non-sectarian. 9. Engage Iraq’s neighbours, including Iran, in helping solve the crisis by taking the measures described in recommendation 11 below, and actively promote the reconciliation conference agreed to in Cairo in November 2005, encouraging representatives of all Iraqi parties and communities, as well as of governments in the region, to attend. To Donors: 10. Allocate funding to ministries and government projects, as well as civil society initiatives, strictly according to their compliance with principles of inclusiveness, transparency and competence. To States Neighbouring Iraq: 11. Help stabilise Iraq by: (a) expressing or reiterating their strategic interest in Iraq’s territorial integrity; ( encouraging the winners of the December 2005 elections to form a government of national unity and accede to demands to modify the constitution (as outlined in recommendation 3 above); © strengthening efforts to prevent funds and insurgents from crossing their borders into Iraq; and (d) promoting, and sending representatives to, the planned reconciliation conference in Baghdad. Amman/Baghdad/Brussels, 27 February 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moron99 Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 bahirj, the document aims to create a successful modern democracy. There is a difference between theorectical demcracy and functional democracy. Theorectical democracy has not proven itself stable wheras modern democracy has. Theorectical democracy becomes a winner takes all government. A government where 51% of the population can excercise saddamee oppression against the other 49%. Modern democracy is a hybrid between representative republic and democratic state. It yields power shares in accordance with population and intentionally exagerates the power of small minorities in order to avoid resentment and sedition. Since there are democratic underpinnings, the minority can never impose itself upon the majority and the net result is avoiding the oppression of minorities. I read the document you referenced as a list of suggestions to guide Iraq towards a functional modern democracy and away from the traps of theorectical democracy. There is a phrase "tyranny of the majority". I think what the paper is saying is that Iraq is heading into such a condidtion. That if steps are not taken to push Iraq away from theorectical democracy and towards modern democracy then a revolt of the minorities with ensuing civil war might be inevitable. I agree. If Iraq's government continues to embrace the "winner takes all" mentality of politics then the violence will increase rather than decrease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salim Posted February 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 http://baghdadee.ipbhost.com/index.php?sho...5821entry5821 BahirJ and Moron99, Would you please move this interesting debate to the above post. Which might be more appropriate place .. http://www.sotaliraq.com/iraqi-news/nieuws.php?id=19259 A spokesman of Iraqi government put the no. of fatalaties in the the last five days to 384 . The spokesman was refering to the fauls figures by some reporter that spiked the number to very large numbers. Sadamist and Alqaeda might read that report and started a wave of car bombs in Baghdad and mortar shelling .. May be in attempt to help that report claim, or May be the report was a target figure set for them ! Who knows.. things in Iraq are so mixed.!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 1, 2006 Report Share Posted March 1, 2006 Airdale, Anyway,Omar at Iraq the Model, senses in the Iraqi Defense Ministers most recent statement that he is through jacking with Sadr's thugs: The defense minister added that they are working in the government on activating the counter-terrorism laws which includes "arresting anyone who's found guilty of provoking violence". (emphasis Omar's) hope Omar is right. We'll see. Personally, though, this theory is my favorite backup theory. Omar , I don't know who is, might be joking! The defense minister was trying to please the Sader "thugs" in his stament. This is their demand .. They accuse the governemtn of not working hard in following the Qaeda and Sadam terror networks that is in comply with the alleged American presure to not to. This was also the main demand by most Iraqi people .. Alsystani was putting more presure in that sense by his late letter to the governement of no to compromise on people security , otherwise he no longer stop people from dending them self.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.