Civil War in Iraq

[groverat]

click (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/09/iraq.main/index.html)

Gunmen roaming a Baghdad neighborhood on Sunday killed at least 40 unarmed Iraqis as soon as they identified them as Sunnis, emergency police said.

Ala'a Makki, a spokesman for the Iraqi Islamic Party -- Iraq's main Sunni political movement -- said the victims included women and children.

He called the killings in Hay al Jihad "one of the biggest massacres of Sunnis."

Gunmen -- mostly "young reckless teenagers" -- started to pick up Sunni youth and execute them in public, while others went door-to-door looking for Sunni families who stayed behind, Makki said.

After warning one Iraqi woman she had 10 seconds to leave, the gunmen killed her and her children, Makki said.

A lot of kerfuffle has been raised about whether or not Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. I feel that there isn't even an argument.

If widespread sectarian violence with elements advocating (and carrying out) ethnic cleansing is not civil war I don't know what is.

8 hours for Iraqi/U.S. forces to respond?

[segovius]

Personally I don't think there is a civil war in Iraq as such as technically this implies a conflict between groups native to a country vying for control of that country.

The Iraq war - or rather the chaos resulting from the West's inept prosecution of that war and the aftermath - opened the door for many foreign elements to further their agenda as well as to take on the US - if these factors were not present there would be no 'civil war'.

Imo, on one level what we are seeing is a war between certain extremist groups and the Bush administration. It's not really about Iraq - that just provides a chaotic enough backdrop. If the war bandwagon moves on to Iran the chaos will move to there just like what happened in the transition from Afghanistan to Iraq.

No-one says Afghanistan is in civil war and there is just as much fighting.

[groverat]

Originally posted by segovius
Personally I don't think there is a civil war in Iraq as such as technically this implies a conflict between groups native to a country vying for control of that country.

Shiites and Sunnis aren't native to the country or they aren't vying for control?

It seems to me that both those technicalities are filled.

[segovius]

Originally posted by groverat
Shiites and Sunnis aren't native to the country or they aren't vying for control?

It seems to me that both those technicalities are filled.

It isn't just them though is it? There are huge amounts of foreign Arab fighters fomenting trouble as well as numerous mafia gangs from Eastern Europe and then there are - but this is just my personal opinion - other interested parties from other States causing mayhem for their own ends.

None of it is necessarily what it appears to be or what we are told it is.

[groverat]

Well it isn't just them, but a civil war can have hangers-on and still be a civil war.

Regardless, the ethnic cleansing aspect is something that needs to be paid attention to and the complete lack of control in Baghdad is disturbing.

[sammi jo]

This administration did not spend $10s of billions on some 5 huge, permanent, mega-fortified bases each with 30,000 troops, malls, theaters, hotel-like accommodation etc etc, if they had any intention of withdrawing soon, and allowing Iraq to govern itself. The US embassy itself is a massive $multi-billion facility larger than the entire Vatican City.

The key to maintaining public support for the occupation is for unrest to continue. The US/UK in Iraq permanently. All those currently shouting "bring the troops home now" are more likely to get an unwelcome visit from FBI or Homeland Security agents than celebrate the sight of tired but relieved soldiers walking down the gangplanks of US Navy ships into the arms of their loved ones.

Civil war in Iraq is the desired aim.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by groverat
Well it isn't just them, but a civil war can have hangers-on and still be a civil war.

Regardless, the ethnic cleansing aspect is something that needs to be paid attention to and the complete lack of control in Baghdad is disturbing.

The Brits interfered with our civil war so why can't everyone spread the love...

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by segovius
numerous mafia gangs from Eastern Europe

Evidence for this, please?

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by sammi jo
This administration did not spend $10s of billions on some 5 huge, permanent, mega-fortified bases each with 30,000 troops, malls, theaters, hotel-like accommodation etc etc, if they had any intention of withdrawing soon, and allowing Iraq to govern itself. The US embassy itself is a massive $multi-billion facility larger than the entire Vatican City.

The key to maintaining public support for the occupation is for unrest to continue. The US/UK in Iraq permanently. All those currently shouting "bring the troops home now" are more likely to get an unwelcome visit from FBI or Homeland Security agents than celebrate the sight of tired but relieved soldiers walking down the gangplanks of US Navy ships into the arms of their loved ones.

Civil war in Iraq is the desired aim.

Of course the US will use Iraq as a Middle East base for years to come. It will be a strategic base for the US presence in the region and limit dependence on the Saudis. None of this requires an unstable Iraq. The US has maintained thousands of troops in peaceful countries. This is a logical course, not a secret Bush plot.

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by segovius
It isn't just them though is it? There are huge amounts of foreign Arab fighters fomenting trouble as well as numerous mafia gangs from Eastern Europe and then there are - but this is just my personal opinion - other interested parties from other States causing mayhem for their own ends.

None of it is necessarily what it appears to be or what we are told it is.

I see it as a civil war being cheered on by outside extremists. The current conditions in Iraq make fertile ground for those wanting to insight ancient hatred.

[segovius]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
I see it as a civil war being cheered on by outside extremists. The current conditions in Iraq make fertile ground for those wanting to insight ancient hatred.

Strangely though, there is no 'ancient hatred' in Islamic culture.

There is recent hatred which can be traced to the British involvement in the promotion of the Wahabi doctrine in the nineteenth century and, as I mentioned before, this is the origin of the jihadi mindset and the genesis of the problems we see today.

It always makes me wonder why people don't just use their eyes - they don't actually have to read or listen to wiseacres like me (luckily for them on both counts) - they could just look.

They could look at the foremost Shi'i shrine in Islam - you know the one that recently got blown up. Then they could wonder why it stood for 1500 years with no attacks, no demolition - all through 1500 years of 'ancient hatred'.

They could look at the Bamiyan Buddhas and wonder why 1500 years of Islamic rule left them intact only to have the Taleban blow them up.

They could look at the great synagogues of Syria and Spain - I was in one in toledo recently where the verses of the Torah were in Arabic and Hebrew.

They could look at all this but then I suppose they'd have to think too so maybe there is a problem....

[vinea]

Originally posted by segovius
Strangely though, there is no 'ancient hatred' in Islamic culture.


Say what? The Shia and Sunni's have been at it since the death of Muhammad in 632.


There is recent hatred which can be traced to the British involvement in the promotion of the Wahabi doctrine in the nineteenth century and, as I mentioned before, this is the origin of the jihadi mindset and the genesis of the problems we see today.


Eh what? The British had been supporting other dynasties with protectorate status and had reasonable hopes for Sharif family. The Wahabi doctrine at its core is fundamentalist but you can't equate Wahabism to terrorism any more than all funamentalist christian sects to abortion clinic bombings.


They could look at the foremost Shi'i shrine in Islam - you know the one that recently got blown up. Then they could wonder why it stood for 1500 years with no attacks, no demolition - all through 1500 years of 'ancient hatred'.


Well, there are no Sunni mosques in Iran. Presumably they didn't blow them all up, just took them over. Many had been destroyed (or converted to other uses).

There is an ancient hatred between Christians and Moslems but note that the Hagia Sophia still stands even if lesser churches were destroyed.


They could look at the Bamiyan Buddhas and wonder why 1500 years of Islamic rule left them intact only to have the Taleban blow them up.


The Taleban are Sufi I believe. Wahabis claim that many terrorists (incluing osama Bin Laden) follow a mish-mash of islamic teachings promoted by Sayyid Qutb (i.e. Qutbists).

Vinea

[segovius]

Originally posted by vinea
Say what? The Shia and Sunni's have been at it since the death of Muhammad in 632.

They have been fighting on occasion and are opposed in certain elements of doctrine. I do not equate 'Ancient hatred' with this.

Eh what? The British had been supporting other dynasties with protectorate status and had reasonable hopes for Sharif family. The Wahabi doctrine at its core is fundamentalist but you can't equate Wahabism to terrorism any more than all funamentalist christian sects to abortion clinic bombings.

Why not? Most Islamic terrorists are Wahabi/Salafi. That is a fact.

Well, there are no Sunni mosques in Iran. Presumably they didn't blow them all up, just took them over. Many had been destroyed (or converted to other uses).

Wrong. There are many Sunnis in Iran - the powerful Balouch and Turkoman tribes are Sunni for example. and there are probably 20 million in all.

There is oppression though and many Sunni mosques were closed after the Revolution. this just proves my point though: why did this not happen previously?

There is an ancient hatred between Christians and Moslems but note that the Hagia Sophia still stands even if lesser churches were destroyed.

There is ancient hatred from the Christians to the Muslims I would agree. Islam accepts Christianity and Jesus though and Muslims are commanded to respect both - which they do. Christianity's view of Islam on the other hand veers between mild intolerance to extreme fundie hate based on a belief that Islam is 'Satanic'.

The Taleban are Sufi I believe. Wahabis claim that many terrorists (incluing osama Bin Laden) follow a mish-mash of islamic teachings promoted by Sayyid Qutb (i.e. Qutbists).

The Taleban are Deobandi/Salafi - a hybrid of Wahabism.

As to the 'Sufi' tag I will leave you to ascertain whether they are by this definition of Sufism taken from a website which is Wahabi (who hate Sufis) and which objects to the Sufi practice.

Although the Wahabis hate the Sufis, the description given here of their beliefs is correct. Needless to say, the attitude of the Wahabi writer is typical of a fundamentalist:

Sufi: a follower of Sufism

Sufism: a sect that has introduced many innovated practices and beliefs into the religion of Islam while claiming to be mystical

Sufis belong to the Illumist school of philosophy which holds that knowledge and awareness is brought about in the soul by spiritual exercises. Orthodox Islam holds that one can achieve true knowledge and awareness through the acts of worship that exist in the Quran and Sunnah.

Sufis believe that their teachers are also a source for legislation in worship, as they will order them to carry out acts of worship that have no basis in either the Quran or the Sunnah. The extremists from amongst them often claim that Allah dwells within His creation (i.e. in people's hearts, internal organs etc.). Consequently, they ascribe to their Sufi teachers attributes and powers which only belong to Allah, such as the knowledge of the unseen.

They often claim that the texts of the Quran and the Sunnah have an outer, apparent meaning, and as well, an inner, hidden meaning. They hold that the outer, apparent meaning is known to those who practice orthodox Islam, while the inner and hidden meanings of the Quran and Sunnah are known only to their teacher and order. These teachers will often claim that since they have advanced to the inner and hidden meaning of Islam, they no longer need to pray or fast, something that not even the Prophets were excused from.

Link (http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/sufism.htm)

[southside grabowski]

Don't get lost with the term "ancient hatred" Fact is the 2 groups have some serious differences and members of each group are killing members of the other. I belive the result of this is a Civil War. Lift train back on track.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Of course the US will use Iraq as a Middle East base for years to come. It will be a strategic base for the US presence in the region and limit dependence on the Saudis. None of this requires an unstable Iraq. The US has maintained thousands of troops in peaceful countries. This is a logical course, not a secret Bush plot.

US troops are stationed in peaceful countries, exactly. They are contributing to the local economies and have integrated into the local society and customs. Unlike the situation in Iraq; only about 2% of the Iraqi population want the US forces to stay, and even the powerless, nominal Iraqi "government" and "leadership" want us out of there in a sensible time frame.

It is now mainstream thought in America to end the occupation and bring the troops home, sometime between "immediately" and a "couple of years".

[vinea]

Originally posted by segovius

The Taleban are Deobandi/Salafi - a hybrid of Wahabism.

As to the 'Sufi' tag I will leave you to ascertain whether they are by this definition of Sufism taken from a website which is Wahabi (who hate Sufis) and which objects to the Sufi practice.

Ah you are correct. I had seen this somewhere and hadn't double checked...hence the "I believe" part. I believe I was wrong. :)

Regardless, extremists exist within both Sunni and Shia communities. This makes it non-Wahabi specific and you can't simply say the British are at fault even if they were a contributing factor.

Vinea

[segovius]

Originally posted by vinea
Ah you are correct. I had seen this somewhere and hadn't double checked...hence the "I believe" part. I believe I was wrong. :)

Regardless, extremists exist within both Sunni and Shia communities. This makes it non-Wahabi specific and you can't simply say the British are at fault even if they were a contributing factor.

Vinea

I think the MO is to arm both sides and support both sides so that the struggle continues with no winner leaving the field empty for other interested unweakened parties to benefit.

The US used it to great effect in the Iran/Iraq war.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by segovius
I think the MO is to arm both sides and support both sides so that the struggle continues with no winner leaving the field empty for other interested unweakened parties to benefit.

now thats a NOVEL idea, huh?