NationStates Jolt Archive

Given yesterdays attack on the Shia shrine in Samarra yesterday and the insuing violence are the terrorists finaly turning on themselves.A case prehaps of the animals killing each other or is there something more sinister happening here such as an outside attact designed at starting an internal conflict within the insurgency?

Terrorists?

So Shia = Sunni = terrorist?

Terrorist=AT LEAST 60 DEAD IN IRAQ VIOLENCE !!!The religion is unimportant

Well shit... This seems like it's going to turn into a full scale civil war if Coalition forces do not act quickly. It looks likes it's going to get very eye-for-an-eye-ish.

I'm not sure you could class this as terrorist as no one was killed. Though the attack has triggered massive protests throughout southern Iraq. 17 Sunni mosques have been attacked and one Sunni Cleric killed. al-Sistani and Jalal Talabani have called for calm, but they don't appear to have had very much influence. And as religion is the most important aspect between the two groups, then if a civil war does start it is going to get very very bloody.

The coalition really has disturbed one huge hornet's nest. And to be honnest, I'm not sure what they can do to stop the civil war. No one trusts the coalition forces and any intervention will only serve to infuriate one of the groups as they percieve favouritism (whether it be actual favouristism or not doesn't matter). I can see fighters slipping over the borders to protect holy sites from the denomination.

And no one has claimed responsibility for the attack. Someone knew what they were doing what it would cause.

At least 90 people have been killed in
Iraq in an apparent wave of sectarian
violence in the wake of the bomb attack
on the important Shia shrine in Samarra
yesterday.

Gunmen killed at least 11 people after
entering a prison in the southern Iraqi
city of Basra. It is reported the
victims were tortured before being shot

Police said all the victims were
suspected Sunni militants, including
several Egyptian and Saudi nationals.

There have also been a number of
revenge attacks on Sunni mosques.


Iraqi police said 47 people had been
killed in the last 24 hours in Baghdad.
However, it is not clear if all of the
deaths were linked to the bombing of
the Shia shrine.

The Arabic television station, Al
Arabiya, said three of its journalists
have been killed in Samarra.

Religious and political leaders have
appealed for calm amid fears the latest
tensions may provoke a sectarian civil
war.

However, a spokesman for the country's
top Shia cleric said his supporters'
anger may be hard to contain.


This is the report that I have read.Sounds like the whole situation is going to shit very quickly.I really can't see what the coalition can do here.I can see this turning into a Northern Ireland style issue.

I'm suprised it's taken this long for trouble to break out. Lots of deaths to come methinks.

The civil war between rival groups in Iraq has been going on since we invaded. Sometimes it looks like Saddam was the only thing holding the country together.

The civil war between rival groups in Iraq has been going on since we invaded. Sometimes it looks like Saddam was the only thing holding the country together.
Sad but true.I hope it doesn't take another Saddam to sort this out but what can the coalition really do.Now there really going to be stuck in the middle of a civil war.This could make the war in Vietnam look easy.

The civil war between rival groups in Iraq has been going on since we invaded. Sometimes it looks like Saddam was the only thing holding the country together.
Sad but true, it was fear of him that kept all these fanatics from killing each other, of course guess who the President of Iran blames? Israel, EVERYTHING'S Israel and the US's fault. Wake up with a cold? Israel and the US fault! Trip on the pavement, damn those Westerners. Paper cut? Jewish paper. That guy's number 8 on my top 10 list of people I wish would disappear.

You know what we should do? Absolutely nothing. If we fight them, they'll blame it on us. If we pull out and leave it to them, they'll blame it on us and install Bin Laden as King of Iraq.

Gunmen killed at least 11 people after
entering a prison in the southern Iraqi
city of Basra. It is reported the
victims were tortured before being shotIn an apparent reprisal attack, gunmen in police uniforms seized a dozen Sunni men suspected of being insurgents from a prison in the mainly Shia city of Basra and killed 11 of them, police and British forces said.http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1715873,00.htmlSo, we have a weak and corrupt police force, a non existant iraqi military, occupying forces, religious tensions, a government that can't defend itself, the downfall of the previous minority leadership. I am so glad I'm not in Iraq right now.

The civil war between rival groups in Iraq has been going on since we invaded. Sometimes it looks like Saddam was the only thing holding the country together.

I think he was. Very much like Tito in Yugoslavia....

You know what we should do? Absolutely nothing. If we fight them, they'll blame it on us. If we pull out and leave it to them, they'll blame it on us and install Bin Laden as King of Iraq.

King of Iraq? You realise most indigenous resistance groups actually hate the guts of the Al Quaeda operatives and usually kill them as well?

Yes and No.

The Sunnis (as we all know) were the minority which were placed into power with Saddam's coup. Under his rule, the Shitties (the majority of Iraq) were suppressed due to their religious views (they think the decendents of Muhammad should be the leaders of Islam). Al-Qaeda wants a the Islamic world to be united under one Caliph and one sect - Sunni. They don't want to see Iraq ruled by Shittes, so they've been trying ever since the beginning of the Iraq war so spark a religious civil war. It started out with car bombings, kidnappings, executions, drive-bys, and vote-rigging. Now they've desperate and will resort to destroying a holy mosque. The Shittes have been (mostly) patient through this whole mess, and now they can't be pushed anymore. I think the sporatic attacks against the entire Sunni population will continue, but the main civil war will be against Al-Qaeda and their extreme Iraqi Sunnis. For once, the Shitte nationalists will turn their soldiers and their fiery speeches against their true enemies- radical Islam. Innocents will die and some friendly troops will get caught in the crossfire; but in the long-run, I think this'll help destroy as legitmacy that Al-Qaeda has in Iraq. They aren't there to kick out the Zionsts and the Americans, they are only there to kill innocents. Their popular support will erode to nothing and this war will end faster.

Any comments?

Sad but true, it was fear of him that kept all these fanatics from killing each other. <snip>I've heard that Saddam was an avid reader of Machiavelli's 'The Prince'. Looks like he learned quite a lot. Perhaps he credited the Coalition with knowing more than it did, and thought they would know what would happen if they invaded. Maybe that's what he's been stalling for in his court case. If a civil war does erupt there is a chance he could be rescued by sympathisers.

Deaths on this issue have been going on for a long time, this latest attack on the Shia is part of a greater war that Sunni fundamentalists are carrying out globally. In Pakistan there has been long running conflict between the Sunni majority and the large Shia minority, while in Afghanistan the largely Shia Hazara's and Tajiks have a long history of opposition to Sunni rule. I have to say the Iraqi Shia's have been rather reserved in the face of extreme provacation but then again they now now matter how the US tries to involve mainstream Sunni's into the political process the Iraq will be effectively a Shia nation with a autonomy for the Kurds. I am pretty sure an all out civil ar is what Al Zarqawi is gunning for because amidst the chaos and bloodshed he can expand his powerbase by polarising further the religious loyalties of iraqi's over the previously strong tribal loyalties.

The civil war between rival groups in Iraq has been going on since we invaded. Sometimes it looks like Saddam was the only thing holding the country together.


Somehow like the former leader of Jugoslavia? ( cant remember his name, sorry)

Tito off course, thank you Cabra West.

King of Iraq? You realise most indigenous resistance groups actually hate the guts of the Al Quaeda operatives and usually kill them as well?

You know what I mean. They'd just install some terrorist as dictator. Worked for Saddam and Ahmadinejad.

The Shittes have been (mostly) patient through this whole mess, and now they can't be pushed anymore. I think the sporatic attacks against the entire Sunni population will continue, but the main civil war will be against Al-Qaeda and their extreme Iraqi Sunnis. For once, the Shitte nationalists will turn their soldiers and their fiery speeches against their true enemies- radical Islam. Innocents will die and some friendly troops will get caught in the crossfire; but in the long-run, I think this'll help destroy as legitmacy that Al-Qaeda has in Iraq. They aren't there to kick out the Zionsts and the Americans, they are only there to kill innocents. Their popular support will erode to nothing and this war will end faster.

Any comments?

I think that at first that would indeed be the Shia's first order of business, namely clean house, but i would be worried that after an end to the civil war that we would be leaving Iran with a firm ally in the region, while Sunni fundamentalism in general (esp. the Wahabi's) is the enemy of the west could we perhaps building up another demon, the suicide bombers and fanatical fighters that we associate with militant islam where all concepts perfected in modern times by the Shi'ite's of Iran (Revolutionary Guard, Hizbollah, etc).

Given yesterdays attack on the Shia shrine in Samarra yesterday and the insuing violence are the terrorists finaly turning on themselves.A case prehaps of the animals killing each other or is there something more sinister happening here such as an outside attact designed at starting an internal conflict within the insurgency?
None of the above. This seems to be an attack designed to instigate anger between the Sunni and Shiite muslims. The end goal seems to be to start a true civil war in Iraq. It's at the present time difficult to say exactly who was behind the blast, but one thing is for certain: This is not a good development.

None of the above. This seems to be an attack designed to instigate anger between the Sunni and Shiite muslims. The end goal seems to be to start a true civil war in Iraq. It's at the present time difficult to say exactly who was behind the blast, but one thing is for certain: This is not a good development.
That is exactly what seems to be going on here in my opinion.Someone seems to be out to make things too difficult for the coalation forces to remain but at the same time the coalation can't pull out as it would probably destablise the entire region.

Well, if the Shia react in the same way as the US did when one of their symbols was attacked then, then... well... shit...
From this
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41361000/jpg/_41361414_reu_dome203.jpg

To this
http://www.voanews.com/english/images/ap_samarra_mosque_iraq_195_eng_22feb06.jpg

That is exactly what seems to be going on here in my opinion.Someone seems to be out to make things too difficult for the coalation forces to remain but at the same time the coalation can't pull out as it would probably destablise the entire region.
That's a better way of putting it than in the OP, and I agree. I am however not so certain that the perpetrators of this particular attack is overly concerned about the Coalition at this junction. I think their goal is to polarize the population and of course to provoke the other side into taking violent action - which it seems they are successful in doing.

That's a better way of putting it than in the OP, and I agree. I am however not so certain that the perpetrators of this particular attack is overly concerned about the Coalition at this junction. I think their goal is to polarize the population and of course to provoke the other side into taking violent action - which it seems they are successful in doing.
The most sucessful way of avoiding this however is the hardest thing to do.That would be to do absolutly nothing.Don't respond at all.

BTW sorry about the original post I was kinda hanged over and realised what I had said untill it was too late to correct it.

The most sucessful way of avoiding this however is the hardest thing to do.That would be to do absolutly nothing.Don't respond at all.
I agree, but that never did seem very likely to me, after people like Adel Abdul Mahdi (one of Iraq's two vice presidents) said that this attack was "as 9/11 in the United States". I guess we can only hope that people calm down now. After all, neither Sadr nor Sistani have called for retaliatory violence as far as I know, so there is a hope.

BTW sorry about the original post I was kinda hanged over and realised what I had said untill it was too late to correct it.
That's quite alright, it just gave me a completely different impression than your later posts have. ;)

Terrorist=AT LEAST 60 DEAD IN IRAQ VIOLENCE !!!The religion is unimportant

Wrong. Religion has everything to do with this.

This isn't strictly terrorism-it's more ethnic violence than anything else. These are not nessisarily the same fighters who attack U.S. soldiers, but members of two different sects of a religion going at each other. This is not a case of terrorist versus terrorist.

My guess is the Sunnis are frustrated with the Shia support of the U.S. and are directing their anger to Shia holy sites. Obviously, not a good idea.

Kind reminds me of the Thirty Years War.

Wrong. Religion has everything to do with this.

This isn't strictly terrorism-it's more ethnic violence than anything else. These are not nessisarily the same fighters who attack U.S. soldiers, but members of two different sects of a religion going at each other. This is not a case of terrorist versus terrorist.

My guess is the Sunnis are frustrated with the Shia support of the U.S. and are directing their anger to Shia holy sites. Obviously, not a good idea.

Kind reminds me of the Thirty Years War.
Kinda reminds me of Northers Ireland.Its really gonna descend into sectarian
conflict.Tit for tat killings and all the other assorted bs that goes with it.

Sorry.As i had said in another post it took me a while to shake off the bottle of vodka from last night.

We had a church burned in Alabamastan this last week. That seems to be happening more and more frequently, as of late. I have yet to see my first riot over it, though. I would even go as far as to speculate that if the Vatican were burned, there would be demonstrations, but no riots.

Why are the practitioners of the Muslim religion in the Arab states so spring-loaded to riot? Is it religious? Cultural? I just don't get it.

Gosh. Who'd've thought removing a stable regime (which Saddam's /was/, whatever else you might say about it, dictatorships are usually stable simply because the opposition is put down) in a country where there's distinct cultural groups which are often at odds with each other would result in violence between them?

I'm getting definite flashbacks to the situation in the Corellian system after the fall of the Empire. Fiction preceeds fact (except presumably it's happened before, here, but I can't think of any examples... except that Oliver Cromwell's government was brought down within a generation and the King returned) yet again.

I'm sorry, but I <i>do</i> sometimes wish national leaders would read more. Half the situations they deal with have already been thought about by someone who /doesn't/ see one side as Absolute Evil. Of course, then there's the risk of thinking Plot Contrivance operates in the real world... but then, they do that anyway, with 'If we go in there, everyone will love us, because everyone hates dictators!'.

We had a church burned in Alabamastan this last week. That seems to be happening more and more frequently, as of late. I have yet to see my first riot over it, though. I would even go as far as to speculate that if the Vatican were burned, there would be demonstrations, but no riots.

Why are the practitioners of the Muslim religion in the Arab states so spring-loaded to riot? Is it religious? Cultural? I just don't get it.
Sexual frustration and the lack of half naked honeys to distract them.. Have you ever tried making a bomb whilst MTV Base is on?

Given yesterdays attack on the Shia shrine in Samarra yesterday and the insuing violence are the terrorists finaly turning on themselves.A case prehaps of the animals killing each other or is there something more sinister happening here such as an outside attact designed at starting an internal conflict within the insurgency?
Nahh. It's "just" inter-sectarian violence. Gives you some idea of what would happen if Coalition forces left right now. :(

Nahh. It's "just" inter-sectarian violence. Gives you some idea of what would happen if Coalition forces left right now. :(
Yep, but the question is: Can the Coalition forces help to stop the violence, or will they muck up (for example by taking sides or being seen to have "favourites")? And will there be trouble anyway once they leave Iraq, even with a stable Iraqi government?

Yep, but the question is: Can the Coalition forces help to stop the violence, or will they muck up (for example by taking sides or being seen to have "favourites")? And will there be trouble anyway once they leave Iraq, even with a stable Iraqi government?
Damned if *I* know. I suppose whether Coalition forces are able to avoid "taking sides" will depend upon how effectively they are able to learn from and apply "lessons learned" over the past couple of years.

Nahh. It's "just" inter-sectarian violence. Gives you some idea of what would happen if Coalition forces left right now. :(

Which, incidentally, they ought to. It would illustrate to the Iraqis quite the extent to which they are reliant upon the coalition, yet still deplore us.

Damned if *I* know.
Damn it! I had hoped to find someone who knew everything by now. Oh well, better keep looking. :p

I suppose whether Coalition forces are able to avoid "taking sides" will depend upon how effectively they are able to learn from and apply "lessons learned" over the past couple of years.
Credit where credit is due: So far it seems to me that they've done a good job avoiding actually taking sides, and avoiding to create the impression of favouritism. I'm hoping it will continue that way...

Sad but true, it was fear of him that kept all these fanatics from killing each other,

Although there have been cases of Shi'ite militias retaliating on sunnis, it is wrong to say that "fear of him that kept all these fanatics from killing each other".

The sunnis have suppressed shi'ites for like 1000 years and the shi'ites have not done anything to sunnis that can come even remotely close to what the sunnis have done to them.

Even during the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi shi'ites were largely loyal to Iraq and some of them were drafted to fight against their fellow shi'ites of Iran by Saddam.

Iraqi sunni leaders are loathe to let go of their rule over shias and concede that Shi'ites being the majority in Iraq, will eventually have a larger say in a representative democrcy. Hence their attempts to provoke a large scale retaliation from shias which can then be used to drum up support from neighboring sunni countries into an all out civil war.

Given yesterdays attack on the Shia shrine in Samarra yesterday and the insuing violence are the terrorists finaly turning on themselves.A case prehaps of the animals killing each other or is there something more sinister happening here such as an outside attact designed at starting an internal conflict within the insurgency?
It's an attempt to defeat the Iraqi government by starting a civil war. It may end up triggering an international war between Shia and Sunni. Kinda like what happened in Europe during the Thirty Years War between Protestants and Catholics.

It's an attempt to defeat the Iraqi government by starting a civil war. It may end up triggering an international war between Shia and Sunni. Kinda like what happened in Europe during the Thirty Years War between Protestants and Catholics.

Now that Iran is being led by a lunatic this kind of result would not surprise me.

This is probably the beginning of the civil war that many of us have talked about the past two years.

Coalition forces now face a Catch 22 situation and it will be very difficult for them.

Now that Iran is being led by a lunatic this kind of result would not surprise me.
He's not a lunatic. You're judging him by the standards of your culture. By the standards of his own culture he's a perfectly rational and reasonable person. Stop being so culturally imperialistic.

He's not a lunatic. You're judging him by the standards of your culture. By the standards of his own culture he's a perfectly rational and reasonable person. Stop being so culturally imperialistic.

I don't see any other Arab world leader claiming that everything that happens negatively in the Muslim world is a "Zionist conspiracy." His declarations in the past few months would suggest someone who is not rational.

It was so obvious that it wasn't Sunni Terorists who blew up the Mosque. It was Insurgents, trying to put pressure on the new government. But no, the goddam fanatics couldn't see sense.

It was so obvious that it wasn't Sunni Terorists who blew up the Mosque. It was Insurgents, trying to put pressure on the new government. But no, the goddam fanatics couldn't see sense.
What makes you think it wasn't Sunni terrorists? Do you know what extremist Sunni terrorists think of Shi'ites? They consider them polytheists. That puts them lower than Christians and Jews in their estimation.

Given yesterdays attack on the Shia shrine in Samarra yesterday and the insuing violence are the terrorists finaly turning on themselves.A case prehaps of the animals killing each other or is there something more sinister happening here such as an outside attact designed at starting an internal conflict within the insurgency?

This is a painfully over simplistic assesment.

There are at least 5 factions involved in the urban conflict in iraq, al Quaeda, Sunni seperatists, Shite seperatists, an islamic iraqi nationalist movement and a combination of former Ba'athits and secular iraqi nationalist resistance movements. they have collabotated to expell the Americans, but are increasingly turning against the al Q "arabs" as Afgans would call them (foriegners).

Given yesterdays attack on the Shia shrine in Samarra yesterday and the insuing violence are the terrorists finaly turning on themselves.A case prehaps of the animals killing each other or is there something more sinister happening here such as an outside attact designed at starting an internal conflict within the insurgency?

Woo..
I'm ahead, I'm a man
I'm the first mammal to wear pants, yeah
I'm at peace with my lust
I can kill 'cause in God I trust, yeah
It's evolution, baby

I, for one, am amazed if anyone is actually SURPRISED by the outcome of looming civil war.
Sadam was the only thing keeping that country together. People have been predicting civil war there since the US invaded. As far as I was concerned, it was a matter of 'when' not 'if.'
Way to bring democracy... oh wait... the parties are backing out of the great document.
I wonder if the international troops (i.e., mostly Americans) will be caught in the crossfire of a war that's been waiting to happen for ages?

Yep, but the question is: Can the Coalition forces help to stop the violence, or will they muck up (for example by taking sides or being seen to have "favourites")? And will there be trouble anyway once they leave Iraq, even with a stable Iraqi government?

If current events are any indication, there isn't going to BE a stable government. So your hypothetical situation is a moot point.

I, for one, am amazed if anyone is actually SURPRISED by the outcome of looming civil war.
Sadam was the only thing keeping that country together. People have been predicting civil war there since the US invaded. As far as I was concerned, it was a matter of 'when' not 'if.'
Way to bring democracy... oh wait... the parties are backing out of the great document.
I wonder if the international troops (i.e., mostly Americans) will be caught in the crossfire of a war that's been waiting to happen for ages?

You're right, it's been waiting to happen for ages. The Shiites had been oppressed for so long, it's a mystery why they didn't retalliate sooner.
No one (not even Saddam) can oppress a people indefinitely, eventually they'll fight back (see South Africa).

Any comments?

Are you unaware of how to spell Shiite, or did you intend to call them Shittes?

You're right, it's been waiting to happen for ages. The Shiites had been oppressed for so long, it's a mystery why they didn't retalliate sooner.
No one (not even Saddam) can oppress a people indefinitely, eventually they'll fight back (see South Africa).

Exactly. Either he'd die, and the gov't would collapse/be taken over, likely leading to a civil war, or they would rise up pre-death and either win or lose.
Either way, I think it will make the country stronger in the end...
Sort of like America having its civil war.
Unless, of course, it winds up fracturing into several different countries. But that might not be so bad, either.

Sorry Kat, It was early and my brain wasn't working very well.

I think he was. Very much like Tito in Yugoslavia....

i made a similer comment on another forum,and i think it is appropriate.

i am amazed it took this long honestly to degenerate to this point.

i also think there is not much we can do to stop it either..sadly.

i also think iran is behind some of this,kinda like using it as leverage against the west with regards to our pressure on them about the nucleur issue.

what interests me is where are the kurds in all this?

i think the iranians and turks are very wary of them wanting autonomy along the borders.
so i suppose it is possible they are fomenting some of this to try and insure shia's get in power,thru any way possible.

maybe the u.s. should just step back,let em have at one another(they seem to be doing it anyway)and let it play out.

and to be completely mercenary(and i am not)maybe if we let the shiite's and sunni's fight it out,and weaken themselves,and align our selves with the kurds,they can take over and put and end to the insanity,and ally themselves with us,as a buffer against iran's need to influence the region.

just a thought..an evil vile thought..but you really arent left many options over there are you.

I've heard that Saddam was an avid reader of Machiavelli's 'The Prince'. Looks like he learned quite a lot. Perhaps he credited the Coalition with knowing more than it did, and thought they would know what would happen if they invaded. Maybe that's what he's been stalling for in his court case. If a civil war does erupt there is a chance he could be rescued by sympathisers.

interesting point...hmmm..never thought about that angle.

and to be completely mercenary(and i am not)maybe if we let the shiite's and sunni's fight it out,and weaken themselves,and align our selves with the kurds,they can take over and put and end to the insanity,and ally themselves with us,as a buffer against iran's need to influence the region.


The Kurds are already an ally of the US. But they cannot "take over" because they don't have the numbers, they have no presence in the important cities of Iraq, they have no such ambitions to take over and Iran and Turkey (another ally of US) would NEVER allow Kurds to get more than enough power since it will lead to demands for Kurdistan.

The solution is in delegitimizing Sunni insurgency, coopting sunni fence sitters, ruthessly taking out non-Iraqi sunni jihadis and ensuring a federal structure where Sunnis, Kurds and Shia can have autonomy within their provinces and a representative democracy to decide on federal issues. We are looking at a decade here.

The Kurds are already an ally of the US. But they cannot "take over" because they don't have the numbers, they have no presence in the important cities of Iraq, they have no such ambitions to take over and Iran and Turkey (another ally of US) would NEVER allow Kurds to get more than enough power since it will lead to demands for Kurdistan.

The solution is in delegitimizing Sunni insurgency, coopting sunni fence sitters, ruthessly taking out non-Iraqi sunni jihadis and ensuring a federal structure where Sunnis, Kurds and Shia can have autonomy within their provinces and a representative democracy to decide on federal issues. We are looking at a decade here.

thanks,that appears to be well thought out and probably the only rational way to deal with this situation.

i was aware that the kurds are aligned with the u.s to a point,and that the turks have no want of a kurdistan on their borders,nor does iran.

good luck
"delegitimizing Sunni insurgency, coopting sunni fence sitters, ruthessly taking out non-Iraqi sunni jihadis"
doing that,but that would solve the problem i think,to an extent.

about all we(the u.s.)can do is ruthlessly take out non iraqi insurgents,but if the sunni population harbors them,i fear we will become heavy handed and alienate alot of moderate sunnis,and feel we are targeting them.

that will just create more animosity towards us...fricken vexing problem.

i am leaning towards a semi autonomous 3 state situation,but thats a whole nother can o worms,as in who controls what resources?

the perfect solution would be a centralised gov,with loose autonomy for the 3 ethnic/religous groups...but i fear it will be very segragated and only create an attitude of 3 individual fiefdoms.

if it had a strong central gov,where the minority sunnis had an equal vote..then it would work...a true democracy will not work in that enviroment,only a constitutional republic,with rights for all,and redress to the courts that is fair and interpets their constitution fairly with out prejudice.

fantasy..maybe..but it would be awesome if they could work it out.

An Iraqi Civil War (which will be less than civil) is a matter of time - a certainty in the imminent to intermediate future. Chances are what we now known as Iraq will end up as at least 3 independent states. Possibly one or more of these state will become hotbeds of fundamentalist Islamic groups/governments.

If Iraq does hold together the world has more to thank of Saudi Arabia (who can influence internal groups through monetary and moral support) and Iran (religous moral support) than say the US.

You know what we should do? Absolutely nothing. If we fight them, they'll blame it on us. If we pull out and leave it to them, they'll blame it on us and install Bin Laden as King of Iraq.

But I want to be the king...
If we do nothing it's all our fault fault they blew up the Mosque.
We should give the Kurds their own country. Why? Because thy don't go around killing people for a murder that happened 1,400 years ago that's why!

I say we let things play out. (By WE im mean The Coalition). Let the animals kill each other off. Pherhaps Iran will get caught up in the civil war and they'll nuke each other to death. Who knows. I just wana get our boys outa there as soon as possible let the civil war happen. And create strict anti-immagration laws for the middle east. Then wait for the situation to cool off, and forget the middle east exists.

I say we let things play out. (By WE im mean The Coalition). Let the animals kill each other off. Pherhaps Iran will get caught up in the civil war and they'll nuke each other to death. Who knows. I just wana get our boys outa there as soon as possible let the civil war happen. And create strict anti-immagration laws for the middle east. Then wait for the situation to cool off, and forget the middle east exists.

Question: Is calling other humans "animals" a reportable offense? I've seen it done before, and it generally gets a bunch of angry replies as to how useless the poster is, and brief lessons on hate speech...

The more secular members of the Sunni sect have long been trying to destabilize the US backed Shiite-Kurdish government in Iraq by targeting Shiite worshipers. By creating a civil war the insurgents will force the US forces to either withdraw or get more bogged down in the fighting than anyone is prepared to put up with back in America. This is not a new policy, it’s just raising the bar for blasphemy in the name of rebellion. Remember though that Saddam Hussein’s regime was the most secular leadership in the Middle East. Although to compensate for violent fundamentalists focused on America, in the wake of the first Gulf War, Saddam did start tapping into this in Iraq for the purposes of nationalism and control.

The insurgents in Iraq really took it up a notch by going after one of the holiest Mosques to the Shiites though. You would think that this sort of thing would be blasphemous at such a level that it would provoke outrage from the World Islamic community against the Sunni insurgents. Instead the Shiite militias and mobs torches a few Sunni mosques in retaliation. Leaders in the religious community on both sides are being targeted and the gloves are off on the streets. Given the way the British troops have gone a long way into letting the fundamentalist elements of the Shiite community have their way in the British sector, things are going to get very bad over there.

The whole Sunni-Shiite split in the faith is based on an ancient divide over who was the official leader of the faith after the prophet Mohammed. These splits have resulted in wars and ethnic divides (not much different from the wars over who was the voice of Christianity in Europe). They are like language dialects that have become separate languages that no longer share the same voice. The fact that religion extends to ethnic lines and divides borders is something we in the West are having a hard time getting our head around, since we don’t tend to understand the differences between the two opposing sects in the first place. It’s like wading in as Peacekeepers into the old European wars between Protestant and Catholics without any understanding of the difference between them and hoping that they’ll all play nicely with each other.

The Bruce

The more secular members of the Sunni sect have long been trying to destabilize the US backed Shiite-Kurdish government in Iraq by targeting Shiite worshipers. By creating a civil war the insurgents will force the US forces to either withdraw or get more bogged down in the fighting than anyone is prepared to put up with back in America. This is not a new policy, it’s just raising the bar for blasphemy in the name of rebellion. Remember though that Saddam Hussein’s regime was the most secular leadership in the Middle East. Although to compensate for violent fundamentalists focused on America, in the wake of the first Gulf War, Saddam did start tapping into this in Iraq for the purposes of nationalism and control.

The insurgents in Iraq really took it up a notch by going after one of the holiest Mosques to the Shiites though. You would think that this sort of thing would be blasphemous at such a level that it would provoke outrage from the World Islamic community against the Sunni insurgents. Instead the Shiite militias and mobs torches a few Sunni mosques in retaliation. Leaders in the religious community on both sides are being targeted and the gloves are off on the streets. Given the way the British troops have gone a long way into letting the fundamentalist elements of the Shiite community have their way in the British sector, things are going to get very bad over there.

The whole Sunni-Shiite split in the faith is based on an ancient divide over who was the official leader of the faith after the prophet Mohammed. These splits have resulted in wars and ethnic divides (not much different from the wars over who was the voice of Christianity in Europe). They are like language dialects that have become separate languages that no longer share the same voice. The fact that religion extends to ethnic lines and divides borders is something we in the West are having a hard time getting our head around, since we don’t tend to understand the differences between the two opposing sects in the first place. It’s like wading in as Peacekeepers into the old European wars between Protestant and Catholics without any understanding of the difference between them and hoping that they’ll all play nicely with each other.

The Bruce

good post the bruce!

it does beg the question though..why in the 21st century are they were we where at, in the 14th century?

i think that confuses western thought more then anything....as in..wtf...believe what you believe by all means..but stay outta my world with it.

i know i accept almost any belief...as long as it is not violent...westerners just do not get all the violence in the name of god!
at least i dont..it is truly sad:(

Add human nature, weapons and muntions... mixed with racial, polictical and relgious issues, and you have the main ingrenions for a nice, ice-frosted ****storm..

I'm really fucking tired of this term "TERRORIST"

Honestly, its used so fucking much it has no meaning. What happened to the time where men with rifles and bombs were called -soldiers- no matter where they were from.

Hell, with our capacity to nuke countries, decimate areas with land artillery, crush cities with naval bombings, and our massive armed forces... I think we're more than qualified for a force of "terror" ourselves.

All this "terror" crap is getting stupid. We have "terrorists" fighting "terrorists"... they're just soldiers people.

it does beg the question though..why in the 21st century are they were we where at, in the 14th century?

Well, technically Islam is 7 centuries behind Christianity, so that could be it.:p

But your post could be easily (mis?)understood as bigotry. There are a lot of reaasons (other than faith alone) behind the situation where we find ourselves today.

Well, technically Islam is 7 centuries behind Christianity, so that could be it.:p

But your post could be easily (mis?)understood as bigotry. There are a lot of reaasons (other than faith alone) behind the situation where we find ourselves today.

If it wasn't for Islam and its past we would have lost a lot of our own culture, primarily classical mathematics, literature, and philosophy. Back off Islam, the reason the countries they are based in are so far "behind" is because we were fuckheads and trashed the region.

And they're still pissed over it. Yeah, they won the Crusades, but at heavy cost. And I wouldn't be talking either since they just about nearly took over Europe not so long ago either.

I'm really fucking tired of this term "TERRORIST"

Honestly, its used so fucking much it has no meaning. What happened to the time where men with rifles and bombs were called -soldiers- no matter where they were from.
It's called Newspeak. Get used to it or fear the punishment of the thoughtpolice. :p

Well, the big flaw of the US Government's decision to invide Iraq has finally shown its whole, nasty face. No matter what the US armed forces do now, they will be blamed, and in turn the US government. I anticipate a very bloody war. The US will either attempt to maintain order and just get hundreds of troops killed in the proverbial crossfire - and get blamed. Pull out and watch the carnage - and get blamed. Or clamp down hard and just get everyone more PO'd. Oh, right, and get blamed. Gratz, Bush & co. Enjoy your own little catch 22.

If it wasn't for Islam and its past we would have lost a lot of our own culture, primarily classical mathematics, literature, and philosophy. Back off Islam, the reason the countries they are based in are so far "behind" is because we were fuckheads and trashed the region.

islam didn't give us shit. We got more important maths from India (the zero, for example), the only literature we got from them was the koran, and the only philosophy was the koran. Whoopee.

I'm really fucking tired of this term "TERRORIST"

Honestly, its used so fucking much it has no meaning. What happened to the time where men with rifles and bombs were called -soldiers- no matter where they were from.

Hell, with our capacity to nuke countries, decimate areas with land artillery, crush cities with naval bombings, and our massive armed forces... I think we're more than qualified for a force of "terror" ourselves.

All this "terror" crap is getting stupid. We have "terrorists" fighting "terrorists"... they're just soldiers people.

Soldiers don't ram jets into civilian skyscrapers.

If it wasn't for Islam and its past we would have lost a lot of our own culture, primarily classical mathematics, literature, and philosophy. Back off Islam, the reason the countries they are based in are so far "behind" is because we were fuckheads and trashed the region.

And they're still pissed over it. Yeah, they won the Crusades, but at heavy cost. And I wouldn't be talking either since they just about nearly took over Europe not so long ago either.

lol..I am neither a Christian nor a westerner. I don't have anything to do with the crusades either nor did my country or my ancestors in history trashed any region.

So back off yerselves and take yer assumptions along with you.

@Kievan-Prussia

You don't know jack shit. Take a Western Cultural History class buddy, if you think the only thing we got was the Koran you're sadly mistaken.

Soldiers don't slam jets into skyscrapers?

Naw, they just whip out their LAWs and long range artillery to do it instead. War isn't decided on the methods used to kill your enemy buddy.

"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his."

-George S. Patton

lol..I am neither a Christian nor a westerner. I don't have anything to do with the crusades either nor did my country or my ancestors in history trashed any region.

So back off yerselves and take yer assumptions along with you.

You're not a westerner huh? Seems that way since you can't read. I wasn't talking about Islam, I was talking about the westerners and the Crusades and their destruction in the Middle east.

:rolleyes: And someone in your distant past MAY have had something to do with the crusades... the ended a pretty long ass time before you ever existed man. Hell, depending on where you live your COUNTRY probably didn't exist way the hell back them.

Well, technically Islam is 7 centuries behind Christianity, so that could be it.:p

But your post could be easily (mis?)understood as bigotry. There are a lot of reaasons (other than faith alone) behind the situation where we find ourselves today.

thanks for pointing out that i may be a bigot..news to me!

just kidding,i am so damn conductive/open to any opposing points it is scary..hell i got divorced because of it..my open mind that is..and know it was not perv stuff..i just am open minded about others feelings/opinions...

i was just opining why we seem to be so different(we with serious reservations)that the islamic religion is stuck in a cycle of violence,when christians..et al...moved beyond it 5 centuries ago?

are you implying that islam is still in the 14th century?

and if not,wh do you justify the behaviour of the 14th century?

saying christians did it a millenium ago is not adequate...

and for the record..i am agnostic..but i was an alter boy till i was raped.i know..i had a cute ass..lol..tempter that i am..

but really ..whats your point?we should accept bloody murder and vile acts of inhumanity,so islam can catch up?

i have zero malice towards islam..but i do think any adherents of any religion should worship ghosts for all i care,but really...whats your point?islam is allowed to be mid evil,but we should just accept it?


and death to the non believers?

scary..thats why people are agnostic..fuckin scary attitude if you ask me.:fluffle:

Soldiers don't ram jets into civilian skyscrapers.
Guerilla warfare is a commonly used strategy in attacking a superior force. Does the US feel more important because it can somehow delegitimise these soldiers because they use tactics which are perfectly acceptable in guerilla warfare. It also seems like it's 'vietnam-phobia', 'hey that's not playing by the rules, no fair!' war is hell.

*bump*

@Kievan-Prussia

You don't know jack shit. Take a Western Cultural History class buddy, if you think the only thing we got was the Koran you're sadly mistaken.

Yes. They slaughtered Iberia and the Balkans. They've truly given us their all. :rolleyes:

Soldiers don't slam jets into skyscrapers?

Naw, they just whip out their LAWs and long range artillery to do it instead. War isn't decided on the methods used to kill your enemy buddy.

"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his."

-George S. Patton

"Rukaine believes that civilians are legitimate targets. His ancestors must have worked at Bergen-Belsen" - Me

You're not a westerner huh? Seems that way since you can't read. I wasn't talking about Islam, I was talking about the westerners and the Crusades and their destruction in the Middle east.

The Crusaders were defensive counter-invasions after the muslim conquest of Iberia and the loss of Palestine.

Guerilla warfare is a commonly used strategy in attacking a superior force. Does the US feel more important because it can somehow delegitimise these soldiers because they use tactics which are perfectly acceptable in guerilla warfare. It also seems like it's 'vietnam-phobia', 'hey that's not playing by the rules, no fair!' war is hell.

Attacking an enemy base with a drive-by, that's guerilla warfare. Ramming jets into civilian skyscrapers, that's terrorism.

islam didn't give us shit. We got more important maths from India (the zero, for example), the only literature we got from them was the koran, and the only philosophy was the koran. Whoopee.

Of course I should give a summary, but I'm too lazy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_philosophy

Ok, so they invented some stuff. So what? That was 700 years ago. What have they done for us lately?

Ok, so they invented some stuff. So what? That was 700 years ago. What have they done for us lately?

What has the West done for them lately? Except of course exploit their sole natural resources....

What has the West done for them lately? Except of course exploit their sole natural resources....

We gave up on them when we realised that they haven't had their Renaissance yet.

We gave up on them when we realised that they haven't had their Renaissance yet.
We did? :confused:

We did? :confused:

I personally believe that we shouldn't have given them anything better than the spoked wheel.

We gave up on them when we realised that they haven't had their Renaissance yet.

Sorry but do you not realize that the Renaissance ws the result of the rediscovery of classical thought (i.e Greek and Roman), and who do you think preserved this body of knowledge when europe slip into the dark ages??? yes thats right the Muslims, do not get me wrong i am no Islam lover but despite the endless history of war there has always been history of cultural and intellectual interplay.

I personally believe that we shouldn't have given them anything better than the spoked wheel.
Good thing you're not in charge then, isn't it.

Ok no civilisation ever gave another anything.It was a transfer of technology and ideas across cultures and peoples.

You're not a westerner huh? Seems that way since you can't read.

lol.

I wasn't talking about Islam, I was talking about the westerners and the Crusades and their destruction in the Middle east.

Why you addressed it to me, then?

Did you not notice that thing called a "smiley" at the end of my comment that seemed to have set something off in you?

And someone in your distant past MAY have had something to do with the crusades... the ended a pretty long ass time before you ever existed man. Hell, depending on where you live your COUNTRY probably didn't exist way the hell back them.

Oh shut up. Don't embarass yourselves more by making more assumptions.

No one in my distant past had anything to do with crusades.

Ok no civilisation ever gave another anything.It was a transfer of technology and ideas across cultures and peoples.

yep and europe can collectively thank the medieval muslims and the crusaders for the west's progress in a way, strange how crusaders were sent out to cleanse and some just some came back with enough knowledge to kick the legacy of the dark ages into touch

i was just opining why we seem to be so different(we with serious reservations)that the islamic religion is stuck in a cycle of violence,when christians..et al...moved beyond it 5 centuries ago?

are you implying that islam is still in the 14th century?<snip>

whats your point?we should accept bloody murder and vile acts of inhumanity,so islam can catch up?


Your problem is you are viewing Islam as a monolithic entity. Not all sects are obscurantist and certainly not all muslims are so.

yep and europe can collectively thank the medieval muslims and the crusaders for the west's progress in a way, strange how crusaders were sent out to cleanse and some just some came back with enough knowledge to kick the legacy of the dark ages into touch
Not to mention far eastern and indian ideas and technology helping the arabic world form their views and culture.

Medieval Islamic empire threw up lots of inventions and ideas not because of only Islam. It was primarily because it was in the middle and could get inputs from South Asia, North Africa and Byzantine Europe etc, all of which it was at war with.

It inherited the pre-existing knowledge of the Greece, Persia, ancient Middle east (which it conquered), and it added to them innovations from outside areas with which it was at contact with (paper from China and decimal positional numbering from India). The decimal numbers were thus transmitted to the West, where they are still mistakenly known as "Arabic" numbers, honoring not their inventors but their transmitters.

Popular thinkers in Islamic empire of that era were borderline heretics (and some were indeed heretical) and many were from the conquered parts of Persia (Al-Kindi, al-Farabi, and Ibn Sina/Avicenna etc), Egypt. Farabi said that reason is superior to revelation. He would be lynched in Iran if he were to say that today.

This "golden age of Islam" is due to an accident of geography and not due to Islam alone because it can be clearly established that the Islamic empire declined due to the dogmatism of Islam setting over and the clamping down on mysticism and heretical thinkers (following the fall of Baghdad, the failures in conquests of Europe and India).

Given yesterdays attack on the Shia shrine in Samarra yesterday and the insuing violence are the terrorists finaly turning on themselves.A case prehaps of the animals killing each other or is there something more sinister happening here such as an outside attact designed at starting an internal conflict within the insurgency?
Not all Muslims are terrorists, and Shia vs Sunni sectarian violence is not a new thing.

The sunni hate the shiit and some sunni radicals want a civil war, hence the bombing. Its not terrorists turning on each other... Lucky for us Grand Ayatolla Ali al-Sistani is there, hes the only one stopping the shiit from hitting back and making a real mess other there for us.
:eek: :mp5: