Current Events: Is this significant?

[st.cronin]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2053168,00.html

"Today's attack on al-Askariya shrine marks the first time that Iraqi sectarian violence has targeted one of the country's central religious symbols."

What does this mean for radical Islam? Does this indicate that there is deep schism within Islam? Or does this say something about how primitive and irrational the violence in Iraq is? Or does it mean nothing at all?

[flere-imsaho]

It means that when I said Iraq would devolve into a sectarian Civil War, I was right. ;)

[st.cronin]

It means that when I said Iraq would devolve into a sectarian Civil War, I was right. ;)

Can you say more about how this specific incident proves that, and how? I'm really curious about this.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm was kind of being tongue-in-cheek, to be honest, hence the smiley. The only thing I'd seriously claim is that all this shows is that sectarian violence is alive and well in Iraq and that my initial prediction of Iraq going the way of civil war still seems a reasonably likely outcome.

[JPhillips]

What's more troubling is the dozens of gun attacks on Sunni's at mosques in the past 24 hours. Add to that a couple of mosque burnings and at least one Imam kidnapping and its clear we're at a cliff here. The next 48 hours are going to be critical in Iraq.

[ISiddiqui]

In addition, I think this tends to show that the 'cartoon violence' was really leaders trying to stir up the people for their own ends. I wouldn't be surprised if this bombing was planned for this time period because of all the stirring up of people made them likely to start going nuts against each other.

[BishopMVP]

Yes, there is a big schism in Islam between Shi'ites (Shia) and Sunni Muslims. It centers around who was the rightful heir to Muhammad back 13 centuries ago. In Iraq, about 60% of the population is Shi'a and centered in the South up to Baghdad. The Sunnis comprise about 20% of the population and are concentrated west of Baghdad towards Syria (which is where most of the violence has been occurring - ie Al-Anbar province, partially because this is where Saddam ans all his loyalists came from.) The remaining 20% is Kurds in the north. Al-Qaeda in Iraq has long been trying to ignite a civil war (check out the captured Zarqawi plan) mostly by attacking Shi'ites but thus far the Shi'ite establishment led by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani have mostly restrained Shi'ites from seeking revenge. There have also been recent reports coming out of Iraq of the ex-Baathist (Sunni Arab) rebels turning against foreign jihadis, possibly due to US $$. If true, it wouldn't surprise me if those foreign terrorists tried even harder to attack Shia religious sites, hoping for a huge reaction which got the Sunni groups back on their side.

[Grunthos]

I'm surprised it took the jihadis this long to pull this kind of stunt. Provoking a vicious sectarian bloodbath is A) easy to do and B) suits their short and long term objectives.

It is possible that they were worried about a reduction in their allotment of virgins for defiling a holy site. :rolleyes:

[BishopMVP]

I'm surprised it took the jihadis this long to pull this kind of stunt. Provoking a vicious sectarian bloodbath is A) easy to do and B) suits their short and long term objectives.They've been going after Shia mosques for a while... the top ones (Najaf/Karbala, followed by this one) are hard to hit because of the security around them. If you're squeamish about what the US did in Abu Ghraib/Guantanamo, you probably don't want to look into what al-Sadr's forces have done to captured foreigners, to use one example.

[rexallllsc]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2053168,00.html

"Today's attack on al-Askariya shrine marks the first time that Iraqi sectarian violence has targeted one of the country's central religious symbols."

What does this mean for radical Islam? Does this indicate that there is deep schism within Islam? Or does this say something about how primitive and irrational the violence in Iraq is? Or does it mean nothing at all?

It's funny, weren't these all concerns when we were invading? The potential civil war (DrudgeReport headline: "Mosque Attack Pushes Iraq Toward Civil War")?

[st.cronin]

I'm surprised it took the jihadis this long to pull this kind of stunt. Provoking a vicious sectarian bloodbath is A) easy to do and B) suits their short and long term objectives.

It is possible that they were worried about a reduction in their allotment of virgins for defiling a holy site. :rolleyes:

Can somebody explain the bolded bit, because I have never understood it that way.

[CamEdwards]

The more radical elements of Islam (including Zarqawi) want to establish an Islamic Caliphate across the Middle East. Zarqawi has called the Shi'a the "the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy, and the penetrating venom." He seeks to drive out U.S. forces from Iraq while at the same time fighting the Shi'a in order to establish that Caliphate.

I heard from a friend who's in Iraq in a civilian capacity today. He says this is indeed a huge story.

[st.cronin]

The more radical elements of Islam (including Zarqawi) want to establish an Islamic Caliphate across the Middle East. Zarqawi has called the Shi'a the "the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy, and the penetrating venom." He seeks to drive out U.S. forces from Iraq while at the same time fighting the Shi'a in order to establish that Caliphate.

I heard from a friend who's in Iraq in a civilian capacity today. He says this is indeed a huge story.

That's been my understanding as well, which is not the same thing as wanting to incite civil war. Also, that article clearly states that the site in question was considered holy by both Shia and Sunni.

[CamEdwards]

That's been my understanding as well, which is not the same thing as wanting to incite civil war. Also, that article clearly states that the site in question was considered holy by both Shia and Sunni.

I don't think the Kurds were involved, and I'm pretty sure this shrine was more important to the Shi'a than the Sunnis. Somebody call in Angela Lansbury... we've got a mystery on our hands!

[rexallllsc]

Al-Qaeda in Iraq has long been trying to ignite a civil war

Don't you think it's a problem w/ or w/o A-Q?

[BishopMVP]

Don't you think it's a problem w/ or w/o A-Q?Yes, but most of the Sunni/ex-Ba'athist elements are hoping to end up splitting the country in a way where they get a share of the oil revenue (kinf of like Kurdistan has de facto become), not antagonize the Shi'a enough to actually ethnically cleanse them. Most of the large civilian bombings directed at either Shi'a or Sunni groups/religious sites have foreigners behind them. Al-Qaeda believes in the event of civil war they will be able to make a new base of operations for themselves near Syria, much like they had set up in Kurdistan before 2003.

The head leaders from all 3 sides don't want a religious war, as evidenced by the Sunni clerics putting up 1.4 million and Talabani an unspecified amount toward the reconstruction of this mosque. They may want to keep a low-level conflict going on so they can use the threat of force as a trump card in negotiations, but realize that any religious war would quickly spin out of their control and do irreperable harm to both the Shia and Sunni sides (the Kurds would just stay up north and try to take control of Kirkuk in the ongoing violence.) For example, al-Sistani and his Sunni counterparts realize that if a tit-for-tat mosque bombing breaks out, it will cut into their revenue from pilgramages and destroy their respective holy sites, which is not productive for the long-term.

As more evidence, consider that this mosque has been in Sunni territory for a thousand years and never bombed or attacked by the Sunnis. It is highly doubtful that it is locals carrying out the attack.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

The more radical elements of Islam (including Zarqawi) want to establish an Islamic Caliphate across the Middle East. Zarqawi has called the Shi'a the "the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy, and the penetrating venom." He seeks to drive out U.S. forces from Iraq while at the same time fighting the Shi'a in order to establish that Caliphate.


I wonder if this sort of thing doesn't also create schism between the foreign jihadis in Iraq and the more secular insurgents. I can see how it's in both the long and short term interests of the jihadis to provoke a general conflict between Sunni and Shia as you note above. It is also in the short term interests of the insurgents, as sectarian violence will make it difficult for the new Iraqi government to succeed. But I'm not convinced that it is in the long term interest of the insurgents, as they are outnumbered in Iraq 2-1 by the Shia and a broad civil war may very well end with them getting their asses handed to them...

edit: BMVP is saying something similar in the previous post, and I agree...

[st.cronin]

I wonder if this sort of thing doesn't also create schism between the foreign jihadis in Iraq and the more secular insurgents. I can see how it's in both the long and short term interests of the jihadis to provoke a general conflict between Sunni and Shia as you note above. It is also in the short term interests of the insurgents, as sectarian violence will make it difficult for the new Iraqi government to succeed. But I'm not convinced that it is in the long term interest of the insurgents, as they are outnumbered in Iraq 2-1 by the Shia and a broad civil war may very well end with them getting their asses handed to them...

WILL SOMEBODY WHO BELIEVES THIS PLEASE EXPLAIN IT!!!!

This assertion makes NO sense to me yet people continue to say it.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

WILL SOMEBODY WHO BELIEVES THIS PLEASE EXPLAIN IT!!!!

This assertion makes NO sense to me yet people continue to say it.

The simplest way to look at it, I think, is simply that Al-Qaeda in Iraq doesn't give a crap how Iraq ends up. They just want to see the biggest train-wreck possible. It would be hard to beat a sectarian civil war as far as that goes. The local insurgents have to live there after it's over. They want the U.S. out, and probably regional independence, but I'm not sure they're on board for a major blood bath after that... But it's hard to say as there isn't, to my knowledge, any organized political side to the insurgency articulating their positions...

[st.cronin]

The simplest way to look at it, I think, is simply that Al-Qaeda in Iraq doesn't give a crap how Iraq ends up. They just want to see the biggest train-wreck possible. It would be hard to beat a sectarian civil war as far as that goes. The local insurgents have to live there after it's over. They want the U.S. out, and probably regional independence, but I'm not sure they're on board for a major blood bath after that... But it's hard to say as there isn't, to my knowledge, any organized political side to the insurgency articulating their positions...

I don't agree with all of your premises but that doesn't speak to the jihadists LONG term interests at all.

[BishopMVP]

I don't agree with all of your premises but that doesn't speak to the jihadists LONG term interests at all.Osama believes they can accomplish their long-term goals (primarily overthrow of the al-Saud dynasty) if they can just get the US out of the region. So provoke a civil war in Iraq and there will be enough US casualties to chase the decadent Americans back home, just as in Beirut and Somalia. All those Iraqi deaths? They should be happy to be martyred for the greater cause.

[BishopMVP]

WILL SOMEBODY WHO BELIEVES THIS PLEASE EXPLAIN IT!!!!

This assertion makes NO sense to me yet people continue to say it.Dola, maybe al-Zarqawi gives a better explanation

4. The Shi`a

These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in [their] religious, political, and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies . and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger and annihilating death at the hands of these Sabeans. Despite their weakness and fragmentation, the Sunnis are the sharpest blades, the most determined, and the most loyal when they meet those Batinis (Shi`a), who are a people of treachery and cowardice. They are arrogant only with the weak and can attack only the broken-winged. Most of the Sunnis are aware of the danger of these people, watch their sides, and fear the consequences of empowering them. Were it not for the enfeebled Sufi shaykhs and [Muslim] Brothers, people would have told a different tale.There's a lot more in the full translation. hxxp://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/02/040212-al-zarqawi.htm

[MrBigglesworth]

The simplest way to look at it, I think, is simply that Al-Qaeda in Iraq doesn't give a crap how Iraq ends up.
I don't agree with that. I think that just buys into the whole "Al Qaeda is nothing but bloodthirsty savages" propaganda. If you are saying like Bishop says taht they want the US out, and to that degree are willing to screw Iraq up as much as possible to get us out, then I may agree with you.

[flere-imsaho]

WILL SOMEBODY WHO BELIEVES THIS PLEASE EXPLAIN IT!!!!

Short Term: U.S. eventually leaves, Al Qaeda able to act with even more impunity in Iraq.

Long Term: In resulting sectarian civil war, Al Qaeda support (overt/covert, military/financial, etc...) selected powers in Iraq. When the dust settles, hopefully (for Al Qaeda) Iraq is ruled by like-minded Sunni leaders who are effectively in Al Qaeda's pockets.


Ironically, the long term goal is straight out of the U.S. 20th Century Foreign Policy Playbook, which probably isn't a surprise, given that we trained Osama bin Laden & Co. for exactly this purpose.

[BishopMVP]

Ironically, the long term goal is straight out of the U.S. 20th Century Foreign Policy Playbook, which probably isn't a surprise, given that we trained Osama bin Laden & Co. for exactly this purpose.& Co, possibly, depending on who exactly you're talking about at the time, but Osama himself? No. He was viewed by the mujahideen in Lahore as a vainglorious pussy good only for his connections to Saudi money.

Anyone interested in how our foreign policy works/specifically worked regarding the mujahideen in Afghanistan should check out a book called Charlie Wilson's War. All about how basically one outlandish Texas Congressman and a semi-rogue CIA agent were behind almost all of our help for the first 7-8 years there. Great book, interesting, informative and entertaining.

On a bad/(good?) note regarding the situation in Iraq, most of the reprisal attacks seem to have been done by the al-Mahdi militia under Moqtada Sadr's (Iran's agent) control around the Sadr city slum.

[BishopMVP]

Taken from hxxp://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ a Sunni living in Baghdad.A couple of insurgent groups with ties to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, notably the Mujahideen Council, have denied any responsibility of the Samarra attack. This leads us to wonder, if the Sunni groups have been planning to start a civil war all along, as many analysts have claimed, why are they so silent now? Where is Zarqawi?

...
The timing of this incident is very ominous. Just as pressure was being mounted on the UIA to form a more inclusive government, and to disband its sectarian militias, we have this. I normally don’t resort to conspiracy theories, and I don’t like the ‘Who gets to benefit from this?’ explanations. People often commit stupid actions for stupid reasons, and lashing out in violence is also a very human reaction. But still, the extent and the spontaneity of the violence are deeply troubling.

Eyewitnesses and relatives from Samarra claim that American and Iraqi Interior ministry forces blocked the main street leading to the shrine at 9 pm on the night preceding the blast. It was opened again at dawn Wednesday and the troops pulled out of the area. The two blasts occurred at 6:40 and 6:45 am according to residents, while the official statement from Interior minister, Baqir Solagh has them around 7:50 and 8 am. The details on the operation are also very vague. Some sources say there was a force of 35 guards in the shrine, but there were only 4 or 5 that morning. The number of attackers has fluctuated between 4 and 15 armed men, one of them dressed in military uniform and the rest in black. PM Ja’fari mentioned yesterday that preliminary investigations pointed to ‘infiltration’ of the police, but he has not given any further details since. No word on the 10 suspects that were supposed to have been arrested yesterday either.

Another eyewitness from Samarra, who wrote to the Iraqi Rabita website, claims that 2 Iranians were arrested yesterday, and that the Al-Arabiya channel crew had filmed them. The Iranians were released when Solagh arrived at the scene. The Al-Arabiya crew was near Al-Dor, north of Samarra, surrounded by a crowd of locals, when a vehicle stopped and someone shouted: “We want the anchor,” and fired a couple of shots in the air to disperse the crowd. The Al-Arabiya anchor, Atwaar Bahjat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwar_Bahjat) (a very well known Iraqi journalist originally from Samarra), screamed for help but the team took her and the two cameramen. Their bullet-ridden corpses appeared this morning at the outskirts of Samarra; their footage tapes were confiscated. I'm sure I'll never see any evidence for certain, but I'll go out and say it anyway. I think Iran, through its agent Moqtada Sadr, is behind the attack, both out of concern that the Sunnis and Kurds were about to ally with some smaller shia political groups and form a government and as to draw attention away from its own nuclear program before its goes in front of the Security Council. If 4 or more of our carrier groups start appearing in the Indian Ocean, load up on the oil futures and look out.

[IwasHere]

Please do not leave Iran out of the picture. You know they have to be drooling at the mouth over this.



With their nuclear program underway they would be one of the first inline to swallow up Iraq's assets.