|
Up to 200 killed in Baghdad bombs (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ResonantDrag |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
I am really begening to think Firestarter really belives all this that has says on this board.Like , are you that brainwashed that you cant even admit that this Iraq war is a in lost cause? |
There's a difference between admitting that the US has no business (sorry about the pun) being in Iraq and advocating abandoning Iraq to whatever total chaos would ensue without a military presence.
Yes, there's not going to be any progress in Iraq until we have competent leadership that can recognize obvious problems (ie. why Iraq security forces get 6 months on, 6 months off while our troops get 2 weeks off a year). i just don't think the next elections will come soon enough to prevent Bush from further ing our country and the middle east. If we could somehow make him sit in office and not touch anything, no more harm can come. |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
^^^^
edit: my bad, our troops are now on 15 month rotations. Go Dubya! |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by ResonantDrag
There's a difference between admitting that the US has no business (sorry about the pun) being in Iraq and advocating abandoning Iraq to whatever total chaos would ensue without a military presence.
|
*ding*
(thanks ResonantDrag)
Are the light bulbs going on over there now hardcore trancer? |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Alright, according to you guys then (neo-cons and occupational supporters), its OK that hundred+ innocent Iraqi civilians are killed every day. And according to you, we should leave things the way they are because these people's lives matter little because you think the current regime is the best solution to the appalling disaster in Iraq, both cultural and political. So whats the plan for solving the growing political crisis in Iraq? You guys are that naive to believe things in Iraq will not be getting worse as long as Americans are running the country? I am not saying we should just give a dictator another reign of power. Someone else, one of the powerful clerics Americans should reach after to bring together a better plan that is backed by more than just a puppet regime that can't do anything on its own. A compromise of sorts - democracy to Iraq, but fundamental/religious platform of the cleric or something like that. There are powerful groups in Iraq that I am sure would be interested. But US has other plans. |
|
|
| WM2 |
International politics isn't about one person or even 100 people. It's about entire nations. Excuse me for sounding pretty cold hearted here, but what's 100 lives when we have 7 billion more as a species? If any government needed to care it's the one in Iraq and they can't see past their differences in foot washing and so forth to care that their people are doing this to each other. What makes anyone else think another government is going to care if it's not their people? The entire idea of government is to keep certain people in power at all costs, and the current debacle just happens to be a "cost" as far as those in power are concerned.
It's a very rare thing indeed when a leader(s) comes along that genuinely serves their people. Iraq's only hope at this point is that a leader like that comes along and people begin to genuinely care for the good of their people regardless of who they are or happens with our military. The violence will continue whether we stay or go until enough decent people in Iraq start to realize it's up to them to stop it.
The same can be said about all the screwed up going on here and anywhere else in the world. There are some problems like Darfur that are kind of hopeless at this point. Iraq is not one of them, yet. It's pretty close though. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
Jesus Christ, cut the "savage sand******s don't even know how to live with one another" crap already. You guys are so ing ignorant and eager to eat up media propaganda it's amazing. Not you WM2, you're cool, so my brutal honesty isn't directed at you. Here's something I posted earlier:
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
So I orginally posted this here, but yesterday ended up deleting a whole bunch of my post and threads. Don't ask why. All I'm going to say is that I'm seriosuly considering leaving this place for good. Luckily, there's still a copy of this in a thread by Opus. So I'm posting it here once again:
What I find interesting is the fact that all this sectarian violence didn't really start or atleast escalate (and was close to non-existant) before the burial site of Imam Hussein, his family, tribe, and companions was supposedly blown up by some crazy Sunnis according to the mainstream media (after the Iraq invasion began). It makes absolutely no sense for any sect, regardless of how fanatical and insane, to do that. Let me explain why by giving you a brief history of the Shia Sunni divide.
When Muhammad was near his dead, he expressed his wish and will of Ali, the first young male converts to Islam, a close campanion, cousin, and son-in-law, to be his successor (Caliph i.e spiritual leader of the Muslim world). Now Umar ibn al-Khattāb, who was a prominent and powerful tribe leader before he converted to Islam (and also an important leitenant), didn't want this. He claimed that Muhammad was too old and ill for his decision (and will), of Ali being his succesor, to be taken seriously.
[Backround knowledge:
Muhammad's father died six months after his birth and his mother when he was only six years old. He was taken in and looked after by his uncle Abu Talib, the leader of the Hashim clan of the Quraish tribe, the most powerful in Mecca. He started preaching Islam while he was still alive but was left alone becuase of who his Uncle was, a feared and respeceted tribe leader of the most powerful clan of the Quraish tribe. Muhammad and early convert to Islam had to migrate from Mekkah to Medina in the early days of Islam due to ever increasing and severe presecution. It got to the point where torture, muredering new converts to Islam (who were mostly slaves and the poor), and assanination attempts on Muhammad by the pagan tribes of Mekkah became common place. What you have to know to make sense of this is the fact that paganism, tribal conflict (which usually didn't end for generations once started), slavery, burial of new born daughters, the status of women as mere property, theft, murder, and hedonistic excess was common in pre-Islamic Arabia. Mekkah, before Islam, was a center of pagan worship, as it contained the sacred well of Zamzam and a small ancient temple, the Ka'aba. The Ka'aba was filled with pagan idols at that point. All sorts of pagan ritutals, worship, sex orgies, sacrafice, and other pagan activity took place there. A hand full of few power tribes known as Banu Quraish owned the Kabbah, which at that point was a center of paganism. Pagan pilgirims from all over the Arab world came there to worship who payed large sums of money to them to be able to gain access to the Ka'aba. Their wealth, status, and power largely depended on the status quo, which was total paganism. Muhammad's preaching of the belief in one God and Islamic values was a threat to all of it. Muslims were heavily persecuted in early Islamic history and basically had to constantly be on the run from persecution and annihalation in order to practice their religion freely.
...skip a bunch...
Later when Islam spread and Muhammad returned to Mekkah, he destroyed all of the idols in the Ka'aba and it became the most holy mosque in Islam, in the direction of which Muslims face when they pray. And it became the center of Muslim pilgramidge.
In order to make things a little easier to follow for late and reference, these are some subclans of Banu Quraish:
- Banu Abd al-Manaf — sub-clan of Quraish
- Banu Hashim — sub-clan of Banu Abd Manaf, clan of Muhammad and Ali.
- Banu Taim — sub-clan of Quraish, clan of Abu Bakr (somtimes confused with Banu Tamim)
- Banu Adi — sub-clan of Quraish, clan of Umar ibn al-Khattab
- Banu Asad — sub-clan of Quraish, clan of Abd-Allah ibn al-Zubayr and Khadijah ]
After Muhammad's death, the differences that had previously lain dormant amongst the Meccan immigrants (the Muhajirun) and the Medinan converts (the Ansar), threatened to break out and split the Ummah (Muslim Nation). This sparked great controversy over who should be Muhammad's successor. Umar apparently lost it (wheater genuine or disingenuos) and became hysterical when Muhammad passed away, delaying the decision making process that would have in most probability ended up with Ali being selected as first Calioh. This (conveniently) lasted until his buddy Abu Bakar (another big shot) returned from some business trip or something. There was a huge controversy over who should become Caliph. Umar apparently lost it when Muhammad died and refused to allow his barial. He became hysterical (wheater genuine or disingenuos), delaying the decision making process that would have in most probability ended up with Ali being selected as first Caliph. This (conveniently) lasted until his buddy Abu Bakar (another big shot before converting to Islam) returned from some business trip or something.
The Ansar met in Medina to discuss whom they would support as their new leader. When Abu Bakr was informed of the meeting, he, Umar and a few others rushed to prevent the Ansar from making a "premature decision." During the meeting Umar declared that Abu Bakr should be the new leader, and declared his allegiance to Abu Bakr. After the meeting at Saqifah, the Muslims who were not present had to be informed of the decision taken by the group. Many of them refused to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr, as did Ali, as they (rightly) believed (in accordance with the Prophet's will) that Ali, was the obvious choice for leader. They became to be known as the Shi'at Ali (the party of Ali) by their enemies. It took six months of threat and pressure to force the refusers to submit to Abu Bakr. Umar roamed the streets of Medina with his warriors to coerce people into submission. Being a hothead, he even threatened to burn down Fatima's house (the Prophet's daughter and Ali's wife) unless Ali came out and submitted to Abu Bakr. Ali refused and requested his privacy to be respected. Umar pushed his way into the house. Fatima, who was heavily pregnant, and trying to prevent Umar from breaking in, was crushed behind the door. She miscarried her unborn son.
At one point, there was even a civil war. Eventually Ali reluctantly gave in to prevent Muslims loyal to him and the Prophets will from being persecuted, and to not detroy the unity of the Ummah right after the Prophet passed away, pretty messed up state of affairs. So Abu Bakr became first Caliph, succeeded by Umar as second Caliph, Uthman as third, and finally Ali as forth. But Ali's caliphate only lasted five years, ended with his assasination and then the assaination of his eldest son, Hasan ibn Ali.
So basically, this is what lead to the Shiia Sunni divide, although they didn't call themselves Shiia and Sunni at the time.
Mu‘āwīyah ibn Abī Sufyān, the founder of the Umayyad dynasty of caliphs, engaged in a civil war against Ali and met with considerable military success, including the seizure of Egypt. He assumed the caliphate after Ali's assassination in 661 and reigned until 680.
...skip some more...
His son Yazid succeded him in the line of the Umayyads dynasty of caliphs, who was also fairly tyranical and corrupt. The persecution of Shi'iat al Ali continued. At one point, it became so severe that they were basically being denied water (and it's pretty damn hard to survive in a desert without any). The divide between the two groups was intesified when he was opposed and criticized by the Ali's son, the Prophets grandson, Imam Husayn bin Ali. Yazid responded to criticism with force, killing many of his campanion, family members, and Muslims loyal to him. This started the battle of Karbala (which is in Iraq), where he Imam Husayn was martered, including lots of his friends, followers, and family. Him and his followers were burried there.
The terms Shiia and Sunni as sectarian labels came in to use much later. The Shiias believe Ali to be the rightful successor of Muhammad and Yazid to an illegitimate tyrant responsible for murdering Imam Husayn. The Sunnis, on the other hand, are the passive masses submitting to power and accepting status quo. Sunnis condemn the killing of Imam Husayn, being the Prophets grandson and all, but still recoznige Yazid as a legitimate Caliph and make excuses like "he wasn't responsible for it, his generals were."
...
Anyways, now that you know all that and understand the nature of the Shiia Sunni divide, which is basically political and not really religious, since Islam as a religion was already complete and fully revealed before Muhammad died, it makes absolutely no sense for any Sunni group or splinter sect, no matter how fanatical and crazy, to go desecrate the burial site of the Prophet's grandson. That's fairly sacreligious for them too. I guess it's analagous to Christians, Jews, or Muslims blowing up Jerusalem; not going to happen, it's a holy site to all of them. So my money on whoever was responsible for it are on the CIA/MI-5/6/other intel agency payroll, if not one of the groups themselves; a false flag opertaion to fuel endless sectarian violence, which is what's taking place rightnow. That gives an excuse to keep troops there and build permanent military bases. And it's not like false flag ops are anything new when it comes to how modern states such as Russia/former Soviet Union, the US etc. and their intelligence agencies. Before the Iraq war, no one cared if you were Shiia or Sunni. But now Shiia and Sunnis are getting shot and blown up at check point by militia men for belonging to the wrong sect, given away by their last name (which makes their tribal origin obvious, and hence if they're Shiia or Sunni).
So, I hope that helped shed some light on the issue.
But in case some of you don't know what a flase flag op is:
| quote: | From Wikipedia
False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. |
You can read more about those there. But here's just a few examples of false flag ops in recent history:
1953, Opertaion Ajax (CIA coupe in Iran workring in tandem with MI6):
Overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadeq via multiple staged terrorist attacks on mosques (bombimg) & gunning down civilians, demonstrations, propaganda, and provocations branding Mossadeq as a communist, including a false flag op which where the home of a prominent Sheiks was bombed. The weirdest propanganda operation included handing out phony bills during while the choas ensued which read "Up with Mossadeq, Up with communism, Down with Allah." This ofcourse happened after Mossadeq attempted nationalized Iran's oil which British pertoleum wanted to monopolize. Then ofcourse we all know who came into power... that's right, the Shah, who was a brutal dictator with his secret police (SAVAK, again thanks to CIA) and torture chambers etc.
1943 - 1983, Operation Gladio, NATO's "stay behing operation" (funded mostly by CIA, a key figure being in Operation Gladio being the CIA founder Allen Dulles):
This is really an umbrella name for multiple false flag ops in non just Italy, but around the world, including Western Europe, Latin America, and Asia, which was blamed on the communists during the 'Red Scare.' The target where mostly civilian and public areas, including trains, bubes, schools, school buses etc. A particularly bloody incident was the Bologna Massacre in Italy on August 2nd, 1980 after which some Italian official broke their silence about it.
I'm sure many of you already know about he Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 where an American destroyer was attacked. Well, phone conversation tapes between President Lyndon Johnson and Defence Secretary Robert McNamara realeased by LBJ Presidential Library in 2001 reveal how they were openly discussing using it to expand the War in Vietman after which congress authorized the Tonkin Resolution. In 2005 the NSA declassified it's official history on the Gulf of Tonkin incident which revealed how CIA and intelligence agency officers deliberately falsified intel blaming Vietnamese partol boats for attacking the ship when in reality the didn't eventhough they where being fired on by US forces.
October 6th, 1976 Cuban Flight 455 (passanger airliner planted with C4): Declassified CIA document reveal that the bombers of the flight were given US visas days before the bombing and were employed by guess who. Luis Posada Carriles, who was involved in the bombing, was a CIA agent.
Those are the only ones that come to mind at the moment, but I'm sure you guys can dig up numerous more examples.
Anyways, point is, false flag ops are standard procedure so I seriously doubt it wasn't a false flag op, as it makes absolutely no sense for any group, no matter how fanatical and extereme, to decesrate the Prophets grandson's and companions graves and bomb the mosque. No, I obviously can't prove this. Neigther were any of those examples known or proveable until years (more like decades) after when internal documents were declassified.
EDIT: One decalssified document that some of you should be familiar with by now, Operation Northwoods discusses in great detail of conducting false flag ops in order to go to was with Cuba. Here's some of the content listed on wikipedia:
| quote: | The suggestions included:
- Starting rumors about Cuba by using clandestine radios.
- Staging mock attacks, sabotages and riots at Guantanamo Bay and blaming it on Cuban forces.
- Firebombing and sinking an American ship at the Guantanamo Bay American military base — reminiscent of the USS Maine incident at Havana in 1898, which started the Spanish-American War — or destroy American aircraft and blame it on Cuban forces. (The document's first suggestion regarding the sinking of a U.S. ship is to blow up a manned ship and hence would result in U.S. Navy members being killed, with a secondary suggestion of possibly using unmanned drones and fake funerals instead.)
- "Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type [sic] planes would be useful as complementary actions."
- Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
- Staging a "terror campaign", including the "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees
- "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute sic to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized."
- Burning crops by dropping incendiary devices in Haiti, Dominican Republic or elsewhere.
James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his Body of Secrets thus:
“Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."
|
Guess why this didn't take place or go through, Kennedy objected and didn't allow it. |
tranceaddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > Sunni's Vs. Shiite's |
|
|
| star-traveller |
The pities thing is that everybody suddenly got crazy about some guy who shot a bunch of people at the university. When I say everybody, I mean everybody, almost all news media.
But when 200 people just got died in some distance place like Iraq, nobody really gives a on that. Nobody asks any questions, like it should be going in this way all time.
I find it sick. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| You're right, it is sick. It reflects the biases most people have. Obiously they don't think Arab blood is worth as much. Can you say "hypocrite?" |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Jesus Christ, cut the "savage sand******s don't even know how to live with one another" crap already. You guys are so ing ignorant and eager to eat up media propaganda it's amazing. Not you WM2, you're cool, so my brutal honesty isn't directed at you. Here's something I posted earlier:
You can read more about those there. But here's just a few examples of false flag ops in recent history:
|
I don't have time to read that whole thing you posted, but are you suggesting that the CIA is behind Muslims killing each other? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
If the American forces withdraw you can bet your ass another brutal dictator will rise to power in that country. |
Because all the predictions by the war-supporters have been, uhh, so correct up to now?
| quote: | | If we leave do you really think that people who are blowing themselves up in markets and killing civilians are going to sit down at a table and make nice and draw up a constitutional government? I think not. |
You might be right, because all the predictions by the war-supporters have been, uhh, so correct up to now.
| quote: | | Unfortunately we have opened up Pandora's Box in Iraq and I personally feel that no matter what the politicians say we will be there for years to come keeping that country from falling apart. |
You might be right, because all the predictions........
Ahh hell, do you honestly believe we're keeping that country from falling apart? Could you just maybe for once entertain the idea that our presence just might be part of the problem rather than part of the solution? I know such a daring thought completely escapes this ignorant President, but perhaps you might entertain it?
Because I really don't know how the dwindling minority war-supporters do it - what the have you guys been right about so far with this war? Why the should we listen to ANYTHING you are saying? The plan is not a viable plan at all. It's ing insanity, plain and simple. Want some examples? Here, this was a plan to build a wall around the Dora neighborhood in Baghdad to curb the violence back in August:
| quote: | The American and Iraqi armies on Tuesday, August 15, started building a wall around Al-Dora, a neighborhood in southern Baghdad. Soldiers have erected prefabricated concrete walls in order to "prevent terrorists from entering," according to the American army. [...]
The objective is to "clean Baghdad before Ramadan" at the end of September.
http://www.watchingamerica.com/lemonde000096.shtml |
Now recall that wall was built AFTER our little "Operation Forward Together" mission failed badly. Remember that operation?:
http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscent...rm.aspx?ID=3213
Neither do I - because it bit the dust.
Now, did that wall do any good? Of course not. But what do you think we are planning on doing?:
| quote: | A U.S. military brigade is constructing a three-mile-long concrete wall to cut off one of the capital's most restive Sunni Arab districts from the Shiite Muslim neighborhoods that surround it...
The ambitious project is a sign of how far the U.S. military will go to end the non-stop bloodshed in Iraq.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...-home-headlines |
Same verse, same as the first.
And how about all those "success" stories of walls built in Iraq to curb violence?:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2500798_pf.html
http://www.hood.army.mil/3d_acr/doc...edia%20File.pdf
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1103/p01s04-woiq.html
As you can clearly tell, these wall stories have been SOOO successful in curbing the violence, haven't they?
And YOU guys have the gall the continue making predictions as if everyone should be listening. Got it.
And in McClatchy Newspaper this morning, the whole idea of training the Iraqi troops and "when Iraqi stands up we'll stand down" line is complete bull:
| quote: | Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.
Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration's Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said.
. . . Pentagon officials said they know of no new training resources that have been included in U.S. plans to dispatch 28,000 additional troops to Iraq. . . .
. . . U.S. officials don't say that the training formula - championed by Gen. John Abizaid when he was the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and by Gen. George Casey when he was the top U.S. general in Iraq - was doomed from the start. But they said that rising sectarian violence and the inability of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki to unite the country changed the conditions.
. . . President Bush first announced the training strategy in the summer of 2005.
"Our strategy can be summed up this way," Bush said. "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."
Military leaders in Baghdad planned to train 325,000 Iraqi security forces. Once that was accomplished, those forces were to take control. Casey created military transition teams that would live side by side with their Iraqi counterparts to help them apply their training to real-world situations.
Throughout 2006, Casey and top Bush administration leaders touted the training as a success, asserting that eight of Iraq's 10 divisions had taken the lead in confronting insurgents.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17104704.htm |
Let's be clear on this: we don't give a about training the Iraqis right now. That was our viable plan to calm down the violence and for us to get the hell out.
It's gone.
We are the occupiers. This hornet's nest is being created by us. Our presence has not in any way quelled the violence over the past 4 years one bit. So now we're to believe that we need to stay there, continue watching 60-80 Iraqis getting killed daily, our troops getting picked off one by one daily, all because despite everything you war-supporters have predicted thus far, all of the sudden you've got the RIGHT strategy, which by the way IS THE SAME ING STRATEGY YOU'VE HAD FROM THE GET-GO?
No thanks, I'll pass. |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Alright, according to you guys then (neo-cons and occupational supporters), its OK that hundred+ innocent Iraqi civilians are killed every day. And according to you, we should leave things the way they are because these people's lives matter little because you think the current regime is the best solution to the appalling disaster in Iraq, both cultural and political. So whats the plan for solving the growing political crisis in Iraq? You guys are that naive to believe things in Iraq will not be getting worse as long as Americans are running the country? |
i'm not a supporter of leaving things as they are, i just don't feel that the current administration is capable of the leadership necessary to make Iraq a self-sufficient nation.
Currently, the Iraqi army outnumbers what the US has in Iraq. But on active rotation, the US outnumbers Iraqs. That tells me that the US troops are expected to be more dedicated to the security of that country than Iraq's own nationals. How's that for supporting our troops?
There is no national identity in that country, only religious identity. Sunni and Kurds are not going to be happy with any Shia government and a democracy is going to represent the Shia being as they account for 75% of the population. The only way a democratic formula can be applied there is if there are strong regional governments with a weaker central government that respects the application of law in the district providences. This produces a dilemma in that the military will have to be centralized to prevent the states warring with each other, but a centralized military will be mainly shia and not respected by any other faction.. not to mention the possibility that the shia dominated military would start their own ethnic cleansing campaign (as already seen with their militias).
Can you start to see the problems produced by our Yosemite uncle Sam administration? now, if we were to withdraw now, with no guarantees that the IDM can regain control in Iraq's current civil war, would the frequency of attacks in Iraq diminish or increase?
| quote: |
Someone else, one of the powerful clerics Americans should reach after to bring together a better plan that is backed by more than just a puppet regime that can't do anything on its own. A compromise of sorts - democracy to Iraq, but fundamental/religious platform of the cleric or something like that. There are powerful groups in Iraq that I am sure would be interested. But US has other plans. |
The powerful cleric theory has the exact same problems as the democracy theory when representation is applied. unless we're willing to see the sunni and kurds left to whatever fate Allah sees fit, we cannot in good conscience presently leave Iraq.
The problem is further compounded when you consider that close to everyone that was in that country with common sense has already left, leaving an abnormally large proportion of Jihad screaming radicals who have no interest in the fate of their homeland so long as the foreign occupiers are in charge.
Unless we can either find or train a Ghandi-styled leader for Iraq, there's not much hope to unite that population under one flag. And even if one such leader can be found, they'll still be people screaming "puppet government!" because any formula for stability in Iraq outside of a new dictatorship will have to be developed outside of Iraq. |
|
|
| star-traveller |
But instead of that they are building a wall like Nazi in Jewish ghetto.
| quote: | U.S. forces erect wall between Shiites, Sunnis
U.S. forces erect wall between Shiites, Sunnis
Three-mile barrier will divide Baghdad groups torn by sectarian hate
Updated: 6:32 a.m. ET April 20, 2007
BAGHDAD - U.S. soldiers are building a three-mile wall to protect a Sunni Arab enclave surrounded by Shiite neighborhoods in a Baghdad area “trapped in a spiral of sectarian violence and retaliation,” the military said.
When the wall is finished, the minority Sunni community of Azamiyah, located on the eastern side of the Tigris River, will be completely gated, and traffic control points manned by Iraqi soldiers will provide the only means to enter it, the military said.
“Shiites are coming in and hitting Sunnis, and Sunnis are retaliating across the street,” said Capt. Scott McLearn, of the U.S. 407th Brigade Support Battalion, which began the project April 10 and is working “almost nightly until the wall is complete,” the statement said.
It said the concrete wall, including barriers as tall as 12 feet, “is one of the centerpieces of a new strategy by coalition and Iraqi forces to break the cycle of sectarian violence” in Baghdad.
U.S. and Iraqi forces have long erected cement barriers around marketplaces and coalition bases and outposts in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities such as Ramadi in an effort to prevent attacks, including suicide car bombs.
American forces also have constructed huge sand barriers around towns such as Tal Afar, an insurgent stronghold near the Syrian border, to limit access to them.
'Gated communities'
The Wall Street Journal reported on April 5 that U.S. forces in the mostly Sunni area of Dora in southern Baghdad had erected massive concrete barriers to separate Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods in an effort to stop widespread sectarian violence there.
And Britain’s Independent newspaper reported April 11 that U.S. forces are planning a counterinsurgency operation that would seal off large areas of Baghdad, using barricades to create “gated communities” that could only be entered with newly issued ID cards.
Currently, the U.S. strategy for stabilizing Iraq involves getting Iraqis to reconcile and support the democratically elected Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad, and a security plan in the capital that calls for 28,000 additional American troops and thousands of Iraqi soldiers.
U.S. Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the top spokesman for coalition forces in Iraq, was quoted as saying Wednesday that he was unaware of any effort to build a wall dividing Shiite and Sunni enclaves in Baghdad and that such a tactic was not a policy of the Baghdad security plan.
“We have no intent to build gated communities in Baghdad,” Stars and Stripes, the U.S. Department of Defense-authorized daily newspaper, quoted Caldwell as saying. “Our goal is to unify Baghdad, not subdivide it into separate (enclaves).” |
U.S. forces erect wall between Shiites, Sunnis
Is George W. Bush following a political course of Adolf Hitler? |
|
|
|
|
