| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Sunni leader sez US occupation is the reason for al-Qaeda attacks |
| 2006-01-11 |
| A Sunni Arab politician denounced a homicide bomb attack on a Shiite mosque that killed at least 60 people but blamed the violence in Iraq on the country's occupation by U.S. troops. Harith al-Ubaidi of the Iraqi Accordance Front said Sunnis were "hand in hand" with Shiites against last week's attack in Karbala, south of Baghdad. His remarks were significant because the Iraqi Accordance Front is the main Sunni coalition that is negotiating with Shiites and Kurds over a coalition government. "We also demand that the occupier get out, because he is the reason behind every crime," al-Ubaidi said. "If the occupier would leave, Iraqis would live as brothers." He spoke at the Umm al-Qura mosque, Baghdad headquarters of the Association of Muslim Scholars, a Sunni clerical group that is believed to have ties to some insurgent groups. The sermon was followed by a demonstration against a U.S. raid on the mosque over the weekend. Hundreds of worshippers took part in the protest. The mosque is in the al-Adel neighborhood, one of Baghdad's roughest and the same area where American journalist Jill Carroll, a 28-year-old freelancer for The Christian Science Monitor, was kidnapped on Saturday. A U.S. military official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation, said the raid was a necessary immediate response to the kidnapping based on a tip provided by an Iraqi citizen. The military said Sunday that six people were detained. No other details were released. No group has claimed responsibility for abducting Carroll. At dawn Tuesday, mosques in Iraq ushered in the first day of the Islamic festival of Eid al-Adha. There were no reports of violence as of midday Tuesday. Many Shiites visit the holy city of Najaf during Eid al-Adha, but this year some said the trip was too dangerous. "In spite of the happiness of Eid, we feel very sad that we are not able to visit the holy shrines and the cemeteries because of the deteriorated security situation," said Khadimiya Abbas, 55, a housewife living in eastern Baghdad. Two insurgents planting a roadside bomb in Samarra were killed Monday when it detonated prematurely, and in two separate incidents in Samarra, U.S. soldiers killed two gunmen that fired on patrols, the military said Tuesday. Also Monday, two homicide bombers disguised as police infiltrated the heavily fortified Interior Ministry compound in Baghdad and blew themselves up during celebrations of National Police Day, killing 29 Iraqis. The attackers died before getting near the U.S. ambassador and senior Iraqi officials at the festivities, but the blasts capped a particularly deadly week for American and Iraqi forces. An Internet site known for publishing extremist material from Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi carried a claim of responsibility for Monday's homicide attack, saying it was in revenge for the torture of Sunni Arab prisoners at two detention facilities run by the Shiite-led Interior Ministry. "The lions of Al Qaeda in Iraq were able to conduct a new raid on the Interior Ministry, taking revenge for Allah's religion and the Sunnis, who are being tortured in the ministry's cellars," the statement said. The claim, which could not be independently verified, referred to reports that more than 100 abused prisoners were recently found in the jails — bolstering complaints by Sunni Arabs about the treatment of detainees by Interior Ministry forces. The bombs exploded in quick succession about 1,500 feet from the parade being watched by U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr, Defense Minister Sadoun al-Dulaimi and hundreds of others. None of the officials was hurt and the ceremony was not interrupted, said Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a U.S. military spokesman. He said the explosions "had no impact on the ceremony and did not require anybody to take cover." The first bomber was shot by the police, but his explosives detonated. A second bomber detonated his explosives. One bomber was wearing the uniform of an Iraqi police major and the other was dressed as a lieutenant colonel. Both had passes that enabled them to get through checkpoints and into the compound. At least 29 people were killed and 18 wounded, mostly policemen, said Ala'a Abid Ali, an official at al-Kindi hospital. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #22 I see it as the agents of a murderous Islamofascist faction/ideology killing innocent people. So which "Islamofascist faction/ideology killing innocent people" is it, Aris? Sunni? You know, those guys who fly fully loaded passenger airliners into occupied skyscrapers. Or Shiite? Those delightful folks who want to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth." If Iraq's own citizens had put up more of a fuss about Ahmadinejad's genocidal Holocaust-denying rhetoric I might feel a little more sorry for them. I might even be willing to adopt your particular way of thinking about "victim and victimizer." Unfortunately, too many of the Middle East Islamic players are barbarous savages with ZERO respect for human life. Be they Iranian, Iraqi, Saudi, Yemeni ... etc. I firmly believe this is a matter of how "Muslims slaughter each other." Just as I believe that this is a golden object lesson of what awaits the outside world once the internecine squabbling is over. We've already gone over the disparity betweeen European and American vision with respect to moral high ground. America is in Iraq, at least partly, to prevent further slaughter of Shiites (let alone Americans at home, too). We would rather bear the onus of causing collateral damage averting regional disaster than to sit back, take no action at all and putatively maintain any sense of blamelessness. That is the essential difference in terms of pragmatic versus idealistic solution orientation. I do hope that you remember this previous discussion, Aris. To repeat in detail; Even the horrendous spilling of American blood has been worth it if the world finally realizes how fecklessly Muslims spill each others' blood. At some point regard for human life will take precedence over those who deny same. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-01-11 23:48 |
| #21 How can one neatly identify victim and victimizer when so many "victims" believe the "victimizers" are justified in their cause? |
| Posted by: jules 2 2006-01-11 23:12 |
| #20 Deacon Blues> As you wish. I think I may just be paying more attention to the ideological usages of rhetoric than you do. "They are killing each other" is a phrase I've heard before from Greeks, in regards to Albanian gangs preying on other Albanian immigrants -- it stank of not bothering to differentiate victim and victimizer back then also. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2006-01-11 20:57 |
| #19 That's not subtle, that's obtuse. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2006-01-11 19:50 |
| #18 Not to change the subject, but (see #4) As I mentioned the other day, we need to stand down our troops for two weeks and let the Iraqis see just how much mayhem would continue unabated. Would that look like the Gaza Strip, maybe? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-01-11 19:48 |
| #17 I did say the difference is subtle Bravo! |
| Posted by: Hupaish Ebbaitle4825 2006-01-11 19:25 |
| #16 the Muslim world being in the midst of a civil war That's subtle. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-01-11 17:10 |
| #15 1) One variety of Muslims killing another variety of Muslims. 2) Muslims killing "each other". I did say the difference is subtle. For me the second sentence treats the two kinds of Muslims as equivalent: the civilians, and the Islamofascists/terrorists that murder them. When people speak of "Muslims killing each other", in my experience they generally (though perhaps not always) tend to use that as a dismissive argument: the whole of the Muslim world being a hopeless case. Rather than (the way I see it): the Muslim world being in the midst of a civil war with a side that should be supported and a side that should be opposed. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2006-01-11 16:57 |
| #14 I do not "get" the subtlety of your point. It is Muslims killing Muslims because they are not the "right" Muslims. No subtelty there. It's not Buddhists killing Muslims. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2006-01-11 16:10 |
| #13 I was too subtle for you, Nimble, as I predicted back in #7. [sarcasm]It's not as if I've spent the last three years decrying the genocidal nature of Islamofascism, afterall.[/sarcasm] |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2006-01-11 16:05 |
| #12 I'm not obligated to respond No, you're not. And that's especially advisable when it's been pointed out what a self-evidently dumb statement you made. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-01-11 15:58 |
| #11 You see these as individuals acting on their own initiative instead of a concerted effort on one Muslim faction to murder innocent people No, you failed to get my point. I don't see it as Muslims killing EACH OTHER, I see it exactly the way you describe it, I see it as the agents of a murderous Islamofascist faction/ideology killing innocent people. Or to put it another way, I don't equate the victim and the victimizer. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2006-01-11 15:56 |
| #10 Aris, when you have literally thousands of these types doing this on orders from their Muslim Leaders it IS Muslims killing other Muslims. Maybe that's the problem. You see these as individuals acting on their own initiative instead of a concerted effort on one Muslim faction to murder innocent people. If these were a few random incidents I would agree but this is not. It is a strategy orchestrated by people who want to have total control over other people. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2006-01-11 15:52 |
| #9 I'm not obligated to respond to ridiculous arguments you randomly try to put in my mouth, Nimble. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2006-01-11 15:35 |
| #8 I see it as one guilty Muslim Just one otherwise normal guy who goes bad because his dad's unemployed, his mom died, the dog ate his homework, and bam, a bit flips and he decides, all by himself, to go to the local Radio Shack and buy a book on how to use his garage door opener to detonate a bomb. Then he goes to the Army/Navy store and buys some surplus 155 mm rounds to hook up to the neato electronics he's designed. Then he hangs around the places where lots of people congregate and picks the time when no one will notice him planting the device. He waits till there are plenty of people around and pushes the button and bang, 100 people deqad. All because of one lone guilty Muslim who simply had a disadvantaged childhood. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-01-11 15:31 |
| #7 When a terrorist explodes a bomb killing a hundred civilians, I don't see that as Muslims "killing each other". I see it as one guilty Muslim killing a hundred innocent ones. The difference may be subtle to some, but I think essential. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2006-01-11 15:12 |
| #6 "I'll repeat; I maintain that, however tragic, the Iraq campaign has been worth it if only to demonstrate for the outside world the glee and abandon with which Muslims slaughter each other." I agree, that's about the only good thing that will come out of the Iraq invasion. The daily reports of suicide bombing are sinking in at some level, and even if the media themselves are too "polite" to join the dots, many viewers/readers will draw their own conclusions about the true nature of Islam. |
| Posted by: Vespa 2006-01-11 13:24 |
| #5 US occupation is the reason for al-Qaeda attacks Glad to see everyone else's Frink-O-Matic™ Bu||shit Meters pegging on this one. Sunni Arabs attempting to re-establish their Baathist regime has nothing to do with this ... but nooooooooooooooo! [/Belushi] As I mentioned the other day, we need to stand down our troops for two weeks and let the Iraqis see just how much mayhem would continue unabated. I doubt that al Qaeda could even restrain themselve for a fortnight in order to gain the propaganda value. These murderers truly enjoy their work. I'll repeat; I maintain that, however tragic, the Iraq campaign has been worth it if only to demonstrate for the outside world the glee and abandon with which Muslims slaughter each other. Anyone who is unable to take a page from this in terms of what awaits the remaining world when Islam begins its real expansion is stuck on stupid. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-01-11 12:38 |
| #4 "If the occupier would leave, Iraqis would live as brothers." Cain and Abel come to mind. In a way, Harith is right - if the US left, the violence should end pretty quickly. As soon as the Shia exterminated the Sunni en masse. With abundant Iranian 'help'. Be careful what you wish vor, Harith, you might get it. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2006-01-11 09:27 |
| #3 But untrained monkeys (i.e. Democrats) would believe it. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2006-01-11 07:28 |
| #2 "If the occupier would leave, Iraqis would live as brothers." patent BS, even trained monkeys are not stupid enough to believe that one even. "He spoke at the Umm al-Qura mosque, Baghdad headquarters of the Association of Muslim Scholars, a Sunni clerical group that is |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2006-01-11 02:06 |
| #1 Islam: the religion of revenge for future wrongs. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-01-11 00:38 |