Sunni-Shi'ite Jihad Update, from CNN:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Gunmen roaming a Baghdad neighborhood on Sunday killed at least 40 unarmed Iraqis as soon as they identified them as Sunnis, emergency police said.
Ala'a Makki, a spokesman for the Iraqi Islamic Party -- Iraq's main Sunni political movement -- said the victims included women and children.
He called the killings in Hay al Jihad "one of the biggest massacres of Sunnis."
Gunmen -- mostly "young reckless teenagers" -- started to pick up Sunni youth and execute them in public, while others went door-to-door looking for Sunni families who stayed behind, Makki said.
After warning one Iraqi woman she had 10 seconds to leave, the gunmen killed her and her children, Makki said.
A member of the Iraqi Islamic Party was dragged out of his house at 7 a.m. and executed, he said.
A witness in the Hay al Jihad neighborhood said he walked outside his home and saw the main street lined with bodies, and the attackers setting fire to homes.
He said residents tried to call the Ministries of Interior and Defense, without success.
Makki blamed the Mehdi militia loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Time will tell if the "Shia Zarqawi" was involved.
The violence continued for eight hours, Makki said, blaming the Ministries of Interior and Defense for not responding, and saying U.S. forces responded too late to stop most of the killings.
The violence in the Baghdad neighborhood follows an insurgent car bomb attack on a Shiite place of prayer in the same neighborhood Saturday night. Police said that assault killed two people and wounded 13 civilians.
On Friday, a car bomb detonated outside a Sunni mosque in the same neighborhood, although the casualty count was not clear.
Makki said after the Shiite mosque was attacked Saturday night, the Mehdi militia warned Sunni residents to leave the neighborhood immediately or face death.
The deadly rampage comes amid the much-touted "Operation Together Forward," launched last month by the Iraqi government to restore security to the streets of Baghdad. That operation involves Iraqi forces, backed by the U.S. military.
Mission Accomplished, yeah right chimpo-boy! All those oppressed Iraqis committing these atrocities are just expressing the universal human desire, given by God of course, for freedom and democracy. Pull out and let them kill each other off!
We need to leave. Let Iraq burn. Harsh, I know, but think about this rationally -- Islam will conflagrate this kind of madness wherever it has the bulk of the people under its control.
The United States and her allies have done enough. Bring them home and let the world watch the Religion of Peace at its worst.
Somalia will fester. Iraq will burn. Afghanistan will be retaken by the Taliban.
Britain will be in a civil war, France will lose its own identity.
But what good will come of this?
The people of the United States will awaken from the coma of mulitcultural insanity and Politically Correct voodoo that we trapped in.
And that just might save the world.
Gee, kids these days. Can't trust 'em to do their homework and wash their ears and get the murdering done right.
It is disguting when yoy read of this senseless killing, and these same Iraqi's have the nerve to blame some US soldiers of killing innocents? Islam again is parroted as the religion of peace.
They have been killing each other for centuries. They are worse than animals, they don't know any better. Let's leave and let them do the only thing that they know how to.
I hear ya, Yojimbo. These kids today, with their hair, their clothes, and their Muqtada al-Sadr!
Nice Sunday drive...
i got the solution, they need more sports and other youth problems so they can channel their aggression into socially acceptable ways. But killing rivals is a socially acceptable way for thses "reckless teenagers". I thought reckless meant playing car chicken or jumping off of cliffs into the sea.
In early June 1941, with support from Berlin, Iraqi nazis seized control. Their supporters unleased a massacre against Baghdad's Jews on the night of Shavuot/Feast of Weeks that lasted two days and claimed 600 lives and countless injured. This atrocity, known to my wife's people as "al farhud," was the beginning of the end for the 2,500 year-old Mesopotamian Jewry. Seven years later and under tremendous threats and pressure, 130,000 people abandoned their homes, farms, businesses, bank accounts, moveable property, and fled to Israel.
Needing to rebuild their lives, these people reconsituted their community, their lives, their business, their families. They integrated into Israeli society, learned Hebrew, and today are a very successful community. They never blew up buses, sought revenge, elected a murderous thug to represent them, or shot missiles into neighboring countries. They never allowed themselves, nor was the opportunity ever presented, to be used cynically as political pawns. They never manipulated the internation media whores to present their tragedy to the larger world. Israel never sought to deprive them of any rights, but fully integrated them, and 700,000 others like them from Muslim countries, into the fabric of its society, often despite huge costs socially and economically and years of struggle.
Now I witness before my eyes an Iraq torn by violence and hatred. In this Iraq, where people are perverted with the idea of the invincibility of their man-made religious dogmas and obsessed with the nonsense of Islamic fanaticism and occlusion, I see a nation devouring itself.
I say my wife's people are better off for leaving.
From Dumbo: "i got the solution, they need more sports ..."
MIDNIGHT SOCCER!!!
Yojimbo:
Yeah, kids like to get into trouble. Some of them drink and smoke pot, some of them form death squads to assassinate people. Kids these days.
More love and joy from the 'religion of peace', eh? See how well they play with each other ...?
Foehammer wrote:
"The people of the United States will awaken from the coma of mulitcultural [sic] insanity and Politically Correct voodoo that we [are] trapped in."
Really? Dream on. It has been almost five years since 9/11. The depredations of the Religion of Peace are described here and on many other Web sites daily. Much of Europe has already been lost.
Surely by now we should have witnessed at least some evidence of recovery from the coma, should we not? Perhaps you could name three or four American politicians who are willing just publically to identify Islam as the enemy. Come on, just three or four out of tens of thousands of American political leaders.
On the other hand, I can name a large number of politicians at the highest levels of government who are working tirelessly to import millions more Muslims into this country and to pander to those already here. I can point, as can you, to domestic organizations that openly call for the conquest of the United States and who work tirelessly to that end.
The war is over; there remain only mopping-up operations, in which the Religion of Peace will engage with gusto.
Oh well, perhaps beheading is less painful when one is comatose. At least people in comas probably won't hear the savage, triumphal cries of Allahu akbar as the knives are drawn across their throats.
DesertDawgN29,
Funny how all the "good folks", who hold Israel responsible for every sin under the sun, always seem to omit little informative historical facts like that.
Yeah, but,- but wait, this kind of thing never happened prior to the Bush invasion right?
Wonder if anyone will be rehearsing that standard party line this week.
Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha!
Young restless teenagers.
This is what happens when you breed hate and then throw more hate into the mix. You get heartless , souless generations of people. And their children will be worse than these if allowed to breed. They love the sight of blood. If this isn't a wake up call to the world that this cult is MADE of this savagery and blind hatred, nothing will.
I'm sure America can be blamed for unleashing this "sectarian" violence somehow.
Wasn't Iraq 'peaceful' under Saddam (excluding the govenment-of-terror, mass-graves, gassing of the Kurds, slaughter of the Marsh Arabs, and a few other minor floutings of Human Rights)?
The U.S. upset the balance and now the unbalanced are running free.
We should have left the Baathist prison state as it was.
Except for its scorning of multiple U.N. resolutions demanding that it destroy its WMD's (500 shellsful of which were found after the war ended, but the media can overlook trivial sarin nerve agent/mustard gas details like that) what was the big problem?
Free Saddam! Re-imprison the Iraqis!
Maybe the anti-Bushies can run on that in November?
Perhaps it will be like Algeria inthe '90's where, after years of a kind of carnival of death, the murderers started to murder each other, even if they were on the same side, and things suddenly went quiet. But then I suppose they had their own military in control, untrammelled by legal or humanitarian considerations, and no external interlopers to blame. The quote I remember most from that Algerian episode was a man - he may have been standing over his dead daughter - saying: "Even the French didn't do anything this bad."
muqtada al sadr should have been disposed of at the start, troublesome little bugger that he is. As long as he's around they'll still be trouble. America should use an Iron fist to these killers.
Apparently "Operation Together Forward" still has a few rough edges to work out...
Now that the inevitable Shiite v Sunni jihad war is on, a question arises:
Q:Is it possible for both parties in a conflict to be aggreived victims of the other?
A:Where there are Moslems involved on both sides, I think yes.
610 * 623 * 732* 1066* 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001
My guess is that Mohammed invented the art of victimism working his mojo right there on Main Street Mecca when he came down from his violent temper rages when folks declined to do what his insisted they do.
The Reverend Al Sharpton, Ellen DeGeneres, and so many other artful practicioners of victimism stand on Mo's shoulders in this matter.
Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, clearing up any ambiguity in previous calls to “wipe Israel off the map,” now used an Arabic word for the removal of body hair to describe his plans for Israel.
“All the conditions for the removal of the Zionist regime are at hand,” Ahmadinejad told an Arab Conference of Iraqi Neighbors meeting Saturday. For the first time, he employed the Arabic word ezaleh, which is used to describe the irreversible removal of body hairs or a woman’s virginity.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=106893
If you want to avoid this in the US get rid of your liberals, your ACLU, your CAIR, when it happens you will wish you had.
Like oil and water, the koran and guns don't mix.
One thing I'd like to know is, how can they tell who is Sunni and who is Shia?
We all knew that letting al-Sadr roam free was a mistake.
How many more mistakes do these fools have to make before they just give up.
It makes me sick.
Surely by now we should have witnessed at least some evidence of recovery from the coma, should we not? Perhaps you could name three or four American politicians who are willing just publically to identify Islam as the enemy. Come on, just three or four out of tens of thousands of American political leaders.
==============
I can name one - Tom Tancredo.
"young reckless teenagers"
Would these be similar to the "youths" that feature in most other reports of Islamic violence and murder?
I just don't understand what's happened to Americans and their desire to demand better of their politicians. Its gonna take another strike against us, and still some will say we need to just get along.
"none of the foreign ministers present, including Jordan, Egypt and TURKEY, objected to Iran's calls for annihilation of Isreal."
So what happens if Turkey joins the EU?
One thing I'd like to know is, how can they tell who is sunni and who is shia?
Posted by: Voltaire at July 9, 2006 07:38 PM
+++++++++++++++++++
Simple method.........
The murderous shia bastards ask thier potential prey and if you do not answer quick enough they slaughter them and if they say sunni they slaughter them.
It is comming, the shia start on one side of a city and the sunni start on the other side of the city and when they meet in the middle they slaughter each other and those left start it over.
Tom Tancredo.
The only true American politican brave enough to stand-up for Americans and call terrosits muslims and to call illegals illegal and state the every illegal that needs to be sent back to Mexico or to where ever they came from.
Tom Tancredo. The next President of America if enough America loving AMericans will work and vote for him.
This outcome is not the result of American mistakes in execution of policy. It is the natural, inevitable result of what goes back to the first century of Islam: the split between Shi'a and Sunnis (which was not, originally, as some appear to think, neatly along ethnic -- i.e., Persian and Arab lines. The first Shi'a were Arabs). The religiously-sanctioned dissimulation known as taqiyya originates in Shi'a Islam, and was designed to protect the Shi'a not from non-Muslims, but from Sunni Muslims.
The history of Sunni oppression of Shi'a, which some in the Administration perhaps thought was merely a result of the period since the Gulf War, or at most a product of Saddam Hussein's rule, in fact can be seen throughout the entire history of Sunni-ruled modern Iraq. True, the original Feisal was mild-mannered, and true, the British for a while kept things smooth through the 1920s, but even they had to suppress the Shi'a tribes opposed to the new arrangement. Gertrude Bell, incorrectly identified by Dexter Filkins this weekend in The New Duranty Times as virtually the creator of modern Iraq -- she was important, and she got the kind of exaggerated attention that Lawrence got to a much greater degree, but she was not the "creator" of modern Iraq -- wrote about the mutinous and unruly Shi'a tribes. And the hostility to rule by Sunnis extended back for centuries.
It is important to repeat that the Shi'a-Sunni split goes back to a time, more than a thousand years before the United States was founded, because one knows perfectly well that the Arabs and their sympathizers, and all those who hate America, are going to squawk about how "the Americans" caused this split, and things would have gone swimmingly had they only, had they only, had they only, done this or done that. Those who criticize the Administration for mistakes in tactics -- for not having half-a-million troops, or for having disbanded the Sunni-led army -- are unwittingly aiding this fabricated version of events. The point is this: once Saddam Hussein's iron rule, "Ba'athist" in name, and open to all those who accepted its essential nature, even if they were Shi'a or Kurd or even Christian (Halloween-masked Tariq Aziz), but its essential nature was rule of, by, and for a group of Sunnis. And it was the Sunnis and the Sunni areas that benefitted, and the non-Sunni areas that were neglected, by the government of Saddam Hussein.
This does not mean that the desire to invade Iraq was wrong. There are reasons still that may justify it. But what has no justification, what is an offense against history and reason, is this naive and messianic belief, based on all sorts of false analogies (we have been told that those who scoff at big plans for Iraq are just like those who scoffed at the possiblily of transforming former Axis powers into democratic allies, but of course those Axis powers had been completely obliterated, their rulers and their ruling ideologies no longer capable of commanding belief -- but the belief in Iraq is Islam, and that has emerged not less, but more visible, among most of the Arab population of Iraq), including the insulting notion that those who concocted and then approved of the Iraqi Constitution had something in common with our Framers in Philadelphia, or that the "freedom" that "Iraqis" seek has something in common with the freedom sought by the Virgina planters and Massachusetts merchants and all those others who, children of the Enlightenment, of Locke and Montesquieu, worked for American independence. Bush, and those such as Rice who have made such remarks, show a complete misunderstanding not only of Iraq. That was, for a time, forgivable. But the misunderstanding of American history, of what American and Western democratic institutuions are all about, including the locating of a government's legitimacy in the consent of the governed (the kind of thing one gets in those courses in Western Civ, where two weeks are devoted to the Social Contract, to Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke, and you must know it because you see, it will be on the midterm), is intolerable.
And if the Sunni-Shi'a division goes back to the seventh century, the mistreatment of the Kurds by the Arabs is part of Islam from the very beginning. For it is the nature of Islam to elevate the "best of people," the Arabs, above all others. Universalist in its pretensions, Islam in fact encourages non-Arabs to forget their own histories, their own pasts, and to look to 7th century Arabia, not only qiblawards for the five canonical prayers, but as the place where Muhammad, the Perfect Man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, offers a Guide to Living through everything that he did and said and even in those moments when he said nothing at all.
Had the Administration carefully considered the nature of the sectarian and ethnic divisions within Iraq, and their sources within Islam, they would never, one hopes, have concocted the crazed schemes that American officers and men are trying, trying, trying to put into force. They know, the most aware of them, just how few of those "Iraqis" owe their loyalty to a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional state called "Iraq." They know how many owe their loyalty, in concentric circles, first to themselves and their immiedate families, then to their tribes, then to a larger group, defined by ethnicity or, in the case of the Arabs, by adhesion to Sunni or to Shi'a Islam. Of course there are exceptions. Of course there are, here and there, a brave officer in the former army who is determined to build "Iraq." So what? It is a question of numbers, of how many such people there are. Do those Kurds who believe in Iraq, and wish to remain in it, even if today the peshmerga are the most reliable troops for the Americans, constitute 95% of the Kurdish population, or less than 5%? Do the Shi'a Arabs, who constitute 60-65% of the population, really wish to yield as much as their recent and long-time oppressors the Sunnis, are demanding, or in the end, will they be quite content to split off, given that all the oil outside the Kurdish-dominated areas is in the south, in territories that the Shi'a can control, and why should they, after all, now wish to share that wealth with the Sunnis who, when they were in control for decades, never shared it with them? It makes no sense for the Shi'a to make the kind of concessions that the Sunnis, living as they are in a phantom world, a world where they have a right to rule, where it is wrong for the Shi'a to rule, and besides, they are absolutely convinced that they constitute not 19% of the total population, but 42%, and with the Kurds at roughly 20% (and the Kurds, by the way, are Sunni), that would reduce the Shi'a, in the Sunni Arab view, to 38%. It's crazy, it is untrue, but the world of Islam encourages belief in rumors and falsehooods, as long as they support one's worldview. It could be anything from insisting that the CIA and Mossad were behind the World Trade Center bombing, to the Saudi dissidents who insist that the Al-Saud are actually Jewish agents, to any number of other idiocies. Conpsiracy theories and nonsense are not the monopoly of the Arabs and Muslims, but in their "dream palace," in their being raised up in a belief-system and a world that discourages free and skeptical inquiry, is it any wonder that the Sunni Arabs should believe that they are the largest group in Iraq? Of course not.
Bush used to say that he would wait "until the Iraqis" tell us whether they feel secure enough for the Americans to go. Lately he has not been saying that, but instead talks about how he will "listen to the generals" and specifically, to General Casey, and follow his advice. But this is both an evasion of responsiblity -- "I won't decide, I'll let others decide and do what they tell me" and at the same time, still worse, far far worse, it prevents any change in policy. For poor General Casey is not allowed to question the entire policy. He is not allowed to suggest that leaving Iraq, and watching as those sectarian and ethnic divisions increase, and hoping not to end them but rather, hoping that co-religionists of the Sunnis and the Shi'a will send money, men, materiel, so that something akin to the Iran-Iraq War may keep the entire region unsettled (we don't need "stability" in that area; "instability" in Iran and Saudi Arabia and the rest of those states will make them less capable of doing mischief against Infidels, will use up their resources and attention, and cause the smaller states -- the sheiklets of the Gulf -- to run to the United States for protection, and to offer a little more by way of baksheesh than so far we have dared to demand).
In other words, the "generals" cannot tell
Bush the only thing he needs to hear: get out of Iraq, because we Infidels have far more to gain, from intra-Islamic strife, than we do from any conceivable, patched-together "Iraq" which, in any case, could never conceivably serve as a "model" for Sunni Arab states -- how could they, after all, look at the inheritor of the Abbasid Caliphate of Haroun al-Raschid, now firmly in the hands of "Rafidite dogs" (as the takfiris call them, and as all the Wahhabis consider them), or as Mubarak remarkably, in public, described the Shi'a everywhere as not to be trusted -- and if Mubarak said that publicly, imagine what the general run of Sunni feeling is about the Shi'a.
But of course we know. We know because we can see how the Shi'a in the oil-bearing Eastern Province (Al-Hasa) of Saudi Arabia have historically been treated by their Wahhabi masters. We know because we have learned ouf the massacres of the Shi'a Hazaras by the Sunni soldiers under the Taliban (and even without the Taliban, the dislike of the Sunnis for the Hazaras needs no encouragement). We know because we have observed how Sunni groups have targetted for attack Shi'a mosques and Shi'a professionals all over Pakistan. We know because we have seen the great uneasiness, and enmity, felt toward Hezbollah by the Sunnis of Lebanon, who appear to be immune to that pan-Islamic sentiiment when it comes to Fadlallah or Nasrallah or any of their black-balaclavaed, Kalashnikov-clutching, goose-stepping bezonians.
We know it, yes. All of us. But does Bush, does Rice, does anyone at the top, making those policies, then clinging stubbornly and stupidly to them, know any of this? Why should our officers and men pay for the ignorance and stupidity of their civilian masters? And why should a half-trilliion dollars already have been spent, or committed for fixed costs, when without spending anything, by merely allowing the various factions to behave as they would without our presence, and we required only to "adjust a piece" on the chessboard here and there, and tout en adoubant apply our money and direct our attention not so much to this damned "war on terror" but on stopping Da'wa and demographic conquest, by the forces of Islam, throughout Western Europe.
Well there's also Senator Jeff Sessions from the great state of Alabama, He's also workin on the illegal aliens and fighting islamic crap in our fine home state. So these fine Americans are out there, maybe hopefully working behind the scenes. At least Alabama is adding more State Police to combat some problems.
DesertDawgN29, the history of your wife's family sadly is all to common among MiddleEastern Jews. no one speaks for them, its all about the poor Pals. fellow arabs like to point out the plight of the Pals, but they dont seem to want to take them in, like how the Jews were taken in by Israel. how sporting of those great Arab brothers.. arent they one happy family, if not killing each other, letting them suffer in camps.. yeah with family like arabs, who needs it.l would rather be an infidel anyday!
Hugh - you are da MAN!!!
:)
Kay-
I can name another one.
Curt Weldon (R- PA) is also a good guy.
Border Security and International Security.
Their campaign slogan could be:
(Most of the rest of the political crop is rotted with 'The Midas Rust'- a kind of spiritual mold that comes from sucking up to too much indiscriminate green.)
While the corporate media in the West and the East make a lot of noise about Iraq, it is interesting that none of them draw any attention to another inter-Islamic conflict; this one in Baluchistan. Here the Pakistani army, who decry Indian "occupation" of their Kashmiri brethren (while oppressing the Kashmiris on their side of the Line of Control), commits all kinds of atrocities, and ethnically cleanses entire areas of the Baluch people. Yet the Ummah, the UN, the professional human rights jokers, "mainstream" media, and all other usual suspects remain silent. I wonder what would have happened if the Indians, Americans, Israelis, Russians, or any other infidel army had done a fraction of the damage the Pakistanis have done?
Anyway, follow the links.
http://www.balochunity.org
http://balochwarna.org/modules/xcgal/index.php?cat=4
kafir citizen,
Thanks for the balooch links. News from baloochistan rarely makes it to MSM. And Amnestey, UN, Human Rights et al, while howl and wail over Kashmir, Palestine and Bosnia just won't speak out for the balooch whose oil pakistan is stealing.