Sunni-Shi'ite Jihad Update from AFP: "Iraq insurgents blow up Shia mosque, kill seven"
BAQUBA, Iraq - Insurgents killed seven people on Monday when they bombed the main Shia mosque of the town of Beni Saad in the restive province of Diyala, north of Baghdad, police said.
In a carefully orchestrated attack, six mortars slammed into the Al Mustafa mosque before gunmen surrounded it and shot dead its four guards, a police officer said.
The gunmen then stormed the mosque and blew it apart with dynamite.
[...]
The mixed Sunni-Shia town of Beni Saad, 25 kilometres (16 miles) southwest of the provincial capital of Baquba, has witnessed a number of sectarian attacks in recent months.
This is what they do best! Let them do it amongst themselves. Best way that's accomplished they stay home amongst themselves. I have NO USE for any of them. Do you? What a waste of tax money both here at home and abroad!
My gosh.
It's funny, they blow up mosques over there willy nilly. But over here, mosques are sacrosanct.
Why?
I'll tell you why. Because the Shits(sic) and Sunnis both know that mosques are not places of worship. They are headquarters for military and criminal activity. Just like here. As such, they know they are fair game. A mosque in the middle east, is nothing more than a Bergin Hunt and Fish Club, where they hang out and plot their deeds.
But only here in the west, are we naive enough to think that they are places of worship, the way a Christian church would be a place of worship.
Oh, how wrong we are, and how right there are over there. In how they view the role of mosques.
If like me, you think we've given Muslims & Arabs enough chances and you're fed up and think it's time to call a murderous ideology a murderous ideology and remove the threat of terrorism from the free, peace-loving world, sign the petition:
http://timesup911.blogspot.com
I have the strength to bear the destruction of any number of mosques. Any number.
have the strength to bear the destruction of any number of mosques. Any number.
Posted by: Havoc at September 12, 2006 01:00 AM
I think I can bear the pain of mosque rubble, but how many more mosques can we afford to rebuild?
To paraphrase an old Warren Zevon ballad: "Send mortars, gunmen, and dynamite--the Shi'ites have hit the fan.
The good news? Statistics show that jihadist deaths in Iraq were reduced by half over the past month. The bad news? The statistics don't include deaths by car bombs and suicide bombs. In other words, only count half the deaths, and your deaths are cut in half.
I think someone needs to change the bulb in the Light Unto the Islamic Nations project. It's getting very dim.
It would be wonderful if the military from the various Western countries were removed from Iraq and those countries concentrated on the protection of their own borders.
Far better that soldiers defend their own realms rather than one (or more)that doesn't want or deserve such protection.
The US Military in Iraq should announce a "stand down" for 30 days, remaining in their barracks, just to examine how Iraq would function on its own.
Then sit back and enjoy what happens when two competing death clans have the freedom to decimate each other for Allah's favor. In the aftermath, Iraq would be rid of a substantial portion of its young male Jihadi populace without a single US bullet having been fired.
August 22 Well Said,
"But only here in the west, are we naive enough to think that they are places of worship, the way a Christian church would be a place of worship."
Think if a Mosque's window pane or glasses are broken in the West by Someone. All the world Media and For Sure CAIR's (Loser)will start to CRY at top of his Voice that this is Islamophobia, and Muslims are not Safe here CRAP, CRAP, CRAP and then Tick,Tick Tick BOOM goes a Church full of innocent faithful.
So a Muslim or a Group will Destroy a Mosque, Will BOOM it, will Kill Worshippers BUT Hooper Loser will never utter a word but If a Muslim is arrested in West for genuine reason even then the LOSER will cry Islamophobic West.
Muslims can KILL Muslims, Muslims Can Bomb Mosque, Muslims can Rape Muslim Girls, Muslims BURN Koran of Either sect, Defame their Prophets - NO PROBLEM But if a Non Muslim tries to point out the slightest mistake in their HOLY CRAP all Hell will break over.
"The good news? Statistics show that jihadist deaths in Iraq were reduced by half over the past month. The bad news? The statistics don't include deaths by car bombs and suicide bombs. "
to me it's one good news and one wonderful news.
Italians in the south don't complain when mafia families kill each other. It saves labour from the police.
the most dangerous places in muslim lands seem to be their mosques. l agree with poster above, stand back and let them do our work, they kill each other faster and better than any non muslims can ever wish to do without the liberal media and ACLU denounce on us. l guess God is great when killer muslims kill each other!
Is there anything we can do to help? Do they need more dynamite? We're in Iraq to help the Iraqis. Let's do some good for a change - help them destroy the other tribe's fortresses.
win-win
They destroy mosques ?
They must be islamophobic.
This is not to be regretted, but welcomed. Any and every sign of hostility between various groups within the Camp of Islam is, for the Camp of the Infidels (who do not as yet recognize themselves as one camp, any more than they recognize, or think in terms of, a Camp of Islam).
The hostility between Sunni and Shi'a is not a product of the last few years of the American effort. It was not caused, nor exacerbated in any way (unless the removal of the Dictator is considered a cause) by supposed mistakes in execution of policy in Iraq by the Bush Administration. In fact, the Americans have done everything they conceivably can to try to prevent Sunni-Shi'a clashes, and have taken casualties themselves to fight dangerous Sunnis in Anbard Province, dangerous Shi'a in Najaf and Baghdad, all the while trying, with great hopefulness and naivete, to create an "Iraqi" army and an "Iraqi" police, and failing, and still trying, and failing again, for there is no such thing as an "Iraqi" army nor "Iraqi" police, only different groups, ethnic, sectarian, even tribal, squabbling or fighting over who is to be boss where, and who will have to yield power, and who will be able to seize or retain it.
Nor was the Sunni-Shi'a clash, nor the desire of Kurds for independence from the Arabs, caused by the behavior of Saddam Hussein. It is true that he and his Arab troops gassed and murdered nearly 200,000 Kurds and destroyed many Kurdish villages. It is true that hundreds of thousands of Shi'a were killed in the 1991 uprising and later. But the Shi'a were mistreated long before Saddam Hussein, during the entire Sunni rule, which is to say, during the entire history of modern Iraq. And for centuries before -- back to the first century of Islam, the Sunnis have treated the Shi'a with murderous contempt, and the very doctrine of "taqiyya" (religiously-sanctioned dissimulation as to one's own faith) originates in the attempts of Shi'a Muslims to hide their faith, and avoid being killed, by Sunnis. And the Sunni-Shi'a split is not limited to Iraq. It can be found everywhere that significant groups of Shi'a can be found in Sunni-ruled lands. In Afghanistan, the Sunnis of the Taliban began to wipe out the Hazaras, the Shi'a people, of central-asian origin, and made a start, before the Americans arrived. In Pakistan, for years, Sunni terror groups devoted to killing Shi'a have been wiping out Shi'a professionals, attacking Shi'a mosques. In Saudi Arabia, the kingdom's Shi'a have been mistreated for the entire time they have been under Wahhabi(Sunni) rule, and are still, in the Eastern Province, Al-Hasa, treated as less than full citizens of Saudi Arabia, and feel it keenly. In Bahrain, a Sunni Arab ruler lords it over a population that is 70-75% Shi'a, and feels keenly the mistreatment it must endure. In Lebanon, for years the Shi'a were the despised poor, despised not only by the non-Muslims, but also by Sunni Muslims who formed a kind of merchant class far better off than the hardscrabbling Shi'a, and now, as in Iraq, the Shi'a, having bred at a far faster rate than the Sunnis, are demanding more power -- in Lebanon as in Iraq.
The failure of the Bush Administration in Iraq comes from two errors:
First, the failure of the Administration to identify the enemy not as "terror" (as in that idiotic phrase "war on terror" -- which, when used, clearly identifies the user as someone insensitive both to language and the truth) -- but as Islam, or if not Islam directly, then synecdochically, as "all those who believe in Jihad." (Since "all those who believe in Jihad necessarily includes all Muslims truly obedient to the tenets, attitudes, atmospherics of Qur'an and Sunnah, it is another way to identify the enemy that may have to do).
Had it done so, then it might have taken as its goal not the messianic imposition of "democracy" which has been whittled down to the most primitive of forms -- that of mere head-counting --without any of the other elements, including a willingness to share power with, and not to regard as a conquered or utterly defeated opponent to be further humliiated, one's rivals for political (and in Muslim countries) economic power. It might rather have said that in Iraq, in Iran, everywhere, the goal should be to weaken the Camp of Islam. And since Iraq presented the case of a potentially dangerous threat, the threat of a country full of Musllims that appeared to have or to be on the way to possessing, weapons of mass destruction, weapons that might be used by the regime, or by the next regime, or by the regime after that, and that might also fall into the hands of groups with connections inside the government or army (which in such countries is the same thing), or groupuscules, within the country, or without.
And the second great failure was the seeming inability, an inability that remains, to recognize "civil war" -- that bogeyman -- as not something to be feared but to encourage. The very idea that the Shi'a would ever give up the power that, at long last, they possess, would ever forget how they had been treated, and would again be treated, by the Sunnis, should the latter ever regain power, was naive beyond all reckoning. The very idea that in the Muslim world, where aggression and violence and refusal to see the enemy as anything other than to be vanquished, and where every attempt at compromise is taken as a sign of weakness to be exploited (as the Israelis never have understood, and appear even know, many of them, not to understand), whetting rather than sating appetites, the Sunnis would ever acquiesce in the loss of power which they believe themselves entitled to, and which, in order to now justify, they have convinced themselves -- and nothing will unconvince them -- that they constitute not 19% of the population but 42%. And why do the Sunnis continue to fight, against Shi'a Arabs more than three times as numerous? They fight because they must. They fight because they are sure, having dominated the Shi'a for so long, that in the end they will win. They fight because they are sure that they will receive money, volunteers, war materiel, from all the Sunni Arab states -- and they are right, they will.
Yet the Bush Administration persists in all kinds of justifications for the continued squandering, by the United States, of men, of money ($500 billion in past, present, and fixed future committed costs), war materiel, morale both of the military (look at the young officers quitting, look at the standards being lowered for the regular army and the Reserves) and of civilians (some of whom, justifiably finding Iraq to be a waste, then unjustifiably begin to find the siren-song of appeasers to be more appealing -- a dangerous development, one entirely overlooked by this complacent, wilfully blind, not terribly intelligent Administration).
It takes genius in reverse to look at Iraq today, and not regard with pleasure, rather than alarm, the ethnic and sectarian divisions that could be harnessed, or exploited, to weaken the Camp of Islam.
But genius in reverse is what we have, and it maddens.
Hugh sez... one entirely overlooked by this complacent, wilfully blind, not terribly intelligent Administration).
Has the US 'ever' had an administration that did not fit this description?
No wonder we are in such a mess...
These silly Muslims. they kill you if you do not pray as a Muslim, then they kill you if you do.
duh_swami said
The names Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and FDR spring to mind.
Lincoln and Franklin Rooselvelt spent alot of effort trying to convince the people of the growing danger, and to prepare for the wars that they could see coming.
For a President dealing with jihad and Islam, see Jefferson. Prior to the First Barbary War (and prior to his own Presidency) he argued vigorously that appeasing the Muslim pirates "on the shores of Tripoli" would only encourage them. The U.S. government ignored him and paid huge jizya payments to Libya. When he became President, Jefferson stopped those payments and declared war. On Libya, not on Lithuania. No more pirates, no more jihad (well, until the discovery of oil on the Arabian Peninsula). And he didn't spend $500 billion rebuilding Libyan infrastructure and rewarding the Libyans with a shiny new democracy that they didn't want.
Don't assume that the nimrods we've had in our lifetimes are representative of what the U.S. can produce.
HOw much longer before they start burning blowing up their mosques here and blaming Jews and Christians? It's coming.
How much longer before Muslims become a majority in some cities and states, electing Muslim officials who will slant justice and veto every security measure that comes up.
THis too, is coming.
Special Guest...thanks for the history lesson, but there is also a dark side...during the founding fathers days there was also slavery, Phillidelphia Square hosted brothels, and there were child brides (sex slaves and servants). We chide Mohammad for having sex with a nine year old, but did you know that in Geo Washingtons time, the age of consent for girls was ten years old. Now, did a bunch of ten year old girls lobby congress for that right? Or were these age laws passed so that letcherous old men could play with little girls? In some states today the age of consent is as low as 12/14 years. In those days, as today, moral depravity existed side by side with government. It has been said that 'government' is the enemy of humanity', (thats all governments anywhere, anytime). If you dont believe that, count the dead bodys. Tolstoy said that(paraphrased a little) 'the good' cannot seek power nor retain it, to do that men must love power. The love of power is the opposite of goodness, but quite consistant with the opposite qualities, pride, cunning, cruelty'. If Tolstoy is right at all, the 'good' have never been in charge, and are not in charge now. Can a bad tree produce good fruit?
You are right in what you wrote. I am just presenting a different view...have a good day.
You may be correct is giving a brief synopsis of our early history. But we corrected our shortcomings very quickly and evolved into a worthwhile society, Islam on the other hand, has been festering for over 1400 years and it is getting worse. There is no valid comparison.Islam is just pure evil, unchanging and sadistic. Islamic society has been a failure where ever it has taken root. Islam has destroyed its land, people and has ensured that free thought or self initiative is destroyed. Islam is political indoctrination at its zenith. Death to all who say otherwise.
a message for the Islamomaniacs and all their mad little friends in America and Europe, to wit, more Shi'ite Muslim civilians died in Iraq during the 33 or 34 days of Israel's too soon ended war on Hizbullah in Lebanon, than all civilians that died in Lebanon in that same period.
Yet, the "peace" fakers like ramsey clark and all his pro-Nazi brethren worldwide are only concerned with those who died in Lebanon.
FDR was not great of a president, l was amazed at hearing the history of before WW2, at how complacent he was and so many things he did not do, before Pearl Harbour eventually made him go to war. no perfect president, but FDR is not a role model l would like to see again. Winston Churchhill would be one to to welcome back.
Posted by POITIERS-LEPANTO: "They must be islamophobic."
I think it would be Shiophobic and Sunnophobic.
Now I know why Muslims do not use coffins for burial. They have killed each other in such great numbers that they deforested the whole middle east and ran out of wood a long time ago.
ZenaWarriorPrincess, In the USA in the 1930s there was a very strong, powerful isolationist group who had a lot of political clout. Roosevelt had to keep them happy; US politics have always been about getting re-elected. Charles Lindberg was one of the most visible and outspoken isolationists, and Roosevelt could not go against a national hero.
It was Roosevelt and congress who cut Japanese oil sales which meant that the Japanese invasion of China would grind to a halt. That embargo was being negotiated right up to December 7, 1941. The Japanese were forced to go to war to gain access to Asian raw materials. It was also at Roosevelt's insistance that the Lend Lease Act was passed and before 1941 US warships were escorting convoys to Britian. A lot of FDR's secret machinations are just now being told. The Flying Tigers in China were secretely funded totally by the US.
As far as my late mother was concerned, Roosevelt was a saint.
l had listened to tapes from Michael Medved, his take on FDR was very informing and very different than what you usually learn from history classes. yes even in Canada we had American histroy clases in High School. l not saying FDR was terrible like Jimmy Carter, but he giant he is supposed to be.
Zena, may I call you by your first name.
I disagree with some of the things the FDR did economically, but his greatest contribution to WW2 was letting the generals and admirals fight it with very little intervention. What's more, it is difficult to get to the truth because his legacy is up there in mythological proportions. Still, he did all he could legally and semi-legally do to support the allies given the US political climate before December 7, 1941. The American Volunteer Group (Flying Tigers)was totally paid for by the US; it was an FDR sponsored secret operation made to look like China was paying the bills. That's one example. FDR also saw to it that laws were ignored so that American volunteers could join the Royal Air Force and participate in The Battle of Britain. Well, that's two.
He should not have ran for the fourth term in 1944. In the political-media climate of today, his health problems would have prevented him form getting the fourth nomination.
One thing that the war in Iraq has done...it has exposed what would happen if Israel stopped restraining the "Palestians". If this is how Arabs treat people who are the same race, the same country, and the same religion - with the bombs, the beheadings, the torture - imagine how they would treat the Israelis, who are much different from them.
I agree with the earlier poster. Build a big wall around the Islamic world, and let them have their 7th Century fantasy world - while the rest of the world (USA, Europe, China, India, etc) moves forward into the future. Let them watch, like savages, as we soar into the sky, while they mumble to their god about paradise.