There have been many revenge attacks by Shias in Iraq today.
| Quote: |
More than 100 people have been killed in Iraq in apparent revenge attacks after the bombing of a key Shia shrine.
Scores of bullet-riddled bodies have been found in Baghdad, while in the bloodiest attack 47 factory workers were killed near the capital. |
It's particularly worrying, because so far the Shiites (who form the majority in Iraq) have been restrained. If this continues to escalate then there is a real danger of civil war, which would be terrible for everyone.
The story I'm quoting from is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4742188.stm
With the original blast reported here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4740010.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4738874.stm
And the importance of the shrine to Shiites described here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4739444.stm Although they are the majority and are in power, the Shia'tes continue to restrain from responding despite a nonstop violence against them. Their rational leadershiop, Al Sistani, has always participated in calming people and hence the situation is not deteriorating yet.
Moreover, the recent curfew imposed by the present Iraqi government reduced violence and limited the possibility of having civil war.
I hope you're right. I also have a lot of respect for Sistani. He seems like a good man. It might be difficult for him to hold things back if it gets out of hand...
Following up, todays news is that:
| Quote: |
Curfew fails to halt Iraq killing
At least 36 people have died in violence across Iraq as the authorities fight to contain sectarian killing in which at least 165 have died this week. |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4749866.stm Maybe civil war is neccessary. Sometimes civil war is how you unite, take the U.S. for example. It's bloodiest and most deadly war was one with itself.
Hopefully it will not come to civil war, but stronger nations are formed out of the ashes of fallen ones.
Just think of some recent civil wars: Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia and Sudan. They aren't particularly unified countries (just the opposite in fact), and of course there are lots of examples of countries (like my own, Australia) who never had a civil war. Killing your neighbor (literally) is never necessary.
Iraqis have been through enough already. Nobody should wish a civil war on them.
I'm not wishing Civil War on them, but if they are unwiling to compromise and work together, Civil War may be inevitable.
| Soulfire wrote: |
Maybe civil war is neccessary. Sometimes civil war is how you unite, take the U.S. for example. It's bloodiest and most deadly war was one with itself.
Hopefully it will not come to civil war, but stronger nations are formed out of the ashes of fallen ones. |
You are right civil wars could sometimes exhaust parties and unite them at the end, but the Iraqi case is very complicated, mainly because of its neighbiurs. In fact, if there is any chance for a civil war, then it is because of its neighbours. For examples, Al Zarqawi, the leader of Al qae'da in Iraq, in addition to most of his senior assistants, are non-Iraqis. He is himself Jordanian. Their agenda is clearly announced to attack Shea's, Jews and Chrestians in Iraq. Al Qae'da 's religous beliefs and support is mainly based on the Wahabis of Saudi Arabia.
Neighoubrs of Iraq, mainly Gulf countries which are Sunnis, are worried about the newly formed democracy in Iraq which put the major group, Shea's, into power for the first time. They hate to see the Iraqi model succeed as it means empowering other ethnic groups in their countries, mainly Shea'ts. Most Arab regimes share the same idea and the media there supports the Sunni insurgency. Sunnis have been dominating power forever and they want it to remain the same. Syria is manly concerned about the United States increasing its pressure on it once situation improves in Iraq.
Turkey is worried about the growing influence of Kurds and the possibility of gaining independence, and finally Iran wants to keep its relegious influence on Shea's although historically the Shea't leadership should always be based in Najaf, Iraq. It was temperorily transferred to Iran due to the dictatorship of saddam Hussain.
To sum up, Iraqis continue to resist civil war, but neighbours continue to push them for it! | Quote: |
| but if they are unwiling to compromise and work together... |
True. Something that all people should do 
. Resorting to violence to achieve your ends almost always just means more violence...
| bangala wrote: |
To sum up, Iraqis continue to resist civil war, but neighbours continue to push them for it! |
While Zarqawi is Jordanian, yes, it's wrong to say he represents Jordan. Jordan is the US's traditional ally, despite their recent criticism of US policy, and certainly would not want to see a civil war.
Turkey, as you say, do not want the Kurds to gain greater autonomy. They don't want to see in independant Kurdish state on their Eastern border, which would happen very quickly if a civil war broke out.
Syria have close and obvious ties to Iraq. They don't want to see their friends and relatives being killed.
Iran has already started to have the bombings spill over into their cities bordering Iraq. They were no fan of Saddam Hussein, and would be quite happy if things take their natural course, and Shiites continued with more and more power (which means more and more influence for Iran). There have been many signs of this, including high level talks between the two governments and offers of military co-operation.
I don't think anyone has a real interest in seeing an endless war in Iraq. The problem is just when people see their family and friends being killed, they react badly... and it just spirals...
In todays news, things seem a little brighter, but the killings are continuing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4753084.stm | nopaniers wrote: |
I don't think anyone has a real interest in seeing an endless war in Iraq. The problem is just when people see their family and friends being killed, they react badly... and it just spirals...
In todays news, things seem a little brighter, but the killings are continuing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4753084.stm |
You are right civil war is not for the interest of any one. However, Iraq, which is a major regional country, is now fragile and it has a weak central government. Its neighbours understand that any changes in this country could influence them substantially. By saying that these countries are pushing Iraqis towords a civil war, I didn't mean that these countries wish to see Iraqis engage in a civil war, but
1- their involvment in the Iraqi affairs to protect their interests is affecting the Iraqis negatively and may inflame the situation in Iraq.
2- Education and media in neighbouring countries encourage ethnic struggle and inflame the situation. There was no existance for Wahabis and Al Qae'da in Iraq until recently. Many of the sucide bombers are non-Iraqis. When a Jordanian sucider exploded himself at a gathering of civilian Iraqis in the city of Hella in Iraq and killed hundreds last year, the Jordanian media appraised that attack and some people celebrated and congratualted the family of the attacker. This attitude, however, has changed dramatically when a sucide bomber blew himself in a Jordanian hotel later last year killing many civilians.
Attacks on shrines and mosques belonging to Shia'ts in Iraq happened only recently but they are happening frequently in Saudi Arabia. In fact, official clerics in Saudi Arabia publicly announce that Shea's should be killed.I suspect that the bombing was done by Shiites in light of the body count, as an excuse to inflame the persecution of Sunnis.
[Compare the Nazi burning of the Reichstag.]
Countries around Iraq are affected by what is happening there. It's natural for them to be, but sadly there will always be some people who want to push things to violence and extremes. I don't know what the media has been saying in countries around, expect for Al Jazeera, and it is obviously a little bit removed in Qatar.
In the past couple of days I have been thinking how ironic it is: The nationalist party was banned, and yet now the appeal is to nationalism.
I was certainly not in favour of the war, but even less do I want to see Iraqis go through a civil war. I really could not care less how any of this plays out in Washington which seems to worry most some people most. I think the concern should be for an ordinary person living in the middle of this.
Today's news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4757964.stm If they are going to have a civil war over there they are going to do it over our protests if that's what they have in mind. I think those people over there are just plain sick of the US even suggesting anything to them anymore. And it's entirely possible that they are right to be ticked off with us. I don't wish a civil war on any country, but I also don't believe we have the right to step in and tell them not to do it either. During our time of civil war if any country had stepped up and told us we shouldn't be doing that, we more than likely, would have waged war on them. It probobly would have been the tie that bound us back together again as a country without all the Americans dying at the hands of fellow Americans.
| simpleHalakhah wrote: |
I suspect that the bombing was done by Shiites in light of the body count, as an excuse to inflame the persecution of Sunnis.
[Compare the Nazi burning of the Reichstag.] |
Well Shiites don't need to attack their own shrines if there are groups who are already attacking them. In fact, this attack inflamed violence between shiites themselves. Shiites were angered by their leadership and the government for not protecting them. Even calls fdrom Sistani to calm down were not followed this time.i think they will kill themselves all.
