More News from the Front

Sunday, February 26, 2006
From 24 Steps to Liberty, an Iraqi blog I'd never seen before. (I've lost the place I got the link from, sorry.)
I was amazed how only the provocative and civil-war-style quotes were published today in the newspapers. Almost no newspaper showed how great, it appeared to us, the solidarity among Iraqis was yesterday. It is true that Sunni mosques were attacked by unknown men yesterday, and some Sunnis were killed. But that wasn’t the only thing happened as a reaction. Newspapers should have been neutral, as we were taught, and show both sides. Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Arabs, Christians, Sabians, Turkumans, and others publicly condemned the attack, but no one wanted to show the truth. I am not saying there will be no riots in Iraq to react to the shrine attack. I am not saying there weren't mosques that were attacked yesterday and burned down. I am not saying that Shiites and Sunnis kissed and hugged after the attack yesterday. All what I am saying is that the news made Iraqis look like if they were fighting each other widely in the streets, which is not true. ....

All expect civil war in Iraq, which might happen although I don’t believe it would. Therefore, they want to contribute to the civil war’s first step. Shame on you all! Shame on the “free and honest” press!


Read the whole thing, but look especially at the remarks from Sunni leaders.

Iraqis aren't fools: they know who their real enemies are.

Wafiq Samarraie, a Sunni politician from Samarra city and serves as Iraq’s president’s advisor for security issues. [from Arabiya satellite channel]
He said “Iamam Ali al-Hadi is not only for Shiites. The shrine is a symbol of all Iraqis and of Samara city in particular. I demand to dismiss the governor of the province and take all the legal procedures to prevent strife. There will be no strife in Iraq. Iraqis will not fight each other. Samarra city should be protected. The information is very clear. The government should have chased the terrorists in eastern Samarra and they are a few. The government and the governor should have done something this issue. I tell the tribes in Samarra, especially in eastern Samarra, that ‘ it is a shame to leave the strangers among you. You should inform the police force about them.’


Update: I meant to post this the other day. From Ali, a Free Iraqi:
Saddam's regime was not a sectarian one. It was a dictatorship that relied on family and tribal relations and on petty servants who sold their souls to him for money and some illusionary power from within each community. He oppressed Kurds because they were his slaves and on top of that he disliked them more because they were not Arabs. He oppressed She'at because they were his slaves and then he also disliked their sect. He oppressed Sunnis because they too were his slaves and other than that he didn't dislike them for any religious or ethnic reason, so how fortunate Sunnis were!

9 comments:

David Thomson said...

We are among the few people who have noticed that this act of terrorism may have actually brought the country closer together. Both the Sunnis and the Shiites appear to want their newly formed government to succeed. The sectarian violence resulted in the deaths of a little more than 200 people---out of a total population of 26 million citizens. That hardly constitutes a nationwide “civil war.” Some folks like William F. Buckley need to return to grade school and learn some simple math.

Rick Ballard said...

While I am encouraged by the reaction to the attacks, I'm truly puzzled by the reasoning behind iniating them. A feint or a test? To what purpose?

Was this supposed to be the Reichstag fire? A probe to generate a potential overreaction by American forces? An attempt to see how quickly that 1st Iraqi Army division could mobilize and react?

Or did Mucky just want to gives his kids a chance to wear their new black uniforms and show off a bit? It would be nice if the Iraqi government issued shoot on sight orders for anyone wearing that black outfit and carrying a gun.

Peter UK said...

Too much should not be written into the Shiite Sunni dichotomy,but rather Lenin's question "Who Whom" should be asked.
Who uses grandiose terror statements and has no interest in the sanctity of the religions of others?
Two fit the bill, al Qaeda and Syria,both have a vested interest in Iraq descending into chaos.
Whilst Iran and its tool Sadr cannot be ruled out,the theocratic nature of Iran's rulers would militate against destroying a visible manifestation of its power base.
Ba'athist dead enders are another candidate,but this surely must be a desperate measure fraught with too many negative aspects,this is not an act that will ever be forgotten,or forgiven.
Muqtadr Sadr has not,in the past,shown the kind of courage to burn his boats in this fashion,certainly not enough to risk death at the hands of his followers for such an act of sacrilege.

David Thomson said...

Desperate people often do desperate things. The terrorists have lost the war in Iraq. It has been over for a long time. Please also note the recent attempt to damage the oil installation in Saudi Arabia. This was an act of pure stupidity. These fools had little chance of getting past all three barrier crossings. A drowning man is rarely rational when desperately trying to breathe. As I’ve said countless times before, do the math! The terrorists are murdering a mere handful of the total population. They have virtually no realistic chance of victory. Their situation worsens by the day.

terrye said...

Maybe teh Iraqis just want to be regualr people. Drama gets old when you are living rather than watching it. The media has its own agenda, but in the end it will be Iraqi that make a difference.

I understand they are questioning some folks about the attack, maybe they will find out who was behind it. I doubt if Iran or the Shia would have done this.

My money is on Zarqawi or Syria.

Syl said...

There was a sort of faith in the Iraqi people that Bush instilled in me.

I don't think Bush was wrong, so I am not either.

Iraq will prevail and become stronger for this. Growing pains and terrible tragedies and travesties. As I've said before, they will be stronger for having had to fight so hard emotionally as well as physically for their own country and unity.

For people who sit back and assume we have failed they are assuming the Iraqi people have failed as well. I'm sick and tired of people shitting all over the Iraqi's.

That goes for Buckley too.

terrye said...

Syl:

And what does Buckley really know about it? I remember when they said the Salvadorans could never get it together. Granted they are not the US and never will be but they are doing a lot better than they were in the 80's when they had to dodge bullets just to go vote.

Buckley is an old conservative and a lot of those guys just think people like the Iraqis are barbarians. They would not say that, but that is the general idea. And the only way the Iraqis can dispel that notion for them is to get it together right now this minute etc.

It really does not matter what people like Buckley say. He is just spouting off like the rest of us.

Seneca the Younger said...

Buckley is an old conservative and a lot of those guys just think people like the Iraqis are barbarians. They would not say that, but that is the general idea. And the only way the Iraqis can dispel that notion for them is to get it together right now this minute etc.


Hell, Terrye, Buckley et al think people like you and me --- the ones who grew their steaks and cut their hair and run their railroads --- are barbarians. Remember the NRO guy who thought that since I knew the difference between 7½ birdshot and buck shot, between a rifle and a shotgun, and thought it significant, that meant I couldn't have read Proust?

It's one eason I've never thought of myself as a "conservative", but at most a sort of conservative fellow-traveler: the awareness that they might have let me into their "club" with a Duke degree and a Wall Street job, but they wouldn't have wanted me to invite my father.

Rick Ballard said...

Seneca,

We need to coin 'Heinleinist conservative' or maybe just 'Heinleinist' to cover the situation.

Hmm, I wonder if 'Mencklenian Heinleinist' could become a denominator?