Tuesday, 22 August 2006

Sunnis shooting Shiites

Who opens fire on an unarmed group of people going about their business? Apparently the practitioners of a religion of peace and love do. Says CNN:
Hundreds of thousands of pilgrims crowded the streets of the Iraqi capital, heading to the shrine of an eighth century imam... Gunmen on the streets and snipers from the rooftops opened fire on the crowds in six Baghdad neighborhoods, police said.
And who were those gunmen? They were Sunni Islamists -- including (it would seem from CNN's pictures) at least one Sunni imam with a pistol -- whose imaginary friend had told them to massacre Shi'ite Islamists. Such is the way this religion of peace fights a war of ideas.

Iraq's liberation from Saddam's tyranny left Iraqis free to succeed, free to flourish, free to make their own mistakes. It seems that, as with the liberation of Yugoslavia from Tito's yoke, too many of the newly-free are eager only to loot, to bomb and to kill -- and to kill in the name of their religion.

Peace and love? Tell me another.

LINKS: 20 pilgrims killed, hundreds wounded in Baghdad - CNN [Hat tip Elliot Who?]

RELATED: War, Politics-World, Religion


  1. Shock horror!! Overthrowing the government of an artificial, largely tribalist country, with absolutely no concrete plan for the aftermath, has led to bloodshed! How in Ayn's name could that have happened!? It was supposed to transform overnight into an enlightened oasis of reason, liberty and capitalism!!It's a conspiracy, I tell you!!

    Or to put it another way: we told you so.

  2. blah said...
    [Overthrowing the government of an artificial, largely tribalist country]

    All countries on earth were tribalist at some stage. Some were evolving faster than others. Those which evolved faster are more prosperous than the ones that hang tight to being tribalist. It is not a bad thing to show a primitive (or tribalist) society as Irag, the way to prosperity. This can only come from countries who have abadoned tribal systems long time ago, and that is the affluent Western Countries. If the British, didn't bring their culture to NZ and the Pacific Islands, we (polynesians) would still be running around, naked with our spears. We would have nothing to do all day, except fishing or growing kumara and taro in the bush. No, schools, no hospitals, no electricity, etc.

    blah said...
    [with absolutely no concrete plan for the aftermath, has led to bloodshed!]

    In fact there was. You would be very stupid to think that there wasn't. To think that the huge task as invading a country & occupying it until it is stable enough so that the power is handed back afterwards, where the invader has no concrete plan (pre & post) is the type of thinking that is typical of anti-US . Suppose that some groups of Bosnian muslim jihadists, started bombing their own people and participating in insurgency fighting, against tens of thousands of NATO troops occupying their country, because they don't like them to stay there anymore. Also suppose that the situation in Bosnia is getting worse reaching a level similar to Irag. According to your logic, you would not jump up and say there was no plan in Bosnia, right? Can you see the difference between Bosnia & Irag? I can re-phrase what PC said: "Iraq's liberation from Saddam's tyranny left Iraqis free to succeed, free to flourish, free to make their own mistakes." Yep, when you a given freedom to choose (liberated) your destiny, you only blame yourself if you fail. If you fucked it up, it is also yourself to blame and not anyone else. The Iragi fucked it up, and not the Americans. It is not the Americans who are the suicide bombers, but WHO? The Iragi insurgents. On the other hand, the Bosnians, have used wisely the freedom that was given to them by the Americans (Nato but largely Americans) from the repression of Milosevic. Guess what, there is peace and harmony in Bosnia. The choice not to fuck up was solely theirs (Bosnians) and not the occupying force. Can you spot the difference?

    We are all humans and we make mistakes all the time and the US are no exception. The mistake was the disbanding of the Iragi army, by Paul Bremmer. There was a very concrete plan during the war and after the war. It has been admitted by some senior US officials that those who are participating in the insurgencies , were ex-army people with no jobs after the army was being disbanded. Mr Bremmer should have left the army intact. The process of de-bathification of the army should have been done in steps. Purge top commanders (generals) and made them redundant, after a few months, say 5, 6 or whatever. Purge the next level of army ranking officers then promote younger ones as they might have not been a full bathist membership. This purging and promotion of officers plus recruting new ones could have avoided such a mess that is happening right now. However, it is the Iragis themselves to blame and not Paul Bremmer. Do you read your history and notice a pattern about dictators? YES. All dictators I am aware of, including Saddam , use this method. They get to power with his own group, purged top generals, and promoted their own sympathisers. They (dictators) didn't not disband a whole army, so those countries were stable but not free. The process of purging and promotion took a few years. They (dictators) even purged those loyalists who were part of the original coup. Castro did that, Stalin did that, Mao did that, Idi Amin did that, and many more.

    blah said...
    [Or to put it another way: we told you so.]

    Who's we?


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.