The people responsible for this week's massacres of Iraqis are NOT insurgents.
From Time:
'The bomb that destroyed the cafe near Abdullah's house in Baghdad's Almeen district was one of at least 12 explosives-laden vehicles that were detonated almost simultaneously by remote control in mostly Shi'a areas on Tuesday. The Ministry of Health reported 86 dead and more than 360 injured. Security officials have blamed Al-Qaeda in Iraq and claimed the terror group had support from unnamed regional countries. The U.S. military has been quoted describing the attacks as typical of the homegrown al-Qaeda groups.I'm not even sure if the terrorists' primary aim is to incite civil war in Iraq. It seems the terrorists' primary aim is to punish the Iraqi population so that most Iraqis will condemn the current government. No need to kill Iraqis ya mujrimeen (murderers). The government in Baghdad is condemnable enough without your terrorism. The AQ-Saddamist alliance wants to show the world that Iraqis were better off under Saddam. They do this by terrorizing Iraqis.
The day before, gunmen overran a Christian church in the middle-class Karada neighborhood during Sunday services, instantly murdering the attending priest and an acolyte. In the hostage siege that followed, 52 people were killed and 73 wounded when attackers sprayed bullets and set off suicide vests. Officials said the gunmen were Arabic-speaking foreign nationals. Later, the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic State of Iraq released a statement warning of more attacks against Christians — another devastating blow to Iraq's milleniums-old Christian community.
...Says Joost Hiltermann, Midddle East director of the International Crisis Group: "I am far from convinced that the attacks were a game changer, but let's wait and see. They are part of a pattern of such attacks aimed at jump-starting civil war, modeled on the success of similar attempts in 2004-2005. Insurgents will be successful only if no government is formed, or if a government emerges that is not inclusive of all of Iraq's main communities." Hiltermann points out, however, that forming a government that placates each of Iraq's different communities, as was the case in 2005, has its drawbacks as well. "An inclusive government could be very good at maintaining security; however, it would not be particularly effective at governing," because divvying up a government among Sunni, Shi'a and Kurdish power brokers could leave the administration as hamstrung as ever as it tries to pass laws, distribute petrodollars and protect its citizens.'
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2029501,00.html#ixzz14LKhRD9c
13 comments :
"a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment."
You mean women and children don't qualify? Oh my God. Someone tell Bruno and Dolly. They're still on cloud nine from the brave mujahadeens glorious victories over the weekend.
As a matter of fact, Bruno was just carrying on about the "mountains of dead Iraqis" caused by the Great Satan's invasion. Takfiri sociopaths get no credit at all.
Bruno said...
Pity about all the mountains of dead Iraqis that the invasion created, eh? But then, dead Iraqis don't count, do they?
Poor Bruno. You can tell he's very broken up over these massacres. Drowning in tears.
Anon,
How many American invaders did your "resistance" kill in their blessed raid on the church full of defenseless civilians? Was it 0? What about during their barrage of cafe and market bombs a couple of days later? 0?
Just thought I'd ask...
BTW, if you have a problem with Iran, why don't you go battle it out with the Revolutionary Guards? It'd be nice if your "resistance" and Khamenei's assortment of thugs decided to leave innocent people alone and rid the world of yourselves.
[mojo] "The people responsible for this week's massacres of Iraqis are NOT insurgents. "
No shit. They're the Al Qaedists that the murkins wanted to attract to Iraq to "fight them there".
[mojo] "The AQ-Saddamist alliance wants to show the world that Iraqis were better off under Saddam. They do this by terrorizing Iraqis. "
Still forging ahead with the ol' AQ/SH mantra, eh? No, these attacks seem clearly to me to be AQ attacks on 'unbelievers' -ie- Shia.
Seems like they wanna kickstart the sectarian war again.
On another tack, I wonder if the murkins still want to partition Iraq?
I suppose it could be only AQ and AQ-linked salafi slime. But their terrorism benefits the Saddamists in that there was no such terrorism under Saddam, and I wonder if the Saddam-lovers at least give ancillary support to the murderers. Let's not forget that the Baathists under Saddam mass murdered Iraqis to maintain power. It wouldn't surprise me if the Baathists allied themselves with AQ. Let's also not forget that Saddam was allied with the Wahhabi-infested Kingdom of Saudi Arabia throughout the 80s. So although there is no strong evidence, I think it's quite possible there is an alliance between AQI and the Saddamists.
"they are freedom fighters doing their duty. "
and their duty is to detonate car bombs all over Baghdad and massacre Iraqi Christians at their Church?
[mojo] "But their terrorism benefits the Saddamists in that there was no such terrorism under Saddam"
... because Saddam kept such riff raff out of Iraq, or in cells where they belonged.
[mojo] and I wonder if the Saddam-lovers at least give ancillary support to the murderers."
Anything is possible, I guess. I wouldn't be surprised if there are Baath who close an eye when the Al Qaedists slip past them. On the other hand, given the ruinous state of Iraqi security today, Al Qaeda probably wouldn't need much support to operate freely.
I wonder what happened to all the "ex" Al Qaedists the Americans recruited?
I wonder if Americans are still actively pursuing a segregated Iraqi model?
[mojo] "Let's also not forget that Saddam was allied with the Wahhabi-infested Kingdom of Saudi Arabia throughout the 80s."
Let's not forget that the murkins were allied to the KSA before Saddam controlled anything more than his own playpen, and lets not forget that the murkins are allied to KSA to this day.
" I wonder if the murkins still want to partition Iraq?"
I don't think so. That was only ever a minority view anyway.
Maliki the traitor and puppet of both iran and the US has been bombing Iraqis since 1979. In his Dawa party he was in charge of what they called "office of jihad" and he specialized in bombing Iraqi school children, hospitals, and other civilian targets at the behest of the iranians.
They continued their bombings throughout the 80s until the Iraqi authorities were finally able to put an end to them chasing most of them out of the country and putting the rest of them in jail.
They did not come back until the Americans told them to hop a ride with the invading army which the cowards did.
Under Saddam the great there was security, stability, and fairness. The terrorists and murderes were put in jail or chased out. Unfortunately for the Iraqis the Ameriacns and their shia puppets destroyed Iraq making it easy for anyone to come in and do the dirty deed.
speaking of education. That no longer exists in Iraq. Now the intelligent educated Iraqis are in exile and the riff raff hide behind the Americans reading Sistanis drivel all day instead of science and literature.
My sister was hospitalized at Yarmook in 1982. There were no car bombs. But there was a shooting in Dujail, a Shiite town in the middle of sunniville. Somebody tried to kill saddam. It's too bad they missed. By 1982 saddam's regime had already killed, imprisoned, and expelled tens of thousands of Iraqi Shi3a.
Those are your internal affairs, I really don't care if you have Saddam in 1979 or you take him down.
The issue here is the war between the two countries USA and Iraq, as started by the aggressor side U.S.
I don't think bruno is supportive of these attacks, maury. Instead → his position is that the deterioration of security is the fault of the U.S.
A view which has some merit, because the U.S. dismantled the state apparatus of Iraq.
However I don't take that position, because it removes the angle of "personal responsibility" ← which I support.
Meaning: it was the choice of the bombers to do it, and it was the choice of the Shia to betray their own country.
Post a Comment