I think it’s likely that today will be remembered as the day that a well-organized band of troublemakers blew up the Shiite Askariyah shrine in Samarra.
What happened? A well-trained demo squad broke into the shrine in the early morning, apparently with the help of the Iraqi police security detail, set their charges and left before the charges went. The famous golden dome was destroyed along with most of the building. Nobody was killed in the explosion.
Why? The shrine is among the most sacred in shiite Islam; Juan Cole (no relation) describes it thusly:
The shrine, sacred to Shiiites, honors 3 Imams or holy descendants of the Prophet. They are Ali al-Hadi, Hasan al-Askari, and his disappeared son Muhammad al-Mahdi. Thousands of Shiiites demonnstrated in Samarra and in East Baghdad, against this desecration.
The Twelfh Imam or Mahdi is believed by Shiites to have disappeared into a supernatural realm (just as Christians believe in the ascension of Christ) from which he will someday return.
The only imaginable reason why somebody would want to do this is if they want a civil war. I say that because that’s what’s happening, and it’s inconceivable that a group of Iraqis wouldn’t forsee it. Juan Cole has a follow-up email from Iraq:
You know the Najaf boys are losing their heads over what happened.
…They told B. how the demolition was carried out. You see, it was nothing like a hipshot sneaking up bombing by night. It was meticulous, skilful piece of work, taking a lot of time, the guards knowing all about what was going on. At least that´s what they told him today.
So now they all gather downtown Nejef rallying, preparing a gruesome revenge. Sistani tries hard to stop them, they told him, but the boys won´t listen. They´re heading for Samarra. ‘
Somebody in Iraq wants chaos and it looks like they have a fairly good idea how to get it (read more about the reaction within Iraq here). It doesn’t help that Iran is gleefully fanning rumors of American and Israeli involvement, not that you can expect anything different. If a meteor hit Baghdad you could count on Iran to blame Israel for throwing it.
This ties in well with the debate regarding to what degree the Iraqi police and army is penetrated by the insurgency. Apparently it runs pretty deep.
Richard 23
Last throes. This can’t be a good sign of things to come.
srv
I say we send Fukuyama and Sullivan in. Never have so many been so wrong about so much.
Pb
LOL. I have to say, that’s the only funny thing I’ve heard about this.
…
:(
cindy mallard
Seems to be an effort to start a civil war. It amazes me that it has hasn’t happened before now considering the amount of provocation on both sides.
RonB
Yup, I dont think this one is an ordinary ripple in the pond. As of last night, 17 Sunni mosques have been torched.
RonB
State Department is spinning this as an insurgency bombing.
Richard Bottoms
Yet another opportunity to say: ‘We told you so.’
Hey Wolfowitz, fuck you.
Oh and similiar sentiments to the fools who voted twice to support the nitwit at the head of this debacle.
I suspect the mullahs in Iran are laughing their asses off right about now.
What next genius?
Richard 23
AP:
And, E&P:
Oh, really? A mistake?
Richard Bottoms
It’s not a mistake. It is a fucking disaster, bloodier and more horrible that folks with their sanitzed images on the evening news can imagine.
And it is the fault of every stupid asshole who voted for George Bush.
The Other Steve
What does insurgency mean? Sunni, or foreigner fighters?
From Juan Cole again
So this guy is saying someone ran the Shia out of town, and then decided to destroy their shrine. It’s a predominatly Sunni area.
This doesn’t strike me as something say Al Qaeda would pull. Shopping malls, police stations, sure. But this does sound like the start of a Civil War. The opening volleys as it were.
Unless of course that’s what they want us to think. But Al Qaeda has a history of taking credit for anything and everything, just to pump up their image.
Richard 23
Cornyn sez: What are your ideas? Were you there?
D. Mason
I’m curious what it is that makes you positive that Israel had no involvement. I’m not suggesting they do, infact it could be any number of organisations, God knows we have plenty of enemies who must know this is bad for the U.S. With almost no evidence it would be impossible to say. Still, you completely discounting the possibility of Israeli involvement is curious. Certainly they have alot to gain from an Iraqi civil war that pits the current government(supported by us) against the religious extremists in open warfare. Is it that you think they wouldn’t be capable of such a thing? I doubt that’s true. Maybe you think they are above such behavior? Surely you know that’s not the case. So what is it that makes you assume with such utter lack of evidence that talk of possible Israeli involvement is nothing but flame fanning from Iran?
I wonder how long it will be before someone says it was Iranians…
Wrye
Well, who does civil war in Iraq benefit? I think it benefits Iran much more than Israel.
Pooh
Is it bad that the first thing that occurred to me upon hearing about this story is “Franz Ferdinand?” Is that too alarmist?
Steve
Al-Qaeda in Iraq stands to benefit, obviously. They don’t have numbers. They need to destabilize things. (We have helped!)
It would be foolish for them to take responsibility, as it would unite the Iraqis against them. They want to be able to recruit Iraqis. Going around bragging about blowing up holy sites will not boost recruiting.
I doubt civil war benefits Iran. The Shiite-majority government we have helped put in place is essentially a client state of Iran anyway. Iran would reap great benefits, primarily economic, from a peaceful Iraq.
To me this whole episode just demonstrates the futility of our neverending efforts to provide “security” in Iraq. If we can’t even keep one of their major holy sites from being blown up, we’re not doing much good. The sooner we get out of the way, the sooner the Iraqis can unite against their common enemy – the terrorists who seek to destabilize their society – and the more American lives we will save. Enough already.
Ancient Purple
Not to worry, kids.
IfWhen civil war does break out, King George will remind us that sacrifices will have to be made and so forth and so on. More troops will be sent and more will die and the civil war will spiral out of control.Just remember that this war will pay for itself and is in its last throes and we are bringing peace and stability to the region and the King is doing a heck of a job.
SmilingPolitely
I tired of this negative liberal MSM shit!
Why aren’t we hearing about the pens, pencils, and notebook paper being delivered to the Iraqi schools?!
Pb
Even though it’s hard work protecting the homeland here so you don’t have to fight them over there, it worked for our experienced President during Vietnam, so it should work for Iraq, too!
The Other Steve
Yes!
But what does a British pop band have to do with Iraqi politics?
stickler
Not to pile on, but I have to say … their music sucks.
Not as bad as the impending civil war in Iraq is going to suck. But still, their music sucks.
Pb
I didn’t want to be the first to say it, but I knew someone would… :)
Pooh
It only took 3 of you to Take Me Out…
RonB
Sorry-foreign fighters is what they are saying. There have been three, possibly more organized insurgencies at certain periods. In this case State is calling this one Zarqawi/Qaeda. No evidence of this being true yet, and Im not surprised they would say that because they are trying desperately to cover up the strife between Iraqis themselves.
MAX HATS
We could have won this thing.
We’re going to be picking up the peices from this current period of republican rule for decades. Here, abroad. Certainly Iraq, or whatever Iraq will become.
We will, assuming this period of one party rule actually ends sometime soon, but that may be too optimistic. If it doesn’t, we may never be able to pick up all the peices.
This is not the result of Bush. It is a result of the ideological system which enables Bush’s failures and which will simply fixate on a new figurehead when Bush leaves office. An ideology committed to little besides the purity of its thought and the advancement of its own, manifesting itself in demands for unquestioned loyalty to the figurehead and absolute intolerance for critisism.
Where critisism becomes redefined as dissent, and dissent is moved to within a hairs breadth of sedition, critisism becomes the exclusive domain of the irrelevant fringe to which those unfortunate enough to fall outside the good graces of power are consigned. Without the neccessary feedback of critisism — which must properly be addressed, and yet is not even legitimitised — errors in systems go uncorrected and compound over time, often catastrophically.
No system is of such perfection that it could possibly survive indefinitely without examination and realignment.
It became immediately clear that the system of occupation had too few soldiers. Was it modified? Of course not.
Our system of Homeland Security has been well documented as a disaster at numberous levels from the start. Have these concerns been addressed? Only sparingly, and even then with only the most superficial of non-solutions.
And on, and on, and on. It’s most clear in Iraq, and it’s most depressing in Iraq. Failures are the wages of unchecked hubris.
The only way we can recover the situation now is by massive influx of troops and material. Reinstate the draft, raise taxes to the moon if we have to. We won’t, though. We won’t do a thing. Not just because Bush is a coward – though he is. Not just because the fat mass of republican majority are terrified of any sacrifice for their toy war beyond tax cuts and gay bashing – though they are. No, we are committed to losing the Iraq venture, and with it part of our future security because to the true believers who run our one party state, admitting you have a problem is the only true defeat there is.
Richard 23
Well put, Max.
TBone
You might be wrong because you’re looking at it from a linear Western mindset. I believe Salafist ideology is responsible for this incident. Salafist muslims (aka terrorists ala Al-Qaeda and their affiliated brethren) see Shiites as apostate. Salafists seek to push their totalitarian agenda on anyone who does not subscribe to their ideology; Shias are not Al Qaeda-style Salafists. If Iraq is to be the capitol for the new Salafist Caliphate, then this is not so much an attempt to start “civil war”, as it is an attempt to lay the foundation for a pure Salafist-Islamic nation similar to Taliban Afghanistan.
As an example of Taliban/Salafist style intolerance, you might remember seeing the video of when the Taliban destroyed the centuries old, sacred Buddhist statue (it was enormous and magnificent) in Afghanistan. Symbols, images, or representations of ideology that is not in line with Salafist ideology are forbidden. Same radical logic is being conveyed to followers in Iraq.
This incident will certainly cause problems between the Shia and Sunni populations in Iraq, but that is a secondary objective. Under a Taliban-style government, Shiites would not be tolerated, therefore all things Shia must go.
RonB
T-Bone, it could have simply been Sunni revenge as well. It’s very hard to tell. These were people disguised as Iraqi security, or from the security ranks themselves.
Why are you bringing Salafists into this anyway? According to Wiki, that group’s goal is to overthrow the Algerian government and turn it into a fundamentalist state. Are you using them as a substitute for Ba’athist Sunnis so you can make the argument safely that it isn’t Iraq’s own indigenous population contributing to the civil war?
TBone
Also…
Samarra is in the Sunni area of Iraq. The Shia are in a definite minority there. If this was a true attempt to start a civil war between Sunni and Shia, perhaps attacking Shia targets in Najaf or Karbala would have been more effective.
I don’t expect Shias to drive North in order to retaliate against this attack. If there is no significant retaliation, then you must assume either this was a failed attempt at fomenting a civil war, or there was an other agenda.
Observer
Wasn’t Iraq supposed to collapse into “civil war” immediately following the Invasion? After the elections? After the second elections? After the THIRD elections? Haven’t the Shiia and the Sunnis been in a smoldering “civil war” for centuries anyway in most Middle Eastern countries? What else is new? Sure – this bombing can’t be good for unity between camps, but widespread “civil war” in Iraq is a little much, IMHO.
“Civil war” hasn’t happened yet, and the infastructure of the country is likely to improve rather than deteriorate, so I don’t see how “civil war” is supposed to “break out” suddenly. That, and we have 230,000 + of the world’s most powerful military there to make sure something approaching a sectarian civil war does not happen. Riots? Sure. Protests? Absoltely. Civil war? Ehhh…pushing it.
RonB
It is still an important site to the Shi’a, the location is only one thing that counts here.
20 or so Sunni mosques attacked since yesterday, I would call that a fairly significant retaliation. Which may or may not spark more reprisals, that why everyone is waiting nervously to see who throws down what next. You’re widening the definition of civil war to where if entire towns arent being raided by the other side, then there is effectively no civil war.
I stood behind you on how Bush cannot be blamed for that louie’s body armor that he had to pay for, but between you and I, aren’t you getting tired of explaining away this failure of an occupation? Or is it just a challenge to try?
Richard Bottoms
What frakin’ difference does it make?
The point is, this mess is spiriling out of what little control we had it in and it’s only going to get worse with out men & women retreating under fire.
That is unless we send in another 200,000 troops.
Shitheads.
OCSteve
Did you folks make a wrong turn somewhere? Mean to take the left at Albuquerque? Didn’t you mean to post all this over on Juan Cole’s site? Oh well… Juan, John – all the same I guess…
RonB
More like 140,000, I think.
I was giving your perspective half a thought until this part. We have done a horrid job of doing the important infrastructure fixes. That isn’t the soldiers’ fault, and I wanted to tell T-Bone that too-it’s the idiots in the Bush administration that has hamstrung this thing from the beginning. America’s military is about the only thing that has prevented this mess from becoming the civil war everyone would look at and go “oh yeah, that’s a freakin’ civil war.”
This style of putting quotes around alot of stuff seems familiar to me…
Don Surber
Hatred for Bush has fried so many brains. (“Yet another opportunity to say: ‘We told you so.’ “) Lefties are rooting for a civil war
Reminds me of the 1990s how experts predicted mini-nuclear civil wars with the collapse of the Soviet Union. There has been strife, of course, but nothing on that order imagined
The left could not care less about the people of Iraq or any other country in the world. Their misery brings smiles to lefty faces this morning
So cheer for the razing of mosques. Ride that high horse of pseudo-superiority: “And on, and on, and on. It’s most clear in Iraq, and it’s most depressing in Iraq. Failures are the wages of unchecked hubris.”
The left is still wrong
Speaking of unchecked hubris, what was the left plan for the War on Terrorism? Oh yes, get bin Laden and call it a day.
Riiiiiiight. We have sent thousands of spec ops troops to central Asia and have not gotten him. Seems people there are protecting him. They view him as a hero. Imagine that
The lefty plan in Iraq was not to go in. The left wanted to allow Saddam to continue to starve children in the Oil for Food scandal, terrorize his own people with random acts of torture and mayhem, and to finance suicide bombing in Israel
Sorry, but post 9/11 we cannot allow that. You terrorize one, you terrorize all
(Saddam was pissed at Israel for taking out his nuclear reactor in 1981. Lefties dissed Israel for doing that)
So chortle over impending civil war, oh “peacenik”
Maybe the result will be the lefty wet dream: Another Uncle Joe or Uncle Saddam who brings peace by killing at will and on whim to keep everyone on their toes. Odd that the civilian death count was higher under Saddam than it has been in this war
I pray for the Iraqi people as I do every day. They have until Jan. 20, 2009, to get their act together because the next president will not risk his presidency protecting Iraq. Not since Harry Truman have we had such a president
Hillary might. Naw. Maybe
KoC
You sir, are an idiot.
OCSteve
I’ve always been told my vote counts, but I never realized just how true that is. So far I am personally responsible for:
The war in Iraq.
Civil war in Iraq.
NSA doing its job. (i.e. Amerika, King George, the black booted – brown shirted thugs that beat your puppy last night.)
Torture of innocents and Rendition.
Andrew Sullivan’s nervous breakdown.
Suspension of habeas corpus.
High gas prices.
Destruction of the environment.
That single sock that disappears from the dryer? Me. Got a collection of 50 million unmatched socks.
Rolling back science to the 17th century.
Hurricane Katrina.
The mullet.
Disco.
Hemorrhoids – some of my better work.
Bad hair days.
Things that make you go Uhm.
Coming soon – back alley coat hanger abortions and repealing a couple of those pesky amendments.
Just wait until you hear about the 08 Cheney/Rove “ticket”. Scare quotes due to my buds at Diebold and the Haliburton election monitors I’m contracting. (3 for 3 – Oh yeah!)
Bwa ha ha ha ha…..
Richard 23
“Rooting for a civil war”
“misery brings smiles to lefty faces”
Respectfully, Don, you are completely unhinged.
chopper
thanks, don, i needed a laugh this morning.
Marty
D Mason, your jew hating stench permeates my modem.
Of course it was the Israelis.
9/11 benefited the Israelis.
The Cole bombing benefited Israel.
For what it’s worth, the Chechen massacre of Russian children in Belsan, benefited Israel.
The ’04 tsunami got rid of a whole bunch of Muslims, this surely benefits Israel.
The Mohammed cartoons kerfuffle benefit Israel.
A naked David Irving screaming about 14 dead jews instead of millions, benefits Israel. Irving must be an Israeli disinformation agent.
As long as it benefits Israel, then surely the cosmic evil jew is behind it.
Krista
Don, with all due respect, are you sniffing glue? Nobody here is “rooting for a civil war”. Jesus man, what’s wrong with you? On the contrary, we dread it and are frightened to think of what it might lead to. There’s a difference between seeing an event coming from a mile away, and rooting for said event.
And any of the comments here that were light in tone when referencing this — I wouldn’t take it as genuine levity. Sometimes you have to laugh, or you’ll cry.
Faux News
Does this mean that the “dancing and throwing flowers” phase the Neocons promised us is over in Iraq?
Perhaps the Sunnis didn’t get that memo.
Rusty Shackleford
March, 2003
Liberal: “Don’t start a war in Iraq, it’s a bad idea and it will go horribly wrong.”
Conservative: “You’re a French-loving liberal defeatist! We’re going to be greeted as liberators with flowers and candy!”
Liberal: “Uh, no we’re not.”
Conservative: “Yes we are. My buddy Curveball says it will be a cakewalk and Chalabi has guaranteed me the oil revenues will pay for everything!”
Liberal: “Uh, no it won’t. But, if you insist on going, please take enough soldiers like Gen Shinseki suggested so we can provide some security after the invasion.”
Conservative: “Enough soldiers? Hell, we could pull off this job with the F-Troop. By the way, why do you hate America?”
Liberal: “I don’t hate America. While you were busy stovepiping intelligence I was reading Sun Tzu. His first rule of war is ‘know thine enemy.'”
Conservative: “As Cheney said to Leahy, “Go fvck yourself!”
Meanwhile, almost 3 years later…
HEADLINE: IRAQ ON THE BRINK OF CIVIL WAR AFTER SECTARIAN VIOLENCE
Conservative: “Who woulda thunk it?”
Liberal: “Well,…”
Conservative: “Shut up you Al Qaeda loving traitor – YOU WANTED THIS TO HAPPEN!”
Liberal: “I didn’t want this to happen. I didn’t know this would happen. But I had a pretty good idea of what might happen and tried to tell you so.”
Conservative: “Why do you hate the troops and America?”
Al Maviva
>>>Why are you bringing Salafists into this anyway
I’m not sure Wikipedia is an authority on Islamic jurisprudence and theology. T-Bone’s usage was correct. Salafism is branch of Islamic theology. It is akin to monastacism and some forms of Christian asceticism. It is sometimes referred to by a pejorative name, Wahabbism, but Wahabbism is only really accurate if used in connection with a particularly violent branch of Salafism that is overly comfortable with a “convert or die” philosophy. I think the Wahabbists are also more interested in doctrinal purity than run-of-the-mill Salafists, but I’m not sure about all the details. While one of the Islamacist fronts in Algeria is referred to as the Salafists, that label is derivative of their philosophy, and is not limited to Algerians, just as an existentialist philosopher could be French, or English, or Russian. You could just as easily call the Muslim Brotherhood (which is based in Egypt) Salafists, or you could technically apply it to AQ, since AQ’s religious philosophy is a subset of Salafism. The pejorative label of Wahabbist probably does describe AQ better than “Salafist,” however, given their propensity to violence.
Dantheman
Rusty,
Spot on.
Neoconned
Neoconservatives are really neo-Trotskyites who dream of a world revolution to spread their ideology. Just substitute “democracy” for “communism” or “socialism.” The war on terror is an excuse to use pre-emptive war to spread democracy by force.
Those against the doctrine of pre-emption lack the neocon’s “moral clarity,” and are to be ridiculed. It’s ironic that anyone to their left is called a “commie.” It’s a cult.
Neocon architect says: ‘Pull it down’
Lee
I’m not a lefty but my plan would be not creating more terrorists every day.
That seems to be a simple enough long term plan as the problem would eventually solve itself.
Bob In Pacifica
Don Surber should just go back and READ what was being said prior to this war, then compare that to what has happened.
+++
And let us not forget Bremer’s criminal operation that stole 7 to 9 billion or more instead of fixing anything we blew up. That’s the shining example of BushCo.
Theft and murder. Sounds like the name for a Dylan album.
+++
BBC reports 47 guys working at a brick factory were pulled off buses and murdered. If only they wore colorful uniforms we liberals could cheer properly for the different sides in this civil war.
Richard 23
Bill O’Reilly says it’s time to cut and run.
What an unhinged moonbat. Priceless.
Bob In Pacifica
I remember reading in a book about pirates that a band of Wahhabbi pirates operating in the Gulf of Persia and thereabouts were proscribed from stealing from others by the Koran. You’d think that it would make it tough to be a pirate if you were Wahhabbi. Turns out that after they boarded the ship they’d kill everyone on board. Since the people were dead, the pirates could just take anything they wanted.
Just like pirates today. Murder and Theft.
zzyzx
It’s more that the complete lack of evidence showing Israeli involvement coupled with actual evidence showing that Sunnis with the help of Iraqi forces or people disguised as Iraqi forces did it. Why jump to a weird conclusion if there’s an easier one.
Steve
Wow. Could you be any more of a piece of shit?
More posts from John Cole, please, about the Angry Left. More posts about how we need to keep a civil tongue in our heads and respectfully engage the arguments of people who believe we are subhumans who cheer for the deaths of Iraqis.
The same “conservative” opinion leaders who did everything they could to score political points against Clinton by criticizing his humanitarian intervention in Kosovo have now fallen back on these pathetic arguments. And the devoted cultists unthinkingly parrot them.
When you can’t deal with the fact that liberals were correct when they said it was a mistake to go into Iraq, when you can’t deal with the fact that they correctly predicted it would not go well, this is all you have left. Malign their motives, accuse them of being subhuman, claim that because they predicted bad things they must be rooting for those things to occur.
George Bush has done a lousy job of prosecuting the war against our foreign enemies – indeed, his thoughtless actions have probably created more enemies than they have destroyed – so his worshippers are left with no course of action but to look for a domestic enemy to attack instead. Blame the liberals, make them the scapegoat. This is the kind of rhetoric the once-proud conservative movement has been reduced to.
I hope the idiocy of Don Surber speaks for itself as I surely will not dignify it with a response on the merits.
Ancient Purple
Before, I thought you were just mildly off kilter. Now I know for a fact that you are either a lunatic or completely devoid of grey matter.
ppGaz
Don Surber has flipped out.
As the situation in Iraq worsens, there are going to be a lot of Surbers out there. Might as well get used to it.
Some of them are going to be in the White House, and they are going to be angry. Georgie mad! Georgie blow up Iran!
Etc.
ppGaz
In the end, though, the world is better of without Don Surber.
Baron Elmo
Nicely played, Mr. Surber. Hundreds dead, a nation on the brink of utter chaos, and who, pray who is the Bad Guy? Why, those hate-filled liberals, who love nothing more than to see Iraqis suffer. Why, that shrine probably got bombed by Michael Moore and George Soros, just to make Operation Iraqi Freedom look bad!
I believe I can safely speak for all the leftwardly inclined on this thread to say that we are not filled with any kind of joy, shameful or otherwise. We are well-nigh convulsed with RAGE. Rage at a White House that went to war on bogus evidence to take down a nonexistent “threat” to the United States, then revamped their war into a feel-good exercise in mandatory civics, dispensing democracy like gumdrops from a box. (Because that approach worked SO WELL when we tried it in Vietnam and Indonesia, to name but two.) Rage at a Keystone Kops administration whose expertise was clearly limited to getting the war jump-started… then made every mistake imaginable (and a few that no one could have imagined) while waging it. Rage at the mountains of corpses, the torture, the squandered goodwill, the rampant cronyism and corruption, the disdain of virtually every nation on the planet… Nope, we’re not amused, we’re pissed. Sorry you can’t appreciate the distinction.
Your little war is shaping up to be a disaster of historic proportions, and this is your response: to equate those of us who were calling Bush’s war game a mistake from the start with sadistic five-year-olds. As I said… nicely played.
Funny, that. Seems to me that if Reagan and Bush Mark I had listened to the left back in the day, when liberals were virtually the only ones denouncing the White House’s underwriting of one Saddam Hussein with money and weapons… well, we wouldn’t be waist deep in this Big Muddy of executive incompetence.
“the left is still wrong”? How about giving us a list of all the ways the neocons turned out to be right? Let’s see…
1) “Containment doesn’t work.”
2) “Three hundred thousand troops? Way too many.”
3) “Listen to this Chalabi guy… he really knows what he’s talking about.”
4) “The State Department drew up a detailed plan for getting Iraq up and running after the invasion? Oh, just toss it.”
5) “Saddam was clearly involved in the 9/11 attacks.”
6) “Iraq is a threat to the United States that must be dealt with immediately. It can’t wait! Our lives are at risk!”
7) “We can’t trust the Iraqi army. Best to just discharge them all. They’ll all find jobs somewhere else…”
8) “Our troops will be greeted as liberators.”
9) “Oh, this war should only last a few months.”
10) “Once the oil is flowing… heck, that’ll pay for everything!”
How about that… 0 for 10. Feel free to add to the list, y’all.
Bob In Pacifica
Forgive Don Surber. He knows not his ass from a hole in the ground.
Pb
Don’t feed the fascist.
Or, alternatively, Don’t Be A Sucker.
Cyrus
Well, it doesn’t have to be an attempt to start a civil war to have that effect. The situation begs for conspiracy theories. Who benefits from chaos in Iraq? Al Qaeda and all similar terrorist groups, certainly. Iran if they think that influencing Iraq peacefully and democratically isn’t good enough. And for that matter Israel doesn’t want Iran to influence Iraq at all. Not to mention that anyone who encouraged riots over Danish cartoons would be able to milk this for advantage in the same way.
And then you have to ask who would benefit from America’s interests in the Middle East blowing up in our faces. Um, this could take a while.
But the thing is, conspiracy theories in general aren’t popular because they’re usually true, but because they’re convenient. Blaming America’s current foreign policy on a bunch of fanatical chickenhawk neo-imperialists with psychosexual Freudian complexes in PNAC might explain the details like where and how, but it ignores the fact that their power is just a product of the times. After all, someone voted for them. It’s partly an effort for the conspiracy theorists to convince themselves that there are simple solutions, that there’s just a few bad apples who rose to the top, etc.
Likewise, blaming a bombing on schemers thousands of miles away who would benefit from its indirect effects ignores the fact that someone else, or rather thousands of someone elses, will be doing those indirect effects.
So I don’t know if this was organized by Iranians, the house of Saud or the CIA. But whoever it was, that’s just the details like where and how. It ignores the fact that the area was not Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood in the first place, and has never been.
Angry Engineer
Wasn’t Iraq supposed to erupt into a democracy immediately following the invasion? After the elections? After the second elections? After the… aw, hopefully you get the point.
I find it interesting that guys like Michael Totten are leading off articles with lines such as “Iraq may not survive in one piece” (to be fair, this concerned the Kurds and not the Sunni/Shiite conflict, but it was posted only a few days ago), and then guys like Instapundit are actually linking to it. It seems like there’s a certain narrow slice of the Right that is starting to figure out where this thing is going.
Krista
Rusty – that was absolutely, perfectly done. It should be on front pages in newspapers all over America, on t-shirts, everywhere!
Lines
I see the “Blame Liberals First” crowd has shown up, puffed up and dressed to the nines in their finest clown suits and bufoonery.
Congrats, Don Surber, you went from a day of resonable discourse to your regular dipshit self.
Liberals that tried to urge caution and question the falsified assertions of this administration to keep them from making things worse in a troublesome area arn’t the ones that are to blame, you stupid ignorant pissant. How dare you try to pin it on those that encouraged restraint. You are the absolute pinnacle of Iraq Insanity, it appears. GFY, Don Surber.
RonB
OK, Al, fair enough, why use the obscure reference? Correction, it is almost always referred to as Wahabbism. That is TOTALLY the first time I have ever seen that “usage” anywhere. Thanks for clarifying, though, upon looking further that is correct.
Richard Bottoms
You been reading my posts on other lists or something?
RonB
Don, you look like a reasonably nice guy-did Rush tell you to say all those things about liberals? I wouldnt want to believe you actually think these things.
Psst, hint Don-it ain’t just the left that pissed off with the war. The center is as well. Paleoconservatives are done with it too.
It’s just you neocons that haven’t figured out this dog of an occupation is going to hell.
DaveC
Link
Not in the article, Ahmadinejad also comdemned Don Surber as being a moron. D Mason could not be reached for comment.
DaveC
Pakistan rioters also agree that Israel and the Bush administration conspired to bomb the mosque.
The Other Steve
Don…Don…Don…
We’re so done with your ideology. It’s turned out to be a complete failure.
My girlfriend is Russian. As bad as things were in Soviet days, it would have been far worse had the US tried to invade. Remember that. Hitler tried to liberate Russia, and look what happened. Yes, the Soviets were bad. They were dreadfully incompetent and ideologues who’d shoot you in the head than allow you to disagree.
When I advocate against invasion, it doesn’t mean I’m happy with Saddam, or the Soviets.
The only reason we fought Japan and the Nazis was because they tried to extend their reach, and we had to cut them off. They were a risk to us. Saddam was not a risk to us. Just that your Bleeding Heart Liberal felt you had to risk everything, cause you know… it was for the children.
Harry Truman was largely correct. The way to defeat the Soviets was not through weapons, but through our economy, and in the end that’s what we did.
Having a strong Defense is critical to our security. But Defense doesn’t mean Offense.
Anyway, your ideology is morally bankrupt, and we’re done with it in this country. It’s time for something new, more pragmatic, and more forward thinking.
The Other Steve
Agreed. As a member of the paleoconservative/center crowd, I’m done with Don.
Don exemplifies everything bad about liberals and conservatives. He just doesn’t realize it yet.
TBone
Wahabbists (or Wahabbis) are followers of the writings of Abd’ al Wahab. Abd’ al Wahab was a Salafist. All Wahabbists are Salafists, but not all Salafists are Wahabbists. What does that mean?
Simply put, the folks in Al-Qaeda are Salafists. The Taliban are Salafists. The GSPC in Algeria are Salafists. Egyptian Islamic Jihad are Salafists, etc., etc,. Bottom line: Salafiyah is the ideological base of all our current Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist friends. They want to go “back to the basics”. Some superficial requirements are: no idols, no photographs, no art, beards long enough to stick out of the bottom of your fist, women in full burkhas, etc.; but the real gist is that they are totally intolerant of anyone who does not subscribe to their strict interpretation of the Koran. They judge people as apostate for even the most minor sins. Very strict. Shias are not Salafists. Why do you think the “Iraqi insurgency” is most prevalent in the Sunni triangle? Because it isn’t an Iraqi insurgency, it is primarily a Salafist-Ba’athist insurgency. The terrorists are capitalizing on the synergy created by cooperating with Ba’athist “insurgents” at the current time. The two have separate agendas, but a common enemy. This is important to realize, because once their goal is acheived, the Salafists will compel the former Ba’athists to submit to Salafist ways or be killed (Taliban style).
Salafist ideology drives Bin Laden and AQ. Please research the Salafist concept of “Caliphate” in order to get a better understanding of what motivates the terrorists. Bin Laden and Zawahiri don’t make arbitraty decisions when they direct their followers to conduct activities; they are driven by an agenda. That agenda is always driven by their concept of Sharia (koranic law) and the precepts of Salafism. Politics surely play into to equation, but only in such a way as to ensure the primary goal of establishing the Caliphate. Short term goals have been clearly defined to the “faithful” in order to facilitate this. I don’t have the link handy, but if you search a little, you can find the Fatwa directing those short term goals. (Look for “caliphate”)
I suspect the choosing of Samarra as a target was a part of the long-term objective. Additionally, the “insurgency” is stronger in the Sunni controlled north. Not sure the terrorists have the same capability in Shia controlled cities down south. Unless the Shia are destroyed, Iraq cannot be the hub of the Caliphate.
Not sure how Iran will play in this mess. Lots of variables. Iran is definitely an “Islamic Republic” guided by the Sharia, but it is also a political animal. Iran has to take many things into consideration before it acts vis-a-vis Iraq. In contrast, Bin Laden’s (and his bros) direction is pure. His vision is clear and he is driven by his ideology. Also, Iranian Shias and Iraqi Shias, even though they share the same religion, have their differences. Iran assumed the role as home of Shia when Saddam was in power because Saddam restricted Shia in Iraq. (Qom was the seat of Shia knowledge while Saddam was king.) But now, Najaf is once again the home of Shia religious training, etc, as it had been historically. I imagine there is some anxiety in Iran because of this. And even though Iran has been reported to aid AQ from time to time, I assume Iran does not cherish the thought of another Salafist regime on its borders.
Note: There are other Islamic terrorists (Hizb’allah, PKK, etc.) who are not Salafists, and conduct terrorist acts for different agendas. They are also a significant threat, but not ideologically connected to AQ and its coalition.
Also: Please don’t rely on Wikipedia for your knowledge. Wiki is “written” by anyone on the net who wants to contribute. My son regularly writes to Wiki about his interests, and I know if he can write to it, then anyone can.
Steve
Let me ask this. Why would Iran do anything to help AQ, if AQ wants to enforce a fundamentalist religion throughout the Middle East that is utterly incompatible with the Shia religion of Iran?
RonB
Actually, most of what I see on Wiki is usually fairly accurate. The mistake I made was throwing “Salafists” into the search instead of “Salafism”.
CFR says it’s a bit more complicated. They opine that nationalism( fomented by the stupid policies of the nascent CPA that took their jobs) is the most prevalent insurgent raison d’ etre.
I realize the only sane reason to back the Iraqi invasion still is to put forth the idea that fundamentalists like the 9/11 perpetrators are trying to control Iraq and that they are trying to establish a world caliphate. But that’s just a bunch of eschatological horseshit made up after the fact that attempts to ignore a local reality that isn’t so good, instead presenting a larger reality where the sort of chaos we are seeing is acceptable- nay necessary-because the stakes are much higher.
I ain’t goin’ for it. Those motherfuckers never would have come if we hadn’t come by to bring them a niiice little battlefield. Very compassionate of us to put Iraqis in the middle of our flypaper too. Sorry, T, this thing stinks, its a dismal failure. I’m done with the idea of a protracted war against the Middle East. It is no more likely to make us safe than diplomacy and law enforcement cooperation.
gratefulcub
Sorry guys, the civil war is my fault. If I had only been more optimistic, instead of ‘rooting’ for civil war for years. More happy talk would have prevented it. By bad.
ppGaz
When you’ve lost Bill O’Reilly, you’ve lost America.
MAX HATS
Ironically, now is a time we so clearly need more committment to Iraq – much more. But I don’t see anything stopping the shift in public opinion towards abandonment. The problems in Iraq are fixable, but as some of the comments in this thread prove, admitting a problem is tantamount to surrender. Not in Iraq of course, that wouldn’t make any sense. But here, domestically. Politically. The right’s only strong suite is “decisiveness,” and the fear is any hint of nuance or modification will shatter that. And they may be right about that, even. So they’re forced bewtween a choice for America and Iraq’s future, or between their immediate political prospects, and the choice is clear. All the while, the usual crowd goes GO TEAM GO TEAM, because they think that’s all it takes to clasify as a grade A patriot.
Maybe I wasn’t clear in the last post, but I think the teamers willing to gloss over any error and shout down any critisism are the real problem, not any specific republican leaders. Corruption and incompetence bloom without oversight, that’s just how it is. What we really need to improve things are to turn the rhetoric across the political spectrum away from ‘follow the leader’ and back towards focusing on the pros, cons and implimentations of specific policies.
ppGaz
By whom? The numbskulls running our country?
Lee
At some point I would have accepted the Administration saying “We’ve made a mistake. It is going to take 300k+ troops to quell the violence in Iraq.” Then one way or another building up a force of 300k troops.
At this point, I’m not accepting anything they say.
Richard 23
Some on Scrutator are offering a solution. A new Anti-Sedition act. Because you’re either for the disaster or you’re against it. That’ll shut up the naysayers and nattering nabobs of negativism.
RonB
The Scrutator reads like a site completely written by DougJ, including supporting commenters.
ppGaz
DougJ basically just parrots actual rightwing material.
It’s just the juxaposition of it here that seems funny.
Put the same material on the rabid righty sites, you’d never even notice it. Scrutator strikes me as just another one of those sites where the righties get together and pretend that they aren’t full of shit.
Pb
Hahah, Scrutator… looks like GOP4Me fled back there, where he can try to blend in with the other idiots.
I can only assume that this “Ward Churchill” character is some sort of Republican icon, since the only news outlet that will cover him is Fox News, and the only people who seem to actually give a damn about him are Republicans… Maybe they could replace “Hannity and Colmes” with “Coulter and Churchill: Fair and Balanced”?
stickler
Yeah, scrotumtator and GOP4EVAH are laughable in their blindness. But never forget that the rightwing noise machine has built a solid phalanx of legionnaires who believe in a very few things but believe them with all their heart: The President is above the law, and The Enemy Is Within. Y’all make fun of the mouth-breathers, but they really and truly think anyone not Of The Bush is a traitor.
Ann Coulter is not an aberration. She is part of their collective voice. They really do hate other Americans just as much as — probably more than — Arab terrorists. Just look at that steaming pile of crap site Tacitus set up awhile ago, “No End But Victory.”
Ward Churchill, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, and you, too, gentle reader, are their collective Goldstein. It doesn’t matter what any of those people have actually written or said. They are the Enemy Within.
TBone
As far as the CFR article quoted above, apparently you picked your “raison d’etre” of choice. The article really said:
I think I said “Salafist-Ba’athist” insurgency. Read bolded words above. Salafist = AQ; Ba’athists = Sunni. That does not include Shia.
As far as the Iranian-AQ nexus. Iran subscribes to the “an enemy of my enemy is my friend” logic. Additionally, even though overwhelmingly Shia, Iran is still a muslim nation and must therefore aid a fellow muslim if asked according to the Koran. Non-muslims may call bullshit, but muslims take that requirement seriously. I don’t think Iran sees AQ’s ambitions as a significant threat to their sovereignty.
Even though AQ may not represent a threat to Iranian Shia, it stands to reason that Iran does not gain from fostering an adversarial relationship with the terrorist organization. Iran is a supporter of international terrorism, and a relationship with AQ is not inconsistent with her principles. Cooperation with AQ may even further Iran’s strategic goals of developing a nuclear capability, by diverting attention towards Iraq instead of inside her borders. Also, both groups have a common goal of destroying Israel and America.
Lastly, Iran may stand to gain from a relationship with AQ vis-a-vis the Kurds. A free “Kurdistan” represents a partial threat to Iranian sovereignty considering that parts of the traditional Kurdish lands extend into Iran proper. AQ (Arabs) influence and membership in the Kurdish Salafist group (Ansar Al Islam) may be seen by Iran as a good solution to that problem. The AQ/Salafist-Kurd organization created a destabilizing effect on Kurdish politics prior to 2003. Ansar Al Islam was successful in maintaining control over an area of the “Kurdish Autonomous Zone” in Iraq for a significant time; and prior to the US Force attack on Iraq, the Kurdish Forces required that Ansar be eliminated as a prerequisite for their participation in combat against the Iraqi Army; which is testimony to the extent of Ansar’s influence on the mind of the Kurds. During the joint US-Kurdish attack on Ansar held territory, Ansar terrorists escaped into Iran and were subsequently sheltered there with Iranian consent. One consideration in Iranian decision making, in respect to AQ, seems to be the Kurdish situation; though I believe that isn’t the only reason for a relationship.
Pb
stickler,
Sad but true, but it’s not like facts have an impact with them. In their bizarro world, Bush is a crusader for freedom and Joe McCarthy is a patriotic american hero, Jimmy Carter is a dastardly traitor and Dick Cheney is a wizened elder statesman, George Soros works for the KGB and Rupert Murdoch is a flaming liberal, Fox News is the most trusted name in news (such as it is) and MSM stands for Mainstream Moonbats, and apparently Jane Fonda, Ward Churchill, and Cindy Sheehan secretly run the the Democratic party from an undisclosed location.
ppGaz
Good lord. When you see it all together in one place like that, it’s a stupefying list.
RonB
No, T-Bone, you did not, you just started going on about Salafists, which goes back to my main plaint about your post. You seem to be avoiding the possibility of this being a homegrown problem, preferring to hew to the line of thought that suggests this is a foreign insurgency.
RonB
Furthermore, you are only quoting the generalities of the paragraph I used, the specifics of the Ba’athist insurgency so far as the article goes says that its more Ba’athist than jihadi.
TBone
RonB,
Ah, yes I did. Please wipe your glasses, and take a look at my post again. What is it with you guys? I said:
That pretty much looks like I said “Salafist-Ba’athist insurgency” doesn’t it?
You said:
What part of “Salafist-Ba’athist insurgency” makes me suggest that it is strictly a “foreign” insurgency? You posted the CFR link originally to make the point:
I posted from the same link that said:
What part of that don’t you understand? Two main groups: Salafists and Ba’athists. Repeat after me: Salafists and Ba’athists. You pick a part of the article that explains why some Iraqis are participating and say the CFR believes it is the prevalent raison d’etre, but you conveniently ignore their upfront explanation of who makes up the main population of the insurgency.
How do we know there are lots of “Ba’athists” participating? Was there a census? There are Ba’athist cadre leadership, affiliated members, and peripheral support personnel. The Ba’athist leadership hires regular Iraqis to plant bombs, etc. for very little money. Do you think those regular folks consider themselves Ba’athists? NO. They consider themselves opportunists.
The Salafists use those same people for the same reason. Some of those bomb-planters don’t care about the insurgency for any other reason than for the fact that it pays the bills. The hardcore Ba’athist elite fight to get back in power. I suppose we could call that “nationalism”, but only if they can get their Ba’athist government back in power; they don’t care to have a “free” Iraq. Without Saddam, they are just some dirtbags from Tikrit. Absolute power corrupted absolutely in their case. The Salafists understand this dynamic and are playing along with it.
The Salafists drive this insurgency. Without them, the Ba’athists would soon be marginalized and fall in line. Ba’athists will integrate into the government and continue on with their lives once more water runs under the bridge; but the Salafists will fight until the Caliphate is established, or they are all making love to their virgins.
RonB
Not the first time you opined. You changed your tune. Besides, they’re two different animals with completely different objectives, but I’m sure you’ll find a narrative that has them working in concert.
Repeating what you said to me is not going to make your argument any stronger, nor rebut the fact that you used the introduction to that paragraph and I pulled the specific that said that the nationalist element is the strongest. And by the way, T-Bone, former Ba’athist doesn’t really describe diddly, since if you wanted to work in Iraq you joined the Party.
The foreign fighter angle is overstated by the administration, to take away from the fact that Iraqis themselves are the ones duking it out.
You began with saying this is the work of Salafists(why you chose that word other than to impress or confuse people is beyond me) and then later after, incorporated Ba’athists into the fight. How about just saying it-there’s a shitload of forces loose in Iraq right now, and we aren’t controlling them very well. Shall we agree on that, to tie this dead thread into a pretty bow?
TBone
RonB,
My original comment related to the destruction of the shrine. I opined that the bombing was perpetrated by Salafists, and went on to explain why I thought that was the case. Of course, there are other possibilities; and that’s why we branched off the main topic.
I used the term “Salafist” because they are the folks who make up al-Qaeda and all of the affiliated terror groups who are currently fighting us in Iraq and elsewhere. If you are impressed or confused by the word, then you aren’t very familiar with the dynamics of the insurgency or the terrorists. I am not surprised that most people don’t understand the situation vis-a-vis the terrorists; because most people either don’t have the time to understand, or just don’t care enough to do so. If you are interested in understanding the Caliphate, please check these links:
I will write a post on Salafism soon on my site if you are interested.
I agree, in general, that there are a “shitload of forces loose in Iraq right now” and we aren’t controlling them very well. Thanks for maintaining your cool and discussing this with me.
RonB
OK. Sorry I misunderstood your motive for the usage of the term Salafist, it has NEVER hit popular discourse yet, nor has it been used in any academic discussion I have read, which led me to perhaps believe that it was a mere distraction from the players we all understand and generally agree are wreaking havoc there.
I’ll gander at those links, and comment when you post. I’m willing to look at any angle.