• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The bombing in Najaf

Andonyx

Graduate Poster
A
Joined
Jul 3, 2002
Messages
1,832
So this is what I don't get.

I've been reading reports as high as 75 casualties in Najaf where two car bombs exploded killing a shiite Muslim Leader and several others.

Apparently this leader was also targeted by a failed assasination attempt earlier.

But in all these stories no one even ventures a guess as to who or what parties may be responsible.

I personally don't know because I thought extremist Muslim groups bombed other people. Israelis usually seem to be more into rockets or organized military actions, and I don't think they're quite this sloppy.

I guess it could be the US, but this doesn't seem to be the way we work, because you would think we'd be all excited and proud calling it a job well done or something.

Is it Islamic faction in-fighting?

Ethnic pashtuns?

Under-represented Hindis?

Am I not reading the right articles?

Or is this a refreshing case of the media not jumping to conclusions and simply not reporting infromation they don't have?

Any help or information you have would be greatly appreciated.
 
I heard about that event too and it is pretty sad all right.

Anyway, for what it is worth I expect that since Saddam and his internal security network is now gone, there are some people who are taking advantage of this lack of surveillance in order to settle some old scores. This sort of thing often occurs when there is a major change in power and there is considerable rivalry between some of Muslim sects.
 
Andonyx said:

Is it Islamic faction in-fighting?
Click to expand...

Could be. The Sunnis and the Shia have a long history of conflict, in Iraq and abroad. There may also be an internal power struggle within the Shia. Could also be Baathists or foreign terrorists, striking at any leader who doesn't support violent opposition to the US. So it probably is too early to say, though I'm sure there are a few main suspect groups.

But it certainly wouldn't be Israel or the US. The Israelis have enough problems of their own, they're not going to divert resources from targeting Hamas and it doesn't get them anything anyways, and it's quite definitely counterproductive for us - this guy wasn't calling for violent resistence, we need local leaders like that to feel safe. It's a very unfortunate development, but maybe at least it will help wake up the rest of the Arab world to the fact that the terrorists are not their friends.
 
I think we are just witnessing the opening salvos in what will be a long (decades) struggle for control of Iraq. There are many different factions who want to control the country. It's a joke to think that they are suddenly going to embrace democracy and everyone is going to cooperate and "get along". I feel it is a probable outcome that one group will, through the use of force, win out and brutally supress the opposition, leaving Iraq in much the same political condition it was in before Sadam fell.
 
I appreciate the responses. Thanks for the info.

In one sense, I'm glad the media are not grasping at straws to explain this, but for myself with a limited understanding of the history of the region, it is slightly confusing.

I fear Landis' predictions on the eventual outcome may be correct.
 
I saw a news report covering this bombing incident on MSNBC at noon today. The reporter was at the sight and he was asking the people in the street who they thought was responsible for the bombing. He got wildly varying responses from Sadam to the US military. However, the most interesting response and possibly the one that makes the most sense, was that it was the Shiite's themselves. Apparently there is a rift between the younger more radical Shiite's and the older moderate Shiite leaders. The Imam who was killed belonged to the moderates and he was considered an outsider by the younger Shiites. I'm not sure about this part, but apparently he just returned to Iraq from the outside (Iran, the US??) and the younger Iraqi's considered him an outsider coming in to take over the Shiite movement in Iraq.

HMMMMMM!
 
NPR mentioned this event this evening. The report quoted Iraquis blaming Saddam loyalist and the US for failing to provide security. The cleric in question was apparently pro-democracy and wanted a greater UN roll in sorting out the mess in Iraq. Reasons enough for any number of factions there to want him dead. :(
 
I just read in the paper the other day, an article by Tariq Ali. He is a Pakistani, and he was writing on the Iraqi problem.

Now, I had thought that maybe Iraq will have to be partitioned into a new country, roughly along the existing ethnic lines, to make four new states.

The Kurds, (Turkey would never agree to this)
The Shiites,
The Sunnis.
etc.

However, it was interesting that Tariq Ali has bemoaned the partitioning of India in the past, for just such a reason. He feels that Pakistan will not be a viable country, and a united India, with a tolerance for faiths, would have produced a better outcome.

No one can say if any of these scenarious will produce the best outcome.

However, Dubya is now stuck with it. No matter what happens, the US will be blamed, even for the things it is not responsible for.
 
a_unique_person said:


Now, I had thought that maybe Iraq will have to be partitioned into a new country, roughly along the existing ethnic lines, to make four new states.
Click to expand...

That’s what I think should have happened. As it is now, we are fighting to secure a country whose borders were arbitrarily drawn, with-out regard for ethnic and religious differences, by European leaders almost a century ago.
 
Tony said:

[...] a country whose borders were arbitrarily drawn, with-out regard for ethnic and religious differences, by European leaders almost a century ago.
Click to expand...

That's also true for all of Africa. And large parts of Asia and Oceania.
To consider the borders of all these states as being provisional rather then internationally recognized and granted would open quite a can of worms.
Besides that: I think I remember that before the war the Bush Administration explicitly ruled out the option of dividing Iraq.
 
Tony said:


That’s what I think should have happened. As it is now, we are fighting to secure a country whose borders were arbitrarily drawn, with-out regard for ethnic and religious differences, by European leaders almost a century ago.
Click to expand...

And when the borders were re-drawn with regard to ethnic and religious differences, it really helped a lot.?

India vs Pakistan?
 
Andonyx said:
I've been reading reports as high as 75 casualties in Najaf where two car bombs exploded killing a shiite Muslim Leader and several others.
Click to expand...

Hey! maybe he was quite a good muslim leader! no need to be rude!
 
Apparently, this was an AL-Qaeda operation against a moderate Shiite leader seen as being too soft on the American occupation. Two Saudis and a couple of Iraqis - all with Al-Qaeda credentials - have been caught.
 
Jon_in_london said:

India vs Pakistan?
Click to expand...


Last time I checked India was a relatively stable country.

But maybe I was wrong, ethnic differences my not be the core of the problem. Maybe the problem is wide spread fundamentalism and fanaticism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom