Iraqis Win One

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Winston
But don't let reality get in the way of placing any blame.

Indeed. It's clear you don't let racism get in yours.

[Winston]

*plonk*

[Cranky]

wow thats a big number, i wonder if its accurate.

[Cranky]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
What does that even mean?

It means that everything Americans do and say is perfect, no errors whatsoever. Simply cannot be questioned or critiqued. And if you do than you are the enemy.

[Drake Tungsten]

Oh, so I agree with Sloww then...

[Ellestar]

Re: Iraqis Win One

Originally posted by Zkribbler
U.S.-backed Iraqi troops on Sunday attacked insurgents allegedly plotting to kill pilgrims at a major Shiite Muslim religious festival, and Iraqi officials estimated some 250 militants died in the daylong battle near Najaf. A U.S. helicopter crashed during the fight, killing two American soldiers.

Mortar shells, meanwhile, hit the courtyard of a girls' school in a mostly Sunni Arab neighborhood of Baghdad, killing five pupils and wounding 20. U.N. officials deplored the attack, calling the apparent targeting of children "an unforgivable crime."

250 killed, 250 recruited back because of 25 children wounded or dead. Way to go, USA. Only 28.800.000 Iraqis left.

[DanS]

This was an odd group. Apparently, it was an apocalyptic Sunni/Shiite cult, about which there are conflicting stories. According to the military, the leader of the group and many of his adherents were killed during the fight.

300+ dead. A real kill-zone.

[MOBIUS]

Can't possibly have Sunnis and Shias working together - must kill them all...!

[Ramo]

Juan Cole, as always, has something interesting to say:

Fighters for Shiite Messiah Clash with Najaf Security, 250 Dead
Over 60 Dead in Baghdad, Kirkuk Violence

Well, a big battle took place at the Shiite holy city of Najaf on Saturday night into Sunday, but there are several contradictory narratives about its significance. Iraqi authorities, claimed that the Iraqi army killed a lot of the militants (250) but only took 25 casualties itself. The Shiite governor of Najaf implied that the guerrillas were Sunni Arabs and had several foreign Sunni fundamentalist fighters ("Afghans") among them. He said that they based themselves in an orchard recently purchased by Baathists. Other sources said that the militants were Shiites. I'd take the claim of numbers killed with a large grain of salt, though the Iraqi forces did have US close air support. I infer that the guerrillas shot down one US helicopter.

That's one narrative. Here is another. The pan-Arab London daily al-Hayat reported that the militiamen were followers of Mahmud al-Hasani al-Sarkhi. It says one of his followers asserted that the fighting erupted when American and Iraqi troops attempted to arrest al-Hasani al-Sarkhi. The latter tried last summer to take over the shrine of al-Husayn in Karbala. It may have been feared that he would take advantage of the chaos of the Muharram pilgrimage season to make a play for power in Najaf. Al-Hayat says that although As'ad Abu Kalil, governor of Najaf, said the attackers were Sunnis, the director of the information center in Najaf, Ahmad Abdul Husayn Du'aybil, contradicted him. The latter said, "At dawn, today [Sunday], violent clashes took place between security forces and an armed militia calling itself "the Army of Heaven," which claims that the Imam Mahdi will [soon] appear." He added, "The goal of this militia is the killing of clergymen and the grand ayatollahs." The group follows Ayatollah Ahmad al-Hasani al-Sarkhi, called al-Yamani, who is said by his followers to be in direct touch with the Hidden Imam or promised one. In the fighting 10 Iraqi security police were killed and 17 wounded. One official said that the death toll among the militants was not known.

Al-Hayat, however, quotes a member of the group, Abu al-Hasan, who is said to be close to al-Hasani al-Sarkhi. He said that the rumors that the group intended to conduct a campaign of assassinations inside Najaf was "devoid of truth." It says that an attempt had been made to arrest al-Hasani al-Sarkhi, who was present in the al-Zarkah, an agricultural area east of Najaf, which caused his followers to revolt.

Al-Hasani al-Sarkhi's followers had earlier burned down the Iranian consulates at Basra and Karbala, and demonstrated in Hilla and elsewhere.

Sawt al-Iraq in Arabic says that a number of al-Hasani al-Sarkhi's aides were arrested early last week as part of the current crackdown in preparation for the American surge.

Then there is yet a third narrative. Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that on Saturday night into Sunday morning, a Shiite millenarian militia calling itself "The Army of Heaven" (Jund al-Sama') attempted to move south from the Zarqa orchards just north of Najaf to assassinate the four grand ayatollahs of Najaf-- Ali Sistani, Bashir Najafi, Muhammad Ishaq Fayyad and Muhammad Said al-Hakim. The holy city of Najaf, where Ali is buried, is the seat of Shiite religious authority in Iraq. The militiamen, devotees of an obscure religious leader named Ahmad Hassaani, are said to have infiltrated the area from Hillah, Kut and Amara. The well-armed, black-clad militiamen were heard to call upon the Mahdi, the awaited Promised One of the Muslims, to return on that night.

This group is not the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr, which bears no enmity toward the grand ayatollahs, but rather a separate and different sect altogether. Shiite clerics told the NYT that the sect is the Mahdawiya of Ahmad al-Basri (possibly Ahmad Hassaani al-Basri?). Although the NYT was told that this millenarian sect (it believes that the end of time is around the corner) was supported by Saddam, you can't pay any attention to that sort of allegation when it comes to Iraqi sectarianism.

It seems most likely that this was Shiite on Shiite violence, with millenarian cultists making an attempt to march on Najaf during the chaos of the ritual season of Muharram. But who knows? It is also possible that the orthodox Shiites in control of Najaf hate the heretic millenarians and the threat of the latter was exaggerated. Darned if I know. The reports of the Army of Heaven being so well armed make no sense if it was a ragtag millenarian band. But those reports could be exaggerations, too.

It seems most likely that the Mahdawiya is the sect of Sheikh Mahmud al-Hasani al-Sarkhi and that al-Basri was the founder of the sect. That would be a way of reconciling al-Zaman with al-Hayat.

The dangers of Shiite on Shiite violence in Iraq are substantial, as this episode demonstrated. Ironically, given Bush's mantra about Iran, the trouble makers here are a sect that absolutely hates Iran.

[lord of the mark]

"This group is not the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr, which bears no enmity toward the grand ayatollahs,"

no, none at all, just fought with them back in 2004. But no, the idea that Sistani and Sadr arent good pals, is just neocon ZOG-likudnik mythmaking.



" but rather a separate and different sect altogether. "

Well, yeah, who said this group was actually Sadrists?

"Shiite clerics told the NYT that the sect is the Mahdawiya of Ahmad al-Basri (possibly Ahmad Hassaani al-Basri?). Although the NYT was told that this millenarian sect (it believes that the end of time is around the corner) was supported by Saddam, you can't pay any attention to that sort of allegation when it comes to Iraqi sectarianism"


no, cause the good professor sitting in Ann Arbor (or is it New Haven now?) knows far more about whats happening in Iraq than an NYT reporters whos actually on the ground there. Or any Iraqi whos actually talking to him. I mean the fact that the Iraqi govt claims to have captured foreign figthers as well, who seem to be from predominantly Sunni countries, I mean thats GOT to be all lies. It COULDNT possibly be that enemies of the Grand Ayatollahs, and of stability in Iraq could make common cause? Or that someone like Iran could be smart enough to do something that would trouble for the Americans by supporting their own ideological enemies? I mean that would be as absurd , as you know, the CIA supporting the assasination of Christian Democrat politicians in Italy.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

This is the same Juan Cole who was scoffed at for the job at Yale for reasons of his qualifications and biases. This from Yale who proudly enrolled Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi. If from Yale's POV, Cole is seen as too controversial and biased when the Taliban's deputy propagandaist was seen as OK that says volumes.

[Ramo]

no, none at all, just fought with them back in 2004. But no, the idea that Sistani and Sadr arent good pals, is just neocon ZOG-likudnik mythmaking.

JC referred to (and the perpetrators allegedly planned on attacking) the grand ayatollahs collectively (presumably, as an institution), rather than Sistani personally. Sadr's dad was a Grand Ayatollah, remember? I don't know if I'd agree with what you quoted - Sadr doesn't care too much for the Najaf hierarchy, but you're batting strawman.

Well, yeah, who said this group was actually Sadrists?

When someone brings up Milleniarist Shias who don't like Najaf, I don't know about you, but the first thing that comes to my mind is the Mahdi Army. I don't know what you're objection is, he's just addressing that possibility.

no, cause the good professor sitting in Ann Arbor (or is it New Haven now?) knows far more about whats happening in Iraq than an NYT reporters whos actually on the ground there. Or any Iraqi whos actually talking to him.

I didn't read the NYT article so I don't know who the source is. Why do you give him so much credibility? With all these contradictions, an Iraqi is lying to someone. He just gave his opinion, dunno what your problem is...

Or that someone like Iran could be smart enough to do something that would trouble for the Americans by supporting their own ideological enemies? I mean that would be as absurd , as you know, the CIA supporting the assasination of Christian Democrat politicians in Italy.

Exactly, I mean the CIA funded commies to blow up Vatican City all the time...

[Ramo]

This is the same Juan Cole who was scoffed at for the job at Yale for reasons of his qualifications and biases. This from Yale who proudly enrolled Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi. If from Yale's POV, Cole is seen as too controversial and biased when the Taliban's deputy propagandaist was seen as OK that says volumes.

Who said he was "scoffed at?" He was seriously considered and accepted, but an appointment committee overruled the faculty's decision because he was too opinionated on his blog. The "unqualified" nonsense is a baseless accusation dredged up by right wing hacks. Believe it or not, politics can play a pretty strong role in determining who gets faculty jobs in liberal arts departments.

And you realize that Hashemi wasn't given a faculty position, right?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo


"JC referred to (and the perpetrators allegedly planned on attacking) the grand ayatollahs collectively (presumably, as an institution), rather than Sistani personally. Sadr's dad was a Grand Ayatollah, remember? I don't know if I'd agree with what you quoted - Sadr doesn't care too much for the Najaf hierarchy, but you're batting strawman."

Yah, well, Sadrs dad is dead. Dont know as hed really object to the deaths of ALL the remaining Najaf GAs (the Qom GAs would of course survive) but then i never said it was Sadr.



"When someone brings up Milleniarist Shias who don't like Najaf, I don't know about you, but the first thing that comes to my mind is the Mahdi Army. I don't know what you're objection is, he's just addressing that possibility. "


Well seeing as none of the articles said it was Sadrists, I dont know why Cole feels the need to point that out. Anyone who isnt ineterested enough to actually read the articles through probably doesnt know Sadrs a millenialist.



"I didn't read the NYT article so I don't know who the source is. Why do you give him so much credibility? With all these contradictions, an Iraqi is lying to someone. He just gave his opinion, dunno what your problem is..."


Perhaps cause this quote started with "Juan Cole is interesting as usual" Juan Cole, whos an expert on, you know, Bahaism, has somehow morphed via his blog into an expert on modern ME politics.

Im not sure anyone of the Iraqi authorities are lying btw. It looks like it COULD have been some mix of an odd sect and some other group that was using them

"Exactly, I mean the CIA funded commies to blow up Vatican City all the time..."


Well, Im glad YOU werent working for the CIA at the time

The CIA is accused of killing Aldo Moro. Not blowing up the Vatican, but then we dont know for sure that these guys wanted to blow up the shrine in Najaf, do we?

Anyway, something doesnt add up just yet. Iraqi army guys say this group was well armed and well trained. Im wondering how a messianic group unconnected to any of the major political parties or militias managed to get that well armed and well trained.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


Who said he was "scoffed at?" He was seriously considered and accepted, but an appointment committee overruled the faculty's decision because he was too opinionated on his blog.

Well I suppose opinionated is one word for it.