Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 02/22/2006 View Tue 02/21/2006 View Mon 02/20/2006 View Sun 02/19/2006 View Sat 02/18/2006 View Fri 02/17/2006 View Thu 02/16/2006
1
2006-02-22 Iraq
Anger over Samarra bombing now fanning out to rest of Iraq
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Dan Darling 2006-02-22 06:11|| || Front Page|| [11139 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Blowback in 3,2,1.
Posted by phil_b">phil_b  2006-02-22 06:39|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]  2006-02-22 06:39|| Front Page Top

#2 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583299/posts

AP: At least 5 Sunni Mosques under attack in Baghdad in retaliation to Shia shrine blast.
Posted by doc 2006-02-22 06:48||   2006-02-22 06:48|| Front Page Top

#3 Go go Shia! Go go Sunni!
Posted by gromgoru 2006-02-22 07:04||   2006-02-22 07:04|| Front Page Top

#4 "It's a pity they can't both lose".
Posted by anonymous5089 2006-02-22 07:17||   2006-02-22 07:17|| Front Page Top

#5 anonymous5089 "It's a pity they can't both lose".
We'll help
Posted by gromgoru 2006-02-22 07:46||   2006-02-22 07:46|| Front Page Top

#6 Did it before between Iran and Iraq. Not that hard to do.

Part of the insurgency is due to interference by neighboring Arab Sunni nations who insist that Shiiaism is not Islam. The turnaround in which Iraq went from minority Sunni hands to majority Shia control was an earthquake to the region. Shia are treated as Kuffir at best, heretics and apostates at worst. The reference to the US being Crusaders is an inadvertent admission that the Crusades were a war of liberation for the Christians living in Palestine.

The next front should be Darfur.
Posted by Ptah">Ptah  2006-02-22 08:23|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]  2006-02-22 08:23|| Front Page Top

#7 A few cartoons and the protests all over the world, for weeks were all over the news. Let's see if when one of thier own desicrate a Holy place, the rest of the Muslim world is as upset. Or if they are as two faced as Bin Laden who sends people off to die for glory but he considers death to "be bitter" for him.
Posted by plainslow 2006-02-22 08:43||   2006-02-22 08:43|| Front Page Top

#8 Isn't this part of the Zman's fall back plan, if he can't win, then to institute a civil war between the factions?
Posted by Flaigum Thoque6606 2006-02-22 09:24||   2006-02-22 09:24|| Front Page Top

#9 Dome meets Doom. Sign of the times. Holely Communion follows among brothers. Not getting to be so unusual.
Posted by Duh! 2006-02-22 09:39||   2006-02-22 09:39|| Front Page Top

#10 hey guys, i know y'all love popcorn and all, but like weve still got over 130000 US troops on the ground in Iraq. And a fair amount of prestige invested in getting at least a halfway decent outcome. If you think massacres and counter massacres in Iraq are in the US interest, youre losing it.
Posted by liberalhawk 2006-02-22 09:55||   2006-02-22 09:55|| Front Page Top

#11 "The reference to the US being Crusaders is an inadvertent admission that the Crusades were a war of liberation for the Christians living in Palestine. "

"Over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning, the crusaders murdered almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem. Muslims, Jews, and even eastern Christians were all massacred. "


Posted by liberalhawk 2006-02-22 09:57||   2006-02-22 09:57|| Front Page Top

#12 If Zman gets his civil war, he wins: the western world has staked its reputatation on its plan impose order and bring peace. LH is right. I'll skip the popcorn, thanks.
Posted by mom">mom  2006-02-22 10:06|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]">[http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]  2006-02-22 10:06|| Front Page Top

#13 I agree with LH and find the support for a civil war on this forum incompatible with the gloating and schadenfreude that is everpresent at the inability of the Left to mount a position on our war in terror (a reaction I find entirely justifiable, and engage in myself, regularly). If we celebrate a violent failure in Iraq, we are no better than our portrayal at the hands of the liberals, and the perception of Americans in the Arab world.
Posted by mjh 2006-02-22 10:15||   2006-02-22 10:15|| Front Page Top

#14 The Crusades WERE meant for the protection of oppressed Christians in the Holy Land. Unfortunately, the leaders of the Crusades were not particularly competent or godly themselves.

Pope Urban II was trying simultaneously to deal with political hassles with kings, clean out some of the corruption in the church, mend fences with the Eastern Orthodox church, and protect Christians in the Holy land. Part of the reason he called for the Crusades was to get the bickering politicians and violent nobility to focus on a real need--protection for Christians--and to get them to quit fighting among themselves. Didn't work.
Posted by mom">mom  2006-02-22 10:17|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]">[http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]  2006-02-22 10:17|| Front Page Top

#15 Appreciate what LH said, but I think people are getting sick of Moslems who just want to fight, fight, fight. I read that in many demonstrations over the mosque, they're carrying and burning US and Israeli flags and chanting anti-US slogans. One has to wonder what would happen if our troops left. They don't seem to be able to understand anything regarding political complexities/actualities.

One good sign, though, is that the leaders of both sects are calling for calm and order, and are placing blame against the men who want to cause a civil war in Iraq by stirring up strife by actions such as this one.
Posted by ex-lib 2006-02-22 11:04||   2006-02-22 11:04|| Front Page Top

#16 
""Over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning, the crusaders murdered almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem. Muslims, Jews, and even eastern Christians were all massacred. ""

Sound military doctrine when you cannot tell friend from foe. Kill them all and let their respective g-ds sort them out.

This does NOT mean that I support the doctrine, but I understand it. And, I think a time will come when Western civilization will be forced out of survival, to do the same thing.

Posted by Nuck Fozzle2168 2006-02-22 11:38||   2006-02-22 11:38|| Front Page Top

#17 I need a shower after reading Nozzle.
Posted by 2b 2006-02-22 11:44||   2006-02-22 11:44|| Front Page Top

#18 "Over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning, the crusaders murdered almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem. Muslims, Jews, and even eastern Christians were all massacred. "

Let' have a refresher course on about medieval war. It went like this: taking a city by storm was very costly so teh tacit rule followed by everyone was to dissuade them from resisting. The usual thing was:

1) City didn't resist. Peaceful occupation. Eg Jerusalem in first Muslim invasion.

2) City resisted but ended capitulating to starvation. Then you could expect such things the entire city being deported (eg Harfleur during Hundred Years War) or city notabilities being sentenced to death (Calais same war)

3) City was taken by storm and then it was massacre. BTW when Muslims took Caesarea they exterminated the population and danced in teh streets wearing teh guts of their victims. Oh and a couple years before the Crusaders taking Jerusalem teh Egyptians took it and exterminated the entire Turkish (ie Muslim ) garrison.
Posted by JFM">JFM  2006-02-22 12:07||   2006-02-22 12:07|| Front Page Top

#19 The good old days.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-02-22 12:14||   2006-02-22 12:14|| Front Page Top

#20 Indeed it will get ugly before it's settled - they insist upon it. There you have two salient facts - war is ugly shit that, historically, has ended in ugly acts --and-- we will not be given the choice.

I am hopeful that technology will continue to reduce the ugly side by making the actives die via remote control without killing the passives. We are not (yet) at the point where taking the passives out before they become actives is palatable. I predict that will change - because we will learn that the difference is something on the order of which side of the bed they happended to get up from on any given day. I would love to be wrong. Honest. I fear I am not.
Posted by .com 2006-02-22 12:15||   2006-02-22 12:15|| Front Page Top

#21 Anyone remember mullah Omar saying how the destruction of those mountain Buddhas in Afghanistan was just Islamists, "breaking stones"?

All we have is more Sunni Wahabbists "breaking stones." The Shiias need to realize this callous attitude by the Wahabbists is wrong. If all of this escalates, who knows? Maybe one day, some party or another will be forced to drop by Mecca and "break" that big black "stone" of theirs.

A huge line is forming to break Islam's balls stones. I wonder when they'll catch on to the danger they're in.
Posted by Zenster 2006-02-22 12:16||   2006-02-22 12:16|| Front Page Top

#22 I am dismayed at your reactions, but not surprised. Do you not realize these are human beings as well?

They have held back for such a long time, and the Sunni people, mostly, have come forward to join the political pursuit.

al Qaeda wants a civil war to prove democracy will never work in the ME. I disagree firmly. Iran and Syria are both culpable in this. Now Iran has declared they are even going to take over the PA! Please think more clearly. We need all the allies in the ME we may have!

Do you not agree with our Military men and women? This is whom I will listen to, not the dinosaur news.

This is a very sad day but just like here, the creeps will try to take advantage of it by fanning the flames of anger and fear.

Please do not join them. Your moment of satisfaction is not worth the long term disaster. Thank you.
Posted by Rosemary">Rosemary  2006-02-22 12:17|| http://mynewznideas.blogspot.com]">[http://mynewznideas.blogspot.com]  2006-02-22 12:17|| Front Page Top

#23 Hulugai Khan at Damascus. No survivors.
Posted by mojo">mojo  2006-02-22 12:36||   2006-02-22 12:36|| Front Page Top

#24 JFM

i dont disagree with you on the general qualities of medieval war. I was taking issue with Ptah, claiming that the Crusades WERE "a war of liberation for the Christians living in Palestine." Thats an anachronism. They were an attempt to carve out feudal kingdoms, gain adventure, save holy sites, and get plenary indulgences. They were NOT about liberating anyone. There simply were no wars for "liberation" prior to 1775. Its a reading of modern political concepts into medieval events.
Posted by liberalhawk 2006-02-22 12:54||   2006-02-22 12:54|| Front Page Top

#25 The title is misleading. Al-Anbar has been relatively quiet. Most of the duress is in Baghdad and down south in Najaf & Basra (2,000 protestors?). Habbaniya which is where I'm next to was also fairly quiet today. That's not to say the natives might not get restless over the next couple days. Our relationships w/the locals here are actually quite good. Where were the American flag burnings at? Sounds like a Tater photo op.

All in all this smells like an Al Q op to me. As a parent I feel terrible when I see children get hurt. However, my sympathy meter for most of the rest of the culture doesn't want to budge. If the Iraqi's were serious about protecting their children and coming together as a country they could do it. The western mind has still not wrapped itself around the fact that we are a long way off from pulling these folks out of their early A.D. mindset. The cognitive dissonance associated w/the peculiar mixture of tribalism and islam has made me extremely cynical and desensitized to the attrocities that befall most of these people. More to the point, if two assholes are so busy shooting at each other & wasting each other's holy sites that they don't have the time to plant an IED then that's more than fine w/me. Let Darwinism play out and exploit the fissures.

All men are created equal but all cultures do not progress equally. I.E. the cartoon fiasco - enough said. Fairly sad commentary on my view of them but there you go.
Posted by Broadhead6 2006-02-22 12:58||   2006-02-22 12:58|| Front Page Top

#26 Thanks for the insight and calming words, BH6! Godspeed, my friend.
Posted by BA 2006-02-22 13:23||   2006-02-22 13:23|| Front Page Top

#27 LH, it wasn't as if there WASN'T dhimminitude in that region. However, your point that I'm reading modern ideology into past events is correct, and I retract the use of the term "war of liberation." However, it WAS BILLED THAT WAY AT THAT TIME, however, meaning that the appeal to what would we would later term "waging a war of liberation" existed.

However, the ATTEMPT was to free Christians and the holy places from Muslim domination: didn't work out very well in practice, especially during the later Crusades, as mom well pointed out. The order to spare Jews was definitely not heeded.

Then again, the Crusades took place in the 11th century, 300 years after the invasion of France by the Muslims, and punctuated by invasions of Italy by the muslims, especially of Rome. A counterstrike was WAY overdue.

In a sense, Aris was right when he said Christianity's pacifism is stupid and dopey, especially in light of the disappearance of North African Christianity shortly after the death of Mohammed.
Posted by Ptah">Ptah  2006-02-22 13:25|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]  2006-02-22 13:25|| Front Page Top

#28 Bah. I forgot to add that I DO agree with LiberalHawk's observation that we, the United States, do not view a civil war as being a favorable outcome in Iraq. I was merely pointing out that we (the USA) HAVE arranged that outcome.

It should also be pointed out that the Cartoon bourhaha has not yielded any violent protests in Iraq, although that may be due to the possiblity that the provincial government and the coalition would break heads if that happened. Still, its an improvement of sorts.
Posted by Ptah">Ptah  2006-02-22 13:29|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]  2006-02-22 13:29|| Front Page Top

#29 " especially during the later Crusades, "

yeah,like the fourth, where they "liberated" constantinople from the Orthodox Christians :) And paved the way for the Ottoman conquest. Cant allow those Greeks to make you a dhimmi, ya know. :)
Posted by liberalhawk 2006-02-22 13:35||   2006-02-22 13:35|| Front Page Top

#30 Those of you wanting to breakout the popcorn while hoping for a civil war are both shortsighted and ignorant of the situation in Iraq & the war as a whole. A civil war is a victory for al-Qaeda, Iran and Syria, and a defeat for the United States and the people of Iraq. I watched the people of Iraq vote in Barwana in the Haditha Triad - the heart of the Sunnni triangle & former "Islamic Republic" of Zarqawi. The people want this conflict to end, and they risked their lives to vote. The Sunni citizens respected the Shiite soldiers & U.S. Marines in their midst.

Only the small minded view all of the Shiites as tools of the Iranians and all of the Sunnis as tools of al-Qaeda. It isn't that simple, the fact is most of the people just want to move forward and very small but very violent subsets of these groups want a civil war.

You want more Americans to die, both here and in Iraq? By all means, root for a civil war.
Posted by Bill Roggio">Bill Roggio  2006-02-22 13:54|| http://billroggio.com]">[http://billroggio.com]  2006-02-22 13:54|| Front Page Top

#31 Bill's absolutely correct on this one IMO.
Posted by lotp 2006-02-22 14:03||   2006-02-22 14:03|| Front Page Top

#32 I see precisely ONE poster who seems pleased. The frustration with both sides is what I see, mostly.

Other than that, you had my attention Bill... for awhile...

Your final sentence is asinine, however, since the support you imply you see is, simply put, not there. Manufactured outrage, geeeeee - where else have I seen that recently...
Posted by Whoper Ebbolulet9339 2006-02-22 14:05||   2006-02-22 14:05|| Front Page Top

#33 Yeah, but wasn't the fourth the crusade that was excommunicated by the Pope?

Posted by Phil 2006-02-22 14:06||   2006-02-22 14:06|| Front Page Top

#34 #3 and #4 both seemed pleased #1 was unclear, and #9 was incomprehensible.
Posted by liberalhawk 2006-02-22 14:09||   2006-02-22 14:09|| Front Page Top

#35 Oh, and ps: I agree with Bill.

Some days I wish I had time to do the "morning 'burg patrol" but I have a lot of work to do. The spice must flow and all that stuff.

But it irritates me to come in in the afternoon or at lunch break or in the evening and find out that the civil-war-in-Iraq-advocates have already marked the thread by excreting bodily substances all over it.
Posted by Phil 2006-02-22 14:14||   2006-02-22 14:14|| Front Page Top

#36 While I am not generally a violent individual, I am glad that at least SOMEBODY had their Bullsh1t meter peg at Muzzie acts and decided to do something. To state that this is the opening act in a civil war is a bit of a stretch, IMHO. I think that there are eyes slowing being opened all over regarding Muzzie , er, Islamofascists violence. Don't be surprised if similiar things don't appear in other parts of the world ( I am surprised that there has not been anything of significance in the US of A).
Posted by USN, ret. 2006-02-22 14:14||   2006-02-22 14:14|| Front Page Top

#37 Say what, USN?????

Attacks on Shiites by other Moslems has been going on in Iraq for the last 3 years. And Shiite attacks on Sunnis have been going on for at least the last 2 years as well.
Posted by lotp 2006-02-22 14:18||   2006-02-22 14:18|| Front Page Top

#38 I gotta check the weather report. It's starting to seem like a full moon.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-02-22 14:20||   2006-02-22 14:20|| Front Page Top

#39 Mr. Spemble: This stuff seems to happen most often when a front is coming through or when a front isn't coming through.
Posted by Phil 2006-02-22 14:23||   2006-02-22 14:23|| Front Page Top

#40 Whoper,

Like I said, I went there, talked to the Iraqi people, and gained a lot of respect for them as they have a very difficult lot in life. They face danger every day. I have sympathy for them. They are people just like us, who want to work, send their kids to school and put food on their tables. Rooting for a civil war is just plain uncivilized in my opinion, and I will stand up to that.

I also saw how our troops live in close proximity to the Iraqi people. If you don't think a civil war would endanger their lives, you're wrong. And if a civil war does break out, it will give al-Qaeda the opportunity to establish enclaves in Iraq to further attack American troops in country, and Americans in the region and here at home. That is their plan, after all, all you have to do is read the words of Saif al-Adel and Ayman al-Zawahiri. I'll gladly point you to the information if you like. My words aren't "manufactured outrage", they accurately reflect the reality of the situation.
Posted by Bill Roggio">Bill Roggio  2006-02-22 14:26|| http://billroggio.com]">[http://billroggio.com]  2006-02-22 14:26|| Front Page Top

#41 That's because the Catholics had chosen to view the Orthodox as schismatics -- therefore not proper Christians -- because their Latin didn't contain terms to properly translate the original Greek. The Crusades weren't meant to free the Christians from Muslim rule, but Christian lands from Muslim rule. Catholic treatment of religious dissidents in the Middle Ages is amply illustrated by French handling of the Albigensian (spelling?) heretics, who were beseiged, then the entire population massacred. As I recall, we don't even know exactly what it was the Albigensians believed. The Orthodox were no better, but we in the West don't have as much in the way of the details from the Byzantine Empire (or at least I don't, but it's not something I've studied properly, either).

Separately, early A.D. mindset. Sheer poetry, Broadhead6. Consider it stolen! :-) And you and your Marines stay well. Are y'all still at the breaking things stage? Or have you moved on to training Iraqis and building schools?
Posted by trailing wife 2006-02-22 14:31||   2006-02-22 14:31|| Front Page Top

#42 You've just killed a strawman, Bill.

You clearly imply that there are more than a few loonies here advocating Civil War. That's preposterous and the evidence is there for you to see that's so. Point them out. I see the same induhvidual, in #3 and #5, advocating. I see some frustration and incomprehensible posts. I see more than those combined clearly posting comments that do not support Civil War. I don't look forward to it - and, as I said clearly, I saw only ONE who did. You have, indeed, manufactured a position which is easily defended. I could do it for you, in fact.

And now you've sacrificed a strawman on that altar.

The post above yours, from Broadhead6, is from a man on the ground there now. A very smart Jarine, to be precise. His words tell the story.

As I said, only your concluding statement - as a smear of those here who did not do what you implied - was at issue for me. It was, indeed, asinine. I appreciate your opinion, but the contentious last statement doesn't wash.
Posted by Whoper Ebbolulet9339 2006-02-22 14:37||   2006-02-22 14:37|| Front Page Top

#43 Dear tw,

It's delightful to read your contributions. I hope you won't mind a slight correct to this one, tho.

The Orthodox were no better

The Orthodox churches have always had a somewhat different emphasis theologically and doctrinally than the Catholics. Catholicism echoes a Roman emphasis on law. Orthodoxy echoes a Platonic and organic interest in wholeness and inner life.

There's considerable overlap on the basics, of course, but in general the Eastern churches have had other things to do than to pursue inquisitions or crusades against those who don't adopt a single liturgy form or specific canon law.


Oh, there were various zealous monks, but the whole tone of the churches - and their practical impact on dissenters - was somewhat different than in the western church.

Best regards,

Obac
Posted by Orthodox by birth and chrismation 2006-02-22 14:42||   2006-02-22 14:42|| Front Page Top

#44 Bill, thanks for stopping by, and we appreciate your appearance here at our humble little 'Burg.

I'm just frustrated, is all. I am still trying to have high hopes for the Iraqi people (indeed for the whole Middle East), but then the Bad Guyz go and blow up school kiddies with a bobbytrapped backpack, or detonate a bomb in one of the holiest of shrines, or blow up a humvee full of America's finest men and women. I'm tired of the temper tantrums, I'm tired of the poor impulse control, I'm absolutely horrified by the carnage.

For the record, the official editorial policy of Rantburg does not hope for, call for, or endorse civil war in Iraq, and we have been trying lately to cut down on the 'kill/nuke 'em all' commentary. But we are all losing patience.
Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious  2006-02-22 14:44||   2006-02-22 14:44|| Front Page Top

#45 chrismation - Word of the Day! Well, I had to look it up. ;)
Posted by Whoper Ebbolulet9339 2006-02-22 14:45||   2006-02-22 14:45|| Front Page Top

#46 Whoper,

The comments weren't directed at you or anyone else except those looking forward to a civil war. Plain and simple. Who is setting up the strawman now?

For the life of me I cannot understand what you are so hypersensitive about. I've seen the popcorn threads here at Rantburg and decided to voice my opinion. This thread had a few, and I felt it was a few too many, just as mom, liberhawk, rosemary and others did before me. You don't like it, so be it.

I didn't build any strawman here. al-Qaeda wants to kill more Americans and believes inciting a civil war in Iraq is a good way of going about it. I gave you two al-Qaeda strategists that stated as much.

Do I disagree with Broadhead6? Can the Iraq people do more to protect themselves? Yes. But then again, none of us lived in a totalitarian hellhole for 30+ years, then started having suicide bombers and murderers targeting them either.
Posted by Bill Roggio">Bill Roggio  2006-02-22 14:51|| http://billroggio.com]">[http://billroggio.com]  2006-02-22 14:51|| Front Page Top

#47 Obac, I am always pleased to be educated by those who know more than I. Thank you.

Oh, and perhaps it will please you to know that I am an Orthodox godmother. I stood up at my goddaughter's christening, swore to help teach her the ways of her religion (fortunately I've been able to lean on her mother for that! even after downloading reams of info.), and look forward to standing up again at the young lady's wedding.
Posted by trailing wife 2006-02-22 14:57||   2006-02-22 14:57|| Front Page Top

#48 And I simply must go in search of my missing apostrophes. They were around here earlier today... ;-)
Posted by trailing wife 2006-02-22 15:00||   2006-02-22 15:00|| Front Page Top

#49 Seafarious,

I am a daily 'lurker' & an advid reader of the Burg.

We all get frustrated by what is happening in Iraq. Don't think I don't have my moments of doubt & frustration. But that is exactly what al-Qaeda wants - for us to become frustrated, then despair, then give up. Once we reach that point, they've won. They think they can outlast us. If we mistakenly attribute the actions of the terrorists with the motivations of the people of Iraq, we have played into AQ's hands. Let me be clear that it is one thing to be frustrated, and another to advocate a civil war. My comments are directed at the latter.
Posted by Bill Roggio">Bill Roggio  2006-02-22 15:01|| http://billroggio.com]">[http://billroggio.com]  2006-02-22 15:01|| Front Page Top

#50 The problem hit a tipping point with most American with the cartoon crap, when they saw what muslims would do over a cartoon most Americans went F**kem let them die, I know it is wrong, but most people I talk to have this attitude now. I want Iraq to work out, but people are getting fed up.
Posted by djohn66 2006-02-22 15:05||   2006-02-22 15:05|| Front Page Top

#51 Good grief! This could've been so simple. But nope, your ego won't allow it. Fine... your choice.

What a disingenuous pair of non-responses to a direct and factual challenge of a single aspect of your post. You can't support it, and haven't the intellectual honesty to admit you stumbled there, so you change the venue to include other days and threads. Beautiful work. And plaudits for the attempt to turn it back on me! How perfectly commonplace, nowadays.

I guess the suckups will want your autograph, next. How sad.
Posted by Whoper Ebbolulet9339 2006-02-22 15:06||   2006-02-22 15:06|| Front Page Top

#52 The apostrophes seem to come and go. I'll ask AutoBartender to check behind the pool table at the O-Club, just in case.

Thanks, Bill. Most of us here recognize that Al-Q was behind this bombing and that it was an act calculated to provoke just the response we are seeing even in microcosm here.
Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious  2006-02-22 15:08||   2006-02-22 15:08|| Front Page Top

#53 Let me clarify that I both agree & disagree with Broadhead6... His depiction of Anbar is as I saw in Nov-Dec 2005, and remains to this day according to the officers and enlisted I speak to. The Iraqi culture is definitely not like American culture and they have much to learn.

I just don't think the interests of the Iraqi or American people are served by "wasting each other's holy sites" or letting "Darwinism play out and exploit the fissures." I certainly do understand his frustrations (see above post), I just don't think its good policy.
Posted by Bill Roggio">Bill Roggio  2006-02-22 15:09|| http://billroggio.com]">[http://billroggio.com]  2006-02-22 15:09|| Front Page Top

#54 "Theres considerable overlap on the basics, of course, but in general the Eastern churches have had other things to do than to pursue inquisitions or crusades against those who dont adopt a single liturgy form or specific canon law."

well except for the monophysites. Who were so fed up they welcomed the muslims.

And lets not begin on the Orthodox and the Jews.

But of course that says nothing about Orthodoxy today. Religions do change.
Posted by liberalhawk 2006-02-22 15:21||   2006-02-22 15:21|| Front Page Top

#55 Since you insist, here's the two obvious ones. Are they enough for you? Was it not so obvious that I should have been required to point it out?

#3 Go go Shia! Go go Sunni!
Posted by gromgoru 2006-02-22 07:04|| Front Page|| ||Comments Top

#4 "Its a pity they cant both lose".
Posted by anonymous5089 2006-02-22 07:17|| Front Page|| ||Comments Top

Now am I required to go get all of the references to "popcorn" in Rantburg's messages?

You directly challanged my last statement, which was "You want more Americans to die, both here and in Iraq? By all means, root for a civil war." Now, I don't know how you interpretted that, but I was saying that more Americans will die as a result of a civil war in Iraq. Not the "?" in the snetence. I wasn't imlying these commentors advocated more Americans to die. Are we clear?

I am not so sure why you have to take such an insulting tone. That seems all to commonplace, which is why I stay away from comments. Invariably someone has to resort to insults to make their points, which is quite sad.
Posted by Bill Roggio">Bill Roggio  2006-02-22 15:21|| http://billroggio.com]">[http://billroggio.com]  2006-02-22 15:21|| Front Page Top

#56  guess the suckups will want your autograph, next. How sad.

Don't need it - although I've met Bill. ;-)

Whoper, it's you who are being somewhat disingenuous. There's been a whole lot of what looks like cheering for an Iraqi civil war here at the Burg, including in this thread:

"Go go Shia! Go go Sunni!""It's a pity they can't both lose".

I understand the frustration -- we're all feeling it. But Bill isn't exactly the only one here to note that an Iraqi civil war is JUST what Zarqawi has been trying to provoke for two years now.
Posted by lotp 2006-02-22 15:22||   2006-02-22 15:22|| Front Page Top

#57 Hmm ... could have SWORN I typed apostrophes in that one.

Gremlins, I suppose.
Posted by lotp 2006-02-22 15:25||   2006-02-22 15:25|| Front Page Top

#58 it wast just 3 and 5, it was also for. Plus some incomprehensible or neutral posts that appeared to assent.

Nothing in the other direction till mine.

Though I hope its clear to Bill that most at RB are not taking that stand. (though it does point up the dangers of letting our frustration cause us to lose our cool)

BTW, Bill, my question to you as always - we see indications of more and more takeover by Iraqi troops - i saw a quote of 25% of ops being done purely by Iraqi forces - when will we see a significant decline in US casualties as a (presumed) consequence? Or am i not seeing the strategic reality?

Oh, and I want you to know i admire your trip to Anbar. I think you have alot more credibility now. I wonder if Belgravia Dispatch would appreciate taking another look at your posts? :)
Posted by liberalhawk 2006-02-22 15:25||   2006-02-22 15:25|| Front Page Top

#59 LH,

Thanks for the kind words. I do realize that the majority of 'Burgers do not advocate a civil war. If I gave the impression otherwise then my apologies.

RE: your question on reductions in U.S. casualties. This may seem overly simplistic or obvious, but in honesty I think that is the reality. Since most of the casualties are taken by IEDs directed at patrols & supply convoys, I don't see the rates going down until the Iraqi Army/police can provide the bulk of the logistical support for their units as well as conduct a larger majority of patrols. I can't say what the tipping point figure would be, and it is probably more related to region than straight numbers (getting the Iraqis to patrol/support Baghdad, Anbar and Diyala as opposed to more stable areas). But U.S. MTT teams will still be embedded in Iraqi units for some time and I expect them to become even bigger targets. Their vehicles and uniforms are noticeably different than that of the Iraqis and that will put a bullseye on them.
Posted by Bill Roggio">Bill Roggio  2006-02-22 15:40|| http://billroggio.com]">[http://billroggio.com]  2006-02-22 15:40|| Front Page Top

#60 Bill:

Great to have you stop by the Burg. I hope that the Iraqis will figure out what they have to do to put the lid on their most violent citizens/residents. I believe most here do as well. But I can certainly understand Broadhead6's frustration/cynicism. When you are there long-term, on a daily basis, you get worn down by the slow pace of change.
Posted by remoteman 2006-02-22 15:46||   2006-02-22 15:46|| Front Page Top

#61 Wow.

I agree with .com and BH6, heh.
Posted by .com 2006-02-22 15:49||   2006-02-22 15:49|| Front Page Top

#62 The Apostrophe Gremlin seems to have struck my postings as well, along with his buddy the Spelling Gremlin...
Posted by Bill Roggio">Bill Roggio  2006-02-22 16:09|| http://billroggio.com]">[http://billroggio.com]  2006-02-22 16:09|| Front Page Top

#63 Side note to trouble some of the Christians here.

I have always had a bad feeling about the "Nicene Creed" repeated before communion in most Christian sects.


The Nicene Creed was formulated at the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea in AD 325 to combat Arianism, and it was expanded at the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in AD 381 to balance its coverage of the Trinity by including the Holy Spirit. It is the only creed that was promulgated by any of the seven ecumenical councils and thus it is the only creed that is truly ecumenical and universal. In the Orthodox Church, it is the only creed.

Enough of the offical line. If you were an "acceptable" Christian you could recite the creed as what you believed in and avoid death. If you were a Nestorian or some other variant... DEATH BE UNTO YOU!

Millions were killed based on the "creed" and when you repeat it before communion - besides stating your belief - you are accepting common guilt for the extermination of those who belived a tad differently. In other words, you accept the "sin" of exterminating of the other.

Posted by 3dc 2006-02-22 16:21||   2006-02-22 16:21|| Front Page Top

#64 Interesting troll to add here.
Posted by Orthodox by birth and chrismation 2006-02-22 16:27||   2006-02-22 16:27|| Front Page Top

#65 I had been an ITM (Iraq The Model) regular for some time. I like the Fadhil brothers and believe that they are more modern in their thinking and perhaps even a bit agnostic in their beliefs. I am sad that Iraq appears to be teetering, and I am at a new level of disgust with the attacks on Christians and churches in the Muslim world.
The general direction of this activity is toward hot war. That will mark the Iraqi war as a failure of degree, and the attempts to draw moderate Muslims to take a stand, an action which times out. I can't see any reversal which can force peace to break out. The only things on the horizon are more dead, and more blame. Islam just doesn't support peaceful coexistence, and there's no change in sight.
Flaming lunatics led by egocentric madmen charging off shooting and slashing in every direction. Islam, 2006 !
Posted by wxjames 2006-02-22 16:39||   2006-02-22 16:39|| Front Page Top

#66 The problem is, the West moved on from the crusades. They're still living them.
Posted by plainslow 2006-02-22 16:53||   2006-02-22 16:53|| Front Page Top

#67 Living in San Diego, I know too many Marines and the families of Marines to take any enjoyment in any sort of explosions in Iraq. My youngest son's reserve unit expects to go back late this year or early next. Nothing would make me happier than a massive outbreak of brotherly love over there.
Posted by RWV 2006-02-22 17:12||   2006-02-22 17:12|| Front Page Top

#68 Liberalhawk

It is you who are being anachronistsic or more exactly are repeating what your history teachers (people who trained alongside Ward Curchill told you).

Unlike Pizarro or Cortez most Crusaders were quite rich and didn't go to Crusade for money or riches (do you really think Judea was rich enough for attracting people from as far as England)? In fact going to Crusade was one of the surest ways to empoverish: it was teh huge sums spent in teh Crusades who forced the nobility to start dismantling serfdom by selling freedom to teh serfs and also to sell many lands to the bourgeois.

Also I remind you that after the successful first Crusader mozst Crusaders didn't remain to collect fiefs like Conquisatdores did: they called mission accomplished and went back home and this was one of the main motive for the ultimate failure of the Crusades: the fact that Crusaders didn't care for remaining in Judea.

But you are right they didn't go for liberating Oriental Christains. They went for the tomb of the Christ not for the sake of (for them) heretic Christians.. If their goal had been to liberate Christians they would have gone to Spain who was nearer to them (cheaper and shorter travel, less logistical problems) and farther of Muslim power centers than Judea. And in addition Spaniards were fellow Catholics like them unlike Oriental Christians.
Posted by  JFM"> JFM  2006-02-22 17:28||   2006-02-22 17:28|| Front Page Top

#69 "Unlike Pizarro or Cortez most Crusaders were quite rich and didnt go to Crusade for money or riches (do you really think Judea was rich enough for attracting people from as far as England)? In fact going to Crusade was one of the surest ways to empoverish: it was teh huge sums spent in teh Crusades who forced the nobility to start dismantling serfdom by selling freedom to teh serfs and also to sell many lands to the bourgeois. "

They werent looking for gold but for feudal estates. If youre a second son, who wont inherit but will be knight errant/merc, going for an estate in the east isnt a bad deal. One reason the Popes encourage the crusades was to get rid of folks like that. And of course they didnt go only for Judea, but conquered the entire coastal plain from Antioch south, and considerable parts of Syria as well. Much richer than Judea, IIUC. Of course it didnt work out well for all of them, but at least for a few it did.

In any case i consider the motives to have been mixed.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-02-22 17:39||   2006-02-22 17:39|| Front Page Top

#70 "If their goal had been to liberate Christians they would have gone to Spain who was nearer to them"

actually quite a few french and english knights DID go to Spain, IIUC.
Posted by liberalhawk 2006-02-22 17:40||   2006-02-22 17:40|| Front Page Top

#71 actually quite a few french and english knights DID go to Spain, IIUC.

I know it. But not that many and when they went...

Take as example the crucial battle of Navas de Tolosa. Ten years before the Spanish knights had been anihilated at Alarcos so the nobility lacked in numbers to meet the Moors, so they called for reinforcement from city bourgeois but since those were low quality they got the Pope declaring Crusade (or at least sin exemptions) for those going to fight in Spain. A few thousand French knights went to Spain. These were far better quality than city militias but had the bad habit of attacking Jews on sight. The Spaniards reacted by lodging the French in tents outside the cities and the French ended leaving in disgust.

Aftermath: The Spaniards went to battle alone. It was a close battle who could have gone for the Muslims but it ended with the Muslim army was practically anihilated. After it Muslims would never be able to threaten Christian Spain.
Posted by  JFM"> JFM  2006-02-22 18:30||   2006-02-22 18:30|| Front Page Top

#72 They werent looking for gold but for feudal estates.

If they had been looking for feudal estates they would have remained. It was what Conquistadores did in Mexico or Peru. Most of Crusaders returned to Europe.
Posted by  JFM"> JFM  2006-02-22 18:35||   2006-02-22 18:35|| Front Page Top

#73 Rantburg U rocks...
Posted by .com 2006-02-22 21:25||   2006-02-22 21:25|| Front Page Top

#74 RWV - agreed
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-02-22 21:40||   2006-02-22 21:40|| Front Page Top

#75 Jeeze Louise! I fly around and burn jet fuel for a few hours and come back and realize I just missed a big seminar! All kidding aside, great thread, helps everyone to sort out the issues and get beyond venting frustrations at how f*cked up things can be in the ME. Thanks for the postings.
Posted by Al-Aska Paul">Al-Aska Paul  2006-02-22 21:59||   2006-02-22 21:59|| Front Page Top

#76 I've got to get a new job that doesn't block Rantburg.

Playing one side against another, while certainly amoral, is not necessarily a a losing strategy. The British played the Spanish off the French off the Germans for centuries and the it worked for them. How do you think that they conquered India with so few men? They were constantly playing the princes and tribes off each other.

So Bill, I don't necessarily agree with you. Playing the Sunnis off the Shias could be a force multiplier and not the threat to our troops that many here seem to think it is. It could in fact save American lives.

Of course some might try to counter with the argument that it is important for the US to have a "principled foreign policy" in order for it to maintain its moral authority. My comeback to that would be is it is precisely those elected governments that have pursued a principled foreign policy that have suffered the worst foreign policy disasters. The Asquith and Chamberlain governments in the UK and the Wilson, Carter, and Clinton presidencies all come to mind.
Posted by 11A5S 2006-02-22 23:10||   2006-02-22 23:10|| Front Page Top

#77 Arguments have been made that the Portuguese started exploring around Africa in order to attack Mecca from the south but got sidetracked by the money to be made by hijacking the spice trade from the Muslims.

They did get as far as a huge naval battle in the Red Sea with Egypt.
Posted by 3dc 2006-02-22 23:23||   2006-02-22 23:23|| Front Page Top

#78 I think that Albuquerque was planning to raze Mecca just before his untimely death. Now there was a soldier. There's not much history out there on him, though.
Posted by 11A5S 2006-02-22 23:48||   2006-02-22 23:48|| Front Page Top

20:44 BesoekerTROLL
21:20 Besoeker TROLL
21:11 Besoeker TROLL
21:09 Besoeker TROLL
20:53 Besoeker TROLL
20:50 Besoeker TROLL
18:51 Besoeker
18:46 Besoeker
18:44 Besoeker
18:14 Besoeker
18:09 Besoeker
18:07 Besoeker
17:23 Besoeker
10:05 Besoeker
16:25 Hardliner
23:57 11A5S
23:55 .com
23:54 JosephMendiola
23:48 11A5S
23:47 2b
23:42 DMFD
23:42 .com
23:36 Mike
23:36 2b









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com