Iraq's Sunni accuse Shia of selling out Islam

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/188c921c-3e61-11d9-a9d7-00000e2511c8.html

~snip~

“Those of the black turbans” Iraq's Shia clergy “are but traitors and agents of America. It is they who have provoked the Amer-icans to attack the Sunni, whom they call extremists and terrorists,” Sheikh Ahmed al-Kubaisi told his congregation last Friday.

Mr Kubaisi's sermon is typical of many Sunni mosques across the country, where preachers are delivering fiery attacks on the Shia clergy who, they say, have “sold out” Islam. In the aftermath of the Falluja battle, the insurgency has never been more divided along sectarian lines: guerrilla groups are overwhelming made up of Sunni Arabs, thought to make up about 20 per cent of the population, while most of the majority Shia and the minority Kurds support the interim government.

Both Sunni and Shia militants had put aside differences and found common cause back in April, when radical Shia preacher Moqtada al-Sadr took up arms against the US during the first siege of Falluja, which ended with insurgents in control of the town. During that campaign Shia mosques launched relief drives to aid Falluja and delegations from each sect visited the other's mosques with messages of solidarity.

However, Mr Sadr's followers have since laid down their weapons, and while he and several other Shia clerics have harshly condemned the Falluja offensive, more establishment clerics such as Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani have remained silent on the assault; some have even supported it. The Sunni clerical establishment is particularly incensed by an appearance by Shia cleric Iyad Jamal al-Din on al-Arabiya satellite television, in which he praised the assault on the “dens of terrorists and Saddam's supporters who know only violence in Falluja”.

Divide and rule.

the Sunnis are fighting this one on their own. Sistani and similar Shiites have made only token comments condemning the assault on Fallujah. consequently, we are seen a systematic attempt, getting close to ethnic cleansing, to rid the region of "military age men". witness the current assault on Babil south of Baghdad.

The division is between Iraqi nationalists and coalition collaborators,
and that division cuts across all ethnicities and religious affiliations.

There are attacks all across Iraq every day, and it is not only the
Sunni that carry them out.

This piece tries to imply that it is the religious dimension that
matters, and that the Shiia rather than their leaders have abandoned the
Sunni, and that is propaganda.

that's not quite right, especially when one considers the core of shi'ah Islam...the average shi'ah is expected to find an "object of emulation" among the clergy and abide by his rulings and pronouncements on every issue.

If the great majority of shi'ah clergy support a pogrom against the sunni, then the great majority of shi'ah will likely also support that that pogrom.

This is setting the stage for a civil war. And despite their numerical disadvatage, the Sunni are well positioned in the short term for this war. They have the military training, they have the armaments and they have the passion to execute successful hostilities for years to come.

I am saying that the "great majority of shi'ah clergy" do not support
a progrom against the Sinni. You may disagree of course.

The stage certainly is being set for a civil war, the question is
whom will be on which side, and for that matter what will the sides
be?

I do expect the Sunni will give a good account of themselves.

a nice "division between Iraqi nationalists and coalition collaborators, and that division cuts across all ethnicities and religious affiliations". But that is not the picture emerging right now. Juan Cole reports this morning re Babil that a "Basra group of activist Shiites had recruited volunteers to go up there and protect Shiites from Sunni attacks." The main coalition collaborators are the Kurds. But this quibble is small ...

My main concern is that we are seeing the unfolding of a definite US government sanctioned US military implemented plan to eradicate a significant portion of a civilian population. We must blow the whistle on this at every oppurtunity.

There are many currents at work, and it is a mistake to think of these
collections of people as coherent entities, most of the time.

The left has their propaganda too. It is so naive to think all the attacks in Iraq are simply about the occupation. It isn't. All kinds of political agendas and factions are at play in Iraq. Hate the American occupiers is a simplistic rallying cry for war protestors, but it also makes the left look silly because nothing is ever that simple and the vast majority of America and the world knows it.

are you fucking kidding? which half, the one that believes saddam was behind 9-11? the half that believes we are "fighting evil?"

yeah. fucking. right.

They're wrong so the left is autoamtically completely right?

I said nothing of the kind. I asserted that a certain issue would
prove the central one: expelling the invader vs collaborating. It's
very VietNam like. The territorial imperative is strong in humans and
I would bet on it here.

And not. An uprising against colonialism was in progress, which we turned into a civil war. Iraq is different in that the civil and religious disputes were already there, making it easier for the Bushies to confuse the issues and manipulate Americans, which they readily do. But it doesn't meant the civil disputes aren't there and aren't real and it doesn't mean that there isn't a minority fighting that aren't fighting for Iraq at all. Quagmire, yep. But not exactly like Vietnam.

I didn't say "exactly", and I didn't say the internal disputes
are not real. I said that I expect that they will put aside their
internal differences, for the most part, until they have kicked our
asses out of there, and they will, and then we will see how they
resolve matters among themselves.

Really. Don't get out much, do you?

Stuid on the one hand doesn't excuse stupid on the other.

the deaths of 500,000 iraqi children in the 90s were due to american driven sanctions.
the current devastation in Iraq is due to the invasion.
the overwhelming number of deaths (100,000+) being caused is due directly to the occupation forces.
Depleted Uranium leaves to Iraqis a lethal legacy that will continue to give for generations.
and ....

OK, OK, i know, that's too simple and i look silly. jeez you and your fucking sophistry, "nothing is ever that simple".

And do what.

comeuppance and don't like it one bit. The Kurds and Shiites (80%) who have been crapped on the last few decades by Saddam and the Sunnis are now in a more powerful position than the Sunnis. I think the Sunnis want their old position back when they were the high men on the totem pole under Saddam. They know there is no way they will ever get their old power back since they are only .20 of the population. Of course add on some baathists, some people from other countries, some ex Saddam military types and it is hard to figure what is going on.

punished, and many killed, because the resistance to the occupation is being lead by the Sunnis. Let me remind you Barb that collective punishment is against the Geneva Conventions. "comeuppance", where the fuck do you get such polite euphemisms for atrocities ??

civilized response, rather than shooting off your stupid fuck "mouth" (figuratively speaking). From your dumbass rant it is quite clear you have jumped to a totally incorrect conclusion.

And when I need you to tell me about the Geneva Conventions, I will let you know.