$58.00 donated in past month
The Iraq "Civil War" myth
Media lies about Iraq "civil war" What they are not reporting!
While the corporate goes into a feeding frenzy re: "Iraq Civil War" - the reality on the ground is very different - infact, while there have been violence against both Shi'a and Sunni - the main target of the demonstrations/protests inside and outside of Iraq have been the Anglo-American occupation and Israel.
***The slogan that united them on Wednesday was: “Kalla, kalla Amrica, kalla kalla lill-irhab” - no to America, no to terrorism.***
Read more here:
The bombing of the Samaraa sacred shrine roused leaders to call for calm and tolerance. Abbas Kadhim* hopes it is just the beginning
The destruction of the shrine in Samaraa, where the two imams, Ali Al-Hadi and Al-Hassan Al-Askari, were buried, generated a tsunami of well-deserved condemnations from one end of the world to the other, until there is nothing to add or improve on what has been said. It is now time to assess the aftermath of this crime and where it left Iraq. Analysts worldwide are already proposing theories about civil war as if we are standing before a scene from Rwanda or Bosnia. Iraq is not very well, to be sure, but to speak of civil war is to show complete detachment from the realities of the country.
Iraqis were hailed for having their third democratic vote in December 2005. Yet we already began to witness several steps to separate the elections from their political consequences. At the centre of this effort is the overt participation of US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, whose visibility and conduct is more like that of Paul Bremer, the former civil administrator of Iraq during the period of official occupation. While the ambassador is perhaps trying to show the world that the US is helping with this difficult process, his involvement sends the wrong message to the people of Iraq. The plight of Iraqis in the past eight decades is a legacy of the political engineering of British king-makers who cared more about establishing a friendly government than about establishing a democracy. There is hardly any difference between then and now.
Thankfully, Iraq and the Iraqis passed the latest test very successfully. Aside from the few whose emotions overruled their better judgement, impressive levels of restraint and awareness were manifest in the conduct of leaders and the masses alike. Important and sacred as it is, the Askari shrine is less sacred than innocent human life that is, unlike shrines and monuments, irreplaceable. This has not been the first time a sacred place came under assault. The Kabaa was destroyed more than once and other shrines came under assault time and again. In the heat of Hanbali zeal, the shrine in Baghdad was levelled to the ground in the 11th century and a street was constructed through it. In the 18th century, religious fanatics destroyed the shrines in the cemetery of Madena -- never to be rebuilt -- and attacked Karbala in 1802. They destroyed shrines, stole priceless treasures and killed thousands of innocent people. Most recently, Saddam Hussein's army rampaged through the shrine cities of Kufa, Najaf and Karbala causing great damage to the golden domes and leaving pools of innocent blood all over.
Following every atrocity, Iraqis repair the damage and move on. This time will not be different. In some ways, this crime caused more good than bad. Iraqi political and religious leaders stepped in to heal the wounds. Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani stated the obvious in affirming that all mosques are the houses of God and therefore they are not fair game for angry protesters. The profile of the imams and their shrine has never been as high, now that it acquired an international fame. As a reporter told me, "One needs not be Christian to appreciate St Peter's Church." The attack offended not only Muslims, but all lovers of beauty and art as well, because these monuments were state of the art in their architecture, in addition to their spiritual value. Perhaps the perpetrators' disgraceful act came as a blessing in disguise.