Thursday, June 14, 2007

If it was al Qaeda, why did they turn on one another?

We are told that the bombing of the Golden Mosque in February of 06, by al Qaeda, was the beginning of the sectarian violence in Iraq. Why did the Sunnis and the Shia begin to fight one anther at that time if al Qaeda was the bomber of the Mosque?

I don’t pretend to understand everything that is going on in Iraq, but just from a common sense point of view this doesn’t make sense to me. I would think if al Qaeda was the culprit, both Sunni and Shia would immediately turn on any and all members of al Qaeda.

Please forgive my ignorance but if we “know” that it was an al Qaeda bomber, why didn’t the Iraqis know?


Blogger sumo said...

I don't think any information about that place is the truth...unless it is coming from the soldiers themselves. Or perhaps a few journalists once they get out of there and can talk about it...unless they are threatened before coming home. I think anything is possible.

June 14, 2007 3:19 AM  
Blogger Undeniable Liberal said...

Our standard response to bad events in Qaeda did it! Sheesh.

June 14, 2007 4:05 AM  
Blogger fallenmonk said...

Sumo is pretty close to the truth. The mess in Iraq is so bad that unless you are there and see it for yourself you just have to sort through all the data and try and see what seems reasonable. Truth is the first casualty of war as someone said.
Not to mention that Bush and company want to shed responsibility for this disaster any way they can and will blame anyone, especially al qaeda, for the problems.

June 14, 2007 5:07 AM  
Blogger niCk (Mem Beth) said...

Of course it was al qaeda.

We let them into Iraq to give us a reason to spend billions and make our corporations wealthy.

It was, al qaeda, we are responsible for their terrorism, it gives the Bushies someone to fight and a reason for staying in Iraq.

June 14, 2007 6:08 AM  
Blogger robin andrea said...

I stopped paying attention to the news. I saw a headline about a mosque being blown up. I just assumed our press would say whatever the administration tells them to say. There is no logic, only madmen scrambling to fill the news cycle.

June 14, 2007 6:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If it was al-Qaeda, then this is why they did it. Al-Qaeda is an extreme Sunni movement. Their intentions in bombing the mosque was to foment sectarian violence against Shi'ites because Shi'ites, in their view, are just as bad as the infidels for believing in a corrupt version of Islam.

June 14, 2007 7:14 AM  
Blogger LET'S TALK said...

You make a good point here.

I guess this administration has told us so many lies and most Republican's never questioned them, maybe they still think that the lies will still go without question... and they have.

On my other site Let's Talk about It, I have tagged you with the Thinking Blog Award.

June 14, 2007 7:28 AM  
Blogger Brando said...

I don’t pretend to understand everything that is going on in Iraq...

That's what separates you from the idiots running this thing.

June 14, 2007 8:21 AM  
Blogger WeezieLou said...

i think the first mistake i make in all this is assume that logic and reason play some role. as soon as we "pre-emptively" attacked Iraq, all sense went out the window, and the bushies turned sphinx-like. (not to mention having sphincter problems). a sunni/shiite war will benefit iran and al-quada. but also, maybe a civil war would be a way for us to back out. to quote nixon (or was it kissinger) : peace with honor. our soldiers are certainly acting with honor.

June 14, 2007 8:23 AM  
Blogger pogo2 said...

Hey PoP.

IMHO it is simply to keep the myth alive that Iraq and 9/11 are somehow connected. Never mind that the only AQ-Iraq connection is a direct result of us invading the country, unseating the government, letting the country drift like an anchorless ship for 4 years and inessence inviting AQ factions to come in and shoot at our troops and cause general mayhem in Iraq.

Been very busy here - travelling & demands of work - more to come, but I'll try and stop by a little more often.

Hope you and the Mister are doing well.

June 14, 2007 8:23 AM  
Anonymous scott said...

How right you are Brando. Wolfowitz and Feith, et al. didn’t hesitate to pretend that they knew what they were talking about.

I am disgusted with this administration, but I don’t think makes my next statement an exaggeration: I cannot recall anyone in this administration telling the truth about anything. It begins to feel like they are simply incapable of saying a true thing. When I heard about the plot to blow up the fuel tanks at JFK, I immediately asked myself what is the probability that this is just another log thrown on the fire of perpetual Condition Orange.

Veering a little wide of the subject, but we watched Gardens of Stone last night. In light of this new generation of kids—and they are kids for the most part—being killed and maimed in this miserable son of a bitch of a war, it is enough to make a 52-year old peckerwood cry.

June 14, 2007 10:13 AM  
Anonymous fairlane said...

Right off the bat you know the statement, claim, whatever is a lie.

The sectarian violence didn't begin last year. There was evidence of "sectarian violence" back in 2003 with Sunni's using car bombs to blow up civilians.

It's getting to the point I don't even know what to say about this administration or this war anymore.

If Ionly I had a Genie.

June 14, 2007 10:31 AM  
Blogger Peacechick Mary said...

I first read of this and both sides were blaming the other. Then our local news announced that it was the insurgents. Now it's al Q. I wish they would just tell the facts - the bombing happened and everyone is blaming everyone else and nobody knows who did it.

June 14, 2007 12:50 PM  
Blogger Donnie McDaniel said...

What can bank on right now, is that the ones Bushco wants to be blamed for it, will get the blame. Period!

June 14, 2007 2:20 PM  
Blogger Batocchio said...

You raise good points. Of course, there are so many different factions in Iraq!

Regarding the Golden Mosque, the Bush administration always tries to revise history, and it's important that the press doesn't repeat the BS Bushie lines yet again. As Dan Froomkin mentioned in his online discussion on Wednesday:

Bush's repeated insistence that Iraq's civil strife only dates back to that original attack [on the Golden Mosque] (in February 2006) is ahistorical. As McClatchy's Mark Seibel has explained, it "understates by at least 15 months when Shiite death squads began targeting Sunni politicians and clerics."

June 14, 2007 11:26 PM  
Blogger Snave said...

I think UL is right on... the new term, instead of "insurgents", is "Al Qaeda". I have noticed this in the news lately, that the MSM is playing along with this manipulation of language. The term "Al Qaeda" fills the listener/viewer with all kinds of horrible images of "9-11", wherease the term "insurgent" simply makes us think of Iraqis engaged in a civil war. Which term is better for manipulating public opinion?

Wow, I guess they are ALL Al Qaeda now, eh. How soon before Cheney is sent out to do stump speeches in which he calls the Democratic Party an arm of Al Qaeda?


June 26, 2007 1:15 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home