Middle East Iraq explodes into intra-Shia violence

D

Deleted member

Guest
Curfew cancelled after one hundred killed.

Baghdad (AFP) - The United Nations urged Saturday an end to violence in Iraq, after five days of anti-government rallies marred by the killing of nearly 100 people, mainly protesters.

The demonstrations -- which have evolved from initial demands for employment and better services to the fall of the government -- carried on into the night in various neighbourhoods of Baghdad and southern Iraq, as authorities struggled to agree a response.

Security forces broke up a mass rally in the east of Baghdad, where protesters faced volleys of tear gas and live rounds fired in their direction, witnesses said.

"Five days of reported deaths and injuries: this must stop," said the United Nations' top official in Iraq, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert.

She described the violence as a "senseless loss of life" and said those behind it must be held accountable.

The authorities accused unidentified snipers of shooting into the crowd and said they were searching residential neighbourhoods for those responsible.

At least 99 people have died and nearly 4,000 wounded since protests began in the capital on Tuesday before spreading to the south of the country, according to the Iraqi parliament's human rights commission.

The mainly young, male protesters have insisted their movement is not linked to any party or religious establishment and have scoffed at recent overtures by politicians.

On Saturday, demonstrators in the southern city of Nasiriyah set fire to the headquarters of six different political parties.

Thousands also descended on the governorate in the southern city of Diwaniyah, where gunfire was unleashed into the air, AFP correspondents there said.

Parliament's human rights commission said Saturday that most of those who have died in the last five days fell in Baghdad, while 250 other people were treated in the capital for sniper wounds.

"We demand clarification from the Iraqi government on those wounded in Baghdad by sniper fire, which is ongoing today," the commission said.



Despite the claim that it was just "protests", Muqtada al-Sadr's faction is supporting the demonstrators in a dispute with the Prime Minister; the government is an alliance of nationalists and Shia religious at the moment.

A lot of detailed reporting is from the Iranians, of course, but therefore biased.


I have unverified reports of mortar fire at Sadr City at this time.
 
It is quite unlikely to completely destabilise the country, but the risk of major fighting definitely exists. 2014 started from similarly minor auspices.
 
Muqtada al-Sadr is a shia terrorist but he's become anti-Iran, not surprising considering the Iranians are imperialist douchebags.

Iran's been encroaching upon Iraqi sovereignty and now that the war against ISIS is over, Iraqi nationalists believe they can kick them out even though the government rubs shoulders with them.
 
Muqtada al-Sadr is a shia terrorist but he's become anti-Iran, not surprising considering the Iranians are imperialist douchebags.

Iran's been encroaching upon Iraqi sovereignty and now that the war against ISIS is over, Iraqi nationalists believe they can kick them out even though the government rubs shoulders with them.

He is an insurgent, a nationalist, he killed a lot of good Americans; I am not sure we really need to call him a terrorist.
 
The entirely artificial nation is facing extreme political and sectarian violence? What a complete and total surprise./s

Ultimately Iraq, like many other nations in the Middle East, shouldn’t even exist. At least, not in its current form.

If the British and French had been interested in stability in the region, it would have been carved up differently during decolonization.

These nations should have been divided upon organic tribal and religious lines, instead of throwing groups of people that absolutely despise one another into the completely artificial and arbitrary nation states and praying they get along.

Why the hell not?

There is, fundamentally, a difference between nationalist insurgent and terrorist. The line is rather thin, I’ll admit, but it is there.

Though, ultimately, I don’t know enough about al-Sadr to be able to say which one he is.
 
The entirely artificial nation is facing extreme political and sectarian violence? What a complete and total surprise./s

Ultimately Iraq, like many other nations in the Middle East, shouldn’t even exist. At least, not in its current form.

If the British and French had been interested in stability in the region, it would have been carved up differently during decolonization.

These nations should have been divided upon organic tribal and religious lines, instead of throwing groups of people that absolutely despise one another into the completely artificial and arbitrary nation states and praying they get along.
To be fair, if it was stable, it would have been harder for them to maintain control; after all, a populace fighting amongst itself is too busy to think about overthrowing a foreign power exploiting their country.
 
Why the hell not?

I certainly wouldn't shy from calling him a terrorist. He murdered Grand Ayatollah al-Khoei because the latter wasn't as hardline as him against the Americans. His April 2004 uprising was after he made a call for Jihad and he coordinated with Sunni terrorists (or nationalist insurgents if you prefer) in maximizing the impact of their dual uprisings with ambushes, assassinations and bombings.

It wouldn't surprise me if he moderated since the 2011 withdrawal and all of the ISIS shenanigans and just became the far more violent Iraqi equivalent of a mere reactionary populist however. His main public hateboner was for the Coalition after all and now that they're gone only inferior targets fill his ire now.
 
His current hateboner against Iran doesn't come from any change of his heart, but from the fact that Iran sidelined him after failiure of his uprising, due to him being too volatile and obstinate. Basically, after he became persona non grata in Iraq, Iran turned to other players to fuhrter their agenda in Iraq, relegating him to the rank of benchwarmer, something which he will never forgive them.
 
Last edited:
His current hateboner against Iran doesn't come from any change of his heart, but from the fact that Iran sidelined him after failiure of his uprising, due to being too volatile and obstinate. Basically, after he became persona non grata in Iraq, Iran turned to other players to fuhrter their agenda in Iraq, relegating him to the rank of benchwarmer, something which he will never forgive them.

Middle eastern poltics basically just runs on spite and oil.

Its an improvement it used to just run on spite.
 
The entirely artificial nation is facing extreme political and sectarian violence? What a complete and total surprise./s

Ultimately Iraq, like many other nations in the Middle East, shouldn’t even exist. At least, not in its current form.

If the British and French had been interested in stability in the region, it would have been carved up differently during decolonization.

These nations should have been divided upon organic tribal and religious lines, instead of throwing groups of people that absolutely despise one another into the completely artificial and arbitrary nation states and praying they get along.



There is, fundamentally, a difference between nationalist insurgent and terrorist. The line is rather thin, I’ll admit, but it is there.

Though, ultimately, I don’t know enough about al-Sadr to be able to say which one he is.
See I think they'd still be fighting. Mesopotamia and the local area have been battlegrounds for all of recorded history. Really the only time it's been peaceful is when they're getting stomped on by a greater power. The Euros might've made it worse but I think a "peaceful" middle East is a pipe dream.
 
See I think they'd still be fighting. Mesopotamia and the local area have been battlegrounds for all of recorded history. Really the only time it's been peaceful is when they're getting stomped on by a greater power. The Euros might've made it worse but I think a "peaceful" middle East is a pipe dream.

I don’t think it would have been peaceful. The Middle East is always at war in some capacity or another. But it would have been more stable if the states were carved up in a more organic manner.

You’d still have your skirmishes and wars, but I don’t think there would be nearly as many civil wars in the region if so many different tribes and religions, that absolutely despise one another, weren’t being forced to share nations.
 
His current hateboner against Iran doesn't come from any change of his heart, but from the fact that Iran sidelined him after failiure of his uprising, due to him being too volatile and obstinate. Basically, after he became persona non grata in Iraq, Iran turned to other players to fuhrter their agenda in Iraq, relegating him to the rank of benchwarmer, something which he will never forgive them.

He ultimately doesn't care about what is best for Iraqis, he uses his position to further his own power. He's just playing the role of Iraqi nationalist because that's how he thinks he would best expand his power base.
 
His current hateboner against Iran doesn't come from any change of his heart, but from the fact that Iran sidelined him after failiure of his uprising, due to him being too volatile and obstinate. Basically, after he became persona non grata in Iraq, Iran turned to other players to fuhrter their agenda in Iraq, relegating him to the rank of benchwarmer, something which he will never forgive them.


Well, he's certainly paid them back for it now.
 
Despite the distraction in other areas of the world, violence has continued to escalate in Iraq.

Reports say up to 18 people were shot dead by security forces there. However, officials denied anyone was killed.

In the capital, Baghdad, thousands of protesters have defied a curfew to demand jobs, better public services and an end to corruption.

Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi is under growing pressure to resign.

On Tuesday the influential Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr said he would join forces with another powerful politician, Hadi al-Ameri, to bring Mr Abdul Mahdi down through a vote of no confidence.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top