It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A question everyone is afraid to ask

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
The sectarian violence in Iraq, who started it and whose purpose does it serve? Is the US involved?

We are programmed through our news media to think this is an age old battle but if you want to think outside the box



www.mideastbeat.com...

Has anyone stopped to think that sectarian violence in Iraq was unheard of during the time of Saddam Hussein? I'm not talking about atrocities carried out by Hussein himself: I'm talking about incidents at large, in society.

This fact seems to have escaped the consciousness of the world at the moment. Convenient. And how is it that wherever the US goes, social unrest goes with it?




posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by goose
The sectarian violence in Iraq, who started it and whose purpose does it serve? Is the US involved?

We are programmed through our news media to think this is an age old battle but if you want to think outside the box




Oh give us all a break the site is clearly propaganda. The only sites that are carrying that garbage are all the same it is clear they are anti American - British so they blame it all on americans or in some case the British.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
...

There was no shia militias in Saddam's Iraq because hussein used genocidal tactics in order to keep the shia down. The shia and sunni have a long history of murdering each other. Its false to think that this sectarian violence can only be the work of US false-flag operations. It could be, in the realm of possibilities, but its simply not the most reasonable answer.

If the US used the actual tactics of empire, there'd be no insurgency. When the US was fighting the mahdi army, it shot when shot upon. Today, al-sadr is a political figure in Iraq. That would be immpossible in Saddam's Iraq. THe previous person that held al-sadrs relative position, when he got uppity, Saddam arrested him, had his soldiers gang rape his sister right in front of him, set his mullah's beard on fire, and killed him.

Thats why there was no uprisings in Iraq.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by goose



Has anyone stopped to think that sectarian violence in Iraq was unheard of during the time of Saddam Hussein? I'm not talking about atrocities carried out by Hussein himself: I'm talking about incidents at large, in society.

This fact seems to have escaped the consciousness of the world at the moment. Convenient. And how is it that wherever the US goes, social unrest goes with it?



Um because the last time the shiites tried to rise up they were massacared. When swaddam was in power if the shiites acted up they were killed so were their families you know ThoSE ATTROCITIES you ignore. Also news didn't flow freely from iraq as it does now. CNN admitted to making a deal with saddam. Cnn doesn't report the dark side and they get to keep a branch open...

If the animosity between sunnis and shiites did't exist before america came it wouldn't exist now. But it did andd it does. The shiites are looking for revenge for decades of domestic terror. THe sunni are fighting to restore it....

Having said that yes divide and conquer does come to mind. But they already hated eachother. Divide and conquer on a regional level is certainly in play.

Name a place we've gone were social unrest has followed and generally you find we went somewhere where freedom of press is a joke. And the unrest was just suppressed b4 we got there.

[edit on 14-7-2006 by American Madman]

[edit on 14-7-2006 by American Madman]



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   
The idea of Saddam wanting to commit genocide in Iraq is propaganda; as I keep saying to people "what did he want to do" wipe out 3 quarters of his own people? You have to remember that the Sunnis make up only 25% of the population.

As for the Kurds if they hadn’t accepted bribes from the Iranians then they could have had their autonomy (like Saddam once offered them shortly after coming to power). But hay if the Kurds had never done that then the Iran-Iraq war would never have started as it was the Kurdish acceptance of bribes from Iran to steer up trouble in Iraq; which was Saddam’s official reason for the Iran Iraq war (he had given the Iranians a section of river to try and appease the bribing situation before the war itself).

Iraq was stable under Saddam because everyone knew who was in control of which area i.e. Saddam. It was stable because it had a proper police force which hadn’t just being picked up of the street (as happened after we sacked almost all of the old one). As I keep saying most of the people who rebelled against Saddam did so not for a love of Western ideas about democracy; but instead for religious ones. Saddam was a secular Muslim, this means you tolerate people drinking alcohol or being Christian. Those who violently disagreed with that policy (60% of the population are Shiite Muslim fundamentalists) went into mass graves. Of course most of the 60% didn't disagree with it (hence they are still alive) and hence in ether peace was obtained.

The number one reason for Saddam's stable Iraq is probably his over 30 years at war with religious fundamentalism; i.e. you tolerate practises that piss them of; and kill them when they go mental with rage about it. I agree with this policy; and I think its the only way Iraq will have stability (if its to have stability). You cannot have Iraq's hard-line style of Muslim fundamentalists and secular Muslims together because one will attack the other i.e. for one thing the fundamentalists will always attack thinking its their "duty" to do so. It was a great policy in medieval times because that's how Islam mostly spread. Trouble is today it has helped reduce Iraq to 21st century medieval times. We should not tolerate those who don't tolerate others, and Iraq would be a better place if we did so. Instead these people are its government because despite being very different to the rest of the population, they still form the majority of the population (60 percent verses 40 percent) (this 40% contains Iraq’s 25% Sunni population, but the rest are the Kurds and Marsh Arabs who are a different kettle of fish).

A war religious of fundamentalism would bring Iraq peace, trouble (without Saddam) since 2003 the secular side has been squashed, and these are the Iraqi people who are most like us (you and me).



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
You need a heavy handed ruler to control finatical murderous factions.

The US are bound and tied by laws, regulations and international opinion.

Do you think the US would be able to take of Mugabe's role, and keep the lid on the violence there?

The US Removed the only man with enough ability to control IRAQ

With all the money, industry, machinery and troops the US Are failing to do what ONE MAN did in Iraq.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I have to aggree for the most part with Agit8chop, The US opened Pandorras box by nocking out the lynchpin that stabalized the region.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Stable region and the mideast are like oil and vinegar.

To rule throught terror you only have to kill some not all, saddam treat other then sunni's like crp to keep them in check is not just the media.

Saddam if anything was destablizing. Just because the violence is on the tv now doesn't mean it wasn't before. If the region were stable it would be alot further then it was before we invaded.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join