Radical Shiite cleric avoids blaming Sunnis in Sadr City bombings

[maddezmom]

BAGHDAD, Iraq Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr (mook-TAH'-duh ehl SAH'-dur) is calling for calm today after the bloodshed in Sadr City a day earlier.

Al-Sadr, whose directives can send thousands of heavily armed militiamen spilling into the streets, blamed al-Qaida in Iraq, not Sunni Muslims, for the carnage that killed at least 48 people at a crowded market.

Speaking at a news conference in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, south of Baghdad, al-Sadr also sought to blunt rage against Iraq's minority Sunni Muslim community.

He says that while Shiites are not weak they "don't want to be dragged to a civil war." He says he will keep calling for calm.

more:http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=4621920

[xchrom]

1. i'ld be curious to see what al sadr would turn into

if sistani were not in his way.

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. al -Sadr knows whats going on

he knows that who the real enemy is here and he is refusing to take the bait. The Iraqi people are not that divided. If the US was out of the way things would probably settle down and the Iraqi people might have half a chance. It certainly can't get much worse.

[xchrom]

3. that's not my view of al sadr.

and sistani is now a mediator between u.s. interests and the shi'ite interests.

this business of a non-secular iraq is very touchy stuff.

and it is probably the future of iraq.

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. I think a lot of it is US hype

Iraqs have lived together for 1000's of years and you physically can't tell a Shite from a Sunni. If the US wasn't in there stirring up trouble and fueling the insurgency, Iraq will probably be better off. If you read interviews with people all over Iraq, most of them believe that it is the US behind these attacks and not other Iraqis.

[RDU Socialist]

5. they lived near one another as seperate nations/tribes

not together. they've lived together since britain created the country with random borders.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. There is a lot of intermarrying there

It is not taboo or even frowned upon for a Sunni to marry a Shite. I would say that indicates a fair bit of tolerance between the two groups.

[xchrom]

6. oh i think that the u.s presence is

fueling just about everything -- and i certainly believe that there are death squads on the u.s. pay roll.

we have a history of that.

[Igel]

10. That's actually quite simplistic.

"Iraqiness" is less than 100 years old.

The area's been ethnically Arab for less than 1200 years. While there are racial tensions, they're subdued; the descendants of the blacks that managed to survive chattel slavery in Iraq are also looked down upon (as they are in Sa'udi Arabia), just not as much as in the US.

Even given the relative lack of local empowerment under the Ottomans, there was at least one good blow-out between the Shi'ites and the Salafist Sunnis in, IIRC, the 1700s. The Sunnis won. And Shi'ites were slaughtered and driven out of majority-Shi'ite areas. The Ottomans also had a kind of insurgency, again Salafist Sunni-led, for a while. Or maybe it was tribal based. Hard to see the difference, at times.

However, Iraq is also equivalent in many ways to Yugoslavia. What was needed for violence wasn't outside involvement, but a lack of a strongman and something worth fighting over. The proper sort of strongman might have made things better; Saddam was too much like Tito in the relevant aspects. Under Tito you got intermarriage, ethnic harmony, and a deep sense of smouldering resentment that exacerbated what came before: the Serb's were, ultimately, privileged, even if (a) they didn't always realize it (although some figured they were entitled to it) and (b) the average Serb wasn't necessarily much better off. This played to Tito's advantage. He didn't engage in the same kind of ethnic gameplay that the Ottoman Empire was the master of (and which Ivan IV and Stalin had learned from), but he profited from it.

[bemildred]

8. al-Sadr won't hit back for Iraq bombings

Iraq's radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr says he will not order his militia to strike Sunni al Qaeda militants after Sunday's bloody bombing of his Baghdad stronghold because that would mean civil war.

"I could order the Mehdi army to root out the terrorists and fundamentalists but this would lead us into civil war and we don't want that," the youthful Sadr told a news conference in the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf.

At least 46 people were killed and 204 were wounded in east Baghdad's crowded Sadr City neighbourhood on Sunday when up to six car bombs exploded in quick succession.

---

Returning to a theme that has previously been common ground with Sunni insurgents and appeared to give his followers some protection from them, Sadr renewed his criticism of the US forces, against which the Mehdi Army rose up twice in 2004.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/alSadr-wont-hit-back-for-Iraq-bombings/2006/03/13/1142098366358.html

[Teaser]

9. I guarantee he's already dispatched men to kill

some Sunnis.

Guaran-fucking-tee it.