Has it been made clear enough that Saddam's being hanged on Saturday was an affront to Sunnis?

[BurtWorm]

Regardless of what they might have thought of Saddam, Sunnis celebrate Eid or Id a day earlier than Shiites. Saddam's execution was a gross insult to Sunnis. There's no other way to read it. The execution wasn't even about Saddam, apparently. It was about the rift.

From Democracy Arsenal:


http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2006/12/saddams_executi.html

The decision to execute Saddam Hussein yesterday (as opposed to, say, the 364 other days of the year) may stand as one of the most stupid decisions ever made by the Nouri al-Maliki government. If there’s one time the Bush administration should have put its foot down and said NO, it was now, it was this. I can’t even begin to think how offensive this must have been to Iraq’s Sunnis. Well, first some background: yesterday was one of the most holy days for the 1 billion plus Sunni Muslims all over the world. Eid al-Adha marks Abraham’s near-sacrifice of his son Ishmael (it was a test from God, and Abraham ends up slaughtering a sheep instead). The catch is that Sunnis celebrated Eid yesterday, while Shias – including those who rule Iraq – are celebrating it today. Juan Cole (via Steve Benen) sums it up well:

The tribunal...had a unique sense of timing when choosing the day for Saddam's hanging. It was a slap in the face to Sunni Arabs. This weekend marks Eid al-Adha, the Holy Day of Sacrifice, on which Muslims commemorate the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son for God. Shiites celebrate it Sunday. Sunnis celebrate it Saturday -- and Iraqi law forbids executing the condemned on a major holiday. Hanging Saddam on Saturday was perceived by Sunni Arabs as the act of a Shiite government that had accepted the Shiite ritual calendar.

So not only was the execution date a deliberate insult to Iraq’s embattled Sunnis, but it was also illegal. This, however, is not the worst of Maliki’s offenses. His is a government that turns a blind eye and, yes, encourages the slaughter of innocent Iraqis through its continued indulgence of its Sadrist coalition partners (yes, you got it right, there are full-fledged terrorists in the highest levels of the Iraqi government). Unfortunately, a steady stream of American commentators seem to think its okay to indulge the Shia Islamists when, if anything, the US should be doing all it can to serve as a counterweight to Shia excess. Why does this all matter? One of the primary engines of terrorism is humiliation, particularly in Arab culture where shame, dignity, and honor play a much larger role than they do in the West. When you schedule Saddam’s execution on Eid al-Adha, it is yet another mark of humiliation on a minority group which continues to suffer under what has become a tyranny of the majority.

[malaise]

1. Bushco handed him over to them

Never ever forget that when the chickens come home to roost. Bush is a dumb fuck.

[deaniac21]

2. Nothin' like stirring up the fundies!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. I knew the timing would make things worse in Iraq

I think that Bush doesn't care--and our troops will be the ones to pay the price.

[lyonn]

4. Just when you think it couldn't get worse, it does where bush is

involved. Of course the U.S. is still pulling strings in Iraq. Past history tells us that. Take the toys (our troops) away from that maniac.

[deadmessengers]

5. Mostly good points, but...

He had me right up until this: it is yet another mark of humiliation on a minority group which continues to suffer under what has become a tyranny of the majority

Ok, Saddam's execution date was an intentional kick in the nuts to the Sunnis. I get that, and I agree that the whole operation (the trial, the appeal, the US handover, the scheduling, and the execution itself) couldn't possibly have been any more short-sighted.

But, I think Juan Cole needs to be reminded that until just 4 years ago, that "minority group" was not only running the show but doing everything in it's power to screw the majority Shia and Kurds, up to and including gassing and killing them. (and yes, they did so with our full backing, but that's not quite relevant here)

To put it in context: would Juan Cole have shown the same outrage for the treatment of the white Afrikaners in post-apartheid South Africa? The situation isn't all that much different - a minority, who, while in power, abused and repressed the majority. Once they lost power, that minority group didn't have it all that good anymore. And I didn't get too worked up about it, because, let's face it, they had it coming, and payback is a bitch.

Likewise, I'm not going to get all that outraged over the Shias taking out their frustration on Sunnis, because they've got about 30 years worth of scores to settle. I'll save my outrage for those who destabilized the country for no valid reason in the first place.

[BurtWorm]

6. We're talking about the alleged government of Iraq exploiting the hanging of Saddam

to incite or punish the Sunni minority at the beginning of what is supposed to be a holiday about peace and reconciliation. It's kind of like Bush's "bring 'em on" taunt. It's not exactly a service to the Shiites, either.

[deadmessengers]

10. Understood.

Like I said, this was just a big middle finger from the Shia to the Sunnis, and this was an example of that. My comment was mostly about the language that Juan Cole used, which seemed to be intended to provoke sympathy for the Sunni minority - and my personal feeling that any sympathy for the Sunnis is probably misplaced. Likewise, I'm willing to temper my displeasure with the Shia government for exploiting the execution in such a way.

All in all, I'd rather be pissed at Shrub for getting us involved in this crap in the first place.

[High Plains]

14. The Sunnis didn't rule Iraq, Saddam did.

It seems a bit odd to pooh-pooh ethnic cleansing and genocidal violence and blame an entire ethnic group for Saddam's rule.

[Tempest]

8. You missed the point

This wasn't just an affront to Sunnis in Iraq, it was an affront to Sunnis worldwide.

Is that what you really want?

[CJCRANE]

16. Your analogy to S Africa

makes sense - however weren't the white leaders basically given amnesty through the Truth & Reconciliation commission?

No white leader was lynched by a mob chanting black power slogans. That's where the analogy differs.

[Uncle Joe]

7. I believe it was an affront to the Kurds as well

Apparently Bushco did not think enough of them to try Saddam for the gassing of their people.

[Tempest]

9. Bush couldn't allow Saddam to be tried for gassing the Kurds

A trial would have brought out America's active role in the Kurd deaths.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. It was an affront to humanity.

That's clear.

[Cleita]

12. For all you Christians out there who might be celebrating this

effrontery. In the Bible, the Romans had enough sensitivity, or perhaps good sense, not to crucify any enemies of the state in Palestine on the Hebrew Sabbath. I guess this makes our country worse than Roman Imperialists and pretty stupid.

[Bobbie Jo]

13. None of this was about Saddam...n/t

[orleans]

15. i didn't realize the dates were different until someone here at du pointed

that out last night.

i even went to wikipedia and the different dates were never mentioned.