Sunnis versus Shi'ites

[Keysersoze]

Please enlighten me as to how this happened? I would love to know as I apparently helped to do this without realising.........
As to the division of Iraq....How will helping Iran be a goal of the British? As they have great influence in the oil rich Shiite areas?
The British government did screw up. But it was when they created Iraq with out paying attention to the various groups within. As to the sectarian violence. It was bound to happen as soon as all groups were let loose. (The Shiites believe they were persecuted by the Sunnis during Saddams era.)
Now lets look at the larger picture shall we?

If they divide it into three one of several things willl happen.

1) There will be a kurdish country to the north. this will cause a lot of friction with Turkey which has said it will not tolerate a Kurdish nation on its border. (Due to the problems with Kurdish seperatists in their own country) This would not be a positive thing as one it would further destabilise the region and reduce the amount of OIL that would leave the region to the west.

2)The Shiities would seperate and create their own country this would give them control of the larger oil fields in the south. Since Iran has got a lot of influence there it may simply join with the iranians hence increasing Irans influence and power in the region. which could affect the flow of oil or give a lot of control to the Iranians which i am sure the british and americans would really like to happen (that is sarcasm just so you know)

3) The Sunnis will have their own country but would lose the oil fields and not be happy. It might start a civil war with the shiites for said oil fields. This would reduce the flow of oil to the west

Ok i have broken it down for you........ it really quite simple....if they wanted to mess the place up and leave, what are they waiting for? The place is a huge mess already.

 

[lulldapull]

Please enlighten me as to how this happened? I would love to know as I apparently helped to do this without realising.........
As to the division of Iraq....How will helping Iran be a goal of the British? As they have great influence in the oil rich Shiite areas?
The British government did screw up. But it was when they created Iraq with out paying attention to the various groups within. As to the sectarian violence. It was bound to happen as soon as all groups were let loose. (The Shiites believe they were persecuted by the Sunnis during Saddams era.)
Now lets look at the larger picture shall we?

If they divide it into three one of several things willl happen.

1) There will be a kurdish country to the north. this will cause a lot of friction with Turkey which has said it will not tolerate a Kurdish nation on its border. (Due to the problems with Kurdish seperatists in their own country) This would not be a positive thing as one it would further destabilise the region and reduce the amount of OIL that would leave the region to the west.

2)The Shiities would seperate and create their own country this would give them control of the larger oil fields in the south. Since Iran has got a lot of influence there it may simply join with the iranians hence increasing Irans influence and power in the region. which could affect the flow of oil or give a lot of control to the Iranians which i am sure the british and americans would really like to happen (that is sarcasm just so you know)

3) The Sunnis will have their own country but would lose the oil fields and not be happy. It might start a civil war with the shiites for said oil fields. This would reduce the flow of oil to the west

Ok i have broken it down for you........ it really quite simple....if they wanted to mess the place up and leave, what are they waiting for? The place is a huge mess already.

moqtada Sadr's militiamen have caught many a British agent dressed as a local arab dude planting the 'unsuspecting' bomb in and around Basra and many other southern cities. I am sure you remember the last time when the British got busted red handed planting bombs (or attempting to in that car laden with the explosives that they were driving) and were detained in that Iraqi jail, and the British SAS had to go and bust down the jail walls to free them???

And when Iran holding dozens of its arab khuzestani citizens also implicated in those string of terrorist bombings in Ahvaz, and they all pointed a finger at the U.K. troops for the trouble??

P.S. Looks like the two governments have reached an agreement that in future the U.K. forces will refrain from conducting subversive activity in Khuzestan or southern Iraq, or against the shia's or else iran will make life for the beleagured U.K. troops very difficult.

The division of Iraq will be a most satifactory event if it were to happen as that will permanently solve an issue (from your perspective), and pit these weak iraqi fools eternally against one another, while you continue to play king maker

 

[Keysersoze]

Ok let me be more blunt because subtlety is wasted on you guys.

Apart from the Surveillance patrol armed with standard small arms. Who else was captured? Because I have not heard or seen any evidence via the mainstream media and also my private sources.?????????PROVE IT!

"moqtada Sadr's militiamen have caught many a British agent dressed as a local arab dude planting the 'unsuspecting' bomb in and around Basra and many other southern cities." :
-----
Those guys couldn't catch a cold. The patrol was stopped at a "police" checkpoint. hence the raid on a POLICE station.

"The division of Iraq will be a most satifactory event if it were to happen as that will permanently solve an issue (from your perspective), and pit these weak iraqi fools eternally against one another, while you continue to play king maker"
------
So far none of you conspiracy theorists have given me a reason why this is the case??? The war is incredibly unpopular here in the UK however if they forces leave it in a state of civil war it will seem as if they have lost. Also i refer you to the point by point rebuttal above.
What issue are they solving? IT'S A SIMPLE QUESTION if they leave it in civil war Iran gets stronger.........OIL prices go up hence causing another energy crisis here and in the states.
SO WHAT WAS THE REASON BEHIND PLANTING BOMBS????????????
If they wanted to destabilise the place all they had to do was to ride in, blow everything up and then leave....
SOMEONE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS

 

[Cheetah786]

As with all conspiracy theories, nobody seems to think them through..
I ask again, why should Brit soldiers want to plant bombs in Iraq?

well let me educate u on that one ITS CALLED DIVIDE AND RULE.u should no that its an old british policy

second u asked why british special forces were caught defusing the bombs wrong they are not in defusing buisness.british and americans have been doing this stuff in muslim countries for a very long time.so people like u can say why shia and sunni hate each other.

 

[muse]

iT's part of the exit strategy - Sunni and Shia don't necessarily need help murdering each other, but just watch, as UK and US pull out of Iraq, a wave of attacks to provoke shia sunni war will occur - by the way, with the insistence and help by Saudi, Jordan and Egypt.

Pakistanis are being positioned to join in the mass murder, but if they do so, they do so at the expense of the country known as Pakistan.

 

[Keysersoze]

Hmmmmmm I give up here......

Rather than try to give Mick grief (he has left BTW)
Why don't you deal with me? Or at least answer the pertinent questions I have asked? Or can you not?
As for the exit strategy...........If that is the stated aim of the British and Americans. WHY are they still there? WHY haven't they left? Bringing chaos to a place is remarkably easy. WHY stick aorund afterwards?

Anyway I will leave you all to your fantasies.......

As OoE said this is obviously not a place for the military.

 

[genmirajborgza786]

iT's part of the exit strategy - Sunni and Shia don't necessarily need help murdering each other, but just watch, as UK and US pull out of Iraq, a wave of attacks to provoke shia sunni war will occur - by the way, with the insistence and help by Saudi, Jordan and Egypt.

Pakistanis are being positioned to join in the mass murder, but if they do so, they do so at the expense of the country known as Pakistan.

let one thing be very clear dear that no matter what or who be it shia\sunni punjabi\sindhi\mahajir\ baluchi\pathans no one can dare cash his or her sectairian or ethenical check at the expence of pakistan. pakistan comes first BOTTOM LINE.

this sectairian & ethnical curse broke my beloved country in to half in 71 & i and all the other,s who strongly belive in the pakistan movement be it from any sectairian or ethenic group will never ever let that happen again pakistan is here to stay and not an inch i'repeat not even an inch will we let go :army:
rahe salamat pakistan hamara pakistan zindabad INSHA'ALLAH:flag:

 

[EagleEyes]

Anyway I will leave you all to your fantasies.......

As OoE said this is obviously not a place for the military.

This place is obviously not for military discussion and is only for discussing relgion.

Elaborate further.

 

[Keysersoze]

What would you like me to elaborate upon?

And I do take your point about this being the incorrect place however i was answering the military portion of the ensuing discussion. As it was pertinent to the points being raised.

 

[EagleEyes]

Well, enlighten me. Seems like you really know how a military forum looks like, or you just wanted to raise OoEs point of view.

Though i must admit PFF lack users, but you must also know that is a developing project, and only users like you, can make it a good one.

 

[Keysersoze]

Well there is a tendency in some websites for discussion of military topics for things to degenerate into patriotic flag waving rather than dealing with the actuality of the issue. For example when discussing a book which was interesting from strategic viewpoint (on the following thread)

http://www.pakistaniforces.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2602&page=2

I got a few replies telling about how soldiers don't "die" they get "shaheed" and the whole Pak army is unafraid of death Which i feel is a nice "patriotic" view to have but does show how painfully naive some people are about the nature of conflict. Luckily there are a few military personnel around who seem to be around to steady the ship as it were.

This thread is an example of people who want to believe something regardless of reality. For example (as you can see) I have posed a question as someone who has first and second hand knowledge of the topic. And people just persist with their beliefs.

In conclusion.....You have a better site than a lot of your peers. but it is sorely missing some more military personnel. Who will look at things from a point of experienced realism. Hence making an overall improvement to the site.

I hope this is of help

 

[EagleEyes]

It is beyond my hand, keysersoze. But i will definately try things to fix this issue. The problem is that some of the members from here are from a kiddy Pakistani defence forum, and they have the views totally different, similar to have in the fantasy dreams, far away from reality.

I believe once PFF gets more actual military members, then these kind of members will be faded away, but for the time being all we can do is engage with them in the discussion and totally trash them.

 

[Amalek]

Why do Muslims kill Muslims in Iraq, in Pakistan???

What I have learnt is that there is hate filled by some people.

The Sunni hate Shia, Shia hate sunni, buth hate Tabliqi, they do something else...

It is a weird world... They even have different Mosques for Shias, Sunnis, Khojas, Tabliques, Deobandis... and so on...

Of Course, Islam prohibits such a separation amongst believers.

We only have to keep on trying...

The new "Tabliquis" seem promising. Their aim is to bring all sects together...

Maybe they will succeed in a hundred years...

 

[dabong1]

Ha ha ha that's just another conspiracy theory
Why on earth would the British want to plant bombs in Iraq??
The guys were probably just bomb disposal experts, that's why their car was full of equipment..
Remember, the Brit media loves a good story and always print scandals like the mistreatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib jail and other harshness by Coalition troops, then the soldiers are court-martialled and punished.
So if the two SAS guys really were bombers,the media would have printed the scandal all over the front page

a bit history first i think then i will get to british covert ops in iraq.

Does mick in england or anyone remember the shock with which the British public greeted the revelation four years ago that one of the members of the Real IRA unit whose bombing attack in Omagh on August 15, 1998 killed twenty-nine civilians had been a double agent, a British army soldier? no i thought not

That soldier was not Britain’s only terrorist double agent. A second British soldier planted within the IRA claimed he had given forty-eight hours advance notice of the Omagh car-bomb attack to his handlers within the Royal Ulster Constabulary, including "details of one of the bombing team and the man’s car registration." Although the agent had made an audio tape of his tip-off call, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, chief constable of the RUC, declared that "no such information was received" (http://www.sundayherald.com/17827).

This second double agent went public in June 2002 with the claim that from 1981 to 1994, while on full British army pay, he had worked for "the Force Research Unit, an ultra-secret wing of British military intelligence," as an IRA mole. With the full knowledge and consent of his FRU and MI5 handlers, he became a bombing specialist who "mixed explosive and … helped to develop new types of bombs," including "light-sensitive bombs, activated by photographic flashes, to overcome the problem of IRA remote-control devices having their signal jammed by army radio units." He went on to become "a member of the Provisional IRA’s ‘internal security squad’—also known as the ‘torture unit’—which interrogated and executed suspected informers" (http://www.sundayherald.com/print25646).

The much-feared commander of that same "torture unit" was likewise a mole, who had previously served in the Royal Marines’ Special Boat Squadron (an elite special forces unit, the Marines’ equivalent to the better-known SAS). A fourth mole, a soldier code-named "Stakeknife" whose military handlers "allowed him to carry out large numbers of terrorist murders in order to protect his cover within the IRA," was still active in December 2002 as "one of Belfast’s leading Provisionals" (http://www.sundayherald.com/29997).

Reliable evidence also emerged in late 2002 that the British army had been using its double agents in terrorist organizations "to carry out proxy assassinations for the British state"—most notoriously in the case of Belfast solicitor and human rights activist Pat Finucane, who was murdered in 1989 by the Protestant Ulster Defence Association. It appears that the FRU passed on details about Finucane to a British soldier who had infiltrated the UDA; he in turn "supplied UDA murder teams with the information" (http://www.sundayherald.com/29997).

Recent events in Basra have raised suspicions that the British army may have reactivated these same tactics in Iraq.

sorry for some reason the links are not working.The leads are there for you to check your sources concerning british bombs in belfast/basra

 

[Cheetah786]

UK admits smashing jail wall in rescue bid
The British Defence Ministry has admitted troops used an armoured vehicle to smash down a prison wall in a bid to free two undercover soldiers in southern Iraq overnight.

A ministry spokesman in London says the prison wall in Basra was breached without shots being fired, but the two soldiers were not found inside the jail.

The spokesman says the soldiers had instead been taken to a house in the town, from which they were later released.

"A Warrior (armoured vehicle) was sent through the perimeter wall of the jail (in Basra)," the spokesman said.

"No shots were fired."

The two undercover soldiers had been seized after a day of rioting sparked, according to police and local officials, when the soldiers fired on an Iraqi police patrol.

The ministry spokesman says the local British commander decided to enter the prison because of fears, which proved to be correct, that the men had been handed over to local militia.

"From an early stage I had good reason to believe the lives of the two soldiers were at risk," Brigadier John Lorimer said in a statement to the media.

Brigadier Lorimer says troops were sent to the area of Basra near the police station where the two men had been detained to help ensure their safety.

"As shown on television, these troops were attacked with firebombs and rockets by a violent and determined crowd," he said.

Brigadier Lorimer says his concern for the arrested men increased after he received information they had been handed over to "militia elements".

A decision was taken to enter the police station and a Warrior crashed through the perimeter wall of the jail.

When it was discovered the two men were not in the jail, a successful operation was initiated to rescue the men from a nearby house.

The British Defence Ministry says media reports that 150 prisoners had been released during the assault on the jail were not true.

"We had been negotiating with the Iraqi authorities for the release of the two soldiers," the ministry spokesman said.

-Reuters

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1464601.htm

"Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who said of the Iraqis, "[I advocate] using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes [and] against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment." Nice quote. From 1920, a long time ago perhaps, but an excellent vintage. Except that Winston Churchill would not be Prime Minister for another 20 years. And the full quote includes the phrase that he wanted gas that caused "only discomfort or illness, but not death". But never let the full facts get in the way of an irrelevant and antique point.



Divide and rule
BY AIJAZ ZAKA SYED

29 December 2006



PRIME Minister Tony Blair of Britain had been in the Middle East last week on yet another ‘peace-making’ mission. Given the unholy mess back home, with his government and Labour party facing a serious credibility crisis over the cash-for-peerage scandal, you would think the besieged prime minister’s fire-fighting skills would be more usefully employed at home.


For the first time in Britain’s history, police visited 10, Downing Street to grill the prime minister for several hours over his role in the cash-for-honours scandal.

But then, maybe this is why Blair finds it impossible to spend his last few months in power in peace at home. Having religiously followed the imperial, neocon agenda of his friend and ally from across the Atlantic over the past six years, the British leader appears desperate to perpetuate his legacy. He must devote the remaining months in office to the service of Israel and the US establishment. After all, he is the most pro-Israel prime minister Britain has ever had, as Blair himself proudly claimed in a speech in parliament.

Which was why Blair had to dash off to the Middle East in yet another peace initiative. Peace for Israel, that is. And peace for Israel means everyone else in the neighbourhood is condemned to live in a permanent state of war.

So Blair has to pontificate to a besieged people — imprisoned in their homes — whose children haven’t had a decent meal over the past year, about the virtues of good behaviour and living in peace with Israel.

Palestinians must remain peaceful, even if Israel and its Western patrons continue to punish them with one of the most cruel, unjust and unreasonable occupations in known history. Palestinians must exercise restraint even when their homes or what is left of them are bombed to take out ‘the terrorists’ or potential terrorists struggling for their right to freedom and dignity.

And protecting the interests of Israel and its Western friends means Britain has to use the most potent weapon in its armour: the tried and tested policy of divide and rule. If the interests of the Jewish state and its friends are to be protected, the Enemy — in this case the Muslim world — must be divided.

The Enemy has already been divided, most effectively and spectacularly, in Iraq. Sunnis and Shias are killing each other with impunity. The lasting effects of Project Iraq are already being noticed across the Middle East, much to the delight of the Zionists. Why does Israel need its secreted weapons of mass destruction when its enemies are killing each other?

Sunnis and Shias who have lived side by side and in peace with each other for centuries across the Middle East and elsewhere in the Muslim world are now eyeing the fellow believers with increasing suspicion.

Bush was right. Iraq is indeed proving a role model for the rest of the Arab and Muslim world. It is beginning to have a cascading effect across the Islamic lands — from Morocco to Malaysia. And whatever is left of the mythical Muslim unity is being adroitly ripped apart by Machiavellian politicians like Blair.

And what better way to protect Israel than turning Arabs and Iranians against each other? Wrapping up his ‘peace mission’ to the Middle East, Blair thoughtfully chose Dubai to issue his war cry against Iran.

I have no love lost for the current leadership of Iran. By their hawkish rhetoric and posturing and incredibly unreasonable shenanigans such as organising the conference last week questioning the Jewish Holocaust, Iran’s leaders are not exactly helping the cause of Palestinians or Muslims. In fact, by doing so Iran’s leaders are wittingly or unwittingly playing into the hands of Israel and its guardians in the Jewish-controlled Western media.

But it’s downright silly to suggest that Islamic Iran is a clear and present danger to both Israel and its Arab neighbours.

Lest we all forget, it is the Jewish state that is sitting on a pile of nukes and other unconventional and conventional weapons of mass destruction.

On the other hand, Iran cannot measure up to Israel in any respect as far as its military capabilities are concerned. Beyond its hawkish but totally harmless rhetoric — clearly aimed at the global gallery of Muslims — Iran has little that can be a source of threat to anyone including Israel.

In fact, it is the other way round. Israel has never made a secret of its ambitions to hit out at anyone including Iran, if they so much as think about building the bomb.

In case the world forgot, it was Israel that attacked and destroyed Iraq’s nuclear plant in its infancy under Saddam Hussein. This is why it was so darned easy to demolish Iraqi army in the first Gulf war and the Baathist regime in the second Gulf war. And now the Jewish state is talking of taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities. It cannot be idle talk. There has always been a method in Israel’s madness.

On the other hand, Arabs have no reason to fear Iran or its ostensibly growing influence in the region. What would Iran’s Islamists achieve by targeting their Arab neighbours? Nothing. Okay, I agree, Iran is predominantly Shia and the majority of Arabs and Muslims around the world are Sunni.

But that doesn’t mean Iranians and Arabs cannot coexist in peace — whatever their sectarian allegiance. After all, they have lived together in perfect harmony for the past 14 centuries — until the Coalition of the Willing came along.

But then imperial powers have historically exploited the Middle East, Africa and the rest of the world to perpetuate their rule and agenda. The legendary policy of divide and rule has been particularly successful in the Middle East with the colonial masters using the region’s huge natural and energy resources to fund their own empires.

In fact, the issue of Palestine, the perennial source of strife in the Middle East, is a legacy of colonial rule. How could we ever forget that Britain played a key role in carving up the Middle East with the help of other Western powers to inflict the state of Israel on the region? The West has indeed forced Israel on the Muslim world to atone for its own sins. It’s hard to disagree with Ahmadinejad on this count.

And Blair calls this a struggle between the ‘forces of moderation and extremism’. No, sir, this is not a conflict between moderates and extremists. This is a war between the oppressor and the oppressed, the unjust and the wronged and the truth and falsehood.

The Arabs and Muslims, like other nations in Africa and Asia, have already paid and continue to pay a monumental price for the imperial game of divide and rule. Would they allow themselves to be used as pawns in the great game of big powers all over again? They would survive if they stick together. The alternative to unity in the face of gathering threat is mutual extinction.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2006/December/opinion_December97.xml&section=opinion&col=

By Katherine Baldwin

DUBAI (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair urged Middle Eastern states on Wednesday to help rein in the "forces of extremism" in Iran and to advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Blair, on the final day of what may be his last Middle East tour as prime minister, said Iran was openly supporting terrorism in Iraq, undermining the Lebanese government and blocking Israeli-Palestinian peace.

The Islamic Republic has not recognized Israel and last year President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map". Tehran said Blair's comments were "hateful".
"Britain's negative and divisive approach and the war mongering and unilateral policies of (U.S. President George W.) Bush and Blair have caused tension and extremism in the region," said Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini.

Blair's spokesman earlier dismissed suggestions his comments on Iran were designed to pit the region's Sunni Muslims against Shi'ite Iran, saying the prime minister worked with all faiths.

Tehran, under Western pressure over its nuclear program, also backs the Lebanese guerrilla group and opposition party Hezbollah, which is leading a drive for early elections after failing to obtain veto power in government.

Blair, who will leave office next year and whose popularity has been eroded by the Iraq war, rejected suggestions American or British action in the Middle East was fuelling terrorism
"If our policy has a fault, it is that we are too shy of acting boldly to bring about change, to give succor to those trying to live for the better," Blair said in Dubai.

"We must mobilize our alliance of moderation in this region and outside it and defeat the extremists" whose ideas are based on a 'warped' interpretation of Islam," he added.

PIN BACK IRAN

Blair, who believes he has made progress in exploring ways to revive Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking on his trip, said the struggle between "moderates and extremists" would affect the security of the wider world.

(correct me if iam wrong during israel lebanon war didnt british send weapons to israel)and now all of sudden british are friends while iranians are the trouble maker in that area , yeah )

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-12-20T170143Z_01_L20397113_RTRUKOC_0_US-BRITAIN-BLAIR.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-13