What's new

War and Occupation in Iraq

"Umm, no. Shias....never had a problem in the government of Saddam."

Really? Here's what your own source had to say a bit further on-

B'aath-Shia Relations-Global Security

"Since the 1980's, the Baath Government reportedly attempted to eliminate the senior Shi'a religious leadership (the Mirjaiyat) through killings, disappearances, and summary executions.

Despite supposed legal protection of religious equality, the Baath regime repressed severely the Shi'a clergy and those who follow the Shi'a faith. Forces from the Intelligence Service (Mukhabarat), General Security (Amn al-Amm), the Military Bureau, Saddam's Commandos (Fedayeen Saddam), and the Ba'ath Party have killed senior Shi'a clerics, desecrated Shi'a mosques and holy sites (particularly in the aftermath of the 1991 civil uprising), arrested tens of thousands of Shi'a, interfered with Shi'a religious education, prevented Shi'a adherents from performing their religious rites, and fired upon or arrested Shi'a who sought to take part in their religious processions. Security agents reportedly are stationed at all the major Shi'a mosques and shrines, and search, harass, and arbitrarily arrest worshipers.

Reports of military operations against Shi'a civilians also increased notably in the summer of 1998 after the killings of Ayatollahs Ali al-Gharawi and Sheikh al-Borojourdi. In numerous incidents during 1998, security forces injured and summarily executed Shi'a civilians, burned Shi'a homes, confiscated land belonging to Shi'a, and arbitrarily arrested and detained scores of Shi'a.

In January 1999, according to a report from the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), security officials reportedly arrested Sheikh Awas, imam of the Nasiriyah city mosque. Shortly after the arrest of Sheikh Awas, hundreds of Shi'a congregation members reportedly marched on the security directorate to demand that Awas be released immediately. Security forces allegedly opened fire on the unarmed crowd with automatic weapons and threw hand grenades. Five persons reportedly were killed, 11 wounded, and 300 arrested.

The Human Rights Organization in Iraq (HROI) reported that 1,093 Shi'a were arrested in June 1999 in Basrah alone. The Iraqi National Congress reports that tanks from the Hammourabi Republican Guard division attacked the towns of Rumaitha and Khudur in June 1999 after residents protested the systematic unequal distribution of food and medicine to the detriment of the Shi'a. Fourteen villagers were killed, over 100 persons were arrested, and 40 homes were destroyed. In June 1999, SCIRI reported that 160 homes in the Abul Khaseeb district near Basra were destroyed.

Baath security forces also forced Shi'a inhabitants of the southern marshes to relocate to major southern cities and to areas along the Iranian border. Former Special Rapporteur van Der Stoel described this practice in his February 1999 report, adding that many other persons have been transferred to detention centers and prisons in central Iraq, primarily in Baghdad. The Government reportedly also continued to move forcibly Shi'a populations from the south to the north to replace Kurds, Turkomen, and Assyrians who had been expelled forcibly from major cities.

The military also continued its water-diversion and other projects in the south. The Government's claim that the drainage is part of a land reclamation plan to increase the acreage of arable land and spur agricultural production is given little credence. Hundreds of square miles have been burned in military operations. The former Special Rapporteur noted the devastating impact that draining the marshes has had on the culture of the Shi'a marsh Arabs. SCIRI claims to have captured government documents that detail the destructive intent of the water diversion program and its connection to "strategic security operations," economic blockade, and "withdrawal of food supply agencies."

The Baath Government's diversion of supplies in the south limited the Shi'a population's access to food, medicine, drinking water, and transportation. According to the former Special Rapporteur and opposition sources, thousands of persons in Nasiriyah and Basra provinces were denied rations that should have been supplied under the U.N. oil-for-food program. In these provinces and in Amarah province, access to food allegedly is used to reward regime supporters and silence opponents. Shi'a groups report that, due to this policy, the humanitarian condition of Shi'a in the south continued to suffer despite a significant expansion of the oil-for-food program.

By the end of Saddam's regime, the following government restrictions on religious rights remained in effect: restrictions on communal Friday prayer by Shi'a; restrictions on Shi'a mosque libraries loaning books; a ban on the broadcast of Shi'a programs on government-controlled radio or television; a ban on the publication of Shi'a books, including prayer books and guides; a ban on many funeral processions other than those organized by the Baath Government; a ban on other Shi'a funeral observances, such as gatherings for Koran reading; and the prohibition of certain processions and public meetings commemorating Shi'a holy days. the Baath Government requires that speeches by Shi'a imams in mosques be based upon government-provided material that attacks fundamentalist trends."


Nice, inclusive Saddam, eh? No problems...?:disagree:

Care to discuss the Kurds next?

I'll give you a hint. Don't.:lol:
 
.
But Steve is democracy really worth 99,000 deaths?.They could have deposed Saddam back in Gulf War......This war also screwed up America's Economy! (Huge War Costs)


The opportunity for democracy is worth what ever price has to be payed for it..but its not guarnteed...thought I would take issue that the USA is responsible for 99,000 deaths....for the vast majority of those deaths Iraqis are responsible....and it was not the Iraq war that secrewed up the economy we did that to our selves out of greed an stupidy...
 
.
S-2, why confuse the roadrunner by providing facts, just let him go beep-beep.
 
.
America "ruined" Iraq? How? By helping rebuild a country torn from without by war and from within by dictatorship? And America has done more than that: we've helped Iraqis rebuild their souls, so they are no longer mind-slaves of Saddam Hussein.

Hopefully, we've done enough so Iraq can continue to progress on its own; however, I fear that without Americans around traditional Arab values of family, sect, and corruption will again tragically combine to undermine justice, the political process, the safety of the citizenry, and the security of the state.

Still, what Arabs could accomplish with American help Pakistanis can accomplish without, don't you think? They just have to decide that is what they want...


Hi,

Good buddy---there is a poor christian nation that is in dire need of help---has been ruled by dictator for many a years and that dictator is a murdering tyrant as well---aka Robert Mugabe----why don't you gop take care of him first---at least the zimbabwians will be truly greatful of your assistance.
 
.
"Umm, no. Shias....never had a problem in the government of Saddam."

Really? Here's what your own source had to say a bit further on-

B'aath-Shia Relations-Global Security

"Since the 1980's, the Baath Government reportedly attempted to eliminate the senior Shi'a religious leadership (the Mirjaiyat) through killings, disappearances, and summary executions.

Despite supposed legal protection of religious equality, the Baath regime repressed severely the Shi'a clergy and those who follow the Shi'a faith. Forces from the Intelligence Service (Mukhabarat), General Security (Amn al-Amm), the Military Bureau, Saddam's Commandos (Fedayeen Saddam), and the Ba'ath Party have killed senior Shi'a clerics, desecrated Shi'a mosques and holy sites (particularly in the aftermath of the 1991 civil uprising), arrested tens of thousands of Shi'a, interfered with Shi'a religious education, prevented Shi'a adherents from performing their religious rites, and fired upon or arrested Shi'a who sought to take part in their religious processions. Security agents reportedly are stationed at all the major Shi'a mosques and shrines, and search, harass, and arbitrarily arrest worshipers.

Reports of military operations against Shi'a civilians also increased notably in the summer of 1998 after the killings of Ayatollahs Ali al-Gharawi and Sheikh al-Borojourdi. In numerous incidents during 1998, security forces injured and summarily executed Shi'a civilians, burned Shi'a homes, confiscated land belonging to Shi'a, and arbitrarily arrested and detained scores of Shi'a.

In January 1999, according to a report from the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), security officials reportedly arrested Sheikh Awas, imam of the Nasiriyah city mosque. Shortly after the arrest of Sheikh Awas, hundreds of Shi'a congregation members reportedly marched on the security directorate to demand that Awas be released immediately. Security forces allegedly opened fire on the unarmed crowd with automatic weapons and threw hand grenades. Five persons reportedly were killed, 11 wounded, and 300 arrested.

The Human Rights Organization in Iraq (HROI) reported that 1,093 Shi'a were arrested in June 1999 in Basrah alone. The Iraqi National Congress reports that tanks from the Hammourabi Republican Guard division attacked the towns of Rumaitha and Khudur in June 1999 after residents protested the systematic unequal distribution of food and medicine to the detriment of the Shi'a. Fourteen villagers were killed, over 100 persons were arrested, and 40 homes were destroyed. In June 1999, SCIRI reported that 160 homes in the Abul Khaseeb district near Basra were destroyed.

Baath security forces also forced Shi'a inhabitants of the southern marshes to relocate to major southern cities and to areas along the Iranian border. Former Special Rapporteur van Der Stoel described this practice in his February 1999 report, adding that many other persons have been transferred to detention centers and prisons in central Iraq, primarily in Baghdad. The Government reportedly also continued to move forcibly Shi'a populations from the south to the north to replace Kurds, Turkomen, and Assyrians who had been expelled forcibly from major cities.

The military also continued its water-diversion and other projects in the south. The Government's claim that the drainage is part of a land reclamation plan to increase the acreage of arable land and spur agricultural production is given little credence. Hundreds of square miles have been burned in military operations. The former Special Rapporteur noted the devastating impact that draining the marshes has had on the culture of the Shi'a marsh Arabs. SCIRI claims to have captured government documents that detail the destructive intent of the water diversion program and its connection to "strategic security operations," economic blockade, and "withdrawal of food supply agencies."

The Baath Government's diversion of supplies in the south limited the Shi'a population's access to food, medicine, drinking water, and transportation. According to the former Special Rapporteur and opposition sources, thousands of persons in Nasiriyah and Basra provinces were denied rations that should have been supplied under the U.N. oil-for-food program. In these provinces and in Amarah province, access to food allegedly is used to reward regime supporters and silence opponents. Shi'a groups report that, due to this policy, the humanitarian condition of Shi'a in the south continued to suffer despite a significant expansion of the oil-for-food program.

By the end of Saddam's regime, the following government restrictions on religious rights remained in effect: restrictions on communal Friday prayer by Shi'a; restrictions on Shi'a mosque libraries loaning books; a ban on the broadcast of Shi'a programs on government-controlled radio or television; a ban on the publication of Shi'a books, including prayer books and guides; a ban on many funeral processions other than those organized by the Baath Government; a ban on other Shi'a funeral observances, such as gatherings for Koran reading; and the prohibition of certain processions and public meetings commemorating Shi'a holy days. the Baath Government requires that speeches by Shi'a imams in mosques be based upon government-provided material that attacks fundamentalist trends."


Nice, inclusive Saddam, eh? No problems...?:disagree:

Care to discuss the Kurds next?

I'll give you a hint. Don't.:lol:

You stated the Iraqi government under Saddam wasn't pluralistic. I showed you that it was.

You give a report that suggests Shias were discriminated against. There's some truth in it. If the Baath regime tried to execute the Shia leadership of the Baath party (odd in itself), how come there were so many Shias by the end of the 1980s still leading the Baath party?

Do try and differentiate between a pluralistic government and ordinary people. I do think that the Shia revolts did not help the Shias either. They clearly wanted the driving seat in Iraq. The Kurds wanted their own state in the North. Those uprisings had to be quashed, sometimes brutally. In fact, Halabja was put down to Iran, not Iraq.
 
Last edited:
.
" I showed you that it was [pluralistic]."

No, roadrunner. You've only proved that your reading comprehension is markedly low-

"If the Baath regime tried to execute the Shia leadership of the Baath party (odd in itself)..."

Please read the quote-

"Since the 1980's, the Baath Government reportedly attempted to eliminate the senior Shi'a religious leadership (the Mirjaiyat) through killings, disappearances, and summary executions."

Where does it say anything about a "shia leadership of the the Baath party". Yes, it is odd. More than odd, it's non-existent. There were no Shia clergy that were part of the B'aath apparatus.

"...how come there were so many Shias by the end of the 1980s still leading the Baath party?"

Is this your idea of an inclusive, pluralistic regime? Given the weight of evidence presented by Global Security you choose to see a pluralistic regime bent on sharing power through society?

I don't. You press your argument to an absurdity. Saddam's legacy to the Shia of Iraq is clear enough and it's hardly kind nor easy to misinterpret. You seem to have managed to do so anyway.

Not surprising I suppose.
 
.
So the leadership of Saddam's Baath Party was pluralistic.

They were brutal with Shias, they were brutal with Kurds. The reasons for this were the Kurds wanting their own state in the North, the Shias rebelling constantly, perhaps at the behest of Iran.

But the Baath Party were secular and pluralistic.
 
.
The songs you sing are fascinating. The melody changes by the moment-

"Umm, no. Shias, Christians, Muslims, Kurds never had a problem in the government of Saddam.",

or we can try this-

"They were brutal with Shias, they were brutal with Kurds."

In the space of seven posts, Mr. think tanky, you've moved 180 degrees.

Your intellectual underpinnings rest upon quicksand. Do you pay any attention whatsoever to your own posts-much less those of others?
 
.
there is a poor christian nation that is in dire need of help---has been ruled by dictator for many a years and that dictator is a murdering tyrant as well---aka Robert Mugabe----why don't you gop take care of him first---at least the zimbabwians will be truly greatful of your assistance.
Why did the U.S pull out of Somalia? Why did the U.S. not intervene in Rwanda? Aside from the question of practicality, I think the answers to these questions are the same: military intervention did not match the imperative of Democratic Realism: "We will support democracy everywhere, but we will commit blood and treasure only in places where there is a strategic necessity--meaning, places central to the larger war against the existential enemy, the enemy that poses a global mortal threat to freedom."

Zimbabwe isn't a neighbor of the U.S., nor does its fate currently have geopolitical implications. The U.S. won't intervene. Which doesn't mean intervention wouldn't be the right thing to do - nor is the U.S. stopping Zimbabwe's neighbors from doing so, I think.
 
.
Why did the U.S pull out of Somalia? Why did the U.S. not intervene in Rwanda? Aside from the question of practicality, I think the answers to these questions are the same: military intervention did not match the imperative of Democratic Realism: "We will support democracy everywhere, but we will commit blood and treasure only in places where there is a strategic necessity--meaning, places central to the larger war against the existential enemy, the enemy that poses a global mortal threat to freedom."

Zimbabwe isn't a neighbor of the U.S., nor does its fate currently have geopolitical implications. The U.S. won't intervene. Which doesn't mean intervention wouldn't be the right thing to do - nor is the U.S. stopping Zimbabwe's neighbors from doing so, I think.



Hi,

A good evening to you. Oh---so how innocent---'democratic realism'---has nothing to do with the born again christian movement does it---suddenly the born again christians---who till yesterday were blaming the jews for killing the christ---are today in arms with them---what is up with that deception.
 
.
The songs you sing are fascinating. The melody changes by the moment-

"Umm, no. Shias, Christians, Muslims, Kurds never had a problem in the government of Saddam.",

or we can try this-

"They were brutal with Shias, they were brutal with Kurds."

In the space of seven posts, Mr. think tanky, you've moved 180 degrees.

Your intellectual underpinnings rest upon quicksand. Do you pay any attention whatsoever to your own posts-much less those of others?

Lol, you're having difficulty comprehending. Can you explain how I've moved 180 degees? :D I think it's you that's moved 180 degrees, I've been saying what I've said all along, that Saddam's government was pluralistic. It's you that claimed it was not, and I disproved it. So you resorted to misquoting me, and saying that Saddam killed noone brutally amongst the general Kurdish and Shia populations, which I never said!!

"Shias, Sunnis, Christians, Kurds, never had a problem in the government of Saddam"

That is true, since within the government of Saddam there were Shias, Sunnis, Christians, and Kurds in high positions (Tariq Aziz was Christian and vice president of Iraq).

I would also say that Shias and Kurds who didn't rebel against Saddam were not targeted in the general population. I do think the Baath party targeted those Kurds who were trying to create a Kurdish state in the North (the Turks don't like them either, neither do the Iranians), and those Shia in the South who wanted the leadership. Is it clearer now for you?
 
.
Saddam was the best definition of a terrorist. The insurgency was a slave revolt. That's what enslaved populations do when they are liberated. They join gangs and get weapons and loot and kidnap and kill.

Sherman didnt destroy Atlanta or Charleston. The confederate deserters and freed slaves who were following him did that.
 
.
No, no, NO! Sherman destroyed Atlanta - everything between Atlanta and the Atlantic - deliberately, as a matter of policy. Not just to sustain his army and damage his opponents' supplies, but to demonstrate to the South that although it could field armies, it couldn't protect the Southern way of life - the slave system - so resistance was ultimately pointless. While Grant pummeled the head, Sherman sucked the blood out of the heart of the Confederacy.
 
. .
"...he was supported right till 1988 by the US for most of his time in power."

Wrong...again.

1979-2003- 24 years in power. 1979-1988- nine years of support. That's not most, is it? Did your math fail you or is that a distortion? Please quit idly tossing about complete distortions if you're going to state something as a fact.

What happened when we came to our senses, btw?:

We're sorry and hope we've made adequate amends by delivering the worthless phuck to his maker.:agree:

"Saddam was a terrorist."

President of Iraq was a terrorist, roadrunner? You probably on principal support the war in Iraq then as I can't imagine that you'd believe it practical or prudent to leave the security of the Persian gulf in the hands of a man who'd used WMD, invaded two neighboring countries, and was a terrorist himself-personally.

Probably warms your heart to think of him swinging, eh"?:lol: I hope so anyway. You can bet it does mine.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom