Big explosion in Iraq. The joy...

[Dahak]

In case someone missed it...
Kaboom

Bombing seems to be getting a national sport, or something...

[Montcalm]

I would`nt be surprised if islam extremists blame the USA for this.

[Sea Skimmer]

I would`nt be surprised if islam extremists blame the USA for this.

People are already blaming the US for not guarding the Mosque. Meanwhile there have been near riots whenver US troops even appear to be approaching one.

[Montcalm]

I would`nt be surprised if islam extremists blame the USA for this.

People are already blaming the US for not guarding the Mosque. Meanwhile there have been near riots whenver US troops even appear to be approaching one.

Great these fuckheads can`t even make up their minds.

[Gil Hamilton]

It's most likely that Saddam loyalists responsible. The United States wouldn't use a car bomb (after all, if we wanted to blow up something, we've got aircraft carriers full of better tools for such an occasion) and no Muslim extremist would attack their own Mosque in a holy city on Friday (the Muslim holy day).

[Shinova]

It's most likely that Saddam loyalists responsible. The United States wouldn't use a car bomb (after all, if we wanted to blow up something, we've got aircraft carriers full of better tools for such an occasion) and no Muslim extremist would attack their own Mosque in a holy city on Friday (the Muslim holy day).

Unless some CIA division wanted to make it look like a Saddam loyalist did it and purposely killed two of the leaders of the most major Islamic Fundamentalist movement in Iraq to quell the possibility of Iraq becoming a fudamentalist state.


Just a random conspiracy theory. And I recall Saddam disliked everyone but Tikritis.

[Colonel Olrik]

I would`nt be surprised if islam extremists blame the USA for this.

People are already blaming the US for not guarding the Mosque. Meanwhile there have been near riots whenver US troops even appear to be approaching one.

Great these fuckheads can`t even make up their minds.

Of course, that wouldn't be a problem if the U.S employed the Iraqi troops in those sensitive spots instead of keeping them rooting in the corners..

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It's most likely that Saddam loyalists responsible. The United States wouldn't use a car bomb (after all, if we wanted to blow up something, we've got aircraft carriers full of better tools for such an occasion) and no Muslim extremist would attack their own Mosque in a holy city on Friday (the Muslim holy day).

Actually, it's entirely possible that the bomb was set off by one Shia faction--the one advocating armed combat against America--to eliminate the head of the current one that has power (and doesn't advocate armed conflict against America), which it succeeded in doing. Religion and politics in Islam are completely intertwined; at least one Sunni and Sufist religious order's leading Sheikh (Mosque Sheikh, not Tribal Sheikh) went on to found a ruling Iranian Shia Sultanate, the Safavids, which are commonly used to represent the golden age of Islam in Iran.

The problem is that it's likely to backfire. Though some brainless idiots like Chalabi are saying the U.S. should provided better security for the Mosque, Chalabi is an intellectual and a Sunni and I think he hardly comprehends what's happened here. This is the Imam Ali Mosque. This is very close to going to Mecca and shooting it up; whoever was responsible for this is going to face a popular backlash--and the Grand Ayatollah, despite his stance of reconciliation, remained very popular (especially since he'd stayed out of active politics in the reconstruction himself). I don't think people are going to care about things like "oh, the U.S. should have provided better security."

This is really going to be a case of: Who caused it. Then: Kill them. Therefore, the question is--over the next few days, where is the popular perception of blame going to fall? If it falls on the U.S. we're going to have, I fully grant, a rather serious problem on our hands. And it won't matter how irrational that blame seems. But if it falls on the Sunnis then we have a very different sort of problem on our hands--the possibility of Shia-Sunni sectarian violence like the sort of Hindu-Muslim violence in India that has left thousands dead. I suspect that the later possibility is much more likely; it seems that the family of the Grand Ayatollah had the most influence in Najaf, and that the younger Shia with more militant views have more influence (and not even very much at that, really, they're just quite vocal) around the Shia suburbs of Baghdad.

We can certainly control Shia-Sunni sectarian violence, but we have to be careful about we do it. If the Shia see themselves under threat this is a chance to firmly establish our relations with them; we cannot, however, make them feel totally helpless or unable to participate in the retribution for the damage to the Mosque and the death of the Grand Ayatollah. We likewise need to protect the Sunni population to the degree that it is not permanently alienated.

The most critical problem of course is that we need to prevent a perception of rumours that may arise that we caused the bombing. If popular rumour spreads through the crowd this may be impossible to stop, so to speak. However, control of the dispensation of such a rumour through other sources and a rapid search for the perpetrating agents should obviously be instituted--we must avoid, at all costs, being considered responsible for this act. Far better to have to deal with potential Shia violence against Sunnis than to alienate that segment of the populace against us.

One cannot deny however that a possibility exists in this. The Shia population has now had their most holy site attacked, and they clearly cannot be pleased with it. Any average Shia is not going to buy the worthless utterances of Chalabi--they know that they would not have wanted American (christian) troops next to the Imam Ali Mosque; Muslims, at that, did this, and their continuing security and position in Iraq is dependent ultimately upon their friendship with our forces. This must be maintained and cultivated as a concept and if it is we can certainly gain from the incident in that we shall firm up our support with the majority of the populace...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Of course, that wouldn't be a problem if the U.S employed the Iraqi troops in those sensitive spots instead of keeping them rooting in the corners..

We're still training the Iraqi army.

Okay, look at the problem with recalling the old Iraqi troops. We'd have a huge, unwieldy, and eminently bribeable force. Which is horrid for a guerrilla war. We need to train a loyal and professional force specifically capable of modern security work, and, most of all, small enough that we can pay them enough money that it simply takes a lot of finances to bribe them.

If we recalled the old Iraqi troops for security work--hell, we might as well not, because they would effectively Not Be There when the attackers paid them enough to make them look the other way.

[Colonel Olrik]

Okay, look at the problem with recalling the old Iraqi troops. We'd have a huge, unwieldy, and eminently bribeable force. Which is horrid for a guerrilla war. We need to train a loyal and professional force specifically capable of modern security work, and, most of all, small enough that we can pay them enough money that it simply takes a lot of finances to bribe them.

The elite guard is well trained at least for security work (necessary in a dictatorship), and has always enforced Saddam's more secular views. They wouldn't be used to fight wars, just to act babysitter and maintain a visible presence.

If we recalled the old Iraqi troops for security work--hell, we might as well not, because they would effectively Not Be There when the attackers paid them enough to make them look the other way.

Like you said, it's debatable (and has been already debated). I don't want to hijack a thread, it just seemed to me an obvious solution, praticable or not.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The elite guard is well trained at least for security work (necessary in a iron fist regime), and has always enforced Saddam's more secular views. They wouldn't be used to fight wars, just to act babysitter and maintain a visible presence.


Like you said, it's debatable (and has been already debated). I don't want to hijack a thread, it just seemed to me an obvious solution, praticable or not.

I would fairly submit that it wouldn't be worth the negative publicity image of having Republican Guardsmen in the employ of the U.S. occupying force, and leave my opinion on the matter at that.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Unless some CIA division wanted to make it look like a Saddam loyalist did it and purposely killed two of the leaders of the most major Islamic Fundamentalist movement in Iraq to quell the possibility of Iraq becoming a fudamentalist state.

This would be massively stupid, because there is now the possibility that the younger Shia, who are far more militant, could gain power. Though it's likely, yes, that the sympathy factor will keep the moderates in power and give them more impetous to deal with us, causing a backlash against the militants--that's a possibility. You don't run things like that on convoluted possibilities, especially not that convoluted and relying highly upon public opinion.

Just a random conspiracy theory. And I recall Saddam disliked everyone but Tikritis.

He even killed members of his own clan. Often.