Jihadists Establish A New Caliphate In Iraq

Elaine Meinel Supkis

Saddam ran a mostly secular society. When his rule was faltering, he joined the Islamist movements in the hopes of inspiring support. Then Bush invaded illegally. Now, Iraq is becoming a much nastier version of Afghanistan which is also becoming pretty nasty, itself. Today, a jihadist group announced the foundation of a new 'Islamic State' in Baghdad.

The New York Times notes today that the people running our foreign policy know practically nothing about Muslims.

FOR the past several months, I’ve been wrapping up lengthy interviews with Washington counterterrorism officials with a fundamental question: “Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?”

A “gotcha” question? Perhaps. But if knowing your enemy is the most basic rule of war, I don’t think it’s out of bounds. And as I quickly explain to my subjects, I’m not looking for theological explanations, just the basics: Who’s on what side today, and what does each want?

After all, wouldn’t British counterterrorism officials responsible for Northern Ireland know the difference between Catholics and Protestants? In a remotely similar but far more lethal vein, the 1,400-year Sunni-Shiite rivalry is playing out in the streets of Baghdad, raising the specter of a breakup of Iraq into antagonistic states, one backed by Shiite Iran and the other by Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states.

A complete collapse in Iraq could provide a haven for Al Qaeda operatives within striking distance of Israel, even Europe. And the nature of the threat from Iran, a potential nuclear power with protégés in the Gulf states, northern Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, is entirely different from that of Al Qaeda. It seems silly to have to argue that officials responsible for counterterrorism should be able to recognize opportunities for pitting these rivals against each other.

But so far, most American officials I’ve interviewed don’t have a clue. That includes not just intelligence and law enforcement officials, but also members of Congress who have important roles overseeing our spy agencies. How can they do their jobs without knowing the basics?

Of course, this curious article is utterly uncurious about the religion or ethnicity of these puzzled people. No mention as to how the USA has to look at Muslims through the Zionist rightwing neonazi lens. This isn't purely ignorance, this is malicious refusal to understand. But the other half of this is the curious reporter showing absolutely no curiosity about why this is happening or to look under the pile of big, fat boulders littering our foreign policy.

Throughout our blighted history vis a vis Muslim nations there runs this red thread: we do all we can to kill nationalism and replace it with helplessness and despair. We want to thwart the building of nations, the consolidation of power. The Europeans worked hard to destroy the Ottoman empire and the only reason they didn't dismember it during the many wars around it during the 19th Century is due to the fact no one wanted to tip the balance of power. When fighting broke out over the Balkans, all of Europe slid into a very disasterous confrontation of WWI.

The USA spook services like the CIA has always funded radical religious nuts if the point is to thwart atheistic Soviet ventures but normally, the USA funded any despot especially religious despots like the Saudi Royals.

This has so corrupted the basic religion that we now see many insurrections rising, all of which are calling for the establishment of purified Islamic states. This is a terrible danger for the USA, a secular state.

Today, a jihad group has declared Iraq to be the foundation stone of their new caliphate.

Oct 16, 2006
By Ubaidah Al-Saif , JUS | Translation © Jihad Unspun 2006

The recently formed Mutayibeen Alliance, spearheaded by the Mujahideen Shura Council that includes Jaish Al-Fatiheen, Jund al-Sahaba, Kataeb Ansar al-Tawheed wal-Sunnah, and many Tribal Chiefs among others as well as the Mujahideen Shura Council that consists of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and seven other Mujahideen groups released a notable statement on Sunday declaring the establishment of the Islamic State of Iraq.

In the 8:32 minute video released October 15, 2006, the unnamed official spokesman from the Ministry of Information in the newly formed Islamic state explains that the state of Islam has been created to protect the Sunni people who have been the victims of death squads, oppression and violence by both the Americans and their Iraqi collaborators.

As I pointed out years ago, any Iraqis working with the Christian/Jewish invaders are traitors. This would be true if someone invaded America: all people enabling an invasion would be traitors and the patriotic thing to do is to fight ferociously until the invaders are defeated.

Why we can't understand this goes straight to the heart of all our failures at subduing barely armed nations we choose to invade. If we make it impossible for people to be patriotic then they will turn to a higher authority and declare religious war on us. And this is the new nightmare.

There is no way we can square this round peg. The know-nothing Zionists who cooked up this war did so because they were mad at Saddam for funding suicide bombers in Israel. Now there are none and the Israelis, courtesy of the USA, can slay as many Palestinians as they wish and starve and beat them into submission but this also has turned Iraq into a nest of radicalization whereby the new forces at work are very interested in annihilating Israel and freeing Palestine.

This is why we are constantly being told we can't leave this disasterous war but must stay. If we leave, the radicals will certainly take over and then turn attention to their real enemies, the Jews-only state.

Qatar news carried this same story, this is confirmation that it is considered an important thing in the many precarious kingdoms set up by the British after WWI.

Sunni rebels proclaim own emirate
Web posted at: 10/16/2006 4:46:18
Source ::: AFP
Dubai • A Sunni insurgent alliance proclaimed an independent Islamic emirate in Sunni-populated areas of central and northern Iraq yesterday after MPs approved a federal constitution for the war-torn country.

In video footage screened by the Al Jazeera channel, a spokesman for the Al Qaeda-sponsored Alliance of the Anointed called on Iraq’s disenchanted Sunni Arab former elite to “pledge allegiance to the emir of the believers, Sheikh Abu Omar Al Baghdadi,” a previously unknown nom de guerre.

Nearly all the 'kings' in the Middle East are relics of the WWI efforts to dismember the Ottoman Empire because it defeated the Allies at the battle of Gallipoli. This failed so they went into guerrilla warfare with the very famous cult figure, Lawrence of Arabia.

He, by the way, took his job most seriously and studied all he could of the cultures and beliefs of people he was forced to dupe. This troubled him so much, it caused him great inner distress. Anyway, all the characters running the joint today stem from that colonial effort. This is why they all fear religious uprisings much more than democracy or liberalism.

Long ago, I suggested that Saddam would rehabilitate himself and be freed.

Tuesday 17 October 2006, 21:40 Makka Time, 18:40 GMT

Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi president, has urged Iraqis to avoid civil war, during a court session in which his defence lawyers returned to court to defend him from genocide charges.

Saddam sent an open letter to Iraqis through Khalil al-Dulaimi, his chief lawyer, in which he predicted "victory" against US occupiers and urged Iraqis to join forces to drive American troops from Iraq.

The letter, a copy of which was sent to Aljazeera.net, urged Iraqis to brush aside their differences and utilise their power for the sole purpose of "liberating Iraq."

He is saying all the right things. His trial is now a farce. With blood and chaos flowing through the cities and the countryside as Iraq is ripped to shreds, he is correct about the business concerning patriotism. Of course, he is the cause of all this and more but alas for us, we have utterly surpassed him and now are witnessing the mass murder of the entire populace with us at the head, supervising the traffic in corpses.

There is no good ending to this tale of woe.

Culture of Life News Main Page

Comments

[JSmith]

"Saddam ran a mostly secular society."

That does make up for a lot, doesn't it?

"...the 1,400-year Sunni-Shiite rivalry is playing out in the streets of Baghdad, raising the specter of a breakup of Iraq ..."

Why is a breakup of Iraq a "specter"? Since the borders of what we now call "Iraq" were arbitrarily established by the British after WW I, it's not like there's a great deal of historical significance there. The best plan probably is a three-part division: the Sunnis get this piece, the Shiites get this piece, and the Kurds get that piece over there.

[DeVaul]

The best plan is to have no division at all by us. Otherwise, we will just be drawing up new "colonial" borders and new wars.

We need to leave Iraq immediately and let them settle their future themselves. This is what self-determination is all about, and I believe we went to war over that once. Of course, I understand it was just propaganda as far as our rulers were concerned, but I do believe each country has a right to self-determination. The alternative is conquest and division by outside powers.

[Elaine Meinel Supkis]

America's borders were and still are for the most part, totally fluid! Ask the Indians, Hawaiians or Philippinos!

Now we have decided the entire planet is ours and this is pure insanity. Scratch that---all of space AND the Earth.

[DaliWood]

The best plan probably is a three-part division: the Sunnis get this piece, the Shiites get this piece, and the Kurds get that piece over there.

If you conservatives think this is such a great plan, why have we not heard a word about it until the idiot Bush blundered into a illegal war there, too stupid to know that the place was going to split into 3 main factions? Please cite one single justification for the war given by Bush in which he shows any recognition at all of the secular or sectarian divisions in Iraq. And, relatedly, why should the US decide what's best for Iraq? Bush has provided the perfect example of Americans "liberating" and democratizing Iraq, allegedly in the best interests of the Iraqis, and look how well that turned out. Do you really think we're in a position to tell them how to be 3 countries after we've savagely, brutally, and criminally destroyed the only one they had?

The neocons gloated and screamed "Victory! Praise to Bush" when the purple fingers of Iraqi voters were in every American media outlet. Now, that gov't is in disarray, the trial they're holding for Hussein is a joke, and the violence has already killed 70 American soldiers in Oct. and God knows how many civilians with the Iraqi gov't comprehensively unable to do anything at all. Yep, America should decide what's best for Iraq. Too bad they'll all be dead before they can feel the showers of American love and kindness.

[Elaine Meinel Supkis]

Correct as always, Daliwood.

Chopping up other people's countries: a good way to start wars.

[cherifa]

Re: "The NYTimes notes today that the people running our foreign policy know practically nothing about Muslims."
Wow... How perceptive of the NYT:) Indeed, I have yet to run into one American who truly understands the Arab or Muslim mind.... let alone the Arab or Muslim world. The president of the United States himself didn't even have a passport before becoming president. He hadn't even been out of the US:) Americans are on so many levels totally isolated from the rest of the world... and they are much too isolated to even appreciate the meaning of that