quote: Troops Invade Baghdad Mosque Raid on Sunni Site Leaves Two Dead
By Karl Vick and Khalid Saffar Washington Post Foreign Service Saturday, November 20, 2004; Page A01
BAGHDAD, Nov. 19 -- Iraqi troops backed by U.S. soldiers raided the most revered Sunni mosque in Baghdad, setting off stun grenades, arresting dozens and leaving at least two people dead, according to witnesses and a hospital official.
The raid on the Abu Hanifa mosque just after Friday prayers was the latest in a series of moves targeting clerics who support the insurgency, which continues to churn violently in the sections of Iraq dominated by the country's minority Sunni Muslim population.
Iraqis storm into the Abu Hanifa mosque after a raid there by Iraqi troops, backed by U.S. soldiers. Dozens of people were arrested in the operation.
Spokesmen for Iraq's interim government, which must approve major military operations in the country, tried in recent days to prepare the way for the wave of arrests by citing Iraqi law that equates support for insurgency with the actions themselves. But popular outrage was apparent in the wake of the raid on Abu Hanifa, the burial place of a medieval scholar who founded one of the faith's most prominent schools of law.
"In the more than 55 years I have been praying at this mosque, it was hit twice," said Abu Numan, 65. "The first was in April 2003 when the Americans entered Baghdad, and the second was today, again at the hands of the Americans and the National Guard.
"Why? This is a holy place and the tomb of one of Islam's most revered figures. There should be some sanctity and respect for our shrines. This is unacceptable."
Witnesses said U.S. troops set up a perimeter around the mosque complex while uniformed Iraqi security forces disarmed the shrine's guards and swept into the sanctuary. Loud bangs and gunfire followed; afterward, bloodstains were visible on the sidewalk outside the main gate.
Security forces searched the building, and worshipers were herded into a small room and searched as well, the witnesses said. "They didn't find any weapons, but they killed some of our people," said Abdul Hadi Jasem Obeidy, a handyman at the mosque.
The mosque dominates the central square in the capital's northwestern Adhamiya neighborhood, a longtime favorite haunt of former president Saddam Hussein. On April 9, 2003, the day U.S. troops pulled down his statue several miles away, Hussein paused in Adhamiya to bask in cheers from the roof of a sedan. The mosque became the scene of the last firefight in the battle for Baghdad, with Syrian and local fighters firing from inside its walls at advancing U.S. forces.
Ahmed Abdul Ghafour Samarrae, a member of the Association of Muslim Scholars, told al-Arabiya television that the prayer leader, Muayed Adhami, was arrested. The association, which vocally supports the insurgency and has called for a boycott of national elections, has also seen some of its senior officers detained and their houses searched.
U.S. forces also raided a mosque in the city of Qaim on the Syrian border, the Associated Press reported. The resident imam, Maudafar Abdul Wahab, said the troops took $2,000 meant for repairs, and he accused the troops of retaliating for his opposition to the offensive on Fallujah.
Question...are we retaliating for things that happened in April of '03 or do we have real information that these folks were a present threat, hiding insurgents, bomb-makers, etc?
I suppose they're probably testing people's hands for bomb residue.
I hope they use a more reliable test than the one at airports. That one gives false alarms from hair care products. We'll end up arresting all the Iraqis who used conditioner that morning.
quote:Spokesmen for Iraq's interim government, which must approve major military operations in the country, tried in recent days to prepare the way for the wave of arrests by citing Iraqi law that equates support for insurgency with the actions themselves
Thank God we finally brought democracy and freedom of speech to the Iraqis. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends on what type of support was meant.
If they meant support such as saying "Yay insurgents!" then this is a problem. If they meant financial or logistical support, then I don't have a problem with it.
It appears this mosque was not being used by insurgents to stage attacks or to cache weapons. If insurgents worship someplace we should raid it?
I'm not sure we have enough information to make a fully reasoned statement in EITHER direction on this one. All we have is this bare-bones report.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to Iraqi policeman LouayIbrahim who was worshipping in the AbuHanifa mosque at the time of the raid, the imam was giving a sermon that urged his audience to make Mosul and other Iraqi cities into embattled places "like Falluja".
While the Fallujah fight was on-going, I was watching video of an outdoor religious service in Baghdad -- I believe at the same mosque -- in which the men were crying and shouting while the Iraqi cleric was excorciating the crowd for failing to join the fight against UStroops. Admittedly I was relying on a TVnews translator's interpretation of what was being said.
More to the point, the particular SunniMuslim clerical association which has had some of its members targeted for arrest issued a fatwa -- a religious&legal ruling -- that their followers had a duty to kill Coalition troops in Iraq. Now it's nice to talk about freedom of speech, but that's all OsamaBinLaden or SheikOmarAbdelRahman did: urged their followers to obey their orders to kill.
Frankly, I don't care if it's a husband after the wife's life insurance, a Mafia don, a drug lord, a terrorist leader, or a religious cleric who orders murder: solicitation of murder is solicitation of murder. And that ain't protected by freedom of speech.
posted
Martial Law is different from everyday life, sorry if it curtails freedom but that is what it takes to get it done. We cannot let them have a Base to go back to where they can yell Time Out! It is not a game, or if it is a game it is one where you cannot quit only surrender.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
aspectre, I haven't seen that report. Link?
If true, that report would certainly change my mind.
Trevor, I think I know where you stand, but I don't agree with it. It seems to me that if we go after every Iraqi who hates the fact that we're in their country and is vocal about it, we aren't behaving morally.
If we've got real evidence that they are actively fighting us (or the interim Iraqi government) then it's a matter of self-preservation to stop them. But you were going beyond that, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, aspectre is correct that inciting murder or rioting (or whatever civil unrest) is not protected speech. I don't hear anyone arguing that it should be.
To me there's a very distinct line between protesting America's presence in Iraq and inciting a riot.
The fact that they are living under an occupation force at the moment probably includes some curtailing of civil liberties in addition, so maybe it is (as under martial law) a violation to even assemble under some circumstances.
But we also have to remember that our current allies have no love of Saddam's former supporters in the Sunni movement and might not be averse to manipulating the American forces into attacking targets to settle old grudges.
It's a very dicey situation there if you don't fully understand the language and the culture, IMHO.
We've been manipulated before in this conflict and I don't think we should be quick to start gunning people down if they aren't doing anything overt.
I do consider inciting attacks as an overt act. So if that's what was going on, and our forces knew it, then they were justified in going into this mosque.
Sadly, much of what we're doing in this war is finding out after the fact whether our intelligence was correct whether or not the actions were justified.
I realize that in war you sometimes have to act on suspicions in order to avoid loss of life, but we are also trying not to kill off innocent civilians and thus help breed more ill-will. It's the reason we didn't just level Baghdad...we actually want to liberate, right, not destroy.
I imagine that our forces didn't decide lightly that a mosque was a good target, knowing the implications. So, I'm waiting to see if our military can tell us what they knew and when they knew it.
posted
I added a link inre the AbuHanifa mosque to my original post. Be back later with more links inre the fatwa and the video when I can remember&search the actual name of the particular Sunni clerical association and the name of the news outlet for the video.
posted
I saw the same or similar report as aspectre, in which the imam was apparently encouraging revolt. So why wasn't the imam arrested instead of staging an assault on a mosque? That only goes against US interests in the long term.
I guess I think in civilian legal terms more readily than martial law.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Thank God we finally brought democracy and freedom of speech to the Iraqis.
It's easy to be all smug and sarcastic like that when you don't have maniacs trying to blow you up 24/7.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no problems with going into mosques like this. Whats the problem with this? Someone said earlier that these people shouldnt be hiding in mosques, I agree with them, and we should go into any holy place if they are seeking refuge there.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I was sarcastic, but not smug. Isaels experince in occupation should have taught us there is no winning an occupation. And the raid may have done more harm than good:
quote: Violence Breaks Out All Over Baghdad
1 hour, 29 minutes ago AP By KATARINA KRATOVAC, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Baghdad exploded in violence Saturday, as insurgents attacked a U.S. patrol and a police station, assassinated four government employees and detonated several bombs. One American soldier was killed and nine were wounded during clashes that also left three Iraqi troops and a police officer dead.
Some of the heaviest violence came in Azamiyah, a largely Sunni Arab district of Baghdad where a day earlier U.S. troops raided the capital's main Sunni mosque. Shops were in flames, and a U.S. Humvee burned, with the body of what appeared to be its driver inside.
posted
If you try to get rid of a wasp's nest, the wasps will get mad. That is inevitable. You will probably get stung. But in any case, leaving the wasps alone will not get rid of the nest.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or, if you are fighting an infection, you should attack the source, not spread it as widely as possible. Our counterinsurgency efforts are a tragic failure. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was under the assumption that winning the military part of the war was no problem - that keeping the iraqi people happy with us and what we are doing was. If this is the case, invading mosques probably isn't going to help.
Posts: 2756 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Frankly, I don't care if it's a husband after the wife's life insurance, a Mafia don, a drug lord, a terrorist leader, or a religious cleric who orders murder: solicitation of murder is solicitation of murder. And that ain't protected by freedom of speech.
Agreed.
Perhaps the raid during a service was to make a point, I just worry that the point would have been better served by not interrupting a service. Although I imagine there are worries about arresting public figures and having it seem like they just disapopeared. Maybe the point was, in effect, to have witnesses.
Posts: 720 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Our counterinsurgency efforts are a tragic failure.
Of course, with the "insurgents" being supplied, supported and aided by most of the surrounding countries, and implicitly supported by three-quarters of the western world (read "Europe"), it's no wonder you're having a tough time putting them down.
posted
If you think the rest of the country prefers the insurgents to us, why do you support our remaining there?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've now figured out why we're having such a difficult time with the insurgent's in Iraq.
quote:We appear to be fighting fire with gasoline.
quote:If you try to get rid of a wasp's nest, the wasps will get mad. That is inevitable. You will probably get stung. But in any case, leaving the wasps alone will not get rid of the nest.
quote:Or, if you are fighting an infection, you should attack the source, not spread it as widely as possible.
We are not fighting a fire, a wasps nest, or an infection. We are fighting individuals who are not stupid, and who are using every one of our retaliations to their outgunned and outmanned attacks to gain more and more sympathy from people in the nation.
The number of people who did not support the occupation were the minority back in the spring, if memory serves. I wonder if the same can be said now. I keep hearing about the silent majority that is supposed to exist, but I'm not seeing too much of it...
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Of course, with the "insurgents" being supplied, supported and aided by most of the surrounding countries, and implicitly supported by three-quarters of the western world (read "Europe"), it's no wonder you're having a tough time putting them down." What are you talking about, dh? First of all, the "insurgents" that the US is targeting are Iraqi nationals who either feel they are defending their country against an invading force, or, in the case of the Sunnis', a minority group trying to retain power in their world. If this were South America, and it were any other country invading Iraq other than us, we would be calling those "insurgents" "freedom fighters".
And, as you would know if you read or listened to any news outside of Fox, most of Europe deplores the violence on BOTH sides of the conflict. The fact that the US is attacking CHURCHES to stop support for opposing parties seems incredibly short sighted and stupid to the rest of the world. Which it is. JNN is right. The US did have popular support in the begining of the invasion. They have squandered that support by applying ham fisted tactics to a situation that required kid gloves.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Foundling, I think if you look into it you will find out that the composition of the insurgents is an eclectic one. There are, undoubtedly, Iraqis styling themselves as nationalists. There are also alot of islamic fanatics who are seeking to maintain the chaos, in hopes of establishing a Taliban-like islamic state, and alot of imported terrorists from Syria, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. You'll also notice that the ringleader of this whole mess is a Jordanian, who has sworn allegiance to Al-Qaeda. Recently, during the assault on Fallujah, an Iraqi soldier reported that most of the insurgents were "arabs"; that is, foreigners. So I don't buy this "Iraqi nationalist" and "freedom fighter" crap, and quite frankly, I'm growing weary of hearing it repeated endlessly, as it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the actual situation.
And if those mosques are preaching violence and rebellion, they cannot be regarded as neutrals. Indeed, most of the violence is being preached from there. If they're calling out for murder, then they should expect to be invaded.
And just for your information, I have never watched Fox in my life.
quote: I don't buy this "Iraqi nationalist" and "freedom fighter" crap, and quite frankly, I'm growing weary of hearing it repeated endlessly, as it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the actual situation.
quote:So I don't buy this "Iraqi nationalist" and "freedom fighter" crap, and quite frankly, I'm growing weary of hearing it repeated endlessly, as it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the actual situation.
What makes you think so?
Oh, that's right, because we're supposed to be the heroes, right? Have you ever stopped to think that there are a lot of people over there who are glad to be done with Hussein, but have grown annoyed with the way the US is handling the occupation?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't doubt it for a second. But to draw the odd conclusion that these discontented Iraqis are the "insurgents" the US is battling is completely wrong. If these "insurgents" were really Iraqis fighting for their freedom from evil US occuption, why would they be killing off other Iraqis? And it's simply a fact that the man behind most of the terrorism is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian and an Islamic extremist. Doesn't sound like Iraqi freedom fighting to me.
posted
Zarqawi isn't driving those cars with bombs in them. Zarqawi isn't the one who knows the neighborhoods and hides in plain sight from authorities. These clerics who are now starting to speak out against the occupation didn't just pop up out of nowhere.
You are wrong. Every time we bust balls first into a mosque, shoot two people and injure others in order to arrest one person, when there is no evidence anyone was doing anything but praying at the time on their sabbath, then you're going to find out that people will find solidarity in plenty of places.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"and quite frankly, I'm growing weary of hearing it repeated endlessly, as it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the actual situation." You know, dh, I sympathize with this sentiment completely. It closely resembles what I feel every time I listen to the news. And I'm sorry for accusing you of listening to Fox. Really. I am. As far as the "actual situation", you seem to have more of a grasp on it than others I've been listening to. Tell me, were you there, then? Have you talked to these fake "insurgents"? Because I dont imagine you would be basing your opinions soley on US news sources. Tell me where to look to find the nationalities of these qausi-nationilists. I'd appreciate it. Really.
Now, as far as the mosques deserving what they got, I'd like you to picture a scenario in your head, if you will. Imagine, now, you're southern (maybe you really are), and a staunch baptist. Now, the US has been invaded by, oh, say.. China. They are declaring their intention to free us from the tyranny of Bush, the dictator we've been brainwashed into supporting. Of course, we know they are crazy, but about 1/2 the country (damn coastal freaks) says China seems better than Bush, and we'll support them helping us to our freedom. Now you, staunch souther baptist you, find comfort and shelter in your church. Your fiery minister spouts brimstone from the pulpit, and encourages the local militia to meet in the basement on Wednesdays. Then the Chinese come in, kill Aunt Bertha and Miss Charles, injure the rest of your family and arrest your bastion of strength, your minister. You would rally around your flag and your ruined church, and you would rant and rave at the godless bastards who showed so little respect for your lives and freedoms. So would your neighbors, and eventually, probably the rest of the US. The only positive thing that came out of Aunt Berthas death was the unity, the solidarity it provided in your fight against the forces against freedom (or for freedom, depending on whether your in the middle or ends of the country). WE are china to these people. And our callous disregard and disrespect for their beliefs, if turned on you, would probably make you act the same way they are.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I didnt call them freedom fighters. I said the US would do that in a different situation. We have a habit of giving that name to extremely inappropriate groups that have nothing to do with freedom. I'm not defending what these people are doing. I'm saying the way the US is going about stopping it is STUPID. And, while we're at it, a little empathy never hurts. Thus the windy post above.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, so the election is over, and here we are, still complaining about the war in Iraq, how it's being handled, what a terrible job our soldiers are doing--because we, of course, would do a much better job--and predicting disaster as usual.
Please, please, please, does anyone have a better idea? What would withdrawing our troops do? What would allowing business as usual (by that I mean allowing these "insurgents" to hide out in Mosques) do?
On one end, you complain that Iraq is in chaos. On the other end, you complain if our troops try to do something about it. So it's a no-win situation.
I get the feeling that a lot of people here--and a lot of people in other countries--want Iraq to be a failure. The consequences and the people in Iraq be damned. If it makes the U.S.--or Bush--look bad, it's worth it.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The U.S. should withdraw from Iraq. Not in two months, right now. There, I said it.
People keep saying "oh, the insurgency is limited, it's mostly foreign fighters, Al-Zarqawi is running the show." Last year it was Uday and Qusay who were running the show, then it was Saddam loyalists, now it's Al-Zarqawi. The U.S. should quit moving the goalposts and acknowledge the real reasons for the rebellion -- and yes, it's a rebellion, not an "insurgency." If America admits the real reasons -- that the CPA, when it had power, laid off over half a million state employees, drafted a constitution that made Iraq the freest market in the world at the expense of state-run industries, awarded virtually all of the reconstruction contracts to foreign companies despite the fact that Iraq's state-run industry could do most of those jobs much cheaper (not to mention giving all of those young Iraqi men something to do)... then just maybe we might start getting somewhere.
Want Iraq to be a failure? No, but Iraq has been a failure, and a lot of the reasons why are too late to be undone.
However, there are some concrete ways we could go about attempting to save the situation.
1) Focus on infrastructure and basic comforts. Right now we're spending a lot of money on training a military/police force that, unsurprisingly, turns out to actually be filled with many insurgents that then attack us. While we should of course train military/police, they should not be our showcase effort -- by focusing on fear, we support fear.
2) Give up on the contracts for US groups only shtick. Our contractors took part in such provable corruption (which of course the company itself had no idea about) in just the first few months of the occupation that we have lost all credibility -- "American companies deserve those contracts! Sure, they're filled with inefficiency and corruption ensuring the Iraqi recovery will take years extra, but we conquered the country, dangit, so its our recovery to delay!" The bidding on reconstruction contracts should be opened (not reopened, as they were mostly assigned without bids) under reasonable restrictions to international companies. The greater diversity of companies becoming involved, the better -- this will allow us to play them off better against each other for subsequent contracts, and strengthen the Iraqi economy against more nations (due to the flow of money).
3) Use the new contracting partners to leverage new peacekeepers, either UN or just from new countries. A country will send the military to where its people are, particularly when that's where its getting a large chunk of change.
4) Create two partner programs, both public private: a community improvement initiative, largely undertaken by the government, that involves making small, local improvements (such as repariring a local mosque, or replanting a garden) -- the focus should be on things which were previously there, we don't want to be seen as imposing new things too much; and a micro-loan program (largely private) which allows Iraqis to obtain startup funds for (very) small businesses at good rates. The program should be financed through Iraqi banks. Invite Iraqi news crews along for examples of both efforts.
5) Foster a free Iraqi press. We are doing good things, but people who hear them either assume the press they're listening to is lying, or hear the bad things we do from a severely biased press. I suggest providing printing and radio broadcast facilities for discounts to participants in the micro-loan program, or possibly just to Iraqis in general.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yeah, twinky reminded me of something: Iraqi companies must be included in the bidding process (likely with quite some aid provided in navigating our bidding process), and larger contractors should be encouraged to subcontract out to Iraqis -- there should, in fact, be a localized directory of Iraqi businesses created, focusing particulary on those that could aid the reconstruction.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Damn your specificity, Fugu! Now I'll have to actually think before posting. But seriously, that was a good, thoughtful post, I especially liked the micro loan ideas. Reminds me of when last year I was bitching on HR about the lack of effectiveness and crediblity of the UN and international law in general, and couldn't think of many concrete solutions.
Ethics Gradient stepped up and banged out half a dozen steps towards solutions. I was very impressed. Whatever happened to EG anyway?
quote:People keep saying "oh, the insurgency is limited, it's mostly foreign fighters, Al-Zarqawi is running the show." Last year it was Uday and Qusay who were running the show, then it was Saddam loyalists, now it's Al-Zarqawi.
Zarqawi has been surprisingly effective, but he is by no means in charge. The insurgency seems relatively unstructured to me, as any effective insurgency should be, to avoid getting rolled up in one fell swoop by the opposition A book I read recently, Chain of Command, quoted sources as saying that the Iraqi army near Baghdad and elsewhere had orders not to stand and fight, but take your weapons and go home, then rise later in revolt--because they couldn't not stand up to US firepower in a set-piece battle. Also, 4 insurgency divisions with 3000 to 4000 soldiers were set up, organized into cells and with significent weapons caches.
This makes sense to me, for several reasons. I was surprised, along with the US military, that there wasn't more of a fight put up by the Iraqis to defend Baghdad. It was one of the US war planners' nightmares: a protracted, urban house-to-house struggle for Baghdad. It never happened. Also, American intelligence has been very frustrated by a lack of effective, usable intelligence to fight the insurgence. This frustration was one of the factors that led to the prison scandals. An effective cell structure set up by the Iraqis before the wars end would greatly help their efforts to fight us and thwart effective counterinsurgency intelligence efforts. And the insurgents have been very well-supplied in arms, both explosives and small arms.
As far as wishing the US to lose, to show up Bush or for any other reasons, that's absurd. I am a loyal American.I just try to analyze the situation as best I can, and it seems very dicey to me.
edit: I was rushed in that last paragraph. Took, perhaps some feel that way, but I think fewer Americans than you think. Europe is a different story.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
