Iraqi cult and its 'messiah' destroyed near Najaf

by tom eile Sat Feb 03, 2007 15:59

Were the pilgrims carrying those missiles or were they planted on the bodies after the killings ? It seems unlikely that a militia sophisticated enough to possess such weapons would use them in such an amateurish way.
A helicopter was brought down , but the reports I read said that it wasn't clear how . Do you have any more details?

by Leo Gorcey Sat Feb 03, 2007 04:49

Since when do Religious Pilgrims carry Strella surface to air missiles?

Kalshnikov's I can understand for protection, but Man-Portable missiles?

by tom eile Fri Feb 02, 2007 19:32

The New York Times published an article last year by Jeff Stein ,national security editor of the influential Congressional Quarterly magazine. The piece bemoaned the fact that US lawmakers were unable to distuinguish between Sunni and Shiite sects for the purposes of "knowing your enemy".
When Stein asked Willie Hulon, chief of the FBI's new national security branch, whether he thought that it was important for a man in his position to know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, Hulon replied
''Yes, sure, it's right to know the difference ;it's important to know who your targets are.''
The US should follow the good example set by British counter-insurgencey agencies in Ireland according to Stein . Isn't it terrible the way that the provo capitulation in the north has allowed the British to present their dirty war in Ireland as a successful model for "conflict resolution".
The NYT site is subscription . I hope it's ok with indymedia if I cut and paste the Stein article in full . It offers a uselful insight into the thinking of US policy makers as they face the prospect of defeat in Iraq .

By JEFF STEIN
Published: October 17, 2006
Can You Tell A Sunni From a Shiite?
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?
My curiosity about our policymakers' grasp of Islam's two major branches was piqued in 2005, when Jon Stewart and other TV comedians made hash out of depositions, taken in a whistleblower case, in which top F.B.I. officials drew blanks when asked basic questions about Islam. One of the bemused officials was Gary Bald, then the bureau's counterterrorism chief. Such expertise, Mr. Bald maintained, wasn't as important as being a good manager.
A few months later, I asked the F.B.I.'s spokesman, John Miller, about Mr. Bald's comments. ''A leader needs to drive the organization forward,'' Mr. Miller told me. ''If he is the executive in a counterterrorism operation in the post-9/11 world, he does not need to memorize the collected statements of Osama bin Laden, or be able to read Urdu to be effective. Playing 'Islamic Trivial Pursuit' was a cheap shot for the lawyers and a cheaper shot for the journalist. It's just a gimmick.''
Of course, I hadn't asked about reading Urdu or Mr. bin Laden's writings.
A few weeks ago, I took the F.B.I.'s temperature again. At the end of a long interview, I asked Willie Hulon, chief of the bureau's new national security branch, whether he thought that it was important for a man in his position to know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites. ''Yes, sure, it's right to know the difference,'' he said. ''It's important to know who your targets are.''
That was a big advance over 2005. So next I asked him if he could tell me the difference. He was flummoxed. ''The basics goes back to their beliefs and who they were following,'' he said. ''And the conflicts between the Sunnis and the Shia and the difference between who they were following.''
O.K., I asked, trying to help, what about today? Which one is Iran -- Sunni or Shiite? He thought for a second. ''Iran and Hezbollah,'' I prompted. ''Which are they?''
He took a stab: ''Sunni.''
Wrong.
Al Qaeda? ''Sunni.''
Right.
AND to his credit, Mr. Hulon, a distinguished agent who is up nights worrying about Al Qaeda while we safely sleep, did at least know that the vicious struggle between Islam's Abel and Cain was driving Iraq into civil war. But then we pay him to know things like that, the same as some members of Congress.
Take Representative Terry Everett, a seven-term Alabama Republican who is vice chairman of the House intelligence subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence.
''Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?'' I asked him a few weeks ago.
Mr. Everett responded with a low chuckle. He thought for a moment: ''One's in one location, another's in another location. No, to be honest with you, I don't know. I thought it was differences in their religion, different families or something.''
To his credit, he asked me to explain the differences. I told him briefly about the schism that developed after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and how Iraq and Iran are majority Shiite nations while the rest of the Muslim world is mostly Sunni. ''Now that you've explained it to me,'' he replied, ''what occurs to me is that it makes what we're doing over there extremely difficult, not only in Iraq but that whole area.''
Representative Jo Ann Davis, a Virginia Republican who heads a House intelligence subcommittee charged with overseeing the C.I.A.'s performance in recruiting Islamic spies and analyzing information, was similarly dumbfounded when I asked her if she knew the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.
''Do I?'' she asked me. A look of concentration came over her face. ''You know, I should.'' She took a stab at it: ''It's a difference in their fundamental religious beliefs. The Sunni are more radical than the Shia. Or vice versa. But I think it's the Sunnis who're more radical than the Shia.''
Did she know which branch Al Qaeda's leaders follow?
''Al Qaeda is the one that's most radical, so I think they're Sunni,'' she replied. ''I may be wrong, but I think that's right.''
Did she think that it was important, I asked, for members of Congress charged with oversight of the intelligence agencies, to know the answer to such questions, so they can cut through officials' puffery when they came up to the Hill?
''Oh, I think it's very important,'' said Ms. Davis, ''because Al Qaeda's whole reason for being is based on their beliefs. And you've got to understand, and to know your enemy.''
It's not all so grimly humorous. Some agency officials and members of Congress have easily handled my ''gotcha'' question. But as I keep asking it around Capitol Hill and the agencies, I get more and more blank stares. Too many officials in charge of the war on terrorism just don't care to learn much, if anything, about the enemy we're fighting. And that's enough to keep anybody up at night.

by pat c Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:22

More evidence is emerging that the US and Iraqi authorities have lied about what took place at NAJAF. It looks as if it was a Massacre. Full text at link.

"We were going to conduct the usual ceremonies that we conduct every year when we were attacked by Iraqi soldiers," Jabbar al-Hatami, a leader of the al-Hatami Shia Arab tribe told IPS.

"We thought it was one of the usual mistakes of the Iraqi army killing civilians, so we advanced to explain to the soldiers that they killed five of us for no reason. But we were surprised by more gunfire from the soldiers."

Many southern Shia Arabs do not follow Iranian-born cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. They believe the religious leadership should be kept in the hands of Arab clerics. Al-Hatami and al-Khazaali are two major tribes that do not follow Sistani.

Tribal members from both believe the attack was launched by the central government of Baghdad to stifle growing Shia-Sunni unity in the area.

"Our convoy was close to the al-Hatami convoy on the way to Najaf when we heard the massive shooting, and so we ran to help them because our tribe and theirs are bound with a strong alliance," a 45-year-old man who asked to be referred to as Ahmed told IPS.

Ahmed, a member of the al-Khazali tribe said "our two tribes have a strong belief that Iranians are provoking sectarian war in Iraq which is against the belief of all Muslims, and so we announced an alliance with Sunni brothers against any sectarian violence in the country. That did not make our Iranian dominated government happy."

by Gitmo Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:48

leaving the warring factions to destroy each other , therefore leaving the land free for US
exploitation.

isn't that how they always made their wars?

They masaccre the peacemakers............... now about Gitmo?

by pat c Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:16

The info at the link supplied by Paddy K certainly challenges the official version. Here is an excerpt below. I would urge all readers to visit the Independent link and read the story in full.

There are growing suspicions in Iraq that the official story of the battle outside Najaf between a messianic Iraqi cult and the Iraqi security forces supported by the US, in which 263 people were killed and 210 wounded, is a fabrication. The heavy casualties may be evidence of an unpremeditated massacre.

A picture is beginning to emerge of a clash between an Iraqi Shia tribe on a pilgrimage to Najaf and an Iraqi army checkpoint that led the US to intervene with devastating effect. The involvement of Ahmed al-Hassani (also known as Abu Kamar), who believed himself to be the coming Mahdi, or Messiah, appears to have been accidental.

The story emerging on independent Iraqi websites and in Arabic newspapers is entirely different from the government's account of the battle with the so-called "Soldiers of Heaven", planning a raid on Najaf to kill Shia religious leaders.

The cult denied it was involved in the fighting, saying it was a peaceful movement.

by Paddy K. Wed Jan 31, 2007 07:29

"Pat C," this seems to be what you're looking for : http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article...3.ece and

by Paddy K. Wed Jan 31, 2007 07:22

"The Iraqi authorities have sealed the site and are not letting reporters talk to the wounded"
the UK Independent is reporting that : "There are growing suspicions in Iraq that the official story of the battle outside Najaf between a messianic Iraqi cult and the Iraqi security forces supported by the US, in which 263 people were killed and 210 wounded, is a fabrication. The heavy casualties may be evidence of an unpremeditated massacre."
A picture is beginning to emerge of a clash between an Iraqi Shia tribe on a pilgrimage to Najaf and an Iraqi army checkpoint that led the US to intervene with devastating effect. The involvement of Ahmed al-Hassani (also known as Abu Kamar), who believed himself to be the coming Mahdi, or Messiah, appears to have been accidental. The story emerging on independent Iraqi websites and in Arabic newspapers is entirely different from the government's account of the battle with the so-called "Soldiers of Heaven", planning a raid on Najaf to kill Shia religious leaders.

The cult denied it was involved in the fighting, saying it was a peaceful movement. The incident reportedly began when a procession of 200 pilgrims was on its way, on foot, to celebrate Ashura in Najaf. They came from the Hawatim tribe, which lives between Najaf and Diwaniyah to the south, and arrived in the Zarga area, one mile from Najaf at about 6am on Sunday. Heading the procession was the chief of the tribe, Hajj Sa'ad Sa'ad Nayif al-Hatemi, and his wife driving in their 1982 Super Toyota sedan because they could not walk. When they reached an Iraqi army checkpoint it opened fire, killing Mr Hatemi, his wife and his driver, Jabar Ridha al-Hatemi. The tribe, fully armed because they were travelling at night, then assaulted the checkpoint to avenge their fallen chief. Members of another tribe called Khaza'il living in Zarga tried to stop the fighting but they themselves came under fire. Meanwhile, the soldiers and police at the checkpoint called up their commanders saying they were under attack from al-Qai'da with advanced weapons. Reinforcements poured into the area and surrounded the Hawatim tribe in the nearby orchards. The tribesmen tried - in vain - to get their attackers to cease fire.

The Independent concludes by stating : "This account cannot be substantiated and is drawn from the Healing Iraq website : http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ and the authoritative Baghdad daily Azzaman."