غوبلز وزير اعلام هتلر قال ذات "فاشية" : اكذب، اكذب حتى يصدقك الناس .. ما لم يضعه غوبلز في الاعتبار هو العامل الزمني : الى متى الكذب؟ .. واذا اردنا الانصاف فالكل يكذب .. من ديمقراطية العم سام الى اوتوقراطية "الحاج حسنيين" .. ولكن للكذب تقاليد وطرق تمرير واساليب ولغة كودية دقيقة .. وهذا ما فات البيان الصادر عن مكتب "رئيس عرفاء" المنطقة الخضراء تعليقا على احداث كربلاء حين اعلن بأن "عصابات اجرامية مسلحة خارجة عن القانون ومن بقايا النظام الصدامي المقبور قامت باستهداف الزوار الذين حضروا الى مدينة كربلاء" .. أي شجاعة في الكذب.
لا ،لا ..المالكي ليس بهذا المستوى من الغباء .. هو يعرف جيدا انه ليس هناك من احد في الخارج يصدق كلمة مما يقول .. ولكنه ببيانه هذا يكذب على مريديه او ممن لا زالوا على "العهد الطائفي" الذي قتل العراق .. قد يقول قائل "هل لازال هناك في داخل القحط العراقي ممن يصدق كذب بهذا المستوى من الرداءة .. والجواب : نعم كثيرون .. وان كانوا اقل عددا وحجة بعد اربع سنوات ونصف من حكم الحثالات.
ما حدث في كربلاء بالامس ليس بالحدث العابر على الاقل من الناحية الرمزية .. صحيح ان مثل تلك الصدامات بين المليشيات تحدث كل يوم ومنذ فترة طويلة في كل محافظات الجنوب العراقي وخصوصا في البصرة .. ما يختلف في احداث الامس هو المكان والتوقيت .. يقال ان الاطار هو ما يعطي اللوحة قيمتها .. وفي السياسة غالبا ما يكون مكان وتوقيت حدث ما اهم رمزيا بكثير من الحدث ذاته .. من هنا اهمية " العراك" اما ضريح الحسين .. ومن هنا هرولة الكذبة المالكية وضحالتها.
اكثر ما يقوض اجندات رافعي "مصاحف الطائفية" هي مثل تلك المواجهات الشيعية الشيعية .. فما بالك بهذا التوقيت والمكان المفعم بالرمزية .. فمثل تلك المواجهات تفتت اهم ما في جعبتهم من برامج : عقلية الضحية المنتجة للضدية .. ضد من سترفع شعارات المظلومية بعد الان و"رعاة المظلومين" يرتدون لباس القتلة وينشرون الفوضى بين المسحوقين بعد ان كانوا يوزعون عليهم الهريسة فيما مضى .. ضد من ستقرع اجراس الحقد الطائفي ومن سيصغي اليها وابناء "بيوتات" الطائفة يرشقون اضرحة "آل البيت" بالرصاص ويقتلون زواره .. بالامس كان هذا الدور من نصيب صدام ، يزيد العصر الحديث في ثقافة اللطم .. عراك احفاد البيوتات الدينية من آل الحكيم و الصدر امام ضريح الحسين ساهم في رفع اخر اوراق التوت عن عوراتهم .. وهذا تقويض لكل ما شيده رافعي "مصاحف الطائفية" .. وهذا سبب الهرولة الاعلامية التي تستخدم الفزاعة الصدامية.
ولكن للكذب حدود .. واذا لم تراعى تلك القاعدة فأنه سينقلب على صاحبه .. وكل كذبة من نوع الكذب الذي يصدرعن مكتب "رئيس العرفاء" ستساهم في تقليص عدد المخدرين بعقار الطائفية الذي يقتل الجسد العراقي .. وبهذا المعنى فكل كذبة بهذا الحجم تصدر عن تلك الحثالات هي خدمة للعراق الغير طائفي .. هذا الكذب المحتقر لذكاء الناس سيساهم في وضعهم يوما بعد اخر في مصاف مستخدمي اللغة الخشبية التي خبرها العراقيون .. والفزاعة الصدامية قد تستخدم وتنجح لبعض الوقت ولكنها غير قابلة للاستخدام والنجاح طوال الوقت .. هذا ما لم يقله غوبلز.
يقال ان السيستاني قال قبل ايام قولة علي بن ابي طالب " لقد ملئتم قلبي قيحا " بحق الحثالات .. هذه هي ديمقراطية الفتوى .. جريمة قتل العراق يتم غسلها بمقولات تاريخية مجترة .. لقد ملئتم قلب العراق بسم الطائفية وليس فقط بقيح الحثالات .. هل من يُذكّر السيستاني بانه هو من اصر على اقامة الانتخابات في "مجتمع" تقوده حثالات .. هل من يقول لهذا "السيد" ان فتواه هي من ساهمت بصعود تلك الحثالات .. والاخطر من ذلك ان فتواه هي من اسست للطائفية الشمولية التي ستقتل العراق للعقود القادمة .. وهل من يقترب اخيرا من أذن "السيد" ليهمس له بأن مسؤوليته في كل ذلك كبيرة.
3eeraqimedic
ردحذفThe unbearable lightness of “enlightened” Iraqis
Karim
ردحذفI just remember for a long time those who were saying that Hussein Kamil didn't respect the shrine of Immam Hussien and bombed it saying I'm also Hussein!
Now I wonder why don't they respect the shrine now; isn't it bad?!
You're absolutely right; he is Gobelz, not only Al-Malki but the higher grand Sistani.
Regards
هل يطرأ على بال السيد ان "السياده" على مجتمع غارق في الطائفيه والتخلف الديني مثل مجتمع العراق الان لا يمكن ان تبقى فقط لقيادة واخراج اللطميات المبتذله؟
ردحذفهل من المعقول ان "سيد" اكثر من 75% من شيعة العالم لا يتدخل في ما يحدث في العراق الا بما يؤذي فقط؟
بس لو اعرف شنو القصه.. هاي شكو وشصاير بالعراق.. شنو القصه اريد افتهم.. شبينا؟ اتخبلنا؟ يعني معقوله ماكو بالعراق واحد شريف يطلع يكول كافي؟
Hello Karim :
ردحذفRead for example this blog.
Notice how people commented on his last post (I referred to this post of yours in one of my posts there)
http://shekomakoiniraq.blogspot.com/
(Copy-Paste)
Ramshakle1
So the final conclusion is the Shia’a Marji’ya is responsible for all our current misery, all the death and destruction in Iraq, and Al-Sistani now is the one who cultivated the seeds of sectarianism in Iraq, he and his colleague clerics are the ones who supported the mutual killings between Shia’a and Sunnis in Iraq. Simply the conclusion is clear: Al-Sistani is the root of every evil. if we imagine that Al-Sistani and the Shia’a religious clerical system were not existent, the Americans would never invade Iraq and topple Saddam, there will be no civil war and everything would go perfect.
ردحذفConsequently Al-Sistani followers (hundreds of thousands if not millions in Iraq) share the burden of his misdeeds. Therefore, the Shia’a of Iraq are again in the cage of accusation as we say in Arabic.
The deceased dictator before going into his period of occultation in his rat hole in Tikrit and just two weeks after the shameful fall of Baghdad released a tape which was broadcast throughout the world saying (just as Holagu entered Baghdad so did the criminal Bush enter Baghdad WITH THE HELP OF AL-ALQAMI) and the reference is quite clear: the Shia’a helped the Americans and without them Baghdad will never fall in their hands. So the Shia’a again were blamed for the failures of the previous regime. This was the first accusation against Al-Sistani that he helped the Americans or in the best way he did not issue a Fatwa of Jihad against the invaders. Then over the following months he was accused of interfering in Iraq politics and he is not allowed to do so for reasons like he is Iranian and he is religious man and should not put his nose in politics and should leave it for the secular educated Iraqis. Here comes the first contradiction: we wanted from Sistani through his influence on huge Shia’a masses to confront and fight the Americans but when it comes to political issues he has to step back because he is an outsider (Iranian not Iraqi, his loyalty is to Iran rather than Iraq) and he is a hypocrite turbaned mullah not secular educated middle class thinker so he is incapable of politics game. Then came the second accusation, which was your conclusion in this post that Al-Sistani was the one who laid the foundation of political sectarianism in Iraq. what I understood from your post that Iraq before Al-Sistani’s fatwa was one homogenous mass in a secular society in which, as one secular Iraqi female mentioned, “we Iraqis did not know whether our neighbors for years are Shia’a or Sunnis” and it was all of a sudden after April 2003 that we surprisingly discovered this hidden fact. Sorry Karim I strongly disagree with you: sectarianism is deeply rooted in our society and I am sure you have read Batatu’s work, Hassan Al-Alawi, Abdul-Karim Al-Uzri, Charles Tripp, Ishaq Naqash, Peter Sluglett and many others about sectarianism in Iraq. However, because one of my friends find no point in digging history, I will first only go back to December 2002 in London with the Iraqi opposition conference where the different groups that rule Iraq now were obviously divided and they did not agree on most of the issues listed on the conference agenda. At that time Al-Sistani was residing in Najaf and Saddam was in power. Second, Jalal Talbani in an interview to the Al-Hayat newspaper in London four months ago admitted that the Americans first and through Jay Garner asked the opposition groups to form a transitional government to replace the about-to-collapse Iraqi government and that was in last days of March/early days of April 2003 before the fall of the regime and Al-Talbani clearly admitted that the Americans were not interested in direct rule at the beginning and he went on saying that nearly one month later we did not agree on distributing the positions of the government and that made the Americans to lose their patience and to change all their plans which was very evident when they replaced Garner with Paul Bremmer who behaved like the King of Iraq and the idea of an Iraqi transitional government was cancelled. Until now Sistani was out of the game and was not involved in the political issue. Third, the idea of Iraq Governing Council came out which was divided along sectarian lines and here again Al-Sistani was not involved. Then the major step that Al-Sistani took was when he opposed the American plans about writing the constitution and he insisted that the institution should only be written by a parliament elected by Iraqi people. Now you say that these elections were wrong and should not be held in a divided society like Iraq. In January 2005, the majority of Iraqi people, whether we like it or not, went out and participated in the elections hoping for better future. The turnout was very high among major Iraqi communities except the Arab Sunnis who boycotted the elections for well-known reasons. Neither you nor me have the right to say as a fact that around 10 million Iraqis are politically immature and wrong when they went to vote. We all remember the celebrations of the (revolution of violet finger), not only in Iraq but here in our western exiles. And here is the fundamental question: IF YOU WERE AGAINST THE ELECTIONS, WHAT WAS YOUR ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION? I would be grateful if you could let me know of any better way than elections at that time to take us from our miseries. I believe the only available alternative was PAUL BREMMER and direct American rule. And here we go back to the same accusation against Sistani that he was collaborator and kept silent towards the invasion. Even if we consider Ayad Allawi as an alternative to the above two options, as many secular Iraqis think, Ayad Allawi has no basic popular support and that was evident from the results of the two elections and if he comes to power this will only by the blessing of the Americans and will not be very much different from the current Iraqi government.
I admit that Al-Sistani’s biggest mistake was when he supported the Shia’a list in the two elections and the support he gave to the current government but that does not mean he holds the major responsibility of the deteriorating situation now in Iraq as you reached and many others in their conclusions. If we look at the sensitive issues that Al-Sistani was criticized for and made a little comparison between him and Moqtada Al-Sadr we will find that Moqtada was closer to the Arab Sunni views: he is pure Arabic not Persian or (Safawi), he is against Federalism, against the proposed Oil Law, anti-American and fought them as exactly as the Arab Sunnis in Fallujah did in 2004 and he also suspended his participation in the current government like the Arab Sunnis. But again he is under attack of being disloyal to Iraq and loyal to his (masters in Iran), so he is also a Safawi, Ajmi, shu’ubi, Zoroastrian etc. so any position a Shia takes now will be under attack and suspicion simply because he is Shia’a not Sunni ( THIS IS THE BOTTOM AND CORE OF THE PROBLEM).
Compare the above two figures with Sunni figures you did not mention in your post that represent the other face of the coin in current Iraq. Al-Dhari, Addulaimi and Al-Hashimi. The first one until now has not frankly condemned Al-Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda massacres. The other two were not condemned of being part of the government that you attacked in your post. Nobody criticized Al-Hashimi and Addulaimi when they supported their Sunni list; no body accused them of being sectarians. Nobody criticized Addulaimi when he came on TV at the day of the second elections thanking the (resistance) for not attacking the voting centers. When Addulaimi went to turkey last year and came on TV crying (Save Baghdad from the Safawi’s) nobody condemned him and described him as Ottoman. When these figures exposed to have links with insurgent groups, they are not condemned as collaborators with enemies, but when Al-Sistani urge the people to go to vote he is directly accused of being calling for sectarianism in Iraq.
Sheko Mako:
ردحذف((The deceased dictator before going into his period of occultation in his rat hole in Tikrit and just two weeks after the shameful fall of Baghdad released a tape which was broadcast throughout the world saying (just as Holagu entered Baghdad so did the criminal Bush enter Baghdad WITH THE HELP OF AL-ALQAMI)) .
You know that the whole (rat hole) story is very very much questioned and disputed ,I personally tend to not belive in it knowing that the american Think Tank is capable of such bluffs.But that´s not the main thing,apart from it´s symbolic value as a historical insidence (or in my calim a bluff).You who like resting on history to explain the present,I ask you : does it make it less of a fact that Al Qami DID indeed help Holagu taking Baghdad only because Saddam said so ?
Go to your books and I´ll go to mine and let´s see if we can change that !
((the first contradiction: we wanted from Sistani through his influence on huge Shia’a masses to confront and fight the Americans but when it comes to political issues he has to step back because he is an outsider (Iranian not Iraqi, his loyalty is to Iran rather than Iraq) and he is a hypocrite turbaned mullah not secular educated middle class thinker so he is incapable of politics game))
Yes, that´s because we secculars-not sunnis (I´m speaking at least about myself here ) wouldn´t want Al Sistani or any one of his alikes ,be it Sunni or Shia, to have a role or a say what so ever in political life (and I would wish to go further and say in social life) but accepting the fact that Iraqi Shiites are the herd they are (my family included ,so that you won´t be offended) We want Al Sistani to generally shut up (not because he is Iranian but more because he is a religeous figure .I can not emphasize the difference more ) but if he must talk (beacsue the factual political equation in today´s Iraq is built upon pillars ,among them is ,unfortunately Al Sistani) if he must talk then he must talk against americans.Can´t do that ? Ok ,talk against the corrupt political process.Or for that matter :just TALK and say something to ease the people´s agony,isn´t that part of what Ayatollahs are supposed to do ?
I´m not welcoming Al Sistani (or any other religeous figure of any sect)in into my political and social life ,but if I´m forced to have him around me (because I´m an uncounted and lost voice in the mislead crowd) then I want him to say something for Iraq and not for Iran.
No contradiction I can see !
Sheko mako
(( Paul Bremmer who behaved like the King of Iraq and the idea of an Iraqi transitional government was cancelled. Until now Sistani was out of the game and was not involved in the political issue. Third, the idea of Iraq Governing Council came out which was divided along sectarian lines and here again Al-Sistani was not involved. Then the major step that Al-Sistani took was when he opposed the American plans about writing the constitution and he insisted that the institution should only be written by a parliament elected by Iraqi people))
You know very well that this is NOT true.Paul Bremer himself and many other Iraqis and Americans showed/talked about documented correspondance between the Americans (Bremer) and Al Sistani where they discussed all the sensative issues that professional politicians can/usually discuss.Al Sistani did have a hand in the Transitional government and a longer one in the Governing Council.If he didn´t then it´s a bigger problem because he should have .He should have said NO ,that´s a bad idea.He is guilty if he did ,guilty if he did not ( according to my logic above:no contradiction:unguilty only if he used his power to stop the process )
What you call a major step that AL Sistani made when he insisted that Iraqi people themselves would write the constitution is for me nothing but a wicked political manouver.He insisted because he knew that this is the right time to bring Al Marjaáya into power officially and legally killing by this any hope of a future secular=modern Iraq (read the part about AL Marjaáya and the religeous symbols in the constitution .Read analytically then you´d easily conclude that it was in Al-Hawza favoure that the constitution was written the way it was written with ,the time it was written at ) .Bad thing not a good thing because it´s very UNDEMOCRATIC that a supposedly democratic constitution emphasizes the role of religeous figures in society.Read AL Distoor !
Sheko Mako :
((sectarianism is deeply rooted in our society and I am sure you have read Batatu’s work, Hassan Al-Alawi, Abdul-Karim Al-Uzri, Charles Tripp, Ishaq Naqash, Peter Sluglett and many others about sectarianism in Iraq)))
There is a difference between a deeply rooted schism or sectarian fraction in a given society and an In-your-face THREAT of a functioning sectarian fashion of collective social mind.
Darbouna´s most recent post discusses this issue a bit closer.
What I want to say is :
Yes,there was always sectarianism in Iraq but it was NEVER a model or set of values or a standard pattern reflecting the mechanism by which the Social interactions of the COLLECTIVE society (inter-sectarian marriages for example is a question of many others that discredit the supposed big role of the sectarian social METHODISM).Sectarianism existed in Iraq, that´s true.But it was not the palpable pulse of Iraqi society because there were always other forces that muffled and tuned down it´s danger and kept it from fractioning the society ( Unlike many, I claim that Al Baáth party ,theoritically and practically was among those buffering social powers,along with the communist party.Don´t raise an eye brow in bewilderment .I know you do right now !).
There is a difference between the recent government (in all it´s three major parts) that DEFINES itself and begins it´s approach to everything from the standpoint of a sectarian mentality and a dictator who used an already existing sectarian friction to steer the nation (and made the mistakes and crimes he did along the process.But that´s another subject ).By making this distinction ,I,unlike many other Iraqis , feel myself ready to declare Saddam unguilty of Sectarianism.He was a seccular dectatore who used Sectarianism as one of many other tools he found availabe at hand to maintain his unjust rule.What else would you expect of a dectatore to do?.The fact that persons who ultimately supported Saddam and made up his power-basement were Sunnis is half-true,, and even if it is fully true then the explanation to this is pure Socio-political (your field of speciality): because he knew all the way,like all the leaders before him and the leaders that may follow, that Iraqi shias are not TRUSTABLE and are LOYAL to IRAN ( ie AL QAMI) and he chose Sunni tribes to lean on because he had to (notice that whenever Saddam ran into a loyal shiite he clung to him all the way ,ex prime minister AL Zubeidi and many others .Fidayyi Saddam in their majority were shiites from the south and many werefrom Al Thawra city.I know of personal knwoledge as a man born in the south and worked in AL Thawra city).
Of personal day-to-day experience (regardless to what Btato or Slugglett have to say) I always found a casual Sunni more trustable than a casual Shiite.That´s very unscientific and very personal observation that maybe doesn´t belong here in this discussion.
Time to give things back their precise meaning.
Thanks !
Sheko Mako :
ردحذف((In January 2005, the majority of Iraqi people, whether we like it or not, went out and participated in the elections hoping for better future. The turnout was very high among major Iraqi communities except the Arab Sunnis who boycotted the elections for well-known reasons. Neither you nor me have the right to say as a fact that around 10 million Iraqis are politically immature and wrong when they went to vote. We all remember the celebrations of the (revolution of violet finger), not only in Iraq but here in our western exiles))
I can assure you, and with an easy heart, that what you call the revolution of the violet finger was nothing more than an (immature) response to a very well-charged sectarian atmosphere where the goal for those who voted was not finding/building (a better future) for Iraq ,but rather a فزعه(decode in arabic) to the sect .Most of the voters were triggered and moved to vote under a general mood of suspicion and mistrust in fear that the other sect (or race ) might get ( A BIGGER PIECE OF THE CAKE) .It is for this reason that ,I for one, REFUSED to participate in that election .My arguement was this: No REAL democracy can ever be born under invasion.This process was a celebration of sectarianism .An ultimate manifestation of mass frenzy or mass hysteria ( you know that these terms have precise meanings in the vocabulary of social science ) where the scene was full with all elements that when put together they make a political process that deceivingly LOOKS LIKE democratic process while in the core of it ,in my eyes ,it was nothing more than a dance around a dead body (invaded Iraq) becasue what the scene lacked was a basic element that should come even before democracy: The sense of patriotism and loyality to the country,Kareem calls it sometimes the lack of sense of Identity.The herd ( I mean this word) lacked then ,as they do now, a concept that you in your blog called Iraqiness.In this analysis I feel my conscience clean when NOT voting although I am fully aware of the negativity and the nihlistic nature of my choice.At special times and certain occasions silence speaks louder than words and to Unvote can become very much more democratic and politically right than voting (that´s why,in western democracy, there is no legal punishment for those who give away their right to vote ).
That doesn´t mean that the Sunnis when they boycotted the elections were wise or more patriotic than the Shias or Kurds ,No, because what kept them from doing it was the hopeless and faint hope of discrediting/stoping the political process which was/is not running in their favour (because the Bush adminstration wants it so and not because they lack the legitimacy to be at least a major playing part of it).They were also unpatriotic and sectarian in their own way and it was also the bitter sense of the Sunni sect falling from power that made them act that childish .Till this day the Sunnis are reaping the harvest of that historical mistake (which is now under mending and fixing by the late-awakened Mr.Bush who only lately began to comprehend that the Shiite institution is not capable of building and running a state -dawla- and that the kurds are actually not Iraqis and are only in the political process to weaken it because their issue is Kurdistan excluding rest Of Iraq and not Iraq including Kurdistan.Bush began reviving his ties with Al Ramadi tribes and started to push against the Law Of AL Baáth Removal because he knew that (his) democracy came at the wrong time,presented by the wrong way,offered to the wrong people ).
Sheko Mako :
It is unfair of you that you now ask what is the solution?
You know that what happened in Iraq is like a big fireball ,a FATAL mistake which can not but get bigger every day.Defending Al Sistani (and all what he represents) doesn´t provide an answer but rather is an escape forward to make the fireball shoot harder and roll faster only to burn more.I don´t know what the answer is.I dare you to tell me what the answer is,I dare Kareem to tell me what the answer is, and like wise Mr.Bush or all other big Misters .When NATIONS ally to make a mistake ( was it really a Saddam-less world they were after? ) then it takes NATIONS ,WILLING nations to fix the mistake.The NATIONS of the World just wouldn´t bother about ONE people who still think in terms of mine Vs yours and arabic Vs Kurd or Al Mahdi Vs Salafi.
And that´s why ,and in answer of your remark about the 10 millions of Iraqis: Yes,thet were and they are politically immature manipulated by a viscious and thoughtless invader who can not answer a simple question asked by the world : Why did the war against Iraq happened in the first place ?
Mabrook Tahreer Al Iraq , SMS:ed of my fellow Iraqis the day Baghdad fell,I wonder if his mobile is still full with points to send happy SMSes like that one!