4/23/10 - Second Roadside Bomb in String of Attacks - Baghdad, Iraq
Friday, April 30, 2010
9:44 PM
Claire Morcos
Labels: 04/10 , Al-Quaeda , Baghdad , Iraq , Roadside Bomb , Unconfirmed , 5 comments
Date: April 23rd, 2010
Method: Roadside Bomb
Location: Al Sadrain mosque in Zafaraniyah Baghdad, Iraq
Death Toll: 0
Injury Toll: 6
Perpetrators: Unconfirmed (Suspected Al-Quaeda)
McClatchy reports:
Baghdad All attacks took place around 12:30 p.m. during Friday prayers:The Associated Press reports:
A roadside bomb exploded near Al Sadrain mosque in Zafaraniyah injuring 6 civilians.
A series of bombings mainly targeting Shiite worshippers killed at least 60 people on Friday, officials said, just days after U.S. and Iraqi forces killed the top two al-Qaida leaders in Iraq in what was described as devastating blow to the insurgency.Read this New York Times article for more information on the wave of attacks that occured in Iraq on April 23rd.The apparently coordinated attack, which occurred in a two-hour timespan, demonstrated insurgents remain a potent force despite U.S. and Iraqi claims that the terror network is on the run.
Officials have warned insurgents remain capable of staging high-profile bombings in a bid to reignite sectarian tensions that pushed the country to the brink of civil war.
Extremists are also seeking to exploit political deadlock after the inconclusive March 7 parliamentary election as U.S. forces prepare to go withdraw from the country by the end of 2011.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Hmm, so you want to force the American infidels out of your country by bombing a mosque during prayers, probably a lot of white people there.
Anonymous,
I implore you to, quite simply, read.
There are severe tensions between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims n Iraq.
Bombings in the mid-east don't simply occur only against white people.
If you take the time to skim through the catalogue, or read the sources I post, you'll find that religion only acts as an enabler to help attackers carry out their missions. The very reasons for these missions are often territorial, in retaliation of Western forces, or as in this case, against civilians of a native country that are thought to sympathize with Western forces.
I believe that religion was created because it successfully controls the behaviour of a population without much State effort: self policing and reproductive. There has been tension, a word that is at best an understatement, since prophet Muhammad died in the year 632(AD) a power struggle has been playing out. The Shi'ite-Sunni civil war currently going on in Iraq is the result of the Green Revolution in Iran and the rise of a Shi'ite Muslim theocratic state. The Baath party had minority Sunnis in powerful positions.
Al-Qaeda is tying to impose Sunni rule on Iraq. Having said this, I commented before the Associated Press article and was unaware that this was a Sunni attack on the Shi'ites. My comment was trying to remark that the continuation of violence in the form of an insurgency and sectarian conflicts is simply a reason for occupying forcing to remain. The attacks will scare off Shi'ite voters which is the desired affect, but it is not comply unrealistic for Sunnis and Shi'ite to unite like Hezbollah in Lebanon (and only in Lebanon) or the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan which united warring tribes to fight the Soviets and now the Taliban. The end result is the same as Shi'ite Iran and Sunni Taliban-lead Afghanistan both come to mind went you think repressive regimes.
I guess I had a moment of "idealism" in a quagmire. This might be a good time to use Windrow Wilson's "self determination" even though post-WWII Europe proves it has flaws and slide the country in three. Or a good time for me to stop rabbling.
Cheers!
"believe that religion was created because it successfully controls the behaviour of a population without much State effort: self policing and reproductive."
I can't quite agree to this, because in my experiences and research, religion has always existed above the state, has acted as a state, at least in the Abrahamic tradition. Aside from the Hebrew faith, which holds a "country's" laws above its own (Jews must be observant of a country's laws), Catholicism and Islam came about as a means to control those who live in fractured areas, supplanting the need for a state. Christianity's full power emerged after the Roman Empire fell, when the church became the beacon for acknowledgement of legitimate rule and as an institution of scholarly means (the first post-antiquity schools were churches.)
If you went against these religions, akin to going against the state, you were punished in full. The dilemma that now exists is with states attempting to gain autonomy (You mentioned Baath, a good example of what I mean: An attempt at secularizing a religiously polarized region, an example of the state trying to subvert religion.)
And while there was tension after Muhammad passed on, don't neglect the power and influence of the caliphates that lasted centuries after his death.
Islam: "Salafists are mostly quiescent and preach obedience to the ruler (even if they call for violent jihad in other lands). That was an appealing trait in Yemen's complex social mosaic, where rivalries based on class, region, religious sect and lineage are endemic."