Iyad Allawi believes that civil war has already begun in Iraq! This from The Times today:
IYAD ALLAWI, Iraq’s former Prime Minister, chose the third anniversary of the invasion yesterday to say that he believed that civil war had begun.Mark
John Reid, the Defence Secretary, spent the day in Iraq insisting that it had not, and that Iraqis were bravely resisting terrorist efforts to provoke them into a destructive sectarian conflict.
Mr Reid, who shuttled around southern Iraq in a helicopter, visiting British troops, appeared surprised that Mr Allawi had issued the warning a day after the two had met in Baghdad to discuss the political situation.
Three months after December’s election, a new government has not been formed, despite alarming levels of sectarian violence. The violence has thrown a long shadow over the anniversary, with Iraqis complaining bitterly of a terrible security situation, a continuing political vacuum, dire power and fuel shortages, economic problems and a growing fear of civil war.
Mr Allawi told the BBC that civil war had already started and that violence could spread to Europe and the US. He said: "We are losing each day an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is." As he made his comments yesterday, 12 Iraqis were killed in insurgent attacks and a US raid north of Baghdad. Four bodies turned up in a sewage plant and Shia pilgrims were attacked with a mortar.
Read the article here: Three years after Iraq invasion leader says civil war has begun And this one from The Telegraph Iraq is now 'in a terrible civil war', admits Allawi
7 comments:
Welcome back to the blogosphere, Mark!
If civil war has not actually begun, it soon will, IMO.
John Reid, the Defence Secretary, spent the day in Iraq insisting that it had not, and that Iraqis were bravely resisting terrorist efforts to provoke them into a destructive sectarian conflict.
Mr. Reid, take off your blinders!
Right now, we're seeing shari'ah law applied, or about to be applied, to Ahmad Rahmad in Afghanistan. It has been openly stated that Christianity and shari'ah law are incompatible. No surprise to me!
And Iraq may go down the same road.
Thanks, Always. It's good to be back, even though half of my Blogspot has disappeared!
Yes, I agree. If civil war hasn't started, it soon will. This exercise in "bringing democracy to the Middle East" will end in tears, and for all the reasons I have mentioned before. With all due respect, Bush needs to go back to doing what he knows best: Ranching!
Blair should step down. He is a liability to the United kingdom. He is certainly no asset!
As you say, Reid needs to take off his blinkers. One cannot be far-seeing wearing them!
Always:
It's only a matter of time before we will see Shariah law applied in Iraq in its 'full glory'. How foolish America's politicians and Britain's have been in believing that democracy can be brought to the Middle East!
Democracy could be brought into the Middle East but not by superficial steps like introducing "free elections".
Allende was "democratically" elected in Chile and Hamas in Palestine (not to mention that Hitler was selected in a legal, constitutional process).
Great.
To make things worse the US administration allows Islam to be mixed with Afghani and Iraqi constitution and their civil law.
It's like accepting Marxism as the only official ideology and calling it democracy.
I don't think I made myself clear.
Sorry.
I wasn't comparing Middle East to South America but Islam to Marxism and Nasism.
Islam has to be eleminated or marginalized before we can start talking about democracy.
Under no circumstances should totalitarian ideologies/dogmas be allowed entry into any democratic process.
The promoters of these ideologies will immediately get rid of the existing political system (my analogies with Allende and Hitler).
Of course Islam has much stronger roots within the real society than for example Marxism, which is basically an elitist ideology.
On the long run if something is not done about the legitimacy of Islam withing our own Western societies the whole situation will only get worse not better.
And so, as long as the Middle East gets its money supply from its oil sales Islam will be slowly exported (process already well advanced) to our doorsteps.
My main point: Democratization of the Middle East cannot succeed with Islam around.
By allowing Muslims to vote we will get another theocracy.
Missinglink:
Sorry, I misunderstood you.
Yes, I totally agree with what you have just stated, except, perhaps, that you imply that Islam is not an élitist ideology. In actual fact, it is: Muslims are the superior, chosen people.
Post a Comment