Ethnic Cleansing

[Bulldog_916]

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews...lBrandChannel=0

This article seems to suggest that the successes of the surge in Iraq came as a result of ethnic cleansing of Sunni Iraqis in Baghdad PRE-surge. So when the surge was implemented, the dirty work was already done in the form of mass ethnic killings in Iraq. The surrounding Sunni Arab region was basically made deserted by Shiite militias. So much for the "Success of the Surge."

[TheScotsman]

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews...lBrandChannel=0

This article seems to suggest that the successes of the surge in Iraq came as a result of ethnic cleansing of Sunni Iraqis in Baghdad PRE-surge. So when the surge was implemented, the dirty work was already done in the form of mass ethnic killings in Iraq. The surrounding Sunni Arab region was basically made deserted by Shiite militias. So much for the "Success of the Surge."

I would guess there is more than a bit of truth in it. No doubt that having extra boots in theatre makes a big difference, but it does make one wonder if the surge is also promoting/enabling more religious cleansing. The more one examines the whole disaster, the more it appears that the USA's "puppet" (for lack of a better word) is doing nothing for the nation, or the populace. All they are doing is filling their pockets, while the US taxpayer pays more $ to rebuild/repair infrastructure. Soldiers, no matter how well trained are miserable at "nation building" There seems to be little escape for us at this point though.

[clibinarius]

Isn't Reuters the service that was caught doctoring photos? Just a thought...

Also, this is an inherently flawed concept, because it is blamed on one bombing. No evidence of "Genocide"-by the same standard, could it be said that New Orleans was ethnically cleansed pre-Gustav?

It could also be the fact its a war-zone. The Lapland was desserted too in 1944-1945. And what happened? The Finns moved back when the war ended. Why'd they go? Simple; to not be caught in the crossfire...

That said, let's say Maggie Fox didn't have an agenda (because reporters aren't biased...ever! Definitely never for Reuters! Only Fox News and MSNBC are biased these days, seriously!!!). Do you think she actually knows anything about war? Cause most articles I read these days seem to be pretty lousy on any subject, written by people who aren't too smart thinking they know everything about a topic because they've "been there" even if they don't have the mental capacity to understand what both our generals and the leaders of the various organizations in Iraq themselves don't understand. As a general rule, I don't take much said in the news-regardless of political slant-or even the official lines of government-too seriously. Grand sweeping generalizations? This article seems to suggest the Americans are like Nazis.

Also this article fails to mention the Iraqi economy. Shia militias can much more easily supply themselves with funding from outside forces than Nationalist Iraqis (simply because Shi'ite fundamentalism appeals to Shi'ite fundamentalists OUTSIDE Iraq, whereas Iraqi Nationalism appeals to next to no one where Iraq isn't involved) and those "Foreign fighters" who are few in number...are generally seen as pariahs in their home countries anyway. Then, if resources aren't readily available as is common in a war...whom are the Iraqi government going to give them to with priority? The Shi'ites who put them in power, or the Sunnis blamed by some in the ruling party for the current civil war and Saddam? Hmm...that's not quite ethnic cleansing as much as cronyism.

Oh yeah, for the record, this article sites some professor at UCLA, who's writings include "What's wrong with Empire" and "No borders, no nations"-needlesstosay, I'm not convinced he doesn't have an ideological agenda. Furthermore, I see no evidence that this professor's field of interest and expertise is in Iraq. Being a professor of Italy has nothing to do with whether you understand what's going on in Iraq or not anymore than I know.

And I just looked up more on Maggie Fox. Turns out she's the Health and Science Correspondant for Reuters. Its really like the Daily Show over there with the titles, eh? What the hell is a Health and Science correspondant doing being the reporter here instead of someone who, oh, HAS BEEN TO IRAQ?

My god. Its worse than someone who has been there and thinks she knows everything, as the previous example. This is a woman who probably HASN'T been there and thinks she knows everything. Wait wait wait, she's a Sierra Clubber? That's more credibility to having a centrist, non-biased outlook. I'm not saying screw the environment, but I haven't met anyone in the Sierra Clubthat doesn't want to trash Bush at every opportunity...

OH OH AND IT GETS BETTER. Apparently Maggie Fox is the WIFE of Mark Udall. So there's no need to attack the GOP there, despite Colorado being historically a fairly conservative state and her husband running for Senate, is there? Edited September 20, 2008 by clibinarius

[oolatec]

They can tell all of that from satellite imagery? lol

[clibinarius]

All that can really be determined is that light output has gone down which suggests-but does not confirm-a migration. It does NOT establish a motive of a possible migration. If there was ethnic cleansing, odds are the structures wouldn't be completely intact, either (as its a mark of fighting). Since this wasn't mentioned, either it didn't happen or the authors didn't know what they were talking about.

For more on satellite imagery and the power of high altitude photos, looking into the Cuban Missile Crisis is good, as well as the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War (Which, as far as I know, no one said was ethnic cleansing OUTSIDE of Lebanon, Syria and Iran). Look them over, you might learn how to analyze it. These photos are certainly not enough to describe a motive for an activity, just the possibility of an activity, and some with higher percentage (Very few things look like a missile, for instance).

Of course, if Maggie Fox really knew what she was talking about, no doubt she'd talk about structural damage in the area. Which means she should either stick to health and science, or just declare herself a partisan. Charging a country unfoundedly for war crimes...well, that gives people like Karl Rove ammo to say that people who disagree with the Bush policy hate America. I find it very very dubious based on the charge that she supports the troops, as she's trying to convict them of crimes without actual evidence. If she's right, someone deserves to go to jail. If she's wrong...its outright libel. It deserves reporting, of course, but once again, what are her motives? Its freedom of speech, but saying someone is guilty of genocide? Things like that shouldn't be reported shrill or light. A far more appropriate title might have been "Geology Expert Finds Evidence of Alleged Ethnic Cleansing."

Then again, this media also said "Iraq 'Close to Nuclear Bomb' Goal" back in 2002. That's the ridiculous thing about the media. They were wrong in 2002, so they have to make up for it by being as wrong, but in the opposite slant, in 2008.

They can tell all of that from satellite imagery? lol

[oolatec]

From an acquaintance who is actually in theater now:

I wonder if this guy has ever been to Baghdad?

I'm looking at a sectarian breakdown of Baghdad, the city I've lived in for 2 years, and...let's see:

We'll start in the Northeast: Ahdamiyah: Shi'ite and Sunni,
Moving South along the East side of the river: Rusafah: East Rusafah just west of RTE Plutos: About 50/50 Shi'ite/ Sunni. There is even a pretty large neighborhood there that is primarily Christian with a large Catholic church.

Further south into Karadah to include the penninsula about 75/25 Shi'ite to Sunni. Granted, most areas east of Plutos to include New Baghdad, Sadr City, Ur/ Sha'ab, and further south into new Babil are primarily Shi'ite. But, then again, before the war, those were primarily Shi'ite areas.

Now, we'll move to the West side of the river. I could go as far south as Mamudiyah, but we're only talking Baghdad. So, we'll start in East Rashid and the Doura area. This is about 60/40 Sunni/ Shi'ite. West of RTE Jackson you have West Rashid. On the north side in the Hayy Aamil/Bayaa you have about 80/20 Shi'ite Sunni. Further west towards the airport, there are more Sunni than Shia. I would give it about 70/30. Further to the Southwest parts of the city are more of a Shi'ite leaning neighborhoods. So, we'll move north of Irish into the Mansour area which is primarily Sunni. East of Senators into the southeast Kahdimiyah area (where the great Kahdimiyah shrine is) is primarily Shi'ite. In Karkh, which is just north of the IZ, is primarily Sunni. It's kind of funny, because the Iranian embassy is right smack dab in the middle of that area. Kahdimiyah, which is the largest area on the west side of the river includes the neighborhoods of Huriyah, and Shulla. Huriyah is where Hadar Kaddam detonated the VBIED near a NAC meeting and tried to blame it on the Sunnis. The Shi'ites didn't buy it, and now he's a wanted man. He, by the way, is a SGC leader.

Anyway, if this guy wants to talk about Baghdad, I am more than willing to help him out so he doesn't look so foolish by publishing idiotic articles.

[Bulldog_916]

From an acquaintance who is actually in theater now:

I wonder if this guy has ever been to Baghdad?

I'm looking at a sectarian breakdown of Baghdad, the city I've lived in for 2 years, and...let's see:

We'll start in the Northeast: Ahdamiyah: Shi'ite and Sunni,
Moving South along the East side of the river: Rusafah: East Rusafah just west of RTE Plutos: About 50/50 Shi'ite/ Sunni. There is even a pretty large neighborhood there that is primarily Christian with a large Catholic church.

Further south into Karadah to include the penninsula about 75/25 Shi'ite to Sunni. Granted, most areas east of Plutos to include New Baghdad, Sadr City, Ur/ Sha'ab, and further south into new Babil are primarily Shi'ite. But, then again, before the war, those were primarily Shi'ite areas.

Now, we'll move to the West side of the river. I could go as far south as Mamudiyah, but we're only talking Baghdad. So, we'll start in East Rashid and the Doura area. This is about 60/40 Sunni/ Shi'ite. West of RTE Jackson you have West Rashid. On the north side in the Hayy Aamil/Bayaa you have about 80/20 Shi'ite Sunni. Further west towards the airport, there are more Sunni than Shia. I would give it about 70/30. Further to the Southwest parts of the city are more of a Shi'ite leaning neighborhoods. So, we'll move north of Irish into the Mansour area which is primarily Sunni. East of Senators into the southeast Kahdimiyah area (where the great Kahdimiyah shrine is) is primarily Shi'ite. In Karkh, which is just north of the IZ, is primarily Sunni. It's kind of funny, because the Iranian embassy is right smack dab in the middle of that area. Kahdimiyah, which is the largest area on the west side of the river includes the neighborhoods of Huriyah, and Shulla. Huriyah is where Hadar Kaddam detonated the VBIED near a NAC meeting and tried to blame it on the Sunnis. The Shi'ites didn't buy it, and now he's a wanted man. He, by the way, is a SGC leader.

Anyway, if this guy wants to talk about Baghdad, I am more than willing to help him out so he doesn't look so foolish by publishing idiotic articles.

First off, I'm just putting the information out there. I found the article interesting and it seems to point to the reason why the violence in the region went down so dramatically as the surge was taking place. Her sources for the information that led to the article in the first place came from experts on the region and refugee organizations, not her own damn opinion. There was a civil unrest the likes of which we hadnt seen before during the time before the surge. We knew there was a lot of bombing and gunfire back and forth, between our guys and the insurgency and between the opposing local and insurgent militias. It climaxed right before the surge. That's why we saw such a sharp rise in casualties, our guys were basically trying to fight the insurgency while this was going on and getting capped themselves in the in-fighting. All-out civil war was a real fear. But when the cleanse was over, there wasnt any reason for the militias to keep fighting each other. Muqtada Al-Sadr called a cease fire on his forces because he knew they won. When our reinforcements got there, it was mostly over. It looked like we won the day, so to speak.

This is how I understand it from the research I've done, from tracking the progress of the escalation before and during it, and now from the new research that's coming out about the supposed success of the surge. Even most of the generals in the field admit that the surge was only a small part of the reason violence went down.

"On October 25, 2006 U.S. soldiers uncovered a book during a raid in the Washash neighborhood in Baghdad with information about the Shi‘ite militia affiliated to Muqtada al-Sadr, Mahdi Army had engaged in a systematic campaign of violence and intimidation to clear out Sunni residents in this town." (Wikipedia, Muqtada Al Sadr)

"On March 30, it was reported that Sadr, through clerics speaking on his behalf, "delivered a searing speech ... condemning the American presence in Iraq ... [and] call[ing] for an anti-occupation mass protest on April 9...." ^[28] This call to protest was significant in that, since the beginning of the American troop surge (which began on February 14, 2007), Sadr had ordered his 'militia to lie low during the new Baghdad security plan so as not to provoke a direct confrontation with the Americans.'" (Wikipedia, Muqtada Al Sadr)

This is why I have a feeling violence is going to start to spike again and you're already seeing the beginnings of it. I'm sure you're asking yourself "How long can they stay 'lying low'?" The answer is for a long damn time if they need to. 1.5-2 years is only a drop in the bucket to them.

Tell your aquaintance that everything he said right up there, all that drivel, had absolutely dick to do with the article in question. I read every sentence of it and none of it made any comparison between pre-civil unrest populations and post-surge populations. If he can tell me what the ethnic breakdowns were when he got there (by his numbers September of 2006, the height of the civil conflict/cleansing) and how those compare to the current ones, then I'll take his word. The ethnic breakdowns now have absolutely no bearing on what they were during and immediately after the cleansing.

"Currently in the Iraq Civil War (2003 to present), entire neighborhoods in Baghdad are being ethnically cleansed by Shia and Sunni Militias.^[165][166] Some areas are being evacuated by every member of a particular secular group due to lack of security, moving into new areas because of fear of reprisal killings. As of June 21, 2007, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated that 2.2 million Iraqis had been displaced to neighboring countries, and 2 million were displaced internally, with nearly 100,000 Iraqis fleeing to Syria and Jordan each month." (Wikipedia, Ethnic Cleansing)

Guess that would kind of explain the whole lights-out phenomena huh? Edited September 21, 2008 by Bulldog_916

[clibinarius]

Who in the article was an expert on the region? Name one person in that article who was an expert. Knowing the geology of Greece, furthermore, doesn't make you an expert on Iraq.

[oolatec]

From an acquaintance who is actually in theater now:

I wonder if this guy has ever been to Baghdad?

I'm looking at a sectarian breakdown of Baghdad, the city I've lived in for 2 years, and...let's see:

We'll start in the Northeast: Ahdamiyah: Shi'ite and Sunni,
Moving South along the East side of the river: Rusafah: East Rusafah just west of RTE Plutos: About 50/50 Shi'ite/ Sunni. There is even a pretty large neighborhood there that is primarily Christian with a large Catholic church.

Further south into Karadah to include the penninsula about 75/25 Shi'ite to Sunni. Granted, most areas east of Plutos to include New Baghdad, Sadr City, Ur/ Sha'ab, and further south into new Babil are primarily Shi'ite. But, then again, before the war, those were primarily Shi'ite areas.

Now, we'll move to the West side of the river. I could go as far south as Mamudiyah, but we're only talking Baghdad. So, we'll start in East Rashid and the Doura area. This is about 60/40 Sunni/ Shi'ite. West of RTE Jackson you have West Rashid. On the north side in the Hayy Aamil/Bayaa you have about 80/20 Shi'ite Sunni. Further west towards the airport, there are more Sunni than Shia. I would give it about 70/30. Further to the Southwest parts of the city are more of a Shi'ite leaning neighborhoods. So, we'll move north of Irish into the Mansour area which is primarily Sunni. East of Senators into the southeast Kahdimiyah area (where the great Kahdimiyah shrine is) is primarily Shi'ite. In Karkh, which is just north of the IZ, is primarily Sunni. It's kind of funny, because the Iranian embassy is right smack dab in the middle of that area. Kahdimiyah, which is the largest area on the west side of the river includes the neighborhoods of Huriyah, and Shulla. Huriyah is where Hadar Kaddam detonated the VBIED near a NAC meeting and tried to blame it on the Sunnis. The Shi'ites didn't buy it, and now he's a wanted man. He, by the way, is a SGC leader.

Anyway, if this guy wants to talk about Baghdad, I am more than willing to help him out so he doesn't look so foolish by publishing idiotic articles.

First off, I'm just putting the information out there. I found the article interesting and it seems to point to the reason why the violence in the region went down so dramatically as the surge was taking place. Her sources for the information that led to the article in the first place came from experts on the region and refugee organizations, not her own damn opinion. There was a civil unrest the likes of which we hadnt seen before during the time before the surge. We knew there was a lot of bombing and gunfire back and forth, between our guys and the insurgency and between the opposing local and insurgent militias. It climaxed right before the surge. That's why we saw such a sharp rise in casualties, our guys were basically trying to fight the insurgency while this was going on and getting capped themselves in the in-fighting. All-out civil war was a real fear. But when the cleanse was over, there wasnt any reason for the militias to keep fighting each other. Muqtada Al-Sadr called a cease fire on his forces because he knew they won. When our reinforcements got there, it was mostly over. It looked like we won the day, so to speak.

This is how I understand it from the research I've done, from tracking the progress of the escalation before and during it, and now from the new research that's coming out about the supposed success of the surge. Even most of the generals in the field admit that the surge was only a small part of the reason violence went down.

"On October 25, 2006 U.S. soldiers uncovered a book during a raid in the Washash neighborhood in Baghdad with information about the Shi‘ite militia affiliated to Muqtada al-Sadr, Mahdi Army had engaged in a systematic campaign of violence and intimidation to clear out Sunni residents in this town." (Wikipedia, Muqtada Al Sadr)

"On March 30, it was reported that Sadr, through clerics speaking on his behalf, "delivered a searing speech ... condemning the American presence in Iraq ... [and] call[ing] for an anti-occupation mass protest on April 9...." ^[28] This call to protest was significant in that, since the beginning of the American troop surge (which began on February 14, 2007), Sadr had ordered his 'militia to lie low during the new Baghdad security plan so as not to provoke a direct confrontation with the Americans.'" (Wikipedia, Muqtada Al Sadr)

This is why I have a feeling violence is going to start to spike again and you're already seeing the beginnings of it. I'm sure you're asking yourself "How long can they stay 'lying low'?" The answer is for a long damn time if they need to. 1.5-2 years is only a drop in the bucket to them.

Tell your aquaintance that everything he said right up there, all that drivel, had absolutely dick to do with the article in question. I read every sentence of it and none of it made any comparison between pre-civil unrest populations and post-surge populations. If he can tell me what the ethnic breakdowns were when he got there (by his numbers September of 2006, the height of the civil conflict/cleansing) and how those compare to the current ones, then I'll take his word. The ethnic breakdowns now have absolutely no bearing on what they were during and immediately after the cleansing.

"Currently in the Iraq Civil War (2003 to present), entire neighborhoods in Baghdad are being ethnically cleansed by Shia and Sunni Militias.^[165][166] Some areas are being evacuated by every member of a particular secular group due to lack of security, moving into new areas because of fear of reprisal killings. As of June 21, 2007, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated that 2.2 million Iraqis had been displaced to neighboring countries, and 2 million were displaced internally, with nearly 100,000 Iraqis fleeing to Syria and Jordan each month." (Wikipedia, Ethnic Cleansing)

Guess that would kind of explain the whole lights-out phenomena huh?

Being displaced = ethnic cleansing? Now that's really a stretch.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/weekinre...amp;oref=slogin

[Bulldog_916]

Who in the article was an expert on the region? Name one person in that article who was an expert. Knowing the geology of Greece, furthermore, doesn't make you an expert on Iraq.

I dont know who the experts were that she cited. Perhaps you could email her and ask her or the editor. It isnt my responsibility to dig up every source in the article. Like I said, I'm just putting information out there for digestion and discussion. Do a search on ethnic cleansing or Iraq troop surge and I'm sure you'll come across a lot of articles and information about the subject as it pertains to Iraq. So far I havent found any contrary information except on right wing blogs and on Fox News, where they still think the surge was the only thing that happened in the region to quell the violence.

[clibinarius]

That's because she uses only Agnew's group as a source, which isn't too credible and nothing else.

Also she's Mark Udall's wife. I'm sure that has something to do with it.

[Bulldog_916]

Just ask her. Dont make assumptions. Ask. Journalists generally dont list their sources as they rarely need to. Essay writers generally do. Book authors generally do. Journalists dont. Ask her if she can give you a run down of her sources. Then post it here. I'd love to know too. Where are your sources to tell you the information is wrong?

[clibinarius]

Well...why should she have power over my ability to process? I'm not making assumptions. She's the wife of an anti-war candidate, an activist of an organization that's anti-Bush, and she's with an anti-"Imperialist" author for her printed sources. Oh, and she's the health and science correspondent. As far as I know, there's nothing in this story that can be defended, and HER assumptions are the ones to be questioned. Not mine. I'm an idiot with a modem. What is she? An idiot with a job, filing a story outside of her job description, of which she's as qualified to comment as me.