Thursday, August 12, 2004
Views of Najaf
First, check out this recent entry from a Baghdad blogger named Mohammed:
It’s still tense here in Baghdad and everyone is talking about the expected major operations in Najaf. There are different opinions on who’s responsible of what happened but the majority clearly confirm the responsibility of the militias, and even those who hold the Americans responsible for the latest violence believe so because they think that the Americans together with the Iraqi government gave those gangs the freedom to act like this when they should’ve dealt with them firmly from the beginning.
I was talking about this with some of my friends and I was trying hard to explain that the government was patient to show that force is not the only nor the 1st choice to confront problems but it will be the last choice and after exhausting all other possible solutions. All this to show that Iraq’s policy will be entirely different from that of the dictatorships that ruled in the past. A policy that seeks what’s best for the people rather than the government’s will or desire, to avoid any possible losses among people.
However the truth has to be said and as one of my friends said, “what you say is true but the militias in question were the ones who raised arms and that was 1st choice, and here responding with force will be a self defense rather than a choice made in haste”....
Everyone here is waiting for the final attack and the end of this crisis. Most people I met are waiting for the moment when they can see Muqtada and his deputies in handcuffs, those criminals have been given a chance they didn't deserve in the 1st place.
Now check out this "news" report filed under the headline "Iraqi Shiites Angry at Fighting in Najaf" and at one time featured on the front page at www.yahoo.com.
Iraqi Shiites expressed anger Thursday at a major U.S.-led assault on a rebel militia in the holy city of Najaf, warning the violence could spread to other parts of the country and damage the political process....To be fair though, in what would seem to be a miracle given the tone of the report, the writer was able to find one alternate viewpoint:
"This will lead to revenge for the holy sites and for those killed," said Salama al-Khafaji, a former member of the disbanded Governing Council....
Sheik Jalal Eddin al-Sagheer, a Shiite cleric, said he and others were angry at seeing Najaf under attack, even if they did not support al-Sadr.
"Let's say Muqtada is the pinnacle of terrorism and extremism, still how can such a holy city with its special status be treated that way?" he said. "No one can accept targeting people in that manner."
Al-Khafaji, who has taken part in mediation efforts between al-Sadr and the U.S. and Iraqi authorities, said the military operations and the loss of life would harm the image of the Americans and Iraq's interim government. "This is not in the interest of America," she said.
In the southern Shiite city of Basra, nearly 5,000 al-Sadr sympathizers took to the streets Thursday, demanding U.S. troops withdraw from Najaf and condemning Prime Minister Ayad Allawi for his perceived support of the Americans.
"Allawi and the governor of Najaf are responsible for this massacre," said Abed Jassim, a Shiite in Basra. "They provided protection for the Americans to kill the Shiites."
Sadr's followers "should leave for their own safety and the city's peace," said Sheik Hassan, a Najaf cleric who only gave his first name. "That way the Americans would leave."But perhaps I am too generous, as the reporter ends with a quote describing the lawful response of the legitimate Iraqi Government (bearing the holy UN imprimatur) and allied US forces to attacks by heavily armed mobs as a "human massacre."
I have to ask, is this writer even in the same country as Mohammed?
