[PIE] Iraq moves toward federal system
Agence France-Presse, The Associated Press, The New York Times
Published: October 11, 2006
BAGHDAD The Shiite-dominated Parliament passed a law Wednesday allowing the formation of federal regions in Iraq, despite opposition from Sunni lawmakers and some Shiites who say it will dismember the country and fuel sectarian violence.
In Parliament, the Sunni coalition and two Shiite parties tried to prevent a vote on the federalism bill by boycotting the session Wednesday. They hoped to prevent the 275-seat body from reaching the quorum of 50 percent.
But the quorum was reached with 140 lawmakers, who voted on each of the bill's roughly 200 articles individually, passing them all unanimously.
"This is the beginning of the plan to divide Iraq," said Adnan al-Dulaimi, leader of the Sunni National Accordance Front, which boycotted the vote along with the radical Shiite cleric Moktada Sadr's party and the Shiite Fadila party. "We had hoped that the problems of sectarian violence would be resolved. We hope there won't be an increase in violence."
The bloodshed showed little sign of easing Wednesday, when at least five bombs exploded in different sections of Baghdad, killing at least six people and wounding more than a dozen, and the authorities discovered more bodies.
Also, the U.S. Army chief said that it planned to keep the current level of soldiers in Iraq through 2010, a later date than officials from the Bush administration or the Defense Department had previously mentioned. (Page 5)
The comments by the army chief of staff, General Peter Schoomaker, come as Iraq has become a central issue in the U.S. midterm elections in November. It was the latest acknowledgment by a Pentagon official that a significant withdrawal of troops from Iraq was not likely in the immediate future.
The law passed Wednesday includes a provision that regions cannot be formed for another 18 months, a concession to Sunni concerns.
The federalism law sets up a system for allowing provinces to join together into autonomous regions that would hold considerable powers of self-rule, a right given to them under the Constitution adopted last year in a national referendum.
Some Shiites want to create an autonomous zone in their heartland in the south, much like the self-ruling Kurdish region in northern Iraq.
But Sunni Arabs oppose the federalism measures, fearing that they will divide Iraq into sectarian mini-states, giving Shiite and Kurds control over oil riches in the south and north, and leaving Sunnis in an impoverished central zone without resources. Some Shiite parties, including the faction of al-Sadr, also oppose the measures for nationalistic reasons.
Critics have also have warned that moves for federalism could fuel Shiite- Sunni violence.
The head of the Shiite coalition that dominates Parliament, Abdul-Aziz al- Hakim, praised the passage of the bill and denounced Sunni opposition to federalism. Sunni Arabs largely voted against the Constitution passed in 2005 because it outlined the federal system.
The law outlines a process for forming regions, requiring any province considering joining a region to hold a referendum, if a third of the provincial legislators request it.
Meanwhile, the sectarian violence has continued to grow. Dozens of corpses have been found in the capital in the past three days, usually riddled with bullets and bearing signs of torture.
Four more were found Wednesday in the Dora neighborhood of southern Baghdad, an area that was among the earliest to experience the sectarian bloodletting that is plaguing the capital. Dora is at the center of the American military's push to quell the violence and secure the capital.
American and Iraqi soldiers moved into Dora and other parts of Baghdad in force in August, as part of a new security plan for the capital that involved neighborhood-by-neighborhood sweeps.
Elsewhere, four civilians were killed when a concealed bomb blew up in the al-Amel neighborhood of west Baghdad, according to an employee at the Yarmuk hospital. Two more people were killed in another attack, the employee said.
A roadside bomb apparently meant to strike an Iraqi police patrol exploded under a bridge in east Baghdad, wounding three policemen, and then nearby a car bomb exploded, wounding five civilians.
Coalition headquarters said Wednesday that four more U.S. soldiers had been killed in action in Iraq, bringing to 40 the number of troops who have died this month.
A series of huge explosions that rattled the capital late Tuesday were caused when a mortar shell, apparently fired by insurgents, struck an ammunition holding area at an American base in the southern part of the city, the American military said.
According to Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Withington, a spokesman for the 4th Infantry Division, the mortar shell set off a fire that then exploded tank and artillery shells and other ammunition stored at the base. No injuries were reported in the explosions.[/PIE]
And so the split has begun.Inteded from the beginning.
What is weird is that the western media like to divide Kurds and Sunnnis,when the Kurds are sunni.
A thrird divide that the western world wishes to widen more.
As i ahve always said,the US likes to use proxies to fight to fight for them.
And now the Iraqis have fallen in the same way.
And guess whose idea was it to split Iraq?
[PIE]AN independent commission set up by Congress with the approval of President George W Bush may recommend carving up Iraq into three highly autonomous regions, according to well informed sources.[/PIE]
Seems to me the Ummah is destroying itself in Iraq because they can't get along with each other. In this sort of situation it makes quite a bit of sense to consider dividing Iraq among ethnic lines, at least until the violence goes down and cooler heads can fix the problem and return to national unity. As for Kurds being the same as the Sunni, I don't see how you can say this since it was Saddam's Fedayeen and the Ba'ath Party, mainly Sunnis, who have persecuted the Kurds for a long time. They may share a religious faith, but the Kurds are not the same as the Sunni in Mosul, for example.
Seems to me the Ummah is destroying itself in Iraq because they can't get along with each other. In this sort of situation it makes quite a bit of sense to consider dividing Iraq among ethnic lines, at least until the violence goes down and cooler heads can fix the problem and return to national unity. As for Kurds being the same as the Sunni, I don't see how you can say this since it was Saddam's Fedayeen and the Ba'ath Party, mainly Sunnis, who have persecuted the Kurds for a long time. They may share a religious faith, but the Kurds are not the same as the Sunni in Mosul, for example.
destroying itself? actually it all started when America interfered in the first place... they r now worse off in Iraq
destroying itself? actually it all started when America interfered in the first place... they r now worse off in Iraq
America broke down the authoritarian order, it didn't force Iraqis to massacre each other. If the idea is to stop the insane violence in Iraq, the possibility of dividing the country along religious and ethnic lines must be considered. It was the British who forced them together in the first place, and it took a dictator to keep everyone under control. Hopefully dividing Iraq won't be necessary, but it might be if the violence continues on this scale.
They want to split the ummah up, so they go to the muslim nation's to cause corruption and enmity among us. This way, it lower's the threat that will face them - because the muslim's will have to worry about fighting against the others, instead of the main threat - the enemy who set foot in iraq, when they had no right to in the first place.
One of the main reason's their successful is because the majority of us have given up islaam for the dunya (world.) Once we return back to islaam whole heartedly, Allaah will remove our humiliation insha'Allaah.
They want to split the ummah up, so they go to the muslim nation's to cause corruption and enmity among us. This way, it lower's the threat that will face them - because the muslim's will have to worry about fighting against the others, instead of the main threat - the enemy who set foot in iraq, when they had no right to in the first place.
One of the main reason's their successful is because the majority of us have given up islaam for the dunya (world.) Once we return back to islaam whole heartedly, Allaah will remove our humiliation insha'Allaah.
Allaah Almighty know's best.
I don't know who "they" are, but if you are referring to the U.S., what exactly do they gain by insane violence amonst Iraqis? The idea was to form an elected Iraqi government that all Iraqis can support. Do you think Iraqis blowing each other up is received well here in the U.S?, because I can tell you it is not. Perhaps instead of wondering why the "ummah" isn't fighting the United States you should worry more about why Iraqis are killing each other and how to stop it.
They attack other nation's that they feel will be a threat in the future. They know that if the muslim's unite - they will be a threat. The only system that is opposing the west in the world now is islaam, so what will they try to do? Simple - eradicate it. What other option do they have?
This is easy to understand because history repeats itself. Yes we should care about the muslim's killing each other, but whose trying to sneak in to cause more corruption, while hiding under the banner of democracy? Democracy is a way of severing people's root's, when their root's are destroyed, what do they have to stay firm on?
Our root's are islaam, they want to destroy them - if they can do that, they don't have a threat anymore.
It's not just about giving the muslim nation freedom, but to eradicate islaam. But that will never happen.
The Unbelievers spend their wealth to hinder (man) from the path of Allah, and so will they continue to spend; but in the end they will have (only) regrets and sighs; at length they will be overcome: and the Unbelievers will be gathered together to Hell;- (Qur'an 8:36)
So everything can be simplified to the catch phrase.."they want to destroy Islam"..interesting. I'm sure the Al-Qaeda propoganda machine would be pleased with your assessment. As for Islam being the only thing "opposing" the West, if "Islam" is fighting the West, why do so many Muslims choose to live in the West? There is one aspect I agree with, which is that democracy cannot be forced on anyone. That is one of the beliefs of the now defunct "neo-con" ideology I never agreed with. Even Fukuyama has backed off that mistaken belief.
Keltoi, it's not actually the 'al qa-eda' anything, because i don't even know who they are. I'm just using my common sense, and looking at history.
We know that a nation will look for it's own benefit's, the western perception is that it's a "dog eat dog world" - so this kinda stuff make's a person realise that if anyone's a threat, then you try to put yourself first.
Think about it, iraq isn't really anything to them - from their perception, they just need to think, if the muslim's are fighting, let them be. Why should they spend billion's of dollar's to protect innocent's when they can just use those billion's for their own benefit.
But the answer is, they want the oil, because they need it. They need the muslim's to disunite even though now is the critical point for the muslims because they might just unite - due to the lebanon issue etc. But because the muslim's might unite, we need to cause more disunity so this persists, and the killing continues, as long as we don't get harmed.
The muslim's fight back for their own benefit - and that's to defend their islaam. But i don't know where you get the idea that islaam is at war with the west? I thought it was the US who set foot in the muslim lands.
The muslim's fight back for their own benefit - and that's to defend their islaam. But i don't know where you get the idea that islaam is at war with the west? I thought it was the US who set foot in the muslim lands.
Allaah Almighty know's best.
Peace.
I think you under the assumption that the majority of Muslims who are currently involved in some form of armed conflict are fighting for "Islam", which I don't believe is the case. If one believes that one also has to believe that the entire world is out to get Islam, which isn't backed up by anything but rhetoric and conspiracy. That is like the belief of some in the Western world that 9-11 is proof that Islam is a religion of death and is an enemy of the civilized world. Grand declarations like this are dangerous, and are a way of avoiding those pesky details that complicate the world.
I think you under the assumption that the majority of Muslims who are currently involved in some form of armed conflict are fighting for "Islam", which I don't believe is the case. If one believes that one also has to believe that the entire world is out to get Islam, which isn't backed up by anything but rhetoric and conspiracy. That is like the belief of some in the Western world that 9-11 is proof that Islam is a religion of death and is an enemy of the civilized world. Grand declarations like this are dangerous, and are a way of avoiding those pesky details that complicate the world.
Regarding your first point, i don't know if it's the majority - but yeah, obviously there are some who are fighting just for nationalism or other mean's, instead of islaam. Allaah Almighty know's best.
Your second point, i feel that the reason why the majority of the people in the west feel that way is due to the fact that the media is promoting that thought-frame. But you gota ask yourself, why is the media doing this?
Like you've probably heard the repeated argument; if a jewish man can keep a beard, it's not much of a problem - but when the muslim does it, they class him as a terrorist. And the same about nun's etc.
Obviously - we say this for a reason, we don't like throwing out controversies just for the fun of it. Their's actually a real reason we feel that way.
However, i still feel that it is an attack on islaam, and i know this because of the historical fact's. The truth will alway's be opposed, because people prefer the life of this temporary world. Man's naturally hasty, so he'll try to grasp whatever he can, even if it take's someone else's life in the process.
But the muslim's are trialled so Allaah Almighty may expiate their sins in this world, whereas the disbeliever's might have some gain of this world, but nothing good will be left for them in the hereafter.
They know that if the muslim's unite - they will be a threat.
Why will they be a 'threat'? If that is the case, why is the course you accuse the Americans of taking the wrong one from their perspective?
format_quote Originally Posted by IceQueen~
destroying itself? actually it all started when America interfered in the first place...
Hardly. How many Kurds and Marsh Arabs did Saddam slaughter?
Perhaps the best way for the Ummah to become stronger is actually to stand up and accept its share of responsibility once in a while? Iraqis are killing Iraqis. Blaming it on some fictional Western plot is a rather sad way of denying that responsibility.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks