Iraqi PM visits Iraqi Hezbollah and wears their uniform

[Naram_Sin]

Are you joking? So you admit they attack protesters. And they themselves pledged to help Iraqi security forces 'secure nation' during the protests. What do you think that means? These are PMU militias operating under different names. You can try fooling people but no one believes you. I'm sure they love these groups:

You think they are burning down their offices because they did nothing?

The videos you posted provide zero evidence that the PMU killed any protesters, you can say that they, the protesters, hate the PMU but that is not what we care about.

What we do care about is you providing verifiable hard proof that the PMU killed protesters, not some other militia, but the PMU specifically.

 

[Falcon29]

@Naram_Sin

Is this a lie too? You know the protesters caught with these guys and exacted revenge on them and there are videos of that but it is graphic to post here. I'm sure you will say its all fake though.

...
...
Exclusive: Iran-backed militias deployed snipers in Iraq protests - sources

The deployment of militia fighters, which has not been previously reported, underscores the chaotic nature of Iraqi politics amid mass protests that led to more than 100 deaths and 6,000 injuries during the week starting Oct. 1. Such militias have become a fixture here with Iran’s rising influence. They sometimes operate in conjunction with Iraqi security forces but they retain their own command structures.

The Iraqi security sources told Reuters that the leaders of Iran-aligned militias decided on their own to help put down the mass protests against the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi, whose one-year-old administration is backed by powerful Iran-backed armed groups and political factions.

“We have confirmed evidence that the snipers were elements of militias reporting directly to their commander instead of the chief commander of the armed forces,” said one of the Iraqi security sources. “They belong to a group that is very close to the Iranians.”

A second Iraqi security source, who attended daily government security briefings, said militia men clad in black shot protesters on the third day of unrest, when the death toll soared to more than 50 from about half a dozen. The fighters were directed by Abu Zainab al-Lami, head of security for the Hashid, a grouping of mostly Shi’ite Muslim paramilitaries backed by Iran, the second source said. The Hashid leader was tasked with quashing the protests by a group of other senior militia commanders, the source said. The sources did not say how many snipers were deployed by militia groups.
...
...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...nipers-in-iraq-protests-sources-idUSKBN1WW0B1

 

[Saddam Hussein]

I remember Iraq had "Al Hussein" BM project. How did that turn out? I assume destroyed / disrupted by American strikes?.

Whole project dismantled of course. It had a few lethal hits such as the barracks in 1991. Very early project no more than 4-5 years ongoing these missiles, not accurate in today's expectations.

 

[Falcon29]

The videos you posted provide zero evidence that the PMU killed any protesters, you can say that they, the protesters, hate the PMU but that is not what we care about.

What we do care about is you providing verifiable hard proof that the PMU killed protesters, not some other militia, but the PMU specifically.

Do you even know what PMU is? It's umbrella of organizations, not just one. A part of them cracked on demonstrators and killed activists. Everyone has evidence of that and even Iraqi gov't implicated them. Protesters killed two of them on video for shooting at them. According to you though nothing is true and these people love Iran and its interference.

 

[Naram_Sin]

Do you even know what PMU is? It's umbrella of organizations, not just one. A part of them cracked on demonstrators and killed activists. Everyone has evidence of that and even Iraqi gov't implicated them. Protesters killed two of them on video for shooting at them. According to you though nothing is true and these people love Iran and its interference.

Protesters did not kill them because they were shot at, the protesters went and attacked the PMU office, those 2 were a high profile PMU member and his brother, they shot bullets because they were surrounded by these so called 'peaceful' protesters surrounding them.

The 2 were later gruesomely killed in this encounter.

 

[QWECXZ]

I remember Iraq had "Al Hussein" BM project. How did that turn out? I assume destroyed / disrupted by American strikes?.

Wikipedia:
Under the terms of the ceasefire of March 1991, corroborated by the resolution 687 of the UN Security Council, a commission (UNSCOM) was established to assure the dismantling of the Iraqi missile program. They were only allowed to purchase or produce missiles with a range no longer than 150 km. At the end of the war, the Iraqi government declared it had only 61 Al-Hussein and other ballistic missiles in its arsenal. These weapons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. This process was completed by July 1991. However, the western powers were suspicious that the Iraqi army may have hidden as many as 200 missiles.[17] The Iraqis took advantage of the provisions of the ceasefire by developing two types of short-range ballistic missiles, the Ababil-100 and the Al-Samoud, which were in an experimental phase at the time of the Invasion of Iraq in 2003. These projects were part of the casus belli raised by the American administration against Saddam Hussein.

 

[Rukarl]

Wikipedia:
Under the terms of the ceasefire of March 1991, corroborated by the resolution 687 of the UN Security Council, a commission (UNSCOM) was established to assure the dismantling of the Iraqi missile program. They were only allowed to purchase or produce missiles with a range no longer than 150 km. At the end of the war, the Iraqi government declared it had only 61 Al-Hussein and other ballistic missiles in its arsenal. These weapons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. This process was completed by July 1991. However, the western powers were suspicious that the Iraqi army may have hidden as many as 200 missiles.[17] The Iraqis took advantage of the provisions of the ceasefire by developing two types of short-range ballistic missiles, the Ababil-100 and the Al-Samoud, which were in an experimental phase at the time of the Invasion of Iraq in 2003. These projects were part of the casus belli raised by the American administration against Saddam Hussein.

Thanks, didn't knew that.
From what i understood, Hussein made strategic mistakes on top of being a reckless idiot. It's kinda shocking how he thought he had any chance against the US in a one on one ground and aerial war vs the US. How can a leader of such a strategic nation be idiotic like that ?

We aren't talking about illiterate idiots like the Taliban commanders but the dictator of a somewhat advanced nation with proper decision making mechanism. How on earth could he throw his country into 3 major destructive wars. Who were his advisors ?

This is really a interesting issue imo and a proper case for military historians to go into depth.

 

[QWECXZ]

Thanks, didn't knew that.
From what i understood, Hussein made strategic mistakes on top of being a reckless idiot. It's kinda shocking how he thought he had any chance against the US in a one on one ground and aerial war vs the US. How can a leader of such a strategic nation be idiotic like that ?

We aren't talking about illiterate idiots like the Taliban commanders but the dictator of a somewhat advanced nation with proper decision making mechanism. How on earth could he throw his country into 3 major destructive wars. Who were his advisors ?

This is really a interesting issue imo and a proper case for military historians to go into depth.

Saddam's Army had become so large and powerful that he couldn't correctly estimate his position in international relations anymore. The Iraqi Army at the end of the war was armed to the teeth. They had one of the world's best Ground Forces. That's why Saddam pursued such aggressive policies. His miscalculation of invading Kuwait over political differences was caused by his delusions about his military power.

He did invest in many scientific projects. He invested in uranium enrichment using an outdated inefficient method that was used in the Manhattan Project (Calutron) to develop nuclear bombs. He had enriched a few grams of uranium up to 90%. He tried to improve his Scud missiles. He updated his T72s and called them The Lions of Babylon if I'm not mistaken. He even tried to invent a space gun called Project Babylon. In short, he wasted his money with ambitious projects without thinking strategically.

 

[Falcon29]

Protesters did not kill them because they were shot at, the protesters went and attacked the PMU office, those 2 were a high profile PMU member and his brother, they shot bullets because they were surrounded by these so called 'peaceful' protesters surrounding them.

The 2 were later gruesomely killed in this encounter.

Do you think everyone is stupid? They were pursued for their complicity in murders of protesters and activists. The whole thing blew up when your PMU militia buddies killed an activist and his wife in their home known as Hussein Al Madani and Sarah. It's none other than these pro Iran organizations killing activists assassination style.

No one believes you're an Iraqi. Iraq is better off with professional military and security forces. Not with militia groups whose sole intent is to secure Iranian interests.

 

[mangekyo]

Saying there was nothing to unite over shows a lack of understanding of group identity, you can manufacture an Identity around the silliest of things given proper understanding of human behavior and a good foundation to start from.

For Iraq the foundation of a great identity is there, Iraq is majority arab with other minorities, Baghdad was the capital of the Abbasid empire, the Islamic nation with greatest number of scientific acheivements, made by people of all ethnicities, the Islamic golden age, pretty much all sunnah writers came from here, the mecca of Shia is here... we can write pages .

It would have been trivial for any ape to unite the people around this common heritage, but not Sadam... Sadam wanted to impose Baathism, which is Arabism with some things added, an ethnicity based ideology about arabs and only arabs.

Sadam made kurds into baathist, a kurd 'forced' to be Arab, he oppressed Shias not acknowledging their differences, entered 2 unpopular devastating wars of which absolutely nothing was gained.

Who would unite under such a ruler ?

In the end, the shia developed a grudge against Sadam and would not fight for him, the Kurds were already given autonomy and helped bring the country down.

Ofcourse neither would have been able to stop a US military compaign of that size, so wether they would allow it or not is of moderate consequence.

But the keypoint here is, Sadam attempted to impose an Ideology incompatible with the country's history, ethnic/religous composition and heritage, its not that there is nothing to unite over, we simply had one of the worse rulers in contemporary history.

I agree with almost everything you said.

The foundation was there in the beginning. Had you only had a true nationalistic leader instead of a racist Arab as a leader, the situation would be different. I dont believe US would have ever dared to invade a country with 20 million united people. But just for the sake of argument, lest say they did invade, and did cause as much damage, it would take you a lot less than 17 years to rebuild your country.

My point is, today, there is no longer anything to unite over. The damage is done. Maybe the situation will change after a couple 100 years, when everyone has forgotten the atrocities. But now, you cant force Kurds to feel Iraqi. You cant even make the Sunnis and Shias get along. Are Iraqi Kurds, Arab Shias and Sunnis, Turkmens etc goin to rally under the Iraqi flag? I dont think so.

The only option is to either divide Iraq. Or create a new modern identity that builds on the old history of the Abbasids, Saladdins empire, the Assyrian and Babylonian empire. A new Iraq where there is absolute tolerance between every single ethnicity and religion. But then you will face a new threat, US will do everything within their power to make the Kurds the new elite, the rich who is in power, while keeping the Arabs poor. And then, eventually, a new Saddam will rise, but this time he will be a Kurd.

 

[Naram_Sin]

I agree with almost everything you said.

The foundation was there in the beginning. Had you only had a true nationalistic leader instead of a racist Arab as a leader, the situation would be different. I dont believe US would have ever dared to invade a country with 20 million united people. But just for the sake of argument, lest say they did invade, and did cause as much damage, it would take you a lot less than 17 years to rebuild your country.

My point is, today, there is no longer anything to unite over. The damage is done. Maybe the situation will change after a couple 100 years, when everyone has forgotten the atrocities. But now, you cant force Kurds to feel Iraqi. You cant even make the Sunnis and Shias get along. Are Iraqi Kurds, Arab Shias and Sunnis, Turkmens etc goin to rally under the Iraqi flag? I dont think so.

The only option is to either divide Iraq. Or create a new modern identity that builds on the old history of the Abbasids, Saladdins empire, the Assyrian and Babylonian empire. A new Iraq where there is absolute tolerance between every single ethnicity and religion. But then you will face a new threat, US will do everything within their power to make the Kurds the new elite, the rich who is in power, while keeping the Arabs poor. And then, eventually, a new Saddam will rise, but this time he will be a Kurd.

The damage is done indeed, what we have now is a secterian nation, occupied by a foreign force, with an election system that amplifies and rewards the incitement of Identity politics, thus maintaing a cycle of internal conflict.

Iraq is unlikely to be able to rebuild a unifying Identity in the current climate, not when its positioned at the center of 3 regional powers and 1 global superpower, all want to dominate or reform the region.

However, a division of the country is an unlikely solution either for a number of reasons.

- How should the mixed provinces be divided ?

Baghdad is of historical, symbolic and religous importance to both sects, Samara is majority Sunni but has a Shia shrine with a minority in it, I will leave Karkuk for last as that is its own can of worms.

- There are border conflicts between the provinces.

Karbala province has a claim on nukhaib (نخيب), a region that is currently part of Al-anbar province, it was part of Karbala for a period of time then Sadam made it part of Anbar... nukhaib is important because it constitutes the entire border of any Sunni nation with SA.


The kurds have their own set of claims over all surrounding provinces, these issue are dormant now but will absolutely surface if things head that way.

- A sunni nation would be a stillborn

Even if somehow a division plan with the Shia is made to work, the Sunni part of the country is a landlocked piece of land bordering turkey, which will absolutely move to annex mosul, leaving a desert, few fertile lands and scarce resources with the exception of oil-rich karkuk, and speaking of Karkuk.

- Everyone wants karkuk to themselves

Karkuk has kurds in it, which means kurds want it, it has Turkmen in it, which means turkey wants a share in it, it has Arabs in it, which means any Sunni nation would want it.

Finally it has oil, which means all parties will kill for it and it is indeed the stage of ongoing conflict between the central government and the kurdish government (they have a government).

Due note that a conflict regarding any of the points above would not be resolved without a bloody war, which would still leave both the would-be Sunni and kurdish nations as landlocked mini-states fighting over oil, surrounded by hostile neighbors, the best they can hope to be is US bases.

So a division of the country is easy to suggest, but is very hard in practice and is of dire consequences, the current state of the country is miserable albeit still better than the alternative.

We can only try and fix what we have... hopefully.