Particularly over the course of the last year the western press has maintained a campaign of indirect justification of anti-Shia violence at the hand of radically sectarian – mainly Salafi – Sunnis.
After each act of beheading, mass executing or suicide bombing Shias in Iraq – predominantly ordinary Shia civilians – the western media coverage never failed to mention and reiterate that the Sunnis feel sidelined and discriminated by the corrupt and sectarian Shia dominated regime. Emphasizing the „anger“ of Sunnis was and is a major feature of almost every article that reports of yet another bombing of a Shia market place. By doing this the media not only insulted the (mostly Shia) victims but also – to a certain degree – explained and even partly legitimized the crime and it´s perpetrators.
It is scandalous to apply such a fallacy that white-washes sectarian motivated hate crimes by giving them the pretense of being an act of reactionary desperation. There is no logic in detonating a bomb that kills family fathers, women, children and elderly in a poor suburb of Baghdad on the grounds that one feels one has been treated unjustly by the Shia dominated government.
In Bahrain the Shia are the majority and their best known activists such as the Khwaja family are entirely peaceful. Today, once again Zainab al Khwaja has been arrested:
In Saudi Arabia Sheikh Nimr, a leader of the Shia community who is not known for violence is sentenced to death:
I have two questions:
1. Is Barack Obama not ashamed of his coalition that includes Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and gives these two countries the undeserved appearance of being something superior?
2. Considering these obviously extreme anti-Shia policies of the GCC countries would western press „explain“ and understand suicide bombings of the „angry“ Shia population?
Ein Gedanke zu “Should the Shia now get angry and suicide bomb Sunnis?”
Before the western media tried to white wash, and explain killing of shia civilians, they just ignored this.
Very soon after the war on Iraq, when a majority of Shia parties tried to participate in a democratical process, Sunni parties mostly decided to boycott any political process. Not much later bombings started to hit shiite neighbourhoods, market places, pilgrims and shrines. Now this was way before any „sectarian“ politics by Maliki. The vast majority of shia did not react with revenge. (Imagine how revenge would look like when a Shia suicide bomber would hit a marketplace in Saudi Arabia) Instead the highest shiite authority Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani never differentiated between Sunni and Shia, and always spoke against violence.
Now first of all I have never seen a definition about what sidelining in Iraq meant? Is this side lining compareable of beeing second class citizens as Shia are in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, where there is not a single Shia in the army or security forces? I mean I read all over the news that the Iraqi soldiers that easily retreated against IS were mostly Sunnis that do not identify with the government.
This is sectarian policy in Bahrain: http://100wordz.wordpress.com/?s=bahrain
I never heard about Maliki bulldozing Sunni mosques
I also cannot accept that you bomb a crowded market in a shiite neighbourhood because you „feel“ sidelined by the governement. For me this is just fascism. These people do not kill themselves and women and children because they feel sidelined, they do this because their fascist ideology tells them that Shia are apostates and deserve to be killed.
If the insurgency in Iraq is a reaction to the evil Shia government, why are the insurgenty holding Yazidi women and children as sex-slaves?
„feeling sidelined“ were never defined, because it was from the beginning just an excuse.
This guardian article explains everything:
Was Maliki corrupt, did he use violence?
Which leader in the middle east is not corrupt? Why is this only a problem if it is a non sunni leader?
Violence? Relative to the violence used in Iraq, where you have daily suicide bombings, the Iraqui security forces have actually been quite nice. Which security forces in the world have not the fingers nervously on the trigger when they are daily subject of attacks. The Iraqui security forces have acted much more reserved than the Americans when they were in Iraq.
Also western countries should not think that their police always reads the rights for each attacker:
The one sided villifying of Shias in the western press has several reasons:
– appeasement to non neutral partners of the West like Saudi Arabia, Qatar
– lazy journlaism that just copies Saudi, Qatari news articles
– anti Iranian tradition, that made the complete western world to ignore the obvious DAILY use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers by Saddam Hussein. Saddam’s by far more rare attacks on the kurds went through all the press, and caused outrage and sympathy with the Kurd victims, but public sympathy with Iranian victims was something that everyone wanted to avoid.