Yazidi Bloodbath in Northern Iraq: A Beleaguered Sect and a Wartorn Country in the Spotlight

The big news in Iraq these days has brought into the spotlight a religious minority that has yet to make it to the news, if ever. I'm not talking about Iraqi Jews or the Chaldo-Assyrian Christians, but rather the religious group known as the Yazidis. The casualties of the Iraq war have shown themselves to be rather equally discriminatory against all sects, as Sunnites, Shiites, Christians, Jews and now Yazidis alike have fell to the juggernaut of the Coalition, Al Qaeda and who knows who else is messing Iraq up.

But this isn't just one event, but rather a series of events that happened over a matter of days. They have climaxed to truck explosions that left hundreds dead. To keep the events in perspective (Al Jazeera, 08-15-07),

In April, a Yazidi teenager who had recently converted to Islam was stoned to death after she reportedly fell in love with a Muslim and ran off with him.

The incident appears to have sparked an increase in attacks on members of the sect.

The bodies of two Yazidi men who had been stoned to death were also found in the northern city of Kirkuk on Tuesday, police said.

In a second incident in the same city, one policeman was killed and eight others wounded - five of them civilians - when a police patrol was attacked by a car bomber.

The events that occurred are truly despicable. It was said, though I can't really confirm this, that "not a single shot was fired out of Yazidi villages", and that they were a rather peaceful community (Paul Schemm: 10-13-06). And regardless of what they believe in, there was no way anyone, even the most devout Muslim or Christian, could justify an attack against these people. But the question remains: who'd want to attack them, and why?

There are several answers other than the first, which is Al Qaeda's penchant for attacking "soft targets" and seeking control. They would further justify it by saying that they're committing "jihad" against these people, which, apparently some people have done so in their claims, I'm sure. It seems to make sense, as it has come "in response to" the seemingly increasing control over the more southern parts of Iraq, such as Baghdad, Anbar, et al. Indeed,

"Over the past few months we have seen bolder attacks which are going further north ... so it is also a message from the attackers saying 'you might some success in one area but we can easily move to another area and there are many soft targets around the country'."

While this is not a direct quote from Al Qaeda, it seems to hold some water as Al Qaeda is already gaining somewhat of a foothold in the north of Iraq (Al Jazeera, 08-16-07). If true, this could actually be Al Qaeda's biggest and worst attack to date, as the death toll has risen to 400 and counting.

Another possibility is - dare I say it? - the Coalition itself, masking sectarian aggression for further inciting division amongst the Iraqi people, even though both the Coalition and Al Qaeda have employed the "divide and conquer" tactic rather repeatedly, although the former has done it to a greater extent than the latter (J.B. Judis: 07-13-05). How so, really?

Some “New Middle East” theorists suggests America is pitting different nationalities, ethnic and religious groups against each other to create new states, thereby making the Middle East more "manageable." (Webster Brooks: 06-23-07)

Instead of going back to that extremely demented speech about the attack on Lebanon being the "birth pangs" of a "New Middle East", it instead goes back to the disruptive work of contractors in Iraq, who have been accused of numerous incidents in the past (Tom Hayden: 09-20-05). This seems to be the case, as the "Surge" that Dumbya Jr. carried out against the so-called "insurgents" and "terrorists" had an obvious political end; even pRezident Dumbo himself said that there would be major attacks after his so-called "Surge", and if anything, the loss of life that we have witnessed in these few days seems to indicate a success in his policy, but a failure for Iraq (J. Simpson: 08-16-07).

But whoever did it has no justification to do so. There is no way one can increase control over a peaceful community by bombing it. At the same time, there can be no justification for causing further discord by eliminating a sect for their own personal gains or just because they are "unIslamic" or a "soft target". Iraq has just fell severely to this sectarian strife, and is falling for it even more, even since the time of Saddam, who was not an angel either, when there was no such strife (R. Hardy: 08-15-07). I seriously don't know what to make of it, though. Apparently, like all attacks, this one is going to remain shrouded in mystery, unless Al Qaeda claims responsibility, or the Coalition claims it by remaining silent. I'm not ready to point a finger just yet. Both arguments seem to hold water, but I'm not ready to listen to accusations. I want to see accountability, not immaturity, as this war had enough fatalism. We need to see justice. Only then can we achieve peace.

Salaam, from Saracen