Isis militants have reportedly ransacked Mosul library, burning over a hundred thousand rare manuscripts and documents spanning centuries of human learning.
Initial reports said approximately 8,000 books were destroyed by the extremist group.
However, AL RAI’s chief international correspondent Elijah J. Magnier told The Independent that a Mosul library official believes as many as 112,709 manuscripts and books, some of which were registered on a UNESCO rarities list, are among those lost.
Mosul Public Library’s director Ghanim al-Ta’an said Isis militants then demolished the building using explosive devices.
The militants shoved [ancient Assyrian] stone statues off their plinths, shattering them on the floor, and one man applied an electric drill to a large winged bull. The video showed a large exhibition room strewn with dismembered statues, and Islamic songs played in the background.
Lamia al-Gailani, an Iraqi archaeologist and associate fellow at the London-based Institute of Archaeology, said the militants had wreaked untold damage. “It’s not only Iraq’s heritage: it’s the whole world’s,” she said.
“They are priceless, unique. It’s unbelievable. I don’t want to be Iraqi any more,” she said, comparing the episode to the dynamiting of the Bamiyan Buddhas by the Afghan Taliban in 2001.
Why now? ISIS has been in charge in Mosul for the better part of a year. They could have wrecked the museums and burned the libraries months ago. Maybe they’re trying to stay ahead of the coming U.S./Iraqi offensive to retake the city. Soon they’ll be busy preparing their defenses; if they’re going to obliterate the world’s cultural heritage in Mesopotamia, there’s no time like the present.
This is their own propaganda, by the way, not something smuggled out by a dissident who wants to show what ISIS is capable of. Or at least, it’s supposed to be their propaganda: In practice it’s propaganda for Bashar Assad, who understands that the more the world recoils at ISIS, the likelier it is that he’ll hold onto power. There’s no one better positioned to take the fight to them in Syria, something he’s shrewdly held off on doing so far to let the group gain territory and menace the west. Eventually he’ll make a deal with the west to help them liquidate the jihadis in return for concessions to his own regime. Time magazine has a short but smart piece on that in its new issue, which is devoted to exploring the threat from ISIS from various angles. Exit quotation from a western diplomat: “They know that if it comes to choosing between the black flag [of ISIS] and Damascus, the international community will choose Damascus.”
I recall you and Marguerite and I discussing this angle, that the rise of ISIS and the revulsion of the West would lead to Assad's eventual victory. Which explains why Assad and ISIS don't fight each other much directly, they do both fight with the so-called Free Syrian Army.
We've chosen sides poorly in a three-way civil war. It's hard to imagine why we thought it would turn out differently, given the ways that civil war of three factions or more factions most often turn out like this. It's almost a medieval tale.
I recall you and Marguerite and I discussing this angle, that the rise of ISIS and the revulsion of the West would lead to Assad's eventual victory. Which explains why Assad and ISIS don't fight each other much directly, they do both fight with the so-called Free Syrian Army.
We've chosen sides poorly in a three-way civil war. It's hard to imagine why we thought it would turn out differently, given the ways that civil war of three factions or more factions most often turn out like this. It's almost a medieval tale.
Supporting the FSA makes no sense. Assad is our best option, and his regime has a proven track record when it comes to dealing with Islamist's, e.g. Hama 1982. When we were fighting Hitler we were perfectly will to support Stalin, warts and all. Today's ruling class would have have been bombing Germany, while supporting the groups that were fighting against Stalin in Russia.
Stalin was not our friend, and neither is Assad, but we should at least employ some common sense. Saddam was not our friend, but Reagan never had a problem with that, Reagan knew he was an SOB, but a really useful SOB. Things are shaping up for a Sunni-Shia version of the Thirty Years War, it makes no sense at all to try and avoid such a wonderful thing as that.
Stalin was not our friend, and neither is Assad, but we should at least employ some common sense. Saddam was not our friend, but Reagan never had a problem with that, Reagan knew he was an SOB, but a really useful SOB. Things are shaping up for a Sunni-Shia version of the Thirty Years War, it makes no sense at all to try and avoid such a wonderful thing as that.
I think that Iraq wishes we hadn't invaded and toppled Saddam.
I think that Libya wishes we hadn't knocked of Ghaddafi.
I think that Egypt wishes we hadn't gone crazy and supported the move to topple Mubarak. Or supported Morsi.
The Mideast is in shambles, its minorities under graver threat than they have been in centuries, the Christian remnant and the Shi'a and other ancient religious minorities who were safe under these dictators are all under threat.
Bush Junior, Obama and Hitlery have wrecked the Mideast and it can't be fixed. They are directly to blame for all this suffering.
I recall you and Marguerite and I discussing this angle, that the rise of ISIS and the revulsion of the West would lead to Assad's eventual victory. Which explains why Assad and ISIS don't fight each other much directly, they do both fight with the so-called Free Syrian Army.
We've chosen sides poorly in a three-way civil war. It's hard to imagine why we thought it would turn out differently, given the ways that civil war of three factions or more factions most often turn out like this. It's almost a medieval tale.
I would add that there is no secular Free Syrian Army - just Sunni Syrian fanatics that don't like Isis but are just as bad.
#6. To: TooConservative, nativist nationalist, A Pole (#4)
I think that Iraq wishes we hadn't invaded and toppled Saddam.
The Shiites are thrilled as is Iran. The Israelis would love al-Qaeda ruling Syria as long as it means Iran's ally Assad is gone. Same goes with the Sunni Arabs and Turks who want to see the Shiite/Secular ruled Syria taken out of Iran's orbit and for that they are willing to fund IS.
I can even find the Israeli ambassador or some such claiming that Israel would rather see al-Qaeda rule in Syria.
“The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran,” he said.
This was the case, he said, even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated to al-Qaida.
“We understand that they are pretty bad guys,” he said, adding that this designation did not apply to everyone in the Syrian opposition. “Still, the greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc. That is a position we had well before the outbreak of hostilities in Syria. With the outbreak of hostilities we continued to want Assad to go.”
I think that Iraq wishes we hadn't invaded and toppled Saddam.
I wish we hadn't toppled him. Pat Buchanan was spot on back in 1991 when he warned about that mess. Saddam was no choir boy, but he was the government they deserved. Jihadi John was a baby in Kuwait when we intervened in their dispute, that's the kind of people we liberated in Desert Storm.
I wish we hadn't toppled him. Pat Buchanan was spot on back in 1991 when he warned about that mess. Saddam was no choir boy, but he was the government they deserved. Jihadi John was a baby in Kuwait when we intervened in their dispute, that's the kind of people we liberated in Desert Storm.
Not just Buchanan.
Kissinger, James Baker, Poppy Bush, Scowcroft, none of those guys ever had one nice word to say for the Iraq invasion.
They were the realist faction in diplomacy. The Iraq invasion and all that has followed since under Bush Jong-Il and Obongo is the work of the neocons.
Kissinger, James Baker, Poppy Bush, Scowcroft, none of those guys ever had one nice word to say for the Iraq invasion.
I was referring to Desert Storm back in 1991, the establishment guys were all for it. April Glaspie had more sense than her boss James Baker, the dispute between was not our concern:
We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.
Saddam was the type of guy we could do business with, he sure broke Iran's will, sent the Ayatollah to his grave with a broken heart. Saddam handled him a lot better that the peanut farmer did. Khomeini did not understand morality, but he understood force, and Saddam spoke his language. I miss Saddam, wish he was still there.
I don't miss him that much but probably the majority in Iraq still does. Even the Shi'a.
What they had then was much better than what they have now, before you even tabulate the huge body count through the embargoes and the subsequent phony invasion by America.
