Razzaq: "I told you, I am happy to see my country grow up and return back, because really we want to be like the Gulf Region and other countries in our neighborhood. We want to live in peace. We don't think because you are Sunni you should be killed or because you are Shia you should be killed, or the Shia kill the Christian ... I work with, within one office, we have Shia, Sunni, Christian, and we all live together and eat together and sleep together ... that means we are like a small family. This means I do not hate our (Shia) friends. I have my friend he is (missing) two days, he is Shia. You can believe me, I called his family every two hours to know exactly about his news, is he ok, is he returned back to his family or not? That means I love my brothers."

INDC: So you've been saying that most Iraqis don't have this rock solid religious identity, where they say 'I am Sunni first,' or 'I am Shia first,' but some apparently do, because there is a great deal of violence based around these divisions, correct?

Razzaq: "My friend, I told the truth because I am a journalist. Under Saddam rule, he did not (attack because of religion), he put in prison those who (stood) up against him. Saddam did not like our neighborhood, he was stupid in his rule because he didn't (get along with his neighbors). The Baath hate Iran, they hate Syria, they hate Kuwait. When he occupied Kuwait, all the Iraqi people (did not) want that, because we suffered with Iran like 8 years and he started war again with Kuwait. All the Iraqi people, not just Christian, Shia; even the Sunni people (did not want war). You know his rule you couldn't go anywhere? I am now 41 years old and I have never gone to any other country - because he was always going to fight, he wouldn't let the young people (travel)."

INDC: Yes, but let me clarify my earlier question - as a secular country, I tend to believe you that Sunni and Shia identity isn't primarily important to all or even most Iraqis - for example, even US troops training the Army say that the two groups get along ok within Army units - but within this year there's been this bloody sectarian conflict going, where people are found beheaded or tortured. And those killed are Shia by Sunni and Sunni by Shia. So assuming most Iraqis don’t have a problem with the other group, what percentage of the population are extremists and what motivates them to kill? Why do they think differently than the harmony that you're talking about?

Razzaq: "I tell you, after the war since two years, 2003, nothing happened like that, nothing happened like that. (But) I think US troops ... asked people to use their eyes to see what was going on around the town."

INDC: US troops asked people to gather intelligence? You blame this?

Razzaq: "Yes, intelligence. And the Coalition Forces arrested many civilian people and the problem with the Iraqi is that they see their brother or cousin killed or detained, they don't just sit and watch. They get revenge. This is the problem."

INDC: But if what you say caused this, that US troops caused this, or even the Iraqi government, why would individuals take revenge on a neighborhood full of Sunnis, kidnap a bunch of people and kill them? I'm talking about the militia activity - the Shiite militias loosely under Sadr have been out of control and committing violence, for example. They're not fighting the US or even Iraqi troops so much as fighting a religious war against other Iraqis. Why?

Razzaq: "The coalition forces arrest some. You know the battle of Fallujah. I don't need to see Al Qaeda with my eyes to know there is Al Qaeda - we know there is Al Qaeda in west and north Iraq. They are called "real Islamic." I am real Islamic. But I am not real Islamic to believe that because you are foreign that means I should beat you. I would like to meet you and shake your hand and to make with you a good relationship, but others, because they really suffered, (because) the coalition forces ... attack their house or kill some civilian people and detain many, many people, that's why it (makes the) people very, very nervous and they started to attack US troops."

INDC: Again, you talk about motivations to attack coalition forces. What I don't understand is why they are attacking other Iraqis...

Razzaq: "Because they think they help the coalition forces. And those who fight now, some of them were old Saddam rule, some old Saddam guards, and some are revenge (killings) because relatives were killed. And that's why I say the Coalition did not come to help our country, they come to destroy it. The coalition forces (bring some) parties who want to be our leaders, (parties who) didn't come to help us, they want to destroy us."

INDC: Who?

Razzaq: "Some (political) parties. I think you know them, yes, you are media. You know them. They didn't come here to control our country, they came to destroy it. I have a friend, yesterday he left his house to meet his friends at our office and say congratulations about our situation (the celebration of Eid), but we don't know (where he is), he's disappeared. But don't be surprised, this is our situation, this is our freedom."

INDC: So how common is a kidnapping like this?

Razzaq: "The problem is I told you, because we don't have security in our ... streets, the insurgents they are around the town running free, the militia make a checkpoint if they want, and they kidnap anyone because if you are Shia they (get revenge for Sunni taking) a Shia, if you are Sunni (they get revenge for Shia taking) a Sunni."

INDC: So how much of the kidnapping is motivated by religion, how much by the insurgency, revenge or just crime, to steal possessions or kidnap for ransom?

Razzaq: "I work with France journalists, I work with Swedish journalists, I work with Canadian journalists. I took them - after the war - to Basra, South Iraq, to the Mosul, North Iraq, without the fear someone would kidnap or arrest me because I took some journalists. Today it's different, because now we see how this country is destroyed. And the people they think all journalists are agents for IA or Coalition forces."

INDC: They suspect collaboration...

Razzaq: "Yes, and they are upset because they didn't change anything for our country."

INDC: So that's one motivation, you are saying people are angry with the government and the occupation forces for failing to improve the situation; but let me ask you about something you might have implied earlier. After the Golden Samarra mosque was blown up at the beginning of the year, the sectarian violence has gotten very bad. Many have reported that Iran is putting money, fighters and weapons into...

Razzaq: "Yeah, yes, that is the first reason the sectarian violence started between the Iraqi people."

INDC: ... because at that point the Shia started fighting back.

Razzaq: "Let me tell you something about the Samarra Mosque. During Saddam's rule and before Saddam's rule, all of the Sunni people (attend) services there prior. It's not just for Shia people, it's for Iraqi, all of the Iraqi people visit it. How can you believe that our sheik or our Imam all the Iraqi people (do not) respect them because those people returned back for our messenger Mohommed. They are like our mirror. Because those are real people who love our God and ..."

INDC: But there are some - and I'm not just talking about Iraq, but Islam in general - there are plenty, Al Qaeda, for example, who (as Sunnis) legitimately hate the Shia and vice versa. For example, when Hezbollah was fighting Israel, Al Qaeda released a statement - and you know how much they hate Israel - that condemned Hezbollah because they are Shia, regarded as false representatives of Islam.

Razzaq: "I told you we can say because if you love your God, you should love Mohommed and love his people ..."

INDC: Yes, yes, but some are extremists.

Razzaq: "In their head, the Shia people love and they respect (Muslims, but) there are bad people - like we call terrorists - they want to make trouble between the Shia and Sunni people to ... start sectarian violence between them. I've never gone to Samarra, but I don't think it's the Sunni people (who) destroyed (it) to make the Shia hate all of the Sunni people."

INDC: Well there are theories that entities with an interest in starting the violence were behind the bombing... perhaps Iran, but perhaps it was Sunni ...

Razzaq: "I cannot tell you exactly '100%, yes that's Iran,' because I don't know, but I (could) see it."

INDC: Well not just Iran. Who else is fomenting this civil conflict when you say that Iraq has traditionally been peaceful between the Shia and the Sunni?

Razzaaq: "My friend, in Saddam society when he fought Iran, in his 35 years he hated Iran. But after 1988 we made a deal with them and our people visit Iran as tourists, they visit Iraq, the (holy sites) in Najaf and Karbala. But there are some parties that came here after the war. But they didn’t do good things ..."

INDC: But who?

Razzaq: "Look at me I do my job. But I don't say just because you come from Iran hate him ..."

INDC: Yes, but who wants this fighting to take place? Who wants this sectarian war? Spell it out for me.

Razzaq: "My friend. After 2003, if (we'd) seen those parties (Iranian backed Shiite parties) let our country grow up and return to natural life, we could have said yes, welcome here in Baghdad, welcome here in Iraq. After 4 years nothing has happened for our country, so what does this mean? That's why the Sunni people in Tikrit and al-Ramadi hate those parties. Because they thought they obey the orders from Iran."

INDC: You mean the ruling parties in the government? (The Sunnis in Tikrit and Ramadi) don't trust the central government.

Razzaq: "Yes, that's right. They don't trust the government. And even those leaders did not make equality between the Iraqi people. So tell me why the pilots under Saddam regime were killed (after the war)? Who killed the leaders who fought during the war with Iran? We have 45 pilots during Saddam’s regime dead. Who killed them?"

INDC: Why don't you tell me.

Razzaq: "Who killed the leaders who fought during the Iran war?"

INDC: Those forced to fight under them, those forced to go to war? For revenge?

Razzaq: "Yes. And even that there are some parties, now they have (purged) the Baath party members, but now (that they are in power), they continue Saddam's society of killing anyone who stands up against them. They should respect the people, and let them live together in peace, not to revenge and kill. Those who were members of the Baath party - I think they have a family, they have a child, they have a big family. So why are they killed? Revenge. And that lets the revenge grow. And (because they are dead) that means they could not help our country. (Those militias who are murdering them) are like the Saddam regime."

INDC: So when you talk about these parties committing revenge - how much of the government right now do you think is controlled by parties with revenge on their mind?

Razzaq: "You tell me. Who is now our leader?"

INDC: Right. al-Maliki.

Razzaq: "Yes. How could you live in peace?"

I argued that al-Malki's ascendance was the result of a popular election, thus representing the will of a significant portion of Iraq, but Razzaq claimed that the elections were unfair. When pressed for the 'how," he outlined and admitted two popularly known items about Iraq: that many Sunni rejected and still reject the Iraqi constitution because they are dissatisfied with the balance of power, and that Sunnis had essentially shot themselves in the foot because they refused to participate in the elections, thus losing representation in Parliament. Of course, Razzaq didn't quite put it that way, but the result of a Sunni refusal to participate had clear consequences.

We also talked about how coalitions work in a representative democracy, and he brought up a good point: since the Kurds are basically champing at the bit for independence, many almost biding their time for a break-up of Iraq, the natural coalition between Sunni and Kurd that would balance Shia dominance is less likely to show up any time soon. It's a tricky situation.

Razzaq was very adamant that Iraqis do not want to split the country. His perception is right: polls consistently show that large majorities in Iraq want the country to remain whole.

Razzaq: "[M]any people do not want to split our country, my friend. Many fight because they know if our country is divided into 3 divisions ... we lose our country."

INDC: But the fighting is actually what's causing policy makers and advisors to consider the possibility of breaking Iraq up. Because they see this civil war and think that it might solve it. Violence makes this more likely to happen, so as plans go, it's not a good one.

He then gestured and spoke to a friend in Arabic.

Razzaq: "He is a Shia and I asked him whether he wanted to (split up Iraq) and he said 'of course not.' Because his brother is wedding a Sunni woman, his uncle took also a Sunni woman. That mean we are always together. The problem is some leaders in our government. They are bringing the insecurity and violence to us.

And there you have it. After an hour of "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean, know what I mean," we'd finally built his plainly stated belief that the current Iraqi government is run by Shiite parties backed by foreign influences, which have no interest in stopping the violence. Is this merely the perspective of a Sunni who is nostalgic for Saddam's rule? I'm not sure, because to some extent we know that revenge killings are happening; we know that Americans arrested Iranian agents and were forced to release them by the current Iraqi government, we know that Iranian-trained Sadrist splinter groups are behind many of the murders and that the government has failed to reign them in; we know that Maliki halted a cordon of Sadr City during the search for a missing serviceman.

I certainly don't endorse many of Razzaq's conclusions, especially given his relentless and sometimes contradictory negative argumentation and visceral distrust of American personnel, but he's not exactly out in left field in his concern. And even supposing he is wrong on some things - perhaps the extent to which the government is co-opted by Shia militias - the fact remains that if the perception of government-sanctioned sectarian violence is popular among the Sunni, and perhaps even among the moderate Shia (some of whom sat in the room with us during our discussion), it will be difficult to form a peaceful Republic under a blanket of mistrust.

Next I'll wrap up the discussion with a shorter post which includes Razzaq's contradictory condemnation and passive endorsement of the actions of US troops, my thoughts on his influence with the media, as well as pin down his solution for a better Iraq. Hint: it's not Jeffersonian Democracy.

Please support citizen journalism, as you are willing and able.

If you'd prefer to donate via check, please e-mail me and I'll provide you mailing instructions. Thank you for your support.