Full Version: Al-Sadr Militia Drop Weapons and Leave Shrine
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130297,00.html
Questions for Debate:
1) Do you believe this small victory will make the situation in Iraq better?
2) What do you think Coalition and Iraqi Forces should do at this point to stop Al-Sadr's 3,000 man militia from regrouping somewhere else?
I think the US military MUST and i mean MUST make sure that this militia is never able to regain strength and another stronghold. The terrorists dropping their weapons and leaving the city peacfully is an amazing victory for Iraq in my honest opinion. We were not forced to go into the shrine and that could have been a very bad situation.
QUOTE
NAJAF, Iraq — The Imam Ali Shrine in Najaf was once again a place of worship after a truce ended three weeks of bloody fighting.
Thousands of pilgrims streamed into the mosque Friday as militants who had been holed up inside battling U.S. and Iraqi troops left the compound nearly empty following a peace deal brokered by Iraq's top Shiite cleric in the holy city.
An aide to the Grand Ayatollah Ali Husseini al-Sistani (search) said militants loyal to a rebel Shiite cleric had handed over the keys to the shrine.
"Now the holy shrine compound has been evacuated and its keys have been handed over to the religious authority," al-Sistani aide Hamed al-Khafaf told Al-Arabiya television.
Thousands of pilgrims streamed into the mosque Friday as militants who had been holed up inside battling U.S. and Iraqi troops left the compound nearly empty following a peace deal brokered by Iraq's top Shiite cleric in the holy city.
An aide to the Grand Ayatollah Ali Husseini al-Sistani (search) said militants loyal to a rebel Shiite cleric had handed over the keys to the shrine.
"Now the holy shrine compound has been evacuated and its keys have been handed over to the religious authority," al-Sistani aide Hamed al-Khafaf told Al-Arabiya television.
Questions for Debate:
1) Do you believe this small victory will make the situation in Iraq better?
2) What do you think Coalition and Iraqi Forces should do at this point to stop Al-Sadr's 3,000 man militia from regrouping somewhere else?
I think the US military MUST and i mean MUST make sure that this militia is never able to regain strength and another stronghold. The terrorists dropping their weapons and leaving the city peacfully is an amazing victory for Iraq in my honest opinion. We were not forced to go into the shrine and that could have been a very bad situation.
I think it's not a victory at all, but a defeat for the U.S. and the coalition. And here's why:
By the way why do you call them "terrorists", this Najaf militia? They don't seem to target civilians....
Not much the U.S. can do - al-Sadr can enter the political process, can be duly elected, and here we go! We got a second Iran on our hands.
QUOTE
After brokering an agreement to end the Najaf uprising, Iranian-born Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has become the most powerful man in Iraq. Al-Sistani, 73, has consolidated power in an area he wants to turn into a Shiite state within a state, with the sacred Imam Ali Shrine at its center.
With Iraq's national elections just a few months away in January, al-Sistani has positioned himself as a kingmaker, who acts independently of the new Iraqi government and the U.S. military.
<snip>
And the peace agreement brokered by al-Sistani already looks like a repeat of a deal in May. Then, too, al-Sadr was allowed to retreat and keep his Mehdi army. The militia spent much of a two-month lull in fighting stockpiling weapons.
<snip>
In Najaf on Friday, hard-core militants simply blended into the crowds and returned to their day jobs — as shopkeepers, taxi drivers and teachers. But they have apparently not left the mosque for good.
"We are victorious," one fighter said. "It's obvious, and the people coming to Najaf know it. We will do as we are told by (al-Sadr), and we wish the best for Iraq."
With Iraq's national elections just a few months away in January, al-Sistani has positioned himself as a kingmaker, who acts independently of the new Iraqi government and the U.S. military.
<snip>
And the peace agreement brokered by al-Sistani already looks like a repeat of a deal in May. Then, too, al-Sadr was allowed to retreat and keep his Mehdi army. The militia spent much of a two-month lull in fighting stockpiling weapons.
<snip>
In Najaf on Friday, hard-core militants simply blended into the crowds and returned to their day jobs — as shopkeepers, taxi drivers and teachers. But they have apparently not left the mosque for good.
"We are victorious," one fighter said. "It's obvious, and the people coming to Najaf know it. We will do as we are told by (al-Sadr), and we wish the best for Iraq."
By the way why do you call them "terrorists", this Najaf militia? They don't seem to target civilians....
QUOTE
Terrorism is a tactic of violence that targets civilians, with the objective of forcing an enemy to favorable terms, by creating fear, demoralization, or political discord in the attacked population.
Not much the U.S. can do - al-Sadr can enter the political process, can be duly elected, and here we go! We got a second Iran on our hands.
I think Sistani will be running the country within 10 years- or at his age, his hand picked succesor- which I doubt will be Sadr- I predicted an Iranian type goverment over this- and it looks like it is coming true. There wasn't al-quaida in Iraq before, but boy will there be now! 
This is a major blow to the US- it is not a victory at all, instead, it is a major, major victory for Al-Sadr- in a couple of ways I can think of right off the top of my head
1) He stood up to the US, and it's overwhelming firepower, and gained concesions- no one expected him to win, even in his own army- which leads to
2) He raised his standing among the other clerics in Iraq- when before, his only standing was being the son of a Martyr- he has shown his bravery and ability to harry the Americans to gain advantage.
3) He is now a near equal to Sistani- before, he was very much viewed as an upstart pipsqueak.
This is a major blow to the US- it is not a victory at all, instead, it is a major, major victory for Al-Sadr- in a couple of ways I can think of right off the top of my head
1) He stood up to the US, and it's overwhelming firepower, and gained concesions- no one expected him to win, even in his own army- which leads to
2) He raised his standing among the other clerics in Iraq- when before, his only standing was being the son of a Martyr- he has shown his bravery and ability to harry the Americans to gain advantage.
3) He is now a near equal to Sistani- before, he was very much viewed as an upstart pipsqueak.
1) Do you believe this small victory will make the situation in Iraq better?
Yes, because it will give the people of Najaf a chance to rebuild their city and get on with their lives.
2) What do you think Coalition and Iraqi Forces should do at this point to stop Al-Sadr's 3,000 man militia from regrouping somewhere else?
Nothing. It is not for the coalition to decide as to who is and who is not a threat to the Iranians. This is a decision that must be made by the Iraqi government. All the coalition forces can do is to provide any assisstence that the Iraqi government asks for.
Terrorists? What terrorists? This militia was an army that operated as an army defending against an outside aggressor. By labelling them 'terrorists' you are purposefully refusing to acknowledge the truth of the situation from any other perspective than your own.
The US military must not provoke any further combat with al-Sadr. By doing so they are only throwing fuel on a fire that they cannot afford to have burning. They should leave him to the Iraqi's and ignore his provocations.
Al-Sadr has little power or authority unless it comes from his stance of defending against the invading US forces. For as long as he has no war to use as justification then he will remain on the side lines.
Yes, because it will give the people of Najaf a chance to rebuild their city and get on with their lives.
2) What do you think Coalition and Iraqi Forces should do at this point to stop Al-Sadr's 3,000 man militia from regrouping somewhere else?
Nothing. It is not for the coalition to decide as to who is and who is not a threat to the Iranians. This is a decision that must be made by the Iraqi government. All the coalition forces can do is to provide any assisstence that the Iraqi government asks for.
QUOTE
I think the US military MUST and i mean MUST make sure that this militia is never able to regain strength and another stronghold. The terrorists dropping their weapons and leaving the city peacfully is an amazing victory for Iraq in my honest opinion. We were not forced to go into the shrine and that could have been a very bad situation.
Terrorists? What terrorists? This militia was an army that operated as an army defending against an outside aggressor. By labelling them 'terrorists' you are purposefully refusing to acknowledge the truth of the situation from any other perspective than your own.
The US military must not provoke any further combat with al-Sadr. By doing so they are only throwing fuel on a fire that they cannot afford to have burning. They should leave him to the Iraqi's and ignore his provocations.
Al-Sadr has little power or authority unless it comes from his stance of defending against the invading US forces. For as long as he has no war to use as justification then he will remain on the side lines.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Aug 28 2004, 12:23 AM)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130297,00.html
Do you believe this small victory will make the situation in Iraq better?
QUOTE
NAJAF, Iraq — The Imam Ali Shrine in Najaf was once again a place of worship after a truce ended three weeks of bloody fighting.
Thousands of pilgrims streamed into the mosque Friday as militants who had been holed up inside battling U.S. and Iraqi troops left the compound nearly empty following a peace deal brokered by Iraq's top Shiite cleric in the holy city.
An aide to the Grand Ayatollah Ali Husseini al-Sistani (search) said militants loyal to a rebel Shiite cleric had handed over the keys to the shrine.
"Now the holy shrine compound has been evacuated and its keys have been handed over to the religious authority," al-Sistani aide Hamed al-Khafaf told Al-Arabiya television.
Thousands of pilgrims streamed into the mosque Friday as militants who had been holed up inside battling U.S. and Iraqi troops left the compound nearly empty following a peace deal brokered by Iraq's top Shiite cleric in the holy city.
An aide to the Grand Ayatollah Ali Husseini al-Sistani (search) said militants loyal to a rebel Shiite cleric had handed over the keys to the shrine.
"Now the holy shrine compound has been evacuated and its keys have been handed over to the religious authority," al-Sistani aide Hamed al-Khafaf told Al-Arabiya television.
Do you believe this small victory will make the situation in Iraq better?
Yes. It will finally allow us to continue to rebuild Iraq's infastructure without having to deal with Sadr's brainwashed goons
Personally, i would have liked to have seen him sent 6 feet deep, but maybe that will come another day
QUOTE(moif @ Aug 28 2004, 07:46 AM)
Terrorists? What terrorists? This militia was an army that operated as an army defending against an outside aggressor. By labelling them 'terrorists' you are purposefully refusing to acknowledge the truth of the situation from any other perspective than your own.
The US military must not provoke any further combat with al-Sadr. By doing so they are only throwing fuel on a fire that they cannot afford to have burning. They should leave him to the Iraqi's and ignore his provocations.
Al-Sadr has little power or authority unless it comes from his stance of defending against the invading US forces. For as long as he has no war to use as justification then he will remain on the side lines.
The US military must not provoke any further combat with al-Sadr. By doing so they are only throwing fuel on a fire that they cannot afford to have burning. They should leave him to the Iraqi's and ignore his provocations.
Al-Sadr has little power or authority unless it comes from his stance of defending against the invading US forces. For as long as he has no war to use as justification then he will remain on the side lines.
The definition so kindly provided for earlier:
QUOTE
Terrorism is a tactic of violence that targets civilians, with the objective of forcing an enemy to favorable terms, by creating fear, demoralization, or political discord in the attacked population.
The al-Sadr militia has been killing civilians for weeks! Road-side bombs, car bombs outside of Iraqi police buildings... I mean come on. The only reason they have not been targeting civilians in the past couple days is because the Coalition Forces forced all the TERRORISTS back into the mosque with no way out. You want to call them an army? Fine, do what you want...but they are an army of thugs and terrorists. Whether you choose to accept it or not is not my problem.
I understand your POV that we shouldnt throw fuel on the fire, but you must also agree that we cannot allow the militia to restock and regroup right? "Ignore his provocations"? What if his provocations include killing more US troops?
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Aug 28 2004, 10:52 AM)
The al-Sadr militia has been killing civilians for weeks! Road-side bombs, car bombs outside of Iraqi police buildings... I mean come on. The only reason they have not been targeting civilians in the past couple days is because the Coalition Forces forced all the TERRORISTS back into the mosque with no way out. You want to call them an army? Fine, do what you want...but they are an army of thugs and terrorists. Whether you choose to accept it or not is not my problem.
I think you're mixing up two movements here, lederuvdapac... my understanding is that the sole purpose of al-Sadr's militia is to fight occupational forces and drive them out of their land. These are NOT the people who take the hostages and execute them to broadcast the images around the world... Al-Sadr is not Al-Zarqawi and he is not connected to al-Queda - he is connected to Iran.
Now, if what I say is true and Mehdi Army doesn't target civilians, would you still call them terrorists and thugs?
lederuvdapac
My understanding of al Sadr's militia differs some what from yours in that I have not seen any evidence of the Mehdi army detonating road side bombs. Moqtada al Sadr appears to be a genuine resistence fighter who has gone out of his way to portray himself and his forces as such. On several occaisions he has publicly ordered his militia not to harm civilians or journalists and he called upon all other groups to release their hostages.
Whether or not he is equally bona fide in private, I do not know, but I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that the militia he controls ever targetted civilians.
Unless you have evidence contrary to my understanding then your insistence on calling them terrorists indicates that you do not really care whether or not they are terrorists but are simply dehumanising a perceived enemy.
Then the troops should by all means defend themselves with any and all means at their disposal. But once the attack is repelled then the US military should not go 'hunting' for al Sadr.
To do so would be to undermine the Iraqi government, and that would put the whole nation in a situation that the USA does not want and cannot afford.
QUOTE
The al-Sadr militia has been killing civilians for weeks! Road-side bombs, car bombs outside of Iraqi police buildings... I mean come on. The only reason they have not been targeting civilians in the past couple days is because the Coalition Forces forced all the TERRORISTS back into the mosque with no way out. You want to call them an army? Fine, do what you want...but they are an army of thugs and terrorists. Whether you choose to accept it or not is not my problem.
My understanding of al Sadr's militia differs some what from yours in that I have not seen any evidence of the Mehdi army detonating road side bombs. Moqtada al Sadr appears to be a genuine resistence fighter who has gone out of his way to portray himself and his forces as such. On several occaisions he has publicly ordered his militia not to harm civilians or journalists and he called upon all other groups to release their hostages.
Whether or not he is equally bona fide in private, I do not know, but I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that the militia he controls ever targetted civilians.
Unless you have evidence contrary to my understanding then your insistence on calling them terrorists indicates that you do not really care whether or not they are terrorists but are simply dehumanising a perceived enemy.
QUOTE
I understand your POV that we shouldnt throw fuel on the fire, but you must also agree that we cannot allow the militia to restock and regroup right? "Ignore his provocations"? What if his provocations include killing more US troops?
Then the troops should by all means defend themselves with any and all means at their disposal. But once the attack is repelled then the US military should not go 'hunting' for al Sadr.
To do so would be to undermine the Iraqi government, and that would put the whole nation in a situation that the USA does not want and cannot afford.
Muqtada's Mehdi army..I see no difference in their own ambitions from those achieved by Hamas or Hizbullah who yeah some also do not consider to be terrorists groups either.
Regardless I think the sole purpose of Muqtada's war is to gain his own power..it is more an internal conflict than it is one of resistance of occupation. Just happens the Iraqis themselves currently must rely on foreign troops..Muqtada is taking GREAT advantage of this fact because he would not for one minute be able to continue his war if it was Iraqis he was having to shoot and kill. That is why in answer to the first question...I think as long as we have the Iraqi police making a good showing in Najaf it will be difficult for the Medhi army to justify further "resistance"
For all those claiming Muqtada is not a terrorist because he does not target civilians..you first should have a read over what him and his thugs have done is Sadr city, Najaf and other Shiite neighborhoods. They have set up their own court and justice system, in which they beat fellow Iraqis for disobeying sharia law..which just happens to be the same strict following of Islam that Khomeini preached...like indulging in pornography, gambling, liquor or rock music..they aim to prevent girls from attending school..or choosing to not wear the veil..all is done through intimidation and violence..how is that not terrorist behavior?
Also is it not Muqtada and his followers who are accused or murdering an Iraqi cleric..does he not count as an Iraqi civilian?
I had no idea in order for one to be considered a terrorist or indulging in terrorist behavior they must be detonating roadside bombs...I would like to see evidence of how Muqtada and his Mehdi are not terrorizing the people of Sadr city...or Najaf.
Also I ask who was it that attacked and killed and injured civilian Iraqis on their way to Najaf in answer to Sistani's call to rescue the city and the mosque? And who was it Sistani wants Iraqis to rescue Najaf and the mosque from? And why did so many Iraqis answer that call and come to the city if this fighting in Najaf is for their benefit?
I also feel Shiites on a whole will fight for their nation from occupiers ..Iranians included. And yet I question whether Muqtada and his militia would view the Iranians as the majority of Iraqis do.
All I can say is I hope the Brits did a good job fixing Sistani's heart..the absolute worst thing that could happen in all this is to have that guy keel over. That is the best protection Iraqis and the coalition forces have from further resurgences from this group..keeping Sistani alive.
Regardless I think the sole purpose of Muqtada's war is to gain his own power..it is more an internal conflict than it is one of resistance of occupation. Just happens the Iraqis themselves currently must rely on foreign troops..Muqtada is taking GREAT advantage of this fact because he would not for one minute be able to continue his war if it was Iraqis he was having to shoot and kill. That is why in answer to the first question...I think as long as we have the Iraqi police making a good showing in Najaf it will be difficult for the Medhi army to justify further "resistance"
For all those claiming Muqtada is not a terrorist because he does not target civilians..you first should have a read over what him and his thugs have done is Sadr city, Najaf and other Shiite neighborhoods. They have set up their own court and justice system, in which they beat fellow Iraqis for disobeying sharia law..which just happens to be the same strict following of Islam that Khomeini preached...like indulging in pornography, gambling, liquor or rock music..they aim to prevent girls from attending school..or choosing to not wear the veil..all is done through intimidation and violence..how is that not terrorist behavior?
Also is it not Muqtada and his followers who are accused or murdering an Iraqi cleric..does he not count as an Iraqi civilian?
I had no idea in order for one to be considered a terrorist or indulging in terrorist behavior they must be detonating roadside bombs...I would like to see evidence of how Muqtada and his Mehdi are not terrorizing the people of Sadr city...or Najaf.
Also I ask who was it that attacked and killed and injured civilian Iraqis on their way to Najaf in answer to Sistani's call to rescue the city and the mosque? And who was it Sistani wants Iraqis to rescue Najaf and the mosque from? And why did so many Iraqis answer that call and come to the city if this fighting in Najaf is for their benefit?
I also feel Shiites on a whole will fight for their nation from occupiers ..Iranians included. And yet I question whether Muqtada and his militia would view the Iranians as the majority of Iraqis do.
All I can say is I hope the Brits did a good job fixing Sistani's heart..the absolute worst thing that could happen in all this is to have that guy keel over. That is the best protection Iraqis and the coalition forces have from further resurgences from this group..keeping Sistani alive.
By your definitions Bucket, the US military is also a bunch of terrorists since they have used munitions in Iraq that have caused the deaths of over 11,000+ Iraqi civilians.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
The big difference of course is that as an America you do not consider your own military to be terrorists. Instead you use the word indiscriminatly to describe those people who fight for causes which you do not accept as valid.
In that way, you are not so very different from the Iraqi resistence fighters, since they have a similarly unreasonable attitude to the 130,000+ foreign soldiers currently occupying their nation.
editted to add;
Why so? Sistani is no friend of the coalition forces. He has already said that this truce is limited to a set time frame and if the US forces do not leave Iraq then he will himself call upon the people to rise up.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
The big difference of course is that as an America you do not consider your own military to be terrorists. Instead you use the word indiscriminatly to describe those people who fight for causes which you do not accept as valid.
In that way, you are not so very different from the Iraqi resistence fighters, since they have a similarly unreasonable attitude to the 130,000+ foreign soldiers currently occupying their nation.
editted to add;
QUOTE
All I can say is I hope the Brits did a good job fixing Sistani's heart..the absolute worst thing that could happen in all this is to have that guy keel over. That is the best protection Iraqis and the coalition forces have from further resurgences from this group..keeping Sistani alive.
Why so? Sistani is no friend of the coalition forces. He has already said that this truce is limited to a set time frame and if the US forces do not leave Iraq then he will himself call upon the people to rise up.
Do you believe this small victory will make the situation in Iraq better?
Small or big is relative to the people this victory impacts. I hope it's a long-lasting victory that doesn't require future intervention although I prefer Sadr had been killed in the struggle accompanied with a public flogging of Bremmer. Sadr is perhaps the greatest liability in the country at the moment. So much strife over a conspiracy theory newspaper.
What do you think Coalition and Iraqi Forces should do at this point to stop Al-Sadr's 3,000 man militia from regrouping somewhere else?
As others stated Allawi asked Coalition forces to stay. We are supposed to be there as partners at this point, joining forces alongside the fledging Iraqi army and police force. Should we regress to an occupying force and disavow the IGC for revenge? If the IGC is "letting" us stay the Coalition can't move against Sadr or his men without IGC approval. That's unlikely. I saw a picture with Iraqi police guarding al-Sistani's convoy to Najaf.
Pin the tail (constitution) on the donkey (IGC) for that one. Aside from stating that "men" refers to both men and women in the constitution, the IGC did not go into detail about women's rights. To avoid upsetting religious factions within Iraq the IGC replaced existing legal rights with family, or Shariah law.
Al-Sistani also supports Shariah law and is considered a moderate by Iraqi standards. Expect more of this behavior until 1) the IGC feels secure enough to revert to Saddam's secularism and challenge factions, and also 2) wants to give the other half of the population equal rights.
Small or big is relative to the people this victory impacts. I hope it's a long-lasting victory that doesn't require future intervention although I prefer Sadr had been killed in the struggle accompanied with a public flogging of Bremmer. Sadr is perhaps the greatest liability in the country at the moment. So much strife over a conspiracy theory newspaper.
What do you think Coalition and Iraqi Forces should do at this point to stop Al-Sadr's 3,000 man militia from regrouping somewhere else?
As others stated Allawi asked Coalition forces to stay. We are supposed to be there as partners at this point, joining forces alongside the fledging Iraqi army and police force. Should we regress to an occupying force and disavow the IGC for revenge? If the IGC is "letting" us stay the Coalition can't move against Sadr or his men without IGC approval. That's unlikely. I saw a picture with Iraqi police guarding al-Sistani's convoy to Najaf.
QUOTE(bucket @ Aug 28 2004, 04:28 PM)
For all those claiming Muqtada is not a terrorist because he does not target civilians...you first should have a read over what him and his thugs have done is Sadr city, Najaf and other Shiite neighborhoods. They have set up their own court and justice system, in which they beat fellow Iraqis for disobeying sharia law...which just happens to be the same strict following of Islam that Khomeini preached...like indulging in pornography, gambling, liquor or rock music...they aim to prevent girls from attending school...or choosing to not wear the veil...all is done through intimidation and violence... how is that not terrorist behavior?
Pin the tail (constitution) on the donkey (IGC) for that one. Aside from stating that "men" refers to both men and women in the constitution, the IGC did not go into detail about women's rights. To avoid upsetting religious factions within Iraq the IGC replaced existing legal rights with family, or Shariah law.
QUOTE
The lawmakers were referring to IGC resolution 137, approved by the 25-member body Dec. 29, which replaces Iraq's 1959 personal-status legislation with religious laws to be administered by clerics from the country's different religious faiths, depending on the sect to which the parties in any dispute belonged.
-- IPS.net
-- IPS.net
Al-Sistani also supports Shariah law and is considered a moderate by Iraqi standards. Expect more of this behavior until 1) the IGC feels secure enough to revert to Saddam's secularism and challenge factions, and also 2) wants to give the other half of the population equal rights.
QUOTE(moif @ Aug 28 2004, 04:15 PM)
Why so? Sistani is no friend of the coalition forces. He has already said that this truce is limited to a set time frame and if the US forces do not leave Iraq then he will himself call upon the people to rise up.
Might I have the source on that?
I'm interested in the time frame he places on withdrawal. I would have to agree with bucket that, while Sistani may not be a dedicated ally of the US in Iraq, he has certainly been someone we could deal with in relative comfort.
Sistani has been a friend to peace from day one, that's good enough.
On to the questions:
Do you believe this small victory will make the situation in Iraq better?
Lesly, speaks for me on that note, mostly. It seems to be a temporary solution, but a good one since it removes Sadr militia from the most dangerous defensive position in Iraq.
When first I heard the plan, I though Sistani was off his rocker, 74 did die a a result, but if the Iraqis are going to call it a victory, then so am I.
I would disagree that this is about a newspaper however,
bucket's on the money when it comes to motivations, power-grab pure and simple.
What do you think Coalition and Iraqi Forces should do at this point to stop Al-Sadr's 3,000 man militia from regrouping somewhere else?
The Iraqi government should charge Sadr with taking up arms against the government and imprison him. His domination of Najaf started not with attacks on coalition forces (who had largely pulled out of the city early in the former occupation) but on Iraqi police, he's a cop-killer, a subversive, and a murderer
Lock him up.
I did not offer up a definition...I just asked for those of you who disagree with referring to Muqtada as a terrorist to better explain your position. Which no one did.
It was claimed that he is not a terrorist because...
Well if that is their sole purpose then why did they blow up the Iman Khoei?
Why are they torturing and killing fellow Iraqis?
Why did he waste time demanding his shadow govt...that apparently no one else wanted.
Also why all these truces..that itself goes against their sole purpose..yes?
And how can you claim Muqtada is not connected to the Iranians?
Also Muqtada can't possibly be seen as a terrorist because...
Oh great he isn't detonating road side bombs..but car bombs instead..I have no idea what these assassinations of other prominent Shia religious leaders has to do with "genuine resistance fighting" or what about what Muqtada and his "resistance fighters" did in Karbala 2003? How many Iraqis did they kill and injure then..how are you defining this as "genuine resistance fighting"?
I am sorry but I fail to see what Sadr city and the other unfortunate areas of Iraq these militias have gained a stronghold in have to do with the IGC. They are without question not a part of the current Iraqi gov...and have been like this for some time. Would not matter what the ICG had decided as they have been running their own courts and prisons since the fall of Saddam's govt.
Sometimes I wonder to myself..but I will share with all of you....all this rock star superheroism the US seems to be allowing Muqtada to revel in..could all be a plan to keep the Shiites (the majority of Iraq's religious sectors) busy..specifically Sistani himself. Perhaps they feel this is the safest way to channel Shia anger?
It was claimed that he is not a terrorist because...
QUOTE
my understanding is that the sole purpose of al-Sadr's militia is to fight occupational forces and drive them out of their land. These are NOT the people who take the hostages and execute them to broadcast the images around the world... Al-Sadr is not Al-Zarqawi and he is not connected to al-Queda - he is connected to Iran.
Well if that is their sole purpose then why did they blow up the Iman Khoei?
Why are they torturing and killing fellow Iraqis?
Why did he waste time demanding his shadow govt...that apparently no one else wanted.
Also why all these truces..that itself goes against their sole purpose..yes?
And how can you claim Muqtada is not connected to the Iranians?
Also Muqtada can't possibly be seen as a terrorist because...
QUOTE
My understanding of al Sadr's militia differs some what from yours in that I have not seen any evidence of the Mehdi army detonating road side bombs. Moqtada al Sadr appears to be a genuine resistence fighter who has gone out of his way to portray himself and his forces as such. On several occaisions he has publicly ordered his militia not to harm civilians or journalists and he called upon all other groups to release their hostages.
Oh great he isn't detonating road side bombs..but car bombs instead..I have no idea what these assassinations of other prominent Shia religious leaders has to do with "genuine resistance fighting" or what about what Muqtada and his "resistance fighters" did in Karbala 2003? How many Iraqis did they kill and injure then..how are you defining this as "genuine resistance fighting"?
QUOTE
Pin the tail (constitution) on the donkey (IGC) for that one. Aside from stating that "men" refers to both men and women in the constitution, the IGC did not go into detail about women's rights. To avoid upsetting religious factions within Iraq the IGC replaced existing legal rights with family, or Shariah law.
I am sorry but I fail to see what Sadr city and the other unfortunate areas of Iraq these militias have gained a stronghold in have to do with the IGC. They are without question not a part of the current Iraqi gov...and have been like this for some time. Would not matter what the ICG had decided as they have been running their own courts and prisons since the fall of Saddam's govt.
Sometimes I wonder to myself..but I will share with all of you....all this rock star superheroism the US seems to be allowing Muqtada to revel in..could all be a plan to keep the Shiites (the majority of Iraq's religious sectors) busy..specifically Sistani himself. Perhaps they feel this is the safest way to channel Shia anger?
QUOTE(turnea @ Aug 28 2004, 07:51 PM)
What do you think Coalition and Iraqi Forces should do at this point to stop Al-Sadr's 3,000 man militia from regrouping somewhere else?
The Iraqi government should charge Sadr with taking up arms against the government and imprison him. His domination of Najaf started not with attacks on coalition forces (who had largely pulled out of the city early in the former occupation) but on Iraqi police, he's a cop-killer, a subversive, and a murderer
Lock him up.
The Iraqi government should charge Sadr with taking up arms against the government and imprison him. His domination of Najaf started not with attacks on coalition forces (who had largely pulled out of the city early in the former occupation) but on Iraqi police, he's a cop-killer, a subversive, and a murderer
Lock him up.
True that. Basically, he committed treason against the new Iraqi government by rallying up arms against it.
If the Iraqi government wants to help it's credibility and make it known that it has the ability (and will use such ability) to take this buzzard down
QUOTE(bucket @ Aug 28 2004, 11:02 PM)
I am sorry but I fail to see what Sadr city and the other unfortunate areas of Iraq these militias have gained a stronghold in have to do with the IGC. They are without question not a part of the current Iraqi gov...and have been like this for some time. Would not matter what the ICG had decided as they have been running their own courts and prisons since the fall of Saddam's govt.
Act 137 revokes five decades of civil codes in favor of religious law, conferring more "rock star superheroism" to Sadr and Sistani as religious authorities, if not encouraging men like them to enter the judiciary.
QUOTE
The George W. Bush administration has welcomed statements by Iraq's senior Shiite religious authority, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, that he rejects the theocratic approach adopted by Iran's ayatollahs, in which religious authorities direct the entire government. However, it seems much less aware that Sistani and several other Shiite authorities are committed to ensuring that Iraq's constitution and legal system is based on Islamic law [snip]
-- NRO.com
-- NRO.com
QUOTE
The new law, still to be properly implemented, means that marriage, divorce, custody, and child support, inheritance and all other aspects of family law will be dealt with by Shari'at courts. (The law will be introduced in the new Iraqi family law known as "Personal Status Law".)
IGC's Act 137 amending Iraq's relatively secular family law with "the dictates of the Laws of the Holy Koran", was passed by the US-appointed body on 29 December 2003. "The act was taken by the IGC but it has not turned into a law yet," Hameid Al-Kafa'y, spokesperson for the IGC, told IRIN in Baghdad. He defended the new law as "diverse" and said that it represents the diversity of religions and sects in today's Iraqi society.
-- CIDI.org
IGC's Act 137 amending Iraq's relatively secular family law with "the dictates of the Laws of the Holy Koran", was passed by the US-appointed body on 29 December 2003. "The act was taken by the IGC but it has not turned into a law yet," Hameid Al-Kafa'y, spokesperson for the IGC, told IRIN in Baghdad. He defended the new law as "diverse" and said that it represents the diversity of religions and sects in today's Iraqi society.
-- CIDI.org
Under Iraq's old civil codes, for example, men needed permission from their wives to get a second wife. There's no such requirement under Sharia law. Sadr may no longer have an army but he and Sistani will be every bit a blemish to Iraqi democracy without a civil code that doesn't allow discrimination based on religion and sex. Ignoring Sadr's attacks on the Coalition for a moment, he wouldn't be recognized as a terrorist under Sharia law if he imposed the death penalty for fornication or not wearing a veil.
Sadr's a bad example being a popular crosshairs target, but the section I bolded in your quote is tolerated under Sharia and would not run counter to the IGC. The IGC is in an indefensible position by placing the country at the mercy of Sharia when it comes to family law and leaving a backdoor open to fundamentalism. IMO they quickly passed Act 137 in a political bid to consolidate Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni factions on the subject of centralized power and move on to more "important" things like security.
GoAmerica
Upon what authority does the IGC govern? It is not democratically elected so how can Sadr's armed resistence to the Americans be construed as 'treason' ?
QUOTE
True that. Basically, he committed treason against the new Iraqi government by rallying up arms against it.
Upon what authority does the IGC govern? It is not democratically elected so how can Sadr's armed resistence to the Americans be construed as 'treason' ?
Turnea
Sorry, I got my clerics mixed up, it was actually Ali Najafi after he'd met with Ali Sistani who apparently made the statement about foreign troops staying to long. I'd misunderstood the sentence;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3608398.stm
Now, I am not so sure if Ali Sistani himself is of the same opinion as Ali Najafi or not
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bucket
Yes I did. I pointed out that there is no evidence to support the accusation of Al Sadr being a terrorist.
At the most, he can only be defined as a rogue warlord, but without any formal democratic elections, he has much the same right to defend his nation as the government of Iraq has to govern.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They didn't. Imam Khoei was stabbed to death by a crowd who considered him a traitor because he had had dealings with both the British and the Americans.
Any proof? Evidence? Links?
If they are, then it may be for the same reasons that resistence fighters in the second world war also killed collaborators, or maybe they are just operating under the same system that exists in Iran? Being cruel and inhuman however does not make them terrorists.
I don't know. But this does not qualify him as a terrorist either.
What sole purpose? Their defence of their nation? How does their willingness to hold a truce make them terrorists?
I didn't make any such claim.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Which 'other Shia religous leaders' are you refering to?
And if you have some evidence, then lets see it. 'Karbala 2003' is meaningless without any context.
What exactly is it you would describe as 'genuine resistance fighting'? You appear to be labouring under the delusion that resistance fighters don't use road side bombs, or kill members of their own people.
You are making an accusation but offering no evidence. To me it appears that, like many others here, you regard Sadr as a terrorist simply because he is a Muslim who defies the USA. There is far to much of this sort of sloppy thinking going on with regards to terrorism. A terrorist is some one who uses violence and fear to oppress a population or a government.
Al Sadr's mehdi army fights against the American military and their presence as a foreign invader in their country. They also target those Iraqi's who have collaborated with the Americans, but I have seen no evidence to support the claim that they target the population of Iraq or even the IGC.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That would indicate a level of sophistication that seems sadly lacking in the rest of the Iraq campaign.
There is also a flaw in that Ali Sistani is not a well man, and hardly needs containing. Its not as if he's out there inciting civil uprest.
Sorry, I got my clerics mixed up, it was actually Ali Najafi after he'd met with Ali Sistani who apparently made the statement about foreign troops staying to long. I'd misunderstood the sentence;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3608398.stm
Now, I am not so sure if Ali Sistani himself is of the same opinion as Ali Najafi or not
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bucket
QUOTE
I did not offer up a definition...I just asked for those of you who disagree with referring to Muqtada as a terrorist to better explain your position. Which no one did.
Yes I did. I pointed out that there is no evidence to support the accusation of Al Sadr being a terrorist.
At the most, he can only be defined as a rogue warlord, but without any formal democratic elections, he has much the same right to defend his nation as the government of Iraq has to govern.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE
Well if that is their sole purpose then why did they blow up the Iman Khoei?
They didn't. Imam Khoei was stabbed to death by a crowd who considered him a traitor because he had had dealings with both the British and the Americans.
QUOTE
Why are they torturing and killing fellow Iraqis?
Any proof? Evidence? Links?
If they are, then it may be for the same reasons that resistence fighters in the second world war also killed collaborators, or maybe they are just operating under the same system that exists in Iran? Being cruel and inhuman however does not make them terrorists.
QUOTE
Why did he waste time demanding his shadow govt...that apparently no one else wanted.
I don't know. But this does not qualify him as a terrorist either.
QUOTE
Also why all these truces..that itself goes against their sole purpose..yes?
What sole purpose? Their defence of their nation? How does their willingness to hold a truce make them terrorists?
QUOTE
And how can you claim Muqtada is not connected to the Iranians?
I didn't make any such claim.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE
Oh great he isn't detonating road side bombs..but car bombs instead..I have no idea what these assassinations of other prominent Shia religious leaders has to do with "genuine resistance fighting" or what about what Muqtada and his "resistance fighters" did in Karbala 2003? How many Iraqis did they kill and injure then..how are you defining this as "genuine resistance fighting"?
Which 'other Shia religous leaders' are you refering to?
And if you have some evidence, then lets see it. 'Karbala 2003' is meaningless without any context.
What exactly is it you would describe as 'genuine resistance fighting'? You appear to be labouring under the delusion that resistance fighters don't use road side bombs, or kill members of their own people.
You are making an accusation but offering no evidence. To me it appears that, like many others here, you regard Sadr as a terrorist simply because he is a Muslim who defies the USA. There is far to much of this sort of sloppy thinking going on with regards to terrorism. A terrorist is some one who uses violence and fear to oppress a population or a government.
Al Sadr's mehdi army fights against the American military and their presence as a foreign invader in their country. They also target those Iraqi's who have collaborated with the Americans, but I have seen no evidence to support the claim that they target the population of Iraq or even the IGC.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE
Sometimes I wonder to myself..but I will share with all of you....all this rock star superheroism the US seems to be allowing Muqtada to revel in..could all be a plan to keep the Shiites (the majority of Iraq's religious sectors) busy..specifically Sistani himself. Perhaps they feel this is the safest way to channel Shia anger?
That would indicate a level of sophistication that seems sadly lacking in the rest of the Iraq campaign.
There is also a flaw in that Ali Sistani is not a well man, and hardly needs containing. Its not as if he's out there inciting civil uprest.
QUOTE
1) Do you believe this small victory will make the situation in Iraq better?
I'm not certain how in any way this is a victory for us. When a victorious situation has occurred, the victorious power holds prime real estate for their efforts. I'm puzzled to know how we've won when we've agreed to pull out of the city.
Not only that, but a chubby little cleric with an arrest warrant is still running around undetained. What does that say about our ability to catch the guy? Or have we simply forgotten about his warrant for killing another cleric? I would also like to see the news article that says the Mahdi army "dropped" their weapons. Evidence of this would be greatly appreciated, especially since stories that I've read stated that they made off with them in donkey carts and that only a few of them were caught.
QUOTE
Act 137 revokes five decades of civil codes in favor of religious law, conferring more "rock star superheroism" to Sadr and Sistani as religious authorities, if not encouraging men like them to enter the judiciary.
I think the discussion of Act 137 is a bit off topic. As I said Muqtada is governing Sadr city under his own laws..family and public..and I doubt anything the ICG had to say on it would matter to him and his followers.
Yet..act 137 was very controversial..it was supported on whole by most of the Shia clerics but it was latter "put on hold" by the ICG because of protest within Iraq and internationally.
I think these guys..with their new freedom to express their religious beliefs..because under Saddam this was not allowed..will be setting up Sharia courts regardless of what the ICG says or doesn't say. They have even Sharia courts set up to deal with Muslim family matters in Canada.
I also believe there are many variations of how Sharia law is interpretted...and I made the point that Muqtada has a very traditional strict interpretation of it...just like the Iranian dictator Khomeini.
QUOTE
They didn't. Imam Khoei was stabbed to death by a crowd who considered him a traitor because he had had dealings with both the British and the Americans.
Oh yeah your right..getting their assassination methods confused..Khoei and Raifee were hacked to death in what is said to be one of the most holy sites for Shiites...but your wrong that is was for "resistance" because they had been dealing with the Americans and British..it was without question a power struggle..one Muqtada himself is waging.
QUOTE
Al-Khoei tried to arrange a meeting with al-Sadr; through intermediaries al-Sadr demanded that al-Khoei first deliver the keys to the shrine to him. The keys open a gilded cage that contains the tomb of the Prophet Muhammad’s son-in-law—and access to millions in cash donations left by pilgrims from around the world. Al-Khoei refused, and the meeting never took place.
source Hmm funny how resistance to the Americans and British were not mentioned as the purpose of their disagreements..but rather control and money.
QUOTE
The trouble began minutes later, according to several witnesses. As the group finished prayers and retired to the custodian’s guest quarters for tea, an angry mob armed with hand grenades, swords and assault rifles surrounded the building. “Raifee is back!” some shouted. “Long live Muqtada al-Sadr!” The mob smashed the windows; al-Khoei urged them to retreat. “This is sacrilege,” he told them. “We are all Shiites and you must respect the shrine.” An aide managed to get outside and call the U.S. commander in Najaf on a Thuraya satellite phone, but the officer said he had no orders to rescue them. Then members of the crowd sprayed the hall with AK-47 fire, fatally injuring a member of al-Khoei’s entourage. Al-Khoei grabbed a gun that the night guards stored inside the building and fired at least one warning shot through the window, to no avail. A grenade sailed through the window and blew off three of al-Khoei’s fingers; soon the mob entered the building, led by a man called Sheik Riyadh, the manager of al-Sadr’s office. “Don’t say a word,” he warned. “You’re all prisoners of Muqtada.”
source
Again...what "genuine resistance" are these men fighting for?
The car bombing I was incorrect on that...as it is allegedly how they murdered Hakim.
QUOTE
And how can you claim Muqtada is not connected to the Iranians?
I didn't make any such claim.
Moif I never said you did..I had quoted English Horn..because he does make such claims.
My entire post was not for your benefit..I would actually like to engage in debate with other people here too.
QUOTE(bucket @ Aug 29 2004, 12:30 PM)
And how can you claim Muqtada is not connected to the Iranians?
I didn't make any such claim.
Moif I never said you did..I had quoted English Horn..because he does make such claims.
I didn't make any such claim.
Moif I never said you did..I had quoted English Horn..because he does make such claims.
I beg your pardon??
Look here to see what I actually said and you'll find the following:
QUOTE
Al-Sadr is not Al-Zarqawi and he is not connected to al-Queda - he is connected to Iran.
I demand retribution!
QUOTE(bucket @ Aug 29 2004, 12:30 PM)
I think the discussion of Act 137 is a bit off topic.
More off topic than debating the merits of calling Sadr a terrorist.
QUOTE(bucket @ Aug 29 2004, 12:30 PM)
Yet..act 137 was very controversial..it was supported on whole by most of the Shia clerics but it was latter "put on hold" by the ICG because of protest within Iraq and internationally.
Passed means "put on hold?" Enforcing it another matter, but the same can be said for a lot of new laws with the IGC still dodging assassination attempts. If the IGC doesn't reverse course it remains to be seen whether anyone would be held accountable for the "crimes" Sadr committed in the future.
QUOTE(bucket @ Aug 29 2004, 12:30 PM)
I think these guys..with their new freedom to express their religious beliefs..because under Saddam this was not allowed..will be setting up Sharia courts regardless of what the ICG says or doesn't say. They have even Sharia courts set up to deal with Muslim family matters in Canada. I also believe there are many variations of how Sharia law is interpretted...and I made the point that Muqtada has a very traditional strict interpretation of it...just like the Iranian dictator Khomeini.
I also believe there are many variations of how Sharia law is interpretted...and I made the point that Muqtada has a very traditional strict interpretation of it...just like the Iranian dictator Khomeini. It's also spread to Nigeria. And? I doubt most Canadian muslim women give it a thumb's up. But if it saves the government money by keeping arbitration out of the courts and a Western government adopts sharia, it must be peachy? I see.
Back to Sadr, the items you've provided definitely paint him as power hungry. No one will disagree.
Terrorist has been watered down to include more conditions than previously allowed pre-9/11. Terrorists will adapt new violent ways to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands, but a murderous leader of a resistance army doesn't fit the profile. The term has been bastardized to refer to anarchist groups by some people I know. Under new self-described definitions for terrorist the L.A. riots qualify.
Bucket
Really? I read your linked article and this is what it states quite clearly;
also;
and
It seems to me that your article makes quite a lot of al Khoei's US connections. It even goes so far as to infer that al Khoei was only killed because he did not take his US guards with him when he went to visit the shrine. Instead he took an unpopular former Baathist called Haidar Raifee.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Its quite clear that al Khoei was a US puppet brought back to Iraq by the CIA to hinder the Iranian factions from coming to power. The CIA also tried to do the same thing with Nizar al Khazraji, Who it was originally reported had been with al Khoei and had been hacked to death. It appears al Khazraji however is quite possibly still alive some where and sheltered by the CIA, despite being wanted on the charge of having been responsible for the mass slaughter of Kurds at Halabja by means of chemical weapons.
These men are obviously considered traitors and regardless of their former standing or family connections they are treated as such. During the second world war, those who collaborated witht he Germans were also assassinated when ever the chance arose.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, you could avoid such confusion by clearly labelling to whom you are writing.
QUOTE
Hmm funny how resistance to the Americans and British were not mentioned as the purpose of their disagreements..but rather control and money.
Really? I read your linked article and this is what it states quite clearly;
QUOTE
The principal victim, Abdel Majid al-Khoei, 41, was a Shiite leader and London-based Iraqi exile who had returned to Najaf under U.S. military protection. Al-Khoei was a key figure in U.S. efforts to nurture moderate leaders in post-Saddam Iraq—and a counterweight to radical clerics backed by Iran.
also;
QUOTE
Early this year he was approached by the CIA in London and offered U.S. protection if he would help rebuild Iraq after the war.
and
QUOTE
According to one source in Najaf, al-Sadr told followers that he was “frightened” of al-Khoei and resented his arrival in the city; he beefed up his security, attacked the former exile as an agent of the U.S. government and urged Shiites to resist the Americans.
It seems to me that your article makes quite a lot of al Khoei's US connections. It even goes so far as to infer that al Khoei was only killed because he did not take his US guards with him when he went to visit the shrine. Instead he took an unpopular former Baathist called Haidar Raifee.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE
Again...what "genuine resistance" are these men fighting for?
Its quite clear that al Khoei was a US puppet brought back to Iraq by the CIA to hinder the Iranian factions from coming to power. The CIA also tried to do the same thing with Nizar al Khazraji, Who it was originally reported had been with al Khoei and had been hacked to death. It appears al Khazraji however is quite possibly still alive some where and sheltered by the CIA, despite being wanted on the charge of having been responsible for the mass slaughter of Kurds at Halabja by means of chemical weapons.
These men are obviously considered traitors and regardless of their former standing or family connections they are treated as such. During the second world war, those who collaborated witht he Germans were also assassinated when ever the chance arose.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE
Moif I never said you did..I had quoted English Horn..because he does make such claims.
My entire post was not for your benefit..I would actually like to engage in debate with other people here too.
My entire post was not for your benefit..I would actually like to engage in debate with other people here too.
Well, you could avoid such confusion by clearly labelling to whom you are writing.
QUOTE(moif @ Aug 29 2004, 07:09 AM)
Upon what authority does the IGC govern? It is not democratically elected so how can Sadr's armed resistence to the Americans be construed as 'treason' ?
1. Point of information for everyone, the IGC (Iraqi Governing Council) no longer exists. Political power in Iraq rests in the hands of the Iraqi interim government, which took control after the handover of sovereignty.
2. I suspect GoAmerica is indeed correct, the Iraqi interim government is the internationally recognized authority in Iraq. UNSC resolution 1546 endorses the transfer that created it, and it is recognized as such in all subsequent resolutions. The same was actually true of the IGC during its time. So the government does indeed have the authority to try Sadr for treason.
QUOTE(nebraska29)
I'm not certain how in any way this is a victory for us. When a victorious situation has occurred, the victorious power holds prime real estate for their efforts. I'm puzzled to know how we've won when we've agreed to pull out of the city.
Before the fight we really weren't in the city to begin with. Sistani had kept things so calm that we allowed local authorities to handle it very early on. It is a victory because Sadr doesn't have the high-profile shrine to hide in, it's unlikely he will be let back in. Frankly, the citizens of Najaf couldn't stand him.
He just lost his best hidey-hole. It is a strategic victory, it could be completed if the Iraqi government put Sadr in hand-cuffs like the crook he is...
QUOTE
I demand retribution! tongue.gif
ack! So sorry EH..I completely misread what you said.
QUOTE
Passed means "put on hold?" Enforcing it another matter, but the same can be said for a lot of new laws with the IGC still dodging assassination attempts. If the IGC doesn't reverse course it remains to be seen whether anyone would be held accountable for the "crimes" Sadr committed in the future.
Lesly....
Um no put on hold does not mean passed it means it was retracted. It never became a part of the new Iraqi Constitution. The Iraqi woman that was on the ICG and the main voice of opposition did in fact have an assassination attempt on her life..and it was said she had become more of a target because of her activism against this legislation.
Here is a UN article explaining how this Resolution was defeated.
Iraq Minister Calls Constitution A Triumph For Women
Regardless I don't think it matters because as I have said before Muqtada has set up his own court system and I doubt he cares for what the new Iraqi Constitution says or doesn't say.
QUOTE
Its quite clear that al Khoei was a US puppet brought back to Iraq by the CIA to hinder the Iranian factions from coming to power. The CIA also tried to do the same thing with Nizar al Khazraji,
Moif...
Oh is it quite clear?
The US in no way was attempting the same action with Khoei as they would have hoped to pursue with Khazraji. Khoei was a patritot and a man of peace. He was the son of the premiere leader of Shias across the world. It was his father who not only was a teacher to Sistani but chose him to replace him as Grand Ayatollah. He went to Najaf to seek peace and stability and to bring the Imam Ali mosque peacefully into the hands of it's rightful protectors. Not to incite violence..not to bring about death in the holiest of all Shia religious places.
Muqtada considered this man a rival..and you can quote all the articles you want stating Khoei 's relationship with Britain and the US ..I still have history on my side of the argument because the al-sadr family historically has coveted this position. Muqtada's father resented Khoei (the elder) choosing Sistani over him..and after his death he attempted to contest it. It wasn't until his own death that Sistani's position was cemented. The same can all be said for the Hakim family too. These are historical rivals..the US is just caught in the mess...to claim this is all the doing, encouraging and promotion by the British and Americans is to claim that the Iraqis or even the Iraqi Shiites themselves are devoid of their own independent history, motivations and their own struggles for power.
I would like to see you find me anything at all that proves by any significant margin that Iraqi Shiites considered Khoei a traitor. Is Sistani one too then? Because he has been a target for these same people's anger many times as well.
Yeah Muqtada is frightened and fears several Shia religious leaders as rivals..Khoei was one..now dead. Hakim was another..now dead too. Last but not least we have Sistani..who has been targeted several times by Muqtada's thugs...and Turnea is right the people of Najaf hate Muqtada and his army.
You have yet to explain to me how all of this is "genuine resistance fighting"
QUOTE
I'm not certain how in any way this is a victory for us. When a victorious situation has occurred, the victorious power holds prime real estate for their efforts. I'm puzzled to know how we've won when we've agreed to pull out of the city. Not only that, but a chubby little cleric with an arrest warrant is still running around undetained. What does that say about our ability to catch the guy? Or have we simply forgotten about his warrant for killing another cleric? I would also like to see the news article that says the Mahdi army "dropped" their weapons. Evidence of this would be greatly appreciated, especially since stories that I've read stated that they made off with them in donkey carts and that only a few of them were caught.
So, you would rather we had stormed in, destroyed the shrine, created a martyr, and then either left anyway if need for troops diminished, or sat there indefinitely due to the uproar created? Is that your 'better' alternative? Ideal? No. Workable? Yes. In the current situation, particularly when holy shrines are involved, I think pragmatism needs to win out over idealogical pursuits....that is what happened. I'm not sure bring Al Sadr in would have helped any--killing him probably certainly would not have. If he initiates resistance again, we'll have more political capital to spend on better dealing with the situation. However, I think a peaceful resolution at this time was best for all parties, and that's what happened.
Hobbes your right..not only is a peaceful result in our best interest..but keeping Sistani at the forefront of the rejection of Muqtada is MOST important.
We send in US troops and Muqtada gets to dress up his actions of that of resistance fighting. We keep Sistani there demanding he leave and his actions are shown for what they are..a struggle for Shia power.
We keep Iraqi police backing up Sistani's demands and Muqtada will have to fight Iraqi against Iraqi..Shiite against Shiite..and he will lose any credit he has as a pseudo freedom fighter amongst the Iraqi people.
We send in US troops and Muqtada gets to dress up his actions of that of resistance fighting. We keep Sistani there demanding he leave and his actions are shown for what they are..a struggle for Shia power.
We keep Iraqi police backing up Sistani's demands and Muqtada will have to fight Iraqi against Iraqi..Shiite against Shiite..and he will lose any credit he has as a pseudo freedom fighter amongst the Iraqi people.
Bucket
Of course they were. Both men were brought in by the CIA to counter possible retaliations by the Iranians.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He was a Shia muslim who allowed himself to be seen to collaborate with the 'Great Satan'.
He might as well have converted to Judaiism for all the chance he had when he stupidly walked right into the terroritory of his rival.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To argue that the either nation 'just got caught up in the mess' is to blindly ignore history. Do you have any idea how many years the British and Americans have been meddling in Iraq?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They killed him, what other proof do you need? Do you really think that all Shia speak with one tongue? That they all follow one Imam? Like any other religon, or political doctrine they have their own factions which don't get along with each other. we had the same thing in Europe during the war where the regular and communist resistance groups fought each other almost as much as they fought the Germans.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah? And how does Turnea know what the people of Najaf feel?
I'd wager money that like any other, the city is divided in its loyalties with multpile factions struggling to fill the power vacuum left by the removal of the Baath party.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And you have yet to explain to me how all this is 'terrorism'
QUOTE
Oh is it quite clear?
The US in no way was attempting the same action with Khoei as they would have hoped to pursue with Khazraji.
The US in no way was attempting the same action with Khoei as they would have hoped to pursue with Khazraji.
Of course they were. Both men were brought in by the CIA to counter possible retaliations by the Iranians.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE
Khoei was a patritot and a man of peace. He was the son of the premiere leader of Shias across the world. It was his father who not only was a teacher to Sistani but chose him to replace him as Grand Ayatollah. He went to Najaf to seek peace and stability and to bring the Imam Ali mosque peacefully into the hands of it's rightful protectors. Not to incite violence..not to bring about death in the holiest of all Shia religious places.
He was a Shia muslim who allowed himself to be seen to collaborate with the 'Great Satan'.
He might as well have converted to Judaiism for all the chance he had when he stupidly walked right into the terroritory of his rival.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE
Muqtada considered this man a rival..and you can quote all the articles you want stating Khoei 's relationship with Britain and the US ..I still have history on my side of the argument because the al-sadr family historically has coveted this position. Muqtada's father resented Khoei (the elder) choosing Sistani over him..and after his death he attempted to contest it. It wasn't until his own death that Sistani's position was cemented. The same can all be said for the Hakim family too. These are historical rivals..the US is just caught in the mess...to claim this is all the doing, encouraging and promotion by the British and Americans is to claim that the Iraqis or even the Iraqi Shiites themselves are devoid of their own independent history, motivations and their own struggles for power.
To argue that the either nation 'just got caught up in the mess' is to blindly ignore history. Do you have any idea how many years the British and Americans have been meddling in Iraq?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE
I would like to see you find me anything at all that proves by any significant margin that Iraqi Shiites considered Khoei a traitor. Is Sistani one too then? Because he has been a target for these same people's anger many times as well.
They killed him, what other proof do you need? Do you really think that all Shia speak with one tongue? That they all follow one Imam? Like any other religon, or political doctrine they have their own factions which don't get along with each other. we had the same thing in Europe during the war where the regular and communist resistance groups fought each other almost as much as they fought the Germans.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE
Yeah Muqtada is frightened and fears several Shia religious leaders as rivals..Khoei was one..now dead. Hakim was another..now dead too. Last but not least we have Sistani..who has been targeted several times by Muqtada's thugs...and Turnea is right the people of Najaf hate Muqtada and his army.
Yeah? And how does Turnea know what the people of Najaf feel?
I'd wager money that like any other, the city is divided in its loyalties with multpile factions struggling to fill the power vacuum left by the removal of the Baath party.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE
You have yet to explain to me how all of this is "genuine resistance fighting"
And you have yet to explain to me how all this is 'terrorism'
QUOTE(moif @ Aug 30 2004, 11:46 AM)
Yeah? And how does Turnea know what the people of Najaf feel?
I'll field this one. Simply because I have been keeping close watch on media coverage of the situation. Sadly, I am not yet all-knowing
Allow me to back that boast up....
I first began pointing to Sadr's lack of popularity (especially in Najaf) way before this latest spat began... in fact I started a topic on it.
A link to the post, here
The topic list quite a few articles and accounts to back my position.
So Sadr is, in fact, largely unwelcome in Najaf.
I can't blame them, a link to another post that explains why Sadr in so unsavory here
He behaves as if he were a little dictator wherever he goes.
He is a man who could and should be tried for treason.
Thanks Turnea ..I also just wanted to add there are currently reports that Iraqi police found some dead Iraqis..who they classify as civilian and police..in what they believe was a makeshift "religious court" amongst Muqtada's offices in Najaf. This is only alleged but it certainly is not the first incident of such allegations.
Moif...
Again I will say this....Khoei was a man of peace..the duty he felt to Iraq and specifically to the Shia faith had little to do with CIA ambitions. He spent his whole life advocating peace in the Islamic world and better understanding of the Shia faith. He was devoted to charity work...and his charity organization was an affiliated body of the UN. I suggest you read up a little on this man's life before you continue to smear him in with the likes of Khazraji.
To be seen?...are you suggesting he had something to hide? His collaboration with the allies was not a secret he had lived in London for well over 12 yrs...I think a relationship with the British govt was not something he surprised everyone with upon return to Iraq.
I can't follow your argument on this at all...It seems like you are changing it. Originally you claimed Khoei was killed because he was a collaborator, just collateral in the fight for resistance ..and that his familial ties meant nothing..but here you recognize that he "stupidly walked right into the terroritory of his rival" His rival in what? Either you felt he was killed in what you refer to as "genuine resistance fighting" for being a collaborator..and his family history within the Shia faith meant nothing or you feel it was because of a Shia power struggle...which HEAVILY relies on former standing and family ties...claiming both is a contradiction.
Is that a rhetorical question? This is not at all what I meant..I said that Iraqis..and Iraqi Shiites have their own INDEPENDENT history. That includes their own power struggles, their own motivations for power and their own promotions of it.
Not every thing that happens in that country is something that was caused, promoted or encouraged by the Americans or the British.
Again your argument is confusing...you said at the start of this debate you felt that Muqtada was a genuine resistance fighter and had gone out of his way to not harm civilians...but then here you admit there is an internal power struggle. Do you just reject the idea Muqtada is involved in that struggle?
As for the terrorist comment..I presented plenty of occurences where Moqtada and his army have in fact deviated from "genuine resistance fighting" or have purposefully targeted civilians.
I suppose you don't consider Khoei or Hakim as civilians or ..or you don't recognize the 85 civilians whose lives were taken by the bomb that killed Hakim..or the violent clashes the Mehdi army has had with peaceful unarmed Sistani supporters..or that Muqtada went to Najaf before and demanded Sistani leave Iraq. With exception of claiming it is retribution for collaboration..which is what all the terrorists claim..you have not addressed how any of these actions fall under the guise of "genuine resistance fighting"
The idea that Muqtada is more in the business of reigning terror in Najaf than he is for protecting it from the occupiers is hardly the one sided, narrow view of the western invaders you wish us to believe it is...
source
Moif...
QUOTE
Of course they were. Both men were brought in by the CIA to counter possible retaliations by the Iranians.
Again I will say this....Khoei was a man of peace..the duty he felt to Iraq and specifically to the Shia faith had little to do with CIA ambitions. He spent his whole life advocating peace in the Islamic world and better understanding of the Shia faith. He was devoted to charity work...and his charity organization was an affiliated body of the UN. I suggest you read up a little on this man's life before you continue to smear him in with the likes of Khazraji.
QUOTE
He was a Shia muslim who allowed himself to be seen to collaborate with the 'Great Satan'.
He might as well have converted to Judaiism for all the chance he had when he stupidly walked right into the terroritory of his rival.
He might as well have converted to Judaiism for all the chance he had when he stupidly walked right into the terroritory of his rival.
To be seen?...are you suggesting he had something to hide? His collaboration with the allies was not a secret he had lived in London for well over 12 yrs...I think a relationship with the British govt was not something he surprised everyone with upon return to Iraq.
I can't follow your argument on this at all...It seems like you are changing it. Originally you claimed Khoei was killed because he was a collaborator, just collateral in the fight for resistance ..and that his familial ties meant nothing..but here you recognize that he "stupidly walked right into the terroritory of his rival" His rival in what? Either you felt he was killed in what you refer to as "genuine resistance fighting" for being a collaborator..and his family history within the Shia faith meant nothing or you feel it was because of a Shia power struggle...which HEAVILY relies on former standing and family ties...claiming both is a contradiction.
QUOTE
To argue that the either nation 'just got caught up in the mess' is to blindly ignore history. Do you have any idea how many years the British and Americans have been meddling in Iraq?
Is that a rhetorical question? This is not at all what I meant..I said that Iraqis..and Iraqi Shiites have their own INDEPENDENT history. That includes their own power struggles, their own motivations for power and their own promotions of it.
Not every thing that happens in that country is something that was caused, promoted or encouraged by the Americans or the British.
QUOTE
I'd wager money that like any other, the city is divided in its loyalties with multpile factions struggling to fill the power vacuum left by the removal of the Baath party.
Again your argument is confusing...you said at the start of this debate you felt that Muqtada was a genuine resistance fighter and had gone out of his way to not harm civilians...but then here you admit there is an internal power struggle. Do you just reject the idea Muqtada is involved in that struggle?
As for the terrorist comment..I presented plenty of occurences where Moqtada and his army have in fact deviated from "genuine resistance fighting" or have purposefully targeted civilians.
I suppose you don't consider Khoei or Hakim as civilians or ..or you don't recognize the 85 civilians whose lives were taken by the bomb that killed Hakim..or the violent clashes the Mehdi army has had with peaceful unarmed Sistani supporters..or that Muqtada went to Najaf before and demanded Sistani leave Iraq. With exception of claiming it is retribution for collaboration..which is what all the terrorists claim..you have not addressed how any of these actions fall under the guise of "genuine resistance fighting"
The idea that Muqtada is more in the business of reigning terror in Najaf than he is for protecting it from the occupiers is hardly the one sided, narrow view of the western invaders you wish us to believe it is...
QUOTE
"Total terror reigns in Najaf. They have told other ayatollahs to leave too," Dibaji said. "This is the biggest catastrophe for Najaf."
source
turnea
I harbour no illusions about al Sadr. I'm sure he is a brutal, cold hearted wretch who's sudden absence would only bring happiness to many of the people of Iraq, but at the same time I also recognize that he is also very popular with a lot of other people in Iraq.
As Bucket's own site notes;
[quote]Later that morning al-Sadr returned triumphantly to the Kufa Mosque on the west bank of the Euphrates to deliver his fourth speech since the fall of Saddam. Thousands packed the mosque’s courtyard in 100-degree heat to hear the cleric call for banning the sale of alcohol in Iraq and forbidding women from wearing jewelry. “We are ready. We are your followers,” the crowd roared. Many swarmed ecstatically around their new leader as he made his exit through a corridor leading from the niche marking the spot where Imam Ali was stabbed to death in the seventh century.[/quote]
Clearly this man would not be able to operate without immense popular support. He could hardly go about acting like a little dictator unless an awful lot of people agreed with him, otherwise he would quickly have ended up like the unfortunate al Khoei.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bucket
[quote]Again I will say this....Khoei was a man of peace..the duty he felt to Iraq and specifically to the Shia faith had little to do with CIA ambitions. He spent his whole life advocating peace in the Islamic world and better understanding of the Shia faith. He was devoted to charity work...and his charity organization was an affiliated body of the UN. I suggest you read up a little on this man's life before you continue to smear him in with the likes of Khazraji. [/quote]
Al Khoei's wonderful personality does not change the fact that he was brought back to Iraq by the CIA. As was Khazraji. Surely, even you must understand what that means in the eyes of people who bitterly oppose any American or western interference in their country?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]To be seen?...are you suggesting he had something to hide? His collaboration with the allies was not a secret he had lived in London for well over 12 yrs...I think a relationship with the British govt was not something he surprised everyone with upon return to Iraq. [/quote]
Obviously he believed he had nothing to hide for he made his connections no great secret.
Equally obvious is that this was justification enough for an entire crowd of people to put him to death.
That this was carried out by Sadr's followers however means nothing. As I have already pointed out resistance fighters often execute collaborators.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]I can't follow your argument on this at all...It seems like you are changing it. [/quote]
This seems to be your stated perception in every thread we chance upon each other. Frankly I find it strange that other people have no difficulties understanding what I write, or that when they do, they simply ask for clarification. Since you choose to be confrontational in your approach though, I suspect that you have no problems at all understanding what I write and simply just don't like the answers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Originally you claimed Khoei was killed because he was a collaborator, just collateral in the fight for resistance ..and that his familial ties meant nothing..but here you recognize that he "stupidly walked right into the terroritory of his rival" His rival in what? Either you felt he was killed in what you refer to as "genuine resistance fighting" for being a collaborator..and his family history within the Shia faith meant nothing or you feel it was because of a Shia power struggle...which HEAVILY relies on former standing and family ties...claiming both is a contradiction.[/quote]
No. Originally YOU claimed Khoei had been blown up by the Mehdi army. I simply corrected you by saying;
[quote]Imam Khoei was stabbed to death by a crowd who considered him a traitor because he had had dealings with both the British and the Americans. [/quote]
As I read up on the matter I found that he may indeed have been murdered on the orders of his rival al Sadr, but at no point does this make al Sadr a terrorist. (and in case you've forgotten, it was this point we were debating at the time, not the merits of Al Khoei) As I have already stated, I see al Sadr as a resistance fighter because I see no evidence of his being a terrorist as you claimed. You've certainly not posted any links to confirm your opinion.
Also, why do you make out that 'claiming both is a contradiction'? I've already answered this point with the historical example of European resistance movements engaging in power disputes. That sort of thing goes with the territory. There is nothing unusual in a resistance group knocking off a potential threat to its goals, especially one which is seen to be collaborating with the enemy! The way you describe it, you appear to believe that al Khoei was not a legitimate target because he was a nice guy and he came from a religous family.
Thats your view of him, but it was obviously not the view of the people who stabbed him to death.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Is that a rhetorical question? This is not at all what I meant..I said that Iraqis..and Iraqi Shiites have their own INDEPENDENT history. That includes their own power struggles, their own motivations for power and their own promotions of it.
Not every thing that happens in that country is something that was caused, promoted or encouraged by the Americans or the British. [/quote]
And it is equally so that the Shia have their internal DIVISIONS as well.
I think Al Khoei would have been aware of this, but since he had been abroad for quite some time, obviously he had lost touch with his own people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Again your argument is confusing...you said at the start of this debate you felt that Muqtada was a genuine resistance fighter and had gone out of his way to not harm civilians...but then here you admit there is an internal power struggle. Do you just reject the idea Muqtada is involved in that struggle? [/quote]
No I don't. I see nothing unusual in the idea of a resistance fighter engaging in a power struggle. After all, that is essentially what resistance fighters do.
What I find unusual is that you spend so much effort on my arguments instead of backing up your own. If you believe al Sadr is a terrorist then find some evidence to support your view. Don't come complaining about being confused to me just because you can't understand that a man can be a resistance fighter whilst engaging in a power struggle.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]As for the terrorist comment..I presented plenty of occurences where Moqtada and his army have in fact deviated from "genuine resistance fighting" or have purposefully targeted civilians. [/quote]
You have made claims, yes, but you have not presented any facts or links to sites which back up your claims. Many of the incidents you cite have been reported in the media as having been the work of this group or that, how is it you are able to speak with such clarity on who was responsible for which bomb?
Note, that I am not accusing you of lying, or even being wrong. I am simply pointing out that all your arguments rest upon your own claims. The only link you've provided thus far that actually works for me shows no evidence that al Sadr is a terrorist, only that he was responsible for the death of al Khoei, and even this is technically not proof since MSNBC is hardly the best place to find out whats going on in Iraq.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]I suppose you don't consider Khoei or Hakim as civilians[/quote]
Actually I do. But being a civilian does not matter when you collaborate with the enemy. Nazi collaborators were nearly always civilians and they were seen as legitimate targets by every one but the nazi's.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote] or ..or you don't recognize the 85 civilians whose lives were taken by the bomb that killed Hakim..[/quote]
I will if you can prove that that bomb was detonated by al Sadr's supporters.
Then, I shall point out to you (as I did earlier in this thread) that the US military has killed over 11,000 civilians in Iraq so by your own arguments the US military is a bunch of terrorists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]or the violent clashes the Mehdi army has had with peaceful unarmed Sistani supporters..or that Muqtada went to Najaf before and demanded Sistani leave Iraq. With exception of claiming it is retribution for collaboration..which is what all the terrorists claim..[/quote]
Again, where is the proof of this? Where is the story that you base this opinion on? Am I supposed to simply take your word as evidence?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]you have not addressed how any of these actions fall under the guise of "genuine resistance fighting" [/quote]
I am not here to answer your every question on every single aspect of this debate. I have made my case and I can explain and defend it.
You however have not addressed or proven or linked to anything that even remotely resembles a credible argument. So far all you've done is point the finger at al Sadr and accuse him of being a terrorist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]The idea that Muqtada is more in the business of reigning terror in Najaf than he is for protecting it from the occupiers is hardly the one sided, narrow view of the western invaders you wish us to believe it is... [/quote]
I do not wish you to believe anything Bucket. Be so kind as to stop putting words in my mouth!
It was YOU who made a claim regarding al Sadr when you called him a terrorist. My point is and always has been that I see no evidence that al Sadr is a terrorist. I have not said he isn't, only that until I see evidence to support such a claim then I shall continue to regard him as a resistance fighter since his patterns of behaviour and the stories in the media portray him as such.
If you wish to disagree with that opinion, then fine, go right ahead. But do so on the merits of your own arguments and with examples of why you believe it to be true.
Don't come running after me claiming I said something I never did!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
source
The link is dead.
I harbour no illusions about al Sadr. I'm sure he is a brutal, cold hearted wretch who's sudden absence would only bring happiness to many of the people of Iraq, but at the same time I also recognize that he is also very popular with a lot of other people in Iraq.
As Bucket's own site notes;
[quote]Later that morning al-Sadr returned triumphantly to the Kufa Mosque on the west bank of the Euphrates to deliver his fourth speech since the fall of Saddam. Thousands packed the mosque’s courtyard in 100-degree heat to hear the cleric call for banning the sale of alcohol in Iraq and forbidding women from wearing jewelry. “We are ready. We are your followers,” the crowd roared. Many swarmed ecstatically around their new leader as he made his exit through a corridor leading from the niche marking the spot where Imam Ali was stabbed to death in the seventh century.[/quote]
Clearly this man would not be able to operate without immense popular support. He could hardly go about acting like a little dictator unless an awful lot of people agreed with him, otherwise he would quickly have ended up like the unfortunate al Khoei.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bucket
[quote]Again I will say this....Khoei was a man of peace..the duty he felt to Iraq and specifically to the Shia faith had little to do with CIA ambitions. He spent his whole life advocating peace in the Islamic world and better understanding of the Shia faith. He was devoted to charity work...and his charity organization was an affiliated body of the UN. I suggest you read up a little on this man's life before you continue to smear him in with the likes of Khazraji. [/quote]
Al Khoei's wonderful personality does not change the fact that he was brought back to Iraq by the CIA. As was Khazraji. Surely, even you must understand what that means in the eyes of people who bitterly oppose any American or western interference in their country?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]To be seen?...are you suggesting he had something to hide? His collaboration with the allies was not a secret he had lived in London for well over 12 yrs...I think a relationship with the British govt was not something he surprised everyone with upon return to Iraq. [/quote]
Obviously he believed he had nothing to hide for he made his connections no great secret.
Equally obvious is that this was justification enough for an entire crowd of people to put him to death.
That this was carried out by Sadr's followers however means nothing. As I have already pointed out resistance fighters often execute collaborators.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]I can't follow your argument on this at all...It seems like you are changing it. [/quote]
This seems to be your stated perception in every thread we chance upon each other. Frankly I find it strange that other people have no difficulties understanding what I write, or that when they do, they simply ask for clarification. Since you choose to be confrontational in your approach though, I suspect that you have no problems at all understanding what I write and simply just don't like the answers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Originally you claimed Khoei was killed because he was a collaborator, just collateral in the fight for resistance ..and that his familial ties meant nothing..but here you recognize that he "stupidly walked right into the terroritory of his rival" His rival in what? Either you felt he was killed in what you refer to as "genuine resistance fighting" for being a collaborator..and his family history within the Shia faith meant nothing or you feel it was because of a Shia power struggle...which HEAVILY relies on former standing and family ties...claiming both is a contradiction.[/quote]
No. Originally YOU claimed Khoei had been blown up by the Mehdi army. I simply corrected you by saying;
[quote]Imam Khoei was stabbed to death by a crowd who considered him a traitor because he had had dealings with both the British and the Americans. [/quote]
As I read up on the matter I found that he may indeed have been murdered on the orders of his rival al Sadr, but at no point does this make al Sadr a terrorist. (and in case you've forgotten, it was this point we were debating at the time, not the merits of Al Khoei) As I have already stated, I see al Sadr as a resistance fighter because I see no evidence of his being a terrorist as you claimed. You've certainly not posted any links to confirm your opinion.
Also, why do you make out that 'claiming both is a contradiction'? I've already answered this point with the historical example of European resistance movements engaging in power disputes. That sort of thing goes with the territory. There is nothing unusual in a resistance group knocking off a potential threat to its goals, especially one which is seen to be collaborating with the enemy! The way you describe it, you appear to believe that al Khoei was not a legitimate target because he was a nice guy and he came from a religous family.
Thats your view of him, but it was obviously not the view of the people who stabbed him to death.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Is that a rhetorical question? This is not at all what I meant..I said that Iraqis..and Iraqi Shiites have their own INDEPENDENT history. That includes their own power struggles, their own motivations for power and their own promotions of it.
Not every thing that happens in that country is something that was caused, promoted or encouraged by the Americans or the British. [/quote]
And it is equally so that the Shia have their internal DIVISIONS as well.
I think Al Khoei would have been aware of this, but since he had been abroad for quite some time, obviously he had lost touch with his own people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Again your argument is confusing...you said at the start of this debate you felt that Muqtada was a genuine resistance fighter and had gone out of his way to not harm civilians...but then here you admit there is an internal power struggle. Do you just reject the idea Muqtada is involved in that struggle? [/quote]
No I don't. I see nothing unusual in the idea of a resistance fighter engaging in a power struggle. After all, that is essentially what resistance fighters do.
What I find unusual is that you spend so much effort on my arguments instead of backing up your own. If you believe al Sadr is a terrorist then find some evidence to support your view. Don't come complaining about being confused to me just because you can't understand that a man can be a resistance fighter whilst engaging in a power struggle.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]As for the terrorist comment..I presented plenty of occurences where Moqtada and his army have in fact deviated from "genuine resistance fighting" or have purposefully targeted civilians. [/quote]
You have made claims, yes, but you have not presented any facts or links to sites which back up your claims. Many of the incidents you cite have been reported in the media as having been the work of this group or that, how is it you are able to speak with such clarity on who was responsible for which bomb?
Note, that I am not accusing you of lying, or even being wrong. I am simply pointing out that all your arguments rest upon your own claims. The only link you've provided thus far that actually works for me shows no evidence that al Sadr is a terrorist, only that he was responsible for the death of al Khoei, and even this is technically not proof since MSNBC is hardly the best place to find out whats going on in Iraq.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]I suppose you don't consider Khoei or Hakim as civilians[/quote]
Actually I do. But being a civilian does not matter when you collaborate with the enemy. Nazi collaborators were nearly always civilians and they were seen as legitimate targets by every one but the nazi's.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote] or ..or you don't recognize the 85 civilians whose lives were taken by the bomb that killed Hakim..[/quote]
I will if you can prove that that bomb was detonated by al Sadr's supporters.
Then, I shall point out to you (as I did earlier in this thread) that the US military has killed over 11,000 civilians in Iraq so by your own arguments the US military is a bunch of terrorists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]or the violent clashes the Mehdi army has had with peaceful unarmed Sistani supporters..or that Muqtada went to Najaf before and demanded Sistani leave Iraq. With exception of claiming it is retribution for collaboration..which is what all the terrorists claim..[/quote]
Again, where is the proof of this? Where is the story that you base this opinion on? Am I supposed to simply take your word as evidence?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]you have not addressed how any of these actions fall under the guise of "genuine resistance fighting" [/quote]
I am not here to answer your every question on every single aspect of this debate. I have made my case and I can explain and defend it.
You however have not addressed or proven or linked to anything that even remotely resembles a credible argument. So far all you've done is point the finger at al Sadr and accuse him of being a terrorist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]The idea that Muqtada is more in the business of reigning terror in Najaf than he is for protecting it from the occupiers is hardly the one sided, narrow view of the western invaders you wish us to believe it is... [/quote]
I do not wish you to believe anything Bucket. Be so kind as to stop putting words in my mouth!
It was YOU who made a claim regarding al Sadr when you called him a terrorist. My point is and always has been that I see no evidence that al Sadr is a terrorist. I have not said he isn't, only that until I see evidence to support such a claim then I shall continue to regard him as a resistance fighter since his patterns of behaviour and the stories in the media portray him as such.
If you wish to disagree with that opinion, then fine, go right ahead. But do so on the merits of your own arguments and with examples of why you believe it to be true.
Don't come running after me claiming I said something I never did!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
source
The link is dead.
QUOTE(turnea @ Aug 29 2004, 05:24 PM)
Frankly, the citizens of Najaf couldn't stand him.
his numbers might be down from before the insurgency, but they aren't there any more.
Before the insurgency....
QUOTE
Six months ago, just one percent of those surveyed said that they supported Moqtada Al-Sadr, whose forces have been battling U.S. troops for nearly two months in and around the Shiite holy city of Najaf in central Iraq.
and after.....
QUOTE
In the survey, conducted by the year-old Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies, 32 percent of the respondents said they strongly support the fiercely anti-coalition Shiite cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr. Another 36 percent said they somewhat support the cleric, even though he is being sought by the coalition for his alleged involvement in the murder of a Shiite rival, who was killed last year.
The poll numbers place the radical cleric among the three most admired figures in the country, behind the top religious authority for the majority Shiites, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and the political head of one of the largest Shiite parties, Ibrahim Al-Jaafari.
The poll numbers place the radical cleric among the three most admired figures in the country, behind the top religious authority for the majority Shiites, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and the political head of one of the largest Shiite parties, Ibrahim Al-Jaafari.
Veterans News and Information Service
The 68% approval(varying levels of approval I'll grant you) are a key indication why Sistani and other senior clerics haven't outright condemned him or sought to make efforts to undercut his influence. My question?-why wasn't Allawi #1 or 2 if Sadr is so unpopular??
Moif...
Oh yeah of course clearly he wouldn't dare..being a genuine resistance fighter and all...use TERROR to operate and gain power. It must be because they all adore him so much...not because they are frightened of him and his armed men terrorizing their cities.
What kind of debate takes place where only one side must prove their claim? I say Muqtada is a man of terror and I have provided plenty examples of why I think this. You on the other hand claim he is a "genuine resistance fighter" and has been very careful to not harm civilians. I asked you to explain how you can classify his actions as such. You have not. Do you feel somehow you have no need to explain or give evidence or even support your own claims? Where are your facts, links or sites to back your position? If you expect this of me...why can I not expect it of you?
No need to make this some personal issue..I honestly don't understand your argument as it appears to me to contradict itself. You originally said of Khoei being hacked to death.."These men are obviously considered traitors and regardless of their former standing or family connections they are treated as such."
So I took that to mean you believe that Muqtada's followers killed Khoei because he was a traitor..a collaborator and who he was the son of..his standing in the Shia faith had no meaning to them. Then you later claim.."He might as well have converted to Judaiism for all the chance he had when he stupidly walked right into the terroritory of his rival." I feel if you are now acknowledging Muqtada and Khoei were rivals you are now saying their "former standing or family connections" were a factor. All I asked was for you to better explain your argument on this.
As for your constant comparisons to WWII and how collaborators with the Nazis were treated the same..are you saying you feel the murdering of Iraqi civilians because they choose to work for the coalition is what you consider to be "genuine resistance fighting" too? Women leaving US bases have been shot and killed...civilians blown to bits...kidnapped and decapitated..all purposefully targeted and all being justified as "resistance fighting" because they are no longer civilians but legitimate targets because they are collaborators...do you then agree?
I have no idea why the link does not work for you..it works fine for me but here is a new one. What is interesting about the older stories/news reports on Muqtada is he is said to be only 22..that was only a yr ago. Somehow he went from 22 to 30 in one yr. Also what is interesting is this is where he first started to show up in the news..not as someone battling the occupation but as an angry young man in Najaf demanding that all the Ayatollahs leave the city.
Iraq's top Shia cleric given 48 hours to leave
Here is another article on the violent clashes Muqtada's army has had with supporters of Sistani.
Iraqi Shiite Factions Clash
Here is another article on the several attacks that took place in Kufa.
Mortar barrage hits mosque in Iraqi city of Kufa, killing 27
Here are various articles about the TERROR and TERRORIST acts Muqtada and his army TERRORIZE the Iraqi people with.
Police Discover Bodies in Najaf Court
In Karbala clashes, a battle over money and power
Muqtada's powerful push for prominence
Personally I wish they would hurry up and hold elections..so the world can be shown what it is the Iraqi people hope for their future. Muqtada will gain NOTHING in the political process because he offers the Iraqi people nothing... no hope, no future and certainly no peace..he is man of terror and all he gives the the Iraqi people is hate, fear and anger.
QUOTE
Clearly this man would not be able to operate without immense popular support. He could hardly go about acting like a little dictator unless an awful lot of people agreed with him, otherwise he would quickly have ended up like the unfortunate al Khoei.
Oh yeah of course clearly he wouldn't dare..being a genuine resistance fighter and all...use TERROR to operate and gain power. It must be because they all adore him so much...not because they are frightened of him and his armed men terrorizing their cities.
What kind of debate takes place where only one side must prove their claim? I say Muqtada is a man of terror and I have provided plenty examples of why I think this. You on the other hand claim he is a "genuine resistance fighter" and has been very careful to not harm civilians. I asked you to explain how you can classify his actions as such. You have not. Do you feel somehow you have no need to explain or give evidence or even support your own claims? Where are your facts, links or sites to back your position? If you expect this of me...why can I not expect it of you?
No need to make this some personal issue..I honestly don't understand your argument as it appears to me to contradict itself. You originally said of Khoei being hacked to death.."These men are obviously considered traitors and regardless of their former standing or family connections they are treated as such."
So I took that to mean you believe that Muqtada's followers killed Khoei because he was a traitor..a collaborator and who he was the son of..his standing in the Shia faith had no meaning to them. Then you later claim.."He might as well have converted to Judaiism for all the chance he had when he stupidly walked right into the terroritory of his rival." I feel if you are now acknowledging Muqtada and Khoei were rivals you are now saying their "former standing or family connections" were a factor. All I asked was for you to better explain your argument on this.
As for your constant comparisons to WWII and how collaborators with the Nazis were treated the same..are you saying you feel the murdering of Iraqi civilians because they choose to work for the coalition is what you consider to be "genuine resistance fighting" too? Women leaving US bases have been shot and killed...civilians blown to bits...kidnapped and decapitated..all purposefully targeted and all being justified as "resistance fighting" because they are no longer civilians but legitimate targets because they are collaborators...do you then agree?
I have no idea why the link does not work for you..it works fine for me but here is a new one. What is interesting about the older stories/news reports on Muqtada is he is said to be only 22..that was only a yr ago. Somehow he went from 22 to 30 in one yr. Also what is interesting is this is where he first started to show up in the news..not as someone battling the occupation but as an angry young man in Najaf demanding that all the Ayatollahs leave the city.
Iraq's top Shia cleric given 48 hours to leave
Here is another article on the violent clashes Muqtada's army has had with supporters of Sistani.
Iraqi Shiite Factions Clash
Here is another article on the several attacks that took place in Kufa.
Mortar barrage hits mosque in Iraqi city of Kufa, killing 27
Here are various articles about the TERROR and TERRORIST acts Muqtada and his army TERRORIZE the Iraqi people with.
QUOTE
Iraqi police discovered about 10 bodies in a maverick religious court run by rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's followers here Friday and said they were victims of the court's summary brand of justice.
Police Discover Bodies in Najaf Court
QUOTE
But in just a few days last week, Karbala became the front line of some of the heaviest fighting between the forces of Muqtada Sader and Ayatollah Ali Sistani. The fighting unfurled a battle over money, power and prestige. By Saturday morning, 12 people lay dead after successive clashes during the week, with as many as nine killed on Friday morning. Karbala has long been a stronghold of Ayatollah Ali Sistani, but in recent months, Sader's men made an aggressive push into the city, opening offices and proselytizing in the city.
In Karbala clashes, a battle over money and power
QUOTE
Haidar, the father of two children, was already a frail man with an attenuated body made to appear even smaller by the immense turban he wears that presses down on his large ears. Wide eyes and a long nose protrude from his lengthy thin face - which appears even longer because of his beard. Haidar said he was chained to a column and beaten. He claims electrical torture was also used. Haidar's forehead is now scarred - a result of having his head bashed into a column. He also claims there were about 35 inmates in the prison, including a 12-year-old accused of homosexuality and a 14-year-old who stole money.
Muqtada's powerful push for prominence
Personally I wish they would hurry up and hold elections..so the world can be shown what it is the Iraqi people hope for their future. Muqtada will gain NOTHING in the political process because he offers the Iraqi people nothing... no hope, no future and certainly no peace..he is man of terror and all he gives the the Iraqi people is hate, fear and anger.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Sep 1 2004, 07:10 AM)
QUOTE(turnea @ Aug 29 2004, 05:24 PM)
Frankly, the citizens of Najaf couldn't stand him.
his numbers might be down from before the insurgency, but they aren't there any more.
Before the insurgency....
I second what bucket referenced. He was torturing and executing people while we were cooling our heels out of respect for the shrine and mosque. It never ceases to amaze me - countries like the USA, Israel, the UK show amazing restraint when dealing with thugs like this guy and are pilloried for it in the press. On the other hand, Castro can crush dissidents with an iron fist and he's lauded as having a great health-care system.
Hussein would probably have polled well in Iraq too. Keep in mind that the Iraqis have been tortured, killed and lied to by their government for 30 years. They probably answer these things from a mindset that we can't even imagine.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Sep 2 2004, 03:04 PM)
I second what bucket referenced. He was torturing and executing people while we were cooling our heels out of respect for the shrine and mosque. It never ceases to amaze me - countries like the USA, Israel, the UK show amazing restraint when dealing with thugs like this guy and are pilloried for it in the press. On the other hand, Castro can crush dissidents with an iron fist and he's lauded as having a great health-care system.
Hussein would probably have polled well in Iraq too. Keep in mind that the Iraqis have been tortured, killed and lied to by their government for 30 years. They probably answer these things from a mindset that we can't even imagine.
Hussein would probably have polled well in Iraq too. Keep in mind that the Iraqis have been tortured, killed and lied to by their government for 30 years. They probably answer these things from a mindset that we can't even imagine.
O.K., my post dealt with the notion that he was unpopular in the polls. I merely sought to point out that his popularity depends upon when you choose to look at the polls.
In regards to the poll, people may be afraid to give honest answers, but if that was the case, they would all say they favor Allawi since theythe people being interviewed by NGOs and Iraqi government pollsters) would be "afraid" of any recriminations against them now that our stooges are in power.
Bucket
Sorry for the delay. I've been to busy of late to reply.
[quote]Oh yeah of course clearly he wouldn't dare..being a genuine resistance fighter and all...use TERROR to operate and gain power. It must be because they all adore him so much...not because they are frightened of him and his armed men terrorizing their cities. [/quote]
I don't know why they follow him. They may indeed be afraid of him, but equally so, they may just agree with him on religous principles. I have not seen much to confirm either possibility.
I do know however that no person can impose his will upon the general population without a serious power base, and al Sadr's popularity contrasts that of al Sistani, so I assume that those who support al Sadr over al Sistani do so on general religous grounds.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]What kind of debate takes place where only one side must prove their claim? I say Muqtada is a man of terror and I have provided plenty examples of why I think this. [/quote]
Yes, you have, but you have not proven it to be so. What you have offered has been unsubstantiated conjecture.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]You on the other hand claim he is a "genuine resistance fighter" and has been very careful to not harm civilians.[/quote]
As usual, you bend my words to fit your arguments. What I actually wrote was;
[quote]Moqtada al Sadr appears to be a genuine resistence fighter who has gone out of his way to portray himself and his forces as such. On several occaisions he has publicly ordered his militia not to harm civilians or journalists and he called upon all other groups to release their hostages. [/quote]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote] I asked you to explain how you can classify his actions as such. You have not. Do you feel somehow you have no need to explain or give evidence or even support your own claims? Where are your facts, links or sites to back your position? If you expect this of me...why can I not expect it of you? [/quote]
Guilt depends on evidence. Innocence on the lack of evidence. If you make a claim that says a man is a terrorist, then it is up to you to prove it so. Until that proof is provided then his actions are merely those of a resistance fighter.
I don't have to prove anything because I'm not the one claiming anything.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]No need to make this some personal issue..[/quote]
Well then. Stop trying to make out that I say things I never do. If you have problems reading what I write then ask for clarification.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]You originally said of Khoei being hacked to death.."These men are obviously considered traitors and regardless of their former standing or family connections they are treated as such."
So I took that to mean you believe that Muqtada's followers killed Khoei because he was a traitor..a collaborator and who he was the son of..his standing in the Shia faith had no meaning to them. Then you later claim.."He might as well have converted to Judaiism for all the chance he had when he stupidly walked right into the terroritory of his rival." I feel if you are now acknowledging Muqtada and Khoei were rivals you are now saying their "former standing or family connections" were a factor. All I asked was for you to better explain your argument on this. [/quote]
Al Khoei was a traitor in the eyes of those that killed him. He was also a possible rival to al Sadr, I agree with that, but that does not change the fact that his death was justified (by his killers) by his collaboration with the US forces.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]As for your constant comparisons to WWII and how collaborators with the Nazis were treated the same..are you saying you feel the murdering of Iraqi civilians because they choose to work for the coalition is what you consider to be "genuine resistance fighting" too? [/quote]
It is not a question of what I consider to be right or wrong. Armed resistance against an invading force does not constitute terrorism, no matter how many collaborators are executed/ murdered.
If al Sadr is to be considered a terrorist then so were all the resistance fighters through out the last century.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Women leaving US bases have been shot and killed...civilians blown to bits...kidnapped and decapitated..all purposefully targeted and all being justified as "resistance fighting" because they are no longer civilians but legitimate targets because they are collaborators...do you then agree? [/quote]
Links please. I have not seen anything to substantiate these claims.
To answer your question though, yes. If you collaborate with the military force that has occupied your nation then you are a traitor and therefore a legitimate target.
If this sounds harsh, then I am sorry, but this is the natural consequence of a pre emptive attack and this was on the cards from the day GW Bush ordered the US military into Iraq. You cannot simply invade another nation and then declare those who oppose your invasion as terrorists. No matter how good you think your justification is.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]I have no idea why the link does not work for you..it works fine for me but here is a new one. What is interesting about the older stories/news reports on Muqtada is he is said to be only 22..that was only a yr ago. Somehow he went from 22 to 30 in one yr. Also what is interesting is this is where he first started to show up in the news..not as someone battling the occupation but as an angry young man in Najaf demanding that all the Ayatollahs leave the city.
Iraq's top Shia cleric given 48 hours to leave [/quote]
This link does not demonstrate that al Sadr is a terrorist. The word terrorist is not even mentioned. In fact this article is detailing in-fighting between two Islamic factions, one headed by Al Sistani and the other by Al Sadr.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Here is another article on the violent clashes Muqtada's army has had with supporters of Sistani.
Iraqi Shiite Factions Clash[/quote]
Once again there is no mention of the words terrorist or terrorism. This is just another article detailing the power struggle and does not support nor make the claims you do.
From the article itself;
[quote]The clash appeared to be part of a power struggle in the majority Shiite community between forces of firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a strong opponent of the U.S. military occupation, and followers of religious leaders who have taken a more moderate stand toward the Americans.[/quote]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Here is another article on the several attacks that took place in Kufa.
Mortar barrage hits mosque in Iraqi city of Kufa, killing 27 [/quote]
The link is dead.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Here are various articles about the TERROR and TERRORIST acts Muqtada and his army TERRORIZE the Iraqi people with.
Police Discover Bodies in Najaf Court [/quote]
And once again, there is no mention of al Sadr being a terrorist. Here he is labelled as a 'rebel', which is in fact just another way of saying resistance fighter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]In Karbala clashes, a battle over money and power
[quote]Haidar, the father of two children, was already a frail man with an attenuated body made to appear even smaller by the immense turban he wears that presses down on his large ears. Wide eyes and a long nose protrude from his lengthy thin face - which appears even longer because of his beard. Haidar said he was chained to a column and beaten. He claims electrical torture was also used. Haidar's forehead is now scarred - a result of having his head bashed into a column. He also claims there were about 35 inmates in the prison, including a 12-year-old accused of homosexuality and a 14-year-old who stole money.
[/quote][/quote]
Another article detailing factional in-fighting, and again, no claim is made that al Sadr is a terrorist.
Neither do the experiences of Haidar, though ugly in themselves, prove that al Sadr is a terrorist. It only proves that he is a ruthless man who is capable of having people killed to further his cause.
As I said earlier, the same can be said of the US military which is said to have slain 11,000+ Iraqi civilians.
If you are so sure that al Sadr and his mehdi army are terrorists, then by your arguments thus far, so is the US military.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Personally I wish they would hurry up and hold elections..so the world can be shown what it is the Iraqi people hope for their future. Muqtada will gain NOTHING in the political process because he offers the Iraqi people nothing... no hope, no future and certainly no peace..he is man of terror and all he gives the the Iraqi people is hate, fear and anger. [/quote]
Really? How do you know what Sadr has or has not got to offer?
This is a quote from your Iraq today source;
[quote]Tensions have been growing between the two leaders in recent months, centered in part on Sistani's unwillingness to take control of government money and property, insisting instead to leave such decisions to a future Iraqi government. Al Sader's view is to take control of government funds and distribute them to the needy, on the idea that no government will be elected for years to come. [/quote]
It seems that some people at least believe al Sadr has something to offer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To conclude;
You have made the claim that Muqtada al Sadr is a terrorist. To back this up you have quoted and pointed to instances where Sadr's mehdi army has killed civilians and the leaders of other Iraqi power factions.
However, you have not provided any links to a site which demonstrates that Muqtada al Sadr is a terrorist, nor have you taken into account what the word terrorist means as opposed tot he words resistance fighter.
Your entire point rests upon the notion that since al Sadr is fighting against the Americans and has killed Iraqi's as well, then he must be a terrorist. Unfortunately this is not what a terrorist is. It is in fact the accepted modus operandi of a resistance fighter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
carlitoswhey
[quote]I second what bucket referenced. He was torturing and executing people while we were cooling our heels out of respect for the shrine and mosque. It never ceases to amaze me - countries like the USA, Israel, the UK show amazing restraint when dealing with thugs like this guy and are pilloried for it in the press. On the other hand, Castro can crush dissidents with an iron fist and he's lauded as having a great health-care system. [/quote]
I would not characterize the killing of over 11,000 Iraqi civilians as 'amazing restraint'.
Nor would I point the finger at al Sadr for summary execution, or even torture when European resistance fighters used the exact same methods against the nazi's.
It seems to me that the other reason why we allow the one but not the other is due to the fact that Sadr and his men oppose us where as the European resistance fighters were on our side.
Otherwise there is no real difference.
Sorry for the delay. I've been to busy of late to reply.
[quote]Oh yeah of course clearly he wouldn't dare..being a genuine resistance fighter and all...use TERROR to operate and gain power. It must be because they all adore him so much...not because they are frightened of him and his armed men terrorizing their cities. [/quote]
I don't know why they follow him. They may indeed be afraid of him, but equally so, they may just agree with him on religous principles. I have not seen much to confirm either possibility.
I do know however that no person can impose his will upon the general population without a serious power base, and al Sadr's popularity contrasts that of al Sistani, so I assume that those who support al Sadr over al Sistani do so on general religous grounds.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]What kind of debate takes place where only one side must prove their claim? I say Muqtada is a man of terror and I have provided plenty examples of why I think this. [/quote]
Yes, you have, but you have not proven it to be so. What you have offered has been unsubstantiated conjecture.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]You on the other hand claim he is a "genuine resistance fighter" and has been very careful to not harm civilians.[/quote]
As usual, you bend my words to fit your arguments. What I actually wrote was;
[quote]Moqtada al Sadr appears to be a genuine resistence fighter who has gone out of his way to portray himself and his forces as such. On several occaisions he has publicly ordered his militia not to harm civilians or journalists and he called upon all other groups to release their hostages. [/quote]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote] I asked you to explain how you can classify his actions as such. You have not. Do you feel somehow you have no need to explain or give evidence or even support your own claims? Where are your facts, links or sites to back your position? If you expect this of me...why can I not expect it of you? [/quote]
Guilt depends on evidence. Innocence on the lack of evidence. If you make a claim that says a man is a terrorist, then it is up to you to prove it so. Until that proof is provided then his actions are merely those of a resistance fighter.
I don't have to prove anything because I'm not the one claiming anything.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]No need to make this some personal issue..[/quote]
Well then. Stop trying to make out that I say things I never do. If you have problems reading what I write then ask for clarification.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]You originally said of Khoei being hacked to death.."These men are obviously considered traitors and regardless of their former standing or family connections they are treated as such."
So I took that to mean you believe that Muqtada's followers killed Khoei because he was a traitor..a collaborator and who he was the son of..his standing in the Shia faith had no meaning to them. Then you later claim.."He might as well have converted to Judaiism for all the chance he had when he stupidly walked right into the terroritory of his rival." I feel if you are now acknowledging Muqtada and Khoei were rivals you are now saying their "former standing or family connections" were a factor. All I asked was for you to better explain your argument on this. [/quote]
Al Khoei was a traitor in the eyes of those that killed him. He was also a possible rival to al Sadr, I agree with that, but that does not change the fact that his death was justified (by his killers) by his collaboration with the US forces.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]As for your constant comparisons to WWII and how collaborators with the Nazis were treated the same..are you saying you feel the murdering of Iraqi civilians because they choose to work for the coalition is what you consider to be "genuine resistance fighting" too? [/quote]
It is not a question of what I consider to be right or wrong. Armed resistance against an invading force does not constitute terrorism, no matter how many collaborators are executed/ murdered.
If al Sadr is to be considered a terrorist then so were all the resistance fighters through out the last century.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Women leaving US bases have been shot and killed...civilians blown to bits...kidnapped and decapitated..all purposefully targeted and all being justified as "resistance fighting" because they are no longer civilians but legitimate targets because they are collaborators...do you then agree? [/quote]
Links please. I have not seen anything to substantiate these claims.
To answer your question though, yes. If you collaborate with the military force that has occupied your nation then you are a traitor and therefore a legitimate target.
If this sounds harsh, then I am sorry, but this is the natural consequence of a pre emptive attack and this was on the cards from the day GW Bush ordered the US military into Iraq. You cannot simply invade another nation and then declare those who oppose your invasion as terrorists. No matter how good you think your justification is.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]I have no idea why the link does not work for you..it works fine for me but here is a new one. What is interesting about the older stories/news reports on Muqtada is he is said to be only 22..that was only a yr ago. Somehow he went from 22 to 30 in one yr. Also what is interesting is this is where he first started to show up in the news..not as someone battling the occupation but as an angry young man in Najaf demanding that all the Ayatollahs leave the city.
Iraq's top Shia cleric given 48 hours to leave [/quote]
This link does not demonstrate that al Sadr is a terrorist. The word terrorist is not even mentioned. In fact this article is detailing in-fighting between two Islamic factions, one headed by Al Sistani and the other by Al Sadr.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Here is another article on the violent clashes Muqtada's army has had with supporters of Sistani.
Iraqi Shiite Factions Clash[/quote]
Once again there is no mention of the words terrorist or terrorism. This is just another article detailing the power struggle and does not support nor make the claims you do.
From the article itself;
[quote]The clash appeared to be part of a power struggle in the majority Shiite community between forces of firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a strong opponent of the U.S. military occupation, and followers of religious leaders who have taken a more moderate stand toward the Americans.[/quote]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Here is another article on the several attacks that took place in Kufa.
Mortar barrage hits mosque in Iraqi city of Kufa, killing 27 [/quote]
The link is dead.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Here are various articles about the TERROR and TERRORIST acts Muqtada and his army TERRORIZE the Iraqi people with.
Police Discover Bodies in Najaf Court [/quote]
And once again, there is no mention of al Sadr being a terrorist. Here he is labelled as a 'rebel', which is in fact just another way of saying resistance fighter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]In Karbala clashes, a battle over money and power
[quote]Haidar, the father of two children, was already a frail man with an attenuated body made to appear even smaller by the immense turban he wears that presses down on his large ears. Wide eyes and a long nose protrude from his lengthy thin face - which appears even longer because of his beard. Haidar said he was chained to a column and beaten. He claims electrical torture was also used. Haidar's forehead is now scarred - a result of having his head bashed into a column. He also claims there were about 35 inmates in the prison, including a 12-year-old accused of homosexuality and a 14-year-old who stole money.
[/quote][/quote]
Another article detailing factional in-fighting, and again, no claim is made that al Sadr is a terrorist.
Neither do the experiences of Haidar, though ugly in themselves, prove that al Sadr is a terrorist. It only proves that he is a ruthless man who is capable of having people killed to further his cause.
As I said earlier, the same can be said of the US military which is said to have slain 11,000+ Iraqi civilians.
If you are so sure that al Sadr and his mehdi army are terrorists, then by your arguments thus far, so is the US military.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Personally I wish they would hurry up and hold elections..so the world can be shown what it is the Iraqi people hope for their future. Muqtada will gain NOTHING in the political process because he offers the Iraqi people nothing... no hope, no future and certainly no peace..he is man of terror and all he gives the the Iraqi people is hate, fear and anger. [/quote]
Really? How do you know what Sadr has or has not got to offer?
This is a quote from your Iraq today source;
[quote]Tensions have been growing between the two leaders in recent months, centered in part on Sistani's unwillingness to take control of government money and property, insisting instead to leave such decisions to a future Iraqi government. Al Sader's view is to take control of government funds and distribute them to the needy, on the idea that no government will be elected for years to come. [/quote]
It seems that some people at least believe al Sadr has something to offer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To conclude;
You have made the claim that Muqtada al Sadr is a terrorist. To back this up you have quoted and pointed to instances where Sadr's mehdi army has killed civilians and the leaders of other Iraqi power factions.
However, you have not provided any links to a site which demonstrates that Muqtada al Sadr is a terrorist, nor have you taken into account what the word terrorist means as opposed tot he words resistance fighter.
Your entire point rests upon the notion that since al Sadr is fighting against the Americans and has killed Iraqi's as well, then he must be a terrorist. Unfortunately this is not what a terrorist is. It is in fact the accepted modus operandi of a resistance fighter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
carlitoswhey
[quote]I second what bucket referenced. He was torturing and executing people while we were cooling our heels out of respect for the shrine and mosque. It never ceases to amaze me - countries like the USA, Israel, the UK show amazing restraint when dealing with thugs like this guy and are pilloried for it in the press. On the other hand, Castro can crush dissidents with an iron fist and he's lauded as having a great health-care system. [/quote]
I would not characterize the killing of over 11,000 Iraqi civilians as 'amazing restraint'.
Nor would I point the finger at al Sadr for summary execution, or even torture when European resistance fighters used the exact same methods against the nazi's.
It seems to me that the other reason why we allow the one but not the other is due to the fact that Sadr and his men oppose us where as the European resistance fighters were on our side.
Otherwise there is no real difference.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.