Posted by: Dar ||
02/07/2005 15:05 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Good article. Good general. The mainstream media gets its collective jammys bunched about a lot of things. The arrogance of the MSM is usually irresponsible and always appalling.
#5
Echo all of the above. Ralph can sometimes swing the hammer with the best ever:
"Everyone on our panel had opinions about war, but that no-nonsense Marine knew more about it than the rest of us combined."
And this from a military man on the panel.
Just imagine infinity. That's how much more he knows about war, life, and even love than all of those who are busily vilifying him combined. Spielberg & Co occasionally get the image and the anguish, but they do not now and will always utterly miss the point - the hardcore guts it takes to engage, fight, and follow through to the bloody bitter end. Sucking it up, canning the complaints, and getting the job done using what you have, lamenting and mourning those who fell in the same effort, is so far beyond their ken it approaches infinity.
Let no one criticize this man who has not worn his shoes, borne his burdens, and accomplished what he has - without complaint. Fug'em all. I honor everything about this man.
U.S. 'in for a shock'
In early election results, Shiite cleric's alliance trouncing Washington's favorite
- Borzou Daragahi, Chronicle (San Francisco) Foreign Service
Friday, February 4, 2005
Frankly, if I had my way, Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Pashto-Garbagistan/Waziristan, Karbala, Najaf and Qom would have looked like the Moon, by about September 18, 2001. And US-UK flags would be flying over the entire Red Sea and Persian Gulf to Kirkuk oil-patches, as US taxpayers would have enjoyed huge budget surpluses, without having to worry about over 1500 holes in their family trees. Still the shiny-happy majority think that "freedom" is served by propping proto-Islamofascists in the Afghan and Iraq gutter entities. It might take a year, but you will be educated by the school-of-hard-knocks-to-fat-heads.
Baghdad -- Partial results from Sunday's election suggest that U.S.-backed Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's coalition is being roundly defeated by a list with the backing of Iraq's senior Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al- Sistani, diminishing Allawi's chances of retaining his post in the next government. That is: the Iranian born cleric, Sistani.
Sharif Ali bin Hussein, head of the Constitutional Monarchy Party, likened the vote outcome to a "Sistani tsunami" that would shake the nation.
"Americans are in for a shock," he said, adding that one day they would realize, "We've got 150,000 troops here protecting a country that's extremely friendly to Iran, and training their troops." Golly!
The partial totals so far show the Iraqi List headed by Allawi, a secular Shiite and onetime CIA protege, trailed far behind with only 18 percent of the votes, despite an aggressive television ad campaign waged with U.S. aid. A lopsided majority of votes, 72 percent, went to the United Iraqi Alliance list, topped by a Shiite cleric who lived in Iran for many years and whose Sciri party has close ties to Iran's clerical regime. More than a third of the alliance's vote came from Baghdad, the cosmopolitan capital where Allawi had been expected to fare well.
Although the results are only from Baghdad and five southern provinces where the Shiite parties were expected to score strongly, and from only 10 percent of the country's 5,216 polling stations, the scale of the alliance's vote underscored the probability of a historic shift in the Shiites' favor from decades of Sunni minority rule in Iraq.
Safwat Rashid, a member of Iraq's Independent Election Commission, and international election officials warned observers not to read too much into the early numbers, which did not include tallies in the country's Sunni or Kurdish provinces.
Rashid said the Baghdad numbers came from "mixed" -- meaning Sunni and Shiite -- neighborhoods in the city where Allawi was expected to perform well. Hussein said Allawi had also performed poorly in Babil province, a relatively urbanized, mixed Shiite-Sunni area south of Baghdad.
He said the vote total and the total turnout numbers wouldn't be known for another 10 days.
Already, Western officials in Baghdad appeared to be downplaying worries about the possible victory by the alliance, topped by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, a cleric who spent years exiled in Iran.
The alliance "is a very diverse group of people, from Westernized independents to Sunni sheikhs to people who really believe in an Islamic state, " one Western diplomat speaking on condition of anonymity said of the alliance on Wednesday. "It will be hard to maintain unity."
The election commission also released final vote tallies from overseas voters in eight countries, the United States, Britain, France, Iran, Syria, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Australia. The alliance won of 44 percent of the 170,000 votes cast in those countries, the Kurds 18 percent and Allawi's list 12 percent. In U.S. voting, Allawi garnered just 5 percent of the vote, less than the Communist Party total... So US Iraqis say Eff US. Ergo...?
Anyone have a cure for Denial-Fever?
Posted by: IToldYouSo ||
02/07/2005 2:54:24 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Make a seat for them next to the French, but we'll finish the job we set out to do first.
#2
Iraqis had no obligation to vote for Allawi, we came to give them freedom, NOT to put one man in charge. Sistani doesnt want Iraq subordinated to Iran, and he and the parties alligned with him have been acting reasonably. They DONT want US troops to leave any time soon.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/07/2005 9:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
LH: Iraqis had no obligation to vote for Allawi, we came to give them freedom, NOT to put one man in charge.
We did not go in to give them freedom - we went in to issue a warning to other Muslim regimes about covertly sponsoring terrorism and building WMD's.
LH: Sistani doesnt want Iraq subordinated to Iran, and he and the parties alligned with him have been acting reasonably. They DONT want US troops to leave any time soon.
Only Allah knows what Sistani thinks. But his administrative incompetence ensures that he will always need Uncle Sam around to protect him from Sadr - or any militarily-competent challenger. Unless he wants to become Sadr's puppet.
#5
Article: Although the results are only from Baghdad and five southern provinces where the Shiite parties were expected to score strongly, and from only 10 percent of the countryâs 5,216 polling stations
This is a really huge "although". If I were to assess GWB's chances of winning the 2004 elections by looking at the New England area (20% of the population), I would have predicted a landslide for John Kerry.
#6
Sistani has written extensively on various subjects. Of those writings which we have obtained so far, he seems to be basically anti Iranian and pro secularist. Of course we don't have everything and many things were written under Saddam so who they may not represent what he thinks.
#7
The other thing notable about the invasion is that we have destroyed Iraq's military. The Sunnis and the Shiites are basically evenly-balanced. If this election installs a Shiite-priest dominated government that demands our departure, we will leave these guys to a civil war that will kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims on both sides. Each of the Arab regional powers (Sunnis) and the Iranians (Shiites) will get involved to ensure the other side doesn't win. Millions of Muslims could die. And it will happen without Uncle Sam having to deal with the political fallout from having dropped an A-bomb. Thus, even from a purely Machiavellian perspective, the Iraqi invasion does work.
#8
Another important aspect of this situation is that if the Shiites commit to theocracy, Uncle Sam can decide to partition Iraq. The Sunnis and the Kurds would certainly fight for their own states. All we have to do is arm them.
#9
Democracy carries with it the right of the majority to screw up. (We elected Jimmuh not that long ago-- what were we thinking?) And screwups can have consequences. But I have to say that all those people streaming to the polls on January 30 didn't look to me to have a second Taleban in mind.
Posted by: Matt ||
02/07/2005 11:17 Comments ||
Top||
#11
This is troubling, but then again, we did bring them democracy. It's their choice what they do with it - but I highly doubt that the first bunch of elected guys is going to ask us to leave. Hell, we allowed them to get into power in the first place, and they don't yet have the infrastructure to deal with the loonies by themselves.
While I wouldn't want to ignore this if it's true, the cynic in me wonders whether this is the latest attempt to minimize all the good we did there, to put a nasty spin on a wonderful thing.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
02/07/2005 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Iraq the Model says this:
Anyway, back to the main subject and the alleged statement; I chose to wait until the next news hour and of course until I chill out a little bit after the disturbing news and then I heard this update on the story "Haider Al-Khaffaf, a senior Sistani's aide says that no such statement was released".
And going back to Friday's news, another senior aide of Sistani said from Kuwait that "the future constitution of the country is an issue that is left for the National Assembly to deal with".
Belmont Club also has a post up on it, which in turn quotes Parapundit (negative) and an article in the Weekly Standard by Marc Gerecht (positive.)
So color me shiny-happy. (Or is that a color?)
And speaking of the spin aspect, if Allawi were ahead, the MSM take would be "US Puppet Leads Iraq Vote" with extensive commentary on how the whole thing was a sham. The far left just hasn't figured out how to cope with the election.
Posted by: Matt ||
02/07/2005 11:46 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Amen Matt, we (the side of Democracy) are not allowed to win. Sistani is aware of the score and he knows that he cannot install a theocracy because they other factions would rise up against it. He also sees what is happening in Iran (notice he is now in Kuwait) and that theocracy is heading for a big fall in a very short time. He doesn't want to be "the next late Islamic leader."
#14
To add to Matt's comments, Sistani is in a sweet position: he has most (if not all) of the power he needs, and relatively little responsibility. Unlike the mullahs next door, he doesn't get the blame when there are no jobs, no freedoms, and no prosperity. Let Allawi or the Kurd-du-jour take the rap for the economy, the continuing fight against terrorism, and the fact that cousin Mahmoud couldn't get a cushy gummint job.
Sistani is a very smart man. Things are going his way.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/07/2005 13:31 Comments ||
Top||
#15
yup, when clerics are openly part of the guvvimint, religion gets the blame for every lil ol thing. So keepen em seperate can actually be GOOD for religion. I do recall reading that somewhere before. Some Frog named Alexis something, I think ;)
#16
I'm gonna try to be as kind as I can when I say you people freaking out about Sistani's party getting a lot of votes are both clueless about the Iraqi people and clueless about what it means for Sistani's chosen party to have the majority.
I can't believe some of you are falling for this newest leftwing attack on our role in succesfully spreading democracy.
1) Democracy will being moderation in the population and the gov't.
2) Iraqis HATE Iran (not the people the Iranian gov't), especially with the Iranians funding terrorism in Iraq being so well known, and will not be "friendly" with Iran until it's theocracy is overthrown.
3) The fact that the shiites won is a good thing. The sunnis are the one's killing our troops... or have you all forgotten that because some leftwing windbag wrote a few words?
#17
DPA: I'm gonna try to be as kind as I can when I say you people freaking out about Sistani's party getting a lot of votes are both clueless about the Iraqi people and clueless about what it means for Sistani's chosen party to have the majority. I can't believe some of you are falling for this newest leftwing attack on our role in succesfully spreading democracy.
I don't think democracy is the right form of government for everyone, but I do think that it is right for Iraq, because we smashed the previous government and need to replace it with something else. Having said that, let me reiterate that we may not get the people we want in power. Iraqis have been bombarded for decades with anti-American propaganda. Combine that with the slick Hollywood movies they watch that show highly-idealized portrayals of the typical American lifestyle, and you have Iraqis talking about how Americans are in a conspiracy to keep them down. It wouldn't surprise me if many Iraqis voted against Allawi. It wouldn't surprise me if many Iraqis are anti-American, but hide it in order to get reconstruction goodies from Uncle Sam. Only time will tell whether this is the beginning of a new friendship.
#18
Of course we are concerned about the possible direction the new Iraqi government will turn out. We have 1400+ dead and a whole bunch of wounded that we have given to this fight.
Sistani is a smart, slippery guy. But he will bargain. He does not have the power to blow away the opposition. He has to work with the Kurds, and to a lesser degree, the Sunnis. They will either horse trade, have a civil war, or partition. I will assume that Sistani understands this concept (unlike that moron Tater) and will work it out. It will be painful and there will be problems, serious problems, but the alternatives are worse. Everyone knows this except the Association of Stupid Sunni Clerics and they are shiite outa luck because they boycotted the show.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/07/2005 17:04 Comments ||
Top||
#19
My 2c worth is people who think Iraq is on its way to an Iranian aligned theocracy are about as clueless as they come. The Iraqi shiias know that just across the border (in Iran) there are a couple of million Arab shiias and the Persians don't treat them very well. They will also be a source of conflict in the future.
#20
If the statistical voting spread bears out, then it makes it all the more important that we keep building our relationship with the Kurds. I think Zhang Fei makes some good points in 17.
#21
ZF does have good points, Jules. Allawi probably used up his political chips getting ass kicked when it needed kicking. After all, Iraq was in a collapse mode after Sammy was brought down. Allawi brought Iraq this far, and now others have to shoulder the load from here.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/07/2005 17:14 Comments ||
Top||
By FAWAZ A. GERGES
Jan. 30, 2005 — If President Bush wanted to conjure up someone from central casting to act as a foil to his inauguration call for worldwide freedom, he couldn't ask for a villain more fitting than the terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi, who, on the eve of Iraqi elections, denounced democracy as an "evil principle."
He's not the first Islamist "thinker" who's done so, only the most recent.
In a widely disseminated Internet audiotape, Zarqawi didn't merely say that he opposed the mechanics or timing of the U.S.-run elections being held today in Iraq to choose a 275-member assembly and transitional government. And he didn't say he thought Iraqis should wait and vote after U.S. occupation forces depart. No, Zarqawi said that he opposes any elections under any circumstances. In doing so, he sets up a clash with more at stake than the outcome of the elections in Iraq.
Fawaz, we're already in the clash. Didn't you get the memo?
In the audiotape, which surfaced last Sunday, Zarqawi, the most feared and wanted militant in Iraq, declared a "fierce war" against all those "apostates" who take part in the elections. He called candidates running in the elections "demi-idols" and the people who plan to vote for them "infidels." And he railed against democracy because he said it supplants the rule of God with that of a popular majority. This wicked system, he said disapprovingly, is based on "freedom of religion and belief" and "freedom of speech" and on "separation of religion and politics." Democracy, he added, is "heresy itself."
To a proper Salafist, there's nothing unusual in those statements. The desired state is a caliphate, with the fat guy with the jeweled turban running things in accordance with the dictates of holy men.
The questions Zarqawi raises go way beyond the elections in Iraq to the whole issue of modernization of the Arab world. Is democracy un-Islamic? Is there a fundamental clash between the principles of representative government and the principles of Islam?
There certainly is with the principles of Salafism, isn't there?
Increasingly, Muslims themselves are saying no. A small but influential group of Islamic intellectuals is saying that Muslims should see democracy as compatible with Islam. Islamic political parties and movements across North Africa and the Middle East are deciding with greater frequency to take part in elections whenever possible.
That's kind of a vague statement. Some are, but many — especially the ones that expect to lose — have the habit of boycotting elections.
In the Palestinian Authority balloting, the radical Islamic Resistance Movement, known as Hamas, has entered candidates in races for local offices. In Egypt, Islamic political activists are urging President Hosni Mubarak to retire and permit free elections. And in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the revered Shiite cleric, issued an edict saying participation in the balloting today was a "religious duty." That explains, in part, the recent increase in violence in Iraq. Zarqawi and other foes of democracy cannot rely on public sentiment to keep people away from the polls. Instead they must turn to fear, instilled by suicide bombings and brutal attacks. Hardly a day has gone by without insurgents threatening to "wash the streets of Baghdad with the voters' blood."
We're back to the basic principles of fascism here: Fearless Leader's will is to be imposed by cracking heads, or in this case by cutting them off...
The intimidation campaign is relentless. "Oh people, be careful. Be careful not to be near the centers of blasphemy and vice, the polling centers. ⊠Don't blame us but blame yourselves" if you are harmed, a Web statement issued in the group's name last week said.
"We bear no responsibility for our own actions. The responsibility accrues to the group."
Zarqawi's diatribe against democracy echoed the views of Osama bin Laden who, in an audiotape broadcast in December, endorsed Zarqawi as his deputy in Iraq and called for a boycott of the Iraqi elections. "In the balance of Islam, this constitution is heresy, and therefore everyone who participates in this election will be considered infidels," bin Laden said.
That's kind of the essence of the War on Terror, isn't it?
Posted by: Fred ||
02/07/2005 11:16:19 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A small but influential group of Islamic intellectuals is saying that Muslims should see democracy as compatible with Islam.
The truth is that Zarquawi is right and the intellectuals are wrong: Islam is incompatible with democracy. Just think in the status given to women and minorities, or in the Koranic (not in the haddith, in the Koran) penalties on aposthasy or in the Koranic calls to ethnic cleansing of the Arabic peninsula. Real progress will have be made when people will dare to say: "Fuck Koran. It has only brought us misery" and survive after having said it.
#2
JFM
Well here we go with a little problem with the variations of Islam.
In pre Khomeini Shiite Islam, the rule was that no Mullah could be part of the govt until the coming of their messiah (the 12th Iman) - so in that version of Islam, democracy would be compatible.
Granted that Khomeini changed things so Iran has become an 'islamic paradise'.
Even under the Sunni Caliph, there were times when all the Imans considered government to be too worldly and sat outside the government.
#3
Zarqawi does make about as good a villian as can be imagined. A foreign villian who indiscriminately murders Iraqi men, women, and children; declares all voters to be infidels (them's fighting words); and is such a "hands on" leader he insists on doing the beheading himself. Its like he is a cartoon character of a villian. In comparison, Bush looks like an American Dudley Doright. We already know who's going to win - we've seen it before.
You didn't pay attention. You are talking about government BY the Mullahs. That is not the problem. The problem is that even when governement is in hands of a non-mullah it is supposed to act exactly like it would act if ruled by a Mullah: like make war for spreading Islam, enforcing Shariah or treating non-Muslims
as subhumans. For instance Shariah says that non-Muslims shouldn't be in positions of authority so whenever a sultan or emir tried to put a Christian or Jew in a position of responsability the Mullahs provoked such riots he was forced to abandon the idea. At times, Sultans asked the dhimmi to feign conversion before taking charge. But it meant his children or grand-children would be raised and brainwashed as Muslims.
A nice analogy was Czechoslovaquia during the Stalinist purges: the President, the Party Chief (ie the guy who was supposed to rule Czechoslowaquia) and the Chief of the Secret Services were, along with many others, told to be traitors and executed. In a "normal" state this cannot happen since these guys had all the powers needed to block any investigation (don't mention Watergate, Nixon had not the powers these guys had) and do away with the accusers. But while they gave the orders the fact is that at any moment these orders could be overruled by orders coming from Stalin and that the Czech police, secret service, military would obey the orders coming from Moscow not those from their nominaml bosses.
As I said Islam is incompatible with Democracy: the discriminations I talked about are in the Koran (read it please) and you need to know what the Koran is supposed to be: a book who wasn't created by Allah but who existed alongside with it for all eternity, a book who is supposed to have been given to Muhammad and having being kept completely unaltered (not a single comma added or removed) and who cannot be altered. So when the Koran says: treat the women like this, the dhimmis like that and "remove Christians and Jews from the Arabic pensinula" there is nothing you can say against it, nothing if you are a real Muslim. And if you aren't then you are an apostate and you will be killed
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
By FAWAZ A. GERGES
