Article

2004-04-08 Iraq-Jordan

Account of Broad Shiite Revolt Contradicts White House Stand

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-04-08 12:27:43 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The NYT is a piss yellow rag. Its journalistic offal should not be posted herein or on any other website frequented by decent people.

Posted by Anonymous 2004-04-08 12:49:25 AM|| 2004-04-08 12:49:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I dunno, John Burns (contributed to this piece) is pretty good and reliable. It's worth hearing a contrary opinion.

Posted by Steve White 2004-04-08 1:03:03 AM|| 2004-04-08 1:03:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Perhaps the Shiite's are pissed about job opportunities. That would explain the "broad based" aspect. Yep I think jobs! I mean think about it. "It's the economy stupid."

And thats how I feel, stupid. How could I have missed such an obvious Hesbollabian moment. Sad!

Posted by Lucky 2004-04-08 1:29:20 AM|| 2004-04-08 1:29:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Also hard to gauge is the relationship between Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Mr. Sadr.
Are you kidding me? A quick google search will show you:
1. On the same day that al-Khoi was murdered, Sadr's supporters besieged the home of Grand Ayatollah 'Ali Sistani in Najaf and demanded that he leave town or be killed.

2. Muqtada al-Sadr is directly involved in Sheikh al-Khoi's murder.

3. Sheikh al-Khoi's father: Grand Ayatollah Abu al-Qasim al-Khoi was a personal mentor and friend of Sistani's

4. In 1999, shortly after the four days of American and British airstrikes during Operation Desert Fox, Sadr's father, Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, began to preach against the regime in his Friday mosque sermons. The elder Sadr was a senior Shiite clergyman who had previously avoided friction with the Baath regime, and so his sermons against Saddam immediately won him huge support with younger Shiah. Attendance at his sermons ballooned. Grand Ayatollah Sistani objected to Sadr's preaching because he feared the regime would retaliate in devastating fashion against the entire Shiite community. Muhammad al-Sadr was soon assassinated, almost certainly by Saddam's intelligence services, who feared he might spark a general Shiite revolt against the regime. The Sadr family, and the deceased ayatollah's son in particular, never forgave Sistani for his objections.

5. In 1992, Sistani's competed with Khamenei for the position of Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Iranians fear that Sistani's may be quietly supporting a limited U.S. presence and, more importantly, a democratic Iraq rather than the a theocracy.

6. Sistani is allied to the Iranian moderates (President Khatami and his circle), while the Sadr is allied to Khamenei, the Rahbar (Supreme Leader).

Posted by ZoGg 2004-04-08 1:29:43 AM|| [http://www.americanintelligence.us/] 2004-04-08 1:29:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 The more you read NY Times and other leftist news outlets, you will steep yourself into the world of rhetoric and bywords. Idioms like 'broad-based' and 'rising' and concocted ideations of something which exist only through speculation such as 'large hatred'; these things are used by leftist journalists ( an oxymoron for sure ) too lazy to find out what is really going on.

Really. Someone tell me what does 'large hatred' means. Did the writer just concoct a concept for which there is no corresponding reality?

I think it is the sound of the words; maybe they get a raise from the boss or a blowjob from an intern, I dont know.

Read other 'news' articlse by the NY Times and listen to NPR. You will hear these terms and learn to find out even more weird concepts the left creates in order to advance their main agenda: Destruction of the United States by wrecking its military/security systems.

Posted by badanov 2004-04-08 1:40:22 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-04-08 1:40:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Well said Badanov. It's like watching somebody play Jeopardy. "What Mohammed said befor he slay the dragon."

A Bi-polar attack from Iran!? Me think'n Sadr is old cannon fodder of the Iranians. Dupes. "Yea play along and Iraq can be yours." Now their done with. Useful idiots, no!

Posted by Lucky 2004-04-08 2:02:31 AM|| 2004-04-08 2:02:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 I wonder if the NYT will print a retraction when this "rebellion" is flattened and quite in a week.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-04-08 3:31:13 AM|| 2004-04-08 3:31:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 It's as if they've been waiting for this to happen. And now they can't contain their glee.

Posted by Rafael 2004-04-08 3:41:05 AM|| 2004-04-08 3:41:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Shiite broads are revolting, too?

Posted by Chuck Simmins 2004-04-08 9:12:15 AM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2004-04-08 9:12:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Well seeing as there is close to 7 million people between Baghdad and the rest of the triangle, if say even half revolted - that's 3.5 million. Take into account we have only 130K troop strength don't ya think if 3.5 million people were fighting us we'd be overwhelmed in about a day? However, as of right now we have a little more then 40 casualties.......WAKE UP UH-MERIKA!!

Posted by Jarhead 2004-04-08 9:18:30 AM|| 2004-04-08 9:18:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 OS: I'm sure that was a rhetorical question, but: no. When we win, the NYT will report that the rebellion has been "driven underground" and our brutal tactics in repressing the rebellion have created more terrorists. Note that the whole article is structured to reinforce the "Bush Lied" theme.

Posted by Matt 2004-04-08 9:52:10 AM|| 2004-04-08 9:52:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 You know before WWII, newspapers actually declared their party affiliation. Every burg had it's Republican and Democratic papers. A really big city like NYC had socialist papers. It must have been the strong feelings of national unity during WWII, leading into the "Cold War consensus," but somewhere along the way, newspapers started pretending that they were bipartisan and above the fray. I'd be much happier with a NYT that printed "The Nation's Leading Liberal Voice" on its masthead than with the current fiction.

Posted by 11A5S 2004-04-08 10:51:53 AM|| 2004-04-08 10:51:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 11A5S

It was also the decline in the number of newspapers, leading to lots of newspaper monopolies. Who dont want to leave open space for a competitor by going overtly partisan. Reinforced by growing distrust of party affiliation in a more educated, middle class country. Lots more independents, fewer party members willing to vote a straight ticket regardless of candidate personality and ideology.

Thinks nostalgically of the fat, chain smoking lady next door who had a job through the Brooklyn dem machine, and brought around petitions for whatever candidate needed sigs. Didnt think much of those hippie Mcgovernites. she didnt.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-08 11:31:04 AM|| 2004-04-08 11:31:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Take into account we have only 130K troop strength don't ya think if 3.5 million people were fighting us we'd be overwhelmed in about a day?

Actually, no. 3.5m people need weapons and ammunition. A general revolt would produce a host of targets. Our problems in Iraq don't stem from our inability to kill large numbers of people. The issue has always been to find and either capture or kill the bad guys. If they're all bad guys, the choice is easy - bring in the B-52's, the B-1's, the A-10's, the AC-130's, the howitzers, the mortar tubes, the MLRS's, et al. We can quash this in a matter of months, once and for all. And the aftermath would be peace, as in Japan and Germany after most of the fighting-age population was killed off. But that's not what we're getting - it's the same old hit-and-run tactics we've been getting for about a year - insufficient to inflict real damage in the form of thousands of US KIA, but enough to bring the Cassandras out in force about the drip-drip-drip nature of American losses, which according to these defeatists, could be ended by simply withdrawing from Iraq.

So why not withdraw? Because this would be interpreted (correctly) by America's potential adversaries as evidence of American weakness. The fact is that the US cannot afford to withdraw from Iraq. It's not a matter of machismo - it's a matter of deterrence. If the US withdraws from a region that is critical to US national security interests (home to 2/3 of the world's oil) what will it do with respect to far less important countries like Taiwan and South Korea. Our enemies (China, North Korea, various Muslim terror sponsors) are watching this. The toll in Iraq will be a small downpayment on the pain ahead if we withdraw.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-04-08 11:47:06 AM|| 2004-04-08 11:47:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 "Actually, no. 3.5m people need weapons and ammunition."

-um, maybe you mis-read my post I'm saying there is no general uprising as much as the media would like it to be.

But, actually yeah, ZF if we're talking hypotheticals - only 1/2 the pop there needs to provide aid and comfort to a guerilla force of even half that. And no, we would not level cities in a general revolt from civilians, unfortunately due to political reasons. You even stated the problem - they are not all bad guys. Thus the rub. We would not make Fallujah, Kut, Ramdi, or anyother piss hole a Free fire zone. If 10,000 guerillas were dug in and started ambushing patrols in an urban environment - we would be in a shit load of trouble, especially if they had the backing of the majority of the local pop, which they don't right now. I've done enough urban training to know of what I speak.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-04-08 12:04:29 PM|| 2004-04-08 12:04:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 LH: All of your points are correct. I was guilty of oversimplifying. There is also talk radio, which seems to have captured a lot of the conservative audience and perhaps even pulled it away from newspapers. Network TV news has another problem altogether. Their viewer base is contantly shrinking. They are too afraid to jettison Rather and Jennings for fear of losing the over 50 demographic (their last remaining stronghold). And they are too afraid to make the radical changes they need to compete.

The Internet as a medium is really polarizing. Mostly because of its participatory nature, I think. Conservatives are mostly Thinkers and Judgers. Liberals are mostly Feelers and Perceivers. Since usually the most extroverted of both types participate on web forums, the exchanges tend to be acrimonious and thus polarizing. I think that in the end, it will force us communicate better. That's another post, though.

Posted by 11A5S 2004-04-08 12:15:00 PM|| 2004-04-08 12:15:00 PM|| Front Page Top

12:13 Mr. Davis
12:05 Anonymous5060
11:57 Anonymous5059
11:45 Anonymous5056
11:38 Anonymous5055
10:41 Dar
08:45 badanov
07:41 B
07:41 B
07:33 B
07:29 B
07:27 B
07:23 B
04:54 Super Hose
04:48 Super Hose
04:41 Super Hose
02:50 Zenster
02:31 Jen
02:28 Jen
01:43 Not Mike Moore
01:27 Not Mike Moore
01:18 Not Mike Moore
01:11 CobraCommander
01:07 CobraCommander