Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 08/27/2004 View Thu 08/26/2004 View Wed 08/25/2004 View Tue 08/24/2004 View Mon 08/23/2004 View Sun 08/22/2004 View Sat 08/21/2004
1
2004-08-27 Iraq-Jordan
25 bodies found in the basement of Sadr's religious court
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 Dan Darling 2004-08-27 9:30:33 AM|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 i hope news of this is spreading across Iraq.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 9:33:17 AM||   2004-08-27 9:33:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Where is this religious court? I can't tell from this article. Also, a crude question-How long have these bodies been dead? Seems like it might be pertinent.

This is problematic: Under the deal the Government agreed al Sadr would be "free to go anywhere he likes.If this Sadr gets off scot free, that tells me all I need to know about Sistani.
Posted by jules 187 2004-08-27 9:38:47 AM||   2004-08-27 9:38:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Most of htese are Chritians I bet - shop keepers who sell alcohol.

Sadr is the Taliban all over again.
Posted by OldSpook 2004-08-27 9:40:38 AM||   2004-08-27 9:40:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Jules 187 has a good point.

If Sadr is 'free to go anywhere he likes' what we have is a murderer and thug.
Posted by mhw 2004-08-27 9:43:58 AM||   2004-08-27 9:43:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 'free to go anywhere he likes'

doesnt say for how long or under what circumstances. They cant arrest him now, but i dont think this is a permanent get out of jail free card.

As for Sistani he stood to lose the most if the forces went in - either Sadr won, or Allawi won, but in either case Sistanis (and the Hawzas) prestige would have declined. He was acting to stay alive as a player. Given that, I think Allawi can still salvage a partial victory out of this.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 9:47:41 AM||   2004-08-27 9:47:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Still a murder warrant out on him.
Posted by gromky 2004-08-27 9:49:01 AM||   2004-08-27 9:49:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 sounds like 26 warrants, now
Posted by Frank G  2004-08-27 10:08:30 AM||   2004-08-27 10:08:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Good point Frank - "when we said youre free to go, we only meant we wouldnt pursue the al khoie warrant - this new discovery is de novo, and the prior commitment is no longer binding with respect to it"
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 10:09:59 AM||   2004-08-27 10:09:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Wait! Stop! Don't buy the spin. This is a huge victory, even if we let the little thug free. You saw the pictures of the mosque - it is a fortress!!! Sure, we could have flattened it. We would have won the battle, but we would not have won the war. In fact, the Iranians were probably hoping beyond all hope that we would flatten it, or at least damage it, so they could cue the outrage.

Sure the media is spinning itself dizzy over the "victory" by the Shia majority. But it's all talk. "I'm a big boy, look at me!" "I'm tough, I'm bad". blah, blah blah. The reality is, it's not a victory at all.

Mr. I'm-Going-Go-Fight-To-the-Last-Drop-of-Blood left the mosque with his tail tucked between his legs. His aids were found with stolen goods. His fighters bullets were not guided by Allah.

So the thug goes free. Boo hoo. I'm sorry for the people who will be the victims of his future crimes. But we here in America went to win a war. From a cold-hearted, strategic perspective, Sadr is now next to irrelevant to those of us here at home.

The big Shia Revolution where the country would stand to fight off the American occupiers - was a complete and total failure. A dud. All the money and fighters that Iran sent - wasted. Sistani would be a fool to try the same tactics now - the people of Iraq showed they weren't interested in rising up. They are more interested in whose running for office.

Sadr is toast. His big call for arms has the stench of loser all over it. The gunpower is dampened by this humiliating loss. No spark can set if off now.

Look at 9/11. Bin Laden was a big man for a day - but his win was his ultimate loss. American commanders didn't make that mistake. Don't buy the spin. We won a huge, huge victory here. It's so big, we don't have to gloat.
Posted by B 2004-08-27 10:18:05 AM||   2004-08-27 10:18:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 B-Why did we want Sadr so badly? Because he was holed up in a mosque?

Any military guys out there?
Posted by jules 187 2004-08-27 10:22:07 AM||   2004-08-27 10:22:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 I'm not sure the mosque has anything to do with it other than if we had harmed it, it would have been a huge propaganda victory for anti-American sentiment. We didn't fall for it. Sadr was IMHO, Iran's tool to spark a Shia uprising. They sent him money and fighters. But they needed to cue outrage to get the ordinary folks to fight. It failed. Sadr and his fighters were humiliated. The Iraqi's didn't support him. The momentum is lost. We won.
Posted by B 2004-08-27 10:29:43 AM||   2004-08-27 10:29:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Sadr is not safe now among Iraqi's.That Iraqi assassination squad may get him this time.They have nailed some of his militia before.
Posted by crazyhorse  2004-08-27 10:31:16 AM||   2004-08-27 10:31:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 If Sadr is shown to be responsible for the torture and murder of 25 Iraqis in a hidden religious court, how is his release and "freedom to go wherever he choses" a victory? Is the formula basically: we will overlook/ignore 25 victims he tortured and murdered in exchange for a positive spin on an Iraq dominated by a Shia cleric-something that was unthinkable a year ago?

Wasn't stopping the torture and murder of civilians one of the best justifications for us having gone into Iraq in the first place? Have we ended up, in the complex culmination of this war, sanctioning behavior that was one of the reasons we went to war for?
Posted by jules 187 2004-08-27 10:50:49 AM||   2004-08-27 10:50:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 jules, I agree with you that it's terrible that Sadr is allowed to go free. But war is terrible. We didn't go to Iraq to find Sadr and put him in jail because he is a thug. Iraq is full of thugs.

We went to depose Sadaam Hussein and to provide some real estate in the ME where we could fight the war on terror. That's the war we are fighting, we aren't fighting to get common thugs off the street in Iraq.

The Iraqi's have their own government now. We aren't responsible for bringing every murderer/rapist in their country to justice - the Iraqi's are.
Posted by B 2004-08-27 11:03:01 AM||   2004-08-27 11:03:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 We wanted Sadr because he went beyond the bounds of political dissent and started an armed rebellion.

Any questions?
Posted by mojo  2004-08-27 11:03:14 AM||   2004-08-27 11:03:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 So going to war to stop atrocities is no longer a valid reason?

So a Shia-dominated government is now acceptable?
Posted by jules 187 2004-08-27 11:07:20 AM||   2004-08-27 11:07:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Old Spook,

Its doubtful that they were Christians. Unlike Christians, Muslims believe that there are some places which cannot be polluted by the presence of other religions. mecca and medina being the most obvious.

Najaf is not that strictly forbidden to outside pollutants but I doubt that any churches or Christian worship is allowed in the city. Therefore I doubt that there were many local Christians to cleanse from the city.

I could be wrong about this but I really doubt it.

In contrast, there has never been to my knowledge any major Christian shrine which is off limits to anyone of any faith.

A big difference, don't you think?
Posted by peggy  2004-08-27 11:07:23 AM||   2004-08-27 11:07:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Mojo-Your reason of stopping an armed rebellion makes complete sense-except if we accepted the terms of Shia-dominated politics in Iraq as the terms to make it happen, since they both tend to produce violence. And how is it proposed that we stop Shia-dominated Iraq from merely turning into a clone of Shia-dominated Iran?

B-I get your real estate point.
Posted by jules 187 2004-08-27 11:11:36 AM||   2004-08-27 11:11:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 peggy, so true! Along with the death penalty for those who stray from Islam, it reflects the shear puny weakness of their religion and society. If they were strong and confident of the power of Islam, they'd allow christians, jews, hindis, et all to openly practice. Cowards in teh arena of ideas....don't get me started on the inherent male weaknesses in Islam that lead to the subjugation of their women ;-)
Posted by Frank G  2004-08-27 11:14:12 AM||   2004-08-27 11:14:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 And how is it proposed that we stop Shia-dominated Iraq from merely turning into a clone of Shia-dominated Iran?

beginning with the takedown of the mullahs...see late November '04
Posted by Frank G  2004-08-27 11:15:46 AM||   2004-08-27 11:15:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 Frank G-I hope you're right, but that will be one heck of a PR job to pull off.
Posted by jules 187 2004-08-27 11:29:44 AM||   2004-08-27 11:29:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 On the plus side, the number of Iraqis who now want a religious government is in the single digits. And I agree, the prospect for a Shia rebellion has just dropped by a whole bunch--any future effort would be almost entirely an Iranian fifth column. Last but not least, the collapse in the south must be a major gut-punch to the Sunnis in the north--now realizing that their shinola is exceptionally weak.
Posted by Anonymoose 2004-08-27 11:33:00 AM||   2004-08-27 11:33:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 As for Sistani he stood to lose the most if the forces went in - either Sadr won, or Allawi won, but in either case Sistanis (and the Hawzas) prestige would have declined. He was acting to stay alive as a player.

Any cleric concerned about his "prestige" is not someone to be trusted.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-08-27 11:40:22 AM||   2004-08-27 11:40:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 jules – I don’t disagree with you, in fact, I agree with you. I also agree with other posters. I think we are all in line here. My point is that American goals were accomplished by making Sadr nearly-impotent. The mosque was not damaged by Americans, but by Sadr and his thugs. It’s a huge victory. I too would like to see the Iraqis punish Sadr.
Posted by B 2004-08-27 11:42:52 AM||   2004-08-27 11:42:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 they need public airings of the two Sadr aides that stole from the shrine, turn the pinheads from Shiite martyrs to common thieves in the people's minds - effective psyops
Posted by Frank G  2004-08-27 11:48:32 AM||   2004-08-27 11:48:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 Just tie up Mookie Sadr in a room with the relatives of some of the folks his "religious" (kangaroo) court murdered.
Posted by BigEd 2004-08-27 11:57:19 AM||   2004-08-27 11:57:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 AFP

In Najaf, Sadr's irrepressible spokesman Sheikh Ahmed Shaibani proclaimed victory.

"The Americans thought that they could exterminate the Mehdi Army, but our fighters are still here. They will be able to go back to their work whilst remaining an army.

"They will hide their weapons but will not hand them over to the police or to the army," he told AFP.


Militiamen busy stashing their heavy weaponry in safe houses confirmed they had no intention of ceding their arsenal to the Iraqi authorities.

Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has repeatedly urged the Mehdi Army to take advantage of a 30-day amnesty to hand over arms and escape prosecution. A senior government official repeated there was no place in Iraq for militias. "They have to give up their weapons... We have to rid this country of militias. But I really to think its too early to comment. This is a promising start," he said.


So how many weeks till whack a mole starts up again? And were does it happen?

My bets are 3 to 4 weeks, and in Sadr city.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 11:59:58 AM||   2004-08-27 11:59:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 Sadr City works - no shrines, already a wasteland and rubble, plenty of targets
Posted by Frank G  2004-08-27 12:14:54 PM||   2004-08-27 12:14:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Much of his militia is dead. The momentum is lost. When he was at his strongest, he lost this battle. What makes you think, in his now-weakened position, that he will gain the strength to win the next?
Posted by B 2004-08-27 12:26:33 PM||   2004-08-27 12:26:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 J187: Why did we want Sadr so badly? Because he was holed up in a mosque?

I'm not sure Sadr himself was particularly wanted. I understand that there's an impulse to go after the perceived leader, but the point of the operations was to go after Shiite militiamen who were massed around the mosque. These same guys had been laying mines and shooting off mortars. Killing them around the mosque en masse was preferable to having to go after them a few at a time.

As to evicting Sadr from the mosque, this actually had solid reasons behind it. The custodian of the mosque gains a lot of prestige, just as the Saudis get a lot of face from being the custodians of Mecca and Medina. The mosque itself is also a money machine, due to donations from pilgrims and the faithful. Evicting Sadr from the mosque was a way of keeping him from gaining either prestige or an independent (from the Iranians) source of financing.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-27 12:34:16 PM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/4_mile_creek/]  2004-08-27 12:34:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 What makes you think, in his now-weakened position, that he will gain the strength to win the next?

Iran.
Posted by Rafael 2004-08-27 12:36:28 PM||   2004-08-27 12:36:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Because, B, he and his followers heve never let logic stand in thier way and, besides, Sadr City is still full of loonies with no other future.
Posted by Tom 2004-08-27 12:37:06 PM||   2004-08-27 12:37:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Tom: Because, B, he and his followers heve never let logic stand in thier way and, besides, Sadr City is still full of loonies with no other future.

You're buying into the idea that they're a bunch of recklessly brave people. You must not know any Muslims. The Muslims I know talk a good game, but prefer talking to fighting. Muslims have always talked a good game. But once you eviscerate the fighting elements, the rest is a hollow shell.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-27 12:41:09 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com]  2004-08-27 12:41:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 ZF,

Najaf is also a potentially very important economic engine for the Iraqi economy. If it wasn't for that I would have said let the silly little man rot in that old dump. But a prosperous Najaf would be good for all Iraqis.
Posted by peggy  2004-08-27 12:42:36 PM||   2004-08-27 12:42:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 It's politically incorrect to talk about how Muslims, despite their fiery rhetoric, are somewhat lacking in the motivation department in any great numbers. But it appears to be true. Note that Iran, with a population of 60m, sued for peace after losing less than 1m people during the Iran-Iraq War. During WWII, Germany lost 10m out of 80m people, and surrendered only after Allied troops dominated every square foot of Berlin, not to mention the rest of Germany. The Baathist Party and Islam in general are a pale shadow of the Nazi Party.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-27 12:42:46 PM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/4_mile_creek/]  2004-08-27 12:42:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 If the bodies are burned, might they not be of Shiaas who have been shot by U.S. troops?
How do you know that they are non-muslims?
Posted by Gentle 2004-08-27 12:45:41 PM||   2004-08-27 12:45:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Tom, I agree, but that is not my point. My point is that Sadr, once a symbol of resistance, is now a symbol of failure. Once, the KKK was a force to be feared. There are still individuals leading trying to lead a KKK movement in this country. Problem is, there are not enough people who sympathize with them to make them a serious threat – at least, not from a national standpoint. Like Sadr, the KKK and their sympathizers gave it their best shot. Both lost. It became clear that the majority did not support them. While they can still fight, it’s clear, even to those who support them, they don’t have the numbers to win.

We are far better off, with Sadr alive and looking the fool; his grand revolution discredited.
Posted by B 2004-08-27 12:52:09 PM||   2004-08-27 12:52:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 The article seems to have been updated with a down-grading of the number of bodies found to ten.

Gentle: article doesn't say. Presumably the bodies have been identified as missing Najafi civilians reported to have been taken by Sadrists?

The whole thing has a veritable hue of Hue, doesn't it? Murdered civilians found as the enemy is rolled back from the urban areas they temporarily seized.
Posted by Mitch H.  2004-08-27 12:53:39 PM|| [http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]  2004-08-27 12:53:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 If the bodies are burned, might they not be of Shiaas who have been shot by U.S. troops?

Why? Is burning bodies a burial rite for Muslims? Or are you thinking of that super-secret ammunition the US has been using, which burns the body immediately upon impact?
Posted by Rafael 2004-08-27 12:55:22 PM||   2004-08-27 12:55:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Yes. I was thinking of some kind of new weapon.
Posted by Gentle 2004-08-27 12:57:01 PM||   2004-08-27 12:57:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Gentle, what makes you think Americans shot those people? And yes, that is exactly what you want to believe.
Posted by Rex Mundi 2004-08-27 12:57:16 PM||   2004-08-27 12:57:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 What makes you think, in his now-weakened position, that he will gain the strength to win the next?

Because he now has time to re-arm and brainwash more dumbasses to fight for his cause.

My point is that Sadr, once a symbol of resistance, is now a symbol of failure.

Not really. You're making the same mistake as a lot of others; measuring Sadr by Western standards and values as opposed to the Muslim world's logic-challenged reality. The fact that some follower of Sadr's was able to proclaim "victory" means that some gullible people there (some meaning enough) are going to actually buy that bucket of hooey. Sistani could help out by calling Sadr on his BS, but in the end, such thoughts are only wishful thinking.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-08-27 1:03:40 PM||   2004-08-27 1:03:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Don't drink the elderberry wine...
Posted by mojo  2004-08-27 1:06:30 PM||   2004-08-27 1:06:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Yes. I was thinking of some kind of new weapon.

Yeah, and U.S. scientists are working on a Nude Bomb.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-08-27 1:06:38 PM||   2004-08-27 1:06:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 note I didnt say Sadr would win, merely that the fight would start up again.

Sadrs people ARE hanging onto weapons, per press reports. This says to me they aim to fight again, despite the hopelessness. And it seems to me that the govt isnt going to tolerate them staying armed, and when the govt tries to disarm them they wont go easily.

How could this be after losing Najaf
1. "we lost in Najaf cause of all the sellout middle class locals in Najaf - it was a mistake to focus on the shrine - in Sadr City the PEOPLE are with us, and thats more important. IN Sadr city the PEOPLE will rise up, and that will trigger revolution across the country"
This thinking may be wrong, but it wouldnt be the first time in history a military or political figure and his followers engaged in wishful thinking.

2. Maybe some of them really are motivated by bravery, hopelessness or whatever. I mean these are mainly teens we're talking about, and the children of the conditions, economic, religious and political, of Sadr City - I dont know that you can generalize from mature, established leaders to them.

Re gentle - note the bodies were found at a court in the old city, NOT at the shrine. It seems unlikely that bodies were taken there. There are no reports of any new weapons, but plenty of reports of people disappearing while Sadrs folks ran the place. Still, it may be worth waiting for more information.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 1:07:59 PM||   2004-08-27 1:07:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 Rex:
I do not think the americans shot them. I simply do not know who did.
I just wanted to point out a possibility that most of you seem to overlook.
That there are 2 suspects.
The facts may be enough for you to judge:
Us, muslims-who we hate-, and dead people.
Who dunnit?
The answer for you is simple.
We, however like to judge based on real facts.
Posted by Gentle 2004-08-27 1:12:45 PM||   2004-08-27 1:12:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 Bomb:
I wouldn't put it past them.
Posted by Gentle 2004-08-27 1:15:05 PM||   2004-08-27 1:15:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 sigh…I think I make a valid point. Even if Sadr were to live to fight another day, which I agree he might, he has Far, Far, LESS momentum now than he did before. He didn’t fight to the last drop of blood. Allah didn’t guide the bullets. They didn’t repel the infidels with giant spiders. And most importantly, the people didn’t rise up.

I’m guessing the fact that the Shia did not rise up en masse is a fact not lost on Sistani. I suppose if Sistani were to suddenly throw his support behind Sadr and a revolution, Sadr might redeem his status. Maybe – Maybe not. I guess time will tell.
Posted by B 2004-08-27 1:22:48 PM||   2004-08-27 1:22:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Sadr's thugs have been murdering yet again. No surprises here. And he'll probably escape justice yet again because of his status as a political animal. This has to stop if anything like the right sort of message is to be sent out.
Posted by Bulldog  2004-08-27 1:23:46 PM||   2004-08-27 1:23:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 "Yes. I was thinking of some kind of new weapon." -- Gentle
Sarcasm, I hope. If not, you seem to have missed that the bodies included police (our allies) and were in some cases mutilated. Sounds more like a Sadr "court" than a new weapon. Sounds like a very old, conventional approach.
Posted by Tom 2004-08-27 1:25:04 PM||   2004-08-27 1:25:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Why did we want Sadr so badly?

An arrest warrant was issued for Sadr on charges of involvement in the April 2003 murder of al-Khoei, a rival cleric, who was brought to Iraq from exile after Saddam was removed from power. This cleric was viewed as pro-West.

But the Iraqi gov't never chose to serve Sadr with the arrest warrant until after April 06, 2004 when Sadr was officially declared an "outlaw" by Bremer and the Iraqi gov't for killing 9 coalition troops[8 of whom were American GI's] as well as 52 Iraqis. The fired up intent to arrest Sadr sort of fizzled out due to various cease fire truces that were negotiated and broken by Sadr.

Again on August 08/04, the Iraqi gov't tried to serve Sadr with an arrest warrent, but Sadr was not home.

Source: LA Times via Command Post
In their first such move against Sadr, members of the Iraqi National Guard and police tried to arrest him at his home in Najaf near the Imam Ali shrine, the base from which he had urged followers to rise up and eject U.S. forces. But the militant leader was not at home.“We surrounded the house, but he was not at home,” said Gen. Ghalib Hadi Jazaery, Najaf’s chief of police.

Jazaery said his officers were serving an arrest warrant issued last year against Sadr in the killing of a rival cleric. U.S. troops tried to serve the warrant in April, igniting an uprising among his followers that lasted two months and left hundreds of Iraqis dead before ending in an uneasy cease-fire...

Posted by rex 2004-08-27 1:26:23 PM||   2004-08-27 1:26:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 If you're found with a couple dozen corpses in your basement, who do you think is going to be blamed?

"Oh, those ain't our bodies. Somebody left 'em here."
Posted by Fred  2004-08-27 1:26:36 PM||   2004-08-27 1:26:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Gentle....facts? What facts do you have? You've got nothing. However we do have reports of some of the bodies being mutilated. Now whose work does that sound like? Of course, if some bodies were found with panies on their heads that's one thing, but the mutilation thingy is a muslim specialty. That's a big clue in my book.
Posted by Rex Mundi 2004-08-27 1:30:35 PM||   2004-08-27 1:30:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 Fred: "they was here when we moved in"
Posted by Frank G  2004-08-27 1:33:41 PM||   2004-08-27 1:33:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 Gentle: the full AFP article clearly quotes a police official as saying that some of the bodies were those of missing policemen. Unless you want to stand on your head and insist that the AFP is relaying American lies through a representative of the Najafi police, I think it's time for you to say "oops, I let my prejudices talk for me".
Posted by Mitch H.  2004-08-27 1:33:57 PM|| [http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]  2004-08-27 1:33:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 let's move on - Gentle's head is fully engaged in rectal exploration and facts like policemen abducted and killed after mutilation won't have an effect. I'm even tired of troll-baiting anymore
Posted by Frank G  2004-08-27 1:37:50 PM||   2004-08-27 1:37:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 To 30 and 51-my question B-Why did we want Sadr so badly? Because he was holed up in a mosque? was pure sarcasm. I asked "Any military guys out there" in the hopes that someone would verify his part in the slaughtering of American GIs (that was the impetus in the hunt for al Sadr in the early days, as I recalled. I wanted to be sure my memory was accurate). Thank you for addressing my question.
Posted by jules 187 2004-08-27 1:42:57 PM||   2004-08-27 1:42:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 sorry jules…I guess I should have recognized that.
Posted by B 2004-08-27 1:55:36 PM||   2004-08-27 1:55:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 Sarcasm notwithstanding, thanks for bringing up the question, Jules(#57). This Sadr guy has slimed us so many different ways and on different occasions, that I myself forgot how it all started until I googled Sadr and the events all came together.

In addition to Sadr's direct contribution to a variety of murders, let's all not forget that Sadr's track record for observing cease fire, truce agreements is not stellar. His "peaceful" retreat from Najef, I suspect, is yet another sham promise.
Posted by rex 2004-08-27 1:56:45 PM||   2004-08-27 1:56:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 BAR: Because he now has time to re-arm and brainwash more dumbasses to fight for his cause.

I don't see why "brainwashing" would work now when it did not work under Saddam's regime. Why were Sadr's father and siblings unable to brainwash enough people to fight to prevent themselves from getting killed by Saddam, a Sunni infidel? The reality is that there is a hard core of people motivated enough to do the fighting. Once Sadr's exhausts this supply of people, he's out of luck. The first time around, he lost thousands before backing off. Now he's backing off after losing hundreds. Like I said, the Muslim fervor you see on the streets is mainly cathartic - a way to shout out their frustrations instead of risking their lives.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-27 1:58:17 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com]  2004-08-27 1:58:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 Thanks, B, rex...it's why I come here-to test my ideas, throw out my weak ones, and learn. I love this site!
Posted by jules 187 2004-08-27 2:10:25 PM||   2004-08-27 2:10:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 Even if Sadr were to live to fight another day, which I agree he might, he has Far, Far, LESS momentum now than he did before. He didn’t fight to the last drop of blood.

Sadr may have lost momentum, but as long as he isn't dead, he potentially has time to reconstitute his forces, armament, and number of followers. Iraq isn't a U.S. where information is available at the drop of a hat, and even if that were the case, a lot of the people aren't disciplined enough anyway to bother separating the wheat from the chaff where information is concerned. If Sadr says he prevailed, then he prevailed. Yes, it defies logic, but logic has rarely ever applied where the Middle East (and Muslims, so it seems) is concerned.

And most importantly, the people didn’t rise up.

Probably because the people actually thought they were going to get squashed like bugs by the U.S. military machine if they threw in their chips with Sadr. Hard to say what the sentiment would be now, being as how U.S. forces seem to be unwilling to crush a threat the first time it raises its head...
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-08-27 2:16:22 PM||   2004-08-27 2:16:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 BAR: Hard to say what the sentiment would be now, being as how U.S. forces seem to be unwilling to crush a threat the first time it raises its head...

Sadr isn't a threat. His lousy sense of timing and leadership have led him to defeat after defeat.* The men around him are. And they got beaten to a pulp this time around.

Sadr is radioactive, but he is useful. His continued existence deters some rival, more competent pole of power from rising (he'll have the guy killed). Sistani the troublemaker can't lay claim to being head honcho. Our guys are doing a balance of power maneuver in Iraq - there are no good guys, and we're balancing one power bloc against another.

* Unless you define victory for Sadr as having survived the attacks. By this measure, Rommel defeated the Allies in North Africa during WWII.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-27 2:30:02 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com]  2004-08-27 2:30:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 We, however like to judge based on real facts.

Oh yeah, that would explain the predominance of stories told in the Islamic world recounting American atrocities which are authenticated by someones cousins best friend who "saw it with his own eyes and who has no reason to lie"

This is all that is needed for the majority of Muslims to believe a story. Someone muslim saw it with their own eyes. It is the MAIN way that news is spread among all muslims. If it comes to them from a muslim who swears that its true then it must be!

I don't think that I need to mention the "Divine Spiders of Allan" story do I? And then there is the ever popular one about some guy who swears he has proof that Jewish matza contains the blood of poor little muslim children blah blah blah

The muslim culture is the least fact based on the planet. They have to dumb down and redefine what the word "facts" means in order to be able to claim any adherance to the priciple of truth.
Posted by peggy  2004-08-27 2:30:20 PM||   2004-08-27 2:30:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 PS. Much like the way they had to completely redefine the words "perfect" "just" "peaceful" "gentle" "successful" and "divine" in order to fit how mohammed actually lived.
Posted by peggy  2004-08-27 2:33:33 PM||   2004-08-27 2:33:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 We haven't forgot the true meaning of these words and for us Christians we will never forget that Jesus embodied the true definition of every one.
Posted by peggy  2004-08-27 2:36:44 PM||   2004-08-27 2:36:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#67 Peggy wrote:

In contrast, there has never been to my knowledge any major Christian shrine which is off limits to anyone of any faith


Not for many centuries, anyway. In the first centuries of Christianity, those who were not baptized had to leave the worship service before the communion portion. The Eastern Orthodox church preserves traces of this in the form of the liturgy (lais ergos = "work of the people") attributed to St. John Chrysostom, which is used in most Orthodox churces for most Sundays and holy days. After the preaching of the Word and the common prayers, but before the wine and bread are unveiled and consecrated, the priest says:

"The doors! The doors! Holy things unto the holy."

At that point in the early centuries the unbaptized had to leave the church and the doors were closed. The congregation then replies"

"One only is Holy, One only is Lord, Jesus Christ ..."
Posted by rkb 2004-08-27 2:37:25 PM||   2004-08-27 2:37:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 Like I said, the Muslim fervor you see on the streets is mainly cathartic - a way to shout out their frustrations instead of risking their lives.

I would hope that is indeed the case, but with these Middle Eastern-types, it's kind of difficult to discern just what their wishes and intents are. I always figure that if I have a pessimistic outlook, I'm not likely to be surprised in a bad way.... :)
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-08-27 2:38:06 PM||   2004-08-27 2:38:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#69 Yeah its true. #67 is a little of topic. But I had to point that out. I'm done now.
Posted by peggy  2004-08-27 2:38:21 PM||   2004-08-27 2:38:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#70 whoops. Make that #66
Posted by peggy  2004-08-27 2:38:53 PM||   2004-08-27 2:38:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#71 Unless you define victory for Sadr as having survived the attacks. By this measure, Rommel defeated the Allies in North Africa during WWII.

I sure as hell wouldn't. But Sadr's spokesman did (comment #27).
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-08-27 2:45:13 PM||   2004-08-27 2:45:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#72 Why does the the finding of bodies in a basement remind me of a certain part of the movie 'Pulp Fiction'.....
Posted by CrazyFool  2004-08-27 2:49:13 PM||   2004-08-27 2:49:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#73 BAR: I would hope that is indeed the case, but with these Middle Eastern-types, it's kind of difficult to discern just what their wishes and intents are. I always figure that if I have a pessimistic outlook, I'm not likely to be surprised in a bad way.

Numbers don't lie. If Muslims were such brave fighters, six million Jews would be in the sea, and what is now Israel would have long ago become the Islamic Republic of Palestine. And check out my comparison between Germany and Iran a few dozen comments ago.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-27 2:50:24 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com]  2004-08-27 2:50:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#74 BAR: I sure as hell wouldn't. But Sadr's spokesman did

Just because he sez so doesn't make it true or any less laughable. It also doesn't increase the number of hard core guys ready to fight to the finish. Among the true believers who are limping home from this skirmish, they must be thinking with victories like this...
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-27 2:53:28 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com]  2004-08-27 2:53:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#75 rkb,

I believe that the mass is a different case in that it is at least reasonable to have only believers participate in our religions profoundest mystery. Under strict interpretation then noone would be allowed to just sit and observe it like it was some kind of pageant.

You yourself just said that the unbaptised were allowed in the church. They were just told to leave so the true believers could take mass.

This was not done under some idea that unbelievers polluted anything. If such were the case then unbelievers would have been banned from church all together since every church is considered consecrated ground and nothing vile or corrupt is supposed to be in there. The practice was just so that everyone present at the mass understood what was going on and could fully participate since mass is only done properly, according to some, in perfect unity of belief of all those present.

Contrast this or any temporary exceptions one might be able to dig up with the muslim commandment that no unbeliever is ever to be allowed to set foot in the whole cities of mecca and medina because they are so-called sacred ground. Unbelievers are not allowed because their very presence would disrespect the ground. There are no such places where Christianity is concerned unless the space is off limits to absolutely everyone except for a priest. There are some places like that like behind the altar in some confessions but its still an equal opportunity prohibition. This is still peanuts and rare excpetions compared to the islamic prohibition of other religions in their most holy places.

I didn't see the priests at the Church of the Nativity, the second holiest place in Christendom kick out the recent muslim occupiers on the sole basis that they were muslim and an outrage to the holiness of the place.

Then there is the example of the little church beside the WTC which gave itself over to filthy dirty rescuers for months on end regardless of creed. In the Christian way of looking at the world that little church is was more holy at that time than it ever had been before because it was answering the highest call that any church could ever answer, that is a call to healing and welcome no matter what without regard to any cleaness or uncleaness spiritual or physical. No exceptions. Not ever.

Thats the true meaning of welcome, of hospitality, of holiness for me. All of these only become greater not less by exposure to less than ideal conditions.
Posted by peggy  2004-08-27 3:04:41 PM||   2004-08-27 3:04:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#76 There are no such places where Christianity is concerned unless the space is off limits to absolutely everyone except for a priest.

Er, LDS tabernacles??? Of course they consider all of themselves to be priests, no? And some dont consider them christians, but theyre close enough for me:)
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 3:14:55 PM||   2004-08-27 3:14:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#77 and btw, non muslims ARE allowed in al aqsa, which we have been told repeatedly is the third holiest place in Islam. Mecca is just different, I guess ;)
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 3:16:24 PM||   2004-08-27 3:16:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#78 Liberal Hawk,

Yes they are an entirely different religion basing their beliefs both on the Bible and on a book that is entirely outside the 2000 year old Christian tradition.

They also believe that they are being perfected in this life in order to become gods in the next.
Pulease. Did you also not read that any exceptions that someone could dig up, in this case from a nominally Christian fringe group, wouldn't amount to a sacred commandment obeyed by all believers as it is in the muslim faith? It simply does not negate the point.
Posted by peggy  2004-08-27 3:20:07 PM||   2004-08-27 3:20:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#79 Liberal Hawk,

That would be because mohammed didn't command it as a holy obligation to bar them. The reigning principle is the presence of unbelievers would outrage the holiness of the religions holiest places. Not so with Christianity.
Posted by peggy  2004-08-27 3:22:38 PM||   2004-08-27 3:22:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#80 You yourself just said that the unbaptised were allowed in the church. They were just told to leave so the true believers could take mass. This was not done under some idea that unbelievers polluted anything

That's true, Peggy, nor was I suggesting the two situations are equivalent. However, many moderns have trouble with the idea that anything could be holy, so it's worth remembering that that is not true for the historical church.

For what it's worth, the Hebrew root that is translated 'holy' means 'separate, set apart'. So it is not entirely beyond our traditions to suggest that holy things should be protected against defiling. The difference, of course, is that humans are not inherently considered to be unclean in our traditions based on their beliefs.
Posted by rkb 2004-08-27 3:23:23 PM||   2004-08-27 3:23:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#81 I think the people on other blogs who are casting Sistani in a positive light are missing the point. The guy is waiting for Uncle Sam to bump off his enemies so he can blame us for killing patriotic Iraqis. This is why a Sadr who is crippled in all but name is useful to us - to keep Sistani from getting too big for his britches. This is why Fallujah hasn't been crushed - to keep Sistani on his toes. As bad as Sadr is as a military commander, Sistani appears to be worse - he can't even protect his people from Sadr. As long as Sistani has domestic enemies who can threaten him, he can't come right out and denounce the coalition presence.

The reason I don't have much faith in Sistani is because he could have improved our situation a long time ago by making it clear that all Shiites were to cooperate with American forces. Instead, he's tried to have it both ways - criticizing us when we started breaking down doors in Fallujah, and when we started moving against Sadr the first time around. The guy is basically hoping to use American forces as a stepping stone to political power - having us destroy his enemies while getting his enemies' followers on his side by blaming the destruction on the American infidels.

Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-27 3:25:13 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com]  2004-08-27 3:25:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#82 LH - Just FYI. As someone who was momentarily a Mormon, I can answer the easy questions about them. The "tabernacles" -- you mean the temples. Definitely off-limits part of the Nagmificent Normans, as we kids used to call ourselves. No entry without an appointment - which is arranged through the chain of command beginning with your local "ward" leader, called a Bishop. From there up to the "stake" level, then to HQ in Salt Lake City. I've been in the Mesa, AZ temple - I was about 13 (which means I was Deacon). Deacon at 12, Priest at 16, after that it's appointed: Bishop, Stake Pres, then all sorts of things at the National level, even Apostles. I was excommunicated - by my demand. It was the only way their missionaries would stop coming around. I threatened a Peace Bond, hoping to run them off, but they said they'd have to come anyway. Poor kids (missionaries typically 18-22 and dead ernest) said they had no choice as long as I was on the rolls. They make a hash of everything, no?
Posted by .com 2004-08-27 3:31:16 PM||   2004-08-27 3:31:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#83 The reigning Christian principle is that all non-believers are welcome In every place where rank and file Christians are allowed. In most of the exceptional cases all except priests are barred from entry based on all others being spiritually unprepared to enter, not from some uncleaness based solely on a persons unbelief. Ideally, in these cases the priest whose whole life is directed towards being so prepared will confess his sins and further prepare himself with prayer and meditation.

The muslim principle is that in some cases God is outraged by the presence of unbelivers where muslim rank and file believers are allowed.

Posted by peggy  2004-08-27 3:33:41 PM||   2004-08-27 3:33:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#84 thanks for the info dot com, several of my learned expositions are ending up in the sinktrap - someone is evidently tired of long discourses on obscure religions:) very well back to politics - so do you dot com think what happened in Najaf was a win or a loss for Allawi?
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 3:41:00 PM||   2004-08-27 3:41:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#85 I agree with you, ZF, re: not trusting Sistani. He is a self-serving opportunist. He is not a genuine ally of coalition troops. The main reason Sistani co-operated with coalition toops and Allawi this time round to broker an exit strategy for Sadr, is because of the loss of "pilgrimage" money from Iraqis, as Frank pointed out on another thread. With Sadr acting like a loose cannon in Najef, pilgrimage revenues had nose dived. Also Sistani is smarter than Sadr on how to accumulate power for the Shiites in Iraq. Sistani has openly counseled his Shiite flock to be "patient" until the elections take place and then the Shiites can flex their muscle at the voting booths. I would not trust Sistani as far as I could throw him.
Posted by rex 2004-08-27 3:43:31 PM||   2004-08-27 3:43:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#86 Jesus wanted the unclean to come to him, to sit with him and eat with him.

mohammed laid down a whole code for determining who was clean and unclean and where and how and for how long blah blah blah For instance, a muslim woman spends x amount of time a month during and after her cycle in an unclean state during which time she is not to outrage the holiness of Allan by praying to him or touching his book, going to mosque etc. She is also unclean after giving birth! Add up the time she spends unwanted by her god. I did it once and it comes up to a pretty significant portion of her adult life. I told a muslim male friend this and he couldn't believe it and yet he couldn't defend it. He just changed the subject. After he brought it up in the first place how great muslim laws about cleaness were.

I never heard him praise muslim cleanliness laws in my presence again.

Posted by peggy  2004-08-27 3:46:22 PM||   2004-08-27 3:46:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#87 rex: Also Sistani is smarter than Sadr on how to accumulate power for the Shiites in Iraq.

Yes and no. Sadr is a better administrator and commander than Sistani. He can kill Sistani's men at will, and scares the heck out of Sistani's followers. But Sistani is a better schemer and backstabber than Sadr. He also looks wiser because of his age despite being less competent at actually getting things done - kind of like a Yoda who spouts meaningless garbage all day long.

rex: I would not trust Sistani as far as I could throw him.

I agree. The guy's just another snake in the grass.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-27 3:59:39 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com]  2004-08-27 3:59:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#88 For instance, a muslim woman spends x amount of time a month during and after her cycle in an unclean state during which time she is not to outrage the holiness of Allan by praying to him or touching his book, going to mosque etc. She is also unclean after giving birth!

judaism has laws regarding the ritual state of a woman every month and after birth. She is of course allowed to pray during this time and attend synagogue, but not to touch a torah scroll or to have relations with her husband. I can find some websites on the meaning many Orthodox women find in this practice if you wish.

And I wouldnt post this except Peggy is posting stuff about Islam.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 4:07:44 PM||   2004-08-27 4:07:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#89 heres one such site:

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 4:10:57 PM||   2004-08-27 4:10:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#90 oops

http://www.mesora.org/ritualpurity.html
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 4:11:20 PM||   2004-08-27 4:11:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#91 "Make them walk, it hurts their pride" to paraphrase She Wore A Yellow Ribbon.
Posted by Don 2004-08-27 4:19:16 PM||   2004-08-27 4:19:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#92 "...and having you watch will hurt it more."
Posted by mojo  2004-08-27 4:24:16 PM||   2004-08-27 4:24:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#93 He also looks wiser because of his age despite being less competent at actually getting things done..

There's also a slight resemblance to Khomeini, which surely can't be of any advantage. At least not with those of us that still remember '79...

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-08-27 4:38:44 PM||   2004-08-27 4:38:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#94 I think there's this misconception that all we have to do is pick the right guy to lead Iraq or Afghanistan, and we're home free. The reality is that we don't really know any of these people. We know some of their background, and we know what they're saying, but we don't really know what they'd do once they grab unchallenged hold of the reins of power. This is why we're keeping rival poles of power viable in both Iraq and Afghanistan - to keep the anointed power-holders in check. We don't want to make enemies out of every other faction, even while our anointed ruler co-opts their support against us. No - if this guy (Allawi or Karzai) wants to consolidate his power, he will have to move against them himself, or at least give the order.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-27 5:00:53 PM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/4_mile_creek/]  2004-08-27 5:00:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#95 and btw, non muslims ARE allowed in al aqsa, which we have been told repeatedly is the third holiest place in Islam.

Really? Jews are allowed in the Al'Aqsa mosque? Odd -- I had the opposite impression, based on the Muslim habit of throwing stones at women and children who get too close.
Posted by Robert Crawford  2004-08-27 5:05:02 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/]  2004-08-27 5:05:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#96 LH - Re #84 - no way! You're getting Sink Trapped?

C'mon Mods - is there a screw loose today?

As for your question, I do not have an answer - and what occurs to me to say about Najaf, Sistani, Tater drawing breath - the whole deal, would be perfect Sink Trap material. I'm just listening to you guys and waiting to see. I have my suspicions that Allawi lost, Tater tied, and Shitstani won big. But that's based on what I think they're thinking. After a few weeks let's see what the Iraqi bloggers are saying - and what the big players are doing. Meanwhile, I'm just vegetating and reading everyone else's take, lol!
Posted by .com 2004-08-27 5:14:31 PM||   2004-08-27 5:14:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#97 .com: I have my suspicions that Allawi lost, Tater tied, and Shitstani won big.

In the hierarchy of power, Allawi is on top, Sadr is in the middle and Sistani is at the bottom. It's hard to see how Sistani won big by getting back what was his in the first place. Every single day, Allawi gets stronger because of his control of Iraq's oil revenues, which brings in $80m a day (2m barrels, $40 a barrel, net of a few dollars a barrel of extraction costs), and enables him to hire and train enough security men to face down both Sadr's and Sistani's (less formidable) militias. On the basis of oil revenues alone, Iraq has a government budget of $29B per year. That's a hefty chunk of change. No way either Sistani or Sadr can come anywhere close to that kind of financial firepower, which buys a lot of guns and manpower.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-27 5:25:50 PM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/4_mile_creek/]  2004-08-27 5:25:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#98 .com: I have my suspicions that Allawi lost, Tater tied, and Shitstani won big.

I think that Sistani is extremely weak - despite his supposedly greater following, he couldn't keep Najaf from falling into Sadr's hands. Note that Uncle Sam and Allawi had to defeat Sadr for him.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-27 5:28:16 PM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/4_mile_creek/]  2004-08-27 5:28:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#99 From another blog:

Neil: As he has shown on numerous occassions since the shutting down of his newspaper back in the Spring, he is not someone that will go quietly into the wind anytime soon

He's a lousy commander, and his forces have taken great casualties while inflicting few on US forces. The number of fighters willing to risk their lives for him is clearly dropping fast - he folded his tent after a few hundred KIA despite having held out until thousands were killed the last time around. Numbers are difficult things to get around. As long as Sadr's alive, he'll continue to make trouble, but each incident will be less than the last. But even with less men, he will still be able to threaten the weakling Sistani any time he wants.

Neil: This power held by Sistani, however, will have its limits.

Sistani is a weakling who whose followers are being slaughtered like sheep by Sadr's men.

Neil: The only reason why Sadr has any support amongst Iraqis is his diehard anti-Americanism.

Actually, the only reason he has any support is because the supply of Shiites willing to kill or die wasn't destroyed during the invasion, because we let Saddam's divisions run away rather than wipe them out (which would have cost more of our own dead up front, of course, and killed many of the men we are now recruiting for the Iraqi security forces). But our men are in the process of whittling down the warriors in the enemy's ranks. Based on past experience with Muslims, these ranks don't run all that deep.

Neil: With more than 4 months left until elections, and an on-the-ground situation that is not judgeable, it is likely that such confrontations will occur again, taking a toll on Sistani's credibility amongst Iraqis.

I don't think Sistani has any credibility left, since he couldn't prevent Sadr from taking Najaf from him. He had to run away to London while the fighting was taking place. Alexander he's not.


Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-27 5:47:58 PM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/4_mile_creek/]  2004-08-27 5:47:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#100 liberal hawk,

I wasn't talking about Judaism. Why are you bringing it up?

I was talking about some differences between Christianity and islam.

But since we are on the subject, at every point where Judaism and islam agree, if i criticize islam for it, I also criticize Judaism for it too. All Christians are opposed to laws like the ones we are talking about here for the same reasons. If a Jewish person brought the subject up with me I would make the same point with them as I made with my Muslim friend. (He gets a captial M :))

However, in the final analysis, Judaism comes out far more favorably than islam for reasons that would fill an encyclopedia. Whatever its drawbacks or holdovers (not all Jews observe the laws about a woman being unclean during her cycle), we owe everything to those people and their proper understanding of true morality. If they err, they err by degrees and not by kind. I would say the same for all other religions though they differ in greater degrees. islam happens to be at the bottom on the scale of difference. It is not entirely without merit. Its followers can be decent people as my friend is a decent person. It has a well developed apologetic for its beliefs, but in the end it just can't overcome its defects in logic and morality.

I look forward to respectfully detailing these ways in the future. I realize that i have gotten carried away in the past out of frustration and anger at this religion, but I am now repentant. I won't be doing that anymore if I can help it because I believe that my arguments are reasonable and that getting ugly towards muslims detracts from that and casts a bad light on my Lord.

Spar with you later.
Posted by peggy  2004-08-27 5:51:57 PM||   2004-08-27 5:51:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#101 regarding winners and Losers

The game isn't over. It's never really over.

I think every party here: the US, Sadr, Allawi and Sistani had a partial win and a partial loss.

The next week or two is crucial to everyone. Sadr will probably regroup his militia in Sadr City and they will be armed. What then will be the response of Sistani, Allawi and the US?
Posted by mhw 2004-08-27 5:53:52 PM||   2004-08-27 5:53:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#102 Calhoun's a Mormon name? Live and learn.
Posted by Shipman 2004-08-27 6:04:26 PM||   2004-08-27 6:04:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#103 ZF - I hear you, bro - and hope you're right. There's just so much weirdness that passes for thought / sense / rationality in Arabia that I'm waiting to see what some of those who are steeped in it have to say. This situation is too Arab for me (too many conflicting pieces for me to follow) and those were just my honest gut feelings about how the Iraqis would see it.

We'll see how it plays out.
Posted by .com 2004-08-27 6:04:50 PM||   2004-08-27 6:04:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#104 No worries Peggy, when in comes to Islam in its present form, there's much to get ugly about.
Posted by Rex Mundi 2004-08-27 6:04:56 PM||   2004-08-27 6:04:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#105 Archangel Calhoun Smith - now I'm outted, shit!
Posted by .com 2004-08-27 6:05:42 PM||   2004-08-27 6:05:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#106 shoot…I only have time to do a super skim of these comments. But I did want to throw out one thing before I have to go…

someone said: “there are no good guys, and we're balancing one power bloc against another.”

In my opinion, if we successfully balance one power bloc against another, we will have provided the Iraqis the best possible form of government we could provide them.
Posted by B 2004-08-27 6:10:29 PM||   2004-08-27 6:10:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#107 It's a middle eastern thing defined by this word.
byzantine:
1. Of, relating to, or characterized by intrigue; scheming or devious: “a fine hand for Byzantine deals and cozy arrangements” (New York).
2. Highly complicated; intricate and involved: a bill to simplify the byzantine tax structure.

Those Byzantine guys were Orthodox Christains, go figure.
Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-08-27 6:13:46 PM||   2004-08-27 6:13:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#108 .com: There's just so much weirdness that passes for thought / sense / rationality in Arabia that I'm waiting to see what some of those who are steeped in it have to say. This situation is too Arab for me (too many conflicting pieces for me to follow) and those were just my honest gut feelings about how the Iraqis would see it.

I think you're looking at it from a binary (either/or) perspective. There are many factions duking it out in Iraq. Taking principled positions means nothing to them. It's all about jockeying for advantage and winning. The fact is that none of these sides is really on our side. They're on their side. And we need to avoid being painted as the bad guy - i.e. prevent all factions from uniting against us. In the next few years, we need to set up and preserve a system such that another Saddam who monopolizes the power of the state never emerges. And the responsibility of American troops will be to see to it that Iraq's nascent democracy is preserved. Skirmishes like the one that just concluded at Najaf don't change anything. The Tet Offensive it wasn't.*

* The US lost 1500 men KIA and the ARVN lost 2,800 men KIA in just over 1 month while killing 45,000 VC.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-27 6:25:23 PM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/4_mile_creek/]  2004-08-27 6:25:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#109 ZF, Sistani does not support US ambitions in the way, say, Allawi does. But Allawi doesn't support us blindly, either. Both Allawi and Sistani have the same goal here--to keep Iran out of Iraq. Sadr was an extremely blunt instrument of Iraqi policy, there are many others more keen to be dealt with, but ridding Najaf of Sadr effectively rids Najaf of Iraq. Sadr is now irrelevant, and Najaf is in the hands of Iraqis.

Shia self-determination is a larger goal of Sistani, because it will permit the free practice of their version of Islam. The regime in Iran is not Shia, it utterly lacks legitimacy according to Shia political theory, and again, the best bulwark against it in Iraq is a strong Iraq with its majority Shia invested in governing themselves civilly. Allawi's best hope for successfully establishing Iraqi authority is the support of a Shia majority dedicated to civil self-governance. And ultimately, that's the goal of the US as well--a legitimate (power derived from the consent of the people) government soundly established in Iraq, in the middle of the Arab world.
Posted by longtime lurker 2004-08-27 6:27:47 PM||   2004-08-27 6:27:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#110 longtime lurker: ZF, Sistani does not support US ambitions in the way, say, Allawi does. But Allawi doesn't support us blindly, either.

I don't know what they do or do not support. I am certain that they are for their personal survival and for the survival of their respective factions. As far as I'm concerned, imputing democratic impulses to these men is just wishful thinking. What I get from Allawi's and Sistani's actions is that they are hoping to get the US to destroy their enemies for them, while casting themselves as Iraqi patriots by criticizing American actions as genocidal. My point is that it is unwise to get emotionally- attached to these gonifs. You can count on them without question - to look out for number one.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-27 6:36:37 PM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/4_mile_creek/]  2004-08-27 6:36:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#111 Darn, you guys ran Gentle off before I had a chance to ask her which Sura allows beer drinking in a holy shrine. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/103518/1/.html
An array of beer cans littered the ground and a national guardsman said: "Look with your own eyes -- they drank beer and then they killed."
BTW, they found the uncle of the police chief and a young boy alive. Maybe these two can shed light on who did what and when. MR (beerbelly) Sadr and his 'men' are mere drunken thugs.
Posted by GK 2004-08-27 6:37:36 PM||   2004-08-27 6:37:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#112 
Those Byzantine guys were Orthodox Christains, go figure.

But they considered themselves the rightful heirs of the Roman Empire, which could go a long way towards explaining their love of intrigue, scheming, and deviousness.
Posted by Robert Crawford  2004-08-27 6:39:52 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/]  2004-08-27 6:39:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#113 RC: But they considered themselves the rightful heirs of the Roman Empire, which could go a long way towards explaining their love of intrigue, scheming, and deviousness.

They were the remnants of the Roman empire. When Arabs talk about defeating the Romans, they are referring to the Byzantines. Scheming and deviousness wasn't particular to the Byzantines, but the interesting aspect is that all of it was recorded for posterity. The Romans on the Italian peninsula also squabbled as they were overrun by barbarians, but much of it was obscured by the Dark Ages. Byzantium fell in the 15th century to the Turks. The Western Roman empire had fallen many centuries earlier to barbarian conquerors.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-27 6:47:41 PM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/4_mile_creek/]  2004-08-27 6:47:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#114 ZF, I agree that we shouldn't get too emotionally attached. I also heartily agree that they don't think and act like we do. But to restate the obvious--lose the Shia, lose Iraq; lose Sistani, lose the Shia. I'm not arguing that we can all be buds, not at all. I'm arguing that there is a common concern we all have, that of eliminating or at least containing Iranian influence in the new Iraq. In this at least, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If Sistani's quietism ultimately quashes the Iranian efforts, keeps the Shia populace at large working toward Iraqi self-governance, and builds Allawi's and the government's credibility (perhaps not Sistani's first goal, but a means to it), then I think we can work this thing out.
Posted by longtime lurker 2004-08-27 6:48:32 PM||   2004-08-27 6:48:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#115 Tater is no longer a firebrand cleric, he is a disgraced thug, demoted to a free man, but a *ahem* person of interest. He has pissed off enought people that he will continuously have to watch his six, because some citizen may want to ventilate him with an AK-47.
.........in the stilllllllll of the Nighhhhhht...
Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-08-27 6:58:07 PM||   2004-08-27 6:58:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#116 They were the remnants of the Roman empire. When Arabs talk about defeating the Romans, they are referring to the Byzantines.

Yes, because the Byzantines referred to themselves as Romans. Sure, they were Christian, and mostly spoke Greek, but they considered themselves the last vestiges of the Roman Empire. The name "Byzantine Empire" didn't crop up until the 1800s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine
Posted by Robert Crawford  2004-08-27 7:01:52 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/]  2004-08-27 7:01:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#117 If Sistani's quietism ultimately quashes the Iranian efforts, keeps the Shia populace at large working toward Iraqi self-governance

But we need to watch Sistani VERY VERY closely near to and after the elections that he does not lead a Shiite power grab of Iraq vis-a-vis majority rule thingy. The Iraqi Shiites have the numbers majority and it was a bit worrisome to me to hear that Shiites in Najef were making nice with Sunnis in Fallujah. Those 2 groups were mortal enemies once upon a time. So the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" maxim could go badly for us and the Kurds if we do not keep Sistani on a very short leash.

And keep in mind that Allawi is a Shiite as well. So we've got 2 Shiites with a lot of power now. It could work out fine or...Here's a thumb nail bio. of Allawi. He also was a member of the Baath Party, though a Shiite. Strange.

Being one of the most prominent Iraqi political refugees abroad who cooperated with the Americans, Allawi was chosen as a member of the 25-member Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) after the US occupation of Iraq and then into the 9-member presidential body in the council. As head of the National Accord Movement, a powerful presence in the political arena in Iraq, Allawi was able to include many Baathists into his movement in the past year.

Born in 1945 to a Shiite family, Allawi is a surgeon and the grandson of a physician who was the health minister in Iraq's monarchy era.

Allawi was a Baath Party member for ten years (1961 - 1971)before he left for Beirut and London.

In 1991, he founded the Iraqi National Accord movement, which became one of the opposition political organizations against Saddam Hussein's regime and his Baath Party.

During the time that preceded the toppling of Saddam's regime,the movement took Amman, capital of Jordan, as a center for its political and media activities. It moved to Baghdad after the US-led coalition forces ousted Saddam in April last year. According to observers, one of the reasons for Allawi'snomination is that he is a Shiite.
Posted by rex 2004-08-27 7:08:04 PM||   2004-08-27 7:08:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#118 Don't forget that Saddam sent his thugs to kill Allawi and his family. They were attacked with axes - and did succeed in killing his wife - but Allawi survived. How that affects his thinking is anyone's guess. Why he was ever a Ba'athist is probably pure pragmatism.

One thing I certain of, however, is that he's a tough sombitch and smart - that Sistani interlude in London was a planned gambit so that Allawi could call in his American henchmen to deal with Sadr's Iran Plan.

I do not pretend to know everything afoot, nor what the Iraqis think of it all, but I'm hoping against hope that Allawi's got a stronger will than Sistani - who tried to cut the constitution to shreds - wanting pure Shi'a Mob Rule rather than the Confederation which would allow the Kurds, at least, some autonomy. Many irons in many fires here.
Posted by .Abu PD 2004-08-27 7:18:16 PM||   2004-08-27 7:18:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#119 Rex, the axiom to apply is: follow the money. Where are the weapons coming from (hint: not Saddam's weapons dumps)? Where is the money to pay Sadr's thugs coming from? Look east. Allawi's not pure, but he doesn't stand a chance if the Iranians get their way.
Posted by longtime lurker 2004-08-27 7:21:35 PM||   2004-08-27 7:21:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#120 The US lost 1500 men KIA ... in just over 1 month..

Just to mention, I'll bet that the MSM is going to wail uncontrollably when the number of U.S. soldiers killed reaches 1,000, using words like "grim", and "milestone", etc. And they're not likely to impart any perspective to the situation by mentioning how long it took to reach 1,000 in WW1, WW2, or Vietnam.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-08-27 8:18:56 PM||   2004-08-27 8:18:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#121 LL: Where is the money to pay Sadr's thugs coming from? Look east. Allawi's not pure, but he doesn't stand a chance if the Iranians get their way.

Iran pumps 4.2m barrels of oil a day. This means the government's annual budget is about $62B per year for 70m people, compared to Iraq's $29B per year for 20m people. Iran's oil revenues are less than $1000 per capita, whereas Iraq's oil revenues are over $1400 per capita. Iran has a huge weapons expenditure program going. I don't see how it can blow huge chunks of cash on Iraq.

The US spent $1B a year on the Afghan mujahideen. I have heard estimates that Iran is spending about the same amount of money per year in Iraq, but with pitiful results, compared with what the Soviets encountered in Afghanistan. Iran can't spare the cash to finance a more effective opposition, and there aren't enough Iraqis willing to risk their lives for an Iraqi version of the Islamic Republic, anyway. My point is this - where are all the jihadis? Many of them were probably killed off during the Iran-Iraq War, Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom and the clean-up operations that have occurred since then. Based on the numbers I'm hearing from military intel people, our boys are inflicting casualties at the rate of about 40 to 1. This means about 40,000 jihadis have bitten the dust. How many more can the Iranians drum up? Muslims aren't stupid. They know when they're being used and discarded like condoms. Muslims are cynical too - martyrdom is a maybe, whereas death is certain.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-27 9:03:52 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com]  2004-08-27 9:03:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#122 And they're not likely to impart any perspective to the situation by mentioning how long it took to reach 1,000 in WW1, WW2, or Vietnam.

I wince anytime someone compares KIA rates GI's of this Iraq War to other wars in history as though we should be happy with such a low number of GI deaths or as if the nearly 1000 deaths are merely statistics not someone's son or husband or nephew or father. These 900+ deaths are 900+ too many, IMO.

You can try to blame the MSM for making a mountain out of a mole hill to hurt GWB, but I have no doubt that Americans would be similarly upset whether they heard the 1000 death mark through FOX News or by CNN. No one wants body bags coming home. That's a fact. MSM does not even have to embellish the announcement.

Also, you cannot ignore the conflicted feelings about the Iraq War that concern Americans today regardless of their political leanings. Yesterday I quoted the remarks of Wm. F. Buckley, the modern day champion of conservativism, who said on his retirement that in retrospect he would not have invaded Iraq. On Sunday, we had a spirited discussion about how Dr.Fuyakuma, a high profile neocon, now was having misgivings about the Iraq War.

Blaming left wing MSM is a pretty simplistic read of why there will be negative blowback to GWB's re-election campaign when the 1000 KIA mark is reached. It will be a "grim milestone," no doubt about it.
Posted by rex 2004-08-27 9:05:00 PM||   2004-08-27 9:05:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#123 rex: I wince anytime someone compares KIA rates GI's of this Iraq War to other wars in history as though we should be happy with such a low number of GI deaths or as if the nearly 1000 deaths are merely statistics not someone's son or husband or nephew or father. These 900+ deaths are 900+ too many, IMO.

This is the typical liberal reflex. The reality is that one death is too many, whether it is through war, sickness or accidents. But the reality is that America must re-establish deterrence in Muslim (and other) minds through the credible threat of war. And the only way to establish this credibility is to fight them. Afghanistan was over too quickly to establish this deterrence. Iraq is going to prove that Americans have gotten over Vietnam, and will destroy regimes that threaten us, even if that involves casualties.

Rex, as usual, is putting the cart before the horse. The cost in Iraq and Afghanistan hasn't approached what we suffered on 9/11 alone, never mind the other wars we have fought. Why fight abroad? Because if we wait for the fight to reach our homes, 9/11 won't be the model for what we will suffer when that happens. Think of Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. A hundred years ago, when it took weeks to sail across the ocean, it made sense to be isolationist. The age of ballistic and cruise missiles and supersonic bombers no longer gives us the ability to wall ourselves off from our enemies.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-27 9:15:47 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com]  2004-08-27 9:15:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#124 ZF: The age of ballistic and cruise missiles and supersonic bombers no longer gives us the ability to wall ourselves off from our enemies.

I left out the one ingredient that makes all these things ultra-lethal - nuclear weapons. Note also that our enemies are transferring nuclear technology through plausibly deniable means to third countries that have terrorist ties. Who do we nuke when some freighter detonates a nuke at the entrance to San Francisco harbor? Better to avoid the whole scenario by making clear that if this is what we do for 3,000 Americans, they don't want to find out what we will do to them for killing 1 million Americans.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-27 9:31:14 PM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/]  2004-08-27 9:31:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#125 I see the situation as follows: We must kill Sadr A.S.A.P. He is embarassing us repeatedly. Muslims around the world are watching all this unfold and they see the pulling back of our troops as weakness. And I think the posts on this thread about Sistani are way off mark. Sistani was not a factor in this situation until her returned to Iraq. He ended the standoff within hours of returning to Iraq. He's like 80 years old people! He was in London for medical treatment. As soon as he entered the situation he changed the entire dynamic. I believe he helped Sadr though, allowing him & his followers to escape in the confused mass of "pilgrims" that swarmed Najaf on Sistani's orders. Sistani bailed out Sadr. We must crush Sadr. He WILL cause trouble again and the MSM will cry for Sistani to intervene, but we must CRUSH Sadr next time. Sistani has no gunmen people, so however said something to that effect: you're wrong. Sistani is like a father figure to Sadr. Sadr wants to attack Americans and he backs himself into a corner with his poor tactics & then daddy (Sistani) bails him out. Sistani has broad support amongst the people, though, & that's more powerful than Sadr's gunmen. But we cannot allow Sadr's daddy to bail him out anymore. & yes, Sistani's interest in the matter is that the Shiite "church" was loosing money because of the fighting in Najaf. Sadr won, Sistani won, we lost, the people of Iraq lost, Allawi lost, Najaf lost. I am outraged that our government allowed Sadr to walk away-AGAIN! This is bullshit. We have got to kill that guy.
Posted by Kentucky Beef  2004-08-27 9:39:30 PM||   2004-08-27 9:39:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#126 Right on, Zhang Fei!
I try to imagine the future if AQ has managed to nuke one of our cities:
"I remember when Boston was there...it was such a charming, historic city. When I visited my sister there, we would...(breaking down into sobs for the hundredth time)"
And of the 60,000 dead from Vietnam and the 50-60,000 dead from Korea and the 500,000 dead from WWII, they were someone's son and/or husband and/or nephew and/or father, too.
So what?
According to Kerry and his enablers, if a war is a "nothing" or "illegal" or "immoral" in the eyes of the Liberal Left, then so are the casualties, right?
These are the "peace at any price" crowd who thinks that Freedom is Free, yet want to ban books and have their political detractors silenced.
And Iraq ain't no Vietnam with 1/114th of the casualties and 1/10 the duration.
Posted by GreatestJeneration  2004-08-27 9:41:55 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-08-27 9:41:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#127 KB: But we cannot allow Sadr's daddy to bail him out anymore. & yes, Sistani's interest in the matter is that the Shiite "church" was loosing money because of the fighting in Najaf. Sadr won, Sistani won, we lost, the people of Iraq lost, Allawi lost, Najaf lost. I am outraged that our government allowed Sadr to walk away-AGAIN! This is bullshit. We have got to kill that guy.

Relax. Muslims around the world don't matter. Really. The Muslim street is overrated. They're willing to talk about jihad but not actually willing to risk their lives. Cooperation from Muslim governments is holding up - if we were losing, they'd start freeing the jihadis again. Muslims are some of the most unmotivated warriors around. Just read some of the entries I've posted above.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-27 9:53:29 PM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/]  2004-08-27 9:53:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#128 KB: Sistani is like a father figure to Sadr

this is contrary to everything I've heard
Posted by Frank G  2004-08-27 9:57:28 PM||   2004-08-27 9:57:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#129 KB, I'd say Mookie (Tater) pretty much embarrassed himself--"Daddy" had to come and rescue him.
He's not a player anymore.
And his little insurgency was a big, fat failure!
Nothing like finding your "holy shrine" full of the dead bodies of your "brothers" surrounded by beer cans!
Posted by GreatestJeneration  2004-08-27 10:02:18 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-08-27 10:02:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#130 This is the typical liberal reflex

Have it your way, dr. freud. Anyone with half a brain would see that the 1000 KIA is a benchmark and it will be perceived as such by most Americans regardless of their political stripe. MSM does not have to do much to frame it as a benchmark.

Better to avoid the whole scenario by making clear that if this is what we do for 3,000 Americans, they don't want to find out what we will do to them for killing 1 million Americans...
The Iraq War and the Afghan War are perceived as 2 different ventures. The Afghan War is more easily related to a consequence of 9/11. Not so the Iraq War. As well, the GI KIA figure in Afghanistan has been minimal, less than 200. Not so the war in Iraq. As well, the Afghans themselves seem to be more welcoming to coalition troops - or at least they are not getting in front of cameras deriding Americans like the Iraqis have done. Also, there's a clearer distinction of the bad guy Taliban interlopers in Afghanistan. In Iraq, it's rather fuzzy who the "enemy" from day to day because "liberated" Iraqis have done their share of killing GI's and contractors. It's not just been foreign fighters who have killed our soldiers.

You can mock me but it's you who is the person who is clued out. When the 1000 KIA in the Iraq War comes up, it will be a very bad day for GWB.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2004/d20040827cas.pdf
Posted by rex 2004-08-27 10:07:39 PM||   2004-08-27 10:07:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#131 and the 1000 might come up because op-eds and DNC/MSM reports make it a big deal - thanks for the dead. Tool
Posted by Frank G  2004-08-27 10:10:28 PM||   2004-08-27 10:10:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#132 "Muslim street is overrated. They're willing to talk about jihad but not actually willing to risk their lives."

>true enough. You can't even get five of these jerkoffs to agree that shit stinks.
Posted by Jarhead 2004-08-27 10:17:29 PM||   2004-08-27 10:17:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#133 rex: You can mock me but it's you who is the person who is clued out. When the 1000 KIA in the Iraq War comes up, it will be a very bad day for GWB.

Rex, not everyone is as cowardly as you are. Save your cowardly BS for the Democratic Underground. If a draft comes about, and my number comes up, I will serve. You can go to Canada.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-27 10:19:09 PM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/]  2004-08-27 10:19:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#134 rex: The Afghan War is more easily related to a consequence of 9/11. Not so the Iraq War.

What did North Africa have to do with Pearl Harbor? Why was Operation Torch carried out? What did Guadalcanal have to do with Pearl Harbor? Why did the US not launch an invasion of the Japanese homeland straight away? Or launch an invasion of Germany immediately? Because there obstacles along the way.

In the current instance, deterrence was lost and it needed to be regained. Rex doesn't seem to believe in deterrence. Most Americans do. Rex doesn't seem to believe that in international relations, we say one thing and do another. Many Americans do. Why do so many instinctively support the invasion of Iraq? Is it because they get a vicarious thrill out of hearing about American losses on a day-to-day basis? No - it's because we instinctively understand that Muslims in particular, and America's enemies in general, need to be sent a message. And the invasion in Iraq is broadcasting that message loud and clear - America is not to be trifled with.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-27 10:26:28 PM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/]  2004-08-27 10:26:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#135 Old rex certainly seems to get his talking points from the DNC, doesn't he?

If you ask me--and while I mourn every fallen soldier in the WOT, including those of our allies in the Coalition--I'd say 1,000 killed in enemy action isn't too high a price to pay to stop and kill fanatical IslamoNazis whose "band of brothers" slaughtered 3,000 of our civilians on our soil in peacetime on a beautiful, clear September morning.
Posted by GreatestJeneration  2004-08-27 10:28:53 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-08-27 10:28:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#136 "When the 1000 KIA in the Iraq War comes up, it will be a very bad day for GWB."

>In general I agree w/you - the MSM will prolly make it a bad day for GWB. Though I'm sure as the C-in-C as well as seeming to be a decent guy - any day an American serviceman dies is prolly not a great day personally for the Prez. However, as I've stated before, Iraq was an inevitability imho, we either dealt w/sammy or his progeny. I may have waited until December 2003 to kick it off to give Afghanistan more boots on the ground, but hindsight is always 20/20. We're not going to unfuck iraq in a year or even five. With education, literacy, and capitalism they will get better methinks. So stay the course people, this is going to get even more dirty, messy and frustrating - that's war. Stomach it now so our future generations are not fighting this again in 20-30 yrs.
Posted by Jarhead 2004-08-27 10:38:01 PM||   2004-08-27 10:38:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#137 Old rex certainly seems to get his talking points from the DNC, doesn't he?
Attention, Ms. Doofus. If I were stealing talking points from the DNC, I'd do the following:
a) exaggerate the KIA figures greatly
b) not separate the Iraq War KIA figures from the Afghan War because one needs to promote the idea that figures in both wars are about the same
c) wring my hands about all the innocent Iraqi civilian deaths and inflate those figures as well

Too bad you can't pick up brain cells at the supermarket as easily as you do the National Enquirer to enhance your intellect, jen.

If you ask me--and while I mourn every fallen soldier in the WOT
a) Who asked you?
b) Why does your "sorrow" have such a tin ring as you glibbly string words together for effect?

I'd say 1,000 killed in enemy action isn't too high a price to pay to stop and kill fanatical IslamoNazis whose "band of brothers" slaughtered 3,000 of our civilians on our soil in peacetime on a beautiful, clear September morning.
How easy it is for you to talk about the 1000 KIA price tag being worth it, when you are not at the paying end.

Have you ever been a parent? I suspect not. I'd suggest you not embaress yourself any further by coming across like a superficial twit. When a child pre-deceases you, it is a horrible undescribable loss. Many of these young men KIA in Iraq are "babies" in their early 20's, some barely out of high school.

Furthermore, I'd suggest that before you start waxing poetic again about "the beautiful clear day in September", you get your facts straight about which war relates to 9/11. It's the Afghan War that was the result of 9/11. The Iraq War is a war of positioning as well as a war of regime change. Got it straight now, missy?
Posted by rex 2004-08-27 11:28:10 PM||   2004-08-27 11:28:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#138 Yes, I'm a parent, rex.
And I've buried 2 members of my immediate family in the last 5 years.
So don't lecture me about losing people and grief!
And if my sorrow has a "tin ring" for you, that's just too bad.
I'm at the paying end of this war tax wise, I send things to our troops as I can such as gifts for their comfort, and I'd go suit up and grab a gun and join them if I weren't almost 50.
Anyone's death diminishes me, that is why our US military is working to keep casualties to a minimum.
Operation Iraqi Freedom is an integral part of the War on Terror just as our war on Iraq, which is next, will be, too.
Anyone who thought it was over when we deposed the pathetic Taliban in Afghanistan just isn't paying enough attention.
And there isn't going to be a draft, you coward rex!
Posted by GreatestJeneration  2004-08-28 1:31:25 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-08-28 1:31:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#139 rex: Have you ever been a parent? I suspect not. I'd suggest you not embaress yourself any further by coming across like a superficial twit. When a child pre-deceases you, it is a horrible undescribable loss. Many of these young men KIA in Iraq are "babies" in their early 20's, some barely out of high school.

Have you ever had friends and colleagues killed by terrorist attacks? If not, I suggest you shut the f**k up, you f**king coward.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-08-28 2:17:09 AM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/]  2004-08-28 2:17:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#140 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 3:25:29 PM||   2004-08-27 3:25:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#141 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-27 3:25:29 PM||   2004-08-27 3:25:29 PM|| Front Page Top

15:25 Liberalhawk
15:25 Liberalhawk
15:10 Liberalhawk
15:10 Liberalhawk
14:00 Liberalhawk
14:00 Liberalhawk
14:00 Liberalhawk
14:00 Liberalhawk
14:00 Liberalhawk
14:00 Liberalhawk
22:32 Atomic Conspiracy
20:55 Shipman
18:12 Lil Dhimmi
18:05 Shipman
18:02 Shipman
17:58 Lil Dhimmi
11:47 Gentle
10:51 Mike Sylwester
09:35 badanov
09:14 Frank G
09:13 Gentle
09:10 Frank G
09:06 Mike Sylwester
03:16 Gentle









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com