Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Curval on August 12, 2004, 07:21:54 AM
-
I have read an awful lot about the risk of "enraging" the Shiite population if the mosques around which the fighting is taking place are damaged.
Can someone please explain why the same people are not enraged that Sadr is using these Holy sites as his base of operations?
-
Probably a lot of people are. I often hear that Sadr doesnt really represent most Shiiates and that hes basically barricaded himself in Najaf on the power of his militia. Is that true, I dont know..
-
Who say's they are'nt? He's probably forced his way in there and not much can be done to stop him.
-
But these same people will be "enraged" if the place is damaged by the offensive against Sadr? Shouldn't all that rage be pointed at Sadr if they are so upset? Afterall, the US and Iraqi forces fighting in this offensive are doing the job of getting rid of him for them...it is Sadr who will be responsible for any damage.
-
Don't believe everything you read from AP.
We are not getting news anymore on just about every topic from Iraq on down.
It's sad...
-
laser it and be done with it
-
He's a radical cleric. I would imagine that the opinion of the locals is split, probably a lot of people are ambivalent.
All they know is that the Americans are coming in to take an Iraqi cleric out.
For some it may just be as simple as a "them/us" situation. Understandable if regretable. We might all do the same thing if it were our home town.
I don't envy anyone on the ground in Iraq right now.
Didn't someone once say that truth was the first casualty of war?
-
We'll be seeing 'Wedding Parties' on the News any hour....
-
Toss in one of those Sarin rounds they found, that should do the trick without damaging the mosque.
Can someone please explain why the same people are not enraged that Sadr is using these Holy sites as his base of operations?
This is basically a reflection of the hypocrisy so common today towards the US. They can defile and dissrespect the shrine, but we can't touch them for doing it.
dago
-
Originally posted by Curval
Can someone please explain why the same people are not enraged that Sadr is using these Holy sites as his base of operations?
If it was the Pope instead of Sadr ,where will be his base ?
(hint : it's not likely to be Istanbul :p)
-
I think it goes to show how "evil" the US forces really are. They are willing to adjust their battle plans and in some cases risk taking casualties to prevent offending the local populus.
From what I've heard most of the Iraqis are sic and tired of sadr....even his fellow clerics have basically given the green light for him to be taken out.
There was a good article on foxnews.com about Marines fighting in one of the worlds biggest graveyards. The militants are orgainzed and have actually been training for this engagement.
Go Marines!
-
Originally posted by straffo
If it was the Pope instead of Sadr ,where will be his base ?
(hint : it's not likely to be Istanbul :p)
If the Pope had a a bunch of heavilly armed militants that were out bombing buses, blowing up police stations, and was calling for a general uprising then I'd say take him out too.
-
Originally posted by Edbert MOL
If the Pope had a a bunch of heavilly armed militants that were out bombing buses, blowing up police stations, and was calling for a general uprising then I'd say take him out too.
and those "repressed" catholics would be first in line to do it - LOL
-
The media are feeding you what they want you to hear.
Where exactly did you hear that the local populace werent 'enraged' by Sadr's actions?
Unless your there on the ground and actually getting a feeling for what is happening, it's presumptious to assume that the people there are 'pro-Sadr' or 'anti-US'. You see only a tiny fraction of the population, and even then only through a camera lens.
Glas
JG13 Lokis Kinder
-
The majority of the iraquis are shiites - and actually the in Iran born Ajatollah Sistani is their leader.
If Sistani survives until the elections in Iraq he will become the most votes of the (shiite) Iraquis.
The cleric Sadr on the other hand is a member of an old iraqui shiite dynasty which produced many famous ajatollahs who were highly respected by the iraqui shiites during the history in Iraq.
(Have you never asked yourself why one part of Bagdad is named "Sadr-City" ?)
He wants to become the leader of the shiites - and for this he cant sit and wait for the election or that the old Sistani possibly dies of natural death. So he plays his game in Nedjaf.
There were two other importat shiite ajatollahs - both, Ajatollah Chorei and Ajatollah Hakim wanted to cooperate with the US-occupation forces. And both were assassinated by shiite fanatics - and there are many hints that Sadr was behind these assasinations.
There were also attempts to assassinate Ajatollah Sistani, but Sistani is well protected by his own militia, the Badr-brigade, which were trained in Iran and sent to Iraq after the fall of Saddam to protect Sistani.
The Badr militia outnumbers the Sadr militia, but these are young men who are religious fanatics.
So maybe Sadr hopes that if the most holiest city of the shiites is under attack of heretics he could get control over them.
The importance of Nedjaf and Kerbala for shiites shouldnt be underestimated:
For the shiite muslims Nedjaf and Kerbala are holy cities and much more important than for example Mekka or Jerusalem.
In the past one of the most holiest people for the Shiites, Imam Husein, died in a battle against the (per shiite definition) sunnite heretics. He was badly outnumbered and there was no doubt that he and his small army would be killed in the battle - but he went into this battle and died along with all his people - becoming a martyr of shiite islam and a symbol of those who sacrifice themself in battle against heretics.
And this is the danger in the situation now: Sadr must be captured alive and shown as a prisoner in TV and press - then he will loose all his power in the shiite population at once.
If he manages to get killed in the holy city of the shiites with an outnumbered army against christian and sunnite heretics he will become a martyr and the situation could get totally out of control.
And if the US-troops will stop their attacks instead of getting or killing Sadr he will also gain much power and maybe try again to get Sistani assassinated to become the religious leader of the iraqui shiites.
So its quite interesting to follow the events in Iraq and the possible consequences.
-
Originally posted by Glas
Where exactly did you hear that the local populace werent 'enraged' by Sadr's actions?
I haven't..can you show me something that says they are enraged?
As the media isn't feeding you anything perhaps you could enlighten me?
-
more lasers
not one additional US soldier should suffer even a "J. skerry purple heart" level wound, otherwise known as a scratch, trying to capture/kill this nutbag
if it said action causes an "uprising" - more lasers
-
Originally posted by babek-
The Badr militia outnumbers the Sadr militia, but these are young men who are religious fanatics.
Well, there's the simple answer...
Send the Badrs in after the Sadrs. Problem solved and the world is plauged with fewer militant islamicist stunninghunks. Plus the news channels are not full of pictures of Marines shooting up a Mosque.
Win, win, win to me.
-
As the media isn't feeding you anything perhaps you could enlighten me?
Yeah, me too, as you obviously have sources directly involved reporting right to you.
Anxiously awaiting,
dago
-
the locals are mad that the insurgents are using holy sites for tactical gain and they do recognize that coalition forces making more effort to respect and protect these area than insurgent. also many insurgent are not iraqi locals know this so they see them as foreigner there making their life hard and not caring about iraqi people on caring about trying to hurt coalition forces. no amount of propoganda from other arab nation democratic party or europe can eliminate what locals are seeing day to day with own eyes.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I haven't..can you show me something that says they are enraged?
As the media isn't feeding you anything perhaps you could enlighten me?
It wasnt me who posted the assertion that the Shiites were up in arms against the US, but supporting Sadr - that was you if you remember correctly ;)
So my point was, there is nothing to indicate this is actually the case. Why did you state it as fact?
Glas
JG13 Lokis Kinder
-
Originally posted by Dago
Yeah, me too, as you obviously have sources directly involved reporting right to you.
No I dont, I just have an open mind about something I (and you) know absolutely nothing about, except what we are fed by the media.
In case you hadnt noticed, they are prone to exagerrating...even lying ;)
Glas
JG13 Lokis Kinder
-
Originally posted by Glas
It wasnt me who posted the assertion that the Shiites were up in arms against the US, but supporting Sadr - that was you if you remember correctly ;)
So my point was, there is nothing to indicate this is actually the case. Why did you state it as fact?
Glas
JG13 Lokis Kinder
Actually it is every major news network that is making that assertion, not me.
LA Times source (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&e=10&u=/latimests/20040812/ts_latimes/worldsshiiteswarnthatusistreadingonsensitiveground)
BBC - In Case you think it is just the US media (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3557446.stm)
Lots of others but I will not waste any more time.
But according to you this should all be ignored as just media nonesense?
Where are YOUR sources now to dispuite what THEY said as you must have a better source. Or was this just a general "the media lies" comment you made above?
-
You have completely missed the point of my original post.
You said at the start 'the Shiites hate us for attacking a holy place, but they dont give a **** about Sadr using it as a base', or words to that effect.
I dont disagree that there may be annoyance among shiites if their holy places are damaged by the US, but there is nothing in those reports, or in anything else I have read, to say the shiites support Sadr's use of these holy sites.
Do you have sources to back this up, since it is exactly what you claimed in your original post?
Glas
JG13 Lokis Kinder
-
Originally posted by Curval
But these same people will be "enraged" if the place is damaged by the offensive against Sadr? Shouldn't all that rage be pointed at Sadr if they are so upset? Afterall, the US and Iraqi forces fighting in this offensive are doing the job of getting rid of him for them...it is Sadr who will be responsible for any damage.
Basically, the claric doesnt give a shiite, but they know that they can get simpathy from Americans
-
Originally posted by Curval
I have read an awful lot about the risk of "enraging" the Shiite population if the mosques around which the fighting is taking place are damaged.
Can someone please explain why the same people are not enraged that Sadr is using these Holy sites as his base of operations?
Just so we are clear I have quoted my original post.
I merely asked for someone to explain why they are not enraged at Sadr as I can see no evidence of this in all my reading on the subject.
Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.
Now...since you seem to be saying the Shiites ARE enraged I would ask that YOU provide evidence of this.
Now...a better response for you might have been the recent rescue of hostages by an Iraqi Cleric. I am aware of that. BUT it is not the same issue as the using of the Mosques to battle the coalition forces.
I would also reply that if that is INDEED the feeling of the Shiites, why have we not seen THEM volunteer to go clean out the cemetary/or mosque?
-
they dont want anyone in the holy sites. but if you are civvie living in area currently controlled by insurgents youre probably not going to speak up against them taking cover in the nearest holy site. even locals who know that coalition is after insurgent and does best to avoid civvie casualties are terrified of doing anything but going to ground in area where no incoming rounds once the fighting starts. these are people who have lived in war zone for at least several months now. when they hear that coalition "gearing up" they are going to hide away as deep and as safe as they can even if they shooting the breeze with you day before yesterday while trading food and such. what is telling is that instead of being upset equally at everyone responsible for fighting they are now taking matters into own hands against foreign arabic insurgent. majority of time you hear about raid that uncoveres cache of weapons or munitions the tip came from locals living in the area of the cache. they arent stupid if they aware of insurgent stockpiling weapons and munitions in such manner as to have them "ready for action" instead of "hiding in deep hole" they know that the brawl is going to happen on their block.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Just so we are clear I have quoted my original post.
I merely asked for someone to explain why they are not enraged at Sadr as I can see no evidence of this in all my reading on the subject.
Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.
Now...since you seem to be saying the Shiites ARE enraged I would ask that YOU provide evidence of this.
Now...a better response for you might have been the recent rescue of hostages by an Iraqi Cleric. I am aware of that. BUT it is not the same issue as the using of the Mosques to battle the coalition forces.
I would also reply that if that is INDEED the feeling of the Shiites, why have we not seen THEM volunteer to go clean out the cemetary/or mosque?
because iraqi govt does not want armed civilian in battle area. iraqi army is spearheading operations into cemetary and areas of holy sites so fellow iraqis are in sensitive area less chance for insurgent to play "infidels defile your dead and your temples" propoganda card.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
they dont want anyone in the holy sites. but if you are civvie living in area currently controlled by insurgents youre probably not going to speak up against them taking cover in the nearest holy site. even locals who know that coalition is after insurgent and does best to avoid civvie casualties are terrified of doing anything but going to ground in area where no incoming rounds once the fighting starts. these are people who have lived in war zone for at least several months now. when they hear that coalition "gearing up" they are going to hide away as deep and as safe as they can even if they shooting the breeze with you day before yesterday while trading food and such. what is telling is that instead of being upset equally at everyone responsible for fighting they are now taking matters into own hands against foreign arabic insurgent. majority of time you hear about raid that uncoveres cache of weapons or munitions the tip came from locals living in the area of the cache. they arent stupid if they aware of insurgent stockpiling weapons and munitions in such manner as to have them "ready for action" instead of "hiding in deep hole" they know that the brawl is going to happen on their block.
Okay, fair enough.
But, they should CONTROL their rage agaisnt the coalition if they are the ones getting rid of the insurgents.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
because iraqi govt does not want armed civilian in battle area. iraqi army is spearheading operations into cemetary and areas of holy sites so fellow iraqis are in sensitive area less chance for insurgent to play "infidels defile your dead and your temples" propoganda card.
Are all of the Iraqis spearheading this assault Shiites?
If not then I forsee problems.
-
Originally posted by babek-
The majority of the iraquis are shiites - and actually the in Iran born Ajatollah Sistani is their leader.
If Sistani survives until the elections in Iraq he will become the most votes of the (shiite) Iraquis.
The cleric Sadr on the other hand is a member of an old iraqui shiite dynasty which produced many famous ajatollahs who were highly respected by the iraqui shiites during the history in Iraq.
(Have you never asked yourself why one part of Bagdad is named "Sadr-City" ?)
He wants to become the leader of the shiites - and for this he cant sit and wait for the election or that the old Sistani possibly dies of natural death. So he plays his game in Nedjaf.
There were two other importat shiite ajatollahs - both, Ajatollah Chorei and Ajatollah Hakim wanted to cooperate with the US-occupation forces. And both were assassinated by shiite fanatics - and there are many hints that Sadr was behind these assasinations.
There were also attempts to assassinate Ajatollah Sistani, but Sistani is well protected by his own militia, the Badr-brigade, which were trained in Iran and sent to Iraq after the fall of Saddam to protect Sistani.
The Badr militia outnumbers the Sadr militia, but these are young men who are religious fanatics.
So maybe Sadr hopes that if the most holiest city of the shiites is under attack of heretics he could get control over them.
The importance of Nedjaf and Kerbala for shiites shouldnt be underestimated:
For the shiite muslims Nedjaf and Kerbala are holy cities and much more important than for example Mekka or Jerusalem.
In the past one of the most holiest people for the Shiites, Imam Husein, died in a battle against the (per shiite definition) sunnite heretics. He was badly outnumbered and there was no doubt that he and his small army would be killed in the battle - but he went into this battle and died along with all his people - becoming a martyr of shiite islam and a symbol of those who sacrifice themself in battle against heretics.
And this is the danger in the situation now: Sadr must be captured alive and shown as a prisoner in TV and press - then he will loose all his power in the shiite population at once.
If he manages to get killed in the holy city of the shiites with an outnumbered army against christian and sunnite heretics he will become a martyr and the situation could get totally out of control.
And if the US-troops will stop their attacks instead of getting or killing Sadr he will also gain much power and maybe try again to get Sistani assassinated to become the religious leader of the iraqui shiites.
So its quite interesting to follow the events in Iraq and the possible consequences.
thats a pretty good summary. i think odds in favor of him being killed in battle which could lead to bad things as you said. cross your fingers. :)
-
Originally posted by Curval
Are all of the Iraqis spearheading this assault Shiites?
If not then I forsee problems.
maybe but as long as they are iraqis the "foreigner" card cant be played to the iraqi people. also by default majority are probably shiite because they are majority in iraq. well all know within a week maybe two whats going to happen anyways just hoping that a bunch of civvies dont get caught in the middle with nowhere to go. end it fast thats the best way to keep innocents from getting hurt.
-
Yes, it is a good summary. A very good summary of just how screwed up religion can turn into.
Clerics murdering each other? I mean, am I to believe these are holy people who respect anything at all except their own power?
It is like the guys sawing off the heads of hostages and shouting "God is Great" while they do so.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by anonymous
thats a pretty good summary. i think odds in favor of him being killed in battle which could lead to bad things as you said. cross your fingers. :)
If it comes to a point where his capture is imminent, once of hie leutenants will cap him and claim it was the USMC that did it. A great tool for recruiting more tools.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Clerics murdering each other? I mean, am I to believe these are holy people who respect anything at all except their own power?
i hear ya.
Than again, we have priest taking advantage of childeren here soooooo.... how hard is it to believe?
-
Originally posted by mosgood
i hear ya.
Than again, we have priest taking advantage of childeren here soooooo.... how hard is it to believe?
Fair point.
-
killing him brings its own risks
even his enemies will then martyr the nutbag sadr at that point and unite against the US
capture alive maybe impossible
does he have a blue or black turbin?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
does he have a blue or black turbin?
Black - so this is another problem.
But if they get him and present him as prisoner or he just flees - he will be forgotten by the shiites while he spend the rest of his days in prison.
If he dies in battle then the bastard will become a shiite hero.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
thats a pretty good summary. i think odds in favor of him being killed in battle which could lead to bad things as you said. cross your fingers. :)
Babek really knows what he is speaking about, and so far all his predictions turned out to be true.
I wonder if US troops have experts on Moslim religion, social life and traditions? In Soviet times there was a special institution of political officers who studied this questions and specialized in dealing with Moslim population.
BTW, does US armed forces employ Mosilm servicemen and officers as some kind of "special force"? Russian Empire had special (I mean - different from others) Moslim troops, and even made special versions of medals "for non-Orthodox" without pictures of humans and animals. This attitude really helped sometimes.
-
At least in this century I have been impressed with the way Russia has dealt with militant islamicists who attack them. When they finished killing all of the terrorists in that opera house, they took the corpses, put them in bodybags, then filled up the bags with bacon grease and buried them in undisclosed locations. According to Muslim theory those people will never get their 72 virgins! :D
-
Originally posted by Edbert MOL
At least in this century I have been impressed with the way Russia has dealt with militant islamicists who attack them. When they finished killing all of the terrorists in that opera house, they took the corpses, put them in bodybags, then filled up the bags with bacon grease and buried them in undisclosed locations. According to Muslim theory those people will never get their 72 virgins! :D
I doubt that it was really done. It was reported by the most "yellow" and unreliable tabloid, "MK" ("Moscow Young Communist"). According to tradition their bodies must have been buried in some unknown graves and never shown to relatives, but no such offencive things to Moslim religion.
At least 20% of Russian population are Moslims, and some Moslim nations, as Tatars, are officially "Fundamentals of Russian State".
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Babek really knows what he is speaking about, and so far all his predictions turned out to be true.
I wonder if US troops have experts on Moslim religion, social life and traditions? In Soviet times there was a special institution of political officers who studied this questions and specialized in dealing with Moslim population.
BTW, does US armed forces employ Mosilm servicemen and officers as some kind of "special force"? Russian Empire had special (I mean - different from others) Moslim troops, and even made special versions of medals "for non-Orthodox" without pictures of humans and animals. This attitude really helped sometimes.
yes and yes. many public affairs guys working in middle east are muslim. babek a current a current or former russian soldier?
-
72 virgins ??
:eek: :eek: :eek:
first make a prudence life and than....
fk all u can
what's left for the women btw??
-
No - I am not a russian nor a russian soldier :)
Nevertheless I admire much the russian culture as I also respect many other cultures in this world and try to learn as much from their history, so I can get at least a chance to understand these people.
I am glad that I have friends from Russia, Germany, France, USA, Brasil and other nations and I am proud that they consider me as a friend too.
And I consider history and culture as a key for understanding, why people from a nation act in a way others dont.
So I try to learn from them.
I have read in this forum many unrespectful stories about arabs, russians, french, americans and so on.
And there the problem starts: If someone shows no respect for another culture he defines it as inferior.
And instead of treating everyone as an equal conversation partner there are soon "friends" and "enemies", "superiors" and "inferiors" and then the chance of a real discussion and understanding dies in stupid flamings.
Back to your question: No - I am not a russian but its only a coincidence that I wasnt born in this great country which has an impressive and long history.
My real name is Babek and I am from Iran - another country with an old history and rich culture.
Iran is not only Khomeini and his mullahs - like Germany is not only Hitler and his Nazis.
It has a great history during the pre-islamic and also during the islamic period. A country full of poets, music, wonderful cities and also an old and complicated culture which was developed in the 2500 years Iran exists.
The people who live there are not monsters or terrorists - but they are still under the heavy influence of policy of foreign nations.
Not only the USA but all the other nations who were great powers during history and tried to use Iran as an ally/satellite/puppet.
I saw some results of these policy.
I was in Iran when the Shah ruled and also after the islamic revolution. I have been in an iranian city which was attacked during the Iran-Iraq-War by iraqui Scuds and have seen enough terror for a whole lifetime, because we didnt knew if the warheads of Saddam were equipped with gas weapons or not.
And no one in the world protested against these attacks, because we were defined as the "bad guys" and Saddam as the nice one.
Members of my family were killed during the revolution by islamic fanatics, others died as members of the iranian islamic army during the war against the arabs of Saddam.
But this didnt brought me to hate iraquis or arabs or sunnites or mullahs or whatever.
I only try to understand them and to get an answer to the question why they have their actual behavior, which elements influenced them, so they behave like they do and then to try to calculate what they will do in future if the actual parameters are not changed or if some of these parameters are changed.
The main problem in dealing with other nations is, that there is no real understanding or respect of their culture. Mostly own parameters and definitions of cultures are used.
As long as no one try to understand the "others" we will see situations like in Iraq today.
PS: Just a reminder: I know that my English is not good and I surely made many mistakes. But I tried to show you my point of view - hope that there was a little success :)
-
Originally posted by Adogg
He's a radical cleric. I would imagine that the opinion of the locals is split, probably a lot of people are ambivalent.
All they know is that the Americans are coming in to take an Iraqi cleric out.
For some it may just be as simple as a "them/us" situation. Understandable if regretable. We might all do the same thing if it were our home town.
I don't envy anyone on the ground in Iraq right now.
Didn't someone once say that truth was the first casualty of war?
Well said.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
laser it and be done with it
i would expect a bigger uprising if we did this. religion=life them.
-
Originally posted by Edbert MOL
Well, there's the simple answer...
Send the Badrs in after the Sadrs. Problem solved and the world is plauged with fewer militant islamicist stunninghunks. Plus the news channels are not full of pictures of Marines shooting up a Mosque.
Win, win, win to me.
While I admit the idea has a certain elegance I don't think sanctioning one armed political faction to take on another is a good idea. We are supposed to be restoring (or rather creating) law and order in Iraq - giving support to private armies isn't the way to do it. It would only lead to more disorder and bloodshed in the future.
Unfortunately I think the US and it's allies are damned if they do and damned if they don't ( a situation that happened earlier in Fallujah). In the long run opposing armed insurrection will be the best thing for Iraq, if not for the US (which will inevitably give it's opponents great recruiting material in the process). Iraq will never be a stable and safe country while armed groups wield power in defiance of civil authority. Whatever Al-Sistani and the established Shia leadership think privately they will be forced to condemn the US and the Iraqi forces in public and the population will follow that lead.
-
Nice posts babek, Pei :)
Glas
JG13 Lokis Kinder
-
The question of the thread seems to have been why dont the Iraqis get upset when the insurgents use Mosques for cover.
The answer is simple. The muslim religions support the insurgency against the US.
What % I dont know. No one probably really knows. But looking at the amount of fighting and how wide spread it is. Its pretty safe to say its alot of them.
clarity. (http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=10950)
-
Wow sharia law is really neat. You can stone womeb to death but you cant hunt down bastards who murder innocent people with car bombs and occupy the most sensitive religious sites and use them as fire bases!
-
Babek and Pei, well thought out post, and your english is fine.
Babik, there are a couple ideas, Id like run by you. A little different twist to see if it makes any sense.
History isnt the cure all, but as you say it is well to be remembered. I believe what is happening in nedjaf is a direct response to our backing down last time. Would the outcome be worse, if we backed down again, or If we killed him.? And should we really care?
I cant see any good results, coming to the fore, from saddams capture and television coverage.
If sadr believes nedjaf is a holy city, and the mosque is very holy, why then, does he hide inside the mosque, weapons and men with blood on their hands? Was it normal in the past, or does the muslim religion condone this behavior in its writings? Me thinks he is a narcissist , and as you said wants to rule everything.
If history is any measure of events, would it not be better to kill him, wrap him in a bloody pig, and bury him? Then give warning to all terrorist, that this is their fate, if they are caught killing innocent people of any religion, color or nationality ? A varient of this has worked in history before.
respectfully demaw.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
If sadr believes nedjaf is a holy city, and the mosque is very holy, why then, does he hide inside the mosque, weapons and men with blood on their hands? Was it normal in the past, or does the muslim religion condone this behavior in its writings? Me thinks he is a narcissist , and as you said wants to rule everything.
I think some of this is very true but I also think that we shouldn't underestimate a person's ability to equate their personal relgious (or moral) beliefs with their own ambition and greed.
I think Sadr is one of those people who sees his own power and his religion as the same thing: by furthering his power he believes that he is furthering his religion, and anyone who is limiting his power is acting against his religion. Since the religion is more important than any of it's holy sites therefore he is more important than the holy sites as well. Consequently he is prepared to sacrifice the shrine at Najaf to his own ambition because that is the same as sacrificing it for the good of the entire religion.
-
pei...
Well said, I am going to read it again and see If I can encorperate yours with mine . Should be interesting.
-
Another point of interest:
Ayatollah Al-Sistani left Iraq last week to undergo heart surgery in London. This week Sadr makes a power grab and takes over the Shrine of Imam Ali in Najaf. That should give eveyone a pretty good idea of the relationship and power comparison between Sadr and the senior Shia clerics in Iraq, and the importance of Najaf to the Shia.
-
Apparently the Iranians are now upset with America.
FUBAR situation for the US (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=12&u=/nm/20040813/ts_nm/iraq_iran_protest_dc)
-
Originally posted by Curval
Apparently the Iranians are now upset with America.
[/URL]
Still or again?
-
Still....but this time with a bit more vigour.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Still....but this time with a bit more vigour.
The government in Iran is trying to keep themselves from being overthrown by a younger generation of Iranians (they call themselves Persian) who want to see reform. Kind of like happened over there ~25 years ago.
If they can get the general population hating some other group, then the anger wont be directed at them. One of the oldest methods of governing a population there is.