The Iraqi Shi'a Don't Rise To The Terrorist's Bait
I'm not supposed to posting, but I just wanted to mention how impressed I am with the Shi'a clerical leadership.
The terrorists (as was their stated goal a year ago) have been trying to instigate a civil war between the Shi'a and Sunni Arabs and the Kurds and Sunni Arabs. But the Shi'a aren't going for it.
Whatever Riverbend says about the Shi'a clerics, they have shown themselves to be quite enlightened so far in the necessities of democracy and the disastrous results of retribution. Compare them to the most vocal Sunni clerics calling for the murder of the "occupying infidels" and "apostates" and to the clerics permitting mosques to be used as weapons depots and it is easy to see who are the real wolves in shepherds' clothing.
Personally, I would be quite satisfied to see a goodly number of certain Sunni clerics taken out in the streets and kicked senseless (and my church congregation has never been attacked by a murder-suicide bomber). But the Shi'a as a whole have show themselves wiser than my inclinations.
I can't find the post but I read an Iraqi blog a month or so ago in which al-Sistani was reported saying "I don't care if they blow-up the whole town, don't strike back." Honestly, I don't fully trust Sistani. However, if I'm ever in a situation where every action seems bad and any wrong move to the left or right will destroy me, I want someone to advise me who has the steady nerves and cool pragmatic mind behind a command like that one.
posted by CMAR II at
2:09 PM
14 Comments:
Mmm. CMAR2, you already made your stance clear on how you would treat Americans resisting foreign invasion, so your calling for the beating senseless of Muslim scholars and imams comes as no surprise. Tactics worthy of the SA, eh, old chap? By the way, your logic on that particular post (can’t find it right now, or I would quote you, rest assured) was fairly typical CMAR2 … if you lived under a regime like Saddam’s, you would welcome Saddam as a liberator ?? Yup. I kid you not. I on the other hand, were I an American, would be shooting at the Russians and executing collaborators. The biggest mistake the US made in Iraq was to catch or kill Saddam & his sons, thereby allowing nationalistic but not necessarily Baathist Iraqis to fight occupation with a clean conscience. Mark my words, though. If the Shia don’t get what they want, they are going to blame YOU.
By
richsanter, at 3:26 AM
Bruno,
Typical of your scattered memory, I said that in the comments section of "Calling It Like It Is" and your memory of it is as distorted as everything else in your world-view. What I said was this:
"If I lived under a regime like Saddam's, I would not care if Saddam Hussein himself rolled tanks down my street if he deposed my leaders, permitted free speech and free association for the first time 50 years and - within 22 months - facilitated the first elections in 50 years to establish a electorally responsible goverment. And if he did, and I saw some red-blooded American about to take a pot-shot at one of my liberators, I'd blow his worthless head off."
Bruno, for anyone's sense of nationalism to lead him to a different conclusion, he would have to be a virtual cartoon of a jingoist.
By
CMAR II, at 6:07 AM
oh. one other thing, Bruno:
Those Sunni clerics harboring terrorists like the ones that blew up that Shi'a mosque and who permit mosques to be used as weapons depots? The should get what they give.
By
CMAR II, at 6:09 AM
We are the Blorg. Resistance to the Truth is Futile.
By
kender, at 2:50 PM
CMAR, you know that Riverbend is just a young woman, eh? At her age, she's hardly a hardened partisan -- and yet, you seem shit fucking terrified of her.
Explain?
By
Anonymous, at 4:16 PM
What gives you the idea that anyone, much less CMAR, is scared of RB?
I daresay that if RB ever came to the states she would quickly change her mind about the "evil USA"...that or join the democrats.
By
kender, at 7:44 PM
CMAR2 --
Ah, was that where that quote was? I think you’ll understand that with the masses of articles that I skim through everyday, the exact location and content of a post by CMAR2 posted a few weeks ago might not make it to my “top ten” list, eh? Nevertheless, memory does not fail. The post was as confused as I thought it was. I guess you do not see the contradiction in what you have said. Saddam is who he is. He does not ponce around bringing democracy to people. Ruthless dictators are not in that business. I fear that you have chosen a very bad analogy, yet strangely it cuts to the heart of one of the major contradictions of the war mongers. They believe that by utilizing the methods of Saddam, they can bring the fruits of liberal democracy to life. They do not realize that their means irrevocably taint their ends, and the name of democracy along with it. Any success in Iraq will be in spite of the US’s intentions, not because of them.
By
richsanter, at 5:29 AM
CMAR2 --
Ah, was that where that quote was? I think you’ll understand that with the masses of articles that I skim through everyday, the exact location and content of a post by CMAR2 posted a few weeks ago might not make it to my “top ten” list, eh? Nevertheless, memory does not fail. The post was as confused as I thought it was. I guess you do not see the contradiction in what you have said. Saddam is who he is. He does not ponce around bringing democracy to people. Ruthless dictators are not in that business. I fear that you have chosen a very bad analogy, yet strangely it cuts to the heart of one of the major contradictions of the war mongers. They believe that by utilizing the methods of Saddam, they can bring the fruits of liberal democracy to life. They do not realize that their means irrevocably taint their ends, and the name of democracy along with it. Any success in Iraq will be in spite of the US’s intentions, not because of them.
By
richsanter, at 5:31 AM
Now, we (you) are assuming of course, that the ”free speech and elections bit” was what our hypothetical ‘liberator’ actually did when they arrived. If on the other hand, these ‘liberators’ imported a convicted fraudster, armed his supporters and basically punted him as your new leader, things might be different, no? If you had to pressure them into half baked elections through mass protests and violence, does that speak well of their intentions? If your ‘liberators’ allowed free speech, except that which they did not like, things might be different, no? If they had rounded up YOUR brother / father and stuck a chemical light up his arse because they *suspected* he might be an ‘insurgent’ you might change your opinion, no?
Well, maybe not. You are after all, CMAR2.
By
richsanter, at 5:32 AM
Better a stick in the ass than a knife through the neck!!!!
By
kender, at 10:45 AM
Can you plz check your mail ...when will you come online ?
come oline plz
By
Medya, at 4:48 PM
ALJAZEERA ARTICLE FEATURING RIVERBEND:
Iraqi blogger on martial law
By
Anonymous, at 4:17 PM
"Personally, I would be quite satisfied to see a goodly number of certain Sunni clerics taken out in the streets and kicked senseless ..."
So, in other words, you're really no better than the terrorists and thugs -- but perhaps like them, you believe you're on the side of right and that violence is a solution.
You're pathetic.
..c..
By
Anonymous, at 5:03 PM
anonymous, anonymous, anonymous,
Do you really lack the logical ability to determine a simple parallel comparison?
I didn't say I would *advocate* kicking senseless Sunni Imams who call for their followers to murder Coalition soldiers and their own countrymen, or who use their mosques as weapons depots and terrorist bases. Just the opposite. I said I would *like* to, but I consider Sistani's approach superior.
I didn't even say I *wanted* to kill or blow up those particular Imams of the Church of Satan. That alone makes me superior to the terrorists.
Your inability to grasp that fact explains how you assembled your likely haphazard opinions about the Iraq Liberation.
By
CMAR II, at 8:04 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home