Why are we deominzing al-Sadr?

In what way is he our enemy? What has he ever done to an American citizen? Isn't he one of the Iraqis we are there to l"liberate"? All he has done is stood up against American-backed government. I see him as a Crazy Horse figure, or even a George Washington. I'm sorry that not everyone in Iraq doesn't agree to our little plans, but it's their country, not ours.

all the recipe the leadershit in the WH needs to garner support from South Carolina and the baptist belt. ( not to mention the WP, NYT, and other meek news organizations)

to not agree with everything the neocons are trying to do in Iraq, and set up an opposition newspaper to tell folks about it. Of course, we had to shut down the paper, which started this whole ruckus. But then we had to show the Iraqis how democracy works, didn't we? Hey, wait a minute......

Isn't that what the white man called him? (would any leader give themselves a derogatory name?)

And liberation means to liberate them to our way of doing things because only our way is right. That is what those in power are thinking. Which is sad as our way isn't entirely right either.

I first realized what a threat Sadr was, when all the TV whores started answering questions about Sadr by simply calling him names.

And contrary to these whores' blatherings, he seems to have serious nationalist appeal, which is bad news for the occupation.

as my hero... He is a religious figure, more radical than Al-Sistani, and Iraqis did not widely support him BEFORE his rebellion.

Our treatment of the rebellion really screwed everything up...starting with the closing of his paper and issuing a warrant for his arrest at that time. It has gotten worse with time. NOW he has widespread Iraqi support because he is seen as a hero.

BUT PORTRAYING HIM AS A HUGE DANGER (which we made him to be) IS CONVENIENT TO ALLOW US TO KILL HIM WITH IMPUNITY.

of a "moderate" imam in front of a large crowd in a mosque at prayer time. this took place just after the initial invasion last march or april.

The Americans sent the poor guy into a den of radicals and he was a "moderate supported by the USA." How stupid can the US be?

I really don't know if al-Sadr was directly involved or not, and at this point the chance of finding out is 0.

assassinated right after the invasion. That was his only claim to fame, having a famous father (sound familiar). He only had a few thousand readers of his newpaper and most Iraqi's considered him an upstart. We never should have shut that paper down. Imperial blunder # 3026. . .talk about maximizing "occupational hazards."

More Iraqi's looked up to al Sistani with whom we never even negotiated.

of Iraqis by the US armed forces, acting as proxies for the illegitimate US administration? (The "moderate" imam was of course imported immediately after these thousands of murders).

Moral rectitude is so much fun. :eyes:

We blew it when we blew up the newspaper. If this is the kind of strategies the Kennebunkport Kowboy's people come up with, Spongebob would do a better job.

Moqtada al-Sadr could be leader of Iraq one day. He seems more popular than Allawi, the Iraqi Karzai.

He's kind of a hard guy. He doesn't mince words. He talks very tough. And his quotes are easy to cut, paste and spin.

who better than a Muslim cleric who wears black and has sinister looking eyebrows?

The great uniter needs a focal point for anger. If there isn't one around we can make one! All they need to do is get the media on their side so, "the enemies" perspective isn't provided to America. (Hint: that would look too much like our own patriots trying to throw off the British yoke a couple of hundred years ago) Only our verion of the facts is given air time. Too easy but it's taken out of Machiavelli's playbook, "The Prince". Plays well to the proletariat who doesn't like to hurt itself thinking too hard about anything.

Gyre

...a firebrand Muslim cleric with one eye and a hook for a hand?

Unfortunately, he's not in Iraq so he's not available.

http://www.zope.org.uk/plus/plusshuttle_files/0,,2003030591,00.jpg

Terms like 'we' are fraught with misrepresentation ....

Second: IF this man is a religious extremist, then I despise him as much as I do Bush or Falwell or Robertson .... To place him in league with 'George Washington' is simply absurd: Washington was a free-thinking Deist, a dedicated child of the era of enlightenment: of the school of Rousseau and Locke ... Al Sadr may be 'defending his nation's honor' from foreign defilement, but he is still, I believe, an intolerant religious extremist ...

I'll cheer the common man wherever he is: here OR there ... But Clerics get no such applause from me: not unless they are overtly humanist ...

If I think that he has a better plan for Iraq than the current government, why can't I support him? Just because other Americans have a different idea of who should govern Iraq, does that mean I have to agree with them?

I don't like anyone's plan, and haven't for years, but I wouldn't throw any good wishes al Sadr's way either. *If* the NYT has it's facts straight, his crew approves murder of a rather broad group of people, outside of any existing law.

snip>
Mr. Sadr's forces have been handing out leaflets in Sadr City, the poor Shiite slum named for two of his relatives, listing nine categories of crimes for which the penalty is death.

"It is allowed to kill: 1. hijackers 2. kidnappers 3. thieves who are trying to disrupt safe family life 4. collaborators, spies and terrorists from Al Qaeda, Wahhabis and Saddamists," the proclamation reads. It goes on to list prostitutes, pimps, pornography sellers, gamblers - and those who sell alcohol.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40712F73F5E0C758DDDAE0894DC404482

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=690137

in iraq are afraid of this man's insurgents. these people rule with fear and violence. the iraqi's have had a lot of years of this.

not taking any sides, just info on who the group is

The U.S military know where he is and eventually they will kill him and victory will be declared.

And because the average American is stupid enough to believe it.

Strauss thought that a political order could be stable only if it was united by an external threat. If no external threat existed, then one had to be manufactured.


on edit: palybook? Ouch!

So al-Sadr is the new Orwellian bogeyman. Convenient, eh?

It's not all their fault, they've been trained since birth to think one way about America, and another about foreigners.

It's very hard to break out of the mold. Old beliefs die hard.