Comments on: Al-Sadr Tells Followers to Fight Americans

By: Cernig

Cernig — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 23:33:20 +0000

Michael, how could you read that article in any way closely and not question the headline?

Regards, C

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 17:41:59 +0000

Thatâ€™s a disgusting remark.

terrorist noun
One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives

Here are a couple quotes for you to mull over:

However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses. – Bush

Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we’ll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we’re not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us. – Cheney talking about why Americans shouldn’t vote for Democrats

That sounds like trying to terrorize the American population into voting Republican.

By: Michael van der GaliÃ«n

Michael van der GaliÃ«n — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 17:41:13 +0000

Cernig: good point, I expressed my own reservations less clearly by writing IF, but your point is valid and I should have made it expressively in the post myself.

My point is more if it’s true, then… etc.

But, yeah, one could criticize the headline at the AP. Well done

By: Elrod

Elrod — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 17:17:59 +0000

I think Morrissey is partly right: this statement is an assertion of his relevance and from a position of risk, if not weakness. But Micheal is correct in saying that Sadr’s forces laid low to let the surge go into action and now have apparently decided to no longer lay low – at least with respect to attacking Americans. I think Morrissey is naive to equate the Sadrist Mahdi Army of today with that of Najaf in 2004. They are much stronger now than before. The real danger is not that the Sadrists will kill tons of Americans but that they’ll completely destablize Baghdad again and make the American pacification/referee mission impossible. Sadr has apparently determined that by laying low he’s merely allowed Bush a pretext for declaring “progress” and maintaining the occupation. By fighting back against Sunni terrorism, which never abated during the “surge,” Sadr can re-destablize Baghdad and destroy morale among American Republicans such that both political parties will demand a pullout.

By: Cernig

Cernig — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 17:16:31 +0000

Hi Michael,

Jim Henley, in comments at Steven Taylor’s blog, points out that the AP piece doesn’t actually quote a single thing that supports it’s headline.

I can easily believe that al-Sadr would call for attacks on American troops, but neither of the quoted passages in the article present him doing so. The statement passage in your blockquote urges non-cooperation with the Coalition on Iraqi government forces, which is not the same as urging attacks on US troops. The passage later in the article tells Sadrists not to attack Iraqi government forces. It says Iraqis need to stand against the occupier, but apparently this involves â€œpatience.â€? (His word.)

This is either an incredibly indirect way of calling for attacks, OR itâ€™s not a call for attacks at all, OR there are more explicit passages the article didnâ€™t bother to quote. If itâ€™s the last, itâ€™s really sloppy journalism. Heaven knows weâ€™ve seen enough of that.

I would would add that a week ago the Iraqi government announced that Sadr had told his militia to â€œstand downâ€? and that the Sadr office in Diwaniya are saying unrest there is due to â€œrogue elementsâ€? of the Mahdi Army. Yet there’s no mention of either of these factors in the AP story either.

Regards, Cernig

By: Michael van der Galien

Michael van der Galien — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:37:04 +0000

Can we start putting â€œ(terrorist)â€? after any references to Bush/Cheney in the interest of fairness?

That’s a disgusting remark.

By: grognard

grognard — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:27:17 +0000

This is an interesting development and I wonder how the other Shiite groups will react. The other groups might use this declaration to eliminate a political rival, especially in the south where there have been clashes between rival militias. On the other hand polls show a majority of Iraqis think killing Americans is justified, this might encourage some to start attacking Americans where they have held off before.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:26:36 +0000

awww… the Moderate Voice comments dont support the delete tag

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:25:49 +0000

Isn’t it funny that the person with the most power in Iraq isn’t even in Iraq?

I’m not sure how the U.S. government can ever safely give Iraq’s oil to Exxon achieve a safe Iraq for both Iraqis and the world without dealing with the large militia groups. The Al-Maliki puppet sovereign government will never really control the country until he wields more power than the militias.
—–

Shiâ€™ite (terrorist) leader Muqtada al-Sadr

Can we start putting “(terrorist)” after any references to Bush/Cheney in the interest of fairness?

By: Rudi

Rudi — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:23:53 +0000

The “surge” is having incremental success because the Shia militias aren’t attacking Sunnis groups at this time. I would be more worried if the sectarian violence reverts back to previous levels. The US troops are now in Bahgdada as part of the surge, not in secure FOB. If the sectarian violence escalates because of Sadr, the US troops will be in the cross fire. The crossfire is a greater threat than direct confrentation(sp) with Shia militias – IMO.