PDA

View Full Version : Kerry: Muqtada al Sadr a "Legitimate Voice"


madape
04-07-2004, 03:47 PM
Kerry: Terrorist Shiite Al-Sadr 'a Legitimate Voice'

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/7/104340.shtml

In an interview broadcast Wednesday morning, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry defended terrorist Shiite imam Muqtada al-Sadr as a "legitimate voice" in Iraq, despite that fact that he's led an uprising that has killed nearly 20 American GIs in the last two days.

Speaking of al-Sadr's newspaper, which was shut down by coalition forces last week after it urged violence against U.S. troops, Kerry complained to National Public Radio, "They shut a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq."

In the next breath, however, the White House hopeful caught himself and quickly changed direction. "Well, let me ... change the term 'legitimate.' It belongs to a voice ó because he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment."

But Kerry again seemed to voice sympathy for the Shiite terrorist when asked whether he supported al-Sadr's arrest. "Not if itís an isolated act without the other kinds of steps necessary to change the dynamics on the ground in Iraq," Kerry told NPR, in quotes first reported by the New York Sun.

"If all we do is make war against the Iraqi people and continue an American occupation, fundamentally, without a clarity as to who and how sovereignty is being turned over, we have a very serious problem for the long run here," Kerry added. "And I think this administration is just walking dead center down into that trap."

On March 28, the U.S.-led coalition authorities closed al-Sadr's newspaper, al-Hawza, for 60 days, the Sun reported. L. Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. administrator in Iraq, charged that the newspaper had published false stories blaming the coalition forces for local acts of terrorism.

Evilmav2
04-07-2004, 05:53 PM
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jdam-002.jpg
Hopefully that murderous trash al-Sadr will soon be hearing the "legitimate voice" of the United States, preferably in the form of a couple of well placed 2000 lb JDAM's coming down to give him and his a very, very bad day...

dude1394
04-07-2004, 07:57 PM
LOVE those JDAMs!!!! MOABs are nice too.

dude1394
04-07-2004, 09:05 PM
Who will win????

http://gallery.cybertarp.com/albums/userpics/10253/normal_Kerry%20Crap%7E0.jpg

Mavdog
04-07-2004, 09:36 PM
Tell me what is incorrect in this statement:


If all we do is make war against the Iraqi people and continue an American occupation, fundamentally, without a clarity as to who and how sovereignty is being turned over, we have a very serious problem for the long run here," Kerry added. "And I think this administration is just walking dead center down into that trap."

Do we have "a clarity" on exiting Iraq? Shouldn't we?

dude1394
04-07-2004, 09:41 PM
Tell me what is incorrect in this statement:


Speaking of al-Sadr's newspaper, which was shut down by coalition forces last week after it urged violence against U.S. troops, Kerry complained to National Public Radio, "They shut a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq."

In the next breath, however, the White House hopeful caught himself and quickly changed direction. "Well, let me ... change the term 'legitimate.' It belongs to a voice ó because he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment."

Or this after the islamofacists followers killed, burned, hung, mutiliated americans and killed at least 20 yesterday.


But Kerry again seemed to voice sympathy for the Shiite terrorist when asked whether he supported al-Sadr's arrest. "Not if itís an isolated act without the other kinds of steps necessary to change the dynamics on the ground in Iraq," Kerry told NPR, in quotes first reported by the New York Sun.

Mavdog
04-07-2004, 10:21 PM
So I assume that there was nothing incorrect with the Kerry statement above?

First, just to be accurate, you say that al-Sadr's group was responsible for Fallajuh, which is not the case. Those were Sunni.

Last time I looked al-Sadr's followers were Iraqis, and it is their voices we are going to have vote/run the new Iraq. Why are they not "legitimate"?

al-Sadr has become more extreme in his rhetoric as the confrontation has progressed, like the reference to Hamas etc. as he tries to get more power. He's raised the stakes, and I think he will regret it. In the short term tho Kerry is correct in that an attack on al-Sadr (especially in his mosque) would produce a reaction from his militia. When they responded before it appears we weren't prepared appropriately...if we escalate the battle we should "change the dynamic" and be prepared.

Seems correct to me.

Evilmav2
04-07-2004, 10:45 PM
Last time I looked al-Sadr's followers were Iraqis, and it is their voices we are going to have vote/run the new Iraq. Why are they not "legitimate"?

Sure, Mr. al-Sadr's devoted followers and rabble of a militia represent a few thousand Iraqi's, but they almost certainly do not represent the wishes of the majority of Iraqi Shiites, or indeed the wishes of the 25 million liberated residents of greater Iraq.

Muqtada rolled the dice in starting this small uprising, in a panicky move predicated by one of his closest advisors being arrested and in the closing of his newspaper propoganda organ. Allied occupation forces started to turn their attentions to the 30 year old's paramilitary forces, just as his rival Ayatotollah Sistani had clearly gained the loyalties and respect of most Shiites, and as al-Sadr saw the door closing on his megalomaniacal ambitions, he had to act against the Americans and the provisional Iraqi authority, or risk inevitable political impotence in this new Iraq.

Essentially, he wins if other Iraqi groups rally to his call for Islamic revolution, and he loses if he and his rabble of armed children and old men end up being surrounded and innoculated by American and National Iraqi forces. As of this moment, it looks like he is a loser...

Now, are Kerry's comments about the "legitimacy" of al-Sadr's as a "voice" of Iraqi's cogent?

Technically yes, but only in the sense he represents a fractional and tiny segment of the population of that recovering land. We'd see just how "legitimate" Saddam would have found al-Sadr's voice if he tried to mount this kind of revolutionary escapade back in the good old days. My guess is that the Mukhrabat would have been busy for weeks with Shiite genital electrocutions, finger-bone breaking, wife-raping, and bulldozing corpses into mass graves in the desert, if any ragtag al-Sadr Shiite militia's attempted to seize control of the recently renamed "Sadr" city...

Mavdog
04-07-2004, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by: Evilmav2

Last time I looked al-Sadr's followers were Iraqis, and it is their voices we are going to have vote/run the new Iraq. Why are they not "legitimate"?

Sure, Mr. al-Sadr's devoted followers and rabble of a militia represent a few thousand Iraqi's, but they almost certainly do not represent the wishes of the majority of Iraqi Shiites, or indeed the wishes of the 25 million liberated residents of greater Iraq.

I don't know how many they number, but it certainly seems like a lot more than a "few thousand". I don't know what "the wishes of the 25 million liberated residents of greater Iraq" are, how do you?


Muqtada rolled the dice in starting this small uprising, in a panicky move predicated by one of his closest advisors being arrested and in the closing of his newspaper propoganda organ. Allied occupation forces started to turn their attentions to the 30 year old's paramilitary forces, just as his rival Ayatotollah Sistani had clearly gained the loyalties and respect of most Shiites, and as al-Sadr saw the door closing on his megalomaniacal ambitions, he had to act against the Americans and the provisional Iraqi authority, or risk inevitable political impotence in this new Iraq.

plausible. OTOH, he could sense that the general public was frustrated by the progress of providing security to them and he moved thinking that he could ride that emotion to become their leader.


Essentially, he wins if other Iraqi groups rally to his call for Islamic revolution, and he loses if he and his rabble of armed children and old men end up being surrounded and innoculated by American and National Iraqi forces. As of this moment, it looks like he is a loser...[


Those were definitely NOT "armed children and old men" marching down the street in black outfits shown on my TV.

The most disturbing result of the uprising was the lack of performance by that National Iraqi forces you mention. They ran away.


Now, are Kerry's comments about the "legitimacy" of al-Sadr's as a "voice" of Iraqi's cogent?

Technically yes, but only in the sense he represents a fractional and tiny segment of the population of that recovering land.

Again, we don't understand how much support this man has.


We'd see just how "legitimate" Saddam would have found al-Sadr's voice if he tried to mount this kind of revolutionary escapade back in the good old days. My guess is that the Mukhrabat would have been busy for weeks with Shiite genital electrocutions, finger-bone breaking, wife-raping, and bulldozing corpses into mass graves in the desert, if any ragtag al-Sadr Shiite militia's attempted to seize control of the recently renamed "Sadr" city...

He has lost many family members to Hussein, let's not lose sight of that, yet it is clear that he is not going to be a man who will co-exist with others in a democratic Iraq.

Yes, he couldn't have this type of opportunity under Saddam or he'd be erased.

Nevertheless, there is nothing irrational about Kerry's comments.

Evilmav2
04-08-2004, 12:01 AM
http://www.zwpatch.com/images/army%20scans/generic_special_forces_mess_with_the_best.jpg
Well hopefully all of this should be a moot point sometime very soon. My guess is that if Muqtada is lucky, he will be rotting in a cell before too long. If he's not, then a .50 caliber sniper bullet or 2000 lb bomb may already have his name on it.

Muqtada al-Sadr took a murderous gamble in launching this penny-ante revolt of his, and and in doing so spilled the blood of US GI's. We'll just have to see what that buys this man of religion in coming days...

madape
04-08-2004, 09:57 AM
Old habits die hard. Kerry spat upon the graves of those soldiers who died in Vietnam.

Now he is calling the murderous rebellion of Al-Sadr a "legitimate voice" of dissention.

A patriot he is not. No wonder Al-Qaeda and Kim-Il-Jung are so high on him. He wants what they want... US soldiers dead in the street.

madape
04-08-2004, 10:17 AM
http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/Mosquerade-X.gif

Mavdog
04-08-2004, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by: madape
Old habits die hard. Kerry spat upon the graves of those soldiers who died in Vietnam.

Now he is calling the murderous rebellion of Al-Sadr a "legitimate voice" of dissention.

A patriot he is not. No wonder Al-Qaeda and Kim-Il-Jung are so high on him. He wants what they want... US soldiers dead in the street.

speaking of "evil", your charge that Kerry "want[s] US Soldiers dead in the street" certainly falls in that category.

Your hate is getting the best of you.

madape
04-08-2004, 12:34 PM
Of course I don't think Kerry really wants US soldiers dead in the street. But the actions and words of Kerry and his Boston compatriots during both the Vietnam war and the Iraq conflict make me wonder how hard he's cheering for the American soldier. His intent may not be to embolden the Iraqi insurgency, but I think he's doing a fine job of it nonetheless. The Al-Sadr uprising has no chance of overwhelming the coalition forces. They know that, but that's not what they are trying to do. Their intention is to strike us at home, where they see America as weak and unsupportive of military action. They want to kill as many coallition forces as they can, in the hope that domestic US pressure forces us to retreat out of Iraq like we did out of Vietnam and Somalia. They know that the only way to win a war against the US is to force the US not to fight the war.

Kerry and Kennedy are our enemies greatest allies. They are facilitating our defeat. Kerry's comment about Al-Sadr being a legitimate voice.. his repeated announcements that the US has made a great mistake in Iraq, his pleading for UN help, his calling Hamas and Hezzbola only "sort-of" terrorists, and his overall support among the American populace, all show our enemies that their tactics are working. To the terrorists, Kerry is a symbol of US cowardice... the great hope of the Islamic Reich. Don't you find it disgusting, that the man who would be president, comes out and supports our enemy?!??

He may not outright WANT US soldiers to die in the street. But to me he appears much more interested in being the president than he is in the lives of our soldiers. If he WERE a true patriot, he would be supportive of our troops. He would come right out and call Al-Sadr an evil man, who needs to be crushed. Instead, he's selling our soldiers lives for votes.

Mavdog
04-08-2004, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by: madape
Of course I don't think Kerry really wants US soldiers dead in the street.

I'm pleased that you don't really believe what you posted, and agree that Kerry does not want "US soldiers dead in the street"


But the actions and words of Kerry and his Boston compatriots during both the Vietnam war and the Iraq conflict make me wonder how hard he's cheering for the American soldier. His intent may not be to embolden the Iraqi insurgency, but I think he's doing a fine job of it nonetheless. The Al-Sadr uprising has no chance of overwhelming the coalition forces. They know that, but that's not what they are trying to do. Their intention is to strike us at home, where they see America as weak and unsupportive of military action. They want to kill as many coallition forces as they can, in the hope that domestic US pressure forces us to retreat out of Iraq like we did out of Vietnam and Somalia. They know that the only way to win a war against the US is to force the US not to fight the war.

Disagreeing withe current WH policy in Iraq, as well as the disagreement with our war in Indochina, isn't against the american soldier. The pursuit of illconceived policies that needlessly puts our servicemen in jeapordy is what is being argued against.

I am not agreeing that alSadr understands that he is facing imminent defeat. I can see that he believes that he can win, and he is wrong.


Kerry and Kennedy are our enemies greatest allies. They are facilitating our defeat. Kerry's comment about Al-Sadr being a legitimate voice.. his repeated announcements that the US has made a great mistake in Iraq, his pleading for UN help, his calling Hamas and Hezzbola only "sort-of" terrorists, and his overall support among the American populace, all show our enemies that their tactics are working. To the terrorists, Kerry is a symbol of US cowardice... the great hope of the Islamic Reich. Don't you find it disgusting, that the man who would be president, comes out and supports our enemy?!??

I disagree, dissent is not provided aid to the enemy. To be critical of Bush's policies is NOT the same as giving "support" to our enemy, especially if those policies are illconceived.
As I argued above, the followers of al Sadr are Iraqis and therefore "legitimate" in their own way. We may not like their voice, we may disagree with their methods or intent, but they are the citizens of their country and therefore "legitimate". I agree that there is a role for the UN. If you reread the quote he is not referring to Hamas and Hexbollah as "sort of" terrorists, he is saying that al Sadr, by embracing these two groups, is becoming a "sort of terorist" by association.


He may not outright WANT US soldiers to die in the street. But to me he appears much more interested in being the president than he is in the lives of our soldiers. If he WERE a true patriot, he would be supportive of our troops. He would come right out and call Al-Sadr an evil man, who needs to be crushed. Instead, he's selling our soldiers lives for votes.

A "true patriot" is interested in what's best for our country, best for our armed forces survival. He has a different vision than the current administration, and disagreeing with our current policies does not make him any less a patriot. This is a democracy with dissent a vital lifeblood of that pluralism.

dude1394
04-08-2004, 03:05 PM
From John McCain


[b]At this particular moment of crisis ó and it is a crisis ó I urge all of my colleagues and all Americans to join together in this noble cause. Yes, we are free to criticize; yes, we are free to make recommendations and suggestions; but the awesome responsibility lies with all of us, led by the President of the United States, as we attempt to carry out what is the most noble act that no country in the world has ever done besides the United States of America, and that is to shed our most precious blood and expend our treasure in defense of someone else's freedom in the hope that they may enjoy the fruits of a free and open society in a democracy that is guaranteed to all men and women by our Creator.

Usually Lurkin
04-08-2004, 03:17 PM
A "legitimate Iraqi voice" in the same way Timothy McVeigh, Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold, and Benedict Arnold are legitimate US voices. That is to say: they are not. Terrorists and traitors to the common good are not legitimate forms of expression.

madape
04-08-2004, 03:21 PM
Al-Sadr is as much of a "legitimate voice" of the Iraqi people as Kerry is a "legitimate" candidate for the President of the United States.