Skip to comments.SHIITES
Posted on 02/07/2005 2:34:11 PM PST by swilhelm73
It's hard to imagine the MSM getting stupider, but there they go again...a raft of articles today on the "pro-Iranian Shi'ite list" in the Iraqi elections. It's totally wrong. The Iranians dread the Iraqi Shiites, because the Iraqis, from Sistani to Chalabi to Hakim and on down, all oppose the Iranian heresy of the "Supreme Leader," a cleric at the top of the state. The traditional Shiite view is that such an event can only take place when the "12th Imam" returns from his disappearance--more than a millennium ago--to claim rightful leadership of the entire Muslim world. Until then, people in turbans should stay in the mosques, and the state should be governed by non-clerics. Sistani, Chalabi, and Hakim all said they were opposed to clerics in the government. Chalabi said--loudly and publicly, IN TEHRAN--that he and all the members of his list were opposed to the creation of an Iranian-style Islamic Republic in Iraq, and Chalabi also said, publicly on television, sitting next to the Iranian Ambassador to Baghdad, that Iraqi freedom was due to the brave leadership of George W. Bush.
Despite their tricky recent statements endorsing the Iraqi elections, the mullahs know that the Iraqi democratic revolution is a mortal threat to them, and to their heretical version of Shiism. They are now quaking in Tehran, not--as the "expert" commentators and reporters would have us believe--drooling over new-found control over Iraq. If Najaf reestablishes its traditional role as the center of Shiism, the Iranian mullahs will be even further discredited. And that will be quite an achievement for a group that is already fully despised by its own people.
I dont know much about Shi'ites but I do know if there is a way to be wrong and make an effort to make Bush look bad at the same time. Thats our media.
Do you think that if/when we start in on removing the Iranian regime that the new Iraqi army will be at our side??
By the way, one would think that if anything a secular government like Syria's would be even more at odds with Tehran, but that certainly doesn't stop them from welcoming the Iranian-backed Hezbollah with open arms.
| If we all voted,
could we get the Shiites to
move to the Fukien
provence? Of course it's
a different country, but
it would fit so well . . .
I like Michael Ledeen alot, but he has earned my eternal gratitude by not saying "the holy city of Najaf."
Really, in the past week alone, I have heard so many presentations of "news" that the MSM has offered which are exactly the opposite in reality than how they portrayed the given issue.
The Red Media has taken such a low and pathetic turn I do not accept anything they say at face value. I'm compelled to become engaged and seek alternatives sources of information to either validation or demolish the issue as presented by the MSM.
It's becomming rapidly apparent that in their desperation they are throwing anything and everything against the wall to see what will stick.
It's as if the spasmatic colon that is the Mainsteam Liberal Media has begun to realize that what they thought were tremors are actually death throws. They are in a fit to deny their own demise.
As for myself, I'm preparing popcorn and enjoying the show.
Well, considering the aid that Iran is giving to the terrorists in Iraq, the Iraqi government has a pretty solid cassus belli to go to war with Iran...
Listen people, it is part of the Shia sect that Sistani and others belong......it is not the same sect as Iranians, in fact there are a few subsects of Shias
Sistani has said over and over and over again he does not want a theocracy for Iraq
but the MSM is so out of touch with reality that I only learned about the differences between Iraqi and Iranian Shia a few months ago, can' rely on the MSM for anything....
I realized Sistani wasn't whistling Dixie, that this is his religious belief, most Iraqi Shias belong to that sect, not all....it probably also explains why Iraq has always been somewhat more secular than other Arab/Muslim countries, even before the Baathists and Communists were fighting over the country.....
I knew the Iranian mullahs don't like Sistani, I remember reading about a lot of tension when Sistani was living there in exile, Sistani doesn't have anything good to say publicly about Iran and Iran was not happy when Sistani left to return to Iraq for some reason, after all - remember who was trying to kill Sistani and Al Hakim, it was al Sadr and his crew who are Iranian backed, now Chalabi, god knows what game he is playing, he seems to be playing all the sides against each other and hoping he comes up smelling like roses, I don't think it is working though....
the Iraqi Shias also know the Iranian Shias are "coveting" their holy places and they don't like it
if Iraqi Shias were pro Iranian they could have just let Iran walk in and take over during the Iran - Iraq war, as they allowed the Americans to walk in but they didn't, that speak volumes to me.....
Iraqis, despite the fact their country was carved out by the Western colonial powers, have a fierce nationalistic streak that cannot be denied
and they've seen how their Iranian neighbours have suffered under Mullah rule, please, they know better than almost anyone what the score is....Iranians used to be as sophisticated and secular as Iraqis.....
good point, inquest
the Syrian Hezbollah relationship is one that puzzles me to no end, the Baathists in Syria are tres schizophrenic
keep in mind that Assad Sr. slaughtered 10,000 members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the predecessors of Al Queda and Islamic Jihad, on one day in one village in the early 1980's to solve his "Islamist" problem for several years [now imagine if Israel had tried that one?]
and he and the Baathists hate Islamists as a rule, it cannot be denied that Syria had the best intell on
Al Queda after 9-11 and was more than happy to share it with the US, indeed, Syria was providing their "interrogation" services freely.....
and yet Syria uses Hezbollah as its proxy in Lebanon - the Palestinian cause they see as a separate issue from the Islamists, I mean why is Hezbollah still patrolling the borders of Lebanon when Syria has 20,000 troops in Country and Lebanon has its own army???? except to be a thorn in Israel's side....
I have to believe that Syria is going to rue the day they cozied up to Hezbollah and Iran, they are playing a dangerous game
if Hezbollah's goal now is to make Lebanon an Islamic state, how long before they start eyeing Syria, and thinking, yep, time for those apostates to go.....
I would love to see Syria suffer some classic blowback, but poor Lebanon has suffered enough....
The press has ignored the nationalism that was apparent when the Iraqi's voted.
They voted, not only for individual freedom, which the press highlighted, but also for their country, which the press ignored.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.