Picnic is no party in new Basra

Washington Post via MSNBC ^ | 2005 Mar 28 | Anthony Shadid

[Wiz]

BASRA, Iraq, March 28 - Celia Garabet thought students were roughhousing. Sinan Saeed was sure a fight had erupted. Within a few minutes, on a sunny day at a riverside park, they realized something different was afoot. A group of Shiite Muslim militiamen with rifles, pistols, thick wire cables and sticks had charged into crowds of hundreds at a college picnic. They fired shots, beat students and hauled some of them away in pickup trucks. The transgressions: men dancing and singing, music playing and couples mixing.

That melee on March 15 and its fallout have redrawn the debate that has shadowed Iraq's second-largest city since the U.S. invasion in 2003: What is the role of Islam in daily life? In once-libertine Basra, a battered port in southern Iraq near the Persian Gulf, the question dominates everything these days, from the political parties in power to the style of dress in the streets.

[Wiz]

This has once been news on USA Today and Times. The point of the news is that Muqtada Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army was involved in the incident and it proves Mahdi Army continues to be a threat to Iraq. Healing Iraq claims British soldiers was at site but did not react. Even the famous Shiite cleric Ali Al-Sistani criticize these acts of extremism by Al Sadr similar to Taliban.

[Mount Athos]

The article leads the reader to think the Governor supports the Mahdi violence against students to some degree.. Maybe a very large degree?

[Nuzcruizer]

Sadr should have been shot when they had the chance. I thought he was a wanted man, so why are he and his band of fanatics still around?

[thegreatbeast]

This isn't what we paid for-- no sense in turning a blind eye to it now. All of this blood was not shed to create just another muslim theocracy.

[Wiz]

Al-Sadr accepted amnesty to join the political process for an exchange of ending violence, under the recommendation of Ali Al-Sistani. Previous plans for a temporary pause of being accused for crimes, and the disband of Mahdi Army has been rejected. What I have heard so far, the majority of Iraqis have hatred against Al-Sadr, regarding comments from Iraqis on the blogs and from the comments on BBC boards. Al-Sadr almost lost nothing in power, even he has become more hated. I also still see the shadows of Iran still in the Mahdi Army.

[Wiz]

There have been rumors of influence by Iran in the government of Basra, rather forced or not, which the local Governor denied. I have strong confidence, not just Mahdi Army is in the shadows of power, but Iran as a whole in charge of the hostility in Basra. Basra is now a little Iran, and the British force has done almost nothing to prevent this.

[monday]

"The victory may be fleeting in a city where Islamic activism and guns often go hand in hand. Even in their moment of triumph, many secular students acknowledge they are fighting a losing battle; some suggest it is already lost."

Like it or not, this is what we paid for. Iraq will become a new Islamic theocracy eventually. Iraqi's are Muslim. Freedom for them isn't the individual freedom of western democracy. It is the freedom to set up a religious government that will strangle freedom and democracy. You cannot liberate a people who choose to live as slaves.

[kabar]

Iraq will become a new Islamic theocracy eventually. Iraqi's are Muslim. Freedom for them isn't the individual freedom of western democracy. It is the freedom to set up a religious government that will strangle freedom and democracy. You cannot liberate a people who choose to live as slaves.

No way. Iraq has always been a much more secular place than most other Muslim countries. Egyptians are Muslims; Turks are Muslims; Indonesians are Muslims; Malaysians are Muslims, Qataris are Muslims; Bahrainis are Muslims; Algerians are Muslims, etc. In all of these countries, singing and dancing, the selling and drinking of alcohol, and other religious viewpoints are allowed. It is a gross misgeneralization to state that a country, which is predominantly Muslim, will ergo become a theocracy.

What happened in Basra will probably redound to the benefit of those Iraqis who wish to have a more secular country. They are in the vast majority.

[monday]

" It is a gross misgeneralization to state that a country, which is predominantly Muslim, will ergo become a theocracy."

None of the countries you name above have truly free and democratic governments. In many, Islamic parties are outlawed, others have unelected rulers. If it were not for these undemocratic safeguards, all of the countries you name would become Islamic theocracies like Iran.

[kabar]

Turkey is a free and democratic country. Certain Islamic parties are outlawed but not all. It all depends on what your definition of an Islamic party is. Turkey: Islamic Secularism or Secular Islam?

I don't know what you mean by "truly free and democratic governments." I doubt if a handful of countries could meet that standard.

I don't buy your assumption that all Muslim countries will eventually become theocraciesn like Iran. In fact, the clamor today in Iran, especially among the young, is to overthrow the mullahs who hijacked the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and make Iran a more secular country.

The mullahs are the small minority, which is imposing a theocracy on Iran. Without their tyranny, Iran would be a much more secular place as it was before the Mullahs took over. For example, during the days of the Shah, there were more women members of the Iranian Parliment than in the US Congress. There were over 50,000 Iranian students in American colleges, more than any other foreign country in the world.

The mullahs descended on Iraq like a dark cloud and used their money and influence to spawn the current Islamic fundamentalist movement and global terrorism. Things are changing. The Taliban have been overthrown and AQ is on the run. The days of the Mullahs in Iran are numbered.

[monday]

"In fact, the clamor today in Iran, especially among the young, is to overthrow the mullahs who hijacked the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and make Iran a more secular country."

Yes, because they have lived under Islamic repression for over 25 years and know how bad it is. This is NOT the case anywhere else in the middle east. The mullahs did not "hijack" the Iranian Islamic revolution. They were the leaders of a vastly popular uprising. Even now, 25 years later, the students of the original revolution are the ones keeping them in power. It is the younger generation that wants freedom. The older generation will never admit how wrong they were.

It is ironic that of all the countries in the middle east, the only one that is truly ready for democratic freedom, Iran, is the only one that has lived under the mullahs rule.

Perhaps living under theocratic despots is a necessary lesson to be learned by every Muslim before they finally come to understand the evil and corruption of Islamic governments.

One things for certain. They aren't going to listen to our government telling them what to do. America is, after all, the great Satan, whose culture is eroding Muslim values. Most Muslims do not like us, but then, we can't take it personally. They don't like anyone, not even themselves.

[kabar]

The mullahs did not "hijack" the Iranian Islamic revolution. They were the leaders of a vastly popular uprising. Even now, 25 years later, the students of the original revolution are the ones keeping them in power. It is the younger generation that wants freedom. The older generation will never admit how wrong they were.

You couldn't be more wrong. I lived in Tehran 1977 to 1979 assigned to our embassy. I left March 31, 1979, a month after Khomeni made his triumphant return. The forces behind the Iranian revolution were a coalition, which included expatriates such as Yazdi, the merchants from the Baazar, the college students, the intellectuals, and the mullahs. The mullahs hijacked the revolution and killed many of those who had been part of the coalition. Many Iranians were extremely upset by the direction the revolution took, especially the women who were forced to wear the chador.

The US (read Carter) aided the overthrow of the Shah through our human rights policies and advice to the Shah to restrain Savak from cracking down on those who were leading the revolution. Carter's failure to act during the 444 day hostage crisis reinforced the idea that the US was a paper tiger and that Islam could defeat the West. The defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan and the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon driving the US out further advanced the goals and tenets of Islamic Fundamentalism. It inspired people like OBL who killed Americans with impugnity culminating in 9/11.

What keeps the Mullahs in power is a police state and the use of money to keep people in line.

It is ironic that of all the countries in the middle east, the only one that is truly ready for democratic freedom, Iran, is the only one that has lived under the mullahs rule.

Iran really isn't in the middle east. They are Persians, not arabs. Afghanistan has lived under theocratic rule and the likes of Mullah Omar and the Taliban. It is the reason why the liberation of Afghanistan and subsequent free elections can be such a catalyst for change in the region along with Iraq.

One things for certain. They aren't going to listen to our government telling them what to do. America is, after all, the great Satan, whose culture is eroding Muslim values. Most Muslims do not like us, but then, we can't take it personally. They don't like anyone, not even themselves.

Our government isn't telling anyone what to do. We are championing the virtues of democratic government and freedom. Don't believe those that say that this message is not getting through. It is a universal message. The throngs demonstrating in Lebanon for democracy are more reflective of the Arab street than the insurgents in Iraq. America remains the beacon to the oppressed and downtrodden around the world. We are probably more hated in France and the UK than in many of the Muslim countries.

[monday]

"Many Iranians were extremely upset by the direction the revolution took, especially the women who were forced to wear the chador."

Then they are even stupider than I thought. It was called the Islamic revolution for F's sake, what did they expect? Of course women would have to wear the chador. Iraqi women will soon be beaten on the streets again for not wearing a veil. This isn't new or surprising, everyone knows what an Islamic government will do and yet in the Iraqi elections various Islamic parties got nearly ALL the votes.

People in Iraq are making the same mistakes the Iranians did. I don't know how it will turn out. I hope it turns out better than it has in Iran, but since Iranians were generally more westernized than Iraqis are now, I have little hope that Arabs will be able to recognize Islamic tyrants, and not vote for them, when Persians were not. Heck, they already have. Yes, I was aware Iranians are not Arab.

you said;"Our government isn't telling anyone what to do."

Yeah? Not even a little advice?.

One other thing that keeps me from celebrating just yet. Historically, the countries that the US has has been most involved with in the middle east have produced the most Islamic terrorists afterwords.

[kabar]

Although I may not agree with her all the time, Robin Wright has written some insightful observations on the Iranian Revolution. Here is a good capsule summary: The Last Great Revolution

Iraqi women will soon be beaten on the streets again for not wearing a veil

I doubt it. Iraq is not Iran or Saudi Arabia. I firmly believe that Iraq will remain a fairly secular state and women will not be forced to wear an abaya or veil.

[monday]

" I firmly believe that Iraq will remain a fairly secular state and women will not be forced to wear an abaya or veil."

Sigh... I suppose you believe in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy too? Time will tell.

[kabar]

Sigh... I suppose you believe in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy too? Time will tell.

I know we live in a litigious society, but Santa Clause?