BBC: Iraqi Shias protest in holy city

#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6537861.stm

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Shias have demonstrated in the holy city of Najaf, calling for US-led troops to leave Iraq.
The protesters were responding to an appeal by cleric Moqtada Sadr, who branded US forces "your arch enemy" in a statement.

The demonstration marks four years since US troops entered Baghdad and ended the rule of Saddam Hussein.

Baghdad has been placed under curfew for the duration of the anniversary.

A 24-hour ban on movement by all vehicles, for fear of car bomb attacks, began in the city at 0500 (0100 GMT) on Monday, where four years ago a giant statue of Saddam Hussein was torn down, symbolising the fall of his regime.
 
#3
rickshaw-major said:
And?

Has anybody got a definitive list of Moslem Holy Cities?
Najaf has been clearly mentioned in the article. It's a one of the main news today. Let's compare how it looks on different news sources.

Let's look at AFP

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070409/ts_afp/iraq4yrs_070409102022;_ylt=AulsfO8qAbUX_Akd5zz3WqCQOrgF

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Shiites burned and trampled on US flags in the holy city of Najaf on Monday at an anti-American rally called by firebrand cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on the fourth anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein
But according to AP

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070409/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=Al.HXABOP3ddeKczUd.e03Nw24cA

Tens of thousands draped themselves in Iraqi flags and marched peacefully through the streets of two Shiite holy cities Monday to mark the fourth anniversary of Baghdad's fall. Demonstrators were flanked by two cordons of police as they called for U.S. forces to leave, shouting "Get out, get out occupier!"
If you read Daily Telegraph then you would know that

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...FWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/09/wiraq109.xml

Thousands of Shiites have converged on the holy city of Najaf for an anti-US rally called by radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr as the country marked the fourth anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.
So we see 3 sorts of mass-media that use expressions

- 'hundreds thousands' as AFP, BBC, EuroNews, Guardian.
- 'tens thousands' as AP, Reuters, NY Times, Daily Mail.
- 'thousands' as CNN, Telegraph, Independent, The Times, Washington Post.
 
#4
Does it matter how many there are? Better that they are protesting than attacking our troops? Or are they going down the olive branch and AK-47 route
 
#5
ostvic said:
Does it matter how many there are?
...and does it matter that they ever have their opinion? It seems to me that for Washington it doesn't matter.

ostvic said:
Better that they are protesting than attacking our troops? Or are they going down the olive branch and AK-47 route
Later or sooner Iraqis will realise that the promoters of 'true democracy' understand only AK-47 language.
 
#6
It is of course, all to the good that they CAN protest, under the previous regime they would have paid the ultimate price.
 
#7
Sven said:
It is of course, all to the good that they CAN protest, under the previous regime they would have paid the ultimate price.
Yes they CAN and their opinion (as in any Western democracy) CAN be ignored. It is an interesting point. What really has been changed in Iraq after 4 years?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/08/AR2007040801058.html

"We got rid of a tyrant and tyranny. But we were surprised that after one thief had left, another 40 replaced him," said Jubouri, who is a Shiite Muslim. "Now, we regret that Saddam Hussein is gone, no matter how much we hated him."
Btw, Telegraph slightly changed its estimates.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/10/wiraq10.xml

Tens of thousands of demonstrators, waving the Iraqi national flag, poured along the main road between Najaf and nearby Kufa. Some burned American flags and spray painted slogans, including "Death to America", "May America fall" and "Bush is a dog".
 
#8
KGB_resident said:
Sven said:
It is of course, all to the good that they CAN protest, under the previous regime they would have paid the ultimate price.
Yes they CAN and their opinion (as in any Western democracy) CAN be ignored. It is an interesting point. What really has been changed in Iraq after 4 years?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/08/AR2007040801058.html

"We got rid of a tyrant and tyranny. But we were surprised that after one thief had left, another 40 replaced him," said Jubouri, who is a Shiite Muslim. "Now, we regret that Saddam Hussein is gone, no matter how much we hated him."
Btw, Telegraph slightly changed its estimates.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/10/wiraq10.xml

Tens of thousands of demonstrators, waving the Iraqi national flag, poured along the main road between Najaf and nearby Kufa. Some burned American flags and spray painted slogans, including "Death to America", "May America fall" and "Bush is a dog".
Hmmmmm

A Shia, commanded by Sadr, is wishing Saddam back in power. Sergey, don't You think that the bloke might be fibbing for political reasons? Does He really wish a return to the time when His master would not be able to have a public life, where He wouldn't be able to openly practice His version of Islam?
 
#9
Sven said:
KGB_resident said:
Sven said:
It is of course, all to the good that they CAN protest, under the previous regime they would have paid the ultimate price.
Yes they CAN and their opinion (as in any Western democracy) CAN be ignored. It is an interesting point. What really has been changed in Iraq after 4 years?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/08/AR2007040801058.html

"We got rid of a tyrant and tyranny. But we were surprised that after one thief had left, another 40 replaced him," said Jubouri, who is a Shiite Muslim. "Now, we regret that Saddam Hussein is gone, no matter how much we hated him."
Btw, Telegraph slightly changed its estimates.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/10/wiraq10.xml

Tens of thousands of demonstrators, waving the Iraqi national flag, poured along the main road between Najaf and nearby Kufa. Some burned American flags and spray painted slogans, including "Death to America", "May America fall" and "Bush is a dog".
Hmmmmm

A Shia, commanded by Sadr, is wishing Saddam back in power. Sergey, don't You think that the bloke might be fibbing for political reasons? Does He really wish a return to the time when His master would not be able to have a public life, where He wouldn't be able to openly practice His version of Islam?
Sven, do you really think that Shia version of Islam was banned under Saddam? Where have you read or heard it? Have you a source?
 
#11
Good thing they didn't try it in Nizhny Novgorod, St Petersburg or Moscow eh? They'd have been outnumbered by the OMON, or pro-government artificial Kremlin youth groups. Or banned outright.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#12
KGB_resident said:
Sven, do you really think that Shia version of Islam was banned under Saddam? Where have you read or heard it? Have you a source?

Sergey -

I am really astonished by this, and, for the first time, by your ignorance about this area. Sadr's Father, Grandfather, Uncles, etc., were all murdered by Saddam. Saddam was executed for the murder of Shias, not killing Kurds or assyrians. After Gulf War 1 the Shias were given a bloody good hiding by Sadddam, and he was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Shia. Celebration of Shia festivals was banned under pain of pain. The Shia Provinces were starved of investment and resources for years purely for being Shia.

Look it up for yourself, it's not that difficult.
 
#13
OldSnowy said:
KGB_resident said:
Sven, do you really think that Shia version of Islam was banned under Saddam? Where have you read or heard it? Have you a source?

Sergey -

I am really astonished by this, and, for the first time, by your ignorance about this area. Sadr's Father, Grandfather, Uncles, etc., were all murdered by Saddam.
OldSnowy, they were killed not because they wer Shia Muslims but because they were Saddam's political enemies. In countries like Iraq there exist a rule if you not kill then you would be killed (and it happened as we know).

I noted and hope our friend Sven would agree with it that Saddam didn't ban Shia virsion of Islam. Moreover, there was some sort of religious tolerance. Tariq Aziz (a prominent figure in Saddam's government) was a Christian.

OldSnowy said:
Saddam was executed for the murder of Shias, not killing Kurds or assyrians.
Assyrians? First time I hear about any oppression of this people. Saddam's execution was a form of political revenge.

OldSnowy said:
After Gulf War 1 the Shias were given a bloody good hiding by Sadddam, and he was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Shia. Celebration of Shia festivals was banned under pain of pain. The Shia Provinces were starved of investment and resources for years purely for being Shia.

Look it up for yourself, it's not that difficult.
Have you any source to back your statements? I would be glad to agree with you.

There exist a rule. If anybody claims anything then it is up to him to find a proof (moreover it is not a difficult task from your point of view).
 
#14
codbutt said:
Good thing they didn't try it in...
Baghdad. It looked as a dead city.

codbutt said:
...Nizhny Novgorod, St Petersburg or Moscow eh? They'd have been outnumbered by the OMON, or pro-government artificial Kremlin youth groups. Or banned outright.
It is an excellent idea to organise pro-American your groups in Iraq. So called 'protesters' in Russia themselves were paid by well-known source.
 
#16
I meant recent so called 'marches of protest' organised by small groups funded by Russian tycoons-in-exile, not all demonstrations in Russia.

I haven't any illusions about Putin's gang. These thieves as leeches suck Russian blood. There is a lot of demonstrations but mainly they are being ignored by Russian authorities (though with some exceptions). A year ago there was a huge wave of protests initiated by a stupid law N122 about 'monetisation of benefits'. As a result the law was in fact discarded.

Giving my answer I meant protests of another sort.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/25/news/moscow.php

... police and city officials in Nizhny Novgorod were almost completely able to prevent a protest from even materializing. City administrators denied a request by protest organizers to hold a march in the city center along Bolshaya Pokrovskaya, the city's main commercial street running from a 16th-century fortress to Gorky Square.

Protest organizers refused an offer by the city to hold a demonstration outside the city center on Lenin Square across the Oka River, saying that they would gather in the city center in defiance of local authorities.

In response, the city mobilized thousands of police and special forces troops, which began to mass in the city center in the early morning. The Committee Against Torture said in a press release that nearly 20,000 police officers had been mobilized, though a representative from the local police department could not be reached to confirm.
There exist a freedom of demonstration but not everywhere one wishes. You you reject a proposition of another place then you don't interesting in a demonstration itself but in riots. Btw, my father graduated in Radio-technical military college in Nizhniy Novgorod (a big enough city). From mentioned place the demonstratiors could bloke governmental buildings very easily.

Personally I doubt that demostrations are allowed on Downing Street.
 
#17
The Islam religion was founded by Mohammed in the seventh century. In 622 he founded the first Islamic state, a theocracy in Medina, a city in western Saudi Arabia located north of Mecca. There are two branches of the religion he founded.

The Sunni branch believes that the first four caliphs--Mohammed's successors--rightfully took his place as the leaders of Muslims. They recognize the heirs of the four caliphs as legitimate religious leaders. These heirs ruled continuously in the Arab world until the break-up of the Ottoman Empire following the end of the First World War.

Shiites, in contrast, believe that only the heirs of the fourth caliph, Ali, are the legitimate successors of Mohammed. In 931 the Twelfth Imam disappeared. This was a seminal event in the history of Shiite Muslims. According to R. Scott Appleby, a professor of history at the University of Notre Dame, "Shiite Muslims, who are concentrated in Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon, [believe they] had suffered the loss of divinely guided political leadership" at the time of the Imam's disappearance. Not "until the ascendancy of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1978" did they believe that they had once again begun to live under the authority of a legitimate religious figure.

Another difference between Sunnis and Shiites has to do with the Mahdi, “the rightly-guided one” whose role is to bring a just global caliphate into being. As historian Timothy Furnish has written, "The major difference is that for Shi`is he has already been here, and will return from hiding; for Sunnis he has yet to emerge into history: a comeback v. a coming out, if you will."
 
#19
#20
Sergey what did the Russian authorities fear would happen in Ninzhy Novogrod? A revolt or a complete trashing of the city?
You asked for proof of Saddam's repression and ill treatment of Shia in Iraq , here is a good starting point http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE140082001?OpenDocument&of
=COUNTRIESIRAQ?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ

The militants have to convince the Iraq government of there democratic intentions intentions not the west
 

Similar threads

Top