Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Random_Task, Nov 28, 2006.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Hezbollah Said to Help Shiite Army in Iraq
New York Times Link
Sorry if already posted.
Erm would this be the same "intelligence" that said there WERE WMD in Iraq but had NO CLUE as to 9/11?
Can they make their minds up do you think?
Hell! I thought they were helping the Septics for a moment. It's pronounced "shee-ite", though, isn't it.
For the past 3 years, the blame gamers in Washington have been very keen to have us believe that all the problems in Iraq were down to 'foreign insurgents' or 'Saddam loyalists.' Occasionally, the local Sunnis also got a mention as they have been giving the USMC a hard time in Ramadi and Falujah etc.
However, the blame gamers in Washington started on a new track a couple of months back, and have primed all their GOP drones to spread the word. Now it's all Moktada al-Sadr's fault. Just look at tomahawk6's recent posts. A bunch of Sunnis drive into Sadr City, blow up themselves and the cars they're in, kill over 200 hundered in the process, and he still blames the violence on the Shia!
Why is this?
First, the recent disasterous (for the GOP) mid-terms have exposed the fact that americans are no longer prepared to listen to the babble that a bearded trogladyte is to blame for all the world's ills.
Second, Baker's ISG are proposing that a coalition of Sunni states should be formed to counter the 'greater' evil of Shia Iran - so a Sunni lead Iraq would be rather handy, thank you!
Third, the CIA has recently reported that there is NO evidence that Iran is trying for a bomb. This means we can't slap them with that one, but we can always blame them for the problems in Iraq!
Fourth, soon they are going to have to accept that civil war is occuring in Iraq. And what better way to break the news, than say that Iranian backing of Sadr is to blame.... We'll just throw in a few references to Hezbollah too for good measure.
Just look back at t6's and others on other websites/blogs, and you will see acommon thread in the past 6-8 weeks. If Hezbollah is mentionned, Iran must be too. If problems in Iraq are mentionned, Sadr is blamed, and Iran is mentionned too.
Do You have a link to this Merkator - not that I don't believe You but I would like to see the Americans being so foolish as to take this position on the sunni action
See page 2 of the, "It IS civil war." T6's thesis is that the majority of the problems in Iraq are now down to Moktada al-Sadr, and seemed to be quite ameanable to the idea of the recent Sunni attack on Sadr City. One sentence seems to sum up his feeling,
but you need to read the entire thread to put it into context. Do you ever see him condemn this 'retaliation'?
It is rather stupid to try and lay the Iraqi on Iraqi violence at the feet of the Shia.
Indeed, it is my recollection that the shia population tried its hardest not to get drawn into retaliation for the killings suffered.
But sooner rather than later, they (Blair&Bush) are going to have to admit that civil war is indeed occuring in Iraq. Of course, they'll never admit it's their fault, never admit it has anything to do with a certain invasion 3 and a tad years ago, and never admit that it has a little something to do with a failed social experiment.
The only way they can spin this to their 'benefit' is to blame it on someone else - Iran. But since Iran is not in Iraq, as such, they need a proxy to blame it on - hence Moktada al-Sadr. Indeed, if they time the drip of policy announcement carefully, they may even be able to claim a withdraw on the basis of, 'having no right to interfere in a domestic struggle' (WTF!!!) and thus free up military assets for a wee strike on Iran for, 'causing international instability and insecurity.'
Watch this space...
After the tonking the Israelis suffered earlier, I don't think we can refer to them as Shi'ite Armies anymore...
This just seems like the latest in a long series of double-standards, if you ask me. Remember when Blair criticised Iran on their presumed "interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state"? I didn't believe he'd said it until I saw it myself on the news!
We know these mobs advise and assist each other and have done for years (decades!) Why the surprise now? Answers on a postcard to the usual address...
Two reports continuing the theme I mentionned above:
I also recomment you take yourself off to the New York Times website and read the memo in full.
And I almost forgot to mention. The Bush/Maliki meeting in Amman got cancelled/postponed at the last moment because: a) the memo has become public knowledge, and b) Moqtada al-Sadr has walked out on the Iraqi government...
The timing of the leak is a bit suspicious judging by the "vocal" silence of the right wing crowd which is not baying for the blood of the New York times as they usually do when a leak is made public.
I suspect it is a White House sanctioned leak. Why? because now GW can lay the blame of the violence on Maliki because the Iraqi PM is too "ignorant" about the situation on the ground.
LOL!! The WH accusing the Iraqi PM of not knowing what is going on outside his window! What a fecking joke. At the moment, news reports are that Maliki's meeting with Bush has been postponed and the talking heads on the tube say it might not happen at all because Maliki is apparently pissed off at the memo.
This might prove to be a good thing because Sadr's men might rejoin the govt. As much as he is responsible for some of the violence, his absence from the Iraq govt. is even worse. If Maliki loses his administartion, it will not be possible under the prevailing situation to form another goverment let alone conduct fresh elections.
I predict in a few years we will be talking about "...the country formerly known as Iraq."
Edited to add that I don't think this is a leak. This is a news release disguised as an internal memo. Saves the WH the trouble of having to stand on a podium and answering such pesky questions like "why the hell are we in this quagmire?"
Sadr's men are thugs and are very much part of the problem. Sadr if allowed to live will be a threat to Iraq's future democracy.
Sadr, if we continue with our present course will be the next "ayatollah" of Iraq.
Indeed. And considering they've been practising their thuggary since Day 1 of the occupation, do you have any comment on why you and your ilk have spent the last 3 years with your heads buried firmly up somebody's ARRSE swearing blind that the trouble was all down to a bearded trogladyte and his followers?
Nevertheless, is this forewarning of a CIA (or proxy) hit on Sadr. Have a chat with your friends in Israel, they (possibly) have recent experience in Lebanon to draw on.
Separate names with a comma.