Muqtada al-Sadr

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


From juancole.com

So, I don't understand the widespread puzzlement reported by AP. It may not be a simple set of positions, but they aren't hidden from view or hard to understand.


If you believe that every word Sadr says is true. Do you suppose Mr. Cole would give the same credibility to the statements of Iyad Allawi or Ahmed Chalabi? Just the kind of insightful analysis we've come to expect from Juan Cole.

[Agathon]

If you believe that every word Sadr says is true. Do you suppose Mr. Cole would give the same credibility to the statements of Iyad Allawi or Ahmed Chalabi?

One is an embezzler and proven liar and the other a former Ba'athist thug who reportedly personally executed Iraqi criminals with a pistol not that long ago.

Whom do you trust.

BTW - I wouldn't give any credibility to anyone on Bush's side because the extent of their dishonesty is now plainly apparent.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


One is an embezzler and proven liar and the other a former Ba'athist thug who reportedly personally executed Iraqi criminals with a pistol not that long ago.

Whom do you trust.

BTW - I wouldn't give any credibility to anyone on Bush's side because the extent of their dishonesty is now plainly apparent.

And al Sadr is someone who murders his political enemies including some of Iraqs leading shiite clerics, who has gone back on his word about ceasefires repeatedly, and whose thugs have abused the people of Najaf and Karbala, and have committed acts of violence against christians and others in Basra and elsewhere. And, BTW, the evidence against Sadr wrt to the murders is a lot more solid than the politically motivated conviction of Chalabi by Jordan, or the urban legends about Allawi, who broke from the baathists decades ago and was himself the victim of an assasination attempt by Saddam.


In any case Im not saying Allawis and Chalabis public statements shouldnt be questioned - they should be - but so should Sadrs. If Juan Cole thinks that Sadrs words should be taken as "gospel", despite Sadrs record, this says more about Juan Cole, whos supposed to be a leading academic, than it does about Sadr.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Ned
And, the Iranians, Sadr's paymasters, have just issued a threat to attack our forces in Iraq.

They can talk the talk, but can they walk the walk...

[Agathon]

In any case Im not saying Allawis and Chalabis public statements shouldnt be questioned - they should be - but so should Sadrs. If Juan Cole thinks that Sadrs words should be taken as "gospel", despite Sadrs record, this says more about Juan Cole, whos supposed to be a leading academic, than it does about Sadr.

I don't think he is taking his word as gospel. It's just worth listening to what someone says they want, instead of what their opponents say they want.

The same goes for Osama Bin Laden. If people actually listened to what he said, perhaps idiots like Bush wouldn't be allowed to get away with playing into his hands.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


I don't think he is taking his word as gospel. It's just worth listening to what someone says they want, instead of what their opponents say they want.

why not listen to both?

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Agathon
The same goes for Osama Bin Laden. If people actually listened to what he said, perhaps idiots like Bush wouldn't be allowed to get away with playing into his hands.

Have you listened to what Bin Laden says? It's pure crap!

[Agathon]

Have you listened to what Bin Laden says? It's pure crap!

Absolutely, but it's different pure crap than the common impression of him in the US and Canada.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
And al Sadr is someone who murders his political enemies including some of Iraqs leading shiite clerics, who has gone back on his word about ceasefires repeatedly, and whose thugs have abused the people of Najaf and Karbala, and have committed acts of violence against christians and others in Basra and elsewhere. And, BTW, the evidence against Sadr wrt to the murders is a lot more solid than the politically motivated conviction of Chalabi by Jordan, or the urban legends about Allawi, who broke from the baathists decades ago and was himself the victim of an assasination attempt by Saddam.


In any case Im not saying Allawis and Chalabis public statements shouldnt be questioned - they should be - but so should Sadrs. If Juan Cole thinks that Sadrs words should be taken as "gospel", despite Sadrs record, this says more about Juan Cole, whos supposed to be a leading academic, than it does about Sadr.

What in Juan Coles list of Sadr's aims is contradicted by his actions?
I can't think of any of his "list of aims" being contradicted by him acting violently, which is what you point out about him. If anything, most of his aims would require violence of some sort to carry out, or might lead to violence, like a rejection of federalism to placate the Kurds.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Have you listened to what Bin Laden says? It's pure crap!

Hey, but we listen to Ed Gallespie too....

Listening to the avowed aims of someone should give you some sort of idea into what their motivations are, and what their likely actions are. To godwinize the thread- if more people had taken Mein Kampf seriously things might have gone better.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


What in Juan Coles list of Sadr's aims is contradicted by his actions?
I can't think of any of his "list of aims" being contradicted by him acting violently, which is what you point out about him. If anything, most of his aims would require violence of some sort to carry out, or might lead to violence, like a rejection of federalism to placate the Kurds.

I pointed out not just his violence but his thuggishness. Perhaps thats no reason to doubt his word, but aggie seems to think Allawi having been allegedly a Baathist thug 30 years ago is reason to doubt his word.

Im merely saying that Sadrs character is no cleaner than that of Chalabi, Allawi, Sharon, or any other player in the region. AFAIK Juan Cole normally thinks it appropriate to include sources aside from a players own words in judging their goals and motivations. Yet here he seems to think thats not appropriate. Seems inconsistent, thats all. And perhaps motivated by Juan Coles agenda.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Hey, but we listen to Ed Gallespie too....

Listening to the avowed aims of someone should give you some sort of idea into what their motivations are, and what their likely actions are. To godwinize the thread- if more people had taken Mein Kampf seriously things might have gone better.

Yes it would have been worthwhile to take MK seriously in the 30's, and ALSO the ideological roots of Nazism, its supporters in the German military and German industry, and the analyses of its adversaries. So too wrt OBL its worth it to pay attention to his writings, and also those of Ayman al Zawahiri, and their ideological predecessors like Sayd Qutb, and also to their supporters and financiers, and also to the analyses of their adversaries.

[Agathon]

Sadr hates our freedom.

[lord of the mark]

"He wants Iraqi Shiism to emerge from Iran's shadow and to establish its independence from Iran. His movement is rooted in the Shiite ghettos of Iraq and is very indigenous. He is not Iran's catspaw in Iraq, quite the opposite. He is strong Iraqi nationalist."


In particular this is questionable - its clearly in Muqtys interest to say so, and it deserves belief as much as Hitler saying that he was not a catspaw for Germany industrialists who were secretly funding him.

[Agathon]

Yes it would have been worthwhile to take MK seriously in the 30's, and ALSO the ideological roots of Nazism, its supporters in the German military and German industry, and the analyses of its adversaries. So too wrt OBL its worth it to pay attention to his writings, and also those of Ayman al Zawahiri, and their ideological predecessors like Sayd Qutb, and also to their supporters and financiers, and also to the analyses of their adversaries.

Are you seriously calling the Iranian theocrats Nazis? Sure, they aren't too hot, but they certainly aren't up to Adolf's standard.