Najaf residents wearying of al Sadr as Mahdi Army continues to fight

[Rose Siding]

NAJAF, Iraq - Peace has failed to bring reconciliation to this religious city where self-declared holy warriors battled U.S. forces last month.


Each day, hundreds of residents turn out to shout down rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr. They blame him for leaving Najaf in ruins and blame his henchmen for slaying as many as 300 people.


The demonstrators shove past police to within a couple of hundred yards of al Sadr's office, where his advisers are holed up.


"Muqtada is garbage and his people are all crooks," demonstrators chanted Friday. That's an extraordinary slur for a man who's the son of an assassinated spiritual leader and merits the honorific, Sayyed, as a descendant of the prophet Muhammad.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9632862.htm

[rumguy]

1. Sadr is a creep

He's a fundamentalist power monger who uses people in a manner reminiscent of *.

[jumpstart33]

2. They are sick of Sadr and we are sick of Bush

They are both creeps. I bet Saddam looks pretty good to them right now.

[FlemingsGhost]

3. I have one hard-fast rule regarding reports from Iraq:

Always assume it's pro-U.S. propaganda.

"'Sadr's hold on Najaf? It's over for good,' said one police major who spoke on the condition of anonymity."

They sure got that familiar "speaking on the condition of anonymity" thingy down pat. Why not state your name, Major? Could it be Sadr's militia men would slit your throat faster than you can say, "Allah Akbar?" Yeah, Sadr's washed up, alright ...

=========================

And I love this gem:

"Many Najaf residents are determined to have the government and police firmly in charge and al Sadr restrained by a cease-fire brokered by Sistani."

Really? The "government"!
Iraqis aren't nearly as smart as I thought.

(on edit: typo)

[Rose Siding]

4. Knight Ridder gets the benefit of my doubt, in most cases

You can hardly believe anything you read anymore but they do the best among the American press, imo.

It isn't pro-US for the Iraqis to want security. We can't provide it and it's hard to see how they will obtain it on their own. They are truly screwed.

[DulceDecorum]

5. Every single nation that ever kicked the British out

hear that song and dance about how they could not rule themselves and desperately needed some British authority to babysit them and assure security.
And every single single nation that ever kicked the British out was MUCH better off after the British left.
It WAS the British, after all, who came up with the maxim, divide and conquer.

I say, get the heck out of Iraq
and let the Iraqi chips fall where they may.
It is not like the people of Iraq ever asked the US to intervene
or afflict them with tons of Depleted uranium and it is not like they are asking the US to stay in Iraq.
Every single US soldier in Iraq can testify to the fact that Iraqi want them to go back to America and stay the heck there.
And most US soldiers want desperately to come home and stay the heck here.

Texas and Alabama are in desperate need of protection. Just ask Dubya.

[MeinaShaw]

8. Singapore better off because of the British

Okay, so maybe Singapore was better off after the Brits left - or more accurately, when the British left because they were unable to defend Singapore from Japanese invasion in WWII. But Before the British annexed Singapore in 1819 and set it up as trade hub for purchases from the China and Indonesia, it was undeveloped.

In addition to the trade and commercialization that British control brought to Singapore, Of course, the British also implemented Parliamentary governance and, most importantly, the English rule of law and jurisprudence.

Singapore might be famous for some darn harsh punishment on those found guilty, but as a result of the British having been there, a defendant gets a fair trial and the presumption of innocence inherent in the English rule of law before that sentence is meted out.

Singapore also has a Parliamentary Democracy form of government. That of course was brought in by the Brits.

Who can say for sure if Singapore's present high standard of living would not have come about if the British had not come in. Perhaps this would have been the countries natural evolution. But, the fact remains it was the British that first established Singapore as a major center of trade and commerce and brought in the manpower from China and other countries to support that trade. The Brits had the resources, the wherewithal and the knowledge to do it.

In that, it is fair to say the British are responsible for the present economic vitality of the country as well as its present system of government. Only if you think that Singapore today is not a good place can you say that Singapore is not better off for the British having arrived there.

[bemildred]

6. This meme has been around since the last round of fighting

in Najaf. It shows up mostly in US and Australian sources, although
it gets picked up in a few other places. Google "al Sadr" and see
what you get.

[MeinaShaw]

7. What do you think, not what do you believe.

That does not sound like a very good rule to me, just assuming everything is first propaganda. Certainly you have to be cautious with any source but I think here it is safe to ask some questions and try to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.

Did al Sadr use some form of tribunal to exact punishment on people that included beatings and were 300 people killed by him?

Here is a story on this. It is from the AP. Do you consider AP a reliable source for this kind of reporting? If so, what do you think of the charges raised in this article.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/sns-ap-iraq-rebel-court,0,3187611.story?coll=ny-world-big-pix