Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Radical Shiite cleric calls U.S., Britain and Israel the ''Triad of Evil"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 10:22 PM
Original message
Radical Shiite cleric calls U.S., Britain and Israel the ''Triad of Evil"
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who wields growing political influence and whose militia has clashed with U.S. forces, described the United States, Israel and Britain as a ''Triad of Evil'' in a television interview Friday.

The anti-American al-Sadr also said last month's attack on a Shiite shrine in the central city of Samarra was carried out ''in collusion with the occupiers and the Zionist entity of Israel,'' meaning the U.S. and Israel.

---

Speaking about the country's political crisis that erupted in recent days over the Shiite parliamentary bloc's nomination of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari to form a new government, al-Sadr said ''I don't intervene in such small matters.''

--

''The candidate for prime minister must demand the withdrawal of the occupiers, or put a timetable for their pullout. I don't support any person who does not say that,'' al-Sadr said. ''What is important is that the occupiers leave because they are behind what is happening in Iraq.''

NewsPress
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
neuvocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. Hey!
We came up with the irresponsible and childish rhetoric so stop ripping us off.

:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laheina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Turnabout is fair play.
And it takes one to know one? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. This post made my day.
Very well done.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C_U_L8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. I always thought
Axis of Weasels
had a nice ring to it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NIGHT TRIPPER Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. BWWWWAAAHHHHHHHH!---!!!--- Now THAT is a GOOD one !!!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
4. Those that wanted Saddam out, will have to live with the consequences
of replacing a secular thug for a religious one. A fundamentalist Iraq will be a greater threat to Israel than Saddam ever was!

AIPAC should be very pleased with the blowback!


:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
megatherium Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. AIPAC? We did Iraq for the Jews?
I thought it was the oil. (Not to steal oil, per se, but instead to protect access to this strategic resource on which our civilization begins, or something like that.)

Actually, the theory that makes the most sense to me is that we did it for the Iranians. Here's the logic: It's been reported that Ahmed Chalabi was an Iranian agent. He sent four different agents of his to separately contact us, posing as Iraqi dissidents, saying they knew that Saddam had WMD and they knew where it was. They also told us that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators. All of these were lies, of course; we found out only later that the four agents were linked to Chalabi. (I recall reading this in the Washington Post; of course, I am in no position to know if this is true.) Why would the Iranians egg us on to attack Iraq? First, they had a bigger axe to grind against Saddam than anyone; Saddam was a mortal enemy to them. Second, they knew that after 9/11 we were itching to attack radical Muslim states. They wanted to make sure we attacked Iraq first and not them. Our leadership said openly, "Iraq is low-hanging fruit" which they would do first, in preparation for the real target, Iran. Well, as we know, and I suspect the Iranians expected, that project hasn't gone so well. We are in a poorer position to attack Iran now. If necessary, the Iranians can always ask their allies in the Shiite community in Iraq to join the insurgency. We would never be able to attack Iran.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
28. We did it for the OIL
C8H18 - and that spells OIL.

See an energy experts's blog about the tie in to OIL - Thinkers Underground
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CoffeeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. Yup...take a left at the Bermuda Triangle and a right at the...
...Axis of Evil and there you are...at the Triad of Evil!

I'd rather live in the Octagon of Tom Foolery--less serious, less likely to hit with terrorism.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 05:51 AM
Response to Original message
6. aren't the iraqis still celebrating our presence?
here we've liberated them -- i mean look at all the dead bodies{that's how you can tell they are liberated} -- and they don't sound grateful.

well, i'm sure we'll liberate many more -- maybe then they'll be grateful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genie_weenie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
7. Sadr is such a non-factor
His LTs control the money and "his" militia, and Iraqis do not respect his opinion.

However, I am worried because an AXIS can probably beat a TRIAD...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. You have any proof?
You just say "he's right" as though it's a fact.

It's idle speculation. You might want to say "I believe he's right", "I think he's right", or even "He's probably or possibly right".

But as of yet, I have not seen any evidence supporting this claim the US, UK, or Israel was behind the attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genie_weenie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. That is absolute baloney
What evidence do you have of the Shrine being destroyed? And Sadr is NOT respected by the Iraqis, they view him as a coward. Saddam murders his father and he runs and hides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
High Plains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Sadr is not respected by Iraqis?
Sez who?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genie_weenie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Sadr's status
This is not to say all Iraqis, but many do not give him much credence.

Back in 2003, Sadr followers demanded he be made an Ayatollah, a status below Grand Ayatollah which Sisatni is, this demand was rejected on numerous grounds;

including his lack of religious training,

lack of written treatises on Islam (which are required to be raised to that rank),

after his father was killed by Saddam Sadr didn't do anything until the Americans came in and displaced Saddam then he began his ground root efforts to be a young firebrand.

During and after the Najaf in fighting 2004, his lieutants took over the financial and military running of his militia network, Sadr was reduced to the status of semi-figurehead.

Of course, I am not stating he doesn't have influence, it's just that many of the Iraqis who make up the Demockery give him no standing. Sadr realizes his strongest position comes from demanding the Americans leave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran1212 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #13
30. His father was a huge Iraqi hero killed by Saddam Hussein
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genie_weenie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Yes, the key is Sadr's Father
was an Iraqi legend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colorado Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. WHAT????
That's absurd. And it's slanderous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. You mean it's not the Freemasons? Or the Illuminati?
I can't keep my looney conspiracy theories straight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmakaze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. It may be a conspiracy theory...
but it isn't looney.

I can't remember the full details right now, but one US government plan involved carrying out phoney terrorist attacks to further US policy. The idea was to stage terrorist attacks to justify US intervention, AND to stage false flag attacks against hostile nations or groups in order to break apart alliances that were detrimental to US goals.

Causing Shiite and Sunni to fight each other is a very plausible goal of US intelligence and military services.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Google "gladio". Or look it up on Wikipedia.
But it's just one of many.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Gladio isn't evidence that the US and Israel blew up that shrine.
The "Americans and Jews did it" theory fails the cui bono test--the last thing the Bush administration wants in Iraq is a full-blown civil war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Indeed.
Your grip on logic is very heartening to see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #25
33. So how is Gladio relevant to this discussion?
Let me answer:

It isn't. Just a fig leaf put forth to excuse irresponsible myth-making like Sadr's statements here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. It is relevant to Mr. (?) Kaze's assertion that false flag attacks
Edited on Sun Mar-12-06 09:42 AM by bemildred
are used as instruments of government policy. It has nothing in particular to do with the Mosque attack, and I consider the idea that Israel is behind the mosque attack rather unlikely. But the idea that governments do such things is not silly at all. Iran-Contra is a fine example of that sort of chicanery too, in a slightly different vein.

PS: it is tacky to ask people questions and to then pretend to answer for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. I think everyone can presume that false flag operations
Edited on Sun Mar-12-06 09:46 AM by geek tragedy
have occurred in the past, and have been used by just about all states and other violent organizations.

The question is whether there is any evidence to support the particular allegation.

Here, there is none whatsoever. A person would claim that the US/Israel was behind it only out of some combination of anti-Americanism/anti-Israel sentiment and general nuttiness.

The question I answered, btw, was rhetorical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. Actually, lots of people question them.
People seem to like to believe that their governments are honest and well-meaning. It is a service to disillusion them of that folly.

There was no allegation made in the post I responded to. If Mr. Kaze authored the deleted post and made some assertion in it, then I'm afraid I missed it.

Al Sadr is, of course, a typical lying politician, and I took the assertion about the US and Israel etc. to be his, and saw no need to address it at all. My bets are on Iran FWIW, with the stooge government a close second. I would not think Israel was pleased with the present situation.

The question you answered seemed to be addressed to me. If you want to ask rhetorical questions and answer yourself, may I suggest you respond to the OP to do so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. It's completely without factual support.
And, despite what Fox News says, civil war is not good for the Bush administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. Show us your evidence (snort).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Rule #1: Evidence is not required when blaming the Jews.
One can simply claim that the Israelis/Jews/Zionists did it, and plenty of warped individuals will accept it as a matter of faith.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Because if I did it, I damn well better get paid.
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #26
32. You control the media and banking industries already.
You people are so greedy.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. Hey, he admitted he's paid. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
20. He is no more radical than the chimpass
Now that would be a headline! "Radical president gw bush says Iraq will not have a civil war"!

And I do give al-Sadr credit for the intelligence to know exactly what is happening to his country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
27. Triad of evil makes more sense than axis of evil
At least their crackpots check the meanings of words in a dictionary before coming up with inane slogans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran1212 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
29. They always preface his name with "Radical"
Is it so radical to fight against an occupying power? Why do they always call him "radical"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #29
38. Because they're too yellow to call him a worthless piece of Nazi filth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-12-06 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
39. hahahhahhaa
i'd have preferred the 'cabal of skullduggery' myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jul 28th 2014, 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC