I've assumed that the reason the U.S. never attacked Al Sadr was because he is described as a holy man (not sure what the correct term would be)...For two reasons:
We didn't want this to appear as a Christian crusade...The same reason (sorta) why we do our best to avoid hitting a mosque. I'm sure our "rules of engagement" Prohibit fighting in their mosques.
Well here I only think now in how all Iraq case is complex and many things needs to be much explained before we can assure that any people around world can get the conception correctly. In Shia culture/Islam religion principles the holly man (cleric or what translation should be) not being any one, I think the correct call would be a reference, a religious man who spent along years in deep studying many sciences including basically Islamic canons, so normally few people can reach this level of science rank, currently there are about only four (references) in Najaf the capital of Shia in whole world, though and in addition to many other criteria Muqtada should not be consider as a (holly) man, nothing would fit for him. This case is confusing not only Americans but also Iraqis, not all Iraqis but either Shia themselves, reasonable people not considering him ever as a religious man, he only tying to act this role but he is far away from it technically, so we see that many Iraqis do not meet on how to describing him, between reasonable people and those who follow him we finds a huge collision in their views related with every thing in Iraq, many people including me considering them as the ignorant of Shia and do not ever represent Shia culture. Muqtada's followers are different between many categories: simple people who can not analyze his behavior and trapped with his religious shape, people who want benefits and some power by following him and people who were criminals or suspected to cooperate with Saddam regime. For Muqtada and his followers they deny this and they consider him as a religious man although he is not fitting any of religious man except his clothes!!! The say that American didn't attack him is totally not true, what do you name the horrible battle in Najaf then?? Also very few people (actually so rare) who would consider an American attack as a crusade. We know already it is a political issue and have nothing to do with religion; at least this is what we think here, no evidences for apposite appeared. Accidents of hitting a mosque is happening regardless Americans' attempts to avoid it, I think it is impossible to avoid it completely because this is war and this is what happening in it. Any way all Muqtada case for me is totally a social and political case not religious absolutely although if some people believe in it.
We don't want to enrage all of his followers and have many more Iraqis hate us for attacking a "holy man".
This would never happen, Muqtada started his criminal activities in attacking Americans before they do any hostile activities against him, he used the excuse of resisting occupation to fight Americans although they left Najaf governorate completely to Spanish forces (this indicates to me at least how hypocrite he is being Americans removed his main enemy Saddam who killed his father). He had been used effectively by other extremist and terrorist groups in Iraq especially in Sunnis side through money, fighters, political support and orienting many of Arabic media to support him like Al Jazeera extremist TV channel. The public visits and money checks were been given to him all the time by Islamic Scientist Committee (which it the most extremist group in Iraq leaded by the previous agent of Saddam's intelligence system Harith Al Dhary).
Karen, can you please ask if any/much of Iraq would consider al Sadr a holy man or be enraged that we attack him?
I hope that all information above would help in figuring some sides of Muqtada case; for sure many people would consider any attack at Muqtada as an attacking a holly leader in Iraq, but from the other side in my opinion the majority of Iraqis would be so happy to drop him for ever in the garbage including me for sure!!!! He caused and will keep causing problems for Iraqis regardless of any useless negotiations with him. It is a dirty job but some one has to do it. For me Americans made a huge and strategic mistake by leaving him a life during Najaf battle whatever the considerations they had in that time. I only pray that Americans would implement a fast operation to eliminate him with no battles that would cause harming innocents. I suppose that Americans are preparing for fighting him soon as I heard from several American references and this is why they took a promise from the prim minister to not protect him anymore.
I'm not sure if this would answer the questions but I'm ready to provide any further information. Thanks for all.
1 comment:
Karen, thank you so much for passing along my question to him. And, of course, I thank him for taking the time and effort to respond. It is so wonderful to hear the unfiltered view of an Iraqi - we completely understand it is "only one man's opinion" - but one man's honest opinion is so much better than listening to all the news reports and our government's official statements - and never knowing how much is true and how much is just "spin".
-r_bayless
Post a Comment