Posted on 08/04/2006 10:37:56 AM PDT by jamese777
Shiites march in Baghdad for pro-Hezbollah rally The Associated Press
Published: August 4, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq Hundreds of thousands of Shiites chanting "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" marched through the streets of Baghdad's biggest Shiite district Friday in a massive show of support for Hezbollah in its battle against Israel.
The demonstration was the biggest in the Middle East in support of Hezbollah since Israel launched its attacks against the guerrillas in Lebanon on July 12. The protest was organized by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose political movement built around the Mahdi Army militia has been modeled after Hezbollah.
Demonstrators, wearing white shrouds symbolizing willingness to die for Hezbollah, waved the guerrillas' yellow banner and chanted slogans in support of their leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, which has attained a cult status in the Arab world for its defiance of Israeli military power.
"Allah, Allah, give victory to Hassan Nasrallah," the crowd chanted.
"Mahdi Army and Hezbollah are one, let them confront us if they dare," the predominantly male crowd shouted, waving the flags of Hezbollah, Lebanon and Iraq. Many walked with umbrellas in the searing afternoon sun. Volunteers sprayed them with water.
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
Hell, here in the US if the left could only get fewer than 500,000 people out to a nationwide call for demonstrators to come shout "death to America, death to Bush" and to trample the American flag, they'd pack up shop and call it quits!
BINGO!!!
Well the US has 300 million people and Iraq has 25 million so there's no real comparison. Also Baghdad is a war zone where going out at all can get you killed.
And 59 million Americans voted for John Kerry.
I find it not wise to underestimate the enemy...ever.
And by the way, what would US allies think of the US and its ability to see a fight through to the end if we just abandon Iraq?? How many other allies will be willing to risk their asses to side with us?? And what of all the Iraqis who have bravely stepped up to the plate to support the US and democracy in Iraq?? What of their fate?? We're just going to leave them to be slaughtered?? And how many other such people in other countries, especially in Afghanistan, are going to be willing to work with us seeing how easily we flee a fight??
And when Al Qaeda redeploys its forces from Iraq to Afghanistan seeing the pattern they need to use to get us to flee a fight, what happens then?? How many US forces will then have to go into a far tougher environment to fight Al Qaeda there because we let them go in Iraq?? And how few Afghans will be willing to step up to that fight knowing how readily we abandon allies??
Put away the visceral and put on your thinking cap. No sensible person sees cut and run as a viable or winning strategy.
>And we don't want to forget that fully 33% of Americans are Democrats, and we don't condemn ourselves or flee our own country over it.<
LOL! Not yet anyway. :o)
OK, here is the revision and extension.
What is being urged by that crowd is not political discourse. It is violence against a US ally and the US. Make no mistake, many of those men will take direct action against US and Israeli interests. In the US, the right to free speech does not give one the right to use violence in support of that speech. THAT is the key difference.
The fact that this was condoned in any way by the Iraqi government is also worrisome.
Maybe you don't take it seriously, regarding it as bombast etc. However, I see it as a sign of the deepening fault lines that are opening up in the Middle East as the result of the Israeli/Lebanon conflict. The tempo of violence is quickening, Iran is pulling the "we are all members of the Islamic ummah against the evil zionists and oppressor America" strings, and if Iran has it's way, the shi'ite will continue on its way to the fan.
Well, then, the only way out of this is to blow Iran and Syria off the face of the earth, I guess.
In addition doesn't Iraq gives US a border with Iran the main source of this BS
WE leave Iraq how do we get to Iran
When the time comes
We are in a World War
I think it is a good sign that the Iraqi gov't condoned freedom of speech. I didn't read anything in the article about incitement to take direct action against the US. Which considering the source, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Nor can it be construed that the Iraqi gov't condoned such action.
Good point. And leaving Iraq would strengthen President Rat Face in Iran and encourage him to keep up the trouble making. He would consolidate his position and the position of Mullah rule in Iran and all hope for an uprising among anti-government dissidents in Iran would be lost. Iran would reign supreme in the Middle East in the power vacuum we leave when we retreat from Iraq without having first ensured Iraq's forces were up to the task of taking over the fight. What that would mean for Israel would be a more determined Iran and Hezbollah out to destroy them...and with little or no buffer from the US presence in Iraq to stop them.
Those calling for cut and run over this silly demonstration are just a bunch of unthinking nitwits. And the impact on them is precisely what Al Sadr, and Iran who's pulling his strings, hoped for.
Aagh, you are missing the point! Freedom of speech does not include freedom to threaten bodily harm and to carry out those threats.
"I am proud to join this crowd and I am ready to die for the sake of Lebanon," said Khazim al-Ibadi, 40, a **government employee** from Hillah".
"Death to America" is NOT a figure of speech over there.
That means more attacks on our soldiers in Iraq, attacks that now have been indirectly condoned by the Iraqi government. Not good.
I guess we just disagree over whether or not the speech in question is directly advocating violence or not. I'm guessing 99% of the crowd has no interest in engaging in violence. From your comments, I gather you would think more like 99% do. I think it is a good sign we are only quibbling over the type of speech, and not speech versus actual violence.
As the march only consisted of speech and not violence, the gov't condoned the Shitte's freedom of speech, not violence.
Thanks for the reply. The point I was trying to make is that, regardless of prevailing perceptions and number of hostiles towards the US in Iraq, US forces will remain because the alternative would be far more costly, as you pointed out. So if, hypothetically, there were over even 1 million hostiles chanting "death to America" we would still remain. In other words there is no "critical mass" of negative perceptions or hostiles that would force us out. So the numbers will never dictate whether we stay or go, but they will reflect the human toll and cost of each day we stay.
Sounds like we agree! I don't like these Al Sadr people. It was a tremendous mistake by the US to let that animal go in 2004. I understand we had a hard fight in Fallujah on our hands at the time and had to put off one or the other, but Al Sadr was the long term bigger threat than Fallujah, whose terrorists could have been contained until after we had killed Al Sadr and wiped out his forces. I think we got the priority wrong. That said, it's nice to see Fallujah now relatively stable, but Al Sadr is still there acting as an agent provocateur for Iran and right at the moment Israel is hitting Shiite terrorists in Lebanon. Not good. I'd prefer to not have Al Sadr there as a 5th column for Iran to manipulate as revenge for Israel's actions in Lebanon. I have a sense a big clash is coming with Al Sadr's forces. President Rat Face of Iran will never let that card go unplayed in all this. Regardless, we'll prevail, they'll be destroyed.
Religion of Peace bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.