Shrine Allegedly Damaged by Sadr's Men
Shrine Allegedly Damaged by Sadr's Men
Ayatollah Mohammed Baqr al-Mehri, the Kuwaiti representative of Iraq’s most powerful Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, said the Sadr militia fired a mortar shell at the dome of the shrine but missed it and hit a wall instead.
Ayatollah Mehri called the attack “a cowardly act” and said Sadr loyalists should not use the shrine for storing their weapons and as a sanctuary.
“We want to tell the world, and America, that Muqtada al-Sadr is not one of us, and this is a conspiracy against Shiites so that we don’t get any [political] rights,” Ayatollah Mehri said, referring to Shiite demands for greater political representation in the new Iraq.
Posted by Michele at May 26, 2004 09:44 AM | TrackBack
Comments
I really wish we could get video of these asshats pulling some crap like this.
Posted by: HullBreach at May 26, 2004 10:20 AM
On another thread someone said x and company would be “screeching against America and Freedom again” etc., etc.
“x and Truth” will NOW say that this Shite cleric is a Bush plant and that all Shites who want al-Sadr gone are Liars and Perverts”. (Over 95 % of them)
“No One who says anything good about the military tells the Truth … according to ANSWER, MOVEON and others like them”.
They CANNOT stand good news, only garbage.
I wonder how much they are being paid, or are they just mad because their Oil for Food bribes have been stopped?
Posted by: leaddog2 at May 26, 2004 10:28 AM
Mr Mohammad Baqer Al-Mohri is always linked in the media with the Sistani and that is a constatnt hoax of the media’s side, since the truth is that Mohammad Baqer has nothing to do with Sistani and with Mohri family also, since the representative of sistani inKuwait is Mr Mortaza Mohri sun of Ayatollah Abbas Mohri a kuwaiti expelled from Kuwait during the Iraq, Iran war.
Mr Mohammad Baqer relate to the Mosawi family and is a Kuwaiti born in Iraq with Iranian roots, picked up the Mohri name before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and manipulated it since then to help the Kuwaiti political efforts to ligitimize the war against Iraq.
Most people doesn’t know these facts and that caused Sistani and Mohri family many embaressements along the years.
Please, verify these info for the sake of truthful journalism.
Thanks
Posted by: Mohamed Salim at May 26, 2004 10:33 AM
Mr Mohammad Baqer Al-Mohri is always linked in the media with the Sistani and that is a constant error of the media’s side, since the truth is that Mohammad Baqer has nothing to do with Sistani and even with Mohri family, since the representative of sistani inKuwait is Mr Mortaza Mohri son of Ayatollah Abbas Mohri a kuwaiti expelled from Kuwait during the Iraq, Iran war.
Mr Mohammad Baqer relate to the Mosawi family and is a Kuwaiti born in Iraq with Iranian roots, picked up the Mohri name before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and manipulated it since then to help the Kuwaiti political efforts to ligitimize the war against Iraq.
Most people doesn’t know these facts and that caused Sistani and Mohri family many embaressements along the years.
Please, verify these info for the sake of truthful journalism.
Thanks
Posted by: Mohamed Salim at May 26, 2004 10:45 AM
What do you mean legitimize the war? It is NOW and has always been a legitimate war against killers.
I suspect that you are just trying to cover for al-Sadr who is NOT “legitimate” according to the majority of Shiites in Iraq.
Posted by: leaddog2 at May 26, 2004 10:45 AM
1-Where do people get such statestics?
2-WHO EVER MENTIONED SADER?
3- That was only a clarification for a continuous media mistake that must be corrected.
4- How come Kuwaitis, Sadris, Mohris and myself be linked with oil bribes?
5-As I know the war on Iraq is still Illigitimate.
Posted by: Mohammad Salim at May 26, 2004 10:56 AM
Your opinion.
Posted by: leaddog2 at May 26, 2004 11:13 AM
1- The media, so take it with a heavy helping of salt
2- Uh, read the article maybe?
3- Dunno
4- By what law? Just because the UN dosent approve of somthing dosent make it illeagal.
Posted by: HullBreach at May 26, 2004 11:38 AM
This is the Pope’s opinion, Mr Mandella and Mr Annan.
I didn’t state any opinions here, the only thing I stated is the fact about Mr. Mohri’s origin, which attracted some peoples personal remarks and opinions.
while my note was a call for fair, clear and responsible journalism.
The rest of my remarks were absolute facts especially those about the ligitimacy of the war against Iraq which wasn’t approved by legal, political or even religious parties.
Posted by: Mohammad Salim at May 26, 2004 11:51 AM
Again, your opinion on the war does not make it fact.
Who in the hell cares about U.N. idiots like Annan?
While I commend your obvious education level, it is obvious that you are taking “sacsasm” seriously.
That’s O.K. We have a lot of far-left people here who do not understand it either.
What you may not know is that a lot of Americans are tired of blood suckers. That is the United Nations in a nutshell.
Posted by: leaddog2 at May 26, 2004 01:23 PM
a typo——- sarcasm
Posted by: leaddog2 at May 26, 2004 01:24 PM
This is the Pope’s opinion, Mr Mandella and Mr Annan
no offense to his holiness but PJP2 has a moral obligation to oppose war, and he has, consistently, for his entire term.
Mr. Mandella is a hack, just my opinion.
and Mr Annan has so much blood on his hands i’m shocked he can still function in day to day life, i couldnt sleep with that kind of weight on my conscience.
Hey, maybe now you’ll tell us Arafat disagrees with the war! OMG!
Posted by: matt at May 26, 2004 01:42 PM
Not to put a fine point on it but the Pope has not expressly stated that the war was illegitimate. While some of his aids have stated that they dissapproved, the Pope himself has never condemed the war. Instead Pope John Paul II has stated a desire for a peaceful solution, and warned the US to consider our actions morally before proceeding. If he had truly condemmed the war he wouldn’t have met with Bush.
Posted by: Brian at May 26, 2004 01:54 PM
The Pope opposed to war? That’s not shocking. I’d be stunned if the Pope supported a war - particularly a preventive one. The Pope offers spiritual guidance and war is something modern Christian spiritual teaching abhors.
Mandela speaking out about the US? That’s not shocking either. Mandela was a client of the Soviet Union during the cold war. Right or wrong, the US supported South Africa for years as a bulwark against African communism.
Annan opposed to the war? Again, not surprising as the President called him irrelevant. I might add the US deployed troops into compact without UN approval in the later half of the twentieth century, I can only think of two major conflicts that had UN approval - The one in Korea legally was never ended by peace treaty or UN resolution, The war in Iraq was also legally never ended by treaty or UN resolution - hostilities have been ongoing ever since the “cease-fire” was signed nearly 13 years ago. Lets not even talk about Kosovo.
Posted by: kh at May 26, 2004 02:35 PM
Well put kh
Now that you mention it I personally cannot think of a single UN sanctioned millitary action that has ended well or been completed.
Posted by: HullBreach at May 26, 2004 02:40 PM
Sorry for my sloppiness - the last half of my previous post should have read…
Annan opposed to the war? Again, not surprising as the President called him irrelevant. I might add the US has deployed troops into combat many times in the later half of the twentieth century without UN approval. How many troops were sent to Panama to overthrow Noriega?
I can only think of two major conflicts that had UN approval - The one in Korea legally was never ended by peace treaty or UN resolution, The war in Iraq was also legally never ended by treaty or UN resolution - hostilities have been ongoing ever since the “cease-fire” was signed nearly 13 years ago. Lets not even talk about Kosovo.
Posted by: kh at May 26, 2004 02:41 PM
International law is quite clear. Any country has the right to defend itself. It doesn’t matter who approves or disapproves, the right remains.
The attack in Iraq was conducted within proper legal precedent under US law, and in accordance with international law, if you accept that the US was threatened by Iraq.
You can argue that point all you want, and outside of peripheral combattants, you will receive silence. The relevent data is still classified.
Posted by: jeffers at May 26, 2004 04:03 PM
Even the other Shiites are NOW doing their best to get rid of al-Sadr (but only after we did the hard part).
Typical of Arabs.
Posted by: leaddog2 at May 27, 2004 08:49 AM
In reference to commenter, Mr. Mohammad Salim:
I met a friend years ago from Kuwait, while in Flint, MI for a month. On evening we were teasing him, and found out that he did not know how to joke around or tease. This struck us odd at the time. He said in his country, they do not understand teasing and joking around. He was serious 24/7 . This was back in 1980. Needless to say, I had a ball joking around and teasing him.
Posted by: Jeff B at May 27, 2004 03:43 PM
Mr Mandela was a known terrorist in his day. Backed by communist money. His wife was also a terrorist and had hit squads take out those who opposes their views. It suprises me why he has gained the amount of support he has.
As for Pope John Paul I also fully agree with KH,
united nations largely irrelevant now i am afraid. Which is sad because they could have been used to such good effect if the powers in the UN did not keep vetoing each other to score political points. I.E France.
Posted by: Lord Downey at May 27, 2004 03:53 PM
Mohammad Salim, I am curious what country you are from.
Would you agree that we should have let Sodom stay in Kuwait? He didn’t do anything to us. We could have ‘acted like liberals’ at the UN and still been denouncing it. We could have passed the buck. In fact, I think it was probably illegal for us to go into Kuwait, because the pope and Mandella never said it was ok. In fact, it’s on the record, Sodom was quoted as saying, “I never gave my blessing to the US to save Kuwait. “
Terrorism is a problem that reaches world wide. Once again, it has been left up to America and a few great allies, to stop the madness. America looks like the guy at the circus swirling a hula-hoop on one foot, jumping up and down on the other, playing a harmonica while juggling bowling pins with one hand and playing a keyboard with the other hand and banging a bass drum, strapped on his back, by nodding his head. We are expected to perform all these difficult tasks, while liberal pit bulls knaw away at our ankles. You know, we don’t ask for much, but if we didn’t have those pitbulls knawing at our ankles, we could perform our difficult tasks a lot easier.
Posted by: Jeff B at May 27, 2004 04:03 PM
Why is everyone who writes on this site with an opposing view assumed to be a “liberal?” I did not oppose going after Saddam Hussein, but I think people like Rumsfeld and Cheney underestimated the tenaciousness and belligerency of the folks in that region. Most of the people indigenous to Iraq were accustomed to living in fear and being brutalized. It was naive for American leaders to expect that the Iraqis would know what to do with the concept of free democracy even if it jumped into their laps. Saddam made everyone paranoid, so naturally they are wary of us. However, I hope all Americans, liberal and otherwise, remain hopeful that democracy will prevail and set the standard for the rest of the Arab Middle East.
Ayatollah Mohammed Baqr al-Mehri, the Kuwaiti representative of Iraq’s most powerful Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, said the Sadr militia fired a mortar shell at the dome of the shrine but missed it and hit a wall instead.
Ayatollah Mehri called the attack “a cowardly act” and said Sadr loyalists should not use the shrine for storing their weapons and as a sanctuary.
“We want to tell the world, and America, that Muqtada al-Sadr is not one of us, and this is a conspiracy against Shiites so that we don’t get any [political] rights,” Ayatollah Mehri said, referring to Shiite demands for greater political representation in the new Iraq.
Posted by Michele at May 26, 2004 09:44 AM | TrackBack
Comments
I really wish we could get video of these asshats pulling some crap like this.
Posted by: HullBreach at May 26, 2004 10:20 AM
On another thread someone said x and company would be “screeching against America and Freedom again” etc., etc.
“x and Truth” will NOW say that this Shite cleric is a Bush plant and that all Shites who want al-Sadr gone are Liars and Perverts”. (Over 95 % of them)
“No One who says anything good about the military tells the Truth … according to ANSWER, MOVEON and others like them”.
They CANNOT stand good news, only garbage.
I wonder how much they are being paid, or are they just mad because their Oil for Food bribes have been stopped?
Posted by: leaddog2 at May 26, 2004 10:28 AM
Mr Mohammad Baqer Al-Mohri is always linked in the media with the Sistani and that is a constatnt hoax of the media’s side, since the truth is that Mohammad Baqer has nothing to do with Sistani and with Mohri family also, since the representative of sistani inKuwait is Mr Mortaza Mohri sun of Ayatollah Abbas Mohri a kuwaiti expelled from Kuwait during the Iraq, Iran war.
Mr Mohammad Baqer relate to the Mosawi family and is a Kuwaiti born in Iraq with Iranian roots, picked up the Mohri name before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and manipulated it since then to help the Kuwaiti political efforts to ligitimize the war against Iraq.
Most people doesn’t know these facts and that caused Sistani and Mohri family many embaressements along the years.
Please, verify these info for the sake of truthful journalism.
Thanks
Posted by: Mohamed Salim at May 26, 2004 10:33 AM
Mr Mohammad Baqer Al-Mohri is always linked in the media with the Sistani and that is a constant error of the media’s side, since the truth is that Mohammad Baqer has nothing to do with Sistani and even with Mohri family, since the representative of sistani inKuwait is Mr Mortaza Mohri son of Ayatollah Abbas Mohri a kuwaiti expelled from Kuwait during the Iraq, Iran war.
Mr Mohammad Baqer relate to the Mosawi family and is a Kuwaiti born in Iraq with Iranian roots, picked up the Mohri name before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and manipulated it since then to help the Kuwaiti political efforts to ligitimize the war against Iraq.
Most people doesn’t know these facts and that caused Sistani and Mohri family many embaressements along the years.
Please, verify these info for the sake of truthful journalism.
Thanks
Posted by: Mohamed Salim at May 26, 2004 10:45 AM
What do you mean legitimize the war? It is NOW and has always been a legitimate war against killers.
I suspect that you are just trying to cover for al-Sadr who is NOT “legitimate” according to the majority of Shiites in Iraq.
Posted by: leaddog2 at May 26, 2004 10:45 AM
1-Where do people get such statestics?
2-WHO EVER MENTIONED SADER?
3- That was only a clarification for a continuous media mistake that must be corrected.
4- How come Kuwaitis, Sadris, Mohris and myself be linked with oil bribes?
5-As I know the war on Iraq is still Illigitimate.
Posted by: Mohammad Salim at May 26, 2004 10:56 AM
Your opinion.
Posted by: leaddog2 at May 26, 2004 11:13 AM
1- The media, so take it with a heavy helping of salt
2- Uh, read the article maybe?
3- Dunno
4- By what law? Just because the UN dosent approve of somthing dosent make it illeagal.
Posted by: HullBreach at May 26, 2004 11:38 AM
This is the Pope’s opinion, Mr Mandella and Mr Annan.
I didn’t state any opinions here, the only thing I stated is the fact about Mr. Mohri’s origin, which attracted some peoples personal remarks and opinions.
while my note was a call for fair, clear and responsible journalism.
The rest of my remarks were absolute facts especially those about the ligitimacy of the war against Iraq which wasn’t approved by legal, political or even religious parties.
Posted by: Mohammad Salim at May 26, 2004 11:51 AM
Again, your opinion on the war does not make it fact.
Who in the hell cares about U.N. idiots like Annan?
While I commend your obvious education level, it is obvious that you are taking “sacsasm” seriously.
That’s O.K. We have a lot of far-left people here who do not understand it either.
What you may not know is that a lot of Americans are tired of blood suckers. That is the United Nations in a nutshell.
Posted by: leaddog2 at May 26, 2004 01:23 PM
a typo——- sarcasm
Posted by: leaddog2 at May 26, 2004 01:24 PM
This is the Pope’s opinion, Mr Mandella and Mr Annan
no offense to his holiness but PJP2 has a moral obligation to oppose war, and he has, consistently, for his entire term.
Mr. Mandella is a hack, just my opinion.
and Mr Annan has so much blood on his hands i’m shocked he can still function in day to day life, i couldnt sleep with that kind of weight on my conscience.
Hey, maybe now you’ll tell us Arafat disagrees with the war! OMG!
Posted by: matt at May 26, 2004 01:42 PM
Not to put a fine point on it but the Pope has not expressly stated that the war was illegitimate. While some of his aids have stated that they dissapproved, the Pope himself has never condemed the war. Instead Pope John Paul II has stated a desire for a peaceful solution, and warned the US to consider our actions morally before proceeding. If he had truly condemmed the war he wouldn’t have met with Bush.
Posted by: Brian at May 26, 2004 01:54 PM
The Pope opposed to war? That’s not shocking. I’d be stunned if the Pope supported a war - particularly a preventive one. The Pope offers spiritual guidance and war is something modern Christian spiritual teaching abhors.
Mandela speaking out about the US? That’s not shocking either. Mandela was a client of the Soviet Union during the cold war. Right or wrong, the US supported South Africa for years as a bulwark against African communism.
Annan opposed to the war? Again, not surprising as the President called him irrelevant. I might add the US deployed troops into compact without UN approval in the later half of the twentieth century, I can only think of two major conflicts that had UN approval - The one in Korea legally was never ended by peace treaty or UN resolution, The war in Iraq was also legally never ended by treaty or UN resolution - hostilities have been ongoing ever since the “cease-fire” was signed nearly 13 years ago. Lets not even talk about Kosovo.
Posted by: kh at May 26, 2004 02:35 PM
Well put kh
Now that you mention it I personally cannot think of a single UN sanctioned millitary action that has ended well or been completed.
Posted by: HullBreach at May 26, 2004 02:40 PM
Sorry for my sloppiness - the last half of my previous post should have read…
Annan opposed to the war? Again, not surprising as the President called him irrelevant. I might add the US has deployed troops into combat many times in the later half of the twentieth century without UN approval. How many troops were sent to Panama to overthrow Noriega?
I can only think of two major conflicts that had UN approval - The one in Korea legally was never ended by peace treaty or UN resolution, The war in Iraq was also legally never ended by treaty or UN resolution - hostilities have been ongoing ever since the “cease-fire” was signed nearly 13 years ago. Lets not even talk about Kosovo.
Posted by: kh at May 26, 2004 02:41 PM
International law is quite clear. Any country has the right to defend itself. It doesn’t matter who approves or disapproves, the right remains.
The attack in Iraq was conducted within proper legal precedent under US law, and in accordance with international law, if you accept that the US was threatened by Iraq.
You can argue that point all you want, and outside of peripheral combattants, you will receive silence. The relevent data is still classified.
Posted by: jeffers at May 26, 2004 04:03 PM
Even the other Shiites are NOW doing their best to get rid of al-Sadr (but only after we did the hard part).
Typical of Arabs.
Posted by: leaddog2 at May 27, 2004 08:49 AM
In reference to commenter, Mr. Mohammad Salim:
I met a friend years ago from Kuwait, while in Flint, MI for a month. On evening we were teasing him, and found out that he did not know how to joke around or tease. This struck us odd at the time. He said in his country, they do not understand teasing and joking around. He was serious 24/7 . This was back in 1980. Needless to say, I had a ball joking around and teasing him.
Posted by: Jeff B at May 27, 2004 03:43 PM
Mr Mandela was a known terrorist in his day. Backed by communist money. His wife was also a terrorist and had hit squads take out those who opposes their views. It suprises me why he has gained the amount of support he has.
As for Pope John Paul I also fully agree with KH,
united nations largely irrelevant now i am afraid. Which is sad because they could have been used to such good effect if the powers in the UN did not keep vetoing each other to score political points. I.E France.
Posted by: Lord Downey at May 27, 2004 03:53 PM
Mohammad Salim, I am curious what country you are from.
Would you agree that we should have let Sodom stay in Kuwait? He didn’t do anything to us. We could have ‘acted like liberals’ at the UN and still been denouncing it. We could have passed the buck. In fact, I think it was probably illegal for us to go into Kuwait, because the pope and Mandella never said it was ok. In fact, it’s on the record, Sodom was quoted as saying, “I never gave my blessing to the US to save Kuwait. “
Terrorism is a problem that reaches world wide. Once again, it has been left up to America and a few great allies, to stop the madness. America looks like the guy at the circus swirling a hula-hoop on one foot, jumping up and down on the other, playing a harmonica while juggling bowling pins with one hand and playing a keyboard with the other hand and banging a bass drum, strapped on his back, by nodding his head. We are expected to perform all these difficult tasks, while liberal pit bulls knaw away at our ankles. You know, we don’t ask for much, but if we didn’t have those pitbulls knawing at our ankles, we could perform our difficult tasks a lot easier.
Posted by: Jeff B at May 27, 2004 04:03 PM
Why is everyone who writes on this site with an opposing view assumed to be a “liberal?” I did not oppose going after Saddam Hussein, but I think people like Rumsfeld and Cheney underestimated the tenaciousness and belligerency of the folks in that region. Most of the people indigenous to Iraq were accustomed to living in fear and being brutalized. It was naive for American leaders to expect that the Iraqis would know what to do with the concept of free democracy even if it jumped into their laps. Saddam made everyone paranoid, so naturally they are wary of us. However, I hope all Americans, liberal and otherwise, remain hopeful that democracy will prevail and set the standard for the rest of the Arab Middle East.
posted by Thaqalain | Friday, June 11, 2004
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home