Al Sadr's demands

Memnoch

from cnn.com

Referring to the Iraqi people, he said "I demand in your name":


"To get back the voice of Iraq and for the previous dictator and have Saddam Hussein tried in a Supreme Court.


"For a stop to this terrorism and to release all those of al-Sadr followers who have been arrested. They are not guilty of anything but accepting Allah.


"Not to bury the voice of the Iraqi people under the ground of the politicians and the diplomats. You must organize an Iraqi constitutional government away from these occupation forces or any other wing.


"To choose who you want and not to let anyone impose on you who your leader is.


"The investigation of the crimes of the occupation forces and bring justice to those who have committed the crimes.


"A guaranteed date of departure of the occupying forces.

Al-Sadr is the son of Shiite imam Muhammad Baqr al-Sadr, a prominent leader assassinated in 1999. The Sadr City neighborhood in Baghdad is named after the father.

"What made us all follow his father and sacrifice our families and our children is because here was a person who was genuine and honest with all goodness. We follow his son," al-Kadhim said.

sounds PRETTYDAMN reasonable to me.... off course the US wouldn't grant any of these...

chewy

that does sound reasonable is this guy legit though had my doubts

i can believe a population will sort itself out but arn't there guys out for power for themselves is he one of them


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/815FF50A-4D63-43CB-A404-84DF9E6CDF70.htm

and this profile doesn't really clear it up

Memnoch

not sure about the power issue. I guess this guy knows that the Shia are in a majority in iraq and being one of the leaders of the Shia he is bound to get elected if there is a fair election...

that being said... thats how democracy is supposed to work... so fair enough

halkar

Sounds like there will be no peace in Iraq for sometime to come. :dunno:

pork99

I'm sure there were people back in the 30s who thought Hitler made some reasonable demands.

On 18 July 2003 al-Sadr used a Friday sermon in Al-Najaf to denounce as "puppets" the members of Iraq's new U.S.-appointed Governing Council. He also announced his own plans to form a militia. Al-Sadr announced his new government during his sermon at Friday prayers in Al-Kufah on 10 October 2003. Muqtada al-Sadr announced his intention to form an Islamic state in Iraq by establishing a shadow government there, complete with ministries. Fighting broke out in Karbala on 13 October when al-Sadr's men attacked supporters of moderate Shi'ite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani near the Imam Hussein shrine.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/al-sadr.htm

Memnoch

Originally posted by pork99
I'm sure there were people back in the 30s who thought Hitler made some reasonable demands.



On 18 July 2003 al-Sadr used a Friday sermon in Al-Najaf to denounce as "puppets" the members of Iraq's new U.S.-appointed Governing Council. He also announced his own plans to form a militia. Al-Sadr announced his new government during his sermon at Friday prayers in Al-Kufah on 10 October 2003. Muqtada al-Sadr announced his intention to form an Islamic state in Iraq by establishing a shadow government there, complete with ministries. Fighting broke out in Karbala on 13 October when al-Sadr's men attacked supporters of moderate Shi'ite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani near the Imam Hussein shrine.

ah yes, after people going on about "reputable sources" you certainly used one there.

But in any case...
lets look at that quote...

The US appointed governing council are "puppets" everyone knows this, this has never been in despute.
As for him establishing an Islamic state. What you FAIL to realise is that the majority of the Iraqi population are SHia muslims. if true democracy were to take place in Iraq, then it would become an Islamic state.
As regards to his forces attacking the other supporters, where is the proof of that? moreover where is the proof that his supporters started the fight?

and yes btw, those demands that were posted are reaonsable, if you are going to claim otherwise please point out to me how and why and which specific demand is unreasonable?

halkar

The US appointed governing council of puppets are falling apart with the members started to resign. I am sure US has more puppets in their disposal. Nothing wrong with what has been demanded and he clearly asks his people not to make the same mistakes they did before like Saddam taking power in Iraq with outside influence. But it just won't suit US so i doubt it will ever happen:rolleyes:

mike65

Originally posted by Memnoch

As for him establishing an Islamic state. What you FAIL to realise is that the majority of the Iraqi population are SHia muslims. if true democracy were to take place in Iraq, then it would become an Islamic state.

That misses the point I think, a Shia Islamic majority does not mean there should be a Shia Islamic state.
The state should be "neutral".

Mike.

shotamoose

Originally posted by mike65
That misses the point I think, a Shia Islamic majority does not mean there should be a Shia Islamic state.
The state should be "neutral".

Mike.

Ideally, yes. But he's saying that it would become Islamic if there were free elections. I'm not quite so sure, as there's a strong secular tradition in Iraq which may result in more of a church-state separation.

Most of Sadr's demands as described there are not unreasonable. He wants the occuppiers out, properly out, and he wants a trial for Saddam and investigations of Coalition war crimes - of which there may be quite a few, if you include all those instances when they fired into crowds of protestors (Bloody Sunday, anyone?).

And he claims to want free and fair elections, though this is not all that convincing from a man with a private army.

gandalf

Originally posted by shotamoose
And he claims to want free and fair elections, though this is not all that convincing from a man with a private army.

Hmm maybe this Sadr is Iraqs version of Chuckie Adams after all he wants to get involved in Politics and he has a private army

On a more serious note, while the demands look reasoniable there is no way the US will give in to them and Sadr knows this. He is doing this to look like he was reasonable to the Shia people with the hope he gains more support.

The US need to re-evalute how they react to situations like the current one because if they keep carrying on like they are at the moment they will suffer the same faith the British did in the 20's.

Gandalf.

Memnoch

Originally posted by mike65
That misses the point I think, a Shia Islamic majority does not mean there should be a Shia Islamic state.
The state should be "neutral".

Mike.

nope m8, your missing the point, thats not how democracy works...

if the majority of people in a country want that country to follow a certain religion, then that is THEIR right.

Now i am no fan of islamic fundamentalism, neither am I a fan of Islamic regimes ( having lived in Saudi Arabia for a few years). However, if the majority of the iraqi people WANT an islamic state then that is THEIR democratic right.. however you or I or the western world may feel about it

Memnoch

Originally posted by shotamoose
Ideally, yes. But he's saying that it would become Islamic if there were free elections. I'm not quite so sure, as there's a strong secular tradition in Iraq which may result in more of a church-state separation.

Most of Sadr's demands as described there are not unreasonable. He wants the occuppiers out, properly out, and he wants a trial for Saddam and investigations of Coalition war crimes - of which there may be quite a few, if you include all those instances when they fired into crowds of protestors (Bloody Sunday, anyone?).

And he claims to want free and fair elections, though this is not all that convincing from a man with a private army.

yes the point that he has a "private army" doesn't really add a lot to his credability, but if we look at iraq's history and its curent situation then this seems understandable..

The US incited the shia to revolt against Saddam, but then hung them out to dry, Sadr's father who was a leader at the time was the executed by Saddam, not to many many many shia's.

Now the US is ruling iraq by use of force..

If the iraqi's want true independence and self-governance and not to have their country's resources pillaged and plundered by the US they are going to have to fight for it, it would seem. The US have no intention of allowing iraq to become a true democracy, if that was the case, then why are the US forcing the Iraqi people to sign contracts through a "puppet" government that cannot later be repealed by a democratically elected government?

The US's two-faced hypocricy is blindingly obvious.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

chewy

its acceptabe for iraqis in general to have arms to fight to get the americans out.. but it does depend whether this guy is using it for his owns ends.... i got no prob iraq becoming a muslim state afaik, but won't the iraqis still need the un to come in to take control of the elections, i don't think the un are all that innocent but be better then the americans....

well mi not sure about that?



some suggested on another site that americans would consider leaving without getting the men who strung up the soildiers i don't think they will i don't think they should...

it interesting to hear the americans have giving up on the "foreign fighters" lineand those comparison pictures of the square with the statue, one really full of people one half empty with puppets

Victor

Originally posted by Memnoch
ah yes, after people going on about "reputable sources" you certainly used one there.

I'm detecting high levels of sarcasm there. Global Security is a reputable source.

Originally posted by Memnoch
yes the point that he has a "private army" doesn't really add a lot to his credability, but if we look at iraq's history and its curent situation then this seems understandable..

Everyone in Iraq and his cousin has a private army at the moment.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Victor
I'm detecting high levels of sarcasm there. Global Security is a reputable source. Everyone in Iraq and his cousin has a private army at the moment.

true that

chewy

i think the only ones who place doubt on al jazera are fox and sky news

but you have to take a eveything with a pinch of low fat salt

Sand

nope m8, your missing the point, thats not how democracy works...

if the majority of people in a country want that country to follow a certain religion, then that is THEIR right.

No if they want to follow a certain religion, its THEIR right. It is absolutely not their right to pervert the state as an exstension of their religious views.

Thats tyranny by the majority rather than democracy. Democracy is at its base mob rule - mob rule is just a step up from lynchings. Most modern successful democracies use constitutions which provide a framework for the state to prevent intolerable tyranny such as a Shia fundamentalist Islamic state being enforced on Iraqs not insignificant Sunni and Kurdish minorities.

The state recognises all its citizens as equal. Religion does not. I cant speak as an authority on Islams views, but looking at it from our perspective - catholicism viewed homosexuals as blasphemous perverts, jews as the murderers of christ and protestants as herectics, free speech as blasphemy and single mothers as whores to be used as slave labour. A Catholic majority voting for a Catholic theocracy to persecute homosexuals, jews, protestants, free thinkers and single mothers ( and many, many others ) is not compatible with any successful example of democracy as it invalidates the rights of homosexuals,jews,protestants, free thinkers and single mothers to be equal in the eyes of the state regardless of their orientation, religion, political views or personal situations. Theres no reason to think an Islamic version would be any better.

And half the trouble from the Sunni triangle is from Sunnis terrified of just such a Shia majority voting in such an Islamic state. Hence the violence.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Sand
No if they want to follow a certain religion, its THEIR right. It is absolutely not their right to pervert the state as an exstension of their religious views.

perversion by whose standards? Maybe you fail to understand, but democracy and secularism AREN'T the same thing. Sure there should be a "seperation" of religion and state, but realistically speaking you are going to find it VERY hard to implement that in ANY majority muslim nation that is a democracy.

[QUOTEThats tyranny by the majority rather than democracy. Democracy is at its base mob rule - mob rule is just a step up from lynchings. Most modern successful democracies use constitutions which provide a framework for the state to prevent intolerable tyranny such as a Shia fundamentalist Islamic state being enforced on Iraqs not insignificant Sunni and Kurdish minorities. [/quote]

I suppose the US is such an example of a modern successful democracy where a man with money and powerful friends can buy the presidency and take an entire country to war, not to mention control its people through fear and propaganda. No real difference between Dubya's democracy and Saddam's rule, they just used different methods to control their people.

The state recognises all its citizens as equal. Religion does not. I cant speak as an authority on Islams views, but looking at it from our perspective - catholicism viewed homosexuals as blasphemous perverts, jews as the murderers of christ and protestants as herectics, free speech as blasphemy and single mothers as whores to be used as slave labour. A Catholic majority voting for a Catholic theocracy to persecute homosexuals, jews, protestants, free thinkers and single mothers ( and many, many others ) is not compatible with any successful example of democracy as it invalidates the rights of homosexuals,jews,protestants, free thinkers and single mothers to be equal in the eyes of the state regardless of their orientation, religion, political views or personal situations. Theres no reason to think an Islamic version would be any better.

All citizens as equal EXCEPT those with money and power? Again I think the simple point you fail to realise, is that democracy and secularism are two different things. And while secularism would be ideal in every country, in practise its not going to happen, not when such a large majority of people feel so strongly about their religion.

And half the trouble from the Sunni triangle is from Sunnis terrified of just such a Shia majority voting in such an Islamic state. Hence the violence.

no, the violence in the sunni triangle is because of american occupation and oppression. at least that is the main cause right now.. who knows how it will be later

Redleslie

Originally posted by Sand
The state recognises all its citizens as equal. Religion does not. I cant speak as an authority on Islams views, but looking at it from our perspective - catholicism viewed homosexuals as blasphemous perverts, jews as the murderers of christ and protestants as herectics, free speech as blasphemy and single mothers as whores to be used as slave labour.

I can't take a lecture on equality and democracy from Sand seriously given his bizarre views on asians, africans, other "coloureds" and anybody in council housing, "knackers" I think is how he chooses to label them. :rolleyes:

Memnoch

Originally posted by Redleslie
I can't take a lecture on equality and democracy from Sand seriously given his bizarre views on asians, africans, other "coloureds" and anybody in council housing, "knackers" I think is how he chooses to label them. :rolleyes:

nice of you to point out his hypocricy

Sand

perversion by whose standards? Maybe you fail to understand, but democracy and secularism AREN'T the same thing. Sure there should be a "seperation" of religion and state, but realistically speaking you are going to find it VERY hard to implement that in ANY majority muslim nation that is a democracy.

Perhaps we operate from different understandings of democracy - youre talking about it as mob rule, the most votes wins and feck the minority. And yes, that is democracy at its basest level. Successful democracies use constitutions to limit the power of the mob - just because 51% of the population think the other 49% are genetically impure doesnt mean that its okay to murder them.

And I dont see how muslims should find it any harder to implement a seperation of church and state. What will hinder them is the attitude "Oh theyre muslim, the want a repressive fundamentalist state"

And while secularism would be ideal in every country, in practise its not going to happen, not when such a large majority of people feel so strongly about their religion

The state must be secular exactly because people can feel so strongly about their religion.

no, the violence in the sunni triangle is because of american occupation and oppression. at least that is the main cause right now.. who knows how it will be later

At a danger of spiralling into another thread but then why is the violence almost all contained within this sunni triangle - the coalition control all of Iraq after all. Right now youve got violence from Sunnis who do not see a Shia dominated Iraq as being in their interests, and a Shia minority who want to bring about an Islamic fundamentalist state - the exact thing the Sunnis would be terrified off.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Sand
Perhaps we operate from different understandings of democracy - youre talking about it as mob rule, the most votes wins and feck the minority. And yes, that is democracy at its basest level. Successful democracies use constitutions to limit the power of the mob - just because 51% of the population think the other 49% are genetically impure doesnt mean that its okay to murder them.

And I dont see how muslims should find it any harder to implement a seperation of church and state. What will hinder them is the attitude "Oh theyre muslim, the want a repressive fundamentalist state"

The state must be secular exactly because people can feel so strongly about their religion.
At a danger of spiralling into another thread but then why is the violence almost all contained within this sunni triangle - the coalition control all of Iraq after all. Right now youve got violence from Sunnis who do not see a Shia dominated Iraq as being in their interests, and a Shia minority who want to bring about an Islamic fundamentalist state - the exact thing the Sunnis would be terrified off.

as was pointed out earlier in this post by someone, considering the statements you have made about other "minorities" and "knackers" as you call them, you really don't have a leg to stand upon here. Until you can reply to that post i'm affraid i'm not accepting any arguements you make here. You can't just "selectively" ignore arguements that prove you to be wrong....

Sand

as was pointed out earlier in this post by someone, considering the statements you have made about other "minorities" and "knackers" as you call them, you really don't have a leg to stand upon here. Until you can reply to that post i'm affraid i'm not accepting any arguements you make here. You can't just "selectively" ignore arguements that prove you to be wrong....

I try not to go off topic. If you want to go off on a tangent bringing in other threads then I think two things are clear.

1) You dont like the way the thread is going, so now you try throw something else into the mix to distract away from that.

2) Ive no obligation to give you anything other than my opinion. If you dont want to accept that, thats fine. Ill still sleep at night.

Zaphod B

Originally posted by Sand
Perhaps we operate from different understandings of democracy - youre talking about it as mob rule, the most votes wins and feck the minority. And yes, that is democracy at its basest level. Successful democracies use constitutions to limit the power of the mob - just because 51% of the population think the other 49% are genetically impure doesnt mean that its okay to murder them.

Originally posted by Sand
The state must be secular exactly because people can feel so strongly about their religion.

Give me a second to compose myself... taking a deep breath now....
I... agree... with... Sand.

Well I managed to force that out somehow. Maybe it's just because I'm utterly cynical about religion, and mob rule is not an appealing idea to me, but I really don't like the idea that just because a majority follows one religion you automatically impose it on the entire population. Sand pointed out, as someone had to sooner or later, that 51% is a majority. Given the historical precedent and the situations that have developed in the modern world when one religion is imposed on a nation, you'd think we might have learnt by now. Sadly it seems not.

I always understood that in a democracy, everyone had a voice. The majority is not everyone.

In summary, mob rule bad, democracy good. Can we please make the distinction?
I'm just getting really irritated with this idea that allowing fundamentalist theocracies is a liberal idea that supports democracy. It's just the opposite.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Sand
I try not to go off topic. If you want to go off on a tangent bringing in other threads then I think two things are clear.

1) You dont like the way the thread is going, so now you try throw something else into the mix to distract away from that.

2) Ive no obligation to give you anything other than my opinion. If you dont want to accept that, thats fine. Ill still sleep at night.

I would say that statements you have made in the past regarding other minorities are extremely pertinent in this situation here. Either you want equality for all, or you don't. You made an arguement here of the way you think democracy should be, that a minority should not be "subject" to what you call "mob rule", yet this kind of "mob rule" is exactly what you advocate in other posts. This tends to reduce the credability of your statements. I'm not throwing anything in, this point was originally made by someone else not me.

I see no obligation to argue with someone on a topic that they have contradicted themselves on already in a previous post.

Victor

Originally posted by Zaphod B
I always understood that in a democracy, everyone had a voice. The majority is not everyone.

In Iraq, very few Iraqis have voices.

Zaphod B

Originally posted by Victor
In Iraq, very few Iraqis have voices.

I don't doubt that for a second, I just don't believe that in searching for a solution we have to automatically discard the idea of a secular state. How does that help?

You say very few Iraqis have a voice. I agree. You presumably think they need one. I agree. But you seem to be suggesting that only the Shia should get their way... why?

Victor

Originally posted by Zaphod B
You say very few Iraqis have a voice. I agree. You presumably think they need one. I agree. But you seem to be suggesting that only the Shia should get their way... why?

I'm merely pointing out: one man, one vote and the one man with the one vote: George Bush.

I'm not suggesting anyone should be able to ride rough-sgod over anyone, but the Shia are in a majority, *if* that is relevant, there are many other power structures in Iraq.

Zaphod B

Fair enough, I just thought you were supporting Memnoch's view that there should be an Islamic state because the "Majority" want it.

Of course this is all just theoretical; as you point out it's unlikely to be the decision of the Iraqi people, and of course tribal and other systems won't just cease to exist if/when democracy is implemented.

chewy

what sorta system that would be half fair could be setup

*mmm i said half fair?*