2006 August 04 Friday
Shiites March In Baghdad For Hezbollah

Even as dozens die in sectarian violence in Iraq every day the Shia Arabs in Sadr City Baghdad could organize and make a march to the city center without anyone getting killed. American soldiers helped provide security so that Iraqi Shia Muslims could march in support of Lebanese Shia Muslims against Israel and against America.

BAGHDAD, Aug. 4 -- Thousands of Shiite Muslims marched though the Iraqi capital on Friday in support of Hezbollah guerrillas battling Israeli forces in Lebanon, answering a call by radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to rally to the cause of their fellow Shiites.

Throngs of Shiite men, most clad in white burial shrouds that symbolized their willingness to die, gathered in the northeast Baghdad slum known as Sadr City. Then they marched toward the center of the capital, chanting: "We will step over America. We are Hezbollah" and "How can we sleep tonight? We have a quarrel with Israel."

They did not march for freedom of press or freedom of religion or democracy. If they had bothered to march about women's rights they would have marched for less rights, not more.

The United States helped bring to power a Shia Muslim government in Baghdad and empowered the Shia majority in Iraq.

The large turnout, along with the absence of any reported violence, also suggested that Sadr's ability to rally legions of disciplined followers remains strong at a time when factional militias dominate Baghdad.

Only 14,000 marched according to the US military.

But the U.S. military said in a news release that calculations based on pictures taken from unmanned surveillance aircraft put the crowd at 14,000.

In the intense heat of August and with the threat of car bomb attacks by Sunni insurgents that's still a decent turn-out.

The Sunnis in Sunni Arab countries fielded smaller crowds in support of Shia Arabs.

In the most violent demonstration, about 100 people threw stones and a firebomb at the British Embassy in Tehran, damaging the building but harming nobody as they accused Britain and the United States of being accomplices in Israel's fight against Hezbollah, a Shiite group in Lebanon that is backed by Persian Iran.

Even Sunni Muslim demonstrators took to the streets of Damascus, Cairo and Amman. But their numbers were dwarfed by the huge Shiite turnout in Baghdad, organized by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

An article in Time magazine claims that Shia Arabs in Iraq trust Shia militias more than they trust the Shia dominated government.

But disarming Sadr's army may prove, if anything, even more difficult than disarming Hizballah in Lebanon. That's because the three-year campaign of terror against Shi'ite civilians by Sunni insurgents has led the community to see its militias, rather than the central government, as its only protection. As that violence escalates, the likelihood diminishes that these communities will support any effort to forcefully dismantle the militias. Nor can an agreement to disarm be easily orchestrated by removing the insurgent threat, since the branch of the insurgency responsible for targeting the Shi'ites is led by al-Qaeda in Iraq, the faction most implacably opposed to any reconciliation with the elected government.

If the Madhi Army decides to take on US forces with urban warfare in Baghdad the US forces in Baghdad might need to ally themselves with a Sunni militia. Do you suppose we could restore Sunnis to power? We should exempt Saddam Hussein from capital punishment. We might need him.

Update: Lawrence Auster notes the same neoconservative Jewish intellectual activists whose role was crucial in putting the Shiites in power in Iraq also support an immigration policy that brings hostile Muslims to America to kill Jews.

The neoconservatives, a predominantly Jewish group of Cold War liberals, have been the principal promoters of President Bush’s Muslim democratization campaign, as a direct result of which hundreds of thousands of Shi’ites in the U.S.-liberated, U.S.-occupied, and U.S.-empowered country of Iraq are now freely marching under the slogans “Death to Israel,” “Death to America.” Those same Jewish neoconservatives have also been the chief promoters of America’s post-1965 non-discriminatory immigration policy, as a direct result of which every Jewish institution in this country must now be surrounded by layers of security to prevent Muslims who are in this country solely due to that immigration policy from murdering Jews, as happened in Seattle last week.

The Arabs do not believe in the equality of man. Liberalism is not a universal philosophy for all of humanity. Liberals who support mass immigration are supporting suicide of their own culture. If I could separate myself and other non-liberals from them I would. But I'm stuck going down with them and I heavily resent them for doing this to the rest of us.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 August 04 09:08 PM  MidEast Arabs Versus Israelis

John S Bolton said at August 5, 2006 2:54 AM:

Openness to theocracy, openness to atrocitocracy and openness to hostiles generally should show us that we may not properly assign positive value-sign to openness.
PM Blair had a piece in the NY papers the other day, where he made it out that the world is all divided between those who are for openness and those who want things closed-off.
As if one openness implied every other, as if openness were a value such as one would be always better off with more of it; the equivocation and false dilemma was piled high.
Supposedly, if we want openness to innovation, or to trade internationally, we have to accept openness to hostile influxes.
It is said in the context of politics, and if politics be the ethics of aggression, setting up indiscriminate openness as a value that we can't have too much of, has to mean openness to aggression and unlimited aggression.

John S Bolton said at August 5, 2006 1:15 PM:

The Blair op-ed is from the NYPost,Aug.1-06, p.27. Regarding crime, he says the 'closed side of the argument, in truth, has nothing to offer a nation except the delusion that the tide of change can be turned back'. Openness to aggression is not a proper ideal or value of that kind; and it is self-contradictory. Should we be closed against closedness? Case closed...

Big Bill said at August 5, 2006 7:27 PM:

Don't you understand? It is not the Muslims they have to worry about it is those murdering slaughtering Christian evangelicals that are the problem. That is why their fearless leader Abe Foxman wants to start his crusade against hillbilly fundamentalists and stands arm-in-arm with Muslim leaders to "stop fundamentalist hate" and separate what little is left of the Christian religion in America from the state.

Abe, do us both a favor and make aliyah. "Rise up" from the filth and dreck of the galut and join your countrymen fighting in Israel.


With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©