Iraqis stage mass anti-US rally

[islamirama]

Iraqis stage mass anti-US rally

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7677551.stm


Supporters of Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr have staged a mass demonstration in Baghdad in protest against plans to extend the US mandate in Iraq.


An estimated 50,000 protesters chanted slogans such as "Get out occupier!".
Iraqi and US negotiators drafted the deal after months of talks but it still needs approval from Iraq's government.



Under the agreement US troops would withdraw by 2011, and Iraq would have the right to prosecute Americans who commit crimes while off-duty.



The UN mandate for US-led coalition forces expires at the end of this year. About 144,000 of the 152,000 foreign troops deployed there are US military personnel.



Political battle


Chanting slogans and waving banners, tens of thousands of Shias, mainly young men, marched on the eastern suburb of Sadr City towards the centre of Baghdad.
The BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says Moqtada Sadr's resistance opposition to the US presence has strong grassroots support among many Shias - and this was a physical manifestation of that opposition.



He says leaders of the 30-strong Sadr bloc in the Iraqi parliament will have expressed that rejection at a meeting of Iraq's Political Council for National Security late on Friday.



The meeting of top political leaders and the heads of parliamentary factions was convened to discuss the draft agreement covering the US military presence after its mandate expires.



No decisions were taken but the Council is to meet again to hear back from military experts on what is a very complex and detailed document.



Our correspondent says its passage through parliament may follow naturally if it is approved by the Council, but this is by no means assured and a tough political battle is already shaping up.



In Washington, US defence chief Robert Gates has been courting support for the deal from key members of Congress - although their approval is not mandatory.

Video: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/7677794.stm

[nocturnal]

This is not just about an extension of the "mandate". It's about an indefinite American presence in the US. Their presence will arouse more nationalist sentiment, therefore more insurgency and hence further justifications from Washington about the need to stay. Im not sure if Bush and Al Maliki will ratify this before Obama gets into the White House or if they fail to agree and the troops begin to withdraw.

Muqtada al Sadr's support is crucial in underpinning the fledgling coalition presided over by Maliki. If he pulls out of it, then the stage will be set for some serious strife and mayhem like before.

[Yanal]

:w:
I know that the com in Iraq is bad but on Friday I read Al Ameen (newspaper) in USA a teacher was talking about Iraq and there was a Muslim kid she singled him out and called him a terriost. Ever since than kids have been teasing him but the parents are asking questions to the parliament.

[islamirama]

:w:
I know that the com in Iraq is bad but on Friday I read Al Ameen (newspaper) in USA a teacher was talking about Iraq and there was a Muslim kid she singled him out and called him a terriost. Ever since than kids have been teasing him but the parents are asking questions to the parliament.

6th grade teacher calls Muslim student 'a terrorist'!
A teacher at Brentano Academy in Chicago uses a Muslim student as an example of a terrorist and all they do is move her to a different school!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Go2nFbNnwmY [NEWS CLIP - AUDIO REQ'D]

A Chicago teacher is under fire for singling out the only Muslim student in her class while talking about the Middle East. The teacher has now been reassigned to another school. However, the young boy's
family is demanding answers.

"She used the example of if Saleh were to go on to an airplane, put his backpack down and put two wires together and the plane were to blow up - and she didn't make a point," said Christina Abraham, Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[ummsara1108]

:w:
I know that the com in Iraq is bad but on Friday I read Al Ameen (newspaper) in USA a teacher was talking about Iraq and there was a Muslim kid she singled him out and called him a terriost. Ever since than kids have been teasing him but the parents are asking questions to the parliament.

Sounds like a lawsuit coming soon...that teacher should be fired for racisim. Ashame.

[ummsara1108]

My daughters teacher, speaks openly about the middle east, this is when she was in 5th grade, hardly old enough to understand moreless defend herself, I made a point to meet with this teacher and asked him to simply leave his religious beliefs and political beliefs out of the classroom. When he tried to defend himself, I simply implied if he chooses not to, i will take this matter further, everything was great the rest of the yr, and the whole 6th grade as well, but she has him again in 7th grade this yr, and he has made another comment, and told her to be quite in front of her classmates, she is alittle older now and watches more news related tv, and feels an urge to defend her father and other real muslims, not the radicals...She told her father and he went nuts, I told him to be calm and thank god he did, but he told her if he ever does that again, togo right away to the office and call home.

He has no right to speak to her that way, this issue will be addressed. Any advice on how we should go about this, we have tried it peacefully?

[Trumble]

This is not just about an extension of the "mandate". It's about an indefinite American presence in the US.

I assume you mean in Iraq. The US doesn't have the slightest desire for an 'indefinite presence' there; it would be political suicide for whoever made such a decision. The difference of opinion (including that between Obama and McCain) is "when", not "if".

[islamirama]

He has no right to speak to her that way, this issue will be addressed. Any advice on how we should go about this, we have tried it peacefully?

I would talk to the principle and tell him to have a talk with the teacher or the board of education will be the next step and the court after that if he doesn't straighten up.

I assume you mean in Iraq. The US doesn't have the slightest desire for an 'indefinite presence' there; it would be political suicide for whoever made such a decision. The difference of opinion (including that between Obama and McCain) is "when", not "if".

US is building the world's biggest US embassy in Iraq, big enough to be a city of its own. Seems like they plan to stay there permanently, i suggest searching on this forum if you need source to that article.

[ummsara1108]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ummsara1108
He has no right to speak to her that way, this issue will be addressed. Any advice on how we should go about this, we have tried it peacefully?

I would talk to the principle and tell him to have a talk with the teacher or the board of education will be the next step and the court after that if he doesn't straighten up.



Thanks, so i'm not acting hastfully (to quickly)?

[islamirama]

Quote:

Thanks, so i'm not acting hastfully (to quickly)?

I think not, some teachers are prejudicial and like to impose their bias thoughts and beliefs on kids. If you want, you could have another talk with him and let him know what the next step will be.

[barney]

Now if they had done that back in 2003 instead of blowing anything and evryone to bits, the yanks would have left by 2004.

Saddam never had any such problems with protests. All his people loved him and cherished him, and built big statues in honour of him, and got buried in mass graves in the thousands for even slightly disagreeing with him.

Nice to see the Iraqi's using their new found freedom.

[ummsara1108]

Now if they had done that back in 2003 instead of blowing anything and evryone to bits, the yanks would have left by 2004.

Who exactly was blowing anything and everyone to bits in 2003?


Saddam never had any such problems with protests.

No because he had the whole country scared of him and what he would do to them or there families.


All his people loved him and cherished him,

Not all of them just the one's that were just like him or brainwashed by him or forced to believe his way.


and built big statues in honour of him,

They were forced to build the staues, but they were eventually distroyed, that's not honor.

and got buried in mass graves in the thousands for even slightly disagreeing with him.

This statement totally goes against what you said about all of his ppl loving and cherishing him. If he was so loved or cherished why were they killed?

Nice to see the Iraqi's using their new found freedom.

Freedom? What freedom? They live 24/7 in the middle of a war, watching behind there backs as they drop off there kids for school, or drive/walk to get food to eat. They live under another country that shouldn't be there's laws, what kind of freedom is that? We hear about the 4 thousand or so american soldiers that have lost there lives to a war that should of never happened, but where is all the media about the 100's of thousands of innocent Iraqi's that have been killed? In the name of WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION!

[islamirama]

Freedom? What freedom? They live 24/7 in the middle of a war, watching behind there backs as they drop off there kids for school, or drive/walk to get food to eat. They live under another country that shouldn't be there's laws, what kind of freedom is that? We hear about the 4 thousand or so american soldiers that have lost there lives to a war that should of never happened, but where is all the media about the 100's of thousands of innocent Iraqi's that have been killed? In the name of WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION!

As we know today

WMD was a lie, the whole war is for oil and regime change since Saddam wanted to quit the dollars and sell oil in euros

over 1 Million CIVILIANS have been murdered by US Troops

Million of iraqis have are refuges in neighboring states

one the biggest prision in the world is in Iraq, where over 18,000 iraqis are being held and tortured. This is the new and improved super abu gharib

there is a female abu gharib prison also where innocent muslim women are taken to torture and rape

over 50,000 iraqi women refugees have been forced into prostitution in order to survive

those refugees that do come to US get gassed at the mosque by american terrorists


all these points are based on articles posted on this forum....

may Allah destroy the invaders, occupiers, enemies of Islam and the munafiqs. Ameen.

[nocturnal]

I assume you mean in Iraq. The US doesn't have the slightest desire for an 'indefinite presence' there; it would be political suicide for whoever made such a decision. The difference of opinion (including that between Obama and McCain) is "when", not "if".

Since when was political suicide an issue for any US government?. Was it an issue in Somalia for Bush Snr/Clinton? Vietnam? Cuba? a string of African countries whose sovereignty was unremittingly violated?

The face that officials from both the Bush administration and those in Baghdad are working frenetically behind the scenes to conclude this accord. Keep in mind that there is a whole lot at stake here for this deal to go through. The US in an era of global economic turmoil needs unimpeded access to Iraq's energy resources, and this means American multinationals are going to cash in. You can't seriously expect cretins like Sarah Palin to have their unthinking dogma of "drill baby drill" as the definitive energy policy.

The Iraqi government itself, is also heavily reliant on the US for political clout and to entrench it's position. Remember, if the US pulls out, it'll be a matter of time only before the Iraqi ruling coalition also disintegrates and the scene will be set for a violent upheaval and the consequent struggle for power by various factions, especially those built on an ethno-centric foundation.

[The_Prince]

Now if they had done that back in 2003 instead of blowing anything and evryone to bits, the yanks would have left by 2004.

Saddam never had any such problems with protests. All his people loved him and cherished him, and built big statues in honour of him, and got buried in mass graves in the thousands for even slightly disagreeing with him.

Nice to see the Iraqi's using their new found freedom.

The Iraqi people openly say it was better under Saddam than it is now, including the SHIAS, so you can take you supposed freedom you brought to Iraq and stick it where the sun dont shine.

[TrueStranger]

Now if they had done that back in 2003 instead of blowing anything and evryone to bits, the yanks would have left by 2004.

Saddam never had any such problems with protests. All his people loved him and cherished him, and built big statues in honour of him, and got buried in mass graves in the thousands for even slightly disagreeing with him.

Nice to see the Iraqi's using their new found freedom.

The million Iraqis that were starved to death by Western sanctions must have slipped your mind ^o)

[nocturnal]

Barney,
it's so regrettable that after 5 years of brutal and ruinous occupation, you're still foundering in this net of deception that was the supposed "WMDs". Even the most belligerent of American war mongers and Republican stalwarts have accknowledged that this occupation was premised entirely on a colossal fabrication concoted to justify primarily seizeing control of Iraq's immense oil reserves, and enhancing the American strategic position and hegemony in the region.

The "new found freedom" that folks like yourself like to glorify is nothing more than a political and social smokescreen. In Iraq, expressing a political opinion running contrary to certain other political doctrines routinely gets hundreds of people killed. From prominent politicians to even the most humble workers who decry their lamentable circumstances and call for reform of the system, no one escapes.

Saddam Hussein was indeed not a terribly benign dictator, but you must understand the established facts. Under Saddam, despite acutely crippling sanctions, the country was a functioning state. Public utilities duly discharged their services to the populace and the civil service administered the country to the best of it's capabilities given the extremely disastrous repurcussions of sanctions imposed on it. Even the campaigns that were carried out by Saddam and his opponents were only done with American backed military assistance which is well documented.

The US led coalition, ever since the invasion, dismantled every single viable state institution in the country in the misguided belief that they were all bastions of the Ba'ath party regime that had to be dissolved and those who depended on it dispossessed of their livelihoods.

Military force and an incompetent, contemptible subservient leadership such as that in Baghdad cannot result in any meaningful change. Today the Al Sahwa movement backs the US not because of an ideological bond or common threat in Al Qa'ida, but because it is the only way for the Sunni population to negate Shia leadership in the country and retain a substantial measure of autonomy from the central government. The US is the guarantor of this.

The US and it's hegemonic allies in Iraq must withdraw and allow the UN to assume the central role in the governance of the country for an interim period whilst formulating a comprehensive, representative, independent and truly democratic government and constitution. One based on the welfare of the Iraqi people, the stability of the nation and harmony among it's people.

[Izyan]

Barney,
it's so regrettable that after 5 years of brutal and ruinous occupation, you're still foundering in this net of deception that was the supposed "WMDs". Even the most belligerent of American war mongers and Republican stalwarts have accknowledged that this occupation was premised entirely on a colossal fabrication concoted to justify primarily seizeing control of Iraq's immense oil reserves, and enhancing the American strategic position and hegemony in the region.

The "new found freedom" that folks like yourself like to glorify is nothing more than a political and social smokescreen. In Iraq, expressing a political opinion running contrary to certain other political doctrines routinely gets hundreds of people killed. From prominent politicians to even the most humble workers who decry their lamentable circumstances and call for reform of the system, no one escapes.

Saddam Hussein was indeed not a terribly benign dictator, but you must understand the established facts. Under Saddam, despite acutely crippling sanctions, the country was a functioning state. Public utilities duly discharged their services to the populace and the civil service administered the country to the best of it's capabilities given the extremely disastrous repurcussions of sanctions imposed on it. Even the campaigns that were carried out by Saddam and his opponents were only done with American backed military assistance which is well documented.

The US led coalition, ever since the invasion, dismantled every single viable state institution in the country in the misguided belief that they were all bastions of the Ba'ath party regime that had to be dissolved and those who depended on it dispossessed of their livelihoods.

Military force and an incompetent, contemptible subservient leadership such as that in Baghdad cannot result in any meaningful change. Today the Al Sahwa movement backs the US not because of an ideological bond or common threat in Al Qa'ida, but because it is the only way for the Sunni population to negate Shia leadership in the country and retain a substantial measure of autonomy from the central government. The US is the guarantor of this.

The US and it's hegemonic allies in Iraq must withdraw and allow the UN to assume the central role in the governance of the country for an interim period whilst formulating a comprehensive, representative, independent and truly democratic government and constitution. One based on the welfare of the Iraqi people, the stability of the nation and harmony among it's people.

I'm an Iraqi-American and I can tell you Iraq was not a functioning state. I left when I was 7 and I can tell you outside of Baghdad things were not well in Iraq even before the sanctions. Many people lived with no windows and no doors. Saddam dried up our water supplies because people disobeyed him. He destroyed our Orchards. We lived in constant fear. His sons would regularly go to weddings just to rape the brides. Iraq was no paradise.

[nocturnal]

Im not saying it was a paradise or a utopia of any sort. I do recognize there were serious problems, and i asserted that in the previous post as well. Im sorry you had to go through the ordeals you did, but you cannot use your own example as a microcosm of the Iraqi state under Saddam.

I work at a rerugee centre pal, people i speak to have been living in Iraq for a long, long time, and they tell me that under Saddam it was significantly more better in terms of living standards. Independent research corroborates this.

By comparison, what the US has wrought on Iraq is nothing short of unbridled anarchy and mayhem. They've fomented a system which is widely pervasive, recalcitrant and unable to be reined in. Clearly the current administrators at all levels of government are ineffective and cannot execute their tasks to even the most rudimentary standards where people can have access to basic needs.

This is what the occupation has brought to Iraq. Death and destruction.

[Izyan]

Im not saying it was a paradise or a utopia of any sort. I do recognize there were serious problems, and i asserted that in the previous post as well. Im sorry you had to go through the ordeals you did, but you cannot use your own example as a microcosm of the Iraqi state under Saddam.

I work at a rerugee centre pal, people i speak to have been living in Iraq for a long, long time, and they tell me that under Saddam it was significantly more better in terms of living standards. Independent research corroborates this.

By comparison, what the US has wrought on Iraq is nothing short of unbridled anarchy and mayhem. They've fomented a system which is widely pervasive, recalcitrant and unable to be reined in. Clearly the current administrators at all levels of government are ineffective and cannot execute their tasks to even the most rudimentary standards where people can have access to basic needs.

This is what the occupation has brought to Iraq. Death and destruction.

It was better for Sunnis (my family was Sunni by the way) but the Shia was treated like African Americans were here in the 1950s.

[seeker-of-light]

meh...i believe us americans should withdraw our troops from iraq since
1. we haven't helped and thats obvious
2. there are no weapons of mass destruction
3. there is no way to completly destroy terrorism it has always been around even back in the 1500s or so there were ninja that the japanese used that would be similiar to today's terrorist. these terroristic bombings and such should be taken care of by the people's own governments, not by a foreign occupier.

[nocturnal]

It was better for Sunnis (my family was Sunni by the way) but the Shia was treated like African Americans were here in the 1950s.

This is not entirely true. Shia occupied some of the most important positions in the political, economic and social development of Iraq under Saddam. They were Shia civil servants, university lecturers, engineers working on Iraq's oil infrastructure to optimize production, military personnel, etc. I do not at all believe that they were collectively ostracized from every aspect of national life.

Yes, the Shia were treated quite abhorrently, so were the Kurdish population, AND sunni's as well believe it or not. That is precisely the point im trying to make. When Saddam brutally suppressed political dissidents, it didn't matter what their religious affiliation was, all were persecuted.

You have to be very careful not to get entangled in western propaganda.

[Izyan]

This is not entirely true. Shia occupied some of the most important positions in the political, economic and social development of Iraq under Saddam. They were Shia civil servants, university lecturers, engineers working on Iraq's oil infrastructure to optimize production, military personnel, etc. I do not at all believe that they were collectively ostracized from every aspect of national life.

Yes, the Shia were treated quite abhorrently, so were the Kurdish population, AND sunni's as well believe it or not. That is precisely the point im trying to make. When Saddam brutally suppressed political dissidents, it didn't matter what their religious affiliation was, all were persecuted.

You have to be very careful not to get entangled in western propaganda.

Only those with undying loyalty to Saddam were able to thrive in Iraq. Though there were some Shia that were able to become successful they were the minority. It also didn't matter if you were sunni as only the people from Saddams tribe held the most important positions

[nocturnal]

Only those with undying loyalty to Saddam were able to thrive in Iraq. Though there were some Shia that were able to become successful they were the minority. It also didn't matter if you were sunni as only the people from Saddams tribe held the most important positions

Thats what im saying too. Persecution was indiscriminate not selective. But set in the context of the chaotic quagmire that Iraq has degenerated into today, it was much better off under the Baa'ath regime. I have no qualms about asserting that point.

[KAding]

The Iraqi people openly say it was better under Saddam than it is now, including the SHIAS, so you can take you supposed freedom you brought to Iraq and stick it where the sun dont shine.

"The Iraqi people" say that? What are you basing that on?

The most recent poll I can find says the following on that issue (BBC March 2008):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/h...lmarch2008.pdf

[barney]

The persistant idea amongst many muslims, is that The occupying invading oppressive forces are trundeling along the streets from dawn to dusk blowing up kindergartens and marketplaces full of shoppers, destroying the infrastructure and raping and torturing the suffering people.
The "Freedom Fighters" (and i use that phrase with a heavy weight of irony) are defending and protecting the Iraqi people from the murderous US and strivinng in the face of such genocidal carnage caused by US bullets to make a free Iraq united in love of Allah and happiness for its people.

If you completely reverse the above, then your approaching some truth.
No Insurgants....no troops. It was the case on 04 its the case now. Stop blowing innocents up and the nasty kuffar will leave. Try it.

[Alpher]

Unfortunately the problem in Iraq is deeper than the current western occupation. It was the british who created the country during their occupation, with no regards to the people who lived there, creating artificial borders dividing ancient tribal lands while making countries out of feuding tribes (just look at the Kurds). It took a strong, if brutal, hand like Saddams to control a country like this. If you look back through history then the current occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan is just a continuation of the wests destroying both countries hope of going forward and developing. If the west had any inclination of helping then they would have rebuilt afghanistan instead of spending their money on bombs and troops for the invasion of Iraq.

[barney]

Unfortunately the problem in Iraq is deeper than the current western occupation. It was the british who created the country during their occupation, with no regards to the people who lived there, creating artificial borders dividing ancient tribal lands while making countries out of feuding tribes (just look at the Kurds). It took a strong, if brutal, hand like Saddams to control a country like this. If you look back through history then the current occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan is just a continuation of the wests destroying both countries hope of going forward and developing. If the west had any inclination of helping then they would have rebuilt afghanistan instead of spending their money on bombs and troops for the invasion of Iraq.

Well the mighty British Empire that still today spans 2/3rds of the globe is certainly dirceting its mind-control probes into muslims heads making them slaughter each other with startling efficency.
If it wasnt for this mindprobe built by them, the ummah would live in peace and love for all.
Possibly.

[nocturnal]

The persistant idea amongst many muslims, is that The occupying invading oppressive forces are trundeling along the streets from dawn to dusk blowing up kindergartens and marketplaces full of shoppers, destroying the infrastructure and raping and torturing the suffering people.
The "Freedom Fighters" (and i use that phrase with a heavy weight of irony) are defending and protecting the Iraqi people from the murderous US and strivinng in the face of such genocidal carnage caused by US bullets to make a free Iraq united in love of Allah and happiness for its people.

If you completely reverse the above, then your approaching some truth.
No Insurgants....no troops. It was the case on 04 its the case now. Stop blowing innocents up and the nasty kuffar will leave. Try it.

This is just utter nonsense. First of all, do not generalize the resistance movement in Iraq. It is not a broad based movement, and not every one of the so called "insurgents" adopts the flawed doctrine which espouses that if it is not the most conservatively puritancial version of Islam, it doesn't deserve to exist.

This is rank ignorance and you need to tone down your illogical and rash rants about complex situations. Listen to some of the top Muslim and non-Muslim scholars, commentators, thinkers that constitute the regional and international intelligentsia. The vast majortiy of Iraqis rightly percieve the US as an occupying force that kills civilians, just like Al Qai'da does.

What they, like myself, want to see, is an independent government in Iraq, not a subservient one, that sets its political and economic agenda within the parameters of Islam and that is progressive. The Iraqis are capable of achieveing this, it is the occupation presence which has evoked and unremitting infernal maelstrom of havoc and mayhem in the country which has left it riven into factions, whose existence is expedient for the US and it's allies, because it justifies the occupation.

This is just one aspect, but the point is, don't draw you're own propaganda fed skewed conclusions about that the problems plaguing the country without any credible evidence, or a valid arguement to substantiate them.

Even the most gullible of observers now understand that this is an invasion and occupation driven by a nation with neo-imperialist ambitions whose end game is to consolidate a different world order based on a doctrine of global hegemony.

[barney]

the most gullible of observers now understand that this is an invasion and occupation driven by a nation with neo-imperialist ambitions whose end game is to consolidate a different world order based on a doctrine of global hegemony.

Fixed for accuracy :)