Is Moqtada al-Sadr a terrorist?

[gottaB]

Is Seyyed Moqtada al-Sadr a terrorist?

DoD's War on Terror: http://www.defendamerica.mil/index.html

Juan Cole, a scholar: http://juancole.com

[Mr.Green93]

1. Was Thomas Jefferson?

[gottaB]

2. What's your opinion of Hezbollah?

The US officially regards it as a terrorist group. Iran regards it as a legitimate political party.

Is this negotiable?

[Aidoneus]

17. Yes

When considering such labels, one always must consider the "whos" and the "whys" before swallowing anything.

[Jacobin]

3. Dude. You need a new name for this guy, because

32% of Iraqis "strongly support" him.


http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=ED68C1D4-CDBC-4312-B3F6E1C...

An Iraqi public opinion poll to be released later this week indicates a growing number of people in the country say they support a radical Shiite Muslim cleric whose militia is fighting coalition forces.
In the survey, conducted by the year-old Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies, 32 percent of the respondents said they strongly support the fiercely anti-coalition Shiite cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr. Another 36 percent said they somewhat support the cleric, even though he is being sought by the coalition for his alleged involvement in the murder of a Shiite rival, who was killed last year.

The poll numbers place the radical cleric among the three most admired figures in the country, behind the top religious authority for the majority Shiites, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and the political head of one of the largest Shiite parties, Ibrahim Al-Jaafari.

Instead of calling him a "terrorist" you might start practicing calling him "Your Excellency". Like it or not, this guy's polls are better than Smirky's numbers.

[gottaB]

5. For the record

My personal views are not those of present administration. One reason I present their view on the matter is because I think it's stupid and wrong and dishonest as well.

Here are a few posts I've made regarding al-Sadr and the campaign against him:

• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=520212
  
• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=502871
  
• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1367980
  
• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1568030
  

Naturally, I've also participated in discussions initiated by other DUers on this topic. As the months have gone by, it has occured to me that the official view of al-Sadr as a terrorist whose capture or death will greatly advance the war on terror is in fact widespread among the populace, even among those opposed to the administration. So I'm curious about how Sadr is percieved here at DU.

[Jacobin]

7. I would have thought the question would be

"Who do the Iraqis support" because if the administration's rhetoric is to be believed (a giant leap of faith obviously) we are there to allow them to pick their own leader.

Sistani is highest in the polls, but Sadr is gaining because 82% of Iraqis want the U.S. expelled and he is actively attempting to do that.

Matters not what we want in the end. Matters what THEY want and we are apparently driving Iraqis into the arms of a radical who will probably be a lot like Saddam.

[gottaB]

11. I would tend to fully agree with that opinion

But don't you want to win the War on Terror™?

[Vladimir]

4. He is a freedom fighter n/t

[izzie]

6. I just do not know but I understand that-----

if you hold up a sign Bush may not like you could be called one.

[gottaB]

9. the thing about Sec. Paige calling teachers terrorists

I don't believe it was like a labor dispute, because the Bush administration has adamently condemned slavery, like when Bush went to Goree Island and they locked all those people up in the soccer stadium. So they must support workers' rights at some basic level.

No, I'm thinking it was all about passing on knowledge. People who know things are dangerous. People who freely share what they know are potential terrorists.

Like the whole crisis with al-Hamza which precipitated the Mahdi uprising, it all comes down to the editors printing a story that quoted somebody who exhorted people to commit violence. It's against the law of course, such as it is in the Green Zone and its satellites, to exhort people to commit violence against the occupation government. Apparently, although it's not codified in any way, it's also against the law to report that people exhorted others to commit violence against the occupation government.

So the lesson I'd take from all that is twofold: (1) don't volunteer any knowledge; and (2), we really really need ballistic missile defense.

[0007]

8. Not anymore than Jerry Falwell or Pat baby.

[PATRICK]

10. Not now and not before

What he was was a religious warlord vying for ayatollah status. He has not lowered his ambitions to becoming a terrorist but raised them to the national political stage- which is what we were supposed to be welcoming. This loose definition of terrorist has to stop and either become more specific or dropped altogether.

Organized terrorism can be cultic(Omsharikyu) or political(Hamas) or both(Al Qaeda). Lone wolves can fit themselves in that spectrum as they will or just be crazy nuts- which we haven't seen much really outside of the mailbox bomber kid. The numbers are extremely, even surprisingly low
considering the political desperation and provocation and not very lethal considering the new technologies.

It would be wise to keep that situation and shrink the ranks of organized terrorists by sensible solutions of root desperation because the means of destruction will only increase. The Catch-22 of security is that the more it presumes to be intrusive and total the more it probably will CREATE people disposed to rebellion and terrorism. Of course, those in the security biz can live with that very nicely.

[gottaB]

12. drawbacks to an intelligent narrowing of definitions

a. It would place limits on the administration's legal authority to detain people and rough them up.

b. It would restrict possible causa belli to be offered for future catastrophic successes in Iran, Syria, etc.

c. It would undermine *'s leadership. *'s not equipped to make fine distinctions. He leads by a certain bluntness of moral faculty, costume pageantry, and the propogation of fear. If you have an image of a cowboy boot crushing a person's head again and again, then you know what I'm talking about.

Other than that, I agree that the loose definition of terrorist has to stop.

[paulk]

13. I'm not a fan of Mr Sadr's

but he's not a terrorist, and when members of our government refer to him as one it distracts from the very real threat of transnational terrorism.

[Jacobin]

14. 32% of Iraqis "strongly support" him

It doesn't matter what nasty name we call him. He is gaining popularity by fighting US forces to drive us out of Iraq.

This administration and Kerry are ignoring the fundamental problem, which is that 82% of Iraqis want us GONE.

[Aidoneus]

16. and another 36% partly support him

in these parts, that's counted as a 68% approval rating.. damn good for somebody in his extremely difficult position.

[paulk]

22. please provide a link to whatever poll you are citing

especially in regards to the "82% of Iraqis want us gone". I've seen this number repeated several times here at DU, but have seen no actual poll that supports that number.

[gottaB]

27. The poll won't be officially released for a few days yet

The Financial Times story: Support for radical Iraqi cleric surging, poll shows

[paulk]

29. thanks

This poll seems to be in line with the last usa today poll.

80% consider the US as occupiers, 90% when you exclude the Kurds. Close to 60% want the Coalition out immediately. Not good numbers for Bush. And the polls were taken before the prison scandel...

Still, nowhere do these polls says that 82% want the coalition out of Iraq immediately, as has been stated (by Jacobin) at least twice in this thread. An argument for leaving Iraq can be made without resorting to disinformation.

[jayfish]

28. Some Of The Poll Data Here

<SNIP>
In the poll, 80 percent of the Iraqis questioned reported a lack of confidence in the Coalition Provisional Authority, and 82 percent said they disapprove of the U.S. and allied militaries in Iraq.
</SNIP>

Keep in mind that this was before the torture scandal was made public.

Jay

[Aidoneus]

15. none of these answers

he's not a "terrorist" (which is meaningless anyway), nor can or should he be "neutralized" by "diplomacy".

[gottaB]

19. I'm interested in your view, Aidoneus

<caveat>. "Terrorist" is the language suggested by DoD. It's significant that Defend America dot mil, which purports to provide news about the War on Terrorism™, actually reports on the occupation of Iraq, and follows closely such things as the hunt for Moqtada al Sadr. </caveat>.

Do you believe that the Mahdi Army poses no genuine threat to the United States at the present time? What are you thinking?

[Renew Deal]

18. Anyone who kills civilians is a terrorist.

Killing military in combat of foreign occupiers is not terrorism. The '82 Lebanon bombing was terrorism. The killing of the Belgian soldiers in Rawanda is borderline, but I would consider it terrorism. They weren't in combat.

[Vladimir]

23. Not necessarily

the killing of collaborators was a well established practice in the occupied countries during WWII. I hardly think those were acts of terrorism.

[Renew Deal]

26. I agree with that.

Those people aren't necessarily civilians. But I am talking about bombing cafes, shooting up cars. There is some gray line, but I think there is a distinction.

[TahitiNut]

20. al-Sadr's approval ratings are better than DimSon's

:shrug:

[gottaB]

34. quite

eom

[Egalitarian Zetetic]

21. george washington was a terrorist <nt>

[Undercutter]

24. the right idea

would be to put this to a vote and see how many iraqis really support al sadr and want us to get out of iraq immediately. but instead of electing a government, we apparently going to have them elect a 'comission' that will work on constitution and then we will organize elections for a comission that will hold national elections or some shit.... years and years.

[maxsolomon]

25. he is machivellian

he is positioning himself to become supreme ayatollah & dictator of a shitte theocracy.

but if that is terror, then nearly every leader is a terrorist.

which they are.

so i changed my mind.

yes he is. so is bush. so is sharon. so is arafat.

[gottaB]

30. More info about Sadr

Posts from other DUers who've been following the story:

• Radical Shiite Cleric Declares Solidarity with Hamas
  
  
• Rebel Iraq cleric defies US - Tens of Thousands Chant Support for Sadr
  
  
• Muqtada's powerful push for prominence (Reliigious Courts in Iraq)
  
  
• In a Gypsy Village's Fate, an Image of Iraq's Future
  

[Djinn]

31. regardless of what Iraqi's think of him

I don't think I could use the term "terrorist" for someone fighting against a foreign army in ones own country.

The "civilians killed" argument is a bit of a furphy - how civilians has the US army killed, are they terrorists?

Can one honestly say with a straight face "collateral damage" when one bombs a market place or crowded street?

[ngGale]

32. I think it's just normal fighting for power, if that day ...

ever comes when they are free. Sistani is holding all the cards but he's not getting any younger. Who they choose for their leader is not my business, I'm having enough problems choosing my own.

[JSJ]

33. al-Sadr is a brave and intelligent man...

...who is also a surprisingly apt military tactician.

[Djinn]

35. me too

"I'm having enough problems choosing my own."

down here we have a similar choice to you guys - Right wing free market/corporate slave, or slightly less Right wing free market/corporate slave. Makes even hard core lefties like myself wonder if you may as well go for the traditionally right wing party as they've had a few more years practice! :shrug: