Muqtada Al-Sadr: "Did America come as an occupier? It came as a liberator. . .

[bigtree]

February 23, 2006

Iraqi Shi'ite Leader Muqtada Al-Sadr: Arab and Islamic Forces in Iraq Would Also Be Considered Occupation; If Asked by Syria and Iran, We May Confront the American Forces in Iraq


Interviewer: "There is a certain scenario – or perhaps requests – that Arab or even Islamic forces enter Iraq. You will surely reject them?"

Muqtada Al-Sadr: "I am the first to oppose them."

Interviewer: "Why? They would not come as occupiers..."

Muqtada Al-Sadr: "Did America come as an occupier? It came as a liberator. Same thing. It's the same problem. It entered as a liberator, and became an occupier. You can enter Iraq as liberators, and become occupiers. In a few years, it will be like when America came to get out of Lebanon, and Syria is considered an occupier, while America is not considered an occupier of Iraq. Why these double standards? America is the 'liberator' of Iraq, while Syria is the 'occupier' of Lebanon. Iran is forbidden to have a nuclear program, while Israel is allowed. Attacking the Jews is forbidden, while attacking Allah's Prophet is allowed. Look at these double standards. To sum up, we don't want any forces.

"The Iraqi people is capable of building Iraq. It is the occupier that prevents the building of Iraqi police and army. These forces do not receive money or weapons. We demanded that funds and weapons be transferred to the Iraqi army, but the occupier prevented this, in order to maintain its pretext for staying in Iraq."

Interviewer: "You have said that the American and allied forces are occupation forces. Does this mean that resisting them militarily is legitimate?"

Muqtada Al-Sadr: "Ask Bush. He is the one who legitimized it. He said: 'If my country was occupied, I would fight.' Even the occupier himself acknowledges the legitimacy of resistance. Allah acknowledged the legitimacy of resistance, and he claims to be sent by Allah. Look how extremist he is, while we are forbidden to be extremists. They consider demonstrations to be 'violence,' but the bombardment of cities is not considered violence. It is all double standards."

interview: http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD110006

[underpants]

1. I thought he was bad guy#1 there for a while

Still loose and free? Still running his Dad's empire? Still running part of the Iraqi parliament?

:eyes:

Amazing. He was a hunted man for a while ...until they figured out what killing him would cause and how much they had bit off. Truly amazing.

[TornadoTN]

4. I remember that!

I'm sure he will be the bad guy again in a few days as soon as the Freepers realize that he is not bowing to the wishes of the United States.

[bigtree]

6. they needed the participation of his followers in the 'elections'

he and his fellow Shiite clerics saw the advantage for their sect in forcing Bush to hold true to his promise of early elections and pushed him foward before the Sunnis and others could organize their followers and convince them to participate. It is amazing to see him as a 'politician' and remember him as an 'insurgent' defending mosques.

[malaise]

2. Some seriously dumb questions

by that interviewer. Of course the US are fugging occupiers.
sp.

[Wetzelbill]

5. yeah, really remedial stuff

no doubt.

[Wetzelbill]

3. that's pretty interesting

good post

[bigtree]

7. It's eerie to hear his words and realize the truth behind them,

outside of whatever we think his motivations or intentions may be. It just gives a sinking feeling when you ask yourself if there could be a way to bridge the gap between the warring factions, and even between them and the U.S. invaders if there was honesty and rational thinking from the WH.

But, at this point, we're left in the middle of extreme motivations and intentions from all sides with no bridge in sight.

[robertpaulsen]

8. Last questions foretells the future.

From the OP link:

"I am at the service of Islam and of the Islamic countries. Any service they need, whether in good times or bad, I am willing to provide - whether in Syria, which is subject to pressure, or in Iran, which faces pressure on the issue. I have said that I would defend all the Islamic and Arab countries."

Interviewer: "What does this mean in practice? Forget about the 'good times.' What does it mean in 'bad times,' as far as Iran and Syria are concerned? There is a clear political conflict that may become a military conflict, especially with Iran."

Muqtada Al-Sadr: "True, but they must ask me to provide that service, unlike some countries that come here to resist the occupation, and end up killing civilians. One must get a country's permission before helping it. Iran needs to be asked how it wants this help, and I will provide it.

"Syria needs to be asked how it wants this help, and I will provide it. Jordan needs to be asked how it wants this help, and I will provide it. It is not for me to decide this type of aid. They need to decide."

Interviewer: "Let's assume you are asked to provide help by confronting the American forces in Iraq."

Muqtada Al-Sadr: "If I have the ability, I will provide . Why shouldn't I? If I do not serve Islam, then who will I serve?"


There you go. All they have to do is ask, Sadr will be there guns blazing.