Nephew of leading Sunni cleric shot dead by US soldiers:Muslim association

[rainbow4321]

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=54ed55cdeb8fa7e8&cat=187cf2a69985adcf


BAGHDAD, Feb 3 (AFP) - The nephew of the head of an influential Sunni Muslim clerics' association was shot dead by US soldiers Thursday on a road west of the Iraqi capital, a spokesman for the group said.

The US military said it unaware of the incident but would investigate.

"The US army opened fire and killed the nephew of Sheikh Hareth al-Dhari, who was driving in a car with a friend Thursday morning on a flyover," said Omar Ragheb, a spokesman for the Committee of Muslim Scholars.

"Mahmoud Mudhar al-Dhari, 40, was coming from Khandari to Baghdad ... when his car was shot up. His friend is safe and in good health."

[Maple]

1. Ruh-oh

This is not good.

[d_b]

31. Took the words right out of my fingers

[henrik larssonisking]

39. scarey minds think alike, my first thought when i saw

this headline was ROH OH too

[daleo]

2. At least the spokesman was named here. n/t

[Erika]

3. And why are we there!

Hussein was captured long ago.

[LynnTheDem]

4. bush & bLiar et al said Hussein could remain in power if he disarmed

from all them "WMD". This invasion wasn't for the ILLEGAL purpose of regime change, according to bush at the time.

So a very good question; why ARE we still there, when in fact Hussein was telling the truth, and bush & bLiar et al were lying? Shouldn't bush & bLiar be in jail???

[Metrix]

5. Dahr Jamail was on Rense

and said he was surprised by the progress the U.S. is making on their permanent bases around Iraq. Mentioned Caspian Sea oil.

[LynnTheDem]

6. That seems to be all they're making any progress on.

Besides their progress on alienating the world. :eyes:

[rainbow4321]

7. Now if only they would rebuild what they have blown up...

instead of just building the U.S bases!

[geek tragedy]

8. Did he ask Rense about his holocaust denial and UFO abduction

stories too?

[anarchy1999]

12. Get over yourself, please over the "Rense site" issues.

go to:

www.dahrjamailiraq.com

all "rense" does is post from Dahr's site.

That's really all rense site is about, post essays and links from other sites. It's a rare event he ever writes anything. All Jeff R. does is have an interview program. No worse than "Coast to Coast", courtesy of Art Bell.

[The Magistrate]

33. Why, Ma'am?

That Rense engages in spreading about a great deal of garbageis surely pertinent. There is no real reason to suspect a person is anxious to spread about views he does not find some points of agreement with, or credence in, after all. When a thing enjoys the support of someone who is known to support a good deal of other garbage, it provides a reason to suspect this other item is similarly a piece of swill....

"The mind wobbles...."

[hector459]

19. If these bases aren't prime target by the Iraqis I don't know what will be

That should be the first thing the new government in Iraq asks the US to do: abondon those bases and get the hell of Iraqi soil.

[DubyaSux]

10. I think that is true...

....and a HUGE overlooked issue, but I can't seem to find any transcripts of where he stated that.

I'm a sure as anything he said it, but I can't point to a reference. any ideas where I can find it?

[Southern Dem 2005]

9. We are still there

Because we have screwed up the country so bad we have to stay until there is some stability. If we leave now Iraq really will become a terrorist haven.

[MadHound]

13. Please friend, stop buying the party line.

It is excuses like that that kept us in Vietnam for so long, with so many unneeded deaths and destruction. And isn't amazing how relatively few deaths occurred after we pulled out, and how quickly stability was restored to the country.

We are facing the same sort of scenario in Iraq. No matter how long we stay, no matter what governing system we set up, it is going to be considered illegal and illegit by the Iraqui people, and will be pulled down in a civil war as soon as we leave. All we are doing by staying in country is looting the land of its resources, and inflicting needless death and destruction on both sides. We should pull out now, repay the Iraqis for all the damage we've done, and deaths that we've inflicted, and simply leave. Yes, there will be a short period of instability, but it will be over shortly and Iraq will once again become a stable and peaceful country. But only when we leave.

Staying in Iraq is simply going to prolong the agony for the Iraqi people and for US soldiers, with no good resulting. We should leave, now.

[Southern Dem 2005]

17. People need to be realists with regard to Iraq

Whether you supported the war or not you need to take a hard look at the likely results if we pull out now. Your misplaced idealism will lead to a country ruled by people like al-Zarqawi. The Iraqi government is unable to provide security and stability and a pull-out now would lead to installation of a government worse than Saddam. While I don't like the fact that Americans and Iraqi's are dying every day a pull-out simply makes the matter worse.

Can you point to any reputable politician, Democrat (aside from Kennedy) or otherwise who believes a pull-out is the smart thing to do? If I'm not mistaken even Kerry thought we should stay.

[MadHound]

18. Don't you get it? It doesn't matter when we pull out friend,

The Iraqi people will come through and install al-Zarqawi, or whoever else muscles theirself to the position, no matter when we leave. That isn't idealism friend, that is the hard cold reality of the matter. Any government, any leader that is tainted by American support is going to be thrown out of office as soon as we leave, because the Iraqi people will consider that person and that government to be illegal and illegit, a tool of the Americans, and they will come in and replace it as soon as we're gone.

This is the same thing that happened in Vietnam, Chile, Venezuala, and elsewhere that the US has tried to "spread democracy". Thus, the only thing the US can do by remaining in Iraq is to prolong the death and needless destruction of Iraq. Better to pull out now so that the death and destruction stops sooner, with fewer casualties, rather than later when the death count will be higher.

I'm not being idealistic at all, I fully expect Iraq to morph into something of a totalitarian state after we leave. But you see friend, that is going to happen anyway, no matter when we leave.

And just because most of the politicians disagree with my sentiments doesn't make them valid. After all, the overwhelming majority of our reprasenatives disagreed with me about the wisdom of going to Iraq in the first place, and we're seeing how legit and wise that move was:eyes:

[Southern Dem 2005]

21. The politicians disagreed with you

about going into Iraq because they were either (1) misled into believing there was cause or (2) they were scared to speak up. Iraq may well morph into a totalitarian state after we leave but the goal should be to do everything to ensure it doesn't. Leaving now probably ensures that it does.

[MadHound]

23. An unattainable goal friend, that has been proven time and again

Vietnam, Iran, Cuba, Chile, and others have proven the point repeatedly that as soon as the people of a country feel the US presence lifted, they will throw out the US backed government and install one of their own, no matter how much good we've done, no matter how much money we pump in. People have a need, and it is their right, to set up a government of their very own, not to have it imposed by an outside force, especially as we do this, at the barrel of a gun.

All our ongoing presence does is pump up the body count on both sides. It will not(as it hasn't ever done before) insure a government of our liking, in fact it generally does the opposite, building up a government that we hate.

So if all our presence is going to do is promote death and destruction, why should we stay?

[BeFree]

30. Why should we stay?

Thanks, Madhound, for holding up your end so well.

Lately, we've heard a few politicos state that we must stay until we kill all the bad guys. Ha.

The more we kill the more there are, because we actually generate 'bad guys' with every military action we take. It's like we are a virus in a pool and as long as we remain, nothing is safe.

Sure, there'd be a bit of a war going on once we leave, but it'd be less of a war than what's happening now, because we are the outsiders infecting the populace.

Looking back now, Iraq was far more stable with Saddam in power, and possibly even more peaceful. And the reality is that if we had never propped him up as we did in the 80's, he would have been far less destructive.

We are somewhat responsible for creating the monster that ran Iraq. Now we've become the monster.

[Southern Dem 2005]

36. Iraq was more stable under Saddam

but it should be clear, even to the people on this board, that for the Iraqi people "stable" wasn't necessarily a good thing. Russia was stable under Stalin but I'm not sure the Russian people were safe under Stalin. I think the same holds true for Iraq under Saddam--Iraq was stable but the people weren't safe.

Its quite possible that they Iraqi people are less safe now, especially considering the fact that our military keeps dropping bombs in the wrong places and Saddam loyalists/terrorists keep blowing things up. However, that doesn't mean the Iraqi people aren't better off long-term without Saddam in power. While we started this war for all the wrong reasons it should be pretty easy to recognize that the Iraqi people, long-term, will be better off under just about any government that doesn't include Saddam.

I disagree totally that the US propping up Saddam contributed to his actions. He was clearly a dictator who ruled by terror and he would have killed his people regardless of who propped him up.

[BeFree]

38. So, you are for the occupation?

I'm not, and never will be.

And you just stated a good case for getting out ASAP:

"...the Iraqi people, long-term, will be better off under just about any government that doesn't include Saddam."

Saddam is gone, and two-wrongs make one a right-wing warmongerer.

And, if you knew the history, you would agree with me that we propped up Saddam enough, so that he could be as strong and mean as he was.

[NNN0LHI]

40. Saddam had his air force slam two Exocet missiles into the USS Stark...

...damn near busting the ship in half, and causing dozens of US casualties and I thought Reagan was going to award Saddam some kind of medal after he apologized for the mistake. That is what you call good friends.

Don

[MadHound]

24. self delete

double post

[The Magistrate]

34. The Problem, Mr. S. D.

Is two-fold.

First, it is a certainty Iraq will end as either a totalitarian structure, or dissolve into seperate totalitarian structures, on the departure of the U.S., and there is nothing further U.S, occupation can do to alter this.

Second, there is the question of how much damage the U.S. itself absorbs in continuing the occupation. The strain on the nation's military is real; the limitation placed on the nation's ability to respond appropriately should some other emergency arise elsewhere is real. Where no good result can be achieved, perseverance is folly of the worst sort; it is always better to cut sunk losses as quickly as possible.

"There is a proverb that says 'If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.' This is nonsense. It ought to say, 'If at first you don't succeed, quit, quit at once.'"

[VegasWolf]

43. Perhaps a happy medium exists, try twice then say screw it. n/t

[NNN0LHI]

25. al-Zarqawi is a figment of some peoples imagination

Kind of like Santa Claus.

Don

[The Magistrate]

35. Certainly, My Friend

He is hardly in a position to take over the rule of the place in the absence of the U.S. occupation. He has no domestic footing at all. He would, doubtless, seek to make what trouble he could for a Shi'ite regime, as his strain of jihadism views these as heterodox false Muslims worse than open infidels.

[NNN0LHI]

37. The FBI does not ever mention al-Zarqawi on their own terrorist site

I wonder if that can be just an oversight on their part perhaps? This guy is supposed to be the most important and dangerous terrorist in the world right now and the FBI does not even mention him? They have people listed I never even heard of but no al-Zarqawi. Something doesn't seem right, Magistrate. My BS meter is pegging.

Don

http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm

[Don Claybrook]

42. counter question for you

Do you have a shred of credible evidence that al Zarqawi (Emmanuel Goldstein?) exists, and that he's responsible for even a tenth of what is claimed?

[Bridget Burke]

14. Iraq already is a terrorist haven.

The longer we stay & the more people we kill, the more terrorists we create.

And US citizens will continue to die there--do you care?

[AlCzervik]

15. we opened up Pandora's box-there will never be stability there

no matter how long we stay.

[Magleetis]

16. Thats why

we are building permanent bases in Iraq. We are going to stay permanently because there will never be stability in Iraq?

[Mist]

22. It seems likely our presence there is the leading factor in

the "instability" there.

[Horse with no Name]

32. That's "Bushcons" story

It is their country.
IMHO, the ONLY thing the US needs to do is to leave the country post haste and start paying reparations for the damage we have done.
We don't need soldiers over there--we need people without political interests or affiliations to help them rebuild their country--structurally, politically and emotionally.
We need to finance relief efforts for the people that have been displaced by bombs.
There are ways to do these things without bombs and shooting people.
Seems that should be something that would be easily figured out.

[Azathoth]

11. Whooooops....

{rummy-speak} A silly mistake, or a not-so-subtle warning to the Sunni agitators? You tell me... {/rummy-speak}

[VegasWolf]

20. See, bush is pissed off about the elections, they're already

ignighting a civil war.

[Igel]

26. I believe the Sunni ulema association as much as I believe

other sources that have more to gain from lying to protect their honor and get control than telling the truth.

If the guy was doing something wrong and was killed, or something that would embarrass the cleric, the truth would be the last thing they'd want out.

I'm not saying they're lying, just that I don't believe them.

[Supersedeas]

27. sure, feel free to speculate over the corpse of a dead man--no blood on

your hands

[Igel]

28. Not speculating over the cause of his death.

Just saying that if Rove said his newphew was killed by a Muslim terrorist, with no other evidence, I'm fairly sure we'd all say, "Yeah, sure." Even though it's possible.

I read what the ulema said. I still have no clue how the guy died.

[Supersedeas]

29. Okay, I follow you now.

[ausiedownunderground]

41. Don't forget "The First Law of Holes"!

When you find yourself deep in a hole - STOP DIGGING!

Oh, by the way, Shia trouble brewing in Basra as we speak.British Garrison reported to be edgy!

US troops deploying out of Basra for UM Qasr to exit Iraq on rotation have been met by sustained mortar barrages. Even the children lining the streets were throwing rocks at them and giving them the "finger"! A lot of "hearts and minds" won over there!