Radical Shiite cleric calls U.S., Britain and Israel the ''Triad of Evil"

[bemildred]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who wields growing political influence and whose militia has clashed with U.S. forces, described the United States, Israel and Britain as a ''Triad of Evil'' in a television interview Friday.

The anti-American al-Sadr also said last month's attack on a Shiite shrine in the central city of Samarra was carried out ''in collusion with the occupiers and the Zionist entity of Israel,'' meaning the U.S. and Israel.

---

Speaking about the country's political crisis that erupted in recent days over the Shiite parliamentary bloc's nomination of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari to form a new government, al-Sadr said ''I don't intervene in such small matters.''

--

''The candidate for prime minister must demand the withdrawal of the occupiers, or put a timetable for their pullout. I don't support any person who does not say that,'' al-Sadr said. ''What is important is that the occupiers leave because they are behind what is happening in Iraq.''

NewsPress

[neuvocat]

1. Hey!

We came up with the irresponsible and childish rhetoric so stop ripping us off.

:D

[laheina]

2. Turnabout is fair play.

And it takes one to know one? :shrug:

[The Stranger]

8. This post made my day.

Very well done.

:rofl:

[C_U_L8R]

3. I always thought

Axis of Weasels
had a nice ring to it

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

16. BWWWWAAAHHHHHHHH!---!!!--- Now THAT is a GOOD one !!!! n/t

[IndianaGreen]

4. Those that wanted Saddam out, will have to live with the consequences

of replacing a secular thug for a religious one. A fundamentalist Iraq will be a greater threat to Israel than Saddam ever was!

AIPAC should be very pleased with the blowback!


:sarcasm:

[megatherium]

10. AIPAC? We did Iraq for the Jews?

I thought it was the oil. (Not to steal oil, per se, but instead to protect access to this strategic resource on which our civilization begins, or something like that.)

Actually, the theory that makes the most sense to me is that we did it for the Iranians. Here's the logic: It's been reported that Ahmed Chalabi was an Iranian agent. He sent four different agents of his to separately contact us, posing as Iraqi dissidents, saying they knew that Saddam had WMD and they knew where it was. They also told us that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators. All of these were lies, of course; we found out only later that the four agents were linked to Chalabi. (I recall reading this in the Washington Post; of course, I am in no position to know if this is true.) Why would the Iranians egg us on to attack Iraq? First, they had a bigger axe to grind against Saddam than anyone; Saddam was a mortal enemy to them. Second, they knew that after 9/11 we were itching to attack radical Muslim states. They wanted to make sure we attacked Iraq first and not them. Our leadership said openly, "Iraq is low-hanging fruit" which they would do first, in preparation for the real target, Iran. Well, as we know, and I suspect the Iranians expected, that project hasn't gone so well. We are in a poorer position to attack Iran now. If necessary, the Iranians can always ask their allies in the Shiite community in Iraq to join the insurgency. We would never be able to attack Iran.

[Coastie for Truth]

28. We did it for the OIL

C8H18 - and that spells OIL.

See an energy experts's blog about the tie in to OIL -

[CoffeeCat]

5. Yup...take a left at the Bermuda Triangle and a right at the...

...Axis of Evil and there you are...at the Triad of Evil!

I'd rather live in the Octagon of Tom Foolery--less serious, less likely to hit with terrorism.

[xchrom]

6. aren't the iraqis still celebrating our presence?

here we've liberated them -- i mean look at all the dead bodies{that's how you can tell they are liberated} -- and they don't sound grateful.

well, i'm sure we'll liberate many more -- maybe then they'll be grateful.

[genie_weenie]

7. Sadr is such a non-factor

His LTs control the money and "his" militia, and Iraqis do not respect his opinion.

However, I am worried because an AXIS can probably beat a TRIAD...

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fujiyama]

11. You have any proof?

You just say "he's right" as though it's a fact.

It's idle speculation. You might want to say "I believe he's right", "I think he's right", or even "He's probably or possibly right".

But as of yet, I have not seen any evidence supporting this claim the US, UK, or Israel was behind the attacks.

[genie_weenie]

12. That is absolute baloney

What evidence do you have of the Shrine being destroyed? And Sadr is NOT respected by the Iraqis, they view him as a coward. Saddam murders his father and he runs and hides.

[High Plains]

13. Sadr is not respected by Iraqis?

Sez who?

[genie_weenie]

14. Sadr's status

This is not to say all Iraqis, but many do not give him much credence.

Back in 2003, Sadr followers demanded he be made an Ayatollah, a status below Grand Ayatollah which Sisatni is, this demand was rejected on numerous grounds;

including his lack of religious training,

lack of written treatises on Islam (which are required to be raised to that rank),

after his father was killed by Saddam Sadr didn't do anything until the Americans came in and displaced Saddam then he began his ground root efforts to be a young firebrand.

During and after the Najaf in fighting 2004, his lieutants took over the financial and military running of his militia network, Sadr was reduced to the status of semi-figurehead.

Of course, I am not stating he doesn't have influence, it's just that many of the Iraqis who make up the Demockery give him no standing. Sadr realizes his strongest position comes from demanding the Americans leave.

[Terran1212]

30. His father was a huge Iraqi hero killed by Saddam Hussein

[genie_weenie]

31. Yes, the key is Sadr's Father

was an Iraqi legend.

[Colorado Blue]

15. WHAT????

That's absurd. And it's slanderous.

[geek tragedy]

17. You mean it's not the Freemasons? Or the Illuminati?

I can't keep my looney conspiracy theories straight.

[Karmakaze]

18. It may be a conspiracy theory...

but it isn't looney.

I can't remember the full details right now, but one US government plan involved carrying out phoney terrorist attacks to further US policy. The idea was to stage terrorist attacks to justify US intervention, AND to stage false flag attacks against hostile nations or groups in order to break apart alliances that were detrimental to US goals.

Causing Shiite and Sunni to fight each other is a very plausible goal of US intelligence and military services.

[bemildred]

19. Google "gladio". Or look it up on Wikipedia.

But it's just one of many.

[geek tragedy]

23. Gladio isn't evidence that the US and Israel blew up that shrine.

The "Americans and Jews did it" theory fails the cui bono test--the last thing the Bush administration wants in Iraq is a full-blown civil war.

[bemildred]

25. Indeed.

Your grip on logic is very heartening to see.

[geek tragedy]

33. So how is Gladio relevant to this discussion?

Let me answer:

It isn't. Just a fig leaf put forth to excuse irresponsible myth-making like Sadr's statements here.

[bemildred]

35. It is relevant to Mr. (?) Kaze's assertion that false flag attacks

are used as instruments of government policy. It has nothing in particular to do with the Mosque attack, and I consider the idea that Israel is behind the mosque attack rather unlikely. But the idea that governments do such things is not silly at all. Iran-Contra is a fine example of that sort of chicanery too, in a slightly different vein.

PS: it is tacky to ask people questions and to then pretend to answer for them.

[geek tragedy]

36. I think everyone can presume that false flag operations

have occurred in the past, and have been used by just about all states and other violent organizations.

The question is whether there is any evidence to support the particular allegation.

Here, there is none whatsoever. A person would claim that the US/Israel was behind it only out of some combination of anti-Americanism/anti-Israel sentiment and general nuttiness.

The question I answered, btw, was rhetorical.

[bemildred]

37. Actually, lots of people question them.

People seem to like to believe that their governments are honest and well-meaning. It is a service to disillusion them of that folly.

There was no allegation made in the post I responded to. If Mr. Kaze authored the deleted post and made some assertion in it, then I'm afraid I missed it.

Al Sadr is, of course, a typical lying politician, and I took the assertion about the US and Israel etc. to be his, and saw no need to address it at all. My bets are on Iran FWIW, with the stooge government a close second. I would not think Israel was pleased with the present situation.

The question you answered seemed to be addressed to me. If you want to ask rhetorical questions and answer yourself, may I suggest you respond to the OP to do so?

[geek tragedy]

22. It's completely without factual support.

And, despite what Fox News says, civil war is not good for the Bush administration.

[Jim Sagle]

21. Show us your evidence (snort).

[geek tragedy]

24. Rule #1: Evidence is not required when blaming the Jews.

One can simply claim that the Israelis/Jews/Zionists did it, and plenty of warped individuals will accept it as a matter of faith.

[Jim Sagle]

26. Because if I did it, I damn well better get paid.

;-)

[geek tragedy]

32. You control the media and banking industries already.

You people are so greedy.

:sarcasm:

[bemildred]

34. Hey, he admitted he's paid. nt

[leftchick]

20. He is no more radical than the chimpass

Now that would be a headline! "Radical president gw bush says Iraq will not have a civil war"!

And I do give al-Sadr credit for the intelligence to know exactly what is happening to his country.

[daleo]

27. Triad of evil makes more sense than axis of evil

At least their crackpots check the meanings of words in a dictionary before coming up with inane slogans.

[Terran1212]

29. They always preface his name with "Radical"

Is it so radical to fight against an occupying power? Why do they always call him "radical"?

[Jim Sagle]

38. Because they're too yellow to call him a worthless piece of Nazi filth.

[HuffleClaw]

39. hahahhahhaa

i'd have preferred the 'cabal of skullduggery' myself.