Why aren't the Shi'a going nuts?
I haven't heard this one before. From Hammorabi:
The Wahabi terrorists (Zarqawi & his supporting thugs) killed Hussein Al-Harithi who is the representative of Ali Sistani in a district in Baghdad. Harithi used to run a charity organisation to help the poor and needy as well. His assassination came as part of the systemic and organised attacks against the Shia figures and institutes.
Wahabism, of course, is the strict and fanatical sect of Islam which is the official religion of Saudi Arabia, shared by bin Laden, Zarqawi, and the Saudi Royal Family alike.
Now, the Ayatollah Sistani is the most influential Shi'ite in the country, right? Why, then, doesn't he be, perhaps, a tad more explicit about which side he's on? Why aren't the Shi'ites lining up in our- which is to say, their own, corner?
Come to think of it, of course, the same question could be asked about the whole country.
President Bush has bet his presidency, and a thousand Americans have lost their lives, gambling that at some point the people of Iraq will stand up for their own interests the way Bush and our troops have stood up for them. Given the present level of support for the interim government, it seems to be a winning bet. As the evidence mounts as to who stands for what kind of future for Iraq, centuries of cultural paranoia and irrational emotion may yet give way to common sense.
But the wait can be a little discouraging at times- all the more so when such a large minority of our own countrymen are rooting for America to lose, and the cutters off of heads to win.
The Wahabi terrorists (Zarqawi & his supporting thugs) killed Hussein Al-Harithi who is the representative of Ali Sistani in a district in Baghdad. Harithi used to run a charity organisation to help the poor and needy as well. His assassination came as part of the systemic and organised attacks against the Shia figures and institutes.
Wahabism, of course, is the strict and fanatical sect of Islam which is the official religion of Saudi Arabia, shared by bin Laden, Zarqawi, and the Saudi Royal Family alike.
Now, the Ayatollah Sistani is the most influential Shi'ite in the country, right? Why, then, doesn't he be, perhaps, a tad more explicit about which side he's on? Why aren't the Shi'ites lining up in our- which is to say, their own, corner?
Come to think of it, of course, the same question could be asked about the whole country.
President Bush has bet his presidency, and a thousand Americans have lost their lives, gambling that at some point the people of Iraq will stand up for their own interests the way Bush and our troops have stood up for them. Given the present level of support for the interim government, it seems to be a winning bet. As the evidence mounts as to who stands for what kind of future for Iraq, centuries of cultural paranoia and irrational emotion may yet give way to common sense.
But the wait can be a little discouraging at times- all the more so when such a large minority of our own countrymen are rooting for America to lose, and the cutters off of heads to win.
Comments