>>And he knows about revolting --RS

LOL!

In addition, you know that black turban he wears? It means he's a direct descendent of Mohamet! Uh Huh, right! It's amazing how these people take us for fools - and we are not.

Posted by: darcy at March 25, 2008 8:46 AM

A visit to a dentist?

Posted by: grobari at March 25, 2008 8:47 AM

We need to clean out Basra. It will be great if the Iraqies do it themselves. What was done in Bagdad needs to happen in Basra.

Posted by: Ruebacca at March 25, 2008 8:52 AM

The BBC currently has reports of battles in Basra.

British supplying air cover to Iraqi forces; personally supervised by Iraqi PM Nouri al Maliki:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7312078.stm

Posted by: StephenA55 at March 25, 2008 9:01 AM

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2008/03/24/debka-file-report-syria-masses-three-army-divisions-on-lebanese-border/

Looks like Syria is up to something.

Posted by: DeeMack at March 25, 2008 9:23 AM

Speaking for bearded men all over the world - Moqtada Al Sadr, do something about that soup-catcher!

Posted by: tanstaafl at March 25, 2008 9:23 AM

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/

lots of movement going on...I don't like it, I don't like it one bit. :-(

Posted by: DeeMack at March 25, 2008 9:24 AM

It's about time this gap-toothed idiot and his slaves are taken to task.

Posted by: spartanoak at March 25, 2008 9:26 AM

We could have blown him to little greasy pieces. We had that chance and wimped out. So now he says he's revolting. I believe he was always revolting.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at March 25, 2008 9:27 AM

"Mogtada al-Sadr.."

Usually referred to, formulaically, by the BBC, in order to identify him fully, as "radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr."

And who is he, and why does it matter? He's the ABD (not slave, but "all-but-dissertation") remaining member of a famous Shi'a clerical dynasty, but he hasn't been as successful a student as his father and uncles (it's the old "regression-to-the-mean" problem that so many talented American parents have discovered as they contemplate their disappointing offspring). He's a troglodyte, a primitive -- look at his face -- but has one virtue, some think, in that he does not want Iraqi Shi'a, so we are told, to become subservient to Iran's Shi'a clerics, and that makes sense, for where would Moqtada al-Sadr be if Iran's clerics were ruling (quite doubtful) the roost. But in this respect Moqtada al-Sadr is not much different from most of the other Shi'a in Iraq. Some will, some won't, accept Iranian weapons and support. Very few will, a great many won't, accept Iranian dictation. But the presence of Iranian agents, all over the place, and the looming presence of Iran just beyond the porous border drawn in 1847 -- not, as some think, by Western "colonialists," but in the Treaty of Elbruz that was signed between the Ottoman Empire and the Persian Empire -- means that Iran will always have influence, as a threat or as a promise, to various factions of Shi'a, to the Sunnis, to the Kurds. No simple summary of Moqtada al-Sadr's "relation" to Iran can be made because that "relation" can change over time, depending on what he needs, or what his Mahdi Army needs, or how the rival Shi'a groups respond to his demands and needs, or even how a rival within that Mahdi Army might challenge Moqtada al-Sadr, and be either more, or less, "pro-Iranian" as part of his possible pitch. And then there are the relations of the Shi'a groups with the Sunni Arabs who have always ruled in Iraq, and who are stunned to discover that, though they should by numbers not have been ruling at all (Sunni Arabs make up 19% of the population, thought the Sunnis keep telling themseves, and the worlc, that they constitute 42% of Iraq's popuatlion), and who, while for reasons of their own (inlcuding resentment and rage at the behavior of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and a great desire to receive money and weapons from the ever-accommodating Americans, who have no other way to win friends and influence people among all the various essentially hostile Muslims who live in Iraq. Well, that's not quite true. There are some Muslims in Iraq who are grateful to the Americans for saving them, and that is the Kurds, but that gratitude is a cupboard love, dependent on a "what-have-you-done-for-me-lately" approach, and if the Americans continue to give the Turks the go-ahead, that Kurdish gratitude can evanesce. And there is a scarcely discernable sliver of the population, consisting of "secular" Sunnis and "secular" Shi'a -- Ali Allawi comes to mind, and so does Mithal al-Alusi -- who while growing contemptuous of the clumsiness and ignorance of the Americans, are in their essence on the side of a secular state, are the Enlightened Ones, who deserve to inherit, but will not inherit, Iraq and the responsibilites of rule.

Do you know what Moqtada al-Sadr will do tomorrow? Will his men decide to stop kidnapping Sunnis and killing them as a response to what they see as Sunni bombs in Shi'a markets? Will they patch things up, or at least do more than observe a ceasefire, with members of SCIRI and Da'wa? Will they take weapons from Iran, or not take weapons, from Iran? Will Moqtada al-Sadr remain the leader, or will he be replaced by someone more, less, who will be even (less or more) [now choose one in each category] nationalist or pro-Iranian, aggressive or passive, healing or disruptive, effective or ineffective, trustworthy or meretricious)?

No one knows. The Americans certainly do not know, and they never will be able to figure out who or what is on first, because in Iraq, there are so many fissures within fissures, so many groups who may, or may not, be receiving aid, in the form of weapons (as with Iraq) or money (as with Saudi Arabia) to do so many various things, including but not limited to:

1) supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq

2) fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq

3) supporting Al Qaeda against the Americans and the Shi'a but fighting them when they kill Iraqi Sunnis

4) supporting SCIRI and Mr. Hakim

5) supporting the Da'wa Party

6) supporting the Shi'a of the Jaish al-Mahdi

7) Supporting the Shi'a of the Jaish al-Mahdi but not their leader, Moqtada al-Sadr

8) supporting any group that kills Americans, whether or not it is Sunni or Shi'a Arab

9) supporting the corrupt government of Maliki

10) supporting the handful of incorruptible officials who have left that same government and bewailed the corruption that is made possible, in pertinent part, by American aid that allows the Iraqi government to keep, and play with, and distribute to particular friends and family of particular officials, that $100 billion in oil money that Iraq has received in the last two years but refuses to spend

11) supporting fellow Arabs in Mosul and Kirkuk, whether Sunni or Shi'a, as long as they are fighting against Kurdish domination of those cities

12) those fighting for an independent Kurdistan

13) those fighting for an independent Kurdistan under the Barzanis

14) those fightinig for an independent Kurdistan under the Talebanis.

15) those fighting for a resurrection of Ba'athism as the only way to continue to keep rule by the Sunnis

16) those fighting -- all dozen of them -- for the liberal democracy that George Bush thinks he has brought to Iraq, with its purple-thumbed electeion just like those in the West, and that Constitution (just like those in the West), and the respect for the rule of law (just like what happens in the West), and the equal treatment for ethnic minorities (Kurds and Turcomans in Arab-ruled areas, Arabs and Turcomans in Kurdish-ruled areas), and the equal treatment of religious minorities, Assyrians and Chaldeans and Yazidis and Mandeans and Armenians (just as in the West), and the free market that helps to make men free (just as in the West), and all the other wonderful things that have been transplanted to Iraq, and are taking root, root, root (just as in the West).

Oh, I could go on.

But so could you.

And we have hardly scratched that meretricious surface of Iraq, a place where the only "victory" that could conceivably be achieved was achieved more than four years ago, by February 2004, when the following had been accomplished:

Saddam Hussein had been captured.

Saddam Hussein's sons had been killed.

The game of Fifty-Two Pickup had been successfully played, and almost all of the major figures in Saddam Hussein's regime had been captured, or killed, or were on the run.

The country had been scoured for WMD, and it had not been found, and David Kay had issued his report that clearly recognized this.

By early 2004 the unacknowledged (by the Americans) transfer of power was then complete. I don't mean the transfer of power to some "transitional government" put in place by the soi-disant Coalition, with some Allawi or Jaabari there. No, I mean the only transfer of power that counted: that from the Sunni Arabs to the Shi'a Arabs.

By early 2004 that transfer was over and irrevocable. The Sunnis had lost, and while they would never acquiesce in that loss, they will never regain power in Iraq. And this fact is something that, being Muslims, they will not accept. They will fight on, forever, and they will attempt to receive, and will receive, support from Sunnis abroad. Whatever those "Awakening Councils" do or do not do, in exchange for all kinds of money and weapons from the Americans (you didn't think the Iraqi government, which is an agent of the Shi'a, would supply that money, or those weapons, to any Sunnis, even those fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, did you?), the Sunnis in them plan to undo what the American invasion did in causing them to lose power, and place, in Baghdad and in Iraq.

And the Shi'a will never give up that power. And why should they? There will be, there are, fights within the Shi'a camp, as there are within the camp of Sunnis. And it will go on for a very long time, and instead of being disturbed by this, instead of believing credulously in the warings (from such disinterested "allies" as Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Egypt, all of them eager to have the Ameridans stay to prop up the Sunnis, and delay the day when the Shi'a rule over fabled Baghdad and the land of the Two Rivers has at long last to be recognized, a blow to Sunni pride and history-haunted sense of what is fitting), and there is always the hope that the Americans, in being manipulated and used by their Sunnin "allies" (who don't want them to bomb Iran's nuclear project, but do want them to stand as a barrier against Iran's army from intervening too much in Iraq, and then, possibly, in the Gulf ("Arabian" not "Persian") itself, not least by appealing to the Shi'a in Bahrain (where they constitute 70% of the population and the Sunni ruler worries), in Kuwait (where they are a large minority, treated by the Sunni majority as one would expect the Sunni majority to treat them), in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province (where all the oilfields are located, and so too are all of Saudi Arabia's native, and resentful, and most ill-treated Shi'a).

If you recognize the meaning, and menace, of Islam, then all these fissures and fissures within fissures, all these distinctions, and lines of force, and leaders with ambition -- such as Moqtada al-Sadr -- can hardly be kept straight. But one thing should be kept straight. If two men, or four men, are in a barroom, and they all hate each other, and wish to kill each other, and at the same time they all wish to kill you, here's a bit of advice: don't go into that barroom, or don't stay in that barroom for very long, once you have grasped the situation. And above all, don't stay in that barroom and risk your life, in order to keep those two, or four (or six or eight) different people who all hate you, from harming one another.

Tiptoe out, and stand outside, listening to the thuds and the blows and the screams. And if occasinally you feel the need to throw inside a knife or a gun to this or that participant, do so. But don't go in yourself. Wait, watch, sit down, and take the time to figure out what you can do to make sure that others, related to the men inside, don't manage to settle in in that next town over, beyond a few miles of mesquite, the town where all your kinfolk still live.

Posted by: Hugh at March 25, 2008 10:01 AM

As the photograph shows, when people are rotten on the inside, that rot eventually reaches the outer layers.

Should 'Civil Revolt' actually be 'Dental Revolt'?

Posted by: Sencit at March 25, 2008 10:24 AM

He's just upset, full-well knowing that his time left here on this Earth is seriously limited.

Posted by: awake at March 25, 2008 10:30 AM

Why is nobody even mentioning anymore that Muqtedar al-Sadr MURDERED ANOTHER IMAM IN THE DOORWAY OF A MOSQUE AND WAS WANTED FOR MURDER IN SADDAM'S IRAQ??? ... Why has everybody forgotten that in everything that they write?

And why has everybody also forgotten that when other clerics watched this murder and just freaked out, al-
Sadr chided them:

"Shut up. He's dead. Get the carcass out of the doorway."

He's so filthy he won't even see a dentist about his rotting mouth.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 25, 2008 10:56 AM

He's so filthy he won't even see a dentist about his rotting mouth.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 25, 2008 10:56 AM

Really. Want to see a modern-day un-idealized depiction of how Mohammed really looked?

Look at al-Sadr.

Posted by: darcy at March 25, 2008 10:58 AM

"And he knows about revolting"

lol, aint that the truth! (I think he looks inbred and he probably is considering the high rate of cousin marriage within Islamic tradition)

Posted by: TS at March 25, 2008 11:01 AM

Bet his breath woud gag a maggot.
/Should have shot him during his last insurrection several years back.

Posted by: MP at March 25, 2008 11:05 AM

I don't know, Darcy. Given the hadith about how to brush your teeth, looks like the Prophet wasn't a slovenly guy like this one.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 25, 2008 11:26 AM

This is what the C ommunist N ews N etwork
is reporting

http://www.cnn.com/

Posted by: DeeMack at March 25, 2008 1:11 PM

Hisslam spoken here - and thank God we don't smellavision - ew.

Posted by: champ at March 25, 2008 1:20 PM

Yet another Skunk heard from. He must dye his beard to cover an otherwise noticeable white streak through it.

Assad should start spraying soon with Ineedajob wishing to unload last. By then the stench will be so pronounced, the Trade Winds will blow it right in our direction.

Thank the NIE report for passing the advantage of time and place on to the Enemy

Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 25, 2008 1:51 PM

You gotta like Spencer´s photo captions. Seems like he´s been doing it more lately. I liked the one with Jack Nicholson, from the Shining, and the caption says, "Honey, I´m home..." (to go with a story about a Muslim turning his own wife into a suicide bomber)

Posted by: traeh at March 25, 2008 3:06 PM

Yes, Spencer is the Grand Master of Captions.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 25, 2008 4:38 PM

....on second thought...don't say, "Cheese!"

Posted by: champ at March 25, 2008 5:30 PM

Yes, Spencer is the Grand Master of Captions.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 25, 2008 4:38 PM

Especially love "Everyone loves a parade" underneath a photo of enraged Mohammedans with their signs proclaiming "Death to the West" and "Behead Anyone Who Insults Islam" and "Europe Your 9/11 is Coming."

The epitome of understatement.

Posted by: darcy at March 25, 2008 5:34 PM

In Badgad, Al-Sadr's definition of "civil revolt" means groups of thugs going around forcing shops to close under threat of violence. Then they will claim the shops are protesting.

Posted by: davidp at March 25, 2008 6:33 PM

Hugh

I love the bar-room brawl analogy. One of your best efforts.

It may come in handy when I write to my Defence Minister, and to his Shadow on the Opposition bench. It is precisely the sort of analogy that the average Australian politician is capable of grasping.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at March 25, 2008 8:13 PM

Gingivitis is caused by the long-term effects of plaque deposits. Plaque is a sticky material that develops on the exposed portions of the teeth, consisting of bacteria, mucus, and food debris. It is a major cause of tooth decay.

Posted by: DCWatson at March 25, 2008 10:31 PM

Now THAT'S the face of a child molester.

Posted by: DaveMate at March 26, 2008 12:16 PM

I guess the money he received from the Americans back in 2004/5 has run out?? They appeased him then by paying him 1.2M for some weapons and 330M as a sort of "good will gesture" to get him to calm the Shiite's down back then.

Who made that decision?

I actually retained those figures (and all I seem to retain these days is water, lol) because I was so flabbergasted.

Will they pay him again?

Posted by: gymgal at March 26, 2008 1:02 PM