The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [casi] Bomb in Najaf has kills 82, including leading Shia - FT

>With all due respect to Sayyid Nasrallah he,
understandably, has a one-agenda policy. It is well
documented that he has never mentioned the suffering
of Iraqis under Saddam Hussein when he talks of the
former dictator - because he doesn't want to infuriate
his Palestinian supporters since this would damage his

Whenever anyone starts his sentence by “with all due
respect”, it indicates he has no respect, and the rest
is evident.
What Sayyid Nasrallah is accused of also applies to
all other Shi’a leaders, especially the Iraqi ones.
SCIRI or the Da’wa Party have had only one article on
their agenda: overthrowing the regime of Saddam and
establishing an Islamic State.. They were prepared to
let the Americans kill thousands of Iraqis to achieve
that objective..

The late Sayyid Baqir Al-Hakim “never mentioned the
suffering” of Shi’a under Al-Saud rule, or the
oppression of Shi’a in Bahrain or in Turkey. He too
did not want to infuriate his “Bedouin” and American
supporters since this would damage his agenda... I
don’t remember any condemnation of the murder of over
1.5 million Iraqis through sanctions..
It suited the agenda of SCIRI to cooperate with the US
(for the past 12 years as Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim
admitted), and that seems to be accepted. It is
accepted to cooperate with the occupier, simply
because SCIRI wants so. The late Sayyid Baqir Al-Hakim
was quoted as saying “I know that God had forbidden
cooperating with the occupier, but I will allow
that”.. But it is not accepted to condemn the
occupation and call for resistance...

I have the greatest admiration and respect for Sayyid
Nasrallah, because the man never left his place and
ran away, and because he led a party that fought an
occupation and forced it into a shameful
withdrawal..He is an exemplary leader.. Whoever
criticizes Sayyid Nasrallah should have acted

>He's saying what his crowd wants to hear<

It is quite understandable, and it reflects democratic
thought. It means that Hizbollah opposes the US/UK
occupation, and Sayyid Nasrallah is reflecting their
views. The fact that the man listens to his crowd
means he is not a dictator; more reason to respect
him.. Or should we have a leader who tells us what to
do?? Another Saddam, for example??

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]