Sunday, March 13, 2005

Boston "Yahd" House of "Cahds"

Yet another card seems to have been removed from the house of cards that is the political left on the issue of Iraq. The one I'm referring to that the gloom merchants have been promising will happen lately is the one about "the most likely outcome of Iraqi elections will be the emergence of a democratically elected, Shiite Islamic state, blah blah 'I went to Harvard' blah." And here is the nice touch of a bitchslap retort to that:
Shiite and Kurdish politicians refined plans to form a coalition government that officials said includes an agreement not to turn the country into an Islamic state...Kurds and alliance officials said both sides agreed that Iraq would not become an Islamic state, a desire also expressed by the country's most powerful Shiite cleric - Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani...The Kurds won 75 seats in the 275-member National Assembly during Jan. 30 elections. The alliance won 140 seats and needs Kurdish support to assemble the two-thirds majority to elect a president, who will then give a mandate to the prime minister...Jalal Talabani, a Kurdish leader who is slated to become Iraq's next president.
You know, this is really no suprise at all. Simple logic follows: the Shiites, for almost 2 full years now, have carefully and correctly reasoned that any sectarian-related reprisals on their part against Sunnis in response to the innumerable terrorist massacres committed against Shiites would easily spiral into sectarian civil war--Shiites vs. Sunnis, and very bloody. Shiites of course know that this civil war is precisely the goal of the Zarqawis, and they respond to these Zarqawi provocations by very defiantly (and heroically) pressing forward to build their future and eschewing any action that could spark that civil war. So, after all of this effort on the part of the majority Shiites to avoid a sectarian civil war, even in the face of 2 years of Sunni-terrorist butchery, the Shiites are then expected to form an Islamic state patterned after Shia law, provoking a massive Sunni backlash that would most definitely lead to civil war? Riiiiiiiiight. Sistani and most Shiites understand this very clearly. And is there anybody more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than Sistani, after keeping an entire Shiite population calm amid all the turbulence and murder of the past 2 years, and then encouraging those he represents to become part of the democratic process? If he doesn't get it, then there really is no shame left in Stokholm.

You know, what do these Ivy Leaguer talking heads get paid so much money to do anyway? They don't even know DICK. They are constantly and pompously mispredicting. They've been consistently wrong at every point along this road. Example: The same week that Lebanon showed the world what was happening in the middle-east, these twats (and no, I did not misspell that) were focusing their attention on a recently announced ACLU suit that would take Donald Rumsfeld to court for Abu Ghraib. I mean, does it ever get more pathetically good-for-nothing than that, especially in the face of what is happening right now in the M.E.? And these do-nothings wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars to become that unaccomplished? Sad. I went to BYFU and I think more clearly than they do (yes, this is indeed true). But nowdays in the era of the internet, it really doesn't matter if you go to school at all to be able to discuss these matters competently. It actually becomes a liability to one's objective education to attend these high priced "re-education camps" in the first place.

Sean Adds: Truly prophetic, Tommay. Ali Al Sistani for the Nobel Peace Prize! It'll never happen because the Nobel clowns prefer despots who slaughter their own, like Arafat. BTW, exactly how did Arafat earn TEN BILLION DOLLARS? Seriously, Sistani deserves it more than anybody on Earth seeing as he has (with the help of the Marines) almost single-handedly kept Iraq from sliding into sectarian slaughter.

No comments: