Think Baqir al-Hakim was a moderate? Think again.

[Junkdrawer]

Shiite presses for Iraqi theocracy

Najaf, Iraq — Some 15,000 Iraqis cheered as a Shiite Muslim cleric who led the largest anti-Saddam Hussein movement visited one of the Shiites' holiest shrines Monday after returning from more than two decades in exile.

At the Shine of Imam Ali, Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim vowed to help rebuild Iraq and rejected U.S. domination over the country.

"We will never accept humiliation," Ayatollah al-Hakim told the crowd. "All tribal, ethnic and religious groups should unite under the banner of Islam to preserve independence, avoid differences, and build a free Iraq."

…

Ayatollah Al-Hakim's group is the closest Iraqi Shiite political grouping to Iran, which has raised concerns in the Bush administration. Washington opposes any Iranian-style theocracy taking control in Iraq.

More…

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030512.whshii512/BNStory/International

So why, immediately after the blast, are we told Baqir al-Hakim was a moderate? Well imagine the following headline:

“Leading Shiite Opponent to Secular Rule Killed in Blast”

What would that make you think, hmmm.

[Junkdrawer]

1. Shameless kick

:kick:

[Aidoneus]

2. maybe not a moderate, but a collaborationist all the same

Iran provided a service to the occupation authorities by instructing its kindred parties in Iraq, primarily Sayyid Mohammed Baqr al-Hakim's SAIRI and the remaining factions of al-Daawa, to join that puppet council. Had they not done so, it is likely that the resistance to the occupation among the Shias would be greater at this point, instead these parties with a long history of fighting the Baathist gov't (and would ostensibly resist the US occupation of their lands under normal circumstances) have been more or less removed from the fight for the time being.

Sayyid al-Hakim was already resented for his alliance with Iran in the 80s war, the lack of assistance given to the '91 Shia revolt, now he is seen as a collaborator as well.

What should be understood about the bullshit "moderate"/"hardline-radical" type labels, at least within this context, is that they have nothing to do with their views, but their level of servility to US interests. A "moderate" Muslim leader is a servant to US imperialism like Egypt's Hosni Mubarak--there is nothing "moderate" about this brutal dictator, but he is a useful servant of Washington DC and therefore gets the good press.

[Junkdrawer]

3. I think Baqr al-Hakim's SAIRI wanted to be part of any election...

in Iraq's future. Why not, the Shias represent the easy majority of the country and Hakim stood a good chance of either gaining power or demonstrating to the international community the sham of Iraqi democracy. But now he's dead.

And people here worried that if Iraqis were given the vote, they would vote in a theocracy. Not to worry, the situation is well in hand. I think soon we'll be asking:

"Who's Killing the Famous Ayatollahs of Iraq?"