I am a little perplexed and wish to know why when the term “Mahdi”, meaning “Divinely Guided One” has come to appear in CPA (read: American) references to the current attempted uprising by militant Shias in Iraq.
Those with some historical awareness will know that the term “el Mahdi” refers to an historical figure who led a pan-Islamic army in the late 19th century against principally the British. Ultimately, he was defeated at the battle of Omdurman (just across the White Nile from the Sudanese capital Khartoum) by General Kitchener in 1898.
I want to know how it came about that General Kimmitt saw fit to refer to al-Sadr’s supporters as the “al-Mahdi army”. Does he equate al-Sadr with the original Mahdi (brilliantly played by Lawrence Olivier in the 196? film Khartoum)?. Why is he using this term? Is it to add some emotional depth to his military action so that if he succeeds, he will be known as the military man who defeated the Mahdi? Is it just another case of The USA usurping historical names and events and applying them to their own historical actions in the same way the term “Gulf War” came to mean the 1990 Kuwait conflict instead of the 1980 - 88 Iran - Iraq war?
Whatever one may think of the Mahdi - and by most accounts he was at best an appalling administrator - The Mahdi is an historical figure and the US should really refrain from using this terminology to refer to al-Sadr. It inadvertently bestows upon him, in the eyes of extremist Moslems, a recognition by the CPA of his ‘divine’ credibility; the last thing the CPA wants al-Sadr to be percived as. Or perhaps Kermit doesn’t know what he is talking about? After all, his commander-in-chief once referred to General Musharraf as the ‘military guy’ in charge of Pakistan, so current political, and historical, ignorance is nothing new amongst America’s military and political elite.
General Kermit is no General Kitchener. al-Sadr is no Mahdi and Bremer for all his good intent, is no Gordon.
Right now, CNN reporters are referring to the “Mahdi army”. Do they know what they are talking about? Why?
Mr. Smith: you seem to have a wealth of information and resources to hand can you please explain to me why al-Sadr’s followers are being referred to in these terms? I find it strange.
Sadr’s group is named in honor of the 12th, or “Hidden” imam, Imam Mahdi. He disappeared in the eighth century, but is hanging out in some paradise and will come back later at about the same time as Jesus and the antichrist.
The guy in Sudan claimed to be him, but it didn’t work out. By the way, did you know that “fuzzy wuzzies” are Sudanese Madhist soldiers? (Arabic fazi wazi) I learned that from one of the older versions of “The Four Feathers.”
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]Sadr’s group is named in honor of the 12th, or “Hidden” imam, Imam Mahdi. He disappeared in the eighth century, but is hanging out in some paradise and will come back later at about the same time as Jesus and the antichrist.
The guy in Sudan claimed to be him, but it didn’t work out. By the way, did you know that “fuzzy wuzzies” are Sudanese Madhist soldiers? (Arabic fazi wazi) I learned that from one of the older versions of “The Four Feathers.”[/quote]
Thanks for that. I did know of the origin of the term Fuzzy Wuzzy". I realise that it is not a hairdo and do not subscribe to the theory that they enjoyed a revival in the 1970’s in the form of Earth Wind & Fire.
[quote=“BroonAle”][quote=“Screaming Jesus”]Sadr’s group is named in honor of the 12th, or “Hidden” imam, Imam Mahdi. He disappeared in the eighth century, but is hanging out in some paradise and will come back later at about the same time as Jesus and the antichrist.
The guy in Sudan claimed to be him, but it didn’t work out. By the way, did you know that “fuzzy wuzzies” are Sudanese Madhist soldiers? (Arabic fazi wazi) I learned that from one of the older versions of “The Four Feathers.”[/quote]
Thanks for that. I did know of the origin of the term Fuzzy Wuzzy". I realise that it is not a hairdo and do not subscribe to the theory that they enjoyed a revival in the 1970’s in the form of Earth Wind & Fire.[/quote]
Fozzie Bear. Not Fuzzy. Anyway, I am surprised that you, Tigerman, are relegating my serious (for once) post to the realm of the trivial. That’s my job. Please stay on topic. or I’ll start another thread about vegetables.
But what about the Mahdi? said Fred Smith refusing to bite… Ain’t going to hook this old fish with this ridiculous thread. See if you can get more of a response from Rascal.
Have the 9 million refugees surfaced in Afghanistan yet. I thought 7 million of them were close to starvation. No? Oh well, let’s see if his impending graveyard of empires fits for Afghanistan? No, well then how about Iraq? As soon as we invade Syria and Iran, nothing will be heard of Iraq. We can move on to the next outrage. Since no matter what we do, we will get outrage, can we please speed up the liberation of Syria so we can get set for Iran?
At least Fisk and Chomsky have no more time and energy to constantly bewail American domination of peasants in Central and South America. Finally, we are free to make our conquest complete! Dibs on Argentina and Uruguay!
No I get that Wolf. Just like I got the 9 million refugees when he was station in Afghanistan. Just like Afghanistan was the graveyard of empires when he was stationed there. I get it. He has such a high rate of accuracy in his predictions that well only Noam Chomsky could beat him (even though those youths with rocks did a pretty good job in Afghanistan haha) so I get it, I am only sorry that I cannot believe anything that he says. But you keep worrying about this because we have every right to be worried, but put it in perspective. I’m concerned but not nervous. I am going to wait to see how things pan out. I suggest Fiskie does the same. His writing has been prone to well hyperbole.
I think it is important to get at least some reports from people who are there on the ground and reporting on things that the mainstream media overlook. You may not agree with Fisk’s prognostications, but his reporting is solid. He is not making up quotes or fabricating situations.
I expect that was an actual person he spoke with and he did not make it up…and are you going to hear that on FOX? CNN? Where?
So I think it is important to have a variety of reporters there. Bremer and Bush would have us believe that things are pretty much OK. A vidbite of some kids with new schoolbooks…a soundbite of some CPA person, out of the country for the past 20 years – saying blah, blah, blah…
We get lots of this…I want all angles I can get. Fisk provides reporting that in my mind is valuable.
but the fact that he has such a well-known bias colors his reporting. it’s not the question of him making up a quote, but of choosing a quote to fit the story he wants to write. the vast majority of biased reporting happens not because quotes are made up or situations fabricated, but real quotes are taken out of context or unfavorable quotes are not reported. i have no reason to believe that fisk, of all people, would be willing to report event impartially when he has broadcast his own bias in the situation so clearly.
[quote=“wolf_reinhold”]I think it is important to get at least some reports from people who are there on the ground and reporting on things that the mainstream media overlook. You may not agree with Fisk’s prognostications, but his reporting is solid. He is not making up quotes or fabricating situations.
I expect that was an actual person he spoke with and he did not make it up…and are you going to hear that on FOX? CNN? Where?
So I think it is important to have a variety of reporters there. Bremer and Bush would have us believe that things are pretty much OK. A vidbite of some kids with new schoolbooks…a soundbite of some CPA person, out of the country for the past 20 years – saying blah, blah, blah…
We get lots of this…I want all angles I can get. Fisk provides reporting that in my mind is valuable.[/quote]
Fisk is also the one on the ground who doubted that the Americans were in fact near Baghdad Airport during the ground invasion, claiming that the Comical Ali was correct and that the Americans were actually at a different unused airport. His record is shambolic to say the least. I am sure that he does not make up his quotes but let’s say he finds them very selectively. That is bias that no self-respecting journalist would ever adopt.
Sorry but Fisk is not respected. Merely being posted on zmag once is enough to tarnish someone’s credentials. Being featured on it regularly opens one to open ridicule.
