al Sadr gets called out

[apdst]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351885,00.html

This is how you deal with these assholes.

Secretary of State Rice Mocks Muslim Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as a Coward
Sunday, April 20, 2008


BAGHDAD — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mocked anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as a coward on Sunday, hours after the radical leader threatened to declare war unless U.S. and Iraqi forces end a military crackdown on his followers.

Rice, in the Iraqi capital to tout security gains and what she calls an emerging political consensus, said al-Sadr is content to issue threats and edicts from the safety of Iran, where he is studying. Al-Sadr heads an unruly militia that was the main target of an Iraqi government assault in the oil-rich city of Basra last month, and his future role as a spoiler is an open question.

"I know he's sitting in Iran," Rice said dismissively, when asked about al-Sadr's latest threat to lift a self-imposed cease-fire with government and U.S. forces. "I guess it's all-out war for anybody but him," Rice said. "I guess that's the message; his followers can go too their deaths and he's in Iran."

A full-blown uprising by al-Sadr, who led two rebellions against U.S.-led forces in 2004, could lead to a dramatic increase in violence in Iraq at a time when the Sunni extremist group Al Qaeda in Iraq appears poised for new attacks after suffering severe blows last year.

In a warning posted Saturday on his Web site, al-Sadr said he had tried to defuse tensions by declaring the truce last August, only to see the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki respond by closing his offices and "resorting to assassinations."

He accused the government of selling out to the Americans and branding his followers as criminals.

"So I am giving my final warning ... to the Iraqi government ... to take the path of peace and abandon violence against its people," al-Sadr said. "If the government does not refrain ... we will declare an open war until liberation."

Rice praised al-Maliki for confronting al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, which had a choke hold on Basra, Iraq's second-largest city. The assault was al-Maliki's most decisive act by far against al-Sadr, a fellow Shiite and once a political patron. Kurdish and Sunni politicians, including a chief rival, have since rallied to al-Maliki, and the Bush administration argues he could emerge stronger from what had appeared to be a military blunder.

During five days of heavy fighting last month, Iraqi troops struggled against militiamen, particularly the Mahdi Army. The ill-prepared Iraqi military was plagued by desertions and poor organization and U.S. troops had to take over in some instances. The offensive was inconclusive, with Iran helping mediate a truce. Fighting has continued in the Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, home to many of al-Sadr's followers.

"Some of the violence is a byproduct of a good decision," to take on militias and consolidate military power, Rice told reporters following a few hours of meetings and lunch with Iraqi leaders.

"That, I think, is what has given the sense to the Iraqis that they have a new opportunity, a window of opportunity," Rice said. "I don't think you would have seen this kind of unity," before.

Iraq's pokey progress toward national political cohesion has been a frustration for the Bush administration and a source of outrage for critics of the unpopular war in Congress and elsewhere. President Bush's decision to send tens of thousands of additional troops to Iraq last year was supposed to give the al-Maliki government the elbow room to make bargains and pass stalled national legislation. A burst of activity in recent months has helped, but Iraq is far behind the deadlines it and the U.S. had set.

In AP-Ipsos polling this month, 31 percent said they approve of the job Bush is doing on Iraq. That's slightly above his low of 27 percent in December 2006. In this week's Washington Post-ABC News poll, 64 percent said the Iraq war was not worth fighting and 57 percent said the U.S. is not making significant progress toward restoring order there.

Rice's brief heavily guarded visit was not announced in advance in keeping with security precautions adopted by all top U.S. officials, who remain targets of the anti-American insurgents five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the fall of Saddam Hussein.

With the top U.S. ground commander, Gen. David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker looking on, al-Maliki told Rice that security has improved. She nodded agreement. After lunch with President Jalal Talabani, Rice smiled as the Kurd told her Iraq is enjoying a "political spring." Rice also met with a relatively new decision-making council representing Iraq's major sectarian and ethnic groups.

Rice dedicated a memorial plaque to four Americans killed in the Green Zone, the heavily protected compound that houses the U.S. embassy and much of the Iraqi central government.

The Green Zone has been considered relatively safe, but rocket and mortar attacks have grown more frequent over recent months and spiked in apparent response to the Basra operation. The U.S. blames Iran for supplying most of the weaponry.

At time it seemed "as if the Green Zone itself has been under attack," Rice told employees, but the effort is worthwhile. "It's been a long five years, there's no doubt about it."

Warning sirens sounded at least twice while Rice was inside the temporary embassy, housed in a beat-up Saddam-era palace. She did not visit the site of a new fortified U.S. Embassy set to open in a few weeks.

U.S. officials usually travel from the airport by helicopter because it's safer, but on Sunday Rice went to the Green Zone by motorcade because of a sand and dust storm.

Before arriving in Baghdad, Rice told reporters traveling with her that she is not trying to make a point about security gains in Iraq by visiting now.

"I think everybody knows it is still a dangerous place," she said.

[Truth_and_Power]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351885,00.html

This is how you deal with these assholes.

Secretary of State Rice Mocks Muslim Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as a Coward
Sunday, April 20, 2008


BAGHDAD — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mocked anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as a coward on Sunday, hours after the radical leader threatened to declare war unless U.S. and Iraqi forces end a military crackdown on his followers.

Rice, in the Iraqi capital to tout security gains and what she calls an emerging political consensus, said al-Sadr is content to issue threats and edicts from the safety of Iran, where he is studying. Al-Sadr heads an unruly militia that was the main target of an Iraqi government assault in the oil-rich city of Basra last month, and his future role as a spoiler is an open question.

"I know he's sitting in Iran," Rice said dismissively, when asked about al-Sadr's latest threat to lift a self-imposed cease-fire with government and U.S. forces. "I guess it's all-out war for anybody but him," Rice said. "I guess that's the message; his followers can go too their deaths and he's in Iran."

A full-blown uprising by al-Sadr, who led two rebellions against U.S.-led forces in 2004, could lead to a dramatic increase in violence in Iraq at a time when the Sunni extremist group Al Qaeda in Iraq appears poised for new attacks after suffering severe blows last year.

In a warning posted Saturday on his Web site, al-Sadr said he had tried to defuse tensions by declaring the truce last August, only to see the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki respond by closing his offices and "resorting to assassinations."

He accused the government of selling out to the Americans and branding his followers as criminals.

"So I am giving my final warning ... to the Iraqi government ... to take the path of peace and abandon violence against its people," al-Sadr said. "If the government does not refrain ... we will declare an open war until liberation."

Rice praised al-Maliki for confronting al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, which had a choke hold on Basra, Iraq's second-largest city. The assault was al-Maliki's most decisive act by far against al-Sadr, a fellow Shiite and once a political patron. Kurdish and Sunni politicians, including a chief rival, have since rallied to al-Maliki, and the Bush administration argues he could emerge stronger from what had appeared to be a military blunder.

During five days of heavy fighting last month, Iraqi troops struggled against militiamen, particularly the Mahdi Army. The ill-prepared Iraqi military was plagued by desertions and poor organization and U.S. troops had to take over in some instances. The offensive was inconclusive, with Iran helping mediate a truce. Fighting has continued in the Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, home to many of al-Sadr's followers.

"Some of the violence is a byproduct of a good decision," to take on militias and consolidate military power, Rice told reporters following a few hours of meetings and lunch with Iraqi leaders.

"That, I think, is what has given the sense to the Iraqis that they have a new opportunity, a window of opportunity," Rice said. "I don't think you would have seen this kind of unity," before.

Iraq's pokey progress toward national political cohesion has been a frustration for the Bush administration and a source of outrage for critics of the unpopular war in Congress and elsewhere. President Bush's decision to send tens of thousands of additional troops to Iraq last year was supposed to give the al-Maliki government the elbow room to make bargains and pass stalled national legislation. A burst of activity in recent months has helped, but Iraq is far behind the deadlines it and the U.S. had set.

In AP-Ipsos polling this month, 31 percent said they approve of the job Bush is doing on Iraq. That's slightly above his low of 27 percent in December 2006. In this week's Washington Post-ABC News poll, 64 percent said the Iraq war was not worth fighting and 57 percent said the U.S. is not making significant progress toward restoring order there.

Rice's brief heavily guarded visit was not announced in advance in keeping with security precautions adopted by all top U.S. officials, who remain targets of the anti-American insurgents five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the fall of Saddam Hussein.

With the top U.S. ground commander, Gen. David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker looking on, al-Maliki told Rice that security has improved. She nodded agreement. After lunch with President Jalal Talabani, Rice smiled as the Kurd told her Iraq is enjoying a "political spring." Rice also met with a relatively new decision-making council representing Iraq's major sectarian and ethnic groups.

Rice dedicated a memorial plaque to four Americans killed in the Green Zone, the heavily protected compound that houses the U.S. embassy and much of the Iraqi central government.

The Green Zone has been considered relatively safe, but rocket and mortar attacks have grown more frequent over recent months and spiked in apparent response to the Basra operation. The U.S. blames Iran for supplying most of the weaponry.

At time it seemed "as if the Green Zone itself has been under attack," Rice told employees, but the effort is worthwhile. "It's been a long five years, there's no doubt about it."

Warning sirens sounded at least twice while Rice was inside the temporary embassy, housed in a beat-up Saddam-era palace. She did not visit the site of a new fortified U.S. Embassy set to open in a few weeks.

U.S. officials usually travel from the airport by helicopter because it's safer, but on Sunday Rice went to the Green Zone by motorcade because of a sand and dust storm.

Before arriving in Baghdad, Rice told reporters traveling with her that she is not trying to make a point about security gains in Iraq by visiting now.

"I think everybody knows it is still a dangerous place," she said.

Yeah and Condi Rice is fighting on the front lines every day from 5000 miles away.. this is a bunch of fake bravado from a woman who's never seen military service.

[Scribbler1]

Way to fan those flames, Condeee.

[Drocket]

Also, I REALLY have to object to the way what al Sadr said keeps being portrayed. If you look at what he's said and his actions, he's rather clearly not a bad guy. He's done a lot to try to create peace in Iraq. Meanwhile, our good friends, the Maliki government, just keeps right on attacking and stirring up shit because they intend to be the sole source of power in the region, no matter how many people they have to kill to get there.

This message wasn't a threat: this message was a declaration that he and his followers intend to defend themselves if they continue to be attacked. That's entirely right and just.

[apdst]

He's done a lot to try to create peace in Iraq.

Like what? The two uprisings back in oh-four?

this message was a declaration that he and his followers intend to defend themselves if they continue to be attacked. That's entirely right and just.

That's the same idiotic mantra that criminals here in the states use.

[lily]

Like what? The two uprisings back in oh-four?

Like the cease fire that let the surge try and do it's job.......you do know that's what this is all about, don't you apdst?



That's the same idiotic mantra that criminals here in the states use.

Dayam.........we agree!

Secretary of State Rice Mocks Muslim Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as a Coward
Sunday, April 20, 2008

[apdst]

Like the cease fire that let the surge try and do it's job.......you do know that's what this is all about, don't you apdst?

Sadr already got his hammered twice. Is the thrid time going to be the charm?

[lily]

hmm....really? I seem to recall Najaf a little differently. I recall an American Army not winning that battle, needing the city, calling in a high cleric to negotiate and then letting all of al-Sadr's men go with their weapons......no arrests.......and WITH THEIR WEAPONS.
For crying out loud, he's the third most important religious and political figures in the country. Dismiss him all you want.....it makes you look foolish.

[apdst]

I seem to recall Najaf a little differently.

Yeah, and that's exactly why I cringe when Liberals start spouting historical information. You just proved my point better than I ever could have. I wanna thank you. I'm forever in your debt.

[Elrathin]

Yeah, and that's exactly why I cringe when Liberals start spouting historical information. You just proved my point better than I ever could have. I wanna thank you. I'm forever in your debt.

Prove what Lily said was wrong, let's see your proof of a different account shall we?

[apdst]

Prove what Lily said was wrong, let's see your proof of a different account shall we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Najaf_(2004)

"The battle ended on August 27, 2004 with a ceasefire: both U.S. forces and Mahdi Army agreed to withdraw from the city; Mahdi army fighters surrendered their weapons before leaving and none of them were detained; and the Iraqi police took control of the security in the city. A large number of MA fighters from Najaf went to Sadr City in Baghdad, where there had also been heavy fighting, to help the Mahdi Army in their guerrilla activities against U.S and Iraqi forces. A final agreement between the U.S. and Muqtada al-Sadr was reached by the end of September and fighting ceased in early October."

Have a nice day, sugar.

[Elrathin]

WIKIPEDIA? Your side has continually said that isn't a reliable source because ANYONE can edit it, try again.

What's next, are you going to quote a blog? LOL

[apdst]

You're more than welcome to post something refuting Wikipedia.

We'll be waiting...for naught, I'm sure.

[apdst]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34370-2004Aug26?language=printer

There's a link to a WAPO article about The First Battle of Najaf. Can't hardly accuse WAPO of being a Right Wing rag.

Here is a great quote from the article. I love quotes, don't you?

"At 8 a.m. Friday, a message conveyed from Sadr was broadcast from the shrine's loudspeakers instructing militiamen to depart with the crowd. "Drop your weapons and leave Najaf and Kufa," the announcement said. "You have done a great job."

[jafar00]

This is how you deal with these assholes.

How? That's easy.
First, impeach her and the rest of the Bush regime, then send their army the message that it is not their country and they should dismantle the embassy city they are building and go home. If they don't go peacefully, they should be marched out the same way they came in. At the pointy end of a gun.

[Elrathin]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34370-2004Aug26?language=printer

There's a link to a WAPO article about The First Battle of Najaf. Can't hardly accuse WAPO of being a Right Wing rag.

Here is a great quote from the article. I love quotes, don't you?

"At 8 a.m. Friday, a message conveyed from Sadr was broadcast from the shrine's loudspeakers instructing militiamen to depart with the crowd. "Drop your weapons and leave Najaf and Kufa," the announcement said. "You have done a great job."

Thanks for the provided REAL proof apdst. The article I have that goes against what you said is three days earlier than the one you posted so I will go ahead and withdraw my previous statement and go with yours as the accurate and updated one.

However, it was reported that his men were able to keep the weapons for a time from some news sources:

Al-Sadr's fighters cede control, keep weapons (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040828/news_1n28iraq.html)

[apdst]

they should be marched out the same way they came in. At the pointy end of a gun.

If you people would learn to behave, we wouldn't be there in the first place. Would we?

[DamnYankee]

If you people would learn to behave, we wouldn't be there in the first place. Would we?

Well hopefully they can handle the situation soon. I'm all for stepping out of their way and letting them kill each other.

[potter]

Way to fan those flames, Condeee.

Kinda like "bring em on"...which they will, and more US soldiers will die because of this chickenhawk....

[apdst]

I'm all for stepping out of their way and letting them kill each other.

The only thing wrong with that, is that we'll have to go back and start all over again, in ten years.

Kinda like "bring em on"...which they will, and more US soldiers will die because of this chickenhawk....

You can't engage the opposition from a position of weakness; you have to engage them from a position of strength. Yes, they will, "bring it on", and we will continue to kill ten of theirs for every one of ours. That, sir, is engaging the enemy from a position of strength.

Being in the military, by it's very nature, is hazardous. To try and make it safer will only hamper a units ability to perform it's mission. In the words of Tony Zinni, "I can't think of a more disfunctional way to run an army".

[potter]

But they weren't our enemy until we made them our enemy..we went in for Saddam and ended up making the whole country an enemy....wouldn't it be easier to just quit making enemies?

[bobbylien]

Killing al Sadr would only create chaos. Calling names doesn't help the situation in any way either. So what do you conservatives propose be done about al Sadr and his militia if we can't kill them off and calling names doesn't work? Being right or far more technologically advanced doesn't make any difference against a determined local population. For every one insurgent we kill, they will promote that death and recruit 4 more.

[apdst]

For every one insurgent we kill, they will promote that death and recruit 4 more.

That doesn't seem to be the lastest trend.

[DamnYankee]

The only thing wrong with that, is that we'll have to go back and start all over again, in ten years.

I'm all for the world taking care of themselves. No amount of pleading should convince the US in becoming involved in another foreign entanglement. Unless, of course, we are threatened.

[Scribbler1]

Unless, of course, we are threatened.Well, that's just how they sold THIS one, wasn't it?

[apdst]

No amount of pleading should convince the US in becoming involved in another foreign entanglement. Unless, of course, we are threatened.

We should wait until thing get totally out of hand before we get involved?

[lily]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34370-2004Aug26?language=printer

There's a link to a WAPO article about The First Battle of Najaf. Can't hardly accuse WAPO of being a Right Wing rag.

Here is a great quote from the article. I love quotes, don't you?

"At 8 a.m. Friday, a message conveyed from Sadr was broadcast from the shrine's loudspeakers instructing militiamen to depart with the crowd. "Drop your weapons and leave Najaf and Kufa," the announcement said. "You have done a great job."


Interesting.....let's look and see what happened after he make that statement:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040828/news_1n28iraq.html

Al-Sadr's Mahdi army fighters did not surrender, nor did they give up their
guns. They took the assault rifles and rocket launchers with which they had
commandeered the shrine and loaded them onto donkey carts, covering them
with blankets, grain sacks and TV sets and sending them away.

Hours later, Mahdi militiamen, some still dressed in their signature black
uniforms, could be seen stashing rocket launchers in crates and pushing them
into roadside shops.



As the rebels streamed out of the city, the U.S. soldiers who had fought
their way to within 75 yards of the shrine in some of the war's most
ferocious fighting kept their distance, neither shooting the fighters nor
arresting them. U.S. commanders said they were under orders to arrest no
one, least of all the Mahdi insurgents.

[apdst]

Is that the best you can do, Lily?

[lily]

It tells what happened the day after what you claims happend.....so yes.

[apdst]

It tells what happened the day after what you claims happend.....so yes.

Ok, I see. Well, you said, "I recall an American Army not winning that battle, needing the city, calling in a high cleric to negotiate and then letting all of al-Sadr's men go with their weapons". Now, nowhere in your article does it say, "letting all of al-Sadr's men go with their weapons". Were a few weapons sneaked out? Yeah, I would agree that some were. Did our guys just let The Mahdi Army waltz out of Najaf fully armed? No.

Our troops didn't lose anything. They were hamstringed by poltical BS. Which goes to show the silliness of the, "we can only solve Iraq politically", comments.

Najaf illustrates what I mean when I say we are fighting a poltically correct war.

[apdst]

But they weren't our enemy until we made them our enemy

You could say that about every war we've ever fought. The Italains weren't our enemy until we made them our enemy, nor the Germans.

[lily]

Ok, I see. Well, you said, "I recall an American Army not winning that battle, needing the city, calling in a high cleric to negotiate and then letting all of al-Sadr's men go with their weapons". Now, nowhere in your article does it say, "letting all of al-Sadr's men go with their weapons". Were a few weapons sneaked out? Yeah, I would agree that some were. Did our guys just let The Mahdi Army waltz out of Najaf fully armed? No.

Our troops didn't lose anything. They were hamstringed by poltical BS. Which goes to show the silliness of the, "we can only solve Iraq politically", comments.

Najaf illustrates what I mean when I say we are fighting a poltically correct war.

Did the American have orders NOT to stop them from taking truckloads of weapons or not?

........as for hamstringed........I just assumed you knew that Al-Sistani was called in to broker the deal. I know it goes against your HooooRaaahhhh, but we'd probably still be fighting Najaf if it wasn't for Al-Sistani.

[apdst]

Did the American have orders NOT to stop them from taking truckloads of weapons or not?

According to your article there weren't, "truckloads", of weapons being taken out of Najaf. Your article says, "Al-Sadr's Mahdi army fighters did not surrender, nor did they give up their guns. They took the assault rifles and rocket launchers with which they had commandeered the shrine and loaded them onto donkey carts, covering them with blankets, grain sacks and TV sets and sending them away." That indicates to me that there weren't truckloads of weapons brazenly driven out of Najaf in full view of American troops.

Your article also states, "Later in the day, apparently tipped off about a cache of guns, a platoon of U.S. troops rumbled up Rasool Street to the gates of the shrine and began searching sidewalks and cars." So, obviously, they weren't under orders not to stop any known weapon smuggling.

but we'd probably still be fighting Najaf if it wasn't for Al-Sistani.

I doubt it. We could have them full force and wiped them out. There's no telling how many problems wouldn't exist, to day, had we done that, instead.

[lily]

According to your article there weren't, "truckloads", of weapons being taken out of Najaf. Your article says, "Al-Sadr's Mahdi army fighters did not surrender, nor did they give up their guns. They took the assault rifles and rocket launchers with which they had commandeered the shrine and loaded them onto donkey carts, covering them with blankets, grain sacks and TV sets and sending them away." That indicates to me that there weren't truckloads of weapons brazenly driven out of Najaf in full view of American troops.

Your article also states, "Later in the day, apparently tipped off about a cache of guns, a platoon of U.S. troops rumbled up Rasool Street to the gates of the shrine and began searching sidewalks and cars." So, obviously, they weren't under orders not to stop any known weapon smuggling.

You're right......donkey carts......now, I've never driven a donkey cart, but I've seen them.......looks to me they would hold about as much as a truckload...........but I don't want to take away from you being right.:thumbsup:



I doubt it. We could have them full force and wiped them out. There's no telling how many problems wouldn't exist, to day, had we done that, instead.

Yeah, I know....it goes with your "theory" that we get them all in one spot......

[apdst]

looks to me they would hold about as much as a truckload

Yeah, a Toyota truck...LOL. One of them little Kamatsu mini-trucks, maybe...LOL!

but I don't want to take away from you being right.

It's not about being right, it's about being accurate. I know you're excited at the possibility that our guys might lose, but if you're going to brag about their defeat, at least make sure your information is accurate. I think our people deserve at least that much.

Yeah, I know....it goes with your "theory" that we get them all in one spot

Hey, that was 1st Cav soldiers in there. The Madhis didn't stand a chance. It's a good thing the Madhis had someone come in and save them, or those troopers would have went all LZ X-Ray on them.

[lily]

It's not about being right, it's about being accurate. I know you're excited at the possibility that our guys might lose, but if you're going to brag about their defeat, at least make sure your information is accurate. I think our people deserve at least that much.



Bragging about their defeat.....by bringing in facts?

[apdst]

Bragging about their defeat.....by bringing in facts?

You distorted those facts. What are we to assume? If you have to skew the facts to show that we're losing, then it can only mean you want us to lose.

[lily]

You distorted those facts. What are we to assume? If you have to skew the facts to show that we're losing, then it can only mean you want us to lose.


Truckload donkey cart load........even you said there wasn't much of a difference.........but then, you wouldn't have been able to get your little jab in.:thumbsup:

[Pookie]

Yeah, looks like he's losing a point here. Donkey carts. Hubby drives a Toyota truck! Hey, Apdst!! Go get em! Now what were you arguing about? Wooo, are we in trouble?
Geez.
Purrs,
Pookie