PDA

View Full Version : Sadr loses another one


apdst
05-11-2008, 03:32 PM
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/36530.html

In big concession, militia agrees to let Iraqi troops into Sadr City
By Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Friday, May 9, 2008


A resident surveys damage in Sadr City, Baghdad, in an undated photograph. The predominantly Shiite Muslim slum has been beseiged by clashes between U.S. and Iraqi forces and militia members loyal to the hardline Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. | View larger image

BAGHDAD — Followers of rebel cleric Muqtada al Sadr agreed late Friday to allow Iraqi security forces to enter all of Baghdad's Sadr City and to arrest anyone found with heavy weapons in a surprising capitulation that seemed likely to be hailed as a major victory for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.

In return, Sadr's Mahdi Army supporters won the Iraqi government's agreement not to arrest Mahdi Army members without warrants, unless they were in possession of "medium and heavy weaponry."

The agreement would end six weeks of fighting in the vast Shiite Muslim area that's home to more than 2 million residents and would mark the first time that the area would be under government control since Saddam Hussein was toppled in 2003. On Friday, 15 people were killed and 112 were injured in fighting, officials at the neighborhoods two major hospitals said.

It also would be a startling turnaround in fortunes for Maliki, who'd been widely criticized for picking a fight with Sadr's forces, first in the southern port city of Basra and then in Sadr City.

Members of Maliki's Dawa Party and the powerful Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq met with Sadr officials on Thursday and Friday to come up with a 14-point agreement to end the weeks of fighting, which has hindered the flow of food and water into Sadr City. The agreement was then passed to Sadr and Maliki for final approval, said Baha al Araji, a Sadrist legislator.

Hundreds of people have been killed and hundreds have been wounded in the fighting, which included frequent U.S. airstrikes. At least 8,500 people have been driven from their homes, and thousands of others have been forced to stay inside, too frightened to flee.

A government supporter said the Sadrists were brought to the table by the anger of Sadr City residents. On Thursday, the Iraqi military ordered Sadr City residents to evacuate in apparent preparation for a major offensive push.

"It is not the government who pressured the Sadrists into entering this agreement," said Ali al Adeeb, a leading member of the Dawa party. "It is the pressure from the people inside Sadr City and from their own people that will make them act more responsibly."

Like many things in Iraq, the precise effect of the agreement won't be known immediately. Sadr officials long have claimed that their militia has no heavy weaponry, and Sadr has condemned those with such munitions.

Sadr supporter Araji, however, said the agreement specifically barred American forces from entering Sadr City.

"The Iraqi forces, not the American forces, can come into Sadr City and search for weapons," Araji said. "We don't have big weapons, and we want this to stop."

The Mahdi Army, and the Sadr movement in general, has been losing support in the past two months in the face of a government offensive intended to force the militia from its controlling positions in Basra and Sadr City.

In Basra, a city known for culture and music, Shiite extremists had taken control in late 2005 and began shutting down music stories and forcing women to cover themselves.

But after initially resisting Maliki's offensive, the Sadrists ceded their areas, and the change in atmosphere has been palpable. An annual poetry festival, al Mirbed, resumed for the first time in three years, with male and female folk dancers performing in public and poets spouting their verses.

The city isn't free of Sadr influences, however, though the Iraqi army seems ready to quell any resurgence. Sadrists resumed prayer services on Friday for the first time since late March, but as the imam spouted anti-government rhetoric, Iraqi soldiers converged on the mosque and the Sadrists ran, witnesses said.

Iraqi officials, including Adeeb, said that Iran, which U.S. officials have accused of supporting the Shiite militias, was "aware" and "supportive" of the agreement. Adeeb made two trips to Iran to meet with Iranian officials to stem the militia violence in Iraq.

jafar00
05-11-2008, 05:49 PM
If it lessens some of the bloodshed, it's a good thing. I'm interested to know what a right winger like you thinks of removing the right to gun ownership in this case?

apdst
05-11-2008, 05:54 PM
I'm interested to know what a right winger like you thinks of removing the right to gun ownership in this case?

I'm all for an illegal militia being forced to surrender their arms. Hell, who wouldn't be? I know you're not, but I mean everyone else.

4Reaganomics
05-11-2008, 06:12 PM
Apdst, they support guns for terror armies who wish to overthrow order. However, if one of us wants a personal firearm for defense then we have lost our minds and contributed to violence,

apdst
05-11-2008, 06:13 PM
Apdst, they support guns for terror armies who wish to overthrow order. However, if one of us wants a personal firearm for defense then we have lost our minds and contributed to violence,

You're absolutely right. They know that they can't take over, if we're all armed.

jafar00
05-12-2008, 07:49 AM
You're absolutely right. They know that they can't take over, if we're all armed.

So you have the right to resist being taken over, but they don't. Why?

PostmodernProphet
05-12-2008, 09:28 AM
If it lessens some of the bloodshed, it's a good thing. I'm interested to know what a right winger like you thinks of removing the right to gun ownership in this case?

if American citizens start using their guns to shoot policemen and soldiers I would probably support moving troops into the area and arresting them for standing around holding weapons as well......

preservanation
05-12-2008, 11:21 AM
The purpose of the second amendment is defence from tyranny and oppression.
Two big reasons why some on the left oppose it.

The Sadr militia's purpose is to enforce tyranny and oppression.
If the Iraqi Govt cant secure it's nation, what's the point...oh wait, for some that is the point.

jafar00
05-12-2008, 01:55 PM
if American citizens start using their guns to shoot policemen and soldiers I would probably support moving troops into the area and arresting them for standing around holding weapons as well......

Lets say that North Korea invaded the US. What if those police and soldiers are actually former Bloods and Crips members and escaped rapists who were recruited by the new government installed by the North Koreans since they disbanded the real ones when they invaded the country? These same police and soldiers are used by the communist Chinese aligned faction of the coalition government to raid your Churches and to kidnap and torture your Uncles.
In that instance, would you support American citizens standing up to fight for their freedom from the oppressive government?

PostmodernProphet
05-12-2008, 02:04 PM
Lets say that North Korea invaded the US. What if those police and soldiers are actually former Bloods and Crips members and escaped rapists who were recruited by the new government installed by the North Koreans since they disbanded the real ones when they invaded the country? These same police and soldiers are used by the communist Chinese aligned faction of the coalition government to raid your Churches and to kidnap and torture your Uncles.
In that instance, would you support American citizens standing up to fight for their freedom from the oppressive government?

and let's say that the police and soldiers were recruited by a government voted for by 90% of the American public and that I could have voted too, but I was told not to by a Christian cleric who told me that we should run the country instead of the 90%, a cleric on the payroll of the Canadian government.......

Truth_and_Power
05-12-2008, 02:06 PM
Lets say that North Korea invaded the US. What if those police and soldiers are actually former Bloods and Crips members and escaped rapists who were recruited by the new government installed by the North Koreans since they disbanded the real ones when they invaded the country? These same police and soldiers are used by the communist Chinese aligned faction of the coalition government to raid your Churches and to kidnap and torture your Uncles.
In that instance, would you support American citizens standing up to fight for their freedom from the oppressive government?

So the U.S. is like north korea? Do we even need to take a cursory look at the two societies to see the major value differences?

Maybe you could try again with a better example. It seems to me the people of basra were being oppressed by the sadrists. Not everyone believes in their extreme form of religion, perhaps now each can live in their own way.

el comandante
05-12-2008, 03:08 PM
The purpose of the second amendment is defence from tyranny and oppression.
Two big reasons why some on the left oppose it.

The Sadr militia's purpose is to enforce tyranny and oppression.
If the Iraqi Govt cant secure it's nation, what's the point...oh wait, for some that is the point.

They fight against oppression, against the neocolonial order that has been enforced upon them. I'm sure if it was the other way round and the US was subject to a neocolonial system imposed on them, people like you would call it oppression and tyranny and take up arms. But i forgot it's one rule for America and another for the rest of the world.

Truth_and_Power
05-12-2008, 03:16 PM
They fight against oppression, against the neocolonial order that has been enforced upon them. I'm sure if it was the other way round and the US was subject to a neocolonial system imposed on them, people like you would call it oppression and tyranny and take up arms. But i forgot it's one rule for America and another for the rest of the world.

Is it better that they have a tyrannical system imposed upon them? Here in america we have small arms, but if you stock up mortars and RPG's, the goverment will come for them. Seems like the same standard to me, except that the iraqis are keeping their AK's and we just have pistols.

preservanation
05-12-2008, 03:34 PM
We are the good guys...yes.

apdst
05-12-2008, 04:51 PM
So you have the right to resist being taken over, but they don't. Why?

They're an illegal militia fighting against their own government. The Iraqi people have spoken, they have elected their government. Sadr chose not to participate, now he's pissed because he got left out; by his own choice. He's like a Liberal on steroids...LOL!!!

Postmodernprophet,

Outstanding post!!!

Elrathin
05-12-2008, 10:54 PM
I really don't see how Sadr has lost anything. The guy isn't behind bars and he's just freed himself up a couple of months to re-arm.

apdst
05-12-2008, 11:01 PM
I really don't see how Sadr has lost anything.

He surrendered his position. What did he do, achieve victory through surrender?

The guy isn't behind bars and he's just freed himself up a couple of months to re-arm.

This is the second time in as many months that he's had to back down to attain breathing room. That's not good and I don't care what military philosophy you're reading.

Then, again, I don't expect Liberals to be able to differintiate between victory and defeat on the battlefield.

Elrathin
05-12-2008, 11:15 PM
This is the second time in as many months that he's had to back down to attain breathing room. That's not good and I don't care what military philosophy you're reading.

Then, again, I don't expect Liberals to be able to differintiate between victory and defeat on the battlefield.

Say what you want, but the guy isn't behind bars and is free to rearm and get breathing room.

apdst
05-13-2008, 12:00 AM
Say what you want, but the guy isn't behind bars and is free to rearm and get breathing room.

By your definition of battlefield success, our troops are winning the war, hands down.

Elrathin
05-13-2008, 12:12 AM
By your definition of battlefield success, our troops are winning the war, hands down.

I didn't say SUCCESS, what I am saying is they are setting themselves up for a repeat. While it isn't success on Sadr's part, it isn't an entire defeat either.

apdst
05-13-2008, 12:16 AM
what I am saying is they are setting themselves up for a repeat.

A repeat ass wippin'. That's fine, the Sadr problem isn't going away until we kill everyone in the Mahdi Army, anyway.

While it isn't success on Sadr's part, it isn't an entire defeat either.

It's funny how Libbos change the rules all the time. American troops have won every battle, every firefight and sport a 10:1 kill ration, and the Liberals have been creaming, "quagmire", and, "lost cause", since about the second day we invaded Iraq.

Elrathin
05-13-2008, 01:07 AM
It's funny how Libbos change the rules all the time. American troops have won every battle, every firefight and sport a 10:1 kill ration, and the Liberals have been creaming, "quagmire", and, "lost cause", since about the second day we invaded Iraq.

Well if we have won like you say we have, time to bring the troops home NOW right? What reason is there to keep the U.S. there if we have won?

apdst
05-13-2008, 02:12 AM
Well if we have won like you say we have, time to bring the troops home NOW right?

I never said, "won". I've said winning on numerous occassions, though.

Elrathin
05-13-2008, 02:25 AM
I never said, "won". I've said winning on numerous occassions, though.

Numerous sounds like won to me, unless you are full of shit, tell which one it is?

i.e. numerous means you can't count how many were won.

apdst
05-13-2008, 02:36 AM
Numerous sounds like won to me

Of course there's an interpretation. There's always a Liberal's interpretation of someone else's comments; just lay the facts aside.

unless you are full of shit, tell which one it is?

What I'm saying--again--is, we're winning the war. Do you concur?

Legionaire203
06-04-2008, 08:25 AM
Well if we have won like you say we have, time to bring the troops home NOW right? What reason is there to keep the U.S. there if we have won?

Well, we're still in Germany, Italy, Spain, England, Japan, Korea, Bosnia, the Sinai, Turkey... For some reason, even after the war is "won", people like to have a US presence. We were in Saudi Arabia for 12+ years after the 1990-1991 Gulf war (and had been there for years before that). The US is a good friend to have.