U.S.: Radical cleric al-Sadr in Iran

[lily]

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/13/iraq.main/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)
U.S.: Radical cleric al-Sadr in Iran
POSTED: 9:37 p.m. EST, February 13, 2007



BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq plans to close its borders with Iran and Syria
for 72 hours in an attempt to secure the capital, the Iraqi commander in
charge of Baghdad's security plan announced Tuesday.


Lt. Gen. Abboud Qanbar, speaking on behalf of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki,
spelled out the details of the security crackdown in a televised address
Tuesday.

As details of the border closure became public, senior Bush administration
officials said radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr fled Iraq for Iran two
to three weeks ago out of fear for his safety.

However, Iraqi sources have not confirmed this information and call it a
rumor. Salah al Agaili, a spokesman for al-Sadr and a member of his
parliament bloc, told CNN that al-Sadr is still in Iraq.

As recently as Thursday, al-Sadr's office said he was in Najaf.

If he is in Iran, it is not his first trip there. Al-Sadr has made half a
dozen official trips and an unknown number of personal visits to Iran in the
last few years.

Senior administration sources said they believe al-Sadr fled in anticipation
of the U.S. military's troop buildup and a crackdown on militias, and
because of fractures with extremist elements within his militia.

Several top ministers within al-Sadr's movement have been detained,
according to these sources, who added that al-Sadr has lost "a great deal of
face in Iraq."

They said al-Sadr left Iraq by car and is still in Iran.

It was not clear what effect Sadr's absence -- if he is in Iran -- would
have on his Mehdi Army.

As part of the security clampdown closing the Iran and Syria borders, the
curfew in Baghdad will be extended and Iraqi forces plan to suspend civilian
licenses for weapons and ammunition.

Qanbar's announcement warned citizens they will be subject to
"interrogating, searching and detaining people when necessary and in
accordance with the law."

The security plan covers 10 districts in Baghdad.

Some observers have predicted that followers of al-Sadr and his Mehdi Army
militia -- which has been blamed for a large part of the sectarian violence
in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq -- would be overlooked, because the
al-Sadr movement has backed al-Maliki, who is also a Shiite.

Qanbar did not say when the borders would close, but a government official
said it was expected within two days, The Associated Press reported.

During the closures, Iraqi officials will install improved security
equipment at checkpoints, including upgraded bomb detection devices, an
Iraqi official told CNN.

~~~~~~~~~~~

As details of the border closure became public, senior Bush administration
officials said radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr fled Iraq for Iran two
to three weeks ago out of fear for his safety.

Gee.....one would think that if they saw him leaving, they would at least capture him and get information.:rolleyes:

[ECW]

That would require planning and foresight. This administration only functions on "reaction." Ooops! There he goes!

[bobbylien]

Iraqi forces plan to suspend civilian licenses for weapons and ammunition.
Here it is, the leftist AKA progressives are now trying to steal their guns.

[Stoner]

It's always touching to see liberals gathered together feeling sorry and having sympathy for terrorists while they badmouth their own country.

[bobbylien]

It's always touching to see liberals gathered together feeling sorry and having sympathy for terrorists while they badmouth their own country.

Sympathy? They are wondering why the US allowed him to leave. Not all critics of the war hate America or want us to lose. I just have no confidence in the current leadership of our country.

[Waffletush]

Gee.....one would think that if they saw him leaving, they would at least capture him and get information.:rolleyes:

They SAW him leave right?Â*Â*Like, they SAW him in his car crossing the border and SAW him drive to Tehran?Â*Â*Is that what you are implying; that Bush himself SAW him leave, and purposely let him go?

Why do you view war as such a simplistic event?

[Waffletush]

That would require planning and foresight. This administration only functions on "reaction." Ooops! There he goes!


Kinda like how a Democratic president proactivley let UBL go?

[Elrathin]

Why do you view war as such a simplistic event?


You mean like you either support the troops or you don't? That simplistic point of view? How about you are either with us or against us?

It's interesting to watch conservatives gather together for THEIR simplistic views of the war.

[Elrathin]

Kinda like how a Democratic president proactivley let UBL go?


Yeah but we didn't have THOUSANDS of troops in a country where he was at when Clinton was president. Funny how that works doesn't it?

[Elrathin]

It's always touching to see liberals gathered together feeling sorry and having sympathy for terrorists while they badmouth their own country.


I think you have been smoking too much pot, please show me where SYMPATHY was displayed? Go ahead and show me the quote where any liberal here on this board displayed SYMPATHY for Al Sadr being in Iran.

Some here are DEFINITELY proving that dope dulls intelligence.

[lily]

It's always touching to see liberals gathered together feeling sorry and having sympathy for terrorists while they badmouth their own country.



....by discussing an article? Has it come to that??

[lily]

They SAW him leave right?Â*Â*Like, they SAW him in his car crossing the border and SAW him drive to Tehran?Â*Â*Is that what you are implying; that Bush himself SAW him leave, and purposely let him go?
That would imply that I actually believe al-Sadr is in Iran, thus the :rolleyes:

Why do you view war as such a simplistic event?

I have no clue what you mean.

[BoogyMan]

Gee.....one would think that if they saw him leaving, they would at least capture him and get information.:rolleyes:

They SAW him leave right? Like, they SAW him in his car crossing the border and SAW him drive to Tehran? Is that what you are implying; that Bush himself SAW him leave, and purposely let him go?

Why do you view war as such a simplistic event?

Most on the angry left will not get the sarcasm behind this very insightful comment Waffle.

The bomb tossers will simply view this an opening to take a cheap shot at the president with little regard to the fact that the ones they are actually and most likely unintentionally mocking are the soldiers on the ground who cannot be everywhere or know the whereabouts of every bad actor in the conflict.

[Waffletush]

Kinda like how a Democratic president proactivley let UBL go?


Yeah but we didn't have THOUSANDS of troops in a country where he was at when Clinton was president.Â*Â*Funny how that works doesn't it?


You are right, we didn't have THOUSANDS of troops in the country. All we had was a government willing to hand him over and Clinton said 'no thanks'.

Funny how that works doesn't it?

[Elrathin]

All we had was a government willing to hand him over and Clinton said 'no thanks'.

Funny how that works doesn't it?


If we REALLY had a country willing to hand him over, it would have been done. Only a simpleton thinks otherwise.

Kinda like Saying Bush knew 9/11 would happen and just sat by. But hey, if you want to be included with idiots, who am I to say otherwise.

[Elrathin]

The bomb tossers will simply view this an opening to take a cheap shot at the president with little regard to the fact that the ones they are actually and most likely unintentionally mocking are the soldiers on the ground who cannot be everywhere or know the whereabouts of every bad actor in the conflict.


Kinda like those on the rabid right that say that Clinton was handed Osama Bin Laden but Clinton refused, right Boogy?

[Stoner]

Â*Only a simpleton thinks otherwise.



Awesome lib thinking. "If you don't agree with my viewpoint you're a simpleton."

I hope you never ask yourself why libs have only held the White House 8 out of 28 years.

[Elrathin]

Awesome lib thinking. "If you don't agree with my viewpoint you're a simpleton."

I hope you never ask yourself why libs have only held the White House 8 out of 28 years.


Then priovde proof that a country was WILLING to REALLY hand Osama over to President Clinton and that he refused. Please do provide the proof, or just stick to smoking pot and STFU.

[BoogyMan]

The bomb tossers will simply view this an opening to take a cheap shot at the president with little regard to the fact that the ones they are actually and most likely unintentionally mocking are the soldiers on the ground who cannot be everywhere or know the whereabouts of every bad actor in the conflict.


Kinda like those on the rabid right that say that Clinton was handed Osama Bin Laden but Clinton refused, right Boogy?


Where did that come from El? Egads.

[Stoner]

Where did that come from El?Â*Â*Egads.


It's what libs do. When the truth threatens them they change the topic.

[Elrathin]

The bomb tossers will simply view this an opening to take a cheap shot at the president with little regard to the fact that the ones they are actually and most likely unintentionally mocking are the soldiers on the ground who cannot be everywhere or know the whereabouts of every bad actor in the conflict.


Kinda like those on the rabid right that say that Clinton was handed Osama Bin Laden but Clinton refused, right Boogy?


Where did that come from El? Egads.


From here Boogy, maybe you need to read more:


You are right, we didn't have THOUSANDS of troops in the country. All we had was a government willing to hand him over and Clinton said 'no thanks'.

Funny how that works doesn't it?

[Elrathin]

Where did that come from El? Egads.


It's what libs do. When the truth threatens them they change the topic.


Well then , please do provide proof that a country was willing to hand over Osama Bin Laden, as waffle said or STFU. Sounds like you are optioning to STFU since you cannot provide proof.

[lily]

Â*

The bomb tossers will simply view this an opening to take a cheap shot at the president with little regard to the fact that the ones they are actually and most likely unintentionally mocking are the soldiers on the ground who cannot be everywhere or know the whereabouts of every bad actor in the conflict.


Un-flipping- believable!

[BoogyMan]

From here Boogy, maybe you need to read more:

Touchy tonight?

My commentary was simply pointing out that we are seeing SOME liberals jumping on the president over something that they most likely couldn't have prevented were they in his place.

I see Al Sadr hitting the road as a good thing as it appears that his "militia" is starting to crumble and he found it necessary to sneak out to save his worthless hide.

[lily]

I see Al Sadr hitting the road as a good thing as it appears that his "militia" is starting to crumble

Link?

[Elrathin]

Touchy tonight?

I wasn't throwing around the "EGADS" remarks.


My commentary was simply pointing out that we are seeing SOME liberals jumping on the president over something that they most likely couldn't have prevented were they in his place.

And mine was proving how conservatives did the same thing with Clinton only worse with the "A country was willing to hand over Osama and Clinton refused" remarks. But of course that is ok by you it seems since you refuse to acknowledge the ridiculousness from others here.


I see Al Sadr hitting the road as a good thing as it appears that his "militia" is starting to crumble and he found it necessary to sneak out to save his worthless hide.


Yeah, because that sure cured Osama Bin Laden's Influence right? Hiding out just proves the U.S. is incomptetant to capture him and STRENGTHENS his army's influence as above being captured, much like Osama.

[BoogyMan]

I see Al Sadr hitting the road as a good thing as it appears that his "militia" is starting to crumble

Link?


Link for what Lily? My analysis? Egads. Let me highlight a few words in that sentence for you.

Notice that I made sure to represent the commentary as my own view?

Now, in aid of that view.


Source: Link (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2872953)

...
In recent months, al Sadr has come to the political table to force change rather than use military force to have an impact. Sources say an even more extreme faction within his militia isn't pleased with this turn of events and is trying to force the cleric to respond to recent Sunni attacks with more violence.
...


Is Al Sadr gone for good? Probably not. Is there in-fighting among his Mahdi Army? Definately.

His leadership is being challenged by those who do not like his previous attempts to participate in a political process.

[BoogyMan]

And mine was proving how conservatives did the same thing with Clinton only worse with the "A country was willing to hand over Osama and Clinton refused" remarks. But of course that is ok by you it seems since you refuse to acknowledge the ridiculousness from others here.

What ridiculousness did I refuse El? Am I now bound to comment on everything you find objectionable? There ARE reports that Sudan offered Bin Laden to Clinton. Clinton denies it. If you expect me to take that as credible I will be holding you to that very same standard for the current president.

Yeah, because that sure cured Osama Bin Laden's Influence right? Hiding out just proves the U.S. is incomptetant to capture him and STRENGTHENS his army's influence as above being captured, much like Osama.

Al Sadr's power is being challenged by the more radical in his organization. The old "a house divided against itself cannot stand" axim is a good one and applies here.

I am sorry you find our forces incompetent El, I see them as competent and worthy of our support and admiration.

[Stoner]

And mine was proving how conservatives did the same thing with Clinton only worse

Clinton had many opportunities to kill bin Laden. He balked at every one of them. Didn't want his legacy tarnished. Oops. Turned out it didn't matter.

[Stoner]

or STFU.Â*

So what happens if I don't "STFU"? Will you huff and puff and give me a dirty look via your monitor?

[Elrathin]

Clinton had many opportunities to kill bin Laden. He balked at every one of them. Didn't want his legacy tarnished. Oops. Turned out it didn't matter.


Keep repeating that lie if it makes you feel better. The difference is Bush sent troops after Osama and STILL COULDN'T CATCH him.

[Elrathin]

or STFU.

So what happens if I don't "STFU"? Will you huff and puff and give me a dirty look via your monitor?


NO, I just do like most of your other posts and chalk it up as another drug filled fantasy that you have. But you did prove that you have no proof and just like to talk to the talk, but not put up the proof. Thanks for playing, too bad you lost.

[ECW]

A Republican bringing proof to an argument on this board is like a fish bringing a cow to the prom: you can visualize it in your mind but, in reality, it never happens.

[BoogyMan]

The bomb tossers will simply view this an opening to take a cheap shot at the president with little regard to the fact that the ones they are actually and most likely unintentionally mocking are the soldiers on the ground who cannot be everywhere or know the whereabouts of every bad actor in the conflict.


Un-flipping- believable!


How so?

[Waffletush]

This pretty much sums up wht Liberals on this site are afraid to admit...

Where is Muqtada al-Sadr? Democrats leading the anti-Iraq surge debate in Congress might be hoping he's still in Iraq and here's why.

If al-Sadr has actually left Iraq to hide out in Iran — as the U.S. military reports — it strongly suggests that even prospect of a surge and a crackdown in Baghdad by American and Iraqi troops will work. If al-Sadr doesn't want to be around for a surge, what does that say about the surge? That it's a failure before it even begins? That it can't possibly work? That it's another stupid idea from the lying and incompetent Bush administration? Al-Sadr is interested in staying alive. That may be why he is not hanging around Baghdad as American troops are coming in with serious business on their mind.

So how does it square that the Democrats in Congress are rushing to the floor of the House to condemn the surge and Muqtada al-Sadr is rushing out of Baghdad to avoid it? The Democrats will probably take the opportunity to adjust their rhetoric for a few days: less actual condemnation of the surge, more condemnation of the war in Iraq in general. That would be rhetorically wise.

Look, Iraq may be a lost cause. The Iraqi government hasn't proved itself worthy of our respect yet. We shall see how that all works out.

What I do know is that American troops are still scary to a lot of people. Sadr's Mahdi Army doesn't particularly want to tangle with American troops. They have taken down their checkpoints and have slipped back into the shadows. You notice the insurgents fire off roadside bombs from a safe distance.

Congresspeople are right to be upset that Iraq isn't going as any of us would have liked. But to threaten to pull support from the troops and the president when the Iraqi-elected leadership has subverted the efforts of the very troops and president who allowed that government to come into existence is the height of absurdity.

Watch al-Sadr. He is a human weathervane for how the war is going. If it's true he's in Iran, the wind is blowing favorably for us.

That's My Word.

[Stoner]

Great article, Waffle.

[lily]

They have taken down their checkpoints and have slipped back into the shadows. You notice the insurgents fire off roadside bombs from a safe distance.

Too bad John Gibson isn't here to debate his "facts or to check and see what Fox news reports. Let's just take this one for example. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226357,00.html)

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. troops complied with orders from Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki Tuesday to abandon checkpoints around Baghdad, including ones in
and around the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City.

Soon after U.S. forces began removing concrete blocks and sandbags from
security checkpoints, a homicide car bomber targeted a wedding ceremony in
the capital, killing 11 people, including four children, police said.

The bomber plowed a car packed with explosives into a crowd of Shiite
celebrants preparing to board vehicles outside the bride's home in the Shaab
neighborhood of Baghdad, Lt. Ahmed Mohamed of the Risafa police station
said.

Baghdad police earlier reported the deaths of three people in a car bomb
explosion and the discovery of five bodies, including one woman.

U.S. officials said they did not receive advance warning of the order to
remove the barriers by 5 p.m. local time Tuesday. Military spokesman, Lt.
Col. Christopher Garver, said officers were meeting to "formulate a response
to address the prime minister's concerns."

Sadr's Mahdi Army doesn't particularly want to tangle with American troops. The tightened security had been credited by some for producing a temporary
decline in violence, possibly because they curbed the activities of Shiite
death squads blamed for waves of sectarian killings of Sunnis.





Congresspeople are right to be upset that Iraq isn't going as any of us would have liked. But to threaten to pull support from the troops and the president when the Iraqi-elected leadership has subverted the efforts of the very troops and president who allowed that government to come into existence is the height of absurdity.

Nobody is threatening to pull support from the troops, but he's right the Iraqi elected government either should stand up or get the hell out.

[Waffletush]

Too bad John Gibson isn't here to debate his "facts or to check and see what Fox news reports. Let's just take this one for example.

No, he isn't.Â*Â*BUT we are here to keep tabs on false statements made by Liberals on this site.

You quoted Gibson as saying... "They have taken down their checkpoints and have slipped back into the shadows. You notice the insurgents fire off roadside bombs from a safe distance."

... then offered a retort showing a homicide bomber blew up civilians and then claimed Gibson was lying.

When in fact you left out the first two sentences to his paragraph, which when CORRECTLY quoted says...

"What I do know is that American troops are still scary to a lot of people. Sadr's Mahdi Army doesn't particularly want to tangle with American troops. They have taken down their checkpoints and have slipped back into the shadows. You notice the insurgents fire off roadside bombs from a safe distance."

When looked at honestly, your article's 'proof' holds up as well as Nagin evacuation plan.

[lily]

No, he isn't.Â*Â*BUT we are here to keep tabs on false statements made by Liberals on this site.

Sounds fair....knock yourself out!

You quoted Gibson as saying... "They have taken down their checkpoints and have slipped back into the shadows. You notice the insurgents fire off roadside bombs from a safe distance."

... then offered a retort showing a homicide bomber blew up civilians and then claimed Gibson was lying.

When in fact you left out the first two sentences to his paragraph, which when CORRECTLY quoted says...

"What I do know is that American troops are still scary to a lot of people. Sadr's Mahdi Army doesn't particularly want to tangle with American troops. They have taken down their checkpoints and have slipped back into the shadows. You notice the insurgents fire off roadside bombs from a safe distance."

When looked at honestly, your article's 'proof' holds up as well as Nagin evacuation plan.

You see, that would be because I actually agree with Gibson, when he says the Mahdi army is afraid of our soldiers and I have no proof either way.........BUT I do have proof (Fox news! whom I believe he works for) that contradicts what he is claiming:

BAGHDAD, IraqÂ*Â*-Â*Â*U.S. troops complied with orders from Prime Minister Nourial-Maliki Tuesday to abandon checkpoints around Baghdad, including ones in
and around the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City.

[lily]

I'm sorry, Waffel.........we may have been talking about 2 different checkpoints.........are you talking about this checkpoint, where al-sadr and his army are going underground until the surge is over? (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/16454939.htm)

Mahdi Army lowers its profile, anticipating arrival of U.S. troops
By Leila Fadel and Zaineb Obeid
McClatchy Newspapers

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Mahdi Army militia members have stopped wearing their black
uniforms, hidden their weapons and abandoned their checkpoints in an
apparent effort to lower their profile in Baghdad in advance of the arrival
of U.S. reinforcements.


"We have explicit directions to keep a low profile . . . not to confront,
not to be dragged into a fight and to calm things down," said one official
who received the orders from the anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada
al-Sadr.


Al-Sadr heads the Mahdi Army, Iraq's largest Shiite militia, headquartered
in Najaf.


The official asked not to be named because he was not authorized to reveal
the militia's plans.


Militia members say al-Sadr ordered them to stand down shortly after
President George Bush's announcement that the U.S. would send 17,500 more
American troops to Baghdad to work alongside the Iraqi security forces.


The decision by al-Sadr to lower his force's profile in Baghdad will likely
cut violence in the city and allow American forces to show quick results
from their beefed up presence. But it is also unlikely in the long term to
change the balance of power here. Mahdi Army militiamen say that while they
remain undercover now, they are simply waiting for the security plan to end.


"If the Mahdi Army is attacked, they will defend themselves," said Sheikh
Abdul Razzaq al-Nidawi, a senior al-Sadr official in Najaf. "American troops
are the enemy troops . . . if the Americans want armed resistance, we are
ready, but we will work hard not to get involved in an armed opposition and
we will work hard to endure the pressure even if we make sacrifices to keep
our people and country safe."


Mahdi Army sources said that their heavy weaponry had been moved from Sadr
City or hidden since the announcement.


Across the capital residents described a changed Mahdi Army - in Sadr City,
a Shiite slum of more than 2 million people, in Talbiyah on the outskirts of
Sadr City, and in Hurriyah, a formerly Sunni Muslim neighborhood in the
north of the capital that in recent weeks has been taken over by the Mahdi
Army.


Checkpoints in those locations were gone. Instead, young men in jeans and
buttoned shirts directed traffic, helped the Iraqi army and wandered the
streets nonchalantly.


ID checks for Sunni names like Omar have been replaced by a sort of Shiite
code.


"Mawlak?" a Mahdi Army member will inquire. "My master?"


A Shiite will answer, "Mawlak al Hussein" - "My master is Hussein,"
referring to a revered Shiite saint. They check for the Shiite accent common
in the south versus the Baghdadi accent of the Sunnis.


But Shiite residents said the weapons were nearby.


"We expect the American troops or even some Iraqi troops to besiege Sadr
City," said Raed Mohammed, a 37-year-old taxi driver.



The Mahdi Army has cast itself as the people's resistance against an
American occupation. They claim their role has always been to protect
Shiites.

[Waffletush]

So you say Fox News is lying, but you take the word of terrorists as true and factual. Gotcha.

[Stoner]

So you say Fox News is lying, but you take the word of terrorists as true and factual.Â*Â*Gotcha.


Of course, Waffle. That's the libs' MO. They sympathize with the terrorists and badmouth the US at every turn.

[BoogyMan]

So you say Fox News is lying, but you take the word of terrorists as true and factual. Gotcha.


Of course, Waffle. That's the libs' MO. They sympathize with the terrorists and badmouth the US at every turn.


Thus the 'self-loathing' term that I tend to use to describe such actions.

[lily]

So you say Fox News is lying, but you take the word of terrorists as true
and factual. Gotcha.



????? Where did I say Fox news is lying? You quoted a statement from John
Gibson and I posted a statement from Fox news that contradicts what he is
saying.

Now if you're referring to the title of this thread........well provide me with proof, because YOU posted an article that states:


A spokesman said Friday the U.S. military has no indication that the al-Qaida in Iraq leader was killed or wounded in a raid, while an Iraqi army officer said his deputy has been jailed for a week.

So why are you taking the word of terrorists?