Debate/Political: Is al Sadr a terrorist or not ?

wvrevy

Daddy to da' princess, which I guess makes me da'
Joined
Nov 7, 1999
Messages
8,130
I don't get it...One day we're launching an all-out offensive to get this guy, the next we're sitting down having a cup of tea with him...We need to make up our minds whether we're going to win the war in Iraq and stop our guys getting killed or if we're going to pussyfoot around and expect "terrorists" to adhere to cease-fire agreements (though what kind of an idiot does it take to think he'll abide by it when he's already broken half a dozen or more ? ). This is just disgusting. I honestly don't mean this as a direct attack at Bush, but whomever is calling these shots needs to be replaced, as they're costing our guys lives with their inept decision making.
--------------------
Iraq, Al-Sadr Aides Negotiate Najaf Truce


By TODD PITMAN, Associated Press Writer

NAJAF, Iraq - Iraqi officials and aides to a radical Shiite cleric negotiated Friday to end fighting that has raged in the holy city of Najaf for nine days, after American forces suspended an offensive against Muqtada al-Sadr's militia, officials said. Aides said al-Sadr was injured by shrapnel, though Iraqi officials disputed that.


In the southern city of Basra, gunmen seized a British journalist from his hotel late Thursday night, police said Friday. The kidnappers, almost certainly Shiite, threatened to kill him in 24 hours unless coalition forces withdraw from Najaf. It was unclear when that deadline would expire.

With negotiations ongoing, the U.S. military said it suspended offensive operations against al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, who are holed up in the city's vast cemetery and the Imam Ali shrine, one of the holiest sites to Shiite Muslims.

"We are allowed to engage the enemy only in self defense and long enough to break contact," said Maj. Bob Pizzitola, executive officer for the 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment of the 1st Cavalry Division. "That was a blanket order for everybody."

He said the militia appeared to have stopped most attacks as well, and the city appeared quieter just one day after the U.S. military announced it had begun a major offensive to rout the militants.

"Hopefully, the talks will go well and everything will be resolved peacefully," Pizzitola said.

The U.S. Defense Department said about 2,200 Marines, along with 500 to 1,000 soldiers and an undisclosed number of U.S.-trained Iraqi troops, were involved in Thursday's offensive.

Also Friday, U.S. airstrikes hit Fallujah, witnesses said. There were no immediate reports of injuries.

The U.S. military had no immediate comment, but U.S. forces have fought with militants holed up in the city, a well-known Sunni stronghold, for months.

One of Iraq (news - web sites)'s most senior religious leaders called for an end to the Najaf fighting, as Iraqis took to the streets across the country to protest the ongoing violence.

Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Taqi al-Modaresi, speaking in Karbala during prayers on Friday, the Muslim holy day, condemned the persistent fighting.

"What is going on in Najaf and the rest of the Iraqi cities is a violation of sanctities, an aggression on holy sites and shedding of innocent blood that could lead to a vicious civil war," al-Modaresi said.

"I call on everyone to shun violence, stop all military operations and for the immediate withdrawal the troops from the cities."

Najaf Gov. Adnan al-Zurufi said the talks were between Iraqi government officials and al-Sadr's representatives. National Security Adviser Mouwaffaq al-Rubaie traveled to Najaf and was joined there by Defense Minister Hazem Shalan, Iraqi officials said. U.S. officials were not involved in the talks, al-Zurufi said.

Still, the U.S. military said it was maintaining a cordon around the shrine, the cemetery and Najaf's old city, where the militants had taken refuge, Pizzitola said.

Al-Sadr, who has led an uprising against coalition troops for more than a week, was hit in the chest and leg by shrapnel as he met with militia members near the shrine early Friday, aide Haider al-Tousi said.

Another al-Sadr spokesmen said the cleric's condition was stable. He may be holed up with his loyalists in the compound housing the revered shrine, but aide Haider al-Tousi said he was moved to an unknown location.



The Iraqi Interior Ministry said al-Sadr was not injured and had been involved in the negotiations since Friday morning. Reports about his injury are "an attempt to incite others aiming at escalating the situation," a ministry statement said.

Brig. Gen. Erv Lessel, deputy director for operations for coalition forces, could not confirm reports al-Sadr was wounded.

"Multinational forces are operating under firm instructions not to pursue Muqtada and not to conduct operations within the exclusion zone surrounding the Imam Ali and Kufa Mosques," he said in a statement.

Al-Sadr urged his followers to remain calm.

"We got a letter from him saying 'Be steadfast and behave rationally, don't surrender to your emotions,'" Aws al-Khafaji, from al-Sadr's office in the southern town of Nasiriyah, told Al-Jazeera television.

In a sermon read on his behalf during Friday prayers at the Kufa Mosque, al-Sadr said the United States was intent on "occupying the whole world."

"The presence of occupation in Iraq has made our country an unbearable hell," he said. He called on Iraqis to rebel "because I will not allow another Saddam-like government again."

In Basra, gunmen abducted a British journalist from the Diafa Hotel, police Capt. Hashem Abdullah said Friday.

Hotel staff showed a check-in form purportedly filled out by the man, who identified himself as James Andrew Brandon, 23, working for the Sunday Telegraph. It said he checked in Wednesday.

A video released Friday showed a man identifying himself as Brandon standing bare-chested with his head bandaged.

The "Telegraph, that's my paper," he said, turning to a masked captor. "I'm a journalist. I just write about what's happening in Iraq."

The militants said they took Brandon hostage to protest the U.S. military presence in Najaf.

"We are the sons of the Iraqi people. We demand the withdrawal of the occupation forces from the holy city of Najaf in 24 hours, otherwise we will kill this British hostage," one masked captor said, putting a hand on Brandon's shoulder.

The video was given to Associated Press Television News after a freelance cameraman was taken to the location where Brandon's believed to be held.

Kidnappers in Iraq have seized scores of hostages in recent months, threatening to kill them in an effort to drive out coalition forces and companies that support them. Most kidnappers have been Sunni insurgents, and Shiites using the tactic would be a new development.

Ahmed al-Khalisy, head of al-Sadr's office in Basra, condemned the kidnapping and called for Brandon's immediate release.

Brandon was the third journalist kidnapped in Iraq in recent months. In April, two Japanese journalists were among a group of Japanese abducted near the city of Fallujah and released unharmed.

Hotel owner Mohammed Uglah said gunmen found Brandon and shot at him after he tried to escape, hitting him across the head before taking him away. Video footage showed a trail of blood leading down the hotel stairs, but Brandon did not appear seriously hurt in the tape.

"James Brandon was in Basra filing material for this Sunday's newspaper amongst other projects," Sunday Telegraph Deputy Editor Matthew d'Ancona said. "We are pursuing his situation with the greatest concern."

Britain's Foreign Office confirmed that a British national was abducted in Basra but said it could not confirm the person's identity while still trying to contact next of kin.

The Najaf offensive threatened to enrage Iraq's Shiite majority — especially if the fighting damages the shrine — and presented the biggest test yet for interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite who is trying to suppress the violence plaguing his country while also trying to persuade Iraqis of the legitimacy of his unelected government.

The casualty toll from Thursday's fighting was unclear. At least five Iraqi civilians were killed by the afternoon, said Nabil Mohammed, a health worker in the city. Two American soldiers were wounded by a mortar shell while standing in an intersection on the cemetery's edge, the military said.

Iraq's top Shiite Muslim cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, in London for medical treatment, expressed "deep sorrow and great worry" about the violence and called on all sides to end the crisis quickly. His office was working to mediate an end to the fighting, he said.

The violence has spread to other Shiite communities.

Mahdi Army militants killed two police officers in an ambush outside Nasiriyah on Thursday afternoon, police said Friday.

A three-hour overnight battle between the militants and police outside a police station in the southern city of Diwaniyah killed one militant, police Capt. Ali al-Zeyadi said.

Thousands of al-Sadr supporters, including some police officers, demonstrated outside Baghdad's Green Zone enclave housing the U.S. Embassy and government offices.

In the largely Sunni town of Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, about 700 demonstrators demanded that U.S. troops leave Najaf, chanting, "Long live al-Sadr!"

In Fallujah, about 3,000 people demonstrated in support of al-Sadr, chanting "Fallujah is with Najaf, the target is America."
 
From what I know of the guy, he was a legitimate political figure who has clearly crossed the line. Unless everyone involved (particularly the Iraqis) lets him know in no uncertain terms that such behavior is unacceptable, Iraq will remain unstable and he will continue to use such tactics. There should be no talking with him until he completely renounces this behavior, IMO.
 
i agree with both of you. if you're going to do something, do it right.
 
There can be no peace with terrorists. For once we agree!!

The ONLY way I can POSSIBLY defend this action is this. Perhaps Bush is hoping for the peace to last long enough for us to get our troops out and turn over security 100% to the Iraqi's. At that point, if they want to get all militant again, Americans won't be getting killed.

It's a fool's hope, but the only reaosning I can see. Bush knows (I HOPE he knows) he's bargaining with another Arafat and his word can't be trusted.
 

Originally posted by caitycaity
i agree with both of you. if you're going to do something, do it right.
Exactly....Half measures are what turned Vietnam into the mess it became...By stopping before we get this guy...a man who, by the way, is responsible for at least dozens of dead American soldiers...we just make him look stronger to potential supporters in the region. Better a martyr than a leader that people in the region look to to lead the fight against us Imperial agressors.

I don't like the fact that we're over there at all, but we are there, and this kind of mismanagement is getting more and more of our guys killed. Either do the job or get out.
 
Originally posted by treesinger
There can be no peace with terrorists. For once we agree!!

The ONLY way I can POSSIBLY defend this action is this. Perhaps Bush is hoping for the peace to last long enough for us to get our troops out and turn over security 100% to the Iraqi's. At that point, if they want to get all militant again, Americans won't be getting killed.

It's a fool's hope, but the only reaosning I can see. Bush knows (I HOPE he knows) he's bargaining with another Arafat and his word can't be trusted.
Jason, seriously, I don't know if it's Bush making these decisions, but the guy has already broken several cease-fires...How many dead soldiers does it take for our leadership over there to get it through their collective heads that the guy can't be trusted ? Not only that, but by granting him the status of someone we must negotiate with, we elevate him in the eyes of the Iraqi people, and some of them will begin following his lead when they wouldn't have before.

The guy needs to be ended. Period.
 
I don't believe governments don't do deals... but I do believe it would be best if they didn't.
 
While I agree with everyone here, just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment ... one consideration in this may be that al Sadr and his militia are barricaded in what Shiites revere as a holy shrine. If U.S./coalition forces were to attack the shrine/temple directly and cause damage, it could result in greater problems with the Shiite Muslim community in Iraq. The U.S. forces may want to avoid creating more animosity toward us by desecrating a shrine considered holy by a large portion of the Iraqi people.

They are sort of caught between a rock and a hard place. Either negotiate a truce or attack the shrine. Either way we will surely suffer the consequences of either decision. And neither option is desirable and neither option offers much in the way of a long-term solution.
 
Originally posted by wvrevy
Jason, seriously, I don't know if it's Bush making these decisions, but the guy has already broken several cease-fires...How many dead soldiers does it take for our leadership over there to get it through their collective heads that the guy can't be trusted ? Not only that, but by granting him the status of someone we must negotiate with, we elevate him in the eyes of the Iraqi people, and some of them will begin following his lead when they wouldn't have before.

The guy needs to be ended. Period.

Can't disagree with you there.

Regarding Bush making the decision:
Someone is in charge, and Bush is responsible for that someone. If things go badly, and they will, Bush will be responsible.
 
Originally posted by Abracadabra
While I agree with everyone here, just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment ... one consideration in this may be that al Sadr and his militia are barricaded in what Shiites revere as a holy shrine. If U.S./coalition forces were to attack the shrine/temple directly and cause damage, it could result in greater problems with the Shiite Muslim community in Iraq. The U.S. forces may want to avoid creating more animosity toward us by desecrating a shrine considered holy by a large portion of the Iraqi people.

They are sort of caught between a rock and a hard place. Either negotiate a truce or attack the shrine. Either way we will surely suffer the consequences of either decision. And neither option is desirable and neither option offers much in the way of a long-term solution.

Muslim terrosists would even flinch at the option of bombing any Chirstian churches in this country. I could really care less if we bomb a Mosque. If they are using it as military cover, it is a military target. Drop a moab and be done with it.

They will not surrender. They will not compromise. They will not negotiate a peace. All they know is the power of the sword,and I for one am willing to give it to them.
 
I understand your line of reasoning. However, for a moment, consider a potential logical conclusion of that line of thought. We bomb this shrine. We lose all support -- what there is -- of the Shiite Muslims in Iraq. We can justify this action to the world until the bad place freezes over and sells ice skating tickets, but this act would polarize Iraq in a way that we might never imagine.

The Muslim world would see it as an incredible offense and the militant, anti-American groups would use it as yet another excuse to try to extinguish the "Great Satan." Retaliation would be absolutely certain and could make what happened on 9/11 look minor in comparison. Not only that, but this act would be remembered for generations to come, becoming a grudge that would breed hatred, resentment and attacks on the U.S. for decades or even centuries to come (assuming we are still around).

I think the powers that be recognize that attacking the shrine would simply feed the cycle of violence and hatred, and would not do anything to help settle the current strife in Iraq. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. I don't know.
 
I think the powers that be recognize that attacking the shrine would simply feed the cycle of violence and hatred, and would not do anything to help settle the current strife in Iraq. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. I don't know.

i don't mean to veer this discussion of course, but abracadabra, your line of reasoning was why i was against the war in iraq in the first place. even if we "win" i think it will be a pyrrhic victory.
 
Originally posted by caitycaity
i don't mean to veer this discussion of course, but abracadabra, your line of reasoning was why i was against the war in iraq in the first place. even if we "win" i think it will be a pyrrhic victory.
Sad, but I'm afraid it will prove to be ultimately true.
 
Originally posted by jrydberg
I don't believe governments don't do deals... but I do believe it would be best if they didn't.
It's just that there was a thread a while back, about whether governments should do deals with terrorists and everyone seemed to think I was a raving lunatic to even suggest such things were commonplace. The real world is a very different place from the one that exists in most people's imaginations.
 
It's just that there was a thread a while back, about whether governments should do deals with terrorists and everyone seemed to think I was a raving lunatic to even suggest such things were commonplace.

that's not exactly how i remember it. ;)
 
Originally posted by caitycaity
i don't mean to veer this discussion of course, but abracadabra, your line of reasoning was why i was against the war in iraq in the first place. even if we "win" i think it will be a pyrrhic victory.
The really sad part about this is that it certainly didn't take an expert on the Islamic world to have figured that out. I actually heard Bill O'Reilley say the other day that he thought Bush truly believed that the Iraqi people would be thankful to us for ridding them of Saddam, and that they would behave accordingly. Now, I don't know if that's what Bush actually thought, but if so I just don't get how that is possible, and how people that should have known better didn't educate him on the subject.

Now, we're in a bit of a guagmire, with trouble spots exploding all over the country. At this point, I'm not sure that even if we get al Sadr it will even slow down the violence, let alone stop it. The whole thing just strikes me as being horribly mismanaged, from Bush on down.
 
The really sad part about this is that it certainly didn't take an expert on the Islamic world to have figured that out. I actually heard Bill O'Reilley say the other day that he thought Bush truly believed that the Iraqi people would be thankful to us for ridding them of Saddam, and that they would behave accordingly. Now, I don't know if that's what Bush actually thought, but if so I just don't get how that is possible, and how people that should have known better didn't educate him on the subject.

perhaps he didn't listen to the people who tried to educate him. who knows. all i know is that this kind of (imho) total ignorance of the rest of the world is the #1 reason why i didn't vote for bush in 2000 and why i will not be voting for bush in 2004. quite frankly, his lack of foreign policy skills really disturb me. i feel like having him as our president makes us more vulnerable. but i digress again...

i have heard the thing about him believing that the iraqi people would fall over us in gratitude for ridding them of saddam too. i really don't understand how anyone with one iota of sense could see the world as that black and white, but then again, there were multitudes of disers posting the same kind of thing back when going to iraq was being debated. i *really* just don't understand how anyone could think that we could go into iraq, get the "mission accomplished" in a short amount of time, have happy iraqis rejoicing in the street and in love with the US, and then have a stable, independent, democratic iraqi government all set up in the period of a couple years. that's not a pipe dream, that's lunacy.
 
Originally posted by acepepper
What's your recollection of it?

i remember a few people (who i usually classify as loonies ;) ) telling you that no government would ever negotiate with terrorists and the rest of us saying that no government should.

of course, i've been known to be wrong before. :p
 















Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE







New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top