Sadr calls for truce

2008-03-30 08:45:56

#1

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6873|Chicago, IL

http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/g … 2/18/Iraq/

BAGHDAD — Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said Sunday that he was pulling his fighters off the streets nationwide and called on the government to stop raids against his followers and free them from prison.

The Iraqi government quickly welcomed al-Sadr's apparent move to resolve a widening conflict with his movement, sparked Tuesday by operations against his backers in the oil-rich southern city of Basra.

Is he finally sick of the killing? Or do you think this is just a ploy to delay military action against his forces?

Unlike a lot of the other "leaders" of insurgent groups in Iraq, Sadr has always seemed to me to be one of the only ones genuinely acting in the interests of his community. Obviously, some of his methods are highly questionable, but his forces have kept the Shiite population largely safe from sectarian violence, and should the Sunni groups in the government get over themselves and agree to his truce (His terms seem very reasonable to me), it would be a great step towards stability in Iraq (and hopefully let us get the hell out of there)

2008-03-30 08:58:25

#2

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6649|Escea

I'll see how it plays out, but I have to say I'm still skeptical.

2008-03-30 09:22:22

#3

IRONCHEF: Member; +385|6917|Northern California

The Fallujah Bad Boy give in I see.

2008-03-30 09:25:43

#4

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|7047|London, England

I thought that, just before those whole Basrah incident. That they were already on a ceasefire?

2008-03-30 09:26:46

#5

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7188

Bs

2008-03-30 09:28:31

#6

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6873|Chicago, IL

IRONCHEF wrote:
The Fallujah Bad Boy give in I see.

*insert supah quote here*

He knows he'd weather an all out American offensive about as well as Zarqawi did...

https://warpost.blogsome.com/wp-admin/images/aaaa.75.jpg

but whatever his motivation may be, it's still a good sign.

2008-03-30 09:30:36

#7

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6982

I don't think his own militias really listen to him much anymore so we'll just have to see what the story is. The fact of the matter is that he sees himself, with good reason, as future leader of Iraq and such turmoil probably doesn't do him any favours.

2008-03-30 09:34:32

#8

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6873|Chicago, IL

CameronPoe wrote:
I don't think his own militias really listen to him much anymore so we'll just have to see what the story is. The fact of the matter is that he sees himself, with good reason, as future leader of Iraq and such turmoil probably doesn't do him any favours.

As far as I know, some rogue groups are still fighting, but the bulk of his forces will hopefully stand down for the time being. And also I expect him to play a large part in the future government of Iraq (whether that's good or bad I'm not sure yet).

2008-03-30 09:36:18

#9

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7188

janes.com says he is full of it, so I will go with that.

2008-03-30 09:37:34

#10

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6895

usmarine wrote:
janes.com says he is full of it, so I will go with that.

And I say janes.com is full of shit so I go with whatever.

2008-03-30 09:39:06

#11

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7188

DoctaStrangelove wrote:
usmarine wrote:
janes.com says he is full of it, so I will go with that.
And I say janes.com is full of shit so I go with whatever.

janes blows anything people cut and paste on here out of the water by a long shot....but w/e.

2008-03-30 09:40:23

#12

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6982

S.Lythberg wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
I don't think his own militias really listen to him much anymore so we'll just have to see what the story is. The fact of the matter is that he sees himself, with good reason, as future leader of Iraq and such turmoil probably doesn't do him any favours.
As far as I know, some rogue groups are still fighting, but the bulk of his forces will hopefully stand down for the time being. And also I expect him to play a large part in the future government of Iraq (whether that's good or bad I'm not sure yet).

Realistically if the Iraqi political process is allowed to play out fully and freely Iraq will ultimately row in behind Iran, although sustained ethnic violence will persist for decades.

2008-03-30 09:42:34

#13

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7070

its august 2004 all over again. he holds out for a few weeks, then, when we are about to put the final nail in the coffin, he appeals to the govt and gets truced. fuck him.

ironchef, you cant possibly still believe that.

2008-03-31 00:10:19

#14

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,822|6532|eXtreme to the maX

Its all a ploy, enough attacks to remind everyone who's boss, then step back to avoid being wiped out.
When the occupying forces leaves he will be in charge.

Fuck Israel

2008-03-31 01:58:05

#15

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6837|'Murka

I thought Fallujah was Sunni insurgents and AQ, not Sadr.

As for Sadr...I trust him about as far as I can throw his chunky ass. The only community he has any interest in is in one that has him as a leader.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-03-31 04:02:44

#16

san4: The Mas; +311|7115|NYC, a place to live

The Iraqi government apparently got Sadr to give in by getting the Iranians to tell him to.

McClatchy wrote:
BAGHDAD — Iraqi lawmakers traveled to the Iranian holy city of Qom over the weekend to win the support of the commander of Iran's Qods brigades in persuading Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr to order his followers to stop military operations, members of the Iraqi parliament said. . . .

The backdrop to Sadr's dramatic statement was a secret trip Friday by Iraqi lawmakers to Qom, Iran's holy city and headquarters for the Iranian clergy who run the country.

There the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said.

Ali al Adeeb, a member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Dawa party, and Hadi al Ameri, the head of the Badr Organization, the military wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, had two aims, lawmakers said: to ask Sadr to stand down his militia and to ask Iranian officials to stop supplying weapons to Shiite militants in Iraq.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/32055.html

2008-03-31 16:12:26

#17

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6837|'Murka

Can't imagine that was the cause, seeing as how so many here say there is no evidence that Iran's QF is aiding the Shiite militias in any way.

/sarcasm

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-03-31 16:15:35

#18

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6831|North Carolina

See? Iran is actually useful afterall....

2008-03-31 17:16:03

#19

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6955|Global Command

If the U.S. was serious about victory he and he frothing at the mouth supporters would already be dead.

We must not be, because he isn't.

2008-03-31 17:19:14

#20

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6831|North Carolina

ATG wrote:
If the U.S. was serious about victory he and he frothing at the mouth supporters would already be dead.

We must not be, because he isn't.

That wouldn't exactly give us victory anyway. If we kill Sadr, someone else would just replace him.

2008-03-31 17:21:08

#21

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7070

you arent aware of the facts behind sadr's position and influence apparently.

2008-03-31 17:31:43

#22

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6955|Global Command

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
you arent aware of the facts behind sadr's position and influence apparently.

I am.
I don't give a shit.
If the U.S. is serious about victory...

Do you suggest we let the Shia have Iraq?
Because his daddy was a more famous asshole we let him get away with shit?

Fuck him and the civilians who are supporting him.

I suggest we do in Iraq what we did in Germany in regards to ' partisans '. When a sniper would fire on U.S. forces in Germany we would give the village or sector 24 hours to hand them over. If they didn't we mortared their asses until they did.

The fact that we tolerate the public tolerating IED's demonstrates that it is not a fight we intend to win.

If the public feared the U.S. they would rat out the bastards planting the bombs.

They don't fear us so we can't win. They don't fear us, because we are not strong. Strength is the only language they understand.

Rockets and mortars from Sadr City landing on the Green Zone = B52 strikes. Anything else is bullshit.

We'll just plunder their oil instead, Exxon and Shell need more money. Go Haliburton!!!

Last edited by ATG (2008-03-31 17:33:10)

2008-03-31 17:33:06

#23

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6831|North Carolina

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
you arent aware of the facts behind sadr's position and influence apparently.

Who are you directing this toward?

2008-03-31 17:37:40

#24

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6831|North Carolina

ATG wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
you arent aware of the facts behind sadr's position and influence apparently.
I am.
I don't give a shit.
If the U.S. is serious about victory...

Do you suggest we let the Shia have Iraq?
Because his daddy was a more famous asshole we let him get away with shit?

Fuck him and the civilians who are supporting him.

I suggest we do in Iraq what we did in Germany in regards to ' partisans '. When a sniper would fire on U.S. forces in Germany we would give the village or sector 24 hours to hand them over. If they didn't we mortared their asses until they did.

The fact that we tolerate the public tolerating IED's demonstrates that it is not a fight we intend to win.

If the public feared the U.S. they would rat out the bastards planting the bombs.

They don't fear us so we can't win. They don't fear us, because we are not strong. Strength is the only language they understand.

Rockets and mortars from Sadr City landing on the Green Zone = B52 strikes. Anything else is bullshit.

We'll just plunder their oil instead, Exxon and Shell need more money. Go Haliburton!!!

Well, all I have to say is... As long as we're in Iraq, we should use the oil revenue to pay for the occupation. Granted, for all I know, maybe they're already doing that....

2008-03-31 17:38:10

#25

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7070

I was addressing turq. Sadr has his position simply because of his father. The fact that Sadr reached a certain age and missed his opportunity to do some kind of religious schooling (something like that) means he cant get higher up the religious chain of command. the only hope he has is using his religious role to propel him further politically. He is using his fathers name and now his reputation as a resister to command his followers. A large number of the mahdis dont even recognize his authority anymore. every time it gets bad for him, he waves the white flag. I hate the mahdis and I would love for sadr to be dead. he is the only one of the major players left alive from my deployment years ago.

BF2S Forums Sadr calls for truce

IRONCHEF wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

usmarine wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

McClatchy wrote:

ATG wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

ATG wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Board footer