The Offensive Against Sadr

[B17Skull12]

Originally posted by Eagler
laser it and be done with it

i would expect a bigger uprising if we did this.  religion=life them.

[Pei]

Originally posted by Edbert MOL
Well, there's the simple answer...

Send the Badrs in after the Sadrs. Problem solved and the world is plauged with fewer militant islamicist stunninghunks. Plus the news channels are not full of pictures of Marines shooting up a Mosque.

Win, win, win to me.

While I admit the idea has a certain elegance I don't think sanctioning one armed political faction to take on another is a good idea. We are supposed to be restoring (or rather creating) law and order in Iraq - giving support to private armies isn't the way to do it. It would only lead to more disorder and bloodshed in the future.

Unfortunately I think the US and it's allies are damned if they do and damned if they don't ( a situation that happened earlier in Fallujah).  In the long run opposing armed insurrection will be the best thing for Iraq, if not for the US (which will inevitably give it's opponents great recruiting material in the process). Iraq will never be a stable and safe country while armed groups wield power in defiance of civil authority. Whatever Al-Sistani and the established Shia leadership think privately they will be forced to condemn the US and the Iraqi forces in public and the population will follow that lead.

[Glas]

Nice posts babek, Pei

Glas
JG13 Lokis Kinder

[Pongo]

The question of the thread seems to have been why dont the Iraqis get upset when the insurgents use Mosques for cover.
The answer is simple. The muslim religions support the insurgency against the US.
What % I dont know. No one probably really knows. But looking at the amount of fighting and how wide spread it is. Its pretty safe to say its alot of them.

clarity.

[GRUNHERZ]

Wow sharia law is really neat. You can stone womeb to death but you cant hunt down bastards who murder innocent people with car bombs and occupy the most sensitive religious sites and use them as fire bases!

[demaw1]

Babek and Pei, well thought out post, and your english is fine.



    Babik, there are a couple ideas, Id like run by you. A little different twist to see if it makes any sense.

    History isnt the cure all, but as you say it is well to be remembered. I believe what is happening in nedjaf is a direct response to our backing down last time. Would the outcome be worse, if we backed down again, or If we killed him.? And should we really care?

   I cant see any good results, coming to the fore, from saddams capture and television coverage.

If sadr believes nedjaf is a holy city, and the mosque is very holy, why then, does he hide inside the mosque,   weapons and men with blood on their hands? Was it normal in the past, or does the muslim religion condone this behavior in its writings? Me thinks he is a  narcissist , and as you said wants to rule everything.

 If history is any measure of events, would it not be better to kill him, wrap him in a bloody pig, and bury him? Then give warning to all terrorist,  that this is their fate, if they are caught killing innocent people of any religion, color or nationality ? A varient of this has worked in history before.

 respectfully demaw.

[Pei]

Originally posted by demaw1


If sadr believes nedjaf is a holy city, and the mosque is very holy, why then, does he hide inside the mosque,   weapons and men with blood on their hands? Was it normal in the past, or does the muslim religion condone this behavior in its writings? Me thinks he is a  narcissist , and as you said wants to rule everything.

I think some of this is very true but I also think that we shouldn't underestimate a person's ability to equate their personal relgious (or moral) beliefs with their own ambition and greed.

I think Sadr is one of those people who sees his own power and his religion as the same thing: by furthering his power he believes that he is furthering his religion, and anyone who is limiting his power is acting against his religion. Since the religion is more important than any of it's holy sites therefore he is more important than the holy sites as well. Consequently he is prepared to sacrifice the shrine at Najaf to his own ambition because that is the same as sacrificing it for the good of the entire religion.

[demaw1]

pei...


  Well said, I am going to read it again and see If I can encorperate yours with mine . Should be interesting.

[Pei]

Another point of interest:

Ayatollah Al-Sistani left Iraq last week to undergo heart surgery in London.  This week Sadr makes a power grab and takes over the Shrine of Imam Ali in Najaf.  That should give eveyone a pretty good idea of the relationship and  power comparison between Sadr and the senior Shia clerics in Iraq, and the importance of Najaf to the Shia.

[Curval]

Apparently the Iranians are now upset with America.

FUBAR situation for the US

[Monk]

Originally posted by Curval
Apparently the Iranians are now upset with America.

[/URL]

Still or again?

[Curval]

Still....but this time with a bit more vigour.

[Edbert]

Originally posted by Curval
Still....but this time with a bit more vigour.

The government in Iran is trying to keep themselves from being overthrown by a younger generation of Iranians (they call themselves Persian) who want to see reform. Kind of like happened over there ~25 years ago.

If they can get the general population hating some other group, then the anger wont be directed at them. One of the oldest methods of governing a population there is.