| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq-Jordan | |
| Allawi and al-Sadr flip-flopping more than Kerry? | |
| 2004-07-05 | |
| EFL; what the hell is going on: The militant Shiite cleric whose uprising last April left hundreds dead pledged Sunday to resist "oppression and occupation" and called the new interim Iraqi government "illegitimate." Muqtada al-Sadr made the declaration in a statement distributed by his office in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, where his al-Mahdi militia battled American troops until a cease-fire last month. "We pledge to the Iraqi people and the world to continue resisting oppression and occupation to our last drop of blood," al-Sadr said. "Resistance is a legitimate right and not a crime to be punished." Here’s Allawi’s half of this, after the amnesty debacle ... It was unclear what prompted his apparent reversal, though al-Sadr has made contradictory statements in the past. Earlier Sunday, Allawi told ABC’s "This Week" that he had met with al-Sadr representatives "who want to try and mediate. The position of the government is very clear. There is no room for any militias to operate inside Iraq. Anything outside law and order is not tolerated, cannot be tolerated. The rule of law should prevail. Every one of us, every individual, starting from the president downward should be answerable to the law." And here’s that amnesty debacle ... Allawi’s government is expected to announce a package of initiatives to combat the insurgency, including limited emergency rule and an amnesty offer. Allawi’s spokesman, Georges Sada, suggested Saturday that guerrillas who fought the Americans before the sovereignty transfer could be eligible because they had taken legitimate acts of resistance. However, the deputy prime minister for national security, Bahram Saleh, told CNN’s "Late Edition" he found the comment "very surprising to have come from a spokesman for the prime minister." Saleh confirmed the Cabinet was discussing an amnesty offer and was deliberating how to give "people an opportunity to reintegrate within society" while at the same time "remaining firm against people who have committed atrocities and have committed crimes against the people of Iraq and against the coalition forces that have come to help us overcome tyranny."
| |
| Posted by:Edward Yee |
| #35 Never heard that one before Aris, real pretty & flowery like. I was always partial to "Peace through superior firepower." -Patton |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-07-05 10:33:19 PM |
| #34 grieving side? I suspect they'll be doing the car/crater swarm. Victory is flexibly defined, apparently |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-05 10:19:27 PM |
| #33 While yours are very productive cheers, is that it? I'd very much rather be the most harsh of critics than be what you are, you cheerleader. ***** Lastly a quote, before I call it a day. "There is no greater calamity than to underestimate the strength of your enemy. For to underestimate the strength of your enemy is to lose your treasure. Therefore, when opposing troops meet in battle, victory belongs to the grieving side." —Lao Tzu, Tao Teh Ching |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-05 10:09:27 PM |
| #32 only if they're productive complaints - I don't see that - pass the Nivea? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-05 10:05:20 PM |
| #31 But Frank G won't ever get why I find the group masturbation he indulges in so meaningless. Will you ever comprehend, Frank, the idea that a citizen's complaints can be much more useful and valuable than his cheers? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-05 10:03:02 PM |
| #30 The tone of my "original post" is bitter despair. And annoyance at people thinking they can turn defeat into victory by simply proclaiming it so. I wish no success to the Iraqi future? Why, because unlike you I don't confuse desire with reality? Because unlike you, I don't think that wishing for something badly enough will change things as they are one iota worth a difference? Because I don't think that daydreaming is better than realism? Because I call "defeat" "defeat"? If I really were as you think of me, I'd be a much happier camper, not borderline depressed. Idiot. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-05 9:51:35 PM |
| #29 That a decision to retreat was made by politicians... There was no decision to retreat, because there was no decision to advance (on Sadr). |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-07-05 9:38:49 PM |
| #28 Nice manual digging instrument, there, Frank. Lol! *high five* |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-05 8:54:34 PM |
| #27 I disgree, .com has subtlety I lack. The tone of your original post said it all: "tried, failed". You're an asshat and wish no success to the Iraqi future, just so you can crow. Grow a pair of cojones, take a chance, and wish democracy well, and I'll change my new opinion of you Aris. If you don't approve of me, given your post, I'll consider that a badge of courage |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-05 8:52:00 PM |
| #26 "You are even worse than .com in that you only follow where he leads." Lol! Another factually incorrect statement. I'm far far worse. Frank's a sweetheart puppydog compared to me. I am evil incarnate, ad hominem-boy. Hit that tip jar, yet, Sponge Bob? |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-05 8:48:07 PM |
| #25 Did you read anything I wrote? Or are you just going with whatever snarky comment comes to your head, regardless of whether it fits or not? YES, Civilian politicians control your military, and that's great, but that's also the reason that a defeat caused by politics is no less a defeat than one caused by bullets. Did you read ANYTHING I wrote? I'm taking back, all the things I had once said about you being one of the more reasonable posters here. You are even worse than .com in that you only follow where he leads. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-05 8:39:08 PM |
| #24 well, Aris, America is peculiar in a way you wouldn't get: Civilian politicians control our military |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-05 8:01:51 PM |
| #23 that if the US forces wanted Sadr dead, then he would now be dead True -- and if US wanted Tehran nuked, then it would be nuked. But that kind of talk is meaningless. Not arresting or killing him was a political decision made for whatever reason. That a decision to retreat was made by politicians in their offices rather than generals on the field, that makes it better how exactly? If Sadr and his Iranians allies used political/diplomatic strength rather than bullets in order to keep himself alive and free and in a position to still seek power, then how is that so much better? And Frank, Sadr dead is Sadr dead, and Sadr alive is Sadr alive and defying the US. Bull on the "martyr" cliche. Better a dead so-called "martyr" than a live enemy. Nor have I seen Saddam's boys being made into martyrs for example. I keep on hearing about how Sadr's "street cred" has been destroyed, but the only evidence I've seen is the disgust Iraqi bloggers have of him who had already been disgusted with him even before all this happened. Where do you get this valuable info on Sadr's supposedly diminishing "street cred" from? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-05 7:59:58 PM |
| #22 Rafael - Next time you need help with your browser or similar? Go piss up a rope. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-05 7:26:16 PM |
| #21 Wow - the patented Aris-Capture-The Topic™ didn't work! Sadr dead is a martyr, Sadr alive is a fat incompetent seething shithead with no street cred. Check out his Mahdi army? F Troop, more likely |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-05 7:15:58 PM |
| #20 I think everyone here also believes that if the US forces wanted Sadr dead, then he would now be dead. Not arresting or killing him was a political decision made for whatever reason. The fighting and killing you're refering to was of Sadr's goons. Probably in hopes of sending him a message, which evidently he did not get. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-07-05 7:06:30 PM |
| #19 Rafael> There were troops at it and lots of fighting and killing people and besieging cities and people saying that Sadr's slated for destruction. That was an attempt IMO to capture or kill Sadr. I think back then everyone here was seeing it as such an attempt. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-05 5:50:07 PM |
| #18 I Aris is on Veeee Aaaaa Ceeee Aaaaa Teeeee Ieeee Ohhhhh Nnnnnn! |
| Posted by: Commie Francis 2004-07-05 5:34:54 PM |
| #17 There was no attempt to capture him. There can't be a failure if there was no attempt. How can you fail at wanting something??? |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-07-05 4:57:39 PM |
| #16 Had they really wanted to, I think they could have captured him. And I think differently, because I think they did really want to capture him and found out they couldn't. That this estimation may have been due to political considerations (perhaps something like "we can't capture him without totalling the whole of Najaf, thus inciting countrywide Shiite rebellion") rather than purely military ones, doesn't make this less of a failure to capture him. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-05 4:05:02 PM |
| #15 In the end, Aris, that started with the interim, pre-sovereignty government putting out an arrest warrant (apparently from the same judge who's trying Saddam now) -- and it was a political choice it seems to leave al-Sadr to the post-handover government, from the brass. Belmont Club had a more glowing take -- US KIA 19 and dozens wounded vs. al-Mahdi 1500+ KIA. |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2004-07-05 3:35:18 PM |
| #14 His location was known. Had they really wanted to, I think they could have captured him. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-07-05 3:25:00 PM |
| #13 There was no attempt to capture him. Fine then. I had thought that the whole Sadr-insurrection thingy had started with US forces trying to capture and/or kill Sadr after a warrant for his arrest. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-05 3:09:30 PM |
| #12 Rafael - Into the hole. Bread and water for you. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-05 3:05:00 PM |
| #11 Where exactly did I make a mistake? There was no attempt to capture him. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-07-05 3:03:54 PM |
| #10 Go on being rude and/or amusing. You still fail to reply. WHAT EXACTLY WAS MY MISTAKE??? For me it's self-evident that the attempted capture of Sadr was a failure, evidenced by the fact that he's not captured. Where exactly did I make a mistake? Other than being politically incorrect ofcourse, and calling a spade a spade, when people here prefer to call it a manual digging instrument. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-05 2:47:11 PM |
| #9 Are you telling me that the USA didn't attempt to capture Sadr You gotta use a bigger lure Aris. This Northern Pike ain't biting. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-07-05 2:20:03 PM |
| #8 Are you telling me that the USA didn't attempt to capture Sadr, or that it succeeded in so doing? Because all other options consist of "It tried to. It failed." |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-05 1:55:57 PM |
| #7 Back OT |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-05 1:22:57 PM |
| #6 Bait posted... Hijack attempt in progress... Aris - Sorry, but you are factually incorrect - and one would hope you're intelligent enough to know it. No further response is warranted. RBers - Recognizing an attempt to "arisify" a thread, in advance, should be sufficient to thwart the attempt. Nothing to see here, folks. Let's move along and post constructively instead of taking the bait. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-05 1:18:15 PM |
| #5 You were doing so well Aris. ; |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-07-05 1:02:28 PM |
| #4 Why does not the US capture Sader and get it over with? It tried to. It failed. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-05 12:49:02 PM |
| #3 Mdfre12 - I'd offer that it's because the gutless little shit hides behind his "army" in moskkk's and, right or wrong, we have decided not to go into the Holy Ammo Dumps after him. If / when the Iraqi Police or Army numbers and gumption are available (actually a function of when Sistnai decides to quit being an ass), then they can go in and grab this little Iranian Agent. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-05 11:57:05 AM |
| #2 Why does not the US capture Sader and get it over with? |
| Posted by: Mdfre12 2004-07-05 7:55:40 AM |
| #1 Sheesh. Another muddle. This is Tater's 7th or 8th reversal - he's definitely working his way up to Kerry's level of "flexibility" - but the key is his decision to claim that the Govt is illegal. He had kept his yap shut since the 28th - and now he's decided to open it again. If I follow the timeline correctly, Allawi spoke earlier - and this is Sadr's (possibly frantic) reply. Fisnik Abrashi, the AP "reporter" needs to brush up on his English. The title of this piece should be: Iraq Militant Cleric Claims The Current Government is Illegitimate - Vows to Keep Fighting I see one clear motive, though I'm sure there are 50 more: Sadr's hoping to pressure Allawi into recognizing him and his B-Team Madhi Mud Hens as legitimate "occupation resisters" so he can weasel all their asses (especially his own, given the murder charge) into the amnesty thing, if such a despicable notion ever becomes reality. It's a smart political play by ol' Tater. Allawi was addressing him directly (he had met with al-Sadr representatives) with his statement. It doesn't get much better than this: "Every one of us, every individual, starting from the president downward should be answerable to the law." Clearly, he is not considering Sadr for amnesty. We'll see if this amnesty thing is real and who is actually behind it. Hard to tell, right now, since all of these English stories have sequence, tense, and substance problems. "I can shout, don't hear you!" So, unless Sistani or someone of influence jumps in to back Tater, Allawi is saying he's fully justified in making chips out of him. I'm cool with that. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-05 6:17:11 AM |