Can we kill Al-Sadr now? Please?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-23 02:30pm

http://ap.washingtontimes.com/dynamic/s ... CTION=HOME

Shiite Cleric Threatens Suicide Attacks

KUFA, Iraq (AP) -- A Shiite Muslim cleric threatened on Friday to launch suicide attacks if U.S. troops attack him and his forces in the holy city of Najaf.

Muqtada al-Sadr, was speaking during the Friday prayers sermon in Kufa, another Shiite Muslim holy city few miles from Najaf. The area is mostly controlled by his Al-Mahdi Army militia, whose members have clashed with U.S. troops several times since their uprising began on April 4.

"Some of the Mujahideen brothers have told me they want to carry out martyrdom attacks but I am postponing this," al-Sadr said in front of thousands of worshippers. "When we are forced to do so and when our city and holy sites are attacked, we will all be timebombs in the face of the enemy."

He condemned suicide bombings Wednesday in the southern city of Basra that killed 73 people because they targeted Iraqi police and civilians.

U.S. forces are deployed outside Najaf, but their mission to capture or kill al-Sadr has effectively been put on hold while negotiators try to resolve the standoff. U.S. commanders say they have no intention for the time being of entering Najaf, the holiest Shiite city.

Al-Sadr is wanted in the April 2003 killing of a rival cleric.

Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-04-23 02:56pm

By all means. Let's make a new high-profile matyr for the fanatics to rally around for decades to come.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-04-23 03:11pm

If we keep killing those guys, eventually they'll get the picture that Martyrdom isn't all it's cracked up to be.

ie.- "fuck THAT! I don't WANT to lead you guys! Hellfires won't fit up my ass!"

So, quick as they pop up, I advocate violently crushing them.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-04-23 03:15pm

Patrick Degan wrote:By all means. Let's make a new high-profile matyr for the fanatics to rally around for decades to come.

Oh please, adding one more to an already massive list won't make any bit of difference. This guy is a lunatic, don't you see....he's calling on people to commit suicide attacks! I say end this fucker....

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-04-23 03:18pm

If he had a rival cleric killed,just let them deal with him.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-04-23 03:20pm

Chardok wrote:If we keep killing those guys, eventually they'll get the picture that Martyrdom isn't all it's cracked up to be.

ie.- "fuck THAT! I don't WANT to lead you guys! Hellfires won't fit up my ass!"

You're attempting to apply your own thought process to people who concieve of reality in an entirely twisted way. For someone like al-Sadr, being killed for his current actions is an express ticket to eternal paradise and sexual ecstasy--and not in a sort of wishy-washy spiritual sense. They believe in the most literal sense that they transition directly into a sweet smelling garden and can begin fucking their virgins right away.

Killing these people doesn't do shit, unless you're willing to go all the way--i.e., burn down every mosque and kill every believer you can lay hands on. And that's not just unfeasible, it's fucking wrong.

Smiling Bandit · Post by **Smiling Bandit** » 2004-04-23 03:20pm

He's already been condemned by a council of Iraq's top clerics. But its true that we really want to capture him and put him on trial: it has a value to us that, say, capturing Bin Laden does not.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-04-23 03:22pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote: You're attempting to apply your own thought process to people who concieve of reality in an entirely twisted way. For someone like al-Sadr, being killed for his current actions is an express ticket to eternal paradise and sexual ecstasy--and not in a sort of wishy-washy spiritual sense. They believe in the most literal sense that they transition directly into a sweet smelling garden and can begin fucking their virgins right away.

Make it very clear that their remains will be buried in pigskin.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-04-23 03:33pm

Sharp-kun wrote:Make it very clear that their remains will be buried in pigskin.

Snopes.com

You're underestimating the maneuverability of the fundamentalist mind to a great degree. The only consistent thing about their convictions is the fact that they hold them with great conviction. To a truly dangerous fundamentalist (like, I don't know, one willing to blow himself up) anything can mean anything, as long as the interpretation supports his preconcieved fundie notions.

Only the occasional literalist will be at all deterred by your suggestion... whereas many, many fundies will be outraged by the action, decide that Allah will make a little room in this case, and sweep out to punish the infidel for his desecration.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-04-23 03:55pm

PAblo-

I understand what you are saying, that they're morons. But I'm talking about wiping out their leadership. These islamic fundamentalist terrorist and insurgent groups show a nearly COMPLETE breakdown in abscence of leadership at the top. they are truly the epitome of the "Cut off the head of the beast" Theory. So, when a new leader pops up, kill him. Kill his successor, lather rinse repeat until no one wants to take his place.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-04-23 04:00pm

Chardok wrote:PAblo-

I understand what you are saying, that they're morons. But I'm talking about wiping out their leadership. These islamic fundamentalist terrorist and insurgent groups show a nearly COMPLETE breakdown in abscence of leadership at the top. they are truly the epitome of the "Cut off the head of the beast" Theory. So, when a new leader pops up, kill him. Kill his successor, lather rinse repeat until no one wants to take his place.

That's where your plan encounters a problem. There isn't any "until" because the sort of people who would lead the insurgency in the first place won't be dissuaded by death or even fates worse than death. You'd have to kill every fundie that came to hand, and carry on doing that until you ran out of them. There are probably hundreds of people willing to lead the insurgency who are also willing to die in horrible ways. And if we go around assassinating hundreds of clerics then we aren't going to have much time for winning hearts and minds or for fostering democracy in Iraq.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-04-23 06:28pm

Chardok wrote:I understand what you are saying, that they're morons. But I'm talking about wiping out their leadership. These islamic fundamentalist terrorist and insurgent groups show a nearly COMPLETE breakdown in abscence of leadership at the top. they are truly the epitome of the "Cut off the head of the beast" Theory. So, when a new leader pops up, kill him. Kill his successor, lather rinse repeat until no one wants to take his place.

I was under the impression that we (by which I mean the US the UK and all the other hangers on) were in Iraq to free the people from Sadam (and make the world safe from his WMD of course) and to install a shining beacon of democracy and the rule of law into the Middle East. How does the extrajudicial killings of opposition leaders fit into this model? The summary killing of anybody who pisses us off really isn’t going to convince the Iraqi population or the rest of the region of our good intentions.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-23 07:02pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote: That's where your plan encounters a problem. There isn't any "until" because the sort of people who would lead the insurgency in the first place won't be dissuaded by death or even fates worse than death.

Funny that, Hamas is in a tailspin of chaos since Israel whacked it's two
founding members, the Sheikh and Rantasi in a veeery short time frame,
this time they haven't publically announced the successor to Rantasi

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-04-23 10:12pm

Plekhanov:

I was under the impression that we (by which I mean the US the UK and all the other hangers on) were in Iraq to free the people from Sadam (and make the world safe from his WMD of course) and to install a shining beacon of democracy and the rule of law into the Middle East. How does the extrajudicial killings of opposition leaders fit into this model? The summary killing of anybody who pisses us off really isn’t going to convince the Iraqi population or the rest of the region of our good intentions.

Expect that Al-Sadr wants to form an Iranian sytle state with himself as head priest(at least that's what I'm told). Plus he has a warrent out for his arrest in regard with the murder of a rival cleric. Clearly not someone we can trust in regards to fostering democracy in Iraq.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-04-23 10:40pm

frigidmagi wrote:Plekhanov:
I was under the impression that we (by which I mean the US the UK and all the other hangers on) were in Iraq to free the people from Sadam (and make the world safe from his WMD of course) and to install a shining beacon of democracy and the rule of law into the Middle East. How does the extrajudicial killings of opposition leaders fit into this model? The summary killing of anybody who pisses us off really isn’t going to convince the Iraqi population or the rest of the region of our good intentions.
Expect that Al-Sadr wants to form an Iranian sytle state with himself as head priest(at least that's what I'm told). Plus he has a warrent out for his arrest in regard with the murder of a rival cleric. Clearly not someone we can trust in regards to fostering democracy in Iraq.

So arrest him then (or at least try to and kill him if and when he resists) and put him on trial for whatever it is he’s supposed to have done. I wasn’t suggesting handing the government over to him or his ilk simply that “just killing” people (and anybody nearby at the time as it would most likely have to be done with explosive munitions of some kind) because they say stuff we don’t like seems awfully like the behaviour of a Sadam like tyrant, whereas I thought we were liberating the Iraqis.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-04-23 11:23pm

MKSheppard wrote:Funny that, Hamas is in a tailspin of chaos since Israel whacked it's two founding members, the Sheikh and Rantasi in a veeery short time frame, this time they haven't publically announced the successor to Rantasi

And I suppose this is going to solve all of Israel's problems? At any rate, your analogy is quite poor, because Hamas is an established and unified terrorist organization (a la al-Qaeda) and the Iraqi problem is a coalition of various insurgents. Even if the Israeli assassination squad was serving its intended purpose, it still wouldn't work in our case, because killing al-Sadr and any of his successors will do precisely jack shit to the hordes of Sunnis who are up in arms against us. Try again.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-04-23 11:25pm

I disagree, Pablo. Al-Sadr is a significant leader for the insurgency. I think that his death, with no clear successor, would fragment the insurgents and may have a significant impact on the resolve of its members and their ability to continue fighting.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-23 11:27pm

Montcalm wrote:If he had a rival cleric killed,just let them deal with him.

Back when that rival cleric was killed, they said Ba'athists did it. Now they say he did? For some reason, the whole thing stinks.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-23 11:28pm

Master of Ossus wrote:I disagree, Pablo. Al-Sadr is a significant leader for the insurgency. I think that his death, with no clear successor, would fragment the insurgents and may have a significant impact on the resolve of its members and their ability to continue fighting.

He leads the Mahdi Army, which isn't the insurgency per se- i.e. the ones at Fallujah don't take orders from him. The Mahdi Army is also poorly equipped and skilled compared to the other insurgent forces.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-04-23 11:30pm

Vympel wrote:He leads the Mahdi Army, which isn't the insurgency per se- i.e. the ones at Fallujah don't take orders from him. The Mahdi Army is also poorly equipped and skilled compared to the other insurgent forces.

True, but I still think that killing him would disperse at least that portion of the insurgency.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-04-24 02:31am

So arrest him then (or at least try to and kill him if and when he resists) and put him on trial for whatever it is he’s supposed to have done.

That would be the best thing to do. But it might be diffucult when he's surronded by groups of armed men pledging to fight to the death for him.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-24 03:32am

ROFLAMO

Sadr threatens to launch homicide attacks!

Oh no! Homicide attacks! Fucking fox news idiots.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-04-24 03:46am

Plekhanov wrote:
frigidmagi wrote:Plekhanov:
I was under the impression that we (by which I mean the US the UK and all the other hangers on) were in Iraq to free the people from Sadam (and make the world safe from his WMD of course) and to install a shining beacon of democracy and the rule of law into the Middle East. How does the extrajudicial killings of opposition leaders fit into this model? The summary killing of anybody who pisses us off really isn’t going to convince the Iraqi population or the rest of the region of our good intentions.
Expect that Al-Sadr wants to form an Iranian sytle state with himself as head priest(at least that's what I'm told). Plus he has a warrent out for his arrest in regard with the murder of a rival cleric. Clearly not someone we can trust in regards to fostering democracy in Iraq.
So arrest him then (or at least try to and kill him if and when he resists) and put him on trial for whatever it is he’s supposed to have done. I wasn’t suggesting handing the government over to him or his ilk simply that “just killing” people (and anybody nearby at the time as it would most likely have to be done with explosive munitions of some kind) because they say stuff we don’t like seems awfully like the behaviour of a Sadam like tyrant, whereas I thought we were liberating the Iraqis.

And how would you like us to arrest him, hmmm? He's in the holiest city to Shi'ite Islam after Mecca and Medina, surrounded by armed men who will fight for him regardless, and beyond them is a city willing to repel the infidels from its holy city limits, or whatever. An arrest would be very problematic indeed.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-04-24 03:59am

Master of Ossus wrote:
Vympel wrote:He leads the Mahdi Army, which isn't the insurgency per se- i.e. the ones at Fallujah don't take orders from him. The Mahdi Army is also poorly equipped and skilled compared to the other insurgent forces.
True, but I still think that killing him would disperse at least that portion of the insurgency.

It might not work. The insurgents could rally around a new leader.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-24 04:01am

Obviously. They might not, though.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Can we kill Al-Sadr now? Please?

Can we kill Al-Sadr now? Please?

Not so easy...