Muqtada al-Sadr: we are driving the British out

What side is right? Sadr of the MoD?

  • MoD of course.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • MoD's position is better argued

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I support MoD but Sadr has a point

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Both sides are partially right

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Rather Sadr has better arguments

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I hate to say it but Sadr is right

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2881415.ece

The British military yesterday denied claims by Muqtada al-Sadr that UK troops were retreating from Iraq in defeat, and accused the radical Shia cleric and his followers of trying to "create the false impression that they were driving us out".

In an interview with The Independent, Sadr said: "The British have given up and know they will be leaving Iraq soon. They are retreating because of the resistance they have faced. Without that they would have stayed for much longer, there is no doubt.

"The British have realised this is a war they should not be fighting," he added.

Asked about the claims, Major Mike Shearer said al-Sadr wanted to claim victory as British troops took part in a planned withdrawal.
 
#3
SkiCarver said:
al-sadr is a cnut playing to an audience of cnuts.

nuff said.

Ski.
Any defeat begins with disrespect to the enemy.
 
#5
Wheres the "neither side is right option"?
 
#6
MAS is in a position where he can say what he wants, whether it has a basis in fact or not. As he knows the majority of the population in southern Iraq are more lilkely to believe him than us; he's in a no lose situation.

We have to leave at some point, and when we do he simply says 'it woz me and me JAM that did it, how about making me Prime Minister of southern Iraq and all of its oil'.

A country bumpkin and very junior cleric he may be, but he can play the population pretty well.
 
#7
ghost_us said:
Wheres the "neither side is right option"?
Comment your question mate, please. One side cliams that somthing is true. Another side is sure that it is not true.

So express your personal attitude to the statement in the title. Do you agree with it?
 
#9
Tell you what. Bomb him and his collection of year zero knobbers back to the stone age , and they can claim victory over what remains.

This gobby tw@t should have been dead since longtime.

Don't ask me to make a reasoned comment, it's not going to happen.

Except I would like to see Bremner breaking rocks in the sun.
 
#10
I agree with Taz, in addition when this conflict is looked back on in the cold light of day we will not be considered the winners. Whether MAS is instead depends on how his future and the future of Iraq plays out.

We are in grave danger of falling in the to the US argument in vietnam of having won every tactical battle but lost the war.
 
#12
Sadr is saying this now because hes playing the political game, he knows the army are pulling out gradually and hes exploiting the situation for his own benefit. he is lining himself up for the big fat jobs afterwards. the mod statement is correct, sadr is grandstanding.
 
#13
PartTimePongo said:
Tell you what. Bomb him and his collection of year zero knobbers back to the stone age , and they can claim victory over what remains.

This gobby tw@t should have been dead since longtime.

Don't ask me to make a reasoned comment, it's not going to happen.

Except I would like to see Bremner breaking rocks in the sun.
Agreed... on all points.
 
#14
"
This gobby tw@t should have been dead since longtime.
"

If we'd killed him then things would be even worse. When I used to give pre-deployment briefs, this question often came up - the answer as to the consquences usually shut up even the most ardent 'kill Sadr now supporter.
 
#16
CrapSpy said:
A country bumpkin and very junior cleric he may be, but he can play the population pretty well.
Delete cleric and insert something semi-relevant, and you have a pretty good description of a certain Austrian.....
 
#17
jim30 said:
"
This gobby tw@t should have been dead since longtime.
"

If we'd killed him then things would be even worse. When I used to give pre-deployment briefs, this question often came up - the answer as to the consquences usually shut up even the most ardent 'kill Sadr now supporter.
I was always surprised that the coalition didn't go after sadr when it was reported that he had been personally involved in the murder of several people. I'd like to know the reasons. Could you please tell us these consequences if it doesn't take too long or too much time. Thanks.
 
#18
Khyros said:
PartTimePongo said:
Tell you what. Bomb him and his collection of year zero knobbers back to the stone age , and they can claim victory over what remains.

This gobby tw@t should have been dead since longtime.

Don't ask me to make a reasoned comment, it's not going to happen.

Except I would like to see Bremner breaking rocks in the sun.
Agreed... on all points.
ditto.

the fallout of taking him out when he first started to stir the shit would have been much less than the mess we have now. take him out, then his replacement..... until noone wants the job.

Ski.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#19
AFAIK, we (Britain) STOPPED the Yanks when they wanted him dead.

So, really, we are dealing with a situation of our own making. And, again AFAIK, he is not a 'Cleric' - he gives sermons, wears the big hat, but is about as genuine a godbotherer as Ian Paisley, probably less in fact.
 
#20
Who will replace British troops? Iraqi Forces? If US troops move in, then a question remains over the British withdrawal. I wonder if Gordon Brown's/Chiefs of Staff haste for withdrawal might cause problems with the US down the line.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top