What's new

al-Sadr becomes first Iraqi Shia leader to urge Assad to step down

Arabi

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
913
Reaction score
-2
Country
Saudi Arabia
Location
Argentina
Shia Iraqi cleric condemns killing of 87 people in the suspected chemical attack in a rebel-held Syrian town

Sadr%20Green%20Zone%20Baghdad%20Mar%2028%202016%20%28AFP%29_0.jpg


Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Saturday called on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down, also calling on Washington and Moscow to stop intervening in the conflict.

The Najaf-based cleric condemned the killing of 87 people, including 31 children, in a suspected chemical attack last week in a rebel-held Syrian town that has been widely blamed on Damascus.

"I would consider it fair for President Bashar al-Assad to resign and leave power, allowing the dear people of Syria to avoid the scourge of war and terrorist oppression," he said in a statement.

The United States fired a barrage of 59 cruise missiles at Shayrat airbase in Syria early on Friday to push Damascus, despite its denials of responsibility.

Sadr, who fronted a militia that fought the US occupation of Iraq, also condemned the American missile strike, urging all foreign parties involved in the Syria conflict to pull out.

"I call on all sides to withdraw their military assets from Syria so that the Syrian people take things into their own hands. They are the only ones with the right to decide their fate -- the alternative will turn Syria to rubble," he said.

Several Iraqi Shia militias, some of them directly supported by Iran, are helping Assad's camp in the Syria conflict by sending fighting units across the border.

Sadr, however, is seen as a nationalist. His forces have focused on protecting the holy sites and his drive against corruption and nepotism has drawn support from beyond his traditional base.

During 2005 and 2006 Sadr's self-styled Mahdi army was involved in the sectarian killings which engulfed Baghdad. Hundreds of Sunnis were murdered by militias loyal to various Shia leaders. Hundreds of Shias were murdered in return.

But last month Sadr told Middle East Eye that sectarian militias have no place in Iraq.

Speaking from his home in Najaf he told MEE that he favours urgent dialogue with Iraq's Sunni politicians so as to prevent clashes sectarian clashes once the country no longer has a common enemy.

"I'm afraid that the defeat of Daesh [Islamic State] is only the start of a new phase. My proposal is inspired by fear of sectarian and ethnic conflict after Mosul's liberation," he said.

"I want to avoid this. I am very proud of Iraq's diversity but my fear is that we may see a genocide of some ethnic or sectarian groups."

The Iraqi government issued a statement in reaction to the events in Syria reflecting a difficult balancing act between its alliance with the United States and with Iran, a key backer of Assad.

The statement from Baghdad condemned the chemical attack, without naming Assad, calling instead for an international investigation to identify the perpetrator.

It also criticised "the hasty interventions" that followed the chemical attack, in an apparent reference to the US strikes.

MEE
 
very excellent advice.Asad should consider this because his own people are against him.If he resigns it will reduce tension in region although will not completely solve the problem but will reduce bloodshed to a great extent.
 
Iraqi Shia Arabs of all people should understand what it means to live under the reign of a tyrant. Sadly not all of them have understood this and use a tiny amount of people (ISIS and Al-Qaeda) in the wider picture in Syria as an excuse to support the Al-Assad regime.

This is return has meant that most Syrians hate them nowadays. In short, they are shooting themselves in the foot.

If Iraq was a stable country ruled by stable people/parties it would be no problem to control/monitor the Iraqi-Syrian border which is all desert anyway. Eastern Syria is also sparsely populated. There are no excuses here. Similar to how the KSA-Iraqi border is safe.

It becomes even more tragicomic considering the security situation in Iraq (ISIS is not defeated yet, there is the Kurdish question and 100's of other problems that must be solved) and the fact that those Iraqi Shia Arabs are used as cannon fodder in Syria.

Let's not even forget the destructive role of the Al-Assad post-2003 in Iraq.


http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/i...-not-aid-jihadists-former-official-1553468312

Al-Sadr is the best option as a leader of the Iraqi Shia Arabs. All his rivals are puppets of a certain theological regime. In any case let the Shroogis deal with their own peoples on their own. Now they are "rolling" themselves and doing a "great" job so far. Hopefully they will wise up soon for their own good.
 
We should let Americans to kil him in the past .....

Just and naive without any foresight who seek power ....
 
We should let Americans to kil him in the past .....

Just and naive without any foresight who seek power ....

@TheCamelGuy @Malik Alashter

This is what your "friends" in Iran want for Iraq and you. An obedient puppet ruled de facto by the Mullah's. The same people supporting one faction of Kurds (PUK) against the Iraqi state. Another non-Arab neighbor of yours (Turkey) is the greatest ally of Barzani. Erdogan too dreaming about self-rule/autonomy for the Iraqi Turkmen who do not even number 2 million people. On the other hand no Arab neighbor of Iraq has any territorial claims or any plans of dividing the country or making it a puppet of anybody. Good luck in alienating your Arab neighbors. Al-Abadi has done well so far but it seems that he is on loan given Al-Maliki's obsession of returning to power. Let alone the big number of traitors such as Al-Amiri and other puppets. Tragic what Iraq has become.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@TheCamelGuy @Malik Alashter

This is what your "friends" in Iran want for Iraq and you. An obedient puppet ruled de facto by the Mullah's. The same people supporting one faction of Kurds (PUK) against the Iraqi state. Another non-Arab neighbor of yours (Turkey) is the greatest ally of Barzani. Erdogan too dreaming about self-rule/autonomy for the Iraqi Turkmen who do not even number 2 million people. On the other hand no Arab neighbor of Iraq has any territorial claims or any plans of dividing the country or making it a puppet of anybody. Good luck in alienating your Arab neighbors. Al-Abadi has done well so far but it seems that he is on loan given Al-Maliki's obsession of returning to power.
He doesn't represent Iraq .... You miss vital point here .... He is rebellious guy who has so many armed followers ...
 
He doesn't represent Iraq .... You miss vital point here .... He is rebellious guy who has so many armed followers ...

Can you name a single individual anywhere that represents all people in his country especially in a country of 35 million + people such as Iraq?

The fact is that Al-Sadr is one of the most popular clerics in all of Iraq and political figures. He has millions of Shia Arab followers in Southern Iraq. Not only that he has significant and growing political support.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadrist_Movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahrar_Bloc

Anyway you don't understand any of my valid points that I mentioned.

Iraqi Shia Arabs will gain nothing from aiding an Ba'athi mass-murderer (Al-Assad and his regime) other than future hostility from Syria (Al-Assad and the 11% Alawis can't rule Syria forever) and also animosity from local Iraqi Sunni Arabs who have close ties to the Syrian Sunni Arabs across the border. The militias fighting in Syria are also not part of the Iraqi army nor officially recognized although the Iraqi regime (Dawah party) turns a blind eye to it as traitors such as Al-Amiri and other clowns have a lot of influence on the ground.

It's a wrong policy that will only backfire.

As for the view of Iraq by Iranians, we all know that Iran and Iranians want. An obedient puppet that has as bad relations with fellow Arab countries, especially the neighboring, as possible. Iraq after all is the bulwark against the remaining Arab world for Iran. When a strong Saddam ruled Iraq there was no direct access to Syria and Lebanon in order to meddle there.

Luckily more and more Iraqi Shia Arabs are waking up and questioning why 1000's of local Iraqi Shia Arabs disappear in Syria never to return and for what this is good for and also questioning the role of Iran in Iraq. They are asking why Iranians do not fight themselves on a larger scale but instead use mercenaries from abroad.

Surprisingly, at least for me considering the political/sectarian situation in the region, most Iraqi Shia Arabs welcomed the renewal of Iraqi-Saudi Arabian relations and other Arab countries lately which confirms that not all of them are a lost case.

And the more Iran and Iranians turn away from the official ideology of the Mullah's (Wilayat al-Faqih, Shia Islamism etc.) towards Iranian nationalism (completely allen thing for Arabs and non-iranians) etc. the more non-Iranians such as Iraqi Shia Arabs will be alienated and naturally turn away from Iran and return to the Arab fold so to speak. So I predict that Iraqi Shia Arabs won't save themselves (in the current regional political situation as their leaders brainwashes them with the theory of Sunni Arabs wanting to kill them all -scaremongering used to enlist those poor people to fight others wars in Syria etc.) but that most Iranians will save them indirectly by toppling/removing the Iranian Mullah's or either the Iranian Mullah's removing themselves due to their own stupidity.

The only thing we as Arabs have to do is wait and for things to return to normality. Time is on our side.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Saturday called on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down,



Good Advice ! But now Moqtada al-Sadr should be careful as he will be targeted by Asad allies and the blame will beas usual be pointed on Al Qaeda or ISIS
 
Good Advice ! But now Moqtada al-Sadr should be careful as he will be targeted by Asad allies and the blame will beas usual be pointed on Al Qaeda or ISIS

Al-Sadr is very powerful. Assassinating him will possibly create another civil war in Iraq this time among Iraqi Shia Arabs.

Last year his supporters stormed the Iraqi parliament in the Green Zone.

30-Iraqi-protesters-inside-parliament.w529.h352.jpg

iraq-green-zone-2016-04-30t122702z.jpg
&NCS_modified=20160430224039&MaxW=640&imageVersion=default&AR-160509990.jpg
2016-04-30T162713Z_01_GGGBAG70_RTRIDSP_3_MIDEAST-CRISIS-IRAQ-POLITICS-4749.jpg


 
@Sharif al-Hijaz:lol:

Shia Iraqi cleric condemns killing of 87 people in the suspected chemical attack in a rebel-held Syrian town

Sadr%20Green%20Zone%20Baghdad%20Mar%2028%202016%20%28AFP%29_0.jpg


Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Saturday called on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down, also calling on Washington and Moscow to stop intervening in the conflict.

The Najaf-based cleric condemned the killing of 87 people, including 31 children, in a suspected chemical attack last week in a rebel-held Syrian town that has been widely blamed on Damascus.

"I would consider it fair for President Bashar al-Assad to resign and leave power, allowing the dear people of Syria to avoid the scourge of war and terrorist oppression," he said in a statement.

The United States fired a barrage of 59 cruise missiles at Shayrat airbase in Syria early on Friday to push Damascus, despite its denials of responsibility.

Sadr, who fronted a militia that fought the US occupation of Iraq, also condemned the American missile strike, urging all foreign parties involved in the Syria conflict to pull out.

"I call on all sides to withdraw their military assets from Syria so that the Syrian people take things into their own hands. They are the only ones with the right to decide their fate -- the alternative will turn Syria to rubble," he said.

Several Iraqi Shia militias, some of them directly supported by Iran, are helping Assad's camp in the Syria conflict by sending fighting units across the border.

Sadr, however, is seen as a nationalist. His forces have focused on protecting the holy sites and his drive against corruption and nepotism has drawn support from beyond his traditional base.

During 2005 and 2006 Sadr's self-styled Mahdi army was involved in the sectarian killings which engulfed Baghdad. Hundreds of Sunnis were murdered by militias loyal to various Shia leaders. Hundreds of Shias were murdered in return.

But last month Sadr told Middle East Eye that sectarian militias have no place in Iraq.

Speaking from his home in Najaf he told MEE that he favours urgent dialogue with Iraq's Sunni politicians so as to prevent clashes sectarian clashes once the country no longer has a common enemy.

"I'm afraid that the defeat of Daesh [Islamic State] is only the start of a new phase. My proposal is inspired by fear of sectarian and ethnic conflict after Mosul's liberation," he said.

"I want to avoid this. I am very proud of Iraq's diversity but my fear is that we may see a genocide of some ethnic or sectarian groups."

The Iraqi government issued a statement in reaction to the events in Syria reflecting a difficult balancing act between its alliance with the United States and with Iran, a key backer of Assad.

The statement from Baghdad condemned the chemical attack, without naming Assad, calling instead for an international investigation to identify the perpetrator.

It also criticised "the hasty interventions" that followed the chemical attack, in an apparent reference to the US strikes.

MEE
Good step but its too late
 
@Sharif al-Hijaz:lol:


Good step but its too late

:rofl:

Actually many other Shia clerics have called for Al-Assad to step down and other Arab and Muslim dictators.

Anyway we cannot stop individuals, for instance an Iraqi Shia Arab from Samawa, to go to Syria and fight if this is what he wants. All we can say to those people is to look at the wider picture and to try and tell them the harsh reality and truth. Such frank speech might often shock them and change their view points.

The most optimal solution which I have always called for is for Iraq to be ruled by a patriot who does not care about ethnicity or sect and who does not allow his country to be used by neighbors.

Arab leaders are as trash as other leaders of the region but when it comes to people to people relations there is no people who want to see the best for Iraq as much as Arabs in particular neighboring Arabs if we exclude the small minority of sectarian radicals.



The comments show that blood is thicker than water.



See this and read the comments of people from KSA and Iraq.


Also see this video (31 million views)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHtb9F2zEDY

25% or so of the comments are from Iraqis (Shia and Sunni) and all very brotherly! Rest from all other Arabs across the Arab world.

This is the same in all Arabic videos outside of a tiny minority of radicals on both fronts.

Arabs as civilians have very good relations with each other it is the stupidity of a few, often the elite and those in power, that turn a loud minority into animals within respective Arab countries or against them.

Our generation (the young one) won't allow this to happen again on such a scale despite many outsiders trying to do their best to do so.

Cooperation is the only solution and making business in particular. Hostility (moronic) benefits nobody but outsiders and the few elites in power who benefit from this and order their dumb sheep around to follow their orders.

Religion should not play any role here at most make the relationship even closer for those who follow this religion be it Islam or other religions. Even Semitic pagans or whatever. I do personally not care and more and more people don't care either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Sharif al-Hijaz:lol:


Good step but its too late

Why did you change, you were always very pro Iran.

I doubt many in Iraq will have a problem with Sadr's statement, many including extremists like Wathiq al Battat admitted that Assad used to support Al Qaeda in Iraq back during the early days of the 2003 war. They don't care about Assad, their opposition is towards erdogans project in Syria which if succeeds makes Iraq the next target.

That aside, Sadr commands ~30-40K strong peace brigades which I believe are not part of the PMU but seem to act mostly in favor of the country and largely according to gov policy. He cannot be removed just like that as someone else said.
 
Why did you change, you were always very pro Iran.

I doubt many in Iraq will have a problem with Sadr's statement, many including extremists like Wathiq al Battat admitted that Assad used to support Al Qaeda in Iraq back during the early days of the 2003 war. They don't care about Assad, their opposition is towards erdogans project in Syria which if succeeds makes Iraq the next target.

Do you really believe that Erdogan has any influence in Syria or that Syrians will accept Turkish rule? Since when do Syrians love Erdogan or Turkey to begin with? They are nationalistic people like most Arabs. They won't accept foreign rule. They are only pro-Erdogan because Erdogan was anti-Al-Assad early on but after what occurred in Aleppo and what has been occurring in the past 1-2 years, Turkey's (read Erdogan's - because Syrians have nothing to do with Kemalists which are alien for them as are Iranian nationalist for every Arab and non-Iranian) has gone downhill.
I can't believe that you believe in this logic that an Syria without Al-Assad rule = Al Qaeda/ISIS rule = Iraq will be attacked afterwards. Especially not after the US has returned to Iraq to likely stay for a long, long time to come. Let alone this being impossible and not supported by Syrians or the Arab states. ISIS only rules Eastern Syria through intimidation. Vast majority of locals (despite being Sunni Arabs and conservative) don't support them in any way.

The Al-Assad regime is trash and any Iraqi supporting it considering what went on during the Iraq-Iran war (which in terms of casualties is nothing compared to what we have witnessed since ISIS emerged in 2013 and was blatant treason from the Al-Assad regime) or even post-2003 in Iraq, is not only trash himself/herself but also a traitor and a spineless idiot who cannot look at the wider picture or look towards the future.

Let alone the Syrian regime basically treating Iraqis as cattle on the battlefield. You should read what Assadists have to say about them and also notice the racist language they use against Southern Iraqis. Something they share with two certain other peoples btw. Great friends. I suggest that Iraqi Shia Arabs should make an official alliance with those 11% Alawis (2 million people or so) since they love them so much. A very strategic alliance for Iraq as a country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you really believe that Erdogan has any influence in Syria or that Syrians will accept Turkish rule? Since when do Syrians love Erdogan or Turkey to begin with? They are nationalistic people like most Arabs. They won't accept foreign rule. I can't believe that you believe in this logic that an Syria without Al-Assad rule = Al Qaeda/ISIS rule = Iraq will be attacked afterwards. Especially not after the US has returned to Iraq to likely stay for a long, long time to come. Let alone this being impossible and not supported by Syria or the Arab states.

The Al-Assad regime is trash and any Iraqi supporting it considering what went on during the Iraq-Iran war (which in terms of casualties is nothing compared to what we have witnessed since ISIS emerged in 2013 and was blatant treason from the Al-Assad regime) or even post-2003 in Iraq, is not only trash himself/herself but also a traitor and a idiot.

US presence will safeguard from external aggression, but with the current void remaining in some northern area's (Sinjar, Tal Afar(soon to be liberated) and other KRG/disputed area's) the wannabe Ottoman remains a threat and the US doesn't act strongly against him given that they're allies as well. Although these area's I mentioned are a short term problem as those gaps are likely to be closed this year it reveals the intentions of erdo. To counter that it's important that the SAA does not lose, Assad leaving seems likely to only be beneficial to that cause. Iraqis do not care for Assad, those fighting are motivated by religious or financial reasons. The official gov policy is neutrality though we both know they prefer an SAA victory. Whether that is with or without Assad is more up to Russia, Iran and USA, unless Iraq leaves neutrality and picks a side, then closes the airspace to either of the sides thus closing a vital (air) supply line but that's quite dangerous for a state with a weak conventional military and they're unlikely to do something like that as well.

Do you see Assad resigning and leaving the SAA intact to be ruled by someone else? Some leaders, Arabs often when they get power they won't leave it
 
US presence will safeguard from external aggression, but with the current void remaining in some northern area's (Sinjar, Tal Afar(soon to be liberated) and other KRG/disputed area's) the wannabe Ottoman remains a threat and the US doesn't act strongly against him given that they're allies as well. Although these area's I mentioned are a short term problem as those gaps are likely to be closed this year it reveals the intentions of erdo. To counter that it's important that the SAA does not lose, Assad leaving seems likely to only be beneficial to that cause. Iraqis do not care for Assad, those fighting are motivated by religious or financial reasons. The official gov policy is neutrality though we both know they prefer an SAA victory. Whether that is with or without Assad is more up to Russia, Iran and USA, unless Iraq leaves neutrality and picks a side, then closes the airspace to either of the sides thus closing a vital (air) supply line but that's quite dangerous for a state with a weak conventional military and they're unlikely to do something like that as well.

Do you see Assad resigning and leaving the SAA intact to be ruled by someone else? Some leaders, Arabs often when they get power they won't leave it

You quoted my post after I had edited it.

I know all about this logic. This has been the case since the conflict began. However it makes no sense. Iraq should be neutral and guard its Syrian border something that has been notoriously difficult since 2003. However it should not be such a big problem once ISIS is dealt with.

The best strategy would be to be neutral. There are many reasons for this but the most important is that the Al-Assad regime is on loan.

When the Al-Assad regime is removed, do you think that the average Syrian and future Syrian governments will forget quickly which countries/parties supported their oppressor and which did not? Not only that why allow foreigners to take advantage of your youth and for them to die abroad when their own homes are yet to be fixed?

Also don't forget that this will alienate the Iraqi Sunni Arabs which it already has. ISIS grew in popularity initially mainly due to their stance on Al-Asad and the fact that Al-Maliki openly supported Al-Assad. You cannot ignore this as the ties between Eastern Syria and Western Iraq are as between brother and sister. It is the same people (clans, tribes, relatives on both borders). Similar to Southern Iraq and KSA and most of the Arab-Arab borders everywhere.

Look, I believe that Syrians themselves should define their own future but what is evident for everyone and has been always, is that Al-Assad does not have the support of the majority and that is why he has been afraid of holding any elections for 40 + years despite calling himself a democrat and a republican. A minority compromising 11% of the population cannot indefinitely control the army either and most important positions in a state. It is bound to fall apart and we saw that it did so in Syria. This conflict was/is senseless.

I am afraid that Ba'athi rule of Syria and the Al-Assad regime and his friends/allied clans is not going to comeback or something that will be/should be accepted. There might be some kind of transitional figure from the old regime but that is the most that should happen.

Imagine Al-Douri ruling Iraq after Saddam or some other high-ranking official. Most Iraqis would never accept this. Same story in Syria.

As for Erdogan, whatever plans he has in the Arab world, none of them will be accomplished. You can rest assured about that. Where is this Turkish influence in Iraq for instance post 2003? How did it go with Syria? Forget the entire Arab world. It's just ridiculous. Same story with Mullah's and other potential foreigners. The same goes for internal Arab affairs. No single Arab state will dominate the entire Arab world nor should such a state exist. It makes no sense and will not be accepted. People of the region want to see more mutually beneficial cooperation (economic, social, educational, military etc.) rather than division.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom