New approach toward Al-Sadr Bloc
"The Al-Sadr Bloc, which holds 30 of the 128 UIA seats in the legislature, has boycotted parliamentary sessions in protest at a meeting between U.S. President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Amman last November. Six ministers from the Al-Sadr Bloc have also refused to attend cabinet sessions.The Al-Sadr Bloc’s boycott of parliament and cabinet sessions has not helped resolve Iraq’s problems and has even encouraged the Shias’ rivals, led by Hareth al-Zari, Adnan al-Dulaimi, and Saleh al-Mutlak, to gravitate toward the Al-Sadr Bloc in a strategic move meant to divide the UIA.
The fact that the Al-Sadr Bloc and the leaders of the Sunni minority are in consensus that a timetable should be set for the withdrawal of foreign troops put the two camps in a tactical alliance, but the veteran political leaders of the Shia majority repeatedly expressed concern over this unusual relationship.
In order to prevent the Shia majority from forming a government and taking steps toward democracy, some Iraqi Sunni leaders have taken a number of measures, such as organizing a conference in Istanbul to support Iraqi Sunnis and the fatwas on killing Shias issued by 38 Wahhabi leaders.
Thus, the meeting between the seven Shia political parties and Moqtada Sadr was an effective way to help balance the stances of this young Shia cleric, who is also the leader of the Mahdi Army.
Moqtada Sadr, who has a good understanding of the current political situation and the organized plots hatched by certain elements, has said that his supporters will return to parliament and cabinet sessions if a timetable is set for the withdrawal of foreign troops.
He also totally rejected the proposals to merge the Mahdi Army with Iraq’s armed forces, saying that would only be possible after the withdrawal of U.S. troops."
So Sadr had a quasi alliance with Sunni resistance leaders and needed to be pressured to get back into the fold of the Shia union. This makes it highly unlikely, that his Mahdi army was involved in the mass-murders of Sunnis.
Sadr still refuses to merge his militia with the Iraqi army, which means his people will not be fighting the Sunni resistance.
Also, interesting is that it was exclusively Wahhabi leaders who wrote those anti-Shia fatwas. Wahhabism is a Saudi-Arabian sect which originally was sponsered by British Colonialism.
Through CIA sponsered religous schools in Pakistan it was exported to Afghanistan. There also was a tiny extremist Wahhabi group in Kurdish Iraq under the leadership of the now deceased Zarqawi. They were in constant bloody conflict with the other Kurds and their facilities were destroyed at the beginning of the American invasion.
While the Afghanistan Wahhabis, the Taliban, are fighting the Americans, some of the Saudi Arabian ones under the Saudi princes are still under American control.
Some might think, that the Saudi princes with their lavish un-islamic life-style have no connection to their country´s state religion. But there is evidence to the contrary.
Wayne Madsen writes in his report from January 3, 2007
about the Saudi drug-smuggling connected to Italian intelligence and Russian oligarchs and the Bush crime family and about one of the main-actors Prince Nayif al Saud:
"According to the DEA Report, Nayif, asked by a DEA informant why he sold drugs, responded that "the world is already doomed and that he has been authorized by God to sell drugs."
In a press interview
(quoted by Rasputin on GNN in "The left Gatekeepers")
another Saudi, Prince Mahmoud bin Abdel Aziz, remembers young Osama floundering when guests questioned him about the interpretation of religious texts.
“Finally, I had to signal with my hands for them to stop it[.]”
So here we have it: Osama bin Laden is an "amateur" in interpreting religious texts, the American allied Saudis are "experts" and according to Prince Nayif, what they believe in are endtime prophesies.
This ties them in quite fine with Christian Zionists, Jewish extremists and some esoteric nut-case religions.
This also ties Wahhabism in with the Straussian neocons, who are themselves secular, but believe that religions are instruments for control used by the rulers ("the wise men") to pit one group against another.
For the Straussians believe that humans are violent by nature and can only be controlled and united when they fight other groups, nations or religions.
