I think Sadr and Maliki aren’t as hateful of each other as the media makes it appear sometimes. They do have inter-Shi’a turf wars and what-not, but in the end these guys are two sides of the same coin. Over and over, we see these groups change hateful words but their actions show only collusion:

“…some members of Iraq’s governing Iraqi coalition have provided militias with protection.” BBC from when the Americans arrested Hakim al-Zamili

Similarily, in TIME magazine when the Americans played their little “surge” into Baghdad: “For the first time since the war began, U.S. forces had locked down the Baghdad slum known as Sadr City, haven to the militias and death squads loyal to rebel Shi’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Looking for a missing U.S. soldier, the Americans cordoned off much of Sadr City, preventing hundreds of killers from slipping out. On Oct. 24, the daily murder rate fell roughly 50%. It stayed down for more than a week, until Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki demanded that the U.S. end the blockade around Sadr City.” (TIME)

You re right, the parcel brought by the US, they gave these “black turbans” gang a freehand, they are against Sadr because he is not playing their game, although he is causing much troubles and doing big favor for them, but troubles uncontrolled by the US.

This is true Layla, but I still think that Al-Hakim is far more dangerous than Sadr, we all know what is Muqtada’s mind and what is his goal, Al-Hakim is a snake he doing many things behind the curtains.

What Cockbyrn is doing, he is legitimizing Al-sadr aggression and considering it as resistance