Sadrists after the demonstration, and the security agreement’s misleading translation words

Mutiny

What west­ern media doesn’t tell you about today’s demon­stra­tion [see Reuter’s video] about the high-rank Chris­t­ian and Sunni rep­re­sen­ta­tives show their rejec­tion to the secu­rity agreement.

Few days ago I reported that the demon­stra­tions are part of a big cam­paign to reject the secu­rity agree­ment, and this con­firmed on the Lebanese news­pa­per Al-Akhbar who met the Sadrists del­e­ga­tion vis­it­ing Paris right now and said:

There will be a civil dis­obe­di­ence if the gov­ern­ment signed the Amer­i­can secu­rity agreement.

For­get Sis­tani because he is one of five high-ranked Shi­ites ref­er­ences. Accord­ing to Saudi news­pa­per Al-Watan source; the Shi­ites ref­er­ences are “uncon­formable” with the secu­rity agree­ment. You can see this in Aya­tol­lah Jawad Al-Khalisi speech in Kaz­imiya for exam­ple saying:

The agree­ment that gives the none-Muslims the author­ity on Mus­lims is reli­giously forbidden.

That is exactly what AMSI said in their newly issued Fatwa

The trans­la­tion

Green Zone news­pa­per Al-Sabaah reported that the polit­i­cal Coun­cil noted three remarks stand as obsta­cles in the final draft of the agree­ment. Two remarks are already well-known 1) Sol­diers immu­nity 2) timetable for the withdrawal.

The third is an inter­est­ing one:

The trans­la­tion issues, some of the words lose their mean­ing in trans­la­tion from Ara­bic to Eng­lish and vice versa.

Notice that maliki’s gov­ern­ment leaked infor­ma­tion on Aswat Iraq today say­ing that there is to ten­dency to accept or reject the agree­ment, the Polit­i­cal Coun­cil is study­ing the draft document.