• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

OP-ED titled-KILL MUQTADA NOW

ProfJohn

Lifer
I have thought this for a LONG time, years. Ever since I saw his ugly face on TV and saw what a trouble maker he was turning out to be. Although I first I wanted him arrested, can try him for that murder he committeed.
Taking care of this guy is one of the steps needed to bring peace to Iraq. Plus it may scare the other rats in behaving.
October 26, 2006 -- IT WAS wrenching to listen to President Bush's news conference yesterday. He's struggling to do the right thing. But he's getting terrible advice.

He's still counting on a political solution in Iraq. Ain't going to happen. And you can take that to the blood bank.

Our famously loyal president has one grave flaw: He's a poor judge of character. He trusts the wrong people. Then he sticks by them.

Bush met Russia's Vladimir Putin, "looked into his soul" - and failed to recognize that the guy is an unreformed secret policeman. He stubbornly defends Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the Pentagon's architect of failure. Now he's standing up for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki - a man who has decided to back our enemies.

I lost faith in our engagement in Iraq last week. I can pinpoint the moment. It came when I heard that Maliki had demanded - successfully - that our military release a just-captured deputy of Muqtada al-Sadr who was running death squads.

As a former intelligence officer, that told me two things: First, Iraq's prime minister is betting on Muqtada to prevail, not us. Second, Muqtada, not the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, is now the most powerful man in Iraq.

At his news conference, Bush was asked about another statement made by Maliki just hours before. Our troops had conducted a raid in Sadr City, Muqtada's Baghdad stronghold. The Iraqi PM quickly declared that "this will not happen again." He was signaling his allegiance to Muqtada. Publicly.

Oh, Maliki realizes his government wouldn't last a week if our troops withdrew. He doesn't want us to leave yet. But he's looking ahead.

For now, Maliki and his pals are using our troops to buy time while they pocket our money, amass power and build up arms. But they've written us off for the long term.

Does that mean we should leave?
Ralph Peters Link
 
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Ban
For what? I posted my coments on the article.
Just another attempt to shut up someone you disagree with huh?
Is your hatred for me that bad?
From the MOD
To keep P&N a discussion forum and reduce the amount of inflamatory troll posts, please post more than simple links or complete quotes of articles that can be found by anyone. If you believe something is important enough to post, you must have some opinion of your own about the content of the article or link.

We understand this cannot be a hard and fast rule. It is possible to state an opinion in the Title or Topic Summary of your post, but unless an article is of sufficiently earth shaking importance, simply posting the title or headline of an article would probably not be sufficient.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Ban
For what? I posted my coments on the article.
Just another attempt to shut up someone you disagree with huh?
Is your hatred for me that bad?
From the MOD
To keep P&N a discussion forum and reduce the amount of inflamatory troll posts, please post more than simple links or complete quotes of articles that can be found by anyone. If you believe something is important enough to post, you must have some opinion of your own about the content of the article or link.

We understand this cannot be a hard and fast rule. It is possible to state an opinion in the Title or Topic Summary of your post, but unless an article is of sufficiently earth shaking importance, simply posting the title or headline of an article would probably not be sufficient.

I guess I just thought it was obvious, but for the title of the thread. I'm pretty sure anyone suggesting that a "MURDER" be committed is soon to be history, again.

And that rule you quoted is for OP's, but you should know since you've been here before.
 
For what it's worth... I agree with you... I'm tired of playing mr. goody goody... It's time we lay the smack down... Muqtada should die.

-Max
 
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
ProfJohn

Topic Title: KILL MUQTADA NOW

Sure sounds like you are SCREAMING for murder.

He is just stating the title of the New York Post article that he linked in the thread topic.

EDIT: Ahh, I see John beat me to it, good job and I agree.
 
Yeah right, like that will solve anything. Killing him will bring another from the mosques. It never ends.
 
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
ProfJohn

Topic Title: KILL MUQTADA NOW

Sure sounds like you are SCREAMING for murder.
Click the LINK that is the title of the OP-ED.

Duh 🙂

I suppose if I post a link called "Kill Osama" you'll call for me to be banned?
 
Originally posted by: Doboji
For what it's worth... I agree with you... I'm tired of playing mr. goody goody... It's time we lay the smack down... Muqtada should die.

-Max


Yeah, killing him will do *so* much good.

1. There are others like him.

2. You will piss them off more.

3. You will cheapen our moral high-ground.

4. You will give UBL and others more ammunition.


Overall, only blood-thirsty warhawks who can't stand to admit they f'd up in the past 3 years would do this.
 
October 26, 2006 -- IT WAS wrenching to listen to President Bush's news conference yesterday. He's struggling to do the right thing. But he's getting terrible advice.

Wait, hold on. Let me shed a crocodile tear for poor George, he's ever the victim, that brave soul!
 
To kill Sadr is not a smart move (despite what I believed earlier). Firstly, to kill him does nothing in terms of what it does or doesn't stop. Those "death squads" are organized probably are out of his control because it makes no sense that he is supervising the 30+ kills a day that occur.

Furthermore, he is one of the lone shi'ite political groups that favor a UNITED Iraq, and in that regard we should be extremely interested in him. Of course he was also the one who said he'd help defend his "Irani brothers" against the US (Too bad the Irani brothers right now are most likely helping in the killings of Iraqis), which means we should be wary of him, but only to a degree. I say this because right now SCIRI is essentially the Iraqi government and their motto basically boils down to "TURN IRAQ INTO IRAN" we don't have a great pick of choices in the first place...and on that level SCIRI and Sadr seem similar.

To rush and kill anyone right now definitely will not help...but to sit around and watch our soldiers get killed and thousands of Iraqis die every few months sucks a big one as well.
Perhaps Bush should get on that "alternate set of tactics" he keeps preaching...such as making the reconstruction process transparant, such as setting a time table so that we can beef troop levels up 4 fold without Iraqis ready to kill us all since we HAVE a time table...
There are MANY options that we have and we should exerscise the smart ones...just because Bush put us in a crappy corner doesn't mean we should think like him to get out of it.
 
I'm not sure I agree with the idea that there is not a workable political solution to Iraq. Frankly, given our goals there, a diplomatic solution is the ONLY reasonable way to go...you can't kill your way to democracy.
 
Killing al Sadr would be one of the worst things we could do. There's a reason we backed off this guy a few years ago, he has enormous respect from Shiites who don't really like America, which is quite a few. If anything we should open a dialog with him and try to convince him to rein in his militias.
 
Originally posted by: Termagant
Killing al Sadr would be one of the worst things we could do. There's a reason we backed off this guy a few years ago, he has enormous respect from Shiites who don't really like America, which is quite a few. If anything we should open a dialog with him and try to convince him to rein in his militias.

his FATHER has enormous respect...A LOT of it, for very GOOD reasons.

Instead he is viewed as an amateur who doesn't really understand the issues - both religiously as a cleric/imam/sheik/bla and politically through his actions.

IMO the only thing he has right is he wants a unified Iraq
 
The problem with neocons, chickenhawks, or whatever these fools want to call themselves, is that they are no better than terrorists themselves. They want to solve their problems with an m16. They want to bring democracy via an F16. They want to force nations to do the "right thing." And they want to all this with other people's lives. Why can't they grow cahones like the terrorists and go to Iraq or Afghanistan and blow themselves up for their cause? Instead these fools want to send other people's children to die for THEIR beliefs.

And here we have another outlet of this neocon farce calling for the killing of a leader who they disagree with. What idiots.
 
Originally posted by: Narmer
The problem with neocons, chickenhawks, or whatever these fools want to call themselves, is that they are no better than terrorists themselves. They want to solve their problems with an m16. They want to bring democracy via an F16. They want to force nations to do the "right thing." And they want to all this with other people's lives. Why can't they grow cahones like the terrorists and go to Iraq or Afghanistan and blow themselves up for their cause? Instead these fools want to send other people's children to die for THEIR beliefs.

And here we have another outlet of this neocon farce calling for the killing of a leader who they disagree with. What idiots.
Do you have a solution to go with that rant?
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Narmer
The problem with neocons, chickenhawks, or whatever these fools want to call themselves, is that they are no better than terrorists themselves. They want to solve their problems with an m16. They want to bring democracy via an F16. They want to force nations to do the "right thing." And they want to all this with other people's lives. Why can't they grow cahones like the terrorists and go to Iraq or Afghanistan and blow themselves up for their cause? Instead these fools want to send other people's children to die for THEIR beliefs.

And here we have another outlet of this neocon farce calling for the killing of a leader who they disagree with. What idiots.
Do you have a solution to go with that rant?

YES. As others have mentioned, talk and work with the man. I know Bush doesn't like to talk to people he disagrees with (he prefers to kill or conquer them), but talking actually helps. Diplomats have used it for thousands of years and it's done wonders. Even apes communicate with each other without resorting to violence.

Sadr isn't the first or last person in Iraq that hates America. There are countless. But the arrogance and stupidity of not talking simply makes matters worse. If America thinks their above talking to such a man, then 3 years of stupidity, lies, and false hopes has taught them nothing.

 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Narmer
The problem with neocons, chickenhawks, or whatever these fools want to call themselves, is that they are no better than terrorists themselves. They want to solve their problems with an m16. They want to bring democracy via an F16. They want to force nations to do the "right thing." And they want to all this with other people's lives. Why can't they grow cahones like the terrorists and go to Iraq or Afghanistan and blow themselves up for their cause? Instead these fools want to send other people's children to die for THEIR beliefs.

And here we have another outlet of this neocon farce calling for the killing of a leader who they disagree with. What idiots.

Do you have a solution to go with that rant?

Yes, all of you admit you were wrong, step aside and let the Liberals you hate so much try and fix the mess you Radicals made of not just the U.S. but the world.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Narmer
The problem with neocons, chickenhawks, or whatever these fools want to call themselves, is that they are no better than terrorists themselves. They want to solve their problems with an m16. They want to bring democracy via an F16. They want to force nations to do the "right thing." And they want to all this with other people's lives. Why can't they grow cahones like the terrorists and go to Iraq or Afghanistan and blow themselves up for their cause? Instead these fools want to send other people's children to die for THEIR beliefs.

And here we have another outlet of this neocon farce calling for the killing of a leader who they disagree with. What idiots.

Do you have a solution to go with that rant?

Yes, all of you admit you were wrong, step aside and let the Liberals you hate so much try and fix the mess you Radicals made of not just the U.S. but the world.

Who would have thought Saddam was a good leader there?
 
:::YAWN:::

Killing One guy, one instrument of jihad, doesn't do you any good. Didn't killing Zarqawi teach you anything?

As I've said a hundred times: Until Islam like, German Nazism and Japanese Kodo after WWII, is completly discredited, disbannded or has a renaissance- all the instruments of the Jihad will continue indefinitely. We just killed one instrument out of thousands begging to take his place as a slave to Allah and his Borg death and murder cult.
 
Back
Top