U.S. tried to kill Al Sadr by luring him to sign a truce

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
a few facts for those of you who keep throwing around the words "imperialist" and "pillaging"...

1) The only people the US military intends to kill in Iraq, or elsewhere, are terrorists.
2) We are not in Iraq to conquer land. If the insurgents put down ALL of their weapons, our military would spend the majority of its time building roads, wells, houses, schools, hospitals, and improvements to their infrastructure. The Special Forces will concentrate on cleaning out the terrorists, but the rest of the military in Iraq would not intend to kill ANY innocent Iraqi citizens.
3) Anyone who attempts to shoot or blow up an American automatically becomes our enemy. period.
4) al Sadr has taken up arms against innocent Iraqi citizens AND the US military. He, and all the other insurgents who attack American soldiers, are NOT "defending their lands from an invader." In fact, because the US is not in Iraq to conquer the lands or enslave the people, the actions of al Sadr and his friends make them terrorists. period.
5) Despising Bush for his policies and actions is no excuse for your embracing of those who would take up arms against American soldiers. In fact, there is NO excuse for doing so. NONE. Anyone who embraces or encourages the actions of our enemies is a bonafied traitor. period.

g'night.

Now, apply this same logic to a foreign power doing to the US what the US is doing to Iraq.

If another nation had its forces occupying the United States in the same way, with the same intentions - they'll concentrate on building our infrastructure if we don't attack...

No, you would sing a very different tune about our need to attack the occupier, I think.

The difference in your view depending whether you are the one occupying or the one occupied exposes the error in your ideologically-biased position.

You greatly understate the problem of our behavior, spoken like any imperial power.

With a foreign army marching around raiding American homes when it pleases, setting up arrangements for foreign ownership of 80% of our resources, I'm sure you would be out saying how they're not the aggressor and that we should simply not attack them because if they aren't attack, their intent is not to kill innocent Americans. Of course not - the message of an occupier, a conquerer, a colonizer, an empire, is almost always, surrender and you will be allowed to live. Isn't that why our founding father didn't attack Britain?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
I am *appalled* by the behavior of my government.

You DO NOT use peace talks as traps for killing your enemy, period.

I want anyone who approved of this out of power.

Note that there is only a statement from one person regarding this.

No-one else has come forward to back up such statements.

 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: Craig234
I am *appalled* by the behavior of my government.

You DO NOT use peace talks as traps for killing your enemy, period.

I want anyone who approved of this out of power.

Note that there is only a statement from one person regarding this.

No-one else has come forward to back up such statements.

If Al Sadr backed this up, would you still believe it? Do you think the Bush Administration/US Military would admit to this? I doubt it. But then again, they've never admitted much of their controversial actions until it was brought to light and interested parties started to investigate. I doubt it'll happen in this case since the intended victim has blood on his own hands.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: JD50
So is anyone going to refute what Palehorse said or just come up with some more lame one liners like "did you attend college" or "dude step away from the kool aid"?

Can you actually take his statement seriously? It's like arguing with a fool, they bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience. Palehorse's comment is stupid in so many ways it's ridiculous.

You and Palehorse need to put yourself in the shoes of those whose land has been invaded, waving the white flag and cooperating with your masters is unconscienciable (sic?). If you're going to roll over and surrender, then do away with the 2nd Amendment individuals like you cherish so greatly because it's primary intent was to empower the individuals to thwart an invasion, whether internal or external.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: Craig234
I am *appalled* by the behavior of my government.

You DO NOT use peace talks as traps for killing your enemy, period.

I want anyone who approved of this out of power.

Note that there is only a statement from one person regarding this.

No-one else has come forward to back up such statements.

If Al Sadr backed this up, would you still believe it? Do you think the Bush Administration/US Military would admit to this? I doubt it. But then again, they've never admitted much of their controversial actions until it was brought to light and interested parties started to investigate. I doubt it'll happen in this case since the intended victim has blood on his own hands.
Al Sadr or some one in the IRaqi government/military that worked in the planning of such an operation.

At present, there is one ex-Iraqi official that has stated this.
At this point it should be considered hersay.

 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: tomywishbone
"...Right now, Al Sadr is killing innocent civilians and killing Americans, that makes him our enemy, no matter how some of the sickos try to validate what he does..."



That's where we differ. I put right & wrong first. You put America first. That's the way it goes.

perfectly stated. Thank you sir.

Ah...so a guy that intentionally kills innocent Iraqis and US soldiers is in the right, thanks for the clarification.

So what exactly is your solution to this? Are you going to back Al Sadr and root for him to win since apparently we are the bad guys? Do you care that you are rooting for someone that is intentionally killing innocent civilians? Yes we made a mistake on bad intel when we went into Iraq, but we are there now. We have to finish the job and rebuild that country. Its kind of dificult to do that with guys like Al Sadr around, and even more dificult when you have fellow Americans rooting for this guy.

So do you think that we should just pick up and leave the country, completely evacuate the country as quick as we can?
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: JD50
So is anyone going to refute what Palehorse said or just come up with some more lame one liners like "did you attend college" or "dude step away from the kool aid"?

Can you actually take his statement seriously? It's like arguing with a fool, they bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience. Palehorse's comment is stupid in so many ways it's ridiculous.

You and Palehorse need to put yourself in the shoes of those whose land has been invaded, waving the white flag and cooperating with your masters is unconscienciable (sic?). If you're going to roll over and surrender, then do away with the 2nd Amendment individuals like you cherish so greatly because it's primary intent was to empower the individuals to thwart an invasion, whether internal or external.


I'm still waiting for you to refute what Palehorse said......Just curious, do you think that we should pick up and leave Iraq immediately?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: JD50
So is anyone going to refute what Palehorse said or just come up with some more lame one liners like "did you attend college" or "dude step away from the kool aid"?

Can you actually take his statement seriously? It's like arguing with a fool, they bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience. Palehorse's comment is stupid in so many ways it's ridiculous.

You and Palehorse need to put yourself in the shoes of those whose land has been invaded, waving the white flag and cooperating with your masters is unconscienciable (sic?). If you're going to roll over and surrender, then do away with the 2nd Amendment individuals like you cherish so greatly because it's primary intent was to empower the individuals to thwart an invasion, whether internal or external.


I'm still waiting for you to refute what Palehorse said......Just curious, do you think that we should pick up and leave Iraq immediately?

Those are his opinions and they are quite stupid. I won't argue with such stupid opinions, unless he or you can prove that they are the official positions of the United States of America. I'm not going to argue with him over his own opinion because it won't get us anywhere. If he used common sense and/or logic, we could having a starting point for a healthy discussion. For example, he labels people terrorists without giving a definition. He also has a very simplistic, almost childish, view of the conflict in Iraq and American interests there.

I supported this war from the beginning because I trusted my government. I've found out since that such trust shouldn't be by default. Now that I understand how the world really works, I simply do not trust this Administration to do what's right for America, let alone Iraq, anymore. Should we leave Iraq immediately? I don't see what prolonging our stay will do except increase the insurgent's kills of Americans. Face it, Iraq is broken. She can't be put back together like she was before the conflict. The best thing to do now is let nature take its natural course in that tragic nation. Let the dust settle on its own. I don't understand the obsession with Iraq and genocide considering 4 million Congolese died in the past 9 years and there was no international outcry. 4,000,000 people lost their lives and nothing happened. Is it because of some guilt that Americans will have seeing that they had a hand in a new genocide? Well, it's already started and we are there. We are already at fault. There is no going back. Let them deal with it on their own. That's the price we have to pay for getting into something we knew little about, unless you want Americans to continue to pay with their own blood and treasure.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: JD50
So is anyone going to refute what Palehorse said or just come up with some more lame one liners like "did you attend college" or "dude step away from the kool aid"?

Can you actually take his statement seriously? It's like arguing with a fool, they bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience. Palehorse's comment is stupid in so many ways it's ridiculous.

You and Palehorse need to put yourself in the shoes of those whose land has been invaded, waving the white flag and cooperating with your masters is unconscienciable (sic?). If you're going to roll over and surrender, then do away with the 2nd Amendment individuals like you cherish so greatly because it's primary intent was to empower the individuals to thwart an invasion, whether internal or external.


I'm still waiting for you to refute what Palehorse said......Just curious, do you think that we should pick up and leave Iraq immediately?

Yes :)
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I bet you're happy he's still alive, aren't you Narmer?

I won't even bother addressing this bullsh*t... that said, I'll admit it, it was my job to take up position on the sandy knoll! :roll:

get a frickin' clue already...

I'd bet you'd be happy if he died and was turned into a major martyr like his father. His father was killed by Saddam and his son would then be killed by a occupying foreign force of "infidels" in the eyes of most of the Shia population.

I'd bet you'd also be in full glee with the resulting increase in violence in Iraq over his death. Which you would then point to as another reason to "stay the course" of the cliff of no return. More violence begets more violence. A sword is liken unto fire and those who refuse to put down the sword will soon be consumed by it.


 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: palehorse74
If they stopped shooting at us, we'd stop shooting back at them. See how that works?
Is that how war works? We invade a sovereign nation and they are the aggressors for shooting at us?

:laugh:

I look forward to more sig-worthy material from you, sir.

The insurgents did not start attacking U.S. troops because they were invaders. A small percentage perhaps. But after Saddams regime collapsed and the brilliant decision was made to disband the military... it was realized that there would then be a power vacuum in Iraq. The violence happening is because sunni and shiites both want thier leaders to be the next saddam so they can rule the roost. Its our fault for not having a real plan after saddam was gone. So I can see the point palehorse74 is trying to make.

Had the insurgents not suffered from Bushitis they could have easily played the waiting game, but they decided to start their civil war with 140,000 U.S troops there.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: palehorse74

-snip-

.

I think Hitler said the same things to the Czechs, French, Poles, Russians, and Belgians when he rolled into their country. Like I said before, you come straight out of a comic-book.

If all those countries were by ruled ruthless dictators, and Hitler/Nazi's tried to help them establish a self-governing (perhaps even democratic) government, then you may have point.

As it stands now, you really don't. Hitler/Nazis != USA.

While I do not belive our actions were all about oil (with the exception that given the current world economy, Western & Eastern nations are highly incentivized to see stabilization in that region) I will be watching closely to see what develops with the Iraqi oil industry.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: JD50
So is anyone going to refute what Palehorse said or just come up with some more lame one liners like "did you attend college" or "dude step away from the kool aid"?
I'll start.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
We are not the aggressors in Iraq.
I refute this statement, because we made the first military strike against Iraq, marking the beginning of the war. Thus, I would argue that we are the aggressors in Iraq.

I'd say your memory's short.

Our "strike" against Sadam is the culmination of many aggresive events in the interm, and was entirely precipitated initially by Saddam and his invasion of Kuwait.

If he hadn't invaded his neighbors, we wouldn't be here now.

If he had lived up to his comitments, whereupon we withdrew and left him in power, we wouldn't be here now.

Fern
 

Tipsy Turtle

Member
Feb 6, 2007
180
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: JD50
So is anyone going to refute what Palehorse said or just come up with some more lame one liners like "did you attend college" or "dude step away from the kool aid"?
I'll start.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
We are not the aggressors in Iraq.
I refute this statement, because we made the first military strike against Iraq, marking the beginning of the war. Thus, I would argue that we are the aggressors in Iraq.

I'd say your memory's short.

Our "strike" against Sadam is the culmination of many aggresive events in the interm, and was entirely precipitated initially by Saddam and his invasion of Kuwait.

If he hadn't invaded his neighbors, we wouldn't be here now.

If he had lived up to his comitments, whereupon we withdrew and left him in power, we wouldn't be here now.

Fern


O no. Now you've done it. You went and used facts.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle
Originally posted by: Fern
I'd say your memory's short.

Our "strike" against Sadam is the culmination of many aggresive events in the interm, and was entirely precipitated initially by Saddam and his invasion of Kuwait.

If he hadn't invaded his neighbors, we wouldn't be here now.

If he had lived up to his comitments, whereupon we withdrew and left him in power, we wouldn't be here now.

Fern


O no. Now you've done it. You went and used facts.
What about these facts? I doubt we would be there now without them.

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003
Keep in mind this is only from the chimp, not his supporting cast (who also made fine performances on their own accord).
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: JD50
So is anyone going to refute what Palehorse said or just come up with some more lame one liners like "did you attend college" or "dude step away from the kool aid"?
I'll start.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
We are not the aggressors in Iraq.
I refute this statement, because we made the first military strike against Iraq, marking the beginning of the war. Thus, I would argue that we are the aggressors in Iraq.

I'd say your memory's short.

Our "strike" against Sadam is the culmination of many aggresive events in the interm, and was entirely precipitated initially by Saddam and his invasion of Kuwait.

If he hadn't invaded his neighbors, we wouldn't be here now.

If he had lived up to his comitments, whereupon we withdrew and left him in power, we wouldn't be here now.

Fern
I'd say you would almost be correct except for the fact that the transgressions you referenced were already dealt with with the first gulf war, and the corresponding UN Sanctions placed on Saddam.

I would be willing to agree with you if Saddamm invaded Kuwait, and no one did anything about it until GWB went to war with Iraq but that isn't the case.

He did invade his neighbors, and he DID pay the price for that. Which imho is separate.

"Our "strike" against Sadam is the culmination of many aggresive events in the interm, and was entirely precipitated initially by Saddam and his invasion of Kuwait."

No it wasn't about a culmination of anything, it was about a supposed threat that Saddam was to us in the USA. WMDs. Al Queda Ties. eetc etc lie lie.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle
Originally posted by: Fern
I'd say your memory's short.

Our "strike" against Sadam is the culmination of many aggresive events in the interm, and was entirely precipitated initially by Saddam and his invasion of Kuwait.

If he hadn't invaded his neighbors, we wouldn't be here now.

If he had lived up to his comitments, whereupon we withdrew and left him in power, we wouldn't be here now.

Fern


O no. Now you've done it. You went and used facts.
What about these facts? I doubt we would be there now without them.
You didn't actually disprove anything. As FactCheck.org so succinctly puts it, Bush may have been wrong but he wasn't lying.

There's no honour in war - never was. You lure in your enemy any way you can. It's too bad it didn't work.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: yllus
You didn't actually disprove anything. As FactCheck.org so succinctly puts it, Bush may have been wrong but he wasn't lying.

There's no honour in war - never was. You lure in your enemy any way you can. It's too bad it didn't work.
If the President didn't give us 'wrong' information, we wouldn't be at war. That disproves his entire argument that the war was 'was entirely precipitated initially by Saddam'.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: rudder
The insurgents did not start attacking U.S. troops because they were invaders. A small percentage perhaps. But after Saddams regime collapsed and the brilliant decision was made to disband the military... it was realized that there would then be a power vacuum in Iraq. The violence happening is because sunni and shiites both want thier leaders to be the next saddam so they can rule the roost. Its our fault for not having a real plan after saddam was gone. So I can see the point palehorse74 is trying to make.

Had the insurgents not suffered from Bushitis they could have easily played the waiting game, but they decided to start their civil war with 140,000 U.S troops there.
Agreed 100%.

This civil war would occur no matter who rid the country of Saddam - the U.S., Britain, Russia, the Chinese, aliens... Now or later, blood was going to spill over the events of the last several decades. The violence perpetrated against the U.S. is only towards one goal: To get the would-be peacemaker out of the way so the real war can start, Iraqi vs. Iraqi.

It's too bad the post-war campaign was so badly bungled, but more people should realize that the vast majority of violence in the country has little to do with the U.S.'s presence there, and much to do with opportunism. This is easily proven by examining the numbers of the dead at the hands of other Iraqis versus at the hands of coalition soldiers.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Al Sadr returns to Iraq

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6690915.stm

Iraqi cleric back in public eye

Moqtada Sadr, the radical Iraqi Shia cleric, has appeared in public for the first time in months.


US officials said he had gone into hiding in Iran in January, ahead of the US troop surge in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. This was never confirmed.

The cleric appeared at Friday prayers in Kufa, in eastern Iraq surrounded by bodyguards and aides.

His reappearance came as the US Congress passed a bill allocating $100bn of new funding for the Iraq war.

Democrats had tried to build timetables for troop withdrawals from Iraq into the funding bill, but President George W Bush vetoed earlier legislation.

Hours after the bill was passed by both houses of Congress, the US military reported that five of its soldiers had been killed on Thursday in attacks across Iraq.

In Baghdad, insurgents blew a three-metre wide hole in a highway overpass linking two Sunni districts in the west of the capital. No casualties were reported.

Popular figure

Mr Sadr, in a characteristically fiery anti-American sermon delivered in Kufa, demanded that US forces leave Iraq.

He led the 6,000 worshippers in the mosque in chanting: "No, no for Satan. No, no for America. No, no for the occupation. No, no for Israel."

Mr Sadr leads the Mehdi Army, a Shia militia responsible for some of the sectarian killings in Iraq.

The militia has become one of the targets of the US-led surge.

During his absence from view, Mr Sadr withdrew six ministers loyal to him from the Iraqi cabinet in an effort to press Prime Minister Nouri Maliki to set a timetable for a US troop withdrawal.

In 2004, the Mehdi army fought two serious rebellions against US forces but when the US began its security drive in Baghdad in February, Mr Sadr ordered his militants off the streets to avoid confrontation.

The cleric's brand of nationalism and populism has made him a popular figure among Iraq's Shia Muslims, but it is not clear why he has chosen this moment to return to Iraq.

'Next months vital'

He is one of the most important players in Iraq's complex sectarian and political mosaic, says the BBC's security correspondent Rob Watson.

One theory says he wants to reassert control over his militia, which is reported to be increasingly fragmented.

Our correspondent says Mr Sadr may also see a chance to strengthen his position in the absence of his great Shia rival Abdul Aziz al Hakim, who has left Iraq for medical treatment.

One senior US official described him as a highly unstable 33-year-old whose own aides often find hard to predict.

If he calls his militia back onto the streets of Baghdad they will run into the thousands of extra US troops deployed there in an effort to curtail sectarian killings.

Gen Peter Pace, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, said the number of sectarian murders had risen in May but was still well below January's level, before US troops began to be deployed.

On Thursday, President Bush said the next few months would be vital to the new US security strategy in Iraq and he warned that more heavy fighting could be expected.

He said the last of the 30,000 US troop reinforcements would arrive in Baghdad by the middle of June.

The death toll for American soldiers in Iraq this month - about 90 - is one of the highest since the invasion in March 2003.

About 3,440 have been killed since then.

 

Billyzeke

Senior member
Jul 7, 2006
652
1
0
Quoted from above:
Mr Sadr, in a characteristically fiery anti-American sermon delivered in Kufa, demanded that US forces leave Iraq.

He led the 6,000 worshippers in the mosque in chanting: "No, no for Satan. No, no for America. No, no for the occupation. No, no for Israel."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perfect time and place for an airstrike.

Flame on hippies.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: Billyzeke
Quoted from above:
Mr Sadr, in a characteristically fiery anti-American sermon delivered in Kufa, demanded that US forces leave Iraq.

He led the 6,000 worshippers in the mosque in chanting: "No, no for Satan. No, no for America. No, no for the occupation. No, no for Israel."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perfect time and place for an airstrike.

Flame on hippies.

Heh, and what would the US gain by killing Al Sadr? Nothing. The only thing that would happen is that someone smarter, who learned from his successors mistakes, and more radical, would take over (look at Hezbollah). So far the Shiites have been taking it easy on the US. If the Shiites join in Sunni style to throw out the occupiers it is all over for Bush.

Also this line of US propaganda in the article was amusing:
"One senior US official described him as a highly unstable 33-year-old whose own aides often find hard to predict."

Oh so that is why the US is so afraid of Al Sadr. :p
 

Bumrush99

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2004
3,334
194
106
Originally posted by: Billyzeke
Quoted from above:
Mr Sadr, in a characteristically fiery anti-American sermon delivered in Kufa, demanded that US forces leave Iraq.

He led the 6,000 worshippers in the mosque in chanting: "No, no for Satan. No, no for America. No, no for the occupation. No, no for Israel."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perfect time and place for a tactical nuke strike

Flame on hippies.

Fixed for Narmer who apparently believes all is fair in war. How about if the US played by the rules you allow for your terrorist buddies???

 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Originally posted by: Billyzeke
Quoted from above:
Mr Sadr, in a characteristically fiery anti-American sermon delivered in Kufa, demanded that US forces leave Iraq.

He led the 6,000 worshippers in the mosque in chanting: "No, no for Satan. No, no for America. No, no for the occupation. No, no for Israel."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perfect time and place for a tactical nuke strike

Flame on hippies.

Fixed for Narmer who apparently believes all is fair in war. How about if the US played by the rules you allow for your terrorist buddies???

Le them. I'd love to see the fallout (no pun intended).
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,439
80
91
Originally posted by: Billyzeke
Quoted from above:
Mr Sadr, in a characteristically fiery anti-American sermon delivered in Kufa, demanded that US forces leave Iraq.

He led the 6,000 worshippers in the mosque in chanting: "No, no for Satan. No, no for America. No, no for the occupation. No, no for Israel."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perfect time and place for an airstrike.

Flame on hippies.

Yep; we shoulda leveled the place.