What will count as a Victory for you in Iraq

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Sultan's original post shows a lot of cynicism. I would like to hear his solutions.

I must believe that region isn't hopelessly damned. They are just people... human beings like me and you. They have the same potential for good and bad. It's just the cultural atmosphere that's been building for hundreds of years has a stranglehold on SOME of them. Blind religious fanaticism, non-separation of church and state, tribalism, racism, despotism, barbarism, etc... those are just beliefs-- ideas that can change. 500 years from now, do you think the region will still be the same way? I don't... it's going to be a long struggle. It won't happen overnight, but there's got to be a starting point. The starting point has to be NOW.

I don't believe we have a choice, and what we are doing today is just the beginning of a process of change. It will sometimes be ugly, but I sincerely think that in 50+ years history will look back and see America's greatness in defeating religious facism and terror, and pulling the Middle East/Muslim community out of the dark ages and into civilized modernity. There's a lot of really bad people flowing in over there to prevent this, and it's a difficult road. But most truly worthwhile things are difficult. Iraq has the resources and population to be a very successful country. Staying the course... nobody thinks that Iraq will be a little America, but it can be a Turkey.

Well, the region is NOT hopelessly damned. They are of course people and what you perceive as barbarism or religious fanaticism is not perceived as such in Iraq or in that region. I refuse to accept your suggestion regarding separation of church and state. If the people in that region want that to happen, why should you or I or the United States impose their own will on those people?

In 50+ years, I believe this misadventure will be regarded as a bigger catastraphe in our history than the Vietnam war. Of course we will celebrate our soldiers as heroes (which "some" of them are) but the overall effect will be worse than the result of the Vietnam war. We have invaded a nation - wrongly - in the heart of the Middle East where already the sentiments of the people are very much against the United States for its policies such as immense support for Israel, hostility towards nations such as Syria and Iran and the unwanted military presence in nations such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, etc.

How do you argue that the Middle East/Muslim community is in the dark ages and not in "civilized modernity"? The living standards of many Middle Eastern nations is pretty good, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman have envious living standards. Malaysia, Indonesia and other Muslim nations also have a pretty healthy economy. Just because they have a different way of living does not constitute the community being in the "dark ages".

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: onelove

Originally posted by: Sultan
Speaking from fairy land, I would say the best option for the US is to pool the money we have allocated for Iraq in a neutral body, and cede authority of the nation to UN or Arab League command. That way we can leave. That way Iraqis wont complain we're there to occupy their nation and steal their oil. And we can ACTUALLY concentrate on the WoT

in other words, spend $120B/$200B (plus lives/limbs) in exchange for nothing? I don't think that's in Rummy's plan (regardless of personal views on him, I know he's smarter than that). Now that we are there, we should examine what benefits we intend to obtain from it.

Every time you hear the phrase "democracy in the heart of the middle east" come from buuush/cheney's mouth, replace phrase with "large US military presence in the heart of the middle east".

so what are you saying? that we must extract material gain after bombing the crap out of Iraq, killing thousands of civilians during the war and reducing the country into chaos? And then our government also insists that our presence there should not be perceived as oil stealers or military domination?

I think what he is saying is that nobody gets a free ride. If other countries want to help, fine. They can also help pay for it. I have nothing against contracting other nations to help with the reconstruction efforts. I'm also for more UN involvement. ANything to try and patch this mess up.

Additionally, we have not even considered taking into acount the hundreds of thousands of children that died during the sanctions!!!

You seem to forget that the sanctions came from the UN when Saddam tried to take over Kuwait. That is where the US messed up. They should have just wiped out Saddams army and supported a revolution then. To preemptively strike now based on the poor intelligence they had was clearly a mistake.

dont you think the common Iraqi would have UTMOST resentment against the United States? And do you expect the Iraqis to tolerate a military presence on their soil? Hey, look at the Iranians next door and see what happened there when the US supported the Shah. The revolution there turned a pretty decent nation in to a COMPLETE theocracy which we now label as an "axis of evil" :roll:

If it was a decent nation, then why did they revolt? Are they happy now? I don't know and don't really care. I also don't care if those nations hate us, as long as they respect us. By preempitivley invading Iraq, we squandered much of opur respect in the whole world and I don't think we can "buy" it back, we have to earn it.

 

[Sultan]

I think what he is saying is that nobody gets a free ride. If other countries want to help, fine. They can also help pay for it. I have nothing against contracting other nations to help with the reconstruction efforts. I'm also for more UN involvement. ANything to try and patch this mess up.

but I thought after WMD (false) reason and the link to terrorism (false) reason was thrown around as justification, we went to liberate Iraq. Do you say that Iraqis will believe they are free with all their oil being pumped out by American companies, a MAMMOTH US embassy in their capital and a substantial military presence also? As I said before, no country would like to help under the US Command or the US bidding rules, etc, etc.

You seem to forget that the sanctions came from the UN when Saddam tried to take over Kuwait. That is where the US messed up. They should have just wiped out Saddams army and supported a revolution then. To preemptively strike now based on the poor intelligence they had was clearly a mistake.

No, I do know who put the sanctions in place and you should explore the history of Iraq-Kuwait conflict but thats another issue. Regardless, the Iraqi's perceive the US to be the bad guy and the images of children dying through lack of proper medicine enforces that image in the Arab world. This perception may or may not be true, but that is how the US is viewed in the Middle East. You can look at polls that shows which countries have a favorable view of the US.

If it was a decent nation, then why did they revolt? Are they happy now? I don't know and don't really care. I also don't care if those nations hate us, as long as they respect us.

They revolted because continued US interference caused resentment amongst the populace. I dont know if they are happy now, and the relevant issue is not their happiness, but their hostility towards US interests. I dont think respect is demanded but earner. I also dont think that respect will prevent another terrorist attack. On the other hand, if people started liking the US, or even loving the US and not HATING us, that would for sure bring peace to this land and to the world.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Sultan

I think what he is saying is that nobody gets a free ride. If other countries want to help, fine. They can also help pay for it. I have nothing against contracting other nations to help with the reconstruction efforts. I'm also for more UN involvement. ANything to try and patch this mess up.

but I thought after WMD (false) reason and the link to terrorism (false) reason was thrown around as justification, we went to liberate Iraq. Do you say that Iraqis will believe they are free with all their oil being pumped out by American companies, a MAMMOTH US embassy in their capital and a substantial military presence also? As I said before, no country would like to help under the US Command or the US bidding rules, etc, etc.

I'm not defending the attack on Iraq. I'm only interested in finding a solution that works for ALL parties. It will obviously have to be a compromise of some type. Complaining about the size of the US embassy doesn't even have a purpose in this discussion. I also don't beleive you can speak for all the countries of the world as to what they are willing to do to help solve this problem. Remember, they are being terrorized also.

You seem to forget that the sanctions came from the UN when Saddam tried to take over Kuwait. That is where the US messed up. They should have just wiped out Saddams army and supported a revolution then. To preemptively strike now based on the poor intelligence they had was clearly a mistake.

No, I do know who put the sanctions in place and you should explore the history of Iraq-Kuwait conflict but thats another issue. Regardless, the Iraqi's perceive the US to be the bad guy and the images of children dying through lack of proper medicine enforces that image in the Arab world. This perception may or may not be true, but that is how the US is viewed in the Middle East. You can look at polls that shows which countries have a favorable view of the US.[/quote]

What's to know about Kuwait?? Did we make Iraq invade them? Please, give me a break. Iraq invaded Kuwait and they paid a price for it. We should have taken Saddam out then, but we didn't. If we would have, you would have been saying the same thing then that you are saying now.

If it was a decent nation, then why did they revolt? Are they happy now? I don't know and don't really care. I also don't care if those nations hate us, as long as they respect us.

They revolted because continued US interference caused resentment amongst the populace. I dont know if they are happy now, and the relevant issue is not their happiness, but their hostility towards US interests. I dont think respect is demanded but earner. I also dont think that respect will prevent another terrorist attack. On the other hand, if people started liking the US, or even loving the US and not HATING us, that would for sure bring peace to this land and to the world.[/quote]

As I recall they hated the Shah. I remember seeing the pictures of the revolters in one of the Shah's palaces with solid gold bathroom faucets and the "decadent" western live style he lived. The ME hates us no matter what we do. Unless we intended to completely take over Iraq we should have waited for the UN to agree. It's too late for that now. We need to have the elections and let the chips fall where they may. If the Iraqis have any sense, they should be all for that. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. That's all we can do at this point. Sorry, you'll have to take it or leave it.

 

[Sultan]

I'm not defending the attack on Iraq. I'm only interested in finding a solution that works for ALL parties. It will obviously have to be a compromise of some type. Complaining about the size of the US embassy doesn't even have a purpose in this discussion. I also don't beleive you can speak for all the countries of the world as to what they are willing to do to help solve this problem. Remember, they are being terrorized also.

I'm not complaining about the size of the embassy. i am not going to be the one seeing it. please dont pick one or the other phrase from my post. the Iraqis will see all that I said as US dominance and hence will have even more resentment towards the US. Period.

Last I heard, Poland was going to withdraw its troops after the elections. Spain has already done so. So who exactly is willing to help solve this problem?

What's to know about Kuwait?? Did we make Iraq invade them? Please, give me a break. Iraq invaded Kuwait and they paid a price for it. We should have taken Saddam out then, but we didn't. If we would have, you would have been saying the same thing then that you are saying now.

We're going off topic here. Invade Iraq, then or now, we would see the same results. Constructive dialogue is always better than a face-off. Containment is also better off than losing $120/$200 billion + 1000 soldiers.

As I recall they hated the Shah. I remember seeing the pictures of the revolters in one of the Shah's palaces with solid gold bathroom faucets and the "decadent" western live style he lived. The ME hates us no matter what we do. Unless we intended to completely take over Iraq we should have waited for the UN to agree. It's too late for that now. We need to have the elections and let the chips fall where they may. If the Iraqis have any sense, they should be all for that. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. That's all we can do at this point. Sorry, you'll have to take it or leave it

Yes, they hated the Shah but they did not hold hostages in the US embassy just because they hated the Shah. As I said, increased US interference will cause more resentment will result in worsening conditions for the US on the WoT.

 

[onelove]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: onelove

Originally posted by: Sultan
Speaking from fairy land, I would say the best option for the US is to pool the money we have allocated for Iraq in a neutral body, and cede authority of the nation to UN or Arab League command. That way we can leave. That way Iraqis wont complain we're there to occupy their nation and steal their oil. And we can ACTUALLY concentrate on the WoT

in other words, spend $120B/$200B (plus lives/limbs) in exchange for nothing? I don't think that's in Rummy's plan (regardless of personal views on him, I know he's smarter than that). Now that we are there, we should examine what benefits we intend to obtain from it.

Every time you hear the phrase "democracy in the heart of the middle east" come from buuush/cheney's mouth, replace phrase with "large US military presence in the heart of the middle east".

so what are you saying? that we must extract material gain after bombing the crap out of Iraq, killing thousands of civilians during the war and reducing the country into chaos? And then our government also insists that our presence there should not be perceived as oil stealers or military domination?

Additionally, we have not even considered taking into acount the hundreds of thousands of children that died during the sanctions!!!

dont you think the common Iraqi would have UTMOST resentment against the United States? And do you expect the Iraqis to tolerate a military presence on their soil? Hey, look at the Iranians next door and see what happened there when the US supported the Shah. The revolution there turned a pretty decent nation in to a COMPLETE theocracy which we now label as an "axis of evil" :roll:

I'm merely saying that this was a calculated venture - calculated to provide a "large military presence in the heart of the middle east". BUT, we are dealing with the situation as we find it today, not the situation we wish would have been had th US not invaded. You will note that neither Kerry nor Buuuush intend to pull out now that we have travelled this far down the road in Iraq - there's only choosing the least bad option now and trying to prevent disaster.

Yes people were killed;
yes, this gives validity to much of what Wahaabiism teaches, and validity to the cause of any Iraqi that is ready to give his life to kill american troops (or just americans generally) but this is the REAL WORLD. No fantasy land solution is going to help. The choice has been made to go offensive against states that are not going along with the plan.

I don't see the paralell you are drawing with our installation of the Shah - that it ended badly? that was a CIA intervention, not a full on invasion and co-opted govt. I don't see what you're driving at.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: onelove

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: onelove

Originally posted by: Sultan
Speaking from fairy land, I would say the best option for the US is to pool the money we have allocated for Iraq in a neutral body, and cede authority of the nation to UN or Arab League command. That way we can leave. That way Iraqis wont complain we're there to occupy their nation and steal their oil. And we can ACTUALLY concentrate on the WoT

in other words, spend $120B/$200B (plus lives/limbs) in exchange for nothing? I don't think that's in Rummy's plan (regardless of personal views on him, I know he's smarter than that). Now that we are there, we should examine what benefits we intend to obtain from it.

Every time you hear the phrase "democracy in the heart of the middle east" come from buuush/cheney's mouth, replace phrase with "large US military presence in the heart of the middle east".

so what are you saying? that we must extract material gain after bombing the crap out of Iraq, killing thousands of civilians during the war and reducing the country into chaos? And then our government also insists that our presence there should not be perceived as oil stealers or military domination?

Additionally, we have not even considered taking into acount the hundreds of thousands of children that died during the sanctions!!!

dont you think the common Iraqi would have UTMOST resentment against the United States? And do you expect the Iraqis to tolerate a military presence on their soil? Hey, look at the Iranians next door and see what happened there when the US supported the Shah. The revolution there turned a pretty decent nation in to a COMPLETE theocracy which we now label as an "axis of evil" :roll:

I'm merely saying that this was a calculated venture - calculated to provide a "large military presence in the heart of the middle east". BUT, we are dealing with the situation as we find it today, not the situation we wish would have been had th US not invaded. You will note that neither Kerry nor Buuuush intend to pull out now that we have travelled this far down the road in Iraq - there's only choosing the least bad option now and trying to prevent disaster.

Yes people were killed;
yes, this gives validity to much of what Wahaabiism teaches, and validity to the cause of any Iraqi that is ready to give his life to kill american troops (or just americans generally) but this is the REAL WORLD. No fantasy land solution is going to help. The choice has been made to go offensive against states that are not going along with the plan.

I don't see the paralell you are drawing with our installation of the Shah - that it ended badly? that was a CIA intervention, not a full on invasion and co-opted govt. I don't see what you're driving at.

I have already put forth a solution as I envision it to the end of US presence in Iraq. I dont believe we can see any benefit from this invasion, rather the longer we stay, the more polarised the Middle East will be against the United States and all the more Al Qaeda-like elements will spawn from the region. Disaster can only be averted if we monetarily help alleviate the situation and hand over the military aspect to a neutral body or even an Arab body, such as the UN (example of former) or the Arab League (example of the latter).

I dont understand how you bring in Wahabiism. What does that have to do with Iraq? Iraq has never been a popular center of Wahabi teachings. The choice made by being aggressive only leads to further the development of arms by other states who wish to use WMD as a deterrent - this is clearly proven by Iran and North Korea. Other countries might be pursuing the same in a more clandestine manner.

The parallel I am drawing with Iran is that continued "any foreign" presence in any other nation leads to resentment. Same happened with the Shah regime. The US involvement, interference, presence, whatever you want to call it caused resentment amongst the local populace who took it out on the Americans in the US Embassy and now the entire country is openly hostile against the United States.

 

[onelove]

re Wahaabism (sp?- whatever) referring to foreigners who will be drawn to the conflict in Iraq as long as we are there. The plan appears to be to "bring em on" and invite these foreign fighters to come to Iraq and take pot shots at our troops - bleed off the recruits (? - I dunno - what else is "bring it on" supposed to mean?). I don't think this is sound planning either, but that is the course we are on.

Turning the governance over to UN/Arab League is inviting disaster - Arab League is paralyzed as a body and does not have the collective military might to replace 125,000 troops. UN - maybe, but again, the whole goal of the venture is lost and there is too much $$$ tied up in reconstruction to turn back now. Your government is beholden to the rich and those who pay for access.

Yes, resistance will continue. I don't agree that "the entire country [Iran] is openly hostile against the United States." The government is hostile (for innumerable reasons, not all related to our intervention there). The peole are not hostile and the younger generation does not generally support the hard line government. (sound familiar, Gen X, Y, Z?)

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: onelove
re Wahaabism (sp?- whatever) referring to foreigners who will be drawn to the conflict in Iraq as long as we are there. The plan appears to be to "bring em on" and invite these foreign fighters to come to Iraq and take pot shots at our troops - bleed off the recruits (? - I dunno - what else is "bring it on" supposed to mean?). I don't think this is sound planning either, but that is the course we are on.

Turning the governance over to UN/Arab League is inviting disaster - Arab League is paralyzed as a body and does not have the collective military might to replace 125,000 troops. UN - maybe, but again, the whole goal of the venture is lost and there is too much $$$ tied up in reconstruction to turn back now. Your government is beholden to the rich and those who pay for access.

Yes, resistance will continue. I don't agree that "the entire country [Iran] is openly hostile against the United States." The government is hostile (for innumerable reasons, not all related to our intervention there). The peole are not hostile and the younger generation does not generally support the hard line government. (sound familiar, Gen X, Y, Z?)

I think you are mistaken about Wahaabiism. Wahabi is a sect of Islam which is very puritanical in form. They mainly take the Quran very literally. It has nothing to do with the conflict of Iraq and foreigners pouring in.

I dont know what could be more of a disaster, but the current situation itself is a disaster. If you believe the venture should be considered in terms of monetary gain, we've completely lost then. This will show to the world that the invasion was all about oil and military presence and nothing to do with freedom or liberation or WMD. This would mean all our credibility is lost (whatever little there is left of it) and we will never be able to cooperate with any nation to achieve an objective. And I dont think we can fight all the battles ourselves.

Yes, resistance will continue and grow. Again, I repeat, it is easy to think that we are fighting a war in Iraq, but it can easily come to our borders. You just need 19 people, isnt it? We've seen that. As regards to Iran, you may be right and I should not generalise. However there have been numerous protests by the people against the United States (and I agree they may be government sponsored). Nonetheless, I cannot say that the people on the whole support the United States We've already had worldwide polls which show a very high level of resentment against the United States in MANY countries. Also, I do not know how you qualify "The government is hostile (for innumerable reasons, not all related to our intervention there)".

 

[onelove]

I appreciate your dialogue and civil discussion of ideas, Sultan. I don't disagree with your view, only our perspective differs.

 

[Gravity]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I don't see any realistic possibility of anything I would consider a "victory" ever happening in Iraq. A stable, democratic, partner in the war on terror Iraq is a laudable goal, but I think it is a pipe dream. Not only do all the various factions want to advance their own agendas, there is a great fear of harm or discrimination if another faction comes to power. I think the best we can do is find a moment when things don't look too bad and say adios. Perminent military bases in Iraq will mean permenent conflict.

So there's no pleasing you then, even hypothetically?

I'd settle for free elections being held and a few months of that government in action with our support to reach some stability. I don't think we need to have a presence there but it's hard to say what other threats intelligence might flag in that region.

I'd like to see us out in 4 years with a sizeable decrease in presence in the next 2. By sizeable I mean 60%.

 

[Miramonti]

Victory would mean democracy. A real one and not a puppet one, one that is for everyone and not just the privledged and the influential. And one where voters could go to the polls without fear of intimidation and have confidence that the results won't be fraudulent.

The economy would grow but corporations wouldn't be corrupt and corporate thieves would be shot. The oil industry wouldn't gouge and manipulate its prices to rip the people off.

It would mean schools that teach the truth about the nations history and not some watered-down politicized pc version of its history. It would be a place where people could depend on the environment and not fear it, where they could swim in the water and not be poisoned and develop terminal illnesses as a result.

The women would be free to speak their mind and be free from abuse and forced prostitution.

There wouldn't be a fast food joint on every corner where most of the population of adults and youth aren't obese.

Different races would get along and respect each others differences. A religious fundamentalist group wouldn't rule the country and set policy according to its conservative religious interpretations for all citizens of the country.

The country wouldn't seek to expand its wmd program while portraying a public image that wmd's should be eliminated to make the world a safer place, and the government would be above all, honest with its people.


/edit: sorry, you were asking about Iraq not victory in the US. Iraq would be victorious if it would become a place truly represented by all, or atleast most of the iraqi people, free from being a terrorist/terrorism haven, and free from religious persecution, and most important of all safe for iraqis. And it would not split but continue to be one sovereign nation.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: jjsole
Victory would mean democracy. A real one and not a puppet one, one that is for everyone and not just the privledged and the influential. And one where voters could go to the polls without fear of intimidation and have confidence that the results won't be fraudulent.

The economy would grow but corporations wouldn't be corrupt and corporate thieves would be shot. The oil industry wouldn't gouge and manipulate its prices to rip the people off.

It would mean schools that teach the truth about the nations history and not some watered-down politicized pc version of its history. It would be a place where people could depend on the environment and not fear it, where they could swim in the water and not be poisoned and develop terminal illnesses as a result.

The women would be free to speak their mind and be free from abuse and forced prostitution.

There wouldn't be a fast food joint on every corner where most of the population of adults and youth aren't obese.

Different races would get along and respect each others differences. A religious fundamentalist group wouldn't rule the country and set policy according to its conservative religious interpretations for all citizens of the country.

The country wouldn't seek to expand its wmd program while portraying a public image that wmd's should be eliminated to make the world a safer place, and the government would be above all, honest with its people.


/edit: sorry, you were asking about Iraq not victory in the US. Iraq would be victorious if it would become a place truly represented by all, or atleast most of the iraqi people, free from being a terrorist/terrorism haven, and free from religious persecution, and most important of all safe for iraqis. And it would not split but continue to be one sovereign nation.

hehe. ok.

I didnt quite understand why you suggested Iraq was a safe haven for terrorist or terrorism. Before this invasion, there was nothing linking Iraq with terrorism, except ofcourse if you consider monetary relief to those who lost their children in suicide bombing as supporting terrorism, then you are correct.

 

[Ethex]

I didnt quite understand why you suggested Iraq was a safe haven for terrorist or terrorism. Before this invasion, there was nothing linking Iraq with terrorism, except ofcourse if you consider monetary relief to those who lost their children in suicide bombing as supporting terrorism, then you are correct.

Come on now Sultan, you don?t sugar coat it when you?re talking about ? the American Imperialist Forces? don?t sugar coat this. Call it what it is: Blood Money for the Murder and Intimidation of Innocent people paid to the Families of Homicide bombers for the purposes of recruiting additional Human bombs.

 

[Klixxer]

Death of all shias would be a start.

 

[AFB]

* US soldiers out of there
* A stable government (They should be given the power to change it to what ever the hell they want later)

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: Ethex

I didnt quite understand why you suggested Iraq was a safe haven for terrorist or terrorism. Before this invasion, there was nothing linking Iraq with terrorism, except ofcourse if you consider monetary relief to those who lost their children in suicide bombing as supporting terrorism, then you are correct.

Come on now Sultan, you don?t sugar coat it when you?re talking about ? the American Imperialist Forces? don?t sugar coat this. Call it what it is: Blood Money for the Murder and Intimidation of Innocent people paid to the Families of Homicide bombers for the purposes of recruiting additional Human bombs.

Saddam Hussein monetarily rewarded the families of those who committed suicide bombing. The United States has provided over $90 billion to Israel, a state that has committed acts such as the Sabra-Shatila and more recently the Jenin massacre. Hey, let alone that, I read of a Christian aid worker who was bulldozed over, and even more recently a group of Christian aid workers being beaten up by Israeli settlers. So if I am sugar-coating, I'd like you to put into perspective how Iraq is a terrorist safe haven while Israel isnt.

I am sure if there exists a Palestinian state with the same amount of American aid, or even half of that and had a sizeable workable army, the need for suicide bombers would finish and then we can all have a proper war rather than pizza cafe's blowing up.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Death of all shias would be a start.

Hi nutcase

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Death of all shias would be a start.

Hi nutcase

I knew you would react to that childkiller.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Death of all shias would be a start.

Hi nutcase

I knew you would react to that childkiller.

:thumbsup:

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Death of all shias would be a start.

Hi nutcase

I knew you would react to that childkiller.

:thumbsup:

Killing eveyone like you and those who are like you would be a start, am i wrong? Childkillers are not really human beings, just trash.

It is like taking out the trash, just like we did in Afghanistan, took out the trash. Your friends the talibans begged for mercy. poor little childkillers.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Death of all shias would be a start.

Hi nutcase

I knew you would react to that childkiller.

:thumbsup:

Killing eveyone like you and those who are like you would be a start, am i wrong? Childkillers are not really human beings, just trash.

It is like taking out the trash, just like we did in Afghanistan, took out the trash. Your friends the talibans begged for mercy. poor little childkillers.

:thumbsup:
have a beer :beer:

 

[chess9]

Leaving.

-Robert

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: chess9
Leaving.

-Robert

without leaving ur opinion? thats not nice, contribute nicely to my thread please.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Death of all shias would be a start.

Hi nutcase

I knew you would react to that childkiller.

:thumbsup:

Killing eveyone like you and those who are like you would be a start, am i wrong? Childkillers are not really human beings, just trash.

It is like taking out the trash, just like we did in Afghanistan, took out the trash. Your friends the talibans begged for mercy. poor little childkillers.

:thumbsup:
have a beer :beer:

I mean when you are not proclaiming your willingness to raping underaged childrend, both males and females.

You are trash, pure and utterly despicable, others of your faith are ashamed of you.