Particularly in the wake of Iran's facing no apparent consequences for its abduction of the British sailors and marines, al-Sadr may be convinced that the U.S., along with the West in general, does not have the will to inflict any lasting damage on him or his movement. It is still a gamble on al-Sadr's part, however, and may yet be a catastrophic miscalculation.
"Al-Sadr calls for attacks on U.S. troops," by Saad Abdul Kadir for Associated Press:
BAGHDAD - The renegade cleric Muqtada al-Sadr urged the Iraqi army and police to stop cooperating with the United States and told his guerrilla fighters to concentrate on pushing American forces out of the country, according to a statement issued Sunday.
The statement, stamped with al-Sadr's official seal, was distributed in the Shiite holy city of Najaf on Sunday — a day before a large demonstration there, called for by al-Sadr, to mark the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad.
"You, the Iraqi army and police forces, don't walk alongside the occupiers, because they are your archenemy," the statement said. Its authenticity could not be verified.
In the statement, al-Sadr — who commands an enormous following among Iraq's majority Shiites and has close allies in the Shiite-dominated government — also encouraged his followers to attack only American forces, not fellow Iraqis.
"God has ordered you to be patient in front of your enemy, and unify your efforts against them — not against the sons of Iraq," the statement said, in an apparent reference to clashes between al-Sadr's Mahdi Army fighters and Iraqi troops in Diwaniyah, south of Baghdad. "You have to protect and build Iraq."
Ralph Peters has said that not killing Al-Sadr early on was a mistake. It's not to late to rectify the oversight, however. If he holes up in a mosque, then it's no longer a sanctuary.
"You, the Iraqi army and police forces, don't walk alongside the occupiers . . ."
Not because they are your archenemy, you are likely to get your butt blasted sky high.
Every Islamic "leader" never commits suicide, but always sends others out to die as they hide in some bunker condo.
When will Muslims ever understand their leaders are raping them and using them to die for their lavish lifestyles.
Why exactly is this guy still exhaling his foul air? Time to do a Yassin on this little fattie-fat!
Oh, one can hope for a *rogue* American sniper :-)
Show them we can fit asymmetrically too... how about it?
Time to stand aside and let the Sunnis go to work..
Time we got out of Iraq.
But not before Al-Sadr is given a damn good hiding.
By what rules of engagement is Al-Sadr allowed to escape a laser guided munition? Why isn't he being hunted down and eliminated asap? When will this fear of what others will think of us end?
Wonder to what extent this outburst is related to Iran's continued, un-appeasable belligerence. These folks work together in some ways, but are also egotistical.
Victor Hansen recently suggested that Iran's apparent desire to be bombed was a good reason not to bomb them. The rule may not apply to Al-Sadr, who probably just signed his death warrant. I'd say, give it 8 days.
Wasn't this guy on vacation (hiding) in Iran? I guess he's back from his Spring break... Now we're going to get more of his charming alpha male rhetoric broadcast all over CNN and the rest of those loser, wanna-be, News services.
It's time for the Iraqi government to step up and shut him up! But, no... They're too busy scamming the United States with empty promises in exchange for our support, money, and blood...
Oh, well... I guess it wouldn't do any good to assassinate Muqtada Al Sadr, as another "head of the Hydra" idiot would just pop up and take his place - that area of the world seems to be ripe with corrupt idiots...
Okay, I'm finished with my ranting. I'll shut up now and just watch the world fall apart over a religion of peace...
Cheers,
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
This is just smoke and mirrors. Sadr had to say something to appear strong because even his men were starting to wonder were he was at. Locals still believe he is hunkering down in Sadr city, everyone else thinks he has fled Iraq. He is a coward not a leader of men. Well versed in deception he can hide and appear to have made a stand against America. Sadr reminds me if some of our own politicians, they continuously whine and point fingers without ever doing any actual work. We give this clown titles like “firebrand cleric, in reality he is an average cleric. He only repeats the same tired mantra as the rest of them. Without this war he would only govern one small neighborhood.
but he did the same thing a few years ago, and yet the allied forces have still not arrested nor whacked him?
take him out!
Sadr should just die. The Sunnites should be blamed. His death should be attributable to Allah, and it should be said Allah knows best. It is an indictment to the U.S. leadership that he was allowed to live years ago after all the provocations then and until today. Sadr is attacking the U.S. directly while he feels stronger.
And here we go again...
My anger and rage at these ungrateful m'f'ers only increases...
We're the ARCHENEMY who gave you your freedom, asshole. We spilled OUR blood, wasted OUR time, and spent OUR money to fight for YOUR freedom.
What an effen waste that turned out to be. Would be sooooo different if they were grateful for all our sacrifices.
And y'know, what part of 'have patience' don't these ppl get ?? If they would QUIT BLOWING SHIT UP and QUIT KILLING PPL, we'd leave! I mean, it's REALLY quite that simple! But it's just like the situation Israel faces with the 'palestinians' ... Quit blowing shit up, quit killing innocent ppl, and you'll get your freakin' state!
UGH! Now I need a drink!
Theseus:
By what rules of engagement is Al-Sadr allowed to escape a laser guided munition? Why isn't he being hunted down and eliminated asap? When will this fear of what others will think of us end?
If we did this, we would elevate him to the status of martyr. He would become a rallying symbol of Shia politics.
We should get out. Let Sunni in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria worry about him.
Sadr is attacking the U.S. directly while he feels stronger.
Posted by: David England
It would seem that as long as this loudmouth runs his yap we can't really be on the Brits for their handling of the hostage crisis, can we?
WHY are we so loath to squash this fat bug?
Now he's gone from a nuisance to a threat.
We have a legitimate reason to kill him. Even if someone runs to the UN or some other "international court" next. I am sure Nancy the P will have something to say about it if we take this fat swine out. Let the dhimmicrats expose and reveal themselves further..
I read the symposium on
http://www.frontpagemag.com
with Robert as one of the panel, on why many Muslims depict Jews and Christians as monkeys and pigs. Seems like it's based on the holy texts, and also is a projection of their own feelings of inferiority.
Muslims are pretty interesting people, from a clinical point of view, anyway.
You know how al-Sadr wears a black turban? The black turban signifies a descendent of Muhammed! Right! Like he can know this after 13 centuries! roflao
Hope he gets a trip up to the XXX Paradise soon.
The Muslims hate Jews so much because the Jews of the time rejected Muhammed as a false prophet. I'm sure Christians in that area at that time must have too. Anyone have any info regarding this?
I'm sick of this punk Al-Sadr. Where would he be if the U.S. didn't sacrifice our own blood and treasure ousting his arch enemy Saddam Hussein? He's a cowardly, opportunistic, snaggle-toothed douchebag.
Hey, DARCY - Read Robert Spencer's "The Truth About Mohammed". He goes into how Mo cadged ideas from both Judaism and Christianity and then when the Jews and Christians didn't go along he became vengeful. From the Quran,
Jews = "Those who have incurred Allah's wrath."
Christians = "Those who have gone astray."
I guess you can find some stray Christians at the pound. Woof!
Muslims are pretty interesting people, from a clinical point of view, anyway.
Posted by: jewdog
You got *that* right!
I think the time has come for our military to start playing them both against each other... I mean the Sunnis and the Shiites.
Letting Saddam hang means we should "sacrifice" a Shia to "placate" the Sunnis. Hey, if it happens to be this fatso Sadr.. it couldn't happen to a nicer guy..
Report: Al-Sadr calls for attacks on U.S. troops
Ah, the fruits of GWB, the Conservative Christian, the "War on Terror," the CIA and "intelligence" "experts."
Remember all those reports of Marines dying? Of "holy city this and holy city that?" Of the sanctity of this "holy mosque and that holy mosque?" for YEARS???
Well, enjoy. He's the US's boy in durka durkastan.
You will never get to address the external enemies until the internal enemies are addressed.
Al-Sadr should have been taken out as soon as he reared his ugly face in the early stages of the war. Now he sits in iran spouting his garbage. Americas continued failure to remove its enemies is perplexing.
Why haven't we killed this guy?
All right! Enough is enough!
If they don't send the boys after this guy and get him for good, I've really had it!
I'll be on the Impeach Bush committee.
I am truly sick and tired of this crap.
If they don't surge for al Sadr I'm really going to get seriously pissed off.
Month after month, year after year and we keep asking why is this guy still around? Why is he and his mahdi army aloud too continiuosly direct attacks on American, and coalition troops? Why is he seemingly off limits to our military? Is it because of the political clout that he wields in the Iraqi Government? Time and time again President Bush told us that he would not allow this war to be conducted by politics because it would put to many American troops lives at stake. And yet what have we been witnessing, but the open blatant use of politics in conducting this war. We have capitulated to an Iraqi Government that does not deserve to be in place while a war is being fought, an Iraqi government that is predominatley Sheite, a goverment that wants to impose political Islam (SHARIA) instead of a more secular type government. We have even seen PM Malaki telling our military to stay out of Al Sadrs city and compounds. A continous failure to understand the historic conflicts between sunni, and shia has continued to bring incredible wasted opportunities to stabilize this country.
Lame Cherry
"When will Muslims ever understand their leaders are raping them and using them to die for their lavish lifestyles."
Why would they? This is their faith. This is how muslims live their lives. A few have power and live like kings and the rest wait for paradise. This is different then communism or the run of the mill dictatorship in this one fact. This is a religion. The word of god.
Now you see why Hugh is right on this one. We are not dealing with a few bad apples but in fact with a hostile population. Bringing freedom to a hostile population does no good. You have to crush them etc. Unless you want to purge the entire clerical structure of Islam in Iraq no peace can be obtained with the USA for any real period of time. The 2nd strategy is to put up a puppet dictator who will do the killing for you. The 3rd option is the Hugh plan.
You know where I stand...let em have at it.
Kay:
All right! Enough is enough!
If they don't send the boys after this guy and get him for good, I've really had it!
Be careful, you might get what you wish for.
And if he was dead, Shias in Iran & Iraq might go absolutely catatonic in warfare. They will certainly regard him as a martyr. Iraq might go from being merely hell to majorly armageddon. Sucide bombs might from 1-2 a day to 20 a day.
Best policy might to issue some propaganda on him on a daily basis. Question his decisions, mock him. Who knows - it might sow discord among the Shia.
You have to remember that Muqtada Al'Sadr is still trying to fill his father's shoes who was a famous Ayatollah. Muqtada has has some clashes with Ayatollah Sistani, who is regarded as the main spiritual leader for Iraq's Shias. Muqtada is regarded as a firebrand.
I wondering between
a) capture him and keep him in solitary confinement
b) capture him and give him to the Sunnis - make sure the Shia know this
c) counter his propaganda
Doctor Bulldog
"It's time for the Iraqi government to step up and shut him up! But, no... They're too busy scamming the United States with empty promises in exchange for our support, money, and blood..."
Sadr is part of Iraqi government!
Your tax payers money I am sure is in his pocket!
UK Infidel Lover
How about this...
Leave Iraq and let the sunnis worry about him. He will even the body count!
Naw, I couldn't have guest it!!!!!!?!
I wouldn't have guest this in a million years either, why would the New Pope say the war in Iraq is turning out to be just a big bloody battle? Seems that was counter pro-? I am not feeling well, can anyone tell me? He looks so old and so scared it could just be that but he is not holding to conquering the truth?! Like Pope Paul!
What upsets me most is that the US military had Sadr holed up, and they could not finish up the bastard because the Iraqi gov't did not allow it. well take off your freakin gloves US and do this guy in right now!
Attacks on the Shi'a militia by the Americans merely have hastened, in some Shi'a minds,the timetable according to which they will call for the ouster of the Americans. Moqtada al-Sadr is only the first, and he wants them out because he has concluded that they stand in his way, by being willing to fight the Shi'a as well as the Sunnis. But SCIRI and Da'wa members will differ only as to the timetable: they still think the Americans can fight and die in Anbar Province for them, and also they think the longer the Americans stay, the more time that gives the Shi'a to get their hands on some of that awfully attractive American equipment, or perhaps will in the end cause the Americans to have to leave in such haste that the equipment will of necessity be left behind. But there are, out of 27 million Iraqis, less than a million of the Arabs to be counted on -- far less.
In the end, however, intelligent policy should be made without reference to Moqtada al-Sadr, and whether he leads demonstrations to get the Americans to leave, or begs them to stay. It should make no difference in the calculation of American interest. Nor should officers in Iraq allow themselves to be swayed by the occasional Iraqi military officer who seems genuiinely patriotic, and possibly even trustworthy. It is the masses of Iraqis, and not the odd exception, that should be consided when policies are being formulated, not for the good of Iraq, but for the good of the Americans and other Infidels.
A relevant posting from a year ago:
Fitzgerald: Time to go. Long past time
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses various reasons the different Iraqi factions have for wanting American troops to stay in the country:
I have been asked: "Will not the Shi’a, once they feel empowered and secure, not ask us to leave and exact a bloody revenge on the Sunni?" The mere asking of such a question is telling: the part about will they not "ask us to leave" at a certain point.
Of course they will. But not before having kept us around, if they can, as long as possible, for several reasons. The most important is to have the American soldiers do as much of the fighting and dying and getting wounded as possible on behalf of the "government of Iraq" -- i.e. the Shi'a who now control the "government of Iraq." The second is to make sure that as much money as possible is inveigled out of those Americans -- and how many Iraqis are now living high, including those who escaped abroad, with loot from the generous and freespending Infidels, winning hearts, winning minds, spending like there was no tomorrow. The more time the Americans spend there, the more money they are likely to hand out. The more time they spend in Iraq, the more likely it is that they, those Americans, will keep building that absurd $595 million dollar monument to a fantasy, that American Embassy complex in the Green Zone that will never, ever, serve the function, or be filled with the personnel, that were so blithely envisioned when that ridiculous project was begun three years ago.
The longer the Americans stick around, the more likely it is that they can be inveigled into handing over all kinds of military equipment, on the theory that "without it" the "Iraqis" can't function, can't protect themselves. The American generals, or some of them (not Abizaid, probably, but hearts-and-minds Chiarelli, and Casey, and some of the others) will find that plausible. The Administration will find that plausible. It isn't enough, after all, to train the "Iraqis" to be a real fighting force, and thus to create the best-trained Arab Muslim army in the Middle East. No, we must arm it better -- after all, aren't they going to be our permanent friends? Otherwise, why would we have spent all the money we already have spent? Why would we be building that $595 million dollar embassy complex? No, having spent so much, now's not the time to become suspicious -- let's give the Iraqis what they so desperately need. That is the Iraqi calculation.
But the telling part of the question above is that business of when they "ask us to leave." When, in god's name, did the disposition of American soldiers become a matter of waiting around to be told when to stay or go by others, and especially by others who are innately, irreducibly, immutably hostile -- hostile every time they hear a Qur'anic recitiation, hostile when they read the Hadith, hostile when they leave Friday Prayers after a horrific anti-Infidel khutba is fierily delivered, hostile even if they never read the Qur'an and never attend a mosque because the atmospherics and attitudes of Islam suffuse every part of society, so only a few, the advanced, Westernized, few, can conceivably escape from this general attitude?
Why in god's name do we accept the very idea that American officers and men must stay until the "Iraqis" (the non-existent Iraqis) tell us that we can go, tell us that they have "stood up" sufficiently in their own minds, so that we can "stand down"? They want us there for other reasons, for as long as possible. And I haven't even gotten to why the Sunnis might want us to stay as well, for they may see us as their protectors from the full viciousness of Shi'a-trained police and army units. And then there is the Iranian side -- the Iranians want us to stay, bogged down, and also close to possible Iranian retaliation should any attack be made on their nuclear project. Thus it is entirely conceivable that the Americans may now be holding back the Israelis from doing what the Israelis can hardly be expected to refrain from doing at some point, if the United States continues to dither about it. For after all, Ahmadinejad has called for Israel's destruction, and there is no doubt that he is willing to endure casualties in return for that destruction -- a small price to bring about the Mahdi's return, and everything wonderful. So the Iranians, too, have a stake in keeping the Americans there.
And even if one side were to decide that they wanted the Americans to leave, what would the other side then do? It would immediately scream that the Americans "ruined things" and "they must stay" and "protect us." In other words, the Tarbaby of Iraq will never ask us to unstick ourselves. The American government has to stop allowing its policies to be held hostage either by the behavior, or capacity, or express wishes of some "Iraqi" government. It should make up its own mind as to what is best for America.
And here is what the American government should do, after the failures of Maliki to complete a government, after his outrageous denunciation of putative American attacks -- a "common occurrence" in his view -- on civilians: announce a complete withdrawal, within a few months, to be completed within six months. And leave, and leave no equipment behind. Let them "stand up" then, or not, as they see fit or are able. And stop work on the damned embassy. And show that the hopelessness of creating an "Iraq" out of disparate and hostile groups has been recognized, and now a different, cooler and for some crueler strategy will be implemented. And it will now be up to the Muslims, in and out of Iraq, to make that situation work for them -- for otherwise it will work for us.
And while both Sunnis and Shi'a jockey and appeal to co-religionists outside of Iraq, other states in the area should be read the riot act, for we will no longer be needing them to preposition troops at bases -- and that should begin with Qatar, a state whose ruling family gives refuge to Al-Jazeera, tips off Al-Qaeda members, and financially supports Hamas. That can continue, but it can't continue with American bases, and implied American protection against Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia (the three regional bullies). No, Qatar will be on its own.
Stop waiting to be asked, like an anxious guest who won't leave until the host starts to yawn and direct him toward the door. We don't have to wait for what the "Iraqis" want. And those various "Iraqis" may vary, over time, in whether they want us to stay or to go -- a decision they will make only on the basis of what's in it for them, never on the basis of what might further American interests.
Time to go. Long past time.
[Posted by Hugh at June 6, 2006 09:06 AM]
Does this make sence tomorrow Sadr to have demonstration against the Americans! They are practicing their democracy rights before the dumb bastards are free to do so! These are all the ones in his army, and his peons! Wonder what their deterrent, is? Wave their right hand so you don't see what they are doing with the left!
Guess that says it!. Booted out, of boot camp!
Good night Hugh,, goodnight chet..,, goodnight! Wait for the experts,, si' buenos nochas'..
Leaving Iraq now is not 'Failure' or 'Defeat' as some would argue.
If the war was about WofMD then mission accomplished: none there, Sadam is not hanging around any more to pretend otherwise. Next, let the blow torch turn on Iran.
On the other hand, 'Defeat' IS the continued dependence on ME oil. This current president (and previous ones) is pretending otherwise and is doing sweet FA about the core issue of billions upon billions flowing into the Islamic regions.
For every drop of ME oil, America is paying twice - with the second payment being in blood.
"the U.S., along with the West in general, does not have the will to inflict any lasting damage on him or his movement."
the U.S., along with the West, shouldn't be inflicting any lasting damage on him or his movement; The Iragi government and people should be doing that.
Al-Sadr couldn't exist if there was any real opposition to him in Iraq.
Either they want freedom or they want Al-Sadr. Tell them that bluntly, and if they don't do anything about him, we should get out. Period.
raven_:
On the other hand, 'Defeat' IS the continued dependence on ME oil. This current president (and previous ones) is pretending otherwise and is doing sweet FA about the core issue of billions upon billions flowing into the Islamic regions.
But on that, you can blame the American public.
No President dares pull the rug of Oil dependency from under the American public.
It is like being hooked on crack cocaine.
But I am not singling out the USA from all Western nations (although, due to big country, it is more dependent than most), we are all like this.
It will be unpopular, but there should be more carrots and sticks in terms of passing laws and placing taxes so that alternative energies, more efficient cars, other transport, green measures etc become the norm.
If Americas barrels of oil per year decreased, then at that point, I will know you are on the right track.
OT:
Check out the site of a yo-yo that's shown up at my blog --
http://hatewatchhallofshame.blogspot.com/
We're all Islamophobes to people like this.
To me, these sorts are worse enemies than the Islamists.
Hugh! Dear heart! It matters!
It will appease those of us here on the mainland USA!
It will do wonders for our morale.
We need it.
Get him, ship him to Gitmo.
Jihad Watch even gets a mention:
Types of Hate Mongers: Islamophobes
Rev. Sutter told me to "read a Koran" tonight.
I'm still laughing.
Shooting, hanging or explosion -- I don't care how Sadr gets it, but this murdering bastard should be priority target #1 for the U.S. Special Forces in Iraq right now.
Rational, you are completely right.
Either we get this guy or we get the hell out!
Enough is enough!
take them all out in one mass air/missile raid as soon as they converge
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6537861.stm
"Thousands of supporters of the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr are converging on the holy city of Najaf to hold mass demonstrations."
if the allies don't act on this one then they have not a clue on how to fight a war and defeat radical islam.
can you imagine if a million nazis converged on berlin at the height of WW2 and the allied air command simply ignored such a hgih profile military target?
Catmeat Sheik updates:
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/04/07/catmeat-sheik-hilali-sacked-but-not-really/
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/04/08/happy-easter/
Remember Michelle Leslie?
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/04/08/remember-michelle-leslie/
From 2 years and 9 months ago:
Al-Sadr Must Be Eliminated
Al-Sadr says we are in Iraq to kill the Mahdi.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-sadr.htm
Is it not always the way of a demos (i.e., the masses) to put forward one man as its special champion and protector and cherish and magnify him? This, then, is plain, when a tyrant arises he sprouts from a protectorate root and from nothing else.
-Plato
Bad: This particular ‘protectorate root’ numbers in the tens of millions, if not more.
Good: I just have a hard time thinking of Al Sadr as a tyrant. The cream always rises to the top and there’s a certain comfort knowing that Mookie is the man.
Al-Sadr says we are in Iraq to kill the Mahdi.
come to think of it.. not a bad idea...
The site (ludicrously named the "hatewatchhallofshame") to which a link is given above contains this:
"The most famous Islamophobes are the likes of Bruce Tefft, Pat Robertson, and can be frequently found at WorldNet Daily, Frontpage Mag, jihadwatch.com, and in numerous online forums. These people are absolutely insistent that we must make war on all of Islam, on every Muslim, worldwide, that we must start new crusades."
This grotesque misrepesentation is especially unfitting in the case of this site. If JihadWatch is a site that insists "we must make war on all of Islam, on every Muslim, worldwide etc." then it is going about this in a most peculiar way, for a major theme at this site has been that there is no need to "make war" in the conventional sense on "all of Islam" and that, in particular, in Iraq it would be best for Infidels not to "make war on all of Islam" but to remove American forces (save for a few thousand British troops, with all the other members of the "Coalition" contributing a handful each) so that the fissures within Islam can be allowed to widen on their own, and with the Americans out of the way, Muslims deal with Muslims as they see fit. And there is very little emphasis here on military warfare at all -- the site has simply been misunderstood.
The next paragraph is this:
"PLEASE NOTE: I had previously included Daniel Pipes in the list of Islamophobes. Dr. Pipes has assured me that he does indeed make a distinction between Muslim extremists and moderate Muslims, and pointed out specific columns where he encourages the growth and recognition of moderate Islam. A series of his articles about this distinction can be found at http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/390 I apologize to Dr. Pipes and to my readers for my mistake and any inconvenience it may have caused."
That Pipes is still insisting that he carefully "makes a distinction between Muslim extremists and moderate Muslims" (rather than point out that the phrase "moderate Muslims" is most unhhelpful and even dangerous -- see "Ten Thinks to Think When Thinking About Moderate Muslims") and that he further continues to insist on the usefulness of encouraging "the growth and recognition of moderate Islam" is disappointing, and more than disappointing.
Surely it is not the moderates and the immoderates in Islam, but rather the Shi'a and the Sunni, the Arabs and the non-Arabs, whose differences are there to be exploited. That at this point it is still not understood, and a clear break with the repeated mantra of the past not made, disappoints and disturbs.
Those who are trying to decide what makes the most sense for them to support through contributions should make sure they understand the difference between Jihad Watch (and another site that shares the same views on Islam, www.newenglishreview.org) and those that are mentioned and denounced (or not denounced, if a request comes in for their removal from the rolls of the "hatwatchhallofshame") and other sites that may in important ways be at variance with it.
Accept, at this point, no substitutes.
Hugh asks:
Great question. Here's another: why is this bizarre and outrageous situation -- American troops commanded by Iraqis -- never condemned or commented on? (Except by Hugh?) Another question: why did our President give the Iraqis ultimate decision power over America's victory or defeat? -- whereby only if Muslims magically become Liberals is America victorious, but if they actually insist on being (gasp!) Muslims, then we lose? What kind of insane, suicidal, traitorous, blockheaded strategy is that? Next question: how is it that Americans go along with this nonsense?Hugh wrote:
Exactly so. We're sitting around wringing our hands and pulling our hair out while debating the assassination of some minor savage. It's unseemly. For pete's sake, leave him to the Iraqis. Leave Iraq to the Iraqis. Justice will then be done."These people are absolutely insistent that we must make war on all of Islam, on every Muslim.."
Is it not the duty of Muslims to be PERMANENTLY at war with the infidel?
Judeo Christian prophets were men whose failings were documented and were not incorporated in religious doctrine.
When King David Committed adultery, such acts were not immediately sanctioned and accepted as part of the Jewish faith. King Solomon, Moses and Abraham were defined as human beings and hence capable of straying and committing sin.
When christian and ancient Jews committed violence, it was invariably in defence and specifically aimed at a named adversary.
The retrobutionary Crusades were not aimed at all mankind which was not Christian.
But Jihad is aimed at all mankind.
All of Mohammed's' actions of pillaging, enslavement, sex with children, etc are examples to be followed by Muslims. There is not one deed however cruel, however inhumane, which is regarded as a human failing of the prophet Mohamed. They are all examples of perfection.
Mohamed is not therefore regarded as a human prophet but more of a Deity -and that of course is Idolatry.
Islam is therefore a license to attack, kill plunder, enslave, with the approval of its deities.
Just read some discussions about an anti-hate website that does not like this site. That's ironic, since this site is an anti-hate website; it is against the hate, violence and coercion that makes up the retrograde, supremacist doctrine of Islam. I can't think of an activity in this world, outside of medical research, which is more essential.
It says in the Bible that there is a time to love, and a time to hate. God wants us to hate the hateful, because we must protect ourselves and loved ones from evil. The Talmud also says something to the effect that those who are kind to the cruel are themselves cruel.
leonthepigfarmer:
"take them all out in one mass air/missile raid as soon as they converge"
Good idea, but didn't we decline a similar opportunity in Afghanistan? ... remember this story? ...
NBC News and news services
Updated: 5:27 p.m. PT Sept 13, 2006
U.S. military officials tell NBC News they had “high-level” Taliban fighters in their gunsights during a July reconnaissance flight but decided not to fire. The decision to pass on the target angered some in the military, but commanders say they have “no regrets.”
Army intelligence officers say the grainy black-and-white aerial photo taken by a Predator drone and obtained by NBC News on Tuesday shows some 190 suspected Taliban militants standing in several rows outside near a vehicle in Afghanistan.
The military said Wednesday that the group seen in the Predator image was apparently gathered for a funeral at a cemetery.
Intelligence officers monitoring the footage captured by the armed, unmanned aircraft tell NBC News they were prepared to fire at the group but were prevented from doing so by military rules of engagement that prohibit targeting a cemetery.
I am greatly distressed that we continue to fight these vermin under Marques of Queensbury rules. Not to mention that Iran takes 15 British sailors hostage, and pays no consequences.
We need to toughen up. As a first step, we should send Pelosi back to Syria, and make them keep her ... that will teach them.
Al-Sadr has thumbed his nose at us for 4 years now and we refuse to take him out. We had him cornered and let him wriggle free several times.
You can tell he is absolutly crazy by the way he looks out of his face. I have never seen such hate, death, darkness, and outright demonic possession in anyone in a long time.
The Brits had 15 captured and then released. We had 10 KILLED just today. This has become so very costly in so very many ways. I am not a cut and run type at all but this on-going attrition of all things tends to weary after a while.
One question that has always pondered me and many others is "Why didn't we kill Sadr?" He is every bit as much our enemy as what Zarqawi was. The Mehdi Army are every bit as dangerous to our troops as Al Qaeda and the remnants of the Ba'athists. But we are hamstrung by political correctness, and the first rule of engagement we operate under is the insane "Try to avoid killing the enemy where possible", when it ought to be "Utterly destroy the enemy wherever he shows up". That latter approach served us well throughout two World Wars and many more, and certainly ought to be the mantra against this enemy. We should certainly fight them the way we fought the Japanese during World War II - no quarter given and none asked, and fight them to the death. Political correctness is costing us the war, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, and wherever else we may have to fight.
Paleologos:
How could I ever forget that story. When I read it, I was absolutely livid, and banging away furiously on my keyboard. If you want to know how dangerous political correctness is, then this was it. We let 200 of them live to fight and kill another day. Many troops and innocent people will die because we did the politically correct thing. And I have just learned that six Canadian troops have been killed in a suicide bombing in Afghanistan. This shows the folly and sheer insanity of using Marquis of Queensbury rules of engagemment against an enemy that has only one open-ended rule - "Kill the infidel by whatever means and methods available".
....while it is true that Al_Sadr should be eliminated...it is more true that his immediate boss Al-Sistani should be eliminated....
Why havent we killed him yet?
It just hit me.. Mookie thinks he is the so called 12th imam. The great Mahdi that is suppoed to bring on the apocalypse. I wonder if amadinjihad thinks so too.
Yes- Muqtada thinks he is the Mahdi, hence the black turban and name of his militia. If we kill him, however, his people obviously will realize he wasn't the mahdi!
Anyway, I served in Iraqi Freedom back in 2003 and have been working here as a security contractor since 2005. It is infinitely frustrating to see the way this whole war has been carried out ever since we toppled Baghdad. George Bush has more or less backed us into a corner over here. His rhetoric more or less kept us in a position that no matter when we leave here, it can be construed as a victory for jihadists. If we had just invaded, set up an interim government defended by the army (the one we shouldn't have disbanded), and left, we wouldn't have the vast PR nightmare we have today. Sure, the interim government may have fallen, and fighting between Sunnis and Shias would have occurred, but it wouldn't really be our problem.
But now, we're going to have "lost" no matter what happens, and it's more or less thanks to the President's declarations of "leaving is retreating". Now, if we leave under any conditions OTHER than absolute and total victory, the Muslim world will celebrate our capitulation. I'm sick and tired of seeing my comrades-in-arms being blown up and mutilated for a people that does not deserve their sacrifice. People like Moqtada are in power today because we toppled a brutal dictator. His people are allowed to rally in the street and protest- something they would have been punished with death for under the Saddam regime- the very same American forces that guaranteed their right to protest.
So what if we leave now? Well, I think I can outline the scenario. The current Iraqi government would be caught in a conflict between the Sunni insurgency and Shi'ite militias headed by Muqtada al-Sadr. I can see the government losing to Muqtada or possibly even going down without a fight since so much of its Army and police force are aligned with him. I can definitely forsee Moqtada al-Sadr being the Ayatollah of Iraq.
What's next? A bloody, bloody battle between Shia and sunni over who gets what. Iraq's neighbors may even enter the conflict openly (they're already fighting it and fueling it covertly).
What does this mean for us? Well, for one thing, the US gets the hell out of the way. We let them slaughter each other, and hopefully the extremists in both camps will tear fundamentalist Islam apart. As long as the Muslims are fighting each other, they aren't fighting us, and that can actually be a good thing. Sure, it's a wash for the US, as we hadn't done everything we could, but like I said, our own presidency has made anything short of a miraculous democracy springing up sound like failure.
I believed for the longest time that we could "win" here, that a secular moderate state could exist. I traveled through Amman, Jordan on the way here and thought "this is what Baghdad could be like". What I didn't know was the differences between Jordan and Iraq. When I got a beer at the hotel in Amman, I asked him if he ever thought the Iraqis could get their act together. His response was this: "You can dress a dog up in a suit, but he's still a dog". In other words, the Iraqis, he says, just aren't cut out for the whole civilized society thing. You can't have a democratic society when people are still ruled and dominated by religion.
ahem, above paragraph should read, "when I got a beer at the hotel in Amman, I asked the bartender..."
Had to clear that up!
Is it not the duty of Muslims to be PERMANENTLY at war with the infidel?
The qur'an certainly make it appear to be so.
But you don't understand that the "civilized world" is at war with itself also. We certainly can't blame the "other" for it's culture, can we?
/ugh
Mahdi sure has terrible teeth, maybe all those years in the well.
http://zioneocon.blogspot.com/muqtada%20al%20sadr.jpg
...I call for immediate all-out attack on Al-Sadr and Al-Sistani.......My troops will attack all who protect him...My troops will take no prisoners....My troops are quite good....Al-Sadr .... Your days of eating well while your muslim supporters starve are soon to be over...you cannot hide...you have no protection...you will die....
It's time for the Iraqi government to step up and shut him up!
But the Iraqi government needs him to play bad cop to their good cop. You don't suppose it was an accident that the execution party that hanged Saddam Hussein was chanting "Moqtada al-Sadr," do you?
This reminds me. Lets clean the chicken coup, but leave the fox in it.
The coalition is fighting a war of half measures at the best of times. Un-winable if the status quo remains.
Why half measures? Well it's PC you see and then when I heard the rules of enagement were written by lawyers...AGHHHH,I knew why the handcuffs were on. Absolultely un-winable!
As for Al-Sadr , he should be given an easter present, a free trip to paradise.
I misconstrue thinking Hugh wanted to pull out of Iraq. The dhimmicrat party would like to make it as hard as they can for our troops-so we have to pull out. This would be so upsetting to me. These people are a loving people. It is not fair to say they are not stepping up to the plate. They walk to work in a police uniform no gun! What a target! He is brave and strong with beliefs! After work they are disarmed. Then riding home get pulled off the bus and all killed! So we continuously hear of this over and over! They had NO guns! With their numbers falling where do they find these brave soles?
I concur my beliefs and we should not group them all together! The Sunni's and Shia' the islamist all have different names for their God! Different beliefs! When I have read their bloggs they are in question with certain things in their religion as we are! Nancy Polosi has done this-group them together-stereotype them! The most modern Muslim I became so interested in first was Ahmed Shah Massoud-Northern Alliances leader! He held down Afghanistan for 20 yrs! Or there would not be one! In his army no one spoke the same language but yet held the same beliefs! They all prayed together before they would go out to battle the Taliban and al-gaeda and ....! Massoud tried to warn the U.S.! Ahmed said this on tv. On 9-9-01 bin-laden killed him! Massoud certainly had me interested in him! He would of been our best allie too! What a loving man! It is sad alot of people do not know who he is! I always light a candle for him every 9-9! He was the first victim to be killed along with the people of 9-11! What the world lost!
Time Line- should be set to say, after such and such a date the Iraqi's start funding the war there. Hey, join the club build a deficit!
exsgtbrown ...I call for immediate all-out attack on Al-Sadr
...except no one knows where he is. He has not been seen for many weeks. He may be in Iran.
"except no one knows where he is. He has not been seen for many weeks. He may be in Iran"
......he, indeed, has been under "house protection" in Iran....but, he could now be back in Iraq....maybe in Najaf.....he will appear when his Islamic slave master Al-Sistani tells him to appear....
.....the Apache helicopters await his appearance...