Al Sadr Calls for attacks on US Troops

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Al Sadr Calls for attacks on US Troops
RaptorZ 4/8/2007 12:26:56 PM

I won't paste the article b/c it's the same boring rhetoric from a loon. But my question is this, what would really happen if Al Sadr was found dead with a colombian necktie? This guy has been a thorn in our side from day one, isn't he the guy that flipped out and killed one of the leading clerics that supported the US? I seriously think that keeping him around is doing no good, he controls a bunch of poor iraqi citizens that can't think on their own yet will die for him. I think a clear message should be sent to those powers that think they can disrupt everything we're trying to do, and by doing so whomever is next in line will have the same happen to them if they so choose to be hero. What say you all? I mean what could it hurt? violence? it's already happening, piss off the Shia Government of Iraq?

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

Pseudonym 4/8/2007 12:50:38 PM

Such a policy of making the enemy respect our words and fear our retribution is simply not possible with half a country of Democrats. The enemy knows our country, they don't really even need an intelligence service, they can just turn on CNN or any news channel and listen to the reporters tell them where the biggest gaps in our security are, what the domestic political situation is, etc...

Quote Reply

RaptorZ 4/8/2007 2:45:54 PM

But certainly there are ways around this stuff....our special forces, CIA etc do things all the time that are, shall we say unknown to the public and many in the government...the fact that the guy has the cajones to openly say that stuff is a declaration of war imo....and he should be dealt with accordingly.

Quote Reply

momus replyRaptorZ 4/8/2007 4:39:04 PM

I don't think it is proper to ask special forces, CIA, or anyone else to act in any way that will lead to their prosecution if such actions are discovered. In out current USA there is no such thing as 'loyal opposition.' There are only opportunists waiting to put those they support (including self) into a position where they can regain political power. The safety of the nation and its people are of no importance to them. "

Quote Reply

momus replyRaptorZ 4/8/2007 4:47:00 PM

Quote Reply

Pseudonym 4/8/2007 5:47:41 PM

"But certainly there are ways around this stuff....our special forces, CIA etc do things all the time that are, shall we say unknown to the public and many in the government...the fact that the guy has the cajones to openly say that stuff is a declaration of war imo....and he should be dealt with accordingly."

A Democrat will find out. Might even agree with Bush up front. But once election time rolls around best be assured he will proclaim righteous indignation about the abuse of power by the evil Republican Imperial Stormtroopers as he sits on CNN calling for impeachment. That whole checks and balances thing, the other side always finds out.

Quote Reply

RaptorZ 4/8/2007 9:12:10 PM

Here's what I don't get, in the States, or pry every other country really in the world, if the leader of a gang openly said the Police in your area are targets that guy would be taken out either by getting him in a raid or killed. Why is this guy any different? The world opinion of the US is so low anyways what do we got to lose now? Who knows maybe if we took off the velvet gloves we'd get somewhere..

It's the same ol sh*t basically...guy opens his yap talks smack and is protected somehow....I really feel for our fighting men and women apparently we didn't learn a thing from the past...sad

Quote Reply

Shirrush Maybe there's a plan? 4/9/2007 4:51:13 AM

Muqtada held sway over Najaf for much of 2004, where he earned the nickname of "little Saddam" before his forces were defeated and driven out by the US.
Around here, he is rather known as the "Iraqi Nasrallah", and there's some difficulty understanding why he is not appropriately dealt with before he becomes too much of a PITA.

We need to remind ourselves why the whole Iraqi affair was started: GWOT.
It might be that it has been successful, in the strategic sense, at splitting Global Jihad in two warring factions, the Shi'ite murderers and the Sunni killers. Letting Muqtada seize power in Iraq would necessarily lead to a wider Shi'ite-Sunni conflagration, drawing in Jihad-Central Iran and Wahhabi Saudyia to fight it off on Mesopotamian ground, inflaming the whole Middle East and hopefully causing Muslim casualties by the millions.
The problem with such an approach, apart from the fact that it is not really congruent with the humanitarian principles underlying Western democracy, it that Islam/Jihad itself might not necessarily be the main casualty on top of the corpses' heap, and that a Jihadi winner might emerge from the chaos, and resume the war against the West with an enhanced, unified and motivated Umma.
It appears that Iranian diplomacy is now attempting to skip the confrontation and to play that unifying role without a round of intra-Islamic slaughter, with some success as we can see that Ghaddafy has already declared himself Shi'ite (While at the same time denying the very existence of the Amazigh culture).
What we may end up with is a strengthened enemy instead of a weakened and bled-out one.

Quote Reply

Pseudonym 4/9/2007 11:20:48 AM

"Who knows maybe if we took off the velvet gloves we'd get somewhere.."

Oh we'd get somewhere.

The Front Pages of every newspaper as the Democrats used the incident as propaganda for the presidential election.

Quote Reply

AFA2007 4/9/2007 10:00:51 PM

Even discussing actions against Al Sadr shows just what a fix we are in. First we were mainly fighting, bleeding, and dying, going after Sunni insurgents (basically making Al Sadr's work easier). Now Sadr wants Shiites to start attacking U.S. forces. My bet is Al Sadr is getting impatient with the U.S. military for not killing enough Sunni's fast enough - and feels his Shiite militia can do a better job (well, at least with less discrimination - as he wants to get on with removal of all Sunnis without the restraints of a U.S. military tasked with defending an already failed pipe-dream of a unified Iraq democracy)

The only thing worse would be if the Kurds started shooting at our troops.

But the spin-masters, who only see Iraq through the rose-tinted lens handed out by the White House, probably can come up with positive spin on this.

Something like: "See, the surge was needed to take on both the insurgents AND Al Sadr's Mahdi Army - so all you pansy-assed Democrats better support our troops because there will be even more troops in even more danger now"

Quote Reply

Pseudonym 4/9/2007 11:19:04 PM

"But the spin-masters, who only see Iraq through the rose-tinted lens handed out by the White House, probably can come up with positive spin on this."

So you would prefer we just let the Shia do whatever?

This is the logical conclusion of our tactics.

First we held the Shia and Kurds together and played them off the Sunni to form a Government. Now the Sunni fight is winding down somewhat, though we all know it won't stop, well until about a century after an effective government takes power. Next up are the Shia and their death squads, this is the whole point of the surge, if you haven't noticed.

What did you think the Shia were going to do?

Toss confetti, wave american flags, and sing Kumbaya?

Oh and btw, the next up on the list are the Kurds if they haven't already figured out we won't let them keep their PKK friends.

That's called divide and conquer if you didn't know...

Quote Reply

1 2