The Americans continue to lose in Iraq.

by Northern Eye Thu Apr 15, 2004 22:25

I know. Laughter is the natural respone to such absurdity as no reasonable debate can be had with such a witless imbelice. It clearly seems the man is a little touched, and, whatever the rights or wrongs of it, the insane always make the biggest targets for the cruel gaffaws of their fellow man.

by Bernard Dunleavy Thu Apr 15, 2004 22:18

Looks like the "popular uprising" was nothing of the kind.

At least Al Sistani has a bit of commonsense.

by TT Thu Apr 15, 2004 21:53

It would be unfair to compare them to the classic 'Dad's Army' television series . (I mean unfair to the series).
Somehow I do not see drbinoche as comparable to Captain Mainwaring. The Mainwaring character may have been pompous, but underneath it he had an element of decency. On the other hand, drbinoche has on numerous occasions resorted to crude abuse against other users on this site.
It's sad that someone could be so far gone, but I suppose the only way to respond is to laugh at him and not take him too seriously.

by Northern Eye Thu Apr 15, 2004 21:11

If real warfare is twadling about Monaghan stopping cars and pretending you're really in Vietnam, I think you could be General McArthur.

Its about time someone from Ireland made a sitcom series about the 26 county comedy troop. Definitly, Dr, you would make a great comic character, pushing little figures round maps in your room in the barracks and impressing trainnes with your stories about how the RA tried to kill your whole regiment by causing a bullet to ricochet a mile up the road from yis.

I'm sorry if this is making light of the stupid things that you keep spouting, but everytime I read one of your posts I just bust into hysterics at the world weary military genius who served with the cat resuce service. You're golden.

The worst thing is thats theres plenty of silly wee boys like you serving in Iraq at the moment.

by Drbinoche Thu Apr 15, 2004 20:40

Ah yes, the good ol Northern Eye, a person who by their own admission supports mass murdering bastards. Gives abuse to me coz I served in the Irish Army, while he/she sat on their precious ass, like the armchair socialist that they are and regurgitated what they heard from the latest bullshit college newspaper or manifesto. I forgot at what point did I say I was an expert at anything, I doubt if I did, coz I am aware that I know probably no more ot less than alotof the people here. I definitely no more than you, coz quite frankly while you support a bunch of scumbags you would probably not have even been allowed into their shit lists, and thats low considering some of the wonderful people they have allowed in.

Now as to my previous post. I personally think that the men who perpetrated the crimes being carried out in Iraq and no before any of you ever so funny, but idiotic people say the US army, I am talking about the Iraqi resitance, should have to face exactly what they have brought upon themselves. Lets see em continue such a conflict when they reap what they are sowing. They want total war, then they have to be prepared to accept that that is what will be brought to bear upon them.

Northern Eye please go back to masturbating over your beloved IRA posters or whatever and understand that you know NOTHING about real warfare.

by Northern Eye Thu Apr 15, 2004 17:56

I just think the Dr should be treated with wry amusement. He's just a nutter screaming and shouting down at his computer screen, pretending to be a military expert and international hardman beacuse he served in dad's army. I think he's priceless. I love hearing his rants because he's totally harmless at the end of the day.

by Joe Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:58

Aren't you getting a little carried away Drbinoche. The resistance appear to have brutally killed a mercenary/security guard they had taken captive. I presume his family are back home in Italy, grieving but unlikely to be slaughtered.

What you are advocating (collective punishment) is a familar enough technique. It's what is going on in Falluja right now, where 600 have been killed to punish the deaths of 4 other merceneries. It was also of course the 'justification' for 911 and Madrid. Scratch the surface and you war mongers are all the same.

When the Nazis occupied Europe they used to threaten to kill 10 for every German the resistance killed. The US seems to be using a 150:1 ratio right now.

by Northern Eye Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:49

Any chance of getting the good Dr a job as a security 'expert' in Iraq? I'd love to see him on TV! Bindfold included.

by An Fhuiseog Thu Apr 15, 2004 02:44

They're not going to broadcast it because it is "too gruesome".

I agree with you Dr Binoche, these vermin must be extirpated.

by Drbinoche Thu Apr 15, 2004 00:50

Well they just executed one of the Italian Hostages, so I am now completely against the Iraqi Resistance. Fuck em, what ever means necessary to wipe these shit eaters off the planet. Bring in Alpha and Delta and treat them as they have treated the Italians, wipe out their whole fucking family. Lets see the resistance survive when they have no homes to go to. If you think this is over the top I tell you now, the Italians are gonna be baying for blood. I would not suggest any of you guys doing any anti-war protests in Italy for some time. The Carabineri will be in the mood for some clubbings, we might have another Carlo yet!

by pc Wed Apr 14, 2004 22:22

http://iraq.jobs.monster.com/

by pc Wed Apr 14, 2004 21:56

i don't see anybody not not condeming hostage taking

i won't condemn it cos i don't condemn anything (overused word) i don't hink they should be doing it..... it ain't fair on the civilians

as for "just doing his job" that arguement isn't water tight....

by us soilder Wed Apr 14, 2004 21:30

about a plane firing a rocket with someone in F. with a slingshot.

No shit.

i am not making this up and will dig out link.

Sums it all up.

by Northern Eye Wed Apr 14, 2004 21:25

He was obviously helping the American occupation of Iraq and should therefore be regarded as complicit in the crimes against that country. If taking hostages who have been involved with the imperial adventure ( and I do condemn the taking of hostages who have not ) can give some leeway in a David v Goliath situation, then who can blame the kidnappers?

Soldiers are also being paid for their work in helping to control Iraq. Should that mean they shoudn't also be considered as legit targets? Pretty strange reasoning man, pretty strange.

Someone who supported the invasion of Iraq and the medieval-like seige of Fallujah talking about 'adding fuel to the fire' is beyond a piss-take.

by Drbinoche Wed Apr 14, 2004 21:04

I dont seeany of you guys condemning the actions of the resistance in taking hostages. Do you not see how it is literally adding fuel to a fire?? Do you honestly expect that when the four bodies of latest American 'mercenaries'/civilian contractors were found this morning, once again mutilated, and burned, that the Americans are once again gonna take it personally and not give a shit.

So according to you, if Thomas Hammil, who was there to make alot of money, I believe somewhere in the region of 120000 dollars, was only doing it formoney then he deserves anything he gets. Thats a bit black and white. It doesn't really leave much civil iberties. When he signed the contract with Kellogg, I am sure the contract did not state out and out that he was gonna be sent to Iraq, it probably said, the Middle East. He could have been flying and driving in Qatar. Does that mean he is still fair game?? He was doing itto helpo save some money, so now according to you guys, you cannot support your families unless it is by doing something that noone will get offended to. The Guy was UNARMED, driving a truck, nota tank, he was driving it from point A to Point B. He did no drive over any kids, he did not drive it with a 'We hate all Arabs' sticker, he was just doing a job. I think you should be condemning the taking Hostage of an Unarmed Civilian, which is what he is, no two ways of looking at it. The international law even states him as such. How can you argue against that??

There are many reasons why Bush invaded Iraq and I don't think the time should be wasted on trying to figure out exactly why he did it, lets just try to stop the needless slaughter.

So I would imagine none of you would ever do anything even remotely dangerous if it meant providing for your family?? You would not put yourself in harms way in the hope of saving some money, and maybe making things better for your family. But then again everything I am reading on Hammil is from the Mainstream media so its probably all wrong, he is probably the head of the CIA or a spy. Curious didn't know Bond drove a truck and dressed so shabby???

I can't believe none of you have condemned the Hostage taking. It truely is a newlow for this website. How can you expect the average American to give a rats ass when you don't give a rats ass about them???

by Pete Wed Apr 14, 2004 03:12

Whatever was going through the heads of the Bush admistration I don't know. I know Bush is regarded as a moron but was it all just stupidity that started this war? Does he really believe that invading and occuping Iraq would make the world a safer place? Take into account the Bush Juntas fevered belief in an extreme Christian vision of the world and the apocalypse they believe must happen for peace to be acheived. By going into Iraq and by their recent beheviour they've created a million more would-be suicide bombers who have the potential to cause mass death and anarchy. Could there be a religious element to all this? I'm beginning to think so. Ariel Sharon is very obviously dying for a final confrontation with the Arab world and the insane religious nuts in the White House and Pentagon are very much on his side. They do so see it in terms of the goodies vs the baddies and controling Iraq would be very important to them in many ways in any upcoming global conflict. If America and Israel can cause enough destruction in the world by inciting the Muslim masses they can start to take total control and can justifiy to their people the use of the big ones - the nuclear weapons which would start a total meltdown of the world even after a few explosions and would fit in with their crazy vision of the final conflict between good and evil.

by Reel Deel Wed Apr 14, 2004 02:14

No way, WMDs were not the reason. Nor was oil. If anyone had their head screwed on they would realise that OPEC can do whatever the hell it likes. For the US to control oil prices/production, they'd have to invade at least 10 countries.

So, can anyone guess the reason?

by Northern Eye Wed Apr 14, 2004 01:20

Dr: if you care so much about these people don't support stupid, avoidable wars in the first place and you'll not have to worry. We could argue all night about these things but its like this - if the conditions that caused these people to be kidnapped weren't allowed to manifest in the first place they woundn't have been kidnapped. Simple as that. The unbelieveably stupid invasion of Iraq and the subsequent brutal beheviour of the US military ( and don't say they are only killing civilians because they're under attack etc. - if they weren't there they woundn't be killing anyone ) has allowed anarchy to prevail throughout that country and promises dire consequences for the world as many, many people predicted would happen and at the end of the day all that rests with Bush and the people who supported him in his hateful mission of revenge and greed.

Anyone who still believes that Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq because of WMD's or because he was worried about the lives of ordinary Iraqis is totally insane.

by pc Wed Apr 14, 2004 01:02

but he isn't doing the job for free... if you think america created this war to facilate its bases and oil needs then he is helping them with that....

im not sure of this but i wonder...
ngo groups doing infrastrucutral rebuilding... atleast ther enot doing it for there direct profit the truck driver guy is....

not guilty not innocent

by Drbinoche Tue Apr 13, 2004 21:20

So in other words, if the man has ever been in the army and is in Iraq then he is a mercenary and if he just happens to work for a company who have been involved in some nasty business before he is guilty by association and therefore deserves what he gets. OK fine, if thats how the Iraqis want it then they can hardly start getting bent out of shape if the Americans bring in Internment of any Iraqi whose son/daughter/company are not behaving themselves. You see this is the doubel standard, its OK for the resistance to murder innocent people at will and take hostage people from Italy, Russia, China, Britain, Japan, America, but it is illegal for the Americans to behave such. Whether or not the people have been released is a mute point, they were held without their say for aperiod of time, they have suffered, the men who did it should be punished. Agree or disagree??

So civilians contractors are now fair game, fine, then the Americans should start taking hostages of any Pro-Iraqi Resistance people in the States, hold them for ransom and behave just as the Resistance have.

But wait maybe America won't coz they know it gets them nothing in return. These brave resistance guys are the ones who while asking for the US marines to leave Fallujahs area were still firing on the US. Maybe they were just painfully aware of the lack of training they have against some truely fantastic shooters. Al Jazzera doctors its footage of the Hospitals after it is shown that the first tape they ran was showing predominantly men in the hospital so they changed it to showing only women/kids/old people. So by that logic there are no men i Fallujah of fighting age. Coz by sheer statistics one of em would have had to have been killed or wounded.

Andplease someone outline what a person has to do to be considered a Mercenary?? I want to know what are the perameters to be labelled as such?? According to the treatment of Thomas Hammil, all you have to do is to be doing a job, CARRYING NO WEAPONS, and to be of a particular nation in another nation. Well hell at the moment then Ireland is being awash with Mercenaries and Iam not talking about the guys you hate down in Shannon!

by cimino - iawm Tue Apr 13, 2004 13:57 info at irishantiwar dot org

i assume you refer to kidnap of Thomas Hamill. I have nothing against the man, but i would point out that he works for Kellogg,Brown and Root- a subsidiary of Halliburton. KB+R were called 'burn and loot' during the Vietnam era. They are military contractors. KB+R built the 'cells' at camp x-ray in Guantanamo. check out blackwatersecurity.com and do a search for the company KB +R. many 'civilian contractors' have been trained and are being paid as mercenaries- who is paying these people their outrageous wages? probably the US taxpayer, for the growing private armies of Bush and the corporate world. do your own research- check out http:// www. wikipedia.com. Findlaw is another site. don't believe everything you read in the regular media. Anopther useful site is http://www.counterpunch.org.also http://www.prisonplanet.com. read all with an open mind-draw your own conclusions.
http://www.blackwatersecurity.com.

by Drbinoche Mon Apr 12, 2004 15:18

Well what do you expect from a conservative website. You see that site is not indicative of a huge number of American civilians, and while it may speak for some, there is no way of you showing that that is the overall general belief in America at present. Its a bit OTT. They are conservative god fearing people, I am sure they believe Abortion is murder, and the bible is the literal word of god whilst neglecting to realise they are reading versions that have been 'updated'!!

OK Ill condemn the Americans for totally overreacting in Fallujah, but at the same time I knew it was gonna happen. You now have young kids with guns in armed Humvees in a region that is so openly hostile that any westerner is immediately a target eg Thomas Hammil, what was his crime again?? So they are sent into this place to quel an uprising that is not representative of the rest of the nation, and what are you gonna get happening, needless loss of life, both Iraqi and American. The two guys executed this morning for being 'CIA' operatives, I would like to see what evidence were presented for such a claim. How did the Iraqis know beyond a shadow of adoubt that these guys were CIA. And I will also condemn Al Jazzera for showing the pictures of the dead bodies, its unfair. Any group or news agency that shows such pictures should be fined immediately. Its not fair and its not right. Would you like to find out your father/mother/brother/sister etc was dead by seeing his badly disfigured body on the news??? I am aware that some of the US agencies have done the same, and I condemn them as well.

I have to ask, if America began to pay a reparation package to Iraq, where would it end?? Who would it be eligible to and who would be exempt?? What figures should be paid?? What would be the punishment for admitting a false claim, which I am sorry to say would certainly happen, I am not saying only the Iraqis would do it, I am just saying, if you start offering free money alot of people around the world would jump at it.

by jeff Mon Apr 12, 2004 15:02

http:// www.rightnation.us


the regular posters are a bunch of thicks. They all have little avatars ( a picture, j-peg image) they stick beside their names, etc, when posting on a topic they just gatta debate, buddy. Some of these avaters include pictures of SUVs, George Bush, Famous Wrestlers, logos for various branches of the Armed, naval, and air forces, pictures of themselves with handguns, then it gets weirder.

Editors, you can leave this web link up because rthey are not racists, just brainwashed Republicans who believe in Israel (usually spelt IsREAL) and the inherent justness of expelling Palestinians from their land, George Bush being God, anything from Hollyweird being suspect, anything liberal= Stalinism, anything loops basically that you might imagine a big rotund American with wrap around sunglasses, sweat, a bible and a mullet might believe!

by pc Mon Apr 12, 2004 00:23

"we lose alot of business"

some business we don't need i don't how bad of the west of ireland might be, and i don't how naive or selfish that sounds either :)

i might have said this before but ill repeat myself i thought that another part of the reason the us invaded iraq was to a gain a foothold in the region cos there getting heat from the saudis about having so many troops in their country....

so even if the americans do a half decent job at giving the iraqis control over their own state they still wanna keep massive bases and numbers of troops in the country for the next 100 years?

and they'll have get what they wanted

by Drbinoche Sun Apr 11, 2004 23:55

David C. I am glad that you replied, I had always wondered exactly what alotof the antiwar people expect to happen. I will say I agree it is very much the best case scenario but then again who ever plans for the worst case secnario!!

Chekov, I have to say your Best Case scenario is rediculous, that will DEFINITELY not happen.

I definitelty think that the UN should be brought in, and more importantly, Muslim troops, or maybe some Irish lads, after all we worked well in the Leb. I don't think that the Americans should all be pulled out. After all, not every American in Iraq is doing bad.

Reparation. You see that would do no good. Because what did it do with Regards to Germany after WW1. It will leave to alot of American youth being agitated as I am sure that notpaying it will lead to alot of young iraqis and Muslims being agitated. I also don't think America should be forced to pay. I mean where would you draw the line at which America has to pay back. It would probably never end. I also don't think America should have to pay for bringing in and maintaining a UN force there. I am not saying the whole Nasty experience should be chalked up to a bad mistake or anything stupid like that. I am just saying Americas punishment, if it must be classed as such should be something else. I don't know what, but forcing America to pay Reparations could just lead to further problems.

I will agree that the Republicans are very a closed minded group of fuckmooks, but the Democrats ain't too sweet either. Its a pity they have such few parties to choose from, realistically.

I noticed no one mentioned bringing Bush or any of the others to court for War Crimes, which is good, as it would NEVER happen and is beyond hope.

Maybe the UN should just legislate that any member of the Organisation cannot start a war or invade another country without backing and that sanctions would come into effect against em if they did. But then again America would just veto such an idea. Bit of a fucked up Catch 22 there.

You see the reason I brought it up was, no matter how hard you guys push and take it to the streets, WE are not American and really have no say in what happens with their foreign policy. We can ban the troops coming through Shannon, but then they just fly em through Frankfurt, we lose alot of business and the troops are still getting to the regions. Regardless of whether you like or dislike the American Army, alot of their troops have done some brilliant work in Afghanistan and Iraq and I don't mean killing Terrorists. The majority of Special Forces Group 5 that was sent into Afghanistan spent the first few weeks, helping the people and rebuilding wells and stuff like that to help win Hearts and Minds of the locals, it helps when you are defeating an army like the Talibans. So while I will admit thesesame guys may have dropped bombs on the wrong people, it is not as black and white as some of you portray it. They are not mindless murderers.
But I digress, the thing is, America will be out of Iraq to an extent at some stage and then the rebuilding has to take place, might as well start planning for the dawn while the dark is still with you.

Finally as for the Inevitable Civil War, the Sunnis and the Shia can get along great when they are fighting against the US or another such group, but generally when the enemy is gone, the little petty problems start the old wounds off again. It happened to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. You get rid of your joint enemy and then you turn your attention back at each other
And what about the Kurds they ain't getting a say in any of this shit and you know they want their own country. Its a whole shitload of trouble.

by ec Sun Apr 11, 2004 23:33

Cancellation of IMF debt - run up by soddem while being supported by Ireland US UK France etc - which will pillage the country even if US and Lackeys in a genuine way allow power to pass to an acceptable (to iraqis) govt. Nationalisation of Oil Industry until Iraqi's decide otherwise in an uninterfered with way.

-All the suggestions above are more realistic than these two unfortunately which is why the anti-war analysis sum uppable in four words was and continues to be correct - they want the oil -

by Chekov Sun Apr 11, 2004 23:04

1. Withdraw all troops and administrative personnel as soon as possible.

2. Set up a reparation fund to compensate the Iraqi people for:
a) having supported and nourished the dictator who opressed them for decades
b) Twice invading the country and destroying its infrastructure and environment and causing enormous suffering and death.
c) Imposed a ruinous system of sanctions which proved disasterous for the population while securing the rule of the brutal dictator.

The amount of this fund to be decided upon by an international committee composed of elected trade union and NGO represenatitives. The payment of this fund to be indexed to a set of criteria measuring the equality and freedom of Iraqi society, all to be decided upon by the above committee.

Unlikely as this is to happen (!!!) it would surely lead to a much better outcome than anything that the US government will ever do, and it would probably be cheaper for the US people too. It's not hard to come up with better answers than GWB, but that's because we are asking different questions. The only question the US government is asking is "how do we increase and consolidate our military and economic power in the world." That's why it is silly to speculate on what is the 'best' plausible thing that they might do is, they will do whatever they reckon is the best answer to that question. And there is hardly much point in us coming up with better strategies for the imperialists. Better to focus on how we can put pressure on them to withdraw and, realistically, to be less vengeful to whatever they leave behind than they have been to vietnam, cuba or any of the other parts of the world that 'got away'.

by David C. Sun Apr 11, 2004 23:04

...while 'declaring victory'. The main political base of the American republican party is breathtakingly ignorant and insular. They will believe literally anything that they are told to believe. If they are told that pulling troops out of Iraq and handing power over to the UN is a victory for America, then they will believe it and support it.

Also, the democrats should promise not to use a withdrawal from Iraq for political purposes, in order to make it easier for bush to withdraw.

by pc Sun Apr 11, 2004 21:09

but arn't your suggestions a bit unrealistic i welcome them but what would be the best case scenario what would the americas actually do?

by David C. Sun Apr 11, 2004 20:20

#1: Immediately cease all provocative actions against Iraqis. The Americans did not have to issue a bogus arrest warrant for Al Sadr, it did not have to close a small Shia newspaper, and it did not have to kill 450 people in Fallujah in retaliation for the desecration of 4 American corpses. The U.S. should immediately end all aggressive action and return the majority of its forces to their bases. American forces should only leave their bases to conduct peace-keeping and public order tasks.

#2: The U.S. should hand over *all* political power in Iraq to either the United Nations security council (preferably) or to NATO or to the Arab League. It should do this within weeks. Paul Bremer should resign and the CPA bureaucracy should be put under the control of a non-American representative of the organization to whom political power will be passed. The U.S. should commit to paying the entire cost of administration by the UN or NATO or the Arab League .

#3: A specific date - within 3 months - should be set for full parliamentary elections throughout Iraq. Excuses about lack of census or lack of voter rolls should be ignored or overcome. Iraqis must vote soon in full, fair and free elections, monitored by the UN. ANY outcome is acceptable.

#4: The UN/NATO/Arab League should provide tens of thousands of peace-keeping troops to provide security in the time before elections. These troops should preferably be Arabs or at least Islamic. Again, all costs associated with these troops should be paid for by the Americans. As international peace-keepers arrive, the Americans should close their bases in Iraq and leave. There should be NO American troops in Iraq by the time of elections (i.e. within 3 months). Security would be provided by peace-keepers and by Iraqi security forces untainted by collaboration with the Americans.

#5: Once an elected representative body is in place it should draft a permanent constitution, which would then be voted on by the Iraqi people. Any outcome of this process is acceptable, up to and including the restoration of the Baath party with Saddam Hussain as its president (A VERY unlikely occurrence).



Iraq is not an 'uncivilized' place populated by 'barbarian ragheads' who only respond to force. It is a civilized, educated country whose people are more capable of democracy than the people of the US. Like the war in Vietnam, the fighting will end when the invaders leave.

by P O'D Sun Apr 11, 2004 19:58

What's this nonsense about an "inevitable Civil War"?
Sunni clerics have been preaching in Shiite mosques, and Shiite clerics have been preaching in Sunni mosques. That does not look like an inevitable Civil War to me.

As for people being taken hostage, that happens all the time. Take Guantanamo Bay for example....

by Drbinoche Sun Apr 11, 2004 16:56

Interesting spin on it alright. I don't know if it would be appropriate to say that the Casualties are approaching Vietnam standards, coz to me that would suggest that America has lost 50000 troops in Iraq, but I can see how the 50+ casualties per week is in reference.

Now I have to ask can someone PLEASE, without any bullshit and propaganda, just outline what should be done in Iraq if America were to withdraw and how would you stabilise this country and prevent and inevitable Civil War. I rarely see it on Indeymedia, plenty of badmouthing of America and all, but rarely do I see anyone actually providing an alternative.

Oh and do you Condemn the Iraqi Resistance for taking Innocent Japanese Aid Workers Hostage and also an Innocent [although some won't see it that way] American Trucker Hostage??

by William Small Sun Apr 11, 2004 05:42 USA

You are being wildly optimistic about US public opinion and you are spinning the "statistics" to matich your conclusion.

I walk the streets, I read and watich the media, I talk to the people.

Believe me, all the recent events have barely made a blip in the daily life of people here.

I would like everything you say to come true, but you folks are starting to resemble a mirror image of CNN.

by pc Sun Apr 11, 2004 04:07

Al Sadr's demands
from cnn.com

Referring to the Iraqi people, he said "I demand in your name":

"To get back the voice of Iraq and for the previous dictator and have Saddam Hussein tried in a Supreme Court.

"For a stop to this terrorism and to release all those of al-Sadr followers who have been arrested. They are not guilty of anything but accepting Allah.

"Not to bury the voice of the Iraqi people under the ground of the politicians and the diplomats. You must organize an Iraqi constitutional government away from these occupation forces or any other wing.

"To choose who you want and not to let anyone impose on you who your leader is.

"The investigation of the crimes of the occupation forces and bring justice to those who have committed the crimes.

"A guaranteed date of departure of the occupying forces.

Al-Sadr is the son of Shiite imam Muhammad Baqr al-Sadr, a prominent leader assassinated in 1999. The Sadr City neighborhood in Baghdad is named after the father.

"What made us all follow his father and sacrifice our families and our children is because here was a person who was genuine and honest with all goodness. We follow his son," al-Kadhim said.


sounds PRETTYDAMN reasonable to me.... off course the US wouldn't grant any of these...
//

that does sound reasonable is this guy legit though had my doubts

i can believe a population will sort itself out but arn't there guys out for power for themselves is he one of them

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exe...4DF9E6CDF70.htm

and this profile doesn't really clear it up

by pc Sun Apr 11, 2004 02:23

i know eveyone isn't exactly jumping for joy seeing these things on tv

but america isn't just isn't going to go home,
how do ye's suggest thing go from here practically...

i mean you have here a guy who is using pictures of himself as a symbol of uprising

sound dodgy to me