Full ArticleBAGHDAD - Anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr announced Friday that he has extended a cease-fire order to his Shiite militia for another six months, giving Iraq a chance to continue its fragile recovery from brutal sectarian violence.
Lol.IRONCHEF wrote:
He's gone home to Fallujah to fix up his crib.
If you do kill him someone even better will step in to take his place.So... if we kill him, people get pissed and blow up everything they see.
And if we don't kill him, he just waits for us to leave before taking over the country.
Last edited by Spearhead (2008-02-23 04:26:08)
Where is the love - Black Eyed PeasSpearhead wrote:
Hey Dilbert, the video in your sig was removed on youtube.
just fyi
What was it by the way?
this is what fucking started it all.IRONCHEF wrote:
He's gone home to Fallujah to fix up his crib.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-23 06:10:38)
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-23 07:04:45)
the iraqi government dropped charges.Jepeto87 wrote:
Then put him on trial he's responsible for a number of US and Iraqi fatalities.
The biggest drop has been in Sunni-based insurgent violence. That was always the bulk of the violence against Iraqi and Coalition forces. So...even if Sadr decides to re-engage, the overall violence level would still be much lower than it was before the Sunnis pulled their head out of their collective ass.zeidmaan wrote:
Whats even worse is that current US gov has extensively publisised the drop in violence statistics. They have hyped it up and braged about it so much that Sadr has them by the balls now. If he orders his militia to start fighting again he literally decides the US election. Because if violence sky rockets again no amount of bullshit will help the Republicans and very few people would believe that the situation is improving. And we all know the war will be a major deciding factor in next elections. Weird situation if you ask me.
you are asking WAY too much from this communityFEOS wrote:
Read up on the situation next time.
iraq would be better off of we kill him.Spearhead wrote:
So... if we kill him, people get pissed and blow up everything they see.
And if we don't kill him, he just waits for us to leave before taking over the country.
This is why we shouldn't be there to be honest. If we have to hold back, and give one man so much power... honestly it's a sign of weakness.
I always thought there should be a way to overrule that, if they're using the mosque for military purposes in a sense, you should be able to remove them from it.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the iraqi government dropped charges.Jepeto87 wrote:
Then put him on trial he's responsible for a number of US and Iraqi fatalities.
I was a part of the operation to get him in 2004, in najaf. We had him surrounded, but he used some centuries old shiite mosque to hide in and our standing orders were to not enter this mosque. we were a few hundred meters from the fucker while he was holed up inside, then the iraqi government said" no mas" and we left.
most cases, there is. We would end up dropping one or two 500 pounders from the air force. but in this case, the mosque he was hiding in was very old and very sacred to all shiites.M.O.A.B wrote:
I always thought there should be a way to overrule that, if they're using the mosque for military purposes in a sense, you should be able to remove them from it.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the iraqi government dropped charges.Jepeto87 wrote:
Then put him on trial he's responsible for a number of US and Iraqi fatalities.
I was a part of the operation to get him in 2004, in najaf. We had him surrounded, but he used some centuries old shiite mosque to hide in and our standing orders were to not enter this mosque. we were a few hundred meters from the fucker while he was holed up inside, then the iraqi government said" no mas" and we left.
I think I read that in the paperGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the iraqi government dropped charges.Jepeto87 wrote:
Then put him on trial he's responsible for a number of US and Iraqi fatalities.
I was a part of the operation to get him in 2004, in najaf. We had him surrounded, but he used some centuries old shiite mosque to hide in and our standing orders were to not enter this mosque. we were a few hundred meters from the fucker while he was holed up inside, then the iraqi government said" no mas" and we left.
nothing but politics. all the inhabitants were mahdi militiamen. we could have gone in there like nothing but we had to cordon the area and just look.Spearhead wrote:
I think I read that in the paperGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the iraqi government dropped charges.Jepeto87 wrote:
Then put him on trial he's responsible for a number of US and Iraqi fatalities.
I was a part of the operation to get him in 2004, in najaf. We had him surrounded, but he used some centuries old shiite mosque to hide in and our standing orders were to not enter this mosque. we were a few hundred meters from the fucker while he was holed up inside, then the iraqi government said" no mas" and we left.
Is it just politics that you're not allowed to attack mosques? Or were their innocent people in there?
I mean, wow, that is fucked up. Why not just teargas the place and go in SWAT team style?
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-23 07:34:14)
How did he escape if you had him surrounded? Wouldn't you just mow them down as they came out?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
nothing but politics. all the inhabitants were mahdi militiamen. we could have gone in there like nothing but we had to cordon the area and just look.
and in certain situtations, we can attack mosques, but just not this one.
Last edited by Spearhead (2008-02-23 07:39:26)
he agreed to a ceasefire, the iraqi government dropped its criminal charges against him (responsible for the murder of a political rival) which meant we had no official Iraqi reason to go after him. We pulled out. Ayatollah Sistani negotiated a peace.Spearhead wrote:
How did he escape if you had him surrounded? Wouldn't you just mow them down as they came out?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
nothing but politics. all the inhabitants were mahdi militiamen. we could have gone in there like nothing but we had to cordon the area and just look.Spearhead wrote:
I think I read that in the paper
Is it just politics that you're not allowed to attack mosques? Or were their innocent people in there?
I mean, wow, that is fucked up. Why not just teargas the place and go in SWAT team style?
and in certain situtations, we can attack mosques, but just not this one.
