Fear Grips Once-Calm Iraqi Neighborhood (Sadr is NOT a good guy)

In Hurriya, a working-class Shiite slum with a sizable Sunni minority, most of the schools have been either closed or moribund since Monday, April 5. That morning, 17-year-old Ali Mohammed was on his way to school when he ran into five men, dressed all in black, blocking the road with a car and some razor wire. "Go back home," they told him. "There is no studying today--this is a day of denunciation."

"It reminded me of the old regime," says Mohammed, glumly slumped in an armchair. "They used to do the same thing."

<snip>

The men in Hurriya didn't say who they were. Some wore ski masks. But Mohammed thinks they came from the Mahdi army, Mr. Sadr's militia. Mohammed walked to school anyway. A gangly, studious youth with wire-rimmed glasses, he wanted to do well in his upcoming finals, particularly English grammar.

But when he got to his high school, the principal and vice principal were standing at the front gate. They told him to go home. "I'm not sure, but I think I saw fear in their faces," says Mohammed.

At Mohammed's high school, the principal is still afraid. The black-clad men had showed up there,too, and commanded him to close the school. "I didn't follow their orders, because I take my orders from the Ministry of Education," says the principal, a portly, balding man with a potted rosebush in his office.

"Not everybody at this school agrees with what is going on," adds the principal, who begged that his name be withheld. "But I can't give you my opinion, because the situation is very dangerous right now. How can the press help us? Please forgive me, the situation is very bad."
<snip>


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/oneworld/20040413/wl_oneworld/4536835611081857906&cid=655&ncid=1478

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Sadr and his thugs are NOT the good guys!

Isn't he the one battling the USA's occupation of iraq?

Why doesn't he have the right and the morality of right to oppose this heinous occupation? How does that make him a bad guy?

What makes you think any news sanctioned by the US gubment is accurate?

IRAQIS.

There is a great deal of validity to the issue of the CIA and the guns for hire mercenaries inflaming this so-called uprising.

In fact I firmly believe that the CIA sent those mercs to die on purpose to start this mess up, per bremer.

The bush regime needs excuses to stay in iraq and what better reasons than to inflame the US public against the evil iraqis who are killing US citizens, right?

But wait, bush invaded iraq. Why SHOULDN'T those darned ungrateful iraqis FIGHT BACK?

YOU need to read THIS article, THEN re-read YOUR article, and put the pieces of the puzzle together; http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr58.html

It a good possibility that the four contractors indeed where special ops. I believe people like Delta Force often operate totally putside normal procedures. It seems to be a mix of SAS and CIA agents.

Still, though, I feel the info in the article at least support that the principal thought he was dealing with the mahdi army.

Perhaps he was mislead.

However, I doubt it.

the fact remains that U.S. troops invaded their country, so it's only natural that people should join up with them.

(One of the colleges where I taught had an emeritus professor who had been in the French resistance. She said that she had never liked the Communists, but she joined them during the Nazi occupation because they had the only effective resistance in her area.)

They were terrorised by the Mahdi army. The principal sounded terrified.

I dunno.

It just gets to me when people start bullying around school kids.

WHO was terrorising them, and it SOUNDS like the US mercenaries were the freaks intimidating everyone, from the info I have.

Maybe you need to re-read your article. Sounds like people protecting what little they have left. You shouldn't make up headlines to suit the propaganda. The CSM is usually dead on accurate and very liberal...

You should re-read your article. You're not getting the gist there.

inside the parenthesis)..

And, I went back and read the article againt..:

"The men in Hurriya didn't say who they were. Some wore ski masks. But Mohammed thinks they came from the Mahdi army, Mr. Sadr's militia"

"At Mohammed's high school, the principal is still afraid. The black-clad men had showed up there,too, and commanded him to close the school. "I didn't follow their orders, because I take my orders from the Ministry of Education," says the principal, a portly, balding man with a potted rosebush in his office. "

"Like Mohammed, the principal disobeyed the men in black. He reopened school the next day, Tuesday, April 6. But hardly any students showed up. "They're more afraid of the Mahdi army than they are of failing their exams," says the principal, shrugging sadly. "

....................

These paragraph make it very clear that the men in black are the Mahdi army.

I dare say the better armed Iraqia are not your everyday run of the mill civilian just trying to get by. It is no surprise that the Iraqi's who were first to stand up in fight the occupation are the ones already inclined to violence.

Bottom line however is that we incited this revolt and handed people like him the oppertunity to attack us and gain the support of the Iraqi people.

oh boy is Bush a boob.

and Sadr was part of the "helpful" (and much courted by the US) Iraqis of consequence early on in the invasion.


My husband, just returned from a year long tour in Iraq, can verify this firsthand.

bushistas!!!!!

Thanks for that... Funny how THAT hasn't made a headline in the bush propaganda campaign, eh?

leaders that turn around and bite them in the ass....and then wonder why and act all surprised about it.


Sadr was pivotal to "calm" in Iraq as the son of a much loved, and much assassinated cleric...he was courted, given special attention....and now....He's taking a bigger role than was "intended" for him. It's a bid for power in Iraq and Sadr is a power player. One that has shown he will not play American ball.

the immediate aftermath of the invasion, and that this was widely known. I am pretty sure that sadr was opposing the invasion forces from the git go, but if you have confirmation otherwise who am I to argue.

They were looking for calm and Sadr was a way to calm. Many, if not most, cities in Iraq have a "leader"...not just cleric leaders, though they have that as well...but a leader who has final say within that city. Coalition forces cultivated all those leaders that they could.

These leaders were the "boss" of the cities and held sway over everything. Hand in hand with the local clerics, they ruled....even with Saddam in Baghdad. Ouster didn't change this arrangement. Coalition occupation hasn't changed this set-up either.

My husband's company had to compete with these "bosses" to get things done-if the boss said No, the people took No as the answer...then coalition forces would go to the boss and work things out to get a Yes. Fortunately, this willingness to adhere to the age-old arrangement allowed for a better living environment for both Iraqis and soldiers in this particular city. This circumstance has since changed in the short time my husband left this city. The boss told my husband that while they (his company) were welcomed-no other company will be given the same type of respect or cooperation. This has proven out to be true.

And this coming together of Sunni and Shiite won't last....a common enemy has brought them together...who ultimately rules will tear them apart again. This was said by Iraqis...

back then he was our buddy.

because he had reason to want Saddam out...and the US thought it would have a supporter

Trying to nuance it is pointless.

go to democracynow.org, and listen to the iraq reports from this morning's program. subtle, nuanced, places sadr in context.

organised ASAP after june 30th, to ask Iraqies whether the troops should stay and help, or leave.

has more right to be there than the US.

The story doesn't ring true.
Even if it happens there is no way a kid would be saying such things to reporters.
I think not.

all i know is we have no business in there.
and bush on the american plate is enough to handle.
what ever the government/power structure looks like in the months and years ahead will be, should be up to the iraqi people.
this article just sounds like more phony reasoning to kill iraqis.
i'm sure there were some american patriots painted the same way by the brits at the time of the revolution.

I always thought being invaded and brutalized and having your government overthrown was supposed to bring out the best in people!

/sarcasm off/

where's the list, or the deck of cards, that tells us who's good and who's bad. I didn't realize it was that easy.

If you bully schoolkids you are bad.

to have such flat rules about good and bad in this war is not valid. If you were to apply those rules honestly, I think the U.S. soldiers wouldn't come out looking too good. The fact that Sadr is in his own country gives him a big advantage over any of our guys.

I don't buy into that type of analysis.

the 6-10 range of badness on a 1-10 standards scale of depravity.

What's your alternative analysis?

All there is in this article is speculation. Anyone who uses this article to base their opinions on ANY group already had preconcieved notions to begin with.

This article is not objective, it is pure propaganda.

and immediately wanted to post it because it supported my views.

I confess. Guilty as charged.

That said, i doubt I differ from 99.99 percent of other posters here that post rumours and stories that back they preconceived notions.

The question that remains is what is more reliable?


I'll be daring and venture a guess:

I think it is wrong to assume that EVERYTING and ANYTHING the coalition does is EVIL or motivated by capitalistic GREED.

Similarly, I think it is wrong to assume that EVERYTING and ANYTHING the coalition does is GOOD or motivated by pure unadulterated HUMANISM.

I also think it is wrong to assume that EVERYTING and ANYTHING the Iraqi insurgents does is EVIL or motivated by Islamic fervour.

Similarly, I think it is wrong to assume that EVERYTING and ANYTHING the Iraqi insurgents does is GOOD or motivated by pure unadulterated HUMANISM.



Cheers.

Go around and find some people who were alive during the Nazi occupation. Ask them what happened to German occupiers and collaborators. And if they did some things that might seem unsavory from your safe, unoccupied, free environment, condemn them, too their faces, for what they did.

I usually try and find grey space, but there is none here. This is WAR. Do you know what that means? It means kill or be killed. Be free or be a slave, and when it comes to that, I'll defend those who are defending their homes, PERIOD!

how the Norwegian resistance behaved... So'Il try to come back to you on that.

I found and interesting paper regarding resistance against occupation btw if you are interested:

http://66.102.11.104/search?q=cache:kwMmmiY8iswJ:www.lbihs.at/deak.pdf+norwegian+atrocities+against+german+occupiers&hl=no&ie=UTF-8

Cheers.

You might also want to check on the French and Dutch, since I believe (could be wrong) that the Germans were much harder on them during occupation.

The point is, it's easy to condemn someones actions and say you'd behave better without having gone through their experiences. I know I can say that were I in a position of being occupied by a foreign army that has killed my family, and friends for no justifiable reason, thoughts of what's moral or not would be relagated behind getting rid of the occupiers and regaining my freedom.

and I don't buy into it.

My analysis is that this invasion is a fools game. What the hell
do people expect for resistance? This guy is fighting an occupation.
Whether he is a good guy or a bad guy is simplistic jargon meant
to prevent looking at this occupation for what it is.

We should not be over there and whether Sadr is a good guy or not has nothing to do with it and I don't care to make those kind of foolish value judgements.

Your verging on the "If you don't support this occupation your a Saddam lover!" line. It's a red-herring and I won't take your assumptions as a starting point.

You are quite welcome to oppose the occupation AND oppose Sadr.

Personally, I tentatively still supports the occupation.

If, the coalition, refuses to leave after June 30th if that is what the Iraqis wish, I will turn and oppose it.

I must admit that I have bought (for now) the information that the majority of Iraqis support the allied presence in Iraq. If a national referendum shows that to be wrong, the troops should leave ASAP.

Cheers.

"Hover" is what you do when you are floating around.

"Hoover" is what the Former Governor of Texas does...errr...used to do with Peruvian Blue Flake.

AIN KAWA, IRAQ – US Special Forces cruised through the streets of a town in northern Iraq this week in heavily armored Humvees, loaded with weapons - an about-face from their usually low-profile maneuvers.

The soldiers, dressed in heavy woolen caps and goggles obscuring their faces, rode on platforms at the back of the vehicles. They manned mounted guns and saluted to curious Kurds as they negotiated the dusty roads.

But these troops were heading for a residential district, not the battlefield.

This reporter witnessed the Humvees stopping outside a girls' school - currently closed because of the war - heaving their backpacks over a cement fence into the playground. On the roof of a Christian church next door, US troops were setting up communications equipment.

The entrance to a nearby boys' school had been reinforced with sandbags and armed Kurdish militiamen, pesh merga, were on guard outside. A boys' school was also seen being occupied by US forces, and local residents say three schools - all closed - now house US troops.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0404/p07s01-woiq.html

excerpt it doesn't sound good.

But, it happened a year ago, during the war in an abandonded school building.

That is quite DIFFERENT from intimidating the principal and the students in the current story.

the article stated 3 schools were comandeered by US troops in a "residential" area. It didn't say the schools were "abandoned" they were "closed." HUGE difference, IMHO. Your article speaks of one school, one student and the principal who were told by men in black to go home. Should they have just allowed the schools of Fallujah to hold classes when the conflict was escalating?

How is this incident any worse than our troops comandeering 3 schools in a residential area of Iraq that put the entire area in danger by making them a target for enemy guerrillas and enemy operations?

As usual, our hypocrisy is stunning.

This article is describing the situation is a Baghdad neighborhood.

The year old article, mentions some unspecified town in northern Iraq during the war.

The school's in that case had been closed for several days (I belive)due to the impending military action.

As for closed versus abandoned consituting a HUGE difference, I beg to disagree. My point is that if there were no personell or students there when the schools were closed, the schools would be practically abandoned.

That seems to be the facts.


I do however agree with you that US forces had no business occupying those three schools. In no way I am attempting to put a rose picture on all coalition actions.

My point, is rather that Sadr and his thugs are criminals who belongs behind bars. Iraq is a mess at the moment. Iraq was a mess the entirety of the last decade. Western nations have to take a large ammount of the responsibility for the situation and the suffering.

Hold a referendum and sort out the occupation question.

Let the Iraqis decide whether they want the "help" that has been offered them.

What the F are these people thinking? I honestly don't believe this.

All it proves is that guys wearing ski masks told kids to not go to school.

Then a nice healthy dose of speculation tells you what you were already wanting to hear.

For all I know the guys in ski masks were the Iraqi paramilitaries trained and ordered about by the US occupation authority. After all, when the US troops sent them in to fire into demonstrations they wore ski masks so that they would be anonymous, after all, it's kind of hard to go home after you've shot your neighbors if they can see your face.

You've been pro-occupation and pro-colonization for a while. This is just bullshit speculation and propaganda to try and spread your agenda, which is Iraqis are too dumb to know whats good for them.. That's why we need to bring them freedom at the barrel of a gun.

If it weren't for polite and helpful persons like yourself, I would be totally adrift and rudderless.

The article makes it fairly clear that the people wearing black where from the Mahdi army. In the case of the people who intimidated the principal, the article leaves no doubt:

"They're more afraid of the Mahdi army than they are of failing their exams," says the principal, shrugging sadly. "

Again, I would like to thank you for your contribution to my thread. It is slightly more rash, uncouth and rude than I am quite frankly used to, but that is alright. People around the world come from different upbringings and have different cultures.

I understand.


Cheers.

The men in Hurriya didn't say who they were. Some wore ski masks. But Mohammed thinks they came from the Mahdi army

That's speculation.

snip

But when he got to his high school, the principal and vice principal were standing at the front gate. They told him to go home. "I'm not sure, but I think I saw fear in their faces," says Mohammed.


At Mohammed's high school, the principal is still afraid. The black-clad men had showed up there,too,

I see no proof it was Sadr's army there is these are the only passages describing the incident. All I see are unidentified men followed by speculation of who they are.

Follow that with this.

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040405.wklein0405/BN... /

On Sunday, Iraqi soldiers, trained and controlled by coalition forces, opened fire on demonstrators here, forcing the emergency evacuation of the nearby Sheraton and Palestine hotels. As demonstrators returned to their homes in the poor neighbourhood of Sadr City, the U.S. army followed with tanks and helicopters.

snip

Predictably, the arrest sparked immediate demonstrations in Baghdad, which the Iraqi army responded to by opening fire and allegedly killing three people. It was these deaths that provoked yesterday's bloody demonstrations.

At the end of the day on Sunday, Mr. al-Sadr issued a statement calling on his supporters to stop staging demonstrations "because your enemy prefers terrorism and detests that way of expressing opinion" and instead urged them to employ unnamed "other ways" to resist the occupation, a statement many interpret as a call to arms.

snip

On Sunday, before storming the unarmed demonstrators, the soldiers could be seen pulling on ski masks, so they wouldn't be recognized when they returned to their neighbourhoods.

And as for your agenda here, let's see what a search of the archives brings up.

...I do recall seeing quite a few pro-occupation posts from earlier, but on further review I see some consideration for changing your mind on the subject. My apologies, anonymous internet boards are rife with propaganda spreaders and those who usually post only on specific topics spreading an agenda are usually likely candidates.

I leave some threads unanswered because after I have been gone for a few days, I cannot find them.

That said, I want to thank you for a reasonable reply. The information from the globe and mail leads some credence to your theory that it might have been "coalition Iraqis", but I still think the information within the original article provides a stronger indication.

You left out this quote:

"They're more afraid of the Mahdi army than they are of failing their exams," says the principal, shrugging sadly. "


Considering he was payed a visist by these guys, one would think he knows. That is assuming that the story is legit in the first place.

As for the occupation:

As I said elsewhere in this thread. The very first elections held there should be a referendum on the occupation, on its very existance, and on its forms.

Let the Iraqi people decide.

I agree whole-heartedly, but unfortunately that has never been the plan. The plan has been to keep US troops there forever. As we speak 14 PERMANENT bases are being built, and the CPA will never allow a government to take power that won't allow US troops to stay.

For one they have to maintain the cover that the Iraqis need out troops there for security, and since a large amount of the Iraqi Army refused to kill their own people we now have Bremer et al saying they can't provide security for Iraq, and they're currently scouring Saddams brass to find people with less scruples about murdering their own people. Finally, on one of the various Sunday talk shows, Bremer was asked specifically what would happen if a new government didn't want the troops there, he said "that won't happen."

The way things are, Iraqis will NEVER enjoy democracy as long as US/Int'l troops are there. They're there to insure the privitization of all Iraqs assets and enforce the dispersal of the spoils. The only way the Iraqis will really be able to rule themselves is when the troops leave. And the only way that's going to happen is when the Iraqis fight them and force them to leave. Non-violence won't work, you saw what happend to people protesting the closing of a newspaper (is that democracy?), they were shot, and as long as the media here either ignores this or calls those killed terrorists, people won't care how many we mow down.

I'm too lazy today to make separate posts for each of the following points, some of which refer to material in other posts in this thread.

Part the first:

If the Mahdi are such effective terrorists, and if the (notably unnamed) principal has been terrorized into acting in accordance with their devilish dictates, please explain this:

"I didn't follow their orders, because I take my orders from the Ministry of Education," says the principal, a portly, balding man with a potted rosebush in his office.

Those are not the actions of a man cowering from the might of the Mahdi army, wouldn't you say?

Note the silly detail, characteristic of propaganda "a portly, balding man," sort of like your favorite uncle, "with a potted rosebush in his office," which adds what to the story of rampaging Muslim terror?

Which is to say, this is the same sort of speculation as that supplied by skinny, studious, young "Mohammed."

You're even helpfully adding your own bit of speculation (which is one of the glories of this type of story). You believe that since the principal (says he) was visited by these bad men, he must know who they were. Don't you think that, if that were true, the reporter who produced such a richly detailed story, right down to portly potted palms, would find space to include that detail?

How hard do you think it would be to go out amongst the people and find two who would say, "I think those black-clad men were American (or American-paid) provacateurs"? I bet you could do it. And it wouldn't prove a bloody thing.

This is a big problem with American public discourse; a mode of "proof" much used by Saint Ronnie Reagan. Put together an anonymously sourced anecdote, and use it as evidence to support your general proposition.

I can state my opinion about who those black-clad, schoolchild-threatening men were. It proves every bit as much as this story.

Part the second:

Who ever said that Sadr is a white-hatted good guy? He's a leader of a fundy sect, his country is occupied by infidels, and his newspaper got shut down for criticizing the actions of Sir Paul Bremer, panjandrum of the Raj.

I can see how that would piss a fella off.

Does my understanding of that make me a Sadr supporter? Does it constitute a statement that Sadr is a good guy? I just don't think so.

I respectfully submit that I thought the confusion between understanding motivations and endorsing following actions was pretty much an American phenomenon. Now I see it in a Norwegian, so I guess I will have to reassess my idea that reasoned discourse is the rule in the rest of the world.

You're unfailingly polite, you are "reasonable," in the sense that you seem to listen to other people's points of view without resorting to name calling. But I must say I think your reasoning (as opposed to reasonable) in this thread is deeply flawed.

(BTW: You did say in two other threads that you were changing your mind about the Iraq war. Has this anecdotal article changed your mind back, or are you making a distinction between supporting the war--as in the initial invasion--which you no longer do, and supporting the occupation, which you are now, maybe, doing?)

You are delivering lectures on grayness, and you say that you're trying to inject some. You are the person who titled this thread, "Fear Grips Once-Calm Iraqi Neighborhood (Sadr is NOT a good guy)." You see that parenthetical there? Who's using black/white as convenient? In addition, you're awfully black/white about those evil, schoolchild-scaring, anonymous men in black?

Point the third:

Would you care to comment on the fact that, in the story presented as an analog, about the US forces using a school and a church for operational bases, the US appears to be using a technique roundly condemned when done by the other side?

Remember how religious places are supposed to be protected under the Geneva convention, but if the Fallujah rebels hole up in a mosque, it's perfectly cool for the US to rain down a little Apache freedom on it? Americans, of course, have no problem with that. "Hey! There were bad guys in there. Besides, it's only a mosque."

Now, just imagine that the church upon which the US forces were placing their communications equipment had come under fire. Any doubt there would be righteous rage at the headline, "Iraqis Shell Christian Church"?

Not to mention what a good propagandist could do with attacking a school...

Point the fourth:

I've read recently that Norway is about to join the Coalition of the Formerly Willing, and pull its troops out of Iraq. Do you think this will have any effect on your fervor for the liberation of Iraq?


In your last two major threads (The Iraq War Was Cool! and Multiculturalism is a Sham and a Fraud!) I have given you my first reaction--my very best cutting sarcasm--and regretted it later, forcing me to repost in politer terms. I hope that this post saves me that trouble, since I have made an effort to present a relatively dry, relatively nice response (with a few irresistible moments, like my naughty treatment of your earlier threads, supra, this paragraph).

I trust you have completely recovered from your recent encounter with a surfeit of aqavit.

:kick:

dpibel said it better than I could.

because you consistently echo them here, you get the answers you
asked for.

"Good" is a value judgment that imposes a person's own ideological and cultural biases on a situation. The fact is that al Sadr and his militia fill a power vaccuum created by our invasion. But for the invasion, al Sadr would never have risen to prominence and none of the "bad" acts of al Sadr would be ocurring.

In some respects the Mehdi army's actions may benefit certain aspects of Iraqi society and harm others. It certainly is not beneficial to the Americans interst. The judgment of whether al Sadr is "good" depends upon where you fall in that spectrum of varied interests, among others.

Grow the fuck up.

but he does have the point. The world is NOT black and white. There are many shades of gray, particularly in this situation.

Approaching dilemmas from moral absolutes is quite typical of the Republican mindset and certainly not reflective of a mature system of reasoning.

I've read your posts on this, and it does not appear that you have considered the situation from many angles.

In fact, I will even reveal my agenda for posting on Iraq since the recent uprisings. It is because, I feel, rightly or wrongly, that many people here see the situation ONLY as BLACK.

I am desperately trying to nudge in some grey into the equation. Not with too much luck I must add. Even suggesting that Sadr isn't Mary Poppins, to quote another poster, is met with quite a bit of hostiliy.

To repeat from an earlier post:

I think it is wrong to assume that EVERYTING and ANYTHING the coalition does is EVIL or motivated by capitalistic GREED.

Similarly, I think it is wrong to assume that EVERYTING and ANYTHING the coalition does is GOOD or motivated by pure unadulterated HUMANISM.

I also think it is wrong to assume that EVERYTING and ANYTHING the Iraqi insurgents does is EVIL or motivated by Islamic fervour.

Similarly, I think it is wrong to assume that EVERYTING and ANYTHING the Iraqi insurgents does is GOOD or motivated by pure unadulterated HUMANISM.
------------------------------------------------------

Talking about black and white, I think I would have problems getting signatories to the four statements above. :shrug:

And you are getting close to a binary argument yourself with your statement about Rebublicans. Only, in this case I tend to agree with you. :hi:

At least let's put the republicans in the 1-3 range on a scale of chimpansee logic. :-)

I agree with your four statements.

And I agree with your position on the occupation. If the people vote to expel us after the 30th, we must go or lose ANY credibility that we were not colony-building.

intelligent, mature beyond their years, and overall stand-up-people here :-)

Seriously though, I think most Americans would agree with those four statements. Even though they contained some horrible spelling mistakes in them :-)

But, it is good with some support.

Cheers.

I must say now my hopes are completely dashed.

Where do these people come from?

Don

and the senior Shi'ite clerics that are currently going on. The majority of Iraqis don't "support' Sadr anymore than they "support" the coalition troops. People with guns have a way of getting people without guns to "support" them.

Whether or not Bremer will let this situation resolve itself peacefully will go a long way toward revealing the Bush Administration's real motives in Iraq. If Bushco is truly interested in "democracy", (or whatever passes for it in that part of the world), they will let the Iraqi's deal with this and work to ensure that this confrontation doesn't threaten the June 30th handover.

If they continue to throw gasoline on this fire, then our worst fears about the occupation will be confirmed.

:hi:

I agree 100 percent.

Cheers.

What do you think of Pol Pot? What do you think of the Dalai Lama? What do you think of the pope? What do you think of Martin Luther King?, What do you think of Adolph Hitler? What do you think of Kurt Nilsen?

:hi:

that's for cowboy movies, not real life.

They don't wear big black hats any more, and black Shi'a garb is not quite the same... no matter how hard you squint.

I don't think my tax dollars should go to riding the world of "bad guys".

We have half a world between us and Iraq it is time we use it.

US out now!

Letting the clowns in Washington decide who is good and bad is
like letting Hitler head the human rights inquiry into the
crimes of the Polish resistance.

Before jumping in that Bush is not as bad a Hitler remember his campaign slogan:

Bush is better than Hitler.

Has got to buy at least a few friends. The Iraqi resistance is opposed to U.S. pacification programs. Things are not always exactly what they seem.