The Iraq Thread

[bn880 5]

Man that is terribly long, you should put a disclaimer or soemthing...

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ April 15 2003,00:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 15 2003,00:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">he most certainly does not speak for the average Australian.<span id='postcolor'>

i hope , don't forget we have ICBM's <span id='postcolor'>

You`d better launch a preemtive strike against the USA, because they know France has WMDs and that there are many people from Algeria living in France. People from Algeria must be terrorists, because they have brown skin and come from a desertlike country, even if they have no "Q" in their names. And if Pres. Bush remembers that Algeria lies next to France, Iraq and North Korea you are f**ked, ran!! It`s always the best to pull the trigger of your Colt Peacemaker!

[foxer 0]

Kicking the french out of the SC(Security Council ) bad ? You people are saying that is wrong.Because they agree with your opinion you want them in the SC ?

Wasn't when the war started that some of you said the US should be kick outta the SC ? So aslong as they agree with your opinion,they should stay,However if they don't they should be gone or nuked(i know your only kidding ).

Hypocrisies,However the door does swing both ways.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ April 15 2003,10:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kicking the french out of the SC(Security Council ) bad ?<span id='postcolor'>

On what grounds would you kick out France?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Wasn't when the war started that some of you said the US should be kick outta the SC ? Hypocrisies,However the door does swing both ways.<span id='postcolor'>

No there is a big difference. The US started a fucking illegal war of agression. France did not. USA violated the UN charter, France did not etc.

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 15 2003,00:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 14 2003,23:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/14/1050172536432.html

my thoughts exactly, Mr. Howard.  France as a permanent member of the security council is such an anachronism.<span id='postcolor'>

I didn't think my opinion of John Howard could drop much further, but it has.

On behalf of myself and most Australians with half-a-brain or more, I apologise for his ridiculous comments, and would like you to know that he most certainly does not speak for the average Australian. He has a persoanl agenda to ingratiate himself as much as possible with Bush and Blair.

I can't wait for the next election, I hope that little weasel (Howard) gets blasted right out of the water.<span id='postcolor'>

Ditto that here.

The annoying thing is the little turd will probably get back in next election...the opposition are just too weak.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 15 2003,10:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ April 15 2003,108)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kicking the french out of the SC(Security Council ) bad ?<span id='postcolor'>

On what grounds would you kick out France?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Wasn't when the war started that some of you said the US should be kick outta the SC ? Hypocrisies,However the door does swing both ways.<span id='postcolor'>

No there is a big difference. The US started a fucking illegal war of agression. France did not. USA violated the UN charter, France did not etc.<span id='postcolor'>

I'd call it a successful illegal war of liberation, but hey, that's just me. I know you still think we want Iraq for one of our neo-colonies.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 15 2003,10:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd call it a successful illegal war of liberation, but hey, that's just me.  <span id='postcolor'>

"Successful illegal" I can agree on. And "illegal" was my point for saying that the SC has much reasons to kick out US than to kick out France. I'm not really sure where this "kicking out France from the SC" comes from but it's absurd as hell since France has been the one safeguarding the UN charter..

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know you still think we want Iraq for one of our neo-colonies.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes

[foxer 0]

I disagree.Every country in the SC isn't perfect.So they would all be kick out.What the heck is this illegal war crap ?

Do you bitch about russia wars? How bout china and Tibet,I mean ,FREE TIBET DAMN YOU COMMIES,can't a monk live in peace. .Should they be in in the SC? Maybe the french hasn't done yet,but then agian maybe they have,i just don't give ratass to look it up.However it's just amount of time before they do.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ April 14 2003,21:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ROE abolished? Well then the US checkpoint killings are perfectly justified as the troops were at risk from suicide bombers. I have read multiple reports of Iraqi abuses of civilians in this war

<span id='postcolor'>

Of course a serviceman is justified in protecting himself against suicide bombers. However, he has to be absolutely certain he is not killing an ordinary civilian. You see - that is the burden of being a soldier. Point is, a soldier/military unit are supposed to follow rules of engagement. What you are implying is that civilians cannot fight an invading force and I challenge that because if that's the case there would be no resistance movement during WWII. Besides, I have not read any credible reports on iraqi abuses of civilians in war - and don't give me this shit about "hiding" in civilian areas because you are supposed to protect your cities when defending your homecountry.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My Anglosaxian (sic) ideology? Heheh thats a new one.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I take pride in that term. It's ironic that Blair heads a labour government when the policy making is close to neo-conservatism. I suspect the only labourmovement going on is the dancing that takes place during the Westminster ball.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes im sure plenty of Iraqis will want americans out as soon as realistically possible(or somewhat sooner). A few will want them out immediatly. Many less at this point will be willing to physically attack them to this end. If i know little about Norway i would say you know nothing about Iraq (or so it would appear if you continue to insist that Iraq is Norway with kebabs).<span id='postcolor'>

If you cared to remember we were talking about killing of civilians and of course there are differences between Norway and Iraq. However, even if the current situation in Iraq is nowhere near the occupation of Norway there are still differences and principles that are comparable. Or do you say that Saddam was alright in not promoting human rights because his society was not comparable with the western nations? If one is to take your argument seriously there would be no need for comparative sciences.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh by the way when was the Norwegian governments last -tongue cutting out- incident?

I somehow missed that lesson back at school.<span id='postcolor'>

No tongues pulled out - but assassinations of civilians were sanctioned and ordered by the norwegian exiled government.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The problem with calling Tony Blair americas poodle is that people start to believe it. <span id='postcolor'>

Well, he's certainly no independent terrier either!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ April 15 2003,10:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What the heck is this illegal war crap ?<span id='postcolor'>

Wars are strictly prohibited unless in direct self-defence or if they are approved by the UN Security Council. USA has agreed to those rules by ratifying the UN Charter. And now it breaks them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I disagree.Every country in the SC isn't perfect.So they would all be kick out.<span id='postcolor'>

No, and I'm not suggesting that we kick USA out either. All I'm saying that if some kicking is to be done from the SC, USA is a much more logical choice than France.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you bitch about russia wars? <span id='postcolor'>

You mean Chechnia? Chechnia is a part of the Russian Federation and therefor an internal matter. It's like if Oklahoma decided to leave the US and the federal government sent in the military to prevent it. Not really a UN matter.

We do however bitch about Chechnia. It's one of the major problems in EU-Russian relations. In the end however there is very little we can do (within reason), just as there was very little we could do to prevent you from attacking Iraq.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 15 2003,10:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ April 15 2003,10:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What the heck is this illegal war crap ?<span id='postcolor'>

Wars are strictly prohibited unless in direct self-defence or if they are approved by the UN Security Council. USA has agreed to those rules by ratifying the UN Charter.  And now it breaks them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I disagree.Every country in the SC isn't perfect.So they would all be kick out.<span id='postcolor'>

No, and I'm not suggesting that we kick USA out either. All I'm saying that if some kicking is to be done from the SC, USA is a much more logical choice than France.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you bitch about russia wars? <span id='postcolor'>

You mean Chechnia? Chechnia is a part of the Russian Federation and therefor an internal matter. It's like if Oklahoma decided to leave the US and the federal government sent in the military to prevent it. Not really a UN matter.

We do however bitch about Chechnia. It's one of the major problems in EU-Russian relations. In the end however there is very little we can do (within reason), just as there was very little we could do to prevent you from attacking Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

The war however, won't be an illegal one any more if the U.S. can find WMD and/or Iraqi links to terrorism. Give it some time, and then we'll see. While I agree its illegal at this point, I still say it was moral.

Before you flame me for that, go back and read my previous posts about utilitarianism and the greater good.

[Longinius 1]

The war is still illegal even if WMD's are found. The fact still remains that the UN didnt sanction it and America wasnt under a direct threat from Iraq.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 15 2003,11:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The war however, won't be an illegal one any more if the U.S. can find WMD and/or Iraqi links to terrorism.  Give it some time, and then we'll see.  While I agree its illegal at this point, I still say it was moral.

Before you flame me for that, go back and read my previous posts about utilitarianism and the greater good.<span id='postcolor'>

That's not how it's supposed to work. You don't commit the act and find the evidence later. It all ends up back at this 'pre-emption' crap. It was illegal, it still is illegal. Even if immense stockpiles of nasty weapons are found, that doesn't change the legality of the initial act.

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 15 2003,10:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 15 2003,10:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ April 15 2003,10<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kicking the french out of the SC(Security Council ) bad ?<span id='postcolor'>

On what grounds would you kick out France?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Wasn't when the war started that some of you said the US should be kick outta the SC ? Hypocrisies,However the door does swing both ways.<span id='postcolor'>

No there is a big difference. The US started a fucking illegal war of agression. France did not. USA violated the UN charter, France did not etc.<span id='postcolor'>

I'd call it a successful illegal war of liberation, but hey, that's just me.  I know you still think we want Iraq for one of our neo-colonies.<span id='postcolor'>

Kind of like breaking into someones house to burgle it, and finding someone choking on a chickenbone, giving them the heimmlich manouvre, and then saying what a hero you are - despite your initial action being illegal.  

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ April 15 2003,09:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ April 15 2003,00:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 15 2003,00:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">he most certainly does not speak for the average Australian.<span id='postcolor'>

i hope , don't forget we have ICBM's <span id='postcolor'>

You`d better launch a preemtive strike against the USA, because they know France has WMDs and that there are many people from Algeria living in France. People from Algeria must be terrorists, because they have brown skin and come from a desertlike country, even if they have no "Q" in their names. And if Pres. Bush remembers that Algeria lies next to France, Iraq and North Korea you are f**ked, ran!! It`s always the best to pull the trigger of your Colt Peacemaker!  <span id='postcolor'>

ICBM's then ........

where's the red button ....... hmm ... not here .. ah found it ... ok , where's the manual now ..... "push the button" ... that simple ? rrrriiiiiigght ......

*push*

hm ... nothing .....

ooh my bad , it was a can of tomato sauce (heh sorry, haven't found anything else) ..... damn .....

give me 2 hours to find the Real Red PushButton Of Death ..... ok 3 hours .....

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ April 15 2003,11:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kind of like breaking into someones house to burgle it, and finding someone choking on a chickenbone, giving them the heimmlich manouvre, and then saying what a hero you are - despite your initial action being illegal.  <span id='postcolor'>

hmm , in the USA , the chicken bone one would sue the chicken cooking company and also the burglar because he broke him 2 ..... how do you call these ? you know , the thin long curved bones on the side of the Thorax (don't know if it's the same word in english) , the human has got about 30 (ok , not sure , but i'm not a biology teacher) of these , what are they called ?

[PFC Mongoose 0]

Wars by U.N. Charter membver nations are illegal without consent of the U.N. Security Council.

This mean, to my knowledge, every single war foguht during the Cold War was illegal.

Now, here's an interesting thought; what if France pulls a Soviet Russia and just auto-vetos anything proposed in the Security Council by the U.S. or U.K.?

Highly unlikely, but all thkis talk of legality got me considering the possibilities.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ April 15 2003,19:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wars by U.N. Charter membver nations are illegal without consent of the U.N. Security Council.

This mean, to my knowledge, every single war foguht during the Cold War was illegal.

Now, here's an interesting thought; what if France pulls a Soviet Russia and just auto-vetos anything proposed in the Security Council by the U.S. or U.K.?

Highly unlikely, but all thkis talk of legality got me considering the possibilities.  <span id='postcolor'>

The Korean War was sanctioned, but I think that was the only one. Unless you count the original Gulf War as happening during the Cold War.

Some would say that this is a reason to disaband the UN since it has failed to stop many wars, but if you do that, many more wars shall be started. What I think needs to be done is a good shake up of the way the UN, espicially the security council runs. The power of veto is something that should definetely be reformed. On one hand it can be used to stop resolutions that are not good, but then again it can be sued to stop resolutions that are (in my opinion) good. What should really happen is that the UN is given over to aliens. If us earthlets cannot run it properly, maybe we need some unbiased outer-spacelets to make sure we stick to the law

[Longinius 1]

Thats probably when they stoped calling wars "wars" and called it police action instead.

[DarkLight 0]

Wow, i always thought you had to be prepared to go to war, not just attack and then realize that you can't handle the situation...

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 14 2003,11:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 15 2003,10:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ April 15 2003,10<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kicking the french out of the SC(Security Council ) bad ?<span id='postcolor'>

On what grounds would you kick out France?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Wasn't when the war started that some of you said the US should be kick outta the SC ? Hypocrisies,However the door does swing both ways.<span id='postcolor'>

No there is a big difference. The US started a fucking illegal war of agression. France did not. USA violated the UN charter, France did not etc.<span id='postcolor'>

I'd call it a successful illegal war of liberation, but hey, that's just me.  I know you still think we want Iraq for one of our neo-colonies.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah you are right, the ppl don't have food, water or electricity AND everyone's looting the place. Prisoners have been released all over the place, etc

Great liberation!

[Blaegis 0]

Reforming the Security Council is not going to improve the key problem with the UN: the lack of muscle for enforcing its decisions. I think recent events have shown quite clearly that the deciding factor in international relations is still good old-fashioned military power. Sad but true. So for the UN to be effective, it would have to have a proprietary trans-national army, large enough to give any potential transgressor a bloody nose. And, possibly, nuclear weapons. Of course it's not going to happen under current political conditions (if ever) - what country is going to finance a military force that could potentially be used agaisnt it...

On a side note: there are so-called leadership talks held in Nasiriyah today, with respresentatives of the major Iraqi factions (as selected by the US) trying to decide who's gonna run what. UN isn't invited...

edit: spelling

[Longinius 1]

I think its brilliant, the people America have picked to run Iraq:

1 native who hasnt got the support of the people and is wanted for fraud (bigtime) in Jordania or wherever.

1 woman (in a society like Iraq I dont care how good she is, most men will have big problems taking orders from a woman).

1 ex general with a pro-Israel standpoint.

Uhm, by the way, a candidate largely supported by the people in Iraq has not even been considered by the US. This is gonna work out great. its obvious that the Iraqis are allowed to pick their own government!

[Die Alive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Die Alive @ April 14 2003,17:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 14 2003,16:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just read an article about a kid named Ali. He lost both his arms and his entire family to a coalition missile, he is what prowar activists would like to call collateral damage. Anyway, he will apparently die if he isnt moved to a better hospital. The nurse caring for him wrote a letter to the english government and with the help of some journalists she managed to get some attention.

Tony Blair has now promised that Ali will recieve help from England and two kids in a similiar state have all ready been flown to english hospitals. Nice to see someone is atleast trying to take some responsibility.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL I've read that too today, also some Irish journalist or whatever he is, he was saying Jesus didnt suffer as much as this kid is/will (depending on how long he's gonna live).

The kid says he wants to be a doctor when he grows up, and he asks if doctors can put new arms on him.

-=Die Alive=-<span id='postcolor'>

I found the article, but wont post a link to it due to SoF2 type of gore level pictures included.

I'll just copy and paste it, without giving credit

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BAGHDAD BOY SHOWS JESUS GOT OFF LIGHT

9th April, 2003

Ali Ismaeel Abbasne has destroyed my concept of Christianity.

I always thought that Jesus suffered terribly, so God could

forgive mankind for it's sins. But, Jesus got off light.

It's down to Ali to finish the job.

This Christianity of yours, Jesus --is a farcical, dismal failure.

Twelve-year-old Ali Abbasne was blasted into unconsciousness while still asleep. When he awoke in hospital it must have seemed to the Iraqi boy that he was having a horrific nightmare. Could it really be true that a US bomb had robbed him of his arms, his mother, his father, his brothers, his sisters and his Baghdad home?

"Can you help get my arms back? Do you think the doctors can get me another pair of hands?" Abbasne asked. "I want to become a doctor, but how can I? I don't have hands," he told Reuters. "If I don't get a pair of hands I will commit suicide."

See what I mean, Jesus.

Don't bother telling me about how they crucified you. At least you had arms with which to be crucified.

And, don't bother telling me about your legacy. The people who did this to Ali are your followers. Both of their war leaders are Christians who claim to have God on their side.

You had it easy, Jesus. You had a family most of your life. You had arms with which to be a carpenter. You had hands with which to heal the sick. Ali has nothing. Nothing, Jesus. Ali has nothing at all. Your followers robbed him of everything.

Don't tell me about your scourging and your crown of thorns. Ali's body is scourged with burns for the rest of his life. Ali's mind will be ringed with a crown of thorns for all the rest of his days. Your pain was short.

Don't tell me how they forced you to carry your own cross. Your burden was light. Ali will bear his for a lifetime. No wonder your mission failed. You had it too easy.

No wonder your followers are nowhere to be seen, as their soldiers butcher the children of Iraq in your name, and in the name of a democracy that means rule by the rich. Where are your followers now?

They are bitching about the price of Iraqi oil to feed their gas guzzlers. They are dining out on the blood of Iraqi children. They are greedily speculating on the stock market gains from a war. They are lustfully eyeing their neighbor's house with dreams of owning a larger one. They are mindlessly sniggering at the latest talk show joke. They are pampering themselves and their children with luxurious pleasures and sparkling trinkets.

Meanwhile, two-and-a-half-year-old Ali Najour; lies in agony, clothes soaked with blood. Meanwhile, eleven-year-old Safa Karim, bleeds internally from an American bomb fragment in her stomach, as she twists in agony against the rags that secure her wrists and ankles to what is her death bed. They are an abomination, are your followers.

Yes, I grant that you were wise. And I accept that your intelligence penetrated the veil of lies --as has the insight of great prophets. But, no wonder you cried out "Father, why hast Thou forsaken me?" Because He had. You must not have suffered enough.

Listen instead to Ali, my God.

"We didn't want war. I was scared of this war," says Ali. "Our house was just a poor shack, why did they want to bomb us?"

"Can you help get my arms back? Do you think the doctors can get me another pair of hands?" Ali Abbasne asks.

Are you listening God?

Here is you sacrificial Lamb. Here is Ali Abbasne. Served up to you by Christians.

Listen to his words and feel them move Your heart. Open Your eyes to his tortured innocence. Open Your heart to his suffering. Do not forsake him. Do not forsake the other children of Iraq for whom he is a symbol.

If the suffering of an innocent lamb is your measure, then Ali is filling that cup to overflowing. Anoint him, and usher in your Kingdom. Forget the Christians. It is Ali who must move You.

Blessed be Ali Abbasne. Blessed be his name.<span id='postcolor'>

-=Die Alive=-

[PitViper 0]

Looting and Lying

surprise surprise.  media reports of looting are largely out of proportion. Here's a more accurate assessment.