Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Zarqawi declares war on Shi'tes in Iraq


DUBAI (Reuters) - The leader of Iraq's al Qaeda wing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on Wednesday declared a war on Shi'ite Muslims in Iraq, according to an Internet audio tape.
"Al Qaeda Organization in Iraq ... has declared war against Shi'ites in all of Iraq," said the voice which could not be immediately verified but sounded like previous recordings attributed to Zarqawi.

10 Comments:

Blogger Hype said...

Thank you Bush for creating a civil war in Iraq.

September 14, 2005 8:13 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

very true hype , and once the Shia starts getting attacked in LARGE numbers you watch this spread into Iran and their masive shia population

September 14, 2005 8:19 pm  
Blogger G_in_AL said...

LOL, this is so much shit, and Hype, I know you are to dippy to see through it, but H, I have a post comming up here quick about the insurgents planning to incite a civil war by attacking Sunni and Shia.

Why is it the US's fault? These guys couldnt make Iraq hate Americans enough. They coudnt get the American public to turn against the war enough, so now they are going to try and make the Iraqis break out against eachother.

To still sit here and excuse their actions, while condemning ours it so absurd it's almost laughable.

September 15, 2005 1:28 pm  
Blogger Hype said...

What reality does Gump live in? This is the last throes? Come on. They have been getting more organized since the day we said mission accomplished.

Get with the program. As soon as we leave, Iraq will be in a hot civil war or in a mild to hot civil war.

Right now, since we are there, I would call this a cold civil war. Everybody has made their agendas known. The fighting has been going on but now it is being upgraded to war.

Um, Saddam had the terrorists in his country contained. We opened pandoras box when we invaded Iraq and didn't do the job correctly to prevent this from happening. That would have been possible, but BushCo fucked that up too. It is not possible now. We are going to be occupiers or Iraq is going to be in civil war. Maybe both at the same time. It is starting to look that way.

-Hype

September 15, 2005 4:26 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

G , as Hype says , we opened the box

Iraq had many problems of course , but it did not have this !

the US government was advised by a number of intelligence agencies including mine that we should not allow the Shia to gain over all control of the country

they said , that this would lead to federalism and would play into the hands of the Iranians (who have gained greatly from all this)

Invading a country without international support is one thing , not having an effective plan to bring order to the country is another crime in itself

I was watching the syrian foreign minister on british TV last night , saying exactly what some of us have been saying

a border has two sides , it just looks ridiculus to be blaiming other countries or the insurgents or whatever when it was the US that took the country and it was the US that failed to secure the borders

as for hypes final comment , very true

we are going to be occupiers during a civil war here

the only hope i can see of stopping the slaughter that will follow is one i am sure will never happen

for the US and UK to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible and with the agreement of the Iraqi people , replace all US and UK assets with United nations peace keepers (muslims) and hope then to negotiate between the sunni and shia to prevent a blood bath

of course the US wont do this , as they have to many dollars invested and would not want to lose face

so civil war here we come

September 15, 2005 5:18 pm  
Blogger Hype said...

Why do some people cut off their nose to spite their face?

Here is a quote that works quite well:

"Most Americans understand that fighting terrorism with racism is repugnant to their values and won't work. And most people have enough sense not to cut off their nose to spite their face. But not everyone."

-Hype

September 15, 2005 5:37 pm  
Blogger G_in_AL said...

Get with the program [...] Saddam had the terrorists in his country contained. We opened pandoras box when we invaded Iraq

Two key points from Hype. First part is a common theme from Hype, "get with the program" I find with you means "read party talking points, then vomit them back out on any blog as if you actually could rub together two coherent thoughs and have an opinion.

Second part is to show the absurdity of your arguments. It wasnt two weeks ago you were telling me, and others on Dissent that Iraq was virtual Utopia before we showed up, there were no terrorists in Iraq before us, and we had no reason to go there. Now, low and behold, you say there were Terrorists before we were there?

Drink it up fool, H actually believes this stuff from an educated, experianced, and (to me, warped) perception of the world. You just eat it up because you dont know better. Sad really, but whatever.

September 16, 2005 2:54 am  
Blogger G_in_AL said...

H, the US government was advised by a number of intelligence agencies including mine that we should not allow the Shia to gain over all control of the country

What the hell? Ok, so we are supposed to let them rule themselves so as not to be conqorers, but then you say we should have played a direct hand in forming the demographics of their government.

But you know, as well as I do that no government we propped up with artificial majorities would ever be supported by anyone.

Right now, the ones getting headlines are the Jordanian Zarqawi, his militias of Syrian hooligans, and their Iranian funding. There are former Saddam Baathists that finally realized they were not going to be lynched in the streets, so they are carrying around posters of the guy and singing his praises.

The majority of the Sunni are being lied to by Al-Sader (another Jordanian isnt he?) to try and fuel civil unrest that has yet to take true fuition.

At some point H, even you will have acknowledge that all of the doom and gloom predictions have yet to come true. The only civil war possibility there is now is one that Zarqawi is trying to start by ACTING like he is from the Sunnis while attacks Shia. The real reason behind this is because the Shia have yet to react violently in return for the repeated attacks made on them under the guise of "Sunni nationalism".

September 16, 2005 3:03 am  
Blogger _H_ said...

G

you said "What the hell? Ok, so we are supposed to let them rule themselves so as not to be conqorers, but then you say we should have played a direct hand in forming the demographics of their government."

the advice on how to set up the country was there , from the brits and the israeli's and many others , the way it is divided gives to much power to the shia , of course the shia are the largest numbers so in maths it makes sense , but it is this shia domination that is another of the many factors dragging the country to civil war

the sunni feel they are being punished for saddam and it is not there fault

wit Al-Sader your possibly getting confused (or i am ) he is a Shi'ite not a sunni , and he is mainly creating problems in the south with the other shi'ites , to the sunni he is irelevent , they would not listen to him

you said "At some point H, even you will have acknowledge that all of the doom and gloom predictions have yet to come true"

answer not yet G , from what i see Iraq (right now) is much worse then it was under saddam , of course many who suffered under saddam would say i was wrong , but the tens of thousands affected now would certainly agree

you said "The only civil war possibility there is now is one that Zarqawi is trying to start by ACTING like he is from the Sunnis while attacks Shia."

answer , hmmm i think the civil war will come full monty (erm in england that means to the max , not naked lol) if the constitition is rejected next month , and though i may change my mind , at the moment , i think it will fail

as for zarqawi i do agree . he is just stirring the pot as much as he can , but it is the constitution and its success or failure that will make or break the country and the signs are not good

September 16, 2005 11:12 pm  
Blogger Hype said...

Gump is an ass for making assumptions. What talking points? Gump's reaction is out of place and just plain wrong. Secondly, we did no such thing on Daily Dissent. We merely said this was bad from the beginning. We have no right to change other countries governments. Saddam is bad but so is everybody else. If your neighbor spanks his kids and you don't agree with that, do you go over his house and teach him a lesson? Do you take his kids away? Please refrain from dictating government and culture.

-Hype

September 19, 2005 4:50 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home