Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, May 21, 2007.
Well, you know, once we kill him, all this violence will end.
The Army should've bumped him off a long time ago; now the sucker is hiding over in Iran.
What are his grievous sins?
Causing the deaths of Iraqi citizens and coalition soldiers.
How unspeakably low. M. al-Sadr comes from a long line of religious scholars with great authority in Iraq. His father was murdered by Saddam. When al-Sadr took over his father's position, he became together with Sistani the top representative for Shias in Iraq. He is a legitimate representative of Iraqis - whether we like it or not. It is up to the Iraqi people - and his overwhelming popularity is not in question - in fact, one can ask: which other single figure in Iraq has greater popular support by sheer numbers? We don't get to determine that - the Iraqi people do. He's a nationalist who is unhappy with our invasion - that's his right. His militia fought us when we tried to arrest him on trumped up charges - in fact so strongly did they fight, we had to give up - and Sistani himself warned the U.S., that if they kept fighting Sadr, the entire Shia population would rise against the U.S... and so, we relented.
Now we read, that like the lowest of the low, we plotted to murder him after luring him with "peace negotiations". Have we fallen so low? We now use "peace negotiations" as a ruse, not to actually communicate as all civilized nations do, but to murder those who come to talk peace with us? Do we also murder those who raise the white flag as well... actually, scratch that, yes we do, and there are videos of that (people who are surrendering getting machine gunned). This is the lowest kind of filth, worthy of the Nazis.
For a long time now, my expectations of the Bush administration have fallen so low, that no crime, no matter how vile, how inhuman would surprise me coming from these guys. There are no limits to the depravity of these people.
The problem here is that now that this story is out no one with any brains will ever agree to a negotiation meeting with US forces.
Plus I can't even imagine the disaster that Iraq would be right now if the Shia had been openly fighting us for the past 2-1/2 years. And the number of uselessly dead on both sides.
I wonder who signed off on that order...
It's amazing how well known all these "secret" plans are. This is like the third or fourth thread in the past week detailing secret plans.
Just a small point, but just because the government doesn't publicly announce a plan doesn't make it a secret plan. A secret plan has the appropriate security level markings and handling procedures.
Guess someone needs to take out a hit on the entire Bush administration then.
It was secret at the time - operational secrecy was obviously required... but who says actually "secret" plans don't leak out? Seems to me, secrets leaking out are par for the course, and have been with us since the beginning of time. What's so unbelievable about that?
The other side of this is that this administration has been unique in our history of the U.S. in the number of things they stamp "confidential" and classify as secret. Look up the stats - it's staggering. Of course, most of it is designed to prevent accountability, and reduce oversight. Typical for this criminal administration.
You know you've got a serious problem when you can't win the heart or mind of a guy who's father was murdered by the guy we came to oust.
Funny how none of the secret and top secret programs I've worked on ever got leaked. And even after all the time that's transpired since I've worked on them, I've never felt compelled to squeal to the press about them to this day.
I guess that "sworn to secrecy" doesn't mean quite the same thing anymore.
Maybe - SHOCK - not all secrets are created equal? Maybe it's because legitimate confidentiality deserves protection. Maybe it's because secrets created in order to swindle the public, or hide a crime, or hide some extremely low, dishonorable and possibly illegal action (like the subject of this thread), deserve to be exposed to the light of the day, public opinion and accountability?
Maybe you weren't involved in all the secrets ever of the U.S. governments, so you can't take your experiences to be representative of the entire field?
Maybe you kept quiet about legitimate secrets - as have thousands of others? Maybe you kept quiet about illegal things - when it was your duty to report crimes? Maybe others did not choose as you did - maybe they chose a higher loyalty to the constitution, and when they saw crimes hidden under the convenient label of "secret" they went public or leaked? Maybe they are the true patriots while you are just a good German? I don't know or claim anything about you one way or another - just that I don't think your points make much sense.
I guess "Walter Mitty" still does.
So should Linda Tripp have kept things quiet? How about Deepthroat? Or Scooter Libby? Would you be as trusting if Hillary was trying to do this and cover it up?
Loose lips sink ships. Relevant then and still today. Sure there's a very small handful of situations that have arised where disclosure might have been warranted, but people today are so full of themselves that they think that anything they disagree with merits disclosure to the press.
And some people are so naive as to think they can trust their gov even when they're doing something immoral or illegal. If this wasn't a bad thing, it wouldn't have been a big deal if anyone "leaked" it. But it was, and it is. Maybe if they stopped trying to pull this kind of crap, people wouldn't feel the need to leak it.
That's what I've been saying for several weeks now, but some of my posts have vanished into thin air.