It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mehdi army captures US funded badr brigade death squad member

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   

So let me get this straight, you support Suicide Bombers, Snipers etc attacking and Killing US, British, Australian and other Coaltion Soldiers and Military representives going about there Mission Inside Iraq ? "


yes.




posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Do you provide material support to these attacks ? do you urge your Muslim brothers to kill Americans, British, Australians in Iraq or anywhere for that matter ? or is it more spiritual, like praying for the Deaths of Coalition forces ?




Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 22/12/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I think people are overplaying the U.S. is behind the grande conspiracy theme.

The U.S. military is stretched said lightly and broken according to Colin Powell. At least the forces over in the middle east region.

While it's no surprise that the U.S. backed the Shiites, to go so far as to say America is behind the sectarian killing, by instigating it and knowingly funding it with the intent of it being carried out is going too far.

Here you have two sects of Islam that have not gotten along since the death of the 4th rightful Caliph. After that, some went with the blood relative of Fatima the daughter of Mohammed(PBUH), a Talib somethin' .. they became the Shiites. They wanted blood rule to continue. The Sunni's were the group that elected the next Caliph since the 4th one died with no blood heir. This is when the split occured, and the main reason they don't get along.

Now isn't that just f*cking retarded? please excuse me, but to shed your brothers blood for hundreds and hundreds of years over a simple disagreement on who should succeed the earthly FLESHY position of "leader"? Are they that much of a flock? To this day I cannot understand the true hatred between the sects based on the RELIGIOUS differences alone. Jews and Muslims -- ok. But Muslims & Muslims? No. Its unexcusable.

The true pious muslim is the one who seeks peace. I've looked through the Qu'ran, and it doesn't have much bad stuff to say about 'people of the book', in fact.. to the contrary, i was left empty-handed, with no evidence to support the obvious fact that today the radical muslim extremists, claiming to be adhering to the 'strict islam', claim to get their religous reasons to murder innocents with bombs and the removal of heads with their bare hands from the Qu'ran and the teachings. And my assessment is that those teachings are not there in the original form of the teaching.

That sounds confusing. See, there was this book added after Mohammed died, called the Hadith(s). This is a collection of post-Mohammed stuff, and stuff Mohammed supposedly said that was not in the Qu'ran for whatever reason. This is where the aspect of muslim law goes into detail, im assuming. So i can only assume that the Hadith contains the religious ammunition to allow a man to be so barbaric, so hateful, killing innocent people in the name of God. It is so shameful, the worst shame.. I feel the shame just talking about it, truly shameful.

But you see, it was the men AFTER Mohammed that made decrees and things declaring laws and things that made Islam able to be interpreted with a radical mindset, ie; death to the unbelievers. It only says death to the APOSTATES.. an apostate by definition in the Qu'ran is one who has left Islam after accepting it, or a Polytheist, NOT a person of the book (A Jew, a Christian). This is a deception. The deception. And they fall in line...

Well let me just say that naturally the Shiites as a group oppressed in Iraq under the previous regime, being oppressed by Saddam for so long, will naturally be 'wild' upon attainment of freedom, which is a joke at the moment but thats another rant. But let me REMIND ALL that the Sectarian killing was a strategy being employed by Al-qaeda, specificly Al-qaeda in Iraq at their peak of power thus far, and when Zarqawi the man from Zarqa was their leader.

When they (The Sunni Extremists such as Al-qaeda) sent the fighters to blow the Al-Askariya golden dome mosque it set off shockwaves of sectarian killings on a whole new scale. Ever since, its been tit for that killings .. both sides rounding each other up and killing each other.

No one is innocent, but the Sunni's started it by blowing up the Golden Dome mosque. You just don't do that unless you are FORMENTING sectarian violence, unless you want Shiites to kill Sunnis so Sunnis will kill Shiites and so on. I'm just saying this was originally the terrorist strategy and to say now that it is the American strategy is just nonsense IMO, because America wants the violence to subside: all of it.

So they can pack up and get the heck home, you know they don't want to even be there right?

Some pray to die in their own land, many aren't afforded that luxury.

[edit on 12/19/2006 by runetang]



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Sunni and Shia have been living in the region side by side for hundreds of years, well before Saddam came along. The Riverbend blog by a girl from Baghdad described how the two sides had intermarried to some extent, and in polite society one didn't dwell on the differences. I'd provide a link, but I can't find the actual passage, the site's too big. The sectarian bombing campaign started in summer 2003, just after clerics on both sides of the divide made calls to unite to kick out the invaders.

As for it all being "too much of a conspiracy"...

A little while ago, on BBC radio, there was an interview with a guy who'd been in the British Army and was stationed on Cyprus in the seventies. His job was to mediate between Greek and Turkish Cypriots and resolve any conflicts.

At some stage, he was at an official function and fell into conversation with some guys, an American and a Brit, who were in the security services. He was describing his job, and they found it funny, because as fast as he was going round resolving conflict, they were running round inciting it. "What you don't understand is that the plan for Cyprus is partition", said the British spook. The US and the UK didn't want a united Cyprus that might have kicked their secret bases off the island. There are listening posts out there, and one of the "numbers stations" - I think it might be the one known as "The Lincolnshire Poacher".

Plans for partition of Iraq have been kicking around since before the invasion and to suggest that a covert campaign to incite sectarian violence is too "conspiracy-minded" is to ignore the historical record.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
What people do not understand in their patriotism and blindly following our nations leaders that comes and go with different agendas depending the party they served is that our governments no always have the best interest of other nations they impact at hart.

The Iraqi affair is one of them, is not about the people of Iraq is about supporting a government that will do as our nation wants it to do.

Regardless if the government is a tyrant against its own people.

Our nations record on destabilizing regions, nations, supporting governments is only base on best interest, our nations own.

No ours nation population, or the other nations population but to satisfied agendas the agendas of the people behind the government.

Sad but truth.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I never said it was beyond the USA to do it, just that they arent currently doing it, ie; formenting the sectarian killing and funding it on purpose.

Because the thing is, USA knows that the Shia majority of Iraq will side with Iran against the USA in a conflict because of their strong religous and ethnic ties. USA isnt stupid, and knows a possible conflict with Iran may happen in the future, and wouldnt be going that far out of their way to make a total Shiite domination by exterminating the Sunnis, just to have them turn on them in a couple of years if that conflict did start with Iran.

The USA wants a friendly Iraq, even during a conflict with Iran, to have their troops and bases, and airspace etc. and fodder, too.

so they need a unified iraq with sunni and kurd opposition to the shiite majority, because the shiite majority will back Iran unless the sunnis and kurds oppose them in the various houses of government.

an iraq split into 3 countries would work but its not what the US administration wants for their strategy, soto speak.

It IS a "better than cutting and running" notion, and they may try to do it if unification continues to fail into the next 2 years. Because at least then the USA would have a friendly Kurdistan for bases and airspace in a conflict with Iran. The Shiites wouldnt allow it on their territory i bet, and the Sunnis over in their oasis, their Al-qaeda in Iraq / Mujahedeen Shura Council Islamic Caliphate of the desert complete with -nothing- of resource, well .. lets just say they will be getting bombed quite frequently if that were to take place.

well they have 1 resource, an excess of young men willing to splatter their guts just for the off-chance of maiming someone they dont like..

[edit on 12/20/2006 by runetang]



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Missed Gear that is the way to check the original poster.

To be selective and leave out information in the same sentence speaks volumes of the original poster.

Spin Spin as you must. But don't change sentences to your benefit.

So who really has swallowed the Kool aid??????

I wish Syeian Sister showed this much zest when Syria occupied much of Lebanon for over 26 years.

I do not agree very often with some of the above posters. But please try to be more honest. I respect views and interpetations of the truth. Not dececption by way of ommision.

Very shameful.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Ofcource there is still a link with iran and the SCIRI, but as for the badr brigades and the ministry for the interior, aswell as the special army units, they are in US hands.

Well…the accuracy of the above is less than true…and this statement shows why "Iran" was edited out of your OP.


Originally posted by Syrian Sister
A man by the name of Steele, who also trained the el salvador death squads

This is all alleged by Kim Sengupta in her article as posted, nothing more. By Sengupta’s definitions and terms, these “squads” could be as easily labeled as “trained” by Iran…the IRG…Badr…SCIRI…Iraqi military etc…

Example:

SCIRI commands military forces called Badr Corps. This started as a brigade and developed into a division and then into a corps. The Badr Corps consist of thousands of former Iraqi officers and soldiers who defected from the Iraqi army, Iraqi refugees, and Iraqis who fled the country and join SCIRI.
SCIRI

SCIRI needs to change the information as contained on their official website
(there is an entire section on the Badr Corps…must be a horrible embarrassment if your theory is true)


….but isn’t it “who” is controlling them these “death squads” the real issue?

On this very important note…Odd how Sengupta does not mention or link Bayan Jabr (a former high ranking official in the Badr Brigade and recent ex-Iraqi Interior Minister) to any of the killings nor the convenient timing. (aka.The Minister of Civil War)

Rather Sengupta includes in her article some extremely biased inputs from Jabr himself?

Max Fuller’s article plants a simple assumption as fact.
The assumption: Hirsh and Barry are reporting facts…

The ‘conceptualizations’ spun by Fuller are from Michael Hirsh’s and John Barry’s “exclusive” report that appeared in Newsweek which is accredited to “breaking the story” on the “Salvador Option”.
In reality, Hirsh and Barry broke only a “theory”.

The Hirsh article contains: no citable sources, more reporter opinion/added conjecture and makes more than ample use of 1980’s Noam Chomsky parallels in creating logical assumptions to form huge leaps.

This is where Fuller “picks-up the ball” in his article…pushing further arguments. Reinforced yet another inclusion of Negroponte/El Salvador/Honduras and, of course, not mentioning the changes that occurred after Hirsh’s article’s initial print; (adding Jim Steele’s is just fluff.)

While also not touching on Syrian involvement, Muqtada al-Sadr, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, various other factions, Nouri al-Maliki, etc. etc. etc...Both articles and this “theory” fail to identify and examine the very basics:

-Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, as currently in charge of the Badr Organization for Development and Reconstruction.

-Bayan Jabr, (the person imo who really display’s Fuller’s and Sengupta’s bifurcation and bias), the recent ex-interior minister, current minister of finance defender of torture centers, Badr Corps member and the beginning of “death squad” activity when he took office in 2005…imo, this man is the major source of "death squad" activity

-Jawad al-Bolani (the evidence against Jabr) who took over as minister of the interior in June 2006 who has:

…. fired more than 3,000 employees since he took over, some for corruption and human rights violations, and that he referred 300 to 600 of those cases to the Iraqi court system.
He also pointed to the recent suspension of an entire Iraqi police brigade on suspicion that some members may have permitted, or even participated in, death-squad killings. August 2006

hmmm…


mg



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   
the fact is, hakim and sistani are your allies in iraq, and the badr brigades otherwise known as wolf brigades are also in support of your occupation.

They are not some militia that is against you, that's decided to be secterian, no sir, they are highly trained and they have a purpose.

And it's a widely known fact that the badr brigades and the interior ministry are one in the same thing. And we all know about the antics of the interior ministry don't we, when 74 men where found there tortured almost to death.
And pray do tell who set up the interior ministry and the new government apparatus?

Don't think for a second belive your government is some angel in this.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join