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.

 

Sadr threatens open war

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Sadr threatens open war


english.aljazeera.net

Muqtada al-Sadr, the Iraqi Shia Muslim leader, has threatened to declare "open war" if a security crackdown by Iraqi and US forces against his loyalists is not called off.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   
They reckon if this does happen, it will be the bloodiest in years..

english.aljazeera.net
(visit the link for the full news article)


CX

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 07:16 AM
link   
What do they mean by the term "open war"?

Has'nt everyone over there just been doing whatever they want, to whoever they want, whenever they want anyway?


CX.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by CX
 


al-sadr has tens of thousands of fighters, and he said if he declares open war he wont stop till the country is liberated, that obviously means thousand of deaths on both sides, fool blown civil war..



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
If he does re-start his bloody campaign again hopefully the U.S. military is given the green light to kill him and smash his group once and for all. They need make an example of him, Anyone who tries to gain in the political area through violence will be dealt with.
If they do not want to stop him then we should pack up and leave because the whole thing is a waste of time.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Well, I suppose this is good news on all sides.

If there is a massive open war between the government, al-sadr and the US, then

1. Either the government WILL step up and take control like Bush says it does.
2. The United States will be so badly bloodied turning public opinion drastically against the government forcing a withdrawl, aka vietnam
OR
3. Iraq gains the leader it needs, someone who the people will follow, someone who will fight to take control.

Taking out Saddam was the worst move possible, because he was the only madman with enough popularity amongst Iraqi's to be able to control the factions through sheer brutality ( when needed ) while pushing Iraq forward under its own power.

Understanding this you realise that Iraq wont work under democracy, It needs a powerful man whom the people follow to force a concept of control.

Yes its all bad, it will be an anti-american, pro-iranian person... but then again,thats the bitter pill we need to swallow being we took out the only decent person available to lead Iraq.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
I posted this topic last night:

Anti-US cleric al-Sadr threatens new uprising in Iraq . He means "open war."



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Anyone who tries to gain in the political area through violence will be dealt with.


I guess someone should sort Bush out then.. and Blair.. and Brown.. and any other government who think war will gain them a political foothold.

Why on Earth the war started in Iraq is beyond most peoples understanding. Iraq had nothing to do with the reason for war.

From an observers stand point, al-Sadr has every right to do what he feels is needed.

The Western forces are raging an illegal war on foreign soil and it doesn't appear to have solved anything.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Extralien
 


You hit the nail on the head..



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join