Posted by Rob on 25 February, 2007 at 7:37 pm. Be the first to comment!


By Robert Farrow

Sadr slams Baghdad security plan

BAGHDAD (Reuters) – Radical Iraqi Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr withdrew his support for a security crackdown in Baghdad on Sunday, hours after a female suicide bomber wearing a vest packed with explosives killed 40 in a student college.

Police earlier said the bomber at the Baghdad Economy and Administration College was a man. But they later said it was a women, who blew herself up in the lobby of the college after she was stopped by guards. The move by Sadr, an anti-American cleric, is a blow for Shi’ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who on Saturday had expressed optimism about the U.S.-backed offensive. Until now, Sadr has supported the plan, seen as a last ditch attempt to halt all-out civil war in

Iraq. He said it would not work because U.S. forces were involved. “There is no benefit in this security plan because it is controlled by the occupiers,” said an aide to Sadr, reading a statement from the cleric in front of thousands of chanting supporters in the firebrand’s stronghold of Sadr City.

“(The United States) is watching car bombs explode, taking the souls of thousands of innocent Iraqi people.” Sadr led his Mehdi Army militia in two uprisings against U.S. forces in 2004. The militia has avoided any confrontation with U.S. forces this time and there was no indication in Sadr’s statement that this position would change. Sadr is now an important player in Iraqi politics, and is a key supporter of Maliki.

How nice the scummy, treasonist media gives this terrorist a voice. Of course they leave out (till the end of the article) the fact that their news source , Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr, ordered his fanatical militia to attack coalition troops, and is being supported by Iran and its terror surrogate Hezbollah. And they also forget to tell you that Sadr’s goal is to spark a widespread uprising in Iraq.  Source is here.

The only way I can show the absurdity of this practice is by weight of comparison. Let’s set the wayback machine and pretend, shall we. Let’s pretend today’s media had been around in WWII and covered the attack on Pearl Harbor. ( …and lets pretend TV sets were common in 1941. ) So close your eyes and imagine a fuzzy black and white program as the announcer says…..

Announcer, “Thousands of American soldiers die in attack on our Pacific Naval Base. ”

A few seconds of the Pearl Harbor footage. Announcer states “the whole American defenses are in shambles as our fleet is at the bottom of Pearl harbor. The whole coastline is open to invasion.”

Next, the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto discussing how the attack on Pearl Harbor was necessary because it would protect Japanese access to oil and other raw materials needed for the Empire.

..switch to footage of American ships on fire, emphasizing this is a “major disaster for our forces.”

….more footage of dead Americans, and the announcer suggesting that war “was avoidable, and Roosevelt forced Japan’s hand.”

….Prime Minister Tojo discussed how the the attack was brought by American Agression and that “Greater East–Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere will benefit all Asians and stop abuses by western countries.”

Finally… image of a crying mother whose son died in the attack, which fades into an the American flag (to pretend they are patriotic,) with the announcer suggesting if this is really worth the price.

Sound Silly? How is this different then how the media portrays the war now??

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x