jawa.mee.nu

February 13, 2007

Moqtada al Sadr Flees To Iran Fearing JDAM Attack

ABC News is reporting that Moqtada al Sadr has fled to Iran along with members of the Mahdi Army:

ABC Newsâ€”The story tonight in Iraq is not the arrival of more U.S. troops, but the departure of one of the country's most powerful men, Moqtada al Sadr and members of his army.
According to senior military officials al Sadr left Baghdad two to three weeks ago, and fled to Tehran, Iran, where he has family.
Al Sadr commands the Mahdi Army, one of the most formidable insurgent militias in Iraq, and his move coincides with the announced U.S. troop surge in Baghdad.
Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News' Martha Raddatz, "He is scared he will get a JDAM [bomb] dropped on his house." ...

Companion post at OpinionBug.com

Posted by: OpinionBug at 07:20 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

1 He pulled a murtha.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 13, 2007 08:34 PM (8e/V4)

2 lol, do you know who ordered the military to work on creating JDAM's? im not talking about murtha..

Posted by: Jake at February 13, 2007 08:40 PM (AeRA2)

3 Indiana's new "conservative democrat" eighth district congressman Brad Ellsworth was on the local news. Says he intends to vote for the resolution. It was weird because he had a strange whipped look on his face, that's not like him. Like his arm was sore from twisting. He repeated the Democratic talking points verbatum. You know Surge surge surge, They never mention the other 50 or so points to the new plan the the WH website. It's as if the "surge" or increased troop levels are the only thing in the plan or so they keep saying/lying/decieving. A person who does not actively seek information is now hoplessly buried in MSM leftist talking point. I would say points but there is only one drum and they are all beating it. They smell blood in the water. He also repeated that there would be no funding cuts or undermining of the troops which is a lie as Nancy said today that this is the first step only. So if you strip the recources the plan requires then they can make their prediction of failure come true. Shameful Shameful Shameful, Brad had every reason to hang his head, he betrayed himself and his voters and his past history. Brad, you are now Nancys bitch, welcome to DC.

Posted by: Darth Odie at February 13, 2007 08:54 PM (YHZAl)

4 Another reason I have been saying punish Iran for its behavior in this war against terror.

Posted by: greyrooster at February 13, 2007 09:02 PM (E0zAj)

5 Apparently, Mookie was afraid of the surge........and apparently, Democrats are not.

Posted by: n.a. palm at February 13, 2007 09:10 PM (e+o5y)

6 Iran has Lat/Lon too, Moqtada.

Posted by: RicardoVerde at February 13, 2007 09:15 PM (yZ0Nx)

7 Oh, the Dems are afraid of the surge, too, n.a. palm. After all, their entire political strategy is at risk. Remember, success for America in Iraq is failure for the Dems. What they really want is plenty of dead American troops.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 13, 2007 09:20 PM (p52Ne)

8 "Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops"

Heh heh heh! I'd bet he is :-)
Run you bastard, run.

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at February 13, 2007 09:33 PM (vixLB)

9 send 300,000 troops or america will cease to exist

www.goarmy.com

Will you join the fight today?

The military is lowering standards because it lacks volunteers.

We need the best we can find. What's your excuse for not serving america in her time of need.

Posted by: Bruce Hoby at February 13, 2007 09:38 PM (YdwY1)

10 Blow me Bruce.
I spent six years as a ground pounder. What in the hell have you done besides talk trash?
Let's go chase Sadr into Iran.

Posted by: dick at February 13, 2007 09:55 PM (8Qwo/)

11 There is no rock that this terrorist can hide under that we can't strike. Silly cleric.

They should have wasted him on the highway.

Posted by: Fred Fry at February 13, 2007 10:00 PM (gkD98)

12 six years? thats it?

Posted by: Jake at February 13, 2007 10:22 PM (AeRA2)

13 Blow me Jake. I spent almost 8 years.

Posted by: greyrooster at February 13, 2007 11:15 PM (E0zAj)

14 six years psyop dick. We can piss on liberals all day but if the next
gen doesn't step up our army will be broken. does anyone realy going to
think 21k is enough? We had 550K in asia.

Posted by: Bruce Hoby at February 13, 2007 11:43 PM (YdwY1)

15 so true, which is really why, except for small self defense operations, volunteer armies never work. course, if they did enact the draft i would move to canada, being the big pussy i am. if you're gonna attack iraq, go all out!

course i still think we ought to be isolationist.

Posted by: Jake at February 14, 2007 12:48 AM (AeRA2)

16 Fake:

"Except for small self defense operations, volunteer armies never work."

Except for the Revolutionary War and just about every american war fought since.

The vast majority who served in WWII were also volunteers.

You know what just about never works? Insurgencies.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at February 14, 2007 01:20 AM (Dt3sl)

17 Bruce Hoby:

Did the 550 thousand in "Asia" lose, or were they forced to flee by the Democrats and the indoctrinated, candy-assed public?

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at February 14, 2007 01:22 AM (Dt3sl)

18 Said that right. My 26th Marines never lost a battle. So how did we lose?

Posted by: greyrooster at February 14, 2007 11:02 AM (iAgZm)

19 what the hell? i play your line and you STILL disagree with me.

i make a pro escalation point and... sigh

Posted by: Jake at February 14, 2007 06:08 PM (AeRA2)

20 Public opinion turns after a war goes on for too long for no good reason. Period. The majority of Americans don't like the Iraq (or Vietnam) war because most people have the ability to smell bullshit after it's been rotting year after year after year. WWII took 6 years to fight almost every continent on Earth to submit to us. We've already been bombing Iraq since the 80s/90s so we had a 20 year head start. We've been in Iraq for 4, are we the people supposed to wait another 10 to appease political egos? The support for war would likely surge if we were in it against our real enemies like S.A or Pakistan (you know, the guys who attacked us) however, those wars will never be desired by politicians who don't want to sacrifice anything - the fight would be too tough, only by citizens who are prepared to sacrifice everything - all we need is a leader.

Posted by: tbone at February 15, 2007 04:27 PM (HGqHt)

21 Weebone:

Public opinion turns after a war is demonized by the Establishment media for too long for no good reason. Even if there is no war, as in the case of the mission to protect Iraq from the terrorists. Period.

The majority of Americans don't like the Iraq (or Vietnam) war because most people don't have the ability to smell bullshit after it's been rotting year after year after year. They swallow it without question.

WWII took 6 years to fight almost every continent on Earth to submit to us. Unfortunately, the reconstruction took more than twenty years, and troops are still stationed in Germany and Japan.

The Iraq War lasted 3 weeks, and the reconstruction will probably be finished in less than five years.

Are we supposed to flee to assuage political egos?

The people who attacked us were disposed of long before we overthrew Saddam. Remember Afghanistan and its Taliban/Al Qaeda masters? No? That's because they're history.

Al Qaeda is now in Iraq.

However, this war will never be desired by politicians who don't want to sacrifice anything--Dhimmiecrats--the fight would be too tough, only by citizens who are prepared to sacrifice everything. They have a leader in President bush.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at February 16, 2007 12:51 AM (Dt3sl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

38kb generated in CPU 0.0152, elapsed 0.0415 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0321 seconds, 176 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

February 13, 2007

Recent Comments