web analytics

SEXY GOATS?

By ATWadmin On August 16th, 2008

Did you read about the real reasons why Iraqi Sunnis turned on Al Queda in late 2006, and with American military backing helped to remove Al Queda from their area?


Al Queda tried to force their version of the “Religion of Peace” upon their newly acquired muslim Iraqi areas and the people who lived there.  Get this list of Al Queda enlightenment…


Female goats killed because their genitalia were unconvered and tails pointed upward – thus exposed. (Sexy goats??) Cucumbers were said to be male (tomatoes were female) thus women could not buy those “suggestive” vegetables. (Sexy cucumbers?) Ice cream salesman was killed because ice cream was not available during the time of Mohommed. Men had fingers sliced off – for smoking. Hair salons and shops selling cosmetics were blown up. Treatment of women by male doctors was forbidden. Singing – was forbidden. Shaving – was forbidden   Sideburns -was forbidden.  Any barbers who did either were killed.Man who sold musical CD’s on list to be killed and shop to be bombed. Women were given leaflets threatening with kidnapping or death if they didn’t wear the niqab. Iraqi women were forced to marry Al Qaeda men. Those who did not give their allegiance to Al Qaeda were slaughtered – even children.

As the Opinionator rightly points out over on Up Pompeii,


…thus disgusted by such acts and oppression, the Iraqi Sunni leaders and people saw that it was far better to work with the American & British military rather than suffer such outrageous treament by Al Qaeda terrorists.  This change in allegiance is part of the reason that the number of American & British military post “surge” civilian and military deaths have dramatically dropped. An observation and fact that most mainstream media continue to be reluctant to cite…

26 Responses to “SEXY GOATS?”

  1. And these were the guys the European left were cheering for.

  2. Which ones?

    the religious fanatics or the tribal nationalists?

    i always forget.

  3. "Cucumbers were said to be male (tomatoes were female) thus women could not buy those "suggestive" vegetables."

    On the plus side banning suggestive vegetables does mean that there will never be an Iraq Esther Rantzen.

  4. Sexy goats?…I take it the Masonic will be setting up there..

  5. The surge brought a new priority of protecting the Iraqi civilian population. When faced with AQ abuse or American protection – which would you choose? Of course the Iraqis chose life and freedom. The surge brought the strength and protection needed to stand against AQ. And Iraqis did stand against terrorism and they did it brilliantly and they are still doing it even though we are back down to pre-surge military levels.

  6. ‘When faced with AQ abuse or American protection’

    Ahem…Abu Gharib…ahem…

    ‘Of course the Iraqis chose life and freedom.’

    Ahem…illeaglly invaded…ahem…100s of thousands dead…ahem….

  7. RS – you’re using the old talking points. It’s not helping in your attempt to discuss the reality on the ground in Iraq.

  8. As the Iraq fiasco is far from over, they are relevant Monica me ‘aul flower, even if they are uncomfortable home truths.

  9. Sexy goats?

    Why did the goat run over the cliff?

    Because he didn’t see the ewe turn.

  10. The surge brought a new priority of protecting the Iraqi civilian population.

    New? It should have been pretty much the number one priority from the start. But that would pre-suppose that liberation and elavation of the people was really part of the whole agenda. We know that was never the case, based on the hundreds of thousands who died as a result of ten years of sanctions and air raids, and a further six years of major conflict killing even more hundreds of thousands.

  11. The original strategy in Iraq didn’t work well, remember Tripper? The surge was the new strategy. It worked. Duh. (Even the ‘hundreds of thousands’ dead has been thoroughly debunked…)

    Talk about ‘uncomfortable truths’. You and RS are a bit behind the times when it comes to Iraq. It’s okay, because your inability to accept our victory in Iraq doesn’t matter one bit to me OR to the Iraqis.

  12. DT

    So you opposed both sanctions and the invasion? Are you nuts?

    What was your alternative? To take an overtly pro-Saddam position?

  13. Tripper liked Saddam. Apparently the Iraqis deserved him.

  14. La nostalgie pour Saddam. He bleeds crocodile tears for the Iraqi civilians, but evidently wanted to do nothing to stop Saddam from killing them in great numbers.

    Now this does make sense. And it was guys like DT who made the invasion necessary. The sanctions could not possibly have continued because DT and his allies were campaigning to have them removed. So the choice was a) invade Iraq, or b) accept a re-armed Iraq in a regime where sanctions were no longer in place. There is no third choice.

    DT, if you don’t like the invasion and its aftermath you should not have made it necessary. You owe the civilians of Iraq an apology.

  15. Tripper liked Saddam. Apparently the Iraqis deserved him.

    Quite the opposite. On all counts.

    DT, if you don’t like the invasion and its aftermath you should not have made it necessary. You owe the civilians of Iraq an apology.

    Could you run any further with such BS.

    For a start the sanctions were highly destructive for the civilian population. Few, me included, would object to military sanctions but when you include the civilian population in such international ‘bargaining’, Im afraid you lose my moral vote.

  16. oops bad grammar

    obviously, what i mean to say is i support military sanctions.

    But civilians were deliberately targeted by the sanctions regime. So much the UN being just a lefty talking shop. Half a million children alone. Maybe you should be apologising.

  17. ‘It’s okay, because your inability to accept our victory in Iraq doesn’t matter one bit to me OR to the Iraqis.’

    Some victory

  18. The real reasons why Iraqi Sunnis turned on Al Queda? I thought the whole point was to relieve them of Saddam stand back and pat ourselves on the back and watch the Iraqis go nuts about their new found "freedom!!!" (say it Mel Gibson style). You mean they needed to wait to see how bad Al Qaeda were first before becoming ‘grateful’? Well, gee thanks Al Qaeda for helping to make the point.

  19. All this shows is the complete and utter incompetence of the Allied operations in Iraq.

    They lose thousands of soldiers in the fight to hold areas because they were incapable of doing a deal with moderate locals and once they lose the moderate locals sort the problem out in double quick time.

    So the three losers in this are Al-Qaeda, the Allies and most of all the locals who got bombed to pieces by the first two.

  20. –But civilians were deliberately targeted by the sanctions regime.–

    Are you on crack? Who told you that? Why would this have been done?

    Civilians were supposed to be the beneficiaries of the Oil for Food program–they’re why it was created. Saddam’s regime diverted these funds (with the aid of some friends ) to his family, his palaces, and to his military.

    I don’t remember anyone seeking a different type of sanctions. I remember a lot of people crying false tears for the lifting of sanctions

    Perhaps you were one of these. If you were you are as culpable for the war as is Rumsfeld or GW Bush. No joke.

    The leftist European chant for the lifting of sanctions were absolutely instrumental in creating the environment for war.

    You must apologize. I can forgive you, and Rumsfeld, if you admit your mistakes.

  21. Are you on crack? Who told you that? Why would this have been done?

    its quite easy to come to that conclusion. civilian infrastucture was all but leveled in 1991. Severe restrictions then prevented this infrastructure to be rebuilt. The civilian population suffered severely as a direct consequence. Bottom line, civilians were a direct target from the opening salvo of the first gulf war. Child mortality doubled, cancer diagnosis went rapidly up, disease spread. Medical supplies were provided and not distributed (by the UN, not Saddam). The list goes on.

    Heres a link that talks numbers, then places blame squarely at Saddams feet. It has been shown that the blame cannot be placed solely there. UN representatives for Iraq resigned over the issue.

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright

    Denis Halliday the UN Coordinator for Iraq who resigned over the matter sums it up well enough;

    ‘I don’t want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide’

    There is much info out there. which should satify any curiousity you have on the subject. Its certainly not as clear cut as you may have been led to believe.

  22. But still, new palaces were built by the Iraqi regime. So where were the civilians in their priority list?

    They liked the fact that suffering civilians aided the argument against sanctions, and allocated their resources accordingly. And the UN and the French etc went along for the ride.

  23. Around the same place that the west had them listed. Somewhere near the bottom. But as i said. It can be shown that that western response was found severly wanting. Not all blame can be laid at Saddams feet. Civilians were deliberately made to suffer by both sides. If it was all one sided, then i doubt there would be much controversy, never mind senior UN officials resigning over this specific issue.

  24. But still, new palaces were built by the Iraqi regime. So where were the civilians in their priority list?

    Around the same place that the west had them listed. Somewhere near the bottom. But as i said. It can be shown that that western response was found severly wanting. Not all blame can be laid at Saddams feet. Civilians were deliberately made to suffer by both sides. If it was all one sided, then i doubt there would be much controversy, never mind senior UN officials resigning over this specific issue.

  25. So if you didn’t like sanctions what should the west have done? Esp since you do not like intervention

  26. As I said earlier, I would have had no problem with sanctions designed to hurt the regime directly. And yes i have a problem with intervention, because by and large intervention masks the real intentions behind such events.