I dipped my finger in purple ink in solidarity with the brave Iraqi voters.

[Theo van Gogh Martyrs Brigade]

The big fat cheeseburger eater Morrissey was smitten with last year, Michael Moore, has some more words to eat. Many months back, the ignorant asswhipe wrote on his web site:

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?"

Hmm. What I saw on January 30 were an estimated 8 million Iraqi voters giving the so-called "insurgants"/"minutemen" the purple-ink-stained FINGER. Did you get THAT, you big fatt retarded blubber butt? Oh, I guess now, because on the day of Iraq's election all Michael MORON had posted on his site was that he won the People's Choice Awards (Michael "ME ME ME, it's all about ME" Moron) and a picture of the British cargo plane that was shot down. In other words, not only is it now an indisputable fact that the vast majority of Iraqi people DESPISE the insurgancy and risked their lives to communicate this fact in historic fashion, but it's also clear that democracy is not a value that Michael Moore holds in his heart.

But then that's been true of the fever-swamp far-left in general for a long time.

Here's a clue to them: Zarqawi leads the "insurgancy," yet he is not even an Iraqi, and he views the majority religious group in Iraq (Shiites) as deserving of mass slaughter for practicing an "infidel" form of Islam, and doesn't think much better of anyone else in Iraq besides the remnants of the Baath regime he's chummy with.

Yet the ignorant ones on the left actually have believed the rubbish that it is an "insurgancy" representing the average Iraqi. Sorry, dummies. The Baathists and jihasists lef by Zarqawi who resorted to recruited a child with DOWN'S SYNDROME to be a homicide-bomber and blow up civilians trying to vote in a free election are called NAZIS. NAZIS, GOT IT FOOLS? That's the side you took, and you ought to be saying sorry, and until then, NOTHING ELSE. Otherwise you deserve to be despised.

And you most certainly deserved the lose the American election.

No, Morrissey, the "sane" and "intelligent" choice on election day was not to vote Kerry.

I must say it was more than pathetic to see the sponsor of Kerry's campaign, Ted Kennedy, giving encouragement to the "insurgants" a few days before Iraq's election day. And it was only slightly less pathetic to see the so-called "intelligent" candidate booking an appearance on Meet the Press on Iraq's elction day obviosuly because he was expecting (hopinh) the Iraq election would be a disastor and he'd use the occasion to attack Bush and launch his 2008 campaign. Unfit for command, indeed! Lest we forget, had it been up to John Kerry with his vote against the FIRST Gulf War, not only would Saddam be in power today, but he would've successfully annexed Kuwait and would have had nuclear bombs to hijack the world with.

Others in the liberal un-intelligentia didn't look so good either. A few weeks ago the main press voice of the liberal elite, the NY Times, called on Bush to postpone the Iraq election because Iraq was supposedly not ready for it. Did we see an apology on Jan. 31 from the Ny Times for being as wrong as could be?
Nope.

I guess they were surprised by the Iraqi people. I guess for some reason they didn't know Iraqis want freedom and democracy. There's no excuse for this error. They live in a country where our founding documents declare that all people yearn and deserve to be free. They witnessed the successful election of Afghanistan just a few months ago. And they had access to an excellent documentary film called Voices of Iraq, wherein 150 videocams were distributed to Iraqis for them to film themselves in their daily lives and saying whatever they wanted. The disconnect between the Iraqis in this film and the Iraq we've seen in the media the past couple years is shocking to the point of criminality on the part of the journalists who refuse to present reality.

This film is availble at www.voicesofiraq.com , but for some reason the left winger Robert Redford couldn't work it on to his Sundance channel in between all the anti-Bush propaganda filsm they were showing. I guess Redford was too busy producing his pro-communist film about Che Guevera, The Motorcycle Diaries.....

Their loss, because the incredible Iraqi election was no surprise to anyone who viewed Voices of Iraq.

but for many of these demented leftoids I think something even more sinister than plain ignorance and stupidity is going on. They invested themselves so much in their propaganda about quagmires and Bush being a nazi that it became a matter of preserving their own reputations to hope for the worst outcome in Iraq. And for the elements on the left for which this is true, I say: You are becoming the fools of history, you have no shame, and I hate you more than you ever could hate George W. Bush. f*** you.

Let freedom ring. In the past few months, Afghans have voted, Palestinians gave voted, and Iraqis have voted. Planting the seeds of democracy in places that have never tasted it before in order to provide a long-term solution to the root causes of Islamic-fascist terrorism. As the speeches of Bush and Blair promised.

P.S.
Nope, I didn't see any Iraqi voters thanking France, Germany, or Canada for helping make their glorious independance day possible.

P.P.S.
Before the American election, Morrissey wore a t-shirt reading "Jon Stewart for President," showing once again that these days he is just conforming with whatever's trendy amongst the liberal un-intelligentsia. It was interesting to see what Jon Stewart said this week:

===
Jon Stewart, late in the Daily Show last night to Newsweek pundit Fareed Zakaria: "I’ve watched this thing unfold from the start and here’s the great fear that I have: What if Bush, the president, ours, has been right about this all along? I feel like my world view will not sustain itself and I may, and again I don’t know if I can physically do this, implode.
===

Bush hasn't been right about everything, but he's sure a hell of a lot more right than these awful left-wingers who took the opposite side of supporting democracy. The Iraq election is proof that the voters who re-elected Bush were the wise ones. And we're a bit tired of the cynical critiques of every step of the liberation from people who stood in its way. Watch and learn, Michael Morons.

 

[jp]

Arguing about this will probably get us nowhere....

So I'm not going to engage in a debate that will most likely do nothing more than reinforce the many stereotypes liberals and conservativs ascribe to one another. But I will say that you cannot discuss this "election" (might I add an election in which the Iraqi people couldn't even know who they were voting for) and the "democracy" that we have "delivered" to Iraq in terms as dangerously narrow as the ones that characterize your assessment of it.

Here's an article I grabbed off the NY Observer website:

Iraqi Voters Give Big Purple Finger To Bloody Regime
by Tish Durkin

The Iraqi people have spoken. Now for the $80 billion question: What did they say?

To the delight of decent people everywhere, the loudest, clearest thing they said was to the mass murderers in their midst, and it was (pardon their French): "Up yours."

In and of itself, this was amazing and glorious, and the amazing glory of it must not be downplayed or qualified or otherwise Monday-morning-quarterbacked out of existence. The Iraqi people didn’t just defy death by voting; they got dressed up and stood on line and waved their national flags in its face. They told defeatism to get lost and gave terrorism the finger. To a less dramatic—yet immensely satisfying—degree, they also flipped the bird to the more learned—yet immensely irritating—idea that Arabs and/or Muslims somehow can’t take freedom, the way an Irish complexion can’t take sun.

Maybe even better yet, they seem to have said to themselves and to each other: "I am proud to be an Iraqi."

This would be an unbearably hokey and insubstantial thing to note, were it not for the fact that so many Iraqis have been marinating for so long in an utterly heartbreaking sense of shame. By the time of the American-led invasion, Iraqis had endured so many years of torment, they should have been proud to be walking and talking. Yet shame clung to them like the smell of cigarettes in a smoker’s clothing. In an odd way, the war—which, good or bad, was certainly not something they declared on themselves—only made this worse. Even for those who cheered the American ouster of Saddam Hussein, there was shame in the fact that they hadn’t somehow ousted him themselves. Even for those who greeted the capture of Saddam with gleefully gory soliloquies on the topic of chopping him up into little pieces with their own bare hands, there was shame in seeing his filthy spider-hole hair being picked over for lice by foreign fingers. Even for those who realize that, whether or not Iraq should be occupied militarily, its future will depend upon long-term foreign investment and involvement, there is shame in the fact of needing this quite so badly.

But on Sunday, there was nothing to be ashamed of. Nobody delivered voters from the need to risk their lives. Nobody handed them a safe passage to and from the ballot box. Nobody did their voting for them. And nobody can take their achievement away from them.

To Ali al-Sistani, the most revered of Shiite imams, the Iraqi people said, "Shall we jump? How high?" This ends the simple-euphoria portion of our program, for there are sufficient flies in this ointment for everyone to take his pick. There is the whole irony of the fact that democracy can only function if the system is paramount over any one personality—and yet the first step toward Iraqi democracy has been taken in such large part on the say-so of one man. It was striking how many Iraqis were quoted as saying that they had voted because the Ayatollah Sistani had told them to. It was not surprising, however, given the number of Iraqis who had no trouble stating, at various times of trouble, that the reason they were not rising up and killing every American in sight was because the Ayatollah Sistani had told them not to do so … yet.

Pledges of pluralism notwithstanding, there remains the whole issue of what the political primacy of this strong Islamic fundamentalist—and others—will mean for such constitutional questions as the rights of women, the separation of religion and state, and so on. My personal favorite, however, is much more simple: What a single great figure can give in the way of cooling and calming the situation at any given time, a single great figure can also take away.

To the American public, the Iraqi people said, "We love you! We thank you! God bless you! Without you, we’d still be under the cruel thumb of the dictator! If there’s anything we can do to strengthen your hand in our part of the world, just give us a holler!"

No, no, no, scratch that—I was just listening to some idiot crowing on talk radio. Given the remarkable ability of positive developments in Iraq—the toppling and later the capture of Saddam, let’s say—to be immediately followed by brutally negative periods of violence, you’d think that there would be a media-wide moratorium on crowing, as well as gloating, preening, high-fiving and self-congratulating generally.

But no: It’s not enough to see, and to celebrate, what actually is great about this moment. It is necessary to invent all kinds of other stuff.

Don’t get me wrong. Had Americans not led the way to the uprooting of Saddam, Sunday’s election would never have happened. So, hooray for us. But there is no time like the present for Americans to take those rose-colored glasses and toss them into the deepest ocean they can find. The fact that so many Iraqis voted reflected nothing more or less than a calculation on the part of themselves and their leaders that Iraqis would be better off with an election than without an election.

Happy TV pictures from Sunday or no happy TV pictures from Sunday, the only sound assumption upon which to go forward is the assumption that the reservoir of Iraqi good will toward Americans has long since run dry—and predictably so, because it was pretty darn shallow to begin with.

This was true before the election, it was true during the election, and it will be true long after the election: For every Iraqi who believes that the United States primarily came to save them from Saddam, there are thousands who believe that the Americans came primarily to steal their oil. For every Iraqi who associates Bush 43 with suffrage, there are millions who associate Bush 41 with Saddam’s mass slaughter of Shiites after the Gulf War in 1991. The belief that the Americans are tools of a Jewish conspiracy, and that this whole war was nothing but a great big excuse to expand Israel through the whole of Mesopotamia, is as widely and strongly held as it is patently nuts.

By "nuts," I do not mean taking issue with any or all aspects of the real American relationship with Israel; that is a perfectly sane topic of debate that perfectly sane people have all the time. By "nuts," I mean …. Well, take this conversation I had in Baghdad the week that Ronald Reagan died. I had just interviewed a politically active, fundamentalist-but-not-fanatic 30-ish Shiite scholar. It was by no means extraordinary, and I invoke it here for the sole purpose of hinting at the level of suspicion with which the United States is regarded, and how difficult such suspicion will be to dispel—not only among the people who boycotted Sunday’s election, but among some of those who most rejoiced in it.

Anyway, the scholar and I had had a long talk about Shiite politicking: Was Moktada al-Sadr being taken seriously; how much muscle did the Badr brigade really have; what were the Iranians up to; and so on. But then, as we were wrapping up, he decided to end, in a very friendly tone, with a few words about The Jews: how the Americans couldn’t be trusted because, while it was good that they got rid of Saddam, they only did it for the Jews; how no Jews died on Sept. 11 because they planned it; how the Jews drink the blood of this and secretly control that; and on and on. At one point, he opened a big dusty reference book and showed me a drawing of a Jew who apparently had come to live in Iraq hundreds of years ago, and who had posed as a linguist but was really a spy. And, having long since resolved that a few little methodical points of fact might actually do some small bit of good where spitting and stalking out would not, I responded with the usual: Well, actually, Jews did die on Sept. 11, and a lot of the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S. consists of non-Jews; and as political blocs go, old people and insurance companies can be a lot more powerful than any foreign-policy lobby anyway, and blah, blah, blah.

I know it sounds terrible to be going "blah, blah, blah" about such a subject, but even the most disturbing exchange gets boring by the thousandth time you have it. I practically fell asleep during my own little lecture. But then the scholar said something that woke me right up.

"Look at the funeral that Reagan got," he said, in the Aha! tone of someone who has found the evidentiary needle in the rhetorical haystack.

I didn’t follow.

"John F. Kennedy didn’t get a funeral!" he elaborated.

"Huh?" I asked, my head filling instantly with visions of John-John saluting the flag-draped coffin.

"John F. Kennedy stood up for the Palestinians," he declared as certainly as if he were declaring that Saddam Hussein used to run Iraq. "So the Jews had him killed, and then buried him at night."

You may reach Tish Durkin via email at: [email protected].

back to top
This column ran on page 1 in the 2/7/2005 edition of The New York Observer.

 

[jp]

And here's a good piece from Salon.com....

"An explosion waiting to happen"
Iraq expert Amy Hawthorne discusses the possibilities -- but mostly the pitfalls -- of Sunday's elections.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jeff Horwitz

Jan. 29, 2005 | In Iraq, in the White House and around the world, all eyes are fixed on Sunday, the day of Iraq's elections. Will those elections prove to be the start of a brighter day for the violence-torn country -- or the beginning of an even grimmer chapter?

Last week, in what would once have seemed a breathtaking display of honesty but now comes across as a simple acknowledgment of reality, the commander of American forces in central and northern Iraq admitted to a USA Today reporter that he could not protect Iraqi voters on Election Day. "I wouldn't begin to say that," Maj. Gen. John Batiste said when asked whether Iraqis could safely cast ballots. "It's very possible there will be some of ... the suicide vests and everything." It is also possible, Batiste conceded, that some of the Iraqi security personnel entrusted with guarding polling stations would themselves be insurgents.

It's hard to pinpoint when the Bush administration's public optimism about the elections began to falter, but by now even the always-upbeat president is heavily hedging his bets. "The fact that they're voting in itself is successful," he told reporters Wednesday, setting the bar low enough for any banana republic to pass.

Today's Site Pass Presented by

---------

50% off Delivery of The New York Times

To get a sense of the landscape of post-vote Iraq and the possibilities and pitfalls of Election Day, Salon spoke with Amy Hawthorne, a former analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace whose work has focused on promoting democracy in Arab countries. "It's almost surreal to think about the circumstances under which these elections will be taking place," Hawthorne told Salon. "But like almost everything in Iraq, the United States finds itself with no good options."

Do you think if officials in the Bush administration weren't bound to the Jan. 30 election date they would have wanted to postpone it?

It's difficult to say because the administration is driven by a political timetable that isn't completely tied to the realities on the ground in Iraq. That said, there are three contradictory pressures on the administration that have made the timing of the election very difficult. The first is the administration's own desire to demonstrate to the Iraqis and the American public that we aren't going to be staying in Iraq indefinitely, and what better way to signify that we're moving forward than by holding an election? It's the ultimate symbol of political progress in a post-conflict situation.

The second pressure is obviously the insurgency, which would argue for delaying the election until the violence subsides.

But the third factor is that a lot of people in Iraq -- most notably Shiite political forces -- are very keen on having an election because they want to gain political power for themselves. If the elections were to be postponed, there is the possibility that key players among the Shiite community would turn against the United States, and that's a very strong pressure to hold the elections quickly.

So now's as good a time as any?

Well, I want to be clear: I think it's a very bad time. It's almost surreal to think about the circumstances under which these elections will be taking place. But like almost everything in Iraq, the United States finds itself with no good options.

Sunni Muslims aren't expected to widely participate in the election, but even if they did, they'd still end up being a distinct minority. Why is their participation so crucial to the success of the election?

Many observers of Iraq really believe that the division of the country along ethnic and sectarian lines would be a very dangerous trend for the country. And an election that does not have at least a decent amount of participation from different groups in Iraq risks setting up the conception that political groupings are based primarily on ethnic or sectarian identity, and consolidating the de facto divisions we already see taking place among the Shia, the Sunnis, the Kurds, etc. So the vote does matter, and it matters who takes part, and how many votes they get, because you're planting the seeds for a future system

read the rest of the article....




"An explosion waiting to happen"

 

[L]

yawn RPR as boring as ever.

 

[Mr.Improper PIMP of the fuggin nation...and proud]

> The big fat cheeseburger eater Morrissey was smitten with last year,
> Michael Moore, has some more words to eat. Many months back, the ignorant
> asswhipe wrote on his web site:

> "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not
> 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the
> Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr.
> Bush?"

> Hmm. What I saw on January 30 were an estimated 8 million Iraqi voters
> giving the so-called "insurgants"/"minutemen" the
> purple-ink-stained FINGER. Did you get THAT, you big fatt retarded blubber
> butt? Oh, I guess now, because on the day of Iraq's election all Michael
> MORON had posted on his site was that he won the People's Choice Awards
> (Michael "ME ME ME, it's all about ME" Moron) and a picture of
> the British cargo plane that was shot down. In other words, not only is it
> now an indisputable fact that the vast majority of Iraqi people DESPISE
> the insurgancy and risked their lives to communicate this fact in historic
> fashion, but it's also clear that democracy is not a value that Michael
> Moore holds in his heart.

> But then that's been true of the fever-swamp far-left in general for a
> long time.

> Here's a clue to them: Zarqawi leads the "insurgancy," yet he is
> not even an Iraqi, and he views the majority religious group in Iraq
> (Shiites) as deserving of mass slaughter for practicing an
> "infidel" form of Islam, and doesn't think much better of anyone
> else in Iraq besides the remnants of the Baath regime he's chummy with.

> Yet the ignorant ones on the left actually have believed the rubbish that
> it is an "insurgancy" representing the average Iraqi. Sorry,
> dummies. The Baathists and jihasists lef by Zarqawi who resorted to
> recruited a child with DOWN'S SYNDROME to be a homicide-bomber and blow up
> civilians trying to vote in a free election are called NAZIS. NAZIS, GOT
> IT FOOLS? That's the side you took, and you ought to be saying sorry, and
> until then, NOTHING ELSE. Otherwise you deserve to be despised.

> And you most certainly deserved the lose the American election.

> No, Morrissey, the "sane" and "intelligent" choice on
> election day was not to vote Kerry.

> I must say it was more than pathetic to see the sponsor of Kerry's
> campaign, Ted Kennedy, giving encouragement to the "insurgants"
> a few days before Iraq's election day. And it was only slightly less
> pathetic to see the so-called "intelligent" candidate booking an
> appearance on Meet the Press on Iraq's elction day obviosuly because he
> was expecting (hopinh) the Iraq election would be a disastor and he'd use
> the occasion to attack Bush and launch his 2008 campaign. Unfit for
> command, indeed! Lest we forget, had it been up to John Kerry with his
> vote against the FIRST Gulf War, not only would Saddam be in power today,
> but he would've successfully annexed Kuwait and would have had nuclear
> bombs to hijack the world with.

> Others in the liberal un-intelligentia didn't look so good either. A few
> weeks ago the main press voice of the liberal elite, the NY Times, called
> on Bush to postpone the Iraq election because Iraq was supposedly not
> ready for it. Did we see an apology on Jan. 31 from the Ny Times for being
> as wrong as could be?
> Nope.

> I guess they were surprised by the Iraqi people. I guess for some reason
> they didn't know Iraqis want freedom and democracy. There's no excuse for
> this error. They live in a country where our founding documents declare
> that all people yearn and deserve to be free. They witnessed the
> successful election of Afghanistan just a few months ago. And they had
> access to an excellent documentary film called Voices of Iraq, wherein 150
> videocams were distributed to Iraqis for them to film themselves in their
> daily lives and saying whatever they wanted. The disconnect between the
> Iraqis in this film and the Iraq we've seen in the media the past couple
> years is shocking to the point of criminality on the part of the
> journalists who refuse to present reality.

> This film is availble at www.voicesofiraq.com , but for some reason the
> left winger Robert Redford couldn't work it on to his Sundance channel in
> between all the anti-Bush propaganda filsm they were showing. I guess
> Redford was too busy producing his pro-communist film about Che Guevera,
> The Motorcycle Diaries.....

> Their loss, because the incredible Iraqi election was no surprise to
> anyone who viewed Voices of Iraq.

> but for many of these demented leftoids I think something even more
> sinister than plain ignorance and stupidity is going on. They invested
> themselves so much in their propaganda about quagmires and Bush being a
> nazi that it became a matter of preserving their own reputations to hope
> for the worst outcome in Iraq. And for the elements on the left for which
> this is true, I say: You are becoming the fools of history, you have no
> shame, and I hate you more than you ever could hate George W. Bush. f***
> you.

> Let freedom ring. In the past few months, Afghans have voted, Palestinians
> gave voted, and Iraqis have voted. Planting the seeds of democracy in
> places that have never tasted it before in order to provide a long-term
> solution to the root causes of Islamic-fascist terrorism. As the speeches
> of Bush and Blair promised.

> P.S.
> Nope, I didn't see any Iraqi voters thanking France, Germany, or Canada
> for helping make their glorious independance day possible.

> P.P.S.
> Before the American election, Morrissey wore a t-shirt reading "Jon
> Stewart for President," showing once again that these days he is just
> conforming with whatever's trendy amongst the liberal un-intelligentsia.
> It was interesting to see what Jon Stewart said this week:

> ===
> Jon Stewart, late in the Daily Show last night to Newsweek pundit Fareed
> Zakaria: "I’ve watched this thing unfold from the start and here’s
> the great fear that I have: What if Bush, the president, ours, has been
> right about this all along? I feel like my world view will not sustain
> itself and I may, and again I don’t know if I can physically do this,
> implode.
> ===

> Bush hasn't been right about everything, but he's sure a hell of a lot
> more right than these awful left-wingers who took the opposite side of
> supporting democracy. The Iraq election is proof that the voters who
> re-elected Bush were the wise ones. And we're a bit tired of the cynical
> critiques of every step of the liberation from people who stood in its
> way. Watch and learn, Michael Morons.

Blah blah f***ing blah. Sit on it potsie

 

[Theo van Gogh Martyrs Brigade]

Re: Arguing about this will probably get us nowhere....

> (might I add an election in which the Iraqi people
> couldn't even know who they were voting for)

That's not true. Iraqis didn't know who every individual on the ballots were, but they did know the parties and coalitions, and those parties had debates on Iraqi television.

And what was also inspiring (to me) was that the Iraqis were dancing and singing in the streets, and waving their inked fingers in defiance and victory, BEFORE they even know who won the election. They were celebrated VOTING, regardless of who wins. Americans take things for granted.

Lets read more about the terrorists Michael Moore called the "minutemen" of Iraq, and lets read it from an Iraqi in Iraq:

=====
New techniques of the "resistance".
I strongly believe that terrorists are cowards but the cowardice you’re going to see in this story is just exceptional.
The suicide attack that was performed on an election center in one of Baghdad's districts (Baghdad Al-Jadeedah) last Sunday was performed using a kidnapped "Down Syndrome" patient.
Eye witnesses said (and I'm quoting one of my colleagues; a dentist who lives there) "the poor victim was so scared when ordered to walk to the searching point and began to walk back to the terrorists. In response the criminals pressed the button and blew up the poor victim almost half way between their position and the voting center's entrance".

I couldn't believe the news until I met another guy from that neighborhood who knows the family of the victim. The guy was reported missing 5 days prior to elections' day and the family were distributing posters that specified his descriptions and asking anyone who finds him to contact them.

When a relative of mine (who has a mental handicap due to an Rh conflict at birth) told me a month ago that a group of men in a car tried to kidnap him as he was standing in front of the institution he periodically visits to get medicine and support waiting for his brother; I thought that he was imagining the whole story.
He said that they tried to force him into the car telling him not to be afraid and that they're from the "mujahideen and not going to hurt him". My relative, despite his handicap was moved by his survival instinct and managed to run away.
After I heard the other story, I began to connect between the two stories and to consider my cousin's story as a true one that uncovered a new miserable war technique that can come only from the sickest minds.

What a huge difference there is between those who kidnap and use the mentally handicapped to perform their murders in cold blood and between the brave Iraqis who sacrificed their lives to protect their brethren. one story that is famous now in Iraq is about one brave Iraqi (A'adel Nasir) who saw a suspicious looking guy walking around a polling center in (Al- Hurriyah) district and soon the brave man realized that the suspicious guy was trying to commit a suicide attack; he ran towards him, wrestled him and knocked him down causing the bomb carried by the terrorist to explode, sacrificing his own life and saving the lives of the people standing in line at the gate of the voting center. It turned out later that the terrorist carried a Sudanese id.
Now, the school that hosted the voting center on the 30th carries the name of A'adel Nasir, as the Iraqi minister of education announced today.

The pathetic terrorists are breaking one world record after another in cowardice and insanity and this tells how bankrupt they're getting.
======

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

 

[Theo van Gogh Martyrs Brigade]

> Blah blah f***ing blah. Sit on it potsie

Truth hurt?

 

[Theo van Gogh Martyrs Brigade]

Just the truth. Can't handle it?