Sadaams Killing Feild

[JADezimar]

You Have to fix one problem at a time. Angel says why pick Iraq. Well where else do you suggest we go instead ?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135652,00.html

A trench with piles of clothed bodies packed tightly together. Men, women, little children. Even unborn children. Some blindfolded. Some with their hands bound. All slaughtered in cold blood by the henchmen of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein (search).

All of this horror was discovered in another mass grave in the desert wasteland of northwestern Iraq, near the town of Hatra. It was discovered a year ago, and only now is it being carefully and scientifically excavated by the Regime Crimes Liaison Office (search). This agency, part of the U.S. Justice Department, is working with the Iraqi interim government to map out the horrors of the Hussein past.

The head of the unit, Greg Kehoe, who has seen more than his share of horrors in places such as the Balkans, couldn’t believe what he saw.

"I’ve never seen women and children executed, defenseless people executed in this fashion," he said. "I mean, you look at a young woman holding her 2-year-old child with a gunshot wound to the back of the head. I can’t find any reason to justify that."

When I saw the images I could only think back to Hilla, a town south of Baghdad where I went in the spring of 2003, just after the fall of Saddam. A mass grave of Iraqi Shiites was discovered there.

I will never forget it for as long as I live. Thousands of bodies. Thousands of families swarming over piles of clothing and flesh. Earth-moving equipment digging through the raw humanity. Digging up the past.

Some of these people were opponents of the regime, gunned down after an uprising against Saddam in 1991 and then dumped in big trenches. Women and civilians were also among the victims.

Beyond the visual impression, though, it is the smell that I will never forget. The bodies had been underground for over 10 years, but you could still feel the rot of the past. The remainder and reminder of life, snuffed out by a horrendous regime.

The scene was pure chaos. People were running from pile to pile, looking for loved ones long lost. With so much emotion built up you could imagine and understand why no one was carefully going about the business of sorting through the human debris.

And the lucky ones were satisfied enough to bring away their family members in crudely made coffins for long-postponed burials.

There was only one problem with that scene: Saddam got off the hook. It didn't seem that enough could have been done to carefully record who was killed, how they were killed and where they were found. And so no real evidence could have been gathered that might be used in, say, a war crimes trial against Saddam Hussein and the thugs who took his orders.

That is what the team at this latest mass grave is trying to rectify. It is believed these bodies came from Sulamaniyah (search), one of the major cities of Kurdistan. The Kurds were one of the mass groups of people in Iraq that the Iraqi leader despised. At the time of one of the Kurdish uprisings against Baghdad in 1987-88, these people were shuttled over to this desolate spot and killed.

But thanks to this isolated location of horror and the team's organization, this "war crime" scene has been preserved and can be handled in a proper way. Body locations are mapped, and then the bodies are exhumed from the location and taken to a moveable morgue where the corpses undergo more scrutiny.

All of that information and evidence will then be provided to the Iraqi Special Tribunal, which is preparing the case against Hussein and others. Here’s how archaeologist Sonny Trimble put it:

“Our real, ultimate goal is to get evidence that’s so tight that when they bring certain regime leaders to trial, it’s very tight, just like any trial you would have in the United States or anywhere else in the world.”

It’s thought that there are as many as 3,000 bodies at this one site alone, but the workers will only unearth 200 to 300. There is not enough time for more, but there are many more sites to examine.

By one estimate, 300,000 people were slaughtered during Saddam's rule and dumped in 40 different mass grave sites around the country.

There is something else that will come of this: Once the legal value can be obtained from the site, the emotional worth can be salvaged, too. It is said that photographs of all of those found, including just the remains, will be brought to their former home for possible identification by families. Maybe these and other victims of the now long-gone regime can get a proper burial, not just a killing field.

[Karmashock]

there is no reason why you would defend that man... we might have helped him crush iran... but we never wanted his internal genocide.

[shutupandshave]

Okay, well you chose Iraq. Fair enough.
So what country is next Iran? Sudan? North Korea?

[MVB]

If you ask me, Iran and North Korea are not feasibly invadable, even if the costs were somehow justified by the freedom/democracy/happyfunlands that resulted down the line.

Sudan is a huge mess, and I believe requires as much military intervention as Afghanistan or Iraq did, easily. That's just me, though; I don't really give a damn what France or Europe or anyone thinks, as long as I think we're doing the right thing. Of course, often times many individuals globally will disagree with you, so it's sort of a toss up regarding who knows best.

[shutupandshave]

I dont think anyone disagreed with what was done.
I think it was the way it was done, and that's an important decision... you gambled on him having wmd and you were wrong. You gambled on finding links between AL-Q and Hussein - and were also wrong. The only Al-Q are(were) in the KURDISH parts of Iraq (which as you know are our allies).

One question that I have not seen asked... is if the Kurds are harbouring this Al-Q training camps, why aren't we attacking them yet?

Anyway - I would like to see more effort put into the stabilisation of Africa, by the entire global community. The Middle-East has been around for 10 times longer than the US, and they're still here. A little bruised by they'll survive...however we really fucked Africa up...and I would like to try and rectify that in some way.

[MVB]

It is inappropriate to say we really fucked Africa up, I think. The whole continent has issues, with notable exceptions such as South Africa, which has really gotten its act together. Some of the biggest problems in Africa as a continent are caused by Muslim extremists, the long-forgotten ... or not forgotten ... remnants of original Mohammed's holy wars to capture as much land as possible, and force convert people. These nations learned the "bad" Islam Ummon refers to, where killing all non-converts and infidels is the way to go, and where force rules supreme. The real nasty parts of Africa that need the most help are in many cases simply carbon copies of the middle east ... which is a really fucked up place in and of itself.

It's basically like taking the mid-east and removing any quality income sources. Places like South Africa are generally doing fine, and they're where all the money is in Africa (diamonds, gold, etc.) ... places like Sudan ... well, not much there but pissed off zealots and defenseless non-zealots.

[Larsson7]

You Have to fix one problem at a time. Angel says why pick Iraq. Well where else do you suggest we go instead ?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135652,00.html

A trench with piles of clothed bodies packed tightly together. Men, women, little children. Even unborn children. Some blindfolded. Some with their hands bound. All slaughtered in cold blood by the henchmen of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein (search).

All of this horror was discovered in another mass grave in the desert wasteland of northwestern Iraq, near the town of Hatra. It was discovered a year ago, and only now is it being carefully and scientifically excavated by the Regime Crimes Liaison Office (search). This agency, part of the U.S. Justice Department, is working with the Iraqi interim government to map out the horrors of the Hussein past.

The head of the unit, Greg Kehoe, who has seen more than his share of horrors in places such as the Balkans, couldn’t believe what he saw.

"I’ve never seen women and children executed, defenseless people executed in this fashion," he said. "I mean, you look at a young woman holding her 2-year-old child with a gunshot wound to the back of the head. I can’t find any reason to justify that."

When I saw the images I could only think back to Hilla, a town south of Baghdad where I went in the spring of 2003, just after the fall of Saddam. A mass grave of Iraqi Shiites was discovered there.

I will never forget it for as long as I live. Thousands of bodies. Thousands of families swarming over piles of clothing and flesh. Earth-moving equipment digging through the raw humanity. Digging up the past.

Some of these people were opponents of the regime, gunned down after an uprising against Saddam in 1991 and then dumped in big trenches. Women and civilians were also among the victims.

Beyond the visual impression, though, it is the smell that I will never forget. The bodies had been underground for over 10 years, but you could still feel the rot of the past. The remainder and reminder of life, snuffed out by a horrendous regime.

The scene was pure chaos. People were running from pile to pile, looking for loved ones long lost. With so much emotion built up you could imagine and understand why no one was carefully going about the business of sorting through the human debris.

And the lucky ones were satisfied enough to bring away their family members in crudely made coffins for long-postponed burials.

There was only one problem with that scene: Saddam got off the hook. It didn't seem that enough could have been done to carefully record who was killed, how they were killed and where they were found. And so no real evidence could have been gathered that might be used in, say, a war crimes trial against Saddam Hussein and the thugs who took his orders.

That is what the team at this latest mass grave is trying to rectify. It is believed these bodies came from Sulamaniyah (search), one of the major cities of Kurdistan. The Kurds were one of the mass groups of people in Iraq that the Iraqi leader despised. At the time of one of the Kurdish uprisings against Baghdad in 1987-88, these people were shuttled over to this desolate spot and killed.

But thanks to this isolated location of horror and the team's organization, this "war crime" scene has been preserved and can be handled in a proper way. Body locations are mapped, and then the bodies are exhumed from the location and taken to a moveable morgue where the corpses undergo more scrutiny.

All of that information and evidence will then be provided to the Iraqi Special Tribunal, which is preparing the case against Hussein and others. Here’s how archaeologist Sonny Trimble put it:

“Our real, ultimate goal is to get evidence that’s so tight that when they bring certain regime leaders to trial, it’s very tight, just like any trial you would have in the United States or anywhere else in the world.”

It’s thought that there are as many as 3,000 bodies at this one site alone, but the workers will only unearth 200 to 300. There is not enough time for more, but there are many more sites to examine.

By one estimate, 300,000 people were slaughtered during Saddam's rule and dumped in 40 different mass grave sites around the country.

There is something else that will come of this: Once the legal value can be obtained from the site, the emotional worth can be salvaged, too. It is said that photographs of all of those found, including just the remains, will be brought to their former home for possible identification by families. Maybe these and other victims of the now long-gone regime can get a proper burial, not just a killing field.


Oh my - How noble.

Where were you guys during the genocide in Rwanda in 1994?

See Below:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/interviews/

JAD - the one, true fact that cannot be disputed is that the US did not go gung ho into Rwanda to "Free" its people and bring "Democracy" against a "Tyrant" and "Dictator" is because there was nothing in it for them!!

All over Africa Warlords, just like Saddam, rule with an iron fist and genocide is a frequent way of life. The brutal truth is that their is neither a political or monetary incentive to help these people out.

I would have more respect for the US if they just told us that there is nothing in it for them to help these people instead of fighting under the masquearde of suppliers of much needed democracy.

The US did not seem to have a problem when Stalin was murdering over 30 million Russians yet your government takes such a dim view of Sadaam.

Tell me why you should pick and choose? Did Rwanda, Soviet Union, South Africa etc etc not need your help to establish Democracy?

[MVB]

Clinton refused to help during the genocide in Rwanda. Little fucker was off sticking his prick in an intern's unmentionables. Then, worse yet, he left our economy in a recession when he departed from office .... but don't get me started on all the misinformation and ignorance surrounding him.

[Larsson7]

Clinton refused to help during the genocide in Rwanda. Little fucker was off sticking his prick in an intern's unmentionables. Then, worse yet, he left our economy in a recession when he departed from office .... but don't get me started on all the misinformation and ignorance surrounding him.

Appreciate that, however, would you ever have spent the money on such a large scale invasion in Africa when there would be little to no return on it.

Lets face it, MVB, your President does have to justify the cost in several $Billion dollars for each invasion and Congress must approve.

I very much doubt they would have given a green light on Rwanda - but hey, that is speculation on my part.

[Karmashock]

The Sudan or Syria wouldn't be out of the question... but let us digest Iraq first... ;)

[MVB]

Angel, the US is not benefiting from Iraqi oil to any significant degree. Period. The *best* estimates and evidences stating that the US only went in for black gold on this are from semi-biased sources and/or are incomplete in their argumentation.

I know it's freakishly hard for you Brits to understand, but 85% of why Bush went into Iraq was that he believed it was the right thing to do. If you want to criticize him, criticize him on the fact that he bases many of his decisions on his personal ethics and morals, which can oftentimes be unpopular with a very lay global community. Bush basically went "Saddam is evil, he's killing his people and he very well could pose a threat to us." The CIA gve Bush clear, but ultimately flawed evidence that there was reasonable cause to go into Iraq, and in we went, after the French promised NEVER to allow a resolution to pass. We warned Iraq more than a dozen times since Desert Storm to allow unabridged inspections and what-not, and they consistently refused, so we finally did something, instead of letting the TRUE beneficiaries of Iraqi oil -- France, Germany -- further impede the promised result of MANY UN resolutions.

But listen, let's get off this stupid argument. Both sides think the other side is absolutely fucking retarded and ignorant, and totally brainwashed by either the US Right Wing or the globally left wing media.

[shutupandshave]

I dont think the US is completely ignorant, but I know that a couple of the people on the board think that I am. It is because I am willing to compromise, it is seen as weakness by some people.

The same people that said Bush is going to Iraq for oil, are the ones that said there were no WMD. Now in an ideal world so many people will start believing it, that there is no way he can take the oil without it causing an outcry. As it is I think he is going to start taking it to pay for the money spent during the war...or some shite like that.

[Larsson7]

I dont think the US is completely ignorant, but I know that a couple of the people on the board think that I am. It is because I am willing to compromise, it is seen as weakness by some people.

The same people that said Bush is going to Iraq for oil, are the ones that said there were no WMD. Now in an ideal world so many people will start believing it, that there is no way he can take the oil without it causing an outcry. As it is I think he is going to start taking it to pay for the money spent during the war...or some shite like that.

Actually - you are partially right.

Iraq refused to sell oil to the US and now the US can start to buy it again.

I would doubt that they will just take it, however, I would imagine they may get to negotiate a good price for any future orders that can flow freely now.

[shutupandshave]

I thought Iraq had to sell the oil at Opec prices? Anything lower than that will be seen as stealing it...surely?

I thought Iraq was banned from selling the oil, as opposed to refused to sell it.

[Larsson7]

I thought Iraq had to sell the oil at Opec prices? Anything lower than that will be seen as stealing it...surely?

I thought Iraq was banned from selling the oil, as opposed to refused to sell it.

I guess we will probably never know! Unless the US sends us the invoice to inspect ;)

I was under the impression that, after sanctions were imposed by the US Govt, that Sadaam refused to sell oil to them.

I could very well be wrong and just going on inaccurate info.

[Karmashock]

A lesson in global commodities trade…

It doesn't matter whom they sell it to so long as that sale reduces demand. If they sell it to China and China buys less oil from other places as result, then the global price of oil goes down. That means that we can buy the oil we need at a lower cost...

End result: who they sell it to is irrelevant so long as it reduces global demand.

[shutupandshave]

Are you saying that whatever price you pay for it, the rest of the world will be getting the same benefit as you do?

[Karmashock]

I'm saying that every time I buy oil the price of oil goes up... and every time I sell oil the price of oil goes down... for everyone. The only exception would be if you were in a sheltered market. If you export oil then you wouldn't really be affected until your government exposed consumers to the global oil market.

This is very basic supply and demand.

If Iraq sells oil on the open market to anyone, then it makes oil cheaper everywhere. We could buy our oil in Venezuela or Saudi Arabia for less...

[shutupandshave]

Okay, I dont think you've understood.

What worries me is that America will take oil directly to make up for money it has had to spend in freeing Iraq, or that it will be getting oil cheaper for that same reason.

[Karmashock]

Neither will happen.

The oil will be sold on the open market to help pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. That is fitting and proper. The oil belongs to the Iraqi people and the iraqi government will have control over it. They will spend it on rebuilding their country.

These sales will reduce global oil prices... but they will do so for everyone...

[shutupandshave]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1248752,00.html
http://www.notinourname.net/war/missing-money-28jun04.htm
http://www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/406iraqoilupdate/index.htm

So where do you think this money has gone?

[Larsson7]

Neither will happen.

The oil will be sold on the open market to help pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. That is fitting and proper. The oil belongs to the Iraqi people and the iraqi government will have control over it. They will spend it on rebuilding their country.

These sales will reduce global oil prices... but they will do so for everyone...

Actually - I think I remember hearing this before somewhere else and could sound much more likely.

[shutupandshave]

Yes, ideally that will happen. I think the more people that accuse the US of stealing oil, the more likely it will be that it doesn't.
Whether or not it was going to - nobody can be 100% sure.

[Karmashock]

It's actually about 8.8 billion... furthermore, consider how much the US has spend on taking Iraq. How the fuck are we supposed to make that back?... We can't... not unless we sucked on Iraq for decades... and we can't do that...

The war has cost us money... it was an expense... if we only cared about making money then there would have been better ways of going about it. Joining the French and Russians in scamming the Oil for Food program would have been a better bet...


Yes, ideally that will happen. I think the more people that accuse the US of stealing oil, the more likely it will be that it doesn't.
Whether or not it was going to - nobody can be 100% sure.
The only reason why you don't rape little boys must be because you're afraid of going to jail...

Innocent until proven guilty... STFU.

[shutupandshave]

Yes it is an expense, if oil prices remain the same... if prices increase then 8 billion worth of Oil could be worth 800 billion in 20 years.

Where do you think this 8 billion has gone, and where do you get your figure of 8billion from?

[Karmashock]

Yes it is an expense, if oil prices remain the same... if prices increase then 8 billion worth of Oil could be worth 800 billion in 20 years.

Where do you think this 8 billion has gone, and where do you get your figure of 8billion from?
Google... The only people citing 20 billion is that British group.


As to where it went?... I think it was stolen (mostly by non Americans... there were "ghost" employees and such) and mismanaged (what we call theft when Americans do it... likely charging 50 dollars for a piece of paper type stuff). That's pretty bad, but California pisses tens of billions of dollars away every year... I mean... we were 35 billion OVER BUDGET just a year ago...

The point is that we have oversight there now and that won't happen again. All losing that money will mean is that the American Tax payer will give more money to the program.

We have a huge economy... we can take those kinds of losses.

[shutupandshave]

I searched on google, and couldn't find it - can you please link me?

[Karmashock]

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=coalition+missing+money&btnG=Search&meta=

you'll do even better if you type in "8.8 billion*

You clearly didn't even bother to look... that or you don't know how to use google...

[shutupandshave]

I clicked on that link, the first 3 links said 20bn not 8.8bn.

My point is not "I am right and you wrong" it is "why are you right and I am wrong, when you have as much or less evidence than me"?

Of course you get more (8.8 links) if you type in 8.8, but you also get results for 9, 10 etc.

Anyway - there is a lot of money missing.

[Karmashock]

all three cited the english firm christian ad as giving that information. When we finally looked into it it was more like 8.8

[shutupandshave]

There is nothing in those links to suggest that it is 8.8 instead of what the Christian aid people said (which I think is too high). There IS however evidence suggesting that the US is preventing auditors doing their job properly.

[Karmashock]

Please play with google a bit... it will tell you what you want to know if you only ask the right questions...

Furthermore, I trust the Guardian about as much as you trust Fox news... so don't cite them unless you're willing to accept reports from Fox news as evidence.

[shutupandshave]

Well whatever, the figure is a lot...and stone me for chosing the number of the top THREE google links, instead of one further down the page...How crazy am I.

[Karmashock]

it's called making an effort to find information... Did you read those three articles?... did you notice that they all cited one source?... I found later articles that cited more sources... I even gave you a number so you could narrow the search...

It was just one google search away from you and you didn't bother.

[shutupandshave]

How about the quote for 11bn, or 10bn - why were those not true..you cant think your 8.8 is definitely true, if you've read those other numbers.
The 20 was the first one I saw, and as I said - was too high.

Incidentally, yes I read that one, and many others... hence my saying "lots of bn" as opposed to an exact figure.

[Critta]

I know it's freakishly hard for you Brits to understand, but 85% of why Bush went into Iraq was that he believed it was the right thing to do. If you want to criticize him, criticize him on the fact that he bases many of his decisions on his personal ethics and morals, which can oftentimes be unpopular with a very lay global community. Bush basically went "Saddam is evil, he's killing his people and he very well could pose a threat to us." The CIA gve Bush clear, but ultimately flawed evidence that there was reasonable cause to go into Iraq, and in we went, after the French promised NEVER to allow a resolution to pass. We warned Iraq more than a dozen times since Desert Storm to allow unabridged inspections and what-not, and they consistently refused, so we finally did something, instead of letting the TRUE beneficiaries of Iraqi oil -- France, Germany -- further impede the promised result of MANY UN resolutions.

Like it or not, the UN works because the member states have the right to veto decisions, the US have certainly used this right enough in the past when UN resolutions were suggested thet YOU didn't agree with.

For the US government to say "screw the UN, France are impding resolutions" is not only undermining the whole foundation of what the UN stands for (member countries accepting each other decisions etc.)

When you chose to ignore the UN and invade Iraq, contrary to the fact the resolution to do so was blocked - you are defying the free world - if you go by the standard US solution to countries which do this then you should by rights have a shitload of sanctions slapped on you for the next 10 years which we might remove once 1/4 of your population has starved to death (but hey, we're the good guys!)

Before you say it, the UK isn't a lot better in this situation....

[Critta]

it's called making an effort to find information... Did you read those three articles?... did you notice that they all cited one source?... I found later articles that cited more sources... I even gave you a number so you could narrow the search...

It was just one google search away from you and you didn't bother.

Would you stop being so damn petty guys. 8bn, 10bn, 15bn, 20bn, it doesn't matter, forget the exact figure. There is a shedload of money missing somewhere, where is it? I think this is the question at hand.

[shutupandshave]

CIA gve Bush clear, but ultimately flawed evidence that there was reasonable cause to go into Iraq,
I think this is what bothers me.

What if the CIA says next time that the N.Korea is about to attack, or Russia or Iran, or the UK. We already know that the allies have marched to war based primarily on false evidence.

[Critta]

What if the CIA says next time that the N.Korea is about to attack, or Russia or Iran, or the UK. We already know that the allies have marched to war based primarily on false evidence.

Hell, they already managed it for Libya in the 80's... A nightclub gets bombed - the main suspects include people from Mossad, the CIA and various oher intelligence agencies around the world.

Eventually it gets blamed on a Libyan - Libya get the shit bombed out of 'em. - But that was when Libya were the "bad guys", popular bad guy status has been moved over to Saddam Hussain, hey maybe sometime you might actually go looking for the guy who ATTACKED your country :pointandl

Seems to me that the CIA have a habit of producing "definite concrete evidence" when their president wants to blow some stuff up, which later turns out to be about as shaky as a bowl of custard.

[shutupandshave]

Not sure what's worse, an intelligence agency that's incompetant or lying...or a prime minister that is incompetant or lying...

[Critta]

The intelligence agency, at least when a prime minister lies, you know not to vote for them next time.

If an intelligence agency lies... who's culpable? What do you do, go firebomb them?!?

[shutupandshave]

I'll set 'em up, you knock em down.

Problem would be - if we vote Blair in next time.

I'm not voting Tory.

[Critta]

Me neither...

Strangely enough, I think my vote may go to either the Lib Dems or the Green party... the best of a bad bunch and all that.

[shutupandshave]

I will almost certainly vote lib dem.. 1) I actually support them, and 2) They have far more chance to get in

[MVB]

We have Osama cornered in Pakistan/Afghanistan; see, amazingly, we're going after multiple threats at once.

"Like or not, the UN works because ..."
The UN does not work, that's my point.

France does not represent the entire free world, and when the UN votes in a resolution against Iraq, threatening war if they don't comply, and ONE nation is able to veto it without that veto being overridable, you're denying the voice of the "entire free world," which other than France has decided to go for Iraq. Then, you find out that France has been getting oil from Iraq all along, and was basically vetoing action not because it was right to do so, but because they were effectively being bribed.

In my opinion the United Nations FAILED to go after Iraq when it should have, and FAILED in general on the subject, including its laughable weapons inspections (we have to warn Iraq well in advance where we're visiting, and we can only visit one site at a time).

Long and short, I don't think the UN works as it stands today. When the United States, Britain and others decided to skip the "I suck total ass" system and really go after Saddam, I was well behind them doing so, and still am.

Sudan is another example; Bush is the ONLY LEADER TO DATE who has acknowledged the horrors in Sudan as genocide. A UN resolution from post-ww2 demands that if you acknowledge an act as Genocide, you have to do something about it. Clinton refused to call Rwanda genocide, noting it as a "crisis," and the UN refuses to acknowledge it as genocide, instead calling it a "problem" or crisis or whatever. If the UN puts in stupid ass stipulations that make it so that people can avoid doing the right thing if they don't want to do the right thing, then fuck the UN.

[shutupandshave]

You've apparently been about to capture Osama for about 3 years now. I am sure you will - as the price on his head will rise so high that someone will betray him. Shoulda just set it at $5bn instead of wasting the money looking for him. He would have been found in a week then. Hell I'd be there looking for him for a $5bn reward.

[MVB]

The trouble is, he's in an area of relative autonomy, with warlords and shit, that we can't just go right into. So we basically have him cordoned off, but we're not allowed to get any closer quite yet, although we've been negotiating for over a year now, which is how long we've had him bottled up.

Additionally, I viewed his video prior to the presidential elections as a cry for peace, rather than a threat. It was the first time he said that he would not do anything to us if we only left him alone. IMO he's starting to realize that the gig is soon to be up, and there's no way he's getting out.

[shutupandshave]

Well that would be a great thing for world peace.

I wonder how much it would have cost to set up cctv cameras all over afghanistan