So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[Faun]

Complete idiocy (expected). So it would have been moral for Russia to have invaded the U.S. instead of Afghanistan if it would have lured the Mujahideen here? Right?

...............Huh?

....If the US were ruled by a ruthless tyrant and Russia was committed by law to plant democracy here and the US had violated repeated resolutions and gassed their own people to death forcing sanctions and ultimately an invasion to enforce international law, and in the resulting conflict it happened to lure the Mujahideen here... they yeah.... sure would!

What universe would something like that happen in?

More evidence you're insane. And more evidence that other poster was dead-on accurate describing you as someone who will say anything, no matter how stupid..

No, shvantz; under no circumstance would it be moral for the Russians to fight their war with the Mujahideen inside the U.S.. You really are baked.

And what about Bush using chemical weapons? That was moral too, right?

And you fallaciously claimed I said Bush personally wrote U.N. resolution 1441. Where's either a link to me saying that or you apologizing for being such a fucking moron for thinking I ever said that?

 

[Boss]

Complete idiocy (expected). So it would have been moral for Russia to have invaded the U.S. instead of Afghanistan if it would have lured the Mujahideen here? Right?

...............Huh?

....If the US were ruled by a ruthless tyrant and Russia was committed by law to plant democracy here and the US had violated repeated resolutions and gassed their own people to death forcing sanctions and ultimately an invasion to enforce international law, and in the resulting conflict it happened to lure the Mujahideen here... they yeah.... sure would!

What universe would something like that happen in?

More evidence you're insane. And more evidence that other poster was dead-on accurate describing you as someone who will say anything, no matter how stupid..

No, shvantz; under no circumstance would it be moral for the Russians to fight their war with the Mujahideen inside the U.S.. You really are baked.

And what about Bush using chemical weapons? That was moral too, right?

And you fallaciously claimed I said Bush personally wrote U.N. resolution 1441. Where's either a link to me saying that or you apologizing for being such a fucking moron for thinking I ever said that?

Again, you asked and I gave you the circumstances in which it would be moral.

I don't think Bush used chemical weapons.... what do mean, tear gas? lmao... libtards are funny!

 

[Boss]

And you fallaciously claimed I said Bush personally wrote U.N. resolution 1441. Where's either a link to me saying that or you apologizing for being such a fucking moron for thinking I ever said that?

To be honest, I can't keep you 'tards straight... you're all saying insane shit. Someone said Bush and Blair wrote the resolution. Someone else said Bush approved the resolution or agreed to it... I don't recall the wording-- Bush has nothing to do with composition of UN resolutions. Nothing. He may have addressed the UN assembly... I think he did... he may have made suggestions as to what he wanted in 1441... probably would have... but he and Blair didn't write it and the US and UK didn't compose it by themselves... that's all I said, and you launched into that. I can't help that you're not paying attention to what I say.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't really care how much "certainty" you back things up with... I want factual information and evidence and you've not presented it. I've not said one word about "what kind of men" Bush and Obama are. But see, that's YOUR problem here... you want to side against Bush because you don't like the kind of man Bush is. You want to side with Obama because you like the kind of man Obama is. You defend terrorists and tyrants no matter what they do because you don't personally like the kind of man Bush is.

I will state this again, since it is now lost in the fray of stupidity here... I think Bush mishandled Iraq from the get-go. He should not have bothered with the diplomatic efforts or even the AUMF from Congress... it was nothing but a complete waste of time for nothing. It didn't change your mind, it simply fueled your anger and gave you more ammunition to fire at him politically... it was stupid on his part to think that you would have reacted otherwise.

If Saddam was in material breach of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, Bush had every legitimate right as president to resume military action in Iraq. In my opinion, he should have done that on 9/14/01, without ANY warning. Bing-Bang-Boom... it's over, Saddam is toppled and Chris Matthews hasn't even gotten out of the makeup chair yet. From there, THEN you go to the UN and seek a coalition to help implement the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act.

You don't want factual information and evidence. I've presented to you two reports that are based on the evidence, and you don't care. You won't look at them. You'd reject everything that came your way.

I honestly don't know why you come onto forums like this. Just because you want an argument? Just because you think if you ignore everything it must make you right, then you can go to your friends house and be like "hey, well, you know these fucking leftist, they claim this and this and never provide evidence blah blah", but the reality is we do provide evidence, overwhelming evidence at that.
But you're not even willing to look at it. So, this is my last post with you. You're a waste of time.

 

[Boss]

I don't really care how much "certainty" you back things up with... I want factual information and evidence and you've not presented it. I've not said one word about "what kind of men" Bush and Obama are. But see, that's YOUR problem here... you want to side against Bush because you don't like the kind of man Bush is. You want to side with Obama because you like the kind of man Obama is. You defend terrorists and tyrants no matter what they do because you don't personally like the kind of man Bush is.

I will state this again, since it is now lost in the fray of stupidity here... I think Bush mishandled Iraq from the get-go. He should not have bothered with the diplomatic efforts or even the AUMF from Congress... it was nothing but a complete waste of time for nothing. It didn't change your mind, it simply fueled your anger and gave you more ammunition to fire at him politically... it was stupid on his part to think that you would have reacted otherwise.

If Saddam was in material breach of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, Bush had every legitimate right as president to resume military action in Iraq. In my opinion, he should have done that on 9/14/01, without ANY warning. Bing-Bang-Boom... it's over, Saddam is toppled and Chris Matthews hasn't even gotten out of the makeup chair yet. From there, THEN you go to the UN and seek a coalition to help implement the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act.

You don't want factual information and evidence. I've presented to you two reports that are based on the evidence, and you don't care. You won't look at them. You'd reject everything that came your way.

I honestly don't know why you come onto forums like this. Just because you want an argument? Just because you think if you ignore everything it must make you right, then you can go to your friends house and be like "hey, well, you know these fucking leftist, they claim this and this and never provide evidence blah blah", but the reality is we do provide evidence, overwhelming evidence at that.
But you're not even willing to look at it. So, this is my last post with you. You're a waste of time.

Shh,,, I thought you were "done" and leaving?

You didn't provide jack shit dude. You posted the link to two reports, neither of which had anything about fabricated or made-up intelligence. While I am sure Obama and Clinton could get away with something like that, a Republican president would have been impeached.

You lobbed a pretty serious allegation and you've simply not supported it with evidence. But you've paraded around here claiming that you posted two links... blah blah... I don't give a shit if you post 100 links! Until you show me some EVIDENCE that Bush or Blair intentionally forged or fabricated intelligence information, you're completely full of shit.

Oh, and I come here because I like to slap little bitches like you around and expose your lies.

 

[sealybobo]

Oh God... now you're going to flood THIS thread with your stupidity.

See... this is why we need to end welfare. So people like you don't have the luxury of sitting at a computer all day typing out incoherent nonsense.

I'll explain it to you once and then I won't come back. Bush cause instability in the Middle East and that created Isis. After we shocked and awed them they hid and only hit us when we're weak and like they broke the Russians they would have eventually bankrupt us staying there forever we need to stop this no more war no more military spending be like Canada or Australia

Well no. There was already instability in the middle east, there has been instability there for 4-5k years. ISIS (not Isis: classic Bob Dylan tune) are radical Islamic extremists. They have been destabilizing the middle east since 1979, when Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah to be overthrown by radical Muslims. In 1995, their clerics issued Fatwas against the US and declared a state of war (Jihad) against us. They attacked the USS Cole and two embassies before the worst terror attack ever on American soil on 09/11/01.

In 1998, Congress debated and passed the Iraqi Liberation Act which at the core, was a plan to "plant democracy" in order to effectively defeat their radical ideology with a better ideology. Saddam was a murderous ruthless tyrant who killed his own people with poison gas... stop and try to imagine choking to death on poison gas as you made your way home from the market. Imagine little babies dying in their mothers arms as they suffocated on poison. Saddam's sons routinely paid visits to young 16 year-old girls who were virgins to rape them... Imagine your daughter being raped in front of you by the sons of the bastard who controls your country and you can't do a damn thing to help them. This is the scum you people are here to vehemently defend and make excuses for. .................It's SICK! ..........YOU ARE SICK!

The whole entire middle east is a cesspool, and it has been for a long time. We tried keeping our heads down, not paying it any attention, pretending that it didn't matter in the bigger picture. We're inundated with idiots like you who just can't be bothered to give a solitary shit about anyone but yourself. We've been plagued with leaders who run around over there and make promises they don't keep, back people they shouldn't back, instigate uprisings they won't support, and constantly change policy in mid-stream. The thugs there hate us and the decent people there don't trust us.

You want to make some boneheaded statement putting ALL this on George W. Bush because he was a Christian Social Conservative and you didn't like that.

Man do I miss Saddam Hussein and wish he was still in charge in Iraq

 

[sealybobo]

I don't really care how much "certainty" you back things up with... I want factual information and evidence and you've not presented it. I've not said one word about "what kind of men" Bush and Obama are. But see, that's YOUR problem here... you want to side against Bush because you don't like the kind of man Bush is. You want to side with Obama because you like the kind of man Obama is. You defend terrorists and tyrants no matter what they do because you don't personally like the kind of man Bush is.

I will state this again, since it is now lost in the fray of stupidity here... I think Bush mishandled Iraq from the get-go. He should not have bothered with the diplomatic efforts or even the AUMF from Congress... it was nothing but a complete waste of time for nothing. It didn't change your mind, it simply fueled your anger and gave you more ammunition to fire at him politically... it was stupid on his part to think that you would have reacted otherwise.

If Saddam was in material breach of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, Bush had every legitimate right as president to resume military action in Iraq. In my opinion, he should have done that on 9/14/01, without ANY warning. Bing-Bang-Boom... it's over, Saddam is toppled and Chris Matthews hasn't even gotten out of the makeup chair yet. From there, THEN you go to the UN and seek a coalition to help implement the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act.

You don't want factual information and evidence. I've presented to you two reports that are based on the evidence, and you don't care. You won't look at them. You'd reject everything that came your way.

I honestly don't know why you come onto forums like this. Just because you want an argument? Just because you think if you ignore everything it must make you right, then you can go to your friends house and be like "hey, well, you know these fucking leftist, they claim this and this and never provide evidence blah blah", but the reality is we do provide evidence, overwhelming evidence at that.
But you're not even willing to look at it. So, this is my last post with you. You're a waste of time.

He isn't the worst idiot on us Mb

 

[Faun]

Complete idiocy (expected). So it would have been moral for Russia to have invaded the U.S. instead of Afghanistan if it would have lured the Mujahideen here? Right?

...............Huh?

....If the US were ruled by a ruthless tyrant and Russia was committed by law to plant democracy here and the US had violated repeated resolutions and gassed their own people to death forcing sanctions and ultimately an invasion to enforce international law, and in the resulting conflict it happened to lure the Mujahideen here... they yeah.... sure would!

What universe would something like that happen in?

More evidence you're insane. And more evidence that other poster was dead-on accurate describing you as someone who will say anything, no matter how stupid..

No, shvantz; under no circumstance would it be moral for the Russians to fight their war with the Mujahideen inside the U.S.. You really are baked.

And what about Bush using chemical weapons? That was moral too, right?

And you fallaciously claimed I said Bush personally wrote U.N. resolution 1441. Where's either a link to me saying that or you apologizing for being such a fucking moron for thinking I ever said that?

Again, you asked and I gave you the circumstances in which it would be moral.

I don't think Bush used chemical weapons.... what do mean, tear gas? lmao... libtards are funny!

Of course you don't think. You're a conservative. And no, I don't mean tear gas. If I meant tear gas, I would not have said he used chemical weapons.

Pentagon Used White Phosphorous in Iraq

WASHINGTON -- Pentagon officials say white phosphorous was used as a weapon against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Fallujah last November, but deny an Italian television news report that it was used against civilians.​

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ChrisL 11831639

No, ISIS is responsible for ISIS.

Basically that is true and all Americsns should hold that view. But when the rightwing propaganda complex seeks to pin the slaughter in Iraq on Obama they are the ones applying the blame for ISIS on the President of the United States. Since that is the game the Right wants to play they are going to get a huge dose of the blame attributed to the President that invaded Iraq in 2003 when it was absolutely unnecessary. And the toppling of the Baathist Regime in Iraq is what left a vacuum for al Qaeda and other sub-groups to fill. That was a deliberate and lone decision to invade Iraq therefore all the aftermath of the suffering and violence since that regime change is attributed to the President that unwisely invaded Iraq when he did. If Iraq were safe, unified with a strong enough Army to defend itself and a beacon of democracy in the ME, then Bush43 would be taking credit and standing up with his little brother bringing up Iraq everyday on the upcoming 2016 presidential campaign. The great liberator standing behind Jeb.

But that has never been the case. Bush43 is responsible for his lone dramatic deciision to abruptly end the diplomatic solution to resolving the suspected WMD threat from Iraq in March 2003.

The entire course of history could have changed for the better had Bush43 given the diplomatic process a few more months.

There would not have been an AQ invasion into Iraq in 2003 or an ISIS playing on Sunni disenfranchisement and fears in 2014 to present.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11831446

4k soldiers were killed defending Iraq from radical Islamic terrorists.

You are making a false claim about the deaths of 4484 U.S. Troops that were unnecessarily killed in Iraq. There was no foreign or domestic AQ terrorist presence in Iraq In March 03 with the Baathist regime/dictatorship and army and Republican Guard governing Iraq.

Iraq Shiites fought the occupation army and so did many Iraqi displaced Sunnis until 2007. The vast number of U.S. Casualties came from bombs and shootings from pissed off people that resented having foreign (many Christian) soldiers and contractors shooting them and telling them what to do.

AQ came in after the invasion to kill Americans that's true. Bush sent our troops in with too few up-armored Humvees and outdated combat vests to patrol streets to keep order basically with targets painted on their backs for foreign Jihadist streaming into Iraq for the chance to kill an American soldier. Thanks Dubya very much and thanks Boss for telling us you know barely any truth about Iraq at all.

 

[Boss]

Complete idiocy (expected). So it would have been moral for Russia to have invaded the U.S. instead of Afghanistan if it would have lured the Mujahideen here? Right?

...............Huh?

....If the US were ruled by a ruthless tyrant and Russia was committed by law to plant democracy here and the US had violated repeated resolutions and gassed their own people to death forcing sanctions and ultimately an invasion to enforce international law, and in the resulting conflict it happened to lure the Mujahideen here... they yeah.... sure would!

What universe would something like that happen in?

More evidence you're insane. And more evidence that other poster was dead-on accurate describing you as someone who will say anything, no matter how stupid..

No, shvantz; under no circumstance would it be moral for the Russians to fight their war with the Mujahideen inside the U.S.. You really are baked.

And what about Bush using chemical weapons? That was moral too, right?

And you fallaciously claimed I said Bush personally wrote U.N. resolution 1441. Where's either a link to me saying that or you apologizing for being such a fucking moron for thinking I ever said that?

Again, you asked and I gave you the circumstances in which it would be moral.

I don't think Bush used chemical weapons.... what do mean, tear gas? lmao... libtards are funny!

Of course you don't think. You're a conservative. And no, I don't mean tear gas. If I meant tear gas, I would not have said he used chemical weapons.

Pentagon Used White Phosphorous in Iraq

WASHINGTON -- Pentagon officials say white phosphorous was used as a weapon against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Fallujah last November, but deny an Italian television news report that it was used against civilians.​

Ahh... so they used it against terrorist scum and not innocent civilians. If it saved an American life, I'm okay with it.

ALSO: (from your link)
"There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using `outlawed' weapons in Fallujah," the department said. "The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq."

Venable said white phosphorous shells are a standard weapon used by field artillery units and are not banned by any international weapons convention to which the U.S. is a signatory.

 

[Boss]

Boss 11831446

4k soldiers were killed defending Iraq from radical Islamic terrorists.

You are making a false claim about the deaths of 4484 U.S. Troops that were unnecessarily killed in Iraq. There was no foreign or domestic AQ terrorist presence in Iraq In March 03 with the Baathist regime/dictatorship and army and Republican Guard governing Iraq.

Iraq Shiites fought the occupation army and so did many Iraqi displaced Sunnis until 2007. The vast number of U.S. Casualties came from bombs and shootings from pissed off people that resented having foreign (many Christian) soldiers and contractors shooting them and telling them what to do.

AQ came in after the invasion to kill Americans that's true. Bush sent our troops in with too few up-armored Humvees and outdated combat vests to patrol streets to keep order basically with targets painted on their backs for foreign Jihadist streaming into Iraq for the chance to kill an American soldier. Thanks Dubya very much and thanks Boss for telling us you know barely any truth about Iraq at all.

No false claim except by idiots like you. The insurgents were foreign terrorists, we know that now because they are calling themselves ISIS. Some of us knew it back then, but you built this false narrative about pissed off Iraqis angry at Bush for invading their country. That was all in your head. Who we killed, were terrorist scum who would have just as soon flown planes into our buildings as blowing up a Humvee with an IED. But true to Liberal form, you're going to cling to the lie until the bitter end, even with ISIS slapping you in your stupid face and telling you what a fool you are.

Now, did some of Saddam's loyalists go and join forces with the terrorists? Sure they did! They didn't want democracy there... they had a sweet gig under Saddam! He probably let them ride around with Uday and Qusay as they raped 16 yr-old virgins with impunity. Life doesn't get much better than popping virgin cherries, right? So of course they didn't want us there messing that up for them!

 

[Faun]

Complete idiocy (expected). So it would have been moral for Russia to have invaded the U.S. instead of Afghanistan if it would have lured the Mujahideen here? Right?

...............Huh?

....If the US were ruled by a ruthless tyrant and Russia was committed by law to plant democracy here and the US had violated repeated resolutions and gassed their own people to death forcing sanctions and ultimately an invasion to enforce international law, and in the resulting conflict it happened to lure the Mujahideen here... they yeah.... sure would!

What universe would something like that happen in?

More evidence you're insane. And more evidence that other poster was dead-on accurate describing you as someone who will say anything, no matter how stupid..

No, shvantz; under no circumstance would it be moral for the Russians to fight their war with the Mujahideen inside the U.S.. You really are baked.

And what about Bush using chemical weapons? That was moral too, right?

And you fallaciously claimed I said Bush personally wrote U.N. resolution 1441. Where's either a link to me saying that or you apologizing for being such a fucking moron for thinking I ever said that?

Again, you asked and I gave you the circumstances in which it would be moral.

I don't think Bush used chemical weapons.... what do mean, tear gas? lmao... libtards are funny!

Of course you don't think. You're a conservative. And no, I don't mean tear gas. If I meant tear gas, I would not have said he used chemical weapons.

Pentagon Used White Phosphorous in Iraq

WASHINGTON -- Pentagon officials say white phosphorous was used as a weapon against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Fallujah last November, but deny an Italian television news report that it was used against civilians.​

Ahh... so they used it against terrorist scum and not innocent civilians. If it saved an American life, I'm okay with it.

ALSO: (from your link)
"There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using `outlawed' weapons in Fallujah," the department said. "The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq."

Venable said white phosphorous shells are a standard weapon used by field artillery units and are not banned by any international weapons convention to which the U.S. is a signatory.

Too funny. All your railing against WMD but here you are, cheering for Bush when he uses them. Well if nothing else, you're consistently immoral.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11835986

The insurgents were foreign terrorists, we know that now because they are calling themselves ISIS

How many insurgents were foreign terrorists? Do you have statistics on that?


Here's some interesting news for you Boss:

Terrorist mastermind of ISIS used to be a scholar New York Post


Abu Bakr al Baghdadi was a Iraq scholar working as an assistant Dean at a University in Iraq who was detained without charges in 2004 and imprisoned for a year and was radicalized in prison and ended up as the leader of ISIS.

Thank you very much President Bush for invading Iraq for no reason that led to the creation of this monster.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11835986

The insurgents were foreign terrorists, we know that now because they are calling themselves ISIS

How many of the U.S. Troops that were killed in Iraq were killed by foreign terrorists Boss? You must have the stats in front of you to make your claim. Let's see it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11835986

The insurgents were foreign terrorists, we know that now because they are calling themselves ISIS

So do you believe it to be a fact that there were no foreign terrorists in Iraq when Bush forced the inspectors out and invaded? And do you believe that the vast majority of US Troops were killed in Iraq by foreign terrorists?

So why did Bush invade a place where there was no outward indication of foreign terrorists operating freely under Saddam's Iraq?

Not a single roadside bomb or terrorist act that I recall took place in all of 2002 within Iraq's borders through March 19 2003.

UN inspectors went about their business without fear of roadside bombs or behind beheaded or anything like that.

Would it not have been wise to go after terrorists were they were terrorizing and already shooting and blowing up US and NATO troops? You know like clearing Afghanistan and the lawless border region of Pakistan before taking down a regime that had no connection to 9/11/01 or AQ type global terrorists.

Do you think Bush invaded Iraq to protect Iraqis from a foreign invasion of AQ already in place?

 

[sealybobo]

Boss 11831446

4k soldiers were killed defending Iraq from radical Islamic terrorists.

You are making a false claim about the deaths of 4484 U.S. Troops that were unnecessarily killed in Iraq. There was no foreign or domestic AQ terrorist presence in Iraq In March 03 with the Baathist regime/dictatorship and army and Republican Guard governing Iraq.

Iraq Shiites fought the occupation army and so did many Iraqi displaced Sunnis until 2007. The vast number of U.S. Casualties came from bombs and shootings from pissed off people that resented having foreign (many Christian) soldiers and contractors shooting them and telling them what to do.

AQ came in after the invasion to kill Americans that's true. Bush sent our troops in with too few up-armored Humvees and outdated combat vests to patrol streets to keep order basically with targets painted on their backs for foreign Jihadist streaming into Iraq for the chance to kill an American soldier. Thanks Dubya very much and thanks Boss for telling us you know barely any truth about Iraq at all.

No false claim except by idiots like you. The insurgents were foreign terrorists, we know that now because they are calling themselves ISIS. Some of us knew it back then, but you built this false narrative about pissed off Iraqis angry at Bush for invading their country. That was all in your head. Who we killed, were terrorist scum who would have just as soon flown planes into our buildings as blowing up a Humvee with an IED. But true to Liberal form, you're going to cling to the lie until the bitter end, even with ISIS slapping you in your stupid face and telling you what a fool you are.

Now, did some of Saddam's loyalists go and join forces with the terrorists? Sure they did! They didn't want democracy there... they had a sweet gig under Saddam! He probably let them ride around with Uday and Qusay as they raped 16 yr-old virgins with impunity. Life doesn't get much better than popping virgin cherries, right? So of course they didn't want us there messing that up for them!

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that thinks your a freaking idiot

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11835986

The insurgents were foreign terrorists, we know that now because they are calling themselves ISIS

But the leader of Daesh terrorist scum is an Iraqi - former scholar and assistant dean at an Iraqi college. He was radicalized in 2004 from imprisonment by the U.S. Military without charges filed against him.

How would you like it if that happened to you? Multiply that by tens and tens of thousands.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11835986

Who we killed, were terrorist scum who would have just as soon flown planes into our buildings as blowing up a Humvee with an IED. But true to Liberal form, you're going to cling to the lie until the bitter end, even with ISIS slapping you in your stupid face and telling you what a fool you are.

Bush's war that created ISIS killed thousands innocents than 'terrorist scum'/


NF 11617557 page 36

There were no terrorists to kill inside Iraq's boundaries in March and April 2003 when four members of this family were killed by Bush's bombing sensation?

058 Salma Amin 50
059 Mohammed Amin 27 (son of Salma)
060 Said Amin 24 (son of Salma)
061 Shams Amin 20 (daughter of Salma)

This family was the 58th through 61st civilian victim of the US bombing shock and awe of Iraq in March through April 2003.

The Pentagon reported on 7 April that a B2 bomber dropped four 2000-pound laser-guided GBU-24 bunker-buster bombs on the Al Saa Restaurant in the al Mansour District of Baghdad that Intelligence sources claimed was a meeting place of Saddam Hussein, his two sons, and senior Iraqi regime leaders.

When the broken body of the 20-year-old woman was brought out -- torso first, then the head -- her mother started crying uncontrollably, then collapsed;.

That must be Shams Amin, daughter of Salma Amin and sister to Mohammed and Said Amin, who were all killed by the four 2000 lb BGU bunker buster bombs inside or near the Al Saa Restaurant in the Mansour District of Baghdad, Iraq on April 7 2003.

They are dead. Their survivors must be grateful for your support of the great Bush killing spree to force democracy on them.

You are a despicable human being for lumping the Iraqi Amin family into the same group as terrorist scum that wanted to fly airplanes into buildings in US cities.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

B11831408

Saddam was a murderous ruthless tyrant who killed his own people with poison gas... stop and try to imagine choking to death on poison gas as you made your way home from the market.

Try to imagine being the mother and wife seeing her family being wiped out killed and dug out of the rubble while being in or near a restaurant in a nice tree-lined residential area. Try to imagine seeing your 24 year old daughter being dug out first the head and then the torso. One brother younger brother was there to see it too. Do you think he would be thanking Bush43 for bringing democracy to Iraq?

So the first beheading in modern day Iraq was carried out by the USAF.

Glad you enjoyed seeing it all happen on Fox News.