Why Casey Sheehan was killed

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH25Ak04.html

excert -
"I had traveled to Sadr City to cover the Bush administration's attack on the movement of Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. It didn't matter that the cleric had millions of followers or that he was the scion of an important political family with a history of standing up to tyranny. (His father was killed by Saddam Hussein's regime for fomenting revolution in 1999. His uncle, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, was killed for leading an insurrection against Saddam's Ba'ath rule in 1980.)

It didn't matter that Sadr's forces were providing food aid to the poor or organizing traffic patrol and garbage duty in an atmosphere with no basic services. The problem for Bush and his Iraq administrator, L Paul Bremer, was that Sadr was against the US occupation. So he had to be dealt with. First his newspaper was closed. (See The Shi'ite voice that will be heard, Asia Times Online, April 8, 2004)Then his top advisor was arrested. Then Bremer announced an unnamed judge was demanding that Sadr be arrested on charges of murder. "He's effectively attempting to establish his authority in place of the legitimate Iraqi government," Bremer told reporters. "We will not tolerate that.""

I was killed? Shiiiit.

Casey at the Bat?

and all along I though bush had him murdered because he hated cindy sheehan

This thread has less to do with Casey and more to do with the smearing of Sadr. He appearently has always been working in the interests of the Iraq people whether that be against Saddam or the US. But the US media portrayed him as nothing more than a power hungry cleric.

Just look at the scenario to see what the real motivation was.

If the Us just wanted to help the Iraqis and bring stability then hit the road they would have left Sadr alone. In the short run he would have been a major advantage implimenting such things as basic public services (which the US has failed to do effectively) and keeping people satisfyed till the infrastructure was up and running again. The Iraqis would be content to stay home and wait for the US to leave.

However this was(is) not the US's Goal. Longterm occupation is where Sadr became a problem. Through the public service programs Sadr would have built up an even larger following of loyalists who would have been able to push US forces out of the country should he call for it. If the US goal of long term occupation had become evident enough he would have called for such and succeeded.

The Us wanted him taken out before his following became to large for the US to control.

and osama built roads and schools in Sudan, so what? I still dont see why a US beef with sadr is "why kasey died" is this your lame attempt to cash in on the poor guys death too?

I didn't write the article jackass. It just shows that Casey did indeed die for no reason other than US imperialism. It had nothing to do with helping the Iraqi people (which isn't the job of the US military either).

wow, you didint write it yet it is exactly what you feel. maybe you should try and think for yourself jackass

Originally posted by Travh20
wow, you didint write it yet it is exactly what you feel. maybe you should try and think for yourself jackass

Now there is the pot calling the kettle black.

LOL, OK echo, Ms. " I never post anything that wasnt copyed and pasted"

How many posts have I made that were copyed and pasted or taken from opinion articles echo? none. how many have you made? pretty much all of them. You see, you think I cant think for myself becasue I dont agree with what you were told to think by all the articles you read and copy and paste, hence, anyone who isnt in agreement with "the truth" as you see it must be brainwashed, when in fact, it is you who gets your cue from the anti war no blood for oil crowd and their endless stream of crap.

If you stick your head up their a little further you might be able to see your kidneys.

in other words you know I am right. you post copied and pasted opinion articles almost exclusively, and I do not, yet you would lead the forum to believe it is I who cant think for themselves, while the content of our original posts tells a different story.

Nope you just try to type as fast as your little fingers will carry you the all-knowing voice of Rush coming out of you radio.

I have to say, Trav is really winning this one...

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I have to say, Trav is really winning this one...

It's not a matter of winning or loosing. Trav is right, I do post a lot of articles to start strings. Some that I think are right on and some that I think are completely full of shit. I do it to get conversation started. It makes for good debate. What Trav is insinuating is that I do it because I don't think for myself.

Allowing his insinuation to float without a response or answering it with a long detailed explanation would not change his oppinion, so why bother?

I don't agree with posting Opinion articles to start threads (nor opinions for that matter). I think news articles should be the catalyst for such things.

But Echo don't worry about Trav. I've never even seen him post a link to back up any of his ridiculous claims.

Borg is just fucking with you because A. you do post opinion articles, B. your somewhat reactionary (ie- he likes watching you squirm), C. Trav has no status for claiming any sort of higher ground.