It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Letter to the American People

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   


Nothing but pure unadulterated propaganda, utilizing words of "probably were" and "the witnesses", along with other ad hoc word descriptions, holding no factual credibiliy, period. Crap reads like AlJahzeera on drugs.


Thank you. You can now go back to watching your fair and balanced news!!!




posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Carburetor

Here is a big difference between a terrorist and the allied forces.

TERRORISTS MURDER PEOPLE BRUTALLY, RANDOMLY, AND PURPOSELY!!!!



you missed out the main part of your statement, the difference. Anyway, i didn't think the people who wrote the letter were terrorists, i thought they were "insurgents"?



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by sal88

Originally posted by Mr Carburetor

Here is a big difference between a terrorist and the allied forces.

TERRORISTS MURDER PEOPLE BRUTALLY, RANDOMLY, AND PURPOSELY!!!!



you missed out the main part of your statement, the difference. Anyway, i didn't think the people who wrote the letter were terrorists, i thought they were "insurgents"?


Ok maybe i should have placed "INNOCENT" in front of people so that it reads "Terrorists murder innocent people brutally, randomly and purposely".

If your argument is that Allied forces are the same, then i would challenge you to prove to me where they PURPOSELY killed innocent people. There have been accidental deaths due to allied forces, which is unfortunate, however much different in terms of the BRUTAL, RANDOM, AND PURPOSEFUL killings of terrorists. And as far as the differnence between a terrorist and an insurgent in iraq, I SEE NO DIFFERNENCE. An insurgent with a car bomb is the same as a terrorist with a car bomb. Combine this with the intent to kill women, children, and other innocent people.....I label them as a terrorist...



[edit on 23-3-2005 by Mr Carburetor]



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Let me give you a little history of the poster almasad


he first started posting claiming he was a Jew working in Saudi Arabia, I guess he is a Jew in Iraq now


At least has come out of the closet but how much faith can you have in a man that lies about who he is?



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Carburetor
If your argument is that Allied forces are the same, then i would challenge you to prove to me where they PURPOSELY killed innocent people. There have been accidental deaths due to allied forces, which is unfortunate, however much different in terms of the BRUTAL, RANDOM, AND PURPOSEFUL killings of terrorists. And as far as the differnence between a terrorist and an insurgent in iraq, I SEE NO DIFFERNENCE. An insurgent with a car bomb is the same as a terrorist with a car bomb. Combine this with the intent to kill women, children, and other innocent people.....I label them as a terrorist...

My understanding of the word terrorist, was the intentional disruption of civlians, or civilian life, including killings of course, in order to achieve their aims. The Allied forces know that civilian deaths from them are inevitable, but yet the ends are supposed to justify the means. I don't think the terrorists only want to harm civilians, that can't be denied, i'm almost positive they have attacked military targets as well.
This says to me that they're primary aim isn't to "terrorise" but to try and achieve their aims, whatever they may be, and civilian killings or destruction of civilian buildings are often the only thing they can do, what else can a suicide bomber do against a powerful army? So seeing as both sides don't see the civilian deaths as much of an issue as long as their end objective is achieved, both sides could be seen as terrorists? Obviously the terrorists could be seen as the worser one because they are doing more harm than good really. I can't help but get the impression that people seem to like the idea of having a common enemy. Mr Carburetor u seem to be keen to tell us in capitals that u see no difference between "insurgents" and "terrorists", there certainly is a difference. does it make it easier to accept that there is a war being fought perhaps? Perhaps terrorism is just a buzz word used these days to allow wars to be fought? one example i can think of, i'm afraid that i can't give the exact details, but i was told of an attack by Hezbollah on an Israeli army base, or checkpoint or something, basically it was a military building, and the Israeli army still called it a terrorist attack!!!! unbelievable! u decide
Please don't take what i am saying as an attack on what you think, as you may have guessed my views are somewhat vague anyway, i'm just raising points that could bring a different perspective.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Sorry for the one word answer. All I can say is BS
(on you)



I Second this notion!!!!


Almasad.....I have a question for you brotherman or sister girl or whatever.....

Here it is, brace yourself.....Was/Is Saddam an evil man, a criminal, were his sons rapeist?

Was he responsible for the death of millions?

After maybe line 4 I thought this is BS and gave up...your little BS report is not worth by time...you wasted 10 seconds of my life and I want it back


By the way if you answer no to the Q's, I would have to say that you are blind my friend!


Peace in the middle east:



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Oh yeah, One more thing


How come you are soooo quick on the draw to point your little finger at Bush but not saddam or hitler, or even stalin...all the same except for Bush of course....



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by dev_add
Oh yeah, One more thing


How come you are soooo quick on the draw to point your little finger at Bush but not saddam or hitler, or even stalin...all the same except for Bush of course....


That depends on your view and opinion.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by sal88

Originally posted by Mr Carburetor
If your argument is that Allied forces are the same, then i would challenge you to prove to me where they PURPOSELY killed innocent people. There have been accidental deaths due to allied forces, which is unfortunate, however much different in terms of the BRUTAL, RANDOM, AND PURPOSEFUL killings of terrorists. And as far as the differnence between a terrorist and an insurgent in iraq, I SEE NO DIFFERNENCE. An insurgent with a car bomb is the same as a terrorist with a car bomb. Combine this with the intent to kill women, children, and other innocent people.....I label them as a terrorist...

My understanding of the word terrorist, was the intentional disruption of civlians, or civilian life, including killings of course, in order to achieve their aims. The Allied forces know that civilian deaths from them are inevitable, but yet the ends are supposed to justify the means. I don't think the terrorists only want to harm civilians, that can't be denied, i'm almost positive they have attacked military targets as well.
This says to me that they're primary aim isn't to "terrorise" but to try and achieve their aims, whatever they may be, and civilian killings or destruction of civilian buildings are often the only thing they can do, what else can a suicide bomber do against a powerful army? So seeing as both sides don't see the civilian deaths as much of an issue as long as their end objective is achieved, both sides could be seen as terrorists? Obviously the terrorists could be seen as the worser one because they are doing more harm than good really. I can't help but get the impression that people seem to like the idea of having a common enemy. Mr Carburetor u seem to be keen to tell us in capitals that u see no difference between "insurgents" and "terrorists", there certainly is a difference. does it make it easier to accept that there is a war being fought perhaps? Perhaps terrorism is just a buzz word used these days to allow wars to be fought? one example i can think of, i'm afraid that i can't give the exact details, but i was told of an attack by Hezbollah on an Israeli army base, or checkpoint or something, basically it was a military building, and the Israeli army still called it a terrorist attack!!!! unbelievable! u decide
Please don't take what i am saying as an attack on what you think, as you may have guessed my views are somewhat vague anyway, i'm just raising points that could bring a different perspective.


Sal88 i give my respect to you as you are one of the few who don't come across offensively on this site. And i appologize if my post was a little offensive to you, my intention was not to do that. My main point was to state that just as an American is prone to propoganda and misleading, a terrorist is also prone to it. I kind of blurted out the Terrorist statement to make the point that there IS a fine differnce between allied soldiers and their intent to ultimately bring about the better for Iraqi people (rebuilding schools, training police, and offering compensation packages to those families who may have unintentionally been involved in accidents) However I understand that the insurgents do what they must to achieve their goals. But it is without regards for human life. Brutal beheadings, and burning bodies. I just started a topic earlier today regarding the
"experiences of a solder"

You might check it out as it has some good stories about soldiers and how they treat people. Curtainly it doesn't apply to 100% of all soldiers as the prison abuses showed. However i think 99.9% of the soldiers have a heart and are trying to keep the innocent safe and help out where they can. There is a story about a soldier who gave candy to some children and helped them learn to say hello in english. A few days later one of the children was hung from a tree from an insurgent. I guess this is kind of the point i was trying to make. I am not offended by your views and i understand that we are all here on this website to share our differences or simularities in view.

Carburetor



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by dev_add
Oh yeah, One more thing


How come you are soooo quick on the draw to point your little finger at Bush but not saddam or hitler, or even stalin...all the same except for Bush of course....


That depends on your view and opinion.


I'm pro-Bush...maybe that will clarify...thanx



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dev_add
I'm pro-Bush...maybe that will clarify...thanx

Who was talking about you?
I wasnt...
I am pointing out how that statement you made doesnt stay the same for all....



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by dev_add
I'm pro-Bush...maybe that will clarify...thanx

Who was talking about you?
I wasnt...
I am pointing out how that statement you made doesnt stay the same for all....


Understood, I thought you did'nt understand what I ment by that...
Just trying to clarify.

and the thanx was'nt intended to be sarcastic....


Sorry for the mishap, I did'nt understand



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   


Nothing but pure unadulterated propaganda, utilizing words of "probably were" and "the witnesses", along with other ad hoc word descriptions, holding no factual credibiliy, period. Crap reads like AlJahzeera on drugs.


Tatamount to the propadanda propogated by the United States for decades, correct? If anything, the writer was not proposing a factual diatribe, then he was an opinionated stance on what America has become. The use of the words Zion seems sound and viable when one realizes that Zionist lobby groups have become a major clout in the U.S.

It's easy to label it as propaganda, then refuse to acknowledge how it is proganada, or provide alternative sources to detract the claims thereunto.

As for your remarks on Al-Jazeera; exactly how are they propogating propaganda? I've seen you chide them constantly to no avail, along with many others. It's becoming extremely tuatologous and trendy to lable Al-Jazeera as a heaviyl beclouded media organization out to meet some end --whatever you feel like inserting.

If anything, i've seen more propaganda propogated by the likes of Ann Coulter, O'rielly, and the Executive branch themselves.

Deep



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Since you simply love to address me, in particular, 'Sir Lancelot' ZeroDeep, I find it intersting that even you would buy into this garbage, and its garbage, sir, pure unadulterated garbage!

Your comments indicate the very lack of critical thinking that you so wish to portray otherwise, ZeroDeep. How interesting, especially coming from you to even correlate and insinuate what you have. Both mentions in this topic by the topic original author have no factually bearing or support. Have you found any yet, or were you to busy simply seeing my comments as an excuse to simply not check that assertions made by the material presented?

How tragic that you found it an opportunity to not do what most members should: before swallowing what you read, check it for credibility and factual backing. Sad, especially coming from an intellectually astute member as you.




If anything, i've seen more propaganda propogated by the likes of Ann Coulter, O'rielly, and the Executive branch themselves.

Total BS.





seekerof

[edit on 23-3-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I is simply amazing how many closed minded people on this site, moderators included there are.

If another country was to declare to the world that it was going to attack another soveriegn nation for what ever reason, and that reason was determined to be false and yet they trumped up more reasons and finally landed on freeing that nation from oppression as their reason. The US would be furious at them.

Was Saddam a madman, a psycopath evil dictator? Yes.
Were the Iraqi people incappable of revolting and starting their own revelution? No.

Did the people of Iraq organize a revolt? Was a civil war ensuing when the US attacked? Did any political party, prior to the invasion, request assistance from the US or the UN in Iraq? No. No and No.

If this happened here in the US, You folks would be outraged. We would gather up our arms and defend our country against that invasion. You would open your doors to any assistance you could find to help fight that occupying force.

You, who disagree, have closed your minds to the fact that one nation, the U.S. has attacked and invaded another nation, Iraq, for no valid reason whatsoever.

If you think I am wrong on that, ask yourself this question: Would another nation be considered wrong if they Invaded the U.S. to "free us from oppression." of a nation of human rights violations, civil unrest, possesion of Weapons of Mass Destruction with an administration that has shown likelyhood of use.

The U.S is NOT the Wolrd Police. Yet, the administrations of this country have shown time and again disregard for its own people and disregard for the soveriegnty of other nations.

We have our own problems here. Civil Unrest, Health Care Problems, Social Security and Veterans Affairs Issues, Job Security, Unemployment, Housing, the list goes on. We should keep our d!@#$ out of other countries and work on fixing our own.

Phae



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Very nicely put Phae.

I suppose Britain too could fit in the same boot.

Also wasn't the majority of the UN security council opposed to the invasion?

Once again nice reply



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Phaethor, you are so right man so very very correct
Well put i could not disagree with one statement

Why has the guy that posted this not responded......??
I want to hear more from him



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Wow this is right out of Al Jazeera or CNN. Centurians short answer is right on the money. This is BS and a pack of lies.

Looks to me like the insurgents have lost popular support in Iraq and Afghanistan...and thats the beginning of the end for them. Times are-a-changing people of the world....America is on the move and your ether with us or against us.

If your with us, you'll find no better friend.

If your against us, you'll find no deadlier enemy.

Maximu§


Maximu§



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Is that like when George Bush said
"You're either with us, or against us. You're either with the terroists , or your not" Slip of the tounge was it? Does that mean If you're with us you're with the terroist and if you're against us you're not?



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrDog
Does that mean If you're with us you're with the terroist and if you're against us you're not?


Yep, If your against the war and don't want to fight.... fine, sit by the sidelines and SHUT-UP!! But if your against the war and actively try and undermine our efforts (ANSWER, ACLU) than you've become the enemy and should be sitting in Guantanimo bay next to the other Scum we have locked up there.

Maximu§



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join