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.

 

What We Iraqis Want

page: 10
1
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Yeah vincere, let’s go ask my family, if they would trade their dignity, nationality, self-determination, freedom and integrity, for mcdonalds and toys R us. I’ll let YOU ask them that shall I, let’s see what answer they give, I’ll just stand a bit further back and take cover from the firing range.


I didn't say ask your family and your family is not Iraq as you pretend. Children pretend and you're doing a good job at pretending. If you ask children that are between the age of 5 - 15 years old in Iraq if they would like a Toys R US they will of course say yes, child syrian.

Rather than answer this reality you use rhetoric. Are you really a teenage girl? Doesn't matter as your name is child. Do you know what rhetoric means child? Generally teenage girsl have no idea what rhetoric means.



Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Vincere, nothing tastes as good as self-determination . So take your capitalist dream, your globolisation, and your pseudo-democracy and keep it behind your own closed doors. Your people and your children may be prepared to give up their rights for a cheese burger. But you shouldn’t expect us to do the same..


Self determination is an individual charactersitic child, not a national goal.


Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Yeah but few are right to think so, I am one of those few. I’ve already lived through a war thankyou. And I am quite sure, I have seen more in my few years that you have ever seen. Not because you didn’t have enough time to see it, because you covered your eyes, and you thought to yourself, ignorance is bliss. Go, go enjoy a big mac vincere, close your eyes and ears, and let your taste buds float you to the temporary heaven which will one day become your hell...


Living through a war does not make you all wise and knowing child. You think you're the only one who has experienced war child? Your naivity is expected, your anger, apparent. Children rant and rave about things they do not understand and this is what you are doing with adults. Go do the things of children or teenage girls and enjoy life, while you can live - that is wisdom child, enjoying life while you can, not seeking the destruction of forces you have NO CONTROL and NO POWER over.




posted on May, 24 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   


Is your only purpose here trying to disrupt intelligent conversation


There is nothing iltelligent about [read quote below]


Originally posted by Syrian Sister

Originally posted by SportyMB



And the CIA/MOSSAD front who are planting bombs in civilians places, in our mosques and churches, in our market places.


Again...I understand that your meaning is that the dead innocent Iraqis are not being killed by other Iraqi's and or Muslims? That all them deaths are by CIA/Mossad agents?


Yes.


Anyways, If werent us she would have noone else to chat with.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
There are a lot of unknowns in what is currently going on in Iraq. For example, what is the exact role of the politically independent secret police the CIA has created.. they, as well as Mossad could have a hand in bombings stretching shia/sunni relations. After all, this would be in totally exact and perfect accordance with their political goals in the region. When you look at the dark side of CIA and Mossad history, that would come in as no surprise, as i tried to hint in my earlier post.

For example, did you know that the CIA is regularly abducting european citizens and torturing them in afghanistan, jordan and israel ? The plane used by the CIA for these operations (probably filled with drugs and torture instruments) has had over 63 flights from US airports in Germany alone over the past year.



[edit on 24-5-2005 by Moretti]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
What is propaganda?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.



EastCoastKid That is not a definition, you get defintions from dictionaries, where several contexts are shown.

Example.

prop·a·gan·da (pr¼p”…-g²n“d…) n. 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those people advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates of a doctrine or cause: the selected truths, exaggerations, and lies of wartime propaganda.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by vincere7

I didn't say ask your family and your family is not Iraq as you pretend. Children pretend and you're doing a good job at pretending. If you ask children that are between the age of 5 - 15 years old in Iraq if they would like a Toys R US they will of course say yes, child syrian.



I am pretty sure your average Iraqi kid would settle for a cheese sandwich and a clean pair of underwear right now. Toys R US is probably the least of their worries!!!




Living through a war does not make you all wise and knowing child. You think you're the only one who has experienced war child? Your naivity is expected, your anger, apparent.



You yourself have lived through a war, pray, do tell?

I always found that wisdom came from realising and admitting that you don't know everything. So maybe paying attention and listening to other points of view instead of taking the position of all-knowing ATS member would be a better display of wisdom than belittling someone, who at 19 odd years is far from a child.

It's Deny Ignorance remember? Not Deny Being Ignorant......no harm in admitting you are stoopid, like me. We are all here to learn.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Your CIA claims on abducting...prove it.

Moretti, Im not saying the CIA and Mossad do not have thier share of wacos doing dirty deeds. I think some of the examples you gave or just as waco......that's a different arguement.

Syrian Sister claims...you know what, im tired of pasting and writing it all over agian...please read my last post and the ones before that. Read what she claims...and see that she says "ALL" all as in everyone, each single one.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Here's a fruitful google search on "torture by proxy" :

www.google.de...

The CIA seems to be maintaining a worldwide secret torture network.

[edit on 24-5-2005 by Moretti]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Moretti..I mean as it relates to the theory of SS (syrian sister theory).

What do you think of her theory?

Do you agree with the "ALL" factor?



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
It's Deny Ignorance remember? Not Deny Being Ignorant......no harm in admitting you are stoopid, like me. We are all here to learn.


Her comments speak for themselves. If you are unable to discern the difference between foolish rhetoric and sound wisdom then you have the personal problem. I for one, have nothing to learn from the syrian child, especially about war.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
Moretti..I mean as it relates to the theory of SS (syrian sister theory).

What do you think of her theory?

Do you agree with the "ALL" factor?


I don't know exactly what you mean, but let me say this : i think the iraqi people need to fight for their own liberty, otherwise they will be turned into some kind of vassal/slave state by the United States. The mentality displayed by SS seems to be sound, benign, and straightforward: fight the foreign occupier, especially since he didnt come to liberate, but to enslave you. Does that answer your question ?




[edit on 24-5-2005 by Moretti]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Wiggle wiggle SS. You said here is the defintion of propaganda and that was not a defintion, you get defitions from Dictionary's not Enclyopedias or didnt' you know that?
-and-
EastCoastKid That is not a definition, you get defintions from dictionaries, where several contexts are shown


According to Websters:
dictionary:
A reference book containing an alphabetical list of words, with information given for each word, usually including meaning, pronunciation, and etymology.

encyclopedia:
A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.

Propaganda as 'defined' in each:
dictionary
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

encyclopedia
Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation aimed at serving an agenda. At its root, the denotation of propaganda is 'to propagate (actively spread) a philosophy or point of view'. The most common use of the term (historically) is in political contexts; in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments or political groups.

Now shots, which is more accurate? Webster's (a dictionary) says an encyclopedia is comprehensive yet a dictionary has no such claim.

We're in a thread about Iraq, America's invasion, insurrections and terrorism plus a few more topics- which reference source would YOU send someone to to 'comprehensively' explain (define) something?

Of course you would choose a dictionary. How would that work?
    Let's see- Iraq, America, America in Iraq (no definition), well gosh it won't work.

    An encyclopedia on the other hand would have several articles (comprehensive definitions) that work.

Re-load shots.

I step into this because, as a definition for the Geneva Convention(s) Wikipedia and other encyclopedias provide a much clearer understanding (this is what a definition should be, right?) than do any dictionary I have found. Perhaps in your succinct cut of word/term meanings you can point me to a dictionary as 'comprehensive' as Wikipedia on the subject?

While waiting that enlightenment I will proceed with (according to shots) an incorrect basis for statements regarding the treatment of the 'insurgents' in Iraq.

Unlawful belligerent (according to Wikipedia) seems to fit part of the present situation in Iraq better than any I've found. The insurgents are not just fighting us (America, et al) but are fighting their own people. While doing this the insurgents have placed themselves outside the Article cited by Sister and into the very place (legally) that they are now.


On July 7, 2004, In response to the Supreme Court ruling, the Pentagon announced that cases would be reviewed by military tribunals, in compliance with Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention.[3]

Military tribunals- clearly within the power of the 'occupation.'

I'm still not convinced the 'insurgents' are required to follow the GC. They definitely are not signatories of it yet Iraq is. However, they and nations such as Syria can be claimed as belligerents- if Syria for example gets this connotation then sanction and invasion could easily happen.

Further, if the 'insurgents' are adjudged to violate the GC then they are outside it anyway. As a signatory of the GC, Iraq and the insurgents are bound by the GC whether they like it or not and will judged by its rules. Intentional acts of terror such as bombing a market and the like clearly place them in the arena of war criminal.

Killing civilians, per se, doesn't create that status. Otherwise there could be no legal war (that's an interesting term to be sure.) So in Iraq we have warfare and not necessarily war. Same results as regards death and destruction except that there is no standing army to defeat.

Un-uniformed 'insurgents' have placed themselves in the same legal sphere as spies. If the CIA/Mossad are involved in any of these bombings and acts of terror then not only the agents themselves but their superiors (uniformed or not) become war criminals.

Clothes do make a difference.

Moretti, while what you said (fight for their freedom) sounds good it just is not a player. America will NOT leave as long as there is an activity insurgency. That is just a cold hard fact. If the Iraqis want their own (not vassal status) nation again then they need for the occupiers to leave. The Iraqis need to get a little realism in their desires and put them aside for the time being while reality winds itself out.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moretti
I don't know exactly what you mean, but let me say this : i think the iraqi people need to fight for their own liberty

So do you believe this task of fighting for their freedom should be done by an organized and internationally recognized Iraqi army and police force? Or a bunch of random fanatics and terrorists who could care less about the lives of anyone and have no set goal except to cause as much death and destruction as possible?



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
You know what this reminds me of? I'll tell you.

I've known people who are of Irish decent (as I am), who thought that the IRA was a great bunch of "freedom fighters", fighting for a noble cause. Now, these guys were much like the originator of this thread; all pumped up about something going on "over there". Others, whom I did not know, felt the same way, and were wealthy enough to send money to the "freedom fighters", so that they might carry on with the struggle. And the bombs blew up, and innocent people were killed. But, the romance around their "freedom fighters" was more than they could resist.

Meanwhile, today, a car bomb detonates outside of a girl's school In Iraq. Innocent blood is shed. Some "freedom fighters". I'm sure that scared the red shoes off of Ronald McDonald.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Moretti, while what you said (fight for their freedom) sounds good it just is not a player. America will NOT leave as long as there is an activity insurgency. That is just a cold hard fact. If the Iraqis want their own (not vassal status) nation again then they need for the occupiers to leave. The Iraqis need to get a little realism in their desires and put them aside for the time being while reality winds itself out.



The US is in Iraq to stay, no matter what type of insurgency or governement there is. This is part of their broader plan for the middle east. It's erroneous to think that they would depart when the iraqis lay down their arms.

Iraq, as a multiethnic/religious nation, needs a governement with strong consensual factors, in order to achieve political indepence. It is precisely this consensus between ethnic and religious group that CIA/Mossad has actively being tried to thwart for months now. Logically, it is the anti-us shia or sunni clerics (read iraqi resistance) that are the strongest proponents of iraqi national unity, as opposed to civil war.

Also, Iraq's shiites have a traditional close association with Iran. Concerning any american aggression against Iran, they would side with the defender. This is a huge thorn in the administration's eye who hoped they would be overly thankful to the united states for starving them in the millions that they would hand them over all their resources. For this reason, the CIA kept a hand inside iraqi politics, through their thinly veiled frontend Mokhabarat (secret police) that iraqi politicians have been complaining about ever since they took office.

For all these reasons, the US would never allow the iraqis to be united in national sovereignty.


[edit on 24-5-2005 by Moretti]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Moretti
I don't know exactly what you mean, but let me say this : i think the iraqi people need to fight for their own liberty

So do you believe this task of fighting for their freedom should be done by an organized and internationally recognized Iraqi army and police force? Or a bunch of random fanatics and terrorists who could care less about the lives of anyone and have no set goal except to cause as much death and destruction as possible?


In fact, i hope the US attacks Iran. That would solve all problems once and for all


BTW, i wouldnt say that insurgents attacking US forces, contractors and police station are "random fanatics" they seem to know theit targets well enough..


[edit on 24-5-2005 by Moretti]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Holy cow, Mor; aren't about tired of the cost and concern involved with all this military action? We aren't Rome, and our military doesn't have to be on the march at all times!

I'm not suggesting we be an isolationist bunch, but I am saying that we need to draw back in quite a bit!



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks


Now shots, which is more accurate? Webster's (a dictionary) says an encyclopedia is comprehensive yet a dictionary has no such claim.


This is not about accuracy it is about use. One does not pick up an encylopedia to look up the meaning of a word that is what dictionaries are for.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   
JoeDoaks, It does not matter what kind of book or reference material used to look up the meaning of propoganda....is what matters is that SS's definition is just as wrong as her CIA/Mossad idea.

Do you think that the definition is simply the passing of ideas to suade ones beliefs or whatever?

if that is the case then almost everything we do in our daily lives could be considered propoganda....which this is so not the case.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moretti
BTW, i wouldnt say that insurgents attacking US forces, contractors and police station are "random fanatics" they seem to know theit targets well enough..

Well if they know their targets that well, then how is it that they kill hundreds more innocent civillians than they do coalition personnel, police officers, contractors, etc.?



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moretti
In fact, i hope the US attacks Iran. That would solve all problems once and for all
BTW, i wouldnt say that insurgents attacking US forces, contractors and police station are "random fanatics" they seem to know theit targets well enough.. [edit on 24-5-2005 by Moretti]


How would the US attacking Iran solve all of the problems once and for all? If you think this would solve the problem would you be prepared to put your life on the line and take up arms?



More fighting, more blood spilled and nothing solved.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join