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.

 

OP/ED: Dead Reporters and Mass Graves - Jihad Respun?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   

kenshiro2012 wrote:
Unfortunately, this thread was an attempts to utilize old photos, and old news reports in order to once again discredit the administration, the military, and ultimately the individual soldiers who are still today serving in iraq. I find this to be appaling


I think that if you calm down a little and read the original article again, you will find that it was presented in a fair, analytical, and balanced manner. Some images, allegations, and alleged connections to a journalist's death surfaced, and I collated and presented them here for the ATS community to do what it does best: discuss, analyze, and if possible, debunk. I think that you will find the majority of members observing and participating in this thread, who have not let their emotions get the better of them, agree with me on these points. If you choose to bicker, then that is your prerogative, but please refrain from making accusations as to my agenda. Thank you.




posted on May, 24 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
Yeah, like those WMD, eh? No evidence of what was claimed, not even a decent photo like the one above over which we could argue!!! The evidence that there was none proves the current administration wrong. Have they embraced or dismissed this evidence?


Although Saddam had obviously disarmed (either by destroying them or giving them to a neighbor for safe keeping) the evidence for the WMD is FAR more compelling than the fictional news of higher American casualities which is being produced for the entertainment of those who are jealous of America's power.

There is a compelling paper trail that the WMD went to Iraq and never verifiably left. The same can not be said for the alleged US casualties. Show me records of one non-acknowledged casualty who went to Iraq and never came back. Where is the paper trail, seriously?


Edit to add: Good luck with Miss Bin Laden Mauddib. I for one just put her on ignore. By the way, did you hear about her righteous insurgents detonating a bomb near an all girls middle school yesterday (is she still denying that they've ever killed innocent iraqis?) ? Perhaps we did that to smear them lol.

[edit on 24-5-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I think that if you calm down a little and read the original article again, you will find that it was presented in a fair, analytical, and balanced manner. Some images, allegations, and alleged connections to a journalist's death surfaced, and I collated and presented them here for the ATS community to do what it does best: discuss, analyze, and if possible, debunk. I think that you will find the majority of members observing and participating in this thread, who have not let their emotions get the better of them, agree with me on these points. If you choose to bicker, then that is your prerogative, but please refrain from making accusations as to my agenda. Thank you.


Well, buddy, upon my very close examination of the photos from the links you've provided, I have to come to the conclusion that these are full of BS.

Anybody can take a picture of some dead bodies removed from the graves in Iraq and stated that those are the bodies of some American soldiers "secretly" buried with some flimsy or questionable appearances, perhaps for a propaganda mean to spread lies and confusion among the US military and the Western media, at least that would be the real intent.

Some photos showed bodies in a severe state of decomposition, as if these have been in the underground for a very long time.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I lvoe it, when so much comes from sympathetic sources like Al Jazeerah and jihadunspun-the same folks claiming "jihad" has nothing to do with Holy War. No agendas here folks, Only Americans have agenda's, apparently.

Interesting the spin-if mass graves of Arabs are found, it's screamed to high heven that the US is murdering hundreds and hiding the bodies. If it's a mass grave of westerners, it's US hiding the truth.

Perhaps the truth is what Al Jazeerah and jihadunspun don't want the world to consider-that westerners are being slaughtered and dumped by Jihadists.

Of course the real story here is, why is this a story *now*? I had info on these and others almost a year ago. was Al Jihad unwilling to trot this out on fear it may backfire during the elections and be interpreted as westerners being slaughtered by Muslims?

And yes, in a world where your enemy hides behind civilians and fires from schools, a silhouette in the distance aiming a shoulder mounted device means you get nailed. That's the nature of the war, and of war journalists' jobs. With hundreds of journalists, and a chaotic battle situation,one or two getting mistaken as enemy (and considering how hard Media works at spinning things into an anti-American story and showing names and faces of soldiers involved in anti-terrorist ops, maybe they are an enemy) is surprisingly lucky.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   
lol so that journalist deserved to be killed according to you? Enough said, I'll remember that when ever I have the dubious fortune of reading another one of your posts.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   
howmuchisthedoggy,
I did not mean for my last posting for you to take offense to my posting. Unfortunately, I was under a bit of a time constraint and was not able to proof read the posting prior to hitting the post reply button.. As for the "you" yes, it was in the third person. It was not an attack to you personaly. It was directed to many who attempt to desensitize the situation.

wecomeinpeace




I think that if you calm down a little and read the original article again, you will find that it was presented in a fair, analytical, and balanced manner. Some images, allegations, and alleged connections to a journalist's death surfaced, and I collated and presented them here for the ATS community to do what it does best: discuss, analyze, and if possible, debunk. I think that you will find the majority of members observing and participating in this thread, who have not let their emotions get the better of them, agree with me on these points. If you choose to bicker, then that is your prerogative, but please refrain from making accusations as to my agenda. Thank you.


I have read the article in great detail. I have also researched the source as you may have noticed that I also research the source of the photos as well as a news report from that date and time. I can provide others if that is youe wish. I have not let my emotions run amok on this issue. If, you will please reference my posts, I have addressed apecific arguments as well as the members you posts them.
If you will review the title of your news submission " OP/ED: Dead Reporters and Mass Graves - Jihad Respun?" and the conclusions that your sources have come to.
1) the reported was murder by the american military.
2) The american military are dropping bodies of dead american souldiers out of black hawk to be buried in secret and in mass graves.

Those conclusions and other similar conclusions have been used in the past by others to bash the military as well soldiers individually.

Now to answer the questions that you had first posted,
1) In 2003 through 2004, I worked for a security company that was tasked to setup secure vpn tunnels wireless networks for the military memebrs to use while they were stationed over in iraq. When members are not on manuevers, and while they are at base camps. They have acccess to email, IM as well as telephone. Where family members who do not have internet access there have been stations setup and are funded by various corporations so that family members can communicate with servicemen.
Example, a recent debate here on ats was of a student who receieved a call on his sell phone while in school. the call was from hiis mother who was serving in iraq.
2), As most of the servicemen and women are from the National Guard, and are mostly civilian at heart, if such burials were actually occuring, the ones in iraq would have passed the info on to their family members in the states.
The ones who are fighting having to return to iraq would have used that information to further their cause.

3) The reports state that he was shot by freindly fire as the military mistaken the camera on his shoulder to be a weapon. Unfortunately, if you can speak to someone who has been in a combat arena, you will find that if someone sees what "looks" like a weapon, they will fire first instead of taking the chance. It was a mistake.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Kenshiro2012

No harm done, forget about it. I bow to your superior experience in this regard and I now see by your information that the likelihood of US forces being killed and unaccounted for is quite unlikely.

I still believe the number killed to be much higher though. I have heard that those injured who die of their wounds later are tallied seperately from those actually killed outright on the ground. Considering that the body armour is keeping a lot of the troops alive awile longer and the number of injuries resulting in amputations points to a trend in which soldiers quite often aren't killed on the scene and that many die later of their injuries.

While this is acknowledged, it still isn't reflected in the figure for the overall dead?

Vagabond, dude, I don't have a paper trail for what I am talking about and know also it would be unwise to get into a WMD debate with you. However, I am sure someone as clued in as yourself has come across talk of the military's future. There was a time when it was discussed what changes the military would go through in the future. One thing discussed was how hard it hadbecome to recruit good people and the forecasted shortfall in troops in the future.

Two of the solutions mentioned were developing robots and creating a force similar to the French Foreign Legion. While the robots thing was very sci-fi back then, more and more robots are making into the theatre of battle. What we are concerned with here however is to use of foreign nationals in a non-disclosed to the public unit of Green Card soldiers.

If they wanted to keep the lid on that particular unit, would they more likely ship the dead guys back to Mexico or wherever, and maybe get caught, or would they more likely stick them in a hole somewhere or chuck them out of Black Hawk helicopters into the river? (Somebody have a link to that story?? I remember reading it a while back....)

The full scale of the tragedy is being kept under wraps, I fear.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   
kenshiro


" Also dear syrian sister, you have used the issue of the american military being angered over showing the coffins in the media."


I'm sorry i don't belive that i've done that.
But it's a good point that you made. However it's not a good way to argue, to set up your opponents arguement yourself first, and then shoot it down. I made no such statement or arguement for you to contradict.

Also you said you used a source that i provided, but when i checked the source you used, i found that it was not my source at all.

The "shots", over shot the runway and said the following,

Nice find it proves again that she is wrong or should we say lying once again

But i never promoted the source that you claimed i promoted.

Oh and the google search you suggested, turned up nothing much of interset.

Also ofcource the Resistance kills collaborators, those in the puppet forces. But i doubt very much they would need to bury them. What would be the point? They aren't ashamed to shoot colloborators, they know it is their right to do so, just like the french resistance, they don't want to hide the fact. Infact it's quite the opposite, they want people to know, it would give some the satisfaction that justice was served, and it would give a warning to some who might be tempted to collaborate. That's why the IR brings out communique's showing the papers of the collaborators that where found guilty of treason.
Infact, there is an air of show man ship about the way the resistance shoot collaborators my dear, with there hands behind there back, they stand on their knees and are each given a shot to the back of the head, that's the traditional way to execute a traitor, on their knees because they die without honour. So why would the resistance bury their hard work, they WANT people to know they execute collaborators. The resistance would have no reason to bury any collaborators that they killed, it defies logic.

However, as you may know, alot of those in the puppet security aparatus in iraq right now, are actually resistance infiltrators, spies working with the resistance. Perhaps the occupation forces discovered that they where working with the resistance, and executed them. That would explain why they burried them, they didn't want people to know that the puppet security is largely compromised by the resistance.

That seems far far more logical to me.



It has been stated that this has been done and the example provided was vietnam. The numbers were exagerated to say yhe least. The variance of the number, those of during the war in comparison to the updated ones after the war were just a simple shuffling of numbers. Prior to the update many soldiers were tagged as missing in action, pow, etc. At the end of the war, with the release of the pow's, the numbers were adjusted to reflect the known fact.


Can such "shuffling" and "exageration" (nice use of bias words there), be done again? Ofcource, ofcource and it has. In every war in history, one side deflates their number of cassualities, and inflates the number of enemy cassualties. All sides do it, neither your side, nor my side are immune.

As for what you say about the KIA that where listen under POWs or MIA. The US still are listing many many names in the vietnamn war as POW or MIA, while the Vietnamn government insists that these men are long dead. 30 years later, THEY ARE STILL LYING!

You think in this day an age, with all their controll of all the media's, that they cannot hide the numbers? The only thing that they don't have complete controll over, is the internet. That is why you and i and howmuchthisisdodgy, can discuss these mass graves of occupation soldiers that where found.

So how is it that they hide there numbers these days, well as "howmuchisthedoggy" said himself, they don't count the cassualities that die immedietly. Also, they use green card soldiers, men who don't have citizensip. AND lastly, they higher mercinaries, like yourself Kenshiro.

The Vagabond
Although Saddam had obviously disarmed (either by destroying them or giving them to a neighbor for safe keeping).

Very amusing, indeed he had obviously disarmed when the UN had asked him to years and years, and years ago. But if you are saying he threw he’s WMD’s over to his neighbores, “for safe keeping” months before the war began, then if he had such WMD’s back then, WHY WOULDN”T HE USE THEM? Surely they would have been his last bid to defend himself. I’m sorry, It defies logic. And which neighbour would accept, saddam had conflict and war with almost all his neighbours.

It’s good that you put me on ignore, because I seriously have no interest in your replying to me or hearing me. I have interest in the intelligent people who read this thread, and can understand a logical argument when they see it.

As for bin ladin, he’s your man in Washington, not mine.


[edit on 24-5-2005 by Syrian Sister]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Hey Syrian Sister

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Please get my username right.

How much this is dodgy

sort of has a negative ring to it! I am sure there are people who are asking themselves how much this is dodgy about what I am posting!!!

Maybe I should change it to wagthedog.....



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
heheh sorry about that.


I thought i read it as 'how much this is dodgy"

as if like, you are looking at the lies of the mainstream media and thinking 'how much this is dodgy"

LOL

How much is that dog, in the window... the one with the ..... shutup, ok.


[edit on 24-5-2005 by Syrian Sister]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 02:06 AM
link   
kenshiro2012, on one side you have Islamic websites making outrageous accusations regarding the conduct of the coalition forces, and on the other you have we in the West shouting that anything the Islamic websites say is lies. I decided to bring the issue out into the open for serious analysis, a task which you and others here have pursued admirably, yet now you deride me as making an "appalling" attempt to "discredit the administration, the military, and ultimately the individual soldiers."? You have transferred your anger at other posters in this thread on to me, and you have let your emotions affect your judgment to the point where, according to your slant on the world, anybody who raises any questions, who doesn't simply ignore everything that doesn't fit with their preconceived conclusions without attempting to prove or debunk, and who presents information for others' appraisal, therefore has an agenda. So if I present the accusations against George Galloway before the community here for their evaluation, does that then mean I have a personal agenda to discredit Galloway and I agree with the allegations? No. If I wish to write an Op/Ed article which makes allegations against a person or an organization, I will. But where I have not done so, please bridle yourself from making accusations to that effect.


kenshiro2012 wrote:
If you will review the title of your news submission " OP/ED: Dead Reporters and Mass Graves - Jihad Respun?" and the conclusions that your sources have come to.
1) the reported was murder by the american military.
2) The american military are dropping bodies of dead american souldiers out of black hawk to be buried in secret and in mass graves.

Those conclusions and other similar conclusions have been used in the past by others to bash the military as well soldiers individually.


The sole reason I entered into this discussion was because previously you made the accusation that "this thread was an attempt to utilize old photos, and old news reports in order to once again discredit the administration, the military, and ultimately the individual soldiers who are still today serving in iraq". And now, if I understand correctly, you are retracting that accusation and simply stating that some of the sources came to the conclusions you mentioned above. I agree with you, and thank you for the clarification. If you wish to speak of my personal conclusions in the article, I'm sure if you read it again minus the fog of indignation, you will see that the only conclusions I drew were, one, that the graves were most likely not of U.S. soldiers, and two, that on the surface the whole incident appears to be a propaganda exercise. Investigations and conclusions beyond that, I left to the reader. Do I need to quote from my own article, or can we agree on this? Despite the piece being an Op/Ed, I was not attempting to draw any solid conclusions, and if I have done so, please point them out to me so that I may correct them if need be. Thank you.

You have called me out on the title of the piece, so let's dissect it. "Jihad Respun?" It is a play on Jihadunspun.com, admittedly designed to attract readers, and it is a question; as in, I am raising the question for the reader to make a judgment on. As for "Dead reporters and mass graves", in case you missed it, the subject of the article was the death of reporter Mazen Dana, and the allegations, made NOT by me, of mass graves of coalition soldiers. I fail to see how that title has made any conclusions as you claim, apart from the conclusions that a reporter died and mass graves were found. Obviously, instead of simply presenting the allegations and information for your analysis and the analysis of others here, you would only have been satisfied had I presented an attack piece on Islamic websites entitled, "The Vicious Lies of Islamic Propaganda". I leave such an article for you to write, should you be so inclined.


the_oleneo wrote:
Well, buddy, upon my very close examination of the photos from the links you've provided, I have to come to the conclusion that these are full of BS.

Anybody can take a picture of some dead bodies removed from the graves in Iraq and stated that those are the bodies of some American soldiers "secretly" buried with some flimsy or questionable appearances, perhaps for a propaganda mean to spread lies and confusion among the US military and the Western media, at least that would be the real intent.

Some photos showed bodies in a severe state of decomposition, as if these have been in the underground for a very long time.

Congratulations. If you actually do read the section of the article entitled "John Does", you will see that I put forth the exact same proposals which you have so faithfully repeated here. Perhaps next time I should make my articles less wordy and easier to understand. And please don't call me "buddy". It is a transparent attempt to be patronizing and is completely uncalled for. Thank you.

Please, ladies, gentlemen, carry on with your debate.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister


So i suggest you be silent, unless you want the footage to silence you.


If that is what trips you trigger go for it, it will not bother me at all, but it might bother the MODS


Also keep in mind the ones you posted previously have already been debunked, so if you again want to make yourself look like a fool go for it


[edit on 5/25/2005 by shots]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Now that the air has been cleared (kenshiro, thank you for your U2U
) let's look at the dates and locations.



I made a mistake assessing the article posted here **WARNING! GRAPHIC IMAGES**. These are actually two separate graves.

The first, with the (if you'll excuse the term) "fresh" bodies is claimed to be in Fallujah, just West of Baghdad, discovered in September, I assume of 2003. Again, one of the bodies pictured appears to be wearing Muslim robes.

The second, with the mummified corpses in black body-bags, is claimed to be in Ramadi, west of Fallujah, discovered in March 2004.

The article here reports shallow graves found in March 2003 in Nasiriyah, which is in south east Iraq.

kenshiro's article here is dated March 2003, and speaks of bodies and wounded found again in southern Iraq. It does not report any graves.

Regarding the so-called "green-card troops", there could conceivably be some border-crossing illegal immigrants who do not have families in the U.S. and are given the choice of a) enlistment & a chance at a green card, or b) deportation or imprisonment. Such persons would be in an even tighter situation of they were facing criminal charges. Pure speculation, but just thought I'd throw it out there for consideration.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
Vagabond, dude, I don't have a paper trail for what I am talking about and know also it would be unwise to get into a WMD debate with you.


Some would say that your respect for me is misplaced, however I am flattered. I was not specifically challenging you to produce a paper trail obviously. What I am really getting at is that the trail would be there and would be found. It's hard to hide the fact that a person has ceased to exist. The trail would be exposed by curious family members.



Two of the solutions mentioned were developing robots and creating a force similar to the French Foreign Legion. While the robots thing was very sci-fi back then, more and more robots are making into the theatre of battle. What we are concerned with here however is to use of foreign nationals in a non-disclosed to the public unit of Green Card soldiers.


That is an interesting theory, but any significant number of "green card soldiers" would be impossible to hide. You would have to undertake to very conspicuous activity of recruitment. How do you openly recruit people without letting the cat out of the bag? You can't send them through the usual training aparatus because the higher numbers in boot would contradict your recruitment statistics. So you need a whole seperate military aparatus of recruitment, training, and segregated units and it all has to go completely unnoticed to the cities surrounding the bases which house them.

Then you have to equip them. If we have secret units in Iraq taking most of the casualties then it is reasonable to assume that there are perhaps tens of thousands more troops in Iraq than officially stated. These troops need fuel, ammo, food, armor, vehicles, etc etc. So why haven't any of the anti-war congressmen been raising questions about accounting discrepencies which would have to exist if the force being funded in Iraq were perhaps 10% larger than officially stated?


We do have green card soldiers though. Both my recruiter and one of my DIs were "green card marines". They are recruited openly, serve in known units, and get treated pretty much like any other soldier.



If they wanted to keep the lid on that particular unit, would they more likely ship the dead guys back to Mexico or wherever, and maybe get caught, or would they more likely stick them in a hole somewhere or chuck them out of Black Hawk helicopters into the river? (Somebody have a link to that story?? I remember reading it a while back....)


The Mexican people would know that they were being recruited and their families would start making noise after they hadn't heard from people in over a year or two. Just because Americans don't give a rats posterior about Mexican citizens doesn't mean that their fellow countrymen would stay quiet over such a thing.



The full scale of the tragedy is being kept under wraps, I fear.


God knows that we get lies and just plain bad info plenty of the time, so I can understand your distrust of reports on the war. They tried to hood wink us into using half as many troops as we did and even those we have aren't enough. A mess tent gets hit with a 122mm rocket and within a matter of hours it becomes a suicide bomb (because having BM-21s makes the enemy sound too strong). The WMD were supposed to be there, then there are whispers that we saw them being moved to Syria but for some reason don't dare make a move on Syria, etc etc etc.

Distrust is OK. I don't think this means we can accept foreign propaganda just because it is the opposite of what we are told by people we don't trust. They would have us -fear- as you put it, that we are losing but aren't being told. Those who do not wish to see this war effort succeed for one reason or another seek to do exactly what was done to us in Vietnam- to turn even our victories into moral defeats. Surely we all know that the failure of the Tet Offensive all but broke the back of the Vietcong, and yet because their were a few horrible pictures, fear was instilled and it was a pivotal moment in the turn of that war against America.

God bless anyone who can end this war and get my friends back home and back in the bar where they belong, but let's not be in such a rush to end this sad affair that we will believe any report of defeat, however incredible, just because it could herald the begin of a pull out.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Any of the falacies i attributed to him. Figures why, because he CAN'T it seems.

As for the WMD's being moved to syria. HAH, why would we need non existant iraqi WMD's. We have had our own years and years and years ago. Proudly so! We never signed any treaty that says we can't have them. It's our right.

That's why you can't attack us, that's why you can't attack north korea. Because we actually have a way to defend ourselves. The US only has the guts to attack weak and defencelss nations.

If the US thought for a minute that iraq could have WMD's do you think they would ever have attacked? HAH, laughable. The cowards even used the UN to make sure iraq had not even the thinnest way to defend themselves before they attacked.

I guess they got more than they bargained for. And now their covering up their n.o. of cassualities. They have lied about so much, and continue to lie. You think they aren't going to lie about this? give me a break.

All sides play around and lie about their number of dead and the number they killed. All sides, no side is immune. Not the US, not the resistance. That's the way war is.

[edit on 25-5-2005 by Syrian Sister]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister


As for the WMD's being moved to syria. HAH, why would we need non existant iraqi WMD's. We have had our own years and years and years ago. Proudly so! We never signed any treaty that says we can't have them. It's our right.


Interesting. Can you prove that Seria has WMDs? I did not think so.



That's why you can't attack us, that's why you can't attack north korea. Because we actually have a way to defend ourselves.


What are you blabbering about? It is not that we cannot attack, it is we do not want to attack.



If the US thought for a minute that iraq could have WMD's do you think they would ever have attacked? HAH, laughable.


WOW that is a mouthful of BS. Hate to tell you, but we did attack Iraq that is a fact and you can take that to the bank.





posted on May, 26 2005 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Interesting. Can you prove that Seria has WMDs? I did not think so.


HAH! that's similar to :

Iraq says "WE DON'T HAVE WMD's". Bush turns around and says "prove it".

North korea says "We DO HAVE WMD'S " . Bush turns around and says "prove it".

You only hear what you want to hear, and belive what you want to belive, Whatever suits your agenda double thinker.

I'll give you a line that ussually comes out of north korea. You want to proof that syria's got WMD's, you want proof that North Korea has got WMD's? Attack pyong yang, you'll get your proof very quickly. Heh Heh Heh ahahaaHAHAHAHAHAHAA! Indeed the proof will hit you in the face.






If the US thought for a minute that iraq could have WMD's do you think they would ever have attacked? HAH, laughable.


WOW that is a mouthful of BS. Hate to tell you, but we did attack Iraq that is a fact and you can take that to the bank.


Yeah, you attacked them because they had no way to defend themselves, including no WMD's.

WOW, Get it? clever boy.

[edit on 26-5-2005 by Syrian Sister]



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 04:19 AM
link   
The Fruit Of The Tree

Those who bring truth do not shroud it in lies.

Those who bring truth do not insult those who are skeptical of deceit.

The truth speaks for itself.

The only truth I see in this thread is that some members are truly violating the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use by knowingly posting false information to this board and engaging in personal attacks against other members, both of which are prohibited.

You know who you are.

No thanks -- i.e., no thanks forthcoming.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister


Yeah, you attacked them because they had no way to defend themselves, including no WMD's.

WOW, Get it? clever boy.

[edit on 26-5-2005 by Syrian Sister]


No we attacked them based on faulty intelligence from around the world that said they had WMDs which could be used against the US had they fallen into the hands of infidels, such as you and your cronies.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by Syrian Sister


Yeah, you attacked them because they had no way to defend themselves, including no WMD's.

WOW, Get it? clever boy.

[edit on 26-5-2005 by Syrian Sister]


No we attacked them based on faulty intelligence from around the world that said they had WMDs which could be used against the US had they fallen into the hands of infidels, such as you and your cronies.



Yeah intelligence that was a complete fabrication, that was discredited, even before you invaded iraq.

You attacked them because you knew full well, they had no way to defend themselves.

And it's amusing, that you call me an infidel, infact, i'm going to quote you on that for the rest of your life. Who's the extremist radical now?

I guess we know who majic was talking about when he said the following.

"Those who bring truth do not insult those who are skeptical of deceit. "

The man who calls others infidels, non other than, shots!

[edit on 27-5-2005 by Syrian Sister]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join