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.

 

Al Qaeda leader in Mosul captured

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Great Job!

The Good Guys done it again!

Created the Problem and now they are very Good at eliminating it!

This statement is half true, half false. We did not create the problem. But we are very good at eliminating it.


Lets not Forget...


Although "al-Qaeda" is the name of the organization used in popular culture, the organization rarely uses the name to formally refer to itself. The name "al-qaeda" was not self-chosen; it was coined by the United States government based on the name of a computer file of bin Laden's that listed the names of contacts he had made at the MAK in the Bait al-Ansar guesthouse during the late 1980s.

It doesn't matter if we call them al-Qaeda, The Base, cowards, child murderers, dogs, or run-of-the-mill terrorists. They are what they are.


All Your Base Now Belong To Us.

All Your Base ARE Belong To Us.
************
Enough of playing to Souljah's diversionary tactics. It is a good thing this man was captured and hopefully it will lead to more success in Iraq. As was mentioned, it is heartening to see the citizenry dropping dime on these scumbags.




posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Created the Problem and now they are very Good at eliminating it!
This statement is half true, half false. We did not create the problem. But we are very good at eliminating it.


I say it is more than half true... American policies where we profit at the expense of impoverished Middle-Eastern countries could create some, if not most, of the enmity which drives many Anti-American terrorists.

It certainly doesn't seem fair when we impose sanctions on countries which end up killing the citizens instead of weakening the ruler. Most of the time the ruler really couldn't care less, ex: Saddam's palaces of excess despite US sanctions which ended up in many people dying of malnutrition and starvation.

[edit on 16-6-2005 by CaptainJailew]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   
People died of malnutrition and disease because Saddam took the medicine we sent to Iraq (despite the sanctions) and used it for his military. So the statement is more than half false.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Enough of playing to Souljah's diversionary tactics. It is a good thing this man was captured and hopefully it will lead to more success in Iraq. As was mentioned, it is heartening to see the citizenry dropping dime on these scumbags.

And I hope he and others that are captured will sometimes reveal the True Nature of this "Al-Qaeda Boogey".

And then things will really get complicated....



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by jsobecky
Enough of playing to Souljah's diversionary tactics. It is a good thing this man was captured and hopefully it will lead to more success in Iraq. As was mentioned, it is heartening to see the citizenry dropping dime on these scumbags.

And I hope he and others that are captured will sometimes reveal the True Nature of this "Al-Qaeda Boogey".

And then things will really get complicated....


oh lord help us, i suppose you think 'al qaeda' is the israelis? or how about the bush family for that matter.
who cares what they claa themselves whether they are 'al qaeda' al aqsa martyr brigade hamas or whatever. the point is there is one less of these nutjobs out there.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
People died of malnutrition and disease because Saddam took the medicine we sent to Iraq (despite the sanctions) and used it for his military. So the statement is more than half false.


Yes, people did die from malnutrition and disease before sanctions, but not NEARLY as many. With our dual-use sanctions in effect we put an embargo on civilian items that could possibly be used for military purposes, things like bleach, ambulances, antibiotics, antiseptics etc. It isn't that Saddam took what was given to him and didn't hand it out, its that they never got to the country legally in the first place.


Originally from Henry Gonzalez, House of Representatives
The United Nations, the International Red Cross, the Physicians for Human Rights, a Harvard study team, and Catholic Relief Services have all documented the fact that unless the economic sanctions imposed against Iraq are lifted immediately, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians will die in the next few months


That is only talking about the end of Desert Storm and doesn't even take into account the deaths prior to and after we left.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   
The blame still rests on Saddam's head, because he chose to ignore UN resolutions. So any sanctions that were imposed were a result of his actions.

Btw, what do you mean, the supplies never got to Iraq legally?



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
The blame still rests on Saddam's head, because he chose to ignore UN resolutions. So any sanctions that were imposed were a result of his actions.

Btw, what do you mean, the supplies never got to Iraq legally?


Saddam got milk, clorox, pencils, antibiotics etc and our sanctions did not stop a thing. His life was just as cushy, the only people who suffered were the general citizenry who couldn't afford to smuggle in things from the black market. No one was hurt more than the citizens.



From the Red Cross
Life in Iraq has continued to deteriorate despite efforts by relief agencies to ease the humanitarian costs of U.N. sanctions. After nine years of a U.N. trade embargo, clean water, food, and medical treatment are scarce and the country's innocent civilians are struggling to survive.

Source www.redcross.org...

Yes, Saddam was responsible for the sanctions, but it was no secret who was really being hurt by them. That is why there was such an uproar internationally when we discovered the mass deaths that happened as a result of the sanctions after desert storm (hence the bill in the HOR)

If you were a god-fearing man in America, and all of a sudden all of America's imports were being shut down by terrorist attacks from one major country. As you watch your sons and daughters perish before your very eyes because they can't get enough to eat, I can imagine you would become pretty angry, or at least spiteful of the country who is doing this is to for something beyond your control. It sucks man, and it is ok to admit that some of the stuff we have done (despite their initial intentions) have hurt innocent people. It doesn't mean America is less powerful or anything, but we should try looking at it through another point of view.

edit - spelling etc

edit 2 - added quote from red cross

[edit on 17-6-2005 by CaptainJailew]

[edit on 17-6-2005 by CaptainJailew]



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I would make sure that my anger was directed at the guilty person (Saddam) and not at those sending aid. I will not let him off the hook for his actions. It is illogical to blame me for offering you a glass of water when Saddam is the one putting a hole in the bottom of the glass.

This was a clear opportunity for the UN to get involved to ensure that the aid got to the people. Where were they?



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I would make sure that my anger was directed at the guilty person (Saddam) and not at those sending aid. I will not let him off the hook for his actions. It is illogical to blame me for offering you a glass of water when Saddam is the one putting a hole in the bottom of the glass.

This was a clear opportunity for the UN to get involved to ensure that the aid got to the people. Where were they?


we weren't giving them aid, we were blocking them from getting conventional aid. It isn't that he misappropriated third party aid and money, its that Iraq never received it in the first place.

PLUS the fact that the aid that was eventually sent in was only to bring the general public to a sanitary living condition which was created by the sanctions in the first place.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Sorry, Captain, I beg to differ:

Richard Williamson, who served as the U.S. deputy ambassador to the United Nations during much of the program's run, said Annan was concerned about the stories of deprivation of many Iraqis and thought sanctions that were in place after the 1991 war were, in part, causing that.

"I think history shows that a lot of that deprivation was a result of Saddam Hussein taking his country's wealth before Oil-for-Food and after Oil-for-Food to build his palaces, to pay for his personal guard, to pay for his torture chambers, in other words, to, for the instruments that helped him stay in power," Williamson said.
Oil for Food


People should stop apologizing for Saddam and stop blaming the US for the suffering of his people during that time.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
People should stop apologizing for Saddam and stop blaming the US for the suffering of his people during that time.


That quote is from a UN official, they were UN imposed sanctions. What do you really think he would say? I am qouting 3rd party aid organizations who are working to end the Iraqi sanctions. Why would the International Red Cross, a respected and legitimate group, call for an end to sanctions if there was nothing wrong?

What political agenda could they POSSIBLY have? Maybe the Iraqi citizens are paying them to get them some extra clorox for their bathroom. You really should read more independant reports and articles from thinktanks about the Iraqi sanctions...

www.nira.go.jp...

Refer to the site above for a comprehensive listing of think tanks, some of those are more conservative think tanks, some more liberal. Read both sides and make an educated decision about the matter.

Don't simply defend the US because you are used to it, it is ok to admit we have done wrong in the past.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Osama himself listed the sanctions as one of the main reasons for jihad, obviously it pissed them off.



One major reason for the animosity to U.S. troops is the lingering impact and bitter memories of the UN sanctions imposed on the Iraqis for 13 years, largely at the behest of the U.S. government. It is impossible to understand the current situation in Iraq without examining the sanctions and their toll.

President Bush, in the months before attacking Iraq, portrayed the sufferings and deprivation of the Iraqi people as resulting from the evil of Saddam Hussein. Bush’s comments were intended as an antidote to the charge by Osama bin Laden a month after 9/11 that “a million innocent children are dying at this time as we speak, killed in Iraq without any guilt.” Bin Laden listed the economic sanctions against Iraq as one of the three main reasons for his holy war against the United States.

Most Western experts believe that bin Laden sharply overstated the death toll. A United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) report in 1999 concluded that half a million Iraqi children had died in the previous eight years because of the sanctions. Columbia University professor Richard Garfield, an epidemiologist and an expert on the effects of sanctions, estimated in 2003 that the sanctions had resulted in infant and young-child fatalities numbering between 343,900 and 529,000.

Regardless of the precise number of fatalities (which will never be known), the sanctions were a key factor in inflaming Arab anger against the United States. The sanctions were initially imposed to punish Iraq for invading Kuwait and then were kept in place after the Gulf War supposedly in order to pressure Saddam to disarm.


Source www.fff.org...




The poor state of sewerage and water treatment works, partly a result of the 1991 bombing, is a major public health concern. Spare parts, plumbing equipment and chemicals needed for purification are all classified as "dual-use" under the sanctions (able to be used by the civilian or military sectors) and are delayed or prohibited by the Security Council Sanctions Committee. The refusal to allow chlorine to disinfect water supplies is, at best, contrary to basic principles of preventive medicine, and at worst, negligent to the point of being criminal.

Distribution of food and medicines is also obstructed by the Sanctions Committee. Forklifts, trucks, truck tyres and mechanical spare parts are "dual-use" and subject to lengthy delays. In addition, the money to buy these things and to pay the workers is lacking.


Source

[edit on 20-6-2005 by CaptainJailew]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
"I think history shows that a lot of that deprivation was a result of Saddam Hussein taking his country's wealth before Oil-for-Food and after Oil-for-Food to build his palaces, to pay for his personal guard, to pay for his torture chambers, in other words, to, for the instruments that helped him stay in power," Williamson said.
Oil for Food


Sorry, for a more specific retort regarding that comment...

Allegations of the “warehousing” of food and medicine were put to rest by former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, Hans Van Sponeck; “It is not, I repeat not, and you can check this with my colleagues, a pre-meditated act of withholding medicines from those who should have it. It is much, much, more complex than that.“ Sponeck explains that low worker pay, lack of transportation, poor facilities, and low funding are responsible for the breakdowns in inventory and distribution systems. The bureaucracy of the oil-for- food program, such as contract delays and holds, also plays a substantial role. Sponeck, like his predecessor, Denis Halliday, resigned from his post in February 2000 in protest of the sanctions. Also like Halliday, Sponeck had worked for the UN for over 30 years.

“Once sanctions are lifted, Iraq will have to undertake a reconstruction effort conservatively estimated at $50 - $100 billion just for essential infrastructural utilities, from a GDP base, which, even including the 'grey' and 'black' economies is less than $13 billion in nominal terms. Improvements to the 'Oil-for-Food' formula should benefit the Iraqi economy. [....] However, this will only help to bolster a basic safety welfare net, rather than herald a return to normality. To achieve the latter, sanctions will have to come to an end.”
– Economist Intelligence Unit, 8th March 2000

"[The oil-for-food programme] has not halted the collapse of the health system and the deterioration of water supplies, which together pose one of the gravest threats to the health and well being of the civilian population. Aid can be no substitute for a country's entire economy. It can never meet all the basic needs of 22 million people nor ensure the maintenance of a whole country's crumbling infrastructure.”
– 'Iraq - A Decade of Sanctions' - report by the International Committee of the Red Cross, 14th March 2000

Sources:
www.doublestandards.org...

www.peacemagazine.org...

Edit - for spelling


[edit on 20-6-2005 by CaptainJailew]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join