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.

 

To everyone against the Iraq War

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJustice
I'm definetely not unwilling to be proved wrong in my thoughts that our own Government caused 9/11, must less should not be in Iraq. But first I would need this question answered, why did NORAD stand down on 9/11/01 for the first time in it's 50 year existence?


Wow, i didnt realise this.

But obvious isnt it?

I can see bush/cheney and rummy standing around the oval office
" Lets shutoff our defensive tracking, and see if these rag heads can pull it off ''




posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
It is purported that a drill exercise related to the hijacking of commuter aircraft had been scheduled for the morning of 9/11.

The cause of the ineffectual scrambling that enabled 3/4 "hijacked aircraft" to reach their destinations is one of many unanswered questions. There are official explanations that are very suspect and there are some alternative views that are very suspect.

Regard with skepticism anyone who claims to know how/why the most advanced air security system in the world failed so dismally.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   
thats it,
the worlds most advanced air defense managed to let 4... 4 passenger jets be hijacked and crashed in different regions of the uppereast coast.

the strongest and most advanced Government managed to MISS 19hijackers who lived in there country and were training for a mission?



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
Saddam's terrorist buddies

What a transparent bunch of propaganda. Abu Nidal "committed suicide" with several bullets even before the Iraq war, doesn't sound like all that much terrorist support to me. Abu Abbas had renounced violence and terrorism before he came to Iraq and was at best indirectly responsible for the death of a single American, Leon Klinghoffer, which would make him an accomplice to murder, barely a terrorist. Abu Abbas was further working for peace and pretty old, as was witnessed by the fact that he died in US custody within months after his capture. Ramzi Yousef's Iraqi passport was false, and the conection of Yousef with Iraq has been studied over and over by the FBI and CIA as for political reasons the US wanted to link Iraq with a WTC attack, yet nothing, zip, nil, zero was found. Further, Al Zarqawi was operating in Kurdistan before the Iraq war, outside of Saddam's reach and just like alot of the other pre war intelligence, the information about Al Zarqawi having received amputation and treatment of his leg seems to have been false. US intelligence currently believes Al Zarqawi has the use of both legs. Salman Pak was further captured by US troops and again, no evidence of a terrorist training camp was found. This pattern goes on and on.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 04:38 AM
link   
I just saw, an EXCELLENT piece of propganda
Fox News had a story called cashin in, and they debated the topic : How will closing gitmo base effect the stock market.

This panel argued the point for a few minutes, But the FIRST Comment from the panel was this
'' Now lets remember why they're in here, these people would happily come into your home while ur sleeping and slit your throat while cheering to allah.......''


IF this was a fair war, we wouldnt need to be debating the topic,
Because we are debating this topic, means we CANT be fighting a fair war.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Hey Simon I have another link that you could check out, doubt it will change your mind but I'm the persistent type.
Saddam's terrorist links



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Nothing any Bush supporter says in defense of the Iraq War in relation to 9/11 can, or ever will hold any water.

Why? simple, he said he was going to go to war with Iraq BEFORE 9/11. I saw it with my own eyes he said it in 2000. I'm sure I'm not the only one who saw it.

I would love to hear your explanation for this, RedWhiteandBlood. Or did you go and start "To Anyone Against The War Part III" you already started Part II because you were getting totally proved wrong in this, your own topic.

[edit on 20-6-2005 by NoJustice]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Did Saddam have anything to do with 9/11, no he did not on that NoJustice I'd have to agree with but my point here is that he did have links to terrorists who had attacked the US and it's interests prior to 9/11. Some people think that it would have been better to leave him in power. Now looking at the evening news every night I can easily see how you came to that conclusion, but I believe the evidence clearly supports that Saddam was involved with terrorist and cetainly was still a threat that had to be dealt with. And to all who say Bush lied ok believe it if you want but I have seen the same evidence as you and come to the conclusion that he didn't now you say that the Bush administration has engaged in a smear campaign against those who opposed the war ok probably. But wouldn't you say that the international press that you watch everyday has launch a smear campaign against the President far greater than anything Bush could have thrown their way? After all how many viewers does ITV. BBC and CBC have against the White House press office. President Bush sucks at public relations from his poor pronunciation of the english language to his smug comment "bring it on". I can see that changing minds especially those who have seen only one side of the conflict or simply would like to see the US fall on it's a$$ is an impossiblity with the current situation the world is in. But to you NoJustice and Global Disorder what do you want to happen in Iraq. We can debate the premise and the motives for the war but we are there now what do you want to happen.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   
But the thing is, So DOes IRAN,
So does Ireland?
So does Israel...
So does Russia..


What made IRAQ stand out?



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Don't pretend it's a one size fits all world you very well know it isn't. We go to war with our enemies not our friends and this just isn't an american philosophy it's been true of any dominate world power since rome. I'm sorry Global Disorder if this answer doesn't suit you but it has always been this way and it probably always will be. But if you really want to know what made Iraq stand out look back over the past 15yrs and see how many times Saddam shot himself in the foot whether it be invading kuwait or attempting to assasinate W's daddy or frustrating UN weapons inspectors come on you very well know what made Iraq stand out an dif you don't I'll try to dumb it down some more for you he stepped out of line with the big kid on the block he screwed with us turned some of our supposed friends against and made it really easy for Bush to get the American people behind him and in reality thats all he really needed.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
About the NORAD claim-it wasn't shut down. When was the last time a plane had been intercepted? The only one I can remember is the Paine Stewart plane, and it took three hours for planes to reach them.

As for Bush saying he wanted Sadaam out prior to 9/11, I want to ask you who didn't want Sadaam out? I remember reading a book about WW3 scenarios. One of them was Arab terrorists gassing a basketball game. The final sentence was a terrorist attack killing thousands is not a matter of if, but when. We all knew we were going to get hit big.

Hasn't 9/11 ever taught you something? Letting a country cross the line and say are only existing is to destroy America, as in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq is suicidal.

Other countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and even North Korea will still come to the bargaining table. There is still hope for them. But for Sadaam's Iraq? They had doormats on their embassy that said death to America.

Do you think we should make the same mistake again?



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Fair enough comments, but.....

Bush didnt go into this war because of saddams past indescressions.

He went into this war because of the THREAT saddam posed to the international community.

This was the US Gvt's MAIN Reason for invasion.

ANYTHING anyone says is MUTE, because this was the OFFICAL reason for DECLERATION of war. Sure there's a thousand other perceived reasons, but they wernt the offical stance from the president.

HE went to war on the THREAT,
and when it turned out it was all lies, that makes the US Gvt guilt of crimes.

Bush's OWN gvt prior to sept 11 went on offical record saying that SADAM had no weapons, and had been contained...
Why did they then start saying the opposite..SO much so it deserves WAR?

It doesnt make sense.


A lot of people wanted saddam out, but at the cost of all the Iraqi lives? American Lives? Coalition lives? the american economy is going down hill FAST because of this war.

The world was better off with saddam in power, he was QUIET, NOT building an Aresenal, NOT helping terrorists, and he was keep a peace between his bickering factions.

YEs, he wasnt a friend of America, but he certainly wasnt the priorty enemy bush made him out to be.

Being that we all know the truth abuot Saddam's threatening ability for the world.. which was NILL.. what good has come out of teh deaths and destruction in IRAQ?...

Nothing,

that the public knows anyway!



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Well some of what you say is correct, but some I would have to disagree with was Saddam helping terrorists yes I think the evidence supports Saddam had contacts and agreements to if not to directly support but to turn a blind eye to terrorist activity that was not threatening to him. It is true that Saddam was no friend to Islamic Fundamentalism but there is an old middle-eastern saying the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" also Saddam's dislike of islamic fundamentalism did not carry over in the Gulf War when he made overtures to Iran to wage jihad against the west the facts are Saddam was secular when he needed to be fundamentalist when he needed to be. Now I agree that Saddam was not a true fundamentalist but in reality was he any less dangerous you may think so but I would have to disagree. Now you say he was only a danger to the region and not the rest of the world and it is true he could not have launch world war III but that doesn't make him any less dangerous look at the way he corrupted the UN oil for food program and look at the way he was able to use his allies on the security council to block reform to that program when it was so clear that it was being abused. I would have to also disagree that Saddam's past actions weren't a part of the reasons to remove him. Look up the transcript to Bush's UN speech he clearly outlines Saddam's past misdeeds as a reason to remove him. And again lets say that Saddam gets his way I would bet that he with his shackles removed would have once again menaced the world, can't prove it because thankfully it will never happen.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Dan, but all governments have ties to terrorists. Yours does, mine does all governments do(Which is one reason I hate governments in general
) Also, the term terrorists could equally be applied to just about anyone, and the list it is getting attached to is growing larger by the day. It has become a catch phrase now to note anyone in disagreement with you. Who is a "terrorist" today has more to do with someone's political affiliations than it does with anything remotely similar to the image I get in my head when I think of a real "Terrorist".

Heck, I am fairly sure with two or three steps you could propably connect every intelligence agency in the world with each other, and with everyone on anyone's terrorist list. This is a herring.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Passer By while I'm sure your correct about government connection to terrorists especially the US governmet what do you expect the me to say ok everybodies a terrorist we've got to liberate Canada, Britain the free world the third world oh and ourselves by the way come on again you are correct in your implication terrorist freedom-fighter it's all in the eyes of the beholder this I would agree is true. Our governments fought for freedom in World War II didn't we we did some nasty things there to didn't we? I mean nuking a defeated nation to make a point the fire bombing of German and Japanese cities the inturnment of people of Japanese decent even though they were our citizens. But does that make us as bad as Hitler I don't think so do you? While our governments do slimy things I have to believe that what we and the world gets out of it is at least the illusion of freedom I personally don't think it's an illusion I've never been one of those NWO guys. But in the case of Iraq you say Bush had alterior motives and I would say your probably right but what we get out of it is a immoral decadent nation like Japan instead of another Afghanistan then I think it will have been worthwhile.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
Passer By while I'm sure your correct about government connection to terrorists especially the US governmet what do you expect the me to say ok everybodies a terrorist we've got to liberate Canada, Britain the free world the third world oh and ourselves by the way come on again you are correct in your implication terrorist freedom-fighter it's all in the eyes of the beholder this I would agree is true.


- Dan the man, I don't expect you to say anything like that, merely see that using the term Terror, or waging a war on Terror, or labeling people as "terrorists" is fruitless and meaningless. It is done to promote an agenda. So, when Bush and Co rallied the American people with this it was obvious to a great many outside of the patriotic nature of the American's that the woll was being pulled over your collective eyes. As friends, the World has been trying to tell you this.




Originally posted by danwild6
Our governments fought for freedom in World War II didn't we we did some nasty things there to didn't we? I mean nuking a defeated nation to make a point the fire bombing of German and Japanese cities the inturnment of people of Japanese decent even though they were our citizens. But does that make us as bad as Hitler I don't think so do you?


- Yes, yes I do. I think all sides did horrendious things then and we can argue back and forth about who did what, and which was worse, but in the end it was a horrible breakdown of law and society. It was also not started by us. It was pushed on us by the German's, what is happening in Iraq has nothing to do with being pushed into anything - other than maybe your president pushing the American nation into war through what seems to me to be treasonous acts. I don't mind knowing what people did in WW2, if I was there I would have done the same, but I think there is a lesson there that we should learn. Humanity has passed the age where we can fight with each other over trifle crap. We are just too powerful and can cause too much damage. Isn't it said lest we forget?



Originally posted by danwild6
While our governments do slimy things I have to believe that what we and the world gets out of it is at least the illusion of freedom I personally don't think it's an illusion I've never been one of those NWO guys. But in the case of Iraq you say Bush had alterior motives and I would say your probably right but what we get out of it is a immoral decadent nation like Japan instead of another Afghanistan then I think it will have been worthwhile.


- "I have to beleive", and that is why you may be blocking some of the signs. Maybe not. But why must you beleive? Is it something that bothers you? I think it does, and it probably should. It is important for a citizen to feel proud of their country. Deep down, I think all nations in a way envied that about America. The way you beleive this inate goodness. That is why so many people are snowed. Since they get something from feeling patriotic, of feeling on the goodguys side, that any idea or evidense that show to contrdict that is immediately disgaurded becuase it threatens what makes them happy.

You will never ever make Iraq a real democracy because it is being made in the US's image and it doesn't have the same nature, doesn't come from the same place. The fact is, and it is hard to beleive, but democracy simply doesn't work everywhere. It requires a certain mindset. Here in the west we have been brought up with it and it makes perfect sense to us, but that wasn't always the case. It has been some 400 years working and tweeking things to get it to the fine working condition it is today
. Besides, this wasn't about democracy either, and if it wasn't the objective going in, what can be said about their willingness to stick around once they get what they want.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 02:17 AM
link   
As far as labeling people you are right it serves no purpose other than to dehumanize people for what ever reason have either a different ideology religion or philosophy and maybe your right about me and the american people that they just want to believe in the righteousness of our cause and the evidence displayed so far would lean that way but being a hopeless american patriot I still believe that the people of Iraq will be free from not only the insurgents terrorists (what ever the hell you want to call them) but also the occupation and hopefully we will leave Iraq better than we found it and that america can salvage atleast that from the war. But either way the sleep deprivation is getting to me so until tomorrow.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   
The idea that the war was about WMDs is not true. The war was about standing up to nations whose sole purpose was to destroy the US. Just a year after 9/11, where a regime with far less hatred and resources than Iraq almost took out the US, do you expect us to bury our heads in the sand and say "Please don't hurt us?"

Remember that the main criticism of Bush was on his ideas of premptive war and your either with us or against us. WMDs were only made an issue once we went in there and found out he didn't have stockpiles. Arm chair leaders seized upon this as the main issue. Remember hindsight is 20/20.

If you don't believe me, read Bush's speech here:

www.whitehouse.gov...

The place he talked about WMDs was when he said he used them before and is actively seeking them.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Except that we were led to believe, before the invasion, that WMDs were an issue...

Did you miss that day at school when it was discussed?



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Can someone point me in the direction of where to find when and where Iraq or Afganistan said all they wanted to do was destroy the US.

Thanks,




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join