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.

 

Iraq: Brit Soldiers Dressed As Arabs In car Packed With Explosives Captured

page: 19
3
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Saddam was elected.

This is completely preposterous and insance. Hussein was a dictator, he seized power, the baath party seized power in a coup. Its nonsense to say that the occupational power of the coalition is illegit and that the baathists are legit, merely because they are natives.


The Baath party took power after they overthrew the ILLEGITIMATE Monarchy that the British installed before they withdrew from Iraq ending their decades of occupation.

The iraqis were the ones wanting a monarchy and a united iraq. It didn't exist before the british. Its hardly relevant that some of the people who didn't get power in that deal much later started a military dictatorship.



Saddams government was absoluetly legitimate.The one we are imposing on Iraq is not.

And if the constitution is ratified by the majority of the public then it is or is no??


[edit on 24-9-2005 by Nygdan]




posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Saddam was elected.

This is completely preposterous and insance. Hussein was a dictator, he seized power, the baath party seized power in a coup. Its nonsense to say that the occupational power of the coalition is illegit and that the baathists are legit, merely because they are natives.


Saddam was elected, and more than once....

usgovinfo.about.com...
• He practically acted as Vice - Chairman of the Revolution Command Council since July 30, 1968, but was constitutionally elected for this post on November 9, 1969.
........
On July 16, 1979, he was elected Secretary General of the Regional Leadership of the Ba 'th Party in Iraq, Chairman of the Revolution Command Council and President of the Republic of Iraq.


How can the occupational powers have any legitimacy ruling Iraq?

It was a violation of international to Invade Iraq, and to ignore the existing constitution.

There was no authority to create the IGC, or the TAL.

It was not in compliance with international law making it illegitimate.



The Baath party took power after they overthrew the ILLEGITIMATE Monarchy that the British installed before they withdrew from Iraq ending their decades of occupation.

The iraqis were the ones wanting a monarchy and a united iraq. It didn't exist before the british. Its hardly relevant that some of the people who didn't get power in that deal much later started a military dictatorship.


No one in Iraq got to vote for the Monarchy.

It was imposed upon them by force, making it illegitimate.

The expulsion of the Monarchy was LIBERATION.

The resulting government was a republic, not a military dicatorship.




Saddams government was absoluetly legitimate.The one we are imposing on Iraq is not.

And if the constitution is ratified by the majority of the public then it is or is no??


That is a very difficult question.

Some might say yes, but others might say no so long as American soldiers have the right to kill Iraqis, and as long as there are foreign Judges on the Special Court.

[edit on 24-9-2005 by ArchAngel]



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Saddam was elected.

The Baath party took power after they overthrew the ILLEGITIMATE Monarchy that the British installed before they withdrew from Iraq ending their decades of occupation.

The constitution he operated under was ratified by the people of Iraq, and Originated from Iraqis without foreign influence.

Saddams government was absoluetly legitimate.

The one we are imposing on Iraq is not.

In many ways the old constitution was better than the new one, and the one they are to soon put to the people for ratification.


Eh?


Modern Iraq became a British mandate (the British League of Nations Trust Territory of Iraq) at the end of World War I and was granted independence from British control in 1932. It was formed out of three former Ottoman Willayats (regions): Mosul, Baghdad and Basra. The British-installed Hashemite monarchy lasted until 1958, when it was overthrown through a coup détat by the Iraqi army, known as the 14 July Revolution. It brought Brigadier General Abdul Karim Qassim's leftist government to power (which withdrew from the Baghdad Pact and established friendly relations with the Soviet Union), from 1958 till 1963, when he was overthrown by Colonel Abdul Salam Arif. Salam Arif died in 1966 and his brother, Abdul Rahman Arif, assumed the presidency. In 1968, Rahman Arif was overthrown by the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party. The Ba'ath's key figure became Saddam Hussein who acceded to the presidency and control of the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), Iraq's supreme executive decision making body, in July 1979, killing off many of his opponents in the process. Saddam's absolute and particularly bloody rule lasted throughout the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988), which ended in stalemate; the al-Anfal campaign of the late 1980s, which led to the alleged gassing of thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq; Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 resulting in the Gulf War; and the United Nations-imposed economic sanctions and no-fly zones which followed. The American-led 2003 invasion of Iraq removed Saddam Hussein's Government from power, replacing it with an interim American-backed Provisional Authority, and then an interim government. On January 30, 2005, Iraq held new legislative elections, changing the political face of Iraq, which had been previously a lay state, without any religion conflict,while it's now divided over a religious base having no tradition in the country. The current situation remains volatile while the new government attempts to re-establish security in the country.



When in a coup is an election held BTW?

We imposed 0 government on them, they made their own one.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   

When in a coup is an election held BTW?

We imposed 0 government on them, they made their own one.


No link for your source???

As your article shows the government that preceded the Baath rule was not itself legitimate.

In 1970 the new constitution was ratified by the people of Iraq.

This govevernment existed under this constitution until America invaded, and threw out the legitimate government.

We imposed ALL of the government they have.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
No link for your source???

en.wikipedia.org...


As your article shows the government that preceded the Baath rule was not itself legitimate.

Nethier was Baath rule.


In 1970 the new constitution was ratified by the people of Iraq.

Yes but that didnt stop saddam did it..


This govevernment existed under this constitution until America invaded, and threw out the legitimate government.

You call a government legitimate that murders its own people?


We imposed ALL of the government they have.

We imposed NOTHING, they done it themselves, if we imposed it we would have had 0 trouble. Why?
Because we wouldnt make a democracy.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   

You call a government legitimate that murders its own people?
quote:
We imposed ALL of the government they have.
We imposed NOTHING, they done it themselves, if we imposed it we would have had 0 trouble. Why?
Because we wouldnt make a democracy.


The former government was legitimate, even if it did kill its own people.

The current government, no matter the reason, is killing Iraqis, and the future government, legitimate or not will also.

We imposed the current government with the TAL
www.cpa-iraq.org...

Which we wrote, and was accepted by the IGC which we appointed, then later accepted by the appointed Alawi in the so-called handover of power.

It originated from occupiers, not Iraqis so it is not legitimate.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
The former government was legitimate, even if it did kill its own people.

So a coup makes it legit?


The current government, no matter the reason, is killing Iraqis, and the future government, legitimate or not will also.

What?
You mean policemen shooting criminals?


We imposed the current government with the TAL
www.cpa-iraq.org...

Which we wrote, and was accepted by the IGC which we appointed, then later accepted by the appointed Alawi in the so-called handover of power.

It originated from occupiers, not Iraqis so it is not legitimate.

It was put there until they created thier own, what would you have done?
Also what "law" does it break?



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by ArchAngel
The former government was legitimate, even if it did kill its own people.

So a coup makes it legit?


A coup can mean many things. It was a coup when America invaded, and threw out the previous government.

What made it legitimate was ratification of a constitution created by Iraqis without foreign occupiers standing over them.

Saddam was elected legally under this constitution, and re-elected many times.




The current government, no matter the reason, is killing Iraqis, and the future government, legitimate or not will also.

What?
You mean policemen shooting criminals?


And military shooting civilians without due process. No matter the reason the current government is also killing civilians.




We imposed the current government with the TAL
www.cpa-iraq.org...

Which we wrote, and was accepted by the IGC which we appointed, then later accepted by the appointed Alawi in the so-called handover of power.

It originated from occupiers, not Iraqis so it is not legitimate.

It was put there until they created thier own, what would you have done?
Also what "law" does it break?


What we should have done was keep the exiting constitution, and eliminated the Iraqi patriot laws that Saddam used to LEGALLY, and LEGITIMATELY kill Iraqis.

Nothing Saddam did was against Iraqi law, right or wrong.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Wednesday, 16 October, 2002, 11:41 GMT 12:41 UK
Saddam 'wins 100% of vote'

Iraqi officials say President Saddam Hussein has won 100% backing in a referendum on whether he should rule for another seven years.
There were 11,445,638 eligible voters - and every one of them voted for the president, according to Izzat Ibrahim, Vice-Chairman of Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council.
The government insists the count was fair and accurate.

Saddam Hussein - who has ruled Iraq since 1979 - was the only candidate.

news.bbc.co.uk...



Wanna buy a bridge?


[edit on 24-9-2005 by jsobecky]



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   
See, we're friends with the insurgents.


news.bbc.co.uk...

"Mr Rumsfeld said the US regularly "facilitates" meetings between Iraqi officials and insurgents."

"It said the insurgents included representatives of Ansar al-Sunna, which has carried out numerous suicide bombings"

Mr Rumsfeld did not confirm any details of the talks - and sought to downplay their significance.

"I would not make a big deal out of it," he told Fox News.

"Meetings go on frequently with people."

"I think the attention to this is overblown."




posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
A coup can mean many things. It was a coup when America invaded, and threw out the previous government.

No..



coup d'etat: a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force [/quoe]
They acted legally , also they where removing a dictator, tell me how that government is legit?


What made it legitimate was ratification of a constitution created by Iraqis without foreign occupiers standing over them.

So that justifies a coup? As long as you make a constitution?
Like hell it does.



Saddam was elected legally under this constitution, and re-elected many times.

What do you mean elected, he took power by force, he was in no way elected.


And military shooting civilians without due process. No matter the reason the current government is also killing civilians.

The military?
There is no iraq military, they are too busy makeing a police force.
Also military are defending themselves and acting lawfully under self defence laws, look it up and you'll see.



What we should have done was keep the exiting constitution, and eliminated the Iraqi patriot laws that Saddam used to LEGALLY, and LEGITIMATELY kill Iraqis.

There is nothing legal nor legitimate about murdering.


Nothing Saddam did was against Iraqi law, right or wrong.

There is nothing right about murder it also breaks human rights, which is also iraqi law.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by ArchAngel
A coup can mean many things. It was a coup when America invaded, and threw out the previous government.

No..



coup d'etat: a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force [/quoe]
They acted legally , also they where removing a dictator, tell me how that government is legit?


It was ILLEGAL. There was no UN resolution authorizing the use of force.

The invasion of Iraq, and overthrow of the Iraqi government was a coup...




What made it legitimate was ratification of a constitution created by Iraqis without foreign occupiers standing over them.

So that justifies a coup? As long as you make a constitution?
Like hell it does.


The constitution ratified by the people, and leaders elected by the people make the government legitimate.

The government that was overthrown was NOT legitimate.




Saddam was elected legally under this constitution, and re-elected many times.

What do you mean elected, he took power by force, he was in no way elected.


SADDAM WAS ELECTED!

Please provide a reference for your claim

Did you miss my reference above?

You are simply repeating the propaganda that has been driven into your mind, day and night my the mass media.

The BAATH PARTY overthrew the previous government, but Saddam was not at the top of the party at the time



And military shooting civilians without due process. No matter the reason the current government is also killing civilians.

The military?
There is no iraq military, they are too busy makeing a police force.
Also military are defending themselves and acting lawfully under self defence laws, look it up and you'll see.


There is too an Iraqi military.

Where have you been?

Its not much, but it exists, and they are killing Iraqis, no matter the reason.

PLEASE show us all these self defense laws you speak of.

No such things exist in the new Iraqi constitution, or the UN charter.




What we should have done was keep the exiting constitution, and eliminated the Iraqi patriot laws that Saddam used to LEGALLY, and LEGITIMATELY kill Iraqis.

There is nothing legal nor legitimate about murdering.


Then we have murder more than a hundred thousand Iraqis.

It WAS legal for Saddam because of Iraq law 101.




Nothing Saddam did was against Iraqi law, right or wrong.

There is nothing right about murder it also breaks human rights, which is also iraqi law.


They were killing insurgents, which were in violation of Iraqi patriot laws.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
ARCHANGEL IS CORRECT.


THEY ARE "RESISTANCE" not "INSURGENTS" by DEFINITION.

RESISTANCE means fighting against a foreign occupying force, (which is what iraq is doing)

INSURGENTS means a small group fighting against a legitimate government.

look it up


The western media likes to demonise the resistance, that's why they call them "insurgence".

What do we call the french struggle against nazi occupation in world war 2? We call them the resistance. And The iraqi resistance is EVEN MORE legitimate than theirs. Because France officially surrendered. Where as IRAQ, never surrendered.

------------

Archangel is correct again.

Ofcource the VICCI French (those the nazi's set up in france) where not legitimate, just as the puppet regime that is being held up by the US right now in iraq are not legitimate. You can't have legitimate elections under occupation, that's international law.

As for the way Saddam got into power, he is born iraqi from iraq, he may have come to power through a coup, but it wasn't through invasion and occupation!!!!

And as archangel pointed out, he may have come to power through a coup, but iraqies kept him in power, many in the west find it hard to belive that at the begining of saddams rule, before the iran-iraq war, the iraqi people actually liked him because the economy was so good. At first he was to iraq what TITO was to Yugoslavia, and even when public opinion changed they still didn't fight hard enough to overthrow it hence legitimacy is maintained. There are many dictators through out the world, their goverments are still legitimate. Atleast more legitimate than any government that came out of invasion and occupation. Besides it is up to the people, and only up to the people to overthrow their regimes not any other country.
If every country got it in their head that they could change each others leaders by starting war, the world would be chaos.


Take the words of the "white rose group" a group of heroic german insurgents (by the real definition) who where struggling against the nazi regime. (And please do recall that hitler was democratically ellected, not under foreign occupation)

"Do not forget that every people deserves the regime it is willing to endure! "

That goes for both america, and Iraq.

Everyone walks their own path, it is not right for some other country to invade America under the pretext of removing the Despotic George W BUSH.
Unless america first declares war.

You know few americans realise what a declaration of war actually means, when america declared war on iraq, by international law it means iraqies can legitimately hit military targets in america. It means iraqies can legitimately resist invasion and kill invading soldiers. I means Spies and collaborators, can legitimately be killed. It means no government can be legitimate in iraq untill the iraqies themselves bring it to power WITHOUT foreign occupation.

I find international law very interesting
, don't you?

[edit on 25-9-2005 by Syrian Sister]



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   
A better term for both the Iraqis, and Arabs from other nations fighting against the occupiers, and their collaborators is PARTISANS.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Absolutely, absolutely, Partisans.


"A member of a lightly-equipped irregular military force formed to oppose control of an area by a foreign power or by an army of occupation."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisan


Here is a quote from from a Eurpoean doctor who came to fallujah during the second siege inorder to treat the wounded. The hospital he was in was raided by US troops.


"When I button my coat, the sergeant, with a barking commander's voice, suddenly asks me whether I treated the fighters. I almost laugh at that. I have a weird feeling - as though I watch the film about the Second World War with me as an actor, and the large German in his helmet (the American helmets look pretty much German) asks me, "Where are the Partisanen?" I shrug my shoulders.

-------

As for the non iraqi arabs, who make up 10% of the resistance AT MOST! (and this is going by US numbers Which are highly bias).



www.guardian.co.uk...

Report attacks 'myth' of foreign fighters

Brian Whitaker and Ewen MacAskill
Friday September 23, 2005
The Guardian

The US and the Iraqi government have overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, "feeding the myth" that they are the backbone of the insurgency, an American thinktank says in a new report.

Foreign militants - mainly from Algeria, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia - account for less than 10% of the estimated 30,000 insurgents, according to the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).



The US are allowed to have allies, why aren't iraqies? Arabs are united by blood and history. OUr fates are intertwined. What is more legitmate, the british aiding the US in invading a defensless country, or the allies of the iraqi people coming to help them defend. Besides, there is a poem.


First they came for the communists,
I did not speak out
because I was not a communist.

When they came for the social democrats,
I did not speak out
because I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists
I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews
I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew;

And when they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

First they came for afghanistan, then they came for iraq.....

[edit on 25-9-2005 by Syrian Sister]



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Remember when Bush was demanding Syria withdraw from Lebanon before their elections?


(April 19, 2005) President Bush has insisted anew that Syria should "get out completely" from Lebanon and let the Lebanese people decide their own future in internationally monitored elections on schedule and free from external influence or intimidation. Bush pledged, then, to drum up global monetary assistance to help "this country back on its feet." In a rare direct address to the Arab world, Bush also said in an interview broadcast by Beirut's LBCI television network from the White House he wanted the Assad regime to shut down Hizbullah's office in Syria, asserting the Party of God should disarm in Lebanon. "The United States can join with the rest of the world, like we've done, and say to Syria, get out -- not only get out with your military forces, but get out with your intelligence services, too; get completely out of Lebanon, so Lebanon can be free and the people can be free," Bush said in the 10-minute interview. The Syrian withdrawal should include people who "have been embedded in parts of government" to allow Lebanese -- "not another government, not agents of another government" --to decide the country's fate, he said. The election "ought to be as scheduled. And the elections need to be free and fair, without interference," Bush said, adding that international monitors should oversee the balloting. Bush said the Lebanese "are tired of living under a government which, in essence, was a foreign occupation." .......

www.freelebanon.org...



In an interview with the New York Post Friday, Bush said: "I don't mean just the troops out of Lebanon; I mean all of them out of Lebanon, including the intelligence services."

He added: "This is not negotiable; it is time to get out. I don't think you can have free (parliamentary) elections with the Syrian troops there.".......

www.dailystar.com.lb...



A Syrian withdrawal of all its military and intelligence personnel would help ensure that the Lebanese elections occur as scheduled in the spring, and that they will be free and fair........

www.whitehouse.gov...


[edit on 25-9-2005 by ArchAngel]



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   
The US declared war on Iraq.

Syria never declared war on Lebanon, infact they have always been allies, indeed it was the lebanese government, right or wrong, that asked Syria to come into lebanon.


Syrian troops in northern, central, and eastern Lebanon since October 1976 at Lebanese government request.


en.wikipedia.org...


Syrian presence in lebanon, is like American presence in Australia. America has bases and soldiers in australia, but you can't say that America is occupying Australia, because there was never any declaration of war.

That is why there was never any violent resistance against syria, unlike the resistance in iraq.

Syria knew when they should leave.

The US is yet to .


WHICH makes Arch Angels comments and quotes even MORE PROFOUND!!!!!

Ofcource elections with Syrian presence wasn't Free and fair, no election under foreign influence is. That goes especilly for the US, due to their DECLARATION OF WAR on iraq.



[edit on 25-9-2005 by Syrian Sister]



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Syrian presence in lebanon, is like American presence in Australia. America has bases and soldiers in australia, but you can't say that America is occupying Australia, because there was never any declaration of war.


LOL, what BS. I wasn't aware US secret police arrested citizens in Australia. Maybe because they don't, Syria on the other hand has along tradition of arreesting Lebanese citizens and either imprisoning them, torturing them or just making them disappear.
Take for example an Australian-Lebabnese citizen who disappeared in Lebanon 20 years ago. Turns out he was arrested off the street and imprisoned by the Syrians all this time. They didn't een inform our goevernemnt he was in prison. This was of course without a trial



That is why there was never any violent resistance against syria, unlike the resistance in iraq.


LOL, there was plenty of vioence committed by Syria by proxy
Let's fce it Syria is hardly constrained by western omrals or judicial systems. If they see someone as a threat he just disappears, or is killed by one of Syria's proxy terrorist groups.


Syria knew when they should leave.

The US is yet to .


Yes lol, it only took them 30 years to do so. They should have left 20 years ago. The only reason Syria left was because they were under intense pressure from the UN and the Lebanese people themselves. They didn't want the Styrians there a t all. Not too mention they don't mind assassinating Lebanese leaders


[edit on 25-9-2005 by rogue1]



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister

The western media likes to demonise the resistance, that's why they call them "insurgents".



Actually, in western media the terms insurgents and terrorists are used interchangeably.

Resistance fighters? What's that? Never heard that term used here.*end sarcasm*



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 02:06 AM
link   

LOL, what BS. I wasn't aware US secret police arrested citizens in Australia.


Whats your point? I didn’t say Syria’s presence was one big party. I said right or wrong, the Lebanese government requested Syria’s presence.
Your point is superfluous, Syrian government does that to it’s own citizens, not just Lebanon. It changes nothing.

I said:


is why there was never any violent resistance against syria, unlike the resistance in iraq.


You said:


LOL, there was plenty of vioence committed by Syria by proxy


Please read what is said again more closely. I said there was no violenct resistance AGAINST Syria, not violence committed by Syria.
Again your point is superfluous.

The US is under 10* more pressure than Syria was ever under. Especially since the US was never asked to go to iraq in the first place.




top topics



 
3
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join