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: 22
3
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
At least we can finally agree on one thing.

I believe that it was wrong. We are not liberating Iraq.

The foreign Judges on the Special Court will be a stick, along with the US Soldiers stationed at the 14+ Bases we are building all around Iraq forcing the Iraqis to submit to our will....

Forcing them to submit to our will?
Mate you realise if we wanted we could have made them bow to us...right?

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]




posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Black Bag Ops.

We don't know whether what they're doing is for the greater good or just plain conspiracy to keep the troops there and the grip on the Middle East firm.

Though, I feel there's a sense of brotherhood there. Tell me, those who had serve in the Army/Navy/Air Force or whatever, would you save your fallen comrades no matter what?

I bet you'd say no (in this case) but your heart say hell yeah.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Forcing them to submit to our will?
Mate you realise if we wanted we could have made them bow to us...right?


If that was our mode of operation the entire nation would rise up against us.

The reality is that Iraq will be controled by outside forces through the special court from now until the Iraqis overthrow their democraticaly elected government.

They are not liberated, nor will they be liberated through our actions.

The intent from the beginning was to conquer Iraq.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
If that was our mode of operation the entire nation would rise up against us.


Then why did they not rise up against Saddam? That was his mode of operation, where were all the insurgents willing to fight to the death against oppression when he was in power?



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by ArchAngel
If that was our mode of operation the entire nation would rise up against us.


Then why did they not rise up against Saddam? That was his mode of operation, where were all the insurgents willing to fight to the death against oppression when he was in power?


Who do you think was killed by the Iraqi security forces if not insurgents?

The reason the whole nation did not rise up is because Saddam was an Iraqi, and he was elected under a ratified constitution.

Right, or wrong, everything he did was legal under Iraqi law.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
If that was our mode of operation the entire nation would rise up against us.

If as you said we were forcing them then we would then probably see them as lower to us therefore expendable ,we would stop any revolt instalntly, what do you think machine guns are for.


The reality is that Iraq will be controled by outside forces through the special court from now until the Iraqis overthrow their democraticaly elected government.

Controlled?
How so?


They are not liberated, nor will they be liberated through our actions.

How so?


The intent from the beginning was to conquer Iraq.

If that was so we wouldnt bother with rebuilding the military or police, why?
Because we take control totally, believe me , we (the brits) have done it before and we have experience in it.
If we wanted to , we could.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Then why did they not rise up against Saddam? That was his mode of operation, where were all the insurgents willing to fight to the death against oppression when he was in power?


Who do you think was killed by the Iraqi security forces if not insurgents?

The reason the whole nation did not rise up is because Saddam was an Iraqi, and he was elected under a ratified constitution.

Right, or wrong, everything he did was legal under Iraqi law.

Mabye your forgetting the resistance in iraq that opposed sadamm and fought him?



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Who do you think was killed by the Iraqi security forces if not insurgents?


If there were insurgents, they certainly weren't as tenacious as what we're seeing now. Because they knew Saddam would go after their entire family in a most gruesome manner. Fear kept them in check, which is, I believe, devilwasp's point. If we captured insurgents, found out who and where their families were and raped and murdered them all, we would have total control just like Saddam. Luckily, despite what many want to believe, we're not like that.



The reason the whole nation did not rise up is because Saddam was an Iraqi, and he was elected under a ratified constitution.

Right, or wrong, everything he did was legal under Iraqi law.


So, you believe the Iraqi people in general, had a firm grasp on legalities, and were willing to live under brutal oppression, as long as it was legal?

Also, you think Saddam was actually elected?


"Did you see the Iraqi people tear down that statue of Saddam? Hard to believe he won 100 percent of the vote in the last election. Voters are so fickle, aren’t they? One day they love you, the next day, oh boy." —Jay Leno

All we need to do is have the Iraqi government ratify the constitution again to say the U.S. forces are legitimate, and the insurgency will settle down?



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Also, you think Saddam was actually elected?

I think it because I know it to be true.

I know the media tells you he took power in a coup, but that is not true.

The Baath party took power in a coup that overthrew the military dicatorship that emergered after Iraq deposed the British installed puppet King.

At the time they were hailed as liberators, because they really were liberating Iraq.

He was elected many times under a constitution ratified by the Iraqi people.

He was the rightful ruler of Iraq.

It may not have resembled our elections, but it was all legal.

Was his rule any less legitimate than that in communist nations, and other not-so democratic nations?

Please do not think I support Saddam, rather I support the truth no matter the warts.

I wish JUSTICE on Saddam.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Legal under who's law though?
Mine?
Yours?
Iraqs?



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Nobody voted Saddam in. He inherited the presidency, so I was pointing out that when you say he was elected, you are wrong. During the MOCK elections held before he was taken down, there were no other candidates, and he recieved 100% of the votes, not even Bush's election was that much of a farce. And there's a big difference between legal and moral. A law could be passed stating it's legal to eat babies. So then you could argue that somebody doing so was doing it legally. Would you recognize such a law? And again, do you think the Iraqi people, who hated Saddam, were not rising up against him because he was legally murdering, raping, and oppressing them? I don't think so, it was because they were deathly afraid of him. Not because he was legally their president.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   

quote:
The reality is that Iraq will be controled by outside forces through the special court from now until the Iraqis overthrow their democraticaly elected government.
_________
Controlled?
How so?

quote:
They are not liberated, nor will they be liberated through our actions.
________________
How so?


See my thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


quote:
The intent from the beginning was to conquer Iraq.
_______________
If that was so we wouldnt bother with rebuilding the military or police, why?
Because we take control totally, believe me , we (the brits) have done it before and we have experience in it.
If we wanted to , we could.


The reason we want the Iraqi police, and military is so they are doing the work instead of our forces.

Name one conquered nation where locals were not employed by the occupiers for security.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
The reason we want the Iraqi police, and military is so they are doing the work instead of our forces.

Why, if we wanted to control them then we could not trust them.
Hence why we would atleast have british officers and troops going with the iraqis.


Name one conquered nation where locals were not employed by the occupiers for security.

Name me one soldeir in iraq who has declared the country their as thier countries?


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Nobody voted Saddam in. He inherited the presidency, so I was pointing out that when you say he was elected, you are wrong. During the MOCK elections held before he was taken down, there were no other candidates, and he recieved 100% of the votes, not even Bush's election was that much of a farce. And there's a big difference between legal and moral. A law could be passed stating it's legal to eat babies. So then you could argue that somebody doing so was doing it legally. Would you recognize such a law?


Maybe you should look at the previous Iraqi Constitution.


Iraq Interim Constitution, 1970
Article 38 [Competencies]
The Revolutionary Command Council exercises the following competencies by a two-third majority of its members:
(a) Electing a President from its members, called President of the Revolutionary Council, who is President of the Republic.

www.mallat.com...

Not exactly the way its done here in America, and many other places in the world, yet it is constitutional, and fully legal.

As I said, Saddam was elected, many times.....By the Revolutionary Council.


And again, do you think the Iraqi people, who hated Saddam, were not rising up against him because he was legally murdering, raping, and oppressing them? I don't think so, it was because they were deathly afraid of him. Not because he was legally their president.


Name one nation where people are not afraid to rise up in arms against the state.

Yes many hated him, and many died fighting against the Iraqi state to 'liberate' their homeland, and many more did nothing because they prefered to live.

I was implying that there are far more Iraqis that liked Saddam than America, and at least he was an Iraqi, unlike Bush....



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Well said.

it is the absolute truth and fact.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Well said.

it is the absolute truth and fact.

Truth is clouded in shades of opinion and views.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Well said.

it is the absolute truth and fact.


Maybe it was a little too well said.

It seemed to end the debate, but its partly my fault.

I have a tendency to not show all my hand until I have trapped someone.
................
It is amazing to me how well the Propaganda Machine in America programs the minds of the people.

The posters here sound like they absolutely believed what they were saying, yet it was totally inaccurate.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Maybe it was a little too well said.

It seemed to end the debate, but its partly my fault.

I have a tendency to not show all my hand until I have trapped someone.
................
It is amazing to me how well the Propaganda Machine in America programs the minds of the people.

The posters here sound like they absolutely believed what they were saying, yet it was totally inaccurate.

Inaccurate to some degree, I thought we had gone over there is a difference between the law and justice?



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Truth is clouded in shades of opinion and views.


And other things are as plain as day, like the fact that Saddam was elected legally, and constitutionally many times despite what the American Media claims.

I tried sending them E-mails, and writting letters to help them understand that what they were saying on the TV, Raido, and Papers was not true.

I think they know its not true, but they keep on lying because the media is all about power, not accuracy.

Half of propaganda is how they give you the facts, and the other half is what they donot tell you.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
And other things are as plain as day, like the fact that Saddam was elected legally, and constitutionally many times despite what the American Media claims.

As plain as day?
Do you also have the results of the sadamm election BTW?


I tried sending them E-mails, and writting letters to help them understand that what they were saying on the TV, Raido, and Papers was not true.




Iraqis search for relatives and friends among victims found in a mass grave in Musayib,75 kilometers southwest of
Baghdad.The victims are thought to be from the 1991 uprising against the Iraqi government.The bodies,wrapped in linen
shrouds,are being held in a makeshift morgue in a nearby youth center.

Thats not true ^?




I think they know its not true, but they keep on lying because the media is all about power, not accuracy.

The media is about money, like anything comercial now.


Half of propaganda is how they give you the facts, and the other half is what they donot tell you.

Well said.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join