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: 23
3
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Do you also have the results of the sadamm election BTW?


He won with 100% of the vote of the Revolutionary Council, and it was 100% legal and constitutional.

Maybe you should look up at my post where I clipped from the old Iraqi constitution how a President was elected.

I never said that the people of Iraq got to choose the president.




posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   

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 ^?


You took my quote, and changed the context by changing the subject.

It is true that Saddam was legally, and constitutionally elected despite what the US media has said.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Back on topic....


British hand over control of Basra

British forces have handed over their main base in the city of Basra to the Iraqi military to allow it to take over the main security duties there.

In Baghdad, US forces raided the homes of two officials from a prominent Sunni Arab organisation, arresting bodyguards and confiscating weapons, Sunni officials said.

The handover by the British took place a week after riots broke out in the city - Iraq's second largest - after troops stormed a jail on September 19 where they believed two British soldiers had been taken after being arrested by Iraqi police. The raid sharply increased tensions between the British forces and Iraqis in the city.

British troops moved to a base 18 miles outside Basra to be able to intervene in a crisis.

Continued....
news.scotsman.com...


I'm wondering if this was planned, or if it was the result of two Brit soldiers dressed as arab insurgents being caught in a car full of explosives after running checkpoints, and shooting police.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
He won with 100% of the vote of the Revolutionary Council, and it was 100% legal and constitutional.

Revolutionary council?
So no election for the people just the council.
BTW, legalty changes from country to country.


Maybe you should look up at my post where I clipped from the old Iraqi constitution how a President was elected.

I never said that the people of Iraq got to choose the president.

Yes you ommited that fact very well.
I'd rather you show me where the iraqi people voted him into power.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
You took my quote, and changed the context by changing the subject.

Your point?


It is true that Saddam was legally, and constitutionally elected despite what the US media has said.

Did the iraqi people vote him into power or did someone else?



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel


I'm wondering if this was planned, or if it was the result of two Brit soldiers dressed as arab insurgents being caught in a car full of explosives after running checkpoints, and shooting police.

0 proof there where bombs.
0 proof they shot the police and 0 proof they ran a checkpoint.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by ArchAngel
You took my quote, and changed the context by changing the subject.

Your point?


It is true that Saddam was legally, and constitutionally elected despite what the US media has said.

Did the iraqi people vote him into power or did someone else?


No, but the people did elect the council that elected Saddam.

There are many nations where a council of peoples representatives elect the Administrator.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by ArchAngel


I'm wondering if this was planned, or if it was the result of two Brit soldiers dressed as arab insurgents being caught in a car full of explosives after running checkpoints, and shooting police.

0 proof there where bombs.
0 proof they shot the police and 0 proof they ran a checkpoint.


There is plenty of proof in the preceding pages.

Its just that as a denialist you do not accept any.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Hitler became a dictator 100% legally and legitimately.
Saddam got into power, legally and legitemately through the elections, even if it where rigged the laws allowed it to be.

That's law, messy but that's what we have.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   
How many days has it been since this report came out.


Still no images of any "safe house" these two british spies where taken to.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   

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


Too well said? Somebody's a bit full of themselves. What are you referring to?

This?



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


I had no idea you had the ability to gauge the collective feelings and opinions of an entire nation, and all the way from Florida at that. Wow.
I also had no idea the Iraqi people liked Saddam Hussein, I guess they just figured he was applying "tough love". Who wouldn't want to live in a society where any dissent is met with physical brutality, rape, and murder. As long as it's legal, right. I'm sorry, but how can anybody be so ignorant?

The only reason you seem to think they liked living under Saddam more, is because now they have the right to demonstrate their feelings. They can burn as many American flags and Bush dolls as they wish, without fear of being pushed off buildings, having their hands and tongues cut off, and having their wives, sisters, daughters, etc. raped. Now they can use their voices without fear, so they are doing so.



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.


End the debate?
You just can't stop patting yourself on the back prematurely can you? I was away from the computer, dealing with life outside of cyberspace for awhile. Nothing has ended.



It is amazing to me how well the Propaganda Machine in America programs the minds of the people.


It's amazing to me how those who feel they are above the "Propaganda Machine in America" are just as brainwashed and ignorant as those who's minds they feel are programmed. Your mind has been programmed as well, friend, only you have been programmed to parrot the belief that the American government is solely responsible for all things bad in the world. You believe the Iraqis were happily living under Saddam and everything was peachy until we invaded Iraq. You will not begin to consider any fact or opinion that does not entirely coincide with your own. Just like the super patriots, only on the opposite end of the spectrum. And anybody who does not agree with your views entirely, is in full support of Bush and his agenda. Not so.

I have been against this war, and I will continue to be. If the Iraqi people wanted Saddam out, it's their country, they should have dealt with it. Do I believe Bush gives a rats arse about the Iraqi people? Hell no. He could care less. Is there some other motive besides spreading freedom and democracy? I very much think there is. But on the flip side, do I think the American government is the only one that looks out for it's own best interest? Of course not. We're just the most powerful nation, at the moment, and this world, like it or not, is dog eat dog. If you think that other than what the U.S. does, this world would be a utopia of love and sharing, you are truly naive.



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


What was totally inaccurate, that Saddam was not elected by the people? That was as accurate as can be, the revolutionary command council is not the people, and made up of Saddam's supporters. What do you think would have happened to a member on that council who decided to seriously run against Saddam, and Saddam saw it as a threat? What do you think would've happened to a member on that council who even just voted against him?



Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council, which controls the ruling Baath Party. The council is the most powerful political entity in the country; new RCC members must come from the Regional Command Leadership of the Baath Party.
www.globalsecurity.org...




It's easy for something to be legal when you can change laws however and whenever you see fit. Your hand is weak, and you trapped nobody.





[edit on 1-10-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   

You believe the Iraqis were happily living under Saddam and everything was peachy until we invaded Iraq.


Here is your misconception.

I am implying that they are less happy under foreign occupation, especially American occupation.

Put the shoe on the other foot, and when you do remember that we are killing just as many Iraqis, and destroying entire towns in the process.

Saddam never did anything like what we did in Fallujah.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   

What was totally inaccurate, that Saddam was not elected by the people? That was as accurate as can be, the revolutionary command council is not the people, and made up of Saddam's supporters. What do you think would have happened to a member on that council who decided to seriously run against Saddam, and Saddam saw it as a threat? What do you think would've happened to a member on that council who even just voted against him?


Here is what you said back on page 22 that started this whole thing.


Also, you think Saddam was actually elected?


Saddam was legally, and constitutionally elected as leader of Iraq.

There are many nations where the people do not directly elect their leaders.

Do you think we should invade all of them too?



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
I am implying that they are less happy under foreign occupation, especially American occupation.


Why especially American? Are you implying they would be happier under the occupation of another country? There are two outside forces at work in Iraq, the coalition forces who use Iraqis in the form of the new government, and the foreign militants who use Iraqis in the form of the insurgency. Both outside forces benefit from staying and furthering their seperate agendas. The Iraqis are the ones suffering. Like the saying goes, when two elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers. But we are not the only occupiers.



Put the shoe on the other foot, and when you do remember that we are killing just as many Iraqis, and destroying entire towns in the process.


There's no way to accurately say how many have been killed by either party. Only speculation and heresay. We know Saddam killed at least 200,000. Probably more. I can't say how many have been killed indirectly by U.S. forces, but I know they were not killed in cold blood, although dead is dead. Which is one of the reasons I don't support this war.



Saddam never did anything like what we did in Fallujah.


Really?



Bloody Friday
Chemical massacre of the Kurds by the Iraqi regime
Halabja-March 1988

During those three days, the town and the surrounding district were unmercifully attacked with bombs, artillery fire, and chemicals. The chemical weapons were the most destructive of life. The chemicals used included mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin, tabun, and VX. At least 5,000 people died immediately as a result of the chemical attack and it is estimated that up to 12,000 people in all died during the course of those three days.
www.kdp.pp.se...


Fallujah was nothing like what Saddam did. We warned the people of that city.



Allawi has declared an indefinite curfew in the city and US forces have warned civilians to stay indoors and away from windows while the fighting is on.
www.turkishpress.com...


We took steps to minimize civilian casualties, the insurgents would not let the civilians flee. They wanted them there to be killed in the crossfire, they wanted fuel for the anti-American agenda. We did not want to kill innocents, but could not allow the insurgency to control an entire city.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Why especially American?


You really do not know?

America is Israels unquestioning ally, and Israel is the blood enemy of Iraqis.

America killed countless Iraqis in wars, and through sanctions.

America invaded, and occupied.

Put the shoe on the other foot for real, and ask yourself if you would like the nation that was best friends with your worst enemy, devesated your national economy with sanctions, and killed your family and/or friends.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Here is what you said back on page 22 that started this whole thing.


Also, you think Saddam was actually elected?


Saddam was legally, and constitutionally elected as leader of Iraq.

There are many nations where the people do not directly elect their leaders.

Do you think we should invade all of them too?


The people had no say whatsoever, and I believe the discussion when I asked that question, was regarding what the Iraqi people want. Not what Saddam's inner circle who re-elected him with a 100% vote wanted.

I am well aware that many nations don't have directly elected leaders.

I didn't think we should have invaded Iraq. I made that clear. Yet you still cling to your belief that I'm pro-war. That's the brainwashing I referred to earlier shining through.

Once again, I am against this war. I do not think Saddam was a threat to the U.S. He was a threat to the Iraqis, but he was their threat and I believe that if they wanted a better life, they could have fought for it like many peoples before them. But I don't just see things in black and white. In your quest to get across your point that our actions are wrong, you are perhaps unwittingly overlooking the many other wrongs that lead up to that action, and the many that continue that are not perpetuated by us.

The problem with many who, like myself, want this war stopped, is that they use fantastic arguements and allegations that only serve to make those who may be on the fence see the anti-war movement as a joke. Allegations like the ones made on this thread, that the British special forces are actually carrying out car bombings to make it look like the insurgents did it, or that the WTC had bombs planted in them that really brought down the towers. Crap like that only works against us, and takes focus off the real, reality based conspiracies and reasons this war is wrong.

[edit on 1-10-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
No, but the people did elect the council that elected Saddam.

And do you links to those elections?


There are many nations where a council of peoples representatives elect the Administrator.

Yes that is true, but thats not the issue.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
There is plenty of proof in the preceding pages.

Hearsay and 0 pictures.
0 evidence.


Its just that as a denialist you do not accept any.

No I am willing to accept they may have had explosives, but not packed with it.
Why?
Because for just 2 operatives to be going around with THAT much kit and on the kind of operation that is sugested then they would not have been caught and would have been protected by a back up team.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Hitler became a dictator 100% legally and legitimately.

I didnt know beatings and murder where legitimate?


Saddam got into power, legally and legitemately through the elections, even if it where rigged the laws allowed it to be.

Then it breaks UN huan rights..


That's law, messy but that's what we have.

No its not the law, its a mess of truths and half truths.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Really?

quote:
Bloody Friday
Chemical massacre of the Kurds by the Iraqi regime
Halabja-March 1988 ......


There is much more to this story than you suggest, and it is much more likely that the Iranians were the ones to gas the Kurds.

Both sides were known to be using gas in the areas during the battle.

Iran was holding the town before Iraqi forces liberated it.

The Kurds died from a cyanide based gas that Iraq did not use, at leats not at the time.

There are dozens of references to reports pinning the blame on Iran if you care to look.

www.google.com...

The US Defense Intelligence Agency report backs it all up.

A preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study at the time concluded, apparently by determining the chemicals used by looking at images of the victims, that it was in fact Iran that was responsible for the attack, an assessment which was used subsequently by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for much of the early 1990's.
Continued.....
en.wikipedia.org...


Iran gassed the Kurds during the war, and it was a terrible thing....




top topics



 
3
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join