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.

 

NEWS: Another Part Of US Justification For Invading Iraq Admitted False

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 07:20 AM
link   
The testimony given by, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a top Al-Qaeda leader regarding Iraq's links with Al-Qaeda has been proven false. The testimony obtained in Egypt before the Iraq invasion was used by the Bush administration as part of its case for invading Iraq. Al-Libi retracted his statements citing that he lied to escaped torture. US officials, for the first time, admitted al-Libi had infact been 'coerced' into providing false testimony whilst in Egypt.
 



www.news.com.au
A TOP Al-Qaeda suspect whose testimony was used in part to justify the US-led war on Iraq said his statements linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda were false and made under coercion in Egypt, The New York Times said today.

While it was known that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi recanted his statements in March 2004, this is the first time US officials admitted he had lied about the Iraq-Qaeda links to obtain better treatment from his captors, the daily said.

It is also the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have been in part the result of the US policy of rendition, by which suspects are sent abroad for interrogation to skirt strict US rules against prisoner abuse, the daily added.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Another one bites the dust...

So this leaves the Bush cabal's case for invading Iraq with absolutely no legs to stand on. No nukes and no connection to Al-Qaeda. Is there anything given in Powell's UNSC presentation that was'nt a complete fabrication?


Yeah, yeah Saddam was an evil man and had to go, I agree. But you've got to wonder why Bush and his OWN evil henchmen had to lie to justify the invasion. Are they really any better than Saddam?



[edit on 9/12/05 by subz]




posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 07:28 AM
link   
OK great idea......let's put saddam back............and the taliban, and pol pot, and stalin, and hitler............

The NYT isn't good enough to line trashcans with...................



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Might as well put Saddam back...
Not as if they're going to actually get 'Democracy' or even a decent government or anything...

No, they're going to get an invasion topped by civil war which won't be a short one.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ouroboros
Might as well put Saddam back...
Not as if they're going to actually get 'Democracy' or even a decent government or anything...

No, they're going to get an invasion topped by civil war which won't be a short one.



(very deep breath) OK folks picture the days when saddam was in power, defying the UN, breaking 17 resoultions, shooting at no-fly-zone aircraft, putting people in wood chippers............

Now picture saddam today on trial in Iraq................

Democracy in action people....................get it?



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
(very deep breath) OK folks picture the days when saddam was in power, defying the UN, breaking 17 resoultions, shooting at no-fly-zone aircraft, putting people in wood chippers............

Yeah, lets remember those days...



Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam on 19 December–20, 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984; the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used mustard and Tabun nerve gas against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."

Ah Yes - the Good Old Days of Cold War...



The U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that pathogenic (meaning disease producing), toxigenic (meaning poisonous) and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. It added: These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction.

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including anthrax bacillus) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program.

Chairman of the Senate committee that made the report, said, "UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record."

en.wikipedia.org...

Hmmmmmmmm...

Geee, how come that the United States (ALL GOOD) sold Saddam (ALL BAD) all these Neato Chemical and Biological Weapons and other Technology? Will these FACTS also get on the TRIAL?

I Think NOT.

[edit on 9/12/05 by Souljah]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   
So your answers to finding that the US justification for the invasion of Iraq was fabricated is some kind of contrived "the end justified the means"?


Why were these not the reasons given by the Bush administration as a basis for the invasion? If these other reasons were invasion worthy, which you seem to believe, then why all the lies? If they would lie about this, what else are they capable of lying about?

If the end justified the means would it too be ok if 9/11 really was a US fabrication? Same crap, different stink.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   
this isnt new
since it has been known for ages that the US had se**d up most things to justify their invasion


also on the not about the person who said put the taliban back in power.
if they did maybe it stop the drugs from coming out of afgan since drug production has been on the rise since the US and pals took over



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   
The saddest part about this is that it doesn't suprise anyone.

America has blatantly lied in order to push through its aggressive foreign policy AGAIN. So what? What are you gonna do about it? Nothin, thats what. Typical school bully scenario. Pretend to like him or he'll just beat you up aswell.

America is clearly after global domination not merely political influence. Unfortunately it is completely unstoppable without either global economic meltdown or nuclear war.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
OK folks picture the days when saddam was in power, defying the UN, breaking 17 resoultions, shooting at no-fly-zone aircraft, putting people in wood chippers............


Are you referring to Saddam or U.S. Rendition?

If we (The U.S.) are to present ourselves as bastions of freedom, defenders of liberty, and champions of human rights to the rest of the world, we better damn well have our ethical house in order first.

We didn't.

We still don't.

And we have no plans to change that.

The policies of this administration (and previous administrations) are calling catastrophe to our doorstep.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
If we (The U.S.) are to present ourselves as bastions of freedom, defenders of liberty, and champions of human rights to the rest of the world, we better damn well have our ethical house in order first.

We didn't.

We still don't.

And we have no plans to change that.

The policies of this administration (and previous administrations) are calling catastrophe to our doorstep.


Well said!!!

Why is it that so few in our country understand that?



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I'm getting slowly fed up with debating the veracity of the U.S.'s stated reasons for invading Iraq. Rightly or wrongly, it is done and that fact cannot be changed. Bringing out such information does, however, call into question the intentions of Bush administration officials with respect to the invasion and and the future of Iraq. The publicly stated intentions come increasingly into question. It is no wonder the countries of the Mid-East are skeptical and do not trust the U.S.'s stated goals. I'm getting to the point where I don't trust them either. Though I find it difficult to believe some evil purpose could be behind the invasion. The American public simply would not put up with some sort of blatent exploitation of Iraq. They would insist on dealing fairly with the country once everything settles more or less back to normal.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by thermopolis
OK folks picture the days when saddam was in power, defying the UN, breaking 17 resoultions, shooting at no-fly-zone aircraft, putting people in wood chippers............


Are you referring to Saddam or U.S. Rendition?

If we (The U.S.) are to present ourselves as bastions of freedom, defenders of liberty, and champions of human rights to the rest of the world, we better damn well have our ethical house in order first.

We didn't.

We still don't.

And we have no plans to change that.

The policies of this administration (and previous administrations) are calling catastrophe to our doorstep.


OK (big gulp) please provide any alternative country with higher values, ethics, or overall better history ofr saving this planet from it's own stupidity.

America has made mistakes, had very bad presidents, and done some pretty stupid things, BUT, where would the world be without the will of freedom and justice that is AMERICA?

Catatrophe CAME to our doorstep, I don't remember making any phone calls to OBL.

America has fought tyranny for over 200 years. A very proud history.

The ethics of the planet are in the toilet, at least America is still only on the seat. Placed there by presidents like Clinton and Carter.

Do you wish global terror to win this war? Is radical Islamic rule more "ethical" when it murders.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Just to add my two cents here,

Saddam was a brutal dictator, yes but he was one of them, he knew what its people was capable off, and he controlled them.

Now is not control.

Will this justify Saddam evil reign? no, but we replace one evil with many others now.

Bush father was a very bright man, he liberated Kuwait, he could have gone straight to the hart of Baghdad if he wanted too.

He didn't do it, and the reason he gave was . . . because the impact of a government collapse was to great to risk.

Now look what is going on now. I guess Bush son didn't learn the lesson that his father taught him.

How more people has to die in Iraq so US and the present administration can prove a point.

Yes people die under Saddam and now people are dying under US occupation.


[edit on 9-12-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   
marg6043

Arrogance can blind...

In this case, it may cripple us for generations to come.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I'm getting slowly fed up with debating the veracity of the U.S.'s stated reasons for invading Iraq. Rightly or wrongly, it is done and that fact cannot be changed. Bringing out such information does, however, call into question the intentions of Bush administration officials with respect to the invasion and and the future of Iraq. The publicly stated intentions come increasingly into question. It is no wonder the countries of the Mid-East are skeptical and do not trust the U.S.'s stated goals. I'm getting to the point where I don't trust them either. Though I find it difficult to believe some evil purpose could be behind the invasion.

Why are you getting fed up with it? You obviously see the importance of whether or not this administration lied to the rest of the planet. When they are proven to be liars, it should be given as much air time as "Iraq's WMDs" were.


Originally posted by Astronomer68
The American public simply would not put up with some sort of blatent exploitation of Iraq. They would insist on dealing fairly with the country once everything settles more or less back to normal.

The majority of the American public do as they are directed, much like the situation in every other "modern nation". They are fed a bunch of baloney from their own government which is then reinforced by the corporate news media, and they believe it as gospel.

If the Bush administration and Fox say "we're doing the Iraqis a favour by building American oil wells throughout their nation because American technology and personnel are more efficient" they would buy it. There would be no widespread "but what share of Iraq's oil wealth will America retain?" from Joe Q. Public.

One only has to look at the very topic of this thread to see that a bunch of lies, reinforced by corporate news media and repeated ad nauseum will be believed by the vast majority. This occurs because the people who go against the grain, especially in times of tribulation, and do not accept what they are being told are labelled conspiracy nuts and cranks. Its a ludicrously simple method of controlling information, and from its simplicity springs its potency.

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories" - George W. Bush


Originally posted by thermopolis
please provide any alternative country with higher values, ethics, or overall better history ofr saving this planet from it's own stupidity.

How about the likes of countries such as Tonga, or Fiji? How about Iceland and Sweden? What have they done to jeapordize the planet? Why do you think that because the United States has done some good things in the past that it negates all its flaws and, regardless, places itself upon a pedestal of all that is just? I can name many dozens of countries with a better track record of doing no harm than the United States.

[edit on 9/12/05 by subz]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis


OK (big gulp) please provide any alternative country with higher values, ethics, or overall better history ofr saving this planet from it's own stupidity.


Well I think that ethics-wise, the US has a very 'distinct' moral and ethical outlook, especially when it comes to social welfare and wellbeing... I think N Europe particularly has the edge there (esp. the UK and the Scania countries)...

as for history of saving us all mere mortals from our 'stupidity'... well I find that a *little* patronising seeing as US isolationism and UK appeasment actually helped the 2nd WW on it's way (I assume you're bleating on about the war.. right?) so it was stupidity all round for that one.. I'll have my portion with freedom fries please...

or d'ya mean the Cold War? You made loads of nuclear weapons... well done... fight stupidity with stupidity... great stuff...

the best was saving us from Iran by arming a chap called Saddam... oh wait...



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   
It appears that too many people forgot about Salmon Pak, the terrorist training camp outside of Bagdad, at which there were Al-Qaeda members. The person mentioned in the head of this thread, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, wasn't the only person who gave us information. Below is a very small part of the entire article:

"We know from these IIS documents that beginning in 1992 the former Iraqi regime regarded bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence asset. We know from IIS documents that the former Iraqi regime provided safe haven and financial support to an Iraqi who has admitted to mixing the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. We know from IIS documents that Saddam Hussein agreed to Osama bin Laden's request to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state-run television. We know from IIS documents that a "trusted confidante" of bin Laden stayed for more than two weeks at a posh Baghdad hotel as the guest of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

We have been told by Hudayfa Azzam, the son of bin Laden's longtime mentor Abdullah Azzam, that Saddam Hussein welcomed young al Qaeda members "with open arms" before the war, that they "entered Iraq in large numbers, setting up an organization to confront the occupation," and that the regime "strictly and directly" controlled their activities. We have been told by Jordan's King Abdullah that his government knew Abu Musab al Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war and requested that the former Iraqi regime deport him. We have been told by Time magazine that confidential documents from Zarqawi's group, recovered in recent raids, indicate other jihadists had joined him in Baghdad before the Hussein regime fell. We have been told by one of those jihadists that he was with Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war. We have been told by Ayad Allawi, former Iraqi prime minister and a longtime CIA source, that other Iraqi Intelligence documents indicate bin Laden's top deputy was in Iraq for a jihadist conference in September 1999".

Rendition was started by Clinton.

The UN article was proved false; released before they knew what they were talking about. All the U.S. gave Saddam was intelligence.

U.S. "policy" is to remove tyrants and dictators and oppressors, so that the people in other countries can choose for themselves how they want to be governed; how they want to live.

Magsman: "America is clearly after global domination not merely political influence...." Could you please list for me what other countries where we have members of our government in their governments? That would be required to aquire "domination". Are they in France? or Germany? Poland? or other countries where America has fought to free their people?

Bush Sr.s mistake was to agree to the cease fire in Iraq, which was started by (who else?) the U.N. This war is not "another" war... it is the continuation of the same war.

again... to those who don't like how America is, there are many other countries to choose from. The is no "right" to live here.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
The American public simply would not put up with some sort of blatent exploitation of Iraq. They would insist on dealing fairly with the country once everything settles more or less back to normal.




I find that comment very amusing considering our long history in our own country of slavery, native American annihilation, Japanese internment, and government sanctioned prejudice well into the 20th century....

Do you think the public has really changed all that much in the last 40 or so years?

[edit on 9-12-2005 by loam]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1

again... to those who don't like how America is, there are many other countries to choose from. The is no "right" to live here.


Hum, does this comment sounds like "Post electections ATS"?

Very soon the anti patriotic and traitor comments will be back again.


Saddam was not treat to the US, but he was to the American oil barons.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
OK (big gulp) please provide any alternative country with higher values, ethics, or overall better history ofr saving this planet from it's own stupidity.

Why should I? This issue is about the ethical governance of the U.S. and the very distinct differences between stated ideals, and practiced techniques.



BUT, where would the world be without the will of freedom and justice that is AMERICA?

Um... see above.



Catatrophe CAME to our doorstep, I don't remember making any phone calls to OBL.

Start here:
www.terroranalysis.com...
History is full of our person-to-person calls with the roots of terrorism that effects us today.



America has fought tyranny for over 200 years.

And supported it just as long. A very embarrassing history. Indeed, there is much to be proud of in some of the U.S.'s more idealistic achievements. However, the heroic efforts of many are overshadowed by a host of inappropriate foreign policy decisions that cause fear and hate to be in company with our name around the world.



The ethics of the planet are in the toilet,

No better time to be an example then. And it certainly didn't start with Clinton/Carter (should we discuss Nixon?), and has it roots some 70 years ago.



Do you wish global terror to win this war? Is radical Islamic rule more "ethical" when it murders.

Why does my critique of the ethics of the U.S. government result in your assumptions that I might prefer the means of our enemies? This is an insultingly incorrect conclusion jump on your part.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join