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.

 

UN Report: US Is Abusing Captives

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
IAF101:

Bin Laden was not personally trained by the US there is no PROOF of this, hearsay from popular news sources does not validate misconceptions !


Haha, is there absolutely ANY source you would believe? "Hearsay from popular news sources", eh, haha?


If you can prove this fact that Bin Laden was paid by the CIA to blow up the WTC I will personally finance your legal bills and put to court the CIA !
Can you prove this beyond all reasonable doubt in court ?


First off, READ WHAT I TYPE. I NEVER said he was paid by the CIA to blow up the WTC, that's nuts.

He WAS payed by the CIA when he was a mujaheddin in Afghanistan in the '80's, and he WAS a CIA asset and he WAS armed and trained by the US of A. He was not made by you, but he was made more powerful by you, and then he turned on you. (See Noriega, Marcos, Pinochet, etc)


That article is NOT NEWS from the Independent!


It appears on the Independent's website as well as in their print edition.


Also conveniently the author of that article


Yeah, it's Scott Ritter, remember him? I'll take the word of someone involved in the process better than from you.


Also the fact that the US has released prisioners from Camp X ray that were found to be free from any guilt on their part. I think just recently one of them was let out.


AFTER THREE YEARS OF INCARCERATION. He was found innocent. What the heck was he doing there for 3 years in the first place? Are you willing to languish in jail for 3 years while your lawyer tries to prove your innocence? LOL!


Militias here are trained civilians that function as military and are generally used for paramilitary service. Terrorists on the other hand are trained to create terror and chaos to affect civilians and cause unrest. They do not act in a military fashion and aim at causing destruction rather than resistence.


If you're going to argue semantics, come better armed. Terrorists are "trained civilians" used for paramilitary service. If a terrorist sets a roadside bomb to blow up a US tank, how is that NOT a military capacity?


They do not act in a military fashion and aim at causing destruction rather than resistence


?!?!?!?! How is "causing destruction" by a terrorist vs "causing destruction" by a militia any different? A crater is a crater? wtf?

The US Army in Iraq creates terror and chaos to affect civilians. Hola Fallujah!


And as for the quid pro quo you expect for links, I am sorry that I do have the time nor the inclination to entertain such vanity.


That's okay. I win anyway. You just go on and on and on about how you will accept NO sources, that your mind is so closed that it cannot handle the shock that you in actuality know next to nothing about what you're talking about. So I'll make it easy for you and just accept the win.

Thanks, maybe next time.

Souljah: That picture of the hooded man putting his hand to his child's forehead, sitting on the desert floor surrounded by barbed wire, makes me want to cry.







[edit on 21-2-2006 by Jakomo]




posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
The OBL issue isn't as black and white as is often stated. But I do sense that a lot of people replying in this thread have little idea of the whole picture of what was going on during that time and place. A real stripped down version of the facts is basicly:

In the mid 1980s, Bin Laden ran a front organization for the mujahedeen called Maktab al-Khidamar (MAK). From there he helps funnel money, arms, and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.

MAK was a front for Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI). The United States used the ISI to fund, train and arm the Afghan mujahedin against the Soviets.

So while the CIA didn't exactly have OBL on their payroll, I can't imagine that he didn't benefit from the joint efforts of the CIA and the ISI - the 4 billion dollars, the weapons, the help with recruitment, and the training that his men got.

The whole Afghanistan situation and history is a fascinating thing.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Haha, is there absolutely ANY source you would believe? "Hearsay from popular news sources", eh, haha?

And why should we believe what you have said?....Just a thought..



He WAS payed by the CIA when he was a mujaheddin in Afghanistan in the '80's, and he WAS a CIA asset and he WAS armed and trained by the US of A. He was not made by you, but he was made more powerful by you, and then he turned on you. (See Noriega, Marcos, Pinochet, etc)

So your judging the present admin because of what someone else done....right.....
As I remember most of the world has trained on terrorist or another , "One terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"?






AFTER THREE YEARS OF INCARCERATION. He was found innocent. What the heck was he doing there for 3 years in the first place? Are you willing to languish in jail for 3 years while your lawyer tries to prove your innocence? LOL!

As I remember there is a scottish citizen in an american jail on death row and has been there for over 5 years, mabye want to answer why the american people are keeping an inocent man there?



If you're going to argue semantics, come better armed. Terrorists are "trained civilians" used for paramilitary service. If a terrorist sets a roadside bomb to blow up a US tank, how is that NOT a military capacity?

So your now claiming that executing civilians is a military capacity then?
Ooook then.



?!?!?!?! How is "causing destruction" by a terrorist vs "causing destruction" by a militia any different? A crater is a crater? wtf?

Resistance implies that they are trying to free the country, insurgence means they are simply fighting with no aim nor goal.
Tell me, why is it that evey hostage situation always takes place with a civilian and ALWAYS asks for prisnors to be released?
How come we never hear of them saying "remove your troops from here"?
Or how come we never see them fighting in uniforms?


The US Army in Iraq creates terror and chaos to affect civilians. Hola Fallujah!

Oh yeah?
Want to know what the tactic they ACTUALLY used or are you willing to just portray it as you see it?



Souljah: That picture of the hooded man putting his hand to his child's forehead, sitting on the desert floor surrounded by barbed wire, makes me want to cry.
[/qutoe]
And this doesnt?



On September 14 and 15, 2005, more than one dozen suicide bomb attacks in Shi`a neighborhoods around Baghdad killed nearly 200 people, including civilians and Iraqi police[/qutoe]

www.hrw.org...
I see no one reporting the above, yet we claim to be in the buisness of deny ignorance.

hrw.org...

No on here is clear from blame but come on, report both sides of the story!



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by rice23
What you appear to be saying here - no, what the hell, what you ARE saying here whether you like it or not - is that DU actually protects people from nasty atmospheric radiation. It is, in fact, EXCELLENT at doing so, according to you. But (as if that were, in itself, not ridiculous enough) elsewhere you say


Yes, DU does protect more from radiation than it produces. Apparently the English Language escapes you!

A Typicaly naive response. you refuse to understand the intent of my statements and instead resort to petty semantics. Anyway, I will condescend to explain this just once:
DU has for a fact, marginal radiation when compared to other naturally occuring sources of radiation that humanity has dealt with for millenia without any adverse effects. My first statement refers to the sheilding properties of DU while my second statement was with respect to your assertion that people who come in contact with the vapours generated from an exploding DU shell have the greatest probability of suffering from radiation poisioning. My statement was meant to highlight the lacuna of this logic by pointing out the fact that tank crews, service and transport personel who have greater contact with DU would be more likely to suffer any side effects, if there truly are any, than compared to civilians who through some miracle have the ability to survive a DU round explosion and somehow inhale its residual vapours.
Foolishly you think that toxicity and radioactivity are the same and thus continue on regardless with your prattle on the "evil DU and its evil users " .

Regarding the Gamma decomposition, if you anything about radiation or its causes, you would know that highly radioactive compounds would be teeming with gamma radiation which as we all know is harmfull. DU on the other hand decays through alpha decomposition but as you have asserted that DU is radioactive that is why I refered to gamma radiation. Had I been aware of the depth of your ignorace I would have refrained from such lingo.



you're trying to use a source that says the US is altering data to suit itself to make the US' own argument.


That was never my source to begin with. I merely used the same source to show that the entire article is not credible.


As for the remainder of your histrionics about the sucess of the war in Iraq, the war against the armies of Saddam Hussein which contained a large number of entrenched armour divisions were beaten in record time with minimal casualities with the help of DU. That is a fact.
The same is the case with operation Desert Storm/Sheild in the first gulf War.
The war on terror however is still on in Iraq and around the world.


It's actually a matter of record (from people like Karen Kwiatkowski, among others) that the neocons slanted intel to suit their own purposes. They LIED.

The "neocons" ?
Is this from michealmore dot com ?
Apparently, it is fashionable to blame everything on "neocons" ! But to the reasonable it is known that the CIA gave misleading intelligence on Iraq. Now you are free to say that it is "neocons" or "reptiles" or "aliens" whatever suits your take on reality.


I do think that one (just one among many) reasons for invading Iraq was to get control of the oil for the multinationals. That is, after all, why Qasim and Mossadegh were deposed (by the CIA, remember) all those years ago.

That is again more popular delusion than fact. The democratization of Iraq was to give the Iraqi people a better future by removing the tyrannical forces that they were subjected to. What is speculated to have happened many decades ago would, to the logical, have no bearing on the situation in Iraq before the Coalition forces moved in. Neither the multinationals nor the US govt has made any substantial gains from Iraqi oil. It is infact Iraq that has prospered throught the influx of massive foreign investments despite the active threat of terrorism in the region.
As for your link to "fact", that is an amusing tale of fantasy that has been put together, rather circumlocutory IMO. Obviously, objectivity of source is something that you have never heard of.



I think it would have been more accurate to say "these are the risks of STATE terrorism". After 'due process'? Oh no. There IS no due process. That's what the fuss is about. The LACK of due process. Plus, torture of innocent people.

Is that a cheap attempt at humor ??

Well anyway back to the topic, the situation in Camp X Ray is subject to the rights entitled by the Human Rights laws and even Bush has stated this explicitly.
As for the 'due process' in this system, it is being carried out. Many prisioners have been cleared of any wrongdoing and have been deported back to their respective country. Also the most of the prisioners have filled cases in US courts contesting their detention in Camp X Ray. They have legal council provided to them, medical check ups, clean food, religious rights, clean clothes, shelter etc, all of which is paid for by the US governemnt. Most if not all of the people that are detained there would have never had such quality of life in their own countries or by detention in their own country's prisons.
Thought the exact process of investigation is not reveled to the public due to fear of tampering with evidence, the CIA and the DHS carry out detailed profiles on the detainees. The reports of torture in Guantanamo are highly exaggerated to say the least. Most of the people who have been released claim to have heard about other abuses but had never faced any abuse themselves. Some cases of alleged abuse are as baseless as " a non-muslim touching the Koran" and while others claim that they were " forced to strip naked in front of everybody" as abuse. To the reasonable these acts would seem to silly compared to all the fuss they generate. As for HR groups and Amnesty they resort to fantasicing about the scope of torture and abuse because they havent ever been there.
Actually it is the detainees who resort to violence and turn un-cooperative with the gaurds during interrogations. The response to which is denying the detainee sheets, blankets, drinking cups etc. Also people so often forget that these detainees are Al-Qaeda detainees and not someone who was pulled over for DUI!
The Al-Qaeda training manual itself recommends that they lie and deceive their captors to the fullest extent:

Al-Qaeda Training Manualwww.usdoj.gov...
UK/BM-176 TO UK/BM-180 TRANSLATION Lesson Eighteen
PRISONS AND DETENTION CENTERS
IF AN INDICTMENT IS ISSUED AND THE TRIAL, BEGINS, THE BROTHER HAS TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING:
1. At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators] before the judge.
2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.
3. Make arrangements for the brother’s defense with the attorney, whether he was retained by the brother’s family or court-appointed.
4. The brother has to do his best to know the names of the state security officers, who participated in his torture and mention their names to the judge. [These names may be obtained from brothers who had to deal with those officers in previous cases.]
5. Some brothers may tell and may be lured by the state security investigators to testify against the brothers [i.e. affirmation witness], either by not keeping them together in the same prison during the trials, or by letting them talk to the media. In this case,they have to be treated gently, and should be offered good advice, good treatment, and pray that God may guide them.
6. During the trial, the court has to be notified of any mistreatment of the brothers inside the prison.
7. It is possible to resort to a hunger strike, but it is a tactic that caneither succeed or fail.

All these tricks are typical of the Al-Qaeda. Having appeared on numerous news outlets they only help further Al-Qaeda's agenda instead of promoting an objective representation of the facts. This is nothing surpassing, the people that the US is up against understand the role of the liberal media, the ACLU and other liberal engines and seeks to exploit these fully to obtain there release. They know our weaknesses and they seek to employ those to hurt us by causing doubt and dissent amongst us. Granted the Administration is not doing such a good PR job itself but the fact still remains that the people who are sent to Guantanamo are the most dangerous terrorists that are too dangerous to hold in regional prisons. These people have given their lives to Terrorism and if discomforts of detention are "abuse" then their attempts to slaughter thousands through terrorist bombings must be truly demonic.
The tone of news media also has played to the Terrorist cause by portraying the terrorists as scared and oppressed innocents, which is utter nonsense.

FBI EXCERPTS THAT WONT MAKE HEADLINES:

FBI DOCUMENTS

**

**

**

**

**

**

But I guess these reports wont be making news any time soon will they ??
Apparently, the word of a terrorists who is suspected of carring out bombings is more truthfull than the word of the State department! I bet they wont be making any movies on terrorists shreading innocent women and kids limb from limb will they when they can make movies about the "abuse" of terrorists in Camp X-Ray where their Koran is being touched by non-muslims and people "hear" about other abuses!

Well I guess there is no hope for the gullible is there !




That's the kind of world we're living in. A person with any kind of moral compass would feel disgusted by this kind of behaviour rather than be the apologist for those who display it.

Spare me your sanctimonious platitudes !!
Instead of being ashamed for their activities they have the temerity to claim abuse ? Who wouldn’t feel like suicide when they have resorted to killing innocent women and children for some twisted ideals? What they get is far more than what they deserve. The US and the coalition have every right to employ its entire means to detain whomever it sees as terrorists. The best option for those who claim to be innocent would be to cooperate with the authorities to the fullest so as to expedite their release. Recalcitrant behavior would obviously not be tolerated, as such behavior would only mean that they are hiding information that could save thousands of lives.
Your attempts to sympathize with these terrorists are pathetic at best. Resorting to cheap attempts at humor and slander does nothing to validate your claims of torture and if any thing shows your juvenile propensity towards understanding the sitaution in Iraq and Guantanamo.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:08 AM
link   
that picture speaks more than a thousand words and i hope people responsible for this and those who protect them rot in hell for all eternity.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
He WAS payed by the CIA when he was a mujaheddin in Afghanistan in the '80's, and he WAS a CIA asset and he WAS armed and trained by the US of A. He was not made by you, but he was made more powerful by you, and then he turned on you. (See Noriega, Marcos, Pinochet, etc)


This is crazy. Do you think that the CIA as much as knew Bin Ladens name when they were fighting the soviets in Afganistan ? Also they didnt have him on their payrol exculsively. Bin laden was one amongst the many hordes of fighters that fought the Soviets as the Mujahideen. The US supported these fighters by providing them weapons, arms, etc. The didnt have some boot camp out there for Osama. Thats just ignorant.
Firstly, the CIA did not fund Afghan Arabs to fight because they didnt need to, there were enough afghans ready to fight. Secondly the US wanted to disassociate itself with the entire conflict in Afganistan so they funneled their money through the ISI(Pakistan intelligence, if your intelligence didnt know!:@@
, Egypt, KSA, etc. The US didnt support the Arab Afgans they were supported by the Arab states themselves and Osama belonged to this "arab afghan" group. These Afghan Arabs fought along side the Afghani Mujahideen that was financed indirectly by the CIA so it was often confused that they were both financed by the CIA. The US knew nothing of Osama Bin laden or his mission. The main cause of Osama rise was his decisions and not the funding or the aid of America.
Osama personally denied that the US was invloved in Afganistan. The following is from an interview he gave to a Western journalist-Robert Fisk :

www.robert-fisk.com...
"Personally neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help. When my mujahedin were victorious and the Russsians were driven out, differences started (between the guerilla movements) so I returned to road construction in Taif and Abha. I brrought back the equipment I had used to build tunnels and roads for the mujahedin in Afghanistan. Yes, I helped soem of my comrades to come here to Sudan after the war." How many? "I don't want to say. But they are here with me right here, building this road to Port Sudan."

You can still go ahead and deny this and may still rant about it all being lies, but I have given you a chance to see the light and that is more than most people get!



That article is NOT NEWS from the Independent!

It appears on the Independent's website as well as in their print edition.

So? Quoting opinion be it on websites or news print is no excuse.


AFTER THREE YEARS OF INCARCERATION. He was found innocent. What the heck was he doing there for 3 years in the first place? Are you willing to languish in jail for 3 years while your lawyer tries to prove your innocence? LOL!

Acutally, sometimes it take more than 3 years in some domestic cases. And that too 3 years of clean food and clothers is not a bad deal for someone living out of a cave in a battletorn country.



If you're going to argue semantics, come better armed. Terrorists are "trained civilians" used for paramilitary service. If a terrorist sets a roadside bomb to blow up a US tank, how is that NOT a military capacity?

;lol: Is this your attempt at a rebuttal ??

Terrorists are not "trained civilians" used for paramilitary service !! Do you know what paramilitary service means ?? You need to have a uniform, a code of conduct in war, official representatives of a country etc .
Also to continue hostilies without such identity is considered to be the work of "illegal Combatants" ! Go read up ! This is international convention.



?!?!?!?! How is "causing destruction" by a terrorist vs "causing destruction" by a militia any different? A crater is a crater? wtf?

This is getting lame!!
A Terrorist uses civilians as a cover and engages in hostilites by using them as cover while militia do not. They wear uniforms, carry weapons in plain sight and wage open war with their enemies.


The US Army in Iraq creates terror and chaos to affect civilians. Hola Fallujah!

Hello, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ! Have you forgoten that Fallujah was under the control of radical islamic imams that were flsuhed out and killed when the marines stormed Fallujah! Fallujah was held by a group of armed terrorists who had blockaded the city and used its civilians as sheilds against the US and coaltiion forces and organised attacks against other civilains in other cities in Iraq.
I guess that taking back a city that belongs to the Iraqi's from terrorists is an act of "terrorism" in your books!




Thanks, maybe next time.

Now that is funny !


That picture of the hooded man putting his hand to his child's forehead, sitting on the desert floor surrounded by barbed wire, makes me want to cry.

I guess the video of Nick Berg getting his head chopped of on TV or the hundreds or other beheadings on TV are all good entertainment but when the people who have commited these crimes are put to task, it make you cry !
Awww, so sad. NOT !



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
You know those men in Orange jumpsuits?

How many of them are REALLY Terrorists?

Well, let's check it out!


Reports Find Tenuous Terror Ties at Guantanamo

Last June, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters, "If you think of the people down there [at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba], these are people, all of whom were captured on a battlefield. They're terrorists, trainers, bomb-makers, recruiters, financiers, [Osama bin Laden's] bodyguards, would-be suicide bombers, probably the 20th 9/11 hijacker."

The men in the orange jumpsuits, President George W. Bush said, were terrorists. But according to the magazine, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) didn't see it that way:

"By the fall of 2002, it was common knowledge around CIA circles that fewer than 10 percent of Guantanamo's prisoners were high-value terrorist operatives, according to Michael Scheuer who headed the agency's bin Laden unit through 1999 and resigned in 2004."

Yet two recent reports, based on the Defense Department's own documentation, reach conclusions that are dramatically different than Rumsfeld's. And amid the millions of words journalists have written about Guantanamo Bay during the past few years, the mainstream press has largely ignored these new reports.

Shall we Examine those Two Reports? Here is the First one:


A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data

Compiled from declassified Defense Department evaluations of the more than 500 detainees at the Cuba facility, the report says just 8 percent are listed as fighters for a terrorist group, while 30 percent are considered members of a terrorist group and the remaining 60 percent were just "associated with" terrorists.

According to the report, 55 percent of the detainees are informally accused of committing a hostile act.

And the Second Report:


Guantanamo's Grip

Most of the "enemy combatants" held at Guantanamo – for four years now – are simply not "the worst of the worst" of the terrorist world:

"[S]ome, perhaps many, are guilty only of being foreigners in Afghanistan or Pakistan at the wrong time. And much of the evidence – even the classified evidence – gathered by the Defense Department against these men is flimsy, second-, third-, fourth- or 12th-hand. It's based largely on admissions by the detainees themselves or on coerced, or worse, interrogations of their fellow inmates, some of whom have been proved to be liars."

"Notwithstanding Rumsfeld's description, the majority of them were not caught by American soldiers on the battlefield. They came into American custody from third parties, mostly from Pakistan, some after targeted raids there, most after a dragnet for Arabs after 9/11."


"The story is about a guy who, after relentless interrogation, finally admitted to knowing Osama –'Yes, OK, I know him, I've seen him on al-Jazeera' – upon which basis the Combatant Status Review Tribunal was informed that 'the individual admits to knowing bin Laden.' And upon this information, he was adjudicated an 'enemy combatant.'"

Well Ladies and Gentleman - there you have it:

8% are actually Terrorist Fighters - and the Big 60 percent were just "associated with" terrorists. You can see that the Majority were NOT arrested in the Battlefield with a Granade in their Hands (as some members here would like to present them) - but were actually came into American custody from third parties. Or they were simply Kidnapped by the Vast CIA anti-Terror Flight Network from their Home Countries.

Hell even CIA said, that that fewer than 10 percent of Guantanamo's prisoners were high-value terrorist!

And you can see the Techniques used - after a constant interrogation people will start saying just about anything to make them stop. So, one of them said he knows Osama; that he saw him on TV. You think this guy is allright today, or is he the one, covered in his own blood on many pictures of Torture?

Tell me people - have you seen Osama on TV?

Well, you are then an Enemy Combatant!



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
With respect, what about those 10% that are real terrorist?
Should they be kept or shouldnt they?



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Devilwasp:

And why should we believe what you have said?....Just a thought..


No, don’t believe me. Read the accredited links I provide, and then use them as a basis for your own research. Associated Press, Reuters, etc, all of them FACTCHECK their reporter’s articles before publishing them.

So read the article and then use the net to corroborate the evidence. It’s simple.


So your judging the present admin because of what someone else done....right.....


I said THE UNITED STATES, not George Bush II. Please pay attention.


As I remember there is a scottish citizen in an american jail on death row and has been there for over 5 years, mabye want to answer why the american people are keeping an inocent man there?


He’s been CONVICTED IN A COURT OF LAW. Do you understand the difference between going through the legal system and being whisked away to a military prison with absolutely no legal defense available and going through the oxymoronic “military justice process”?


So your now claiming that executing civilians is a military capacity then?


Maybe to the terrorists the civilian casualties are just “collateral damage”. Say, where could they have gotten that attitude? That civilians are so unimportant that its not even necessary to do body counts. Where oh where would they have gotten such a callous outlook?


Resistance implies that they are trying to free the country, insurgence means they are simply fighting with no aim nor goal.


No, an insurgent is

1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent

2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party

Same thing, different term. To THEM and to much of the Iraqi people they are resistance fighters. The Bush Administration could call them vampires and that doesn’t necessarily make them the living dead.

IAF101:

Do you think that the CIA as much as knew Bin Ladens name when they were fighting the soviets in Afganistan ? Also they didnt have him on their payrol exculsively. Bin laden was one amongst the many hordes of fighters that fought the Soviets as the Mujahideen. The US supported these fighters by providing them weapons, arms, etc. The didnt have some boot camp out there for Osama. Thats just ignorant.


Yeah, why in the world would the CIA be interested in a guy from one of the richest families in Saudi Arabia?

First you say HOW COULD THEY KNOW WHO HE WAS and right afterwards you follow it with “Also they didnt have him on their payrol exclusively”.

Careful. Sometimes you go to such lengths to cover your @ss that you end up looking like one.


Bin laden was one amongst the many hordes of fighters that fought the Soviets as the Mujahideen.


Prove it.


Firstly, the CIA did not fund Afghan Arabs to fight because they didnt need to, there were enough afghans ready to fight.


Quite right. They actually made Stinger anti-aircraft shoulder-held missiles out of ROCKS and MUD. The Stinger missile is one of the singlemost determining factors in the USSR’s defeat in Afghanistan. They were supplied by the United States of America.

www.globalissues.org...

From an old Washington Post article, but then again, ask me if I expect you to actually read it. Go on.


Osama personally denied that the US was invloved in Afganistan. The following is from an interview he gave to a Western journalist-Robert Fisk :


LOL! Yeah, I am sure he would want to crow about the fact that the godless Yanks helped the Arabs beat the Russians.

Does this mean you are counting Robert Fisk as a reliable source, or just when it serves your particular interests at the time. Because he works for the Independent, coincidentally.


Terrorists are not "trained civilians" used for paramilitary service !!


If it takes training to set a roadside bomb then you’re wrong. And I imagine it does. So you’re wrong.


Fallujah was held by a group of armed terrorists who had blockaded the city and used its civilians as sheilds against the US and coaltiion forces and organised attacks against other civilains in other cities in Iraq


Because your government told you, and they have no reason to lie.

Thanks for playing.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
No, don’t believe me. Read the accredited links I provide, and then use them as a basis for your own research. Associated Press, Reuters, etc, all of them FACTCHECK their reporter’s articles before publishing them.

But how can we trust ANYTHING these people tell us since they are not the free press since they operate a company hence a corporation.Are corporations not controlling america and the world , if so then we cant trust these peopel anymore than our own governments!


So read the article and then use the net to corroborate the evidence. It’s simple.

And we can trust the neT?



I said THE UNITED STATES, not George Bush II. Please pay attention.

Yes , you are judging the country of actions done by a previos government. So when are you going to call the UK forward for its actions in the boer wars?
Want me to take the stand for the actions of our forces in america during the pre revolutionary days?



He’s been CONVICTED IN A COURT OF LAW. Do you understand the difference between going through the legal system and being whisked away to a military prison with absolutely no legal defense available and going through the oxymoronic “military justice process”?

So theres a diffrence between him being accused in a "court of law" if you can call it that on the basis of people seeing him enter the building to try and save his child after the fire and people being dragged off a battle field ?
Edit: Btw you might want to read this.

[quite]
We have 117 wrongfully convicted people off death row and to this day the prosecutors of the state are yet to offer an apology
news.bbc.co.uk...
He was in jail for 18 years, thats half his life. No apology?




Maybe to the terrorists the civilian casualties are just “collateral damage”. Say, where could they have gotten that attitude?

Mabye? Thats the best you have? Mabye?
Just mabye its a precise tactic to target civilians, read the link I gave.
Last time I checked we dont drop MOAB's in protestors, although the idea is sometimes not difficult to contemplate.
[qutoe]
That civilians are so unimportant that its not even necessary to do body counts. Where oh where would they have gotten such a callous outlook?

Oh so your now going to blame insurgent on coalition tacitcs?



No, an insurgent is

1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent

2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party

Same thing, different term. To THEM and to much of the Iraqi people they are resistance fighters. The Bush Administration could call them vampires and that doesn’t necessarily make them the living dead.

If "much" of the iraqi people support them, and if they are resistance fighters explain this:

\\stcwestoe.stc.ac.uk\LearnerFiles\MarineEngineering\47870\Souljah\A Face and a Name Civilian Victims of Insurgent Groups in Iraq III_ Insurgent Groups in Iraq.htm


Care to answer the rest of my post or did it actually hit the V bull?

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Devilwasp:

But how can we trust ANYTHING these people tell us since they are not the free press since they operate a company hence a corporation.Are corporations not controlling america and the world , if so then we cant trust these peopel anymore than our own governments!


Er, what did I say? DON’T trust them. Read the article and do your own background checking on it. Who does the reporter work for? Does he have a bias? Does the paper?

If a news corporation makes it a habit of releasing news stories that are false, they will not sell papers. Thus they will go out of business. Thus it is in their interest to keep their facts straight. (I am talking about ACTUAL newspapers here, not silliness like Newsmax, etc)


And we can trust the neT?


With the amount of info you can get access to almost instantly, you need to really use your best judgement as to what’s valid and what’s not. I find that if I can find three separate corroborations, it’s usually a solid fact. Usually.


Want me to take the stand for the actions of our forces in america during the pre revolutionary days?


…. Just saying that this is a creation of your government, which has had a disastrous foreign policy since the 1950’s. You ought to acknowledge the damage and pain you’ve inflicted on the less fortunate people in the rest of the world, tempered with some of the good things you’ve done.


Last time I checked we dont drop MOAB's in protestors, although the idea is sometimes not difficult to contemplate.


No, just on Baghdad, with it’s population of 4 million people. Dropping a bomb that obliterates everything within 2000 metres on a city of millions is called terrorism. Designed to terrify the civilian population, to try and get them to force the army to capitulate.

What’s that last part : although the idea is not difficult to contemplate. Dropping BOMBS on PROTESTORS?! Protestors. People protesting against something they feel is unfair. Don’t take this the wrong way, but you’d make a great Nazi based on that comment.

Why don’t you think about what would happen if you drop a bomb on a group of protestors, and describe to me in vivid detail what you think would happen. Include the volume of the shrieks, the percentage of minors, the amount of blood and gore, and how you would feel about it. I know it was possibly an aside, but wow.


If "much" of the iraqi people support them, and if they are resistance fighters explain this


Yer link is busted.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Er, what did I say? DON’T trust them. Read the article and do your own background checking on it. Who does the reporter work for? Does he have a bias? Does the paper?

The fact is though acording to everyone we cant trust anyone and frankly that makes any arguement pointless.


If a news corporation makes it a habit of releasing news stories that are false, they will not sell papers. Thus they will go out of business. Thus it is in their interest to keep their facts straight. (I am talking about ACTUAL newspapers here, not silliness like Newsmax, etc)

Oh? And I take it that colonel Collins DID murder people and was a warcriminal, or so the papers would tell you.

Didnt seem to get thier facts right there..



With the amount of info you can get access to almost instantly, you need to really use your best judgement as to what’s valid and what’s not. I find that if I can find three separate corroborations, it’s usually a solid fact. Usually.

The fact is we cant.



…. Just saying that this is a creation of your government, which has had a disastrous foreign policy since the 1950’s. You ought to acknowledge the damage and pain you’ve inflicted on the less fortunate people in the rest of the world, tempered with some of the good things you’ve done.

Oh so its now MY fault of something older men did in the 1950's....right....want me to stand up in the UN and say : "Sorry guys...my bad on korea, my bad on gulf war one and 2! My bad...really sorry guys!"?



No, just on Baghdad, with it’s population of 4 million people. Dropping a bomb that obliterates everything within 2000 metres on a city of millions is called terrorism. Designed to terrify the civilian population, to try and get them to force the army to capitulate.

The US has never dropped an MOAB on ANYTHING as far as I am aware apart from a test range, know why?
It can damage up to 1 mile away, tell me what practical use we would have to use it on a city?


What’s that last part : although the idea is not difficult to contemplate. Dropping BOMBS on PROTESTORS?! Protestors. People protesting against something they feel is unfair. Don’t take this the wrong way, but you’d make a great Nazi based on that comment.

Thanks, I mean protestors like the ones who preached...what was it again?
Oh yeah.....Freedom go to hell....europe your 9/11 is coming...right....
Tell me....what is not "threatening" about that?


Why don’t you think about what would happen if you drop a bomb on a group of protestors, and describe to me in vivid detail what you think would happen. Include the volume of the shrieks, the percentage of minors, the amount of blood and gore, and how you would feel about it. I know it was possibly an aside, but wow.

I would feel quite bad, but sometimes just sometimes it seems justifiable when protestors turn into this:




Yer link is busted.

\\stcwestoe.stc.ac.uk\LearnerFiles\MarineEngineering\47870\Souljah\A Face and a Name Civilian Victims of Insurgent Groups in Iraq.htm


Any further opinion on this so called "court of law" and its victim that was treated much better than most of the detianees in gitmo.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   
devilwasp:

The fact is though acording to everyone we cant trust anyone and frankly that makes any arguement pointless.


Well, I'm assuming that people have the mental capacity to read multiple articles and judge for themselves what the facts are based on similarities and differences. Sorry for the error. Must be an education thing.


Oh? And I take it that colonel Collins DID murder people and was a warcriminal, or so the papers would tell you.


? What the heck is that about? I said if papers lie or deliberately mislead their readers in their stories, people will stop reading them. Do you deny this?

I wrote:

With the amount of info you can get access to almost instantly, you need to really use your best judgement as to what’s valid and what’s not. I find that if I can find three separate corroborations, it’s usually a solid fact. Usually.

You replied:


The fact is we cant.


No, the FACT is that YOU can't. For whatever reason. The rest of us can use our best judgement and rely on it most times.


Oh so its now MY fault of something older men did in the 1950's....right....want me to stand up in the UN and say : "Sorry guys...my bad on korea, my bad on gulf war one and 2! My bad...really sorry guys!"?


Are you like 5 years old? I said you ought to ACKNOWLEDGE what your government has done, not take the blame for it. Pick up a dictionary or read slower or something, this is becoming a pattern.


The US has never dropped an MOAB on ANYTHING as far as I am aware apart from a test range, know why?
It can damage up to 1 mile away, tell me what practical use we would have to use it on a city?


Yep, my mistake. They used hundreds of tons of conventional bombs on Baghdad, knowing full well that a certain percentage of ordnance would remain unexploded and lying around in urban areas.

But I forget. Shock And Awe wasn't terrorism. They didn't target civilians.

They just knew people were there and didn't care. Because you can't tell me they didn't know that people die when you bomb areas with high civilian population densities (like Baghdad).


I would feel quite bad, but sometimes just sometimes it seems justifiable when protestors turn into this:


Turn into what? Is that guy carrying a gun? Hurting someone? Looks like he's yelling. Is that illegal? In your mind he deserves to die? You want to bomb him? Would it be different if he was white and had a mullet?

Waiting for your answer.


And, um, your link is still busted.


jako



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Well, I'm assuming that people have the mental capacity to read multiple articles and judge for themselves what the facts are based on similarities and differences. Sorry for the error. Must be an education thing.

But how can we trust that the articles information (no matter how many sources) are correct?
How simple is it to fake news? Easy as pie.



? What the heck is that about? I said if papers lie or deliberately mislead their readers in their stories, people will stop reading them. Do you deny this?

Yes I do deny it, look into colonel collins and find out.



No, the FACT is that YOU can't. For whatever reason. The rest of us can use our best judgement and rely on it most times.

No the fact is that I trust very little to NOTHING on the web, why? Because its the easiest and most effective form of phsy warfare available to any group, person, government, military and or orginisation.



Are you like 5 years old? I said you ought to ACKNOWLEDGE what your government has done, not take the blame for it. Pick up a dictionary or read slower or something, this is becoming a pattern.

Your saying we should achnowledge that our PREVIOS government has done, are you willing to accept what the previos government of native indians in north america done to settlers?



Yep, my mistake. They used hundreds of tons of conventional bombs on Baghdad, knowing full well that a certain percentage of ordnance would remain unexploded and lying around in urban areas.

Doesnt help when sadam hides his tanks and long range artillery inside the city in highly populated areas now does it?


But I forget. Shock And Awe wasn't terrorism. They didn't target civilians.

No they didnt target terrorism and shock and awe isnt terrorism, unless your willing to catogorise bullies and muggers as terrorists?


They just knew people were there and didn't care. Because you can't tell me they didn't know that people die when you bomb areas with high civilian population densities (like Baghdad).

Yeah they did know people where going to die but they had no choice, what would you prefer scalpol or hammer?
I can tell you a lot more would have died if the coalition had simply assaulted the city without targeting the forces inside.



Turn into what? Is that guy carrying a gun? Hurting someone? Looks like he's yelling. Is that illegal? In your mind he deserves to die? You want to bomb him? Would it be different if he was white and had a mullet?

Thats a rioter outside the dutch embassy which his comrades had just burnt down.





And, um, your link is still busted.

Sorry the link was busted by the college.
heres the right one:
hrw.org...



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
From one of your earlier posts:

"As for the long term effects of DU, the most effect is on the people who stay for weeks on end a foot away from a pile of live DU rounds."

From your more recent post:

"Yes, DU does protect more from radiation than it produces. Apparently the English Language escapes you!"

Please explain to me how these two sentences can both be true. If DU ammo has "an excellent shielding effect" how can it have anything other than a beneficial effect on people standing for weeks on end a foot away from a pile of live DU rounds? You weren't, in your first post, trying to deny that there WAS an effect - you were just trying to say that it's just the poor soldiers who have to bear the brunt of it.

And I understand the difference between alpha and gamma radiation, thanks. You were the one who was switching between them at random. I also understand the difference between radioactivity and toxicity. A substance can be radioactive AND toxic, like DU, or radioactive and inert, like radon. However, either radioactivity or toxicity can be carcinogenic or teratogenic, and these are the two effects that are evident in areas (Vieques, Kosovo, Southern Iraq) that have seen a lot of DU rounds fired.

"A Typicaly naive response. you refuse to understand the intent of my statements and instead resort to petty semantics."

In fact, I couldn't quite believe that you were saying what you appeared to be saying because, as I have shown above, you were contradicting something you'd written in an earlier post. There was nothing petty about my semantics. I did not 'refuse to understand'. You were contradicting yourself.

The tobacco companies tried to argue for decades that smoking was good for you and certainly didn't cause cancer. The arms companies and the US government are doing exactly the same thing for DU munitions. You're just gullible where they're concerned, and clearly take the words of Bush utterly at face value. THAT is naive.

As for the arguments over sources:

"That was never my source to begin with. I merely used the same source to show that the entire article is not credible."

And my point was that logic will not permit you to do that. All it demonstrates is that the people writing the report allege that the US leant on them to change it: then the US replied with a denial and said the report was rubbish anyway. Credibility is a subjective quality, but a factor that weighs heavily with me is that the US has a strong motive for suppressing data that indicate that DU is a health risk. If you can provide a similarly pressing motive for the scientists concerned that would make them falsify data, please feel free to do so.

"As for the remainder of your histrionics about the sucess of the war in Iraq, the war against the armies of Saddam Hussein which contained a large number of entrenched armour divisions were beaten in record time with minimal casualities with the help of DU. That is a fact."

I don't remember any of the armoured divisions providing any resistance. I remember all the commentators saying "Ooh, the Republican Guard... Saddam's most feared soldiers" and then "chemical weapons, ooh, scary" and then everyone scratching there heads somewhat when the US rolled into Baghdad with minimal opposition. Perhaps you can enlighten me with some links to big tank battles where DU armour really made a difference.

"That [the ouster of the democratically-elected Qasim] is again more popular delusion than fact. The democratization of Iraq was to give the Iraqi people a better future by removing the tyrannical forces that they were subjected to."

A tyrannical force that was put in place by the CIA, let's not forget. And who was backed by the US until he got too big for his boots, at which point they allowed him to invade Kuwait.

And of course, it doesn't answer the question of why the US didn't interfere when Saddam was at his worst, or why it doesn't interfere in, say, Colombia, to stop the Coca-Cola corporation hiring paramilitaries to intimidate and kill those people who want to unionise its bottling plants; or Indonesia, to stop two rounds of ethnic cleansing in East Timor; or why it propped up dozens of death-squad democracies in Latin America... the US is usually BEHIND tyrannical forces, in fact, and a clear look at the historical record would tell you this. It's why history is relevant. Ah, but you, like Henry Ford, think that history is bunk. We'll come to that later.

"Giving the Iraqi people a better future"? You just aren't reading the news, are you? The country is in tatters. People daren't leave their houses. I know, I have friends who are Iraqis with lots of family in Baghdad. They certainly don't think Iraq has been given a better future. You're the one who's naive, swallowing all the USBS whole. My friends are Iraqis who fled Saddam, but they never thought the US invasion would do anything but harm. They had a good idea what was coming.

"What is speculated to have happened many decades ago would, to the logical, have no bearing on the situation in Iraq before the Coalition forces moved in."

No. It's called HISTORY. People study it, and for good reason. You obviously don't.

"Neither the multinationals nor the US govt has made any substantial gains from Iraqi oil."

True, but only because they swallowed that whopper about the Iraqi people showering the 'liberating' forces with flowers. In fact, blowing up piplines and tanker convoys has become, it seems, a new Iraqi hobby, and I don't blame them. If someone came into my house and just started taking the food out of my fridge, I'd want to stop them. But one of the goals for the US is, to get control of the oil fields. It would be nice to get the oil out too, but that, of course, is proving difficult due to the activities of the locals.

The Nazis wanted lebensraum. The US wants oil. They share a contempt for those who stand in their way, and indeed many tactics (and at one time even personnel, of course, though those days are gone now).

"It is infact Iraq that has prospered throught the influx of massive foreign investments despite the active threat of terrorism in the region."

Earth to IAF... Earth to IAF... The Iraqis I know certainly don't think their country is prospering. At the moment, the country has had two or three entire towns destroyed (Fallujah is not the only one, but it's difficult for news to get out when both the insurgents and the US are killing reporters) and the occupying powers have helped repair the odd school. Petrol is hugely more expensive than it was before the invasion, and inflation is soaring. As I say, they're now looking back to the good old days of Saddam with some nostalgia. An astonishing achievement by the occupying forces.

"As for your link to "fact", that is an amusing tale of fantasy that has been put together, rather circumlocutory IMO. Obviously, objectivity of source is something that you have never heard of."

You obviously didn't read farther than the table of contents. The report is actually rather concise. But it's inconvenient to you and it uses history as a basis for making prognostications about the future, which is something (see above) of which you're obviously not in favour. As ever, you disparage the source without providing any motivation for the distortions you impute to it.

"Is that a cheap attempt at humor ?? "

No. I was, you may recall, making the point that there had been no due process. That is clearly a term you need to understand a little better. Due process of law means things like a fair trial by a jury of one's peers, the ability to know the charges against the defendent, access to lawyers, that kind of thing. People have made the point to you before that the Gitmo detainees had no access to their lawyers, and in fact the US has locked up a number of people in total secrecy, according to people like Lindy Englund, one of the two women officers scapegoated for the Abu Ghraib abuses. These people are not given an ICRC number, and so the Red Cross know nothing about them.

Even the ones we DO know about don't get a trial, fair or otherwise. The US keeps them locked up until they are 'determined' not to be a danger. How this 'determination' is arrived at no-one will say.

The Al-Qaeda manual you quote (and how do you know it's not a forgery, like the Niger yellowcake documents) is irrelevant. The issue is how do you tell the innocent from the guilty? By torturing them? Those few who are innocent and have been released have told horrific tales of torture. The new film "The Road to Guantanamo" is the story of three British lads who went on a trip to Pakistan and got caught up in a US sweep. It shows some serious human rights abuses. Plus almost 100 people have died in US torture camps so far - and they're just the ones we know about. Can you categorically say that all of those were terrorists? And even if they were, can you argue that 'due process' was observed in their cases?

I've added a link that even you might not be able to dismiss. It's at the bottom. But here's a relevant snippet:

BBC NEWS:

"The report defines the 34 cases classified as homicides as "caused by intentional or reckless behaviour".

It says another 11 cases have been deemed suspicious and that between eight and 12 prisoners were tortured to death.

But despite this, charges are rare and sentences are light, the report says."

So the people who are murdering those in custody are being allowed to get away with it. Which is fine in your "eye-for-an-eye" world, but civilised human beings are supposed to have got beyond that.

What surfaces is that you cannot get it into your skull that some, at least, of these prisoners are INNOCENT and there is no safeguard to ensure that they are not tortured:

"Instead of being ashamed for their activities they have the temerity to claim abuse ? Who wouldn’t feel like suicide when they have resorted to killing innocent women and children for some twisted ideals? What they get is far more than what they deserve. The US and the coalition have every right to employ its entire means to detain whomever it sees as terrorists. "

What activities are these? Well, thanks to the secret treatment of these prisoners, we'll NEVER KNOW. If there were any real evidence, then the US would be able to bring them to court. You are so lucky to be living in a free society, but you don't seem to want the benefits of a free society (among which is the principle of no imprisonment without trial) to be universal. You certainly don't seem to want people presumed innocent until proven guilty.

As for that self-serving FBI whitewash... there's plenty of photographic evidence, video evidence, and personal testimony to say that the US gulags are full of guards who delight in abusing their captives. Unless you think they're faked? Like the picture of the hooded Iraqis being made to masturbate? That is the kind of prison the US runs. Go on, make a cheap joke about it. I dare you.

Oh, one more example of your 'logic' - this time from another post.

You were asked to demonstrate that the people locked up in Camp X-ray were done so with due reason. Given that the US hasn't told anyone, not their lawyers, nor their family, why anyone has been locked up, it's not surprising you had to dodge the question...

"The only logic that would be needed to be applied here is the fact that the whole of Afganistan isnt in CAmp X ray(some 200 odd are though) !"

I really don't think you understand logic at all. Let's just look at this. (OH NO! More 'petty semantics'! Well, you either know how to think, or you don't. And you don't, so someone has to do it for you.)

The number of people locked up in Camp X-ray is irrelevant to the decision process that went into locking them up. You were asked to show, in effect, that 'due process' had been observed, and all you could come up with is the rather childish retort that 'the whole of Afghanistan' isn't incarcerated.

I think, from now on, I shall try and ignore your posts, as you simply don't know how to construct a logical argument. You may notice that all I have done in this post, for the most part, is use your own words against you to reveal their logical inconsistencies. There's really no point in providing you with links, as they're always 'slanted', although you decline to say why this might be. Mostly, I'm here to exchange information, although filleting your 'logic' has been fun for a little while. Getting bored now, though. Here's your link, detailing the findings of the US group Human Rights First.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Edited to add link.

[edit on 22-2-2006 by rich23]



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Let's try again here.


Originally posted by IAF101

Originally posted by Jakomo
He WAS payed by the CIA when he was a mujaheddin in Afghanistan in the '80's, and he WAS a CIA asset and he WAS armed and trained by the US of A. He was not made by you, but he was made more powerful by you, and then he turned on you. (See Noriega, Marcos, Pinochet, etc)


This is crazy. Do you think that the CIA as much as knew Bin Ladens name when they were fighting the soviets in Afganistan ?


I can't guess if they were aware of him in Afghanistan. But is it really so unreasonable to assume that if MAK was working with ISI, and it was our job to know all the players, and we knew all the warlords, that we would have been aware of the multimillionaire Saudi who surely was factor ?


Firstly, the CIA did not fund Afghan Arabs to fight because they didnt need to, there were enough afghans ready to fight. Secondly the US wanted to disassociate itself with the entire conflict in Afganistan so they funneled their money through the ISI(Pakistan intelligence, if your intelligence didnt know!:@@
, Egypt, KSA, etc. The US didnt support the Arab Afgans they were supported by the Arab states themselves and Osama belonged to this "arab afghan" group.


And yet the Saudis were matching our money, proving their interest and involvement, and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Department and the CIA were hand in hand in their involvement with the ISI.

And to paint a picture as if the USA was off in this little corner, neat and clean just writing checks and whatnot, is misleading.

Even CIA officer Milton Bearden admits that they weren't solely spooking through the ISI:

From www.americaabroadmedia.org...


MB: You would deal primarily through the ISI, but anybody in his right mind would have
his own unilateral means of monitoring things, and I won’t go into that in great extreme,
but it was one of those things that helped me with the oversight and I could say “ok,
here” and start turning through those pages for congressional oversight to show that I just
didn’t shove a billion dollars worth of stuff into the hands of the Pakistanis.



And what about Gulbuddin Hekmatyar?


AAM: And that’s a relevant point because there was increasing, or some,
pressure…concern about Hechmetyar in particular and the mound of weapons that he was
receiving….
MB: Yeah, there always was. There was always a major interest. As I said there’s 7
political parties, the resistance parties. There were really 3 that had got the lion’s share:
(Barahudin Rabani)’s people, the gemiat, (Gobudin Hechmetyar)’s people and
(Unischali’s Chezbi Islami). After that, the other 4 parties were the so-called moderates,
and they got much smaller. But everybody that was getting a lesser amount, and there
was good reason for it because a lot of them would just sell it anyway, would spend more
time on Capitol Hill than they would in the foothills of the Hindu Kush. They’d be on
Capitol Hill complaining, “you know Hechmetyar’s getting 90%”


90 percent of billions. That's a lot of weapons.

But wait, there's more. Which mujahedin groups were OBL working with?

From:

www.globalsecurity.org...


Hekmatyar was friendly with Osama bin Laden when the latter was participating in the war against the Soviets. Bin Laden was linked with the Mujahedin group of Professor Rasul Sayyaf, who allegedly was a Wahhabi.


Oh and guess who's now a terrorist? Why Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who else?

www.state.gov...

And for that measure, how many others ended up as terrorists? So even if you argue that we didn't help train/aid/wtfever OBL, you cannot deny that we HAVE done such things for many others who, if not as prolific as OBL, are no less the USA's enemies.





[edit on 22-2-2006 by Jadette]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
devilwasp:

No the fact is that I trust very little to NOTHING on the web, why?


So who do you trust to get your news from, if you don't do your research yourself?


How simple is it to fake news? Easy as pie.


Ayoye. ONE MORE TIME!

If a reputable news agency publishes false info, they lose readership and advertising dollars. That's why Reuters and AP DO NOT PUBLISH FALSE STORIES.

Is ANY of this getting through to you?


Doesnt help when sadam hides his tanks and long range artillery inside the city in highly populated areas now does it?


No, and it also doesn't help when you pull uncorroborated stories from your backside. Do you have any links that say he was "hiding" long range artillery and tanks inside Baghdad? I'll be right here waiting.


Yeah they did know people where going to die but they had no choice, what would you prefer scalpol or hammer?
I can tell you a lot more would have died if the coalition had simply assaulted the city without targeting the forces inside.


You know what? We're done here.

You constantly rail on me for sources, I PROVE the validity of them, and you just dismiss them and unload with your own 100% uncorroborated info, and wild predictions. A lot more would have died if you didn't bomb Baghdad for 3 days before invading?

We don't even know exactly how many died in those 3 days to begin with, because the US didn't do bodycounts. So what are you basing your info on? What source? Do you even know?

To illustrate my point, you posted a link that shows the extent to which the US has committed war crimes and caused havoc in Iraq.

From YOUR link:

hrw.org...


Human Rights Watch has previously documented violations of international humanitarian law by the U.S.-led coalition forces during the invasion of Iraq until President Bush’s declaration of the end of active hostilities on May 1, 2003.367 The organization has also reported on abuses by U.S. forces during the military occupation of Iraq and since that time, including the torture and humiliation of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and other detention centers.368 The following is only a summary of Human Rights Watch’s major concerns.

During the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the U.S. military took inadequate steps to minimize civilian casualties. The widespread use of cluster munitions in populated areas, especially by U.S. and U.K. ground forces, caused at least hundreds of civilian casualties. In addition, fifty so-called “decapitation strikes” on Iraqi leaders relied on satellite phone call intercepts and corroborating intelligence that proved inadequate, missing all fifty targets but causing dozens of civilian deaths.369 While U.S. and U.K. air forces generally avoided civilian infrastructure, air strikes on civilian power distribution facilities in al-Nasiriyya caused considerable civilian suffering and attacks on Iraqi media installations were of questionable legality. In some instances of direct combat, especially in Baghdad and al-Nasiriyya, problems with training and the rules of engagement for U.S. ground forces may have contributed to loss of civilian life.

After the fall of the Saddam Hussein government and throughout the military occupation of Iraq, the United States had a legal obligation under international humanitarian law to take all measures in its power to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety—an obligation the United States failed to meet.370 U.S. and coalition forces largely stood by as individual Iraqis and organized groups looted government offices, hospitals, and, most dangerously for the country’s security, abandoned police and army depots filled with arms and ammunition.

In the intervening two years, the U.S. military’s use of force has resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths and injuries that warrant investigation as possible indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks in violation of the laws of war. A September 2003 Human Rights Watch study of civilian deaths in Baghdad revealed a pattern by U.S. forces of over-aggressive tactics, indiscriminate shooting in residential areas and a reliance on lethal force rather than control measures at checkpoints. In some cases, U.S. forces faced a legitimate threat, which gave them the right to respond with force.


So, um, after totally destroying your own side of the argument with the link you yourself provided, would you like to conclude with anything?



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Independant

Michael Winterbottom's film shows prisoners in orange jumpsuits beaten, manacled to floors and subjected to deafening music in solitary confinement. It tells the story of Asif Iqbal, Ruhel Ahmed and Shafiq Rasul, the so-called Tipton Three, who set off for Pakistan in September 2001 and ended up in Camp Delta, in Cuba's Guantánamo Bay. They were released without charge after more than two years' imprisonment.

Shafiq Rasul:
"There was a hook on the floor and leg irons attached to the hook, and they put your hands between your ankles on the floor and chained you to the hook on the floor as well. They'd keep you there for five hours, six hours - you couldn't go to the toilet, you'd have to urinate, defecate where you are."

Ruhel Ahmed:
"In US custody in Afghanistan you weren't allowed to talk, you weren't allowed to walk, you weren't allowed to look at the soldiers. If you looked at them, that was it, you would get punished.
"In Guantánamo we used to walk five minutes every week - they used to take us out for five minutes every week. It reminded me of a zoo... there were rats, mice, snakes, scorpions..."

Well, the Road to Guantanamo is Certainly a Movie that will NOT get a Big Premiere in the States, huh? I bet that this kind of movies are quickly labelled as Anti-American and Pro-Terrorist. Anyway, it is made upon real events, if you want to know.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Souljah, You may want to add something here.
If the quote that you gave it "seems" that the film maker actually filmed these events. But if you read the article you will find this:

Mr Winterbottom's film, The Road to Guantanamo, mixes interviews with the Tipton Three with dramatised reconstructions of how they ended up in US military hands.
emphasis mine.
I to can put together a film on any subject basing it off of interviews to show anything that I want. Especially if I base all my information from only one side of a problem. You know ala Mchael Moore.

I am sure that someone can go to any prison in any country including Slovenia, interview recently released prisoners and paint a negative picture of events inside. Especially if they do not go inside themselves to verify the assertions.
One thing that I love about all these condemnations from you and various sources of what the US is doing. They are all jumping to conclusions that are based off of rumours, incomplete data, and interviews from who have their own agendas.
Is this not a case of the pot calling the kettle black? I mean that you and these sources also condem the US for using "intel" from vary similar sources to plan attacks etc. Yet you and your sources have absolutely no problem with doing the samething yourselves.
Hopefully one day in the future, your hatred of the US and everything American will end when you open your eyes and try to get both sides of the story. I am looking forward to that day if it ever comes!



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   
kenshiro:

One thing that I love about all these condemnations from you and various sources of what the US is doing. They are all jumping to conclusions that are based off of rumours, incomplete data, and interviews from who have their own agendas.


Yep, other than all those photos that prove that there was torture.

What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that just because YOU, in America, don't see tons and tons of news about this doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't. Your news is HEAVILY CENSORED compared to the rest of the world.

So what are rumors and incomplete data to you are actually well-known incidents elsewhere. It's just through your own media's complicity with maintaining the status quo that you don't know these things.


Good links here that might open your eyes a bit.

www.fair.org...

www.consortiumnews.com...


In other words, the American system of government as the world has known it for two-plus centuries – with its “unalienable rights” and its “checks and balances” – has effectively come to an end.

Yet this earth-shaking development is barely a news story in the United States. Even when prominent Democrats and some Republicans draw troubling conclusions about Bush’s megalomania, the major news media barely mentions the protests.


[edit on 23-2-2006 by Jakomo]

[edit on 23-2-2006 by Jakomo]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join