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.
Originally posted by kenshiro2012
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!
Originally posted by Jakomo
So who do you trust to get your news from, if you don't do your research yourself?
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 That's why Reuters and AP DO NOT PUBLISH FALSE STORIES.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?
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.
A few hours later, an Iraqi minister was to tell the world that the Republican Guard had just retaken the airport from the Americans, that they were under fire but had won "a great victory". Around Qadisiya, however, it didn't look that way. Tank crews were gunning their T-72s down the highway past the main Baghdad railway yards in a convoy of armoured personnel carriers and Jeeps and clouds of thick blue exhaust fumes. The more modern T-82s, the last of the Soviet-made fleet of battle tanks, sat hull down around Jordan Square with a clutch of BMP armoured vehicles.
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.
The Iraqi government released updated figures in July 2005, based on information from the ministries of health, interior and defense. In the first six months of 2005, the government said, civilian deaths from bombings, assassinations and armed clashes with insurgents totaled 1,594. During this time insurgents killed 895 members of the Iraqi security forces (275 soldiers and 620 police).38 Again, not all civilian deaths reflect violations of the laws of war.
In April 2005, Iraq’s Minister of Human Rights said insurgents had killed 6,000 civilians and wounded 16,000 over the previous two years.
Instill fear in the civilian population. Attacks also may aim to induce Iraqis who support the new government to lose faith in the ability of the government and the Multi-National Force to provide security
All westerners in Iraq are part of the foreign occupation. Regardless of their role in Iraq, be it as construction contractors, journalists or humanitarian aid workers, all foreigners are considered elements or potential elements of a foreign occupation. According to a statement by a group called the Assadullah Brigades (Lion of God Brigades), for example, “the mujahid [holy fighter] is entitled to capture any infidel that enters Iraq, whether he works for a construction company or in any other job, because he could be a warrior, and the mujahid has the right to kill him or take him as a prisoner.”52 According to the group, “any foreigner working here should be killed or abducted
Executions are carried out according to law. At least one insurgent group has justified an execution because it was carried out after a legal review. On July 21, 2005, al-Qaeda in Iraq abducted two Algerian diplomats, `Ali Belaroussi and Azzedine Belkadi, and executed them six days later. “The judicial court of the Organization of al-Qaeda in Iraq has sentenced to death the diplomatic envoys of the apostate Algerian government,” a statement posted to the Internet said.57
A statement from Jaysh Muhammad, for example, a Sunni group with a strong Islamist bent......"Kidnapping is an obligation,” he said. “It is not prohibited by religion, if it is done to foreigners who cooperate with the occupation.”70
So, um, after totally destroying your own side of the argument with the link you yourself provided, would you like to conclude with anything?
Originally posted by Jakomo
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”.
Bin laden was one amongst the many hordes of fighters that fought the Soviets as the Mujahideen.
Prove it.
Quite right. They actually made Stinger anti-aircraft shoulder-held missiles out of ROCKS and MUD.
LOL! Yeah, I am sure he would want to crow about the fact that the godless Yanks helped the Arabs beat the Russians.
If it takes training to set a roadside bomb then you’re wrong. And I imagine it does. So you’re wrong.
Because your government told you, and they have no reason to lie.
Originally posted by rich23
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.
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,
"There was nothing petty about my semantics."
"You're just gullible where they're concerned, and clearly take the words of Bush utterly at face value. THAT is naive."
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.
I don't remember any of the armoured divisions providing any resistance. Perhaps you can enlighten me with some links to big tank battles where DU armour really made a difference.
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.
"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.
No. It's called HISTORY. People study it, and for good reason. You obviously don't.
True, but only because they swallowed that whopper about the Iraqi people showering the 'liberating' forces with flowers.
The Nazis wanted lebensraum. The US wants oil. They share a contempt for those who stand in their way,
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.
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,
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.
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.
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:
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:
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.
That is the kind of prison the US runs. Go on, make a cheap joke about it. I dare 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.
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.
The day after Mora’s first meeting with Brant, they met again, and Brant showed him parts of the transcript of Qahtani’s interrogation. Mora was shocked when Brant told him that the abuse wasn’t “rogue activity” but was “rumored to have been authorized at a high level in Washington.” The mood in the room, Mora wrote, was one of “dismay.” He added, “I was under the opinion that the interrogation activities described would be unlawful and unworthy of the military services.” Mora told me, “I was appalled by the whole thing. It was clearly abusive, and it was clearly contrary to everything we were ever taught about American values.”
Mora was less impressed. Beaver’s brief, his memo says, “was a wholly inadequate analysis of the law.” It held that “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment could be inflicted on the Guantánamo detainees with near impunity”; in his view, such acts were unlawful. Rumsfeld’s December 2nd memo approving these “counter-resistance” techniques, Mora wrote, “was fatally grounded on these serious failures of legal analysis.”
(Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired military officer who was a chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, had a similar reaction when he saw Rumsfeld’s scrawled aside. “It said, ‘Carte blanche, guys,’ ” Wilkerson told me. “That’s what started them down the slope. You’ll have My Lais then. Once you pull this thread, the whole fabric unravels.”)
Ah! you are refering to those who fled form Saddam and came to the refugee haven of Europe, the UK. I know of a few of them too, want to be identified as arabs but dont want to be treated as one. I know there kind.
The region hasnt known democracy or freedom in all its existence and when it is introduced, there is bound to be a period of unrest before the situation settlesdown as in any transition.
The Coaltion had other plans, Iraqi oil was seen as an asset that could be used to rapidly speed up the process of development much like Saudi Arabia did. Also the Colation never planned to take the oil fields form the Iraqis, it was mainly meant as a tool of development.
The idea that the US would be able to get oil easy in Iraq was never really part of its objectives because any analyst worth his salt knows that this is shear fantasy. The main idea was to get a foothold for democracy in the Middle east.
Actually the actual iraqi dont have a problem with it. The foreign insurgents on the other hand see this as stealing.
This would take time and since these people are jobless and live in mud shelters to begin with Guantanamo seems like a good place to spend the time rather then letting them be potential dangers in Iraq.
So in essence, torture is brought on by the detainees refusal to co-operate. In essence they torture themselves, if infact there is any torture at all.
Originally posted by rich23
IAF - Your most insulting post yet. I must be having some effect, but you're incapable of seeing that your position on DU is untenable. You've admitted that it emits alpha radiation (although you seemed to confuse this with gamma radiation), and yet you claim it's a protective agent.
On my Iraqi friends:
Wow, that 'confess hate' on your avatar really says something about you. Why not put a little swastika in there with it? Go on, you know you want to.
The Iraqis I know have lived here for years and are some of the nicest, most reliable people I know. You "know their kind"? I doubt it. They run their businesses and work hard to try to send back as much money as they can. They own their homes which were bought with the product of hard work.
They also understand that it's about the oil. With each new post you reveal yourself to be more of a fascist and a racist. I note that you can quote Mein Kampf with ease. It's no surprise.
Actually, both Iran and Iraq had democratic governments in the 1950s, but when the democratic process produced Presidents (Mossadegh and Qasim, respectively) who wanted to use their country's natural resources for the benefit of their own people,
As for Gulf War I, a few weeks before it broke out, Dubya's dad sent a special envoy to see Saddam. Her name was April Glaspie. Minutes of their meeting are available on the internet. You can, if you want, look it up. Saddam was very upset about Kuwait. They were overproducing on their oil quotas and slant-drilling into Iraqi oil reserves.
April Glaspie has a gagging order preventing her from discussing this meeting.
Before GWI, the US was the fourth-ranked supplier of arms to the region: after, it rocketed into first position. Funny, that. It also got to build more of its lovely bases.
- was doing quite well with using Iraqi oil for development. He inaugurated a massive civil building program (not just his own palaces) and Iraq actually had the lowest infant mortality rate of the region.
Why should it be possible to get a foothold for democracy (ooh, THAT's going SO well, isn't it?) but sheer fantasy to get the oil?
Getting bored now... "due process", like "torture", resists redefinition to suit the ends of those in power. The link about Alberto Mora in my previous post makes that abundantly clear.
Such breathtaking racism... but if G'mo were so great compared to what they've known, how come so many are trying to kill themselves through hunger strike and are having to be force fed?
Is there torture, or not? We have photo and video evidence, we have testimonies from people who have been released - and are, therefore, presumably not Al-Qaeda members, so that handbook is irrelevant - and we have evidence from people inside the administration who fought to prevent torture being used, and failed.
You should be working for Donald Rumsfeld. Or perhaps your real hero, Adolf.
Many news papers have run stories that are "not true" or "just a rumour" , tell me how they surivive then?
Most of the iraiqi armour was destroyed outside the city but he was hiding forces inside, did you not watch CNN and see the AA vehicles moving around the city?
Your now telling me if the US had gone with its original plan of forcing iraqi armour into the centre of baghdad using armour, rocket and air assests more would NOT have died?
Your now defining what MY argument is about....right then.....did you even READ the link that I gave you? It throughly lists actions by insurgents against iraqi civilians, yet you refuse to comment on this.
There are thousands of rich people in Saudi Arabia, the Saud family itself has around 10,000 princes. So the CIA is going to recruit all of them ??
They didnt know who he was and they didnt finance him exclusively, as in he was one of the hundreds of people who were fighting in Afganistan and he might have used a stinger or availed other assistence the US was giving to the cause of Afgan freedom.
Apparently, this information is too difficult to grasp!!
Stingers were given to the Afghan fighters and not to the Arabs. Osama is in no way connected to these fighters as he was an arab.
This shows that you know absolutely nothing about Osama or his ideology.
Osama knows that Americans are a free society that is secular, he also knows that Bush is a christian and he also knows that the Muslims follow the same god.
Just because this doesnt suit your viewpoint that doesnt mean that it isnt fact
These Iraqi's claim persecution in Iraq against them and their families, acts of genocide agaisnt them. The govt in UK then not only gives then refugee status but also lavishes them with houses, free education, healthcare, jobs, social security benefits. The accomodation they receive from the govt is better than most people who have worked hard can earn on their own. Plus add to this support for their families and relatives all planting themselves enmasse granted free accomodation and state benefits. Why wouldnt they be "nice" and "reliable" if they get all this for nothing ?
"Your" Iraqi friends are they ??
As for the nazi prattle, the swastika, is more for skin heads and effect, the real followers of the philosophy dont have much regard for it as symbols are a plenty.
They claim to have left Iraq becasue Saddam was persecuting their families and commiting genocide. Yet now magically they have a family again that requires them to "send back as much money as they can" ? What family can there be when Saddam was supposed to have killed them all ? Do these people consider "Al Qaeda" as family ??
"torture" and "Due Process" have both shown to be popular epithets used by the pro-terrorist supporters to further their cause.
f being pushed and cuffed is considered as torture, then these terrorists forget that beheading people on tape is demonic to say the least.
Fine, give me an example of a paper that has consistently run false stories and rumors and that has continued being successful and maintained its’ readership. A NEWSPAPER, not a tabloid. A reputable news organization.
How about the New York Times? They printed all that stuff about WMD... is Judith Miller the name I'm looking for (just off the top of my head)?
Originally posted by Jakomo
Fine, give me an example of a paper that has consistently run false stories and rumors and that has continued being successful and maintained its’ readership. A NEWSPAPER, not a tabloid. A reputable news organization.
“I watched it on CNN” is not a source. If it was true and it was on television, there will be corroboration out there, let me know where you find it.
No, YOU’RE telling me that you know for a fact that if the US hadn’t have bombed Baghdad first there would have been more casualties. I’m saying you have no way of knowing this, and are talking through your arse, making up “facts”. I’m saying we can’t know because we don’t even know how many civilians died in the first place because the US “doesn’t do bodycounts”.
It DOES thoroughly list actions by insurgents.
It also clearly delineates the number and sheer scope of war crimes the US is committing in Iraq, which you seem to defend by saying that the insurgents do worse. Nice comparison. Professional army vs Third World country guerrillas. You're not doing as bad as the Nazis did either, is that comforting?
These “insurgents” weren’t there before the invasion, they appeared as resistance to the occupation. Without an occupation there are no insurgents. It all trickles down from the original Illegal Invasion, so all the blood is on US/UK hands.
The total lack of security in Iraq is the responsibility of the Occupying Force. Read the Geneva Convention.
Mabye you did read the other link I posted AFTER that statement..
Look at the siutation, would you rather the armed forces use a scalpol or use a hammer?
The plan to drop as many bombs on Iraq in the first 48 hours of the war as were dropped in the entire 1991 Gulf War is designed to smash the regime's power centers and demonstrate to the Iraqi military that the regime they're deployed to defend has already ceased functioning. Washington hopes the "shock and awe" air campaign will prompt the bulk of the Iraqi military to allow the U.S. and its allies to occupy the country without a fight.
So wait, its OUR fault that the insurgents are killing people, right..
An occupying power has a duty to ensure public order and safety in the territory under its authority. Under customary international law, this duty begins once a stable regime of occupation has been established. But under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the duty attaches as soon as the occupying force exercises control or authority over civilians of that territory -- that is, at the soonest possible moment (a principle reflected in U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10).
Military commanders on the spot must prevent and where necessary suppress serious violations involving the local population under their control or subject to their authority. The occupying force is responsible for protecting the population from violence by third parties, such as newly formed armed groups or forces of the former regime. Ensuring local security includes protecting persons, including minority groups and former government officials, from reprisals and revenge attacks.
Yeah mabye you should too, if you hadnt notice police and emergancy services are PROTECTED BY IT.
Originally posted by Jakomo
I didn't, because you didn't post any links in or since that post.
Are you under the impression you did? Once you find your corroboration, I'll be here.
[]/quote]
Sorry I just qouted it:
www.countercurrents.org...
ROFL. So you're saying they used a SCALPEL? You're saying it was a series of SURGICAL STRIKES?!?
www.time.com...
You want to see what is not surgical?
The US could have flattened baghdad and various other positions with ease , come on have you not seen the destructive power of a carpet bomb?
They dropped over 3000 bombs on Baghdad in those first two days. That's SURGICAL? Dropping ordnance from fighter planes onto city streets?
Those 3000 bombs are precision.
And before you start in on the “Oh but they were PRECISION weapons”, I would ask you to do this little experiment. Take a 2000 bomb, place it in a 3 foot wide square in the middle of your street, and detonate it. Watch how it EXPLODES, and how everything within a 2000 meter radius is shredded. Bone, flesh, wood, whatever is there, there is NO PRECISION.
Actually everything inside 110 feet gets hit by the blast atleast personel wise and fragmentation CAN repeat CAN reach 3000 metres.
A bullet will continue going for over a mile before it runs out of momentum then hits something, are you calling a bullet unprecise?
Yes. According to the Geneva Conventions:
Yes note something:
that is, at the soonest possible moment (a principle reflected in U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10).
They are in the process of doing so , unless you think this can be acomplished in less than 24 hours. If you can provice an effective solution I suggest you forward it to the MOD or the DOD as soon as physically possible.
Failed, failed, and failed. Yes, their blood IS on your hands. All of it.
Wrong , wrong and wrong.
The blood is not on thier hands, they did not pull the trigger nor orginise it.
They are fighting to stop that.
In English?
You want a dictionary?
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
Notice the taking no parts in hostiles, hospitals and policemen do not take part in hostilities.
Originally posted by Jakomo
give me an example of a paper that has consistently run false stories and rumors and that has continued being successful and maintained its’ readership.
If it was true and it was on television, there will be corroboration out there, let me know where you find it.
These “insurgents” weren’t there before the invasion, they appeared as resistance to the occupation. Without an occupation there are no insurgents.
The total lack of security in Iraq is the responsibility of the Occupying Force. Read the Geneva Convention.
Is this some sort of defense for your argument? If they would recruit one bin laden why wouldn’t they recruit all 10,000 of them?
We’ve posted many links that SHOW there was a link between the CIA and bin laden, that they knew who he was. I am going according to facts that I find, you are making wild uncorroborated statements.
LOL! I didn’t realize the Stingers were strictly for the locals, and any foreign Arab fighters didn’t use them.
Bin Laden is more concerned about US military presence in the Arab world, American control of Arab resources, and its’ support for Israel at the expense of the Palestinians than he is in your "society" or your "freedoms".
Yeah, I am sure he would want to crow about the fact that the godless Yanks helped the Arabs beat the Russians.
Careful, your ignorance is showing.
Originally posted by rich23
IAF - I know English is not your first language - which is why I would never poke fun at your spelling or grammar.
And yet YOU quoted ME as saying how hard-working they are, how they run their own businesses, own their own homes.
They are indeed, and for that reason I know rather more about them than you.
Hmm. For someone who claims not to be a Nazi, you seem to know a lot about the "real followers of the philosophy". I'm afraid that this, plus your evident racism, undermines your denial.
Just as every inmate of a US torture camp is a terrorist, every Iraqi in the UK must conform to your boorish stereotypes. I bet this Iraqi with whom you claim to be in touch REALLY likes you. Not!
In fact the guys I know were related to a general in Qasim's military who had to flee when the coup began. They've been over here a long time and have a large extended family in Iraq.
If I call you a fascist, it's because I genuinely see racist and fascist views coming across. As for being childish, I'm not the one littering my posts with those puerile animated faces.
(Yup, they put the hoods on and hook themselves up to the mains all by themselves. Well, you know, what with being so conscience-stricken and all because of all the innocents they've blown up. Except they're trained killers who don't care about human life... which IS it? You've got me so confuuuuuused!)
Must have been real 'champions' of freedom and democracy to have "had to flee" when trouble began. Apparently, the sham they called democracy wasnt 'capable' of uniting all their brethren, so they just "had" to run, extended families be dammed it would seem. But now, all those extended families appear again from the shadows, after a good 5 decades, needing 'all the money they can get'. Convincing isnt it ?Must have been real 'champions' of freedom and democracy to have "had to flee" when trouble began. Apparently, the sham they called democracy wasnt 'capable' of uniting all their brethren, so they just "had" to run, extended families be dammed it would seem. But now, all those extended families appear again from the shadows, after a good 5 decades, needing 'all the money they can get'. Convincing isnt it ?
As for their intelligence I am certain they possess enough to beguile the UK govt into granting them refugee status. Certainly enough to get a free life.