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: 8
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

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!

Sadly, after all this time, you still do not Understand a single word I am saying.

I am just trying to Open up Your eyes, because from my Position it looks like, you get a whole different set of news, then the rest of this Planet. You get a very Refined versions. You should see the Headlines in the daily newspaper here in Slovenia, you should see the articles - which I might say, would NEVER get printed in your country. I am sorry, but your constant labelling me, of being anti-american or american hater, as you like to say, is nothing but closing your eyes, when standing in the middle of a 6-lane highway.

But sadly you just do not want to wake up and smell the coffee.

G'Nite, Sir.




posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

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

But I do research stories, I am simply saying we cant trust anything on the web. Why? Because it can be changed.



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 That's why Reuters and AP DO NOT PUBLISH FALSE STORIES.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?

Is any of what I am saying getting through to you?
Many news papers have run stories that are "not true" or "just a rumour" , tell me how they surivive then?




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.

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?



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.

No tanks in baghdad?




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?

A) I provided links that added to my arugment, I have yet to see you provide one that supports yours.



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?

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?
More would not have died if the coalition didnt eliminate targets on the inside of the city?


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.

Yes and how many of these people done so by making a mistake?
Infact, lets have another look at that link I gave shall we?


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.

620 Police men, real military target there.



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.


Or another part:


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

Hmm and you where going on about shock and awe?


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

Right, tell me why are these people not being hounded for human rights abuses when ^ is allowed?

And about courts of law:


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


Oh and another thing:


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

Right and now your telling me the US is worse...right?




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

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. Are you showing a double standard?

Now that would be a first on this board.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   

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?

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 ??


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”.

Thats correct. Is it wrong to answer two different questions in the same paragraph ?

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!!



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

Prove it.

I did, go check the interview he did with the Western journalist.


Quite right. They actually made Stinger anti-aircraft shoulder-held missiles out of ROCKS and MUD.

Apparently, you think that is humor.
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.


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

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. Also if the US did support him it would be more of an embarrasment for the US than to Osama and would also make for much greater headlines. The chance that the Osama admitting to have been aided by the CIA would be way more important news, why would the reporter not highlight that if it were told to him. Even the biased cannot make up facts !
As for Robert Fisk working for the Independent that is true but in 1996 the whole "campaign" against the Bush administration by the so called "Independent" hadnt commenced had it??



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

This sentence make no sense at all ! Neither does it have to do with anything I said.
Maybe you wrote this just to make yourself look convincing !



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

Actually it was the " Independent" that said that Falluajh was held by insurgents. Isnt that your sacrosant source ?



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   

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.

You have made progress but there are still gaps in your understanding.
What I meant is - "if DU is harmfull as you say then surely the soldiers who make extensive use of it would be the most affected".
The other sentence is another response which means- " if we consider DU, then it would be a better protective agent of radiation than an emitter". I gave you the link the an ATS thread on DU and you havent gone through it. That is the cause for your inability to understand.


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,

Finally, you are learning, that is a good sign.

As for reiterating the rumor on DU, it doesnt change its inherent impotence.


"There was nothing petty about my semantics."

Fine, your semantics are "grand" ! Happy ?



"You're just gullible where they're concerned, and clearly take the words of Bush utterly at face value. THAT is naive."

Wow a rebuttal !



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.

Why does it contradict logic ? If you believe that the article shows US influence on the WHO report then surely, it also clearly states that the WHO says that the report is bunk. What logic does not permit is selective assumption of credibility. If one part of it appears to be credible to you then so should the rest of it ! As for the motives of the people who made it there can be many.
A few off the top of my head would be; 1. they were paid to skew their findings 2. The people who made the report had strong bias against the US due to some harm they might have faced perviously 3. the researchers may have been motivated politically by sections in the UN to defame the US.
I could go on with this tangent but the important point is to claim that the Us had a greater agenda than the WHO researchers is fallacious, if you look at it objectively both would appear to have enough reasons.
Also, lets assume that the report is true, what would be the blame on the US, it would just be like the time they used Agent orange in vietnam, the US could claim ignorance about DU lethality, the US wouldnt have anything to loose, they could still use it with impunity, the people who object would just be getting hoarse with no effect.


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.

Thats a good way of saying that you are ignorant to the fact about Iraqi armoured coloums. Maybe you skipped the numerous photos of destroied Iraqi tanks that lined the streets or the heavy tank manuvers during Iraqi Freedom but the fact is that they did happen. There are numerous sources and pictures, but one random one is : news.bbc.co.uk...
The British also used DU shells, just "enlightening you" .
Plus you can go chek up DESERT STORM and SHEILD for more proof of the absolute decisiveness of DU in battle.


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.

Saddam rose to power on his own machinations and not through the CIA's involvement. The latter support that Iraq got was not due to the accolades of Saddam but due to the geo-political situation during the Iran-Iraq wars with the Soviets helping Iran out. It was forced upon the US to help Saddam out lest the situation go in the Soviets favour. As for Kuwait I remember distictly, the US didnt know anything about it till one fine DAY he marched into Kuwait looting and pludering its city. I capitalised "Day" because thats how long he took. Plus with Saddam in control of Kuwait he had half of the entire worlds oil resources to bargain with. Also the US responded very swiftly, I remember very distictly with the commencement of air-strikes and deployment of troops to SA.
As for the other insinuation about Americas past, it is easy to criticise in hindisight about what went wrong and how the US is responsible, but what few take into account is the options and the pressures that the US dealt with in making those decisions. Having death squads or motorcycle gangs in some part of the world are of little consequence to the US and it would always prefer a stable government otherwise like the Al-Qaeda the US would have to come back and set things right by wasting troops and money on the problem. Given the circumstances the US did the best that was possible to maintain democracy and freedoms in the world. Whether you choose to accept this or not doesnt invalidate the facts.



"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.

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.
As for "better future", I think there is an opinion poll that shows 70% iraqis are happy that Saddam has gone. As for the madness that followed the US isnt to blame. 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.



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

Irrelevant to the topic but, are you in the high school ?


True, but only because they swallowed that whopper about the Iraqi people showering the 'liberating' forces with flowers.

The Coalition never believe any such thing. Actually the actual iraqi dont have a problem with it. The foreign insurgents on the other hand see this as stealing. Obviously, the would want Iraq to be left in the ruins it was after the war so that they could build it into an Islamic fundamentalistic paradise and perpetuate their sick form of Islam for evermore(ala Taliban Afganistan) . 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. Also with the reserves Iraq has it would be fooloish to assume that the US could steal it in anything short of 50 years of full fledged exploitation. Obviously the Iraqis insurgents being dumb as they are dont see the larger picture.



The Nazis wanted lebensraum. The US wants oil. They share a contempt for those who stand in their way,

Lebensraum was just a means to an end, which was the rise of the German volk to power unknown. As Hitler writes in Mein Kampf,- to be a street sweeper in Germany would be of greater prestige than a foreign king. That is the rise of the "aryan race" aka Pure blood germans to rule the world.
The US is a complete opposite to all of this. Most of US oil comes form SA which has excellent relation so far with the US. Also the US produces its own oil supplies and imports from other friendly nations in Africa. 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.


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.

Who would that be ? the ones with free homes acting as refugees in the UK or the people who have suffered under Saddam like the Kurds and the Shias ?
It would be foolish to even consider that the common Iraqi is some savy oil merchant when there is no food or water in most places of Iraq for decades. Oil prices rise if anything would be good for Iraq because that would mean that they could get more money from the oil they sell. Almost all teh oil producing nations have made huge profits becasue of this rise. Also it is naive to believe that the rise in prices is soley due to the instability in iraqi supply. The Price rise is more due to increasing demand by the US which is fighting the War on Terror.


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,

Concise?? Its more than 48 pages on the pdf version ! Seriously what are you on?? Have YOU read it ?? I have.
AS for the "history" part of the report, apparently they have left out an important thing called "reality". When they foolishly make a case against PSA, thy forget to mention that when Iraqi oil was required for generating capital for its rebuilding, the Iraqi govt had no money, no manpower and no ability to feed and care for its citizens let alone maintain oil fields and extract oil ready for exporting. The easiest and quickest way would be the PSA model. Say had Saddam fled the country and the transition peacefull such "ideal" solutions would have been realized. But without this important dash of reality, the report is but another vain attempt to bring forth an issue that isnt there.

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.

Apparently you need to understand the term better. It is "Due process" what ever the process maybe, getting access to lawyers, doctors, telephone etc is for criminals and not for terrorists. What they receive is "due process " for terrorists. What this process is exactly is unknown because as I have said before, this knowledge could be used to tamper with evidence. The Govt looks into their file and when they are "satisfied" that the detainee is innocent he/she is released. Also to go to Guantanamo is only possible in case of high suspect terrorists that have valuable information that might save lives.
What your naive perception shows is that you mistake these terrorists for common criminals to be tried in criminal courts!
There are quite a few detainees who the govt has granted legal representation rights and they have contested their detention in US courts. I have already said this but apparently, the "logic" that you so fervently expound helps you skip this point.


The Al-Qaeda manual you quote (and how do you know it's not a forgery, like the Niger yellowcake documents) is irrelevant.

How can it be a forgery when its on the official site for the dept of justice ?
This isnt some witch hunt of the Italian intelligence or the CIA. This is shown as fact on the dept of justice site.
The relevance of it is great, apparently your "logic" doesnt permit you to see how ! What is happening now in Guantanamo and other detention camps is exactly what the book shows, repeated claims of alleged abuse and other tactics like hunger strikes that show by word the tactics that these terrorists employ to deceive the world yet again. But alas the "Aristotle" in you fails to see this "logic" !


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.

By intelligence and interrogation of suspects. Torture in Guantanamo is relative to the recalcitrant behaviour of the detainee. Act up and they will put you down. 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.
Again you brign up this idotic film, who cares, it just shows that there are dime a dozen michelmore wannabes out there.



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:

Getting desperate I see

Well anyway, those are "allegations" that will see the light of truth in due time. The Pentagon has not seen these and apart from the group Human Rights First that feels "extremely comfortable" about the source, there is little to base facts on.


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:

Temper, Temper !

Terrorists are detained in detention centers, as far as the facts go there are no " torture centers" that exist. The purpose of the detention centers is to detain suspects and interrogate them to ascertain the truth and then prosecute them or set them free. 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.


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.

It funny you call that white wash because the ACLU used the same documents in a US court to show as evidence to prove prisioner abuse in Iraq. Those very FBI documents !!
So since you claim them to be white wash, I am sure that "logic" would permit the rational to dismiss the ACLU's assertion that there is prisioner abuse in Iraq! Catch-22 ??
As for your "gulag" epithet, the gauds at a gulag only shot their captives, perhaps too jaded to resort to more creative forms of abuse.



That is the kind of prison the US runs. Go on, make a cheap joke about it. I dare you.

Histrionics now is it ? What next I wonder !


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 was under the impression that you claimed yourself to be a budding "Aristotle" and you cant understand the logic here?? SAD.
Anyway, The people who are sent to camp X ray are the most dangerous of the terrorists caputured or those who have vital intell. This intell is gathered through yet more intell from the ground through intterogation of locals and other captives. Terrorists who on capture fit the profiles generated by this intel would be deemed as high priotity and thus they would be sent to Guantanamo in order to do a through interrogation to ascertain the truth. Terrorists being what they are, this process of ascertaining the truth would be most difficult undernormal conditions and hence a protracted stay is inevitable. There are several other mode of intel and identification that are followed by the CIA but to which I know not about. But common logic would dictate that since the war on terror starter in 2000 there have been only 500 odd detained at Guantanamo and now that number has come down to 200 odd so that shows clearly that if the process was random the US would have had a hell of a lot more people to detain than jsut 200 form the thousands captured in both wars.


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.

Apparently, its logical to dwell on the mundane and resort to semantics but presenting a prespective rationaly is inconsistent logic. Utter ignorance coupled with obtuse understanding seem to be the only thing that has been "reveled" by you.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
This article clearly delineates certain internal aspects of the US decision to torture detainees. It's originally from the New Yorker:

link

It's about Alberto Mora, recently retired General Counsel of the US Navy, and how his efforts to prevent the illegal and "repugnant" torture of detainees were stymied by the offices of Cheney and Rumsfeld.



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.”


It makes clear, in particular, that Rumsfeld authorised torture.



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.”)


What emerges is a picture of a decent man completely outflanked by politicians and their aides who know the torture they condone is illegal but are out to redefine the terms in which it is couched... to try to punch loopholes in the law, in effect.

I suspect many of the posters in this thread will have little idea of what "You'll have My Lais" refers to.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   
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.

You cannot have it both ways. Ho hum. I'm getting bored with making this point.

On my Iraqi friends:



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.


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.

And of course your grasp of history is as selective as your grasp of current events:



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.


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, the US and its allies fomented coups against them. It's kind of a history thing, I wouldn't expect you to understand.

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. He made it absolutely clear that he wasn't going to allow this to continue. Her response was to say that he should sort out his problems as he saw fit. To someone like Saddam, that must have seemed like the green light to invade.

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.

In view of all this, it's little wonder that the US is so quick off the mark... especially with satellite technology and all. If you really think that Saddam could have moved enough troops to the Kuwaiti border undetected, think again. Not that thinking is your strongest suit.



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.


Saying it twice doesn't make it true, you know.

And actually, before Gulf War I and sanctions, Saddam - not that I'm trying to confer sainthood on him, he gassed the people of Halabja, persecuted Kurds and marsh Arabs - 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.



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.


Nurse! He's out of bed again... the medication, please!

You actually can't even see that this is delusional, can you? And the sentences contradict each other. 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? Planet IAF is just a wonderful place. Everything is in black and white and the US would never, ever act out of anything so base as self-interest.

It's just not the real world, though.



Actually the actual iraqi dont have a problem with it. The foreign insurgents on the other hand see this as stealing.


The 'actual iraqi'? Do you 'know their kind'? Which 'actual Iraqis' would this be? Would this be the Kurds, the Sunnis or the Shiites? The ex-Baathists? the really keen ex-Baathists or the ones who were in the party to get along?

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. That whooshing sound you can hear is my point going over your head.



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.


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?




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.


If someone came out with that in a comedy sketch, I'd laugh. But as it comes from, apparently, a real, live, (almost-but-perhaps-not-quite) human being, I can only shake my head. "They torture themselves, if infact there is any torture at all." Hilarious. You can't even see that you're tying yourself in knots, as usual. 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.

But oh, no, IAF just won't believe any of it. It's all lies got up by the enemies of the utterly wonderful USA.

You can't think in a straight line, or face facts. You should be working for Donald Rumsfeld. Or perhaps your real hero, Adolf.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 04:20 AM
link   

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.

My position on DU is clear, anybody with a rational mind would have atleast understood what I have been saying all this time, apparently you cannot. Maybe you have some problem that prevents you from comprehending, some disability perhaps. But I wouldnt want to speculate.

As for the DU on protection, the rate of decay of DU is low thereby generating low radiation and due to its high mass density, it serves as a good proction against more naturally occuring radiation from granite, solar etc.
If you still cant comprehend I suggest you accept your disability because, it cant get any simpler than this.



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.

"Your" Iraqi friends are they ??

And about the "Confess Hate", apparently you have done everything short of declaring your hate for America, Bush and the CIA. Wait I think you have confessed your hate for the Bush administration !
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.
This is not to say, I am a follower/supporter of the Nazi ideology but the above is mere FYI.


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.

Of course they are !
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 ?

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 ??
As for knowing them I do know Iraqi's that are refugees in UK and other parts of Europe. One of them I keep in touch with regularly is in the UK.
These people want to be considered as Euorpeans when they are asked to tow the line but when in the middle east they claim themselves to be true "arabs" ! Apparently, a culture of convenience !



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.

I thought they were too busy working hard sending their "families" all what they can ? They now have time to speculate on the geo-political ramifications of a coalition aciton against Saddam ?
Now with Saddam gone and Iraq slowly getting back on its feet, the situation has come when the UK govt wants these "state guests" to go back, but it would seem that they are too "ingrained" in the UK, working hard buyinh houses and businesses to consider leaving and going back to where they came form . I dont find this as suprising, free accomodation, free education, free healthcare, plus jobs why would they want to leave. Maybe they are allergic to Iraq now, a sort of medical refugee it would appear

Apparently, a "hard working people sending as much money back home as possible" that are refugees know more about the political dynamics of a country most of them have little memory of ! Yet they "realize" that its about oil ? I bet and I am sure most people already realize what "they" are all about. This is not to say that I hate them but rather that I "understand" their motives.
Again the NAzi slurs, apparently being well read is racist and facist !! Perhaps if you add more labels, it would show the maturity of your posts. Calling me Nazi would be utterly foolish to say the least. When devoid of facts, start calling names, classic !



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,

Democratic Governments ? They were nothing more than a sham. The CIA did support democracy but little did it realize the Arab propensity towards autocracy. The mockery these Iraqi's carried out only reinforced autocratic forces to take over. As for using the resources for their people, that is another lie, apperently socialist brainwashing by the Soviets seemed to have doomed their future and the future of Democracy in that region.
Iran still proclaims to be democratic, if that is what they call it, no matter how the people vote, its fundamentalists and fundamentalists. If you call that democracy, then you are free to delude yourself further.


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.

Okay now its the old, Glaspie conspiracy thing over again ! What next will you take us through the entire Arab history through the crusades to claim Western deceit every step of the way ?
The Glaspie minutes clearly mention that she said that the US was concerned about the troop build up along the Kuwait border. Also she told saddam that he should slove his alleged problems with Mubarrak and The Arab League. Saddam being the despot took little notice of this and merely say Glaspie as a FedEx to Bush. Even Tariq Aziz in the PBS interview collaborates these facts and confirms that the IRaqis were certaint that the US would respond with force if they attacked Kuwait. The Iraqis apparently were miffied with Kuwaits refusal to comply with Iraqi dictums and they used the old reasonoing that Kuwait was historically belonged to Iraq and thus they were uniting etc to appease the locals. While proclaiming internationally that Kuwait was selling excess. But you can bring on more of such propaganda to claim as " proof" of American duplicity but the world already has gotten past this peice of propaganda.


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.

Duh! Its a war, US allies were getting Bombed with Scuds, obviously they would ask the US to support them with men and weapons. Why dont you use the very logic that you expound ?



- 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.

You mean the massive underground bunkers or the chemical weapons plants the were in his building program ? As for the mortality rates, I dont this the official census took into account the gassing and genocide of Kurds that took place before Storm and Sheild . Also when you say doing quite well does it mean that he was doing quite well by having Kofi give him cash for all the oil he sold so that he could buy more weapons for the army or do you refer to the way in which he swindled the money to fill his own coffers while letting Iraqis starve ?



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?

Because even though democracy may have a foothold stability required to set up oil fileds and supply them would take a long time. Especially when Iraq is surrounded with neighbours like Syria, a close ally of saddam and Iran that wants to turn Iraq into another Islamic republic.
It would take years for democracy to stabilize and become and integral part of Iraq before stability can be acheived to make oil production safe and secure.



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.

Probably since you have no more propaganda to dish out, you find yourself empty. It happens to those who use sensationalism and propaganda as a resource.
"torture" and "Due Process" have both shown to be popular epithets used by the pro-terrorist supporters to further their cause. Even that Alberto Mora has said that after the abberation from standard operating procedure in Iraqi detention facilites such activites have almost vanished.



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?

Saying that terrorists are poor is racist ? I guess you like calling people names, very grade school dont you think

These prisioners are hardened terrorists, having given their life for the death of innocents makes them indifferent to death, coupled with a guilty consious this only make s them want to die even more.
The strategies that they employ like claiming to be tortured and going on hunger strikes is by the book training manual Al-Qaeda stuff. They seek to exploit western sympathy and use it against as a leverage expedite their return to their ways of death. Some people unfortunately fall for this tactic and see themselves as "pseudo-saviours".
All these tactics clearly show that these people even though incarcerated do not show remorse or anysign of co-operating, instead resorting to other means to deceive the world.



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.

What I have stated is quite clear. Any form of alleged torture would be a result of their own actions. These detainees unlike others resort to attacking the gaurds and turining violent against their captors when given the chance, the gaurds would obviously have to use force to put this sort of behaviour donw and thus utilize force. In essence, it is the detainees who turn violent and beget more violence from the gaurds in order to contain them. Also most of the claims of torture are quite vauge, apparently non-mulsims touching the Quran is torture, so is being handcuffed and locked up in a cell . What people have to understand is that Guantanamo is a detention facility and not a spa to house Terrorists.

If being pushed and cuffed is considered as torture, then these terrorists forget that beheading people on tape is demonic to say the least. Moreover the abuse pictures that you refer to are those acts that do not conform to the standard practices of US detention facilites and these abberation have been investigated and the quilty put to task. What happens on Guantanamo however is quite different with professional prison gaurds that operate within the stipulated modes of functioning.
The people who have been released from Guantanamo only claim to have heard of other torture but never witnessed or experienced anything that can be called as torture. Also even if they arent Al-Qaeda their methods can easily be employed by them as a majority of them are from Al-Qaeda the minority who arent will be influenced by them.


You should be working for Donald Rumsfeld. Or perhaps your real hero, Adolf.

Again bringing it down to Nazi and hitler. I think there is a law on discussion which states that when a side has nothing more to add in their diffence the probability of accusing the other of Nazism increases exponentialy to reach 1.
That is the case here sadly. Maybe if you confer with more of your fellow pro-terrorist lobbists you might come up with more propaganda in your defence.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
devilwasp:

Many news papers have run stories that are "not true" or "just a rumour" , tell me how they surivive then?


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.


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?


“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.


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?


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”.


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.


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.

IAF:

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 ??


? 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? Sorry, stretch.


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!!


Aye, too difficult for you to grasp. 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.

You’re saying, “No the CIA would not have funded him on purpose but they might have done it by accident?” Can you verify that?


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.


LOL! I didn’t realize the Stingers were strictly for the locals, and any foreign Arab fighters didn’t use them. Did they have some kind of contract they had to sign? Haha. Flounder much?


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


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".

But I don’t know as much about his ideology as you do, apparently.

Careful, your ignorance is showing.



jako

And that's it for me on this thread. Both of you are so far disconnected from actual logic and what we'll call the "real world" that you don't even seem to realize you are brazenly displaying your ignorance and your naivete to everyone. Thanks, I'll see you on another thread. Good luck with the closedmindedness.


[edit on 24-2-2006 by Jakomo]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   
IAF - I know English is not your first language - which is why I would never poke fun at your spelling or grammar. Fair play to you for writing posts here. But you do need to pay attention. (Evidently a problem for you)

You said:



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 ?


And yet YOU quoted ME as saying how hard-working they are, how they run their own businesses, own their own homes. The state has given them nothing. They are productive citizens.

But we're dealing with your warped mind, here, so reality, as ever, is not the issue:



"Your" Iraqi friends are they ??


They are indeed, and for that reason I know rather more about them than you. Is there any reason why I shouldn't have Iraqi friends? I dare say you wouldn't stoop to making friends with anyone with a different skin colour or culture... which is why you find it amusing that I should. Oh, sorry, you claim to be in touch with one... that snapping sound was my credulity being stretched past the breaking point.



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.


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.



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 ??


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. And you know what? Just like anyone else, they have time to read the papers and discuss the news... and are, unlike you, intelligent enough to think for themselves without resorting to stereotypes.

But sadly, that's all you can do. Anyone picked up and flown to Guantanamo should be grateful they're not "living in a mud hut" (your words). They "torture themselves". Any fact that contradicts this world-view is "terrorist propaganda". 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. "Confess hate" is pretty apt for you. There's a lot of hatred and anger in you, and I suppose it must blind you to much of reality, make it hard for you to think straight... and win you few friends.



"torture" and "Due Process" have both shown to be popular epithets used by the pro-terrorist supporters to further their cause.


Ah, of course. It's not that people care about civilised values if they use the words "torture" and "due process": they're "pro-terrorist supporters". You do see things in such stark terms. Everyone in Guantanamo is guilty, otherwise they wouldn't be there. And they torture themselves. (That's my favourite of all your rants, "they torture themselves". 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!)

I'm really here for an exchange of information - and I have found some on other threads - and lively debate. You're so divorced from reality that you actually think Iraq is doing ok. All the testimony and evidence to the contrary you can safely dismiss as propaganda, while swallowing the USBS whole. The country is slipping into civil war - and I'm not sure that the US and the UK aren't provoking that. I did like to think that the UK soldiers were a bit better behaved than the US', but sadly we now have videotape showing that this isn't the case.



f being pushed and cuffed is considered as torture, then these terrorists forget that beheading people on tape is demonic to say the least.


ATS thread - Nick Berg Beheading Was Staged

Well, it's been fun but I doubt you'll ever see how much you contradict yourself...



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Hi Jakomo, nice posts but...


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)?



And of course they're probably banging the war drums about Iran now, not that I've looked lately.

[edit on 24-2-2006 by rich23]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Rich23:

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)?


They canned Judith Miller almost the second she got out of jail. They issued apologies that their info was inaccurate.

www.truthout.org...


And their readership went down as a result... So did their credibility.

GREAT site:

www.fair.org





[edit on 24-2-2006 by Jakomo]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   

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.

urrgh so your setting restrictions?


“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.

Mabye you did read the other link I posted AFTER that statement..



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”.

So because it doesnt do body counts your now saying if the US had left the iraqi army intact and just attacked the city the US with tanks, gunships and B-52's there would not have been more deaths....right?
I am not pulling facts out my ass, come on! Look at the siutation, would you rather the armed forces use a scalpol or use a hammer?



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?

Third world country guerrillas? They're a little bit more heavily armed than that, I am not defending the US by crying "but thier doing it to!" I am simply showing the other side, is that wrong?
Oh and if you want to call me a nazi just send me a brown shirt.


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.

So wait, its OUR fault that the insurgents are killing people, right..
Illegal? Tell me , is this the same "illegal" that the UN defines or is it the same "Illegal" that everyone ignores apart from when western countries break it?


The total lack of security in Iraq is the responsibility of the Occupying Force. Read the Geneva Convention.

Yeah mabye you should too, if you hadnt notice police and emergancy services are PROTECTED BY IT.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Ahh, the UN. What a bunch of crooked b's they are. I happen to think they are correct and its a disgrace.

Perhaps this is why so many prophecies say the UN will invade the USA in order to save us from ourselves.

Do it quick, do it now!!



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
The U.S. does not care what the UN has to say nor has it ever. Gitmo is an illegal institution whose sole purpose of creation constituted disregarding international law.

Luxifero



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
devilwasp:

Mabye you did read the other link I posted AFTER that statement..


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.


Look at the siutation, would you rather the armed forces use a scalpol or use a hammer?


ROFL. So you're saying they used a SCALPEL? You're saying it was a series of SURGICAL STRIKES?!?

www.time.com...


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.


They dropped over 3000 bombs on Baghdad in those first two days. That's SURGICAL? Dropping ordnance from fighter planes onto city streets?

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.


So wait, its OUR fault that the insurgents are killing people, right..


Yes. According to the Geneva Conventions:

www.hrw.org...


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.


Failed, failed, and failed. Yes, their blood IS on your hands. All of it.



Yeah mabye you should too, if you hadnt notice police and emergancy services are PROTECTED BY IT.


In English?



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   

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.

Only one ? I can name atleast 10 !
The Gaurdian, Gulf Times, The Mirror, The Irish Independent, Le Monde, Le Monde Diplomatique, Al Mansar, Filisteen Al-Muslima, Al-Jazirah, Syrian times, Al Alam, Tehran Times are only some that come to mind. Mind you, these are massive newspapers in the regions and they come form and they have been running from ages, catering to a large and varied customer base.



If it was true and it was on television, there will be corroboration out there, let me know where you find it.

DU kicked IRAQi armour! That is a fact, look up this pre Iraqi Freedom article:
news.bbc.co.uk...



These “insurgents” weren’t there before the invasion, they appeared as resistance to the occupation. Without an occupation there are no insurgents.

How do you know this ?There is no proof of this ? Just because there were fewer acts of terrorism doesnt mean that these insurgents were not there !


The total lack of security in Iraq is the responsibility of the Occupying Force. Read the Geneva Convention.

LOL> YOU talking about the Geneva Convention ??
Apparently you were under the impression that ever street thug that was picked up in Iraq is a POW ! Now you'r preaching about 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?

What !? These people are not steet thugs, they are princes, who are mostly educated abroad and have massive amounts of money in the west !
How can the CIA recruit them to do field work ?? Some of the more wahabbi elements might support popular arab causes but that is not to say that they are under the CIA. Do you think that these people have no self identity ? They dont need instigation by the CIA to lend their support to belligerants !



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.

Nothing in my posts are uncorroborated. I have also posted many links from Bin Laden interviews and official documents that show that Bin Laden had never been contacted by the CIA. What you have shown is popular "opinion" and not fact. Apparently, commondreams dot com is what you consider as a credible source. It is nothing more than the name suggests, a Common "dream" not fact. Adding to the links I have also explained the logic behind my assertions and why the CIA would not need to contact Osama Bin Laden.
You need to perpetually vilify the US through some misconstrued, circumstancial data only substantiates my assertion that your logic flies in the face of fact and reason.



LOL! I didn’t realize the Stingers were strictly for the locals, and any foreign Arab fighters didn’t use them.

This statement shows that you havent read the link I presented. US support in Afganistan was to only the indegenious resistence and not to the foreign elements that sort to make it an Islamic cause. Why cant you understand this simple logic ?



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".

But thats not what you said before is it ?


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

First you say that it was "godless" yanks and then you say that it was "US military presence" that Osama was against ! Which is it atheistic ideals or military excuberence ? Because neither is true !


Careful, your ignorance is showing.

You are right about this. This blatant exhibition on your part is indeed quite revealing.

IAF



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   

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.

LOL Not my first language and yet YOU cannnot even understand simple sentences ? Well surely, I rather not have it as my first language if my ability to comprehend it is as dismal as yours.
About the Spelling and syntax, I admit my last post was untoward for my standards but I was in a hurry.



And yet YOU quoted ME as saying how hard-working they are, how they run their own businesses, own their own homes.

My reply was meant to be 'sarcastic' and by that I implied that this is the poppycock that these refugees feed us. Clearly, the visual aid ( face with its eyes rolled) I provided must have given some hint !


They are indeed, and for that reason I know rather more about them than you.

Petty jibes aside, what I meant to convey was my incredulity to your claim, rather than any racist insinuations. Apparently the ability to continually misconstrue what is written has become your forte or is it that you act so obtuse on purpose ? ( *do I need to add any "visual aids" here ? )



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.

Apparently, ignorance is bliss in your case. Unfortunately I do not conform to such a credo.


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!

So you mean that every US detention facility is a "torture camp" and evey Iraqi in the UK is a pious angel ? Is this the 'suave' stereotype ??
(*)


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.

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.


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.

Not submitting myself to pro-terrorist agenda doesnt make me facist does it ? Seeing past the smoke and mirrors that this propaganda has put up makes me 'racist' and facist apparently. I guess you, with your infinite love for all people, accept any and all the "facts" that Al-Qaeda and its ancillary units spew out!

As for hate, is it hateful to resist popular delusion. Moreover, people have every right to hate terrorists, with all the destruction and terror they have cause here and in the world.


(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!)

Most of it is to gather sympathy from the Western world and part of it is guilt. They want to die defying the West, either by fooling the West by their sympathy drive or by killing westerners. Their guilt also plays up this need to die unconciously.

From these posts I have observed that you have steadily shifted from one subject to another, always trying to malign the US with your propaganda and on failing to do, move on to another topic and then another. Each time facing stark facts and logic that yu refuse to accept and instead turn it on me.
Apparently, in your jaunt through reality you have forgotten to mention DU or the FBI documents or the Glaspie rebuttal or any of the dozen other facts that I have shown clearly free the US from any duplicity. Apparently, it requires much less effort to label people than accept the facts.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I think the level of abuse speaks for itself when we cant even post pictures as to not offend anyone with weak stomachs...



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   
IAF - I have continually pointed out your lapses of logic and how you constantly contradict yourself. I grow tired of going over the same ground. Your "heroic stand against pro-terrorist propaganda" looks like the usual denial of the colonial aspirations of most western states (not just the US, though that is the egregious and most dangerous example).

That wasn't a 'rebuttal' about Glaspie, btw. You just denied what I wrote. It's not the same thing. It's getting dull, as is this kind of vile slander.



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.


As I've said, this kind of hate-speak will win you few friends. You're on ignore.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join