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.

 

ATS: Newly Translated Documents Reveal Saddam Had To Have Terrorist Ties

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   


Muadibb

The idea might sound a little stupid, but exacty because of that it could have been a very effective plan.


Yeah, I’m sure the "Camels of mass destruction" were an imminent threat to Britain, Australia, America, and "the rest of the civilised world".

"To all the great peoples from the Coalition of the willing, please be vigilant for Camels of mass destruction. Thank you."



Muadibb

Coalition forces were looking for bombs in cars, not in camel, and i don't understand how some people don't believe this.


I don't understand how some people can believe this. How many Camel attacks have you heard of? 0. If this was such a mastermind plan, why didn't they use it?



Muadibb

This is the same sor tof people that would use their own children, and the children of the neighbor, as a suicide bomber.


Your Nation, as well as mine, also sacrifice their own Children in times of War, although the method is somewhat different to that of a Suicide bomber.



Muadibb

I still see some people not wanting to believe the connection between Sadam and terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda before the beginning of the war, and until he was ousted.


It's not that I don't want to believe it, because there probably was some kind of connection. The fact of the matter remains that any connection Iraq had with them is dwarfed by our own, considering America, and the Globalists (with a little help from us Brits) trained and funded the organisation when they were cool, and on our side, in the 1980's, and for God knows how long else. Produce to me one solid link between Saddam and Al Quada that comes anywhere near topping that.




posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Actually, I'm not new to ATSNN, and am well aware of the TAC, or whatever set of rules the "stay on topic" rule falls under. Where a narrow minded person may assume I have deviated "off topic", someone with a wider understanding of events may understand exactly where I'm coming from.

Muadibb, are you a moderator?



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I am no moderator, but you are trying to deviate the conversation in another direction...

First, the U.S. has not threatened to make terrorist attacks on Iraq, we responded to threats posed by Saddam, and his regime, against the U.S. and the region.

Second, Iraqi civilians themselves have been responding to attacks by "insurgents/terrorists" by attacking them back, and not too long ago I put in a thread in which more than 300 Iraqi tribal leaders have gotten together to denounce "insurgents/terrorists" and declared a war against them because Iraqis are being killed by these "insurgents/terrorists".....

So as you can see your "theoretical situation" really has nothing to do with this topic, because the U.S. is not in that situation in the least.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   


Muadibb

you are trying to deviate the conversation in another direction...


It's not at all difficult to understand what I meant with those questions, and neither is it difficult to see I was on topic.




Muadibb

First, the U.S. has not threatened to make terrorist attacks on Iraq, we responded to threats posed by Saddam, and his regime, against the U.S. and the region.


No, we didn't threaten to make terrorist attacks on Iraq, we just made them.



Muadibb
Second, Iraqi civilians themselves have been responding to attacks by "insurgents/terrorists" by attacking them back, and not too long ago I put in a thread in which more than 300 Iraqi tribal leaders have gotten together to denounce "insurgents/terrorists" and declared a war against them because Iraqis are being killed by these "insurgents/terrorists".....


If anyone should be asked to stay on topic, it is you.



Muadibb
So as you can see your "theoretical situation" really has nothing to do with this topic, because the U.S. is not in that situation in the least.


HAHA! That's why it's called a theoretical situation! (By the way, it was unnecessary for you to quote "theoretical situation").



Muadibb

I am no moderator


Perhaps you wouldn't mind minding your own business next time, and perhaps try to refrain from telling me what to do? You have deviated off topic far more than I have in this thread, ironically by telling me to stay on topic!



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Code_Burger
No, we didn't threaten to make terrorist attacks on Iraq, we just made them.


Which is your BS reason for trying to deviate this topic.....



Originally posted by Code_Burger
If anyone should be asked to stay on topic, it is you.


Good idea, so let's both of us stay on topic....




Originally posted by Code_Burger
HAHA! That's why it's called a theoretical situation! (By the way, it was unnecessary for you to quote "theoretical situation").


"Theoretical situations" are not facts....we dwelve in facts in ATSNN last i remember.


Originally posted by Code_Burger
Perhaps you wouldn't mind minding your own business next time, and perhaps try to refrain from telling me what to do? You have deviated off topic far more than I have in this thread, ironically by telling me to stay on topic!


Perhaps you should remember this is an open forum, and unless I was overly insultive in that response, i can respond to it if I want to.

You could have always send your "theoritical situation" to shots directly, if you didn't want "your theoretical situation" to be read, or for member to respond to you....

[edit on 26-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   


Muaddib

"Theoretical situations" are not facts....we dwelve in facts in ATSNN last i remember.


It was a theoretical or hypothetical question which shots answered without any complaint. The second question was just the first question but rephrased to be even more on topic. Perhaps you would like to go back and reread what I have written for further understanding on this. As your profile states you are an expert in this field, you should not be having any where near as much trouble understanding this as you are.



Muaddib
Perhaps you should remember this is an open forum, and unless I was overly insultive in that response, i can respond to it if I want to.


Then whether you think I'm off topic or not, as long as I'm not "overly insultive" in my posts, "I can respond to it if I want."



Muaddib
You could have always send your "theoritical situation" to shots directly, if you didn't want "your theoretical situation" to be read, or for member to respond to you....


(Or you could always mind your own buisness...) I did want it to be read; it was directly on topic and was a means to proving a very obvious point, which I'm actually shocked you're having so much trouble grasping.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontThreadOnMe
announcement

Please limit your posts to the discussion at hand.
Personal, off-topic remarks are not necessary or appreciated.

This is ATSNN and we strive for a higher level of debate.

And, btw, I am a moderator on this forum.


Thank you dontthreadonme.

I will try to stay on topic instead of being dragged into another "let's bash the U.S./coalition" thread.

Anyways, I guess we have to wait for some time to know more about these documents.

[edit on 26-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Please limit your posts to the discussion at hand.
Personal, off-topic remarks are not necessary or appreciated.

This is ATSNN and we strive for a higher level of debate.

And, btw, I am a moderator on this forum.

[edit on 26-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   
The longer it takes for confirmation of these specific documents the more I'll be suspicious of them. As I have mentioned in a previous post in this thread, after this kind of narrowing down, the U.S Government and it's Allies should have no trouble finding the resources necessary to translate the documents in question and get a more reputable source for the translations other than a Conservative Arabic speaking internet discussion forum. If I tried to use something someone said on a public forum as a source I'd get laughed at, yet the Government do it and nobody sais anything.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Government agencies have stated that they are short of people who speak Arabic and other middle easter languages. There are more people out there, who don't work for the U.S. government or any of it's agencies, but they do speak/write/read the different Arabic languages.

Unless you can prove that the translation by this group is wrong, you are still attempting a straw man's argument.

[edit on 26-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   


Muaddib

Government agencies have stated that they are short of people who speak Arabic and other middle easter languages.


I know they have stated this (I read the article...) but I find it very hard to believe they are so short they can't find anyone to translate these very specific documents of roughly 37 pages.



Muaddib
There are more people out there, who don't work for the U.S. government or any of it's agencies, but they do speak/write/read the different Arabic languages.


Obviously! If that isn't an overstatement of the obvious then I don't know what is...



Muaddib
Unless you can prove that the translation by this group is wrong, you are still attempting a straw man's argument.


Actually even the article in question states that the translation has not been confirmed anywhere as being correct, apart from an internet discussion forum. Until this is confirmed by something a little more concrete, I don't need "a straw man's argument", Muaddib. I don't need anything at all.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Government agencies have stated that they are short of people who speak Arabic and other middle eastern languages. There are more people out there, who don't work for the U.S. government or any of it's agencies, but they do speak/write/read the different Arabic languages.


When they first started to release the documents it was stated that this way no one could say the administration was hyping this all up.

Frankly I think it was a very good idea to have other then US employed people to translate the documents, simply because the most scholars of the world do not have any agenda. Also if several individuals translate the very same document and you get four out of five saying one thing and only one saying another you can probably bet the four that say the same will be taken as an accurate translation.



Code

Did you read the other ATS thread on the subject we are not talking only 37 pages? This is just the first portion of perhaps 2 million documents. It just so happens this document only had 37 pages. No one knows how many pages there are total, this is only the tip of the Ice Berg and translation just began last week oer perhaps the week before.



[edit on 3/26/2006 by shots]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   


shots

Frankly I think it was a very good idea to have other then US employed people to translate the documents, simply because the most scholars of the world do not have any agenda. Also if several individuals translate the very same document and you get four out of five saying one thing and only one saying another you can probably bet the four that say the same will be taken as an accurate translation.


Yeah but the only people who have translated it are on an unnamed forum, we don't know if the people who translated it are scholars or not! There is no problem with the U.S hiring help to sift through all the papers, but once something of importance is thought to have been found it should be handed on and confirmed by respected sources, or at least some kind of source better than an unnamed internet discussion forum. People are jumping to all kind of conclusions about this when it's not even confirmed! Am I the only one who finds this totally insane?



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Those camels of
mass destruction could have gone off in 45 minutes.

Wow, did we escape that or what. *wheww*



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   


shots

Code

Did you read the other ATS thread on the subject we are not talking only 37 pages? This is just the first portion of perhaps 2 million documents. It just so happens this document only had 37 pages. No one knows how many pages there are total, this is only the tip of the Ice Berg and translation just began last week oer perhaps the week before.



Well, that’s another discussion, for another thread. The article provided by the author of this thread clearly states;



Telegraph.uk

The animals were part of a plan to arm and equip foreign insurgents drawn up by the dictator shortly before the American-led invasion three years ago, reveals a 37-page report, captured after the fall of Baghdad and just released by the Pentagon. It is part of a cache of thousands of documents that the United States Department of Defence says it does not have the resources to translate.


I don't see any mention of 2 million documents here. This article Sais thousands, not millions. I'm sure there are millions of documents out there, but they are not all related to this report (which, i might add, is still in need of further confirmation).



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Wait.....FreeRepublic, Code guy is right, how do we know these people are scholars?? As well, the link shots provided was to their discussion, not their translation.

This is the only translation of any Pentagon documents I could find:
www.freerepublic.com...

I don't see any mention of camels in it....

As well, here is some background about freerepublic if people don't know much about their forum:

Free Republic is a moderated Internet forum and activist site for conservatives from the United States. It bills itself as "the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web."
Free Republic logo

The moderators on Free Republic often ban, without warning or explanation, posters who criticize Israel, the 2003 invasion of Iraq or the operation in Afghanistan, or support free trade to Communist nations such as China and Cuba, or who express any opinion which diverges from the site's political purposes, from its discussion boards. Material criticizing the administration of President George W. Bush from a non-Republican perspective is typically not permitted. However, ample examples exist of criticism of the President and Congress for not being sufficiently conservative or living up to the group's ideals.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 26-3-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   


shots

The forum was not unnamed and I even gave a link to it on the first page in another post.


Sorry I did miss the name “Free Republic”. You were right that the source was not unnamed. As to the link you said you gave on the first page, I assume you are referring to this?

(All hyperlinks included in the original post are not present due to problems with quoting)


shots

Found while checking out the organization that Reported the Find

Here is another tid bit I found while Checking out the group that the story claims translated the report. This indicates that Saddam or one of his sons, may have played a part in the London bombings and perhaps attacks on other areas.


This is something you presented as a "tid bit" you found while checking out the group that claims to have translated the report. Had you presented it as the actual forum that translated the texts, the arrogant facetiousness in your last post might have been justified.



shots

Now since you appraently missed the link to the forum that translated it you can find it Here

It would behoove you to read everything that has been posted this is ATSNN and the guidlines are are not as lax as other areas of ATS, I hope you understand.

Thank you


I'm sorry but I still don't see any link to the translation of these documents that this special Conservative forum did for the U.S Government. Until this is confirmed, how do we know who these people really are? My money is whoever is behind this are not likely to be independent Scholars, if they are even Scholars at all. It makes me wonder how this even became news in the first place…



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Wait.....FreeRepublic, Code guy is right, how do we know these people are scholars?? As well, the link shots provided was to their discussion, not their translation.


I am not positive but I think they post the translations a few days later, but I am not sure. This particular set was just translated and the other one you linked to was part of the first set that were released as week or so ago. I do believe they did give credit to the individual who made the translation and as yet I have not seen a reply from him. Perhaps it is forth coming. 30 odd pages would take sometime to type all out and format is my guess why it has not be posted at this time and I am just guessing.

I did BM the site and will be watching the camel thread to see what develops along with any other new translations that may be posted.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Well I never thought I would have heard of that one nor live to see the day where one of the bigger threats in the desert were Camels of Mass Destructions



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   
For the doubting Tom's as to the credentials of the members of the forum I have asked the following


I have just registered and this is my first post so please bear with me.

Can anyone tell me who did the actual translation of this document and can you tell me if and when it will be posted.

Also if possible can I get a general history on the individual (not in depth just a general idea will do) as to his/her skills in translating.

If it is not in this actual forum is there a link to where it will be posted the actual translation of the whole 30 odd pages is what I am talking about.

It is nice to see that several individuals are taking up there free time to get to the whole truth and it is greatly appreciated that is why I ask.

As for why I am asking is because there seem to be other doubting thomas's out there who are alleging you have no credentials or skills. Not that I believe them mind you I am just mentioning it so you can see where I am coming from. Thanks again for your help and I am looking forward to any new translations any from this forum may do as I feel the real truth has to be known and without you it may never be known. Heck we all know there are perhaps 2 million documents and this will not be an easy task for just one small group let alone the hundreds that may now have started doing what you are. Regards; If I made any board errors just smack me along side my head and tell me what I did wrong and be rest assured I will correct my ways immediately.

44 posted on 03/26/2006 9:58:31 PM PST by Shots (Help me I do not want to get Lost :lol

Source



Now it is a take a wait and see; until I get some replies as to whom is translating the documents and when the actual translated documents will be posted and were.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join