It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


US Claims World Is Safer Because War On Terror

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 04:58 PM

Originally posted by Souljah

Let's not Forget the Facts behind the so-called "Liberation" of Iraq:

- Based on a Pack of Lies (no WMD's, Al-Qaeda NOT connected to Saddam etc...)

Let's address your exagerations and lies once again.
Let's see what the previous president of the U.S. has to say about WMD in Iraq.

January 9, 2004 - 2:05PM

Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.

"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.

I am not going to search and post all the people from around the world who were making these claims again, because it has been already done a dozen times, yet for some reason souljah, and a few other members keep forgetting these facts...

Now, regarding the wmd issue let's see what we can find to prove that there were wmd in Iraq.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi officials said they have found four more empty chemical warheads similar to 12 others found last week, the U.N.'s chief weapons inspector said Sunday.

Hans Blix, in Baghdad with top nuclear weapons inspector Mohamed ElBaradei, said on CNN's "Late Edition" that the 12 empty warheads were on the agenda for talks Sunday with Iraqi officials.

"They said they had been surprised themselves" about finding the empty warheads, Blix said. "They were in boxes, never opened -- there were bird droppings on them. But of course they should have been declared and destroyed."

My guess is that Souljah, and a few others like him, will try to claim these empty chemical warheads prove nothing.

I mean, for some reason in the minds of some people empty chemical warheads could be used to fill them with candy, milk, maybe even medicines...

Or he will claim, without any evidence, that somehow the U.S. put there those empty chemical warheads, plus the tons of documents dealing with wmd and other evidence found in Iraq.....

Anyways, shall we address "again" whether or not Saddam had any connections with Al Qaeda too?....

According to the Clinton Justice Department's spring 1998 indictment of bin Laden, "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq." (Page 114.)

In what the CIA nicknamed "Operation Dogmeat," two Iraqi students who lived in the Philippines tried to demolish U.S. Information Service headquarters in Manila. Iraqi diplomat Muwufak al Ani met with the bombers five times before the attack. His car even took them near their target on January 19, 1991. Their bomb exploded prematurely, killing Ahmed J. Ahmed, but his accomplice, Abdul Kadham Saad, survived and was whisked to a Manila hospital. Saad, carrying documents bearing two distinct identities, asked staffers to alert the Iraqi embassy, then recited its phone number. (Page 39.)

Around this time, according to former high-level CIA counterterrorist Stanley Bedlington, Hussein paired Iraqi intelligence operatives with members of the Arab Liberation Front to execute attacks. "The Iraqis had given them all passports," he said, "but they were all in numerical sequence." These tell-tale passport numbers helped friendly governments nab these terror teams. (Page 41.)

President George Herbert Walker Bush ignored information that Hussein "was offering state payment to terrorists," then-Senator Al Gore (D., Tennessee) declared on October 15, 1992. Gore also listed more than a dozen examples of Iraq-sponsored terrorism and said "an estimated 1,400 terrorists were operating openly out of Iraq." (Page 41.)

"In 1992, elements of al Qaeda came to Baghdad and met with Saddam Hussein," Abu Aman Amaleeki, a 20-year veteran of Iraqi intelligence, said on ABC's Nightline on September 26, 2002. Speaking from a Kurdish prison, he added: "And among them was Ayman al Zawahiri," bin Laden's chief deputy. "I was present when Ayman al Zawahiri visited Baghdad." (Page 43.)

There is more where that came from, but everytime people like Souljah want to claim it is all lies and that the insurgents/terrorists are the one telling the truth.

i mean he even calls them freedom fighters and that the insurgents/terrorist are just trying to help Iraqis, when in fact, Iraqis themselves have turned against the insurgents/terrorists. Again, I am certain Souljah will claim is all a hoax made by the U.S.

Jan. 30, 2006 — There is increasing evidence that the fault lines between local Sunni Iraqi insurgents and the mostly foreign fighters of Abu Musaab al Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq are deepening, according to a number of press reports.

If the trend continues, it could help to complete the integration of the Sunni minority into the political process, weaken the violent insurgency, and reduce attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces. ABC News consultant Fawaz Gerges, author of "The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global," said "the Sunnis are chasing the al Zarqawi men from all over the al Anbar Province. The implications are tremendous for Iraq, the American military presence in Iraq, and the war against al Qaeda. The tide has seemed to turn against the al Zarqawi network in Iraq."
Reports over the last week suggest that local tribes in Iraq's troubled western province of al Anbar have turned against al Zarqawi and his foreign militants and appear determined to expel them. The pan-Arab al Hayat newspaper reported on Friday that the campaign against the group had so far resulted in the arrest of 270 Arab and foreign "infiltrators" and a number of Iraqis, according to the leader of Al Karabla tribes in al Qa'em. An army officer told the paper that most of those arrested were Jordanians, Saudis and Syrians.

Originally posted by Souljah
- Completly Illegal Invasion regarding the approval of International Community

Right, who is going to forget that the reason why France, Russia, China and other countries which were against the war was because they had illegal deals with SAddam through the OFF program, which has become the OFF scandal for a while now.

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by dgtempe
Well, i dont pretend to know everything, but if you invade a country without real cause, i cant help but wonder if the plotters and scqueamers arent doing just that in order to get back at us.

Without real cause?.... First of all I should remind you, once again like some of us have done a million times already, that the whole world was claiming that Saddam had wmd....

Yes, Reagan ensured that, and even Clinton claimed that, yet only one administration in one country decided to initiate a war with Iraq... odd, no?

Second of all, I would like to know exactly what you think that all the evidence which was found in Iraq shows... I mean what else would Saddam want empty chemical warheads for.... For what other purpose would Saddam tell Iraqi scientists to bury and hide parts needed for centrifuges to enrich Uranium?.... Among some of the other evidence and facts surrounding this topic.

Well, Saddam was fighting a cold war of his own with Iran... that country that we're now preparing for war with. WMD's... even non existant ones... aren't all for use against the United States. I mean come on, we SOLD Saddam WMD material so he could fight Iran FOR us. Go figure.

[edit on 29-4-2006 by koji_K]

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Souljah
- Completly Illegal Invasion regarding the approval of International Community


Let's see if what you are claiming is true....


The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Saddam's regime was also given a final opportunity by the security council.

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

All of the above excerpted from.

It was a final opportunity for the regime of Iraq to come clean and get rid of everything related to wmd, yet the regime of Iraq did not do it.

Originally posted by Souljah
- Completly Illegal regarding the use of Banned Weapons

Last time i checked, and we discussed this already, the weapons used against bunkers and military installations were legal. There were some people in those buildings, and because of that Souljah wants to claim it was illegal.

Originally posted by Souljah
- Completly Illegal concering the International Law of POW

POWs are recognized according to the Geneva convention only if both sides use tactics which are approved in war...Which does not include hiding behind civilians, dressing like civilians, hiding their weapons, giving explosives to kids and telling them to run towards coalition forces, etc, etc...

All of that is the reason why many, if not most insurgents, are not viewed as POWs...

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

The insurgents/terrorists dress like civilians, hide among civilians, use civilians as shields and use them to carry explosives to kill coalition forces, insurgents/terrorists conceal their weapons, take hostages and use them as trading cards, if the terrorist/insurgents demands are not met, hostages are executed, etc, etc. Hence insurgents/terrorists are not POWs.

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Muaddib]

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:02 PM

Originally posted by koji_K

Yes, Reagan ensured that, and even Clinton claimed that, yet only one administration in one country decided to initiate a war with Iraq... odd, no?

Clinton approved several attacks on Iraq, if I remember correctly there were at least 100 attacks on Iraq, the regime's installations, and suspected wmd/weapons depots done during Clinton's administration. Attacks on Iraq like the one described below, were a declaration of war against Iraq.

Such as the following.

U.S. launches missile strikes against Iraq

September 3, 1996
Web posted at: 7:40 a.m. EDT (1140 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States launched missile strikes against Saddam Hussein early Tuesday in retaliation for his army's assault on Kurdish areas in a United Nations "safe haven" in northern Iraq.

Clinton also called for a coalition of nations to deal once and for all with Iraq, even if it meant more armed conflict with the regime of Iraq.

The Liberation of Iraq Act, was also done and signed during Clinton's administration in 1998.

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

Originally posted by koji_K
Well, Saddam was fighting a cold war of his own with Iran... that country that we're now preparing for war with. WMD's... even non existant ones... aren't all for use against the United States. I mean come on, we SOLD Saddam WMD material so he could fight Iran FOR us. Go figure.

Saddam's regime was not supposed to have any wmd related material, including documents that deal with wmd programs, yet as the evidence has shown, there was evidence of wmd related material, as well as tons of documents, parts of centrifuges for Uranium enrichment which were essential to start a nuclear weapons program, empty chemical warheads, missiles which were banned from Iraq and were found in scrapyards around the world, missiles which were banned from Iraq yet they were fired upon coalition forces in Kuwait at the start of the war, etc, etc.

Another misconception which people have is that the U.S. gave wmd to Iraq, while the U.S. did back Iraq against Iran in the 80's, the governments that sold WMD to Iraq were Russia, China, and other such countries.

As a former Romanian spy chief who used to take orders from the Soviet KGB, it is perfectly obvious to me that Russia is behind the evanescence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. After all, Russia helped Saddam get his hands on them in the first place. The Soviet Union and all its bloc states always had a standard operating procedure for deep sixing weapons of mass destruction — in Romanian it was codenamed "Sarindar, meaning "emergency exit."Iimplemented it in Libya. It was for ridding Third World despots of all trace of their chemical weapons if the Western imperialists ever got near them. We wanted to make sure they would never be traced back to us, and we also wanted to frustrate the West by not giving them anything they could make propaganda with.
All chemical weapons were to be immediately burned or buried deep at sea. Technological documentation, however, would be preserved in microfiche buried in waterproof containers for future reconstruction. Chemical weapons, especially those produced in Third Worldcountries,which lack sophisticated production facilities, often do not retainlethal properties after a few months on the shelf and are routinely dumped anyway. And all chemical weapons plants had a civilian cover making detection difficult, regardless of the circumstances.

We also have other people saying this is true.

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says

By IRA STOLL - Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 26, 2006

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

A senior Syrian journalist reports Iraq WMD located in three Syrian sites
06 January, 2004


Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept.

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Muaddib]

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:08 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
Safer, hum. . . I have to catch a fly to my island in May and I am not worry about the terrorist but I am worry about the trigger happy and paranoid security people working in the airports to Keep us safe.

That is what I feel and I am afraid off, becoming a target of the War on terror because I may look or behave in a way that is suspicious.

Funny, but that is the truth of how I feel.
Marg, remember the rules: Do not appear sweaty, do not appear anxious. If you display anxiety they will target you as someone who has something to hide. Do not look the stewardess in the eye at any time. Do not use any words that start with the letter "B". I suppose, burro would be one you could use

Have a great time and say hello to Rio Piedras for me! I love that place.

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:09 PM
I do not even know why we continue to argue the basis of the invasion of Iraq. It happened and thats that. However, at this point in time, it can be rather easy to create documents, audio recordings, and even government officials to say whatever thing you want them too. All you have to do is say "hey we just found this document, recording, official who just came to light" and there woudl be no way to verify the truth.

I don't really care though. Iraq is more democratic now than it was before, and individual freedoms and rights are way better than in Saddams days. I am especially glad that two spoiled grown up brats cannot just walk down the street and acquire any adolescent teenage girl they want and have her way with her anymore. That bothered me much, and I was rather pleased they did die in a hail of gunfire.

However, I don't believe the world is anymore or less safe now because of the war on terror. My life has been the same. My families lives in Colombia are the same. I am sure peoples lives in most Third world nations are the same. And even Europeans lives are more or less the same. Ah well whatever.

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:12 PM
Sorry I misspell Flight with fly

But yes I will follow the rules Dg thanks for posting them

I tell you I am more Terrorized by been targeted at the airport than by been targeted by terrorist.

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:15 PM
Its ok Marg, you will be flying on a flight, and you will fly.

Take some digital pictures and send us some. Its such a beautiful place!

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:18 PM
Dg I will,

But guess what my mother just told me that she got new neighbors

They are Arabs!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And she said the Island is full of illegal Chinese.

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Muaddib

Clinton approved several attacks on Iraq, if I remember correctly there were at least 100 attacks on Iraq, the regime's installations, and suspected wmd/weapons depots done during Clinton's administration. Attacks like that one above on Iraq, were a declaration of war against Iraq.

No one doubts that. Yet we managed not to find it necessary to invade Iraq on the ground all that time. And that's what's causing us so much trouble today. WMD's just didn't seem to be the problem they were to the rest of the world, or Clinton, or Bush Sr., and CERTAINLY not to Reagan, as they were to G.W. Bush. And if I recall, those attacks where to help enforce the no-fly zone, protect the Kurds, and destabilize the Iraqi regime, and had little to do with WMD elimination. I may be wrong here, but either way, the fact remains we didn't find it necessary to do what even Bush Sr. said we shouldn't attempt to do.

Another misconception which people have is that the U.S. gave wmd to Iraq, while the U.S. did back Iraq against Iran in the 80's, the governments that sold WMD to Iraq were Russia, China, and other such countries.

Again, no one doubts Russia, China, and others may have sold Iraq WMD related tech. As far as conventional weaponry went, we used a lot of third party countries to make transfers ourselves, particularly France (I've posted about that elsewhere here a long time ago, I can search for a link to sources and/or my original post if you wish). But make no mistake, we did our share directly also. This is common knowledge, I'm afraid, and no amount of denial will make it not so.

Beginning in September, 1989, the Financial Times laid out the first charges that BNL, relying heavily on U.S. government-guaranteed loans, was funding Iraqi chemical and nuclear weapons work. For the next two and a half years, the Financial Times provided the only continuous newspaper reportage (over 300 articles) on the subject. Among the companies shipping militarily useful technology to Iraq under the eye of the U.S. government, according to the Financial Times, were Hewlett-Packard, Tektronix, and Matrix Churchill, through its Ohio branch.


In December 2002, Iraq's 1,200 page Weapons Declaration revealed a list of Western corporations and countries—as well as individuals—that exported chemical and biological materials to Iraq in the past two decades. Many American names were on the list. Alcolac International, for example, a Maryland company, allegedly transported thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, to Iraq. A Tennessee manufacturer contributed large amounts of a chemical used to make sarin, a nerve gas implicated in so-called (Persian) Gulf War Syndrome. A full list of those companies and their involvements in Iraq was provided by The LA Weekly in May 2003.


On 25 May 1994, The U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that pathogenic (meaning disease producing), toxigenic (meaning poisonous) and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. It added: These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction.

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

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

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control sent Iraq 14 agents "with biological warfare significance," including West Nile virus, according to Riegle's investigators.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust, released a list of U.S. companies and their exports to Iraq.

Source: Wikipedia

(Additional sources will be found in the wikipedia article.)

And I have a full list of the various virii we (the United States) sold Saddam during the Iran Iraq war, as contained in a UK parliament report, but I can't find a reliable link.. will post it as soon as I remember where I found it originally on the net.

It's in:

Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and Iraq

A report for Parliament on the British Government’s response to the US supply of biological materials to Iraq.

Geoffrey Holland
School of Social Sciences and Cultural Studies
University of Sussex

To prevent discussion going in circles, here's an older ATS thread on the issue, although it's not particularly conclusive:

[edit on 29-4-2006 by koji_K]

[edit on 29-4-2006 by koji_K]

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:26 PM
In Bizarro World, countless violent terrorist attacks means a safer world!

Hail President Bizarro!

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:27 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
Dg I will,

But guess what my mother just told me that she got new neighbors

They are Arabs!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And she said the Island is full of illegal Chinese.

Relax just go down town in San Juan and pose as a tourist. Oh and do not forget to drink the free Pina Coladas in da jewelry stores.

Above all be vigilant feel safer by keeping an eye out for terrorists, that way America will be safer.

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:31 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
Sorry I misspell Flight with fly

But yes I will follow the rules Dg thanks for posting them

I tell you I am more Terrorized by been targeted at the airport than by been targeted by terrorist.

Funny that you don't seem so worried since you are going there after all.

it is also funny that there have always been people in airports who have been there for security reasons, yet now is when you fear them?.... Why exactly?...

Are you intending on running around the airport, or shouting words such as bomb?...

Your fear is misplaced. I have taken several flights after 9/11 due to my job. I look hispanic, I have an hispanic accent, yet pretty much I have gotten the same treatment as anyone else.

Your fear is misplaced.

If some people have acted stupidly in airports is because they were crazy, or they are too young to understand the times we are living in and believe they should be free to do and say anything they want in an airport or other buildings/places where high security is enforced.

Yes, there are people out there that want to kill you, but none of them are police officers/military from the U.S.

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Muaddib]

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:40 PM
do any of you yanks see American's as terrorists, I mean what would you do if some one invaded your country whatever the reason what would you do. Would you let foreign soldiers rape your sister, mother etc. Watch your home being detroyed, see your family blown to bits, how would you feel, would you want to fight back. The insurgents as you call them (rather than freedom fighters) dont want you in their country its as simple as that. And if you would take up arms against an occupying force maybe you can understand the mindset of these people. America's actions will only breed more violence which will ultimately lead to sustained attacks on your own country. You should ask yourself why is America pursuing this cource of action, on the one hand you say your a great power but in reality your just a thief and a bully grabbing what natural resources you can. If there was no oil in the middle east America/Americans would not give a dam about the place To say being violent makes you safer is rather stupid and not very enlightened

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:56 PM

Originally posted by magicmushroom
do any of you yanks see American's as terrorists, I mean what would you do if some one invaded your country whatever the reason what would you do. Would you let foreign soldiers rape your sister, mother etc.

If there have been any rapes done by any member of the U.S. military they are or will be dealt with...

As always some people want to claim lies and make exagerations trying to sell their agenda.

BTW, let me ask you...if a country was helping terrorists attack your country, kill your daughters/sisters/mother/father/brothers/sons, and if that country was giving money, and hiding terrorists which attack your country would you not think of that country's regime as an enemy?....

Originally posted by magicmushroom
The insurgents as you call them (rather than freedom fighters) dont want you in their country its as simple as that. And if you would take up arms against an occupying force maybe you can understand the mindset of these people.

First of all keep your racist and biased insults to yourself.

Second of all, Iraqi civilians have taken arms against who you call "freedom fighters"...which shows how wrong you are.

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Ordinary Iraqis rarely strike back at the insurgents who terrorize their country. But just before noon on Tuesday a carpenter named Dhia saw a troop of masked gunmen with grenades coming toward his shop here and decided he had had enough.
As the gunmen emerged from their cars, Dhia and his young relatives shouldered their Kalashnikov rifles and opened fire, police and witnesses said. In the fierce gun battle that followed, three of the insurgents were killed, and the rest fled just after the police arrived. Two of Dhia's nephews and a bystander were wounded, the police said.
"We attacked them before they attacked us," said Dhia, 35, his face still contorted with rage and excitement as he stood barefoot outside his home a few hours after the battle, a 9-mm pistol in his hand. He would not give his last name.

Tribal chiefs in Iraq's western Anbar province and in an area near the northern city of Kirkuk, two regions teeming with insurgents, are vowing to strike back at al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni Arab-led group that is waging war against Sunni tribal leaders who are cooperating with the Iraqi government and the U.S. military. Anbar tribes have formed a militia that has killed 20 insurgents from al-Qaeda in Iraq, leaders said.
Separately, more than 300 tribal chiefs, politicians, clerics, security officials and other community leaders met last week in Hawijah, about 35 miles southwest of Kirkuk, and "declared war" on al-Qaeda in Iraq. In a communique, the participants vowed "the shedding of blood" of anyone involved in "sabotage, killings, kidnappings, targeting police and army, attacking the oil and gas pipelines and their transporters, assassinating the religious and tribal figures, technicians, and doctors."

"Hawijah was never a hideout for terrorists and fugitives," the statement added. "Anyone who provides refuge to terrorists will be considered and dealt with like a criminal and terrorist."

Terrorist/insurgents are killing more civilians than they have killed coalition forces.

The mention of the word insurgent/terrorist among Iraqi citizens have also caused death among Iraqi civilians....

Nearly 1,000 Shiites killed in stampede over bomb rumors
By Rick Jervis, USA TODAY
BAGHDAD — More than 950 Iraqis were killed Wednesday in a stampede when rumors of a suicide bomber spread panic through thousands of Shiite Muslims crossing a bridge during a religious procession, an Iraqi Interior Ministry official said.

Most Iraqis do not regard your freedom fighters/insurgents/terrorists as their saviours...

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Muaddib]

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 07:04 PM
Geez, I really do not know where to start.

OK, here we go Boys and Girls - fasten your Seatbelts.

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was ILLEGAL

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

Kofi Annan declares US invasion of Iraq ILLEGAL

CATHERINE MCGRATH: These are the comments by UN General Secretary Kofi Annan on BBC radio that have brought up the Iraq issue up again.

KOFI ANNAN: Oh I hope we do not see another Iraq type operation for a long time.

BBC ANNOUNCER: Done without UN approval or without clear UN approval?

KOFI ANNAN: Without UN approval and much broader support from the international community.

Law Groups Say U.S. Invasion ILLEGAL

The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq violates the basic rules of the United Nations Charter requiring countries to exhaust all peaceful means of maintaining global security before taking military action, and permitting the use of force in self-defense only in response to actual or imminent attack, two U.S. legal groups said Thursday.

The U.N. Security Council's refusal to approve a resolution proposed by the United States, Britain and Spain clarified that the weapons inspection process initiated by Security Council Resolution 1441 last November should have been permitted to continue before military action could be authorized, added The Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP) and the Western States Legal Foundation (WSLF).

Iraq war was ILLEGAL and breached UN charter

"I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

Law lord damns 'half-baked reforms and ILLEGAL Iraq war'

Lord Steyn echoed the views of Lord Alexander of Weedon, QC, his predecessor at Justice, with a robust attack on the legality of the Iraq war.

Lord Alexander’s view that the war was illegal “reflected the overwhelming view of international lawyers and was undoubtedly correct”.

Former attorney general calls Iraq invasion ILLEGAL

The US-led invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law, according to an article published in the latest edition of the Irish Law Times by the former president of the High Court and attorney general, Declan Costello.

Costello argued that it was highly improbable that an international court would conclude that the use of force against Iraq was an exercise of the right of self defence permitted by international law. The US has said that self defence legitimised the invasion.

Blix: Iraq War Was ILLEGAL

The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in Iraq was illegal, dealing another devastating blow to Tony Blair.

Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal.

Former UN head calls Iraq war ILLEGAL

Even before the strike against Baghdad, Boutros Boutros-Ghali said any U.S.-led invasion of Iraq without specific UN authorization would violate international law.

"This intervention is illegal," he told an audience in Winnipeg on Tuesday.

He believes it also sets a dangerous example. "Other countries may use this argument in the future to intervene on the basis of this precedent."

International legal experts regard Iraq war as ILLEGAL

Prominent international legal experts regard the US-British invasion of Iraq as a clear breach of international law. Earlier this month the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva expressed its “deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression.”

According to the ICJ, such “a war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force.” The commission emphasises that Security Council Resolution 1441 does not authorise the use of force. The ICJ standpoint contradicts that of US President Bush, who has continually sought to use this resolution as the basis for war.

Canadian law professors declare US-led war ILLEGAL

The US-led coalition’s war against Iraq is illegal, declared 31 Canadian professors of international law at 15 law faculties in an open letter issued Wednesday, just before US President Bush announced that the war had commenced.

A US attack “would be a fundamental breach of international law and would seriously threaten the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War,” the letter stated.

The attack would violate the UN Charter, which forbids countries to wage war except in self-defense or when authorized by the UN Security Council to preserve or restore international peace.

Just so we can Explore and Examine the very Beginning of this alleged Liberation of Iraq and its People. Since this Operation was completly and utterly ILL-EGAL from it's very beginning, it is somehow pointless to debate any other effects and consequences that this Invasion did create. There are numerous reports about breaches of International Law regarding the POW's, Geneva Conventions and Laws regarding Warfare. There are numerous reports about the ONGOING corruption within Iraq with Many Western (especially USA owned) Corporations. There are many reports about dis-respect towards Iraqi Population, Culture, Historical Heritage.

And Now the World is SAFER?


posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 08:27 PM

Originally posted by shots

Relax just go down town in San Juan and pose as a tourist. Oh and do not forget to drink the free Pina Coladas in da jewelry stores.

I will try but you can not be in San Juan after dark you get rob.

Above all be vigilant feel safer by keeping an eye out for terrorists, that way America will be safer.

Actually the tourist are encourage to stay in the hotels at night and by no means walk on the beach.

That is how bad my littler Island has become.

My husband wishes he could take his weapon with him but that will land him in jail or shot at the airport if he try something like that even if the weapon is register.

When he was in the military service he used to take weapons with him while on leave inside his green military bag because they were not checked.

This was back in the seventees.

All that has change now.

[edit on 29-4-2006 by marg6043]

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 10:22 PM
Laugh. Ironic how Iran is the greatest supporter of terrorism. You'd think if they were, we would of gone after them first instead of Afghanistan and Iraq. Then again, with our new hopes to go to war with them, why not blame them for being the "bow-downs" to terrorism.

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 10:39 PM
ill comment on the thread ive made now and say i will never feel any "safer" then if i were locked inside an actual paded cell deep down inside of a nuclear fallout shelter. Why? because no matter how secure you try to make the world, some one, at some time, will get pissed off and do an act of terror. For whatever reason. This means no matter how much they drill the idea of security will save you down your throat, your still at risk. You still have to watch your back for the "terrorist" that may break out a sawed off shot gun in a mall, or blow up a fertilizer bomb in his car.

Terror is exactly what we are living in. The terrorists? Anyone telling you that you need to be afraid and need to combat these terrorists in a war. They are the ones terrorizing you. How many of you have had your life changed from the 9/11 attacks? I garentee every single one of you have had a changed mindset since those attacks. More "aware" of terrorism, on the look out. When it comes down to it, your terrified. We have supported terrorism, not by attacking another country illegally, or through money to osama, but by creating fear amoung ourselves. By saying that we would rather sacrifice our freedoms then be secure. That we would rather look over our shoulders then enjoy life. we live in terror.

We have all become sponsors of terror by running around saying that we must watch out for the terrorists, that we must make ourselves more secure at whatever the cost. We have spread fear, not in some foreign country(which we probably have though), but in our own homes. We have spread fear throughout every corner of the Divided States of America.

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 10:41 PM
Really Souljah....I find it ironic that you never mention the following...

The US has named 30 countries which are prepared to be publicly associated with the US action against Iraq.

The state department says more countries have now announced concrete support for a possible US invasion of Iraq than during the first Gulf War.

And it says that there are an additional 15 countries which are providing assistance, such as over-flight rights, but which do not want to declare support.

I guess those 44 other countries are from some other planet and not from Earth.

i also find it ironic that you never mention the human right abuses which the insurgents/terrorists have committed, including against the Iraqi people.

But oh goes against your anti-U.S. agenda....people shouldn't know this....

It also seems that according to you 10 years is not enough time for the regime of Iraq to destroy everything that dealt with wmd, including documents....

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Muaddib]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in