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.

 

US Claims World Is Safer Because War On Terror

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2006 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
That was one string of terrorist attacks, all coordinated together and should be treated as one. If you intend to break those out, then you are merely playing semantics and not addressing the core of my question.

You asked me how many terrorist attacks took place before Iraq and I named a few . Have you have forgotten what your question was? What YOU consider as one terrorist attack is your perogative but they are all counted as acts of terror.



A civilian is technically definted as a non-military person, so your logic is wrong here.

Bin-Laden is non military, he doest subscribe to the conventions of war[Hauge] nor to the geneva conventions to classify him and his group as military. So by your own definition, him being non-military makes him a civilian.

Iraq and Afghanistan were under sovereign rule as well.

The Dynamics of the situation are a litle different in this case, pakistan is an ally in the WOT and thus it is wouldnt be the same as raising it to the ground like Afganistan or Iraq. Also the problem of Pakistan being a nuclear weapons state makes it a bit more tedious and would potentialy involve some nuclear strikes on our part, which the USA wishes to avoid thus the "pacifism".


Take Ireland, can the US invade Ireland to hunt for terrorists or say take over a city like Belfast to weed out terrorists in the local populace? No, it wouldnt be proper due to the dynamics of political relations.



So you would trust the hunt for the man and followers supposedly responsible for 9/11 to a third-party?

Side-stepping your attempts at irony, I have mentioned the reasons for this above, it has to do with the dynamics of the political climate in Pakistan. No matter how noble a cause it is still bound by the limitations of territorial boundaries and other conventions. The most the US could do is send in agents to track down terrorists and provide the Pakistanis with intelligence which is what the US is doing.




Is it? Are you secure from car-crashes, disease, cancer and violent crimes, more so than any other year? In what terms are you measuring "more secure"?

Are these histrionics even remotely related to terrorism?

Let me paraphrase it so that you can understand it clearly; The US is more secure against a terrorist threat today than every before.


You mean Iraq was giving money to the family of palestinian suicide bombers fighting against the Israeli occupation? I'm not sure what that has to to do with al-Qaeda.

It was giving money to Palestinian terrorist murdering Israeli children and women. That was one of the examples of his many involvements with terrorists and terrorist organizations, Al-Qaeda being one of them.




posted on May, 14 2006 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Revenge?


Yes revenge... Just like Saddam took revenge on his own people, because many of his people fought against him in the first Gulf War. The president of the U.S. made a bad decision back then, he gave in "to the call of the international community", we should have stayed back then and deposed that bastard of Saddam during the first Gulf War.


Originally posted by Souljah
Is that like, Saddam is the Ultimate Villain and Bush comes in to the Rescue?


No....it's like Saddam was the bad guy, the president called for a coalition and the soldiers of the coalition went to the rescue.


Originally posted by Souljah
Coalition?

Oh yes - the Mighty Coalition!


Yes....the coalition...the same coalition that deposed Saddam and most of his forces.... The same coalition against which your buddies, the insurgent/terrorists are cowardly using iraqi citizens as shields, hiding among them like cowards, and even killing more Iraqi citizens than soldiers they have been able to kill from the coalition...


Originally posted by Souljah
Which did Break International Laws - since the Invasion is still considered Illegal.

Therefore making the Occupation also Illegal.


Really?... weren't you the one asking why is it that the U.S. does not defy the same International Laws, you mention so frequently, to fight for the people in Dafur?....

Humm....how ironic...


Originally posted by Souljah
What else is Illegal in the War on Terrorism?

Let's check out!

First - Illegal abuse of Human Rights of Iraqi Citizens, by using Chemical and Nuclear Weapons in Iraq (WP, DU) and other Illegal Ammunitions (Napalm, Cluster bombs).


First of all you better study what a nuclear weapon is...because you are obviously confused....or as always, trying to exagerate and lie to bring forth your agenda against the U.S....as always...


Originally posted by Souljah
Second - breaking of Geneva Conventions regarding the Prisoners of War.


Do you have some reading comprehension problem?....

How many times have I given direct links to the Geneva convention and what prisoners of war are according to the Geneva convention?.....

Again...as always you try to exagerate to bring hatred towards the west....

Let me refresh your memory "again"...


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.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

www.unhchr.ch...

Hiding among civilians, wearing civilian clothes, hiding their weapons and using Iraqi civilians as shield among some other things are not considered "a respect for the law and customs of war"....

So, what are you going to say now Souljah?... Proclaim that the Geneva Convention is also "Breaking the Law"?......


Originally posted by Souljah
Three - seen any Illegal Corruptions in new Iraq Grey Area of Law? Like Stolen Iraq Billions? Where did they go?


Do you have any evidence of what happened to that money?...

Money was promised to Iraqi people who turned in subjects of Saddam's regime and insurgent/terrorists...among some other reasons that money could be used for.
BTW, even in wars alliances between people can be bought with money. Iraq has many tribes of Arabs, some of them probably helped the coalition for money.

Originally posted by Souljah
Four - breaking International Law by Kidnapping citizens of Other countries.

You mean terrorists....


Originally posted by Souljah
Wouldn't a Terrorist Attack on US soil, executed by Saddam result in All-Out-War-on-Iraq anyway?


Oh, so now you are saying the government should have allowed a terrorist attack backed by Saddam on U.S. soil, and then attack his regime?.....


Originally posted by Souljah
You are Funny!

and you are not....


Originally posted by Souljah
First - I love how you decided to write my name, starting with small s-ouljah, while you write Al-Qaeda with Big Initial Letters.


Wow....want to make a new conspiracy out of that?.... perhaps from now on I should always write your name as souljah.



Originally posted by Souljah
Correct me, if I am wrong, but didn't CIA establish Al-Qaeda in the First Place?


Pfft, wrong, Osama Bin Laden established Al Qaeda...

Originally posted by Souljah
Correct me, if I am wrong, but isn't the Bin Laden Family - Family of the No.1 Supper-Terrorist - in close business and other connections with the House of Saud?


Are you talking about the same family of Bin Ladens who live by western standards, the same western standards Osama has vowed to either submit to radical Islam or destroy?.....

[edit on 14-5-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Yes revenge... Just like Saddam took revenge on his own people, because many of his people fought against him in the first Gulf War. The president of the U.S. made a bad decision back then, he gave in "to the call of the international community", we should have stayed back then and deposed that bastard of Saddam during the first Gulf War.

Yeah - Dispose of the Bastard! That's how you're supposed to talk - like a True Cowboy. Funny thing is, how Saddam was ALLGOOD, when he was fighting Iran. Funny how Saddam was ALLGOOD, when CIA put him and the Baathist to power. Funny how Saddam was ALLGOOD, when USA sold him Chemical Agents, with which he gassed the Kurdish people. But Pretty please, with sugar on top - do NOT start selling Oil in Petro-Euros!



No....it's like Saddam was the bad guy, the president called for a coalition and the soldiers of the coalition went to the rescue.



You are Living in a Bad Hollywood B-class movie!



Yes....the coalition...the same coalition that deposed Saddam and most of his forces.... The same coalition against which your buddies, the insurgent/terrorists are cowardly using iraqi citizens as shields, hiding among them like cowards, and even killing more Iraqi citizens than soldiers they have been able to kill from the coalition...

Is that the Same Coalition wich Broke International Laws?

Gee, I guess we weren't watching the same "Show" then.

And I also Love how you always use the words "Buddies" - is that another PR-O trick they teach you at the "school"?

Ask yourself: what is more Cowardly? Dropping a 1000 pound DU-bomb on a House full of Civilians? Or, whatever you said? In Case you did not notice, there is a WAR going on in Iraq, a War which was started by Your Mighty Coalition of the Willies. There was no Liberation - Iraqi people are still dying on daily basis, while Americans bulild THEIR bases and fortresses deep in the fortifies Green Zones, and leave Iraqi people to slaughter each other.

Indeed - GREAT SHOW; my Compliments to the Mighty Coalition!



Really?... weren't you the one asking why is it that the U.S. does not defy the same International Laws, you mention so frequently, to fight for the people in Dafur?....

I also love it how you start your sentance with "REALLY"?

As if we are going to se US troops in Darfur!



Not in this LIFETIME!



First of all you better study what a nuclear weapon is...because you are obviously confused....or as always, trying to exagerate and lie to bring forth your agenda against the U.S....as always...

I suggest you go to downtown Fallujah and start inhaling some of that fine DU dust, come back after few years of inhaling, and then start talking how it is a complete "Exaggeration" and other PR-O stuff like that. It has URANIUM in it - and EVERY single Military statement, that is denying that, is doing just the opposite; prooving that there is something going on and something to hide.

Agent Orange anyone?



Do you have some reading comprehension problem?....

Nope. I am reading just fine, thankyouverymuch.



How many times have I given direct links to the Geneva convention and what prisoners of war are according to the Geneva convention?.....

Did you get that copy from Pentagon, to use in Arguements such as this, when people start accusing United States of violation of Geneva Conventions?





Hiding among civilians, wearing civilian clothes, hiding their weapons and using Iraqi civilians as shield among some other things are not considered "a respect for the law and customs of war"....

Ok, let's start again:

Bombing Civilans in their Homes.

Bombing Civilans with WP.

Boming Civilans with DU.

Bombing Civilans with Napalm.

Bombing Civilans with Cluster Bombs.



So, what are you going to say now Souljah?... Proclaim that the Geneva Convention is also "Breaking the Law"?......

Well what can I say - it's War, and since nobody is actually following ANY International Law here, there is a pretty much chaotic situation. And remember - the world IS watching, so the next time some country is going to go play their little "War" (like China for example), like the US is doing today, they are going to remember all that happened in Iraq, Afganistan and everywhere else the US miltiary boot stepped on. And then they are going to say: "If you CAN do it - so CAN WE!"



Do you have any evidence of what happened to that money?...

The money was simply STOLEN - the moment that the big packages of dollars arrived to Iraq, there were reported missing 250.000 and then 2.000.000 and then 1.500.000 dollars - all togather around 20 billion dollars go missing.



Money was promised to Iraqi people who turned in subjects of Saddam's regime and insurgent/terrorists...among some other reasons that money could be used for.
BTW, even in wars alliances between people can be bought with money. Iraq has many tribes of Arabs, some of them probably helped the coalition for money.

TERRORISTS!

TERROR!

9-11!

SADDAM!

AL-QAEDA!

TERRORISTS!

Nope - none of them stole this money.

US GOVERMENT DID!



Oh, so now you are saying the government should have allowed a terrorist attack backed by Saddam on U.S. soil, and then attack his regime?.....

Err, DUDE - there was NO PLAN by Saddam to attack USA, since that would mean his Head on the platter the second day after that supposed "attack". Why would he wanna sign his own death certificate by attacking USA?

You are just too paranoid my friend.

That will get ya...

Not EVERYBODY wants to attack America - or that is what "Somebody" wants everyone to Belive, so that they can further take away YOUR FREEDOMS and YOUR RIGHTS, and call that "War on Terror".

Yes, there is a War on Freedom; Your Freedom as an American, and that freedom is not attacked by Osama, Saddam, Taliban or anyone from outside - but it is attacked by YOUR OWN GOVERMENT!



Wow....want to make a new conspiracy out of that?.... perhaps from now on I should always write your name as souljah.


No, it ain't a Conspiracy - it just show your Character and your Supreme Attitude towarads ME, as your co-debater. It just shows, you have no Respect for me whatsoever.



Pfft, wrong, Osama Bin Laden established Al Qaeda...

Sure he did.

And he killed 3000 Americans in one day with the Biggest Terrorist attack in History!

And he the Ultimate Terrorist Master Mind.

BUT - WHY WASN'T HE CAUGHT YET?

Are you trying to tell me, that with all this friggin' technology, you can not trace on man without a Liver down?



More BAD B-class Hollywoode movies with Illogical Twists!



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
It seems to me some aspects of the Geneva convention were written to make citizens trying to protect their land from occupying powers look like terrorists and baddies. Who really has time to start some manufacturing operation to identify the resistance fighters in a time of war? Especially considering the peopel who are attacking have UAV's equipped with cameras that could spot out that insignia and launch a missle into the whole crowd, claiming they were all supporting that one man.

I have seen the civilian version of my example happen in the streets of my own city, Tampa, FL. In central park (where signs are posted by the city that shakedowns by the police will happen at any time if a large crowd becomes suspicious) I was driving by on my way to YBOR City (club district) and there were lots of people walking around. I guess there was some gang member or dope dealer tryng to do business, and seven armed officers came down and told about fifteen people many who were just walking by, to get on the floor with their hands behind their backs. I am lucky I was in the car because I could have been in that group. They were all cuffed and hauled away at once. It did not even make the news. Apply that with a war scenario in an occupied territory, and it gets ugly.

I think the only rules to war should be: No attacking civilian populations, Banning certain weapons including WMD's, and do not attack the food/water supply. Thats about all that makes sense. Would not be any beaurocratic nonsense that would make a resistance group illegal from fighting for their own land just because they don't wear something that can be identified from their enemies advanced surveillance which will have them and the immediate surrounding civilians destroyed within minutes.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101You asked me how many terrorist attacks took place before Iraq and I named a few . Have you have forgotten what your question was? What YOU consider as one terrorist attack is your perogative but they are all counted as acts of terror.

No, I asked you how often. Your perogative is to consider these as attacks independent of each other and by the same logic, we can take 9/11 as a day by itself and claim that the rate of terror attacks was 4 a day. As you can see your faulty logic isn't accepted as people refer to 9/11, September 11th, etc. to refer to the fact that these were a string of attacks, all related and designed to occur simultaneously, and should be counted as one wave instead of independent of each other.


Bin-Laden is non military, he doest subscribe to the conventions of war[Hauge] nor to the geneva conventions to classify him and his group as military. So by your own definition, him being non-military makes him a civilian.

It's not MY definition. I read the same dictionary you do. You've never heard of paramilitary? I guess the mujahideen are not military either even though the claim they are soldiers of Allah? The fact that the Taliban was supporting his militia did not make him legal either, even though the Taliban controlled over 90% of Afghanistan?


The Dynamics of the situation are a litle different in this case, pakistan is an ally in the WOT and thus it is wouldnt be the same as raising it to the ground like Afganistan or Iraq.

If they are an ally in the WOT how come they are not letting US special forces to grab Taliban and al-Qaeda remnants? How come it took US troops 2 months to get into the part of Afghanistan that Osama bin Laden's camps were in at the outset of the Afghan invasion? Or was he not a priority anymore by that point?


Are these histrionics even remotely related to terrorism?

Let me paraphrase it so that you can understand it clearly; The US is more secure against a terrorist threat today than every before.

You just stated security. THAT kind of security is more important than this hyped-up war on terror. Insecurities from car crashes, medicine, poverty, etc. affect more people and kill more people everyday than terrorism can ever do and THAT is a fact.

I don't see how you can claim the US is safer either. The Iraqi war pretty much incensed countries and people all across the world. I don't think making people pissed off at the US government is the way to make the country safer.


That was one of the examples of his many involvements with terrorists and terrorist organizations, Al-Qaeda being one of them.

There you go again, you're just adding al-Qaeda at the end of your sentence without making any connection between them and Sadaam. Is that something you picked up from Rove? Maybe if you say al-Qaeda enough in the same sentence as Iraq it will become true! No, it still won't.

[edit on 14-5-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Funny thing is, how Saddam was ALLGOOD, when he was fighting Iran. Funny how Saddam was ALLGOOD, when CIA put him and the Baathist to power.

The funny thing is how your distort the truth to sell your anti-U.S. agenda...

November 1969 President al-Bakr, Saddam's kinsman, appoints Saddam Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) and Vice-President. He controls the internal security and intelligence organs and is the driving force behind the regime.

www.iraqfoundation.org...
One relative of Saddam put him in power...not the CIA....


Originally posted by Souljah
Funny how Saddam was ALLGOOD, when USA sold him Chemical Agents, with which he gassed the Kurdish people. But Pretty please, with sugar on top - do NOT start selling Oil in Petro-Euros!

Funny how you always want to blame the U.S. for selling wmd to Iraq when in fact the countries which sold most, if not all, wmd to Iraq were Russia, France, NK and others..
I have given this link before, but anyways, let's see if some light enters that thick skull of yours.

Debates of the European Parliament
SITTING OF WEDNESDAY, 16 MAY 2001

Situation in the Middle East
I have no hesitation in saying that we must consider giving the Arab side a large enough force, including a large enough nuclear force, to persuade Israel that it cannot simply do whatever it wants. That is the policy my country pursued in the 1970s when it gave Iraq a nuclear force.

www.europarl.europa.eu...

Then again, you are going to start claiming that the U.S. government hacked into the European Parliament's main computers and put that in there heh souljah?....



Originally posted by Souljah
And I also Love how you always use the words "Buddies" - is that another PR-O trick they teach you at the "school"?

They must be your buddies, I mean you keep defending them and calling them "freedom fighters" when they have killed more Iraqi civilians than they have killed coalition forces, and Iraqi civilians have attacked them back time and again...but you do not want to address that since it puts "your buddies' in a bad spot...

Originally posted by Souljah
Ask yourself: what is more Cowardly? Dropping a 1000 pound DU-bomb on a House full of Civilians? Or, whatever you said?

The difference is that 1. The Iraqi people were given time to leave Baghdag before the war started, but some of them decided to remain behind. 2. The bombings were not aimed at killing civilians, but your buddies the insurgents/terrorists readily target civlians and put explosives in Iraqi kids trying to kill coalition forces...

Originally posted by Souljah
Iraqi people are still dying on daily basis, while Americans bulild THEIR bases and fortresses deep in the fortifies Green Zones, and leave Iraqi people to slaughter each other.

Right...and coalition forces are not dying there too because of your buddies the insurgents/terrorists?... Most Iraqi civilians who keep dying in Iraq die at the hands of insurgent/terrorist attacks....even the Iraqi citizens got fed up and are attacking your buddies....do you feel sad for them now?....

Originally posted by Souljah
I also love it how you start your sentance with "REALLY"?

I love how you divert the discussion when evidence is given which contradicts your statements...

Originally posted by Souljah
As if we are going to se US troops in Darfur!
Not in this LIFETIME!

The funny thing is how you try to claim that it is alright for any coalition forces to break any and all laws to go to places like Dafur, yet in this case you want to claim "it was illegal" even though U.S. Congress and several nations approved the war against Saddam's regime and the insurgent/terrorists...

Originally posted by Souljah
I suggest you go to downtown Fallujah and start inhaling some of that fine DU dust, come back after few years of inhaling, and then start talking how it is a complete "Exaggeration" and other PR-O stuff like that.

DU is used in some ammunition, which I hope is taken out of the military arsenal, but it is not the same as "atomic weapon" or "nuclear weapon"....

Originally posted by Souljah
Nope. I am reading just fine, thankyouverymuch.

Did you get that copy from Pentagon, to use in Arguements such as this, when people start accusing United States of violation of Geneva Conventions?

Funny how you obviously did not even open the link I gave....it comes from the UN... BTW, now the link seems to be down.


Originally posted by Souljah
Nope - none of them stole this money.

US GOVERMENT DID!

So you claim...but where is the evidence?...

Originally posted by Souljah
Err, DUDE - there was NO PLAN by Saddam to attack USA, since that would mean his Head on the platter the second day after that supposed "attack". Why would he wanna sign his own death certificate by attacking USA?

You are just too paranoid my friend.


Really?.... I find it ironic that you want to stand behind what countries like Russia said it should be done about the wmd issue in IRaq yet when they say things like...

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.

The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.

www.cnn.com...
You want to dismiss them...
Convinient huh Souljah?...

Originally posted by Souljah
Not EVERYBODY wants to attack America - or that is what "Somebody" wants everyone to Belive, so that they can further take away YOUR FREEDOMS and YOUR RIGHTS, and call that "War on Terror".

I never said "everybody wants to attack America"...but Islamic extremists do, along with them wanting to attack Europe and other countries which have embrace the western world...

Originally posted by Souljah
No, it ain't a Conspiracy - it just show your Character and your Supreme Attitude towarads ME, as your co-debater. It just shows, you have no Respect for me whatsoever.

You want respect?....then give respect...

[edit on 14-5-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
The funny thing is how your distort the truth to sell your anti-U.S. agenda...

November 1969 President al-Bakr, Saddam's kinsman, appoints Saddam Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) and Vice-President. He controls the internal security and intelligence organs and is the driving force behind the regime.

www.iraqfoundation.org...
One relative of Saddam put him in power...not the CIA....


Oh Rly? Read Souljah's quote again...the CIA helped put the Baathists in power and the eventual installation of Saddam.

In 1963, Saddam Hussein worked with the CIA to carry out the coup by the Baath party, which eventually brought him to power in Iraq. The book, A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite by Said K. Aburish, which was reviewed recently in Counterpunch (The CIA: Lest We Forget, CounterPunch. Sept.16-30 1997, p.2), describes how the CIA, Saddam and other members of the Baath party collaborated to bring about the coup, murdering perhaps 5,000 people in the process.

www.hartford-hwp.com...

I'll raise you one more source...

In 1968, Saddam's Ba'ath party wing took power in Iraq. Immediately, the CIA gave Saddam a list of communists inside Iraq. Working with Saddam made sense to the CIA on two important levels. Number one, he was not an Islamic fundamentalist along the lines of the Iranian ayatollahs. Secondly, he was not a communist and perhaps was an anti-communist.

www.worldnetdaily.com...
Hey, even WND is saying it?!



Funny how you always want to blame the U.S. for selling wmd to Iraq when in fact the countries which sold most, if not all, wmd to Iraq were Russia, France, NK and others..
I have given this link before, but anyways, let's see if some light enters that thick skull of yours.

Oh Rly?

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

www.washingtonpost.com...



But there is deep resentment and anger here that it was Western companies that helped Iraq develop its chemical weapons arsenal in the first place and that the world did nothing to punish Iraq for its use of chemical weapons throughout the war.

"The world knew," Moussavi said. "Iraq developed these weapons with the help of the United States and the West. No matter how many times Iranians shouted that Iraq was using chemical weapons, they were ignored. I don't know why the United States has suddenly become kinder than a mother for the suffering of us chemical weapons patients."

www.informationclearinghouse.info...


Really?.... I find it ironic that you want to stand behind what countries like Russia said it should be done about the wmd issue in IRaq yet when they say things like...

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

www.cnn.com...
You want to dismiss them...

Oh Rly?

The White House did not corroborate Putin's claim, while the US State Department said no such reports had passed through its offices.
...
Putin's comments came just two days after a September 11 commission in Washington concluded there was no link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, one of the pretexts used by Bush for the invasion of Iraq.
...
It was unclear why Putin, an opponent of the Iraq war, had made the comments now, in what could prove a boost for Bush's battle for re-election in November.
...
The Russian leader said however he could not prove a link between Saddam and the al-Qaeda terror network, nor that Iraq had organised any specific attack.

www.smh.com.au...



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
The funny thing is how your distort the truth to sell your anti-U.S. agenda...

To correct your lil' mistake - Anti-EMPIRE Agenda.





One relative of Saddam put him in power...not the CIA....

Sure - if you mean the "Relatives" in the CIA?

Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam's Party in Power
How the CIA put the Baath in power



Funny how you always want to blame the U.S. for selling wmd to Iraq when in fact the countries which sold most, if not all, wmd to Iraq were Russia, France, NK and others..

Funny how you quickly forget, how Rummy shook hands with Saddam in those "Golden Years"!

Anyway, you at least dont deny that USA sold WMD's to Iraq.

Thats Progress.



I have given this link before, but anyways, let's see if some light enters that thick skull of yours.

Why - because you say so?





Then again, you are going to start claiming that the U.S. government hacked into the European Parliament's main computers and put that in there heh souljah?....


What a Wonderful source for your EVIDENCE!





They must be your buddies, I mean you keep defending them and calling them "freedom fighters" when they have killed more Iraqi civilians than they have killed coalition forces, and Iraqi civilians have attacked them back time and again...but you do not want to address that since it puts "your buddies' in a bad spot...

Errr, not entirely True Man:


Iraq Body Count project

The website recently released a report detailing the civilian deaths. They claim the US and its allies are responsible for 37% of the 24,865 deaths. This works out to 9,200 deaths. The remaining 15,665 deaths are attibuted to the insurgency, foreign terrorists, Iraqi forces, and crime.

When did they die?
* 30% of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion phase before 1 May 2003.
* Post-invasion, the number of civilians killed was almost twice as high in year two (11,351) as in year one (6,215).

Who did the killing?
* US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
* Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
* Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
* Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.

What was the most lethal weaponry?
* Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.
* Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.

* Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets).

To me it looks like US-led forces kill the MAJORITY of Iraqi Civilans population - but that ofcoruse is against your PRO-BUSH Agenda, ain't it?





The bombings were not aimed at killing civilians, but your buddies the insurgents/terrorists readily target civlians and put explosives in Iraqi kids trying to kill coalition forces...

Hmmmm, now why do they ant to kill the "LIBERATORS"?

That is strange - is it maybe, that Iraqi people do not feel "Liberated"?

:puzz:



Right...and coalition forces are not dying there too because of your buddies the insurgents/terrorists?... Most Iraqi civilians who keep dying in Iraq die at the hands of insurgent/terrorist attacks....even the Iraqi citizens got fed up and are attacking your buddies....do you feel sad for them now?....

The COALITION are hiding behind and in the armored vehicles, and driving in military convoys, and shooting at everything that gets closer then 100m to that convoy, and shooting journalists, and bombing civilians, and raiding homes. And as I said before - the majority of Iraqi Civilians Casualties killed, are by the US-led forces. Makes you think about, if Iraqi people really feel SAFE and LIBERATED?



The funny thing is how you try to claim that it is alright for any coalition forces to break any and all laws to go to places like Dafur, yet in this case you want to claim "it was illegal" even though U.S. Congress and several nations approved the war against Saddam's regime and the insurgent/terrorists...

Which "SEVERAL" Nations is that? Were there France? Germany? Big NATO Allies like Norway? Was there Russia? China? Hmmmmmmmmm... Oh, yes there was Macedonia and Albania . Wow. I am impresssed!


US names 'coalition of the willing'

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

Oh, I forgot the Mighty Country of Eritrea and Ethiopia!

Hey, how many Tanks and Combat Aircraft does Nicaragua have?





DU is used in some ammunition, which I hope is taken out of the military arsenal, but it is not the same as "atomic weapon" or "nuclear weapon"....

It is still Nuclear and as we can see, it STILL effects the Population in that "NUKULAR" way.



Really?.... I find it ironic that you want to stand behind what countries like Russia said it should be done about the wmd issue in IRaq yet when they say things like...

I find it Ironic, that WMD's were actually NEVER found. And I find it Ironic, that whatever Bush&Co used as an Argument for the invasion of Iraq was FALSE and MISLEADING, and mots of all I find it Ironic, how they lied to the UN and to the entire World Community, and sold us this story, you still are supporting. Even Mister Coling Powell regrets, how he was "Misslead" into having this Speech to UN, which he REGRETS to this day.



I never said "everybody wants to attack America"...but Islamic extremists do, along with them wanting to attack Europe and other countries which have embrace the western world...

And you know what?
The ALLMIGHTY War on Terrorism is actually CREATING these Islamic Terrorists, which now Really want to Attack Europe and USA - and there were not as many of them before 9-11 and the start of WOT; in fact, as I said before - WOT makes the World more IN-Secure and IN-Safe - not MORE Sefe'n'Secure as the Topic of this thread suggest, which is the Claim of the US goverment also.



You want respect?....then give respect...

Does "GIVE RESPECT" to you mean, I have to agree with what Bush&Co say, Muaddib?

[edit on 14/5/06 by Souljah]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

You gotta be $hittin' me...Atreidies you've sunk really low with this one, this is just pathetic.

When I was a kid all I wanted for Christmas was a toy rifle, the more realistic the better. I don't remember the Australian government using me to fight.


Pathetic?...no, it shows your ignorance which is different...

BTW, I did mention extremist Islamic countries which are ruled by Sharia law.....

Is Autralia and extremist Islamic country which is ruled by Sharia?


So yeah....keep running and howling....


Yes, as I mentioned western, Christian nations. You say toy guns are given to the children to turn them into fighters. Well my numerous toy guns didn't turn me into a fighter. Find a better argument.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
i dont know what the mid-easterners' deal is. all we're doing in iraq is pissing them off even more and making them want to bomb us and not geting any petro



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   
What's wrong with Rummy shaking hands with Saddam? Saddam was helping us at that time, so it makes sense.

That is how the balance of power works.

-- Boat



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
What's wrong with Rummy shaking hands with Saddam? Saddam was helping us at that time, so it makes sense.



A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam was symbolic of the complicity of the US in the war crimes of Saddam. The US helped give Saddam the weapons and then decades later pushes for him to be convicted of having the very same weapons they gave. Not only this, but the very same people (and friends/relatives) involved in giving him the weapons were calling for Iraq to be invaded on this pretext.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Well Rumsfield is obviously an example of a horrible business partner judging by his actions.

So I guess it is ok then to use people for your own means only to overthrow their nations later on if they do not submit to your complete influence? Is that the case Boatphone? Lets see we did it with the Afghanstan and Iraq. So who else has US helped in a war that is currently not under complete American influence, because it is likely they will be next to be overthrown or attacked?



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
What's wrong with Rummy shaking hands with Saddam? Saddam was helping us at that time, so it makes sense.

That is how the balance of power works.

-- Boat


Yes, and that's why Augusto Pinchet, a military dictator who took power in a coup against a deomcratically-elected president, could remain in power. And that's how Osama got started in the first place, you trained him.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, regardless that he is just as bad as my enemy and may, possibly, later turn on me.

At least when Churchill did it with Stalin against Hitler he didn't praise Stalin, he put it, in his own words, exactly how it was.

"If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least give the Devil a friendly reference."

Why is the US castigating Russian and China for their human rights records, yet supporting and extolling Kazakhstan where a seriously impressiv 90%+ voted for the president in a country whose media is controlled by said president's daughter? Because that's how the balance of power works.

US policy has always been "screw you if you're small and don't fit our balance of power needs".

Ask the people of Sri Lanka if they are feeling more safe and secure from terrorism this week.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Yes, of course!

NEWS FLASH! The United States should look out for its own interests before the interests of others. It's good policy.

-- Boat



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
Yes, of course!

NEWS FLASH! The United States should look out for its own interests before the interests of others. It's good policy.

-- Boat


Yes, what a bloody good idea. An awful lot of the world would really appreciate if you did just that...at home. And let them look out for their interests in their homes.

So tell us, how did supporting Pinochet and allowing him to torture more than 30,000 people look out for US interests?



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
So tell us, how did supporting Pinochet and allowing him to torture more than 30,000 people look out for US interests?


Pinochet was an anti-communist at a time when we were trying to stop the spread of communism. We were worried about Cuba as well.

See? I mean are you trying to say that you think we were supporting him "just for fun", or something?

-- Boat



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
So it was ok to allow tens of thousands to suffer horrible torture and deaths to stop the spread of a system that will ensure medical, educational, and basic life needs at the cost of the system? I mean what the hell is the point of trying to stop one alleged dictatorship that gave the citizens their basic necessities at the cost of the state, just so you can erect a dictator that did not offer a system for the citizens to be supplied their basic necessities and tortured and murdered thousands of people and displaced families just because?

Why was communism so important to stop that it justified all that suffering? Seriously I want an answer. I do not want to hear the bad things about communism, I want to know why it was ok to sacrafice the stability of several nations and allow the suffering of countless thousands in order to stop it.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
Pinochet was an anti-communist at a time when we were trying to stop the spread of communism. We were worried about Cuba as well.

See? I mean are you trying to say that you think we were supporting him "just for fun", or something?

In this Anti-Communist WitchHunt the US, with help of CIA, Crashed a Democraticly ELECTED goverment of Salvator Allende, which was found Dead, from a Supposed Suicide - but we all know who got to him First. Actually, assassinations of Foreign Heads of State is Considered TERRORISM by international standards - but ofcourse Not, if performed and executed by the good old US of A. Then it is considered Democratic.


Augusto Pinochet

On September 11, 1973, the military, led by Pinochet, stormed the presidential palace and seized power from President Allende, who was found dead soon after. A junta headed by Pinochet was established, which immediately suspended the constitution, dissolved Congress, imposed strict censorship, proscribed the leftist parties that had constituted Allende's Popular Unity coalition, and halted all political activity. In addition, it embarked on a campaign of terror against opponents and perceived leftists in the country. As a result, approximately 3,000 Chilean residents are known to have been executed, or "disappeared", more than 27,000 were incarcerated and in a great many cases tortured, according to the Valech Report.

So - basicly, when USA establish their own Puppet DICTATORSHIP goverment, that is also OKEY and Fantastic and Democratic.

Just as they put Saddam into power, to counter the rising of Iranian Islamic Shiite Revolution.

And when the USA did not need him anymore - they removed him, and put the country back into the Dark Ages of Slaughter and Civil War.

So - who is the No.1 World Terrorist Sponsor?

[edit on 16/5/06 by Souljah]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
So - who is the No.1 World Terrorist Sponsor?


I believe it's Iran right now...

-- Boat



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join