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.

 

Haditha is the tip of the iceberg - Iraq atrocities continue

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
The Iraqis are defending their turf in the few ways they have left. I'm not exactly happy about it, but the situation wouldn't have arisen had the US not invaded on trumped-up charges of WMDs. I'm sure you could post on this topc.


Why, on a conspiracy board, is it so far fetched that all the WMD's the entire planet knew were there are sitting in a Syrian mountain range right now?


why, then, don't you document this allegation of tens of thousands of Iraqis killed by the insurgents.

IF you can.

[edit on 2-6-2006 by rich23]


Start with this...

www.thereligionofpeace.com...




posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faust
Ok, i'm gonna state this once again for you wack jobs. After 9-11 an operative for Saddam hussein was seen talking with a member of Al-Quida.


First, that's AFTER 9/11. Second, I'd like details, with sources, of the people involved, when and where, and reported by whom.

It is widely known (except to viewers of Fox News (who, as we have already seen in this thread, are more prone to misperceptions about the war than people who get their news elsewhere) that Saddam and Al-Qaeda had no relationship until the invasion was already under way. The stories about Saddam's men meeting AQ operatives (in the Czech Republic, if memory serves) turned out to be false, along with so many other lies sown by the administration. Saddam was a secularist and didn't want anything to do with a fundamentalist organisation. However, as the certainty of a US invasion loomed, his underlings tried to persuade him that AQ could prove a valuable ally in a resistance, post invasion, and there's some evidence to suggest he softened his line against AQ at that time.


Even during the Clinton administration his info from the CIA told him the same thing that was later told to Bush. Iraq is seeking WMD's.


I really don't want to go into this on this thread because it's off the point. However...


02/16/04: (ICH) CIA Director George Tenet testified before Congress in February 2001 that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States or to other countries in the Middle East.

... intelligence reports released by the CIA in 2001 and 2002 and more than 100 interviews top officials in the Bush administration, such as Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, gave to various Senate and Congressional committees and media outlets prior to 9-11 show that the U.S. never believed Saddam Hussein to be an imminent threat other than to his own people. Moreover, the CIA reported in February 2001 that Iraq was “probably” pursuing chemical and biological weapons programs but that it had no direct evidence that Iraq actually had actually obtained such weapons.


source

I think we have disposed of that piece of nonsense. But (*sigh*) there's always more...


Now let's connect the dots, ok? PLEASE FOLLOW THIS TIME. Here we go, are you ready? 9-11 - thousands DEAD, Al-Quida is to blame, Osama Bin Laden admits on film for wanting WMD's to use against Americans, connections from al-Quida member and Saddam operative confirmed, Presidents NUMBER ONE JOB IS TO PROTECT AMERICAN LIVES. War against Iraq is a no-brainer. DUH! Ok, puzzle complete. There IS provocation for this war.


Yup. And two plus two equals FIFTEEN...

Firstly, and I'm not going to argue this here (we can afford to leave this on one side) I don't believe the official story of 9/11. But the REASON we can afford to leave this is that there is NO CONNECTION between Saddam and 9/11. You have NOT demonstrated one, and the alleged meeting never actually took place. Invading another country and causing hundreds of thousands of deaths might be something you'd do on a whim, but there are those of us out here who take human life more seriously. You have failed, so far, to demonstrate any connection, and you've provided no source material on which to base your unfounded accusations other than half-remembered things which in any case were subsequently disproved.

It might have been a no-brainer for you, but there are those of us who actually think about these things and realise it's not that simple.

Even IF there had been a connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, would that prove that Saddam had knowledge of it? Let's say you have a neighbour, Italian guy, seems nice, owns a pizza place. Then one day the police bust in, kill one of your kids, throw you in jail simply because you knew this guy and he turned out to be mobbed-up? There is no proof that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 and if you're going to kill thousands of people, you better have an AIRTIGHT case. Which yours is not, by a long chalk.


However, no WMD's found. CIA had piss-poor info, not Bush.


See my source above for the actual state of knowledge of CIA and Bush during the runup to the invasion. Your statement there is simply NOT TRUE. Duhhhh...

And in case you doubt me, perhaps you'll take the words of Dubya his own self, in the press conference of January 2003:


Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

You can find the press conference at the White House website here.


New CIA director has been put into office. We have a war torn Iraq. Americas Constitution states to rebuild any country it invades. But, just like the Werewolves of Germany, we have to battle insurgents who destroy rebuilding efforts. If we leave Iraq now we betray our own constitution. It's more than a piece of paper to me rich.


Yeah... where in the Constitution DOES it say that? Can you actually back that up or is this another strange misperception you've osmosed from Fox News?

And I'm glad it's more than a piece of paper to you (MUCH more, it seems, it's a whole land of fantasy, by the sound of it...), it seems that's all it is

to George Bush:

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."


Bloody edit's not working... grrrr

[edit on 6-6-2006 by rich23]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
That 'Rant' is Satire..........it never happened......you should really learn the difference so you won't be mis-led.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Which rant is this? Do enlighten me



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Earlybird
Why, on a conspiracy board, is it so far fetched that all the WMD's the entire planet knew were there are sitting in a Syrian mountain range right now?


Have you got the merest hint of evidence to suppose that these NON-EXISTENT WMDs should be there? They might as well be in Britney Spears' butt!



Start with this...
www.thereligionofpeace.com...


Ok, it lumps in every non-US murder and blames them all on Islamic militants. Not especially good methodology unless all you want to do is convince people that Islam is EVIL, which is kind of what the site is into.

It also doesn't distinguish between Islamists per se and the death squads, which, as referenced earlier in this thread, are run by CIA operatives. It also makes no attempt to distinguish genuine internecine Sunni/Shia conflict from works by agents provocateurs, who, again as referenced earlier in the thread, are definitely out and about and come from both US and UK special forces. Plus no sources are given. But it's a start, I'll give you that.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Rich, as I take a break from my Fox News 24 hour indoctrination, can you please shorten up your replies a bit? I know you've got a lot to say but my daily entertainment of having you trying to convince people is getting laborious. I have now reduced my reading and decided to wait for the Cliff Notes version of your postings to come out.


Rich and Dubious...remember some people don't care if the invasion was illegal or if Muslims are killed. They don't care if Israel is sneaky and manipulative. They don't like Saddam, they don't like militant Muslims, and they don't like Iran. You could spend hours on end trying to show where people lied, but when known liars like Saddam or terrorists are the people you are defending it doesn't matter; there's little sympathy. That doesn't mean I don't like hearing the truth, even if it does show the US or Europe was lying...but I won't light a candle for Saddam.

I think you should keep your focus on the innocent being persecuted by the US and wrongs against them. And don't ignore the fact that Shiites and Sunnis are commiting heinous sick crimes against each other...ignoring that and focusing just on the US doesn't persuade people that your goal is to really help the innocent.

Maybe your goal is to just beat up the US? Good luck, you'll eventually end up referencing something that isn't true with all the internet innuendo. And it'll bite you on the ass and people will stop listening. As an example, I think a Mr. George Bush would warn you to check your sources before declaring evil or you might just lose a bit of credibility.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Iraq is a very large country; WMDs could be hidden anywhere in it. Intelligence only takes one so far; it gets to the point where one must actually go look for the things personally, and the process of marching up into the mountains (where the air is thinner and it's freezing cold) and then actually going and looking in all the hundreds of caves in these mountains, is a very laborious and time-consuming process.

Combined with the fact that an entire airfield's worth of aircraft were buried in Iraq under the sands and hidden from the soldiers for awhile, one can see just how easy it is to hide WMDs.

And for the hundredth time, the U.S. did NOT invade Iraq on the premise of WMDs alone. That was but ONE of the reasons the U.S. invaded. The media conveniently forgot these other reasons and focused solely on the WMDs. The military and government aren't stupid. They knew the U.N. would never go for just a blatant invasion over WMD accusations. There were numerous other reasons as well, which I posted on one of the previous threads here. Unfortunately, the U.N. didn't go for any of these reasons (and in doing so, refused to back up its own threats to Saddam).

Bush made the decision to go it alone.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
The point of this thread is to suggest that Haditha is the tip of the iceberg rather than a few rotten apples.

The actions of "terrorists" or "insurgents" or "resistance fighters" or whatever you want to call them is kind of irrelevant, but people have been dragging this stuff into the thread, as with the stuff about why the war started. It was unprovoked, and therefore a war crime.

Therefore the troops out there are war criminals. If you support them, try and get them to come home and stop their criminal activity.

Bush and Blair are the biggest war crims of the lot, and should be prosecuted accordingly.

Oh, and the UK military just exonerated a bunch of squaddies for forcing a kid who couldn't swim into the river at Basra. The kid drowned. They were exonerated, but quite why I don't understand, as it seems as if no evidence was offered to refute the Iraqis' side of the story. Yay. Go UK [/sarcasm]

And I'm not trying to defend Saddam. I'm simply trying to be true to the historical record, which is that while he was bad, he used the oil wealth of his country not merely to feather his own nest but for the benefit of the populace, in terms of health care and civil engineering works.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Rich23......this is satire....




Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."



[edit on 6-6-2006 by ferretman2]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
No, it isn't satire. The Bush administration is almost beyond satire, and there is the proof.

Oh, here we go... more...


WASHINGTON, June 6 (UPI) -- Evidence has emerged U.S. Marines deliberately killed an unarmed Iraqi civilian in April in the town of Hamdaniya, CNN reported Tuesday.

A military source with knowledge of a U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigation told the network the victim, identified by Knight Ridder as Hashim Ibrahim Awad, was dragged from his home and shot by Marines, who placed a shovel and AK-47 next to him to make it appear he was an insurgent.


You can find the original story here.

Isn't it funny that they did the shovel and AK thing that the soldiers talk about in the video at the beginning of this thread, which every one said was fake?

[edit on 6-6-2006 by rich23]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
See, now you're just making stuff up.... I give you facts and figures and analysis, you give me fantasy.


Actually I cater to your fantasy. I just make yours a presentable fantasy, that if you're hoping it to be a reality someday.



Originally posted by rich23
Reality=liberal bias in your rather sad world. Quit the name-calling, stop watching Fox, get some real data and try and get a POV of your own.


I don't watch fox news, richboy.

This is real data from the CNN reporter:
Haditha was full of IEDs. It seemed they were everywhere, like a minefield.

That above fact is what pushed the Marines over the edge. Deal with it, richboy or wanted an IED demonstration everyday?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
No, it isn't satire. The Bush administration is almost beyond satire, and there is the proof.


No, richboy, you're a satire already. Eight web-pages of hijacking your own thread from a creaking soapbox.

Be somewhere else and let's end this trivial ranting nonsense of yours. Just admit it, richboy, you hate the US troops and you're happy to spin your rants against them here.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
The point of this thread is to suggest that Haditha is the tip of the iceberg rather than a few rotten apples.

The actions of "terrorists" or "insurgents" or "resistance fighters" or whatever you want to call them is kind of irrelevant, but people have been dragging this stuff into the thread, as with the stuff about why the war started. It was unprovoked, and therefore a war crime.



Hmmm I'm not sure if you see what I'm saying. I think if you said: the US is doing some murderous illegal acts that need to be addressed. But also: I understand that the place is a war zone, and yes the Muslims are also committing ungodly acts against each other. Then I think a few more ears would open to your main point. Instead you are forcing people to polarize against you because you are glossing over their anger. You need to understand their anger instead of dismissing it. You have some interesting links but now instead of informing people, you have now forced them to find another link that counters your link (just to beat you) to show that there are militants doing horrendous things (which they obviously are). Your message is getting lost.

As far as Saddam providing things for his people...well I don't know if I'd give him a hug over that. Any dictator still has to keep the people happy to prevent rebellion, you can't squash every complaint with an iron fist like Darth Vader. It's almost like an abused husband/wife..."I know they love me, they hit me...but they apologize later." Some people ignore the beating and look only at the roses, and yes...some presidents only talk about the beatings in order to invade.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
Faust , you said "Americas Constitution states to rebuild any country it invades". What???? Please tell us which article and section.


(snip) Yet when you post your "evidence" it's off of Al Gore's or Michael Moore's website. That's called liberalism slant BS.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9-6-2006 by mrwupy]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   
When asked to provide evidence for a point I'm making, I do so because that's the etiquette on this board, and because it's a reasonable request.

The fact that you retreat behind bluster suggests that you can't back it up. I haven't time to go and do your homework for you, do it yourself.

And Atomic - thank you for being a voice of reason. I don't disagree with anything you say, although I would emphasise that it is an illegal war based on lies.

Since I started this post, I've noticed that the phrase "Haditha is the tip of the iceberg" is becoming more common. I think my point is comfortably made here:


Military commanders in the field in Iraq admit in private reports to the Pentagon the war "is lost" and that the U.S. military is unable to stem the mounting violence killing 1,000 Iraqi civilians a month.

Even worse, they report the massacre of Iraqi civilians at Haditha is "just the tip of the iceberg" with overstressed, out-of-control Americans soldiers pushed beyond the breaking point both physically and mentally.

"We are in trouble in Iraq," says retired army general Barry McCaffrey. "Our forces can't sustain this pace, and I'm afraid the American people are walking away from this war."

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has clamped a tight security lid on the increasingly pessimistic reports coming out of field commanders in Iraq, threatening swift action against any military personnel who leak details to the press or public.

The wife of a staff sergeant with Kilo Company, the Marine Unit charged with killing civilians at Haditha, tells Newsweek magazine that the unit was a hotbed of drug abuse, alcoholism and violence.

"There were problems in Kilo company with drugs, alcohol, hazing [violent initiation games], you name it," she said. "I think it's more than possible that these guys were totally tweaked out on speed or something when they shot those civilians in Haditha."


Mod Edit: Fixed Link.

[edit on 7/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Well I wouldn't believe anything Newsweek says, they aren't even an American magazine. As for all this stuff about the war being "lost," that is nonsense. Pure propaganda. No different then in 1965 when the U.S. won the battle in the Idriang Valely in Vietnam, yet the media made out as if it was an enormous loss.

As for those Marines, well gee, so we're back to the 'ole, "If a few soldiers acted wrong, the entire military and government is to blame" method of reasoning, I see. Like the whole Abu Ghraib incident.

The entire media never took the blame when, who was it, Newsweek quickly wrote that report about soldiers supposedly using the Koran as toilet paper, something not based on any fact but off of one person's "knowledge," and yet they had no qualms about printing it. It was shown it wasn't true, but it caused outraged in the hate-driven Middle Eastern nations and resulted in the deaths of people. Those "journalists," they got off easy.

The U.S. being in Iraq is fine and perfectly legal. And no, the United States did not need to go to the UN, it went to them to act cooperative according to how the UN is supposed to operate. Saddam broke the 1991 cease-fire with the United States, which meant it was perfectly legal for the U.S. to go ahead and bomb him to the stone-age. People wouldn't have agreed with such a method of fighting, but by international law, it was legal. However, the U.S. did not go about doing this.

It's no different then the situation with North Korea. If they try anything, they break the cease-fire, which allows the U.S. to bomb them to the stone-age if it wants.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by Earlybird
Why, on a conspiracy board, is it so far fetched that all the WMD's the entire planet knew were there are sitting in a Syrian mountain range right now?


Have you got the merest hint of evidence to suppose that these NON-EXISTENT WMDs should be there? They might as well be in Britney Spears' butt!



Here is one.

www.nysun.com...

Don't give these ideas any credit though richy- it would ruin everything you've based your obsession on.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
When asked to provide evidence for a point I'm making, I do so because that's the etiquette on this board, and because it's a reasonable request.


Right. Nice excusable spin, richboy.



Originally posted by rich23
The fact that you retreat behind bluster suggests that you can't back it up. I haven't time to go and do your homework for you, do it yourself.


BA-LO-NEY! You have so much plenty a time to rant your anti-US troop nonsense 8 web-pages long already!

As for the rest of your post, more allegations and hearsay.

Read this out several times in your biased, distorted mind:
Haditha was full of IEDs. It seemed they were everywhere, like a minefield.

[edit on 6/7/2006 by pawnplayer]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   
OK so you have an Iraqi who claims that they were flown to Syria, complete with stories of planes being loaded with big drums with skull and crossbones decals on... but he can't name the pilots for obvious reasons... hmm.

See, the problem I have with this is that there are people who are prepared to go and say that kind of thing to gain advantage. That World Compassion site looks like a perfect CIA cover to me, and General Sada is 'head of the Iraq division' although he's not mentioned on their website.

His book was co-authored with Jim Nelson Black, friend to Chuck Colson and alumnus of the Heritage Foundation, far from unbiased source material as far as I'm concerned.

But, actually, the thing about this story is it doesn't make sense. WHY would you go to all this trouble to procure and preserve chemical weapons (neither biological nor chem weapons are terribly stable), only to MOVE THEM OUT OF THE COUNTRY at the first sign of trouble? They're supposed to be deterrents, at the very least. Why wouldn't you even threaten to use them? If you're a psycho like Saddam is purported to be, why wouldn't you really use them? It's just a colossal waste of money otherwise.

On the other hand, if you want to line yourself up for an excuse to invade yet another ME country, then this is a good way to go. Find an Iraqi that you can build up as a sympathetic guy, get him to write a book, or at least put his name on the cover, and you have the next country, Syria, firmly in your sights.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Pawnplayer, it’s wearisome reading your childish reference to rich23 as “richboy”. You sound like a bully who likes to hide safely behind his keyboard. Rich23 has not said or even implied that he hates US troops. He hates the commission of atrocities. That’s clear. Why do you defend it?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join