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.


One more reason to invade Iraq?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 3 2003 @ 11:00 AM
Just a little idea regarding how Iraq fits into the war on terror.

(apologies if someone has already mentioned something along these lines, but I can't be bothered reading the last 10months of so of backlog to check

There seem to be a lot of reports coming out that the men carrying out these attacks on Coalition forces (not really terrorism as its generally against military targets) are now regularly coming from extremist fighters from the surrounding nations as well as from Ba'ath loyalists.

Perhaps another more base function of the War to oust Saddam and his cronies is one a little less savoury than freedom for the Iraqis. The US (mainly) and other Coalition Govts talk about taking the fight to the terrorists. Perhaps as well as (hopefully) setting up the new Iraq as a bastion for democracy, the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq is also serving another function. Perhaps it is serving to lure a good portion of the young men who are ready and willing to fight against the US out into the open in an attempt to crush them in place, in an area where collateral damage to western interests is minimised.

Now it is true that there will always be more fighters dedicated/foolish enough to sacrifice themselves in an attempt to kill a handful of whoever. But the command/logistics of the movement must also be active in order to keep the supply going. Increased activity would make these parts easier to detect and defeat by Coalition forces.

Now I know thats a very half baked thought, and I've had just enough beers to be unsure whether or not it makes any sense. I'm most definitely not proposing that this would be any sort of primary reason to begin this mission, as it is basically using the military as bait to catch some terrorists, which I dont think would be particularly well recieved by the coalition planners as a primary objective. But it may be a cute little additional bonus carrot to cause the removal of Saddam and the attempt to set up a stable democratic Iraq. As even after control is handed to the Iraqis, the US will naturally have a big presence in country, and Iraq will continue to be a convenient lure to minimise attacks on the home countries of the coalition.

Any thoughts opinions?

posted on Nov, 3 2003 @ 12:59 PM
Hopefully it was Fosters....that would explain much,(sipping petrol would taste better)!
It's already been used, by the administration, as a test idea floated in our media as to why the events of the day are actually a good thing.
Even our complicit media was all over that Orwellian doublespeak.
If the idea behind terrorist recruitment is revenge for a wrong perpetrated by the great unholy.........well, you see.

posted on Nov, 3 2003 @ 01:06 PM
Dont be disgusting, of course it wasnt fosters.

Also you dont happen to have any links re this idea being tested in the media. I had a quick look earlier to see if i could find anything about the concept but wasnt able to find anything of note.

posted on Nov, 3 2003 @ 01:10 PM
Well hello again Mr Kano!

These "attacks" are not Iraquis, they're terrorists from other third-world nations over there that are jealous because Iraq is going to become more powerful then them.

I know!

My brother is in Iraq, he says moral is great and all of this liberal bull# about it being down is what it is: liberal bull#.

Iraq is more of a US territory now then anything, just a launch pad for future operations.
Watch out Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia... you're next...

- Tass

posted on Nov, 3 2003 @ 01:14 PM
All this talk about "foreign terrorists" and "Saddam Ba'ath Party remnants" is pure Pentagon spin.

The daily attacks in Iraq are being perpetrated by IRAQIS. I don't know if anyone gets any Canadian news, but on CBC Newsworld last night, for instance, they were showing footage of one of the destroyed US Army vehicles.

Iraqis were all over the place, beside the smoldering APC, and they were dancing and laughing. One of them was even brandishing a discarded US Army helmet. The same scene was shown on CNN once, then they were using different angles and using fast cuts to avoid showing any jubilant Iraqis.

These attacks are not by "foreign" terrorists. They're by guys like Abdullah the shoemaker, whose three kids were blown apart by US bombs, or by US soldiers at a checkpoint, etc. By normal average Iraqis who feel that their country is being stolen from them. And weapons are easy to find in post-war Iraq.

And do you notice how only specific countries are mentioned?

Are we expected to believe that all these terrorists are coming from Syria, Lebanon and Iran but NONE from Saudi Arabia or Kuwait? None? Kuwait is close to Iraq and ditto for Saudi Arabia (weren't 14 of the hijackers on 911 Saudis?).

If the US media was reporting these attacks as attacks by Iraqi civilians desperate to get the US Army out of their country, the war would become MUCH less popular really really fast, and that's something that the Pentagon cannot let happen.

So they go ahead with their story.

"No, this isn't Iraqi resistance, Iraqis love us. It's, uh, foreign terrorists who are coming here to kill us. Al Qaeda and other BAD MEN. They are attacking us because they don't want us to succeed in bringing democracy to Iraq. We are being attacked because things are going so well, that's why."

Pure PR diarrhea.


posted on Nov, 3 2003 @ 01:14 PM
...Sunday mornings have "news forum" style talk shows on all the network channels. On the major networks, a panel of four these days is usally comprised by two active newspaper people who are conservative pundits & two former Reagan or Bush I staffers who are now pundits...then a moderator who feigns objectivity.

It was someone either connected to Paul Wolfshweitz (sic) or him who floated that canard.....which they can do with impunity on these shows because even if their is a so called 'opposition' party proponent on the panel, they're so bland & toothless they won't make a peep.

posted on Nov, 3 2003 @ 01:33 PM
Well some of the weapons systems that have been used are a little advanced for old abdullah and his shoes.

ie time delay or remotely fired mlrs system that hit the hotel, the sam(s) that seem to have been blamed for bringing down the latest chopper.

Also havent a lot of the explosive booby traps etc been made with military munitions?

All in all a little too difficult/expensive for random citizens of iraq to be behind all of this one would think.

posted on Nov, 3 2003 @ 01:37 PM
Considering that there was a standdown by most of the Iraqi military at ground force invasion time, it soesn't suprise me to see these munitions popping up now....they were'nt used before.
And with the US/UK flying 1000's of sorties prior to hostilities, I can't see those having decreased since, just increased, making physical entry into the conflict zone one of intense scrutiny.

posted on Nov, 3 2003 @ 03:36 PM
Kano: No, actually these weapons are readily available to most Iraqis, especially former Army.

I can't get this damn link to paste, just copy and paste it into your URL bar. ame_page.html


Nov 3 2003


From Paul Martin In Baghdad

MILITANTS are able to buy devastating weapons to attack coalition forces easily and cheaply in Baghdad, a Mirror undercover probe discovered.

We recruited a former Iraqi army officer, General Alameen, to order arms for us at a market in a graveyard on the outskirts of Baghdad.

Groups of men sit around on tombstones, light candles and pray. But they are not all mourners. Some are arms dealers who trade there secretly for two hours three times a day.

We ordered our weapons late in the afternoon from Brahim Khalil, a former sergeant and mine laying specialist in the disbanded Iraqi army.

Most of the sellers are just 15 to 20 years old and they take their orders back to their bosses.

General Alameen arrived back the next day and waited 15 minutes for Khalil. A young boy came and took him to the other side of the cemetery where Baath party officials were hiding.

There we were offered five RPG launchers and seven rockets. We bought two Russian-made launchers, fired from the shoulder, for 140.

"If you need more, just let me know," said the seller. Each one and a half foot long RPG rocket costs 12 to 19 but can be bought for just 6 to 9 at Mahmoudiya, south of the capital. Bulk purchases of 50 or more items bring the price down further..."

Don't believe the hype the Pentagon is pushing.


[Edited on 3-11-2003 by Jakomo]

[Edited on 3-11-2003 by Jakomo]

new topics

top topics


log in