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.

 

Harsh Reality of Iraq. ** warning image may disturb

page: 7
18
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Agit8dChop

You know what many do not want to face or to admit, Iraq is a mess, people are dying everyday and not from Saddam, they lost their nation to a liberation.

What have the American people gotten out of all these . . .

A deficit in the trillions to support the non-bid contracts in Iraq . . .and the war.

Tax payer money going missing and wasted . . .

In addition, a shady contract from the US oil barons to take the 75% of the Iraqi oil without asking the Iraqis if they wanted or not. . .

Meanwhile our taxpayer money is going to pay for the initial support of the US oil companies rights to get the Iraqi oil. . .

Then. . . can somebody tell again, what the invasion of Iraq was for?




posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Connected Bush said on many occasions Iraq was responcible for 9/11, he toured America stating it on every occasion, I heard him saying it, I read what he said I watched his press meetings and millions of others heard those comments.


Ok, I for one, am getting sick of this accusation. Please show me multiple instances of Pres. Bush explicitly telling the American public that Iraq and Saddam were the ones responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. Please do not resort to snipping quotes either, show me the full text of the quote. Souljah tried to show it without much luck other than sensationalized titles. While he has said nations like Iraq and Iran have supported terrorists and other rotten things, he has never stated, nor has the U.S. government accused Iraq or Iran of instigating and running the 9/11 attacks. Reread the transcripts if you must, you have heard only what you wanted to hear. While Iraq and nations like it have been talked about at the same time as the 9/11 attacks in regards to terrorism and it's supporters, they have never been accused of being the ones responsible for 9/11.

That Iraq and Iran have and do (in Iran's case) support terrorist groups is readily proven, are you denying this as well?



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pavel

That Iraq and Iran have and do (in Iran's case) support terrorist groups is readily proven, are you denying this as well?


Now don't be hasty here, bush did a great job using propaganda to steer the whole war on terror into the country of Iraq, and that is why Afghanistan and bin-landen has been forgoten and we have most of our troops in Iraq and the assumption with not explanation of the links between Saddam and al-qaida that were used until the truth came out that was not links whatsoever.

That can not be denied.

Now when it comes to supporting terrorist, so is every other country in the middle east even the ones that call themselves allies of the US and that is also undeniable.
our tax payer dollar goes to these so call allies with incentives and deals while they keep financing the terrorist groups of their fancy and choosing.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by Pavil

That Iraq and Iran have and do (in Iran's case) support terrorist groups is readily proven, are you denying this as well?


Now don't be hasty here,


Lol. Cmon marge, at least try to prove me wrong rather than changing the focus of the discussion.


Iraqs training of terrorists



Iraq support of other terrorist groups

Do I need to post links showing Iran's support for terrorist groups as well? Please don't make me.

Are you denying that Iraq had and Iran does support terrorist groups marge? It's a pretty straightforward question: Yes or NO?



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   
The weekly standard bombshell was date in 2003, the bombshell was old news and the response by the Department of Defense can be found here.

www.defenselink.mil...

WHY IS THE PRESS AVOIDING THE WEEKLY STANDARD'S INTELLIGENCE SCOOP?



The Department of Defense evinced more critical interest in the leaked memo than most of the press with a Saturday, Nov. 15, press release, confirming the memo's authenticity but claiming—without naming Hayes or the Weekly Standard—that it had been misinterpreted: "The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions."


www.slate.com...



One anonymous "former senior intelligence officer" quoted by Pincus sniffs that the memo is not an intelligence product but "data points ... among the millions of holdings of the intelligence agencies, many of which are simply not thought likely to be true."


So after the war we have the weekley standard with a bombshell of the suppousely Saddam evil terrorist training camp.

Did you know that these camps were use to train the Saddam elite forces in iraq?

But now they convinietly were turned around and now they are foreign terrorist training camp.

But alas !!!!! the bomb shell die out and no more of the supposuely prove is anywhere to be found but only in the weekly standard.

Should I trust this because It said that I should.

For years US had imposed no fly zones in the northen and souther part of Iraq before invasion and Camps were suppousely in the zones that were patrolled by US air but for some reason they never saw anything suspicious in the area.

Doesn’t that sound kind of weird?

I tell you what, let the pentagon release the bombshell and the pictures and then we talk about it.


Still no MWDs.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   
You still haven't answered the question. Did Iraq and does Iran support terrorist organizations?

The links you provided are hardly conclusive that the article is wrong. It mainly sounds as if they are upset that those intelligence reports got out and that someone made an analysis out of them when that was not the initial reports intent.

I am quite sure Iraq used the training facilities for themselves as well as others. Why is it beyond the pale that Saddam would allow some training of foreign terrorists as long as he was confident he could control them in his country and conceal his involvement in the whole affair?

What about these little nuggets that were in the footnote links of the slate article you quoted:

During a 3 Sept 2002 interview, senior al Qaeda lieutenant Zubaida said that Bin Laden would ally al Qaeda with any entity willing to kill Americans. Zubaida explained, "my enemy's enemy is my friend." Bin Laden opposed a "formal" alliance because it may threaten al Qaeda's independence, but he saw the benefits of cooperation and viewed any entity that hated Americans and was willing to kill them as an "ally." Zubaida had suggested that the benefits of an alliance would outweigh the manageable risks to the integrity of al Qaeda. He said the potential benefits included access to WMD materials, such as weaponized chemical or biological weapons material, as well as funding and potential locations for safehaven and training. .....
During a May 2003 custodial interview with Faruq Hijazi, he said that in a 1994 meeting with Bin Laden in Sudan, Bin Laden requested that Iraq assist al Qaeda with the procurement of an unspecified number of Chinese-manufactured anti-ship limpet mines. Bin Laden thought that Iraq should be able to procure the mines through third-country intermediaries for ultimate delivery to al Qaeda. Hijazi said he was under orders from Saddam only to listen to Bin Laden's requests and then report back to him. Bin Laden also requested the establishment of al Qaeda training camps inside Iraq.


I really think you should read the whole Slate article and the links therein.

www.slate.com...

Trust me, I'm not saying Saddam and AQ were in lockstep together in their operations and planning but surely, you must concede, that AQ and Iraq had similar objectives when it came towards hurting the US and it's interests in the region? If they have similar interests might they have found common ground on some things?

And I am not just talking about AQ when it comes to Iraq's support for terrorist groups, there is evidence that he helped many around the globe.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Im sure it did happen,

but it was no worse than OTHER countries doing up until TODAY.


It was no worse?... Yes some of the insurgents have died during interrogations, shoudn't have happened, but it did... But they are not getting their hands amputated, or their tongues, or their fingers...

Children in schools are not getting tortured for speaking their minds about Saddam...and their families are not being tortured and murdered because the children said something against Saddam or his regime...


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Had he of been doing something on par with Hitlers Holocaust, then military intervention is a must.


And he was....as you can see from the mass graves....


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
But people jump from excuse to excuse,

Wmd's
Human Rights
Ignoring UN measures.


There was no jumping from excuse to excuse....

You people are a hoot sometimes...

How many times do you have to read the speech the president of the United States gave to the world and the UN before the war?...

There were several reason given why Saddam's regime had to be ousted...

But some people keep lying and exagerating claiming "they jumped from excuse to excuse" when they didn't.... Then they talk about how they were lied, when they themselves are doing a lot of lying lately....


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
For 1, there were no WMD's.
For 2, What saddam was doing is no different to what other leaders do to citizens.
For 3, the UN declared the war ILLEGIAL, meaning that if saddam went against the UN rules, It was up to the UN to decide the punishment.
and the UN stuck to the tone of continuing searches and dialouge.


The WMD issue will always be a big question as to exactly what happened to them.... but there is too much evidence and too many high ranking military defectors from Iraq, and Russia who have been saying there were WMD in IrAq, if some are not still hidden somewhere in IRaq...a lot of them were moved...

As for your claim that "what Saddam was doing is no different to what other leaders are doing"....you have got to be kidding...

i guess "because there is genocide being done by some, it is alright for anyone to do it and we should be cowards and never get involved in trying to stop such massacres"....

The UN was also in on it.... even the son of Kofi Annan was in on the "Oil For Food" scandal, and I wouldn't be surprised if Kofi Annan was also in on it...

Countries such as Russia, China, Germany and France were making millions with illegal deals with the regime of Saddam meanwhile 500,000 Iraqi children under age of 5 died, and meanwhile Saddam was murdering his own people.....



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
You still haven't answered the question. Did Iraq and does Iran support terrorist organizations?


My answer was given in this previous post Pavil.



Now when it comes to supporting terrorist, so is every other country in the middle east even the ones that call themselves allies of the US and that is also undeniable. our tax payer dollar goes to these so call allies with incentives and deals while they keep financing the terrorist groups of their fancy and choosing.


I am sorry if you miss it, US did support Afghanistan and Iraq when they were friends.

BTW I will read more into the last link you provided.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Agit8dChop

You know what many do not want to face or to admit, Iraq is a mess, people are dying everyday and not from Saddam, they lost their nation to a liberation.


I kind of doubt anyone would claim it is not a mess.... Yes it is a mess, but because insurgents are trying to take control of Iraq...many of them who were part of Saddam's regime...



Originally posted by marg6043
What have the American people gotten out of all these . . .


Wow....apparently some people want to make a profit from the war....

Maybe some members should also be getting something in return, like money, from the tax payer dollars that are sending food and medicine to other countries huh?......



Originally posted by marg6043
In addition, a shady contract from the US oil barons to take the 75% of the Iraqi oil without asking the Iraqis if they wanted or not. . .


... The Iraqis pay cents for their oil... The Iraqi oil is still oil of the Iraqis....

I would like to see where all this oil is, apparently some keep claiming the "oil companies got all the oil".... Well, where is the proof?...



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Pavil that is what the article is all about, if the issue have validity or not, and that is why the case should still be open.

But after a year and no more conclusions has come out it, then the result could only mean one thing . . . it was nothing more than misguided speculation.

Or was not.



One possible explanation is that the mainstream press is too invested in its consensus finding that Saddam and Osama never teamed up and its almost theological view that Saddam and Osama couldn't possibly have ever hooked up because of secular/sacred differences


Or,



Another explanation is that the national security press corps gave it a bye because they found nothing sufficiently new in the memo—and nothing that hadn't been trotted out previously in other guises by the Bush administration.


And,



Another possible explanation is that the press has come to discount any information from the administration camp as "rumint," a rumor-intelligence cocktail that should be avoided.


Then,

The article just has receded into oblivion and nothing more has come out of it.




[edit on 10-3-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Glad to see that you reread the link at least. The links between AQ and Iraq were fuzzy at best, I'll grant that. But we seem to disagree why they are fuzzy. I am of the thought that both sides (AQ and Iraq) put out feelers to each other to see how they might cooperate on certain things. Not that they were buddies, but enemies of common enemy, the US. These would have been covert arrangements, nobody would have been touting the arrangement. Iraq would have made darn sure that they had plausible tenability in regards to this, they knew if it got out, they would suffer retaliation. I doubt either side would have even left any "smoking guns" to be discovered in the first place. All we would see would be multiple ripples on the pond, not the multiple stones that caused it.

In your opinion, did Iraq give some forms of aid and cooperation to AQ? To me, if there are 50 talking points on a report to the Senate intelligence committee showing possible links between AQ and Iraq, I am betting that at least some of them are true, how about you?



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

In your opinion, did Iraq give some forms of aid and cooperation to AQ? To me, if there are 50 talking points on a report to the Senate intelligence committee showing possible links between AQ and Iraq, I am betting that at least some of them are true, how about you?


Or, that is what the entire speculation of the reports are trying to do.

Still the report just has gone into the back burner and nobody has tried anymore to find if they were true or not.

Now that should be the question, are they valid . . . or when the occasion was presented where made into looking like they could be valid . . .

The occasion was when the administration started to get negative views by the population and they started to get doubt about the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. . .



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 11:06 PM
link   
The US allies in Iraq need to leave, and then the US will too.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   
It was either this or leave them alone and continue to get attacked, or just wipe the ME of the planet.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joshua Crick
It was either this or leave them alone and continue to get attacked, or just wipe the ME of the planet.


yes, because of all the attacks on american soil that came from IRAQ. and because the USA isn't just receiving blowback from previous interference in the mid-east

america has been attacked 3 times

war of 1812 (i'm lumping that into 1 big attack)
then 129 years later on
pearl harbor, december 7, 1941
and another 60 years later on
9/11/01



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Ok, I for one, am getting sick of this accusation. Please show me multiple instances of Pres. Bush explicitly telling the American public that Iraq and Saddam were the ones responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. Please do not resort to snipping quotes either, show me the full text of the quote.


That is the brilliance of the dis info, he never said it directly. There were dozens of times where he implied it, and said everything other than outright saying it himself. No one is saying Bush said Iraq was responsible for 911. Bush DID say that there was very stron Iraq/Queda connection. Cheney repeated it MULTIPLE times on Meet the Press. The ran Powell out in front of everyone as well to say there were very strong ties and that he was supplying them with the capability to attack us with chemical and biological weapons - ALL of it was a lie, and they knew it. It isn't the lie that they came out and said directly, it was a very crafty lie, carefully planted in what they DIDN'T say.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   
No, your right, the line was rather fuzzy wasn’t it.

But was it fuzzy on purpose?

I mean, the best way to DUPE someone is to give them so much information that is so sketchy, they arent able to investigate it all until its too late.

EVEN BEFORE we went to war, articles such as this were appearing


WASHINGTON - With demands for a full-scale investigation of the manipulation of intelligence by the administration of President George W Bush mounting steadily, it appears increasingly clear that key officials and their allies outside the administration decided to use the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as a pretext for going to war against Iraq within hours of the attacks themselves.



A close examination of the public record indicates that all of these individuals - both in and outside the administration - were actively preparing the ground within days, even hours, after the September 11 attacks, for an eventual attack on Iraq, whether or not it had any role in the attacks or any connection to al-Qaeda.


See that,

WITH OR WITHOUT


Woolsey was more direct. "It's not impossible that terrorist groups could work together with the government ... the Iraqi government has been quite closely involved with a number of Sunni terrorist groups and - on some matters - has had direct contact with [Osama] bin Laden," he told one news anchor in a series of at least half a dozen national television appearances on September 11 and 12, 2001.


I believe that’s what you asked for?

has had DIRECT contact with OSAMA bin laden


Cheney, according to published accounts, had already confided to friends even before September 11 that he hoped the Bush administration would remove Saddam from power.



Rumsfeld was "telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks" five hours after an American Airlines jet slammed into the Pentagon.


See that?
Maybe that’s WHY the pengaton was hit.

Because the people inside needed to be so scared, and so shocked by the events that they would LASH OUT!

After all, they were almost killed here.
… wow I wonder if that was indeed the reason?


"Wolfowitz argued [at the meeting] that the real source of all the trouble and terrorism was probably Hussein. The terrorist attacks of September 11 created an opportunity to strike. Now, Rumsfeld asked again: 'Is this the time to attack Iraq?'


See that word…

‘’ OPPORTUNITY ‘’

Ive seen that word come up many times in regards to Iraq.

If Iraq was a REAL threat, they wouldn’t of been an ‘opportunity’

They would have been a dire cause.


"It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States," it said. "But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power.


They never CARED if there was a link,

Saddam was going to be removed REGARDLESS of the proof.

So it makes you wonder,

With all these whitehouse ‘friends’ making, millions, upon millions upon BILLIONS of dollars… is there any curroption happening here?

How can people, sane humans with a brain in their head still believe, this administration ACTUALLY believed saddam HAD wmd’s, WAS a threat, or WAS in cahoots with Alqaeda.

Really, is this the LAST braincell left or something?

To this day, not 1 shred of proof, or intelligence has come to light about Iraq, Wmd’s or Alqaeda that isn’t FALSE, Misleading, FABRICATED or highly dubious.

So why do people still believe that absolute CRAP?

www.atimes.com...



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop


See that word…

‘’ OPPORTUNITY ‘’

Ive seen that word come up many times in regards to Iraq.

If Iraq was a REAL threat, they wouldn’t of been an ‘opportunity’

They would have been a dire cause.


They never CARED if there was a link,

Saddam was going to be removed REGARDLESS of the proof.


I couldn't have said it better myself.

Oh, I almost forgot


You have voted Agit8dChop for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


Great thread BTW.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 03:11 AM
link   
First off, the art of propaganda is not to necessarily say anything directly, but to imply it.

So, while no one may ever unearth a direct quote from Bush saying Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, you will find it was implied over and over again, in speeches about Iraq where 9/11 was mentioned - I believe Souljah linked to many such things earlier in the debate.

See - its classic psy-ops. Work off the fear and paranoia that came after 9/11 and add another element into the mix. 9/11, Saddam Hussein, Al-Quaeda, 9/11 Iraq, Al-Quaeda 9/11, WMD, Al-Quaeda, 9/11......

Say things often enough and people will make the connection themselves.

And thats EXACTLY what happened. And it was designed to be that way.

Secondly, could one of our right wing friends here please explain to me, and to us all, how Saddam Husseins Iraq provided a direct and imminent threat to the USA and/or its people prior to US troops being deployed into the actual country itself?

Its just that Iraq is - give or take a few miles - 5800 miles away from the continental US and you can't fire a rusty shell who's chemical contents had expired 10 years earlier (and that would foul the barrel of a gun) that far.

Please bear in mind that in the '91 Gulf War Iraq could barely hit Israel, some 580 miles away with its wildly inaccurate Scud missiles, and that Iraq never had any ICBM's, Intercontinental Bombers or Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles.

What I'm saying is that anyone who believes the Iraq - 9/11 connection was duped.

What I'm also saying is that anyone who beleived the WMD/Imminent threat was duped.

Which leads me to my conclusing that an awful lot of people were duped, quite deliberatley.

Saddam Hussein wasn't a nice guy - lets be clear on that - but what he had, when compared to other people of his ilk (Pinochet, Mugabe, the governments of Angloa, Sudan etc.) was an army that could threaten the first thing in Iraq the "COW" secured. The oil supplies.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
Yep, looks like a warzone. This is what you get when the remnants of a tyrannical reign try to claw their way back into power.


There are plenty of tyrranical regimes that have a far worse human rights record than SH did and so much of what he did on direct command of his CIA handlers or simply allowed by the US in return for his agressive war against Iran. The Iraqi people most certainly do not deserve what they are getting and it's not 'what they should be getting' for having to suffer under a US backed dictator.


Don't fool yourself into thinking that if the US pulls out before the insurgents are dealt with,


Like Vietnam? Since these insurgents are for the most part fighting for nothing other than independence and the US policy makers have chosen to send too few troops to prevent them from effectively attacking us forces it's pretty obvious that US forces will sooner rather than later withdraw into their multi billion dollar permanent bases...


Iraq will turn into this happy place for the Iraqi citizens.


It probably wont be that for a while to come ( the US terror bombing against civilian infrastructure saw to that) but they would be far better off without US troops or CIA agents stiring up trouble as far as they go.


The insurgents are fighting to regain their position of having their bootheel on the average citizen and placing females back in their "rightful" place, which is below dogs to these people.


Women in Iraq had more freedom under SH than women do in any other ME country the US sponsors. The insurgents may or may not have such motives but mostly it's to get the occupiers out of their country.


I honestly feel for the Iraqi citizens...and I'm an American which I know is an oxymoron to most of the America haters out there.


If you 'felt' for the Iraqi citizen you would not be saying the ignorant things you are and don't for a moment think your feigned sympathy can hide your general hatred for a people and 'insurgent terrorist' that never did anything to Americans before America chose to attack Iraq back in 1990. So far santions, the war with Iran ( as allowed and supported by the US ) and the American campaigns has probably cost Iraq 1.5 - 2 million dead and it would be interesting to see anyone attempting to explain what Iraq ever did to deserve that...


However, I also feel that a pullout will result in genocide on a grand scale.


Well if the media keeps telling you so it must be true! Fact is these current 'sectarian violence' is relatively new and quite unique in modern Iraqi history so one wonders what happened to set it off. That being said while we catch SAS guys dressed up as Iraqi's with bombs in the boot and RPG's in the back seat we might all wonder who is really bombing the mosque's and trying to get the much talked about genocide started.


It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of situation we have here.


It rarely ever is but it's the type of paralysis you will experience if you attempt to make sense of reality by means of the mass media misrepresentations and lies.

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join