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.


Harsh Reality of Iraq. ** warning image may disturb

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 09:14 AM

Originally posted by LogansRun

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.
Please once again, give me an concrete example of the President even implying that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks.

No one is saying Bush said Iraq was responsible for 911.

I beg to differ. What about this one here:

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

Seems to me he believes the hype you are pushing.

Bush DID say that there was very strong Iraq/Queda connection.

Again, please provide evidence of "strong" ties. They said that there were meetings between Iraq and AQ and that "some" AQ members, mainly Zarqawi, had received help from Iraq ie medical and passports.

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

Guess what I'm going to ask for....sources please.

POWELL: His information comes first-hand from his personal involvement at senior levels of Al Qaida. He says bin Laden and his top deputy in Afghanistan, deceased Al Qaida leader Muhammad Atif (ph), did not believe that Al Qaida labs in Afghanistan were capable enough to manufacture these chemical or biological agents. They needed to go somewhere else. They had to look outside of Afghanistan for help. Where did they go? Where did they look? They went to Iraq.
The support that (inaudible) describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.
Powell speech to UN

Again, there was some cooperation between Iraq and AQ. It was not full fledged alliance as you seem to imply. The President was saying that post 9/11 even that limited level of cooperation could end up being deady. That is troublesome enough.

posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Agit8dChop


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?

So now a former head of the CIA under Pres. Clinton is part of the Neocon plan, am I getting that right?

You are proving my point for me.

James Woolsey

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?

So I guess Mr. Woolsey is one of those insane people too.
While this is depleting my brain cells arguing this, I still have plenty left. That you can't seem to grasp that regimes like Saddam's were making the world less safe boggles my mind. There were multiple reasons to take on Saddam, not just one. That you make it only a Bush thing too escapes me. Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam

posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 09:44 AM
I am surprised that you use Powell speech to make a point, Pavil, remember what happen to Collin Powell after that speech.

He didn't stay to see the result of the war for lies didn't he.

posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 01:39 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
I am surprised that you use Powell speech to make a point, Pavil, remember what happen to Collin Powell after that speech.

He didn't stay to see the result of the war for lies didn't he.

Here's Powell himself after resigning; you tell me:

But I'm glad that Saddam Hussein is gone. I'm glad that that regime is gone," he said.

Why not use that speech, read the whole transcript of the UN speech if you must. Do you think everything in it is fabricated? I tire of people reading "Cliff notes" of events, especially when they are written by people with an agenda.

There were multiple reasons to act on Iraq. When you look back at the history of the latter third of the 20th century in the Middle East, you will find that Iraq was directly resposnsible for a majority of the casualties in the region, civillian and noncivillian. Go research it, then tell me what you would have done after 9/11.

posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Guess we should leave so Sunnis stop killin Shia.

Would be a great start IMO as Iraq has no modern history of sectarian ( meaning Sunni-Shia ) violence.

Oh .. thats right... they did that before the war only Shia where dragged into dark cellars so cameras couldn't see the torture and bloodshed.

The whole South-America was riddled with dark sellers where US backed dictators, or ' or 'freedom movements', ( they are only for freedom when the US supports them) tortured tens of thousand to death; that is if they bothered to take them to cellars and not just burn the village.

People die in wars. Glad you figured that out. Want a cookie now?

As long as the people are not Americans who work in tall towers where many companies specialized in finance and economic terrorism against third world nations leading to god knows how many tens of millions of deaths.

You think the so called 'Communist' had a high body count? I can tell you that they are rank amateurs compared to what the west have been doing to the third world in the last century....


posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 01:34 AM
Why does he have to be part of the neo-con plan?
Why couldnt he be another patsy, or moron who believed everything he heard?
I mean hell, there's still some people.. *gasp* that bleieve saddam had wmd's and was a threat....

posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Connected
Agit8dChop go visit Iraq and then come back, and THEN tell us your point of view.

You think im going to change my mind if I go Iraq?

Go and watch the 2nd largest military in Iraq.. “KBR & Blackwater”
Get paid thousands upon thousands to do a soldiers job…for a corporation …while honest Americans die … In hummers.. that aren’t armored enough…
While your president tries to justify these honest American soldiers dying… the corporation discovers that it’s got a country thats going to make it billions of dollars…

Only if it can convince the idiot in the Whitehouse to go along with this,
While he makes a pretty penny..

That’s only internal….

Think about Iraq.. The future those citizens are going live…

No matter how alluring the governments version of ‘democracy’ is meant to be…
It doesnt outweigh there desire for an Iraq piece of land.

And there going to remember what….. We….. did for a long time…

How could you blame them?

Can we really consider them, the aggressors….. Should they decide to attack us?

[edit on 16-3-2007 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Why does he have to be part of the neo-con plan?
Why couldnt he be another patsy, or moron who believed everything he heard?
I mean hell, there's still some people.. *gasp* that bleieve saddam had wmd's and was a threat....

Because he was a member of the PNAC who in 1998 wrote a letter to Pres. Clinton urging the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. He was only the Director of the CIA, he couldn't possibly know more about the situation than us, could he? Isn't that enough to damm him for you? I mean only Neocons were for the removal of Saddam in 1998 right? Hmmmmm..... maybe someone should research that.........

posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 10:02 AM
I got a new one here about the corporations sponsored technicians that are hired to work with computed equipment for the government.

Don't ask me how I know this because I can not tell but I know.

Now corporations working for the US under their contracts are having a hard time supplying their technical workers with transportation to go into various bases and work with malfunctioning equipment because the government is no supplying any security due to lack of it.

I know somebody that is pleading with his company here in the US to fix the problem because he and others can not get their job done.

funny when private companies are the ones sending this people into Iraq and then expect the government to do the security as part of their contracts.

I wonder if the blackwater is too comfortable in the green zone keeping security to the Iraqi elite and US VIPs to help with the worker's safety so they can do their job and keep the military equipment in good working conditions so our troops can be safe doing their job.

posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 09:22 PM
There's a sort of MORAL bankruptcy when you think about.

The greedy are being kept safe and secure...
While the patriotic are vulnerable and in harms way..

posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 05:52 PM

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

Originally posted by groingrinder
Excellent post. Sadly people have been "blinded by Bush" from the beginning. He has been all about helping the super rich get even richer. He has no regard for the poor and non-white people in America,

Your right accept for the non-white part. He doesnt give a damn what colour you are, just what class you are.
if your in the rich class your A ok, anything lower and youve got to fight for a living.

I know! It's a real shame.

I completely agree with everything you posted Agit8dChop, and it's really quite depressing because there's nothing we can do about the damage we've already inflicted on their country. Nowadays, no news in Iraq is good news, not remotely. However, realizing the problem is the first step to solving it ... even if the damage is beyond repair.

On a more positive note...

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

posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 02:02 AM
Id like to talk about the fact that many people believe that the the shia sunni "civil war" is responsible for all the carnage that is going on.

Id like to point out that before the US occupation, and this has been noted by prominent reporters too, that the sunni shia populations in Iraq lived together in relative peace. In fact I went to school with a guy named Nawaz who had family in Iraq, and indeed there were both sunni and shia in the family, and that in Iraq, the sunnis and shias often intermarried. The division between the sunnis and the shias in Iraq before the war was no more as strong as the protestant catholic division here in the west.

But, since the war, all of a sudden all of these so called secterian killings have been going on, out of the blue, most of them are believed to be revenge killings . I have a different view, upon reading many stories and articles.

For example, Robert Fisk, great journalist for the UK Independant who has spend alot of time in Iraq and talking with Iraqi civilians, wrote a piece that I think is worth reading.

Is US Provoking Civil War In Iraq?

He goes on to quote stories from Iraqis..

"One young Iraqi man told us that he was trained by the Americans as a policeman in Baghdad and he spent 70 per cent of his time learning to drive and 30 per cent in weapons training. They said to him: 'Come back in a week.' When he went back, they gave him a mobile phone and told him to drive into a crowded area near a mosque and phone them. He waited in the car but couldn't get the right mobile signal. So he got out of the car to where he received a better signal. Then his car blew up."

Impossible, I think to myself. But then I remember how many times Iraqis in Baghdad have told me similar stories. These reports are believed even if they seem unbelievable. And I know where much of the Syrian information is gleaned: from the tens of thousands of Shia Muslim pilgrims who come to pray at the Sayda Zeinab mosque outside Damascus. These men and women come from the slums of Baghdad, Hillah and Iskandariyah as well as the cities of Najaf and Basra. Sunnis from Fallujah and Ramadi also visit Damascus to see friends and relatives and talk freely of American tactics in Iraq.

There was another man, trained by the Americans for the police. He too was given a mobile and told to drive to an area where there was a crowd - maybe a protest - and to call them and tell them what was happening. Again, his new mobile was not working. So he went to a landline phone and called the Americans and told them: 'Here I am, in the place you sent me and I can tell you what's happening here.' And at that moment there was a big explosion in his car.

What would these Iraqi men have to gain by making up stories like this? Why would two different people make up the exact same story?

Could it be that actually, it is special American black ops people, who are encouraging violence in Iraq? Could it be that special black ops squads are actually committing the car bombs, planting the IEDs, and using trauma-based mind control to create suicide bombers? What if it was true?

You ever wonder where these terrorists get all of their weapons and their explosives, most of their explosives are high grade military explosives and the damage proves it. I highly doubt its home made improvised bombs by Iraqi "insurgents" are responsible for all these occurances in Iraq.

Lest we forget the fact that the death squads that run around Baghdad and other places killing both shia and sunni are being protected and abaded by the Iraqi security forces, trained and supervised by the Americans. I was watching a special report on CNN, by reporter John Roberts who went to Iraq, and even they admitted it.

Why would they want to encourage a civil war? Why would they want the country to plunge into even more chaos, when they say thats exactly what they dont want? Well because, the people who are put in front of the cameras to announce policies, are pathological liars, thats why.

They want to go in and create chaos, they outlined it in their pentagon documents. They want to foment endless secterian violence, to ensure that chaos ensues, to ensure that the war effort would be needed, and that America can sink deeper in the ground, because THAT is their real plan, to DESTROY America and its reputation as prosperous and peaceful.

They are creating the chaos in Iraq, they want war, they want to divide and rule the people by pitting faction vs faction. They want more troops in to the chaos which will only make things worse for America, they want more money for the war, they want WAR! THEY DO NOT WANT PEACE! How more obvious does it need to be?

[edit on 19-3-2007 by LightWorker13]

posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 02:53 AM
Looks like they're sweeping up a puddle of koolaid. Anyway on a serious note, the harsh reality of Iraq is that people still refuse to see terrorism as a serious, global threat.

posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 12:52 PM
reply to post by Agit8dChop

yeah i can see how those picture might make people think but you have to take in consideration that it is A WAR! these things do happen. theres no such thing thing as a war with out bloodshed. that country is better off with out saddam. he did way worst things. and who said the pesident ever lied. saddam did use chemical weapons againt his own people in the 90's and invaded kuwait thats why we went in. you can see he was a dangerous man and thats why he needed to be taken out. and those wmds that were never found could have easly been snuck out or iraq before the invasion. so think hard retard!!!

posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 01:55 PM

Originally posted by doobie12488
that country is better off with out saddam.

I think the only people qualified to make that call are the citizens of Iraq, and you know what, many of them say they were better off under Sadaam.

I had no love for the guy, but pre-Gulf war I he actually lifted that country to the highest social standards of middle eastern countries (including education, sanitary conditions, etc) Dont forget, Sadaam was put in power by the CIA to crush the Iraqi revolution, and crush it he did.

he did way worst things.

With the backing of the US state department.

and who said the pesident ever lied.

A quick google search with the terms "Bush lies" will show you just how often he let the truth fall down the memory hole.

saddam did use chemical weapons againt his own people in the 90's and invaded kuwait thats why we went in.

Ahem, you seem to only know the western version of history in this instance. A little tidbit of information for you, the call to arms by the US congress and American public was aided by a fstory of 500 kuwaiti babies being ripped from incubators and thrown on the floor while the soldiers were laughing. It came out years down the line that this story was a complete fabrication to drum up support for the war. It also came out years later that Sadaam had accepted G. Bush Sr. demands for a total withdrawl of Iraqi forces and he asked for 2 weeks to complete the withdrawl. Bush Sr. gave him one week (not nearly enough time) and when the time expired, the bombing started.

Finally, I suggest you read B. Bush Sr. and Bret Scowcrofts book, in it (cant remember the page) he basically says "Our oil interests were threatened." as a reason for invasion.

Maybe you could actually show me an instance where US military action was actually used to help mankind (WW II aside, as thats a long debatable issue)

you can see he was a dangerous man and thats why he needed to be taken out.

Your right about that, he was a dangerous man, thats why the US National Security State put him in power.

and those wmds that were never found could have easly been snuck out or iraq before the invasion.

Or just as easily never existed.

so think hard retard!!!

First, Courtesy is mandatory as per the TAC, which you agreed to when signing up an account. So drop the childish name calling.

Second, I suggest you follow your own advice and think hard. All of what I stated above is a matter of public record, go and have a look see.

Edit to add: Full Iraqi Withdrawl from kuwait before US troops were on the ground was labelled "The Nightmare scenario" by the bush administration.

[edit on 18-10-2007 by InSpiteOf]

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7   >>

log in