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 won't show pictures of Iraq

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2004 @ 10:37 PM
link   
[Edited on 15-1-2004 by darkwraith]

[Edited on 10-5-2004 by Banshee]




posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Pictures of Destruction and Civilian Victims of the Anglo-American Aggression in Iraq (March 2003 onwards)
www.robert-fisk.com...

WARNING! - GRAPHIC PHOTOS
www.cassiopaea.org...



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 03:24 AM
link   
It was a war, what do you expect. Well actually it was an illegal war, one in which the American authorities are refusing to count the number of civilian deaths. It's all horrible, war is horrible, war is pointless. Especially seeing as this war is leading the west into more terrorism and battles in the future. I just feel so sorry for those poor Iraqis who have been killed for no good reason by our countries bombs.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Yes, continue to turn your eyes the other way.....not even a mention of Saddam's doings? Not even a whimper of a comment? Wow....

"Mass Graves of Iraq: Uncovering Atrocities"
Link:
www.cpa-iraq.org...


"Victims of Saddam's Regime"
Link: (WARNING: Graphic Material --- all 50 pages worth)
www.9neesan.com...


Roughly 263 mass graves and only approxly. 40 have been dug up and confirmed......oh, but wait, this is Bush's fault also.




regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 06:53 PM
link   
*Yawn* Actually Seekerof everything Saddam has done has been well documented and discussed many many times before.
So what are you saying? Everytime someone brings up something against the "coaliton of the willing"(still makes me laugh) they have to have right next to it everything that Saddam has also done? It's not like we don't already know, we've used much bandwith discussing it, now we are moving on seeing things from ALL points of view.
Because Saddam is such a bad man does that mean that the coalition is exempt from all wrong doing? Should we not be covering every angle to discover the truth here?



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 06:59 PM
link   
*Yawn*
Like what this wretched Bush Administration "has" done and "committed" hasn't been discussed enough?!?
Keep *yawning*....this topic has like been discussed 100:2 the amount of exact mentions of Saddam's "doings"............

BTW...I have no problem with covering "every angle to discover the truth"....the problem is the "angle(s)" that you are subliminally mentioning have been discussed and re-hashed about how many times?

Your trying to say?


regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 07:02 PM
link   
So you're basically saying the same thing as me, except from across the other line but there is a difference. Everytime you put up some defensive stuff about the Bush Admin. I don't ask you to also include all the evil doing he's done to even it up...
and what's with the negative attitude, I'm just discussing something with you man...?


[Edited on 6-1-2004 by John Nada]

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by John Nada]



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Perhpas it was "the" *YAWN* bit John......how would you have liked me to have taken that to mean?


regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Of course american media will never show any of these pictures due to our attacks, but they are happy to show pictures that fuel propaganda for the war...

Seekerof, no one is denying that Saddam is a terrible guy and that he's responsible for a lot of deaths...why are you defending the Bush administration when no one has even mentioned them yet??



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 07:06 PM
link   
It increasingly seems that the Democrats have only one issue and that is the Iraq war.

They have nothing else.

They have admitted publicly that their objective is to convince the public the following things:

1. The war is illegal or at least unjustified.
2. It has gone badly.
3. There was no real plan from start to finish.
4. The purpose of the oil was to only put oil supply in the hands of GWB's friends.
5. The war is like Vietnam or even worse than Vietnam was.

Trying to prove any of these points would be difficult to a rational person that cares about their country but for a Democrat desparate for a Job in 2004 they will make a mountain out of a molehill if need be.

The exaggeration and drama will increase as the months pass by up to the election.

I don't know if I can take it anymore...!



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Shotek:
You said:
"Seekerof, no one is denying that Saddam is a terrible guy and that he's responsible for a lot of deaths...why are you defending the Bush administration when no one has even mentioned them yet"


Umm, "coalition" is not indicitive or does not include the current US administration?
Or this:
...."HOW THE U.S. IS BURYING PEOPLE IN MASS PEOPLE"....
Is this not also indicitive of the US? The current administration is representitive of the US...no?


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   
This doesn't really surprise me. The US will do anything to make sure its citizens know nothing of what's really going on there.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Perhpas it was "the" *YAWN* bit John......how would you have liked me to have taken that to mean?


regards
seekerof


I'm just bored because you always bring this up and I don't think it's accurate, but I in no way intended to disrespect you, I'm sorry if you thought so. Peace man.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Umm, "coalition" is not indicitive or does not include the current US administration?
Or this:
...."HOW THE U.S. IS BURYING PEOPLE IN MASS PEOPLE"....
Is this not also indicitive of the US? The current administration is representitive of the US...no?


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by Seekerof]


I typed my post while John Nada was replying, thus I was referring to your first post where you say "Yes, continue to turn your eyes the other way.....not even a mention of Saddam's doings? Not even a whimper of a comment?" and then you go on to say "oh, but wait, this is Bush's fault also.
" and at this time no one had said Saddam was innocent, nor had said it was "all Bush's fault." So it seems like you are jumping the gun...although I guess I could understand with Bush being denounced in almost every thread, however I happen to agree with most of it.




posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 07:24 PM
link   
My apologies as well John.
I should have given you the benefit of the doubt thus I will gladly take the blame.



Shotek....no problem there.

The comment: "Oh, this is Bush's fault also" was made with much sarcasm, and was not noted, but the meaning served the purpose.



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Bush is only taking orders people, wake up!

When his red phone rings he picks it up and says yessum mastah Rockefeller!



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthtone
It was a war, what do you expect. Well actually it was an illegal war, one in which the American authorities are refusing to count the number of civilian deaths. It's all horrible, war is horrible, war is pointless. Especially seeing as this war is leading the west into more terrorism and battles in the future. I just feel so sorry for those poor Iraqis who have been killed for no good reason by our countries bombs.


Illegal war? Exactly how is the war illegal?



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 07:32 PM
link   
It helps to have a reason... one that isn't bullsh*t anyway.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
Illegal war? Exactly how is the war illegal?


It is an illegal offensive war, they specifically wrote in their security strategy "we recognize that our best defense is a good offense"...the war violates United Nations Charter, Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact, as well as the Nuremberg Charter.

Article 6 of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter provides in relevant part as follows:
. . . .
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:
(1) Crimes against peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
. . . .
Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.

To the same effect is the Sixth Principle of the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, which were adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations in 1950:
PRINCIPLE VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(1) Crimes against peace:
(1) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(2) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
. . . .

I don't think anyone needs to see real info regarding this war being "wrong".



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 08:05 PM
link   
"What does the "Resolution to Authorize the Use of Force Against Iraq" mean?"
Link:
miller.senate.gov...

Excerpt:

"In October of last year, Congress passed H.J. Res. 114 which authorized the use of military force against Iraq. As enacted into law, the joint resolution provides authorization for the use of military force against Iraq and expresses support for the president's efforts to:

1. strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
2. obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
In addition, H.J. Res. 114 authorizes the president to use the U.S. Armed Forces to (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. It directs the president, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the president pro tempore of the Senate his determination that:

1. reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and
2. acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the U.S. and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
It declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution. Finally, it requires the President to report to Congress at least every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution."




regards
seekerof



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join