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.

 

CIA death squads operating in Iraq

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Guess I lied about not starting back into it, but I continue to be maligned over my opinion. So I feel I must speak out once again.

Originally posted by GeniusSage
I may have thought the same thing.... but these people are bombing places like the UN HQ's and Iraqi Police HQ's. They're killing the people that are helping to get the country back on track? That's a resistance force against freedom and peace. these people ARE terrorists and ur an absolute idiot for saying they arent.
I've stated my opinion on the resistance in Iraq.

For one, the UN was complicit with the action against Iraq. So it was certainly a target for those who are against the invasion.

As for the police HQ bombing, I will bring up a quote from an Iraqi police officer.

www.pbs.org...

"We are risking our lives every day," a police officer at the scene told Reuters. "People want to kill us because they think we work for the Americans, but all we want to do is bring security in Iraq."

As I said, the Iraqi resistance does not like the U.S., and if any Iraqi is taking up arms against other Iraqis for the new occupation government, which includes the Iraqi police, they are going to be targeted for attack as they will be considered traitors by the resistance.

Its a truly unfortunate turn of events for Iraq, but the resistance attacking other Iraqis is part and parcel of how patriotism/nationalism works. The for us or against us mentality which has caused all this grief to begin with by the United States.

[Edited on 23-3-2004 by heelstone]




posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 07:40 AM
link   
As I said, the Iraqi resistance does not like the U.S., and if any Iraqi is taking up arms against other Iraqis for the new occupation government, which includes the Iraqi police, they are going to be targeted for attack as they will be considered traitors by the resistance.


I would agree with that statemen, however they are not being specific with their targets. To be a true resistance they would only attack the mililtary targets, otherwise they would not be able to generate sympathy to their cause. A resistance force is not meant to strike fear in the hearts of those whom they would free, in the case of Iraq that is exactly what they are doing.


Its a truly unfortunate turn of events for Iraq, but the resistance attacking other Iraqis is part and parcel of how patriotism/nationalism works. The for us or against us mentality which has caused all this grief to begin with by the United States.


No, that is not how it works. A true resistance would never attack and kill civilians. To do so risks turning public opinion against them.



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 10:48 AM
link   
CoolHand: "A true resistance would never attack and kill civilians. To do so risks turning public opinion against them."

Apparently they attack only soldiers and "collaborators", not civilians.

And many Iraqis blame the US for the attacks in the first place. I was watching the BBC and this Iraqi dude was saying he saw a missile hit this building even though there was all this evidence of a car bomb.

You can't win, you gotta get out.

Jakomp



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Apparently they attack only soldiers and "collaborators", not civilians.



Have you been living under a rock?

More Iraqi civilians have been killed than US soldiers or Iraqi police. Many of them in direct attacks that had nothing to do with the coalition.

news.bbc.co.uk...


[Edited on 24-3-2004 by Leveller]



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Leveller: "More Iraqi civilians have been killed than US soldiers or Iraqi police. Many of them in direct attacks that had nothing to do with the coalition."

Bullcrap. How many civilians have been killed by US forces? www.iraqbodycount.com

The Pentagon doesn't REPORT on civilian casualties so we don't know that's true.

The Coalition forces and collaborators are the TARGETS, the civilian deaths are COLLATERAL. Just like for the US forces, apparently.

If the US wasn't there these people would not be dying. Simple inescapable logic.


jako



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   
You need to learn to read. I didn't insert the word by into my sentence.

And would you like to explain away the 100 and odd so civilian deaths in the link that I posted? I dunno if you can read, after your above assertion, but if you can, you will notice that this was an attack on a civilian target with civilian victims.


By the way. This statement - "If the US wasn't there these people would not be dying. Simple inescapable logic."?
I dunno if you noticed (probably not) but people were dying in massive numbers under Uncle Saddams regime. And if the US pulled out now even more would die in the civil war that would almost certainly follow.

I'm afraid that your "simple inescapeable logic" is pretty screwed up to say the least.

[Edited on 24-3-2004 by Leveller]



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Leveller: Okay, read this SLOWLY SO YOU UNDERSTAND.

"And would you like to explain away the 100 and odd so civilian deaths in the link that I posted? I dunno if you can read, after your above assertion, but if you can, you will notice that this was an attack on a civilian target with civilian victims. "

I can in fact read, and if you read the article YOU posted, they don't say WHO was being targetted because they don't know who did it because nobody claimed responsibility. Go back to your link and read it slowly.

Here's a quote for you from your link : "Confusion surrounded the cause of the blasts, with police officers running through the streets checking bins and boxes for more bombs. "

Read it again, Leveller. SLOWLY.

"By the way. This statement - "If the US wasn't there these people would not be dying. Simple inescapable logic."?
I dunno if you noticed (probably not) but people were dying in massive numbers under Uncle Saddams regime. And if the US pulled out now even more would die in the civil war that would almost certainly follow. "


Bullcrap. MORE people are dying now as a direct result of the US Occupation than under Saddam. EVERY DAY civilians are dying, getting carjacked on lawless highways, and getting shot up at checkpoints. At least under Saddam people KNEW THE RULES. As terrible and evil as he was, people KNEW what the rules were.

Saddam was no angel, but neither are your "Occupation Forces" so get over it.

Whether you're ignorant or just unwilling to see the truth is not my concern.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

"If you are in Iraq, in Baghdad, driving its dangerous roads, the evidence of collapse and failure is everywhere. The few unarmed NGOs are marooned in the cities, unable to travel on the highways, which have become the domain of assassins and bandits. Now even the road south of Kerbala is the haunt of armed gangs. When I drive these highways, I now wear a keffiyeh and thobe on my head. My driver wears western trousers and shirt but I am in Arab clothes to avoid being attacked. Other westerners are doing the same thing. What does that tell us about Iraq a year after its "liberation"?

Many drivers now refuse to work for western reporters - and who can blame them? Yesterday, another journalist from the "Arabia" television station died of wounds after being shot by US troops - no wonder his colleagues walked out of Colin Powell's boastful Baghdad press conference yesterday. Three journalists working for the American- funded television station have been killed by insurgents. An old Iraqi friend of mine - one of Saddam's most trenchant critics - approached me this week. He had wanted to work for a "democratic" Iraq. Now he wanted my help in obtaining a second passport. Could I speak to the Australian embassy, he asked? He no longer believed that he would live in a stable country. What does this also tell us about "new Iraq"?



And since the Pentagon REFUSES to release civilian casualty numbers then we don't know for sure how many are dying... Just like "Uncle Saddam" as you call him.

10,000 civilians dead since the start of the war. 10,000 civilians dead due to the illegal invasion of their country by the United States. You say Saddam killed many, too.

It's pretty shocking that you're comparing the Occupation Forces to Saddam.

"Yeah sure we're killing a lot but look at what Saddam did". Wow high praise.

Have you ever heard the quote : "Sometimes the Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't".

The Devil they knew was Saddam.

The Devil they don't is the US Army.

And if the US pulls out and there is a Civil War in Iraq, it's directly due to, again, to the ILLEGAL INVASION of Iraq.

Connect the dots, it's easy. With no invasion, there's no "resistance". Simple math.

jakomo



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 01:58 PM
link   
It's like talking to a small child.
In fact like talking to a small [child.


"they don't say WHO was being targetted because they don't know who did it because nobody claimed responsibility."

So that means that it was aimed at coalition forces? Yeah. Plant bombs in and outside of mosques during a Shia festival and you'll hit the Americans and Iraqi police. Not. Just because they don't know who planted the bombs it absolutely does not mean that the target is in doubt.
By your logic, every unsolved rape case would not be the action of a rapist just because the rapist hasn't been caught .


Now, lets get this absolutely straight. People were dying under Saddam. A million of them. Far, far more than have died under American occupation. Spout all the denials that you want to - your argument that people are dying now is a waste of time when you realise that they were dying before in larger numbers.

As regards to the link. Well, of course there were police officers there. Every society has police officers. The police officers weren't the target. The fact remains that this was a civilian target.
And even if the US couldn't directly fingerprint the culprits and they weren't your "freedom fighters", they would still be another group of terrorists.

Come back at me with an excuse that these Shias are only dying because the US is there and you only expose more ignorance. Saddam exterminated Shias in the hundreds of thousands and that's why the no-fly zones that you so vigorously oppose had to be put in place. But I would like an answer.

"Have you ever heard the quote : "Sometimes the Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't".
Have you ever thought that it's better to get rid of the devil in the first place?

Your logic is crap. No doubt you'll reply with another load of bull# that can easily be ripped apart but to tell the truth - you aren't even a challenge.
It amazes me that you claim logic when your arguments are so easily shown to be stupid, illogical and running round in circles.







[Edited on 24-3-2004 by Leveller]

[Edited on 24-3-2004 by asala]



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Leveller: Well first off, I don't take too well to being called "retarded" and I believe it's rather insulting to people with mental dysfunctions to be throwing that term around. Any Mods around for a wrist-slap?

""they don't say WHO was being targetted because they don't know who did it because nobody claimed responsibility."

So that means that it was aimed at coalition forces? Yeah. Plant bombs in and outside of mosques and you'll hit the Americans and Iraqi police. Not."


THEY DON'T SAY WHO WAS TARGETTED. Read that. THEY DON'T KNOW, SO YOU CAN'T SAY THAT IT WAS TARGETTED AT CIVILIAN OR COALITION FORCES BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW.

YOU claim this was targetted at civilians, but there is NO proof that's the case. Read it until you understand it. I claim that we don't KNOW who it was aimed at.

"Now, lets get this absolutely straight. People were dying under Saddam. A million of them. Far, far more than have died under American occupation. Spout all the denials that you want to - your argument that people are dying now is a waste of time when you realise that they were dying before in larger numbers."

Saddam had 30 years, the US has had 1 year. Buy a calculator.

And you don't seem to realize you're comparing the 1 year-old US Occupation to 30 years of totalitarian rule. Why not compare it to an actual NON-dictatorial country. Or is that the easiest comparison you can make? When you compare the Occupation to Saddam's Rule, you may actually come out ahead. Why not compare it to Suharto in Cambodia? Duvalier in Haiti?

Your comparison is weak and laughable.

"Yeah who cares if 10,000 civilians have died in Iraq over the last year, SADDAM KILLED MILLIONS!"

Sad, sad, sad. Like I said, get a calculator and also realize that you're comparing 12 months of illegal occupation to 30 years of dictatorial rule.

"As regards to the link. Well, of course there were police officers there. Every society has police officers. The police officers weren't the target. The fact remains that this was a civilian target. "

Really? You can't know this unless you planned the attack. Did you?

"Come back at me with an excuse that these Shias are only dying because the US is there and you only expose more ignorance. Saddam exterminated Shias in the hundreds of thousands and that's why the no-fly zones that you so vigorously oppose had to be put in place. But I would like an answer. "

Is "because you're an idiot" a valid answer?

If not, then here: The No Fly Zones weren't put in for Shia's. Northern Iraq is predominantly KURDISH. Southern Iraq is SUNNI and Shia. It wasn't to PROTECT them, the US told them to revolt in 1992 after the Gulf War I. Know what happened? The Shias and Kurds revolted and then when Saddam came in with helicopter gunships the US LET HIM. Massacred Kurds and Shias, due to U.S. interference.

"Come back at me with an excuse that these Shias are only dying because the US is there"

That you DON'T realize this makes me realize there's no reason to argue with you, since apparently there's some kind of blockage. When you read something, it doesn't actually make it to your brain. Weird thing.

"It amazes me that you claim logic when your arguments are so easily shown to be stupid, illogical and running round in circles. "

I'm fairly certain you're not using the same definition of logic as me. You're the one who looks like an idiot here, pal. I guess it's just as well you don't realize it, since I don't want to make you weepy.


jako




posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Leveller: Well first off, I don't take too well to being called "retarded" and I believe it's rather insulting to people with mental dysfunctions to be throwing that term around. Any Mods around for a wrist-slap?

THEY DON'T SAY WHO WAS TARGETTED. Read that. THEY DON'T KNOW, SO YOU CAN'T SAY THAT IT WAS TARGETTED AT CIVILIAN OR COALITION FORCES BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW.

Is "because you're an idiot" a valid answer?




That has to be one of the weakest lamest arguments yet. Tell you what, I'll use caps too. You seem to think that they have a greater impact so maybe they'll work on you:

IF THE BOMBS WERE AT MOSQUES AND THERE WERE NO US FORCES THERE BUT PREDOMINANTELY IRAQI CIVILIANS IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO PLANTED THE BOMBS AS IT WAS OBVIOUS WHAT THE TARGET WAS. JUST BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T CATCH THE CULPRITS DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY CAN'T IDENTIFY THE VICTIMS.

Don't like being called retarded yet call me an idiot?
*sigh* Need I really say more on that one.......

I guess it was a little insulting of me to those with mental dysfunctions though. Even they're not as thick as you.




posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   
NO INSULTS!!

THIS IS NOT THE MUD PITT!

KEEP THIS ON TOPIC,



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 12:00 PM
link   
leveller: "IF THE BOMBS WERE AT MOSQUES AND THERE WERE NO US FORCES THERE BUT PREDOMINANTELY IRAQI CIVILIANS IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO PLANTED THE BOMBS AS IT WAS OBVIOUS WHAT THE TARGET WAS. JUST BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T CATCH THE CULPRITS DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY CAN'T IDENTIFY THE VICTIMS."

So they were mostly civilians there. And that's who mostly died.

Were there any Coalition forces there at all? Undercovers? Were there any collaborators?

You don't know and I don't know.

The only difference is I admit it. Until all the details come out (doubtful since the Pentagon controls much of what comes out of Iraq on the newswire), you CAN'T say that it was targetting civilians because WE DON'T KNOW THAT.

Read it and read it and read it again, if it doesn't stick, read it again.

Or just trust that I'm right, because deep down inside you know it. I sure as hell do, and so does everyone else reading this thread.

Or just insult me and hope that it deflects the argument away from the fact that you've lost it.


Bye!



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I've lost nothing.
You are really and truly reaching.

I repeat. The bombing took place at mosques during a religous festival. The target could not have been anything but the civilians worshipping there. To suggest otherwise is clearly ludicrous. I really had to laugh at your suggestion that there were coalition forces there "under cover". If they were under cover the bloody terrorists wouldn't have known they were there would they?
If the terrorists plant bombs in civilian area where there are no coalition forces it stands to reason that coalition forces are not the target.

Deny the fact that the bombing was aimed to take out civilians when there was no evidence whatsoever of coalition forces being in the area. Incidentally, there WOULDN'T have been any in the area as Shia sacred sites are off limits to US forces.

Logic dictates that you lose your ridiculous argument.

[Edited on 25-3-2004 by Leveller]



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   
leveller: "I repeat. The bombing took place at mosques during a religous festival. The target could not have been anything but the civilians worshipping there. To suggest otherwise is clearly ludicrous. I really had to laugh at your suggestion that there were coalition forces there "under cover". If they were under cover the bloody terrorists wouldn't have known they were there would they?
If the terrorists plant bombs in civilian area where there are no coalition forces it stands to reason that coalition forces are not the target."


If. If. If. Yeah, you're clearly winning this one. Haha.

I know you don't read what I type, but do you even read what YOU type? LOL.

I'm suggesting we don't know the motives because they haven't been told to us. But you apparently have ironclad evidence that hasn't even been reported, not even by YOU.

Haha, I win.

Read that again. Not the whole post, just the "I win." part.

Until it sinks in.




posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
EVERYTHING is an if. There is ABSOLUTELY not one single thing that isn't an if in this world. But ifs have relative possibilities. If a=1 and b=2 then a+b=3. Notice the if at the beginning of that equation? Would you deny that the answer is 3? That is what you have done with your argument.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck and looks like a duck - guess what? It's 99.999999% certain to be a duck.

Let's look at your argument in the context that it is made.

A terrorist plants a bomb in an area where there are no coalition forces. He plants it in the middle of a civilian area. He plants it when there is an advertised influx of civilians. When the bomb explodes the only victims are civilians.

You are stating that simply because the terrorist's were not caught, their targets were not civilians but coalition forces.

The coalition forces are not even in the equation. They did not exist in the area, neither can they exist in your argument. Use basic mathematics and you will see that you are logically wrong.





[Edited on 25-3-2004 by Leveller]



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
EVERYTHING is an if. There is ABSOLUTELY not one single thing that isn't an if in this world. But ifs have relative possibilities. If a=1 and b=2 then a+b=3. Notice the if at the beginning of that equation? Would you deny that the answer is 3?


It's a good thing you corrected that equation; Jakomo would have had a field day with that one.



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Wrong, I would have agreed that they are a resistance force if they only attacked military targets. Since they target indiscriminately, and have killed civilians in the process, then they have crossed the line into terrorists. They are trying to use terror as a means of achieving their goals. That makes them terrorists in my book.


Are you talking about the US or the Iraqis?



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 02:45 PM
link   
LOL. Probably he wouldn't have noticed as basic logic seems to fly right over his head.
I have to admit to having had a little flutter though!!!
I noticed my mistake as soon as I pressed the post reply button.




posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I want to join a CIA death squad.

that would be fun.

popping off my country's enemies,
oh where do i sign up?




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join