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.


Pending Iraqi Genocide

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 01:41 PM
PUBLIC Saddam...just as they wouldn't harbor a public Osama. OBL is being sheltered, just that a condition of that is laying low. High-profile terrorists have been using this method for years. He'll resurface in time...

posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Gazrok
PUBLIC Saddam...just as they wouldn't harbor a public Osama. OBL is being sheltered, just that a condition of that is laying low. High-profile terrorists have been using this method for years. He'll resurface in time...

Well, it's always possible, bearing mind it can take the US years to track down criminals within it's own boarders.
If he does resurface then he will only expose himself to US action.
Of coarse there's always the posibilty he's been blown to bits on some remote hilltop in Afghanistan and we'll never know.

posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Gazrok
Saddam routinely positions military targets in civilian areas, ON PURPOSE. While this 800 missiles figure may be cited, you can bet that any such details are unreliable at best, as such information is departmentalized, with only so many people knowing such figures, and doubtful that it was leaked correctly to a reporter. I have no doubt that a US attack will be aimed at military and command targets. Will some civilians also be killed? Of course. But it is hardly the Genocide you're imagining, as they will not be specifically targetted. Personally, if I was an Iraqi in Baghdad, I'd be taking a vacation, or visiting a relative out in the boonies for February. But, if they elect instead to all hold hands around an airfield, then so be it...they made their choice, and will be seeing their maker very soon. Will US forces have casualties? Sure, but every attempt will be made to ensure the losses are as few as possible. Do I think this is a just war? Well, let's just say that this should have been done back in Desert Storm, and leave it at that. Regardless, you have my wishes that your family members and loved ones return safe and sound. I too have friends and family that are already over there (or heading over soon), so I know the feeling.

What about telephone exchanges, TV and radio stations, railway hubs, power stations, water plants etc. These are the usual targets now days. Add a few aspirin factories and other 'intelligence' coups and there's plenty of scope for civilian casualties that have nothing to do with military targets being hidden in the city. Could you define what is a legitimate military target and what isn't?

posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 02:34 PM
Military targets come in several degrees of importance; but broadly speaking a military target could be defined as anything which could be used in furthering the enemies war effort.
The US though has shown time and time again a willingness to keep civilian casualties to a minimum, sometimes even at the expense of hitting the target. This happend several times in the Gulf War as far as I have read.

posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 02:35 PM
Gazrok - best wishes to your family as well, hopefully, cooler heads will prevail.

69 - it's not our job to 'do' anything about any regime.period.end of story. Did you sign up to be a cop?
Or to protect the US? They're not joined at the hip.
Till a connection is made, it's all smoke.
Simple folk can only handle simple issues, but what leads you to generalize I'm exclusively anti-force? Is it a 'my position versus all others for you', 69?

The CIA thing? George Tenet said it in a letter to the Senate Intelligents Comittee on 7 Oct., 2002

posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 04:10 PM
George Tenet said he believed Iraq would use their WMDs if the US attacked them.

Hmmm, didn't you say Iraq had 0 WMDs????

It's pretty logical to say "Saddam" wouldn't use WMDs on the US before being cornered because he himself doesn't have the means to reach the US soil with WMDs and he wouldn't want to lob WMDs out of the blue at US troops in surrounding countries. He's not that stupid and willing to die, he'll only lash out at the very end.

Now...Saddam could handover his WMDs to terrorists...thus he wouldn't be the one using WMDs on the US. I believe he has done this and this eventually come to light for the world to see.

Our job is to prevent these terrorists from getting more WMDs and actually carrying out their madman plans. Meanwhile you liberals can call Bush names and make up conspiracies on the internet, only later blaming Bush if terrorists wipe out NYC with a WMD because Bush wasn't allowed to attack Iraq earlier.

By the way, did you whine when Clinton attacked Iraq and Kosovo during his 8 years???

[Edited on 31-1-2003 by MT69]

posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Bout Time
So the CIA, Russian, British, World intelligence communities have said that's not the case.


I've been shouting on this website, and EVERYWHERE for the longest time now, for the people to get off their stupid lazy A$ses, and read the CIA//British inteligence angencies's reports!!!!! hear that? REPORTS!!!! from 1998 of the WMD research programs in Iraq, and the possible NUCLEAR THREAT that Saddam would pose in the near future.


And it's all easy to find, just go to then to search then type in "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" or research so on and so forth.

B-T, this statement quoted above is incorrect, the CIA has been shouting for years the threat of SADDAM, it's just you like ever other idiot "anti-war" person in this country, chose only to listen to the media.

People seem to like being spoon fed these days more than to hear the harsh reality.

Which is Saddam is a butcher of hundreds of THOUSANDS of his people, and is 1 - 5 years away from gaining weaponized nuclear materials.

Thank god we have a president who is now ready to get rid of him.

I don't care if Bush wanted to do it because Saddam flicked a booger at him, saddam needs to be removed anyways...whatever the reason of the president.

The problem is people don't want this war because they think the president doesn't have a good reason to do it, and he doesn't...BUT!!! WE DO HAVE A GOOD REASON TO REMOVE HIM it's just not been mentioned by the liberal evil news medias.

2 reasons

1: Saddam kills his people inhumanly and does not have a FREE government, he is a DICTATOR, and all such governments should be removed, and replaced with a democracy like we did with the NAZIS.

2: Saddam has a fast nearing completion Nuclear program, the more he stalls the closer he gets to completion, CLINTON KNEW THIS because CLINTON'S CIA when he was in the presidency TOLD him, and he sat on his a$s doing nothing...Bush is the Adult, Clinton was a child, hoping for a Nobel Peace Prize, and he knew he couldn't get it if he removed Saddam, or Ossama, even when HE knew then like WE know now, that both are extremely dangerous, and both must be killed!

Please note Nobel Peace Prize that was Clinton's ultimate goal, hence why he didn't do DOG crap about anything.

He didn't help the somolians, the Israelis, the Palestinians, he didn't catch OSSAMA, all because he wanted a peace prize.

That Sh|t if there were a hell he'd be going there.

no signature

posted on Jan, 31 2003 @ 08:51 AM
69 - Iraq has Chemical and Biological Weapons (CBW), no Nukes and no where near it - Check the IAEA website, check the chief nuclear inspectors reports. Chemical weapons can be mixed up in your bathtub and the bio agent started kits were given to Iraq during the Reagan administration since Saddam was our man in the battle against Iran.
Kosovo - I was pissed Clinton didn't do more. Unfortunately, he was dealing with an obstructionist Senate lead by Trent Lott, who minimized the situation. Same thing with the Russian/Chechen conflict. Clinton, and now Bush, should be laser focused on what is out and out genocide.

Mason - Boy, take it down a notch or two, ok? It's evident that I'm neither stupid or a Liberal; swearing that there is only two sides to an argument, and doing it loud and obnoxiously, only reinforces your ignorance and voids any quality points you might bring to table.
Another thing, the obligation to support your points is not mine, it's yours. Don't shoot your mouth off swearing truth yet provide no links to support your 'data'. I provided a link covering The CIA Directors letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee, you have issue with that, take it up with George Tenet, you have links to material supporting your POV, list them.
Until then, don't require your opinions to be treated as facts.

posted on Jan, 31 2003 @ 12:53 PM
What Mad Scientist said...

While certain infrastructures could also be classified as military targets, we have always shown unparalleled concer for limitting civilian casualties. In the Gulf War, this was shown, and we will see the same this time around as well, and to an even better degree with more advanced targetting.

posted on Jan, 31 2003 @ 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Gazrok
we have always shown unparalleled concer for limitting civilian casualties. In the Gulf War, this was shown, and we will see the same this time around as well, and to an even better degree with more advanced targetting.

I'm with you on the first part; we do give a hump about civilians....can't say the same for those we've gone up against, though.
On the second.....I don't see it. Can't happen. Different theaters. We're not engaging the Republican Guard in the Desert between Kuwait & Iraq.....we're going into an Urban theater of operation. BIIIGGG difference!

posted on Jan, 31 2003 @ 05:31 PM
Bout Time, are you saying that you are pissed that Clinton didn't do more in Kosovo, as in more military action or other types of coercion?

Are you saying that going to Kosovo, which was strictly a humanitarian move to protect the Muslims who were acting as terrorists (novel idea, huh? An Islamic terrorist) and oust Slobadon Milosowassisname, was an honorable deed, while going into Iraq, which will also accomplish a great, if not greater humanitarian deed, is not as noble?
Kosovo was not even a threat to the Western world in any way, other than regional instability in a limited area. Civilians in London, Washington D.C. and Sydney weren't even in the least bit in any kind of danger. This time, there is ample reason for the citizenry of non-Islamic nations to be concerned, yet now it isn't a noble cause to do a humanitarian action that will also aid in the protection of the rest of the world?

The cause is just and right for the citizenry here in the West, no matter if your theories of oil companies making a profit were to come to be.

It also seems that you miss no chance to point fingers at past republican presidents for their moves to contain and combat the Soviet threa across the world, yet you make no mention of how the democratic presidents have had a strong hand in bringing the ingedients together to make us weak and be a target. Sounds like a possible partisan position to me.

posted on Jan, 31 2003 @ 06:51 PM
genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial; political; or cultural group

definations are so lovely.

all war by defination is genocide, my friends, no need to argue the obvious. just because it is state sanctioned doesn't mean it isn't mass murder. goodness, everyone has a reason to kill. humanity, from Cain to coc aine, has been justifying destroying self.

opinions become so pointless, you all rammble on and on about nothing trying to make sense of insanity. it amuses me slightly. but, at the same time, i feel overwhelming disgust. there is no justification for any type of murder. can a rapist justify a rape? you maybe able to convince yourself that death is an answer to death. but, that just makes you the same kind of evil you wish to fight.

is she liberal? is she anti-war? naw, she's just laughing at us.

ah i know, reality is a b*tch. it bites.

posted on Jan, 31 2003 @ 07:00 PM
Java - The war in Kosovo was ok with the left because one of their own was in charge. Now that they're not in charge, the US military must standdown.

Only liberals are allowed to pick and choose "just wars," nobody else has their intellect to carry out the deployment of weapons on others. Liberals feel they can pick and choose military targets from the White House like with Vietnam, instead of relying on military experts.

Oh, it's really a just war to help cover up scandels in the White House (Lewinski, Whitewater) like with Kosovo and the other times we lobbed bombs at Saddam in the 90s.

posted on Jan, 31 2003 @ 07:25 PM
True, no use arguing the obvious, and the obvious is that all war is not genocide.
You seem to blur the line when it comes to aggressing against others and protecting your citizenry.

Gulf War I, who was the victim of genocide. Oh, sure, the Kurdes and the Shiites would have been victims, but the U.S. and U.K. ensured that wouldn't happen with the no-fly zones. Nobody seemed to want to destroy the entire Iraqi population.

As a matter of fact, what war in which the U.S. has been involved was with the idea of genocide since, say, 1900? OK, now, which wars were related to either the security of our own nation or the security of allies, or, in the case of the decades long struggle against the spread of the Soviet Empire, the whole world?

Weakness, cowardice and appeasement have put us in the position where we are now. Strength, and the resolve to use the strength when provoked, will sefeguard a nation's women and children. Nothing else. Especially ideological concepts that are impotent in reality.

[Edited on 1-2-2003 by Java]

posted on Jan, 31 2003 @ 08:23 PM

Just for you B-T since you obviously are too ignorant to look it up yourself.

A few things, first you say he is NO where near making Nukes, well you are so wrong, I hope that when he shoves a nuke up america's a$s (pending your views win out) that you'll finally see the errors of your way.

Notice a few paragraphs down, that Iraq was as close as to 1 year of completion, however he failed to obtain those alluminum tubes and so failed to complete his nuclear program...but at most until we now started intervening he was only 5 years away.

Now I hate to burst your bubble, but Colin Powell is it? He is going to release the evidence the "Cuban photos" we all so desired to the U.N. pretty soon, of Iraq moving its weapons of mass destruction from location to location, prior to the Inspectors arrival of that location.

Your world B-T is ending, as people become more and more informed, I suggest you yourself become more informed, and research a little yourself, about Iraqi WMD programs.

Hell the National Geographic knows where Iraq Nuclear research facilities were, the fact that the Inspectors found nothing proves two things.

That Iraq is not cooperating, and that the UN is Anti-America

And boy is it, anyone who was listening to Neil Boortz on donahue, I never knew that the UN was so anti-american that in its beginnings the General Assembly gave America 1 vote (seems reasonable enough) but the Soviet Union 3 votes (What the flying f.uck!)

And still America won out, because America is the best, and greatest nation on earth, and it's time that all these facists and tyrants scurry like the cockroaches they are, because the boot is coming!

no signature

posted on Jan, 31 2003 @ 08:44 PM
And Saphroina I've never heard something so stupid, you are a typical liberal whether you think so or not (Classify people by groups, uninformed, and twist the truth so it matches your "logic", and then sums it up by saying that everyone else is wrong using some stupid analogy)

Genocide, is what the Nazis did to the Jews, what the Cerbs did to the Bosnians, and as far as genocide goes, pretty much nothing else covers it.

Genocide is the taking of people, whom are not involved with a war, or any such thing, a people not fighting and have no reason to be killed, and being killed SIMPLY because they are who they are.

Genocide, is taking the black kid on the street, and forcing him to shoot his parents, then killing him.

NOT, blowing up military targets, armies clashing, or navies warring, nothing of the sort.

Saphroina, I suggest you learn a little something called Western Culture which is based on "Warrior Societies", as is EVERY CULTURE ON EARTH.

No human can escape it...all our ancestory points to warriorism...fighting.

When did war become a "dishonorable and genocidal act"?

When hippies did drugs and killed their minds, when wars were restricted to political boundries, when we gained the power to blow the world up.

But it doesn't change what war really is!

The settling of disputes with justified force.

This dispute is the insane dictator Saddam, killing his own people, and trying to get nukes so he can blow up the Israelis (and commit GENOCIDE0, and our justified force is the removing of said dictator to free his people, and give them a taste of free air.

Anyone who disagrees with that, is about as intelligent as a gnat.

no signature

posted on Feb, 1 2003 @ 08:23 AM

you guys are so funny. war isn't a dilberate and systematic destruction of racial; political; or cultural groups? hmmm, when one sets out to drop 1 bomb every three seconds over a 48 hour period...that isn't deliberate and systematic destruction? okay.

i could care-less about your view of "western civilization" and by no means does might make right...or the ends justify the means. if you are going to support something then i think you should actually have a clue of what you are supporting. and what you are supporting is genocide anyway you look at it because definations are fixed. a word's meaning doesn't change because you refuse to accept it.

right now, there are people who are justifying the death of civilians on 9-11 the same way you try to justify the impending death of those living in metro-Baghdad.

evil: wicked; causing or threatening distress or harm: pernicious; a source of sorrow or distress

sounds like all government is evil, not just Saddam. there's a little more reality for you fellas.

posted on Feb, 1 2003 @ 10:20 AM
OK Saph, what do you propose should be done ? All I have seen is a heavily biased opinion with ab absolutely no thought as to any alternative.
Your opinion really isn't based on the real world is it ? Do some more reading and understand the whole situation.

posted on Feb, 1 2003 @ 11:22 AM
why do you assume i'm not well read? is it because i disagree with your opinions? excuse me?

Mad--we? I don't suppose YOU do anything but what you have done hopefully it pleases you. i only pointed out that it's murder no matter how it is explained. but, you assume since i call it what it is i'm opposing it. it isn't none of my business. i'm in no position to change things therefore thinking about a resolution would be pointless. thus, my 2 cent approach because some assume that since they support something it can't be bad/evil, it can't be genocide. like your sig, right doesn't matter as long as you win...hahaha, okay.

if it bugs you that i offer no alternative to your "killing is good because..." ideology, i'm sorry. (it always helps to apologize.)

posted on Feb, 1 2003 @ 01:05 PM
There is no way in hell we are gonna carpet bomb down town Bagdad..Even as we speak they are "BOMBING" millions of leaflets all over the effect telling the Iraqs right where we are gonna simple is this..

If you believe that we are gonna willing bomb stupid ..


top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in