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.


My problem with targetting Iraq...

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 24 2003 @ 10:48 AM
"I don't understand Weapons of Mass Destruction either. Actually, I do. They're a PR package, nice ribbon, pretty wrapping paper, but with nothing inside, to make it sound like we have a reason for attacking. Americans fortunately don't distinguish between a bumper sticker and a policy. "

I agree. I mean, when you are the most popular kid in school (USA), everybody wants to be like you. Israel, Iraq, whomever. When you start talking about Weapons of Mass Destruction, we should be leading by example. Get rid of our own! It is completely hypocritical of the United States to hold countries up to some bull# "NO WMD" treaty and then we don't follow the same rules ourselves. Some may argue that Saddam Hussein is a crazy man. I disagree with that statement, but that's not important. What is important is LOOK WHO IS IN CHARGE OF OUR COUNTRY-- would you rather have a crazy man in charge or a stupid man in charge? I say both of them are equally as bad for the future advancement of our country.

Why don't people make comparisons between Saddam and Hirohoto, or Mussolini, or Sharon, or Arafat, or Bin Laden, rather than always bringing up the Hitler thing? The Hitler argument is really not convincing to me & just seems like a sensationalistic ploy to pull at the heartstrings of America by using the deaths of all those who died under Hitler's facist regime. Better yet, why not talk about the man himself, rather than making any comparisons?

My argument is that if it isn't Saddam, it is somebody else. Right now, I'm sure there are at least seven other countries developing WMD programs. US, Israel, China, North Korea, Japan, Pakistan, India and others I'm sure.

This business about Iraq being responsible for 9/11 is ridiculous. If you look at the person who has been alleged to organize the 9/11 tragedy, Mohammed Atta, according to a report on CNN the week after 9/11 happened, he was actually a Palestinian double-agent who was contracted by Israel back in the 1970's. This being the same country, Israel, that bombed our ship, the USS Liberty in 1968.

Also, prior to 9/11 occurring, the Israeli mossad were actually monitoring Atta:

"According to the report, the Mossad agents were interested in the leader of the terrorists, Mohammed Atta and his key accomplice, Marwan al-Shehi. Both lived in Hamburg before they settled in Hollywood, Florida in order to plan the attacks. A Mossad team was also operating in the same town. The leader, Hanan Serfati, had rented several dwellings. "One of Serfati's apartments was located on the corner of 701st St. and 21st Ave. [sic] in Hollywood, right near the apartment of Atta and al-Shehi.", French intelligence reported later. Everything indicates that the terrorists were constantly observed by the Israelis. The chief Israeli agent was staying right near the post office where the terrorists had a mailbox. The Mossad also had its sights on Atta's accomplice Khalid al-Midhar, with whom the CIA was also familiar, but allowed to run free. The Mossad apparently warned their American counterparts several times about the terrorists, especially about al-Midhar. The American government later admitted that they had received such warnings prior to September 11. But at most that there were attacks planned against American installations outside the United States."


Here's another source (FoxNews) on the secret Israeli spyring that was operating in the US:

But there is evidence to suggest that Israelis pulled out of the WTC on advanced notice:

"But interviews with many consulate officials Friday suggested that the lists of people they were collecting varied widely in their usefulness.
For example, the city had somehow received reports of many Israelis feared missing at the site, and President Bush in his address to the country on Thursday night mentioned that about 130 Israelis had died in the attacks.But Friday, Alon Pinkas, Israel's consul general here, said that lists of the missing included reports from people who had called in because, for instance, relatives in New York had not returned their phone calls from Israel."

"There were, in fact, only three Israelis who had been confirmed as dead: two on the planes and another who had been visiting the towers on business and who was identified and buried. (New York Times, Sept. 22)"

"The very low death toll of 130 suggested that a number of Israelis at the Trade Center had been warned before the attack."

"When I found out the truth that only one Israeli had died, there could be no doubt that there had been a prior warning for many Israelis."


If you can be objective and not react emotionally, what does this evidence tell you? Are our foreign policies with Israel working for our better interests?

The following are theories as to the "real" motives behind the 9/11 tragedy. Are we all so naive to think that it was because Osama hates our freedom?

"1. Gain control of $6 trillion worth of oil and natural gas in central asia. This oil is associated with the Caspian Sea and the countries surrounding it where pipelines is to be laid."

"2. Win back support for the increasingly unpopular Sharonist policies in Israel and provide a basis for a mass invasion of occupied Palestine."

"3. Allow certain people to profit from the opium trade of the Northern Alliance druglords and the money-laundering through global investment channels that the opium trade and the derivative heroin trade supports. If you noticed that during the rule of the Taliban the opium trade nearly disappeared. As soon as the Northern Alliance were put back into power the trade picked up again."

"4. Clear people arraigned before a grand jury on charges of fixing gold prices, illegal involvement in oil swaps between Kazakhstan and (sanctioned) Iran, and bribery in cases where all incriminating documentary evidence was stored in FBI files and data banks in one of the twin towers of the WTC."

"5. Start a war between Christianity and Islam by blaming the religion of Islam for the 911 incident and terrorist acts throughout the world."

Who then, does this war really serve? People are already starting to make unfounded allegations of a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Is it any coincidence that Iraq is a primarily Islamic country? According to UNICEF, 2002 statistics, Iraq has a population of 23 million individuals who are Islamic.


I know there will be some people who are outraged about my beliefs here. I was outraged myself when I started to investigate this issue. However, I was searching for the truth and was willing to admit to myself that perhaps there was an "alternate" explanation. I am still continuing to research the matter, trying to look at it objectively.

I am unable to find any evidence-based connection between Iraq and WTC, and am open to intelligent debate on the issue. If any of you know any sources, please post them. It is my understanding that besides the violated treaty, people are justifying the war because of a WTC & Iraq connection. If that is a false assumption, thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens may die at the hands of our country- and I, for one, do not wish to have us held responsible for such a holocaust.

Here is what I have found regarding how we will attack Iraq:

"In the first 48 hours of the attack, the United States armed forces are expected to rain some 3,000 precision-guided bombs and missiles onóIraqi air defenses, command-and-control, WMD sites and ěleadership targets,î which is to say they will try to kill Saddam, his sons and their closest followers. "


48 hours, 3000 bombs and missiles? Clearly the US is adept at controlling guided bombs and missiles:

"They asked for and were denied permission to attack, yet proceeded to drop a 250-kilogram laser-guided bomb on Canadian troops participating in a live-fire night exercise. "

Source (includes many other examples of US-guided friendly fire):

What are we getting ourselves into folks?

posted on Feb, 24 2003 @ 12:02 PM
"Why don't people make comparisons between Saddam and Hirohoto, or Mussolini, or Sharon, or Arafat, or Bin Laden, rather than always bringing up the Hitler thing? The Hitler argument is really not convincing to me & just seems like a sensationalistic ploy to pull at the heartstrings of America by using the deaths of all those who died under Hitler's facist regime. Better yet, why not talk about the man himself, rather than making any comparisons? "

If Saddam can be compared to anyone involved in the Second World War I think at present it would be President Eduard Benes of Czechoslovakia.

"Adolf Hitler had completed Anschluss with Austria and now was looking towards lands not traditionally part of ěGreater Germany.î The Sudatenland, a narrow strip of mountainous land in Czechoslovakia, held a predominantly ethnic German population on the border with Germany.

The Sudatenland was important to the Czechs for two reasons: the mountains were a natural defense against German aggression, and most of their manmade fortifications were located there. If the Sudatenland were to fall, the whole of Czechoslovakia would be open to German occupation. Also in the region were most of the Czech coal, electric, and iron and steel works."

"Chamberlain essentially sacrificed Czechoslovakia on the altar of appeasement. In exchange for the Sudatenland, Hitler promised to guarantee the new Czech borders. Eduard Benes immediately resigned, and Czechoslovakia would not be guaranteed. Parts of the country were broken off by Poland and Hungary, and on March 15, 1939, German troops entered Prague. Czechoslovakia ceased to exist."

Benes did not realise that the war was unavoidable and sacrificed the only defences that could save his country to appease a madman bent on war.

Saddam is being asked to give up any chance of inflicting any damage on those that will invade his country.The UN won't help him if he does cooperate just as the League of Nations did not help Benes.

The USA and UK tell us that appeasing a madman was the death of the League of Nations.I agree.They also say that appeasing one now will be the death of the UN.Again I agree.The only question is.Who is the Madman Bush or Saddam?

posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 03:43 PM
"We have WOMD's but you can't have any"...

What people seem to forget here, is one simple fact. HE LOST THE WAR...when you lose a war, you agree to certain terms of cease fire if you want to remain in power. As part of this agreement, he was to disarm his WOMD's. This is NOT a promise he made to the US, but to the world. It's been 12 years now, and still he has continued to break every single agreement and condition of losing the war. Because he's gotten away with it for 12 years, he simply assumes that he will continue to do so, and the international community seems perfectly willing to allow it to continue! THIS is the truly astonishing part of all of this. No matter how much time is given for the inspectors...the whole premise of announced inspections working is ludicrous. I've used the example before, and it's still true. If I tell you that I will search your house tomorrow for ketchup, and if I find any, you're under you think I'll find any ketchup tomorrow? It's not about oil, it's not about WOMD, it's about simply enforcing agreements that he himself made... Unfortunately, men like Saddam understand only one convincer...and that is force. The more we delay (and believe me, this would have already started, but the offenders know who they are), the less seriously the UN will be taken in the future...

posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 11:34 PM
How Iraq relates to the war on Terror - selected excerpts from stratfor analysis:

Regarding our response to the threat of Al-Qaeda:

The strategic challenge is tremendous. After Sept. 11, the United
States did not have a war-fighting strategy. The strategy that
was first adopted -- a combination of defending the homeland and
attacking al Qaeda directly -- has proven difficult, if not
ineffective. Al Qaeda is a sparse, global network operating in a
target-rich environment. A defense of the homeland is simply
impractical; there are just too many potential targets and too
many ways to attack them. Attacking al Qaeda on an operative-by-
operative basis is possible but extremely inefficient. The
inability to capture -- or actually to locate -- Osama bin Laden
is emblematic of the challenges posed to the United States in any
dynamic, global conflict with a small, mobile group.

Washington's decision to redefine the conflict was driven by the
ineffectiveness of this response. The goal has been to compel
nations to crack down on citizens are enabling al Qaeda --
financially, through supplying infrastructure, intelligence and
so on. Many governments, like that of Saudi Arabia, had no
inclination to do so because the internal political consequences
were too dangerous and the threat from the United States too
distant and abstract. The U.S. strategy, therefore, was to
position itself in such a way that Washington could readjust
these calculations -- increasing cooperation and decreasing al
Qaeda's ability to operate.

the conquest and occupation of
Iraq would be at once a critical stepping-stone, a campaign in a
much longer war and a proof of concept for dealing with al Qaeda.

If the United States does not invade Iraq, it will have to
generate a new war-fighting strategy against al Qaeda. The
problem for Washington is that it doesn't have another strategy,
except the homeland defense/global covert war strategy, which has
not proved clearly effective by itself since Sept. 11. If the
United States abandons the operation in Iraq, follow-on
operations against enabler of al Qaeda will be enormously more

First, the key base of operations would not exist.
Second, A precipitous capitulation
would damage credibility seriously. The calculation within the
Islamic world of whether al Qaeda or the United States is more to
be feared will solidify rapidly: Al Qaeda is a real threat to
regimes in the region; the United States is not. If Washington
abandons its war plans and Hussein is left in place, the
perception of the Islamic world will be that the United States
had neither the will nor the power to destroy its enemy.

posted on Feb, 26 2003 @ 01:47 PM


log in