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.

 

100% PRO WAR = 0% INTELLIGENT

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 10:12 AM
link   
""Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda," Bush said. "Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.

"We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosives training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad," he said."

And Iraqi defectors have stated it also...

"This general served Saddam Hussein for decades. Along with another Iraqi defector, Sabah Khodada (see below), the general tells of terrorists training in a Boeing 707 resting next to railroad tracks on the edge of Salman Pak, an area south of Baghdad. The existence of the plane has been confirmed by U.N. inspectors. The general describes the men who trained there, the camp's security, and his "gut feeling" that the camp was in some way tied to the Sept. 11 attacks. This interview was done in association with The New York Times and was conducted through a translator on Nov. 6, 2001.

A captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992, he worked at what he describes as a highly secret terrorist training camp at Salman Pak (see his hand-drawn map of the camp), an area south of Baghdad. In this translated interview, conducted in association with The New York Times on Oct. 14, 2001, Khodada describes what went on at Salman Pak, including details on training hijackers. He emigrated to the U.S. in May 2001."

But, we're both entitled to our opinions. I can certainly understand the position of those who are against the war (see many of the back-and-forth arguements of Dom and myself), and I agree with many of the points made in defense of that stance. However, I feel that Saddam does pose a threat, and needs to be ousted (not that he's a threat like Osama, but still a threat), and I welcome that ousting to come sooner than later, while also disagreeing with Bush's handling of it...




posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by dom

1) In the UK there is a majority in favour of war, but only if it's sanctioned by the international community (i.e. a 2nd UN resolution).

2) We need to have a united world, not one that's fractured and chaotic.


1) A little bit hypocrit and dangerous, no ? " If everybody agree, let's do war. " or..." If everybody agree, let's kill all the Jews/whites/blacks/asiatics/....

2) Ok. But how ? In the world, there is 2 kind of government. Democracy and dictatorships. Those who are living in democracy ( a little minority ) don't want to live under a dictatorship. And those who are living under a dictatorship want (I'm not sure if they want
) to live in democracy, but their leaders will not resign.

In our world, democracy are a minority and dictatorships are majority.So, when you write a " united world ", I'm skeptic and afraid.


dom

posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Sorry to interject once again Gazrok -

That chemical weapons facility in Northern Iraq... they allowed reporters in, who found absolutely sweet F.A.

There are a lot of reports about this in the UK press, although it strangely never seemed to make it into mainstream US media reports.

Also, a lot of the defector stuff is not trustworthy because they all want rid anyway, and the meetings between Iraqi intelligence and Al-Qaida doesn't have any straight evidence. I think the country involved retracted their statement, although the US said they didn't...

To my mind there is not sufficient evidence of any kind of link. If we allow the presence of a terorist in a country to signify complicit behaviour then the US is in a whole heap of trouble.



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 10:37 AM
link   
He asked a question (Where did I hear this?), and I answered it. I made no claims that this constituted absolute proof of Saddam supporting terrorists, I was just citing them as some places that I have heard such things (nor do I believe they are proof either, but that they, along with many other such reports, do combine to make up my opinion on the matter).


As for the inspectors not finding anything.... I'd bet they could come to my house looking for guns and not find any, but that doesn't mean they aren't there...
I seriously doubt they are capable of finding secret panels, etc. and I have no doubt that such tactics are employed by a man who makes poisons in the same factories as baby's formula...

[Edited on 13-3-2003 by Gazrok]



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nans DESMICHELS

1) The first time you tryied to defeat saddam, what happened?

2) you killed innocents peoples and after ?

3) You destroyed IRAQ

4) Did you take off saddam from power?

5) Did you free iraqis or kurds?

No...


1) " You "....I like this " you ". Did you forget ? It was an international coalition !

Also, it wasn't to defeat Saddam. It was to free Kuwait.

2) " Innocent peoples ". Yes, you right.

They were innocent, like the peoples from Kuwait were innocents too !

3) See point 1 !

4) See point 1 !

5) See point 1 !

And France, what did she do ? Did she removed Saddam from power ? Nooooooooooo, France LOVE Saddam. He's a good customer. He bought and still buy many french weapons. Also, France need saddam. Otherwise, France will not have the right to exploit the ol' good Saddam Petrol !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Isn't it ?

The Khurdes ? You dare to speak about them ???? I remember that France ( Jacques "The Worm ChIRAK ") didn't recognize the khurdes genocide because the Turkish asked France to don't recognize it !!!!


In France, hypocrisy is an " art " !


dom

posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Of course, that facility was also run by islamist rebels rather than saddam hussein. It was in the area of Northern Iraq which isn't controlled by Saddam thanks to the no-fly zones and the Kurdish uprising...

So all in all that's a no-hope link, although it doesn't stop people adding it to the "catalogue of proof". My point is that it doesn't matter how many unverified, or untrue stories you stick together. You've still got no evidence.


It's one of the things Bush has done very well, stringing together lots and lots of different stories that are all untrue, or misrepresented, and then building on those stories to show how Saddam must be disarmed. The problem is that the underlying truths, the foundations of his argument, are made of paper, or some other equally flimsy material...



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 11:36 AM
link   
and points out that I should dig a little deeper on the points that support my position on the war, as well as those points which do not...
However, I also think it's niave to assume that Saddam does not have a certain level of control, even without controlling the air.

Either way, my main reasons for supporting the remain to be that Saddam has thumbed his nose at his own agreements for over a decade, and that it's time to end the game. I have never whole-heartedly accepted terrorist ties, and WOMD as valid reasons for this war (as noted in my other posts on the subject), but rather, I feel that Saddam's ignoring of the resolutions to date is more than a valid reason for action.


dom

posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Yeah, it's definitely true that Saddam likes his games, but if we can disarm him without the use of military force, I'd argue that's got to be the best way to go. Particularly if military force is going to cause major splits in the UN...

If only the US hadn't deployed troops straight away, Saddam might have thought he had the upper hand and messed about more. Then the war would be easy to justify.

Saddam is not a fan of Islamist terrorists. In the Gulf War the Mujahadeen from Afghanistan (later the Taliban) fought in the Gulf War against him!

Personally I think the best argument for war is regime change, but I think the same argument would lead us into many more wars if we decided to use it. Which means that if the US isn't going to war because of terrorist links, or WMD's, it's definitely not going to war for moral reasons (regime change can only be justified as a moral cause), so it must be about geo-political influence in the region. And that, is definitely not a good reason to go to war...



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudAmerican
As I have said before in previous posts, we dont need inspectors in Iraq, we need investigators and detectives. Then when we find all of these hidden weapons


The american governement knows EXACTLY what kind of weapons Hussain got. Do you think that programms like ECHELON, AIR 2000 or NORAD/STARSHIELD aren't functionable ?
The CIA knows if hussain tryied to buy some ex-eastern-europe materials (NBC and SR/IC-BM)...



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 02:19 PM
link   
heh heh heh, whats the first thing you're tought when you join the French army?

How to surrender in German!! sorry, couldnt resist!

Uneasy



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Whatís the first thing youíre taught when you join the American Army?

How to support your Government, how to be sent to war to kill children, how to invade smaller countries, how to be sent into the middle east and be poisoned by your own government only have them deny it because the payments would be so great it might stop the future design and build of a massive weapon used to kill children in smaller countries.

Grow up Pro-War kiddie, just because you want to see fighting on the TV then go outside with your airguns and play with your other Pro-TV-War kiddy friends.

I think the EU should get together and invade the USA, Take their weapons of mass destruction and demand them to disarm

Ooh yea did I ever tell ya!

STILL the only country to use nuclear weapons in anger



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Garzok is right about a lot of things. I have read about this terrorist training camp from the internet or a book or something. I don't think I have it with me right now due to my absence from the resource. If I can somehow get the source again soon, I will tell you guys the real deal with this plot. I do know that it was an operational group Saddam set up to start a proxy war with America. This terror link has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with operational subversion.(which is terrorism)

I agree war in neccasary, yet I still disagree with it. I think we could get Saddam without lifting a finger. The only thing is we wouldn't make any money or any new cases for war that way. We need exuses, and we are finding them fast. Stop the war machine before is stops you.

I will find this info??? If anyone has the book entitled the "Saddam Hussein Reader" than you could show us they source, because it is in that book where I got my infromation to this terror link.



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by PureDarren
Whatís the first thing youíre taught when you join the American Army?

How to support your Government, how to be sent to war to kill children, how to invade smaller countries, how to be sent into the middle east and be poisoned by your own government only have them deny it because the payments would be so great it might stop the future design and build of a massive weapon used to kill children in smaller countries.

Grow up Pro-War kiddie, just because you want to see fighting on the TV then go outside with your airguns and play with your other Pro-TV-War kiddy friends.

I think the EU should get together and invade the USA, Take their weapons of mass destruction and demand them to disarm

Ooh yea did I ever tell ya!

STILL the only country to use nuclear weapons in anger


PD, I wonder if you do now that Saddam is killing children as well? The intenion of the USA army is to remove a madman from power and heal the world. The innocent civilians are not our targets, innocents are Saddam's targets. We can not let him stay in power. A nuclear attack is no longer a dream. It can happen and by riiding the world of Saddam and Kin Jong we can possibly avert that from ever happening. I wonder if you know that Saddam does these things to his people.

1.) Tortues babies with blow torches.

2.) He has shot babies.

3.) Altered the birht certificates of children so they can be murdered.

4.) Murder those who disagree with him.

5.) Hangs eldery women from meat hooks alive.

6.) Tortues eldery men by electricuting their gentials with electricy.

7.) Has gassed 5,000 Kurds both women and childre.

8.) He has murderd thousands of Kurds.

There are moer but I will stop. Maybe this will change your view.



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 03:20 PM
link   
That group is run by Mullah Krekar, or Najmuddin Faraj. The group is a faction that is waring with the Patroitic Union of Kurdistan run by Jalal Talabani. These groups are both supported by the Iranian government, and the group Krekar runs, Al-Ansar Islam, or the Partisans of Islam, which gets support from Iraq too. The reasons for this are simple. The Al-Ansar Group wants to wipeout the Kurdish race from the planet, as Saddam wouldn't mind doing either. Still, these people are still Islamists who oppose such secular people like Saddam. Nonetheless, the support goes on because all involved benefit somehow. Some reports have suggested that 40 Al-Ansar operatives went to Afghanistan to train with Al-Quida in the use of chemical weapons. No proof of this can be show or has been, but that is the speculation. Now if you try and look up a man named Abu Wai'l and a man named Iman al-Baghdadi you will find alot about this terror group's war with the Kurds. Abu Wai'l is accused by Iman al-Baghdadi of being an Iraqi intelligence officer who has given aid to the Al-Ansar group. When I reported this down on my own records for personal reference I guess I forgot to acknowledge who al-Baghdadi is and who he works for. I'm sorry this is a vague story with holes in it. For many intelligence leaks are. So if anyone can help me find some of this info, than I would be very grateful. I too will continue to look for the lost links.



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I want to see saddam Insane put down, (heís a child killer) I want to see him riot in hell for what he has done to his people, I EVEN (get this) want to see America go in and take him out, but not and I do mean this, NOT by dropping Massive bombs on innocence,

I would state here and now that I would support the USA if they bombed the places and only the places that saddam and his army are based, and then sent in Special Forces to take the man out.

I am not so naive as to think that Mr Insane is anything but PureEvil, I donít like the man or his ways.


I will say this but, France should be ashamed of itself for the way its behaving over this whole matter 1000ís of British and American troops lie on French soil tonight, troops that went to save your homeland from the Germans and died doing so. The next time you ask for help France, you might have to beg.


dom

posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 04:40 AM
link   
PureDarren, that's a slightly strange response.

On the one hand you say that you don't agree with this war, which is what the French are saying, and then you say you hate the French.

Bizarre.

Personally, I'm planning on having a nice glass of Bordeux this evening, the French wine shop near us has been doing excellent business over the past few weeks.



posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by dom
PureDarren, that's a slightly strange response.

On the one hand you say that you don't agree with this war, which is what the French are saying, and then you say you hate the French.

Bizarre.

Personally, I'm planning on having a nice glass of Bordeux this evening, the French wine shop near us has been doing excellent business over the past few weeks.


What? i never said i hate the French.

And i stand by what i did say.


dom

posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Alright, you don't say you hate the french, but it doesn't sound like you like them either.

Do you think the French should just capitulate to US/UK demands then? Just because we've fought on the same side in the past?

It's prefectly possible that they're actually holiding the other side of the argument because they think that they've got the moral high ground. And I agree with them, that they do hold the moral high ground, and they're one of a few European governments which is reflecting public opinion, not just their own, but the whole of Europes...



posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 08:09 AM
link   
No, but they can voice their objection by abstaining, instead of a Veto...especially when they shouldn't even have Veto power anymore (but that of course, is another arguement altogether....)


dom

posted on Mar, 14 2003 @ 08:19 AM
link   
What would be the point in abstaining? If they said they were going to do that, the US would just invest another $30billion in buying up the votes of the 6 wavering nations (and probably a fair bit of bullying aswell), and then the 2nd resolution would go through with the US/UK being able to claim that they have the world behind them, when they absolutely don't.

I think the French are spot on with a veto. The French have a responsibility as one of the veto-wielding countries, to ensure that the UN charter is lived up to. Diplomatic solutions to this crisis have not been fully explored, therefore there is no way that this attack can be sanctioned under the UN charter. So well done froggies, for once I agree completely with your position (which isn't anti-war necessarily, but is anti-war at this time).




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join