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.


Saddened by this POW Video

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 05:55 AM

To be honest Iraq applied WMD against its own people and has refused to comply with UN inspections.

Honestly, there is only one instance of Iraq gassing it's own people. This one instance is the response they gave to the U.S. led Kurdish Revolt. The U.S. Government poked and prodded the Kurds into planning a coup in Iraq, and when things seemed to be going less then satisfactory, The U.S. dropped all support and left the kurds without any backing whatsoever.

Without the U.S. watching over them, Saddam ordered them to be killed.

Whose fault was it that the Kurds were mauled like that?


posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 05:56 AM
OOOOHHHHH.......................getting mad eh? That's exactly what you haters are. Nothing more. Nothing less. Go live in Afghanistan, or even Iraq, you'll be begging for it at the US border. This is my last post against the soft tissue that floats in you ridiculous little skull..............

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 06:00 AM
Kai, you have very few facts that I can see and the ones you use are often misrepresented.
I'll say one thing though, I respect your decision to relocate to a nation that better suits you. I wish a few others around here (Babs, the Balwin brothers, Barbara Boxer...) would follow your example.

U.S. Patriot, would you please stop poting replies containing only emoticons? That is a waste of valuable bandwidth. It would also be appreciated if you would refrain from skirting the censor. Try and communicate cleanly. Take the high road.


posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 06:00 AM
Toltec - just a few things really...

1) The Halabja massacre you're talking about (I presume) was carried out in 1988 during the Iraq-Iran war. The city of Halabja had fallen to Iranian troops 3-4 days before the bombing. It doesn't excuse the act, but it does change the context within which it occured...

2) The Palestinians were displaced, but the West Bank and Gaza String were NOT part of Israel when it was created. These are occupied territories that have been held since 1967.

3) 9/11 was possible because US checks on baggage etc. weren't very good, and because the US has managed to piss off people to the extent where 20 of them are willing to kill themselves attacking the country...

4) Middle Eastern countries have well educated populations. I'm sure they would argue that it is the US population which is not well educated.

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 06:02 AM
Don't you mean in "your" ridiculous skull? Really, that jab only proves how insecure you are. Am I mad, hardly. I will not be the one living in a country that will soon incur the wrath of Muslim Suicide Bombers.

The fact is USP, I actually pity you. I knew people like you once, you wave the flag and act as if mighty America can do no wrong. She murders children in the name of God, she rapes and defiles Muslim Holy land in the name of God...and for what?

So that McDonalds can build an new Iraq branch?

You still refuse to debunk (Or attempt to debunk) my statements, which shows how unintelligent you are. Although, I cannot blame you, since my facts are well researched, and are iron clad.

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 06:03 AM
That is why you live in FEAR

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 06:05 AM

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 06:12 AM
Kia-rega I have not thus far insulted you and so see no reason for you to insult me. But since you have taken that position might I suggest that what you are saying is idiotic. Those bases are there with Arab support actually go to those counties and ask the legitimate leaders of those countries as to why they are there?

A very long time ago the Arab league instead of giving the Palestinians guns, should have opted for legitimate assistance. The Arab league is more responsible than anyone for having addressed this issue.

As far as unfair sanctions they were fair to Saddam Hussein agreed that his failure to comply with UN mandates which stopped Desert Storm were initially introduced. Keep in mind the US has made plans to stop them.

My impression of those videotapes of Bin Laden cheering the event seems to argue differently. There is also the manifesto he prepared which specifically states that unarmed citizens who pay taxes. Can be targeted if he deemed then against his opinion.

One interesting issue you should keep in mind in respect to the rest of your post DITTO!!!

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 06:13 AM
Well, it depends on your Point of view. Is it worse to fear terrorist attacks because your nation brings them on itself...

Or is it worse to fear the truth that is laid before you by a man who makes his living teaching the very same history you attempt to deny?

Mr Patriot, You bore me. So much so that I have begun to wonder if you really believe the things you say. I believe Mr. Lysergic's picture sums up my point rather nicely. I will leave it at that, and leave you, and your country, to quiver in fear as the nation of Islam gains retribution for nearly two decades of mistreatment and abandonment.

Though, I bet you have been a bandwagon patriot since 9/11, havent you? Bravely waving your flags while staying away from military recruitment centers and voting polls.

I rest my case.

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Toltec
Kia-rega I have not thus far insulted you and so see no reason for you to insult me.

I fail to see where I have insulted you. All of my comments were directed squarely towards Mr. Patriot.

However, you also fail to realize that although the Arab nations let us put bases on Holy Sites such as those in Qatar, you cannot blame the cash-strapped governments for accepting the millions of dollars we dangle before them.

America starves a country, then dangles money in front of long as their bases get built.

If you ask the common citizen in Qatar (Or any such defiled area) they will tell you how much they hate the U.S. being there.

Or have you not seen the protests they have led? How they firebombed the base in Qatar?

Please, do your research.

[Edited on 26-3-2003 by Kai-Raega]

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 06:17 AM
link are done? Great.

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 06:24 AM

Originally posted by U.S. Patriot are done? Great.

/sarcasm on
what a spectacular comeback
He got you there Kai-Raega.
/sarcasm off

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 07:22 AM
So to put it clearly in part you support Iraqis application of Chemical against Moslems.

And despite the fact the UN provided Israel to the Jews because chemical agents were used to exterminate them. You in part see no problem with the UN denying its responsibility, to address the fact that Moslems tribes were exterminated with Chemical weapons?

Don seriously I see issues here and to be honest that Moslems are as educated as you claim. Will make it much easier to have them understand how little
certain members of the European Theater respect

Specifically I am referring to France and Germany.


posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 08:05 AM
Toltec - Did you actually read my previous post?

1) I DONT support the chemical attacks on civilians, but I think you have to look at the context. This wasn't just Saddam spraying chemicals all over a town because they don't like him, this was Saddam spraying chemicals all over a town which was held by the enemy, and contained members of the enemy armed forces. It's still wrong, but the context is different.

2) If we're going to involve the UN, let's mention that Israel is in breach of over 30 different UN resolutions, the US (and sometimes UK) have vetoed about 60 more. Jerusalem is meant to be an international city, not run by Israel but by the UN. Settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are *illegal* under international law, and in breach of numerous UN resolutions. So yes, I think the parties involved should learn to respect the UN.

3) The biggest area of disrespect Muslims seem to percieve is that coming from the US. Just look at the anti-war riots over the past week or so... It is quite simply the fact that Arabs are not uneducated, they know perfectly well what's going on.

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 02:02 PM

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 03:45 PM
Dom perhaps we are misunderstanding each other due to the heat of the moment. Lets all take a deep breath and collect ourselves and go from there.....

I am without any doubt against the use of Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons of any kind. In respect to its application under condition, in which the use of those weapons results in the targeting of innocent civilians.

I am as well very much against the use of military tactics applied consciously. And in a premeditated manner against unarmed and non-combative innocent as well as unaware citizens.

Both to me are criminal acts, which in no means should be treated from the standpoint of maintaining in any way. The presumption by those who commit them as acts which are permissible. My impression is that if such acts are not responded to with the most serious of consequences (War). We as a culture are setting a precedence whose ramifications go beyond our worst nightmares.

Our technology has reached a point in which realistically speaking, no country in the world does not have knowledge specific to applying the above. As a reuslt we as a world culture must engage any leader who acts to apply the above for political, financial or any other potential benefit to himself of his/her administration.

Clearly these acts have been committed by Al-Quaeda and as well by the regime of Saddam Hussein. In the case of Al-Quaeda the act was blatantly criminal. Osama bin Laden despite claims that he was not involved has since the date of 9/11. Presented himself in the media, clearly both he and those he designates with special celebrated the event.

That is included in this link...

Now there is a problem and it is in respect to how the world as a whole. It is in respect to a leader of a country, which by the very virtue of his or her position has access to billions and even trillions of dollars. If such a person commits his recources, by applying such weapons. As has been discussed here purposefully against innocent people.

There is also an issue when a leader engages in the use of said weapon against both combatants and non-combatants in respect to a preemptive strike.

Furthermore, in respect to how such issues were resolved in the past. My impression is that we have a significant problem here.

Germany in WWII attempted to justify its acts against the Israelis in respect to an invasion. Truthfully it was one one which was subtle and ill defined. Nonetheless was still presented an an invasion. The Kurds do not in fact verify the information you have provided. Rather they state that they themselves were openly defiant, much to the extent they have always been to Saddam rule.

There is no difference

What are your thoughts?

[Edited on 27-3-2003 by Toltec]

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 04:38 PM

I think it is being shown to show the world that the US is doing everything humanely possible to this animilistic Iraqi soldiers.

I recently saw a film of a gun ship "taking out" some sort of base. Your saw people running and trying to hide while the gunners shelled them. You could hear the crew on the intercom laughing and whooping whenever they managed to blow someone apart. The more peices they managed to get a body into the more excited they got.

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 07:36 PM

Honestly, there is only one instance of Iraq gassing it's own people. This one instance is the response they gave to the U.S. led Kurdish Revolt. The U.S. Government poked and prodded the Kurds into planning a coup in Iraq, and when things seemed to be going less then satisfactory, The U.S. dropped all support and left the Kurds without any backing whatsoever. Without the U.S. watching over them, Saddam ordered them to be killed. Whose fault was it that the Kurds were mauled like that? Guess.

It is legally and morally the responsibility of the person who gave the order and those who followed those orders. If anything, Saddam Hussein felt threatened by the Kurds as he had used Chemical weapons against the Iranians without the same provocation.

Be la trix is not one to jump to anger Kai-Raega and the fact of the matter is the statements you have made have nothing to do with reality or truth.

Can you provide a link to support your statements???

posted on Mar, 27 2003 @ 03:38 AM
Im an Iraqi living in New Zealand, i have lived here for close on 7 years, Im a Muslim and proud of it. Kai you are wrong, we muslims have bought this on ourselfs, by burning american flags in public using terrorest attacks and all in the name of Allah, How do you not see the logic in the american people hating us so much, when we target there civilians and not there armys, and as for the war in my homeland, i would have welcomed the coalition forces, If President Bush keeps his word and gets rid of saddam, then Iraq will be a better place, i dont know if he has WMD but he is an evil man, and all the Muslim nations know this. How can we of the Muslim faith protest this war when the war is aimed at someone who makes us looks like barbarians. and who uses Allahs name for his evil works. In my opinion President Bush will gain the favour of the muslim world if he keeps true to his word and leaves after he has dethroned saddam


posted on Mar, 27 2003 @ 04:27 AM
Toltec - I agree with everything you say about chemical attacks, except that we have the right to attack countries because they used chemical weapons against civilian populations 15 years ago.

If we wanted to make an issue of it we should have done so at the time, dredging it up 15 years later to provide justification for a war which will be fought for much murkier reasons seems immoral and wrong to me.

The only reason for this war that really makes sense is that we want to bring the Iraqi peoples suffering to an end, but that isn't why we're fighting this war either.

This war is all about power and influence in the Middle East. The WMD's are an excuse which we attempted to use to get international legitimacy through the UN, the terrorist links get the populace behind the attack by linking Iraq with Al Qaeda, and the moral argument is being used as a way to try and convince those liberal anti-war people that perhaps some good will come of it.

The real reasons all revolve around power. Convincing the world that the US is still the biggest power, using that power against some target to make up for 9/11, proving that Bush has power over Saddam and can finish his father's business, an eventual Iraqi regional power to help ensure Israel's long term survival, a pro-Western government that we can pay money to instead of Saudi Arabia, access to a greater oil market, etc. etc.

Call me cynical, but that's my opinion on what's going on here.

new topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in