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.

 

No Weapons of Mass Destruction.....

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Thomas

And let it be noted that Saddam HAS broken the UN resolution (or as some might call it "The law" (judge dread impersonation)). He attacked UN forces and had illegal weapons.



dom

posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Ok Thomas... how about this letter written be a group of UK lawyers

"We are teachers of international law. On the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq.

The UN charter outlaws the use of force with only two exceptions: individual or collective self-defence in response to an armed attack and action authorised by the security council as a collective response to a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression.

There are currently no grounds for a claim to use such force in self-defence. "

Oh sorry, they refered to the UN charter, the UN being the only international system of law currently present in the world.

As for WMD's... Noone (the person) seems to know that they've got underground weapons labs, and mobile weapons labs, well they really shouldn't be too hard to find. Particularly those underground labs. But then, maybe we just know they exist but we don't know where. Perhaps they only exist in Donald Rumsfields wildest wet dreams, I guess we'll find out over the next few months.

Of course, the longer it takes, the more likely it is that the US get desperate and ship some stuff in so that they can dramatically find it...



posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Cite the international laws the US has violated posted by Thomas Crowne

A non exhaustive list is :

1. The outlawing of violence , UN Charter
2. The treatment of POW's, Human rights charter
3. The agreement on banned weapons , Geneva Convention


But bush also violated domestic US laws, for example repeatedly and perseverantly lying to the public with intent to start a mass killing ...

sorry dom, we posted in parallel


[Edited on 15-4-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 06:57 AM
link   
..and your telling me that the US breaks all these rules? You are trying to get me to believe that no other countries in the world breaks these laws? I say that all these allegations of the US treating prisoners badly are lies and false. From the reports I've gotten, the Red Cross and media have the camp in Cuba under a microscope 24/7 and the prisoners are getting better food, shelter and medical attention then they have in their lives. From what I have heard from someone who visited the camp, the guards have the worst of it. These guys are the worst killers and try to kill the guards every chance they get not to mention throwing their feces at them and spitting on them. You seem to have a different idea of it all and I think its mostly made up. I think you're lying about 90% of the drivel you post on here. I think your anger comes from a personal hatred of the US for toher reasons than the truth.


dom

posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 08:10 AM
link   
astrocreep - here are some things you can't deny

1) Treating people as illegal combatants is illegal unless a competent tribunal has decided that they aren't POW's. You can't assume they're illegal combatants.

2) Sleep Deprivation is being used at Guantanamo as a method of information extraction. Over long periods of time this can cause permanent brain damage. Many human rights officials view it's use as "torture".

3) The US has been sending prisoners to countries with very lax human rights laws so that further forms of torture can be used on prisoners outside of the eyes of the public.

4) Prisoners being taped between the two walls of a transport aircraft, with sacks over their heads, muffs over their ears, while being forced to kneel, isn't exactly humane treatment.

5) 17 of the prisoners at Guantanamo have been released without charge (or apology) because they were non-combatants caught up in the security sweep.

6) Prisoners captured in Afghanistan were killed by being left in shipping containers without adequate provisions. They died in Afghanistan not Guantanamo, but it indicates the inhumane treatment some of these prisoners have been subjected to.

Overall, The POW's at Guantanamo (I'll use the international conventions when refering to them) are being treated outside of international law. How can the US pretend to be the upholder of all that is right, while also doing something which is wrong? Guantanamo lost the US a great deal of support as pictures leaked out, and the fact that the US administration are not willing to bring them under US legal laws shows quite how scared they are about applying proper humanitarian laws to these prisoners.

And personally, I'm not surprised that the prisoners are throwing feces at the guards.



posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Dom, better sitting there throwing feces at guards that throwing fully fueled planes at us or people we might know and love. I'll admit it ain't the Hilton East. Maybe we should just turn them all loose huh? Let them run back into another country, hijack it and use it to plan their next attack. You must feel very safe in your place in the world that you could not be touched by these guys. Like I said, no one forced 911 except these guys. They should have just stayed home and none of this would be happening.


dom

posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Nice reply astrocreep. Totally ignored every single one of my points, and then assumed that because I'm saying the US is acting outside of international laws, that I'd actually prefer you to release all of the terrorists so they can carry out suicide bombings with aircraft. Very good!

Nope, actually I'd just prefer if they were treated within the bounds of international law, it would also stop some of the negative publicity that their detainment has created for the US. But I understand; other peoples opinions of the US is irrelevant, until they fly a plane into one of your buildings...



posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Dom, yep that wakes up alright. Up until then we were just churning along cranking out more money for the UN to divide amongst the rest of the world. Guess we had it coming for whatever reason. Anyway, about your points which i really didn't want to get into but will. No one has ANY evidence whatsoever that anything other than detainment is happening in Cuba. Considering the company, I would say that these guys are probably treated better than most Cubans. These guys are criminals and not POWs because they have no affiliation to anything other than rogue terror organizations. They operate outside of international law themselves. As for other people's opinions being irrelevant, since when must Americans stop and consider every extremists opinion in the world. No other country stops to consider them. If we were to consider the opinions of the terror groups, to make them happy we all should just drop dead because thats what their goal is, the death of every human in the world that believes he or she has a right to liberties pertaining to their own existence. I would love to hear you sit down with one of these guys and debate with him his beliefs.


dom

posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Better astrocreep, you dealt with a few points there.

"cranking out more money for the UN" - I'll just counterquote

"The US gives just 0.11 per cent (or $11.4bn) of its national income as aid. The lowest of any rich country. The total debt of the 41 most Heavily Indebted Poor Countries is $213bn. "

www.wdm.org.uk...

"Guess we had it coming" - I'm inclined to agree.

"These guys are criminals and not POWs because they have no affiliation to anything other than rogue terror organizations." - Except those prisoners who were members of the Taliban. You remember? That organisation that looked after civil administration inside Afghanistan? Besides, any combatant captured during warfare has to be considered as a POW first, then the status can be re-evaluated. Where there is dispute a seperate tribunal has to decide the status of each prisoner one at a time.

"As for other people's opinions being irrelevant, since when must Americans stop and consider every extremists opinion in the world." - You don't have to, but listening to the moderates in other countries might be a start.



posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Well, if you thought we had it coming, I'm glad you got your way and I hope each and every person who died while just trying to earn a living gave you a warm feeling inside. Maybe you can take some further enjoyment from the children who lost one or both parents that day. I'm glad it only took 3000 to tickle the hell out of the rest of the world. Maybe if they had gotten a Nuke in, it could have been in the millions. Wow, would that have been great or what? I'm not sure where in the world you are but I wish you well.



posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Dom, how can you say the WMD should be easy to find? Like I said before, if I buried a treasure in california, how long do you think it would take you to find it? There are only a ahndful of people looking because that is not the focus yet. And it is a known fact that they have already found mobile labs. Not only that but they were buried. Now why would they need mobile labs, and why would they bury them with millions of dollars of gear in them?

THe arguments that international law has been broken through the action taken on Iraq still does not stand up. Iraqs initial breaking of the resolution should be enough to justify that. You may dissage with it, and that is fine, but you can't say it's illegal. And you can't simply use violence as something to say it';s illegal. Anything like this is going to require force (violence). No one sat their complaining about the violence being brought on the Iraqis by Saddam before this, and likely those people don't really care about the Iraqis (as the Iraqis have made it clear they are happy this has happened).

As for Bush lying.. I'm not saying he isn't a liar, but if someone is going to say he is a liar, they need to point out instances or else it is just simply name calling (I am not directing this at anyone in particular).



posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Cite the international laws the US has violated posted by Thomas Crowne

A non exhaustive list is :

1. The outlawing of violence , UN Charter
2. The treatment of POW's, Human rights charter
3. The agreement on banned weapons , Geneva Convention


But bush also violated domestic US laws, for example repeatedly and perseverantly lying to the public with intent to start a mass killing ...

sorry dom, we posted in parallel


[Edited on 15-4-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]


Outlaw of violence? That's a smart idea, outlaw violence. By the way, we have the right to defend ourselves, and that is what we are doing. Maybe you haven't noticed but we have been attacked several tiimes the last several years, and now we are responding. They declared war on us, we have the right to respond.

Next.

Our treatment of POW's is IAW the conventions to which we agreed. If they don't get cable T.V. and rocking chair that suits you, too bad.

Next.

What are you talking about? Maybe I missed something. Did we use chemicals on the Guard? I must have been asleep when that happened.

Bush violated U.S. laws by repeatedly and perseverantly(?) lying to the public with the intent to start a mass killing?

I think you should become familiar with the word slander. You are saying that he not only lied, but lied with the intent to kill, which sounds rather odd, to be polite. Even more odd is that you are declaring that to tell a lie is a lie IAW with "U.S. laws". Wow. I've really learned alot at your feet today, oh wise one. LOL.



posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 02:05 PM
link   
And, yes, Dom, I have read that statement, and I disagree with them, as well as do many people who are mush more learned than I.
We have come under attack, war has been declared against us, we have the right to respond. The war, as well as the combatants, are not as they have been in the past. It is not as if their is a well defines nation waging a clear and traditional military campaign against another nation(s) as was in WWII, for example.
Those "teachers" are incorrect, just as many biased and agenda-driven teachers are.

One last thing before I go to work. In case you haven't noticed, se've been waging a military campaign, one of the most successful in terms of minimal allied and civilian casualties. We haven't had time to look for your undeniable proof. First is victory and then civilian relief. You don't mind if we do the civilized thing, do you?



posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 05:07 PM
link   
DESTROY THEM ALL.

Period.



posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Looks like the mobile labs have turned up clean and they claim that they were used for testing food. Still seems a bit shadey though that they would bury them. Something deceptive is definitely going on.



posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 08:36 PM
link   
I'm not saying that I agree with Bush and his motives, but isn't what we want a really stable economy with a strong dollar? Bush's motives of getting things are bad and ignorant, but his ideas may sometimes be good.

I think if he rethinks the way he is achieving "his interests", and actually achieves them without the use of war, then I think more people might support him.

Though that will likely never happen in my lifetime, unfortunately



posted on Apr, 16 2003 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Indias defense minister said yesterday that Washingtons claims about Iraqs weapons of mass destruction (WMD) had been proved wrong, because US forces had not found no such weapons

link : www.iraqwar.ru...



posted on Apr, 17 2003 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Moku

No offense meant, but what is the point of that article? So Indias defense ministers opinion is any more valuable than any one elses? One could post many articles saying the opposite by other people. It's just an issue of opinion.

[Edited on 17-4-2003 by Noone]


dom

posted on Apr, 17 2003 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Noone - About the mobile labs... apparently Saddam was rather paranoid about being poisoned, and used to have all of his food tested.

Would make sense that he would need mobile food testing equipment. I can't remember this actually being used as justification in the past, although one of the big incidents with the first inspectors was over a similar problem.

UN inspectors rushed into a building on a surprise inspection and caught a secret service agent leaving through the back door, they chased him, caught him, and took his briefcase. Inside they found documents refering to lots of nasty chemicals, they jumped the gun and everyone got excited. Then they got a full translation and it turned out that the document was a set of tests carried out on Saddam's food in case of poisoning, hence all the secret service involvement.

Bizarre but true.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join