In response to Dogsi's comment, prior to the iraq war people may have been poor, but at least they were not being blown to shreads by American bombs. Secondly, I meant to use the term "incident" instead of "accident". Of course it was not an accident, it was a violent act aimed at getting britain out of iraq. Also, in response to emeraldeyes, WE SUPPLIED THE IRAQI ARMY IN THAT WAR! I guess you haven't seen the footage of Don Rumsfeld shaking saddam's hand on a job well done! And also, about iraq's capability to produce WMD's many other countries were much more capable of producing WMD's, including Iran, North Korea and Libya. If you refer to my quotes, Powell himself said that Iraq was not capable of WMD's. Also, if you look on the news, THERE HAVE BEEN NO WMD'S IN IRAQ. In response to another one of dogsi's posts, Pre iraq war saddam was not "terrorizing his people". There was no "reign of terror". Iraq was a sovereign nation at war with no one until the U.S. of A came along. Also, 9/11 happened in the first place not because Iraq, not because Afghanistan, but because the U.S. had a military base in SAUDI ARABIA.
Phil I Buster

"Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." -Otto Von Bismark

No way am I going to discuss my religion with you on this thread, Ladon. You generally complain about people bringing religion into threads, so what's with that?

quote:

---

PhilIBuster says: Also, in response to emeraldeyes, WE SUPPLIED THE IRAQI ARMY IN THAT WAR! I guess you haven't seen the footage of Don Rumsfeld shaking saddam's hand on a job well done!

---

I want to know how this pertains to your argument exactly? In my argument I've not tried to whitewash the US's past or make any judgements about it at all. The pertinant point of my argument was that Saddam Hussein had used elements (biological and chemical) and technology that is available to many different countries for varying purposes..... to exterminate hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings simply for being in the way of his goals. Aren't the facts and statistics of his murderous reign, the issue? How does where it came from, make it an 'injustice' to stop him?

quote:

---

American bombs

---

Really??? So the 22,000 of the 24,000 estimated civilian casualties that were taken by the domestic terror attacks were American in origin right? We gave the Iraqi suicide bombers the bombs and told them to blow up innocent Iraq civilians right? The fact of the matter is the Iraqi terrorists have killed eleven times the number of Iraqi civilians that America has and our casualties were largely accidental (mostly due to the fact that it is hard to identify an enemy so cowardly that they hide amongst civilians in the first place) while theirs were 100% intentional. The majority of the terrorist attacks this last year have targeted civilians NOT American forces, they can not beat us on the field so they hope to beat us with politics. They have killed about 50 times as many Iraqi civilians as they have American military (the large majority of American casualties in the war have been accidents and friendly fire, more people have died in helo crashes than the Iraqi's have killed). They have no problem claiming the lives of their own countrymen if they see it as a route to their own selfish goals.

quote:

---

WE SUPPLIED THE IRAQI ARMY IN THAT WAR!

---

OBVIOUSLY you have made your opinion on this subject matter with out doing ANY research on the facts.

America never provided Iraq with ANYTHING. We were at one time in the early 80's discussing lifting parts of the embargo off of Iraq (not only did we NOT trade them weapons we did not allow those we did trade weapons to then in turn trade them to them, we in NO POSSIBLE CONCEIVIBLE WAY provided them with weapons) but they started using tactics that we did not agree with and that fell appart quickly. We never provided them with weapons, money, trade, ect. ect. We prefered them to win the war with Iran as Iran had become stronger in the middle east than we would have liked.

Now if you want to be more accurate say the way it really was, we provided weaponry to Iran prior to the war and the USSR supplied weaponry to Iraq prior to and in the beggining of the war. We had a falling out with Iran before the war began and we had cut them off. Neither country was supplied weaponry in that war and the only one that you could POSSIBLY try to lay blame at our feet would be Iran, who lost the war so no one cares about that.

This has been discussed and there is a link to the national archive that has something like 40-50 documents showing the conversations between Iraq and the U.S. Relations were so bad that the American diplomats involved were getting excited when they started to actually have two way communication with Iraq. Yes, America approached Iraq to see if we could become possible trade partners and allies. Read those some time, read up on what actually happened not just what some biased anti-war rhetoric tells you, THEN come back and try to make a logical argument based off of facts.

quote:

---

Pre iraq war saddam was not "terrorizing his people". There was no "reign of terror".

---

I may be forced to disagree with you.

quote:

---

Iraqis showed journalists a white stone jail where they say Saddam Hussein's secret police for decades tortured inmates with beatings, mutilations, electric shocks and chemical baths.

The jail, known as the "White Lion," was charred and half-demolished yesterday after two days of bombing by British forces fighting for control of Basra, Iraq's second-largest city.

People taken behind the jail's sandstone facade usually did not come out, residents said.

Hundreds of Iraqis came to see the now-empty jail, according to British press reports. Relatives of missing inmates checked fingerprinted files and lists of names found amid the fallen bricks.

"It was a place of evil," resident Hamed Fattil said.

Hamed told British reporters that Iraqi police locked him and his two brothers in a jail dungeon in 1991, and that he was freed after eight months but his brothers were still missing.

"They used to strap a leather cord around our head, hands and shoulders and hoist us two feet (0.61 metres) off the ground. Then they would beat us as we hung there," Hamed said.

"They did unthinkable things - electrocution, immersion in a bath of chemicals and ripping off people's finger and toenails."

The jail basement was a warren of cells, chambers and cages where the ground was strewn with an insect-eaten gas mask and bottles, according to Associated Press Television News footage.

For the cameras, two men re-enacted how jailers allegedly tortured prisoners.

One man, hands tied behind his back with a rope attached to a hook on the ceiling, bent over while another man pantomimed hitting him on the back and the face with his hands and a long, white rod.

One man shuddered while the other gave him a pretend electric shock.

Outside the jail, a man showed APTN his mangled ears.

Hamed took British reporters into a yard behind the jail and into a set of white boxy cells, surrounded by red wire mesh with a low, wire roof.

He said some of the cells, which had red doors with large bolts, were used to hold women and children. He also said hundreds of men were kept in a single cell about the size of a living room, which had one rusted grate window.

Between the men's and women's cells was a long mesh cage. Hamed said here, jailers pressed prisoners against the mesh and squeezed hot irons against their backs or threw scalding water on them in front of other inmates.

---

Courtesy of the The Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/09/1049567724483.html?oneclick=true

quote:

---

Human rights organizations have documented government approved executions, acts of torture, and rape for decades since Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979 until his fall in 2003.

In 2002, a resolution sponsored by the European Union was adopted by the Commission for Human Rights, which stated that there had been no improvement in the human rights crisis in Iraq. The statement condemned President Saddam Hussein's government for its "systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law". The resolution demanded that Iraq immediately put an end to its "summary and arbitrary executions... the use of rape as a political tool and all enforced and involuntary disappearances".
Two years earlier, two human rights organizations, the International Federation of Human Rights League and the Coalition for Justice in Iraq released a joint report, accusing the Saddam Hussein regime of committing "massive and systematic" human rights violations, particularly against women. The report spoke of public beheadings of women who were accused of being prostitutes, which took place in front of family members, including children. The heads of the victims were publicly displayed near signs reading, "For the honor of Iraq." The report documented 130 women who had been killed in this way, but stated that the actual number was probably much higher. The report also describes human rights violations directed against children. The report states that children, as young as 5 years old, are recruited into the "Ashbal Saddam," or "Saddam's Cubs," and indoctrinated to adulate Saddam Hussein and denounce their own family members. The children are also subjected to military training, which includes cruelty to animals. The report also describes how parents of children are executed if they object to this treatment, and in some cases, the children themselves are imprisoned.....

In March of 2003, Britain released video footage of Iraqi soldiers firing on fleeing Iraqi citizens near the town of Basra in southern Iraq.
Also in April of 2003, CNN admitted that it withheld information about Iraq torturing journalists and Iraqi citizens that were interviewed by CNN in the 1990s. According to CNN, the channel kept the information secret because they were afraid that their journalists would be killed if they reported it.

---

Courtesy of Wikipedia.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam%27s_Iraq#Documented_human_rights_violations_1979-2003

There is more to the above article but I decided that it was best not depressing everyone with everything they listed.

Now,

quote:

---

Pre iraq war saddam was not "terrorizing his people". There was no "reign of terror".

---

Clearly this is not the case. There are plenty more documentations of Saddam's dealings, I, as others have, suggest you research more fully before you make ill-rooted claims.

HAVE A NICE DAY!

~Aeras

First, in response to dogsi's comments, which flabbergasted me, it is YOU who needs to research your facts. We supplied the iraq army during the iran iraq war AND we supplied Osama bin Laden when the Russians were invading afghanistan. So actually dogsi, we DID supply the iraqi army willingly and don rumsfeld did congratulate saddam on a JOB WELL DONE. But nice try. And also Dogsi, 1. I never said we supplied iraqi suicide bombers, 2.the 22000-24000 iraqis killed were not of american origin (they were of iraqi origin, that is why I called them iraqis) 3. Most of the civilian deaths were killed by our bombs, not our troops. 4.I doubt the target of the suicide bombers are iraqi civilians. Also, in response to Aeras comments, I am not familiar with a country that does not have a few skeletons. We have gitmo, and don't tell me Saddam had a worse thing going on, because if you pay attention to the news gitmo is a terrible place to be.

"Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." -Otto Von Bismark

Phil, my first reaction was "What?!"

Now, I'm going to ask you to back some of this up.

quote:

---

We supplied the iraq army during the iran iraq war

---

Can you please provide documentation or some other independant and *reliable and credible* reasource which validates this. I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just going with my gut instinct that Dogsi isn't based on his past arguments.

quote:

---

AND we supplied Osama bin Laden when the Russians were invading afghanistan

---

I would love for you to show me something validating this claim. When did we hand weapons directly to Mr. Osama?

quote:

---

And also Dogsi, 1. I never said we supplied iraqi suicide bombers, 2.the 22000-24000 iraqis killed were not of american origin (they were of iraqi origin, that is why I called them iraqis)

---

Dogsi also never said they were Americans. He merely said that the majority of Iraqi's died due to suicide bombers not of American origin. He then asked you, quite sarcastically, that we [America] provided those bombers the bombs right? The answer is no.

He said this based on this comment:

quote:

---

but at least they were not being blown to shreads by American bombs

---

So clearly we see that you are in err and need to read more carefully.

quote:

---

I doubt the target of the suicide bombers are iraqi civilians

---

How can you doubt something with which we have absolute proof? We aren't losing many troops to these bombs (some Iraqi trainees have been targeted sure) but the Majority have been civilians. They target these people to arise sympathy in the citizens of the countries whose troops are in Iraq so that public opinion will persuade the government to back out. Obviously this is not occuring with every country, hence attacking London, and other places around the world.

quote:

---

Also, in response to Aeras comments, I am not familiar with a country that does not have a few skeletons.

---

You are losing credibility in my eyes. You stated Saddam had no reign of terror or secrect killings prior to the war and when presented with proof of it, your reply is that every country has skeletons in their closet?

quote:

---

We have gitmo, and don't tell me Saddam had a worse thing going on, because if you pay attention to the news gitmo is a terrible place to be.

---

And if you pay attention to the news you know they have a propensity for blowing things out of proportion. If you can show me where our troops are electrocuting prisoners, exposing them to nerve gas, brutually beating them, and ripping off their toe and finger nails, then I'd agree with you that it is as bad as Saddams, but the simple fact is, it isn't. Another note is these are prisoners of war. In Iraq, Saddam was torturing average citizens.

quote:

---

He said some of the cells, which had red doors with large bolts, were used to hold women and children. He also said hundreds of men were kept in a single cell about the size of a living room, which had one rusted grate window.

Between the men's and women's cells was a long mesh cage. Hamed said here, jailers pressed prisoners against the mesh and squeezed hot irons against their backs or threw scalding water on them in front of other inmates.

---

Please show me anything, other than the word of your local nightly news, that shows this is what goes on at Gitmo.

HAVE A NICE DAY!

~Aeras

First off I wouldn't exactly say we provided Osama with weapons, although that technically is correct. We were supplying the enemey, afghanistan, of our enemey, the USSR, with the weaponry they needed to defeat the USSR forces, which they did.

However, I never said anything about Osama not getting weapons. Afghanistan was supplied with weapons. Iraq on the other hand has never in all of history received weaponry from the U.S. We have been over this in a previous debate when some one tried stating that we, the U.S.A., "made" Saddam. It was proven to be utter BS made up by the anti-war fanatics to try and rouse some justification behind their cause. At the high point of American relations with Iraq, we would not trade weaponry with Iraq and would not allow our trade partners to trade weaponry with Iraq. Not only that but they still had heavy embargoes inplace. We did not supply them with money, loans, aid, trade, or anything of this sort. We did for a 3 year period support improving diplomatic relations with Iraq and contemplated a peaceful and semi-friendly relation with Iraq. This fell appart when they started gassing thousands of civilians.

The fact of the matter is rather simple. Saddam was far worse for Iraq and the neighboring countries than the cost of removing him from power. I will not lie about the motivations behind the Iraq war, no, it is not because we care so much about the welfare of the Iraqi people but simply becaues it serves our own selfish ends, at least that is my belief. However, that does not mean what is best for the Iraqi people is not what is best for America as well. Does it matter why we help Iraq out? Would you care if some one gave you $100, even if it was only because they were getting $1,000 by doing it?

Look at S. Korea vs. N. Korea for example. It was in Americas best interest to stop the communist expansion in to S. Korea. Many Koreans, Chinese, American and other allied forces lost their lives. What was the end result? S. Korea has a comparable standard of living to the U.S. in the 1950's. While N. Korea, the agressor and the one that would have been the victor if we had not stepped in (victors due solely to Chinese and USSR backing of course), now live in one of the most destitute societies under a brutal regime. More people have died of starvation in N. Korea in the last decade alone than all the casualties from both sides in the Korean war and this is counting only the ones we know about with limited intelligence gathering resources. It stands to reason that if we had not gotten involved and the north had won out vs the south, the south would be in a similiar situation. This is one of those times where what was best for S. Korea was also best for America, just as what was best for Iraq in this situation, was best for America as well. Well, maybe I should not use the words "best", but better.

Iraq is better off now than they were under Saddam. The most likely successor to Saddam would have been his eldest son, a man who is far more brutal and saddistic than Saddam ever was. Trade relations with Iraq, once the population finally realizes that this is a war they can't win, will improve and Iraq's standard of living will once again to climb. They at one time had a very promising economy, actually comparable to the U.S., that was until Saddam came in to power.

quote:

---

once the population finally realizes that this is a war they can't win,

---

Since when were the Iraqi people the enemy? I thought it was Saddam....seems the bloodlust got a bit too caffienated for you...

Im sure the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians would laugh out loud at the words 'Better for Iraq'.

October, and the trees are stripped bare...of all they wear. Kingdoms rise, and Kingdoms fall, but you go on and on.

in response to aeras's comments:
1.
quote:
We supplied the iraq army during the iran iraq war
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Can you please provide documentation or some other independant and *reliable and credible* reasource which validates this. I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just going with my gut instinct that Dogsi isn't based on his past arguments.

2.
quote:
AND we supplied Osama bin Laden when the Russians were invading afghanistan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I would love for you to show me something validating this claim. When did we hand weapons directly to Mr. Osama?

I will provide documentation when I get the time, but until then you can see the documentary Farenheit 911. It will back up everything I said above. Also, I never said that Saddam didn't kill secretly. I have read dozens of articles about Saddam survivors, people with no fingers, etc. I only said that oh, perhaps a half a year before we invaded Iraq, there was no documented torture of innocent civilians. However, before that, he did experiment with mustard gas on his own people. You also talked about how (sic) "Gitmo isn't as bad as Saddam's jails. Tell me what happens in Gitmo." I can't, because documents are classified and I of course do not have clearance. Also, the targets of the suicide bombers are not the civilians (at least that's what al Qaeda said). There was a TIME article you could look at which is about suicide bombers and how they do not want to kill civilians. They said "we do not want to kill civilians, but if some do die they will be greeted in heaven by Allah and they will be asked to forgive us." They said their targets were "the infidels".

"Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." -Otto Von Bismark

Phil I Buster.

How naive can you possibly be?

quote:

---

there was no documented torture of innocent civilians.

---

Saddam had the sense not to flaunt his atrocities, you don't wave documented evidence infront of the UN about human rights' abuses, you burn it.

quote:

---

They said "we do not want to kill civilians, but if some do die they will be greeted in heaven by Allah and they will be asked to forgive us." They said their targets were "the infidels".

---

This is ridiculous. "the infidels" are all non-believers (note this is different to non-Muslims), thus everyone apart from them.

Hippo.

Stella Splendens
December 22, 1985 - March 27, 2003
RIP
...Always.

I work for the CIA.

The US government has no problem handing me a weapon.

During the Cold War, Osama Bin Laden fought tooth and nail for the CIA.

The US government had no problem handing him a weapon.

October, and the trees are stripped bare...of all they wear. Kingdoms rise, and Kingdoms fall, but you go on and on.

I'm sure none here would like to read this link --->Large scale terrorism is always state sponsored.

Sounds too farfetched doesn't it? Especially Operation Gladio... too far fetched!

******************************************************************************

While not infallible, the ancient Latin question is still the best guide to penetrating the bloody murk of modern terrorism: Cui bono? Who benefits? Whose powers and policies are enhanced by the attack? For it is indisputable that the "strategy of tension" means power and profit for those who claim to possess the key to "security." And from the halls of the Kremlin to the banks of the Potomac, this cynical strategy is the ruling ideology of our times.
-- Chris Floyd, from Sword Play

******************************************************************************

-

much love, light and laughter,
ananya.

*~Come play with my children feel the peace and Scatter some joy.~*
~*Blowing out someone else's candle doesn't make your's burn any brighter.*~
Loneliness is not the absence of affection, but the absence of direction.

Ananya,

I read the link you provided. I've seen Alex Jones' website, the co-author of the article (an 'alternative' link from Wiki) and I'm sorry to say I think he's just another conspiracy theorist.

While such coincidence (and here I am talking exclusively about London) is phenomenal, Mr Powers directly cites "simultaneous attacks on the underground and mainland stations."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/110705bombingexercises.htm

This doesn't take into account the bomb on the No. 30 bus at Tavistock Square.

Interestingly, it is worth watching the above video (from the link) and comparing the interview with the "transcript" available on the link Ananya gave, here you should expect to find certain discrepancies that embellish the former link.

quote:

---

At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning,

---

Transcript says:

ITV video interview says:

"Peter Power: ...the most perculiar thing was that we based our scenario on simultaneous attacks on the underground and mainland stations. So we had to suddenly switch the exercise from fictional to real, and one of the first things is get that buro number when you have a list of people missing, tell them.

Host: Just to get this right, you were actually working today on an exercise that envisioned virtually this scenario?

Power: Almost precisely.

Hippo.

Stella Splendens
December 22, 1985 - March 27, 2003
RIP
...Always.

quote:

---

Since when were the Iraqi people the enemy? I thought it was Saddam....seems the bloodlust got a bit too caffienated for you...

---

Blah, you know what I meant by this. Of course the Iraqi population is not the enemy, but I was of course refering to the fantatics that are still continuing a battle that they can not win and are doing nothing but destroying the country they claim to be serving.

quote:

---

Im sure the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians would laugh out loud at the words 'Better for Iraq'.

---

Right now, yes. If you had asked the S. Koreans 40 years ago if the war was a bad thing they would have said yes. Ask them now and they are of a different oppinion. Ask the Iraqi's in 20 years if they are still of the same opinion. Also, all polls taken showed that they are glad that Saddam is gone, just they also wish we were gone. However, if we had simply killed Saddam and left, his regime would still be in power and nothing substantial would have changed.

quote:

---

I will provide documentation when I get the time, but until then you can see the documentary Farenheit 911. It will back up everything I said above.

---

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DOCUMENTARY? You have GOT to be joking right? That was a MOVIE. Last I checked movies weren't documentaries. That's like watching men in black and then arguing that they really do exist and using the movie as your proof. Find some REAL proof because I have proven before that America did NOT support Saddam in ANY WAY.

quote:

---

You also talked about how (sic) "Gitmo isn't as bad as Saddam's jails. Tell me what happens in Gitmo." I can't, because documents are classified and I of course do not have clearance.

---

You said this, after saying this:

quote:

---

We have gitmo, and don't tell me Saddam had a worse thing going on, because if you pay attention to the news gitmo is a terrible place to be.

---

Your nightly news seems to be providing you with plenty of information upon Gitmo for you to make such an *ehem* informed decision. Now I want you to back it up. You keep dodging my requests for some validation by saying you don't have the time or you site poor examples (if we can call them that) like Farenheit 911. If you haven't noticed, Michael Moore is a poor person to get the non-biased facts from (and the actual facts, rather than his video editing skills).

Personally, I like the way one comedian put it best:

"I don't think someone who complains about the excesses of American Capitalism should weigh 400 pounds."

Please begin researching and providing good documentation. You obviously have the time to post, then you should have the time to search for these claims.

And to everyone else, I am done with my Michael Moore tangent, since when did this thread become about the london bombings? Clearly the main focus is Iraq and not the conspiracies surrounding those bombings.

HAVE A NICE DAY!

~Aeras

Hope,

My entire arguement is based on the Cui Bono? rhetoric. Who benefits from inducing such fear? the point is not whether the london bombings were al qaeda driven or some other conspiracy theory... the point is that if you keep yourself really open, without being biased to your own country and its government, you will probably come to an entirely different conclusion than the one you may presently have reached.

For eg. I look at the recent bombings in India at one of our highly disputed religious sites, one such exercise in the "Cui Bono" category. Its apparent that its an inside job almost always.

Besides, i do understand that it is always better to put off a person as a conspiracy theorist, because if you believe one theory then you will have to believe all of them, and that would be too much for the heart to handle. All I can't understand is why peole don't ascribe the same title to the media journalists from faux news, cnn and the whole cabal. To me they appear to be in league with the governments.

Ok I'm outta here. I don't have much time on hand to research and refute hope's post, so i am not attempting another go at it, right now. But by now you guys might at least know where my thoughts lie... (that is if you had wanted to know where they lay in the first place.)

***

Though I have a question for Hope. Did you ever research the Operation Gladio thingie. Its amazing how one thing makes you stumble upon a whole succession of truths that would have been best kept under the rugs. That is probably why the rugs smell so much.


***

Some quotes to think about: (collected over the past six months from here and there)

quote:

---

Activism does not rationally convince elites to change their policies. Nor does activism massage their hearts and lead to a moral transformation. Activism wins when it creates conditions within which elites making critical decisions feel they have no choice but to change their behavior. They change when they decide that to pursue their policies and otherwise ignore popular demands, with the risk that this will energize dissent, is a worse course of action for them than not doing so.... So, we need only ask, what type of movement raises social costs and threatens to be a continuing and growing problem for elites? Is it a movement that has a very narrow focus on a single war or a single policy? Is it a movement which will dissolve once that primary issue is no longer in the forefront? Or is it a movement which certainly focuses on the opposed policy -- in this case war in Iraq -- making it clear that continued pursuit of the war is enlarging the movement, but which also stretches and grows to address other dimensions of international relations and then of corporate and political power, thereby making clear that if the movement is produced by continued pursuit of the war, it will not just fade away with the war's conclusion, and that once it is brought into being it will not only persist, but will function to obstruct and challenge state policies on diverse fronts held in even higher priority by elites than the war itself? To ask the question is to answer it. We need to continually reach out and enlarge the movement if its trajectory of development is to effectively raise costs for elites. But we also need to present clear evidence that the growing opposition is extending beyond the immediate issue to basic defining relations and institutions of society. This is what will cause elite constituencies served by Bush to think to themselves "our war policy is threatening the fabric of our rule over society, it is disrupting our capacity to undertake business as usual, it is taking the next generation from us and making them our enemy, it is putting at risk things we hold even more dear than the war policy -- our power and wealth -- therefore, we must cease our support for war."
-- Stephen Shalom and Michael Albert, from Reject Defeatism...Organize!

I have been a fool for 47 years. I used to believe in European and American civilization.
-- Makki al-Nazzal, during U.S. military operations in Fallujah, quoted in blog by Rahul Manahajan at 2:00 pm EST on April 11, 2004

If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist.
-- George W. Bush Ahem! isn't that a big confession! Anybody who opposes this has only to read the subsequent quote.

From 1985 to 1990, the United States Government approved 771 licenses for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application. The United States spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted The Administration has never acknowledged that it took this course of action, nor has it explained why it did so. In reviewing documents and press accounts, and interviewing knowledgeable sources, it becomes clear that United States export-control policy was directed by U.S. foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was U.S. foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein.
-- Samuel Gejdenson, Democrat of Connecticut, chairman of a House subcommittee investigating "United States Exports of Sensitive Technology to Iraq", quoted by William Blum in "Anthrax for Export"

There is a war between the rich and poor, a war between the man and the woman There is a war between the ones who say there is a war and the ones who say there is none . . . You cannot stand what I've become, you much prefer the gentleman I was before I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control, I didn't even know there was a war.
-- Leonard Cohen, There is a war

10...9...8...7...6...5...4...3...2..1...kerblooy.Your done. Your done for. Your done for good. But have you? Have you done? Have you done all you could?
-- Ani Defranco, from Revelling and Reckoning - 2001

In modern war there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason.
-- Ernest Hemingway

As the US prepared to attack Baghdad, Pentagon spokesmen reported that the six divisions of the 80,000-strong Iraqi Republican Guard outside the city had been "degraded" or rendered "ineffective" by aerial and ground bombardment. Dan Goure, an analyst for the Lexington Institute, told the Associated Press on April 8: "It may never be known how many Iraqis were killed.... It would have to be over 10,000 uniformed Iraqis and more if you include irregulars." Did the 3,000 casualties on September 11 constitute a bloodbath? If so, we must surely conclude that the thousands of dead and many more thousands of wounded in the taking of Baghdad also constitute a bloodbath.
-- David Edwards, from Vindication - A Statue Falls, Media Lens, 4/11/03

In the United States, the Bush administration is busy terrorising Americans. There will be nuclear attacks, bombs in high-rise apartment blocks, on the Brooklyn bridge, men with exploding belts – note how carefully the ruthless Palestinian war against Israeli colonisation of the West Bank is being strapped to America's ever weirder "war on terror" – and yet more aircraft suiciders. If you read the words of President Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney and the ridiculous national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, over the past three days, you'll find they've issued more threats against Americans than Mr bin Laden.
-- Robert Fisk, UK Independent, May 25 2002

The mental trick of picturing the victim of an attack in the role of the cruel and dangerous assailant is an established mechanism for diminishing a sense of guilt.
-- C. P. Fitzgerald

The United States says it expects a lengthy military occupation following its victory. US generals will be in charge of setting up democracy in Iraq. Will this be a democracy like in Haiti, the Dominican Republic or Nicaragua? They occupied Haiti for 19 years and set up a military power base that eventually became the dictatorship of Francois Duvalier. They occupied the Dominican Republic for nine years and laid the foundations for the dictatorship of Rafael Leonidas Trujillo. They occupied Nicaragua for 21 years and founded the dictatorship of the Somoza family.
-- Eduardo Galeano, from The War, 3/23/03

All right, when an Israeli sniper shoots an old lady with a cane, trying to get into a hospital for her chemotherapy treatment, in front of a lot of the world's press for one, and frankly we'd be here all day with other examples, isn't that terrorism?
-- John Pilger

Who among the "liberals" who say their motive for backing Bush and Blair is to "liberate" the Iraqi people has spoken out against this medieval siege that has "liberated" hundreds of thousands of Iraqis from life? Their specious compassion is like that of the man who stands besides a torturer, reassuring the victim that his ordeal will end if he accepts the torturer's terms.
-- John Pilger, from The Blood

It is hard to believe that thousands are going to be killed and maimed, entire nations devastated, regional conflicts allowed to take ugly turns, the rest of the world held in fear--all because the dead body of a single, essentially unworthy person is given such high value.
-- Nirmalangshu Mukherjee, SchNEWS, reffering to Osama Bin Laden

---

***********************************************************************************

We will find that we will not be able to find and kill the last terrorist, because, well, he is a metaphor. And you can't kill a metaphor, you can only turn it into a cliche.
-- Sherman Alexie, from The Stranger-Seattle

***********************************************************************************


-

much love, light and laughter,
ananya.

*~Come play with my children feel the peace and Scatter some joy.~*
~*Blowing out someone else's candle doesn't make your's burn any brighter.*~
Loneliness is not the absence of affection, but the absence of direction.

Ananya,

I am familiar with the Cui bono? based arguments in law, however, what I aimed to prove in my post was that you cannot generalise, ticking all the boxes for a conspiracy theory. There are some clear errors in the link you provided and much speculation with too little empirical evidence.

Furthermore, the site hasn't been updated, blowing a lot of their theories out of the water:

"How very convenient that all of the suspected patsies should have been blown up in their own attacks even though the last word was that the attacks were not suicide bombings, but synchronized, timed bombings

...

The BBC is reporting that only one of the bombers definitely blew himself up. Which is it? All four bombers or just one? There is an attempt to muddy the waters so people will switch off and just buy whatever the government tells them, even though the government story keeps contradicting itself."

July 13th

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/120705importantquestions.htm

And the motives:

quote:

---

BBC polls that were showing 80 per cent plus opposed the ID card will now likely flip back in the opposite direction. Support for the European Union and increased globalization through the G8 will rise. Who stands to gain from all this? Who has the motive?

---

- Opinion polls do now suggest that ID cards have become more popular, but London citizens in contrast with the rest of the country oppose the bill most ferociously. This leads me to propose that once the atmosphere has calmed down, ID cards will still be rejected.

- Support for the EU will not rise, it is a dead cause. If anything greater co-operation with securities councils will ensure.

London had nothing to gain from terrorist attacks, it had just been selected to host the 2012 Olympics.

Hippo.

Stella Splendens
December 22, 1985 - March 27, 2003
RIP
...Always.

wow.. I don't know where to start. Well, I'll start with Dogsi's comment:
quote:
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DOCUMENTARY? You have GOT to be joking right? That was a MOVIE. Last I checked movies weren't documentaries. That's like watching men in black and then arguing that they really do exist and using the movie as your proof. Find some REAL proof because I have proven before that America did NOT support Saddam in ANY WAY.

First of all, I am going to take a leap of faith and trust:
1. Ebert and Roeper
2. Every other movie critic
3. Guiness book of world records
4. WikiPedia....

Before I continue the list, here's a quote from wickipedia. I'm sure everyone in this forum trusts Wikipedia more than you, Dogsi
quote:


Fahrenheit 9/11
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Fahrenheit 9/11

Directed by Michael Moore
Written by Michael Moore
Starring Michael Moore,
George W. Bush
Produced by Michael Moore,
Jim Czarnecki,
Kathleen Glynn
Distributed by Lions Gate Films
Release date June 25, 2004
Runtime 122 mins
Language English
Budget $6,000,000
IMDb page
Fahrenheit 9/11 is a high-grossing, award-winning documentary film by American filmmaker Michael Moore, which had a general release in the United States and Canada on June 25, 2004. The film has since been released in 42 more countries and holds the record for highest box office receipts by a general release documentary.

The film generated a great deal of controversy. It presents a critical look at the administration of George W. Bush and the War on Terrorism. The Los Angeles Times described the film as "an alternate history of the last four years on the U.S. political scene." [1] The [Idocumentary has another theme of criticizing the American corporate media for being "cheerleaders" for the war in Iraq, and not providing an accurate and objective analysis of what led to the Iraq invasion and the resulting civilian casualties there.

The film has been denounced by some conservatives as misleading propaganda, and praised by other observers as a valuable perspective on the Bush administration's response to 9/11 that the American media have not broadcast. Moore himself has called it an "op-ed piece" while vehemently defending its factual accuracy. [2][3][4]. The film debuted at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival in the [i]documentary[I/] film category and was awarded the Palme d'Or (Golden Palm), the festival's highest award, by an international jury (four Americans, four Europeans, and one Asian).

As of January, 2005, the film has grossed nearly US$120 million in U.S. box office, and over US$220 million worldwide; an unprecedented amount for a political [I]documentary[I/]; Sony reported first-day DVD sales of two million copies, again a new record for the [I]film genre[I/]. [5] The film has grossed a further $99 million overseas.[6]

To attack Moore financially, the anti-Moore site moorewatch.com posted a link to a BitTorrent file containing a version of the movie taped at a cinema.

Well that's the quote, the link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11 in case you do not believe me. I'll forgive you Dogsi, but next time calm down when "spouting" out incorrect facts. Oh yah, and like I said before I trust:
Directed by Michael Moore
Written by Michael Moore
Starring Michael Moore,
George W. Bush
Produced by Michael Moore,
Jim Czarnecki,
Kathleen Glynn

more than you. I doubt Michael Moore placed fallacies on a film that would be shown around the world. Thank you, please come again.


In response to Aeras comments:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You also talked about how (sic) "Gitmo isn't as bad as Saddam's jails. Tell me what happens in Gitmo." I can't, because documents are classified and I of course do not have clearance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You said this, after saying this:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have gitmo, and don't tell me Saddam had a worse thing going on, because if you pay attention to the news gitmo is a terrible place to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Your nightly news seems to be providing you with plenty of information upon Gitmo for you to make such an *ehem* informed decision. Now I want you to back it up. You keep dodging my requests for some validation by saying you don't have the time or you site poor examples (if we can call them that) like Farenheit 911. If you haven't noticed, Michael Moore is a poor person to get the non-biased facts from (and the actual facts, rather than his video editing skills).

First of all, being the intellegent person you are, I'm sure you could figure that I do not watch Fox "news" 24/7 (which is about the only "news" channel I get). Even if I did, I would only be hearing about the weather for the next few weeks and about the capacity of fire alarms to protect us. Also, I do agree with you when you say "Michael Moore is a poor person to get non biased facts from". However, Michael Moore never talked about Gitmo in his movie AND while he may be biased I would find it awfully hard to "create" the "conspiracy theory" that we supplied Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. I could see where your concern might come from,however they HAVE been documented (the weapons deals)and I really do not have enough time right now to pull those up (although I will get to it) as I am rather busy but you can feel free to embark upon a little "scavenger hunt" of your own.

And in response to Ananya's post, THANK YOU. Here is what she said:
quote:
If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist.
-- George W. Bush Ahem! isn't that a big confession! Anybody who opposes this has only to read the subsequent quote.

From 1985 to 1990, the United States Government approved 771 licenses for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application. The United States spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted The Administration has never acknowledged that it took this course of action, nor has it explained why it did so. In reviewing documents and press accounts, and interviewing knowledgeable sources, it becomes clear that United States export-control policy was directed by U.S. foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was U.S. foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein.
-- Samuel Gejdenson, Democrat of Connecticut, chairman of a House subcommittee investigating "United States Exports of Sensitive Technology to Iraq", quoted by William Blum in "Anthrax for Export"
THANK YOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU. Yay, I don't have to hunt down the documentation anymore! THanks a TON!
I'm sick of being angry, so here are some quotes from the london bombings:

The war on terror goes on. I was most impressed by the resolve of all the leaders in the room. Their resolve is as strong as my resolve.
-- Most likely without seeing the conceit inherent in this sentiment, Dubya is impressed when people approach his level, Auchterarder, Scotland, Jul. 7, 2005

When you ride hard on a mountain bike, sometimes you fall. Otherwise you're not riding hard.
-- So, most of the time when you're riding hard and not falling (since you only fall sometimes), you aren't actually riding hard? Help, I'm confused... Auchterarder, Scotland, Jul. 7, 2005

I spent some time recently with the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and had an opportunity to express our heartfelt condolences to the people of London, people who lost lives.
-- Not to make light of a tragedy, but unless Dubya is now capable of speaking with the dead, he couldn't possibly have been able to express condolences to people whose lives were lost, Auchterarder, Scotland, Jul. 7, 2005

Oh, I almost fogot ~hope~! Sorry... Ok, here was your quote:
How naive can you possibly be?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there was no documented torture of innocent civilians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Saddam had the sense not to flaunt his atrocities, you don't wave documented evidence infront of the UN about human rights' abuses, you burn it.

Perhaps I was not clear enough... it is obvious that Saddam would burn the records, if any, he had of torture. I'm talking about peopole who came forth after he was thrown out and told the U.S. about their experience. Now, I have read stories of torture in Saddam's jails, and it is horrible. However, my quote was:

"I only said that oh, perhaps a half a year before we invaded Iraq, there was no documented torture of innocent civilians."
Which is true, most survivors were not tortured approx. 6 months before we went into Iraq.
Also, you said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They said "we do not want to kill civilians, but if some do die they will be greeted in heaven by Allah and they will be asked to forgive us." They said their targets were "the infidels".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is ridiculous. "the infidels" are all non-believers (note this is different to non-Muslims), thus everyone apart from them.
Now I want YOU to provide a source, say, a suicide bomber getting interviewed...like the one I USED. As with Dogsi, I am going to trust the suicide bomber over you if we're talking about Muslim extremism fundamentalist ritual stuff. Thanks for your response though.

"Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." -Otto Von Bismark

Phil I. Buster,

quote:

---

I doubt Michael Moore placed fallacies on a film that would be shown around the world. Thank you, please come again.

---

Ask yourself why Michael Moore made Fahrenheit 9/11 and also consider when the film was released, only weeks before the American Presidential Elections.

Now I'd love to Moore is an objective documentarian, but if I did, I'd be talking bollocks. He might not have made out and out fallacies, but he could quiteeasily have stretched the truth. Let's apply Ananya's Cui bono? principle: Moore actively supported Kerry, the war in Iraq was a major factor in the election, hence, portraying George Bush and his government in an bad light would be favourable.

quote:

---

Now I want YOU to provide a source, say, a suicide bomber getting interviewed...like the one I USED. As with Dogsi, I am going to trust the suicide bomber over you if we're talking about Muslim extremism fundamentalist ritual stuff.

---

Sure. I'd love to find you the Times excerpt I paraphrased it from, but here's a few other things:

Fighting is prescribed for you, and [some of] you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not (Sura 2:216).
Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war (Sura 9:5).
Fight in the way of Allah . . . and slay them [the unbelievers] wherever you find them and drive them out . . . and fight them until . . . religion is for Allah (Sura 2:190-193).

-From the Koran

Abdullah el-Faisal- A Radical Cleric

You can use chemical weapons to exterminate the unbelievers. Is that clear? If you have cockroaches in your house, you spray them with chemicals'

Hippo.

Stella Splendens
December 22, 1985 - March 27, 2003
RIP
...Always.

Isnt it wonderful what Mr Moore has done to the Left wing youth? He made them exactly the same as the right wing youth...Unquestioning, assuming bags of hormones.

October, and the trees are stripped bare...of all they wear. Kingdoms rise, and Kingdoms fall, but you go on and on.