Chemtrail Central :: View topic

Search FAQs Messages Members Profile

Gulf War II

Chemtrail Central > Wars

Author

Thread

Fastwalker

Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 832

Wed Apr 16, 2003 6:25 am

quote:
"--Does this make sense...Have I been redundant enough with this point to penetrate the massive quantities of bone between Mech's ears yet? __"
Like I said... I try not to engage in hatred.

Not hatred, truth. Even now, as redundant as I have been, we can see (as your following comments reveal) that I'm still not getting through to you. This is either the result of extreme stupidity, delusional rationalization and avoidance of any deductive reasoning...or just plain insanity. I'm not sure which exactly it is at this point, but one thing's certain. It is merely a profoundly descriptive term to place you in the category of severe bonehead...not hateful. If you are not a bonehead, then I don't know who would qualify. You epitomize that definition...Allow me to clarify, using your own responses;

quote:
It is perfectly clear that the Globalists like Bechtel and Halliuburton, want to gobble up IRAQI oil assets for their own personal gains.

Ok, then if this is so clear, then show me how these companies intend to profit from the sale of Iraqi oil, when they do not own the rights to Iraqi oil, when they are not even in the business of selling or even extracting oil. And what is the business of these companies? Well Halliburton, founded in 1919, “is one of the world's largest providers of products and services to the oil and gas industries “. See about Halliburton here;
http://www.halliburton.com/about/index.jsp

Halliburton was needed to rebuild some of the Iraqi oil infrastructure damaged in the war. This is the obligation of a victorious nation according to the “rules of war”. America always rebuilds countries after it defeats them because we are an honorable country. Halliburton just happens to be the biggest and best equipped company in the world to help with the job, such as fixing damaged oil wells that the Iraqi Republican guard may have sabotaged. This reconstruction is necessary so that the Iraqi people can profit from the sale of their natural resource, which is oil, and so some of those costs for reconstruction do not have to be borne upon the backs of the American taxpayer, but can be offset by Iraq’s own natural asset. Halliburton certainly does not profit from the sale of oil, so it cannot honestly be argued that this war was about the profit from Iraqi oil. Certainly, Halliburton is not profiting directly from sale of Iraqi oil, but rather, the costs of reconstruction. It’s a bit like blaming Pacific Bell for profiting from fixing a downed power line after a storm…It’s ridiculous at best, and certainly does not support the argument that this war is for the control of Iraqi oil in any logical way. Halliburton does not control Iraqi oil or benefit from the sale thereof.

quote:
This was the reason for the war to begin with.

Oh really, on what basis are you making this claim? I just explained WHY it was not the reason for the war using the example of Halliburton. Again; Halliburton does not control Iraqi oil or benefit from the sale thereof.

quote:
There are STILL no WMD found in iraq.

Uh….you don’t know this yet. But give it time. Our inspectors have only been over there a little over three weeks now. They haven’t had time to “inspect” because they’ve been pre-occupied with this little thing called THE WAR…. AND GETTING SHOT AT….YOU BONEHEAD

quote:
This war is still unjustified...the US wasn't attacked.

Attack alone isn’t the sole justification for war. The first Gulf War never ended because Iraq did not live up to it’s cease fire agreements in the form of the 18 UN resolutions. Iraq invaded Kuwait. Iraq was routinely firing upon US aircraft during the last 12 years, which is a direct attack upon the United States. Waiting for first attack is not an intelligent option when we are talking about the possibility of first attack being done with a possible nuclear weapon delivered via a third party terrorist group (with which we are now seeing that Saddam had strong affiliations). I’m not willing to see NYC go up in a mushroom cloud, when we have every justification for taking pre-emptive measures. Even if you overlook the war on terrorism and taking out a major terrorist nation such as Iraq as motivation and justification for war, then humanitarian reasons for removing an evil dictator who has killed and tortured around 3 million people is justification enough. Freeing those 150 Iraqi children is justification enough. Because we CAN, and because it sets up a powerful deterrent to countries like Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and N. Korea that harbor terrorists, is justification enough. Because it let’s Russia and China know that the US is not a paper tiger…is justification enough.

quote:
A sovereign country has a right to it's own self-determination.

This is a fine example of a classic bonehead comment, and you might even be making my case without realizing it. The Iraqi people had no right to self-determination, because they were under brutal oppression from an evil dictator. Only a free people have the ability for self-determination. We just liberated the Iraqi people and restored this right to self-determination…a right they did not possess under Saddam Hussein….hence the war was justified.

quote:
Attacking FIRST isn't American.

I beg to differ. America was attacked first on a little date known as 9/11...remember? And history would beg to differ with you as well. America sure as hell DOES attack first. Remember Pearl Harbor? How did this attack on us justify our subsequent attacks on another wacky guy with a moustache known as Adolf Hitler? Were we justified in attacking Nazi Germany first? I don’t remember Nazis attacking the United States first?

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Fastwalker on 04-15-2003]

Fastwalker

Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 832

Wed Apr 16, 2003 6:54 am

9/11 Ties to Baghdad

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/4/15/104245

Tuesday, April 15, 2003 10:46 a.m. EDT
Wall Street Journal: 9/11 Hijackers Trained by Baghdad?

The Wall Street Journal has broken the mainstream media's silence on evidence that Baghdad may have been directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, with the paper's editorial page urging U.S. officials on Monday to investigate "whether any of the September 11 hijackers are graduates of Salman Pak, or other terrorist training camps in Iraq."

U.S. troops who took control of Salman Pak last week "should be looking for documents bearing the name [lead 9/11 hijacker] Mohamed Atta. Some of us still want to know who trained him," the Journal advised.

Evidence uncovered at the South Baghdad terrorist camp "supports the statements of two former Iraqi military officers who in the fall of 2001 told PBS's 'Frontline' and the New York Times that Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs went to Salman Pak to practice hijacking planes," the paper noted.

In an interview about of the 9/11 attacks for the same "Frontline" report, Sabah Khodad, a captain in the Iraqi army who was stationed at Salman Pak in 1994 and 1995, said that when he saw Atta and Marwan al Shehhi's planes crash into the Twin Towers, he thought to himself, "This was done by graduates of Salman Pak."

The paper also suggested that the CIA had been covering up evidence linking Iraq to the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, which most investigators believe was a precursor to the 9/11 attacks.

Citing reports that one of the 1993 WTC bombers had fled to Iraq and had later taken part in a January 2000 al-Qaeda "summit" in Malaysia, the paper complained, "The CIA never told the rest of the U.S. government until some time in 2002. We hope the CIA doesn't make the same mistake this time."

Though Salman Pak got a fair amount of media attention in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the press - as well as the Bush administration - has been virtually silent in the intervening year and a half about compelling evidence linking Iraq to the most devastating attack ever suffered by the U.S.

One prominent exception has been No. 1 radio talker Rush Limbaugh, who routinely reports on the Salman Pak connection - and features on his Web site links to satellite photos of an airliner fuselage used since the mid-1990s by Salman Pak trainees to rehearse 9/11-style hijackings.

[Edited 2 times, lastly by Fastwalker on 04-16-2003]

Mech

Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA

Wed Apr 16, 2003 2:36 pm

DAMN IT...THEM DAMNED IRAQIS....YOU CAN"T PROTEST AGAINST YOUR "LIBERATORS."

U.S. Bans Media from Anti-American protests

April 16 2003 BAGHDAD
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/15/1050172597223.html

US forces yesterday tried to stop the media from covering a third day of anti-American protests by Iraqis outside a hotel housing a US operations base, according to a reporter at the scene.

Up to 300 Iraqis gathered outside the Palestine Hotel to express rage at what they said was the US failure to restore order after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.

For the first time, visibly angered US military officials sought to distance the media from the protest, moving reporters and cameras about 30 metres from the barbed-wired entrance to the hotel.

"We want you to pull back to the back of the hotel because they (the Iraqis) are only performing because the media are here," said a marines colonel who would not give his first name or title.

The crowd later moved to the nearby square where a statue of Saddam was toppled last Wednesday, signalling the end of the regime. The Iraqis chanted: "No, no, USA."

Tension has been rising in front of the hotel, where Iraqis protest against a lack of police protection, water, electricity and other basic services.

As the protest grew more vocal, a marines corporal held an impromptu briefing for a few reporters about progress in bringing Iraq back to normal.

Corporal John Hoellwarth said the US forces planned to boost joint police patrols, bring more hospitals back into service and restore power to parts of Baghdad within 72 hours.

- AFP

Printer friendly version

Mech

Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA

Wed Apr 16, 2003 2:44 pm

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 04-17-2003]

shatoga

Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291

Thu Apr 17, 2003 6:15 am

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news083.htm
US Army Psychological Operations command decided to combine all Iraqi POWs into large groups and to distribute the resulting video footage to the world media. A more active use of the Iraqi opposition was suggested for propaganda work in the occupied villages. The same opposition members will be used to create video footage of the "repented" Iraqi POWs and footage of the local [Iraqi] population "opposing Saddam."

The same faces in town after town tearing down statues and praising herr bush.
moving with the camera crews to film the propaganda.
Americans should demand the truth.
The most intelligent among us know we are being lied to.

I choose to not step into that namecalling cesspool, bushistas.

Many legion posts are dominated by bushistas
who shout down all freethinkers

I just quit one post to take a life membership in another.

Difference?

American respect for freedom of speech/vs mindless ziegheiling.

"We serve so that others have the right to demonstrate against the politicians who sit safe at home while they send us to fight their wars."- Rick Bennett Lcpl 3rd Marine 1st Recon- Cambodia (agreeing with Sgt Gatley
in his Houston TX vision of America)
Best man I ever met

"We tried to get the US to help us form a democratic gov't.
They refused."--'Shau Lee' (VC area commander)
Nixon 1954 to Bush 2003 --Northwoods over & over

both parties/ same "defense" contractors
Northwoods over & over PR wag the dog wars

Eisenhower was right.
Defense contractors buy chickenhawks to
generate profits.
"Wag the Gulf 2" is payback for buying the WH
for that deserter
http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news083.htm
US Army Psychological Operations command decided to combine all Iraqi POWs into large groups and to distribute the resulting video footage to the world media. A more active use of the Iraqi opposition was suggested for propaganda work in the occupied villages. The same opposition members will be used to create video footage of the "repented" Iraqi POWs and footage of the local [Iraqi] population "opposing Saddam."

The most intelligent among us know we are being lied to.

The same faces in town after town tearing down statues and praising herr bush.
moving with the camera crews to film the propaganda.
Americans should demand the truth.

[Edited 3 times, lastly by shatoga on 04-16-2003]

Fastwalker

Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 832

Thu Apr 17, 2003 5:27 pm

I knew my response regarding Halliburton and the war-for-oil argument, was so damn good that it would completely cripple Mech's ability to even continue with the point. The truth is a powerful weapon, and when confronted with truth, Mech has no choice but to change the subject and ignore it...as we see here. Typical of the disingenuous, dishonest type of person with shallow mentality based upon total ignorance and delusions that shares Mech’s views….Totally unable to back up or explain those views.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Fastwalker on 04-17-2003]

Mech

Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA

Thu Apr 17, 2003 6:34 pm

Baloney...Halliburton, Bechtel and KBR will make big bucks off of this war. You just refuse to look at the FACTS presented on these last 36 or so pages Fastwalker. Instead you blurb on about how they have nothing to do with it. LOL!

OIL MONEY DOES DETERMINE FEDERAL POLICY IN THE BU$H ADMINISTRATION.

I can put it in a nutshell.

Bush--Harken Energy,Carlyle group

Cheney-- Halliburton, Kellog Brown and Root.

Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice-- Chevron--Had an OIL TANKER named after her.

Something IS WRONG with this picture.

----------

Iran attacks US and braces for nuclear dispute

Dan De Luce in Tehran
Thursday April 17, 2003
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,938205,00.html

The Iranian president Mohammad Khatami yesterday lashed out at America for its aggressive stance, stating that Tehran would not recognise a US-installed administration in Iraq and warning Iran would support Syria were it attacked.

"We will not recognise any administration other than an all-Iraqi government. However, we are not seeking tension or confrontation with anybody," he said.

Mr Khatami added: "The Iraqi nation will not accept any foreign rule." His comments come at a time of increasing tension for Iran, which faces pressure from Britain and the European Union over its nuclear programme amid concerns that Tehran may be close to producing a nuclear bomb.

With the end of the war in Iraq, international attention is shifting to Iran, which has denied it has a weapons programme but has so far refused to agree to a more intrusive UN inspections regime.

Western governments fear Iran no longer requires outside technical expertise to manufacture a nuclear weapon and may be planning eventually to withdraw from its international obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

The fear among some western diplomats and analysts is that the increasingly belligerent stance of Washington towards Iran and Syria may backfire and push Tehran to speed up its weapons programme. Mr Khatami yesterday made a point of rallying to Syria's side.

"Syria is on the frontline against Zionist pressures, defending the cause of the Palestinian nation, freedom and peace in the region. We will defend Syria, but it doesn't mean we will engage in military confrontation," he said.

The UN International Atomic Energy Agency has demanded unfettered access to Iran's nuclear programme to investigate declared and undeclared sites that would indicate whether Iran is attempting to produce weapons-grade plutonium.

But Iran has refused to sign up to the non-proliferation treaty's "additional protocol", drafted after the 1991 Gulf war.

Iranian officials have said they would be willing to agree to the "go anywhere" inspections regime only if trade sanctions were lifted, allowing access to technical assistance for the nuclear programme.

For the US, which has had no diplomatic relations with Iran for more than two decades, such a compromise is out of the question. Iran insists its programme is purely for peaceful purposes and is designed to meet a growing domestic demand for electricity.

But concerns in the west about Iran's nuclear ambitions were reinforced after an uranium enrichment facility was revealed last year and when Tehran announced plans to mine uranium ore and reprocess its own nuclear fuel.

Arms proliferation experts say Iran has no need for such an extensive uranium enrichment facility because Russia has agreed to provide all the fuel necessary for a nuclear power plant under construction in Bushehr.

Iran has tried to develop a nuclear programme since the 1980s but the US managed to block Tehran's attempts to find a western European partner. With Pakistan, India and Israel possessing nuclear weapons and flouting the non-proliferation treaty, conservative clerics ruling Iran may see the nuclear programme as a deterrent, analysts say.

UN inspectors have been visiting various sites for the past month, and the IAEA is due to deliver a decision in June on whether Iran has broken the non-proliferation treaty.

Since it was named last year by the US as part of the "axis of evil", along with North Korea and the former regime in Iraq, Iran has avoided any confrontation with Washington and stayed out of the war at its doorstep.

As a counter to US pressure, Iran has cultivated relations with the EU, and with Britain in particular.

[Edited 2 times, lastly by Mech on 04-17-2003]

Mech

Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA

Thu Apr 17, 2003 6:40 pm

WAR CRIMES BEING COMMITED IN IRAQ

Embedded Photographer: "I Saw Marines Kill Civilians"

by MICHEL GUERRIN
for Le Monde
http://www.counterpunch.org/guerrin04162003.htm

Translated for CounterPunch by NORMAN MADARASZ

Laurent Van der Stockt, a photographer working for the Gamma agency and under contract for the New York Times Magazine, followed the advance of the 3/4 Marines (3rd battalion, 4th regiment) for three weeks, up to the taking of Baghdad on April 9. He was accompanied by New York Times Magazine editor, Peter Maas. Born in Belgium in 1964, Laurent Van der Stockt mainly works in conflict zones: the first Gulf War, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Africa and the Occupied Territories. This is his eyewitness account of the Marines' march to Baghdad:

"Everything began at the Kuwait/Iraq border. I forced my way into the country and arrived at Safwan. American soldiers had seized the opportunity to tear up portraits of Saddam Hussein on the main street. They were doing this right in front of the local inhabitants, whose elation quickly vanished. The soldiers obviously didn't imagine that it was up to the Iraqis to be doing this, or that it was humiliating for them. These were the same soldiers who would topple down Saddam's statue in Baghdad three weeks later...

I understood that the Marines' general strategy was to not waste any time. In the cities they crossed, the Marines had to make a show of force. Then they would resume their advance by going as fast as possible up by the east through the desert, and avoid any contact with the population. It takes an effort to picture what an army looks like as it advances through the sands. It's an anthill. It's more than a city on the march. It's a world whose extremities are never seen. It's a cutting edge, mechanical version of Julius Caesar's army.

During the first few days, with colleagues from the New York Times and Newsweek, I tried to follow the convoys in a SUV by playing hide-and-seek. We were spending a lot of time then with the 1 500 Marines of the _, commanded by Colonel Bryan P. McCoy. His troops gave us water, gas and food. In exchange for their tolerance, we respected the rules to not pass the convoy and to camp at such and such a place. We were just barely tolerated. The colonel could see that the 'few jokers were behaving well'. He knew we had experienced more wars than his own troops.

For McCoy, we were obviously interesting right from the start. We were the ones who could tell his story. Trust settled in between us. He let us drive at the head of the convoy. The Marines are generally less privileged than the army. They're trained to do the dirty work, the less honorary jobs. They have the oldest tanks, and the least up-to-date M16 rifles. They themselves translate 'USMC' (United States Marine Corps) by United States Misgodded Children, i.e. the US' forgotten children, forgotten by God.

Their motto is 'Search and Kill'. The 'Kilo' unit is nicknamed 'Killer Kilo'. The words 'Carnivore' or 'Blind Killer' are painted on their tanks. McCoy could snap with a 'Shame on You' a smile flashing across his face to the sniper who had just finished telling him: 'I've got eight, Sir, but only five'. Literally meaning: I've shot eight, but only five of them are dead.

I've never seen a war with so few 'returns'. The Iraqi army was like a ghost. It barely existed. Over the three weeks, I only saw the adversary fire a few short-range rockets and a few shots. I saw deserted trenches, a dead Iraqi soldier lying next to a piece of bread and some old equipment. Nothing that really made you feel that there was a real confrontation going on, nothing comparable to the massiveness of the means at the Americans' disposal.

On April 6, we were at the outskirts of Baghdad, facing a strategic bridge the Americans called 'the Baghdad Highway Bridge'. Residential zones were now much greater in number. American snipers got the order to kill anything coming in their direction. That night a teenager who was crossing the bridge was killed.

On the morning of April 7, the Marines decided to cross the bridge. A shell fell onto an armored personnel carrier. Two marines were killed. The crossing took on a tragic aspect. The soldiers were stressed, febrile. They were shouting. The risk didn't appear to be that great, so I followed their advance. They were howling, shouting orders and positions to each other. It sounded like something in-between a phantasm, mythology and conditioning. The operation was transformed into crossing the bridge over the River Kwai.

Later, there was some open terrain. The Marines were advancing and taking up position, hiding behind mounds of earth. They were still really tense. A small blue van was moving towards the convoy. Three not-very-accurate warning shots were fired. The shots were supposed to make the van stop. The van kept on driving, made a U-turn, took shelter and then returned slowly. The Marines opened fire. All hell broke loose. They were firing all over the place. You could hear 'Stop firing' being shouted. The silence that set in was overwhelming. Two men and a woman had just been riddled with bullets. So this was the enemy, the threat.

A second vehicle drove up. The same scenario was repeated. Its passengers were killed on the spot. A grandfather was walking slowly with a cane on the sidewalk. They killed him too (SEE PHOTO IN LE MONDE). As with the old man, the Marines fired on a SUV driving along the river bank that was getting too close to them. Riddled with bullets, the vehicle rolled over. Two women and a child got out, miraculously still alive. They sought refuge in the wreckage. A few seconds later, it flew into bits as a tank lobbed a terse shot into it.

Marines are conditioned to reach their target at any cost, by staying alive and facing any type of enemy. They abusively make use of disproportionate firepower. These hardened troops, followed by tons of equipment, supported by extraordinary artillery power, protected by fighter jets and cutting-edge helicopters, were shooting on local inhabitants who understood absolutely nothing of what was going on.

With my own eyes I saw about fifteen civilians killed in two days. I've gone through enough wars to know that it's always dirty, that civilians are always the first victims. But the way it was happening here, it was insane.

At the roughest moment, the most humane of the troops was called Doug. He gave real warning shots. From 800 yards he could hit a tire and, if that wasn't enough, then the motor. He saved ten lives in two hours by driving back civilians who were coming towards us.

Distraught soldiers were saying: 'I ain't prepared for this, I didn't come here to shoot civilians.' The colonel countered that the Iraqis were using inhabitants to kill marines, that 'soldiers were being disguised as civilians, and that ambulances were perpetrating terrorist attacks.'

I drove away a girl who had had her humerus pierced by a bullet. Enrico was holding her in his arms. In the rear, the girl's father was protecting his young son, wounded in the torso and losing consciousness. The man spoke in gestures to the doctor at the back of the lines, pleading: "I don't understand, I was walking and holding my children's hands. Why didn't you shoot in the air? Or at least shoot me?"

In Baghdad, McCoy sped up the march. He stopped taking the time to search houses one-by-one. He wanted to get to Paradise Place as soon as possible. The Marines were not firing on the thickening population. The course ended with Saddam's statue being toppled. There were more journalists at the scene than Baghdadis. Its five million inhabitants stayed at home."

Interviewed by Michel Guerrin for LE MONDE, April 12, 2003.

Translated for CounterPunch by Norman Madarasz (nmphdiol@yahoo.ca).

Mech

Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA

Thu Apr 17, 2003 6:45 pm

PROTESTERS BEING SLAUGHTERED IN IRAQ

American soldiers fire on political rally, killing at least 10 civilians
By Patrick Cockburn in northern Iraq

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=397631

16 April 2003

American soldiers killed at least 10 Iraqis and wounded dozens of others yesterday when they reportedly fired on a political rally in Mosul. "There are perhaps 100 wounded and 10 or 12 dead," said Ayad al-Ramadhani, director of the Republican Hospital in Mosul.

The shooting of civilians will further sour the mood in Iraq, where there were three other protests yesterday against an American occupation.

The events leading up to the deaths are still unclear. Said Altah, another doctor at the hospital, said: "The wounded say that the crowd was listening to a speech by the new governor, Mihsan al-Jaburi." Mr Jaburi is a member of the Iraqi opposition who entered the northern city with Kurdish forces last week.

Mr Jaburi had said that co-operation with the Americans was necessary. This angered the crowd and, in circumstances still unexplained, the troops fired. An American military spokesman said that the troops were fired on before they returned fire.

Kurdistan Television said last night that five people had been killed and hundreds wounded during the anti-American demonstration.

The Arabs of Mosul, where they are the majority, were already angry at the sacking of the city last week, which they blame on the Kurds although Kurdish leaders deny that any of their regular forces had entered the city at the time. Many people blame the mass looting that followed the city's capture on America, which had sent most of its troops to secure the oilfields of Kirkuk and had none available for Mosul.

Mosul has become calmer in the past few days, as armed residents organised by the mosques have blocked off streets and set up checkpoints to prevent looting. But the Arab part of the city, which has a Kurdish minority, is festooned with Iraqi flags, though this is an assertion of Iraqi nationalism rather than a sign of support for Saddam Hussein.

The American forces in northern Iraq appear to have been taken unawares by the rapidly changing political situation – last week, one Kurdish party sent its forces to capture Kirkuk, also in the north, contrary to previous agreements. They also appear to have believed that hostility to President Saddam by Iraqis automatically implied that they were pro-American. The Kurds, though dependent on their alliance with the United States, are struck by the Allied forces' inability to help restore essential services such as electricity and water supplies.

Mosul, a city of 700,000 people that has been a crossroads of cultures for thousands of years, is regarded as a microcosm of Iraq and an important test of efforts to create a plural democratic society.

Kurdish leaders are desperately trying to stave off a crisis between Kurds and Arabs in ethnically mixed cities such as Mosul. The most powerful Kurdish figure, Massoud Barzani of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, issued a statement yesterday warning Kurds not to "attack the property, life or integrity of any Arab citizen".

Mech

Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA

Thu Apr 17, 2003 6:49 pm

"UNGRATEFUL" IRAQI CIVILIANS TURNING THEIR ANGER AT THE U.S.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030416_1828.html

Mech

Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA

Thu Apr 17, 2003 7:36 pm

The men who make Iraq war possible

4:48pm Tue Apr 15th, 2003
http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/200304150034230.php

We owe General Amos Gilad, Israeli national defence spokesman, for doing Bush the disservice of openly stating that the war of aggression on Iraq "is in the service of Israel", which is something our organisations have suggested for many long months but which has not been brought to the fore even by the international anti-war movement.

As reported by AFP on April 7, Gen Gilad said: "A very large threat which was hanging over Israel's eastern border has disappeared…without Iraq, there is no longer the possibility of a united Arab front on our eastern border.

"Saddam's regime was a threat to us. It's disappearance bolsters American hegemony in the region and deprives Syria of its strategic rear."

Then Ari Shavit writes in the Israel daily Haaretz (‘White man's burden’) that the belief in the war in Iraq, "that ardent faith, was disseminated by a group of 25 or 30 neo-conservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history".

He goes on to say that the war of aggression "is being fought to consolidate a new world order, to create a new Middle East". Kristol is quoted as saying that "the choice is between extremist Islam, secular fascism or democracy".

The war is based on a new ‘American’ understanding of which they've convinced Mr Bush "that if the US does not shape the world in its image, the world will shape the US in its image".

Krauthammer insists that "the US must implement an aggressive policy of pre-emption". The group envisaged a war won quickly and without a bloodbath which would make the US a colossus that would dictate the world order.

In further substantiation of the power of this Zionist-Jewish-right-wing Christian alliance, Thomas Friedman is quoted as saying "...could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened".

And then read Michael Linds’ ‘The weird men behind George W Bush's war’ (New Statesman, April 7, 2003) who writes of a largely Jewish-American movement which morphed "into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history", people who admire "Israeli Likud party tactics, including preventive warfare".

"The neo-con defence intellectuals, as well as being in or around the actual Pentagon, are at the centre of a metaphorical ‘pentagon’ of the Israel lobby and the religious right, plus conservative think-tanks, foundations and media empires. Think-tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provide homes for neo-con ‘in-and-outers’ when they are out of government (Perle is a fellow at AEI).

"The major link between the conservative think-tanks and the Israel lobby is the Washington-based and Likud-supporting Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa), which co-opts many non-Jewish defence experts by sending them on trips to Israel.

It flew out the retired General Jay Garner, now slated by Bush to be proconsul of occupied Iraq. In October 2000, he co-signed a Jinsa letter that began: ‘We believe that during the current upheavals in Israel, the Israel defence forces have exercised remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of [the] Palestinian Authority.’

"The Israel lobby itself is divided into Jewish and Christian wings. Wolfowitz and Feith have close ties to the Jewish-American Israel lobby. Wolfowitz, who has relatives in Israel, has served as the Bush administration's liaison to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

"Feith was given an award by the Zionist Organisation of America, citing him as a "pro-Israel activist". While out of power in the Clinton years, Feith collaborating with Perle, co-authored for Likud a policy paper that advised the Israeli government to end the Oslo peace process, reoccupy the [Palestinian] territories and crush Yasser Arafat's government."

It was Cheney who positioned these dangerous hard-liners including Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton and Libby to counter Secretary of State Powell and others. They took advantage of Bush's ignorance and inexperience and Southern Christian fundamentalism which admires macho Israeli soldiers and is fervently Christian-Zionist.

In the service of Israel, Wolfowitz and others in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) urged the invasion of Iraq throughout the Clinton years. In signed public letters, they called on the US to invade and occupy Iraq, to bomb Hezbollah bases in Lebanon and to threaten states such as Syria and Iran with US attacks.

If we're effectively to struggle against this dangerous ‘new world order’, we must know well the nature of the beast.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 04-17-2003]

Mech

Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA

Thu Apr 17, 2003 7:43 pm

Mech

Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA

Thu Apr 17, 2003 7:55 pm

STILL NO WMD FOUND IN IRAQ

17 Apr 2003 13:52:11 GMT
U.S. digs, searches in vain for Iraqi chemical weapons

By Adrian Croft
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L17216643.htm

NASSIRIYA, Iraq, April 17 (Reuters) - A U.S. military excavator shovels another load of mud on to a canal bank near the southern Iraqi city of Nassiriya, cutting a deep trench.

The mechanical digger strikes a slab of concrete, raising hopes this could be a hidden dump of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction -- a nuclear, biological or chemical "smoking gun" to help justify the U.S.-led war to oust the Iraqi leader.

Nothing is found.

After days of intense digging and searching at least seven suspicious sites near Nassiriya, U.S. experts have found chemical warfare protective suits, but no chemical weapons.

Chief Warrant Officer Alex Robinson, leading the U.S. search in the area, admitted on Thursday that his list of suspect sites in southern Iraq was "kind of drying up".

"I guess the main focus of effort is around Baghdad and maybe a little bit to the north and the west where they think a lot of the WMD (weapons of mass destruction) have been secreted or the labs are located underground," he told Reuters.

Robinson said his team's various inspections had found an antidote to nerve gas, but had otherwise turned up "regular laboratory chemicals that you'd find in a high school lab."

A trailer at the back of a military hospital, suspected of being a mobile chemical weapons laboratory, turned out to be a cooking trailer, while a laboratory the U.S. team visited was for research into concrete and asphalt work, he said.

"Those are the kind of tip-offs we get. We don't want to discount anything. The one you don't go to look at will be the one that has whatever it is you want to find," said Robinson, who comes from Carlsbad, California.

Many of the tips come from local residents, convinced that mustard gas or other lethal weapons were being produced at the sites, he said.

Washington's conviction that, despite his denials, Saddam retained weapons of mass destruction -- from lethal gases to deadly nerve agents -- and was ready to use them was the main justification for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"We went to look at four missiles lying on the ground the other day (and) a house that had a bunch of canisters that were like little chemical containers strewn throughout and a whole bunch of NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) gear," he said.

No chemical weapons were found at either site.

The canisters turned out to be for chlorine, which could be a component of toxic gas but in this case was probably used to purify water, Robinson said.

babazula

Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Posts: 1

Thu Apr 17, 2003 7:56 pm

Mech

Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA

Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:03 pm

Already been to Turkey once....Antalya in fact.
Beautiful country with nice mountains and a lot of Roman ruins scattered everywhere.Good people.

No thanks. Kind of dangerous there right now for Americans.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 04-17-2003]

Forum Jump:

Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 7:11 am

Display posts from previous: