Chemtrail Central
Login
Member List
Image Database
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Search
Research
Flight Explorer
Unidentifiable
FAQs
Phenomena
Disinformation
Silver Orbs
Transcripts
News Archive
Channelings
Etcetera
PSAs
Media
Vote


Chemtrail Central
Search   FAQs   Messages   Members   Profile
Why They Hate Us...

Post new topic Reply to topic
Chemtrail Central > The Neutral Zone

Author Thread
Thermit





Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3137
Location: Texas
Why They Hate Us... PostThu Oct 11, 2001 6:57 pm  Reply with quote  

Well, there are many reasons, some based on fact, some otherwise, but reading this article will shead light on to how many in the Middle East view America. Now, don't get me wrong, if Saddam wasn't an evil ass, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in over there, with regards to Iraq, and beyond, but have we really done the best we could do?

http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html

quote:

The Secret Behind the Sanctions
How the U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply
by Thomas J. Nagy


Over the last two years, I've discovered documents of the Defense Intelligence Agency proving beyond a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country's water supply after the Gulf War. The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway.

The primary document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," is dated January 22, 1991. It spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens.

"Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline," the document states. "With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease."

The document goes into great technical detail about the sources and quality of Iraq's water supply. The quality of untreated water "generally is poor," and drinking such water "could result in diarrhea," the document says. It notes that Iraq's rivers "contain biological materials, pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur."

The document notes that the importation of chlorine "has been embargoed" by sanctions. "Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply is critically low."

Food and medicine will also be affected, the document states. "Food processing, electronic, and, particularly, pharmaceutical plants require extremely pure water that is free from biological contaminants," it says.

The document addresses possible Iraqi countermeasures to obtain drinkable water despite sanctions.

"Iraq conceivably could truck water from the mountain reservoirs to urban areas. But the capability to gain significant quantities is extremely limited," the document states. "The amount of pipe on hand and the lack of pumping stations would limit laying pipelines to these reservoirs. Moreover, without chlorine purification, the water still would contain biological pollutants. Some affluent Iraqis could obtain their own minimally adequate supply of good quality water from Northern Iraqi sources. If boiled, the water could be safely consumed. Poorer Iraqis and industries requiring large quantities of pure water would not be able to meet their needs."

The document also discounted the possibility of Iraqis using rainwater. "Precipitation occurs in Iraq during the winter and spring, but it falls primarily in the northern mountains," it says. "Sporadic rains, sometimes heavy, fall over the lower plains. But Iraq could not rely on rain to provide adequate pure water."

As an alternative, "Iraq could try convincing the United Nations or individual countries to exempt water treatment supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons," the document says. "It probably also is attempting to purchase supplies by using some sympathetic countries as fronts. If such attempts fail, Iraqi alternatives are not adequate for their national requirements."

In cold language, the document spells out what is in store: "Iraq will suffer increasing shortages of purified water because of the lack of required chemicals and desalination membranes. Incidences of disease, including possible epidemics, will become probable unless the population were careful to boil water."

The document gives a timetable for the destruction of Iraq's water supplies. "Iraq's overall water treatment capability will suffer a slow decline, rather than a precipitous halt," it says. "Although Iraq is already experiencing a loss of water treatment capability, it probably will take at least six months (to June 1991) before the system is fully degraded."

This document, which was partially declassified but unpublicized in 1995, can be found on the Pentagon's web site at www.gulflink.osd.mil. (I disclosed this document last fall. But the news media showed little interest in it. The only reporters I know of who wrote lengthy stories on it were Felicity Arbuthnot in the Sunday Herald of Scotland, who broke the story, and Charlie Reese of the Orlando Sentinel, who did a follow-up.)

Recently, I have come across other DIA documents that confirm the Pentagon's monitoring of the degradation of Iraq's water supply. These documents have not been publicized until now.

The first one in this batch is called "Disease Information," and is also dated January 22, 1991. At the top, it says, "Subject: Effects of Bombing on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad." The analysis is blunt: "Increased incidence of diseases will be attributable to degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/distribution, electricity, and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks. Any urban area in Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will have similar problems."

The document proceeds to itemize the likely outbreaks. It mentions "acute diarrhea" brought on by bacteria such as E. coli, shigella, and salmonella, or by protozoa such as giardia, which will affect "particularly children," or by rotavirus, which will also affect "particularly children," a phrase it puts in parentheses. And it cites the possibilities of typhoid and cholera outbreaks.

The document warns that the Iraqi government may "blame the United States for public health problems created by the military conflict."

The second DIA document, "Disease Outbreaks in Iraq," is dated February 21, 1990, but the year is clearly a typo and should be 1991. It states: "Conditions are favorable for communicable disease outbreaks, particularly in major urban areas affected by coalition bombing." It adds: "Infectious disease prevalence in major Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing (Baghdad, Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since the beginning of Desert Storm. . . . Current public health problems are attributable to the reduction of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification and distribution, electricity, and the decreased ability to control disease outbreaks."

This document lists the "most likely diseases during next sixty-ninety days (descending order): diarrheal diseases (particularly children); acute respiratory illnesses (colds and influenza); typhoid; hepatitis A (particularly children); measles, diphtheria, and pertussis (particularly children); meningitis, including meningococcal (particularly children); cholera (possible, but less likely)."

Like the previous document, this one warns that the Iraqi government might "propagandize increases of endemic diseases."

The third document in this series, "Medical Problems in Iraq," is dated March 15, 1991. It says: "Communicable diseases in Baghdad are more widespread than usually observed during this time of the year and are linked to the poor sanitary conditions (contaminated water supplies and improper sewage disposal) resulting from the war. According to a United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)/World Health Organization report, the quantity of potable water is less than 5 percent of the original supply, there are no operational water and sewage treatment plants, and the reported incidence of diarrhea is four times above normal levels. Additionally, respiratory infections are on the rise. Children particularly have been affected by these diseases."

Perhaps to put a gloss on things, the document states, "There are indications that the situation is improving and that the population is coping with the degraded conditions." But it adds: "Conditions in Baghdad remain favorable for communicable disease outbreaks."

The fourth document, "Status of Disease at Refugee Camps," is dated May 1991. The summary says, "Cholera and measles have emerged at refugee camps. Further infectious diseases will spread due to inadequate water treatment and poor sanitation."

The reason for this outbreak is clearly stated again. "The main causes of infectious diseases, particularly diarrhea, dysentery, and upper respiratory problems, are poor sanitation and unclean water. These diseases primarily afflict the old and young children."

The fifth document, "Health Conditions in Iraq, June 1991," is still heavily censored. All I can make out is that the DIA sent a source "to assess health conditions and determine the most critical medical needs of Iraq. Source observed that Iraqi medical system was in considerable disarray, medical facilities had been extensively looted, and almost all medicines were in critically short supply."

In one refugee camp, the document says, "at least 80 percent of the population" has diarrhea. At this same camp, named Cukurca, "cholera, hepatitis type B, and measles have broken out."

The protein deficiency disease kwashiorkor was observed in Iraq "for the first time," the document adds. "Gastroenteritis was killing children. . . . In the south, 80 percent of the deaths were children (with the exception of Al Amarah, where 60 percent of deaths were children)."

The final document is "Iraq: Assessment of Current Health Threats and Capabilities," and it is dated November 15, 1991. This one has a distinct damage-control feel to it. Here is how it begins: "Restoration of Iraq's public health services and shortages of major medical materiel remain dominant international concerns. Both issues apparently are being exploited by Saddam Hussein in an effort to keep public opinion firmly against the U.S. and its Coalition allies and to direct blame away from the Iraqi government."

It minimizes the extent of the damage. "Although current countrywide infectious disease incidence in Iraq is higher than it was before the Gulf War, it is not at the catastrophic levels that some groups predicted. The Iraqi regime will continue to exploit disease incidence data for its own political purposes."

And it places the blame squarely on Saddam Hussein. "Iraq's medical supply shortages are the result of the central government's stockpiling, selective distribution, and exploitation of domestic and international relief medical resources." It adds: "Resumption of public health programs . . . depends completely on the Iraqi government."

As these documents illustrate, the United States knew sanctions had the capacity to devastate the water treatment system of Iraq. It knew what the consequences would be: increased outbreaks of disease and high rates of child mortality. And it was more concerned about the public relations nightmare for Washington than the actual nightmare that the sanctions created for innocent Iraqis.

The Geneva Convention is absolutely clear. In a 1979 protocol relating to the "protection of victims of international armed conflicts," Article 54, it states: "It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive."

But that is precisely what the U.S. government did, with malice aforethought. It "destroyed, removed, or rendered useless" Iraq's "drinking water installations and supplies." The sanctions, imposed for a decade largely at the insistence of the United States, constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention. They amount to a systematic effort to, in the DIA's own words, "fully degrade" Iraq's water sources.

At a House hearing on June 7, Representative Cynthia McKinney, Democrat of Georgia, referred to the document "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities" and said: "Attacking the Iraqi public drinking water supply flagrantly targets civilians and is a violation of the Geneva Convention and of the fundamental laws of civilized nations."

Over the last decade, Washington extended the toll by continuing to withhold approval for Iraq to import the few chemicals and items of equipment it needed in order to clean up its water supply.

Last summer, Representative Tony Hall, Democrat of Ohio, wrote to then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "about the profound effects of the increasing deterioration of Iraq's water supply and sanitation systems on its children's health." Hall wrote, "The prime killer of children under five years of age--diarrheal diseases--has reached epidemic proportions, and they now strike four times more often than they did in 1990. . . . Holds on contracts for the water and sanitation sector are a prime reason for the increases in sickness and death. Of the eighteen contracts, all but one hold was placed by the U.S. government. The contracts are for purification chemicals, chlorinators, chemical dosing pumps, water tankers, and other equipment. . . . I urge you to weigh your decision against the disease and death that are the unavoidable result of not having safe drinking water and minimum levels of sanitation."

For more than ten years, the United States has deliberately pursued a policy of destroying the water treatment system of Iraq, knowing full well the cost in Iraqi lives. The United Nations has estimated that more than 500,000 Iraqi children have died as a result of sanctions, and that 5,000 Iraqi children continue to die every month for this reason.

No one can say that the United States didn't know what it was doing.



See for Yourself

All the DIA documents mentioned in this article were found at the Department of Defense's Gulflink site.

To read or print documents:

1.go to www.gulflink.osd.mil

2.click on "Declassified Documents" on the left side of the front page

3.the next page is entitled "Browse Recently Declassified Documents"

4.click on "search" under "Declassifed Documents" on the left side of that page

5.the next page is entitled "Search Recently Declassified Documents"

6.enter search terms such as "disease information effects of bombing"

7.click on the search button

8.the next page is entitled "Data Sources"

9.click on DIA

10.click on one of the titles

It's not the easiest, best-organized site on the Internet, but I have found the folks at Gulflink to be helpful and responsive.
Thomas J. Nagy




 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
3T3L1





Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas
PostThu Oct 11, 2001 7:45 pm  Reply with quote  

This is disturbing if it is true. Before I write my Senator, however, I'd like to know some other information:

Is it possible that some of these chemicals could be used for military purposes? Is there some other way the water could be purified? And why are these documents all dated in 1991? Didn't the Clinton Administration make any modifications to these policies?
 View user's profile Send private message
Thermit





Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3137
Location: Texas
PostThu Oct 11, 2001 7:56 pm  Reply with quote  

Good questions, 3T3L1... and I don't really know the answers. I do know that the sanctions which have remained in place for a decade have definately hurt the Iraqi people whom we have no qualms with, and I am pretty confident that old Saddam lives very comfortably. I know we can't just let him run wild, because he is a mass murderer. There must be a better solution...
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
Duncan Kunz





Joined: 19 Oct 2000
Posts: 582
PostFri Oct 12, 2001 12:20 am  Reply with quote  

It seems to me that understanding the reasons why some of the more radical Middle Easterners hate us so much is the second part of a two-part approach to combating the recent terrorist attacks.

The first part, I believe, is to ensure that potential terrorists and those that support or fund them realize that any such attempts are not going to be cost-effective. the only way I can think of which would convince future terrorists of the foolishness of their approach is to:

1. Hunt down bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network and kill them all -- either in groups or one at a time.

2. If we can determine that a foreign government aided the al-Qaeda in their efforts and knew about the plan, we should determine which members of that government knew and/or approved of the plot and hunt THEM down and kill them all - either in groups or one at a time. This would include those at the highest levels, including Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qadaffi, etc.

There are two benefits to this approach. The first is as a warning. Although executing Osama bin Laden may not deter subsequent terrorists with suicidal tendencies from continuing his work, executing Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi, or whomever would probably deter the subsequent ruler of the country from providing funds, training, or any support to these terrorists. Al-Qaeda may comprise suicidal fools; but most country leaders, despite their possible evil, are not that foolish.

The second benefit is that of revenge and catharsis for the American people. This raises an interesting question, which is not necessarily a rhetorical one: is it okay to kill a bad guy if it makes you feel better? In this case, I believe the answer is yes. Visiting bin Laden in the evening with a small group of American tourists who blow down his doors and kill him with automatic-weapons fire and hand grenades would be, if nothing else, a bonding experience for most Americans and would help us in our resolve to kill more of the roaches, if necessary.

Is such a mindset on my part bloodthirsty, violent, barbaric and just plain sick? Probably. But for some reason, my mindset has changed over the past month....

But let's get back to the second part of the equation, which is to determine why some of these Islamists seem to hate us. I figure there are three reasons; in no particular order, they are:

1. A "Kulturkampf", or culture-war. When you have two completely different philosophies of life (openness, exemplified by western European society and brook-no-disagreement religionism, exemplified by fanatics such as bin Laden, Falwell, etc.) and those philosophies are unalterably opposed by nature to each other, then one of them will probably founder and become extinct. To me, the latter philosophy is akin to h.sapiens var neandertalensis; nothing personal, but they're gone and I'm here, and I'm glad I'm here. Therefore, if there is such a kulturkampf, I will try to maintain my philosophy, even if it means destroying theirs.

2. Westerners, with their decadent civilization, are polluting the holy places of Islam, including Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. As long as the governments of those places invite us in, I suppose we have a right to be there.

3. America-the-Great-Satan is helping Israel-the-Mini-Satan steal the land of, and make war upon, the Faithful. I can see their point. We have alienated the entire tribe of Arabs and most other Muslims since 1948, and we still continue to support the state of Israel. Undoubtedly this approach might've made sense during the Cold War when they were our proxy and client against the Soviet clients like Syria and Egypt. But that was then and this is now. Our support of twenty million people who have no oil has alienated a hundred million people who do have oil. From a pragmatic point of view, this makes no sense whatsoever.

Where am I going with this? Well, I believe that we should -- once we have punished and warned the present terrorists by executing them and their handlers -- disengage from any military alliances with the Mid East nations. Admittedly, the Israelis would have to come to some sort of accommodation with their neighbors, and the Saudis would have to come to some sort of accommodation with their poor, but, to be honest, that's their problem -- not ours.

Regards,


------------------
Duncan Kunz / duncankunz@home.com
Mesa AZ / 480-891-2525
 View user's profile Send private message
3T3L1





Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas
PostFri Oct 12, 2001 12:52 am  Reply with quote  

Our support of twenty million people who have no oil has alienated a hundred million people who do have oil. From a pragmatic point of view, this makes no sense whatsoever.

But in another pragmatic context, it makes lots of sense. Although the Jews as a nation have rejected Jesus as their Messiah, the Jews will always be God's chosen people. God tends to bless those who bless Israel and to curse those who curse Israel. So, when you look at the big picture, it is always wise to support Israel even though they may not have as many material assets as their Arab neighbors.
 View user's profile Send private message
toxdoc





Joined: 17 Jan 2001
Posts: 23
Location: Williamstown, KY,USA
PostFri Oct 12, 2001 3:33 am  Reply with quote  

First, those documents referenced above deal strictly with the Gulf War and immediately prior. Prior to the start of the air campaign they would constitute predictions. after the air campaign and the end of the war (3/04/91?) they would be assessments. These are the UN Sanctions (and resolutions if you look a little) after the war: http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sanction.htm#Iraq
These sanctions have never denied humanitarian aid. Nor has the US or UK denied humanitarian aid. Many NGO and UN aid missions have been in Iraq since the end of the war. Here is the 1999 State Department report on Iraq, I'll try to find a newer one. http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/iraq99.htm
The suffering of Iraq is because of Sadam. Even the UN admits it. Humanitarian aid has been denied by him. The "money for oil" program was strictly set up to provide for infrastructure, medicine and public health. The government of Iraq ne. Sadam has chosen to divert this. He has had the ability to ease the suffering of the people from day one. He has chosen not to.

In regards to Isreal. US and UK (mostly) involvement in the region are the only reason Isreal can exist. To withdraw support would only lead to the Arab contries to go to war. That would result in Isreal using their nuclear weapons. However, Isreal is the one democratic, liberal (lower case sense), successful, society in the region. There are many in the world who think that alone is reason enough.


[Edited 1 times, lastly by toxdoc on 10-11-2001]
 View user's profile Send private message
Thermit





Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3137
Location: Texas
PostFri Oct 12, 2001 4:50 am  Reply with quote  

Thanks toxdoc. I'd like to think that we aren't as heartless as implied in the first document.

quote:

Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq. That is why the sanctions regime has always specifically exempted food and medicine. The Iraqi regime has always been free to import as much of these goods as possible. It refuses to do so, even though it claims it wants to relieve the suffering of the people of Iraq.

Iraq is actually exporting food, even though it says its people are malnourished. Coalition ships enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq recently diverted the ship M/V MINIMARE containing 2,000 metric tons of rice and other material being exported from Iraq for hard currency instead of being used to support the Iraqi people.

Baby milk sold to Iraq through the oil-for-food program has been found in markets throughout the Gulf, demonstrating that the Iraqi regime is depriving its people of much-needed goods in order to make an illicit profit.

etc.etc.etc...

 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
toxdoc





Joined: 17 Jan 2001
Posts: 23
Location: Williamstown, KY,USA
PostFri Oct 12, 2001 5:17 am  Reply with quote  

Thermit,
Here's the latest UN report on Human Rights in Irag: http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/uniraq99.htm
I also checked the list of chemicals and equipment that is forbidden by the sanctions (I think it's either on the state dept site, the UN site or Iraq Watch). Nothing pertaining to water desalinization/purification is listed.
 View user's profile Send private message
theseeker





Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
PostFri Oct 12, 2001 8:11 am  Reply with quote  

they hate us because the U.S stands with israel...plain and simple...President Bush layed the guidelines in yesterdays news conference and now I'm pretty sure I understand the tactics at play now...surgical bombings and political pressure will be performed on countries that harbor, protect, hide, and support and fund terrorists...terrorists will be exposed and brought to justice...I personally think this is a reasonable course of action, and am very glad the leadership did not follow my line of thinking after the 9/11 terrorist attack...

we are in good hands it seems...

T/S

[Edited 1 times, lastly by theseeker on 10-12-2001]
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
3T3L1





Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas
PostFri Oct 12, 2001 3:55 pm  Reply with quote  

I was glad to see that we won't be repeating the mistakes of the British during the American revolution and of the U.S. in Vietnam. We won't be fighting guerrillas with conventional warfare. We'll be fighting them with unconventional, very-well-trained special ops. I don't know if that will be successful, but at least it makes sense.
 View user's profile Send private message
toxdoc





Joined: 17 Jan 2001
Posts: 23
Location: Williamstown, KY,USA
PostSat Oct 13, 2001 5:43 am  Reply with quote  

This article from The Atlantic is really good: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/90sep/rage.htm

Granted it's 11 years old but, it explains the deep, root cause of bin Ladin and others true hatred of the west.
 View user's profile Send private message
FLKook





Joined: 28 Apr 2001
Posts: 710
Location: East Central Florida
PostSat Oct 13, 2001 3:53 pm  Reply with quote  

Why is the word vengeance used some much more often when it seems self-defense is so much more appropriate. Maybe it's just me that sees it that way, but they did strike first, with our own people, planes, on our own soil.
 View user's profile Send private message
3T3L1





Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas
PostSat Oct 13, 2001 11:00 pm  Reply with quote  

I think I've noticed that Mr. Bush intentionally stays away from the words "vengeance" and "revenge." It may have something to do with the fact that the Bible tells us we aren't to take revenge.
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Forum Jump:
Jump to:  

All times are GMT.
The time now is Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:36 am


  Display posts from previous:      




© 21st Century Thermonuclear Productions
All Rights Reserved, All Wrongs Revenged, Novus Ordo Seclorum, All Your Base