|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:42 am Post subject: Re: ... |
 |
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Indeed,
joo no good grammer but him protect america
she collect eletrode monkey wahhabi and deserve much
that why him pasto mucho |
That all may be true but the conspiracy theorists are dishonest and sinister.
If you think there is anything to what they say then throw out a question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:56 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
they many people
you no pijjunhole |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Guri Guy wrote: |
Really, I think you have proved my point time and time again on this board.
You seem to be trapped in a permanent black and white world. I've got news for you, there are shades of grey everywhere. There are usually 3 or 4 sides to every issue. You take a simplistic approach to everything. Keep watching CNN and AFN since that's all you need right? They certainly couldn't lie to us could they?
George W Bush is a big businessman and oil tycoon first and foremost. He is certainly not as dumb as people make him out to be. He knows who his friends and allies are and always pays them back.
Iraq is turning into a bigger and bigger farce everyday. America is losing their freedoms at a rapid rate. Evidence of voting irregularities and bought elections are his legacy.
Where the h*ll are the WMDs?. It was all a clever ruse. Bush gets to control a larger part of the world's oil supply, pays his fat cat buddies back (ala Haliburton - what were their profits again last year again?) and uses the war on terror to funnel untold trillions of dollars to his own devious purposes. Bush is very clever but he will go down as probably the worst president in the history of the United States.
But hey you say, don't worry, be happy! You are just being paranoid and anti-American. Keep your head buried in the sand buddy. I prefer to keep my eyes open.
I never said I 100% support these conspiracy theries. I merely said that something funny is going on and with Bush's track record I wouldn't be suprised. To compare these conspiracy theorists with some racist nutjobs is idiotic. Your infantile attitude is, "I don't agree with you so any source you have is non-objective and crazy". Go back to Debating 101 class.
|
You claim a conspiracy. Ok where shall we start?
| Quote: |
All the people who would have to be involved in order to pull this massive conspiracy off...
-The Bush Administration, who failed at everything they ever did. Yet all of them and the people below are helping him cover up the largest mass murder in US history... Some of them like Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil have come out for less.
-The NYC Fire fighters who know more about building collapses than most if not all of them. It's their LIFE to know. Literally! Yet they don't call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers... Why? (The twisting of these peoples statements for donations and DVD sales sickens me.) We have uncovered the myth about gag a rule imposed on all fire fighters. Only 9/11 conspiracy sites say this. ONE person who sued Bush for not taking action before the event is ordered by the court not to speak to the media about the case. This is not imposing a gag rule on the whole fire department as some of these sites claim. They are lying to cover up this mass murder by the government or the building owner. Why? They don't even know...
Conspiracy theorist bring up an article in Fire House magazine which says the fire department wanted to stop the steel from being sold in order to test the fire proofing and other non-bomb/controlled demolition related investigations. They twist the articles context to make it seem like the fire fighters questioned the idea that fire brought down the towers.
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=
OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=
25&ARTICLE_ID=131225
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&
SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=130026
Many of these men and women come from the military yet we are to believe they are so afraid they rather die in the governments next mass murder than come out and expose this.
-The courts for imposing a gag rule [SEE above]
-The NYC Police department who lost over 20 lives. They didn't ask for an investigation. Motive? None...
-The NYC port Authority who lost personnel. Motive?
-All the people in the pentagon who have not called for an investigation. Many who are liberal and centrist. They did or said nothing while people supposedly truck in airplane parts to cover the crime. Why? again, no answer...
-The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who rather have investigations of the decisions which lead to the terrorist getting away with this. They don't want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls. Why? They say it's the money... [note: Whenever killing someone, pay off the relative. They wont say anything.]
-The media (This one I almost believe) who doesn't follow up on the biggest mass murder and conspiracy in American history. It seems no one wants a Nobel prize for journalism. Not only the American media but foreign press like like the BBC and Al Jeezera. Why? No answer here either...
-The photographers from around the world who took pictures of the towers which clearly show bowing of the perimeter columns. These photos support the NIST hypothesis that the sagging trusses lead to the collapse. Some photos also show the core intact shortly after collapse which also not only support the NIST hypothesis but discredits the "Controlled demolition" account.
-Popular Mechanics who debunked these sites are also helping Bush commit the biggest mass murder in history.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
-PBS Nova since they created a documentary explaining in detail how and why the buildings fell. None of it said bomb.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
-Everyone in the NIST who covers up the largest mass murder in US history. This independent org doesn't have a moral person in hundreds of employees because not one has come out exposing this so called "Conspiracy". In fact the hundreds of scientist who signed onto the report are willing to not only lie for Bush but cover up the largest mass murder in American history. Some suggest only a hand full can do the job but that's simply impossible. The team in charge of the computer modeling has to be in sync with the team in structural engineers and so on. There are hundreds involved in this investigation and every team has to work other teams using the same evidence and specifications.
-NY Governor Pataki because he sold steel to from the WTC for the construction of the USS New York. If the argument is the government sold the steel in order to cover up the crime then Pataki is one of the criminals.
-The NY city scrap yards because they also sold steel to china before all of it was tested. Bush would have needed to call them up and tell them to sell it before they could have investigated every beam. A task which would have taken years and years not to mention millions more. Ironically the republican Mayor Bloomberg could not be involved since he asked the scrap yards not to sell the steel on behalf of the fire fighters.
-EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD who doesn't write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down and could not have fallen due to fire. If laymen can prove things just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context then all those structural engineers MUST be working for Bush right? Even the ones in other countries. Why? The answer they give is the engineers don't know about Jones work. So in all this time no one has e-mailed Jones's work to any structural engineer?
-The liberals who don't believe the towers were brought down. (Like me) They're helping a neo-con cover-up the largest mass murder in this nation�s history. Why" No clue...
-The CIA
-The FBI
-FEMA
-The American Society of Civil Engineers who have produced peer reviewed papers showing how what Conspiracy Theorist say is impossible is possible.
-NORAD
-The FAA who saw planes which conspiracy theorist never existed.
-The Silverstein Group who they say got together with Bush to blow up the building for insurance money.
-Silverstein's Insurance Company who didn't question the collapse and paid out over 2 billion to Silverstein. Why? Conspiracy Theorist say the insurance company just wants to pass on the bill to the public but they already fought Silverstein in a number of law suits concerning the amount.
-American Airlines (Pentagon)
-United Airlines (Pentagon)
-Logan, Newark and Dulles Airport for losing the planes
-Scientists and engineers who developed the remote control plane technology
-Installers of the remote control devices in the planes (Pentagon)
-Remote controllers of the planes (Pentagon)
-Scientists and engineers who developed the new demolition technology and carried out practical tests and computer models to make sure it would work.
-Installers of the demolitions devices in the three buildings
-People who worked at the company(s) the installers used as cover
-Airphone etc employees who said they got calls from passengers (Pentagon)
-Faux friends and relatives of the faux passengers or just the faux relatives who claim to have been called by their loved ones or just the psyops who fooled relatives into thinking they really were their loved ones. (Pentagon)
-People who detonated the buildings"
-anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes.
Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed, Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involved the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers. It's absurd to think this many people could keep a mass murder for Bush secret for this long. Absurd... |
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/massivect.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Where the h*ll are the WMDs?.
Saddam had used them against his own people. He had programs before.
|
Please tell me you aren't that g** d*mned stupid. 
Where do you think he got the chemical weapons and the helicopters to deliver the payload against the Kurds and the Iranians? Where was the American outrage in the 1980's?
Oh that's right, Iraq was America's friend back then because they hated Iran worse. America gave them the technology and the goods to commit such heinous crimes and then stabbed his own ally in the back.
Your ignorance and total bafflegab is truly stunning. Anyway, take a read oh ignorant one...
How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them
by Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot
THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm
Hell, they even continued to sell Iraq chemical weapons after the first gulf war. Money trumps everything in the good old US of A. Who cares about morals.
The current Bush administration discusses Iraq in starkly moralistic terms to further its goal of persuading a skeptical world that a preemptive and premeditated attack on Iraq could and should be supported as a "just war." The documents included in this briefing book reflect the realpolitik that determined this country's policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons. Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory. Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
It's all about the oil baby. Morals be d*mned.
Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Please tell me you aren't that g** d*mned stupid.
Where do you think he got the chemical gas and the helicopters to deliver the payload against the Kurds. Where was the American outrage in the 1980's? |
He didn't get the Chemical gas from the US . He got chemicals from the US.
Oh helecopters such a powerful weapon.
| Quote: |
| Oh that's right, Iraq was America's friend back then . |
America's best friend?
| Quote: |
| because they hated Iran worse |
Yeah Khomeni was a fascist bigot to. He was sending people to kill Americans and trying to conquer the mideast.
| Quote: |
| America gave them the technology and the goods to commit such heinous crimes |
The technology and the goods.
You mean the US allowed Iraq to buy chemicals from the US that almost any nation in the world could buy.
Indeed Saddam got his chemical factories from GERMANY.
| Quote: |
| and then stabbed his own ally in the back. |
Saddam an ally - like Stalin was an ally. The US supported Stalin too.
| Quote: |
| Your ignorance and total bafflegab is truly stunning. Anyway, take a read oh ignorant one... |
I think since you beleive the 9-11 conspriacy theorists you are kind of ignorant and you are also far far left.
How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them
by Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot
| Quote: |
| THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. |
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm
| Quote: |
| Hell, they even continued to sell Iraq chemical weapons after the first gulf war. Money trumps everything in the good old US of A. Who cares about morals. |
Prove it.
anyway
from your article.
| Quote: |
| Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas. |
wow a powerful weapon that can be reverse engineered
Lets see Saddam got his SCUD missiles from Russia from North Korea .
The Iraq tanks were T-62's and T-72's From Russia
He got his airforce from France and Russia.
What made Saddam scary was 5700 tanks and 450 aircraft Scud missiles and 1,000,000 army and the US had nothing to do with any of that.
show us a US tank used by Saddam show us a US fighter Jet used by Saddam . You won't cause you can't .
And the US sold Iraq nuclear stuff? Prove it cause your article doesn't show it.
What the US gave Iraq wasnt' even close to enough to build an army.
SEE BELOW!
| Quote: |
Iraq�s armed forces
The accusation so often heard in Australia that the US
armed Saddam Hussein is manifestly false. There is no
credible evidence and the ritual denunciation of the US
sounds more like a bit of crude disinformation.
Looking back as far as 1982 through annual issues of The
Military Balance, the defence watcher�s bible, equipment that
can be identified as of US or British origin consists of generally
small amounts of minor items, many dating back to prerevolutionary
Iraq when the country was a member of the illfated
Central Treaty Organisation.
The vast bulk of Iraq�s military equipment was and is
Russian. T-72, T-62 and T-55 main battle tanks, BMP-1/2
infantry fighting vehicles, artillery of all types, anti-tank and
anti-aircraft missiles and masses of anti-aircraft guns.
Much of the most modern equipment is French and German
with significant quantities of Chinese-made copies of Russian
items. Perhaps this explains the utterly negative and
opportunistic opposition of those countries to the United States
and its allies. Other significant arms suppliers to Iraq include
Italy, Brazil, South Africa, Switzerland, the Czech Republic and
the former Yugoslavia. M |
DEFENCE BRIEF is a regular update of Australian
defence issues published by the Australia Defence
Association (ABN 16 083 007 390). Annual subscriptions
are available and include four issues of DEFENDER and
eight issues of DEFENCE BRIEF. Inquiries to PO Box
1131, Doncaster East, 3109; fax to (03) or (613) 9841
8413; or email to: [email protected].
http://www.ada.asn.au/defence_brief/Brief95.pdf
| Quote: |
The current Bush administration discusses Iraq in starkly moralistic terms to further its goal of persuading a skeptical world that a preemptive and premeditated attack on Iraq could and should be supported as a "just war." The documents included in this briefing book reflect the realpolitik that determined this country's policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons. Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory. Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/[url] |
How about Khomeni was an enemy of the US?
| Quote: |
| It's all about the oil baby. Morals be d*mned.[/url] |
About oil ?
Is this a war for oil?
| Quote: |
| One argument against the war, presented by those on the left who question Bush's motives, is that it is intended to capture Iraq's petroleum resources. While there is no way to assess to what extent these resources are a strategic factor in Bush's calculations, those who assert a simple link between oil and the war almost always fail to deal with a number of inconvenient facts. First, if the US wanted its oil companies to have access to the Iraqi market, it could have simply pressed the United Nations to drop sanctions against Iraq. Also, oil is a commodity whose price is set on the world market, as Peter Ferrara points out on National Review Online. Since Iraq has been allowed to sell oil in order to purchase food and other key commodities, it is already contributing to the world supply of oil and thereby lowering the price Americans pay. Finally, as energy expert Daniel Yergin argues, Iraq has only three percent of world production capacity, and to double that "could take more than a decade. In the meantime, growth elsewhere would limit Iraq's eventual share to perhaps 5 percent, significant but still in the second tier of oil nations." |
http://www.spinsanity.com/columns/20030320.html
So what were you saying then?
Anyway I got some picture for you.
Oh yeah I got one more picture for you
MOONBAT
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:50 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
because they hated Iran worse
Yeah Khomeni was a fascist bigot to. He was sending people to kill Americans and trying to conquer the mideast.
|
Umm, Joo. How many countries had Khomeni tried to conquer at the time Iraq launched its attack on Iran? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
Quote:
because they hated Iran worse
Yeah Khomeni was a fascist bigot to. He was sending people to kill Americans and trying to conquer the mideast.
|
I think he was just gettinng started but he did try to kill Mubarak and he helped set up Hezzbollah in Lebanon.
Umm, Joo. How many countries had Khomeni tried to conquer at the time Iraq launched its attack on Iran? |
| Quote: |
| In September 1980, Iraq invaded Iran. The ensuing conflict temporarily distracted attention from Iran�s internal strife. The invasion, caused in part by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein�s desire to end the propaganda directed at his secular regime, touched off a vicious eight-year border war (see Iran-Iraq War). Using waves of child �martyrs� who crossed the battle line, Iran turned the tide of the war against Iraq in the spring of 1982. Emboldened, Khomeini proclaimed his determination to spread his revolution throughout the region. But Arab governments were equally resolved to contain Iran, and with the support of the United States they backed Iraq�s efforts to stop Iran. |
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588431/Islamic_Revolution_of_Iran.html
I think he was just gettinng started but he did try to kill Mubarak and he helped set up Hezzbollah in Lebanon.
Of course Khomeni was behind the deaths of many Americans in Lebanon and he sent agents all over the world even killing the translators of the Satanic Versus in countreis as far away as Japan.
By the way if you think that Iran never attacked the US well then look below
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=58391 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Iraq�s armed forces
The accusation so often heard in Australia that the US
armed Saddam Hussein is manifestly false. There is no
credible evidence and the ritual denunciation of the US
sounds more like a bit of crude disinformation.
Looking back as far as 1982 through annual issues of The
Military Balance, the defence watcher�s bible, equipment that
can be identified as of US or British origin consists of generally
small amounts of minor items, many dating back to prerevolutionary
Iraq when the country was a member of the illfated
Central Treaty Organisation.
The vast bulk of Iraq�s military equipment was and is
Russian. T-72, T-62 and T-55 main battle tanks, BMP-1/2
infantry fighting vehicles, artillery of all types, anti-tank and
anti-aircraft missiles and masses of anti-aircraft guns.
Much of the most modern equipment is French and German
with significant quantities of Chinese-made copies of Russian
items. Perhaps this explains the utterly negative and
opportunistic opposition of those countries to the United States
and its allies. Other significant arms suppliers to Iraq include
Italy, Brazil, South Africa, Switzerland, the Czech Republic and
the former Yugoslavia. M
DEFENCE BRIEF is a regular update of Australian
defence issues published by the Australia Defence
Association (ABN 16 083 007 390). Annual subscriptions
are available and include four issues of DEFENDER and
eight issues of DEFENCE BRIEF. Inquiries to PO Box
1131, Doncaster East, 3109; fax to (03) or (613) 9841
8413; or email to: [email protected].
http://www.ada.asn.au/defence_brief/Brief95.pdf
Well? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
*Sigh* You just don't get it. Never mind that you never even bothered to read the articles I linked. H*ll, why let facts get in the way and confuse things for you.
Khomeni wasn't a saint either I'll admit but America's consistant backing of brutal thugs and dictators in the 20th century is a long one. They damn well knew that Saddam was going to use chemical weapons and turned a blind eye towards them. America's realpolitik is one reason America is hated in many areas of the world today. Today's friend is tomorrow's enemy or vice versa. We all know who supported Osama Bin Ladin in the 1980's don't we. Heady times for the States eh?
| Quote: |
Iraq's 1982 removal from Washington's official list of states that support terrorism meant that the Hussein regime was now eligible for US economic and military aid, and was able to purchase advanced US technology that could also be used for military purposes.
Conventional military sales resumed in December 1982. In 1983, the Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes helicopters to Iraq in 1983 "for civilian use". However, as Phythian pointed out, these aircraft could be "weaponised" within hours of delivery. Then US Secretary of State George Schultz and commerce secretary George Baldridge also lobbied for the delivery of Bell helicopters equipped for "crop spraying". It is believed that US-supplied choppers were used in the 1988 chemical attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja, which killed 5000 people. |
| Quote: |
A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a "witch's brew" of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.
The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialised computers, lasers, testing and analysing equipment. Among the better-known companies were Hewlett Packard, Unisys, Data General and Honeywell.
Billions of dollars worth of raw materials, machinery and equipment, missile technology and other "dual-use" items were also supplied by West German, French, Italian, British, Swiss and Austrian corporations, with the approval of their governments (German firms even sold Iraq entire factories capable of mass-producing poison gas). Much of this was purchased with funds freed by the US CCC credits.
|
Big deal eh? What's a little Anthrax between friends eh?
| Quote: |
On March 16, 1988, Iraqi forces launched a poison gas attack on the Iraqi Kurdish village of Halabja, killing 5000 people. While that attack is today being touted by senior US officials as one of the main reasons why Hussein must now be "taken out", at the time Washington's response to the atrocity was much more relaxed.
Just four months later, Washington stood by as the US giant Bechtel corporation won the contract to build a huge petrochemical plant that would give the Hussein regime the capacity to generate chemical weapons.
On September 8, 1988, the US Senate passed the Prevention of Genocide Act, which would have imposed sanctions on the Hussein regime. Immediately, the Reagan administration announced its opposition to the bill, calling it "premature". The White House used its influence to stall the bill in the House of Representatives. When Congress did eventually pass the bill, the White House did not implement it. |
http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html
Do take the time to actually read it. your intellectual dishonesty and laziness is abundant for all to see. This is not hearsay. This is stone cold fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:07 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| He didn't get the Chemical gas from the US . He got chemicals from the US. |
Where he got chemical gas? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Guri Guy"]*
| Quote: |
| Sigh* You just don't get it. Never mind that you never even bothered to read the articles I linked. H*ll, why let facts get in the way and confuse things for you. |
NO you don't get it
| Quote: |
| Khomeni wasn't a saint either I'll admit but America's consistant backing of brutal thugs and dictators in the 20th century is a long one. |
Most of the time it was during the cold war when the US supported bad guys who against those who were just as bad
| Quote: |
| They damn well knew that Saddam was going to use chemical weapons and turned a blind eye towards them. America's realpolitik is one reason America is hated in many areas of the world today. Today's friend is tomorrow's enemy or vice versa. We all know who supported Osama Bin Ladin in the 1980's don't we. Heady times for the States eh? |
The US supported Bin Laden? Prove it.
anyway the US was right to fight the cold war sure the US made mistakes but the USSR was out to get the US.
| Quote: |
Iraq's 1982 removal from Washington's official list of states that support terrorism meant that the Hussein regime was now eligible for US economic and military aid, and was able to purchase advanced US technology that could also be used for military purposes.
Conventional military sales resumed in December 1982. In 1983, the Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes helicopters to Iraq in 1983 "for civilian use". However, as Phythian pointed out, these aircraft could be "weaponised" within hours of delivery. Then US Secretary of State George Schultz and commerce secretary George Baldridge also lobbied for the delivery of Bell helicopters equipped for "crop spraying". It is believed that US-supplied choppers were used in the 1988 chemical attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja, which killed 5000 people. |
Yeah that is not any kind of awesome weapon.
You see the helecopeter were sent for civilian use.
The US didn't provide Hussein with his most powerful stuff and you know it.
| Quote: |
A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a "witch's brew" of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.
The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialised computers, lasers, testing and analysing equipment. Among the better-known companies were Hewlett Packard, Unisys, Data General and Honeywell.
Billions of dollars worth of raw materials, machinery and equipment, missile technology and other "dual-use" items were also supplied by West German, French, Italian, British, Swiss and Austrian corporations, with the approval of their governments (German firms even sold Iraq entire factories capable of mass-producing poison gas). Much of this was purchased with funds freed by the US CCC credits.
|
| Quote: |
| Big deal eh? What's a little Anthrax between friends eh? |
well what did the US have the Anthrax for weapons. As I know its wasn't even tightly controlled by the US which meant most any nation could have bought it.
[quote]
| Quote: |
| On March 16, 1988, Iraqi forces launched a poison gas attack on the Iraqi Kurdish village of Halabja, killing 5000 people. While that attack is today being touted by senior US officials as one of the main reasons why Hussein must now be "taken out", at the time Washington's response to the atrocity was much more relaxed. |
Yes cause KHomeni was out to get the US and conquer the mideast.
The US supported STalin when he was doing bad stuff too.
| Quote: |
| Just four months later, Washington stood by as the US giant Bechtel corporation won the contract to build a huge petrochemical plant that would give the Hussein regime the capacity to generate chemical weapons. |
ok , how does that compare with what Germany gave Saddam see above.
| Quote: |
| On September 8, 1988, the US Senate passed the Prevention of Genocide Act, which would have imposed sanctions on the Hussein regime. Immediately, the Reagan administration announced its opposition to the bill, calling it "premature". The White House used its influence to stall the bill in the House of Representatives. When Congress did eventually pass the bill, the White House did not implement it. |
Ok a mistake by Reagan but you said that Saddam was the best buddy and ally of the US well that isn't so is it?
The fact is that Saddam didn't get his most powerful stuff or anywhere near his most powerful stuff from the US. Right?
and Saddam wasn't the best friend of the US. Indeed he wasn't even much of an ally or an ally at all?
Remember this was when Khomeni was going after the US.
This is off topic but this is what KHomeni was about.
| Quote: |
Khomeini fatwa 'led to killing of 30,000 in Iran'
By Christina Lamb, Diplomatic Correspondent
(Filed: 04/02/2001)
CHILDREN as young as 13 were hanged from cranes, six at a time, in a barbaric two-month purge of Iran's prisons on the direct orders of Ayatollah Khomeini, according to a new book by his former deputy.
More than 30,000 political prisoners were executed in the 1988 massacre - a far larger number than previously suspected. Secret documents smuggled out of Iran reveal that, because of the large numbers of necks to be broken, prisoners were loaded onto forklift trucks in groups of six and hanged from cranes in half-hourly intervals.
Gruesome details are contained in the memoirs of Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, The Memoirs of Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, one of the founders of the Islamic regime. He was once considered Khomeini's anointed successor, but was deposed for his outspokenness, and is now under house arrest in the holy city of Qom.
Published privately last month after attempts by the regime to suppress it, the revelations have prompted demands from Iranian exiles for those involved to be tried for crimes against humanity. The most damning of the letters and documents published in the book is Khomeini's fatwa decree calling for all Mojahedin (as opponents of the Iranian regime are known) to be killed.
Issued shortly after the end of the Iran-Iraq war in July 1988 and an incursion into western Iran by the Iranian resistance, the fatwa reads: "It is decreed that those who are in prisons throughout the country and remain steadfast in their support for the Monafeqin (Mojahedin) are waging war on God and are condemned to execution."
It goes on to entrust the decision to "death committees" - three-member panels consisting of an Islamic judge, a representative of the Ministry of Intelligence, and a state prosecutor. Prisoners were to be asked if they had changed loyalties and, if not, were to be executed.
Montazeri, who states that 3,800 people had been killed by the end of the first fortnight of executions, includes his own correspondence with Khomeini, saying that the killings would be seen as "a vendetta" and would spark opposition to the regime. He wrote: "The execution of several thousand prisoners in a few days will not have positive repercussions and will not be mistake-free."
The massacres, which came just before the Lockerbie bombing, were seen as a sop to the hardliners at a time when Khomeini was already in failing health and the battle for succession had begun between fundamentalists and moderates. He died the following year.
According to testimony from prison officials - including Kamal Afkhami Ardekani, who formerly worked at Evin prison - recently given to United Nations human rights rapporteurs: "They would line up prisoners in a 14-by-five-metre hall in the central office building and then ask simply one question, 'What is your political affiliation?' Those who said the Mojahedin would be hanged from cranes in position in the car park behind the building."
He went on to describe how, every half an hour from 7.30am to 5pm, 33 people were lifted on three forklift trucks to six cranes, each of which had five or six ropes. He said: "The process went on and on without interruption." In two weeks, 8,000 people were hanged. Similar carnage took place across the country.
Many of those in the ruling council at the time of the 1988 massacre are still in power, including President Mohammed Khatami, who was the Director of Ideological and Cultural Affairs.
"The massacre may have happened 12 years ago, but the relevance is that these atrocities are still happening", said Mohammad Mohaddessin, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Iranian National Council of Resistance (NCRI), the main opposition group, who was in London last week to present evidence to MPs.
The NCRI has prepared files on 21 senior members of the regime whom it alleges were "principal protagonists of the massacre", including Mr Khatami and Ayatollah Ali Khameini, Iran's "Supreme Leader". Mr Mohaddessin will travel to New York to present the files to the UN and call for a tribunal to try them for crimes against humanity.
Mr Mohaddessin said human rights abuses were continuing in Iran despite the election of Mr Khatami, who "presents himself as a reformist".
9 January 2001: Iranian pop singer back in the spotlight after 21-year ban
4 January 2001: Britons 'in jail' after Teheran party raid
27 September 2000: CIA sees Iran as nuclear threat within 10 years
17 September 2000: Iranian agents suspected as Jews disappear
13 March 2000: Iranian reformer hurt in shooting
12 March 2000: Iran may try Rafsanjani over murders
5 March 2000: Trial puts Iran's old guard in the dock
21 February 2000: Iranians back moves for reform
25 May 1997: Moderate triumphs in Iranian elections
Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright |
http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html
| Quote: |
| Do take the time to actually read it. your intellectual dishonesty and laziness is abundant for all to see. This is not hearsay. This is stone cold fact. |
this is coming from the guy who claims that Saddam was the best buddy of the US a false charge. talk about dishonest.
This is also coming from a guy who thinks that Bush blew up the WTC.
and you now know that the US was not even close to giving Saddam his most powerful stuff.
You misrepresented and you got burned.
| Quote: |
How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them
by Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot |
misleading article
Iraq was America's friend
misleading charge.
| Quote: |
| Hell, they even continued to sell Iraq chemical weapons after the first gulf war. Money trumps everything in the good old US of A. Who cares about morals. |
False charge
| Quote: |
| and then stabbed his own ally in the back |
misleading charge.
You honest?
Not honest just a moonbat
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:29 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:13 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| He didn't get the Chemical gas from the US . He got chemicals from the US. |
Where he got chemical gas? |
what did the US have it for? Chemical weapons? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yep. You nailed it right on the head. Khomeni was a bad man so you supply Saddam with Chemicals, the expertise, the means to deliver them and then turn a blind eye when he actually uses them. I guess it ok then since Khomeni was such an evil tyrant.
Sure other Western countries supplied Saddam with Chemicals too but the US supplied the capital. Doing all that and then crying, "OMG! He has chemical weapons. Let's take him out!" is unbelievable. But hey, it's the USA and they can do no wrong in your eyes.
About Osama Bin Laden your ignorance continues to amaze me.
Here's the argument: terrorists, financed by the rich Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the Embassy bombings, built a complex of terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. The U.S., arch-enemy of terror, rolled up its sleeves and destroyed these training camps and a bin Laden-owned factory in Sudan as well. The U.S. has thereby sent a message to terrorists around the globe. They can read our missiles. They will be hunted down and destroyed without mercy. The U.S. is on the job.
But wait. What if the training camps were falsely portrayed? What if they had been built by the U.S. government? What if bin Laden and his associates were in fact old CIA hands?
The August 24th article quoted above unwittingly betrays the method by which the U.S. government's sponsorship of bin Laden is justified. When the U.S. openly supported bin Laden and friends, they were give a label ("resistance fighters") so they were ok. Now they have been given a new label ("terrorists") and thus they are transformed. The U.S. government is absolved of guilt because the people it supported in the past weren't these terrorists it is bombing today, they were those resistance fighters. Amazing.
IT'S THE MONEY, STUPID
But is emperors-clothes.com being fair? Was the U.S. government in actual partnership with bin Laden and other "resistance fighters" during the Afghan war? Or was it just giving these guys a little support against a common (Russian) foe?
Since the U.S. side of the relationship with bin Laden and friends was handled by CIA, much of what took place is unknown. But we do know about one very important thing: money.
How much money do you think the US and Saudi Arabia gave the "resistance fighters?" I asked several people this question.
One guessed "a few hundred thousand dollars."
Another thought this was way to low. She guessed "$10-15 million."
The highest guess: $20 million.
The correct answer is: More than 6 billion dollars. (ibid.)
That's in 1980s money. And that�s just what they admit publicly. Remember, the paymasters were the CIA and Saudi Arabian Intelligence, so the real figure could be twice as high, or higher. The sky's the limit...
I know you won't read it but here is the link anyway:
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/madein.htm
Bush and Osama go way back too. You just don't understand. Money makes the USA go round. It's all about the money. Morality be damned.
FTW - Money connections between Bush Republicans and Osama bin Laden go way back and the political and economic connections have remained unbroken for 20 years. And what appears to be a "new" alliance with Pakistan is merely a new manifestation of a decades-long partnership in the heroin trade.
Conveniently ignored in all of the press coverage since the tragic events of Sept. 11 is the fact that on May 17 Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a gift of $43 million to the Taliban as a purported reward for its eradication of Afghanistan's opium crop this February. That, in effect, made the U.S. the Taliban's largest financial benefactor according to syndicated columnist Robert Scheer writing in The Los Angeles times on May 22. But -- as we described in FTW's March 2001 issue -- the Taliban's destruction of that crop was apparently the single most important act of economic warfare against U.S. economic interests that the Taliban had ever committed. So why the gift?
Critics of the Gulf War well recall how, just prior to Sadam's invasion of Kuwait, President Bush (Sr.) dispatched Ambassador April Glaspie to visit Sadam with a letter and a "wink and a nod" telling the Iraqi leader that it was OK to invade his smaller neighbor. The May gift from Uncle Sam could well have been sending the same kind of message, along with necessary funds to complete the attacks. Drugs and terrorism go hand in hand.
http://www.konformist.com/911/osama-bush.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:37 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| what did the US have it for? Chemical weapons? |
Insecticide.
Why US have fertilizer McVeigh?
You no read Discovery Channel?
OK. Post again, but must go find. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Guri Guy"]
| Quote: |
| Yep. You nailed it right on the head. Khomeni was a bad man so you supply Saddam with Chemicals, the expertise, the means to deliver them and then turn a blind eye when he actually uses them. I guess it ok then since Khomeni was such an evil tyrant. |
Khomeni was an enemy of the US
GG
| Quote: |
| Sure other Western countries supplied Saddam with Chemicals too but the US supplied the capital. Doing all that and then crying, "OMG! He has chemical weapons. Let's take him out!" is unbelievable. But hey, it's the USA and they can do no wrong in your eyes |
.
The capital?
GG
| Quote: |
| About Osama Bin Laden your ignorance continues to amaze me. |
Lets see
GG
| Quote: |
Here's the argument: terrorists, financed by the rich Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the Embassy bombings, built a complex of terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. The U.S., arch-enemy of terror, rolled up its sleeves and destroyed these training camps and a bin Laden-owned factory in Sudan as well. The U.S. has thereby sent a message to terrorists around the globe. They can read our missiles. They will be hunted down and destroyed without mercy. The U.S. is on the job.
But wait. What if the training camps were falsely portrayed? What if they had been built by the U.S. government? What if bin Laden and his associates were in fact old CIA hands |
?
prove it/
GG
| Quote: |
The August 24th article quoted above unwittingly betrays the method by which the U.S. government's sponsorship of bin Laden is justified. When the U.S. openly supported bin Laden and friends, they were give a label ("resistance fighters") so they were ok. Now they have been given a new label ("terrorists") and thus they are transformed. The U.S. government is absolved of guilt because the people it supported in the past weren't these terrorists it is bombing today, they were those resistance fighters. Amazing. |
prove it
IN fact look at this
| Quote: |
| While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA. Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were "very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass." Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs' holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. ... There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other. ... the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill." [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.] |
GG
| Quote: |
IT'S THE MONEY, STUPID
But is emperors-clothes.com being fair? Was the U.S. government in actual partnership with bin Laden and other "resistance fighters" during the Afghan war? Or was it just giving these guys a little support against a common (Russian) foe? |
prove it
GG
| Quote: |
Since the U.S. side of the relationship with bin Laden and friends was handled by CIA, much of what took place is unknown. But we do know about one very important thing: money.
How much money do you think the US and Saudi Arabia gave the "resistance fighters?" I asked several people this question.
One guessed "a few hundred thousand dollars." |
again prove the US supported Bin Laden
GG
| Quote: |
Another thought this was way to low. She guessed "$10-15 million."
The highest guess: $20 million.
The correct answer is: More than 6 billion dollars. (ibid.)
That's in 1980s money. And that�s just what they admit publicly. Remember, the paymasters were the CIA and Saudi Arabian Intelligence, so the real figure could be twice as high, or higher. The sky's the limit...
I know you won't read it but here is the link anyway: |
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/madein.htm
the US was fighting the cold war against the USSR. The USSR was out to get the US.
GG
| Quote: |
| Bush and Osama go way back too. You just don't understand. Money makes the USA go round. It's all about the money. Morality be damned. |
prove it
GG
| Quote: |
| FTW - Money connections between Bush Republicans and Osama bin Laden go way back and the political and economic connections have remained unbroken for 20 years. And what appears to be a "new" alliance with Pakistan is merely a new manifestation of a decades-long partnership in the heroin trade. |
prove it
GG
| Quote: |
| Conveniently ignored in all of the press coverage since the tragic events of Sept. 11 is the fact that on May 17 Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a gift of $43 million to the Taliban as a purported reward for its eradication of Afghanistan's opium crop this February. That, in effect, made the U.S. the Taliban's largest financial benefactor according to syndicated columnist Robert Scheer writing in The Los Angeles times on May 22. But -- as we described in FTW's March 2001 issue -- the Taliban's destruction of that crop was apparently the single most important act of economic warfare against U.S. economic interests that the Taliban had ever committed. So why the gift? |
misleading see below. David Corn of the Nation author of Bush lies
| Quote: |
| Space prevents a complete dissection of all Ruppert's dots. But in several instances, he misrepresents his source material. Item number 8 says that in February 2001, UPI reported that the National Security Agency had "broken bin Laden's encrypted communications." That would suggest the US government could have picked up word of the coming assault. But the actual story noted not that the US government had gained the capacity to eavesdrop on bin Laden at will but that it had "gone into foreign bank accounts [of bin Laden's organization] and deleted or transferred funds, and jammed or blocked the group's cell or satellite phones." Item number 9, based on a Los Angeles Times story, says the Bush Administration gave $43 million in aid to the Taliban in May 2001, "purportedly" to assist farmers starving since the destruction of their opium crop. Purportedly? Was the administration paying off the Taliban for something else? That is what Ruppert is hinting. The newspaper, though, reported that all US funds "are channeled through the United Nations and international agencies," not handed to the Taliban. Unless Ruppert can show that was not the case, this dot has no particular significance. What if Washington funded international programs assisting Afghan farmers? With his timeline, Ruppert implies far more than he proves. It is a document for those already predisposed to believe that world events are determined by secret, mind-boggling conspiracies of the powerful, by people too influential and wily to be caught but who leave a trail that can be decoded by a few brave outsiders who know where and how to look. |
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=66
Well ?
GG
| Quote: |
| Critics of the Gulf War well recall how, just prior to Sadam's invasion of Kuwait, President Bush (Sr.) dispatched Ambassador April Glaspie to visit Sadam with a letter and a "wink and a nod" telling the Iraqi leader that it was OK to invade his smaller neighbor. The May gift from Uncle Sam could well have been sending the same kind of message, along with necessary funds to complete the attacks. Drugs and terrorism go hand in hand. |
Oh the US is responsible for tricking Iraq? US isn't that smart.
You know that is similar to the stupid things that Kim Il Sung says about the US tricking North Korean into invading South Korea.
anyway it is nonsense.
SEE
| Quote: |
Proponents of deterrence also argue that since nobody has ever actually tried to deter Saddam Hussein from attacking another country, how can we claim that doing so will be difficult in the future? The example most often cited is the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, where the common wisdom holds that because of the botched messages he received from the American ambassador, April Glaspie, Iraq had no reason to believe we would fight.
In fact, all the evidence indicates the opposite: Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait, but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest.
Much of the evidence for this remains classified, but at least two points can be made using public material: Tariq Aziz has told reporters that this was what Saddam Hussein thought at the time; and we know that when the Republican Guards invaded Kuwait they moved quickly -- even before they had consolidated control over the country -- to set up defenses along Kuwait's borders and against amphibious and airborne landings.
In other words, Saddam Hussein thinks we tried to deter him, and that we failed. He was ready and willing to fight the United States for Kuwait. |
http://www.usembassy.it/file2003_02/alia/a3022411.htm
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:48 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
