Cost in Human Lives of the War on Terror

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The war on terror has cost millions of lives and resulted in the suffering of millions more.
That seems to be suffering from major inflation

The best count I have found is less 150,000 from the wars directly. Even if the indirect number are seveal times that, it is still not MILLIONS.

Let's deal in facts.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I am afraid that Oxy is inflating the numbers here "The war on terror has cost millions of lives and resulted in the suffering of millions more."

The best count I have found is less 150,000 from the wars directly. Even if the indirect number are seveal times that, it is still not MILLIONS.

Let's deal in facts.

It depends on what you are counting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror#Casualties

I think some people include some speculative numbers from sanctions.

Either way, few people think the Iraq war was a good idea.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The war in Iraq was a mistake. A huge one in my opinion. Sadam needed to go, BUT removing him allowed Iran to war monger more.

We should have worked on a way to get Sadam out without force. But someone had watched too many cowboy movies, I think.

I know a lot of folks blame it on oil, but for the most part American companies didn't benefit, they didn't get the contracts.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
"The war on terror has cost millions of lives and resulted in the suffering of millions more." That seems to be suffering from major inflation

The best count I have found is less 150,000 from the wars directly. Even if the indirect number are seveal times that, it is still not MILLIONS.

Let's deal in facts.

Ok, let's talk about some facts and look a little into the history of the region.

The assault on Iraq started well before 2003. It dates back many decades to at least the Iran Iraq war which devastated both Countries to such an extent that they were both reduced to fielding child combatants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War
Iran/Iraq relations had been strained for many decades prior to the outbreak of hostilities. But following the overthrow of the American backed, Iranian Shah, the situation worsened as Saddam Hussein feared the uprising could topple his own powerbase from within.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
http://robertod.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/despot-of-the-week-3-mohammad-reza-pahlavi/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war


Kuwait was a close ally of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war and functioned as the country’s major port once Basra was shut down by the fighting.[9] However, after the war ended, the friendly relations between the two neighbouring Arab countries turned sour for several economic and diplomatic reasons that culminated in an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
Dispute over the financial debt

Kuwait had heavily funded the eight-year-long Iraqi war against Iran. Kuwait's large-scale economic assistance to Iraq often triggered hostile Iranian actions against it. Iran repeatedly targeted Kuwaiti oil tankers in 1984 and fired weapons at Kuwaiti security personnel stationed on Bubiyan island in 1988.[10]
By the time the Iran-Iraq war ended, Iraq was not in a financial position to repay the US$14 billion it borrowed from Kuwait to finance its war and requested Kuwait to forgive the debt.[5] Iraq argued that the war had prevented the rise of Persian influence in the Arab World. However, Kuwait's reluctance to pardon the debt created strains in the relationship between the two Arab countries. During late 1989, several official meetings were held between the Kuwaiti and Iraqi leaders but they were unable to break the deadlock between the two.


Iraqi-American relations




On 25 July 1990, the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, April Glaspie, asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border.
The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, “inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion” on the disagreement between Kuwait and Iraq, stating "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts."
She also let Saddam Hussein know that the U.S. did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq". These statements may have caused Saddam to believe he had received a diplomatic green light from the United States to invade Kuwait.[20][21]
According to Prof. Richard E. Rubenstein, Glaspie was later asked by British journalists why she had said that, her response was "we didn't think he would go that far" meaning invade and annex the whole country. Although no follow-up question was asked, one might assume that what the U.S. government thought in July 1990 was that Saddam Hussein was only interested in pressuring Kuwait into debt forgiveness and to lower oil production.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-spo...3-3-million-including-750000-children/5314461


http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/

Warning: These pictures are extremely graphic.

http://www.unseenwar.com/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I don't see how anyone can blame the US or the UK for the internal wars in the Mid East.

The west did contribute to the problems there by the way they handled the end of the Ottoman Empire, after WW I. To blame that for everything that has happened since would be the same as blaming those same folks for the Holocaust, because of the restrictions put on Germany after WW I.

Countries, like indiviuals can be influnced by the past (and understanding that can help in dealing with them --like not using the word Crusade in dealing with any Muslim country), but in the end, it is a country's own choices. It is like the mass murderer blaming the police, because he had been falsely accused of a crime when he was a teenager.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I don't see how anyone can blame the US or the UK for the internal wars in the Mid East.

The west did contribute to the problems there by the way they handled the end of the Ottoman Empire, after WW I. To blame that for everything that has happened since would be the same as blaming those same folks for the Holocaust, because of the restrictions put on Germany after WW I.

Countries, like indiviuals can be influnced by the past (and understanding that can help in dealing with them --like not using the word Crusade in dealing with any Muslim country), but in the end, it is a country's own choices. It is like the mass murderer blaming the police, because he had been falsely accused of a crime when he was a teenager.

I wonder why when we talk about Muslim radicalism it is always Iraq that is brought up. If one is to look at events post Iran/Iraq War or the first Gulf War you cannot discount the events in Bosnia. You can't make claims about involvement in one country causing deaths while discounting lack of involvement allowing an actual genocide. The same could be said of Somalia. I had the misfortune to serve 2 consequtive tours and there was a great deal of anger to the inaction of the West.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I don't see how anyone can blame the US or the UK for the internal wars in the Mid East.
From previous post:

Western democratic states: conspiring to establish vicious dictatorships in third world nations for fun and profit. The Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, was on the point of being ousted by Mohammed Moseddeq’s emerging parliamentarian government, before the CIA, in collusion with British Intelligence, acted to incite a military coup, restoring Pahlavi to power.

March of 1953, US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles instructed the CIA to initiate plans to overthrow the Iranian government. The CIA, in conjunction with British Intelligence, became determined to remove Mosaddeq from power at any cost.

Pahlavi was browbeaten by Operation Mongoose director, Kermit Roosevelt Jr. (Grandson of former US President Theodore Roosevelt) into signing off on two government citations, one firing Mosaddeq from the post of Prime Minister and the other installing the compliant military general Fazlollah Zahedi in his place

the CIA fomented civil unrest on the streets

United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War, against post-revolutionary Iran, included several billion dollars worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.[3][4]

Chemical and biological exports

On February 9, 1994, Senator Riegle delivered a report -commonly known at the Riegle Report- in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[30]
The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."[31]
Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that authored the aforementioned Riegle Report, said:
U.N. inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ... The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.​
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control sent Iraq 14 separate agents "with biological warfare significance," according to Riegle's investigators.[32]

In 1982, Iraq was removed from a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism to ease the transfer of dual-use technology to that country

What exactly is so difficult to understand? Britain and the U.S are fighting proxy wars for financial and strategic gain at an incredible human cost to the people in the region.

But you say, (as one who doesn't have to put up with the daily terror, deprivation and oppression), the U.S is bringing freedom. It is disgusting. They and the west in general are happy to install and support any despot/dictator so long as they serve the interests of the U.S

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

No matter how much 'you cannot see it'... it remains, (for the moment although it will no doubt eventually be rewritten), an historical fact that they are responsible for the vast majority of the M.E conflict... including setting up a Zionist State right in the middle of it.

Terror begets terror.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ok, let's talk about some facts and look a little into the history of the region.

The assault on Iraq started well before 2003. It dates back many decades to at least the Iran Iraq war which devastated both Countries to such an extent that they were both reduced to fielding child combatants.

Not disputing any figures here, but the original comment that spun off this thread was "The war on terror has cost millions of lives". The "War on Terror" generally refers to post 2001 activities. So I think perhaps that might have led to some of the initial dispute with the "millions" figure. You might be better referring to the broader issue as US Policy in the Middle East, or suchlike.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Not disputing any figures here, but the original comment that spun off this thread was "The war on terror has cost millions of lives". The "War on Terror" generally refers to post 2001 activities. So I think perhaps that might have led to some of the initial dispute with the "millions" figure. You might be better referring to the broader issue as US Policy in the Middle East, or suchlike.

Yes I agree I expanded it a bit but I felt it relevant to attempt to put some context into the 'War on Terror'. We all know the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror really or WMD's the only WMD's available to Iraq came from the U.S and were for use against the Iranians.

But back to the War on Terror... in addition to the casualties of the invasion and the far greater casualties resulting from the U.S dismantling the Iraqi infrastructure and the resultant sectarian killings, there is the issue of the sanctions which put 80% of the Iraqi population on foods stamps resulting in mass starvation and disease.

http://www.iacenter.org/Iraq/sanimpct.htm
Much has been done to divert attention from this crime against humanity by organisations which should know better, including the U.N ceasing to collate figures for human lives lost as a direct result when they realised the figure exceeded 500,000 deaths.

Here is an attempt to apportion blame to Iraq.

http://www.instituteforthestudyofgenocide.org/oldsite/newsletters/28/Saddam.html
I think we all know about WMD's by now do we not... but the propaganda is deliberate, relentless and shameless
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Britain responsible for setting up a Zionist state? I think a few million Jews and the families of the hundreds of British soldiers will tell you a different story. The UK had interned thousands of Jews much to the chagrin of the US and UN. http://www.jta.org/1947/05/01/archi...es-says-1800-immigrants-detained-in-palestine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Zionism
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I guess you missed that the sanctions allowed food and medicine through. If folks starved it was not the west or the UN's problem. It was Sadam and his reign of terror.

The west had nothing to do with his chemical attacks on the Kurds, or for the genocide of the marsh arabs and the destruction of their environment.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I guess you missed that the sanctions allowed food and medicine through. If folks starved it was not the west or the UN's problem. It was Sadam and his reign of terror.
I expect you are talking about the 1996 "Oil for Food Programme" where Iraq had to trade it's oil for a pittance in food. By then more than half a million children had died, (let alone the adults and BTW you did see the 4.5 million orphans in the previous post).

Even after the oil for food concessions were made there was still insufficient food coming in as you can see below.

The west had nothing to do with his chemical attacks on the Kurds, or for the genocide of the marsh arabs and the destruction of their environment.
So you dispute that America supplied Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction in the form of chemical and biological weapons do you?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

It was a loaded question. She's written and spoken extensively about Iraq, yet this one cherry picked quote of a poor answer to a loaded question is all that she gets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
It was a loaded question. She's written and spoken extensively about Iraq, yet this one cherry picked quote of a poor answer to a loaded question is all that she gets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

No doubt she does regret it...I doubt as much as the Iraqi people regretted seeing their family and friends dying through lack of food, clean water and disease though. Did she actually offer a plausible alternative response?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
So are you saying that Sadam was a better choice for them? The Kurds and the marsh Arabs would disagree.

I have to wonder why those groups and the Shi'a community in Iraq, about 60% of the population don't seem to count to some.

The children died because Sadam refused to cooperate with the UN. He MADE that decision. To blame the UN is like blaming the beer company for someone that kills someone while driving drunk.

I understand that it may well fit your anti western and anti business opinion, but that doesn't make them to blame.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
No doubt she does regret it...I doubt as much as the Iraqi people regretted seeing their family and friends dying through lack of food, clean water and disease though. Did she actually offer a plausible alternative response?

I imagine she would say that the numbers were inflated, they were not directly due to the sanctions, and that the sanctions were essentially Saddam's fault (initially for invading Kuwait), that Saddam could have ended them at any point by acceding to demands, and that sanctions were used instead of armed conflict. She did not mean that attempting to remove Saddam from power was worth killing 500,000 children.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Do you have an evidence that we gave Sadam chemical and biological weapons? We did give him conventional arms, but that does not mean that we gave him weapons that were illegal. We do know that he had chemical and biological program. That has never been in dispute. Remember 'Chemical Ali" ?

Are there other uses for thiodiglycol

 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Britain responsible for setting up a Zionist state? I think a few million Jews and the families of the hundreds of British soldiers will tell you a different story. The UK had interned thousands of Jews much to the chagrin of the US and UN. http://www.jta.org/1947/05/01/archi...es-says-1800-immigrants-detained-in-palestine

[...] The Balfour Declaration of 1917. That was when a British minister effectively promised to give away an entire country.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/balfour.asp

[...] It's 65 years since the Nakba [...] And, a tip: don't go confusing Zionists with religious jews - most of the Zio-terrorists who murdered and bombed their way to bringing about the creation of Israel were atheists.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
The children died because Sadam refused to cooperate with the UN.


Despicable. Denis Halliday, a senior UN diplomat who set up the 'oil for food' program during the post war 'sanctions' imposed by the west on Iraq, resigned on the basis that what was being done to Iraq amounted to genocide. His successor, Hans von Sponeck also resigned for the same reason.
'Sanctions' throughout the nineties weren't just 'sanctions'. The bombing continued on a daily basis. American and British pilots blew the whistle on the reality of the 'no-fly-zone' they were supposed to be maintaining over the north of Iraq, 'to protect the Kurds', when they told of being ordered to RTB (return to base) to make way for a TSM (Turkish special mission) inbound. And on the way back they saw Turkish F16s heading out, 'loaded to the gills with munitions'. Half an hour later the pilots told of the Turkish returning, 'munitions expended'. Upon returning to their patrols, they reported 'whole villages destroyed', 'lots of smoke and fire'.
The fact is that Iraq did comply with UN requirements; it is well documented (even by the US govt) that Iraq's military capability was all but destroyed - Rice and Powell come to mind - for anyone without selective amnesia.

As far as chemical weapons go: the US went well out of its way to make sure Iraq was well tooled up with all kinds of lovely weaponry with which to fight Iran.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/06/17/how-reagan-armed-saddam-with-chemical-weapons/

Just like Syria today. And what does Obomber say about the use of chemical weapons - 'game changer'? Depending on who uses them, presumably.

No-one concerned about the confirmed use of chemical weapons then then?

So they knew - and couldn't care less. How principled. But what about collusion?

Yes. Lot's of collusion....but what more? Material aid?

And they nicked money from US taxpayers to fund their little adventure

Theft to fund gassing official enemies, then. But what about the actual weapons?

Only one source, you say? Let's find another

So the US and Britain didn't supply Iraq with chemical weapons (and whatever else they desired)?
[...]

As for the Iraqi casualties/deaths as a result of the illegal war and invasion in 2003 - then you come to the figure of 150,000? Where did you get that figure, I wonder? Wouldn't be Iraq Body Count by any chance, would it? The lamestream media's favourite source - because it's the lowest estimate - forgetting to mention that IBC is run by a couple of tetchy fat-arsed USAmerican bloggers who base their figure on news reports of deaths. Not very scientific, is it? When far more plausible, correctly carried out surveys have been done by real epidemiologists....like Johns Hopkins in New York, published in The Lancet in 2006, had the figure at 655,000 excess deaths directly related to the invasion. But you prefer a couple of bloggers over a respected institution and a respected medical journal. [...]

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(06)69491-9/abstract

[...]
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
If you want to go back in time, you also need to look at what the Ottoman Empire did.

They were not angels either. A series of wars with Russia and Britian had preceded this--ever heard of the Crimean War?

The comment was the 'war on terror', not in the history of western/mid eastern relations.

Again, the sanctions were voted in by UN because Sadam refused to allow weapons inspectors in and to work.

Blaming the west for 'letting him have chemicals that could be used' is like blaming the car dealer for selling a car to someone that thens kills someone while driving drunk. Those chemicals have many other, non lethal uses.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
So are you saying that Sadam was a better choice for them?
I am saying it is not for the west to decide who is in power and how a Country is run by it's Government. If that Government is a real threat to us, then yes action needs to be taken but by no stretch of the imagination could that case be made. Yes it is entirely appropriate to raise concerns about human abuses in a Country but it is patently obvious to anyone who looks into it that there are hypocritical criticisms of one Country and it's leadership whilst at the same time absolutely no criticism offered to similarly despotic and abusive Countries which are 'our friends'.

To conspire to effect regime change and use other Countries as puppets and proxies to carry out our wars is no different to sending people out to be tortured in those Countries. It is hypocritical and immoral and deceitful.

The Kurds and the marsh Arabs would disagree
.
Then let them sort it out, we are not (at least officially) The World Police. And even if we were, we should sort out our own messes and corruptions and abuses of our own citizens before interfering in other's Government and paying and conspiring to effect regime changes which inevitably go wrong anyway.

I don't see the U.S going into Zimbabwe or South Africa when there was apartheid and even if they did, I can guarntee that the 'people' would not benefit exactly as the 'people' of Afghanistan and Iraq have not benefited. They do not want you there any more than you would want them in your Country dictating to you and blowing up your friends and relatives and denying you clean water and basic amenities and civil liberties. You expect to be thanked for your terrorism and oppression do you?

What a pile of junk. Even have the nerve to blame Saddam for the casualties fighting your financed and instigated proxy war with WMD's supplied by you. And yes I say you because you obviously sanction your Governments actions in these illegal acts.

The children died because Sadam refused to cooperate with the UN.
Quite right in many regards that he should not concede to unreasonable and illegal demands as well. But in many regards he cooperated fully but when they couldn't find the evidence for WMD's they made it up. Bare faced lies and bare faced lied to it's own citzens and warmongered an illegal war.

He MADE that decision.

And as the head of the government he had the right to do that. It was his job to stick up for his Country and it's sovereignty.

To blame the UN is like blaming the beer company for someone that kills someone while driving drunk.

That is a fatuous remark. The U.N acted illegally and immorally mostly at the behest of your and my, proven, lying, warmongering leaders.

I understand that it may well fit your anti western and anti business opinion, but that doesn't make them to blame.
For the record, I am not anti western and I am not anti business. I am a patriot and love my Country. I am not anti the 'people' of any Country. I am anti warmongering, lying, self serving, psychopathic politicians who promulgate wars willy nilly without a care in the world about the damage it does. I am against the giant corporations who in their endless greed will screw you and anyone else they see fit to make obscene amounts of money out of the suffering of humanity.

I criticise my Countries actions because they need criticising in the same way I would criticise a family member who was perpetrating gross illegal acts. Loyalty needs to be earned. There are many aspects of the west which are admirable and great but when it is wrong it should be recognised as such, not propagandised to cover it up and shift the blame on anyone else. That is the difference between you and I. You appear to applaud any evil carried out without question or censure.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Sadam was not elected, he took over Iraq in coupe, even killing his friends/allies. To say that others do not have a right or an obligation to interfere is just like saying that one should ignore a neighbor that beats up their spouse or children. They have control of them so they should be allowed to do them as they wish.

Do you remember the boycott of South Africa that lead to the end of apartheid there? It worked there.

I do not think that we should allow dictators to kill, and pillage their countries, unchecked.

What we did in Chile, when we helped Pinochet remove Allende was wrong.
 

Lost World

New Member
I guess you missed that the sanctions allowed food and medicine through. If folks starved it was not the west or the UN's problem. It was Sadam and his reign of terror.

The west had nothing to do with his chemical attacks on the Kurds, or for the genocide of the marsh arabs and the destruction of their environment.

Are you sure the west didn't supply Saddam with the chemical weapons in the first place?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The west had not made chemical weapons for years, and what we had was/had been destroyed.

Facts say we didn't. Are the formulas available? Yep they are. Did he have folks that had the education to make them? Did he have the facilities where they could have been made? Yes to both of those.

The simple fact is Sadam seems to have wanted others, (the West, Iraq, Saudi and others) to THINK he had them. He seems to have felt that that would keep him 'safe'.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
The west had not made chemical weapons for years, and what we had was/had been destroyed.

Facts say we didn't. Are the formulas available? Yep they are. Did he have folks that had the education to make them? Did he have the facilities where they could have been made? Yes to both of those.

Is your research really that bad or is it deliberate? Deny as much as you like the Facts say you did and that is only one of the many illegal and disgusting things the U.S of A lying twisting Government have done whilst playing the holier than thou card to the World:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I find it interesting that you are using a PRO IRAN site for your facts. You refuse to accept any from any site that you seem to think is pro West, because you consider them biased. Then you go and use a site that is biased against the west.

Sorry, find a neutral site, and that does rule out Russia, China, Iran and other countries that have been anti west.

I am having internet problems and I do not have time to research.

Try again.

Again you are going back to before 9/11. The thread was the 'War on Terror'.

Wouldn't Sadam have LOVED to have had inspectors find chemicals that could be traced back to the US? What an embarrassment that would have been.

You still have not explained why his refusal to allow inspections (for a treaty HE signed) can be blamed on anyone but him.

Sadam was a tyrant, so was Qaddafi. We should not have supported Mubarak as long as we did.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I find it interesting that you are using a PRO IRAN site for your facts. You refuse to accept any from any site that you seem to think is pro West, because you consider them biased. Then you go and use a site that is biased against the west.

That is complete bunk. I use a diverse spectrum of sources. This particular site is not a 'pro Iran' site it is an official Iranian site. I have demonstrated from a number of other sites that it is true that the U.S used Iraq to fight a proxy war against Iran and that they supplied Iraq with WMD's and the makings of WMD's and the intell on how best to deploy them and that they refused to condemn Iraq for using them. Wikipedia links which I posted are conclusive evidence on their own but you will not even acknowledge that.

It is well documented to anyone who does even the most basic research on it.

Sorry, find a neutral site, and that does rule out Russia, China, Iran and other countries that have been anti west.

Oh, only pro west sites then. How unsurprising.

Well how does this suit you? (2 minutes searching)

http://www.laweekly.com/2003-05-01/news/made-in-the-usa-part-iii-the-dishonor-roll/

http://www.laweekly.com/2003-05-01/news/made-in-the-usa-part-iii-us-company-listings-a-m/#DOW

This is a very small example of the billions of dollars worth of U.S backing cataloging equipment, money, chemicals, biological agents, technology and intelligence.
I am having internet problems and I do not have time to research.

That's convenient isn't it. Doesn't seem to impact on your ability to research and post propaganda for the U.S government and global corporations on a daily basis on this site though. It's like you or one of your like minded posters posted on another thread: 'Can you prove an instance of torture by the U.S since last year'... Lol... Talk about being in denial.

Again you are going back to before 9/11. The thread was the 'War on Terror'.

How you love moving goalposts to suit yourself. The 'War on Terror' is just a political wheeze to try to justify illegal wars. Terror is not patentable. It has been around since the dawn of time. Iraq had not even one known Al Qaeda member in it's borders and this was well known. Saddam was keen on wiping them out because they posed a threat to his dictatorship.

Wouldn't Sadam have LOVED to have had inspectors find chemicals that could be traced back to the US? What an embarrassment that would have been.

He had used or destroyed the vast majority by then. He did keep a very small amount hidden (U.S supplied toxins, no nuclear weapons), as any sensible leader would. He didn't use them though.

You still have not explained why his refusal to allow inspections (for a treaty HE signed) can be blamed on anyone but him.

The inspectors were there for ages and never found any WMD's. It is interesting to note the U.S have changed the definition of WMD since the Boston Bombing to include even IED's.

The U.N failed to ratify the last agreement calling for weapons inspections, (opposed by France and Russia) and that made the Crusade illegal.

According to Chirac's disclosures, the U.S and U.K (Blair, Bush, Cheyne etc), embarked on a premeditated Crusade hoping to start Armageddon in the M.E. They are war criminals and so is Obama. It is very easy to point the finger at the M.E troubles but they mostly result from U.S and U.K interference and manipulation in the region, using fighters and governments to fight their proxy wars.

https://www.metabunk.org/posts/46545

You, obviously being a great fan of the way the U.S government, CIA and Globalist Corporations, conduct themselves will undoubtedly deny, deny, deny until the cows come home. It is to be expected but it doesn't wash.

Sadam was a tyrant, so was Qaddafi.

So are a lot of other people, many of them close allies, (prawns) of the U.S, (as were Saddam and Gaddafi).... the Iranian Shah, the Saudi's, the drug cartels etc etc.

We should not have supported Mubarak as long as we did.

You should wind your necks in and stop warmongering and set your own house in order. Stop spending trillions on wars and try to bring the 25% of your own citizenry out of abject poverty which you should be highly embarrassed about but you are not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
They did not. There are different definitions in criminal law (since 1994), but they do not apply to military or strategic situations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Definitions_of_the_term

Discussion in this thread:

https://www.metabunk.org/posts/38962

So since 1994, in civilian law; a bomb can be classified as a WMD. So it has been changed although they have never used it until now.

As it is a war on terrorists and he is classified as a terrorist technically it should come under the definition used in war. But they will use whatever they want because they are the ones with the powers to do whatever they want and call it whatever they want.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So since 1994, in civilian law; a bomb can be classified as a WMD. So it has been changed although they have never used it until now.

No, it's been used several times since the change. Some examples:


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/44203/Bomber-facing-a-stretch.html
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/04/bridge-bomber_suspects_trial_s.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/29/najibullah-zazi-to-be-arr_n_302654.html
 

justanairlinepilot

Senior Member.
That seems to be suffering from major inflation

The best count I have found is less 150,000 from the wars directly. Even if the indirect number are seveal times that, it is still not MILLIONS.

Let's deal in facts.

Keep in mind as a perspective, WW1's first day was:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/somme.htm

Day #1!!!!


http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?ms...0&ll=50.041266,2.830353&spn=0.704695,1.234589


I'm not underplaying terrorism, I just want to point this out.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I find it interesting that you are using a PRO IRAN site for your facts. You refuse to accept any from any site that you seem to think is pro West, because you consider them biased. Then you go and use a site that is biased against the west.

Sorry, find a neutral site, and that does rule out Russia, China, Iran and other countries that have been anti west.

I am having internet problems and I do not have time to research.

Try again.

Again you are going back to before 9/11. The thread was the 'War on Terror'.

Wouldn't Sadam have LOVED to have had inspectors find chemicals that could be traced back to the US? What an embarrassment that would have been.

You still have not explained why his refusal to allow inspections (for a treaty HE signed) can be blamed on anyone but him.

Sadam was a tyrant, so was Qaddafi. We should not have supported Mubarak as long as we did.

Here is a good example of how the U.S Senate Sub Committee gets told in no uncertain terms about it's duplicity and lying and warmongering including supplying weapons of mass destruction. They bit off a bit more than they could chew when they tried to frame George Galloway. The tactics they used are laid bare. Their schoolboy howlers are blasted to smithereens, documenting how the U.S forged documents and circulated them around the world.

You will see that your 'humanitarian' food for oil programme gave 30 cents per day for each Iraqi citizen. That is why they continued starving whilst the west guzzled Iraq's oil resources for an absolute pittance which barely offset the mass starvation at all. That is 30 cents per day for everything, food, medicine, equipment, infrastructure... the lot.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4556113.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariam_Appeal
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
It seems that Sadam and his friends were the cause of the problems.

And UK Member of Parliament George Galloway seems to be have been hip deep in the schemes.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
It seems that Sadam and his friends were the cause of the problems.

And UK Member of Parliament George Galloway seems to be have been hip deep in the schemes. It started because SADAM invaded a neighboring country. DUH.

Sort of like landing in prison for stealing from a neighbor and then complaining that the 'system' is causing your wife and children to go hungry, while you are making sure that the money that should go to them is helping your appeal.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
It seems that Sadam and his friends were the cause of the problems.

And UK Member of Parliament George Galloway seems to be have been hip deep in the schemes. It started because SADAM invaded a neighboring country. DUH.

Sort of like landing in prison for stealing from a neighbor and then complaining that the 'system' is causing your wife and children to go hungry, while you are making sure that the money that should go to them is helping your appeal.

I see you are still in deny and defend at all costs and by any means mode. As I said that is not debunking.

So you paste a massive amount of bunk which goes on and on from an unnamed source, without saying anything that backs up your claim but generally throws masses of mud and obfuscation. I think that is known as Astroturfing isn't it.

If you can, please pick out what you think is the most salient point in your argument, from this vast Gish Gallop, so that it can be addressed.

You finish with a totally unjustified accusation and a 'typical 'folksy' false analogy, stating that George Galloway is 'hip deep in the schemes' when it has been proven beyond doubt that he was not and that he was a victim of a smear campaign which quite rightly exploded in the face of your government. Guess you didn't even watch him tear the commission to pieces.

Followed by "Sort of like landing in prison for stealing from a neighbor and then complaining that the 'system' is causing your wife and children to go hungry,".

Are you suggesting that all the vast numbers of people's dependents, who are slave labouring away in your 'for profit penal system', (most of whom are on petty charges, inc being too poor to pay fines), should be allowed to starve to death and not get medical care?

It certainly appears that way, (by offering it up as an analogy), but that nonetheless does not stop you from making these false, unabashed, uncaring and insensitive type of generalizations. Charity, oh sweet charity.

But carry on, it is good that people see the extent of your unreserved support for American Foreign Policy and no doubt your Dickensian view of the criminal 'justice' system and attitude to the poor is shared by many visitors to this forum.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West How Much Does Metabunk.org Cost to Run? Site Feedback & News 17
Mick West What would it take, and how much would it cost, to test a "chemtrail" Contrails and Chemtrails 44
Trailblazer Explained: "Human-shaped cloud above Zambian shopping centre" [Photoshop, kite] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 5
MikeC Jet fuel damages human cells - study Health and Quackery 16
sgirl Restaurant Caught Serving Human General Discussion 16
deejay Scientific paper stating airborne barium releases 'responsible' for human illness Contrails and Chemtrails 164
Truthseeker007 Theory: Use of "chemtrails" to destroy the human immune system Contrails and Chemtrails 32
David Fraser They study Human Engineering for Climate Change. Conspiracy Theories 0
BlueCollarCritic THE UNITED NATIONS & Dyncorp Human Trafficking Cover Up Conspiracy Theories 1
George B Why was the US code changed to make human experimentation illegal? Chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 42
tryblinking Alleged timeline of human experimentation by USA. Conspiracy Theories 9
Pete Tar Emoto's water crystal formations illustrate alleged effect of human intent on matter. UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Mick West Debunked: Human Birdwings - Hoax. UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 11
Mick West Debunked: Human Protection Software Suite Science and Pseudoscience 29
Mick West Debunked: Human Magnets UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Mick West 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Inside The Lonely Lives Of Truthers, Still Looking For Their Big Break 9/11 46
moderateGOP Bison Running for Their Lives!! General Discussion 59

Related Articles

Top