oh my GOD , The pictures of the dead and captured American troops!! (inter to SEE!!)

[Moss]

hello everybody ,


im so sorry , my first post in this forum is horrible ...... i know !!

but it's truth , we have to face it

our media is fooling all of us


http://www.jahra.org/free/3abdullah/90.jpg

http://www.jahra.org/free/3abdullah/100.jpg

http://www.jahra.org/free/3abdullah/80.jpg

[richardm]

Originally posted by Moss
[B]
our media is fooling all of us


Really? How come we all know about these PoWs and dead Americans, then?

[Moss]

http://www.jahra.org/free/3abdullah/101.jpg


http://www.jahra.org/free/3abdullah/102.jpg



Link to graphic picture (http://www.jahra.org/free/3abdullah/20.jpg)

[LeFevre]

I dont see anything, maybe it is mozilla. You could post a link, and you could also make your sig a link.

[Moss]

Link to graphic picture (http://www.jahra.org/free/3abdullah/60.jpg)
Link to graphic picture (http://www.jahra.org/free/3abdullah/70.jpg)
Link to graphic picture (http://www.jahra.org/free/3abdullah/103.jpg)

These links have been provided to allow viewing of the pictures if desired. I have made these changes after the poster did not respond to my message within the required time. - Hal

[The Fool]

I've already seen this. I'm at a loss to see the point you are trying to make. I think this Is an Offensive post and I think you are an Idiot.

[Moss]

http://www.jahra.org/free/3abdullah/1101.jpg

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by The Fool
I've already seen this. I'm at a loss to see the point you are trying to make. I think this Is an Offensive post and I think you are an Idiot.

He must be used to the yahoo message boards. Hopefully someone will delete these pictures or edit the posts and turn them into links with warning signs for graphic content.

[Moss]

the link ..........


http://www.honaweb.com/bush/ (http://)

[LeFevre]

it is a polite thing I think to post links to pictures for those of us who are back in the stone age (they are on dial up:eek: ).

[richardm]

Posting a link to pictures of dead people is one thing, but do you think it's appropriate to embed the pictures on this forum?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot


He must be used to the yahoo message boards. Hopefully someone will delete these pictures or edit the posts and turn them into links with warning signs for graphic content.
I would encourage the Idiot to do it him/herself.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by The Fool
I've already seen this. I'm at a loss to see the point you are trying to make. I think this Is an Offensive post and I think you are an Idiot.

Yup, "you are at a loss". Nothing new there. "Mama, they're making me look at bad pictures. " Hurry -- call AUP -- he will want to whine too.

The good news is Fools of your persuasion should soon start getting visits from the islamofascists who hang out on the indonesian islands.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by hammegk


Yup, "you are at a loss". Nothing new there. "Mama, they're making me look at bad pictures. " Hurry -- call AUP -- he will want to whine too.

The good news is Fools of your persuasion should soon start getting visits from the islamofascists who hang out on the indonesian islands.

Alright genius, what's the point of this post? To let us know that Iraq has POWs? You didn't know that yet?

Perhaps you should buy a telivision or some reading glasses as the rest of us have known this since yesterday.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by hammegk


Yup, "you are at a loss". Nothing new there. "Mama, they're making me look at bad pictures. " Hurry -- call AUP -- he will want to whine too.

The good news is Fools of your persuasion should soon start getting visits from the islamofascists who hang out on the indonesian islands.

And a link to these pics with a description of thier content followed by a debate on any issues they reveal would not have been sufficient?
I sometimes wonder about you...... But hey, Its your right to be a loser. Don't let me stop you continuing.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by The Fool


I sometimes wonder about you...... But hey, Its your right to be a loser. Don't let me stop you continuing.

I don't wonder about you at all.

Here, get aboard. Some Aussies apparently have some sense.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6184348%255E2702,00.html

[The Fool]

Originally posted by hammegk


I don't wonder about you at all.

Here, get aboard. Some Aussies apparently have some sense.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6184348%255E2702,00.html
Nope......still waiting for you to buy a clue.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of supporting or not supporting a war. It is about the issue of linking with a warning or directly posting close up images of gunshot wounds. I still can't see the point and I also still can't see much chance of you following what I am saying....maybe too many three syllable words?

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by hammegk


I don't wonder about you at all.

Here, get aboard. Some Aussies apparently have some sense.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6184348%255E2702,00.html

Another person who cannot think for themselves. They are everywhere these days.

:(

[Hellcat]

Moss could you please just remove the actual images and put up a link to them and offer a warning that they may cause some distress?

That way anybody wanting to view them has to click the link to see them and then if they are offended by the pictures that is their own fault rather than have them so full in your face.

Thanks.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot


Another person who cannot think for themselves. They are everywhere these days.

:(

Don't be so hard on yourself; perhaps your creator will let you become Rusty_the_Thinking_Man. Not much sign of that so far though.

[Jon_in_london]

Im totally shocked by these pictures. I never ealised people could get killed in war! what was bush thinking about :eek: :rolleyes:

And all you censorship freaks should piss off.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Im totally shocked by these pictures. I never ealised people could get killed in war! what was bush thinking about :eek: :rolleyes:

And all you censorship freaks should piss off.

It is a war and to a point I feel that the countries involved in war have a moral responsibility to become aware of what war truly involves. But what about those who are not involved in this war and click on the link? What about those who do not want to see these pictures? What about those who are very young but perhaps come to a web forum to discuss something not realizing that graphic pictures are contained herein?

ANd no I am not rusty the thinking man I am rusty the boy robot.

Thank you.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot


What about those who are very young but perhaps come to a web forum to discuss something not realizing that graphic pictures are contained herein?
The pictures are one of the last reasons why this nest of atheists and iconoclasts is unsuitable for schoolkids.

ANd no I am not rusty the thinking man I am rusty the boy robot.


He needs some work on the axiom module.

[BlackBetta]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot


But what about those who are not involved in this war and click on the link? What about those who do not want to see these pictures? What about those who are very young but perhaps come to a web forum to discuss something not realizing that graphic pictures are contained herein?



Well, if they click on a topic titled "Oh my god, the pictures of dead and captured American troops", what should they expect to see? Hello Kitty pics???


War is ugly no doubt about it. But I think moss seems a bit disingenuous with his supposed shock.

And let's face it, if these are the worst pictures you've ever seen then you haven't spent much time surfing the web.

BB

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by BlackBetta


Well, if they click on a topic titled "Oh my god, the pictures of dead and captured American troops", what should they expect to see? Hello Kitty pics???


War is ugly no doubt about it. But I think moss seems a bit disingenuous with his supposed shock.

And let's face it, if these are the worst pictures you've ever seen then you haven't spent much time surfing the web.

BB

Very much true. I still would have appreciated it if moss would have made links not embedded img.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by Moss
[B]hello everybody ,


im so sorry , my first post in this forum is horrible ...... i know !!

but it's truth , we have to face it

our media is fooling all of us

B]
You've posted pictures of heroes. Men and women with guts with an ideal they will fight for.
[BTW - do you have any pictures of the Kurds who were massacred by Saddam? I saw a picture of piled bodies in a Kurd village. It looked like a mother and child on the street after they were gassed. Then there are the pictures of the Kurds all piled together in a torture room - many had their eyes carved out.]
Everybody sing! "Hari Krishna, Hari Krishna, Hari, Hari..." How about Yoko Ono tunes?

[Moss]

Originally posted by BlackBetta

Well, if they click on a topic titled "Oh my god, the pictures of dead and captured American troops", what should they expect to see? Hello Kitty pics???
BB

you got the point , thank you


and i wouldn't say any more!

except .... it's pity to find ppl thinking that way

[Frostbite]

These are the images which were aired here on canadian broadcasts. Terrible, terrible stuff. I haven't seen many dead iraqis footage yet, but I guess Al Jazeera won't air stuff like that, and Alliance troups either.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Moss


you got the point , thank you


and i wouldn't say any more!

except .... it's pity to find ppl thinking that way

Last night and early this morning US troops with the 7th Cavalry Regiment liquidated 500 Iraqi enemy soldiers. That is 500 enemy KIA's.

Those prisoners attached to the 7th Cavalry taken by the Iraqis were avenged last night. I can just imagine the screams from the 500 Iraqi soldiers killed by US troops as M2 .50 caliber armor piercing ammunition went through their bodies at 2800 feet per second.

US forces are crushing the Iraqi army wherever they are engaging them. It is the liquidation of evil and a glorious capitalist victory.

Allah has abandoned Iraq.

JK

[Drooper]

This is crap. These pictures are known to exist, are easily accessed and the events surrounding them have been widely reported.

You use them in support of no point of debate or argument and elect to imbed them, rather than highlight a link, for no apparent reason.

If your unstated point touches in any way on the loss of human dignity in war, then you have exposed yourself as a hypocrit.

This is a forum for political debate. There is no reason to have images like these on public display, especially in such a gratuitous fashion.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Moss


you got the point , thank you


and i wouldn't say any more!

except .... it's pity to find ppl thinking that way

Moss,

You are an evil f#cking troll and your offensive posts have been reported to JREF.

Go your sorry ass back to Baghdad. :mad:

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Moss


you got the point , thank you


and i wouldn't say any more!

except .... it's pity to find ppl thinking that way

Allah has abandoned Iraq. Weak, very, very weak.

JK

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Last night and early this morning US troops with the 7th Cavalry Regiment liquidated 500 Iraqi enemy soldiers. That is 500 enemy KIA's.

Those prisoners attached to the 7th Cavalry taken by the Iraqis were avenged last night. I can just imagine the screams from the 500 Iraqi soldiers killed by US troops as M2 .50 caliber armor piercing ammunition went through their bodies at 2800 feet per second.

US forces are crushing the Iraqi army wherever they are engaging them. It is the liquidation of evil and a glorious capitalist victory.

Allah has abandoned Iraq.

JK

Sicko.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Frostbite


Sicko.

Aren't you the same guy that said that there will be killings...and rape...etc...etc...?

JK is completely correct. It's time to get hard core. The emphasis is on gaining ground towards Baghdad...and off taking prisoners.

When the SRG starts popping chemical munitions...the gloves come completely off.

No more Mr. Nice Guy. :mad:
-zilla

[hal bidlack]

Moss,

This is also being sent to you as a PM. While this is a tough call, I do not believe the images of the dead bodies in gruesome detail is appropriate for this forum. I would feel exactly the same about similar photos of Iraqi dead, or fire victims, etc.

I believe your photos of the POWs can stay, as they are news and not a problem. Please alter your posts of the body pictures to provide the link to the picture, along with a warning that the images are graphic.

I will allow one hour for this action to take place, please make this change by 1 pm EST on 25 March, or I shall make the change myself.

Many thanks,
hal

[LeFevre]

and cutting out the pics would help the thread load faster!

[Skeptic]

This is horrible...

Yes, it is. It also involves less than 10 soldiers altogether out of 300,000 or so.

(Basil Faulty voice) May I inquire just what you expected to see in wartime broadcasts in the Iraqi television during war, if NOT pictures of coalition's KIA and POWs? Constant replaying the Marines' anthem, perhaps? The American flag waving in the wind?

The media is lying to us

Oh?

So far as I recall, the most "lying" the media did is wait for confirmation from coalition sorces before changing the statements that "Iraqis alleged they captured POWs" to "Iraqis captured POWs".

Is the "lying" the fact that the media doesn't continually ignore the larger picture of the war and concentrate solely on these POWs? That it doesn't constanly replay gruesome pictures of dead Americans to the home front, like Iraqi TV does? Would that be "objective"?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Skeptic
This is horrible...

Yes, it is. It also involves less than 10 soldiers altogether out of 300,000 or so.

(Basil Faulty voice) May I inquire just what you expected to see in wartime broadcasts in the Iraqi television during war, if NOT pictures of coalition's KIA and POWs? Constant replaying the Marines' anthem, perhaps? The American flag waving in the wind?

The media is lying to us

Oh?

So far as I recall, the most "lying" the media did is wait for confirmation from coalition sorces before changing the statements that "Iraqis alleged they captured POWs" to "Iraqis captured POWs".

Is the "lying" the fact that the media doesn't continually ignore the larger picture of the war and concentrate solely on these POWs? That it doesn't constanly replay gruesome pictures of dead Americans to the home front, like Iraqi TV does? Would that be "objective"?

I have to agree with you. Well on all things except one. It's actually called the Marines Hymn not anthem.:D

[Richard G]

The most shocking, and infuriating thing I see, is that these men were executed. The enemy are lawless, savage murderers.

[ZeeGerman]

Now this picture (http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,252167,00.jpg) is REALLY tough stuff. Do only follow the link if you got the guts. Unbelievable, how war can bestialize people.

Zee

[Diezel]

Moss:

Your post is in violation of the rules of this forum, specifically the rule against posting obscene or violent material. The applicable rule is here (I highlighted the specific rule pertaining to this post):

The post is obscene (like the Supreme Court, we can't define it, but we know it when we see it). We want this to be a work-friendly website. We will allow links to sites but with a warning that the site could contain material considered objectionable. We do not want to be banned from libraries or schools because of sexual or violent content. At the same time, we do not want to censor discussion and dialogue. We also do not want to cause potential grantors to deny funding based on obscene or objectionable material.

Please post a link to those pictures with a warning there is violent content contained within the links. Please edit your post within 15 minutes, or I will have to edit it for you. I will send you a PM with this same information.

[Diezel]

Forget my last post, I just now noticed that Hal has given you your warning before I did.

[jj]

I think that the pictures here show the true stupidity of the Iraqui regime.

"No Quarter" just means that people will fight to the last drop. I hate to see anyone doing that, especially my own countrymen. While I don't feel for the people who are publically executing prisoners, I do feel for their soldiers, who are going to die simply because the US troops can't afford to take a surrender or to surrender at face value.

I'm fairly sure that the idiot running the show (and I mean Saddamn, please) thinks this is going to scare us gutless infidels into running.

I don't think he has much of a clue about how us gutless infidels react to atrocity.

Those executions were a serious, deadly mistake.

[Morwen]

Originally posted by Frostbite
These are the images which were aired here on canadian broadcasts. Terrible, terrible stuff. I haven't seen many dead iraqis footage yet, but I guess Al Jazeera won't air stuff like that, and Alliance troups either.

The images of dead civilians in Iraq has been making front pages in European newspapers along with the POWs. The pics are also in the Internet, relatively easy to find. They are every bit as gruesome as the dead soldiers. Maybe more; there are some wounded and dead children, so, if you look, find at your own risk.

[hal bidlack]

I have removed the photos of the dead bodies, and provided a link to each, with proper warning.

Please understand that this is not because they were Americans, but because they were graphic. I will not allow similar pictures of Iraqi war dead either.

I have left the POW pictures, as they do not violate the rules of the board.

[Moss]

what a freedom?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

okay it's good to know in which forum we are writing !

theses pictures were to know that the American blood shouldn't be the price for OIL !!

it was a scream for all of u to wake up .

and now after deleting the PICs .... im glad to say for you

HAPPY DREAMS SWEETY !!!!!!

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Moss
HAPPY DREAMS SWEETY !!!!!!

How can Americans dream? We are too busy putting Iraqi soldiers to sleep.

JK

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Supercharts

You've posted pictures of heroes. Men and women with guts with an ideal they will fight for.
[BTW - do you have any pictures of the Kurds who were massacred by Saddam? I saw a picture of piled bodies in a Kurd village. It looked like a mother and child on the street after they were gassed. Then there are the pictures of the Kurds all piled together in a torture room - many had their eyes carved out.]
Everybody sing! "Hari Krishna, Hari Krishna, Hari, Hari..." How about Yoko Ono tunes?

Heroes? I would call many of them people who wanted a job, and hoped they wouldn't have to fight one day.

[Martin]

Originally posted by BlackBetta
Well, if they click on a topic titled "Oh my god, the pictures of dead and captured American troops", what should they expect to see? Hello Kitty pics???

Why not?

http://www.wadayawant.com/Hello%20Kitty%20Jumbo%20Blue.jpg

http://www.comfortage.com/assets/chairs/hellok/hello%20kitty.jpg

http://www.dltk-kids.com/crafts/cartoons/hellokitty/shellokitty.gif

[Martin]

Originally posted by jj
I'm fairly sure that the idiot running the show (and I mean Saddamn, please) thinks this is going to scare us gutless infidels into running

I'd imagine it was intended for domestic consumption. The effect on our side wouldn't figure into it much, IMHO.

[Martin]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I would call many of them people who wanted a job, and hoped they wouldn't have to fight one day. And yet they did it anyway.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
I have removed the photos of the dead bodies, and provided a link to each, with proper warning.

This is a reasonable compromise. The relevance that I see to the pictures is this:

1. What is it that al Jazeera is showing to its audience?
2. What relevance might al Jazeera find in showing such photos? Well, one of the photos shows a soldier shot in the forehead. If there are multiple photos of different soldiers with such wounds, it is evidence that they were executed.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Martinm


Why not?

The first two were cute, but the last one of the decapitated kitty was offensive.

[Julia]

Well Moss, you suddenly became silent. What's the matter, you
didn't get the replies you expected?
I don't have a clue what point you were trying to make by posting these. However, it is clear to me that the point you were
successful in making is that tou are a total jerk. Perhaps it's time to run along now.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Heroes? I would call many of them people who wanted a job, and hoped they wouldn't have to fight one day.

Not that you actually KNOW any of them, but that doesn't stop you from posting disparaging, patronizing comments about why they "really" aren't heroes.

But then again, if you had a sense of shame, you wouldn't be yourself.

[BlackBetta]

Originally posted by Moss


you got the point , thank you

Actually I'm not sure what your point was. Except maybe gross voyeurism. I was simply observing that the title of the thread sufficiently explained the contents. But since embedded pics are against forum rules and slow down the dial-up folks (poor bastards), I guess only use links.

and i wouldn't say any more!

except .... it's pity to find ppl thinking that way

Actually please do say more. Like what way are people thinking that's so bad?
How is the media deceiving us?

Skeptical Inquirering minds want to know.

BB

[Moss]

I will just make a few points to help you out get a better grasp of
the situation.
Did you know that this 12 years of UN imposed sanctions have
killed more iraqis, mainly children, from famine and disenteria?
After more than 500,000 Iraqis have died, now US remembers
about the iraq situation and the oppresive regime and go to free
the people?
do you know how many juntas have been put into force by the
american in order to server their interests? you want to talk
about Chile?
a country like Greece had a dictatorship for 7 years due to the
good friends the US. Half of cyprus is still under turkish
occupation due to American plans to get their bases their. There
are numerous UN resolutions for Cyprus, but I dont see Mr Bush
marching in to enforce them or anybody else giving too much
thought about it.
There are many oppresive regimes in the middle east who choose
to keep their people with very little knowledge and keep control
through religious fanatism. Why pick iraq?


Iraq has the second biggest oil reserves in the planet, iraqi oil
costs 2 USD per barrel and is one with the least impurities. Also
getting control of iraq by installing a puppet goverment
introduces a splinter in OPEC, an organisation or more a cartel
that is controlling oil prices and is annoying US very much. (check
the oil crisis in the 1970s...)

UN weapons inspectors where pretty categorical that Sadam, no
longer had access to biological and chemical weapons. There is
no mention about nuclear weapons because it seems you do not
undestand the complexity of making a nuclear bomb. is not only
that you need very pure highly enriched fissionable material
which is very hard to come by (power plants do not use this) but
also the mechanism to start the chain reaction is very difficult to
produce.
This is not a war. This is an invasion to a country that is almost
defenseless against the combined military might of US and
Britain.
You know what Robin Cook said? I dont agree going to war with
a country that we have armed ourselves in the first place. Who
do you think supported Sadam after his military coup in the
1960s?Yes it was the americans and the british. They gave him
chemical weapons to fight against iran.
The 9/11 attacks are terifying but is still the result of US
intervention all over the world. You cannot go around opressing
people and still expect to be safe. There will be more 9/11
because although americans are arrogant, they are not invincible.
The UN Sanctions have been starving iraq, and weakening them
out. They could never have had the potential to threaten
anybody, not after 1991 and with the majority of the iraqi military
destroyed.
You believe in democracy. The united nations, and its extension
the security council were democratic organisations that did not
support this invasion. Did Bush and Blair listen? No to support
their own agenda they went ahead illegaly on their own on a
campaign that has alieanted US and UK from his allies. When
most of the European states are against the war and only Spain
and UK go for it and express differently, what do you think this
does to European cohesion?
For how long can you stand for Britain to be a pawn of the US, or
the 51st state as they jokingly call them.
There is no war that does not harm civilians. All this smart
weapons, well, they are not that smart to differentiate between
soldiers and civilians, they are just smart in killing more
effectively. The fact that they say very few civilians are being hurt
is complete nonsense. when you bomb from 30.000 feet, you do
not know where the bomb will fall. Bahdad is a city of 5.000.000
people, you still think very few civilians are being hurt?
As for the protesters being so violent as you say, how would you
feel if your voice, along with 70% of the world was against this
war and yet nobody listened to you?is this democracy? nope it is
not.

more than 140 MPs from Blairs own party are against the war.Why do you think they act this way?

and finally what americans dont know about their free country, is
that all information is carefully controlled and manipulated in
order to direct and form the counsioucness of the people the way
the goverment wants.
you ponder about the above, hope I have given you enough
good reasons why this war is not for liberation of freedom, but
for control of Oil reserves.

[Moss]

still alive ?!

[Girl 6]

Hi Moss...

Welcome to the forum! I do have a few suggestions for you. Please don't take this the wrong way or anything, though. It's to help you solicit the kinds of responses that you may be looking for.

First, I'd like to recommend that you not skip lines in your posts. That makes your post really long and a little hard to read. You can go back and edit your post above, of you like.

Second, although you bring up some good points, it might be best to present them individually or expound on each violation as you see fit.

Third, this section of the forum doesn't always move as fast as the one in Banter. So, don't have high expectations of getting responses right away.

Fourth, you should probably NOT present the graphic images outright. I've seen a lot of the images myself via the Al Jazeera website, but it's always better to just post the link with a warning to allow people to be able to have the right mindset to see them. A number of people do peruse this website at their offices and anything offensive may put their jobs in jeopardy.

Anyway, thanks for sharing an alternative view about this war.

G6

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by hal bidlack

I have left the POW pictures, as they do not violate the rules of the board.

I know they may not violate the rules of the board, but do they violate the Geneva convention? Here in Canada, there was a backlash because our national media broadcast Iraqi video of the POWs. The complaint was that the Geneva convention prohibits POWs from being made objects of curiosity.

[Tula]

Ok I don't know if any other military members have replyed I only read so many other responses before I decided to responed. First off as a military member I can tell you this the POW's being interviewd is aginst Geaniva convention. Now to get back on the subject, there is nothing the media is hidding, CNN, MSNBC, and local tv and news radio have mentioned the POWS. What they chose not to do and they have a right to do so is to say that they will not show the video's or pictures of the POW's espically the dead POW's cause they are too graphic. So now whats the media hiding?:confused:

[Moss]

Girl 6

thank you for your kindness

[Moss]

the Geneva convention !!!!!!!!


:D nice joke

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Heroes? I would call many of them people who wanted a job, and hoped they wouldn't have to fight one day.

They are heroes because they went where they were asked to go and did their jobs, even though they were probably scared sh*tless, instead of going AWOL to some other country, which they could have done once war was in the air.

Originally posted by Moss
Girl 6

thank you for your kindness
Somebody else asked you kindly which you chose to ignore.

[Moss]

chose to ignore!!

did i ? oh , bad me !!

tell me who is he to start peace negotiations with him .

im afarid he might say my done was aginst Geaniva convention

Originally posted by Moss
chose to ignore!!

did i ? oh , bad me !!

tell me who is he to start peace negotiations with him .

im afarid he might say my done was aginst Geaniva convention
Go read, go figure and don't push it:D and it's Geneva convention.:p

[Segnosaur]

What incredible rantings by Moss. (Do you only grow on the North side of trees?)

Originally posted by Moss
I will just make a few points to help you out get a better grasp of the situation.

Did you know that this 12 years of UN imposed sanctions have killed more iraqis, mainly children, from famine and disenteria?After more than 500,000 Iraqis have died, now US remembers
about the iraq situation and the oppresive regime and go to free the people?

While the sanctions were in place, Iraq was allowed to sell oil to buy food and other critical supplies. Instead of doing that, he decided to purchase weapons, and build palaces. Had Iraq spent the money the way they were supposed to, those children would not have died.

Originally posted by Moss
Half of cyprus is still under turkish occupation due to American plans to get their bases their.


You don't hear much about cyprus these days...

Turkey is there because they want to be there, and there are turkish people on Cyprus. Your arguent makes no sense. There is no reason to believe Turkey would allow America to build bases there. (Look at the problems they had getting permission to use Turkey as a place to attack Iraq.)
Originally posted by Moss

There are numerous UN resolutions for Cyprus, but I dont see Mr Bush marching in to enforce them or anybody else giving too much thought about it.

UN resolutions against Cyprus are probably chapter 6 (non-enforcable) resolutions. The Iraqi resolutions are chapter 7 resolutions (meaning that the UN has more flexibility in using force if necessary). Chapter 6 resolutions are 'play nice' resolutions.

Plus, you don't hear of the leaders in Cyprus actively engaging in torture and genocide.

Originally posted by Moss
There are many oppresive regimes in the middle east who choose to keep their people with very little knowledge and keep control through religious fanatism. Why pick iraq?

Many reasons... Saddam tortures and kills his own people (as much or more than others), Iraq has attacked neighbours recently (Saudi Arabia hasn't), technically Iraq is still at war with the United Nations coalition (war never formally ended; only a cease fire was declared, the terms of which Iraq violated.)

Originally posted by Moss
Iraq has the second biggest oil reserves in the planet, iraqi oil costs 2 USD per barrel and is one with the least impurities. Also getting control of iraq by installing a puppet goverment introduces a splinter in OPEC, an organisation or more a cartel
that is controlling oil prices and is annoying US very much.

That is nothing more than a wild conspricy theory. A democratic government is more useful in Iraq, since it will provide a positive influence on other Arab states (much more than a puppet government), and that will improve security overall. Iraq will be run by and for Iraqis.

In addition, the coaltion forces are arranging to have any money obtained from oil to be diverted into an account used for rebuilding Iraq.

Finally, if America really wanted Iraqi oil they could have gotten it by making a deal with Saddam. "Sell us oil cheap and we'll look the other way".

Originally posted by Moss

UN weapons inspectors where pretty categorical that Sadam, no
longer had access to biological and chemical weapons. There is
no mention about nuclear weapons because it seems you do not
undestand the complexity of making a nuclear bomb. is not only
that you need very pure highly enriched fissionable material
which is very hard to come by (power plants do not use this) but
also the mechanism to start the chain reaction is very difficult to
produce.

Uh, no. The weapons inspectors cannot say whether Iraq does or does not have weapons of mass destruction. They can only indicate whether Iraq is cooperating with disarmament resolutions. It was found that Iraq was not complying. The inspectors are not supposed to be detectives.

Despite that, many banned items have been found (chem warheads, unmanned drone planes, chemical bomblets, missles exceeding allowable ranges, etc.)

It should also be noted that in the last round of inspections, the inspectors spent years searching and were unable to find anything, until an Iraqi defector showed them where to look.

And while I doubt Iraq has nuclear weapons, power plants can be used to produce the required elements (depending on the type and design of the power plant). It was only thanks to an Israeli air raid in the 80s (which blew up an Iraqi plant) that Iraq doesn't have the bomb now.

Originally posted by Moss

You know what Robin Cook said? I dont agree going to war with a country that we have armed ourselves in the first place. Who do you think supported Sadam after his military coup in the 1960s?Yes it was the americans and the british.

I don't know if Robin Cook said that. (So many things have been wrong in your post, you may not be quoting him at all). You are wrong on this point too...

Saddam came to power on his own (mostly though killing his potential rivals). He's a self made man.

The biggest military supporter of Iraq was the Soviet Union. The United States is way down on the list of supporters (they are even behind that military powerhouse Denmark in terms of arms sales.) And many of the chem/bio weapons programs in Iraq are either home made, modified from industrial uses, or come from Germany or France.

Originally posted by Moss

You believe in democracy. The united nations, and its extension
the security council were democratic organisations that did not support this invasion. Did Bush and Blair listen? No to support their own agenda they went ahead illegaly on their own on a campaign that has alieanted US and UK from his allies. When most of the European states are against the war and only Spain
and UK go for it and express differently, what do you think this does to European cohesion?

First of all, allies that won't support your country when it has a need are not allies. They are opportunists.

Secondly, there are more European countries supporting the war than opposing it. Try Spain, Italy, Poland, Albania, Lithuaenia, Luxemburg, almost all of the former Warsaw pact countries in Europe, and a whole lot more.

And I think France, and their "shut up" speech did more to damange European cohesion.

Originally posted by Moss

There is no war that does not harm civilians. All this smart weapons, well, they are not that smart to differentiate between soldiers and civilians, they are just smart in killing more effectively. The fact that they say very few civilians are being hurt
is complete nonsense. when you bomb from 30.000 feet, you do not know where the bomb will fall. Bahdad is a city of 5.000.000 people, you still think very few civilians are being hurt?

The U.S. has dropped hundreds of bombs on Bagdhad and there have been very few civilian casulties. The 'smart' weapons are working. There have been a few tragic incidences, but fewer will die from the war than will die from Saddam's own hand.

Originally posted by Moss

As for the protesters being so violent as you say, how would you
feel if your voice, along with 70% of the world was against this war and yet nobody listened to you?is this democracy? nope it is
not.

more than 140 MPs from Blairs own party are against the war. why do you think they act this way?

Just because the government takes a course of action that differs from the anti-war side, it does not mean that the anti-war side has not been heard. There arguments have been noted, and decisions made on the best available information.

And if you disagree with their actions, the time to act is at election time. The government should not govern mearly by looking at opinion polls; instead they should lead, and be willing to take actions which will improve the life of the average citizen, even if the decision is unpopular at the time.

And personally I think it shows courage for a leader like Blair to take a stand which may be unpopular in his own country and with his party, because its the right thing to do. In a time when so many polititions will sacrifice their ideals to get re-elected, he is risking his career because he feels action is necessary.


Originally posted by Moss

and finally what americans dont know about their free country, is that all information is carefully controlled and manipulated in order to direct and form the counsioucness of the people the way
the goverment wants.

you ponder about the above, hope I have given you enough good reasons why this war is not for liberation of freedom, but
for control of Oil reserves.

All I ponder is that you have the makings of a conspiricy nut. (Seriously, does anyone else think the media control statment makes him sound like a moon hoax believer? "The government doesn't want you to believe this, but....")

The media is not controlled. There are news sources that have a pro and anti war stance. There is no bias either way.

(edited to fix a bad cut and paste job)

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by Moss
chose to ignore!!

did i ? oh , bad me !!

tell me who is he to start peace negotiations with him .

im afarid he might say my done was aginst Geaniva convention
Please use a spell checker. It makes your posts easier to read and comprehend. Please watch your non-capitalization. Try to follow basic rules of grammar.
Also - you are an ass*ole.


TYVM

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Moss
I will just make a few points to help you out get a better grasp of
the situation.
Did you know that this 12 years of UN imposed sanctions have
killed more iraqis, mainly children, from famine and disenteria?
After more than 500,000 Iraqis have died, now US remembers
about the iraq situation and the oppresive regime and go to free
the people?

For 12 years Saddam Hussein has refused to follow the directives of the UN. Had he done so, the sanctions would have been lifted long ago.


do you know how many juntas have been put into force by the
american in order to server their interests? you want to talk
about Chile?
a country like Greece had a dictatorship for 7 years due to the
good friends the US. Half of cyprus is still under turkish
occupation due to American plans to get their bases their. There
are numerous UN resolutions for Cyprus, but I dont see Mr Bush
marching in to enforce them or anybody else giving too much
thought about it.
There are many oppresive regimes in the middle east who choose
to keep their people with very little knowledge and keep control
through religious fanatism. Why pick iraq?

I guess Bush decided that he had to start somewhere. Why not Iraq? Maybe Cyprus is next on the list. Maybe we should leave Cyprus, Chile, and Greece for other UN countries to take care of. I'd say we've taken on more than our share of the burden.

Iraq has the second biggest oil reserves in the planet, iraqi oil
costs 2 USD per barrel and is one with the least impurities. Also
getting control of iraq by installing a puppet goverment
introduces a splinter in OPEC, an organisation or more a cartel
that is controlling oil prices and is annoying US very much. (check
the oil crisis in the 1970s...)
The rest of the world won't just sit by and allow the US to hog all the Iraqi oil, so don't worry about it. I'll be they're all tickled pink that we and the Brits are kicking Saddam out of Iraq. We do the dirty work and they'll gladly buy the oil.

UN weapons inspectors where pretty categorical that Sadam, no
longer had access to biological and chemical weapons. There is
no mention about nuclear weapons because it seems you do not
undestand the complexity of making a nuclear bomb. is not only
that you need very pure highly enriched fissionable material
which is very hard to come by (power plants do not use this) but
also the mechanism to start the chain reaction is very difficult to
produce.
Ahem. The UN inspectors were quite clear that Iraq had not accounted for large volumes of VX nerve agent, among other things. Regarding nuclear weapons, a sophisticated device would not be required. The old "gun-type" uranium bomb would suffice -- it used TNT to force the chain reaction. Delivering it, of course, wouldn't be as convenient as a missile warhead, but beggars can't be choosers. All you'd need is a freighter if you wanted to deliver it to New York harbor. Also, Iraq was purchasing equipment that could be used for the gaseous diffusion process of enriching uranium. That's not conjecture; it's a fact.

This is not a war. This is an invasion to a country that is almost
defenseless against the combined military might of US and
Britain.
You know what Robin Cook said? I dont agree going to war with
a country that we have armed ourselves in the first place. Who
do you think supported Sadam after his military coup in the
1960s?Yes it was the americans and the british. They gave him
chemical weapons to fight against iran.

Fine. We made the mess; high time we cleaned it up.

The 9/11 attacks are terifying but is still the result of US
intervention all over the world. You cannot go around opressing
people and still expect to be safe. There will be more 9/11
because although americans are arrogant, they are not invincible.
The UN Sanctions have been starving iraq, and weakening them
out. They could never have had the potential to threaten
anybody, not after 1991 and with the majority of the iraqi military
destroyed.

See previous comments regarding sanctions. The Iraqi military seems quite fine and well these days. Well, not as healthy as they were a week ago, but still a formidable force. Are Americans arrogant? Very likely. Are Americans more arrogant than anyone else in the world? No.

You believe in democracy. The united nations, and its extension
the security council were democratic organisations that did not
support this invasion. Did Bush and Blair listen? No to support
their own agenda they went ahead illegaly on their own on a
campaign that has alieanted US and UK from his allies. When
most of the European states are against the war and only Spain
and UK go for it and express differently, what do you think this
does to European cohesion?

I agree that the weapons inspections should have been allowed to continue, with better intelligence given to the inspectors. I am certain that Iraq would not have cooperated with the inspectors without the coalition armies massed for invasion. Unfortunately, Bush didn't want to wait.

For how long can you stand for Britain to be a pawn of the US, or
the 51st state as they jokingly call them.

I, for one, do not see Britain as a pawn of the US. I'm sure Britain can tell the US to bugger off any time it pleases.

There is no war that does not harm civilians. All this smart
weapons, well, they are not that smart to differentiate between
soldiers and civilians, they are just smart in killing more
effectively. The fact that they say very few civilians are being hurt
is complete nonsense. when you bomb from 30.000 feet, you do
not know where the bomb will fall. Bahdad is a city of 5.000.000
people, you still think very few civilians are being hurt?

This war is remarkable in that so few civilians have been injured. If the coalition forces were to wage total war, Baghdad would be mostly a smoking ruin, with thousands dead. I am not in favor of this war, mind you, but our forces are selecting military targets with as much precision as they can. This policy will cost the lives of coalition soldiers.

As for the protesters being so violent as you say, how would you
feel if your voice, along with 70% of the world was against this
war and yet nobody listened to you?is this democracy? nope it is
not.
Violent peace protests are self-defeating.

more than 140 MPs from Blairs own party are against the war.Why do you think they act this way?

Because they don't agree with Blair, as is their right.

and finally what americans dont know about their free country, is
that all information is carefully controlled and manipulated in
order to direct and form the counsioucness of the people the way
the goverment wants.

I'm 46. The government has yet to mold my consciousness. Sorry, but most people here aren't as gullible as you imply. We do have access to foreign news sources and other outside information, unlike some countries which restrict all flow of information.

you ponder about the above, hope I have given you enough
good reasons why this war is not for liberation of freedom, but
for control of Oil reserves.

No, the war is about kicking Saddam Hussein and his apparatus out of power. If the US tried to "own" Iraq and Iraq's oil, we'd find ourselves subject to an embargo from the other oil-producing nations as well as serious trouble from other oil-consuming countries. The stakes are too high to play at imperialism.

[Moss]

Originally posted by Supercharts

Try to follow basic rules of grammar.
Also - you are an ass*ole.


TYVM


Supercharts

first , thank you for your politeness

second , English is not my first language ( so i beg your pardon to
accept it the way it is )

third , how many languages do you speak Mr well educated ?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Not that you actually KNOW any of them, but that doesn't stop you from posting disparaging, patronizing comments about why they "really" aren't heroes.

But then again, if you had a sense of shame, you wouldn't be yourself.

i was not intending to be at all disparaging of those captured. I was merely stating that for many people, the army is the only job that is easy to get. for these people, they would be prepared to do their job, i have not heard of any desertions, but i would also say that fighting a war was not their main motivation for joining the armed forces either.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


i was not intending to be at all disparaging of those captured. I was merely stating that for many people, the army is the only job that is easy to get. for these people, they would be prepared to do their job, i have not heard of any desertions, but i would also say that fighting a war was not their main motivation for joining the armed forces either.

And for me, the job of computer programmer was the only one I found easy to get.

Actually, I'd say getting into the military (especially in a combat roll) is not that easy. There are physical requirements that I know I wouldn't be able to pass, a certain level of intelligence is needed, and anyone who has mental problems (the "yahoo, lets go kill them" type) probably would be removed from service.

[BlackBetta]

Moss thanks for the info. I agree with most of what Segnosaur said so I won't repeat those comments. Just a few points.


Originally posted by Moss
do you know how many juntas have been put into force by the
american in order to server their interests?

Yes, like any government the US has interests that it wants to project in the world. And I don't agree with all of the choices that our leaders have made and continue to make. But I do believe at the heart of the matter is the desire to eventually see all countries living free from oppression and not as conquered slaves.

There are many oppresive regimes in the middle east who choose
to keep their people with very little knowledge and keep control
through religious fanatism. Why pick iraq?
Indeed, and many of them are memebers of OPEC. If breaking the cartel is part of the master plan, I say cheers to that.
Why Iraq now? A good question. Personally I think that Iraq is not the immediate threat. I think our troops should really be pushing toward Pyongyang at the moment. But there is not doubt that Sadam must go eventually. And remember it is Sadam, not Iraq, that we are gunning for.

There will be more 9/11
because although americans are arrogant, they are not invincible.

Unfortunately this is probably true. American arrogance, or confidence, is an inevitable product of the amount of success we have had in so many things. But the success is due to our openness and freedom, not oppression. That is why people want to come to the US and England and not to Iraq or Russia.

and finally what americans dont know about their free country, is
that all information is carefully controlled and manipulated in
order to direct and form the counsioucness of the people the way
the goverment wants.

Unless you can show direct evidence of this then it sounds hollow. Don't mistake disagreement for lack of information. None of the things you presented were new to me, yet I don't agree with some of your conclusions.

Thanks for the reply.

BB

[loCAtek]

What should be most distressing is that these captured troops were from a mechanical maintenance convoy. Captured not through superior Iraqi tactics but simply because they'd gotten lost. Iraq 'executed captured US troops' (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_764811.html)

US military officials have claimed Iraqi forces executed some of the American troops captured in Nasiriyah in front of local people.

Along with phony surrenders, these violations of the Geneva Convention will not demoralize the US as Iraq would like but just make the average American outraged.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


And for me, the job of computer programmer was the only one I found easy to get.

Actually, I'd say getting into the military (especially in a combat roll) is not that easy. There are physical requirements that I know I wouldn't be able to pass, a certain level of intelligence is needed, and anyone who has mental problems (the "yahoo, lets go kill them" type) probably would be removed from service.

the last part is what i suspect happened to JK. you do have to be able to kill, or you aren't going to be much use as a soldier.

if you can pass the physical, i think you have got a job. for most people, that is not too hard. for less well educated and poorer people, that can be an easy way to get a job.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BlackBetta
Moss thanks for the info. I agree with most of what Segnosaur said so I won't repeat those comments. Just a few points.




Yes, like any government the US has interests that it wants to project in the world. And I don't agree with all of the choices that our leaders have made and continue to make. But I do believe at the heart of the matter is the desire to eventually see all countries living free from oppression and not as conquered slaves.



"we had to destroy the village to save it"?

the biggest force for the rise of fundamentalist islam was the iranian revolution when it kicked out the shah, which itself was a direct result of the western backed coup and US sponsored regime that was equally as bad as Saddam in terms of human rights.

Now why didn't we get to see that, the US invading Iran to kick out the Shah?

[Moss]

>

A man is caught in a traffic jam when suddenly, someone taps on the
window of his car. He lowers the window and asks what he wants. The
other man says, "President Bush was kidnapped and the ransom is $50
million dollars. If the ransom is not paid, the kidnappers have
threatened to douse the President with gasoline and set him on fire. We
are taking up a collection, do you wish to participate?"


The man in the car asks, "On average, what are people donating?"





..



..




..



..



..

The other man replies, "About 5 to 10 liters!"

[Moss]

http://www.myimager.com/uploads/asad24241_62114173214_973585.jpg

[Moss]

http://www.myimager.com/uploads/asad24242_62114173214_539914.jpg

[dingler44]

I do agree this thread is entirely pointless... from the first message down.

But the original author said in the subject - pictures of prisoners and dead soldiers (inter to see) -

I realize "inter" is a gross misspelling, but everybody had fair warning of the graphic content.

[Moss]

A try to make a point for my pointless thread !!

http://www.myimager.com/uploads/asad24243_62114173214_623482.jpg

[Moss]

Bush is suported by large Oil companies, this is a fact. he IS a former director one texas oil company. You can´t deny it. the vice president IS the former director of the company that will reconstruct Iraq.

People in US have good hearts, but seems to be blind. And there´s a saying that says "The worst blind is the one that does not wants to see"

[Segnosaur]

I probably shouldn't feed the trolls like Moss, but I figure someone has to say it:

Your pictures are nothing but pointless and inflamatory propaghanda, and aren't really appropriate for a board such as this.

It should also be noted that those pictures (especially the last few) may very well be taken out of context. For example, there is no proof that those injured Iraqi children were injured by the coaltion forces rather than Saddam's forces themselves, or that theat they were even injured in the past week of fighting, or even that they are Iraqi at all. To post them, with suggestions that Bush and the coalition are involved, is deceiptful.

I am reminded of a picture of a bleeding Palestinian boy that terrorist groups were using to show how brutally the Palestinians were treated. Very bad, until it was discovered that the boy was actually Israeli, and was bleeding because he was attacked by Palestinians.

[Moss]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
there is no proof that those injured Iraqi children were injured by the coaltion forces rather than Saddam's forces themselves, or that theat they were even injured in the past week of fighting, or even that they are Iraqi at all. To post them, with suggestions that Bush and the coalition are involved, is deceiptful.




!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


"The worst blind is the one that does not want to see"
:eek:

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Moss
A try to make a point for my pointless thread !!

http://www.myimager.com/uploads/asad24243_62114173214_623482.jpg

Now this picture is a cheap piece of misinformation. One needs not to be a physician (and I'm not) to see that this kid couldn't possibly have been injured, amputated and recoverd to post for that picture within one week

You can be against the war but try to support your stance with something reasonable for Ed's sake.

Zee

[Troll]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


Now this picture is a cheap piece of misinformation. One needs not to be a physician (and I'm not) to see that this kid couldn't possibly have been injured, amputated and recoverd to post for that picture within one week

You can be against the war but try to support your stance with something reasonable for Ed's sake.

Zee

Dang. I was about to post something similar. Looks like it's now for me to be in complete agreement with you.;)

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Moss

"The worst blind is the one that does not want to see"


For you, from www.dictionary.com:

---------------

i·ro·ny -- n. pl., i·ro·nies

The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect.

Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: “Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated” (Richard Kain).

An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See ironic.

-------------

cf "unintentional irony"

Happy to help.

NA

[Moss]

Do you know enough to justify going to war with Iraq?

1. Q: What percentage of the world's population does the U.S. have?
A: 6%

2. Q: What percentage of the world's wealth does the U.S. have?
A: 50%


3. Q: Which country has the largest oil reserves?
A: Saudi Arabia


4. Q: Which country has the second largest oil reserves?
A: Iraq


5. Q: How much is spent on military budgets a year worldwide?
A: $900+ billion


6. Q: How much of this is spent by the U.S.?
A:50%


7. Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of life to everyone
in the world, according to the UN?
A: 10% (that's about$40 billion, the amount of funding initially requested to fund our retaliatory attack on Afghanistan).


8. Q: How many people have died in wars since World War II?
A: 86 million


9. Q: How long has Iraq had chemical and biological weapons?
A: Since the early 1980's.


10. Q: Did Iraq develop these chemical & biological weapons on their own?
A: No, the materials and technology were supplied by the US government, along with Britain and private corporations.


11. Q: Did the US government condemn the Iraqi use of gas warfare against Iran?
A: No


12. Q: How many people did Saddam Hussein kill using gas in the Kurdish town of
Halabja in 1988?
A: 5,000


13. Q: How many western countries condemned this action at the time?
A:0


14. Q: How many gallons of agent Orange did America use in Vietnam?
A: 17million.


15. Q: Are there any proven links between Iraq and September 11th terrorist attack?
A: No


16. Q: What is the estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf War?
A: 35,000


17. Q: How many casualties did the Iraqi military inflict on the western forces during the Gulf War ?
A: 0


18. Q: How many retreating Iraqi soldiers were buried alive by U.S. tanks with ploughs
mounted on the front?
A: 6,000


19. Q: How many tons of depleted uranium were left in Iraq and Kuwait after the Gulf
War?
A: 40 tons


20. Q: What according to the UN was the increase in cancer rates in Iraq between 1991
and 1994?
A: 700%


21. Q: How much of Iraq's military capacity did America claim it had destroyed in 1991?
A: 80%


22. Q: Is there any proof that Iraq plans to use its weapons for anything other than
deterrence and self defense?
A: No


23. Q: Does Iraq present more of a threat to world peace now than 10 years ago?
A: No


24. Q: How many civilian deaths has the Pentagon predicted in the event of an attack on
Iraq in 2002/3?
A: 10,000


25. Q: What percentage of these will be children?
A: Over 50%


26. Q: How many years has the U.S. engaged in air strikes on Iraq?
A: 11years


27. Q: Was the US and the UK at war with Iraq between December 1998 and September
1999?
A: No


28. Q: How many pounds of explosives were dropped on Iraq between December 1998
and September 1999?
A: 20 million


29. Q: How many years ago was UN Resolution 661 introduced, imposing strict sanctions
on Iraq's imports and exports? A: 12 years


30. Q: What was the child death rate in Iraq in 1989 (per 1,000 births)?
A: 38


31. Q: What was the estimated child death rate in Iraq in 1999 (per 1,000 births)?
A: 131 (that's an increase of 345%)


32. Q: How many Iraqis are estimated to have died by October 1999 as a result of UN
sanctions?
A: 1.5 million


33. Q: How many Iraqi children are estimated to have died due to sanctions since 1997?
A: 750,000


34. Q: Did Saddam order the inspectors out of Iraq?
A: No


35. Q: How many inspections were there in November and December 1998?
A:300


36. Q: How many of these inspections had problems?
A:5


37. Q: Were the weapons inspectors allowed entry to the Ba'ath Party HQ?
A: Yes


38. Q: Who said that by December 1998, "Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to a level
unprecedented in modern history.
A: Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief.


39. Q: In 1998 how much of Iraq's post 1991 capacity to develop weapons of mass
destruction did the UN weapons inspectors claim to have discovered and dismantled?
A: 90%


40. Q: Is Iraq willing to allow the weapons inspectors back in?
A: Yes


41. Q: How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992?
A: Over65


42. Q: How many UN resolutions on Israel did America veto between 1972 and 1990?
A: 30+


43. Q: How much does the U.S. fund Israel a year?
A:$5 billion


44. Q: How many countries are known to have nuclear weapons?
A: 8


45. Q: How many nuclear warheads has Iraq got?
A: 0


46. Q: How many nuclear warheads has US got?
A: over 10,000


47. Q: Which is the only country to use nuclear weapons?
A: the US


48. Q: How many nuclear warheads does Israel have?
A: Over 400


49. Q: Has Israel every allowed UN weapons inspections?
A: No


50. Q: What percentage of the Palestinian territories are controlled by Israeli settlements?
A: 42%


51. Q: Is Israel illegally occupying Palestinian land?
A: Yes


52. Q: Which country do you think poses the greatest threat to global peace: Iraq or the U.S.?
A: ????


53. Q: Who said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"?
A: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr

[Baker]

54. How many of the claims on this list can be backed up with evidence?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Moss
Do you know enough to justify going to war with Iraq?

16. Q: What is the estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf War?
A: 35,000


17. Q: How many casualties did the Iraqi military inflict on the western forces during the Gulf War ?
A: 0

18. Q: How many retreating Iraqi soldiers were buried alive by U.S. tanks with ploughs
mounted on the front?
A: 6,000

16 And only about 4,000 as the result of coalition forces

17 Sorry they suck and we killed more of our own by accident. You gonna blame me if ya hit your thumb with a hammer?

18 Do you know that being in retreat still means you are armed and a combatant? It's true. What happened to the POWs, the ones that surrendered? They were later released. Find a dictionary, look up surrender and retreat.


I'll add more later as this is the easiest crap I've ever found to dispute. I'm sorta big on Friday night tv and still have some other recorded tv shows to catch up on.

I just figured I'd give ya a fighting chance and start on ya slowly. ;) Good luck. [/B][/QUOTE]

[Moss]

Pictures of Victims of the Anglo-American Aggression in Iraq

Please note that these pictures are not suitable for small children and those who have weak hearts.

Several pictures are being added daily - (inserted anywhere within this page) - Last Updated: 30.03.2003

http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm (http://)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Moss
Pictures of Victims of the Anglo-American Aggression in Iraq

Please note that these pictures are not suitable for small children and those who have weak hearts.

Several pictures are being added daily - (inserted anywhere within this page) - Last Updated: 30.03.2003

http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm (http://)

Moss....

You are an enemy troll. We are busy busting up Iraq. If you care so much for civilian deaths why don't you protest the hundreds of thousands of people Saddam has gassed and tortured? Your disgusting pictures mean nothing....they are likely the victims of the market attack that an errant (or perhaps on purpose) Iraqi missile inflicted upon their own civilians. You are a scum bag.

-z

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Moss
Pictures of Victims of the Anglo-American Aggression in Iraq
Several pictures are being added daily - (inserted anywhere within this page) - Last Updated: 30.03.2003


I don't like the idea of posting links to see dead people. What for?

I think that everyone knows that many people is dying and will die because of an imperialist and brutal war.

Iraqi children, women, men, innocent people who had nothing to do with the machiavellian thoughts of the Idiot Bush.

Iam sure many of you don't give a d*mn about any other human being's lives except "american" lives.

[loCAtek]

I've seen this questionnaire floating around the Internet a few times before. As far back as I could research its origins, it originally seemed to be just an opinion piece in another forum. The person who supplied the 'so-called' answers obviously didn't know much about the first Gulf War. For instance; 18. Q: How many retreating Iraqi soldiers were buried alive by U.S. tanks with ploughs mounted on the front?
A: 6,000 There are official counts of causalities from this type of offense. This tactic was unfortunately necessary because Iraqi efforts to stop American tanks included digging trenches. These trenches had to be filled with short sand bridges in order for our tanks to advance; it would have been better for the Iraqi troops had they retreated but those that chose to face the tanks were sometimes buried. Best count by the Americans of causalities caused this way is; 550 to 677. The Iraqi count is a bit higher; up to 1,000 but no where near the wildly claimed figure.

At this point, I'm really beginning to disrespect the weak Iraqi propaganda attempts. I mean really... who's going to believe Saddam is doing fine, when he doesn't show up for his own speech? Who's media is fooling who? :rolleyes:

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Moss
Do you know enough to justify going to war with Iraq?

Do you know enough to justify your taking up space on the planet?

Nope, didn't think so.

You have ZERO credibility. First you posted pics from the recent gulf war, which could in no way have been taken during this war. Then, you publish this garbage list which basically is all wrong.

Do you have enough brain power to check any of these figures?

Originally posted by Moss
1. Q: What percentage of the world's population does the U.S. have?
A: 6%

2. Q: What percentage of the world's wealth does the U.S. have?
A: 50%

Right off the bat you've screwed up. According to my Canadian Global Almanac, the GDP of the U.S. is approximatly 9.3 Trilion dollars. The combined GDP of the UK, India, China, and Japan is 10.9 trillion dollars. So, even if you compared the U.S. to 4 of the worlds economies, they have far less than 50%.

Besides, all that proves is that the U.S. has a better managed econdomy. (That, and you're the biggest troll/looser/idiot to come down the turnpike.)

Originally posted by Moss

7. Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of life to everyone
in the world, according to the UN?
A: 10% (that's about$40 billion, the amount of funding initially requested to fund our retaliatory attack on Afghanistan).

The U.S, and the rest of the world give more than enough aid to feed the world. The problem is that the aid shipments are not getting to the people who need it. There is tons of American food rotting in Africa because the governments there don't want to give their people 'tainted' American food. How is that America's fault?

Originally posted by Moss

10. Q: Did Iraq develop these chemical & biological weapons on their own?
A: No, the materials and technology were supplied by the US government, along with Britain and private corporations.

Actually, many of the materials came from France, Germany and Russia. And in terms of overall weapons, the U.S. has supplied less than 1% of all Iraqi arms (compared to over 50% for Russia and around 13% for France.)


Originally posted by Moss

15. Q: Are there any proven links between Iraq and September 11th terrorist attack?
A: No

Fact: Although many people mistakenly believe there is firm evidence that 9/11 and Iraq are linked, that is not the U.S. government's position. This does not mean that Iraq does not support terrorism. There are many links, the most well noted is the financial support to Palestinian suicide bombers.

Originally posted by Moss

19. Q: How many tons of depleted uranium were left in Iraq and Kuwait after the Gulf
War?
A: 40 tons

20. Q: What according to the UN was the increase in cancer rates in Iraq between 1991
and 1994?
A: 700%

Although I can't say how much depleted uranium was left behind (if its anything like the rest of your information its probably wrong), but by putting the Depleted Uranium question and cancer question next to each other you are attempting to apply that one caused the other.

Depleted uranium is not radioactive. (Its called science. Look it up.) Any increase in cancer is likely due to reduced healh care from sanctions necessary because of Saddam's government.


Originally posted by Moss

22. Q: Is there any proof that Iraq plans to use its weapons for anything other than
deterrence and self defense?
A: No

Ummmm.. you yourself said they had used them on the Kurds. Isn't that proof enough?

Originally posted by Moss

23. Q: Does Iraq present more of a threat to world peace now than 10 years ago?
A: No

That is only because of the continued sanctions (which are later claimed to be hurting civilians.

You can't have it both ways. Either sanctions are lifted (which would allow Saddam to acquire more weapons and become a threat), or they are kept in place to keep the threat down.

Originally posted by Moss

29. Q: How many years ago was UN Resolution 661 introduced, imposing strict sanctions
on Iraq's imports and exports? A: 12 years

30. Q: What was the child death rate in Iraq in 1989 (per 1,000 births)?
A: 38

31. Q: What was the estimated child death rate in Iraq in 1999 (per 1,000 births)?
A: 131 (that's an increase of 345%)

32. Q: How many Iraqis are estimated to have died by October 1999 as a result of UN
sanctions?
A: 1.5 million


Again, as I mentioned, you can't point to Saddam being 'less dangerous', and at the same time complain about the sanctions which have reduced his threat.

And, the sanctions would have been lifted had Saddam complied with the U.N. He didn't. That makes it Saddam's fault. Got that?

Since you are a moron, let me repeat that: Saddam's failure to comply with the Cease fire resolutions is the reason for continued sanctions and Iraqi Civilian deaths.

Originally posted by Moss

36. Q: How many of these inspections had problems?
A:5

First of all, define 'problems'. Are you referring to cases where the inspections were delayed some how? If so, your value of 5 is far too low. If you are referring to the inspections that found something, then even 5 is too many, since Saddam is supposed to be fully complying.

It should also be noted that in the first few years of inspections, the inspectors found nothing. It was not until a defector showed the U.N. where to look that most of Iraq's weapons programs were uncovered.

Basically, I don't trust in the ability of the inspectors to uncover Iraq's weapons program.

Originally posted by Moss

41. Q: How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992?
A: Over65

First of all, you are an idiot. I suggest you do some research.

The UN resolutions agains Iraq are chapter 7 (enforcable) resolutions. The UN resolutions against Israel are chapter 6 (non-enforcable) resolutions. Chapter 6 resolutions are more guidelines or recommendations.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the resolutions that Israel supposedly violated were not unilateral; they required actions by multiple parties, and in those resolutions, those other parties did not comply. For example, resolutions requiring Iraq to withdraw from certain lands require neighbouring states to recongnize Israel (which they did not) and for Palestinian terror attacks to stop (they did not).

Originally posted by Moss

49. Q: Has Israel every allowed UN weapons inspections?
A: No

Nor do they have to. Israel did not sign the nuclear non-poliferation treaty, so they are under no obligation to allow inspectors in.

Iraq, on the other hand, did sign it. That is why their attempts to develop a bomb is bad; they used the resources provided by the treaty, but still developed a weapon they weren't supposed to under the treaty.

Originally posted by Moss

51. Q: Is Israel illegally occupying Palestinian land?
A: Yes

Nope. The wars Israel fought were defensive, and they are under no obligation to return land claimed in them. The fact that they are considering the creation of a separate palestinian state is going far above what is 'leagally' required of them.

Originally posted by Moss

53. Q: Who said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"?
A: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
What the heck does that quote have to do about anything?

How about this for a quote: "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Burke