US target civillians now

dathi1

moriarity: yer comparison is sheeite...these guys now have probably 90% = support.

Not only is PNAC indifferent to civilian deaths...here's what they say about there own side:

In fact, dead Americans are not important either, for as retired General Tommy Franks told an audience at the annual Chamber of Commerce banquet in Salina, Kansas, in February, "If [conquering Iraq] costs 500 [American lives], that's OK, or 5000, OK, or 50,000, that's OK with me." Obviously, it is OK with the American public as well, since there was virtually no response to Franks' outrageous remarks

chill

Originally posted by dathi1
So u wont be on the Bush out march then?

Nope .... I already wrote to the US embassy saying that I and many irish citizens don't share the hostility that some people do....
I also do not believe in insulting the respresentative of the US people - however dubious his election (judicial coup) was..
I also included my opposition to MANY (most) policies of the Bush admin but marching in the street with insulting and abusive posters that mainly appease terrorism isn't my idea of constructive activity.

dathi1

appease terrorism isn't my idea of constructive activity.

I would call it support for the Iraqi National Resistance against a pro Zionist proxy war...but that's my opinion...anybody agree with me ???

appease terrorism isn't my idea of constructive activity.

ah...now I know what you mean...the dead kids in falluja this morning...that's the terrorisim you refer to?

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by dathi1
I would call it support for the Iraqi National Resistance against a pro Zionist proxy war...but that's my opinion...anybody agree with me ???

I'd agree with the first part.
Don't want to go down the Israel route on this thread

Vader

Nothing can be done, american troops are immune from war crime charges. The UN approved this so nobody has a problem.

No the US has never commited any war crimes, there are hundreds of TV channels, if they did it would have been on the news.

Killing one terrorist doesnt make 5 more, you seem to misunderstand the word KILL. It means there is one less.

The collateral damage from this war is estimated at 7935 by experts working as volunteers for the anti-war movement. The fact that they could be so precise shows they know whats going on thousands of miles away. The same cant be said for the red cross or BBC who are rediculously over estimating the cost.

Thats not very high only about 635 a month, thats the price of freedom. Sure look at the problem in NI. It took the Brithish forces 30 years to kill all the terrorist and there was only one and a half thousand of them.
You know the brits and europeans can learn a lot from america. The US knows how to win wars, sure didnt the US single handedly win WW1 and WW2. Wheres the gratitude.


Terrorism is defined as

Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant* targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

*Noncombatants includes both civilians and military personnel who are unarmed or off duty at the time
-- US State Department

Not this crap a lot of people preach about
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
Thats just some BS made up to make the US look like terrorists. The US are the good guys in all this and when it comes to good and bad your either with us or against us.

MeatProduct

Wow, 635 lives a month for freedom is great value! There seems to be a contradiction there, I can't quite put my finger on it though.... I'm too silly possibly, my IQ isn't high enough I fear.

Nick

Memnoch

Originally posted by Vader

Nothing can be done, american troops are immune from war crime charges. The UN approved this so nobody has a problem.

Why should american's be immune? When you say "nobody" has a problem, you mean the american's dont' have a problem, as they can get away with whatever, however ANY DECENT human being will say that NO ONE should be above the law, and that justice should be equal. But being decent or fair is irrelevant right?

No the US has never commited any war crimes, there are hundreds of TV channels, if they did it would have been on the news.

Stupidest statement ever made? Everyone (educated) in the world KNOWS that the US has committed SEVERAL war crimes eg illegal confinement of prisoners of war in guantanamo bay, using 21 million tons of agent orange in vietnam, deliberately shooting civillians in vietnam... the list goes on...

Killing one terrorist doesnt make 5 more, you seem to misunderstand the word KILL. It means there is one less.

Most uneducated statement ever made? Killing 1 innocent civillian makes their family members resort to suicidal repraisals... YOU seem to misunderstand the word terrorist, and you also seem to paint everyone who the american's "kill" by the same brush.

The collateral damage from this war is estimated at 7935 by experts working as volunteers for the anti-war movement. The fact that they could be so precise shows they know whats going on thousands of miles away. The same cant be said for the red cross or BBC who are rediculously over estimating the cost.

Lets see a link to prove this please? Off course the red cross and BBC will overestimate as they have a vested interest in all this. No I'm sure reports though the american's would be accurate down to the last death because they have no interst whatsoever and nothing to gain by massaging the figures

Thats not very high only about 635 a month, thats the price of freedom. Sure look at the problem in NI. It took the Brithish forces 30 years to kill all the terrorist and there was only one and a half thousand of them.

Freedom for who? The Iraqi people certainly don't feel free, certainly not by their accounts. Oh wait.. the AMericans who HAPPEN to be invading and killing them atm are saying they are free, damn so I guess it MUST BE TRUE..... Why don't you ask the Iraqi's if they consider this freedom? 635 Iraqi deaths a month is a great price for oil isn't it, I wonder how many American' lives would be a fair price? I wonder if it was your family being slaughtered woudl u feel the same?

You know the brits and europeans can learn a lot from america. The US knows how to win wars, sure didnt the US single handedly win WW1 and WW2. Wheres the gratitude.

WW1 and WW2 have NOTHING to do with the present situation. America's invasion of Iraq is an unprovoked act of aggression and oppression motivated by greed.

Terrorism is defined as ......

No, what you are saying is crap, the US are nobody to define terrorism. Aggressors always make definitions to suit themselves, in this case the US is doing the same.. if you can't see that then I feel sorry for you.

Not this crap a lot of people preach about
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
Thats just some BS made up to make the US look like terrorists. The US are the good guys in all this and when it comes to good and bad your either with us or against us.

The US are the bad guys, and this is realised by the majority of the world. The US was voted the 2nd biggest threat to world peace by europeans.. so I guess that goes to show something. Btw.. if your standing in a room of 100 people and everyone is staring at you.. chances are... YOUR FLY IS OPEN...


edit..

Vader

Originally posted by Memnoch
Why should american's be immune? When you say "nobody" has a problem, you mean the american's dont' have a problem, as they can get away with whatever, however ANY DECENT human being will say that NO ONE should be above the law, and that justice should be equal. But being decent or fair is irrelevant right?

Its hard being liberators and this law makes it easier, it facilatates the USs humanitarian interventions and so protects the ppl of the world. There can only be one leader of the free world and europes time is over.

Stupidest statement ever made? Everyone (educated) in the world KNOWS that the US has committed SEVERAL war crimes eg illegal confinement of prisoners of war in guantanamo bay, using 21 million tons of agent orange in vietnam, deliberately shooting civillians in vietnam... the list goes on...

The guys in Guitmo are illegal combatants and so not dealt with under the geneva convention.
If it wasnt of agent orange the commis would have won and destroyed our ideals of freedom, equality and democracy.

Most uneducated statement ever made? Killing 1 innocent civillian makes their family members resort to suicidal repraisals... YOU seem to misunderstand the word terrorist, and you also seem to paint everyone who the american's "kill" by the same brush.

Thats the second time you said that, they cant both be the most uneducated statement ever. How can you make such a statement when you cant understand simple maths. I have an apple, i eat the apple, i have no apple.
The US dont kill innocents, some times there is collateral damage but thats different.

Freedom for who? The Iraqi people certainly don't feel free, certainly not by their accounts. Oh wait.. the AMericans who HAPPEN to be invading and killing them atm are saying they are free, damn so I guess it MUST BE TRUE..... Why don't you ask the Iraqi's if they consider this freedom? 635 Iraqi deaths a month is a great price for oil isn't it, I wonder how many American' lives would be a fair price? I wonder if it was your family being slaughtered woudl u feel the same?

capatal letters usual represent speech thats shouted. please dont shout at me. Im not as stupid as you might think, examine the following very carefully

I feel sorry for you.....

Btw.. if your standing in a room of 100 people and everyone is staring at you.. chances are... YOUR FLY IS OPEN...

Im making my point clearly and intentionally. Im using the language and tone that suits my arguement and I have not misrepresented any facts. I have not been insulting to any other persons intelligence.

Moriarty

Originally posted by dathi1
moriarity: yer comparison is sheeite...these guys now have probably 90% = support.

Wrong. They still have only marginal support in the wider population, but since you've implied that 90% of the iraqi population support them I'm asking to see figures on how you could back it up. Or you could just retract it and save yourself some trouble.

Originally posted by dathi1
Not only is PNAC indifferent to civilian deaths...here's what they say about th..zzz

Got any links to reputeable places that have this quote? You aren't - heaven forbid - quoting out of context?

Originally posted by dathi1
I would call it support for the Iraqi National Resistance against a pro Zionist proxy war...

Have any links that tell us about this "Iraqi National Resistance"? No? Oh, it's another of your daydreams? I see.

I'm not going to respond to Vaders posts, it would give them more credit than they deserve.

Originally posted by Memnoch
Stupidest statement ever made? Everyone (educated) in the world KNOWS that the US has committed SEVERAL war crimes eg illegal confinement of prisoners of war in guantanamo bay, using 21 million tons of agent orange in vietnam

It's unfortunate you don't understand phrases you frequently use - like war crime, for instance. Guantanamo bay may have been several things, but it wasn't a war crime. The use of agent orange in Vietnam wasn't a war crime either. Indignant shrill crys will do little for any case you may want to make, you will find.

Originally posted by Memnoch
No, what you are saying is crap, the US are nobody to define terrorism. Aggressors always make definitions to suit themselves, in this case the US is doing the same.. if you can't see that then I feel sorry for you.

Where exactly do you have a problem with the quote from the state department? It seems like a pretty reasonable definition of terrorisim.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Vader
The US dont kill innocents, some times there is collateral damage but thats different.

If you're trying to say the US has never killed innocent civilians then how do you explain incidents like this .

halkar

Originally posted by Vader
Its hard being liberators and this law makes it easier, it facilatates the USs humanitarian interventions and so protects the ppl of the world. There can only be one leader of the free world and europes time is over....

Liberators? US is cleaning up their previous interventions. Look up your history books, most of those corrupt dictators and terrorist was one time supported by US. So what is their practice? Support them now and go after them after?
One leader of the free world? I don't think I want US to be leader of anything, I think less they keep their noses out of other people's bussiness and use them, world would be better. Yep, europe time is over so does US's, long live Asia

Moriarty

(dont feed the trolls)

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Moriarty
(dont feed the trolls)

I always thought Jedis would be above that

pork99

Originally posted by Moriarty

Real fighters
Copyright 2004 dathi1. All rights reserved.

How appropriate.

What you have now in Iraq is not a national resistance movement. What you have is 2 groups - Sunni Ba'ath regime supporters and Shi'ite extremists who are aiming to sieze power in Iraq "with the armalite in one hand and the kalashnikov in the other" to paraphrase a well-known quote.

It is opportune for them both to attack the Americans now and thus seem to be co-operating but if the Americans left tomorrow how long would it be before they were at each others throats? Somehow I don't see them agreeing to power-sharing.

They really want the yanks out of the way so they can get on with a civil war. No democratic elections stand a chance in that country.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Moriarty Wrong. They still have only marginal support in the wider population, but since you've implied that 90% of the iraqi population support them I'm asking to see figures on how you could back it up. Or you could just retract it and save yourself some trouble.

where is the proof that they have only marginal support? Yes this is certainly what the american occupying forces have been stating, does that some how make it true? Check out Al jazeera.com for a bit of the other side of the story. i've been surprised that despite being an arabic channel these guys don't try to exagerate or blow things out of proportion. From reports I've read in the newspapers it would definately seem that indeed a good majority of the Iraqi population support the resistance fighters.

Have any links that tell us about this "Iraqi National Resistance"? No? Oh, it's another of your daydreams? I see.

i'd say this is less of a day dream than 45 minutes WMD attack on the US and England over a year ago. Or that all people resisting the government are "terrorists"

It's unfortunate you don't understand phrases you frequently use - like war crime, for instance. Guantanamo bay may have been several things, but it wasn't a war crime. The use of agent orange in Vietnam wasn't a war crime either. Indignant shrill crys will do little for any case you may want to make, you will find.

Lets see.. Guantanamo bay - Detaining prisoners of war without access to legal counsel or any access to the outside world in breach of the Geneva convention... sounds like a war crime to me?

Agent Orange - 21 million tonnes of a biological agent targetted at the population of vietnam indiscriminately weather they are civillian or combatants, again, sounds like a war criem to me. Please tell me how these acts don't constitute war crimes?
Where exactly do you have a problem with the quote from the state department? It seems like a pretty reasonable definition of terrorisim.

vorbis

Check out Al jazeera.com for a bit of the other side of the story. i've been surprised that despite being an arabic channel these guys don't try to exagerate or blow things out of proportion.

HA HA HA
Thats the funniest post I've seen this week. God help you if you actually believe it.

Memnoch

really? why? please tell me?
this seems like a fairly racist remark by you... just because they are based in arabic means they are all biased ?

by that logic i guess EVERY single news network in the western world must be biased against the muslim world....

Oh well.. too bad if you can't open your mind ..

I'm not arabic or muslim, but I like to hear both sides of the story so I watch western media as well as al jazeera.

You sound like a fox news enthusiast tbh

MeatProduct

I'd certainly like to see more people follow in the footsteps of Memnoch and attempt to learn the other side of the story. It's so easy to dismiss Al Jazeera. By doing that it would follow that you should dismiss western reporting that is based geographically further away from the events.

Nick

Memnoch

Originally posted by MeatProduct
I'd certainly like to see more people follow in the footsteps of Memnoch and attempt to learn the other side of the story. It's so easy to dismiss Al Jazeera. By doing that it would follow that you should dismiss western reporting that is based geographically further away from the events.

Nick

my news sources as regards to mainstream news...

bbc.co.uk
cnn.com
aljazeera.com
Newspapaers -
The London Independent
The Irish Times

News Networks -
Sky News
Euro News

+i read around other stuff on the internet
Mainly I buy a paper everyday and check cnn.com every day
Off course I don't watch all of these all the time, but I'd like to think that by having a wide (relatively) range of media sources I can adopt a more balanced viewpoints to political events. That being said I'm still an idealist at heart, and have always believed in the principles of equality, freedom and justice for all, not just the ppl with the big guns

MeatProduct

Originally posted by vorbis
HA HA HA
Thats the funniest post I've seen this week. God help you if you actually believe it.

Hello Vorbis,
Could you give some reasons for your reaction? Reasons that wouldn't also apply to western media please.

Thank you,

Nick

monument

Originally posted by pork99
if the Americans left tomorrow how long would it be before they were at each others throats?

You don't know much about them do you?

Memnoch

Originally posted by monument
You don't know much about them do you?

he knows that most of them are "terrorist insurgents that are the enemy of freedom"

Villain

Originally posted by Memnoch
he knows that most of them are "terrorist insurgents that are the enemy of freedom"

lol, and how would he or anyone know that?

Moriarty

Originally posted by Memnoch
where is the proof that they have only marginal support? Yes this is certainly what the american occupying forces have been stating, does that some how make it true?

BBC; 'MEHDI ARMY: Fewer than 10,000 members'. Out of more than 15 million Shi'ias. Marginal support, in other words.

Originally posted by Memnoch
Check out Al jazeera.com for a bit of the other side of the story. i've been surprised that despite being an arabic channel these guys don't try to exagerate or blow things out of proportion. From reports I've read in the newspapers it would definately seem that indeed a good majority of the Iraqi population support the resistance fighters.

Al Jazeera is the middle-easts answer to Fox News. I'd rather eat my own hand than watch either, thanks.

Originally posted by Memnoch
i'd say this is less of a day dream than 45 minutes WMD attack on the US and England over a year ago. Or that all people resisting the government are "terrorists"

So you subscribe to the dream too? Lets see some links telling us what they're all about then.

Oh, and the '45 minute' claim had nothing to do with a capability to attack the US or UK, it was the time said to be taken from the issuing of an order to the field deployment (read: in theatre, if Iraq was invaded or invading somewhere else) of WMD. They had no intercontinental missile delivery system and no one ever said they did.

Originally posted by Memnoch
Lets see.. Guantanamo bay - Detaining prisoners of war without access to legal counsel or any access to the outside world in breach of the Geneva convention... sounds like a war crime to me?

Their status as prisoners of war was dubious to say the least. Unless I'm otherwise mistaken, to qualify as a POW you need to be captured in a recognised uniform among other things. If a combatant is captured out of uniform they can be treated as spies under the geneva convention and summarily executed. Note that I'm not necessarly defending guantanamo bay, I'm just saying you're talking arse in this instance.

Originally posted by Memnoch
Agent Orange - 21 million tonnes of a biological agent targetted at the population of vietnam indiscriminately weather they are civillian or combatants, again, sounds like a war criem to me.

First of all, it's a chemical agent not a biological one. Agent orange was used during the vietnam conflict as a defoliant, not as a weapon. It was sprayed over jungle so that the VC and NVA were easier to spot. It was only later that the damaging effects of agent orange - dioxins specifically - were understood. It's amazing you know so little about it and yet are ready to call its use a war crime.. it doesn't bode well for any other arguments you may put forward.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Moriarty
BBC; 'MEHDI ARMY: Fewer than 10,000 members'. Out of more than 15 million Shi'ias. Marginal support, in other words.

I missed the bit where you have to be an active combatant to be "supporting" the war. 10k fighters, but what about sympathisers? ppl who agree with their cause? etc etc etc. I'd say the general feeling among the Shi'ia's is that of support.

Al Jazeera is the middle-easts answer to Fox News. I'd rather eat my own hand than watch either, thanks.

Have you ever watched it? or read their reports for any length of time. Okay so if Al jazeera is biased, can you name one arabic based news network that you think is fair in its reporting?

Oh, and the '45 minute' claim had nothing to do with a capability to attack the US or UK, it was the time said to be taken from the issuing of an order to the field deployment (read: in theatre, if Iraq was invaded or invading somewhere else) of WMD. They had no intercontinental missile delivery system and no one ever said they did.

WRONG, this is was the lie that the war was sold under. Despite what the "exact" wording of the claims were, a majority of the British public, and the US public were led to believe that US/Britain could be attacked within 45 minutes. It was only long AFTER wards when no WMD were found that Blair decided to "clarify" the claim and point out that what they really meant was on the field. Funny that he didn't make this clarification while making the case for war, especially considering how many ppl were misled by it.

Their status as prisoners of war was dubious to say the least. Unless I'm otherwise mistaken, to qualify as a POW you need to be captured in a recognised uniform among other things. If a combatant is captured out of uniform they can be treated as spies under the geneva convention and summarily executed. Note that I'm not necessarly defending guantanamo bay, I'm just saying you're talking arse in this instance.

Nope their status isn't dubious whatsoever. The US has created a specific catagory to allow them to circumvent the geneva convention, which the convention specifically forbids them from doing. Moreoever, most humanitarian organisations, would seem to agree with me on this subject.

First of all, it's a chemical agent not a biological one. Agent orange was used during the vietnam conflict as a defoliant, not as a weapon. It was sprayed over jungle so that the VC and NVA were easier to spot. It was only later that the damaging effects of agent orange - dioxins specifically - were understood. It's amazing you know so little about it and yet are ready to call its use a war crime.. it doesn't bode well for any other arguments you may put forward.

hmmm chemical/biological... does it really make that much of a difference in the context of our arguement? No need to get so pedantic. Thought I'll submit that I was mistaken on this part of it. Nevertheless, its a WMD isn't it, which is really the key issue here.
Also i find this claim of "not knowing it was harmful" hard to believe. But its a convenient excuse nevertheless. Oh, sorry, we didn't know it would kill lots of people. They used the chemical in mass quantities with callous disregard for the effects it might have on the local populace or environment, and many many people suffered because of it as a result.

I suppose that the sale of WMD to Iraq was also accidental... not to mentioning helping iraq use them against the Iranians. "Sorry we didn't know they would use WMD to KILL people"

vorbis

memnoch considering they dropped a large amount on their own forces, I'd imagiine they thought it wasn't harmful. I hate when people make up arguments based purely on hindsight.

As for Al Jazeera, I don't know of any Arab stations beside them. Should I? What I have seen of them has tended to be sensationalist and consistently anti-American.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Memnoch
I missed the bit where you have to be an active combatant to be "supporting" the war. 10k fighters, but what about sympathisers? ppl who agree with their cause? etc etc etc. I'd say the general feeling among the Shi'ia's is that of support.

How about you show me specific links from reputeable sources that lead you to believe that they have massive support? "I'd say" is about as useful as an overcoat in the bahamas.

Originally posted by Memnoch
Have you ever watched it? or read their reports for any length of time. Okay so if Al jazeera is biased, can you name one arabic based news network that you think is fair in its reporting?

Yes I have watched it, it smacked of tabloid reporting and bias in the same way that Fox News does. I can't name any other arabic based news network I would think is fair in its reporting as I don't speak arabic. I'd presume there are a few around somewhere though.

Originally posted by Memnoch
WRONG, this is was the lie that the war was sold under. Despite what the "exact" wording of the claims were, a majority of the British public, and the US public were led to believe that US/Britain could be attacked within 45 minutes. It was only long AFTER wards when no WMD were found that Blair decided to "clarify" the claim and point out that what they really meant was on the field. Funny that he didn't make this clarification while making the case for war, especially considering how many ppl were misled by it.

Sigh. It's getting tiring having to continually correct you.

BBC '45 minute' claim timeline; "The draft says: "Iraq has probably dispersed its special weapons, including its CBW [chemical and biological warfare] weapons. Intelligence also indicates that from forward-deployed storage sites, chemical and biological munitions could be with military units and ready for firing within 45 minutes.""

If you deluded yourself into thinking it meant something else, that's no ones fault but your own.

Originally posted by Memnoch
Nope their status isn't dubious whatsoever. The US has created a specific catagory to allow them to circumvent the geneva convention, which the convention specifically forbids them from doing. Moreoever, most humanitarian organisations, would seem to agree with me on this subject.

Holding them in guantanmo was not a war crime. Go look up the definition of war crime and come back to me.

Originally posted by Memnoch
hmmm chemical/biological... does it really make that much of a difference in the context of our arguement?

If you knew the large differences between biological and chemical warfare agents you'd understand that it does indeed make a lot of difference.

Originally posted by Memnoch
No need to get so pedantic.

You're making it necessary by making outlandish claims.

Originally posted by Memnoch
Nevertheless, its a WMD isn't it, which is really the key issue here.

No it's not. That's the entire point. Go look up "Weapon of Mass Destruction" - it's a well defined term, with well defined meanings.

Originally posted by Memnoch
Also i find this claim of "not knowing it was harmful" hard to believe.

You can find it hard to believe all you want. No one knew of the dangers of this sort of material at the time of agent orange's use. It was withdrawn from use once evidence began to emerge that it was harmful. Google will no doubt throw up a mass of information you can go and read if you don't believe me.

Carpo

Originally posted by Moriarty
You can find it hard to believe all you want. No one knew of the dangers of this sort of material at the time of agent orange's use. It was withdrawn from use once evidence began to emerge that it was harmful. Google will no doubt throw up a mass of information you can go and read if you don't believe me.

a bit of googling turned up this page (interestingly enough from the "Vietnam Verterans Against John Kerry" website)

But, scientists involved in Operation Ranch Hand and documents uncovered recently in the National Archives present a somewhat different picture. There are strong indications that not only were military officials aware as early as 1967 of the limited effectiveness of chemical defoliation, they knew of potential long-term health risks of frequent spraying and sought to keep that information from the public by managing news reports.

Dr. James Clary was an Air Force scientist in Vietnam who helped write the history of Operation Ranch Hand. Clary says the Air Force knew Agent Orange was far more hazardous to the health of humans than anyone would admit at the time.

"When we (military scientists) initiated the herbicide program in the 1960s," Clary wrote in a 1988 letter to a member of Congress investigating Agent Orange, "we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin contamination in the herbicide. We were even aware that the `military' formulation had a higher dioxin concentration than the `civilian' version, due to the lower cost and speed of manufacture. However, because the material was to be used on the `enemy,' none of us were overly concerned. We never considered a scenario in which our own personnel would become contaminated with the herbicide. And, if we had, we would have expected our own government to give assistance to veterans so contaminated."

Memnoch

Originally posted by Moriarty
How about you show me specific links from reputeable sources that lead you to believe that they have massive support? "I'd say" is about as useful as an overcoat in the bahamas.

what leads me to believe they have majority support? is stories i've read from newspapers such as the independent and the irish times, quoting iraqi's innocents who are attacked by American' troops. American's are killing a lot of civillians in iraq, not to mention wrecking havoc on the country, you only need commen sense to realise the that people wouldn't be happy about this, that they would support those trying to oust the murderers of their family... i'd point you to al jazeera but thats not a reputable source as far as you're concerned. Also its hard to provide such statistical information as you are demanding due to the current state of the country, but one can definately get a feel for the general feeling among the iraqi people from the various news reports.

Yes I have watched it, it smacked of tabloid reporting and bias in the same way that Fox News does. I can't name any other arabic based news network I would think is fair in its reporting as I don't speak arabic. I'd presume there are a few around somewhere though.

maybe it SEEMS biased to you because they show accounts from the OTHER side of the story and aren't affraid of political repraisels by western governments. Most networks here have to be very careful of what they say/do, even the ones that oppose govt policies, look at what happened to the BBC.

Sigh. It's getting tiring having to continually correct you.

BBC '45 minute' claim timeline; "The draft says: "Iraq has probably dispersed its special weapons, including its CBW [chemical and biological warfare] weapons. Intelligence also indicates that from forward-deployed storage sites, chemical and biological munitions could be with military units and ready for firing within 45 minutes.""

sigh its getting tiring continually having to point out commen sense to you. I had no allusions as to the state of Iraqi WMD. I was always of the opinion that there were none there really and wouldn't be found. However, the FACT of the matter is, that a LARGE portion of the American and British people were LEAD TO BELIEVE that these weapons could be used to target Britain and North America, especially if they were watching sky/fox news. Interestingly enough that quote u put does not say anywhere that these weapons could not hit UK/US, which is the "ambiguity" I alluded to. yes I KNOW that iraq didn't have the missles/technology to do this... but the fact remains, most people were taken in by this, and supported the war for that reason.

Holding them in guantanmo was not a war crime. Go look up the definition of war crime and come back to me.

http://www.counterpunch.org/pow1.html
http://www.askbjoernhansen.com/archives/2003/04/09/000287.html
http://www.zmag.org/content/TerrorWar/amnesty_pow-guantanamo-appeal.cfm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n27.shtml

i can provide you with more links if you like.....

If you knew the large differences between biological and chemical warfare agents you'd understand that it does indeed make a lot of difference.

I know that the US of Agent orange has resulted in the deaths of many innocent people.

No it's not. That's the entire point. Go look up "Weapon of Mass Destruction" - it's a well defined term, with well defined meanings.

really? well defined by who?
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew80.php
http://twm.co.nz/jul28_Globwarm.htm
http://rrojasdatabank.info/agfrank/nato_kosovo/msg00129.html

You can find it hard to believe all you want. No one knew of the dangers of this sort of material at the time of agent orange's use. It was withdrawn from use once evidence began to emerge that it was harmful. Google will no doubt throw up a mass of information you can go and read if you don't believe me.

i believe carpe's post above contradicts you on this... touche?

Memnoch

Some more stuff for you to read Moriairty...

This one is regarding the Iraqi-rebellion, and how wide spread or not it is..
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/04/1676318.php (read this first, reports from ppl in iraq....) open mind required..
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/04/08/a2.int.warshiitesnyt.0408.html
an article posted in an american newspaper day before yesterday, this article also appeared in the New York times.

I find it surprising how you ignore or pretend to basic commen sense.. Bush and blair are having a crisis summit, they cordon of an entire town (Fallujah) and attack it with air force, tanks and troops, and don't allow any reporters in... come on... they can see that a "rebellion" in iraq is beginning and are doing their best to suppress it before it spreads any further, and before ppl who are still conned by their lies (eg you) realise that the Iraqi people really don't want this occupation.


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/iraq-a05.shtml
http://www.iacenter.org/iraq_0409.htm#bp

freedom for women in Iraq... courtsey Bush

http://www.iacenter.org/iraq_women2.htm

War crimes in iraq, here the stories of people who were there
http://www.iacenter.org/baghdad_appeal.htm#ang
http://www.iacenter.org/baghdad_41903.htm

What is terrorism? I found this tonight googling away.. an interesting read...
this goes back to the time of the gulf war.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws99/ws56_start_iraq.html