If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
A car or truck bomb blew up Iraqi market.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
So another big lie from American haters is put to rest. The deaths came from foreigners who comprise the only people who practice human sacrifice.
0
Comments
You're right. They sent in 5,000. They infiltrated a crowd in Northern Iraq and shot at Marines.
The Iranians want a Shi'ite government in Iraq. And, with the help of Russia, will be operating a nuclear power plant in June.
:eek:
Though I think it suits you better arguing over how vile Israel is.
Radical Muslim clerics who promote human sacrifice will NEVER be allowed to have a plant that could create dirty bombs with its nuclear waste water. NEVER.
Unless you want to grow up in a world of unmitigated war and violence, which it appears you are ignorantly wishing for.
France crossed the line by being an obstructionist and really playa hating the US.
For the first time, many Americans don't trust what some in Europe have become. It goes beyond a difference of opinion. Some in Europe seem to always be scheming against America while smiling in our faces.
In the next few weeks and months. Americans will hear a stream of news about the deals made in Iraq between Old Europe and Russia and Saddam. I wonder if Europe will hear anything about them. I belive the revelations will change America's trust of its allies forever.
I agree with you on that point and I think we need to support them in their attempts, rather than hold them back. If anything will further promote hatred of "the west" it is that.
But I think Jacq was referring to you glossing over the reason for the thread, and the 5,000 (alledgedly anyway) suicide bombers, just so that you could put forward your anti-Israel agenda.
Your subsequent reply to her just confirmed it.
Nevertheless, given that pnj was singularly unclear as to what the point of his rant was when I posted, I considered my response to his Iranian comment to be keeping with the obscure train of thought in this thread..
Am I the only one to see a major contradiction there? Oh well, what do I know? I am just another mindless teen with no significance or knowledge concerning anything :flirt:
Especially when those friends and allies are making lots and lots of money in violation of UN resolutions by doing business with Iraq.
Not to mention the UN making 500 million dollars a year to manage the oil for food program, a program that will now disappear along with the sanctions.
For all you like to discuss the motivations of the United States, Clandestine, what about the motivations of the United Nations, Russians, French, Germans, and Syrians?
We went down that route a few weeks ago Greenie.
Apparently duplicity isn't a problem so long as you agree with the anti-war agenda.
BTW Good to see you back, unscathed.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Chin112102/chin112102.html
What is illegitimate is invading a country with the express purpose of overthrowing an uncooperative government where Washington decides its in our own geo-political and corporate interests to do so just because we can. All the while selling the warmongering to a gullible and worldly-ignorant public under a rolling littany of ever changing pretexts which were systematically debunked, and which are even now proving to to have been substanceless.
What i find amusing is the constant buck passing practiced by the right wing warmongers who are willfully blind to our own roster of hypocrisy whilst being ever so ready to pontificate of the wrongs of other governments as if that somehow excuses our own duplicity. Fact is, Washington doesnt spend billions in the hopes of seeing happy Iraqi faces. This war was fought so that a new puppet regime could be insinuated into the ME to give us a base for economic, geo-political and strategic military control.
The backlash of 9/11 resulted itself in part from that very national and political culture of refusing to face up to the ills our own foreign policy behaviour have exacerbated if not given rise to in the first place. Such is the myopia of empire obviously.
Indeed it isn't. The duplicity comes when you then claim to be acting in peace when you oppose the overthrowing of said Govt, becuase you know that your contracts will be under threat and your illegal activities will come to light. When you claim to be acting in the interests of the citizens of said country, even though your actions ensure that they are kept oppressed and that they don't get the food which they are supposed to under the UN "Oil for Fodd" programme. It is when those contracts are illegal under international laws, breaking UN sanctions and you then accuse another nation of acting illegally.
If it was a "simple case of business", Clandestine, no-one would say a word.
Is it illegitimate to tell your public that you are invading for one reason, when in fact you are doing it for another reason?
There's me thinking that was just immoral. I didn't know there was a lasw against it...
What I find amusing is that you point out the duplicity of the USA but remain blind to the hypocrisy of those you support. Or at least you attempt to divert attention from it by trying to spin the discussion towards the USA.
Fact is that France, Russia etc didn't want a war because they didn't want people to find out about the illegal activities - not because they wanted to save Iraq but becuase they wanted to save face.
I truly am surprised that you can so warmly accept the hegemony that the US wants and is demonstrably performing whilst claiming to be opposed to Bush and his doctrine.
It is just this sort of "sweep it under the carpet and cheer for the outward appearances" attitude that prompts me to continue pointing out the much more insidious agendas being pursued by Washington. Especially since the media chooses to whitewash it to the public as well.
As the old saying goes, a prophet is not without honour save but in his own country... How true that is in the current atmosphere of unquestioning acquiescence to the militant posture of Bush and his cronies.
If Washington werent leading the charge, I wouldnt be critiquing them as vociferously as I am. Fact is they are the principal protagonists therefore I am well within my civic rights and duties to raise my voice against it and expose it for what it truly is.
I see that from the "I've seen the light and don't want this war anymore" change of mind you announced a while ago you've gone back to the "Bloody America-hating lying leftists!" position. Different pnj, perhaps?
Maybe you should reread your own article. "Reportedly" is a media buzzword for "someone told us, but we have no idea if the source is valid, so we want to avoid getting sued". Or haven't you learned that?
Btw,
I'll assume that PnJ is talking about the market explosion in Baghdad that the Iraqis claimed was a cruise missile missing its target.
The blast damage, etc. don't match up with any aerial delivered munitions. Nor does it seem likely that it was a car bomb. No crater. What was most likely based on the damage shown and the pattern of the blast, damage to the roofing, etc. was an SA2 or SA6 returning to Earth after being fired unguided.
Ground to air missiles have very small explosive charges, and that matches very well with the damage at the site. If it was a car bomb, it was a fairly small one... and that still fails to explain the hole in the market's roofing (although that might have already existed).
You can watch the footage shown on the BBC and see all of this.
Wouldnt serve the elitest interests and the massively pumped budgets to let the public know what our government is really up to around the globe.
Deny that Cheney and his corporate cohorts were party to the same backroom dealings of which you so easily lambast the French, Germans, Syrians, Jordanians, Russians, (et al) all you like, it does not change the fact that it went on. Similarly your long running denials of controlling Iraq's oil production being a leading determinant in the push of the hawks to take the military route are progressively appearing to have been either willful ignorance or deliberate falsehood.
Let me guess, Clandestine. As the Americans rolled towards Baghdad, you believed the carpings of the Iraqi Information Minister, didn't you?
Still don't get it, do you? And you never will. Too busy believing your conspiracy theories.
Oh, by the way, one bit of information you may have missed. An Iraqi scientist has admitted that Iraq was responsible for the Anthrax attacks post 9/11. But then again, you and company insisted there were no links between Iraq and terrorists. I guess Abu Abbas was just getting a tan there in Iraq. :rolleyes:
Given the many reports coming from this admin that have so far turned up false or sheer fabrication only you with your military conditioning to serve without question would believe such reports without substantial verification. Fact is the Anthrax used in those attacks was not long after the investigation began confirmed to be from US labs. And why would the target have been Daschle and other liberal congressmen if it was Iraqi inspired eh? Not long ago you and your hawkish ilk were decrying such men as enablers of Saddam.
Best you go back and check your consistency. Its as lame as it ever was.
Aren't you the one that was pointing out that the US Government provided Anthrax cultures to Iraq?
Btw, this isn't a claim of the Administration. It's a claim of a single scientist, made to non-US Intelligence sources. Eventually, you'll get the word...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer
Your denials are humurous but hardly surprising given the penchant of the military to try to cover up anything that might demonstrate the embarrassing hypocrisy of our own MIC proliferations to questionable agents or governments around the world.
Didn't you claim that there were no links between Iraq and terrorism?
The spin is entirely you own.