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.
Options
Will this finally do it?
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
To all the PNJs, Thanatos and other neo-cons of the world...
We told you. The world told you. International observers told you. And now, finally, your own independent inquiry has told you:
There were no links between Iraq and Al Qaida or the 9/11 attacks
While you might think this is old news, it certainly isn't for the Americans. An staggering 40% still believe Saddam Hussein played a part in the 9/11 attacks. The lies and disinformation of the Republican machine and its media have ensured such ridiculous nonsense is still believed by some.
So let's bury that myth once and for all (together with the elusive WMDs, threats to world peace and assorted bullshit) and hope that this is the final nail in the coffin of that murdering war criminal scumbag and his government of corrupt, warmongering imperialistic lying bastards.
We told you. The world told you. International observers told you. And now, finally, your own independent inquiry has told you:
There were no links between Iraq and Al Qaida or the 9/11 attacks
While you might think this is old news, it certainly isn't for the Americans. An staggering 40% still believe Saddam Hussein played a part in the 9/11 attacks. The lies and disinformation of the Republican machine and its media have ensured such ridiculous nonsense is still believed by some.
So let's bury that myth once and for all (together with the elusive WMDs, threats to world peace and assorted bullshit) and hope that this is the final nail in the coffin of that murdering war criminal scumbag and his government of corrupt, warmongering imperialistic lying bastards.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
The only vague link I ever heard of was people based in the Kurdish section of Northern Iraq, which was protected and sheltered by US forces.
Yet nearly half the US electorate still believes Saddam had something to do with 9/11 (and the figure must have been much higher before the war) thanks to a campaign of disinformation by much of the Bush government and the Murdoch press. Cheney, Rumsfeld and the chimp himself have either said it outright or suggested the connection many times over the last 2 years.
As a matter of fact our own Tony and his warmongering ministers have made similar noises once or twice, if memory serves.
What the whole world saw as a load of bollocks the American and British governments must have known for certain, considering they had access to intelligence not available to the public or the press. Yet they chose to lie and to insult the memory of the victims of 9/11 in order to gain support for their little war.
As far as I'm concerned if Bush gets re-elected in November there will be no hope for that nation- nobody could surely be so stupid as to fall for that unelected bunch of evil lying bastards and keep them in office.
(source: http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006D9F9.htm)
The Bush family supposedly have business ties with the Bin Laden family.
It doesn't matter.
If you supported the war, then it's a given that it's for the reason they pick out, which they can crush.
One supporting the war, to get rid of Saddam is an invalid reason :rolleyes:
However that is not the case with the immense majority of people who supported the war. There are grounds for pushing for 'regime change' in every country where human right abuses occur or where the leader is perceived as a danger to his people and others.
That in effect means that the use of force would be justified to remove from power such people as the leaders of much of the Arab world, China, several nations in Africa, Asia and South America, and of course good old George W. Bush and good old Ariel Sharon.
Would you support an international task force waging a war and subsequent occupation of Israel to remove Sharon's government and stop the bloodshed and the horrific human right abuses inflicted on the Palestinians? Much as I'd like the Israeli government to stop killing Palestinians I would not support the use of force myself, for many innocent Israelis would be killed in the process.
And before we start the ''how can you compare Saddam Hussein with other people" complain, let's remain ourselves that human right abuses in Iraq before the war weren't particularly worse than in countless other countries. Once you remove the gloomy warnings WMDs and threats to world peace, Saddam was little more than another nasty brutal piece of shit.
But one who happened to be sitting on the world's second largest oil reserves.
Exactly. Oil matters.
Saddam did have WMDS, he used them, he would have used them again.
Of course the US would go into Iraq due to own interests. Has anyone ever done anything just to be nice?
But, I don't believe that they went into Iraq for the access of oil. It has been a plus, and probably part of the consideration. Though I would rather look at it as a major plus of having forces in a very unstabile part of the world, and thereafter hopefully (from the US point of view) inspire the new Iraqi government to take up western ideals, and in that way try to create some alliances in the area.
I can't believe anyone could possibly advocate such odious policy.
Remember that what goes round comes round.
Matadore, I'm not even going to start with your argument. I'm sure you'd be outraged and demand a stop to the killing of "our American friends" if the Russians launched a surprise attack to conquer America and take its oil reserves.
Where did I advocate it?
I was merely giving my opinion of why I think the US did as they did. Plus I said that I supported the war for the removal of Saddam.
Never did I say I support the US' interest in finding a US inspired allied (?) in the middle east.
Assumptions running high.
The Kurds found plenty...When Saddam loaded artillery shells with Nerve agents and gassed tens of thousands of them to death.
Not any country, where did i say that?
Very dubious number there, war is nohere nearly as bloody as it used to be - thats the point - going to war is often the most ethical option today.
What are you getting at here? You want someone to invade the US?
Of course I would, but it would be happy day for you if this happened, im betting.
ACTUALLY that has never been proved conclusively - i personally i believe it happened too - but there is no proof it happened by international observers
you are joking...
As for the number of civilian casualties, the most conservative estimates put that number now at just below 10,000. The real figure is likely to be much higher. Source
That's not counting the thousands or tens of thousands of Iraqi conscripts who were killed during the war and who had little option but to stay put.
And then there is the 'small' issue of depleted uranium and cluster ammunition, both widely condemned as barbaric weapons by just about anyone who isn't a cunnt. The former is responsible for a tenfold increase in hideous birth defects of Iraqi children as well as massive increase on cancer rates for the population at large. The latter continues to kill children and passers-by and between the two weapons the US and British forces love to use so much more than 100,000 have died since the first Gulf war or will be dead in the near future. I can't be arsed to dig a link at this time of night but I'll be glad to do so if you want.
So far from your suggestions that there aren't that many civilian casualties, the two Gulf wars have in fact caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians- and more than a hundred thousand soldiers, most of them conscripts.
And all for what?
OOOOH, please do it Mr Putin, just to see the look on chimp boy's face.
What proof would satisfy you then, if dead poisoned bodies aren't enough?
Remember that he used WMD against Iran during the war (and this attack was part of that) ...
Im not talking about the last half century, im talking about NOW.
With the advent of smart weapons and surgical strikes, war no longer involves mass civilian casualties.
10,000, yes , thats tragic, but over 22 million people now have a chance to build an Iraq they want, not what a murderous dictator wants.
You have to look at the big picture, this is how government functions.
They were givern plenty of oppertunity to run, most did. Just look at how little resistance the Iraqi army put up against the America attack.
Again, tragic, but that still leaves 22 million people with a chance at freedom. War is fought with these types of weapons, asnd they destroy enemy divisions quicker, allowing for a shorter and less bloody and protracted conflict.
The First Gulf wars civilian casualties were firstoy caused by Saddams invasion of Kuwait. Secondly they were caused by a lack of a UN mandate allowing the Allies to finish Saddam off, allowing Saddam to slaughter his people who believed the UN was coming to save them.
In the second Gulf was civilian casualties (and allied ones) have been far lower, mainly due to a lightning war and smart weapons.
I am of the opinion that 1 civilian death can be too many unless the situation is extremely serious. Hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths are a completely and utterly unacceptable price to pay for Bush's imperialistic crusades and geopolitical control.
Especially as the country is now in far greater chaos than it was and that far from being on its way to become a democracy they're a puppet regime of the US inches away from civil war.
No blood for oil.