PDA

View Full Version : Saddam thinks he is still president



Ibn Syed
06-20-2005, 09:32 PM
:sl:

Interesting link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050620/...addam_s_guards

Voice your opinion on it here.
:w:
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Ibn Syed
06-20-2005, 09:33 PM
I think he should be told that he is not the leader anymore and that he's not goin back there. Why keep the facts from him?
Reply

aamirsaab
06-20-2005, 09:40 PM
Because the foolish kufar want to humiliate him further.
this saddam stuff is getting really silly now - they have him in jail yet still he is hated.

Just been readin the article - lol: "saddam loves dorito's. He ate a family size bag in 10 minutes" - I can do it in 5, mate :D
Also: "I just wanna be friends with GWB" -- haha, that was priceless!
Reply

imaad_udeen
06-20-2005, 10:11 PM
Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Because the foolish kufar want to humiliate him further.
this saddam stuff is getting really silly now - they have him in jail yet still he is hated.
Of course he is still hated. You realize how many people he is responsible for murdering?
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
imaad_udeen
06-20-2005, 10:11 PM
Personally, I don't trust the article, seems to 'out there' for me.

But, I guess it could be true. Also, the soldiers could be adding more to the story to get paid.

It's the American way.
Reply

Ibn Syed
06-20-2005, 11:26 PM
Yes, the kuffar soldiers are probably out for the money as they care about nothing else.
Reply

aamirsaab
06-22-2005, 08:12 AM
Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
Of course he is still hated. You realize how many people he is responsible for murdering?
I know many people who have done a lot worse than Saddam. None of them are in jail.

I also saw this on the news yesterday. It was a small bit but it mentioned all those facts that were present in the internet article.
Reply

minaz
06-22-2005, 10:36 AM
OMG you guys are so cynical!
Reply

Muezzin
06-22-2005, 01:56 PM
"Then he started laughing," recalled Reese. "He goes, `America, they dumb. They bomb wrong palace.'"
LMAO!

He should be on the comedy circuit - Saddam Night Live ;)

I agree with Minaz though, what's with all the cynicism? So the guy likes Doritos and gives marriage advice. He is human.
Reply

minaz
06-22-2005, 02:22 PM
Lol yeh a comedy show would be great, wonder who'd sign him up though, probs be .........FOX
Reply

imaad_udeen
06-22-2005, 06:32 PM
Originally Posted by aamirsaab
I know many people who have done a lot worse than Saddam. None of them are in jail.

I also saw this on the news yesterday. It was a small bit but it mentioned all those facts that were present in the internet article.
Who?
Reply

Ibn Syed
06-22-2005, 06:49 PM
OBL, Zarqawi, Bush... I could go on forever
Reply

Muezzin
06-22-2005, 07:10 PM
Not to mention Captain Hook, Darth Vader, Jaws, Revolver Ocelot, Bowser...
Reply

minaz
06-22-2005, 08:56 PM
In all those fantasy characters you forgot to mention MICHAEL JACKSON! :p (nah he's innocent)
Reply

imaad_udeen
06-23-2005, 12:29 AM
Originally Posted by Ibn Syed
OBL, Zarqawi, Bush... I could go on forever
None of them are respsonsible for more deaths than Saddam Hussein.

If you can prove otherwide, please do.

And please go on forever, if you have more. I would like to know just how many more people alive and free right now have been responsible for more killings than Saddam Hussein.
Reply

Ibn Syed
06-23-2005, 04:04 AM
Haow do you know that saddam is behind more deaths than they? OBL killed over 2,000 on 9/11. That is if he did it.
:w:
Reply

imaad_udeen
06-23-2005, 04:41 AM
Originally Posted by Ibn Syed
Haow do you know that saddam is behind more deaths than they? OBL killed over 2,000 on 9/11. That is if he did it.
:w:
600 Kuwaiti's whom the Iraqis took out of Kuwait during the Coalition countrer offensive were never heard from again. Reported murdered by the retreating Iraqi army.

This article talks of 113 Kurds found in a mass grave in late April '05, nearly all the victims were women and children. They suspect the area contains the remains of 1,500 total corpses (they used magnetic imaging to get the estimate and are recovering them as we speak).

Just those two instances surpasses your 2,000 number.

Do I really need to dig up the massacres of Kurds with and without chemical weapons, Shi'a and other people who were murdered by Saddam's regime?

The estimate is that he killed at least 1 million people in his own country.

Bush, bin Laden and al-Zarqawi combined don't even come close to the amount of people Saddam had killed during his reign.

The saddest part is that the vast majority of those killed were his own people.
Reply

aamirsaab
06-23-2005, 07:51 AM
Good point Imad. But remember, Bush is responsible for the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan. Besdies, it doesn't matter if they haven't killed as many people as Saddam has. The bottom line is they are all bad people and they all have killed and done bad things. My point earlier on was that there are lots of people (who are alive) who have done bad things but are not hated and are not in jail: a mere counter-remark to your remark. I don't wish to get into a giant debate over the worst man on earth because it will only waste time.
Reply

minaz
06-23-2005, 11:47 AM
Lol i don't mind going into that debate cuz i can finish it in a few secs, worst man on earth who got away with mass murder was Hitler - End of :p
Reply

Muezzin
06-23-2005, 05:22 PM
Originally Posted by minaz
Lol i don't mind going into that debate cuz i can finish it in a few secs, worst man on earth who got away with mass murder was Hitler - End of :p
True that. Though he did go off his rocker and shoot himself, which is some sort of strange consolation.
Reply

minaz
06-23-2005, 06:39 PM
Common sense
Reply

Muezzin
06-23-2005, 07:03 PM
Originally Posted by Hash
I want to know why bush and blair are not in jail too?
Because being an idiot is not against the law ;)
Reply

imaad_udeen
06-23-2005, 07:51 PM
Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Good point Imad. But remember, Bush is responsible for the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Concerning Afghanistan, I, personally, have trouble laying sole blame on GWB. It took a certain string of events to bring the liberation of Afghanistan about, one of those being the WTC attacks and that was not of Bush's doing.

A much better case can be made for Iraq. It was W's choice to invade Iraq. But then again, had Saddam never invaded Kuwait, the situation would not have ever come up.

Besdies, it doesn't matter if they haven't killed as many people as Saddam has. The bottom line is they are all bad people and they all have killed and done bad things.
While I do not agree with a lot of things W has done, he is not a murderer.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal despot who squashed all dissent within his country in a brutal manner. I have yet to see GWB have thousands of Americans blindfolded and shot in the back of the head and buried in mass graves.

This issue is, IMHO, black and white. Saddam is a bad man and the world is better off that he is not in power. Iraq is certainly better off, in the long run, without Saddam.

My point earlier on was that there are lots of people (who are alive) who have done bad things but are not hated and are not in jail: a mere counter-remark to your remark. I don't wish to get into a giant debate over the worst man on earth because it will only waste time.
Agreed. But there are many concrete reasons why Saddam Hussein was and remains to be hated.
Reply

imaad_udeen
06-23-2005, 07:53 PM
Originally Posted by Hash
I want to know why bush and blair are not in jail too?
If someone can produce evidence of some wrong doing to charge and convict them, then they should go to jail.
Reply

imaad_udeen
06-23-2005, 07:55 PM
Hitler took the cowards way out...

If he believed in what he did he should have said so, right before he would have been hung.
Reply

aamirsaab
06-23-2005, 10:38 PM
I agree with you on the fact that Saddam is a bad man. However, you can't exactly call Bush or Blair a saint now can you?
Otherwise, you have some good points which i agree with.
Reply

kadafi
06-23-2005, 11:28 PM
Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
Concerning Afghanistan, I, personally, have trouble laying sole blame on GWB. It took a certain string of events to bring the liberation of Afghanistan about, one of those being the WTC attacks and that was not of Bush's doing.

A much better case can be made for Iraq. It was W's choice to invade Iraq. But then again, had Saddam never invaded Kuwait, the situation would not have ever come up.
:sl:

Since when was Afghanistan liberated? With liberation, I presume, [peace, stability, "democracy" and economic recovery]. Then why is there still turmoil in Afghanistan. The attrocities commited by the Australian soldiers recently (i.e. killing villagers). Why is povery and social misery still dominant in Afghanistan. What about the Abu Ghraib tactics adopted in Afghanistan.

Cleary brother, your justification for [liberation] is at its best wishful thinking.

While I do not agree with a lot of things W has done, he is not a murderer.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal despot who squashed all dissent within his country in a brutal manner. I have yet to see GWB have thousands of Americans blindfolded and shot in the back of the head and buried in mass graves.

This issue is, IMHO, black and white. Saddam is a bad man and the world is better off that he is not in power. Iraq is certainly better off, in the long run, without Saddam.
This is like arguing which one of them is the better murderer. Murder is murder irrespective which method was used.

It seems akhee that you're shifting all the blame on Saddam whilst not even mentionin' the absurdic pretexts that Bush has used to destroy the lives of thousands.

Why is it so hard to mention akhee the attrocities commited by these US aggressors. Why are you silent about the death of 500,000 children that died due the sanctions-related diseases. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked whether it was justified for the deahts of these children, her response was: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

What about the highway of death incident which cowardly American pilots opened fire on Iraqi soldiers who peacefully surrendered.

:w:
Reply

minaz
06-24-2005, 07:10 PM
Yeh liberation isn't the best word to use, but the difference pointed out in the Iraq war and Afghan one is very well put imaad_udeen :)
Reply

imaad_udeen
06-24-2005, 08:49 PM
Originally Posted by kadafi
:sl:

Since when was Afghanistan liberated? With liberation, I presume, [peace, stability, "democracy" and economic recovery].
In many places women and girls can now get an education. Democracy is in place and expanding.

Then why is there still turmoil in Afghanistan.
Because it is Afghanistan and it has not even been 4 years since the Taliban were crushed.

There has been turmoil in Afghanistan for centuries, I dont think anyone can expect the ethnic and tribal problems to just go away overnight. There is also the Taliban loyalists and Al Qaida types still doing their upmost to cause trouble.

The attrocities commited by the Australian soldiers recently (i.e. killing villagers).
I have not heard of that one, please enlighten me.

So, until I know more, I cannot comment.

Why is povery and social misery still dominant in Afghanistan.
Because it is Afghanistan. Again, things do not change over night. But Afghanistan is much better now than it was 5 years ago, IMHO.

What about the Abu Ghraib tactics adopted in Afghanistan.
Hmm, not sure what "Abu Ghraib" tactics are, but the actions of a few American soldiers can not be blamed on the entire US military.

It is not US policy to torture.

Cleary brother, your justification for [liberation] is at its best wishful thinking.
I respect your opinion, I just tend to disagree.

It seems akhee that you're shifting all the blame on Saddam whilst not even mentionin' the absurdic pretexts that Bush has used to destroy the lives of thousands.
Everyone in the western world and everyone in the Middle East assumed Saddam Hussein had WMD. Everyone. Saddam wanted everyone to believe he had them, as it kept his neighbors at bay at a time when Iraqs military was in shambles following the destruction suffered at the hands of the Coalition in the first Gulf War.

The only pretext the US needed was Saddams continued breaking of the Gulf War cease fire terms. Under the terms of that agreement which Saddam agreed to, Iraq had to allow weapons inspectors full access to all sites they wanted to investigate and he constantly got in the way.

Saddam also agreed to allowing the UN to monitor "no fly zones" in Northern and Southern Iraq. Yet his armed forces would constantly fire on planes patrolling the no fly zones, again breaking the cease fire.

9.11 gave the Bush administration the domestic backing for war, and Saddams refusal to allow the world to know what weapons he did or did not have sealed his fate.

So, the question is, are we to allow tyrants to sign cease fire agreements, saving their hides, and then allow them to consistantly break those agreements and not be held responsible?

Why is it so hard to mention akhee the attrocities commited by these US aggressors.
Show me a mass grave of women and children shot in the head brutally by American soldiers.

Why are you silent about the death of 500,000 children that died due the sanctions-related diseases.
Because that is not the US responsibility. The sole responsibility for that lies in Saddam Hussein and his government. The UN allowed Iraq to sell oil as long as the proceeds went for food and medicine. Instead Saddam used the money to buy more palaces and golden toilets.

Again, the sanctions never would have been in place had Saddam not invaded Kuwait.

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked whether it was justified for the deahts of these children, her response was: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.


The responsibility for those deaths lies on Saddam Hussein as I explained above.

What about the highway of death incident which cowardly American pilots opened fire on Iraqi soldiers who peacefully surrendered.

:w:
Peacefully surrendered? They did not surrender, they retreated.

What happened was the invading Iraqi army was defeated on the battle field and went into full retreat. The Iraqi army had yet to surrender. If you know anything about military thoery, you would know that you do not allow the enemy force to escape unharmed.

They were running away, not surrendering, there is a big difference. They were attempting to escape from the evelopement of the coalition forces and they were picked apart in the process.

The idea is, if you allow the enemy to escape intact with equipment, then you face the possibility of allowing them to redeploy and set up new defensive position which will be much harder to assault.

While retreating they are vulnerable and much easier to kill.

I suppose the Soviets should have allowed the Germans to just march out of Stalingrad after they had been defeated.

The Western Allies should have allowed the Germans to escape the Falaise Pocket. The Viet Mihn should have allowed the french to just walk away from Dien Bihn Phu just because they didnt want to fight anymore. That is not how it works in the real world.

Good discussion, bro.
Reply

imaad_udeen
06-24-2005, 08:53 PM
Originally Posted by Hash
That is the most riducolous thing i have heard, 'liberation'. Imaad uddin you have been listening to bish for too long! Tell him, the mujhaideen in Afgaonstan will send your 'liberation' back in body bags inshallaah.

:w:
The US has done with +/- 20,000 soldiers in under 3 months what the Soviets could not do with 100,000 over a decade of time.

Afghanis know what is behind them and I dont think they want any part of it anymore. They have a chance for a new future and they will grasp it. It will just take time to weed out the extremists.
Reply

Halima
06-25-2005, 04:21 PM
Inshallah..... dear brother inshallah......
Reply

Ibn Syed
06-25-2005, 04:57 PM
But why did the US have to ravage an entire nation just to put Saddam out of power? When are they gonna get out of Iraq? I don't think the people would love to have Americans staying in their country who had destroyed thier homes. What are they trying to do over there anyway? Rebuild Iraq? Why not just give money so Iraq can rebuild just the way they wanna?
:w:
Reply

minaz
06-25-2005, 06:47 PM
Because Ibn Syed, America has created a new market for itself, American contracts, ooo and you can't forget the OIL. Anywho the US won't pull out completely and never will - look at post war/Marshall plan Germany for example. The US will continue to have an influence in Iraq for decades if not a good century to come, however it's physical presence is here to stay, and for how long no-one knows :confused:
Reply

Ibn Syed
06-25-2005, 08:31 PM
The Iraqi people didn't know why the American soldiers were invading from the start. That's why they burned their oil. And who does Bush think he is to saw Iraq had wmd's? And Iraq turns out to have none.
:w:
Reply

S_87
06-25-2005, 08:35 PM
:sl:

not to mention a few are also thinking iraq mau just turn out to be another vietnam *nods*
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstor...name_page.html
Reply

minaz
06-25-2005, 09:10 PM
Spot on amani - the V word. We Brits don't talk about the M word and the U.S hate the V word. However Vietnam came with the Communist threat in the South East and the domino theory, also the whole stigma of Nixon - Watergate, paranoia, secret bombing of Cambodia, sabotages of the Paris Peace talks of '68, ok I'm rambling' on here. But the majority of the US citizens love Bush, unlike the Anti-war movement seen in the 60's and early 70's.

However Ibn Syed is right that the war was carried out on false pretences - WMD. Don't forget who's related to President Bush who failed to go the extra mile in getting rid of Saddam! Also and this is my personal view which isn't anti-Semitic (but most likely influenced by my anti-Zionist beliefs) that the invasion was to help protect Israel. Evangelicalism has extremely strong ties with Judaism and in particular Zion - Israel. Not even the Catholic Church nor Anglican have these ties, hell they have more ties with Muslims then the Jews! President Bush is an evangelical and often favours the actions taken by the Zionist government running Israel.

Lol well now concluding all that waffle above ^ yes Iraq is gonna be Vietnam but on a bigger scale, and WMD was a decoy to get Prime minister Blair and other puppy's along- for economic benefits, political, and yes maybe personal too
Reply

imaad_udeen
06-25-2005, 09:22 PM
Originally Posted by Ibn Syed
But why did the US have to ravage an entire nation just to put Saddam out of power?
The US hardly ravaged the entire nation. Many portions Iraq saw little fighting, since most of the Iraqi army just fell apart when they came into contact with Allied troops.

Yes, there was damage done to many parts of the country, but certainly not the whole country. The Kurdish north and Shi'a south were relatively untouched compared to Baghdad and the areas around there.

How else was the US to get Saddam out of power than by invading? George Bush gave Saddam Hussein time to leave the country and go into exile to avoid war and he was too greedy to do so. Now he'll be hung.

When are they gonna get out of Iraq?
As soon as the Sunni/Baath loyalist insurgency has either been defeated or they decide to lay down there arms. Certainly not until the foreign jihadists have been totally crushed and when a representative Iraqi government is firmly entrenched and the Iraqi police and national guard have the size, strength and capability to handle Iraqs internal security on their own.

In other words, not for a few years yet. These things dont happen over night.

I don't think the people would love to have Americans staying in their country who had destroyed thier homes. What are they trying to do over there anyway? Rebuild Iraq? Why not just give money so Iraq can rebuild just the way they wanna?
:w:
There are many geo-political and strategic reasons for the US to stay in Iraq and insure a friendly regime.

The US is at war, not just in Iraq but against global Jihadist terrorism and Iraq is a great place to kill them, since they seem to be coming their in droves.

The Iraqi people are already begining to turn on the foreign terrorists. There were reports of "red on red" fighting. They suspect the nationalist Iraqi insurgents are horrified by the methods used by the foreign jihadists who are massacring innocent people. It gives the entire insirgency a bad name.
Reply

imaad_udeen
06-25-2005, 09:23 PM
Originally Posted by Ibn Syed
The Iraqi people didn't know why the American soldiers were invading from the start. That's why they burned their oil. And who does Bush think he is to saw Iraq had wmd's? And Iraq turns out to have none.
:w:
Everyone thought Iraq had WMD. Everyone.
Reply

imaad_udeen
06-25-2005, 09:24 PM
Originally Posted by amani
:sl:

not to mention a few are also thinking iraq mau just turn out to be another vietnam *nods*
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstor...name_page.html
No offense, but I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.
Reply

minaz
06-25-2005, 09:25 PM
LOL CHARMIN' :p
Reply

imaad_udeen
06-25-2005, 09:35 PM
Originally Posted by minaz
However Ibn Syed is right that the war was carried out on false pretences - WMD. Don't forget who's related to President Bush who failed to go the extra mile in getting rid of Saddam! Also and this is my personal view which isn't anti-Semitic (but most likely influenced by my anti-Zionist beliefs) that the invasion was to help protect Israel. Evangelicalism has extremely strong ties with Judaism and in particular Zion - Israel. Not even the Catholic Church nor Anglican have these ties, hell they have more ties with Muslims then the Jews! President Bush is an evangelical and often favours the actions taken by the Zionist government running Israel.
Every American president for the last 50 years has supported Israel, they are an ally.

Lol well now concluding all that waffle above ^ yes Iraq is gonna be Vietnam but on a bigger scale,
Vietnam on a bigger scale?

ok, the US lost over 50,000 men KIA in Vietnam in about 8 years of fighting.

In 3 years in Iraq we are at about 1,700 KIA's. You do the math.

In Vietnam the US averaged over 500 combat deaths a month.

In Iraq the average is amazingly lower that that.

Iraq is not going to be Vietnam. And I question anyones knowledge on the subject who would claim otherwise.
Reply

minaz
06-25-2005, 09:52 PM
Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
Vietnam on a bigger scale?
In 3 years in Iraq we are at about 1,700 KIA's. You do the math.
Iraq is not going to be Vietnam. And I question anyones knowledge on the subject who would claim otherwise.
Vietnam killed and effected Vietnamese only, yes public opinion was against it but i didn't see great opposition and within few years after it's "end" it was forgotten about. This is due to non interest by the media and the connection the Vietnamese had - none. Unlike the Vietnamese Iraqi's are Muslim, they are part of the greatest and true religion on earth, there plight against the kuffar aggressors will be supported till the end. Numbers don't mean crap, Vietnamese lost ample more than Americans yet still one at the end of the day, as ho chi minh said "if we must fight, we will fight, you will kill 10 of ours, and we kill one of yours, but in the end it is you who will tire." Messing with communists (mainly non religious) is nothing compared with Muslims.

Every American president for the last 50 years has supported Israel, they are an ally.
Ally is the wrong word, Israel was created by the US, President Truman signed their existence and the rest of the world followed suit. But why does Bush give more money to Israel then anywhere else, he wants to make poverty history but gives money and military assistance to Israel. Israel has nuclear weapons which is a breech of international law in conjunction with aid given. A relationship with an ally is a reciprocal thing, Israel is a scavenger mate
Reply

kadafi
06-25-2005, 10:31 PM
In many places women and girls can now get an education. Democracy is in place and expanding.
:sl: Brother,

I would greatly appreciate it if you also salute me back. Allah (Exalted is He) said in Surah Al-Anaam:

When those who believe in Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) come to you, say: "Salamun Alaikum" (peace be on you); your Lord has written Mercy for Himself, so that, if any of you does evil in ignorance, and thereafter repents and does righteous good deeds (by obeying Allah), then surely, He is OftForgiving, Most Merciful.


And in An-Nisa:
When you are greeted with a greeting, greet in return with what is better than it, or (at least) return it equally. Certainly, Allah is Ever a Careful Account Taker of all things.

Abu Dawud recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Prophet of Allah (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "By He in Whose Hand is my soul! You will not enter Paradise until you believe, and you will not believe until you love each other. Should I direct you to an action that would direct you to love each other? Spread the Salam among yourselves". (Sahih Bukhari, Book 8, Number 4).

Now as for your statement, despite that you have ignored my parenthesis on the term [liberation], I will still continue to address your statement. Let's analyze it and see whether your statement holds weight. It is strue that school enrollment has increased, particulary among girls, which is stated in the recent UN report. However, 62% of the children are not going to school (nine provinces only), and in ten provinces, atleast 80% of the girls are not enrolled in school. So thus, your statement that in "many places, women and girls can get an education, falls flat on the ground". Not only are the majority getting no education but the lack of economic progress is worse.

The majority of the Afghan women still do not have access to healthcare or clear drinking water and atleast 700 children die every day accordin' to the report.

Accordin' to the NY Times article which was a review of the report states that the country has a long way to go just to get back to where it was 20 years ago.

The report also states that "mental disorders are another of Afghanistan’s war wounds, yet they have been largely ignored. WHO estimates indicate that 95 percent of the population in Afghanistan has been affected psychologically, and one in five suffers from mental health problems.”

A citizen from Jalalabad was quoted in the UN report who provided a description of the US-supported goverment of Karzai:"It has no education policy, it has no health policy, it has no economic policy, it has no environmental policy, it has no security policy. It just takes everything by the day and many of the days are bad."

There is no "democracy" in Afghanistan, only the imperial footprint of the US. And moreover, the Afghan Muslims do not demand a tweaked democracy nor do they favour it but they demand an Islamic state with the correct Shariah Law implemented.

Because it is Afghanistan and it has not even been 4 years since the Taliban were crushed.

There has been turmoil in Afghanistan for centuries, I dont think anyone can expect the ethnic and tribal problems to just go away overnight. There is also the Taliban loyalists and Al Qaida types still doing their upmost to cause trouble.
No, the turmoil is partly caused by the US backed-warlords who are also known as the Northern Alliance. The ones that aided the US in overthrowing the Taliban. These perpetrators who are nothing but US-backed warlords levy taxes on goods passing through their territory, take bribes from the Americans for their loyalty and make millions through the poppy cultivation. There there is the gross abuses commited by them. the HRW has disccused this in depth and has atleast recorded more than 1000 violations in just a few months time.

I have not heard of that one, please enlighten me.

So, until I know more, I cannot comment.
The Austrialian SAS blundered in to a tribal dispute and provoked a confrontation which resulted in the deaths of atleast 12 Afghan villagers. The Time magazine did a coverage on this and I will provide it if I can find it.

Hmm, not sure what "Abu Ghraib" tactics are, but the actions of a few American soldiers can not be blamed on the entire US military.

It is not US policy to torture.
Nor did I brush the US military for the actions of a few. Reed Brody, special counsel for Human Rights Watch, said:
“Abu Ghraib was only the tip of the iceberg, It’s now clear that abuse of detainees has happened all over—from Afghanistan to Guantánamo Bay to a lot of third-country dungeons where the United States has sent prisoners. And probably quite a few other places we don’t even know about.

According to the hrw:
Nine detainees are now known to have died in U.S. custody in Afghanistan—including four cases already determined by Army investigators to be murder or manslaughter. Former detainees have made scores of other claims of torture and other mistreatment. In a March 2004 report, Human Rights Watch documented cases of U.S. personnel arbitrarily detaining Afghan civilians, using excessive force during arrests of non-combatants, and mistreating detainees. Detainees held at military bases in 2002 and 2003 described to Human Rights Watch being beaten severely by both guards and interrogators, deprived of sleep for extended periods, and intentionally exposed to extreme cold, as well as other inhumane and degrading treatment. In December 2004, Human Rights Watch raised additional concerns about detainee deaths, including one alleged to have occurred as late as September 2004. In March 2005, The Washington Post uncovered another death in CIA custody, noting that the case was under investigation but that the CIA officer implicated had been promoted.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005...usint10545.htm


Everyone in the western world and everyone in the Middle East assumed Saddam Hussein had WMD. Everyone. Saddam wanted everyone to believe he had them, as it kept his neighbors at bay at a time when Iraqs military was in shambles following the destruction suffered at the hands of the Coalition in the first Gulf War.
They were deluded since the Bush administration fabricated half-baked evidence that suggested that he had WMD. HIs deceptive rationale for goin' to war on that simple pretext is at its deceptive. What worried me is that 80% of the American population voted yes indicatin' that they believed that Saddam possed WMD based on the statement of Bush ------- ah the power of mass-media.

The only pretext the US needed was Saddams continued breaking of the Gulf War cease fire terms. Under the terms of that agreement which Saddam agreed to, Iraq had to allow weapons inspectors full access to all sites they wanted to investigate and he constantly got in the way.
What you seem to be forgettin' is that full inspections was still carried out by atleast 250 UN inspectors representin' 30 countries. The inspection fully ended when it was preempted by Bush's descision to go to war. If they had the given the needed time, they would have easily obtained the facts.

Saddam also agreed to allowing the UN to monitor "no fly zones" in Northern and Southern Iraq. Yet his armed forces would constantly fire on planes patrolling the no fly zones, again breaking the cease fire.
This is at its best laughable. Bush asserted that Saddam was breachin' the November 8 UN Security Council resolution by Iraq's firing on US aircraft. This was diplomately rebuffed by the Secretary General Kofi Annan and several foreign governments, including Security Council member China. There are no UN resolutions that prohibit Iraq from maintaining its military or taking action in defense of its territory. In order to breach that resolution, Iraq has to block access to sites, destroy or hide documents and be less than forthcoming in the declaration but they did not do that and thus, the assertion made by Bush is simply preposterous and yet he continues to deceive the public with his false claims.

The responsibility for those deaths lies on Saddam Hussein as I explained above.
Only a minor part of the responsibility lies on the part of Saddam.

When they imposed sactions, they were fully aware of the devastating effect of both the bombing campaign against the civilian infrastructure and the sanctions regume. A DIA (Defence Intelligence Agency) released documents years after the sanctions were imposed revealin' that the US anticipated the dire civilian health consequences of destroyin' Iraq's drinkin' water and the sanitation systems in the Gulf War. It also documents the fact that the US was aware that the sanctions could/would prevent the Iraqi government from repairing the degraded facilities which will lead to inevitable destruction of the water system and result in a devastating humanitarian crisis for the Iraqi people.

One of the primary document dated Jan. 1991 outlines and states the health consequences:
“Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline. With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease.”

and:
“Iraq will suffer increasing shortages of purified water because of the lack of required chemicals and desalination membranes. Incidences of disease, including possible epidemics, will become probable unless the population were careful to boil water… Iraq’s overall water treatment capability will suffer a slow decline, rather than a precipitous halt. Although Iraq is already experiencing a loss of water treatment capability, it probably will take at least six months (to June 1991) before the system is fully degraded.”

These doucments, in general, highlight the impacts of the sactions.

In other words, the US was clearly aware of the effects and impacts that the sanctions could bring to the Iraqi people (i.e. outbreaks of disease and high rates of child moraility).

Accordin' to the 979 protocol, Article 54 of the Geneva Convention:

“It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.”

And this is exactly what the UN has done under the command of the US by imposin' an illegal sanctions regime that deprives the Iraqi people of the basic nescessities for survival.

The members of the US congress even admitted that it was a violation of the Geneva convention.

U.S. Representative Cyntha McKinney, Democrat of Georgia, addressed a 7 June 2001 House hearing as follows: “Attacking the Iraqi public drinking water supply flagrantly targets civilians and is a violation of the Geneva Convention and of the fundamental laws of civilized nations.”

Professor Thomas Nagy thus notes:

The sanctions, imposed for a decade largely at the insistence of the United States, constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention. They amount to a systematic effort to, in the DIA’s own words, ‘fully degrade’ Iraq’s water sources… For more than ten years the United States has deliberately pursued a policy of destroying the water treatment system of Iraq, knowing full well the cost in Iraqi lives.

Atleast 1.7 million people had died (durin' the sanctions) and 250 people continue to die (after the sanctions) and yet here akhee, you're continuin' pointin' the finger at the Saddam regime whilst defendin' the US role in this genocide. I have never across a Muslim who persistently defends the genocide commited by these criminals who initialy suggested the sanctions. I'm aware that you're an American Muslim but nationalism is blindin' your judgement brother. And nationalism is forbidden in Islam.

Since the purpose of the Sanctions was to damage Saddam, it had in fact an entirely opposite effect which result in liftin' the sanctions.

According to a House Select Committee report on sanctions to the British Parliament in 2000:
Those who should be targeted, the political leaders and elites who have flouted international law, continue to enrich themselves. Much discussion has taken place of targeted sanctions, in particular financial sanctions, as a ‘smarter’ and more just approach. We conclude, however, that neither the United Kingdom nor the international community have made real efforts to introduce such sanctions. There has been much talk but little action. There is a clear consensus that the humanitarian and developmental situation in Iraq has deteriorated seriously since the imposition of comprehensive economic sanctions whilst, at the same time, sanctions have clearly failed to hurt those responsible for past violations of international law as Saddam Hussein and his ruling elite continue to enjoy a privileged existence... However carefully exemptions are planned, the fact is that comprehensive economic sanctions only further concentrate power in the hands of the ruling elite. The UN will lose credibility if it advocates the rights of the poor whilst at the same time causing, if only indirectly, their further impoverishment.

Former UN Assistant Secretary General and Chief UN Relief Coordinator for Iraq, Dennis Halliday, who resigned his post in protest against the sanctions regime, stated in November 1998 that:
Sanctions continue to kill children and sustain high levels of malnutrition. Sanctions are undermining cultural and educational recovery. Sanctions will not change governance to democracy. Sanctions encourage isolation, alienation, and possibly fanaticism. Sanctions may create a danger to peace in the region and in the world. Sanctions destroy Islamic and Iraqi family values. Sanctions have undermined the advancement of women and have encouraged a massive brain drain. Sanctions destroy the lives of children, their expectations and those of young adults. Sanctions breach the Charter of the United Nations, the Conventions of Human Rights, and the Rights of the Child. Sanctions are counterproductive, and have no positive impact on the leadership, and sanctions lead to unacceptable human suffering, often the young and the innocent.... I can find no legitimate justification for sustaining economic sanctions under these circumstances.

Halliday asserted that he resigned his post “because the policy of economic sanctions is totally bankrupt. We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that...

Five thousand children are dying every month... I don’t want to administer a programme that results in figures like these... I had been instructed to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults. We all know that the regime, Saddam Hussein, is not paying the price for economic sanctions; on the contrary, he has been strengthened by them. It is the little people who are losing their children or their parents for lack of untreated water. What is clear is that the Security Council is now out of control, for its actions here undermine its own Charter, and the Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention.

Scott Ritter, an ex-U.S. Marine and former head of the United Nations Weapons Inspection Team in Iraq, certainly does not agree that the sanctions in their current form are justified: “We’re killing 5,000 kids under the age of five every month. Now people say Saddam’s killing them, but ultimately, sanctions are killing them, and we shouldn’t be supportive of something that causes innocent people to suffer to such a degree.

According to an authoritative report on Iraq prepared for the UN Secretary-General by Professor of International Law, Marc Bossuyt - a reknowned authority in his field - the “sanctions regime against Iraq is unequivocally illegal under existing human rights law” and “could raise questions under the Genocide Convention.”

Specialist in International Politics at the University of Bristol, Dr. Eric Herring - formerly Visiting Scholar at George Washington University (Washington DC) and Social Science Research Council MacArthur Fellow in International Peace and Security at Columbia University (New York) – observes that an expanding body of authoritative legal opinion agrees that the proposed International Criminal Court has a responsibility to investigate “the UN bombing and sanctions which have violated the human rights of Iraqi civilians on a vast scale by denying them many of the means necessary for survival. It should also investigate those who assisted Saddam Hussein’s programmes of now prohibited weapons, including western governments and companies.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) stipulates that:

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

According to the Geneval Conventions:

“1. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.


“2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indespensable to the agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.


Abdullah Muttawi, head of the Middle East Programme at the New York-based Centre for Economic and Social Rights (CESR), thus points out: “The sanctions policy against Iraq has proven to be the single largest violation of the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights, a violation committed by the Security Council itself… Collective punishment is prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.”

IAC analyst Sara Flounders concludes:

“The sanctions are really part of an overall destabilization strategy. This same strategy has been used by the Pentagon and CIA many times in the past: from 1950 to 1953 against the elected government of Mossadegh in Iran, leading to its overthrow and the bloody reign of the Shah; in 1954 against the democratically elected government of Arbenz in Guatemala, leading to a U.S.-engineered military coup and the subsequent slaughter of over 100,000 Indian people; from 1970 to 1973 against a democratically elected government of Salvador; against Allende in Chile which ended in the coming to power of the dictatorship of General Pinochet and the murder of 30,000 Chileans. The US policy of economic destabilization and overthrow in Iraq will not lead to a democratic government, but rather to a dictatorship compliant to US bidding, as has been shown time and again.”

So in short, the American strategy is that "if we destroy life, perhaps they will blame Saddam and run him out of office".
You can persist on soley blamin' Saddam but Saddam would rather let his people suffer than to give in to outside pressure. And the US knew that and yet continued imposin' the sanctions and only stopped when they didn't see the result. Moreover, in answer to the sanctions imposed, Saddam maintained an complete food-rationing program for rich and poor.

The statement of Albright aroused an indignation to millions of people. How can one make such cold-hearted statement about 500k children. It's a world crisis when 3k innocent people die (9/11 incident) but when 500k children die and continue to die, it's regarded as somethin' that is justifiable.


Peacefully surrendered? They did not surrender, they retreated.

What happened was the invading Iraqi army was defeated on the battle field and went into full retreat. The Iraqi army had yet to surrender. If you know anything about military thoery, you would know that you do not allow the enemy force to escape unharmed.

They were running away, not surrendering, there is a big difference. They were attempting to escape from the evelopement of the coalition forces and they were picked apart in the process.

The idea is, if you allow the enemy to escape intact with equipment, then you face the possibility of allowing them to redeploy and set up new defensive position which will be much harder to assault.

While retreating they are vulnerable and much easier to kill.

I suppose the Soviets should have allowed the Germans to just march out of Stalingrad after they had been defeated.

The Western Allies should have allowed the Germans to escape the Falaise Pocket. The Viet Mihn should have allowed the french to just walk away from Dien Bihn Phu just because they didnt want to fight anymore. That is not how it works in the real world.
Brother, I do not know how much you're acquainted with the highway of death incident but the claim that they were retreatin' is COMPLETELY groundless and I demand evidence for that.

They weren't retreatin' in order to regroup and fight again; they were withdrawin' -- going home -- by respondin' to an order issued by Baghdad announcin' that it was complyin with Res 660 and leavin' Kuwait. The Iraq's foreign minister had accepted the cease fire proposed by the Soviets and issued an order for all Iraqi troops to withdraw to positions held before August 2, 1990 in compliance with the UN Res 660. Accordin' to many eyewitnesses in Kuwait, the withdrawal began the afternoon of Feb 26, 1991 and it was announced on the radio at 2 am.

Additionaly, this massacre also violated the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Common Article III, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who are out of combat.
To attack soliders returnin' home under these circumstances is a war crime, plain and simple and there is no justification for this massacre.

New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd wrote, "With the Iraqi leader facing military defeat, Mr. Bush decided that he would rather gamble on a violent and potentially unpopular ground war than risk the alternative: an imperfect settlement hammered out by the Soviets and Iraqis that world opinion might accept as tolerable."

In other words, rather than accept the offer of Iraq to surrender and leave the field of battle, Bush and the U.S. military strategists decided simply to kill as many Iraqis as they possibly could while the chance lasted.

A Newsweek article on Norman Schwarzkopt, titled "A Soldier of Conscience" (March 11,1991), remarked that before the ground war the general was only worried about "How long the world would stand by and watch the United States pound the living hell out of Iraq without saying, 'Wait a minute - enough is enough.' He [Schwarzkopf] itched to send ground troops to finish the job."

There are also evidences that durin' the withdrawl, the ones who were bombed included civilians. According to Time magazine of March 18, 1991, not just military vehicles, but cars, buses and trucks were also hit. In many cases, cars were loaded with Palestinian families and all their possessions.

The Washington Post says that senior officers with the U.S. Central Command in Riyad became worried that what they saw was a growing public perception that Iraqi forces were leaving Kuwait voluntarily, and that the U.S. pilots were bombing them mercilessly, which was the truth. So the U.S. government, says the Post, played down the evidence that Iraqi troops were actually leaving Kuwait.

:w:
Reply

minaz
06-25-2005, 10:34 PM
:applaud: :applaud: :applaud: :applaud: :applaud:
Reply

Ibn Syed
06-25-2005, 10:34 PM
Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
Everyone thought Iraq had WMD. Everyone.
I didn't. Where did people find out that Iraq "had" WMD's? And nice post :brother: Kadafi. :applaud:
:w:
Reply

minaz
06-25-2005, 10:41 PM
:applaud: :applaud: :applaud: :applaud: :applaud:
Reply

Ibn Syed
06-25-2005, 10:46 PM
Was that a double post?
Reply

minaz
06-25-2005, 10:49 PM
lol it's nearly midnight and i can't be flamin bothered to type :p
Reply

Ibn Syed
06-25-2005, 10:54 PM
Uhh, why don't you just go to sleep? I know, you're bored like I always am. :) :)
Reply

minaz
06-25-2005, 10:59 PM
lol my exams finsihed yesterday and i've been a geek for last month and my freedom started today, firts day f holidyas and all that malaki and yeh i'm going to bed now :sleep:
Reply

Muezzin
06-26-2005, 01:49 PM
Originally Posted by minaz
lol my exams finsihed yesterday and i've been a geek for last month and my freedom started today, firts day f holidyas and all that malaki and yeh i'm going to bed now :sleep:
Last month? I've been a geek for most of my life! :p
Reply

minaz
06-26-2005, 03:36 PM
lol that's why you're becoming a lawyer :p
Reply

Muezzin
06-26-2005, 09:02 PM
Touche :p

Now, what were we discussing again?
Reply

Ibn Syed
06-27-2005, 03:23 PM
Yes, lets get back to our discussions and make it snappy.
:w:
Reply

S_87
06-28-2005, 12:51 PM
Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
Everyone thought Iraq had WMD. Everyone.
:sl:
nope i didnt.
and if they did then is there a problem in that?
if they did i woulda :applaud: ed em. not go to war.
Reply

Ibn Syed
06-28-2005, 10:33 PM
Since when are contries allowed to go to war without bien sure they did somethin bad.
:w:
Reply

minaz
06-28-2005, 10:35 PM
Since the begining of time mate! Lol Egyptians (have a spelled that correctly?!) for example :p
Reply

Ibn Syed
06-28-2005, 10:38 PM
True and call me matey(arrrrrrrrrrrrg!) and you spelled correctly :)
Reply

minaz
06-28-2005, 10:43 PM
lol cheers "matey"! :p
Reply

Ibn Syed
06-29-2005, 02:36 AM
Cheers? Now back to discussions:
Heres another news article:
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/bush_administration
:w:
Reply

Ibn Syed
06-29-2005, 07:17 PM
I think that the US doesn't need more troops there as they Should have been out a while ago.
:w:
Reply

minaz
06-29-2005, 07:55 PM
I think they need a lot more and they need to be engaged more
Reply

Ibn Syed
06-29-2005, 08:21 PM
Engaged in what? Battle? We've alredy lots a ton of our muslim brothers and sisters over there.
Reply

Muezzin
06-29-2005, 09:03 PM
Originally Posted by Ibn Syed
Engaged in what? Battle? We've alredy lots a ton of our muslim brothers and sisters over there.
Maybe the Muslim brothers and sisters over there...

...should get engaged :p
Reply

Ibn Syed
06-29-2005, 09:04 PM
and married and make more muslims? great idea! :p :p
Reply

imaad_udeen
06-30-2005, 12:03 AM
:sl:

brother Kadafi, please forgive my tardiness, but I do plan to respond to your post, but it is going to take me some time to write and respond to all which you have put forth.

Until then, peace.

:w:
Reply

Ibn Syed
07-02-2005, 04:06 AM
We need someone to argue with here! :) Hurry it up br. Imaad. I've been waitin too long.
:w:
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-20-2012, 01:06 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-13-2012, 12:08 PM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-22-2009, 05:54 PM
  4. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-02-2007, 11:15 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!