View Full Version : Report Expected To Confirm Failure To Find Wmd
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm...ubsection=world (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3526648&thesection=news&thesubsection=world)
Report expected to confirm failure to find WMD in Iraq
02.10.2003
By RUPERT CORNWELL
WASHINGTON - Already shaken by the furore over the leak of a CIA operative's identity, the Bush administration is bracing for more fall-out from the Iraq invasion from a report due tomorrow that will confirm the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction - the main justification advanced for the war last March.
David Kay, the head of the 1200-strong Iraq Survey group that is leading the hunt for the illegal weapons, is expected to tell the House and Senate Intelligence committees that Saddam Hussein may have been bluffing over whether he possessed chemical and biological arms.
In particular, Mr Kay is likely to highlight the instructions issued by Baghdad to Iraqi commanders in the field shortly before war, to use chemical weapons against the invaders. Mr Kay will probably say that these instructions, intercepted by US intelligence services, were fakes, intended by Saddam to make himself appear a greater threat that he in fact was.
Officially his report will be "inconclusive", and stress Saddam's skill at hiding his prohibited weapons. But it may also raise the possibility that he had them destroyed shortly after, or even before, the 1991 Gulf war which drove his forces from Kuwait.
At most, the report will say, the Iraqi dictator retained the wherewithal, in terms of precursor chemicals and "dual use" facilities, to quickly restart production once United Nations sanctions had been lifted.
Even though the findings of Mr Kay, a former UN weapons inspector and an adviser to the CIA, are being called "interim" - suggesting that the hunt may yet yield proof of illegal weapons - they can only generate new criticism of the administration and its use of pre-war intelligence: either that the intelligence was faulty, or that is was deliberately exaggerated by administration hawks to bolster the case for war.
It will come days after the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee delivered a stinging attack on the CIA, accusing the agency of using "outdated and piecemeal" data in compiling its assessment of the Iraqi threat.
That embarrassment moreover coincided with the launch by the Justice Department of a criminal investigation of allegations that the name of an undercover CIA operative was leaked by the White House - apparently in order to get back at the agent's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, a noted critic of the war.
Yesterday White House staffers began sifting their records and telephone logs for information relevant to the probe. But President Bush's spokesman said he knew of no-one who had gone to the Department with information about the case.
Nor, to the best of his knowledge, had any White House officials hired outside legal counsel - a routine procedure at the scandal-buffetted Clinton White House. The White House would agree to polygraph tests for staffers, if the FBI requested them.
Though Mr Bush has promised full co-operation with the inquiry, Democrats insist that career Justice Department officials cannot carry out an impartial investigation and are calling on John Ashcroft, the Attorney General, to name an outside prosecutor. But Republicans reject these demands.
- INDEPENDENT
Well, Saddam was so dumb that he lied himself into war. And the U.S. figured he was telling the truth when he lied about ordering the use of chemical weapons.
Saddam thought the U.S. would never invade. He was convinced that the U.S. would leave him alone if he bragged about his weapons secretly :huh:
Saddam is unbelievably stupid.
Billy_Dean
10-02-2003, 08:29 AM
I think the ones who are unbelievably stupid are those who think the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with WMD's, or the welfare of the Iraqi people.
:)
Calvarian2003
10-02-2003, 08:30 AM
kAb, I must say I am surprised at the nature of your response to this article given the political inclinations of most of the people on this forum. Agreed, Saddam is stupid. But not that stupid; he's still alive, isn't he?
Rat Faced
10-02-2003, 09:29 AM
Well, Saddam was so dumb that he lied himself into war. And the U.S. figured he was telling the truth when he lied about ordering the use of chemical weapons.
He spent the last 10 years denying he had them, truthfully it appears......so USA/UK are responsible for about 500,000 Iraqi deaths BEFORE the invasion, for no good reason...never mind the deaths that occured during the invasion.
He ordered their use as he was being invaded......ie Bluffed.
Guess what, thats what war is about.
Calvarian2003
10-02-2003, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@2 October 2003 - 08:29
I think the ones who are unbelievably stupid are those who think the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with WMD's, or the welfare of the Iraqi people.
:)
Billy Dean, you can't be serious! The future for Iraqis now is much brighter than under Saddam Hussein. The guy was a despot, a homicidal maniac, and a dictator! Would you condemn thousands of more innocent Iraqis to his torturous regime just like the UN? At least with the US in control there won't be any near as much bloodshed and certainly virtually none of the disgusting human rights abuses that Saddam perpetuated. What about the 10s of 1000s of Iraqis he had rotting in prison merely for objecting to his tyrannical rule?
hobbes
10-02-2003, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Calvarian2003+2 October 2003 - 15:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Calvarian2003 @ 2 October 2003 - 15:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Billy_Dean@2 October 2003 - 08:29
I think the ones who are unbelievably stupid are those who think the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with WMD's, or the welfare of the Iraqi people.
:)
Billy Dean, you can't be serious! The future for Iraqis now is much brighter than under Saddam Hussein. The guy was a despot, a homicidal maniac, and a dictator! Would you condemn thousands of more innocent Iraqis to his torturous regime just like the UN? At least with the US in control there won't be any near as much bloodshed and certainly virtually none of the disgusting human rights abuses that Saddam perpetuated. What about the 10s of 1000s of Iraqis he had rotting in prison merely for objecting to his tyrannical rule?[/b][/quote]
Actually, Billy was for the removal of Saddam Hussein. He just objects to the use of political lies and rhetoric to justify it.
I have posted ad nausem that the American government did not go into Iraq because they cared about the noble Iraqi civilians, that was a political tool used to give Americans the warm fuzzies about the justness of our war.
The lie was weapons of mass destruction and the threat they posed. This was a sham. I am disappointed in my government, as I trusted them. How do you tell families that their son was killed for a cause that was just a political ruse.
If you are going to attack against the will of the UN, you had better back up what you claim. Our credibility in that region was poor to begin with, now how can we be trusted?
Calvarian2003
10-02-2003, 03:03 PM
I can live with what your saying, hobbes. But those soldiers didn't die for nothing. Millions of people will have a taste of freedom of oppression because of their sacrifice. In a couple of years from now they'll look back and stand in awe of how far their country has come. Iraq has the potential to be a great country; it's selfish dictators that rob the people of such blessings.
Billy_Dean
10-02-2003, 03:14 PM
Tell that to the people of afghanistan!!
At the Labour party conference following the September 11 attacks, Tony Blair said memorably: "To the Afghan people, we make this commitment. We will not walk away... If the Taliban regime changes, we will work with you to make sure its successor is one that is broadbased, that unites all ethnic groups and offers some way out of the poverty that is your miserable existence." He was echoing George Bush, who had said a few days earlier: "The oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and its allies. As we strike military targets, we will also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan. The US is a friend of the Afghan people."
Almost every word they spoke was false. Their declarations of concern were cruel illusions that prepared the way for the conquest of both Afghanistan and Iraq. As the illegal Anglo-American occupation of Iraq now unravels, the forgotten disaster in Afghanistan, the first "victory" in the "war on terror", is perhaps an even more shocking testament to power.
Now read about the reality ...
The Betrayal of Afghanistan. (http://pilger.carlton.com/print/133100)
:)
there was a question and answer session with president Hasmid Karzai or Afghanistan on the BBC website
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3139680.stm
he seems quite intelligent / quite a good politician
Originally posted by Calvarian2003@2 October 2003 - 00:30
kAb, I must say I am surprised at the nature of your response to this article given the political inclinations of most of the people on this forum. Agreed, Saddam is stupid. But not that stupid; he's still alive, isn't he?
i'm fairly conservative.
This doesn't mean i support bush.
Saddam had to be removed from power, the case could've been made much better and with many countries' support.
Had bush presented the case differently, i believe it could have been made.
Rat Faced
10-03-2003, 12:53 PM
The point remains.........If we'd gone in after the 1st Gulf War, there would have been a LOT more support (me included)
In addition 500,000+ Iraqi's would still be alive........those 500,000+ are firmly at the door of the UK/USA, NOT Hussain.
Whether you like it or not; he was/IS a bastard, but the "Allies" killed just as many innocent Iraqi's over the last decade as Hussain did in all his time in power.....
Billy_Dean
10-03-2003, 01:27 PM
.... those 500,000+ are firmly at the door of the UK/USA, NOT Hussain.
And the UN, whose refusal to allow much needed medical supplies still stands!
:angry:
Rat Faced
10-03-2003, 01:37 PM
But its the UK/USA that made the UN put in those sanctions.
Due to the way that the UK/USA went alone, do you really expect the UN to now drop them until the UK/USA's own mandate for those sanctions is fulfilled?
I dont agree with them, but human nature being what it is, i expect the UN to make Iraq comply with all those things now before lifting the sanctions....just to give the finger to the UK/USA.
ie Its your shit: You lie in it.
Billy_Dean
10-03-2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@3 October 2003 - 22:37
But its the UK/USA that made the UN put in those sanctions.
Due to the way that the UK/USA went alone, do you really expect the UN to now drop them until the UK/USA's own mandate for those sanctions is fulfilled?
I dont agree with them, but human nature being what it is, i expect the UN to make Iraq comply with all those things now before lifting the sanctions....just to give the finger to the UK/USA.
ie Its your shit: You lie in it.
The UN was gutless to impose some of the sanctions in the first place, the UK and US do not dictate UN policy, if they did, the UN would have endorsed this latest foray.
.... "We went to a children's hospital with rooms full of children dying of common illnesses, such as dysentery and e. coli," Dr. Bentwood said.
Since the drinking water in Iraq is not adequately treated, common bacterial killers proliferate. The antibiotics to treat these diseases are in extremely short supply, according to numerous reports.....
.....Supplies such as surgical sutures must be reused, a doctor told Dr. Bentwood, and machines such as lasers for eye surgery cannot be imported due to the sanctions. ... The hospitals, which 10 years ago were equipped with modern Western technology, are now "pretty much degraded down to [those of] a Third-World country," said Dr. Bentwood, who has worked in hospitals in Honduras and Burundi.
And people with serious problems such as cancer or heart attacks often die untreated. The problem isn't just the lack of medicine to treat the person but "the lack of a sterile environment needed to protect the patient from infection," Cathy Bentwood explained.
The Iraqi government claims it can't adequately sterilize and purify the water because it can only import small amounts of chlorine. And water treatment plants and electrical plants were damaged in the Gulf War and subsequent bombing missions.
The U.S. State Department does not deny this. But chlorine and spare parts for treatment plants, as well as other parts to repair electrical plants and hospital equipment, are so-called "dual-use items," which could also be used to make weapons of mass destruction, according to a State Department spokesperson....
This is just one of many examples.
:)
Originally posted by Rat Faced@3 October 2003 - 07:53
The point remains.........If we'd gone in after the 1st Gulf War, there would have been a LOT more support (me included)
In addition 500,000+ Iraqi's would still be alive........those 500,000+ are firmly at the door of the UK/USA, NOT Hussain.
Whether you like it or not; he was/IS a bastard, but the "Allies" killed just as many innocent Iraqi's over the last decade as Hussain did in all his time in power.....
I think you'll find the U.N. mandate during the Gulf War (Kuwait) was to drive Saddam from Kuwait and secure it's border, more-or-less.
The sentiment for driving to Bagdhad in order to take out Saddam was not part of tha U.N. mandate, and only existed as a remnant of "potentiality" on the U.S. military's planning boards.
As an analogy-U.S. football fans will remember, in 1989, the Green Bay Packers had the option of drafting Barry Sanders, a Heisman Trophy-winning tailback (and eventual Hall-of-Fame shoo-in), or Tony Mandarich, the steam-rolling tackle whose college career was without parallel.
They chose Mandarich, who flopped, over Sanders, who will shortly be elected to the Hall-of-Fame.
The Packers have been taken to task on every occasion since then for not having drafted Barry Sanders; even Packer fans have wept at what "could have been".
They all forget that, before the draft, Sanders said specifically that he would never play in Green Bay, no matter what.
The Packers, remembering the John Elway/Baltimore Colts fiasco in 1983 (the Colts drafted Elway, who refused to play for them; they ended up with nothing), decided against drafting Sanders thereby.
History IS important. :)
hobbes
10-03-2003, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@3 October 2003 - 13:53
The point remains.........If we'd gone in after the 1st Gulf War, there would have been a LOT more support (me included)
In addition 500,000+ Iraqi's would still be alive........those 500,000+ are firmly at the door of the UK/USA, NOT Hussain.
Whether you like it or not; he was/IS a bastard, but the "Allies" killed just as many innocent Iraqi's over the last decade as Hussain did in all his time in power.....
If then, why not now? What has changed about the regional issues or about the conduct of Saddam that has made you change your mind? At the time, this was not an objective of the coalition forces and this issue was a cause of tension amongst coalition leaders.
Had we gone ahead toward Baghdad then, how would casualities be any less then than now. This time around, resistance was token and progress was only slowed by fear of chemical/biological weapons and ensuring secure supply routes. It is not as if he had rebulit a formidable army for defense.
Hussein would have played the same game of hide and seek that he is now, and his troops would have disappeared into the civilian population. Same game different decade.
Perhaps the climate, at the time, would have been more favorable for revolution as was seen in Basra, but this is merely speculation.
In later years, had the sanctions driven the civilians to the point of independent (unaided) revolution, 500,000 deaths would have been an appetizer.
So whether you were in favor of removing him then or now, people are going to die regardlesss of the process used. To lay all blame on the US/UK is a bit harsh.
Rat Faced
10-03-2003, 11:25 PM
Im speaking of the sanctions and bombing that have been going on for the last decade, as you well know.
It IS different now, hugely.
For one thing, the Iraqi's DID rebell, and didnt get the help they were promised, so they dont trust the people that "liberated" them earlier this year...hell would you in their place?
For another thing, the justification then was a lot greater than the lies used this year.......so it would have caused less world tension.
I agree the UN werent in favour, but then they werent in favour this year. Public opinion though, was in favour of it then.....until they found out about the highway of death that is.
hobbes
10-04-2003, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@4 October 2003 - 00:25
Im speaking of the sanctions and bombing that have been going on for the last decade, as you well know.
It IS different now, hugely.
For one thing, the Iraqi's DID rebell, and didnt get the help they were promised, so they dont trust the people that "liberated" them earlier this year...hell would you in their place?
For another thing, the justification then was a lot greater than the lies used this year.......so it would have caused less world tension.
I agree the UN werent in favour, but then they werent in favour this year. Public opinion though, was in favour of it then.....until they found out about the highway of death that is.
I already mentioned the Basra rebellion. And I totally agree. Until Saddam is captured and brought before his own citizens, the locals are going to fear a waning interest in them (with Afghanistan as a recent precedent) and the eventual re-emergence of Saddam from some bunker. They still live in fear of his shadow.
The US wanted to take Saddam out in the first Gulf War, but deferred for political and religious reasons. We attempted the diplomatic route to try pressure Iraqi's to rebel and render Saddam powerless. That simply didn't work. I guess that after 12 years of UN impotence, their opinion became irrelevant. After all, the UN boils down to the five vetoes and France was never going to agree.
I see this as a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't, as well as hindsight 20/20. The situation is just not black and white as you portray it.
"Greater lies"? What are those? The bottom line is Saddam, the bottom line is unchanged.
As for your "highway of death", I am not sure what you are talking about. I am aware of a long line of Iraqi military equipment log jammed on the highway out of Kuwait. To my knowledge leaflets were dropped instructing soldiers to abandon the vehicles and surrender as the vehicles were to be destroyed. I can remember footage of leaflets dropped from planes. The tanks and such were then blown-up, as they should have been, most of them empty. To think that we just decided to up and kill everyone in the tanks without giving them chance to get out reeks of accusations of genocide. The old, under the breath suggestion, that we all we really want to kill those evil Muslims. Bah!
Some may have stayed in their tanks out of fear. A friend of mine who processed prisoners in that war was beseeched by an Iraqi soldier not to beat him. When assured that he was not to be beaten, he asked if it was true that we were cannibals, as he had been told that we were.
What a tough situation for those abandoned men.
Anyway, I just felt that the line "it is your shit, lie in it", was not just a bit harsh, but an oversimplification of a situation that has religious, military, and political facets.
Calvarian2003
10-04-2003, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@3 October 2003 - 12:53
The point remains.........If we'd gone in after the 1st Gulf War, there would have been a LOT more support (me included)
In addition 500,000+ Iraqi's would still be alive........those 500,000+ are firmly at the door of the UK/USA, NOT Hussain.
Whether you like it or not; he was/IS a bastard, but the "Allies" killed just as many innocent Iraqi's over the last decade as Hussain did in all his time in power.....
Rat Faced.... the UN sanctions against Iraq were approved by the United Nations... not the US and UK alone. To blame these two countries alone is ludicrous. Besides, why should the allies cop the blame for all those deaths? Why should the UN be blamed for enforcing international law? Saddam Hussein could have chosen to end the suffering AT ANY TIME. But he chose not to. He's the one at fault. And everyone else suffered because of it.
I'd like to know where you get your figures from as well. 500000+? Where on Earth did you get that? In any case, this still is well below the deaths known to have occurred under Saddam's regime, namely 1 million people.
Billy_Dean
10-04-2003, 09:06 AM
I'd like to know where you get your figures from as well. 500000+? Where on Earth did you get that? In any case, this still is well below the deaths known to have occurred under Saddam's regime, namely 1 million people.
He probably got them in the same way you got your 1 million!
:)
Calvarian2003
10-04-2003, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@4 October 2003 - 09:06
I'd like to know where you get your figures from as well. 500000+? Where on Earth did you get that? In any case, this still is well below the deaths known to have occurred under Saddam's regime, namely 1 million people.
He probably got them in the same way you got your 1 million!
:)
Try a report by your beloved 'UN'.
Billy_Dean
10-04-2003, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by Calvarian2003@4 October 2003 - 18:35
Try a report by your beloved 'UN'.
Again, read posts BEFORE you get it wrong.
:)
J'Pol
10-04-2003, 11:32 AM
Would the sanctions have been lifted if the regime which had attacked Kuwait had stood down.
Would that have saved his people. Or am I asssuming that he gave a flying feck about them. I'm sure he and his never went short of a meal. Or his secret police, or his rape squads.
Billy_Dean
10-04-2003, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by JPaul@4 October 2003 - 20:32
Would the sanctions have been lifted if the regime which had attacked Kuwait had stood down.
Would that have saved his people. Or am I asssuming that he gave a flying feck about them. I'm sure he and his never went short of a meal. Or his secret police, or his rape squads.
Who do you feel is defending him JP?
:)
J'Pol
10-04-2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+4 October 2003 - 13:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 4 October 2003 - 13:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@4 October 2003 - 20:32
Would the sanctions have been lifted if the regime which had attacked Kuwait had stood down.
Would that have saved his people. Or am I asssuming that he gave a flying feck about them. I'm sure he and his never went short of a meal. Or his secret police, or his rape squads.
Who do you feel is defending him JP?
:) [/b][/quote]
I haven't seen anything which looks like someone is defending him, have you. I don't think my post suggested that anyone here was defending him, having re-read it I am not sure why you ask, but sorry if I caused any confusion. I would be appalled to think that someone would.
I was suggesting that the real reason for the sanctions remaining in place was his intransigence and obvious total disregard for the welfare of his people.
I was merely conjecturing that, had he stood down surely the sanctions would have been lifted and this could all have been sorted a decade ago.
I think that blaming the US and the UK for it is to ignore the reason the sanctions were put in place, an unprovoked attack on another country.
To blame the US and the UK for the sanctions not being lifted is to ignore the fact that the man who made this attack refused to stand down from his position, thus demonstrating how he truly felt about his subjects (I use the word advisedly).
Billy_Dean
10-04-2003, 12:36 PM
Sorry JP, must have read it wrong.
JP, I haven't noticed anyone saying Sadam should not have been removed. My point is that if the UK and US had said in the first place that they were taking him out, the world as a whole would have backed them. As it is, most people did not believe the reasons for going in, nor the rhetoric about WMD. I have also blamed the UN, because they passed the resolution on sanctions, and now refuse to lift them. Urgent medical supplies are still being witheld, and it's still the WMD story that stops their import. The UN cannot disentangle itself now by claiming the invasion was not sanctioned by them, Sadam isn't there, lift the sanctions!!
:)
Calvarian2000
10-04-2003, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+4 October 2003 - 10:03--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 4 October 2003 - 10:03)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Calvarian2003@4 October 2003 - 18:35
Try a report by your beloved 'UN'.
Again, read posts BEFORE you get it wrong.
:) [/b][/quote]
LOL Thank you so much Billy Dean. I know it's childish to pull pranks but I just couldn't resist in your case. I only joined this board to annoy you. I was quite amused the other day when you made the remark, 'let's see how much support you get.' Do you think I give the slightest toss about what a bunch of bigoted atheists think?
I haven't the time to waste proving wrong your idiotic, childish arguments. Judging by the amount of time you spend on this board, I'd say you're unemployed. Or at least in some crappy dead end job like selling jars of pickled onions on the side of dirt road. Here's a newsflash: Maybe if you weren't on welfare I might care what you thought.
I feel sorry for your parents to have had a bigoted oaf of a son like you. Or maybe you're an orphan? Yes, an orphan. Who in their right mind would want you as their son? No one could love a barracuda!
Your support for the extreme left is truly touching. You are a fool and I am ashamed that you are an Australian resident. It's bleeding heart socialists and liberal do-gooders like you that will run this country into the ground. I only wish I could see the look of regret on your face when you realise what you an ignorant fool you've been. God save us all if you ever get into politics. Hopefully you'll just make a money grab like the rest of them and won't legalise homosexual marriages, ban gun ownership, and continue your present tradition of kissing the UN's ass. Which reminds me, come out of the closet yet, Billy Dean?
This country, nay, the world would be a much better place if we just started executing every murderer, rapist, torturer, terrorist, liberal, and DO GOODER around. As Stan the Man says, 'Just get the SCUM OFF THE EARTH!'
Furthermore, I despise you're holier-than-thou attitude. Who cares what you have to say about things? Why should your opinion be so important? Nothing else about you is. It is out of my sheer generosity that I even read what you have to say.You are a complete fool who deserves all the forum-bashing he can get. You are a racist, fascist, antagonistic bigot. Go take a long walk off a short pier, and when you go to hell, tell 'em Calvarian sent you!
J'Pol
10-04-2003, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@4 October 2003 - 13:36
Sorry JP, must have read it wrong.
JP, I haven't noticed anyone saying Sadam should not have been removed. My point is that if the UK and US had said in the first place that they were taking him out, the world as a whole would have backed them. As it is, most people did not believe the reasons for going in, nor the rhetoric about WMD. I have also blamed the UN, because they passed the resolution on sanctions, and now refuse to lift them. Urgent medical supplies are still being witheld, and it's still the WMD story that stops their import. The UN cannot disentangle itself now by claiming the invasion was not sanctioned by them, Sadam isn't there, lift the sanctions!!
:)
Again I think we are at crossed wires.
My post was in relation to when the sanctions were put in place after Saddam was removed from Kuwait.
Had he stood down all of this could have been avoided, in particular the suffering of the people of Iraq.
My point is simple. He brought the sanctions on them and he kept them in place. See my earlier post.
Billy_Dean
10-04-2003, 01:37 PM
@ Calvarian ....Haha!!
LOL Thank you so much Billy Dean. I know it's childish to pull pranks but I just couldn't resist in your case. I only joined this board to annoy you.
You think this was a secret? You haven't had an opinion of your own since you started posting. It has always been obvious what your agenda was.
But thank you for coming, your idiocy was truly humourous. Now, back to school with you!
:)
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@4 October 2003 - 07:36
I have also blamed the UN, because they passed the resolution on sanctions, and now refuse to lift them.
What entity or circumstance do you believe to be responsible for this fact, Billy?
Certainly not the U.S. or U.K.
I'll start by spotting you an "F".
Rat Faced
10-04-2003, 08:57 PM
Oil for food program (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilindex.htm)
Oil-for-Food Programme
The Security Council adopted this program in 1995 after widespread criticisms of the humanitarian crisis in Iraq under comprehensive economic sanctions. After delays, humanitarian supplies began to arrive in 1997. Though the program lessened the crisis, it did not end it. Under its rules, the UN controlled all revenues from Iraq's oil sales and contracts within the program were subject to oversight. The US and the UK often imposed political blockages on legitimate humanitarian contracts, claiming "dual-use" as military items. Procedures were slow, monies were withheld for war reparations, and Iraq's oil industry could not obtain either investments or adequate spare parts. Beginning in late 2001, the US-UK throttled Iraq's oil sales through abusive control over the contract price, drastically reducing funds available for the program. The adoption of Resolution 1483 in May 2003 put an end to sanctions and foresaw the phasing out of the Programme over 6 months and the gradual transfer of its administration to the US-UK authorities in Iraq.
I thought Resolution 1483 lifted sanctions.... although admitedly it doesnt come into effect until 6 months after the resolution was made.
Has something else happened that ive missed? (I admit i havent watched the news in about a month, since its so depressing at the moment....)
Oil for food program is bad now, because the US/UK basically blocked it, changed it and stole the money generated for "war reparations"....ie paying for the illegal bombing runs on Iraq during the last decade.
THEY made the program that way; so why are they complaining about it being that way now? It was originaly a Humanitarian program....the fact that it will take as long for them to change it back to such, as it will for the sanctions to finally be totally lifted, is no fault of anyone but them, surely.
Calvarian2000
10-05-2003, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@4 October 2003 - 13:37
@ Calvarian ....Haha!!
LOL Thank you so much Billy Dean. I know it's childish to pull pranks but I just couldn't resist in your case. I only joined this board to annoy you.
You think this was a secret? You haven't had an opinion of your own since you started posting. It has always been obvious what your agenda was.
But thank you for coming, your idiocy was truly humourous. Now, back to school with you!
:)
Don't flatter yourself. Read this:
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohl...29/2003#1222302 (http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=9/29/2003#1222302)
This sums up the arrogance held by atheists (such as yourself) quite well.
Unless you're a convert to Islam? In that case this link:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=34836 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34836)
I think at one point you asked for proof that Islam is a violent religion. Well, let's to the source, the Koran and the Hadith.
1) Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4396
Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
A thief was brought to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). He said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his hand. So his (right) hand was cut off. He was brought a second time and he said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his foot.
So his (left) foot was cut off.
He was brought a third time and he said: Kill him.
The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
So he said: Cut off his hand. (So his (left) hand was cut off.)
He was brought a fourth time and he said: Kill him.
The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
So he said: Cut off his foot. So his (right) foot was cut off.
He was brought a fifth time and he said: Kill him.
So we took him away and killed him. We then dragged him and cast him into a well and threw stones over him.
2) See how Muhammad dealt with the unbelievers:
Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4359
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:
The verse "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite side or exile from the land...most merciful" was revealed about polytheists. If any of them repents before they are arrested, it does not prevent from inflicting on him the prescribed punishment, which he deserves.”
How tolerant of other faiths and religions!
3) Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 577:
I heard the Prophet saying, "In the last days (of the world) there will appear young people with foolish thoughts and ideas. They will give good talks, but they will go out of Islam as an arrow goes out of its game, their faith will not exceed their throats. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for there will be a reward for their killers on the Day of Resurrection."
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "
4) Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:
Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
5) Unbelievers
2:191, And slay them wherever ye catch them
2:193, And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression
2:216, Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you
3:28, Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah
4:48 “Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed.”
4:84, Then fight in Allah’s cause - Thou art held responsible only for thyself - and rouse the believers. It may be that Allah will restrain the fury of the Unbelievers; for Allah is the strongest in might and in punishment.
4:141, And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers
5:33, The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
8:12, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them
8:15-16, O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day - unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)!
8:17, It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah’s: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself
8:60, Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
8:65, O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers
9:5, But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem.
6) Volume 7, Book 62, Number 33:
Narrated Usama bin Zaid:
The Prophet said, "After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women."
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 31:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Evil omen was mentioned before the Prophet: The Prophet said, "If there is evil omen in anything, it is in the house, the woman and the horse."
I could quote all day, rather I shall give you a link: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/quran_teaches.htm
Or about about this, an article by Salman Rushdie!
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/rushd...about_islam.htm (http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/rushdie/yes_its_about_islam.htm)
"ONDON -- "This isn't about Islam." The world's leaders have been repeating this mantra for weeks, partly in the virtuous hope of deterring reprisal attacks on innocent Muslims living in the West, partly because if the United States is to maintain its coalition against terror it can't afford to suggest that Islam and terrorism are in any way related.
The trouble with this necessary disclaimer is that it isn't true. If this isn't about Islam, why the worldwide Muslim demonstrations in support of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Why did those 10,000 men armed with swords and axes mass on the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier, answering some mullah's call to jihad? Why are the war's first British casualties three Muslim men who died fighting on the Taliban side?"
Perhaps this isn't good enough? Not even quotes from the Muslim holy book, the Koran? And the Hadith which is accepted as the words of Mohammed himself? Fact: I never said Muslims (in general) are violent, I said their religion is. There will be those that are peaceful and those that actually believe these statements and use them as justification for slamming planes into office buildings.
There are also dozens of articles on the internet written by Muslims, explaining why they left Islam. Here is one such article:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/..._left_islam.htm (http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/why_i_left_islam.htm)
It seems everyone except the politically-correct in the West are willing to admit what a violent creed is the Koran.
If anything, BD, it is YOU who are blinded to the truth.
Rat Faced
10-05-2003, 01:20 AM
Want everyone to start pasting the crap in the Bible now?
Have to admit to not knowing much...but i recall a bear sent to kill some children for teasing an old man.
And im sure there was something about being a "Vengeful God".....
And there was the passages that Vlad the Impaler used to justify his actions....i'll have to look them up.....
Billy_Dean
10-05-2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Calvarian2000@5 October 2003 - 09:25
.
Just when we thought you couldn't be stupider .... !
:)
J'Pol
10-05-2003, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+5 October 2003 - 12:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 5 October 2003 - 12:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Calvarian2000@5 October 2003 - 09:25
.
Just when we thought you couldn't be stupider .... !
:) [/b][/quote]
Speak for yourself.
I thought he could be stupider.
Still do as a matter of fact.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.