Weapon of mass distruction
WoMD ... so where are they?
by Simon 865 Replies latest social current
-
-
searchfothetruth
Ballistic.
Yes, I saw the channel 4 documentary called 'The Real Images of the War'.
I was going to post a thread about it but i've been 'told' to stop posting threads that may be controversial to our war supporting friends on this board.
But since this thread was started by Simon, I feel it would be OK to answer on it.
The documentary was by Channel 4 and included footage of the following:
American troops opening fire on a bus, when the bus burst into flames, 3 men got off, two fell to the ground and one ran away. As he ran away he was gunned down in a hail of bullets by 'up to 40 marines'.
Pictures of the aftermath of cluster bomb (which are banned) showing children ripped to pieces by shrapnel.
Pictures of women and children in hospital with the most horrendous injuries you could possibly imagine.
Jon Simpson, the BBC journalist, showed footage of the aftermath of the bomb that hit the convoy that he was travelling in which was attacked, TWICE, by an American pilot. The footage showed the tanks and vehicles, flying great big american flags so as to be identifiable from the air. It also showed afterward, the people picking up hands and feet that had been blown off by this 'dispicable act of bombing'.
It showed the manipulation of the footage which seemed to show a mass of people surrounding the statue of Saddam Hussein which was pulled down by an American tank. It then showed the wide angle view and the square was virtually empty save for a few hundred Iraqis and these were outnumbered by journalists and soldiers.
It showed a road strewn with bodies and parts of bodies. The witnesses said that the convoy of cars that had been driving away from the fighting all had white flags but the American troops opened fire on the convoy killing everyone in it and the pictures of bodies burned inside cars etc were absolutely horrific.
If anyone says they support the war, then they have to support the innocent loss of life that comes with it.
Anyone who see's the pictures of children with arms, legs and heads missing should realise that if the British and American governments sanctioned this attack by lying and manipulating evidence then there should be no doubt that war-crimes were committed.
Over 7000 innocent civilians died and are still dying every day.
Soldiers that are following orders are still dying every day.
This war was an abomination.
I for one am amazed that, with the overwhelming evidence that the world was lyed to, that the reasons for attack are NOT clear, that support of this war, and it's perpetrators is as disgusting as being part of it.
I've tried to link this program but it is not available for viewing.
-
Guest 77
When Saddam kills innocent people he's called a murderer, when the US troops kill civilians with their WoMD it's called, 'collateral damage'.
What's with this in 'God We Trust' garbage?
Guest 77
-
patio34
Searchforthetruth,
Thanks for posting the gist of the program. It's appalling what was done. I have difficulty believing that the war supporters shouldn't be upset. The criminal action of violating the UN Law by invading a essentially defenseless country should not be supported. It's reasonable to object to such an egregious action and they should be concerned about upsetting the more law-abiding among us here.
A couple of things about your report: the injured in their hospitals also do not have the proper medications or even pain killers for their operations!
Long-term damage to the Iraqis will be caused by the depleted uranium (DU) the US/UK has used to coat their tanks and bullets. Even the invading soldiers will have damage to their health.
Not only the Iraqis were damaged, so are our own troops that Bush wants everyone to rally around. See how much help they get from the government if they get sick from the radiation poison. Oh, the taxpayers were ripped off too by paying for this huge disaster in the first place. But Bush, et al., get richer. It makes the WTBS look so tame . . .
Sorry for upsetting any of the war supporters here. No, I'm not. They should be upset and thinking about how they've been taken advantage of and more.
Pat
-
dubla
pleasure-
dubla
ive often wondered exactly that after reading your conspiracy fantasies.sorry i must have been living on another planet.
i've searched for docs pertaining to anyone of the 8,000 pages that the US took out, and funnily enough i cant find any. i check the news often and have never seen anything on them.
wow, that must have been an exhausting search.......it only took me five minutes to find what i was looking for this morning (and i cant see how that statement by powell has anything to do with the removed pages)...........what i have read is claims by 'colon' powell that they were a 'catalogue of recycled information and flagrant omissions'. well, if thats what you refer to then i can say that i can sleep easier tonight. powell says this, so it must be true. "dont bother to back up what you say colin, 'cos we believe you."
Diplomats and U.N. officials said the shorter report lacked any information that might assist in the production of nuclear weapons. The names of companies that may have purposely or unwittingly sold Baghdad materials that were later used in weapons production were also deleted, diplomats and U.N. officials said.
"It [editing the report] was a very fast operation, of course," Blix said. "And we have a limited number of people and they worked very, very hard over the weekend, and I am pleased they were able to do so."
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12/17/sproject.irq.un.iraq.report/index.html
as you can see here, blix headed up the editing initiative....its a myth that this was solely a u.s. action.....blix, and all the permanent members agreed that the pages including specifics on building nuclear, chemical, and biological programs shouldnt be put in the hands of say, syria for example. again, why do you persoanally feel they should have these pages? the idea that the u.s. simply wanted to hide something in those removed pages has simply been cooked up by your conspiracy theory websites. this is just one quick article i found....if youd like more on the subject, i can dig.
now, if you want links to actual pages out of the report, thats going to be impossible.......
Even the sanitized versions of the documents will remain confidential, and not be released as a public U.N. document, diplomats said.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12/17/sproject.irq.un.iraq.report/index.html
personally, im glad that the nuclear "how to" manuals arent displayed on a public website......obviously that censorship bothers you.
when i asked you why you didnt care about china being a part of this action, you replied:
'cos it doesnt bloody surprise me thats why! all the permanent members of the security council have had their fingers in the iraq pie. the US were the ones who removed it so that's the focus. dont cloud the issue, hey dubla.
but you told me in a previous post that if ANY other country had removed these pages (other than the u.s.), that i would have made a big deal out of it. i used china as an example to show that other countries did in fact remove the pages (china, russia, france, britain)....and you are the only one making a big deal out of it. so who is clouding the issue?
oh, and just a little point about being uninformed. check your own quote out .....
i apologize...in the future i will not overestimate your ability to grasp sarcasm. it was meant as a nonsense statement, to show how ridiculous your claim about clause 10 was. let me explain in smaller words.......you stated that by removing pages, the u.s. had violated clause 10 of the resolution. but the only thing clause 10 says that would even pertain to these pages, is that information related to prohibited programs must be given to unmovic and the iaea. did the u.s. withhold information from unmovic or the iaea? no......only the non-permanent members of the security council were prohibited from seeing details on iraqs programs. so how was clause 10 violated (which btw, if it were, it would have been violated by france, russia, china, and britain as well).....? it wasnt. hopefully this helps clear up your confusion with my comment.non-permanent members in UNMOVIC? what the hell are you talking about?
this just another typical example of you arguing about something that you know nothing about, just like the official timeline of 9/11.
no, i realize now that it was in fact george w. bush and dick cheney that hijacked those planes, and parachuted out before impact.....but thats a story for another thread. aa -
Pleasuredome
clause 10 speaks of providing information on iraqs programs to unmovic and the iaea......are there specifically non-permanent members in unmovic or the iaea that were not provided this information? if so, please provide links to back this up....im unaware of it.ive often wondered exactly that after reading your conspiracy fantasies.
i often wondered which planet i was on after reading you government BS
but you told me in a previous post that if ANY other country had removed these pages (other than the u.s.),
what i said was 'a document like this'. what i should have made clear was a situation like this, which the US were on the wrong side of. so dont put words in my mouth
personally, im glad that the nuclear "how to" manuals arent displayed on a public website......obviously that censorship bothers you.
yes, wouldnt want groups like al-qaeda using that info would we?
i notice your quote above which say 'MIGHT assist'. whats bloody 'might' about it? in other words it doesn't. the real issue i would sugest is the protecting the info on goverments and companies that supported saddams regime. you cant prove what you are saying and you keeping banging on about this crap. not only that, you expect everyone to take as gospel everything any politician or governmental agency/worker, when they dont back up what they say.Diplomats and U.N. officials said the shorter report lacked any information that might assist in the production of nuclear weapons. The names of companies that may have purposely or unwittingly sold Baghdad materials that were later used in weapons production were also deleted, diplomats and U.N. officials said.
clause 10 speaks of providing information on iraqs programs to unmovic and the iaea......are there specifically non-permanent members in unmovic or the iaea that were not provided this information? if so, please provide links to back this up....im unaware of it.
very strange sarcasm indeed.
it was meant as a nonsense statement, to show how ridiculous your claim about clause 10 was.
you stated
funny how you think i was making a 'claim' and a 'statement'. did i make a statement or ask a question on that point???? a good example of how you twist what others say.
oh and by the way, UNMOVIC reports to the security council, not just the permanent members, and it's the security council that makes the final decision by vote. so when you say when you say that the other permanent member were behind the pages removed, thats good observation. howerver the US lead that removal, that themselves did it, and so are the focus for it. i hope thats cleared up for you.
no, i realize now that it was in fact george w. bush and dick cheney that hijacked those planes, and parachuted out before impact.....but thats a story for another thread.
probably more likely than bin laden organising it from a CIA funded cave complex in afghanistan . -
dubla
pleasure-
i often wondered which planet i was on after reading you government BS
if you have to wonder what planet you are on, its time to get help.
what i said was 'a document like this'. what i should have made clear was a situation like this, which the US were on the wrong side of. so dont put words in my mouth
i wasnt trying to put words in your mouth, but while we are on the subject, dont put words in mine. i will have no problems with any editing of a document like this (a document containing information on specific nuclear programs), no matter who it is doing the editing...just for the record.
yes, wouldnt want groups like al-qaeda using that info would we?
exactly.
i notice your quote above which say 'MIGHT assist'. whats bloody 'might' about it? in other words it doesn't.
how does "might" mean it "doesnt"? interesting spin on the english language you have there. in any event, heres some other comments on it (bold/italic mine):
On Tuesday evening, the non-permanent members, who are elected for two-year terms, got their censored copies — with all information that could be used to promote the spread of weapons of mass destruction removed.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73314,00.html
President Alfonso Valdivieso of Columbia held private consultations over the weekend on how the report was to be given to the Security Council. He decided that as soon as copies could be made, unedited versions would be given to the five permanent members of the council -- China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States -- which are also nuclear powers and therefore would have the expertise to assess the risks of proliferation and other sensitive information contained in the files.
Dissemination of the declaration to the remaining council members will occur after any sections that could potentially foster arms proliferation or whose dissemination would contravene arms conventions such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Biological Weapons Convention are edited, the council president and UNMOVIC officials said.
"This is a sensitive issue," Valdivieso told journalists December 9. "We cannot assume risks of proliferation, and the way to avoid that is to provide [copies] to the [council] members that have that expertise."
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02120909.htm
(this next one is an article that is specifically anti-u.s., yet it still backs up what ive been saying about the removed pages....curious)
The IAEA warned that releasing the report to UN member states constituted a grave threat to the non-proliferation treaty, but was ignored.
The chief of the UN nuclear inspectors in Iraq, Jacques Baute, has told his IAEA colleagues that if the Iraqi information falls into the wrong hands it could reduce the time needed to build a nuclear bomb from scratch from more than 10 years to two.
"It's an A-Z, so much important material," the official said.
Another IAEA official described the unedited Iraqi information as a "handbook" for developing nuclear weapons.
"It has the information on what worked well and what didn't, how to build centrifuges, how to enrich uranium, information on procurement, weapons design, suppliers. That doesn't leave very much."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,862471,00.html
. you cant prove what you are saying and you keeping banging on about this crap. not only that, you expect everyone to take as gospel everything any politician or governmental agency/worker, when they dont back up what they say.
i certainly dont expect anyone to believe everything the politicians say...in fact, if youd have kept up with this thread, youd see that i have repeatedly said the exact opposite, that we are lied to at every turn. youre right that i cannot prove what was or wasnt in those pages (just as you have no proof to back up your ramblings), but it comes down to a little common sense when deciding what to believe. in this instance, we have two options. one, we can believe what every expert that has read the full report has said, that indeed it was a detailed diagram for building nuclear programs. the other option: we can believe that russia, china, france (the three that were against war), the u.k., the u.s., unmovic, and the iaea have all cooked up a big conspiracy to remove top secret information from the report, even though this information wouldnt have been dangerous in the wrong hands. now, i choose to believe the logical choice one, and you choose to believe the paranoid choice two. i guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
very strange sarcasm indeed.
if you cant grasp humor, it would probably seem extremely strange. like i said, i wont make the mistake of overestimating you again.
funny how you think i was making a 'claim' and a 'statement'. did i make a statement or ask a question on that point???? a good example of how you twist what others say.
i apologize, i was not trying to twist your words in any way, shape, or form. to me, it sounded like you were making an assertion, but if you claim you were only asking a question, then i will answer it. the answer is no, the u.s., the u.k., china, russia, france, unmovic, and the iaea did not violate clause 10 of the resolution by editing the report before giving it to the non-permanent members.
oh and by the way, UNMOVIC reports to the security council, not just the permanent members, and it's the security council that makes the final decision by vote. so when you say when you say that the other permanent member were behind the pages removed, thats good observation. howerver the US lead that removal, that themselves did it, and so are the focus for it. i hope thats cleared up for you.
i honestly couldnt make heads or tails of this gibberish, sorry.
aa
-
rem
Just wanted to say that you're doing great, dubla. Some people don't seem to realize that BOTH sides lie. They are very cynical about anything Bush and Co do, but they seem too happily suck up any anti-Bush, anti-war propaganda.
Now both sides lie, but both sides also tell some truth. The trick is filtering out the crap and getting the big picture. Conspiracy theories and talk about Depleted Uranium just make my stomach turn.
Funny, this coming from me - a guy who doesn't even like Bush all that much.
rem
-
Pleasuredome
if you have to wonder what planet you are on, its time to get help.
i better rush to the doctor straight away, hey dub? while i'm there i can ask why some prats dont understand what a metaphor is.
-
dubla
pleasure-
was that supposed to be a response to my post? if the joke was the only part you could muster a rebuttal for, ill consider this issue closed.
aa