Illarion.org

Posted: **Fri May 02, 2003 10:59 pm**

i saw on the news a guy carrying a box full of papers out of a building before the inspectors got there, a little suspicious?

Or he was just taking the trashes out?

You can think just about anything as a suspicious action.

iraq had some 10 odd years or more to disarm, we gave them plenty of time.

Now we never find out if they really did it, do we?

UN inspectors did not work because the iraqi's can move the weapons before they inspect

Maybe, and now the americans can also ship all kinds of amusing evidence to frame the iraqi's, say that they found something and stamp 'classified' to the papers and put them into some vault in pentagon for the next eighty years. Or then just they give out some intelligence reports that has been dated ten years ago.. Oh they did it already didn't they?
See the second sentence of this post.

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2003 1:35 am**

ok we could frame them, but then again you could frame us? there is uncertainty about everything. i dont think manila envelopes have trash in them. WE KNOW THEY DIDNT, because they have banned weapons. WHAT WE DONT KNOW, is if they have weapons of mass destruction. one giant puppet, you people are living proof thats not true.

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2003 1:52 am**

This thing is absolutely hilarious. You have got to read this: http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/us_forms_own_un.html. Its from theonion.com, a mock newspaper kind of thing.

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2003 2:28 am**

yea well US isnt that dumb its the people, the people who do not care.. its a pity..

20/20 for me

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2003 2:49 am**

Caranthir the great wrote:
He has openly supported and trained terrorists
No proof but accusations and assumptions made by the coalition, there would be no logic in any Al-qaida - saddam alliance, since these two share absolutely opposite views about the Arabic world, and such non-religious arab rulers as Saddam are enemies of groups as Al-qaida.

It is true they have different opinions and are probably enemies to an extent. But they do have a common enemy......the US. Sometimes that can cause people to work together who normally would not.

Caranthir the great wrote:
and has manufactured chemical and biological weapons for the purpose of selling them to terrorists, or using them himself.
Funny, but weren't the UN weapon inspectors the ones whose job was to solve these questions? Yet your governement did not want to give them enough time to make any conclusions wether Iraq had weapons or not anymore.
Now we are supposed to believe some american inspectors who propably frame the Iraqi's anyways? Sorry but I am not buying this.

The inspectors were not doing their job. It was too easy for Saddam's people to hide the evidence. As far as giving them enough time.....Saddam had already broke the time limit several times.

Caranthir the great wrote:Isn't it funny that USA doesn't let anyone to inspect their research-facilities for chemical and biological weapons?

The conflict was not over JUST chemical and biological weapons but ANY weapons of mass destruction. Does the US have chemical and biological weapons? I don't know it's possible but doubtful. The difference is that Saddam actually used them, and what's worse he used them on innocent people to test them and see how they would work.
He used his own countrymen to test these weapons.

Caranthir the great wrote:Isn't it funny how the time given to Iraqi's to obey the UN orders was matter of weeks or days, while Israel has got what, 39 years to obey the UN resolution which ordered them to retreat from the palestinian territory they had taken over and they still haven't done it. Double-moralism or what?

Let's see..........make that 12 years, not weeks or days.
The condition for the US pulling out of Iraq during the first gulf war was for Saddam to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction. That was in 1991.
I don't know about Israel and Palestine, that is a different subject.
The US is in no threat from these two countries so why should we intervene?

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2003 7:31 am**

Crocket wrote:
Caranthir the great wrote:
It is true they have different opinions and are probably enemies to an extent. But they do have a common enemy......the US. Sometimes that can cause people to work together who normally would not.
Sometimes it is, that's true. But you or your government have no evidence for this happening in this case (at least they did not share them with us and not. However, according to a poll conducted in the US, 55% of the people asked claim that Saddam is directly responsible for the 9/11-terrorism. Think about that. What's going on here? There is no proof for that!

The inspectors were not doing their job. It was too easy for Saddam's people to hide the evidence. As far as giving them enough time.....Saddam had already broke the time limit several times.
Is this what the media told you?
Well, then. According to my informations and according to what the UN and most of it's participating countries think and what the inspectors told themselves, they in fact WERE doing their work.
What the inspectors also told was that the US did not work together with them in the amount they wanted them to, which means that the US government did not give them all information they had and which would have been important etc. etc.
What is it you are going to tell us now?

You know who sold weapons to Saddam as well? A guy from the USA did. Rumsfeld is his name. You know what happened to him lately? Well, I guess you know that.

We are talking about war. We are talking about killed innocent people, children amongst them. We are not talking about Saddam being imprisoned.

The conflict was not over JUST chemical and biological weapons but ANY weapons of mass destruction. Does the US have chemical and biological weapons? I don't know it's possible but doubtful.
LOL.
OF COURSE THEY HAVE!
Thats a well known *fact*. Please inform yourself. They own much, much more weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons than any other country in the world. It is even known that the US has FORBIDDEN weapons and it is known that they even use some of them. Furthermore it is known that they hinder the UN-inspectors to check these weapons. It is known that they brought forbidden chemical weapons to the iraq in order to use them there (e.g. a nerve gas similar to that used in this theatre in russia lately, which are forbidden by UN resolutions -- resolutions which YOU want the iraq to obey but which your own government doesn't!)
Think about that (I am currently not at homw, but if you want to I can give you detailed information on every of my claims later).

The difference is that Saddam actually used them, and what's worse he used them on innocent people to test them and see how they would work.
The USA did that as well. Maybe not in the past 10 years, but they tested a lot of different weapons on innocent people.
Today, at THIS moment, they try weapons with KNOWN effects on innocent people (of the iraq).

He used his own countrymen to test these weapons.
Oh well, the USA doesn't do thet. They try them out on other countries people...

Caranthir the great wrote:Isn't it funny how the time given to Iraqi's to obey the UN orders was matter of weeks or days, while Israel has got what, 39 years to obey the UN resolution which ordered them to retreat from the palestinian territory they had taken over and they still haven't done it. Double-moralism or what?
Let's see..........make that 12 years, not weeks or days.
The condition for the US pulling out of Iraq during the first gulf war was for Saddam to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction. That was in 1991.
I don't know about Israel and Palestine, that is a different subject.
The US is in no threat from these two countries so why should we intervene?

Sorry, please inform yourself about whats happening there.
What I now understand is that the Bush-government really spent a lot of effort in letting its people believe that there is HUGE threat for the USA coming from iraq. That's not your fault, it's the fault of your government and media.

Martin

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2003 4:20 pm**

Here is a little story I will tell and then I will be done with this thread as it is off topic anyway.

As our country sits at the crossroads of a great decision, I spent some time with my nine year old son, reading a social studies lesson.

On the news we hear of anti-war protesters calling for peace. We hear of France, Germany and and other European countries lobbying for more time to disarm a violent dictator. We hear of our President calling for Iraq to unconditionally disarm, even if it means war.

In the social studies lesson, my son learned of Patrick Henry. For those of you who need a refresher, Patrick Henry was a Virginia Patriot that helped lead the original colonies to freedom from a tyrannical King. Many letters were written to the King to try to reason with him and regain freedom. When it became obvious that reasoning with the tyrant to regain their lost freedom was not a possibility, some of our leaders saw that war was the only option. Still, there were those that thought that a diplomatic solution was possible. Patrick Henry was not one of them. He stood up at a meeting in St. Johns church and said:

"Gentleman my cry, 'Peace! Peace!' -- but there is no peace! ... Why stand we here idle? ... Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take: but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

We all know what happened next, America was born! Freedom reigns!

Would our forefathers and grandfathers be proud while we sit idly by and allow a dictator rule in torturous power? Was the blood that spilled from my grandfather during World War II in vein, so that we have our freedom but deny it to others? To this I must answer NO!

I am an AMERICAN and I will not sit in fear of another 9-11 or worse and I can not stand by and watch it happen to others, not as an AMERICAN! Not with our history. I will support my President and his decision. Freedom must prevail, freedom will prevail, for the future of us and our children.

God Bless all,

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2003 5:23 pm**

For those of you who need a refresher, Patrick Henry was a Virginia Patriot that helped lead the original colonies to freedom from a tyrannical King.

Perhaps the english share a different view on that matter?
Interesting concept, did you know that it is very fashion nowdays to call every freedom-fighter terrorist, along with the genuine ones?
So does this same apply to the freedom-fighters of past?

On the news we hear of anti-war protesters calling for peace. We hear of France, Germany and and other European countries lobbying for more time to disarm a violent dictator.

One might ask a rhetoric question; Which one?

We all know what happened next, America was born! Freedom reigns!

Oh, I must have skipped those history lessons, how about slavery in the US?

Still, there were those that thought that a diplomatic solution was possible.

Evil bastards weren't they?!

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2003 6:40 pm**

I am an AMERICAN and I will not sit in fear of another 9-11 or worse and I can not stand by and watch it happen to others, not as an AMERICAN! Not with our history. I will support my President and his decision. Freedom must prevail, freedom will prevail, for the future of us and our children.

I heard about a study by the UN that the more the US was involved in "resolving" conflicts, there was a higher rate of terrorism.

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2003 6:43 pm**

Yes.. .they seem unable to understand that the actions they are taking now is indeed why they aretargeted by terrorism... Perhaps if they would stop trying to control the entire world..?

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2003 6:57 pm**

Aragon wrote: [...]
Everything about Illarion that fits nowhere else / Alles über Illarion, dass in kein anderes Board inhaltlich passt

And I don't see, where discussions about religione and war and history depends in any case to Illarion.
Please keep the boards to the subject, where it belongs.

Anyone has readed this post?

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2003 7:57 pm**

heh, mishrack i have to agree with you there, i wish our government wouldnt get involved in so many things that dont even affect us.

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2003 8:40 pm**

Crocket wrote:Here is a little story I will tell and then I will be done with this thread as it is off topic anyway.

Nice little story. But do you think it is reasonale to base the decision whether hunreds and thousands of innocent children should be killed or hurt upon? Do you think that this boy, gw bush, does not err because the minority (this is no typo) of US people elected him and he's president now? I don't think so. Do you think the leaders of the countries not supporting this war are all stupid dumbasses? I don't think so.

And what about the stories *I* told? Stories about the USA having forbidden weapons? Stories of Mr Rumsfeld selling weapons to saddam? What about the missing proof of the relation of the 9/11-attacks and the iraq? What about the US hindering the work of the UN-inspectors? What about the US not obeying human rights but asking for them? What about the US breaking international law (in fact the most important aspect of it-- attacking a country without permission!)?

No word of that. Just some nice little stories which are not related to the current problem directly. Is it that how gw bush makes his decisions? I hope not, but I fear so.

Martin

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2003 10:03 pm**

Mishrack, why did we get attacked on 9/11? By your thinking if we don't do anything we will be safe, before 9/11 we did nothing and we weren't safe. So your theory is flawed.

Posted: **Sun May 04, 2003 12:12 am**

Well....I for one trust our miilitary and government leaders. I mean, we elected them in the first place. Lets think: gw Bush vs. Al Gore. WHich one would do better in this war?

lets think......duh!

Posted: **Sun May 04, 2003 12:18 am**

Well, I would have to agree. Bush would have done better in this war than Gore. On the other hand, Gore would have been smart enough not to start the war in first place.

I for one trust our miilitary and government leaders.

I think that this is the actual problem, you have not gotten your ass kicked in wars enough. Its really easy to sit in home and say: 'We are bombing the shit out of them, but nevermind we do the right thing freedom blah blah blah!'
If someone would have turned your towns into smoking rubble, I bet that your military interference would be a lot more reluctant than now.

Posted: **Sun May 04, 2003 3:05 am**

couldnt agree more carinthar, but it didnt happen, and its overwith.

Posted: **Sun May 04, 2003 4:19 am**

I*m sorry to burst your bubble, Grant, but that comment is quite possibly the most stupid comment ever to have been written on any board.

Grant wrote:Mishrack, why did we get attacked on 9/11? By your thinking if we don't do anything we will be safe, before 9/11 we did nothing and we weren't safe. So your theory is flawed.

Though there still is no concrete evidence, Osama Bin Laden is popularly held responsible for that little incident. Now then, Who do you thin trained Osama and all his little Mudjahideen friends?
CIA? - Correct.
Why did CIA trian Sammasamma then? To not personally have to fight CCCP in Afghanistan.

So you see, US decided to play god yet again in afghanistan, and created some killing machines. Then the killing machines turned against them, and they wonder why?!

US sponsorship of Israel - according to bushite logic - is effectively also sponsering of terrorism, so he should be bombing his own arse too...

Now go and learn something aobut the world befor eyou post again.

Posted: **Sun May 04, 2003 4:23 am**

Though there still is no concrete evidence, Osama Bin Laden is popularly held responsible for that little incident.

Little incident? I'm pretty sure more people died in that 20 minutes or so than have died in the last two wars.

Posted: **Sun May 04, 2003 4:26 am**

Are you aware just how many people die each week?!
and you want to compare the total ammount of deaths of two years with about 1700?

Posted: **Sun May 04, 2003 4:45 am**

Gigasha wrote:
Though there still is no concrete evidence, Osama Bin Laden is popularly held responsible for that little incident.
Little incident? I'm pretty sure more people died in that 20 minutes or so than have died in the last two wars.

Well, lets see... he is talking about this current Iraq war, and, since the gulf war was only a "conflict," I guess he is talking about the 10,000 day war, AKA Vietnam war. Lets see how many people died in vietnam alone... that would be 58,202 people... Please, get your facts straight...

Anyway, I've been saving this as my secret weapon, but, I will use it now.

A popular talk radio show host in New Jersey was called by a man who was against the war because he thought Iraq had no weapons. So the radio show host said, "Would you bet $100 that he had no weapons?" The man said yes. "Would you bet your house that he has no weapons?" The man said yes. "Would you bet your family and the live's of your children that he has no weapons?" He said no, and thats what it all comes down to. If you don't understand it at first, think about it again.

Posted: **Sun May 04, 2003 4:48 am**

yes... now another thing to think of would be that He was in Iraq, whereas your families are in US... that is quite a long distance for throwing sticks and stones you know...

Posted: **Sun May 04, 2003 5:41 am**

mishrack, you still seem to thing that desert storm was about removing saddam. IT WASNT. it was about saving our ally from destruction. Also about vietnam, we were trying to stop the "domino effect" from happening with communism, and at the time this was important.

Posted: **Sun May 04, 2003 10:30 am**

Gigasha wrote:
Though there still is no concrete evidence, Osama Bin Laden is popularly held responsible for that little incident.
Little incident? I'm pretty sure more people died in that 20 minutes or so than have died in the last two wars.

According to reliable sources, there were about 2000 iraqis killed who were NO soldiers, no fighters, a lot of children amongst them.
They were not killed by a terrorists attack, but by a foreign government, the USA. So we have about 2000 innocents killed in oth incidents, one time by badass terrorists, the other time by a government. (And I am not talking about killed soldiers, which were MUCH more than that...)

You decide which incident you like more: Terrorists killing people or a government doing that. Note: Terrorists act out of the law, governments should act with respect to law.

And: What about weapons of mass destruction? Did you read todays newspapers? Some US-military leaders admited that this claim was just to get positive feedback from their countrys people and that finding WoMD is not really important to them anymore, as it wasn't ever really important. They WANTED their people to feel insecure in order to justify their war. And you believed them. What a shame.

Martin

Posted: **Sun May 04, 2003 10:34 am**

Gro'bul wrote:mishrack, you still seem to thing that desert storm was about removing saddam. IT WASNT. it was about saving our ally from destruction.

No. It was to free kuwait (sp?) from iraq because of the oil.
Please learn history.

You maybe could point out why the US-army tried to avoid people from looting the ministry of oil but not from looting childrens hospitals etc.
Could you or someone else please give me a reason why oil is more important than (a childs) life? I wasn't able to figure that out.

Martin

Posted: **Sun May 04, 2003 3:08 pm**

Kuwait was being invaded by Iraq, it was never under its control. and Mishrack, if you care soooo much for peoples lives you would know that Saddam would have killed well over 2000 people in the 2-3 week period when we were fighting. So we still saved lives in that 2-3 week period not to mention the people who be dieing today.
And I believe we found a ton of mustard gas the other day... not sure though.

Posted: **Sun May 04, 2003 3:11 pm**

Excellent Martin, truly excellent.

I really should use your arguments with my World History class. Or better yet, on the internet freestyle debate boards. It'll give the wankers a reason to stop acting like the terrorist bombing was the worst thing that happened in the history of the world...

I KNEW innocents were going to get killed. I KNEW the weapons of mass destruction was just an elaborate roose (sp?). Gah, I remember watching on the news that weapons inspectors over there were angry, because U.S intelligence regarding the location of these weapons were either inaccurate, or out of date. They found NOTHING over there! (or as I last witnessed, which was some time ago)

All of a sudden, I'm ashamed to be an American.

Later days.

Posted: **Sun May 04, 2003 5:53 pm**

2000 innocents? who reported this saddam himself? or al-jazir (however you spell it) those really arent the most reliable sources as when we were rolling into bagdad they were still playing video of people cheering in the streets for him. You dont want people to die, but, answer me this. How many more people of his own would he have to kill before you did anything about it? From what i see your saying its the iraqi's problem (im not saying its not) so they can deal with it.

Posted: **Sun May 04, 2003 6:00 pm**

And the American Government is any more trustworthy? This is the government who's CIA was found guilty of using halucinogenic drugs on Canadians, experimenting with mind control. This is the same government that said they had proof there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq but they did not show it?

The American Media even showed people celebrating in the streets, cheering for Hussein. So they aren't trustworthy either. The media doesn't neccesarily give the whole story, they tell what news they think will perhaps increase their ratings and thus get them more money.

Posted: **Sun May 04, 2003 6:02 pm**

Roke, do you believe that crap abotu experimenting on Canadians, that is a load of bs.

Illarion.org

Curiosity