The Iraq Thread

Balschoiw · January 15, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, that's not what I said. Rush Limbaugh is biased, but the pictures aren't biased, the guardian isn't biased, PBS isn't biased. <span id='postcolor'>

I think I got something big here. A terrorist training camp on US soil ??

Bernadotte · July 13, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (The Ferret @ Mar. 15 2003,18:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq is getting illegaly bombed every day by US & UK planes, so special forces on the ground wouldn't be so much more radical<span id='postcolor'>

Denoir,

UN Resolution 687 which was in regards to the terms of the GW1 armistice, gave Iraq 15 days to disclose EVERY WMD in possession, and the details of all WMD development programs.

It gave them 45 days to begin complete destruction and dismantling. The consequence of failure? Military action.<span id='postcolor'>

In resolution 687, the nearest I can find to any mention of consequences is this:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[The UN] Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.<span id='postcolor'>

You wouldn't just be makin' up all that stuff about military action, would ya?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (The Ferret @ Mar. 15 2003,18:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> So is US/UK bombing illegal in the legal sense?

Or illegal in your Swedish/French sense of morality?<span id='postcolor'>

My dictionary has a word for what you are calling illegal in a sense of morality: Â Immoral

Even though English is not denoir's first language, I suspect he would have used immoral if that's what he'd meant. Â Now take it from a native speaker of English: Â The US/UK bombing is illegal. Â It was launched to defend militants in the north and south as they attempted to overthrow Saddam Hussein and it has nothing to do with resolution 687.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (The Ferret @ Mar. 15 2003,18:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Going back to the days when they sold them the nuclear reactor, didn't that business deal go down while Iraq was engaged in the Iraq/Iran war?<span id='postcolor'>

No.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq established its nuclear program in the late 1960s when it acquired its first nuclear facilites. Later, in the 1970s, Iraq was unsuccessful in negotiations with France to purchase a plutonium production reactor similar to the one used in France's nuclear weapons program. In addition to the reactor, Iraq also wanted to purchase the reporcessing plant needed to recover the plutonium produced in the reactor. Even through these requests were denied, France agreed to build a research reactor along with associated laboratories.

...

In September 1980, at the onset of the Iran-Iraq War, the Israeli Chief of Army Intelligence urged the Iranians to bomb Osiraq.<span id='postcolor'>

The Iranian raid failed, so the Israelis destroyed the facility themselves, 9 months later.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">After the raid, Baghdad announced that it planned to rebuild the destroyed facility. Although France agreed in principle to provide technical assistance, no definitive timetable was announced. Ultimately, France decided to forego commercially lucrative opportunities to repair the damaged Osirak reactor.<span id='postcolor'>

Die Alive · September 8, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 15 2003,13:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, that's not what I said. Â Rush Limbaugh is biased, but the pictures aren't biased, the guardian isn't biased, PBS isn't biased. <span id='postcolor'>

I think I got something big here. A terrorist training camp on US soil ??

Those aren't commercial airliners.

-=Die Alive=-

Balschoiw · January 15, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Those aren't commercial airliners.<span id='postcolor'>

It was a joke

2024-12-22T01:07:16Z

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 15 2003,19:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We have reliable sources telling of an aircraft fuselage in Iraq being used to train terrorists. Â Now we have a picture of an aircraft fuselage in Iraq. Â Seems pretty conspicuous to me<span id='postcolor'>

oh #### ### ### ###### ##### ## ####!

How can anybody be so naive? It's beyond my comprehension. USA is so desperate that they aremanufacturing evidence that they are presenting to the UN and main stream media. If this had any slight chance of being relevant, don't you think that Bush would be holding a speech right now? No, this is a very typical classic move. You have some information that you know won't hold up to scrutiny so you quietly leak it to the non-professional media, that won't do any checking and at least a number of clueless people are bound to believe it. It was the same thing with the story that Saddam is giving money to the families of suicide bombers. Not even the heavily biased US media like CNN would even consider publishing such a heap of cow dung.

DarkLight · October 31, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 14 2003,20:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, that's not what I said. Â Rush Limbaugh is biased, but the pictures aren't biased, the guardian isn't biased, PBS isn't biased. <span id='postcolor'>

I think I got something big here. A terrorist training camp on US soil ??

GODDAMN!!!! LETS BOMB THEM BEFORE THEY GET US!

Pete · July 3, 2001

YEAH!!..LETS DO PRE-EMPTIVE HIJACKINGS OF THOSE NON-COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT AT THE AMERICAN TERRORIST CAMP AND SINK THEM ALL IN THE HAWAIIAN COAST!!!

....we got reliable sources (Balschoiw) claiming those aircraft being used for terrorist training!!..what else we would need??

aaaaaarrgh!!...*bangs head on the table in frustration*

Schoeler · October 17, 2001

Heh thats funny! That picture of the B-52's is at the airplane boneyard here in my hometown of Tucson Arizona. We don't train terrorists here, but we do make most of the missiles in the U.S. arsenal at Raytheon. Tucson is expecting an economic boom in the next few months.

DarkLight · October 31, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pete @ Mar. 14 2003,21:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">YEAH!!..LETS DO PRE-EMPTIVE HIJACKINGS OF THOSE NON-COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT AT THE AMERICAN TERRORIST CAMP AND SINK THEM ALL IN THE HAWAIIAN COAST!!!

....we got reliable sources (Balschoiw) claiming those aircraft being used for terrorist training!!..what else we would need??

aaaaaarrgh!!...*bangs head on the table in frustration*<span id='postcolor'>

I bet everyone will be so happy when we've finally rescued them from these terrorists!

Of course all you see on the news is that they don't want us to come, just like Schoeler said. BUT THATS ALL MEDIA!

Invade 'em all!

Warin · March 11, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Mar. 15 2003,20:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Heh thats funny! Â That picture of the B-52's is at the airplane boneyard here in my hometown of Tucson Arizona. Â We don't train terrorists here, but we do make most of the missiles in the U.S. arsenal at Raytheon. Â Tucson is expecting an economic boom in the next few months.<span id='postcolor'>

Man, that boneyard must be a truly impressive sight!

I find it sad somehow that thousands of jobs are being lost daily in the US, so going to war is cheered because it might keep some of those jobs going. (After all, you've got to replace all those bombs being dropped on 'military installations' in Iraq.)

Not pointing a finger at you, Shoeler. But I am willing to bet more than a few employees will keep their jobs...

Lowjack · February 9, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pete @ Mar. 15 2003,00:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">wheres wobble by the way?<span id='postcolor'>

Remember Wobble's little saga w/ that baby dying squirrel??

Oh ya, hello all you old fogies

theavonlady · July 4, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Lowjack @ Mar. 15 2003,21:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh ya, hello all you old fogies<span id='postcolor'>

Who you calling an old fogey!

LOL! Welcome back from the dead.

2024-12-22T01:07:16Z

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Mar. 15 2003,20:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not pointing a finger at you, Â Shoeler. Â But I am willing to bet more than a few employees will keep their jobs...<span id='postcolor'>

And the markets will go up. I'm seriously considering buying Raytheon shares. They're bound to sell plenty of cruise missiles now.

Albert Schweitzer · July 11, 2001

the entire thing started to get realy confusing for me.

...turkey could get 26 billion and the key to burn down the last resorts of the free kurds, AND THEY DECIDE AGAINST IT?

...why is there such a huge gap between peoples wishes and the actual deeds of their leaders ? Why does neither Aznar nor Blair pay so little attention to the opinion of their voters? Aznar decides against the opinion of 90% of his population and Blair provoked the largest demonstration in England SINCE 30 YEARS.

Why does the powerfull Collin Powell suddenly turn out to be such an incompetent politician...showing pictures to the security council that 10 days later are publicily announced as null and void by Mr. Hans Blix?

Blair? Not better! Why does Mr.Blair present a Secret-Service report on Iraq to the parliament claiming it would reveal the production of weapons of mass destruction? And why does this report turn out to be the report that an ordinary university student wrote 10 YEARS ago based on INTERNET-RESEARCH....? what the hell?

Why does it have to be now that PEOPLE IN THE UN COUNCIL applaused to the speech of the foreign Ministre of France (Mr. de Villepin). The UN council had only applaused once so far in its ENTIRE history..and that was after the speech of Nelson MAndela.

Why does it have to be now that the entire Arab nations during February conference vote against war.?..with 100% majority..for the first time in its history.

Why is the reaction to a speech with the words..."now the UN will show its real value to the world" that even the most undecided countries take side and decide against war.

How can a professional politician like Jack Straw be so unconcentrated and state that "in the 21st century wars might be morally justifiable"... didnt he think before speaking?

.... hell after so much failure they should press for the final secret weapon and reveal the secret information they got about weapons of mass destructions. But I assume they also take snakes and scorpions into consideration.. and yes then I would agree....Iraq has lethal biliogical weapons.

FSPilot · October 16, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Firstly, it doesnt take a lot of training to hijack a mid week low occupancy flight, especially in pre 9/11 'security' concious times.<span id='postcolor'>

Doesn't mean they weren't trained.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Secondly, the articles implied that terrorists got flight training at a secret base in Iraq. If that claim is false... then what does that say for the validity of the other, hmm?<span id='postcolor'>

Who says the claim is false?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How can anybody be so naive? It's beyond my comprehension. USA is so desperate that they aremanufacturing evidence that they are presenting to the UN and main stream media. If this had any slight chance of being relevant, don't you think that Bush would be holding a speech right now? No, this is a very typical classic move. You have some information that you know won't hold up to scrutiny so you quietly leak it to the non-professional media, that won't do any checking and at least a number of clueless people are bound to believe it. It was the same thing with the story that Saddam is giving money to the families of suicide bombers. Not even the heavily biased US media like CNN would even consider publishing such a heap of cow dung.<span id='postcolor'>

So now the guardian is biased? Pictures are biased?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">....we got reliable sources (Balschoiw) claiming those aircraft being used for terrorist training!!..what else we would need??<span id='postcolor'>

If you think Balschoiw is an unbiased source you should stop banging your head on things.

Placebo · July 23, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Lowjack @ Mar. 15 2003,19:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh ya, hello all you old fogies Â <span id='postcolor'>

As the signs at Galatasary's stadium say "welcome to hell"

Pete · July 3, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 15 2003,22:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you think Balschoiw is an unbiased source you should stop banging your head on things.<span id='postcolor'>

aha!

but he provided us with a picture of an american terrorist hijack training camp!

its obviously a real picture, not a fake..those planes exist, this means america trains or has the capacity to train thousands of terrorists daily.

we got proof, are you saing that we dont?

and i never said "unbiased" source....everybody is biased, even me, and even you.

but he IS a source and this you cant prove me wrong at, if HE says those planes are for terrorist training then it is up to YOU to prove us wrong.

we not only have proof, we also have a source...

are you still trying to say those planes arent used to train terrorists???...prove me wrong, if you can

Die Alive · September 8, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pete @ Mar. 15 2003,17:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 15 2003,22:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you think Balschoiw is an unbiased source you should stop banging your head on things.<span id='postcolor'>

aha!

but he provided us with a picture of an american terrorist hijack training camp!

its obviously a real picture, not a fake..those planes exist, this means america trains or has the capacity to train thousands of terrorists daily.

we got proof, are you saing that we dont?

and i never said "unbiased" source....everybody is biased, even me, and even you.

but he IS a source and this you cant prove me wrong at, if HE says those planes are for terrorist training then it is up to YOU to prove us wrong.

we not only have proof, we also have a source...

are you still trying to say those planes arent used to train terrorists???...prove me wrong, if you can <span id='postcolor'>

Those planes are old B-52s.

-=Die Alive=-

FSPilot · October 16, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pete @ Mar. 16 2003,04:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but he provided us with a picture of an american terrorist hijack training camp!

its obviously a real picture, not a fake..those planes exist, this means america trains or has the capacity to train thousands of terrorists daily.

we got proof, are you saing that we dont?<span id='postcolor'>

We both know it's of "the boneyard".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and i never said "unbiased" source....everybody is biased, even me, and even you.

but he IS a source and this you cant prove me wrong at, if HE says those planes are for terrorist training then it is up to YOU to prove us wrong.

we not only have proof, we also have a source...<span id='postcolor'>

Biased sources are unreliable. Â You have an unreliable source. Â But just to play along, here's your proof. Â Destroyed B-52 fueslages. Â Documentation that the US has destroyed mothballed B-52s in compliance with the START treaty.

START treaty.

.gov site on START tready.

Now, prove to me that the fuselage in Iraq is not used for training, and doesn't exist today.

Col. Kurtz · July 8, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Die Alive @ Mar. 16 2003,08:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Those planes are old B-52s.

-=Die Alive=-<span id='postcolor'>

But don't you see the plan?

Al Queda is going to hijack a B-52 loaded with bombs on its way to Iraq then go and bomb Paris. France will blaim America since it was an American plane. America will blame the whole thing on Suddam Hussein. Tony Blair will say 'Thats not cricket!' and blame the French. The America will launch nukes at Iraq and France will launch nukes at America and Britain will launch nukes at France and Usama Bin Laden will laugh away in his secret cave.

Ahhhh politics...

And Theavonlady, you have to get new pictures! You have posted that picture of that woman slapping that guy about 10 times now, its getting old!

FSPilot · October 16, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Mar. 16 2003,05:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But don't you see the plan?

Al Queda is going to hijack a B-52 loaded with bombs on its way to Iraq then go and bomb Paris. France will blaim America since it was an American plane. America will blame the whole thing on Suddam Hussein. Tony Blair will say 'Thats not cricket!' and blame the French. The America will launch nukes at Iraq and France will launch nukes at America and Britain will launch nukes at France and Usama Bin Laden will laugh away in his secret cave.<span id='postcolor'>

*dials the FBI hotline*

Oh... you're joking.

2024-12-22T01:07:16Z

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Mar. 15 2003,21:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the entire thing started to get realy confusing for me.