Jump to content

America's Role.


Guest $iLk
 Share

Recommended Posts

I hope someone is taking notes out there. What Herbie said regarding Bush are pretty much on the mark. I hope we are keeping track of the personal rights we are giving up in the war on terrorism. As more info comes out about Bush and Cheney's previous business dealings things certainly start to become more clear. US Army Sec White , a former Enron exec. Made 62 million dollars his last year with the company (12 million in stock he dumped after his appointment) the division he worked in played a large part in the California energy crisis ,where purportedly company memos were distributed on how they could milk more omney from residents in the state by creating artificial situations to "inhance revenue"

Anyone who questions these business practices(currently being investigated in Calif) is branded by the right as being against the "war on terrorism" There is apparently no room for dissent and "good americans" should trust that our leaders are doing the right thing. yea right.

So I hope americans are comfortable with the idea that someone actually has to die so they can drive a gas sucking SUV to soccer practice , and that our current enemies are our former friends and whatever "pro usa" regime we replace them with will likely be using the weapons we gave them on our grandchildren some day.

Saddam is a nothing , a nobody he's this years

version of Manuel Noriega (another former Bush crony) do you feel any safer that he's out of circulation? Let's stop playing military wack-a mole with these guys and solve our own problems.

Ten minutes after Sadaam is a greasy spot on the ground some other "Satan" will be created to further perpetuate the Global shell and pea game the rich has been fooling us with for years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 383
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That is our problem. We have a population that has no concept of conservation. We like our toys and will use force to make sure we keep them.

We are not a team player in the global sense.

Policy is decided by Commander in Chief Dow Jones.

It is sad. Like a drug user, maybe we will have to hit rock bottom before we want to see the truth. I just pray we don't rip apart the planet when and if we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaguar sort of covered the important stuff. And regarding your article, that's far before the democracy was elected and met. Also, that article was pointing out the reality that AT THAT TIME (6 months ago, not now under the new government) the minority groups that were oppressed by the Pashtuns, decided to get a little bit of revenge and kill some (although innocent) Pashtuns. The majority of it is over by now.

If you look at most news services, you'll see articles saying how Saddam is trying to get WMDs that are at LEAST as credible as yours saying he's not.

The "majority" of Afghans that liked the Taliban were the ones who SUPPORTED their practices. The minority groups were being oppressed by those people.

Sorry about implying your a Saddam lover, the implication was more rhetorical than factual. The point of that paragraph though, was to point out that *IF* he is trying to get them, it'll save a lot more lives by stopping him now (without using WMDs on him) instead of waiting for him to GET THEM, in which case we would quite possibly use WMDs to take him out, which would kill a lot more people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Actually, the eveidence overwhelmingly PROVES that Iraq is a threat, or soon will be. He has been trying to buy the tooling necessary to create a nuclear weapon, he has tried to buy on the black market nuclear materials necessary for a nuclear weapon, he has tried to buy missiles from China, Iran and others that are capable of carrying a payload the size of a nuclear weapon as far as Israel and other countries. His biological program is going great guns, and his chemical manufacturing capability is now up to par to where it was before the Gulf war.

Give me a source.

quote:

Saddam had NOT abided by the UN peace agreement, or else there would be UN inspectors in Iraq inspecting for WMD weapons. Saddam is hiding his capabilities and has been hiding his capabilities. You have been listening to yourself too much.

The evidence definitely contradicts that claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The evidence definitely contradicts that claim.


Where is it? Because I sure haven't seen it. THe facts point to Saddam trying to build missiles capable of hitting Israel, it also points to him trying to buy or create nuclear materials that he could use to create a nuclear weapon with, to place on that missile and either lob at Israel, along with whatever gas or biological nasties he has come up with, or lob the same stuff at whatever troops might come after him in an invasion.

Where is YOUR proof Menchise, I have yet to see what you are claiming, I see the EXACT opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Commander Elio Jason:

quote:

Originally posted by Epsilon 5:

I just think the United States are too much involved in the world's political problems.

i agree also on this.

the U.S acts like it's the big brother of the world and needs to be out there to solve stuff.

perhaps the wars between Jerusalem and it's Arab neighbors might be because of U.S involvement.

hey this might turn out to be another long debate like the Capitlaism vs Socialism!


IMHO, we shouldn't normally be involved in other country's problems or politics, so long as it doesn't interfere with our own. The problem is, the entire Middle East, to include Egypt and Lybia, and even parts of Africa, has this "Family" mindset. It works like this: If I'm fighting my brother(s), it's cool and what God wants. However, if any outsider interferes, most of us are gonna jump him. Long and short of it.

So, us helping any part of it, unless it is uniform to all of the countries involved, is beating our brains on a brick wall, and will cause our deficit to sky-rocket as we pay their bills.

What do we do? Osama bin Laden, Saddam Huessan, and the Al Queda network are against the US because we aren't fair in our actions. Unfortunately, our CIA has killed entire government systems, and since this is public knowledge, it gives our enemies something to fight with. We were wrong in the past in some of our actions, and unless we can bridge the whole Middle East problem single-handedly (you think the UN will help? -- who's ships, planes, bombs and personnel has the most population in a crisis?!?), this problem simply isn't going to go away.

The US might as well be the UN, for all the support the other countries normally send. "Hey, thanks for the six planes, Japan, during Desert Storm..."

Technically, per our agreements with the UN, the Death Penality is internationally illegal. But, since we basically own the UN, who cares? See my point?

If we want to earn the respect of the Middle East and other powers, we need to lead by example, not pre-empt what may happen. If and when we act against another country, we need to be able to publically show evidence to the world why we are acting.

Earning trust is about sharing information, and showing that we are doing the right thing, not saying, "Oh, who, Saddam? Yeah, we thought he might be selling weapons to the Al Queda, so we decided to nuke him..." Won't win popularity points, even here at home.

We need human intelligence (as in agents infiltrating and passing information back to Control), common sense, a desire to know the truth, a sense of morals (a thing of the past?), and to lose some of this "political correctness" that is killing our nation (tell me in detail, just what is American culture? -- Good luck!)

As for this Capitalism vs Socialism debate -- The Soviets are winning that with their drives toward Democracy, as we lose it at the Food Stamp Office....

Okay, I get off my soap box for now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Menchise:

I'm still waiting for you to provide something.

The very obvious reason why we aren't providing these articles you are is because if you turn on the news, you'll see government officials or news services providing evidence and giving statements putting Saddam somewhere between "a rogue nation" to "the most serious threat to our national security". Almost all sources are concurring that he's after WMDs. Turn on "On location" at about 2:00 AM EST....I think it's on one of the networks, and it's on after Chris Matthews: Hardball on weekdays. It's been on daily for the past week talking about how when Saddam's brother-in-law defected he told us that he has WMDs, and the government officials were making the same arguments we are. If Saddam didn't have anything to hide, he'd let weapons inspectors in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The very obvious reason why we aren't providing these articles you are is because if you turn on the news, you'll see government officials or news services providing evidence and giving statements putting Saddam somewhere between "a rogue nation" to "the most serious threat to our national security".

If there are so many sources, then it shouldn't be difficult for you to provide a few. I've already run around on one occasion earlier in this thread, looking into equivalent articles that you have vaguely referred to, and responded to them promptly (none of them convincingly supported your argument).

quote:

Turn on "On location" at about 2:00 AM EST....I think it's on one of the networks, and it's on after Chris Matthews: Hardball on weekdays. It's been on daily for the past week talking about how when Saddam's brother-in-law defected he told us that he has WMDs, and the government officials were making the same arguments we are. If Saddam didn't have anything to hide, he'd let weapons inspectors in.

I don't receive MSNBC, so I went to the On Location website. I found nothing about a brother-in-law. The only relevant article I found was Ashleigh Banfield's interview with Tariq Aziz. on the 25th of July.

I refer specifically to the parts of the interview where he discusses the WMD and weapons inspection issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez, I thought this thread had dies decent death, and then our man Menchise has to go and resurrect it. OK, OK, if that is the way you want it. I will take care of your articles that you are begging for, tomorrow.

Heard on the radio this afternoon, that the Iraqis are now placing weapons platforms near civilian targets so that we won't bomb them out of existence and they can take potshots at our planes in the no-fly zone with impunity. What a bunch of cowards!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, just a small quote from that article in your last post, Menchise.

quote:

BANFIELD: Notwithstanding the mess that is Israel-Palestine, do you think it serves any purpose for this government to send checks to the families of suicide bombers, effectively promoting this kind of activity?

AZIZ: We support the legitimate struggle of the Palestinian people. We have been in support of the Palestinian people since the conflict started in the ÔÇÖ40s, not only this government, even when Iraq was led by a monarch. The Iraqi government and the Iraqi people supported the Palestinian cause.

So we support it. We still support, and weÔÇÖll continue to support the Palestinian cause. But this is not terrorism. This is not terrorism. We didnÔÇÖt have any relationship with the Taliban. We didnÔÇÖt have any relationship with bin Laden. We didnÔÇÖt have any relationship with IRA and Northern Ireland. We didnÔÇÖt have relationship with many groups and organizations, which were doing actions, acts, which were defined as terrorist attacks.

Simply, we do not believe in that. But I strongly believe in the legitimacy of the struggle of the Palestinian people, and we will continue to support them. Their families need to live. Why not supporting them?


The Iraqis are FUNDING the suicide bombers in Israel, just like we said earlier on this topic. That's decent justification for attacking Iraq right there. Iraq is directly funding attacks on one of our allies and destabilizing a region. As for "articles" that support our claim.

Sanctions aren't hurting his military

Saddam is NOT Meeting Sanction Obligations and COULD use the money from Illegal Oil Sales to Help his Population

It's Safe To Assume that Saddam is getting WMDs

Iraq Wouldn't even let Weapons Inspectors back after 9/11

One special note with that fact and the connecting article, is that Saddam deserves to get bombed out of STUPIDITY. Ok, the US is attacked on 9/11. We declare a war on terrorism. We ask Saddam to let in weapons inspectors. Saddam, while probably being able to guess that if he doesn't, the US is going to attack him, says "no". It's his own fault for the consequences if he's stupid enough to try to stand up to a country that really, really, really wants to kill some terrorists.

Blair Believes Iraq is trying to get WMDs

Here's the CIA Report on Iraq's WMDs

Also, note that Iraq ADMITTED to using chemical weapons during the Iraq-Iran war, and thus admitted to having them. There's no reason why he wouldn't CONTINUE to try to get more WMDs. Also, note that that was a *CIA REPORT* not political spin by Bush.

A Whole Site of Articles

Yes, Saddam can and will get Nukes

I hope that's enough articles for you. If not, just run a search on google or on some other news site. The warrants in these articles are much better than the peace loving ex-weapons inspectors. As i've said before, your authors start at the "humanitarian crisis" of sanctions and wars, ASSUMING that Saddam actually cares about his people *and* assuming that Saddam will be overthrown in time *and* assuming, for some odd reason, that Saddam would not want weapons of mass destruction. None of that makes sense, especially the last point, since ANY country with a dictator would want WMDs since it fortifies their power. All the articles I cited look at the evidence, evaluate it logically, then come to the conclusion that Saddam has not demonstrated he isn't a threat, and that the US shouldn't be STUPID enough to wait for him to be in a position of power before attacking him. Wars shouldn't be fair, they should be massacres, and the US should be the one winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dredd,

You are hardcore, I LIKE IT!! I LIKE IT A LOT!!

And you are the one that resurrected this thread, hmm, OK, you are forgiven, because now I don't have to go get articles for Nick. Thanks bud!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The Iraqis are FUNDING the suicide bombers in Israel, just like we said earlier on this topic. That's decent justification for attacking Iraq right there. Iraq is directly funding attacks on one of our allies and destabilizing a region. As for "articles" that support our claim.

Iraq is not "funding" the suicide bombers: they don't supply bomb materials or the capital for producing bombs, and they're not paying the bombers to do anything (it's hard to spend money when you're dead). Iraq is giving financial compensation to the family. I have yet to see any substantial argument indicating that such payments are incentives.

quote:

Sanctions aren't hurting his military

That article refers to dual-use items; some specific examples included chlorine and organo-phosphates, which are common industrial chemicals (chlorine for water treatment, organo-phosphates for insecticides). The article doesn't mention that graphite is also 'dual-use', probably because they don't want to sound too ridiculous (graphite is used in pencils), as if banning chlorinators isn't ridiculous enough.

The article also makes a vague reference to "high-precision machine tools, which are ideal for weapons manufacturing" What the article doesn't say is that high-precision machine tools (which include such "suspicious" items as metal-cutting saws, lathes, punchers, pressbrakes, grinders, and shears) are also "ideal" for building anything that has shaped metal parts (e.g. cars).

Let's not forget the "heavy construction equipment and other vehicles ideally suited for rebuilding and mobilizing the Iraqi military machine", such as cranes, excavators, loaders, forklifts, rollers, trenchers, and - the most "suspicious" of them all - dump trucks.

This is a farce. The only reason why these items are impossible to track - by US intelligence of all people - is because they're not approved by the UN Security Council. Hint hint hint. Everything that is approved has been tracked effectively by UN monitors. Since a lot of these items are essential for civilian use - unless you don't think clean drinking water is essential - it would make more sense to approve them so they can be tracked. If, after doing that, similar items are still being smuggled, then there might be a case against the Iraqi authorities.

I'll respond to the rest later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Iraq is not "funding" the suicide bombers: they don't supply bomb materials or the capital for producing bombs, and they're not paying the bombers to do anything (it's hard to spend money when you're dead).
Iraq is giving financial compensation to the family. I have yet to see any substantial argument indicating that such payments are incentives.


Did you just say that?

I see, so if some 20 year old kid, doesn't have a job, hates the Israelis, and cannot support his family. It's NOT an incentive to go blow himself up if Iraq is gonna pay his family $20,000 if he goes out and takes out a few Israeli civilians?

$20,000 for your surviving family member is NOT an incentive?

Whatever it is you are smoking, I want some. Pass it over!!

And I will deal with the rest later, I am still stunned that you said something so silly.

[ 07-28-2002, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point of the article though, was that Iraq is getting potentially dangerous items regardless of the sanctions. There are a few positions you can take:

If the sanctions work, the people are starving (your whole humanitarian crisis babble).

The article proves that the sanctions are being subverted. The goods gained by subversion is obviously being used to help his military and WMD program since it ISNT helping the Iraqi people.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and be sure to get to all of the other articles, especially the CIA report. Also, Jaguar is absolutely right. With what you know about the suicide bombings, i'm surpirsed you didn't know that the reason why it is so easy to GET suicide bombers is their lives are meaningless anyway, and all it takes to put a lot of em over the edge is money for their family (since the ones that do it solely for their people w/o needing money mostly killed themselves off awhile ago)

[ 07-28-2002, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I see, so if some 20 year old kid, doesn't have a job, hates the Israelis, and cannot support his family. It's NOT an incentive to go blow himself up if Iraq is gonna pay his family $20,000 if he goes out and takes out a few Israeli civilians?

$20,000 for your surviving family member is NOT an incentive?

Would that 20 year old kid still do it if there was no money involved? I think so.

The bombings are motivated by vengeance more than anything else. I think the money only has a marginal effect.

quote:

The point of the article though, was that Iraq is getting potentially dangerous items regardless of the sanctions.

They could only do that if other countries were violating the sanctions. It's not that difficult to determine who is sending this stuff to the Iraqi authorities. The US government has known about this for a long time and allows it to happen, because any intervention would cause opposition to the sanctions from the trading partners that benefit from the smuggling.

quote:

The article proves that the sanctions are being subverted. The goods gained by subversion is obviously being used to help his military and WMD program since it ISNT helping the Iraqi people.

It is not even remotely obvious! It is more likely that the items are being used to maintain the regime's crippled infrastructure, without which they cannot maintain control.

My conclusion still stands.

[ 07-28-2002, 05:26 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

It's Safe To Assume that Saddam is getting WMDs

Is that all? The article has absolutely nothing substantial to say about WMD. It's just a bunch of baseless and inane opinions that the writer has pulled out of his ass. His idea of "evidence" is one ambiguous reference to "many experts". Experts in what? Archery?!

quote:

Iraq Wouldn't even let Weapons Inspectors back after 9/11

Pencils News for Kids? Are you serious? That article leaves out so much it's not even regarded as real news.

quote:

One special note with that fact and the connecting article, is that Saddam deserves to get bombed out of STUPIDITY. Ok, the US is attacked on 9/11. We declare a war on terrorism. We ask Saddam to let in weapons inspectors. Saddam, while probably being able to guess that if he doesn't, the US is going to attack him, says "no". It's his own fault for the consequences if he's stupid enough to try to stand up to a country that really, really, really wants to kill some terrorists.

Blair Believes Iraq is trying to get WMDs

You seem to have completely ignored the parts of the Banfield-Aziz interview to which I referred. Why should I bother responding to your sources if you're going to ignore mine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Commanders Menchise and Jaguar:

You two just like to fight, huh? The problem is, you are both correct, "from a certain point of view..." (Kinda has an Obi-wan feel to it...)

Look, the Controlled Information Association, er, CIA, isn't in the habit of releasing unbleached intelligence reports. And, because of the Israeli/Muslim feud (note that word) over a piece of property, you really can't take anything they say at face value either.

Poor, uneducated, and impoverished peoples have always been the target of religious groups, radical or otherwise. You gotta eat in order to think properly, and if someone promises money and rewards from Allah or whatever God they follow for destroying rich people, they would be hard-pressed to say no.

Still, you are both arguing with slanted/controlled information, which means that you are both probably wrong when you get into specifics.

(To prove my point about the brothers-warring I mentioned earlier, I just attacked two bothers... Now, watch as both of them turn on me. Hope you come armed with untouched/unfinished intel reports, or I win...)

[ 07-28-2002, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: DraconisRex ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe that Draconisrex needs to back up what he is saying with some uncontrolled/unbiased news stories. I am waiting....

Sorry Draconis, but if your gonna try and play with the Big Dogs.....

Sorry Draconis, there is really no middle ground here. Either Saddam is trying to get WMD'd, as we have been saying or he isn't, like Menchise is saying. Either Saddam is creating a want for suicide bombers by paying their families like I believe or he's not creating a need like Menchise is saying. There is NO middle ground. Either Dredd and I are correct, or Menchise is correct.

This PC meet in the middle is NOT a part of a debate. Either We are correct, or Menchise is. We can agree to disagree, but neither is gonna give unless duly convinced.

[ 07-28-2002, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an articel here that I have found most fascinating.

an inspector talking to the Armed services comitte about Iraqi WMD capabilities

quote:

Nuclear Weapons Status. The nuclear weapons program is the most critical and most

difficult for Iraq to achieve.

While successful in all other WMD areas, Iraq did not quite achieve a nuclear weapon capability before invading Kuwait. Iraq had a huge sustained investment in nuclear weapons development throughout the 1980’s.

The IAEA accounted for most of the

program and key facilities were destroyed. However, the intellectual capital remains, as does the will of the leadership to achieve a nuclear capability. Even during the time UNSCOM and IAEA were still in Iraq, there was a pattern of the former staff of the nuclear program being reassembled in common locations according to their expertise, e.g. specialists from former centrifuge enrichment program can be found clustered at one facility.

Of course Iraq claimed they were engaged in activities allowed by the UN resolutions, but coincidences like these occurred too often.

Key facilities where personnel congregated included Al Majd Center, the Ibn Sina Center,

Al Raya Center, Sa’ad Center (right across from the Rasheed Hotel familiar to all visitors) and the Al Tahaddi Center. These centers have legitimate rationales for their on-going work, but the presence of teams of alumni from the nuclear weapons program is a key tip-off.

A recent defector who worked as a design engineer (evidently in the Al Majd Center)stated that an explicit order to reconstitute the nuclear teams was promulgated in August 1998, at the time Iraq ceased cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA.

2 The key hurdle for Iraq to surmount to obtain a nuclear weapon is the acquisition of fissile material. Iraq had a viable weapon design and the capacity to produce all the elements of a

weapon. Predictions on when Iraq will achieve a weapon depend on whether Iraq can obtain

fissile material by smuggling or they have to produce it themselves which will take much longer.

Predictions are particularly uncertain. The German intelligence authorities made an oft-quoted

estimate last year in which it was stated that Iraq could, in the worst case, have a nuclear weapon in 3-6 years. German intelligence noted the growth in Iraqi procurement efforts in particular for weapons-related items.

3 However, how this projection was made is not public and it may include significant unceraity.

While precise estimates of the Iraqi nuclear program are impossible, what is certain is that

Baghdad has the desire, the talent, and the resources to build a nuclear weapon given the time to do so.


This sounds pretty frightening to me, this man is working on getting nuclear weapons and has been since the 80's.

His attitude that since Israel has Nukes then he should have nukes as well. Problem is that Israel's nukes are for defense and will remain that way. Saddam is willing to use them offensively, and has stated that many times.

If he can buid a nuke, he will do whatever he can to destabalize the region, basically he will nuke Israel, the first chance he gets. THe man is a loose cannon, that must be either stopped or contained. I think assassinating him would be the best bet, but I have a feeling that it's not going to happen.

[ 07-28-2002, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And last but not least, is Saddam paying $25,000 to suicide bombers as an enticement, or just to be a nice guy?

quote:

Iraq pays suicide bonus to entice new bombers

By Paul McGeough

Tulkarm, West Bank

March 26 2002

The Chamber of Commerce hall was packed and the intake of breath was audible as a special announcement was made to the war widows of the West Bank - Saddam Hussein would pay $US25,000 ($A47,000) to the family of each suicide bomber as an enticement for others to volunteer for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people.

The men at the top table then opened Mr Saddam's chequebook and as the names of 47 "martyrs" were called, family representatives went up to sign for cheques in US dollars. Those of two suicide bombers were the first to be paid the new rate of $US25,000 - it used to be $10,000 - and those whose relatives had died in other clashes with the Israeli military were given $10,000 each.

The $500,000 doled out in the impoverished community of Tulkarm yesterday means the besieged Iraqi leader now has contributed more than $US10 million to Palestinian families since the new intifada started in September, 2000.

But the timing of this clear signal that Mr Saddam is stoking the Middle East conflict with his increased bonus to encourage more suicide bombers could make it more difficult for Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to manage his already strained relationship with Washington.

Because the Palestinians and the Israelis have been unable to agree to a ceasefire in US-brokered talks that began in Jerusalem the week before last, Mr Arafat may be denied an opportunity to put the Palestinian case directly to US Vice-President Dick Cheney. The Israelis are also yet to decide if they will lift his effective house arrest to allow him to travel to Beirut for tomorrow's Arab leaders' summit, which is to discuss a Saudi plan to end the crisis.

And now, the US and Israel will have the opportunity to accuse Mr Arafat of being in the embrace of two of US President George Bush's three "axis of evil" countries - Iraq and Iran. The New York Times reported on Sunday the suspicion of US and Israeli intelligence agencies that Mr Arafat had developed an alliance with Teheran to import weapons worth millions to be used by Palestinian fighters.

Mr Arafat has denied any knowledge of a recent shipment of Iranian arms seized by the Israelis on its way to Palestinian territory. But he may be hard-pressed to deny knowledge of a public ceremony on his own territory, during which supporters of President Saddam handed out $500,000 and encouraged others to become suicide bombers with the blessing of the Iraqi leader.

The US will also be keen to use President Saddam's provocative intrusion into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as another reason for its planned military strike on Iraq.

Yesterday's ceremony at Tulkarm, about 90 kilometres north of Jerusalem, was the first public distribution organised by the Arab Liberation Front, a PLO faction aligned with President Saddam's Baath party. Previously the cheques were privately delivered by ALF officials to the homes of "martyr" families.

Later, a senior ALF official, Maa'moon Tayeh, told The Age that the extra $US15,000 was to encourage more Palestinians to volunteer as suicide bombers to help "confirm the legitimacy of our national questions".

He said: "Saddam Hussein considers Palestine to be a governate of Iraq and he thinks the same of the Palestinian martyrs as he does of Iraqi martyrs - they all are martyrs for the whole Arab nation."

Dr Hassan Khraisheh, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council who told the crowd he had just returned from a solidarity conference in Baghdad, said that some families believed the money should be sent back to Iraq because of the hardships imposed by sanctions and that others used the money to "buy weapons to defend Palestine".

He praised Iraq as the only Arab nation to officially donate to the Palestinian cause. "The Saudis used to give $4000 to the martyrs, but now it depends on public donations. Saddam Hussein's $25,000 is a message to those who might offer themselves as martyrs that their families will be supported - they have wives and children and some of them are very poor."


Please see the bold part of this articel, they are giving an extra $15,000 to Encourage more palestinians to become martyrs. This is the MAIN reason that Saddam has gotten involved. He is now telling the palestinians.

If you volunteer as a suicide bomber, I will pay your family $25,000 for your sacrifice.

They have freely admitted that this why they are doing it. Not to help the poor families that have lost a loved one who killed himself, but BECAUSE he killed himself.

Oh and by the way, here is where the article is Menchise, one of your own papers I believe.

The Age

[ 07-28-2002, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Menchise:

If you want to argue for a middle ground, then give us some "unslanted/uncontrolled" information to support it, OK?

Easily done. Give me direct access to NSA/CIA files and records, and we will find out something close to the truth. However, you'll also have to give me direct access to other classified records as well.

That was my entire point -- an argument is only as valid as the source of information. I don't trust any source, as every bit of it has its politicians too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...