Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

i salute this man

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEGeX2Sk ... re=related

trolls in
3
2
1

I believe you're a little confused General, A Troll is one who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument, not one who responds to such a post.

YOU my friend are the Troll in THIS thread with your anonymous, biased, propagandist Youtube clip.

Shame on you for stooping to the levels of other mindless random Youtube Trolls.

what is so provocative about it?

general_A wrote:what is so provocative about it?

I believe you already know the reason, probably to be the same as why you counted down to your expected Troll response?

Dillon wrote:

general_A wrote:what is so provocative about it?

I believe you already know the reason, probably to be the same as why you counted down to your expected Troll response?

because there would be such a response, don't you think? it's a forum after all.
specially that it shows a large amount of truth and honesty to it as i have been told by friends in both regions, it even shows how morals regarding concerns of humanity are degrading around the world that we all live in, and that's the reason why i posted it.

Yes General, I’m sure you believe it is.

i also believe that i have a good reason to do so.

Which is?

a whole country torn to pieces, leaving hundreds of thousands iraqies dead, thousands of americans who had no clue what they were there for dead or permanently disabled, inhumane acts and misuse of power against people in prison because of a damn fat lie which backfired, needless to mention the huge amounts of money spent on it. i don't need to go on because i'm sure you know all that and more did actually happen.

Well some of it is true, you can’t blame ALL of the above on the Coalition forces. After the Iraqi administration failed to comply with UN resolution 1441, Head weapons inspector Hans Blix, I recall was frustrated by Iraqi non co-operation, and advised the UN Security Council that Iraq’s declarations regarding weapons of mass destruction could not be verified.

I believe the popular consensus of opinion in 2003 was to rid Iraq of possible stocks of WMD of which some chemical weapons were found, including evidence of their extensive use against the Iraqi Kurds and I believe the Marsh Arabs? and plans to re-start production after sanctions were lifted although the suspected nuclear WMD were not found.

SH was eventually caught, tried and executed by the New Iraqi Government, since then to this day, Iraqi insurgency against the Government by various Shiite, Sunni and Al-Qaeda groups have contributed to the dead and disabled toll in Iraq.

Yes, there have been atrocities committed by both the Coalition and opposing forces, some have been brought to justice and some have not, although, I firmly believe the vast majority of the Coalition forces have performed their duties in Iraq, magnanimously and without prejudice.

And let’s not forget, since the formation of the New Iraqi Government in 2004-5? The Coalition forces have remained in Iraq at their request for assistance with their internal security issues.

Well some of it is true, you can’t blame ALL of the above on the Coalition forces. After the Iraqi administration failed to comply with UN resolution 1441, Head weapons inspector Hans Blix, I recall was frustrated by Iraqi non co-operation, and advised the UN Security Council that Iraq’s declarations regarding weapons of mass destruction could not be verified.

neither was there any evidence

I believe the popular consensus of opinion in 2003 was to rid Iraq of possible stocks of WMD of which some chemical weapons were found

during the UN and IAEA inspection nothing was found

including evidence of their extensive use against the Iraqi Kurds

true, that was in the 1980's during the Iraq Iran war, and what had been said that was left of it was destroyed during the war in kuwait in the early 9o's.

and plans to re-start production after sanctions were lifted although the suspected nuclear WMD were not found.

yet still no evidence was found.

SH was eventually caught, tried and executed by the New Iraqi Government.

which was the alternative for failing to produce evidence on the WMD's to the world that was waiting to see.

Yes, there have been atrocities committed by both the Coalition and opposing forces, some have been brought to justice and some have not,

only the ones that got out to the public media.

And let’s not forget, since the formation of the New Iraqi Government in 2004-5? The Coalition forces have remained in Iraq at their request for assistance with their internal security issues.

internal issues that would not have existed if it wasn't for the war that both sides lost i would say.

do you agree that the war on Iraq was justified specially that no evidence what so ever regarding WMD's was found or presented after the informant in iraq known as (curve ball) has officially falsified?

The invasion was well underway before the UN had anything to say about it with the implementation of Operation Southern Focus Operation which started to attack know sites which had never fired a shot and months leading up to the invasion these bombing increased drasctically and started bombing targets of know military importance i.e : destroying any resistance for the impeding invasion. Pretty much seems W had his mind made up of going in already.

As for the legality. The whole legality of the Invasion was that Saddam was stock piling and weaponizing biological weapons and developing nuclear weapons and in breach of UN resolutions set AFTER the 1st gulf war.

The Iraq survey group, a fact finding mission set up by the occupiers to look into this whole matter, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, announced to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that the group found no evidence that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had produced and stockpiled any weapons of mass destruction since 1991.

The final report concluded that, ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Hussain possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/libra ... al-report/

which concludes that even if there was any possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability were just assumptions.
and assumption is the mother of all f@#k ups.

general_A wrote:
...WMD...

It was Cosmo Gordon Lang, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1937 in reference to the aerial bombardment of Guernica who first used the term ‘weapons of mass destruction’.

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of human beings and or property. In 1937 it referred to conventional munitions dropped by the German Luftwaffe and Italian Air Force on Basque Guernica during the Spanish Civil War, there were no Nuclear Weapons at that time, the definition of WMD has come to recognise large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear.

So as I said in my earlier post, I believe the popular consensus of opinion in 2003 was to rid Iraq of possible stocks of WMD of which some chemical weapons were found, including evidence of their extensive use against the Iraqi Kurds and I believe the Marsh Arabs? and plans to re-start production were found after sanctions were lifted although the suspected nuclear WMD were not found.

The execution of SH was not an alternative to anything, he was hunted by Iraqi and coalition forces from the very beginning

do you agree that the war on Iraq was justified specially that no evidence what so ever regarding WMD's was found or presented after the informant in iraq known as (curve ball) has officially falsified?

As I said earlier, WMD’s in the form of decaying stockpiles of Chemical Weapons, evidence of their use and plans to restart production after sanctions were lifted were found, nuclear WMD were not, regardless of false claims by Iraqi defectors.

Weighing up all the pro’s and con’s, SH and his oppressive, murderous regime were removed from power, no more WMD attacks on the Kurds and Marsh Arabs by Chemical Ali, no more public assassinations of the sports teams who lose in international contests, no more ethnic cleansing by the Baath Party, I think are all good things for the Iraqi people, and as I stated originally, Iraqi insurgency against the new Government by various Shiite, Sunni and Al-Qaeda groups have contributed greatly to the altogeather unnecessary dead and disabled toll in Iraq.

Yes, there have been atrocities committed by both the Coalition and opposing forces, some have been brought to justice and some have not, although, I firmly believe the vast majority of the Coalition forces have performed their duties in Iraq, magnanimously and without prejudice.

-- Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:58 am --

desertdudeshj wrote:The invasion was well underway before the UN had anything to say about it with the implementation of Operation Southern Focus Operation which started to attack know sites which had never fired a shot and months leading up to the invasion these bombing increased drasctically and started bombing targets of know military importance i.e : destroying any resistance for the impeding invasion. Pretty much seems W had his mind made up of going in already.

As for the legality. The whole legality of the Invasion was that Saddam was stock piling and weaponizing biological weapons and developing nuclear weapons and in breach of UN resolutions set AFTER the 1st gulf war.

The Iraq survey group, a fact finding mission set up by the occupiers to look into this whole matter, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, announced to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that the group found no evidence that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had produced and stockpiled any weapons of mass destruction since 1991.

The final report concluded that, ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Hussain possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/libra ... al-report/

Operation Southern Focus was an extension of Operation Southern Watch which was the control of the No Fly Zone over Southern Iraq, imposed after the eviction of Iraqi forces from their invasion of Kuwait in 1990 until the Invasion of Iraq in 2003 under the authority of UN Resolution 1441 issued in 2002, BEFORE the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

There were numerous contacts between the Coalition Air forces controlling that airspace and the Iraqi Air Force testing it between 1991 and 2002, and yes, some military targets were eliminated which posed a threat to the Coalition but the Invasion of Iraq didn’t start until after UN Resolution 1441 was published.

It was Cosmo Gordon Lang, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1937 in reference to the aerial bombardment of Guernica who first used the term ‘weapons of mass destruction’.

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of human beings and or property. In 1937 it referred to conventional munitions dropped by the German Luftwaffe and Italian Air Force on Basque Guernica during the Spanish Civil War, there were no Nuclear Weapons at that time, the definition of WMD has come to recognise large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear.

believe me i know what Weapons Of Mass Destruction are and what are they capable of doing.

the WMDs that they were after were not nuclear, they were supposedly chemical or biological, which were never found and which they had no solid evidence what so ever that they were being processed even. we have heard and seen them say it numerous times. and don't tell me you haven't.



you simply don't trash a whole country based on rubbish Intel. specially when another country (Germany) which is associated with the same US source, tells you that the source is NOT reliable, and has often presented fabricated Intel. which even the source (curve ball) has admitted.

The execution of SH was not an alternative to anything, he was hunted by Iraqi and coalition forces from the very beginning

they deceived the whole world into thinking that the war was to rid SH of WMDs, but when that failed, the played the whole bringing democracy to Iraq game. which they didn't. the whole opertation was a major screw up.

no more public assassinations of the sports teams who lose in international contests

source and evidence of that please? sorry, it just sounds a little too much to me.

no more ethnic cleansing by the Baath Party

yes, he did that to large groups of the Shiites of Iraq, after they tried to assassinate him twice with the help of Iran, whom also have shown loyalty and support to by them, the country he went to war with for eight years, and is a dangerous neighbor to Iraq.

Iraq was much better off with SH, he did more good to his people and country than bad. look at the country now. look at the people.

please tell me that you don't think that the US lead a legitimate war against Iraq. and i know that you don't justify what atrocities are being committed and are taking place there, but all of that could have stopped and could've been prevented instead of launching a full scale war like that. which no one benefited from, except for weapons manufacturers.

As for Operation Souther Focus, the no fly zones were not part of the resolutions and only The US, UK and France beileved they were. Kofi Annan has gone on record to say they were illeagal, and if you look at it broke the terms of the cease fire techinally giving the Iraqis full right to not only paint the aircraft but to open fire.

Which ever way you bend or look at it, the invasion cannot be justified.

general_A wrote:Iraq was much better off with SH.

Not gonna argue with that, but you seem to argue dictatorship is better than a democracy. Do you not support the Arab Spring?

Lookup Uday Hussein, he was the one accused of torturing and murdering Iraqi athletes.

Chemical WMD found in Iraq, there are many more references than the three here.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Ira ... sified.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00530.html
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/internatio ... 7AZ3RO9qnM

I don’t believe the whole Country was trashed by the Coalition forces, Saddam Hussein and his Governance also played an equal part in that as have the persistent insurgencies since the New Government was formed. Your opinion that Iraq would be better off with Saddam Hussein left as he was truly astonishes me, you obviously have no family in Iran or Kuwait? after all he did, and all he said he was going to do, I can see there are absolutely no grounds for compromise in our very different opinions on that particular subject as I firmly believe Iraq, the Middle East and the World at large is a far better place without him and his followers, so I guess we’ll just have to disagree on that one!

When it comes to the oft-asked question about Democracy vs Dictatorship in Iraq after the illegal invasion... I'm reminded of the quote given by Ghandi when asked what he thought about Western Civilisation.

He answered: "I think it would be a good idea" !

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman wrote:

general_A wrote:Iraq was much better off with SH.

Not gonna argue with that, but you seem to argue dictatorship is better than a democracy. Do you not support the Arab Spring?

i did not, i was only stating how when the US claimed that they are going to end the rule of SH after they failed to find the WMDs they were there for to give Iraq democracy, and made it worse.

shafique wrote:When it comes to the oft-asked question about Democracy vs Dictatorship in Iraq after the illegal invasion... I'm reminded of the quote given by Ghandi when asked what he thought about Western Civilisation.

He answered: "I think it would be a good idea" !

Cheers,
Shafique

Illegal invasion? I wasn't aware the invasion was declared 'Illegal'? when did this happen?

Try and keep up Dillon, really!

You're not going to argue that the war was legal are you?

If so, I have a bridge that I'm selling - a good price. Interested?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Try and keep up Dillon, really!

You're not going to argue that the war was legal are you?

If so, I have a bridge that I'm selling - a good price. Interested?

Cheers,
Shafique

OK then make me out to be ill informed then, I assume you have the details of the war in Iraq being officially declared illegal?

You think I have a bridge to sell too?

(I think I was aiming for gullible, not ill-informed.)

Cheers,
Shafique

Aah so just more lies and name calling then?

Where have I lied? Gullible is as gullible does.

(I'm sure there are some who still believe that SH had WMD.. I wouldn't choose to argue with those guys either. BTW when did you stop believing he had WMD?)

Cheers,
Shafique

Dillon

Chemical WMD found in Iraq, there are many more references than the three here.

most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War, like i said before.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

as i said, and as is shown here, most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein's government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons or factories were found.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM

The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal -- most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.
again, like i said in my earlier post, but you don't seem to want to believe that.

i really think you should read whats in your links before posting them. they do tell that the weapons were never found, ad what was left of them was destroyed after the gulf war.

Lookup Uday Hussein, he was the one accused of torturing and murdering Iraqi athletes.

true, now i remember that one.

Saddam Hussein and his Governance also played an equal part in that as have the persistent insurgencies since the New Government was formed.

the country was already being trashed before any talks of any new government being formed, it was a heavy scale military invasion.

Your opinion that Iraq would be better off with Saddam Hussein left as he was truly astonishes me, you obviously have no family in Iran or Kuwait?

[/quote]

i was clearly talking about how better off HIS country would be with him, not what happened between him and Iran or Kuwait. Ii'm talking about Iraq.

shafique wrote:Where have I lied? Gullible is as gullible does.

(I'm sure there are some who still believe that SH had WMD.. I wouldn't choose to argue with those guys either. BTW when did you stop believing he had WMD?)

Cheers,
Shafique

Senile Dementia is the only explanation, I have a friend who owns a retirement home in Harrogate and he explained to me one day when I queried his sanity being surrounded by dying people that the onset of Senile Dementia served as a protective function for the dying, providing a virtual reality of normal everyday life while they were in fact slowly losing their faculties, therefore he didn’t see them suffering, they believed they were normal and everyone else around them were going mad!

Senile Dementia, living in your own little perfect world, while everyone around you appears to be from a different planet!

If it makes you feel happier to think I have senile dementia -so be it.

You are the one that seems to be losing it, though.

Cheers,
Shafique

Yes Shaf, of course I am, you're right again and we're all wrong again.