See other World News Articles
Title: British Backtrack on Iraq death toll
Source:
Independent
URL Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2396031.ece
Published: Mar 27, 2007
Author: Jill Lawless
Post Date: 2007-03-27 06:38:41 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 24291
Comments: 394
British government officials have backed the methods used by scientists who concluded that more than 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion, the BBC reported yesterday. The Government publicly rejected the findings, published in The Lancet in October. But the BBC said documents obtained under freedom of information legislation showed advisers concluded that the much-criticised study had used sound methods. The study, conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, estimated that 655,000 more Iraqis had died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. The study estimated that 601,027 of those deaths were from violence. The researchers, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 per cent certain that the real number of deaths lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636. The conclusion, based on interviews and not a body count, was disputed by some experts, and rejected by the US and British governments. But the chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Roy Anderson, described the methods used in the study as "robust" and "close to best practice". Another official said it was "a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones".
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-238) not displayed.
.
.
.
#239. To: BeAChooser (#236)
Israelis are deeply concerned about the possibility that Iran will soon have nuclear weapons. Americans should be no less concerned. Israeli Justice Minister Yosef Lapid said recently, "It is possible that Iran's first atomic bomb will fall on Tel Aviv, but then the second will fall on New York." The rest of the Western world has reason to be worried about this too. But the European powers are hard to convince of the need to act against the threat of a common foe, a reality that the United States learned two centuries ago. Then, the Barbary pirates were the adversaries. They were based in various parts of North Africa and operated with or without the approval of the nominal rulers of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli. In return for annual payments of protection money from European countries, the pirates promised that ships of those nations would not be attacked. The newly independent Americans joined the arrangement after eleven of their ships were seized by the pirates in 1793, and a ransom of almost one million dollars — borrowed from a Jew in Algiers — was paid for their release. President John Adams favored payments to the pirates and he even agreed to build and deliver two ships to them. Thomas Jefferson, then U.S. ambassador to France, opposed Adams on this issue. He said that a single decisive war against the pirates would be more cost-effective than annual bribes in perpetuity. On becoming president in 1801, Jefferson acted independently. First, he refused to accede to pirate demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and annual payments of $25,000. Then he sent naval units and marines to North Africa to fight against the blackmailers, an episode recalled in the Marine Hymn ("to the shores of Tripoli"). Hostilities continued, on and off, for four years, until a temporary agreement was reached. Only after a second war in 1815 did American naval victories lead to treaties ending all tribute payments by the United States. European nations continued annual payments until the 1830s. The danger posed by the Barbary pirates was infinitely smaller than that stemming from Al Qaeda and other Islamists. This makes an international coalition more urgent in Bush's day than it was in Jefferson's. In Washington and Jerusalem this is self-evident. It is less obvious in many other places. One hopes that the leaders of the Western world will soon realize that the danger of car bombs, and, soon enough, nuclear bombs, threaten all of them. Where do you get your talking points, BAC?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
The country of bin Laden? Where's that? What is the capital of bin Laden? Did the citizens of bin Laden vote for the formal declaration of war or did bin Laden's Congress or the whatever legislative body thereof declare the formal war? Or did the president/leader of bin Laden declare war all by himself? When we defeat bin Laden in war, will there be an offical surrender ceremony on the deck of some US warship? Will we help rebuild bin Laden after the war? What if we never defeat bin Laden? How long will we be at war? How much money will it cost to defeat bin Laden? How many human wherever situate will die in the war? What if the American people don't want to fight bin Laden in a war? Instead of trying to invade, conquer and occupy bin Laden half way around the world, would it be better to station our troops along the border so bin Laden's military can't sneak in and attack us? Or at least, do both? Is Bush doing that now? Can our navy and air force stand up and defend America against bin Laden's forces? Are we spending enough money for our defense to stop bin Laden's attacks? Should we spend a lot more? If Bush hadn't attacked bin Laden, do you think bin Laden would have invaded, conquered and occupied all of America by now? WHEW!
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Show me in the Constitution or US law where it says we can only be declared war on by countries or can only declare war on countries. You folks still don't get it. It's a brand new world. Then they need only elect representatives that will surrender. Have there been attacks by al-Qaeda inside the US since 9/11? Apparently something is being done to prevent that. And I think you are wrong in thinking that lining up soldiers along our borders wall to wall would do that. And apparently most in charge must agree with me. Probably not. But a lot more American might now be dead than are dead.
You left out "order", Zionist.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Hey, and moving on, who did the Anthrax?
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Don't you think the US Air Force should have used B-52s to carpet bomb Pendleton, New York, by now? That's Timothy McVeigh's hometown.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Who placed the pre 09/11 stock options? Why hasn't there been a trial for those culprits?
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Good enough for me. And while you retards try and figure out how the gunmen could have shot a man moments before a plane crashed and got out no one investigate how the plane crashed into a mountain. Honey Pot Trap.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
We don't really know, do we. But we do know there are some interesting coincidences between the hijackers and the anthrax. Like the fact that the first case showed up within a few miles of where they stayed before 9/11. Like the fact that the wife of the editor of the magazine the first case worked for had contact with some of the hijackers. Like the fact that several hijackers were treated for skin problems. Like the fact that in hindsight those who treated them and doctors at John Hopkins say it was likely anthrax. Like the fact that Atta showed interest in crop dusters at a time when he was set to fly jets into buildings. Like the fact that Atta disappeared from the US for a week in April of that year. Like the fact that during that time a witness in Prague said he saw Atta meet an Iraq case officer. Like the fact that Iraq had manufactured anthrax weaponry. Like that fact that the ISG said Iraq had the technical capability to create the 9/11 anthrax. Like the fact that Iraq had tried to procure the 9/11 strain of anthrax on at least one occasion. But we don't really know, do we.
Didn't you read anything else I've posted, Destro? Because the photos of the wound and skull x-ray prove the skull was indeed perforated (and others who saw the wound confirmed this in statements I quoted). You can even go look at the photos yourself and confirm this. Gormley even admitted he was wrong about the skull not being perforated after being shown the photos. So why do you latch on to this bit of disinformation so desperately? And Gormley also admitted that he didn't look for an exit wound. And others confirm he did not. And all this has been pointed out to you with quotes from the individuals in question yet you go on repeating the same disinformation. One begins to wonder why. I'm not the one acting like a retard here, Destro. You clearly don't want to deal with what the photos, pathologists and photographer all say about the wound and what occurred at the examination. You keep latching onto statements that have already been proven to be lies. I really think you are showing a desperation that should make folks wonder why you are acting this way. Care to explain your behavior?
And you have a yellow, dog eared National Enquirer or NewsMax article to prove every point. Sometimes its actually shameful what the goob fooler press crams down the throats of gullible goobers like youself. Why doesn't Bush use the Prague meeting to justify his invasion? If its true, it would turn things around for him. Instead, this fiction is only used to excite paranoid and easily manipulated morons like yourself. It doesn't even appear int he higher level Republican propaganda. Everyone else realizes the story has been debunked for years. wise up and try to think critically. Just because a propaganda rag targeted at morons says something doesn't mean that you have to pattern your life around it.
.
Here you go again, making a false assertion. The points I listed about the hijackers, anthrax, atta and al-Ani don't come from Newsmax or the National Enquirer. But claiming that seems to be the only debating tactic you know. That tactic is rather pathetic, ... especially after I've already proven you wrong when you said the same thing in another case. But you are a typical 4um poster so I guess I shouldn't expect you to learn from your mistakes. ROTFLOL!
What does that mean 9/11 strain of anthrax? What is that?
Gosh the way you put it makes it sound like the anthrax was a part of the 9/11 conspiracy. I bet you do that on purpose.
Who gave you the right to write new rules?
If the Mafia "declared war" on the US, would Congress issue a solemn declaration of war against the Mafia? Of course not. The Mafia lacks nationhood. Al-Qaeda also lacks statehood, and is but a band of international criminals.
Of course not. Extradition treaties provide remedies against international criminals. Of course, extradition treaties are not likely to be agreed upon in the absence of diplomatic recognition.
BAC's "Troll" tactics are at work again. He 'grounds' the emotional and intellectual energy of the forum - and he's successful, at it. Reply to his shit, at your own peril.
You exalt form over substance. The substantive elements of a declaration of war were well known to the Framers. The term "declaration of war" had a recognized meaning, and still does.
BeAChoochoo: It's not just beside the point. It is outright FALSE. "U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)" Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)
Jefferson deployed the navy to protect shipping, when attacked, under the doctrine of the freedom of the seas. He did not authorize the Navy to wage aggressive war. Surely you see the difference. All discussion with you is pointless if you do not.
Actually, I think he helps. He offers a good tune up.
It's not just beside the point. It is outright FALSE. And you know it as we've discussed this before. Tariq Aziz, who was at the meeting between Glaspie and Saddam, is on the record stating that NO green light was given, that Glaspie said nothing out of the ordinary, that the transcript on which you base this claim is "incomplete*, that Saddam knew invading Kuwait would mean war with the US, and that they prepared accordingly. Here you are telling a deliberate bald faced lie. You are doing so because you cannot reconcile Glaspie's comments below with your world view. The best you can do is play games with with a paraphrased version of an out of context quote from an ardent war shill. Note that you don't provide the actual quote, just a paraphrased version that suits your purpose. You do this in an attempt to fool the uninformed that the damming comments were not made. You are behaving like a piece of dishonest scum here. The transcpript is below: Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait) July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders? Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death. U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le? Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this? U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles) On August 2, 1990, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait. _____ Baghdad, September 2, 1990, U.S. Embassy One month later, British journalists obtain the the above tape and transcript of the Saddam - Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Journalist 1 - Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond) Journalist 2 - You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait. Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasi on. What were you thinking? U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait. Journalist 1 - You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country! Journalist 1 - American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq? (Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.)
.
If the Mafia was operating openly in a state after declaring war on us, would Congress simply ignore them and that state?
Did we have an extradition treaty with Saddam's regime or the Taliban? Or if we did can you cite an instance where it was used successfully?
Yet one of the key Framers didn't declare war ... didn't even consult Congress ... before sending his fleet to attack countries in the Med.
The points I listed about the hijackers, anthrax, atta and al-Ani don't come from Newsmax or the National Enquirer. But claiming that seems to be the only debating tactic you know. That tactic is rather pathetic, ... especially after I've already proven you wrong when you said the same thing in another case. But you are a typical 4um poster so I guess I shouldn't expect you to learn from your mistakes. ROTFLOL! Really, BAC? Strange but I found many of the "facts" you quoted in a 5 part NewsMax series by Phil Brennan and the Al-Ani thingie in a newsmax article as well. He also contributes to a site called Etherzone. Here's his summary of his 5 part newsmax series: http://www.etherzone.com/2 005/bren111605.shtml "ANTHRAX REVISITED: TOO MANY COINCIDENCES" Phil Brennan is a veteran journalist who writes for http://NewsMax.com. He is editor & publisher of Wednesday on the Web and was Washington columnist for National Review magazine in the 1960s. He also served as a staff aide for the House Republican Policy Committee and helped handle the Washington public relations operation for the Alaska Statehood Committee which won statehood for Alaska. He is also a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers. Phil Brennan is a regular columnist for Ether Zone. http://www.new smax.com/archives/ic/2003/11/15/111243.shtml "Intelligence Bombshell: Saddam Financed Lead 9/11 Hijacker" The previously secret 16-page memo, prepared by the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies, says Atta met as many as four times in Prague with Iraqi intelligence agent Ahmed al Ani prior to the 9/11 attacks. In a staggering revelation, which offers an overwhelming and compelling justification for the U.S. attack on Iraq, the CIA memo says that, during one of these meetings, al Ani "ordered the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office." Al Ani was captured by Coalition forces in July and has reportedly denied to U.S. interrogators any meeting with Atta. U.S. press reports on Iraq's role in 9/11, however, have been notoriously unreliable and are often driven by an agenda to undermine justification for the war. In excerpts first reported late Friday by the Weekly Standard, the memo says that the CIA "can confirm two Atta visits to Prague – in Dec. 1994 and in June 2000." Neither the CIA nor the FBI can confirm, for instance, that Atta met specifically with Iraqi intelligence. BACster, you are such a predictable shill - we know your sources by heart already.
A transcript that Tariq Aziz, Saddam's right hand man and who was present at the meeting, said is "incomplete". Glaspie testified under oath that she told Saddam that the US would not accept anything but a peaceful solution to Iraq's dispute with Kuwait. Tariq Aziz said publically that Saddam was under NO ILLUSIONS that invading Kuwait would mean war with the US, And you fail to mention to our readers that there are TWO transcripts of the meeting ... both put out by Iraq (which as we all know has a history of not being honest), WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT. How can that be, leveller? How can you know which transcript or if any transcript is accurate? Since Tariq Aziz has stated that "Glaspie was not given a green light", how can you claim with a voice of *reason* that she did? Let's face it, leveller. Your entire case is built on an INTERPRETATION of a few lines (or words) in a transcript produced by an Iraqi regime with a history of lying and which is contradicted by the eyewitness testimony of a high ranking member of Saddam's government who was present at the meeting in question. It is almost pathetic that you would make such an inflammatory claim on such flimsy evidence. But then you are a lawyer and you've been trained to do that. The question is ... who is your client?
And the US does?
But then you are a lawyer and you've been trained to do that. The question is ... who is your client? You could get alot more milage by not be constantly so accusing, In my humble opinion. How many words can you type a minute?? You must be in the 99%.
Ahhhh .... the old dancing paraphrased quote tactic. What you claim Aziz said above isn't the same as what you claimed in your prior post (221): Tariq Aziz, who was at the meeting between Glaspie and Saddam, is on the record stating that NO green light was given, that Glaspie said nothing out of the ordinary, that the transcript on which you base this claim is "incomplete*, that Saddam knew invading Kuwait would mean war with the US, and that they prepared accordingly. And both of these "quotes" are nothing more than your BULLSHIT interpretation of what Aziz actually said - if he said anything at all. Or dare I say it? Both of your phoney quotes are a BULLSHIT paraphrasing that puts the words you need into somebody elses mouth. Sort of like you putting words into the war resolution and then using your red herring of the founding fathers not cobbling together a form for Congress to use when declaring war. Let me ask you something, if the bullshit quote you allegedly provided is true, why does Bush allow the entire world to hammer him -- time and time again -- with Glaspie's statement? Maybe you should mail this startling info to Bush so he can go on TV and save himself with it.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War Gee ... that language sounds a lot like the language Congress passed in 2002 regarding Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War Wow! So the Framers didn't require a formal written document from an enemy to believe they'd declared war on us. And by the way ... did you know that Jefferson's forces topple a dictator by overland attack? I'd call that "aggressive war". Why before they did that, Jefferson's navy bombarded Tripoli causing massive civilian casualties. I wonder what you folks would of said about that had you been alive at the time. Maybe you would have burned one of the Framers in effigy for his war crimes?
You don't know the meaning of lie. Tariq Aziz, who was at the meeting in question, stated in an interview with PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/aziz/2.html) that "She didn't tell us anything strange. She didn't tell us in the sense that we concluded that the Americans will not retaliate. That was nonsense you see. It was nonsense to think that the Americans would not attack us. In the early hours of the 2nd of August, the whole apparatus of the leadership took precautions for an American speedy immediate retaliation." He went on to say "So we had no illusions that the Americans will not retaliate against being in Kuwait because they knew that this was a conflict between the two of us-- Iraq and the United States." Aziz told the New York Times on 31 May 1991 that "She didn't give a green light, and she didn't mention a red light because the question of our presence in Kuwait was not raised. ... And we didn't take it as a green light ... that if we intervened militarily in Kuwait, the Americans would not react. That was not true. We were expecting an American attack on the morning of the second of August." USA Today reported that "Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz says neither he nor Saddam Hussein thought U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie gave Iraq a green light to invade Kuwait in a notorious July 1990 meeting". It quoted Aziz saying "We didn't have any false illusion about the position of the United States. We knew the United States would have a strong reaction against that. So we didn't have any false expectations the United States would sit and watch" the invasion. It quoted him saying that "At that stage we knew that it would lead to a conflict. And later on, when they sent troops, we knew it would lead to a war."
ROTFLOL!!! So Aziz, the war shill, paraphased Glaspie's statement long after the fact and just as it started to damage Bush's war effort. And from your post above, he didn't do it in a consistent manner. In other words Azis tried to spin the inconvenient statement Fox News style when it started to become a problem. And moronic, gullible goobers like yourself slurped it up with a spoon. Let me clue you in on something chooser. That is the reason he did it. To fool idiots like youself.
.
That doesn't mean the original facts came from NewsMax. It just might mean Newsmax got it right when it republished what others first published. But then you apparently never read anything but Newsmax so you wouldn't know. What possible motivation might he have for admitting something that might link him to an anthrax attack in the US that killed people? Do you know that neither the CIA or FBI can confirm that Atta was in the United States during the same period? But since you are so informed, scrapper, perhaps you can explain another strange coincidence in this story. al-Ani ... the Iraqi case officer that Atta is reported by the Czechs to have met ... had an entry in his day calendar for the day in question about meeting "a Hamburg student". What a coincidence that Atta's travel documents listed him as a "Hamburg student". Any explanation you care to float?
So tom, did you say anything when I was called "evil" and worse because I dared to note that a free fall collapse of the WTC towers would take 10 seconds but the towers actually took 15 seconds to fall? No??? Have you had anything to say the uncounted times I've been called a shill, bushbot, moron or any number of other demeaning labels? No???
Stop your pathetic whining. Your wingnut victimhood is truely digusting. Take it off the board and spare us.
.
BAC, you asshole, we went over this at ElPee. Glaspie later let is slip that "....we didn't expect them to take all of Kuwait." In other words, if Hussein had just grabbed the northern Kuwaiti oil fields; that would have been okay. BAC - you're such a fucking disinformationisat asshole!
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/aziz/2.html) that "She didn't tell us anything strange. She didn't tell us in the sense that we concluded that the Americans will not retaliate. That was nonsense you see. It was nonsense to think that the Americans would not attack us. In the early hours of the 2nd of August, the whole apparatus of the leadership took precautions for an American speedy immediate retaliation." He went on to say "So we had no illusions that the Americans will not retaliate against being in Kuwait because they knew that this was a conflict between the two of us-- Iraq and the United States." Aziz told the New York Times on 31 May 1991 that "She didn't give a green light, and she didn't mention a red light because the question of our presence in Kuwait was not raised. ... And we didn't take it as a green light ... that if we intervened militarily in Kuwait, the Americans would not react. That was not true. We were expecting an American attack on the morning of the second of August." USA Today reported that "Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz says neither he nor Saddam Hussein thought U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie gave Iraq a green light to invade Kuwait in a notorious July 1990 meeting". It quoted Aziz saying "We didn't have any false illusion about the position of the United States. We knew the United States would have a strong reaction against that. So we didn't have any false expectations the United States would sit and watch" the invasion. It quoted him saying that "At that stage we knew that it would lead to a conflict. And later on, when they sent troops, we knew it would lead to a war." So once again, ..., you demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about. I guess you are just generally uninformed.
A further demonstration of how badly informed you are. Tariq Aziz made those statements in the 1990's long before Bush's war effort. He made the statements when Saddam was still in power and he still worked for Saddam. Just keep digging the hole deeper, ...
ROTFLOL!! OK, I give. He was spinning in the run up to take out Saddam. Great.
.
Comments (280 - 394) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestLetter from Israel
The new Barbary pirates
By Nechemia Meyers
#240. To: BeAChooser (#223)
Except that bin Laden actually had formally declared war on the US.
#241. To: wbales, ALL (#240)
The country of bin Laden? Where's that? What is the capital of bin Laden?
What if the American people don't want to fight bin Laden in a war?
Instead of trying to invade, conquer and occupy bin Laden half way around the world, would it be better to station our troops along the border so bin Laden's military can't sneak in and attack us? Or at least, do both? Is Bush doing that now?
If Bush hadn't attacked bin Laden, do you think bin Laden would have invaded, conquered and occupied all of America by now?
#242. To: BeAChooser (#241)
It's a brand new world.
#243. To: BeAChooser (#241)
#244. To: BeAChooser (#241)
#245. To: BeAChooser (#241)
#246. To: BeAChooser (#204)
Asked recently about the head wound, Gormley told the Tribune-Review that it was a matter of concern because of its size and shape. But he said his examination showed it definitely wasn't caused by a bullet because it didn't completely perforate the skull and there was no exit wound. The institute's chief forensic scientist, who was present during the examination, says evidence at the crash site ruled out the possibility of a gunshot.
#247. To: wbales, ALL (#243)
Hey, and moving on, who did the Anthrax?
#248. To: Destro, ALL (#246)
"But he said his examination showed it definitely wasn't caused by a bullet because it didn't completely perforate the skull and there was no exit wound. The institute's chief forensic scientist, who was present during the examination, says evidence at the crash site ruled out the possibility of a gunshot."
Good enough for me.
And while you retards
#249. To: BeAChooser (#247)
#250. To: ..., ALL (#249)
And you have a yellow, dog eared National Enquirer or NewsMax article to prove every point.
#251. To: BeAChooser, wbales (#247)
Like the fact that Iraq had tried to procure the 9/11 strain of anthrax
#252. To: BeAChooser (#250)
The points I listed about the hijackers, anthrax, atta and al-Ani don't come from Newsmax or the National Enquirer.
#253. To: BeAChooser (#219)
We are playing by new rules now.
#254. To: BeAChooser (#219)
Those targets had committed a criminal offense within our borders. No, they committed an act of war. A war they formally declared before 9/11.
#255. To: BeAChooser (#219)
So we are legally helpless against terrorists. That's your message, lawyer? ROTFLOL!
#256. To: leveller (#254)
#257. To: BeAChooser (#221)
Show me in the Constitution or our laws where the form of a Declaration of War is defined. You can't
#258. To: BeAChooser (#221)
Voice of Reason: April Glaspie gave Iraq the green light to invade, but this issue is beside the point.
#259. To: BeAChooser (#230)
Jefferson deployed the navy, without consulting Congress, with permission to attack the pirates or any entity aiding the pirates, before any *formal* declaration of war had actually been received by the US.
#260. To: SKYDRIFTER (#256)
BAC's "Troll" tactics are at work again. He 'grounds' the emotional and intellectual energy of the forum - and he's successful, at it. Reply to his shit, at your own peril.
#261. To: BeAChooser (#221)
(Edited)
April Glaspie gave Iraq the green light to invade, but this issue is beside the point.
#262. To: leveller, ALL (#254)
If the Mafia "declared war" on the US, would Congress issue a solemn declaration of war against the Mafia?
#263. To: leveller, ALL (#255)
Extradition treaties provide remedies against international criminals.
#264. To: leveller (#257)
The substantive elements of a declaration of war were well known to the Framers.
#265. To: BeAChooser, ... (#250)
Here you go again, making a false assertion.
#266. To: leveller, ALL (#258)
"U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)"
Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)
#267. To: BeAChooser (#266)
both put out by Iraq (which as we all know has a history of not being honest), WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT. H
#268. To: BeAChooser (#266)
It is almost pathetic that you would make such an inflammatory claim on such flimsy evidence.
#269. To: BeAChooser (#266)
Tariq Aziz said publically that Saddam was under NO ILLUSIONS that invading Kuwait would mean war with the US,
#270. To: leveller, ALL (#259)
Jefferson deployed the navy to protect shipping, when attacked, under the doctrine of the freedom of the seas. He did not authorize the Navy to wage aggressive war.
Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."
Consequently, in May of 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally in Tripoli.
#271. To: ..., ALL (#261)
Tariq Aziz, who was at the meeting between Glaspie and Saddam, is on the record stating that NO green light was given, that Glaspie said nothing out of the ordinary, that the transcript on which you base this claim is "incomplete*, that Saddam knew invading Kuwait would mean war with the US, and that they prepared accordingly.
Here you are telling a deliberate bald faced lie.
#272. To: BeAChooser (#271)
#273. To: scrapper2, ALL (#265)
Strange but I found many of the "facts" you quoted in a 5 part NewsMax series by Phil Brennan and the Al-Ani thingie in a newsmax article as well.
Al Ani was captured by Coalition forces in July and has reportedly denied to U.S. interrogators any meeting with Atta.
Neither the CIA nor the FBI can confirm, for instance, that Atta met specifically with Iraqi intelligence.
#274. To: tom007, ALL (#268)
You could get alot more milage by not be constantly so accusing, In my humble opinion.
#275. To: BeAChooser (#274)
So tom, did you say anything when I was called "evil" and worse because I dared to note that a free fall collapse of the WTC towers would take 10 seconds but the towers actually took 15 seconds to fall?
#276. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#266)
#277. To: ..., ALL (#269)
"Tariq Aziz said publically that Saddam was under NO ILLUSIONS that invading Kuwait would mean war with the US,"
Ahhhh .... the old dancing paraphrased quote tactic.
... snip ...
"Tariq Aziz, who was at the meeting between Glaspie and Saddam, is on the record stating that NO green light was given, that Glaspie said nothing out of the ordinary, that the transcript on which you base this claim is "incomplete*, that Saddam knew invading Kuwait would mean war with the US, and that they prepared accordingly."
And both of these "quotes" are nothing more than your BULLSHIT interpretation of what Aziz actually said - if he said anything at all. Or dare I say it? Both of your phoney quotes are a BULLSHIT paraphrasing that puts the words you need into somebody elses mouth.
#278. To: ..., ALL (#272)
So Aziz, the war shill, paraphased Glaspie's statement long after the fact and just as it started to damage Bush's war effort.
#279. To: BeAChooser (#278)
.
.
.