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: 30600
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 (1-249) not displayed.
.
.
.
#250. To: ..., ALL (#249)
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.
.
When you can figure out the methodology of the hit involving the bullet wound let me know.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Here's a feasible possibility. The plane was spoofed into hitting the mountain by a portable beacon. (Aviation Week said this would fit the flight path data and a portable beacon did go missing right before the crash.) Those doing it knew roughly where the plane would come down. (Obviously) The arrived at the crash well ahead of anyone else. (AP reported that the first rescuers to supposedly arrive were actually met by 3 Americans.) They found Brown still alive. (The crash was a low speed affair. The rear section was still intact. Dr Wechts, one of America's foremost pathologists said that other than the wound in Brown's head, his injuries were survivable.) They make sure he's dead (with a bullet, perhaps from an exotic gun, through the top of the head). They control the crash scene and the examination of the body. Now that may or may not be the way it happened. But one thing is sure. The pathologists in the case think the nature of the wound merited an autopsy because it at least LOOKED like a bullet wound rather than blunt force trauma. Now you go hide, because obviously that's what you want to do.
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? Sure - try this on for size, BAC - a declassified report today states that Saddam had no collusion or relationship with AQ - so I guess that means Saddam did not know any of the characters that weekly standard and newsmax et al spun stories about. In fact, Doug Feith - traitor and criminal extraordinaire - leaked MANUFACTURED intel to weekly standard et al. The story just broke on Washington Post. So take your AQ-Saddam phony lies and choke on it. And the same goes for your neocon traitor pals. Let them choke on their lies and their bile. Traitors like Doug Feith caused the deaths of 650,000 Iraqi civilians and over 3000 US soldiers - for lies - may he rot in hell. And shills like you who push lies made up by the Office of Special Plans are accessories after the fact. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=49583&Disp=7#C7 "Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted" Washington Post/ Front Page/April 05, 2007 Doug Feith lied and US soldiers died!
You are a ridiculous, wild eyed, drooling conspiracy kook. Do you know that?
.
The plane was spoofed into hitting the mountain by a portable beacon. (Aviation Week said this would fit the flight path data and a portable beacon did go missing right before the crash.) Those doing it knew roughly where the plane would come down. (Obviously) The arrived at the crash well ahead of anyone else. (AP reported that the first rescuers to supposedly arrive were actually met by 3 Americans.) They found Brown still alive. (The crash was a low speed affair. The rear section was still intact. Dr Wechts, one of America's foremost pathologists said that other than the wound in Brown's head, his injuries were survivable.) They make sure he's dead (with a bullet, perhaps from an exotic gun, through the top of the head). They control the crash scene and the examination of the body. Now that may or may not be the way it happened. But one thing is sure. The pathologists in the case think the nature of the wound merited an autopsy because it at least LOOKED like a bullet wound rather than blunt force trauma. Why BAC, we finally have something we agree on. Personally, I think it was something on the order of a .45 Cal blank, doing fatal damage with only the consequent skull fragments, propelled into the brain. Possibly a bullet, going down the spine / chest cavity. Don't forget about the surviving flight attendant who mysteriously turned up dead.
Now if you're going to go about regurgitating nonsense like that, there no sense attempting any rational debate with you. If you don't know by now that John Hopkins did NOT claim 650,000 CIVILIANS were killed, you are clueless. But of course, I can't call anyone clueless on 4um because that would be insulting. And I'm not allowed to be insulting.
No rational response huh? So you try BAC tactic number two: personal insults and belittling the posters. Why didn't you just try to change the subject? Isn't that what you normally do?
.
I find that as plausable as demolition charges bringing down the WTC.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Chooser, arn't you going to keep thrashing around and making people laugh at you? The night is still young and the GOP still has a 29% approval rating for you to thrash.
.
Except in the Brown case I can quote a REAL expert in such things who suggests that's a possibility. Now I challenge you to quote a REAL expert in structures, demolition or any of the relevant fields who suggests that demolition charges brought down the WTC towers. You won't be able to do it.
Comments (290 - 394) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest 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)
#280. To: BeAChooser (#248)
#281. To: Destro, all (#280)
When you can figure out the methodology of the hit involving the bullet wound let me know.
#282. To: BeAChooser (#273)
(Edited)
Do you know that neither the CIA or FBI can confirm that Atta was in the United States during the same period?
#283. To: BeAChooser (#281)
#284. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#281)
Here's a feasible possibility.
#285. To: scrapper2, ALL (#282)
Traitors like Doug Feith caused the deaths of 650,000 Iraqi civilians
#286. To: BeAChooser, Christine (#285)
Now if you're going to go about regurgitating nonsense like that,
#287. To: BeAChooser (#281)
They make sure he's dead (with a bullet, perhaps from an exotic gun, through the top of the head).
#288. To: BeAChooser (#285)
#289. To: Destro, ALL (#287)
"They make sure he's dead (with a bullet, perhaps from an exotic gun, through the top of the head)."
I find that as plausable as demolition charges bringing down the WTC.
.
.
.