Terrorists and Missiles... Saddam revealed to be a liar once more.

[Tekneek]

HALABJA, Iraq, March 22 (Reuters) - An Australian cameraman and one other person were killed on Saturday in a car bomb attack in northern Iraq that Kurdish officials blamed on a militant Islamic group.


-----

Right! I actually fell into the "show me proof" mode on that one, and now we know the truth. There *are* terrorists there. The events of the war, such as the missiles that have been fired, and now these terrorist acts, indicate strongly to me that the US government is probably more right than wrong, and Saddam has clearly lied and misled the inspectors. Surely these events should have an effect on opinion in the world, as long as they are being honest and objective.

[damnMikeBrown]

If we were being invaded, they'd be called partisans.

[PilotMan]

Unfortunately as much as I want to share your optimisum, the world is going to come up with excuses and their opinion will not change.

[Tekneek]

Facts now are : Terrorist acts being committed on Iraqi soil, when Saddam said there was no terrorist group in Iraq. Missiles have been fired that Saddam said he did not have.

I was skeptical all along about the claims the US government was making, but evidence is coming forward now, through the actions in Iraq itself, that paint a picture that is far more in favor of what the US government has been saying all along.

All I wanted was proof, and it looks like it is presenting itself today. Funny how a few days of war uncovers what months of UN inspections never did, eh? It looks like France and Germany were not right, at least from what has been gathered so far.

[sachmo71]

No matter what happens, "proof" will be found. There is no way the US government lays waste and occupies a foreign nation and them comes away saying "Well, we thought he had WMDs". Good grief, how could that not be obvious! You'll get your "proof", don't grasp at the first thing that comes along.

[cmp]

But no matter what we find over there or how many people we free from Saddam's rule, the world will still blame us for the world's problems.

[aquavit]

Originally posted by Tekneek
Right! I actually fell into the "show me proof" mode on that one, and now we know the truth. There *are* terrorists there.

HA! So we attack Iraq and when they retaliate you have proof that there are terrorists in Iraq and therefore this war is justified? Huh?!? That is about as illogical an argument as the protestor today who said war in Iraq is wrong because it's bad karma.

[Tekneek]

Ummm. They have used missiles they weren't supposed to have, and this is reported even by the Middle Eastern Press. I suppose they have some axe to grind and reason to lie as well, aquavit. Right on, buddy. At some point you have to admit the entire world is not lying.

Car bombs? Terrorist activity. I'm not grasping at straws here, this is reality.

[Taur]

Not a single weapon of mass distruction found YET.

Maybe the US needs to "invent" some weapons like they did with the iraq Nuclear Program. The US had to raise the dead to prove the Iraqui Nuclear program with Iraqui generals who had been dead for over 10 years all rising from the dead and signing off on nuclear arms.

Don't worry we will find weapons of mass distruction in Iraq if we have to build them there ourselves.

[ACStrider]

You mean Saddam's a liar?

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Tekneek
Ummm. They have used missiles they weren't supposed to have, and this is reported even by the Middle Eastern Press. I suppose they have some axe to grind and reason to lie as well, aquavit. Right on, buddy. At some point you have to admit the entire world is not lying.

Car bombs? Terrorist activity. I'm not grasping at straws here, this is reality.

So when the world hears that some nut blew up a car, do you honestly think that will justify this war to them? Was there a "no carbomb" resolution that I missed? It sounds sort of like trying to get Al Capone on tax evasion. They need (and will) to find a vat of anthrax or a big sample of plutonium to change the worlds view of this mess. Car bombs ain't gonna stop anything. Well, except for those reporters who were standing there when the car exploded.

[Tekneek]

Ok. Some people have a reading comprehension problem and have not been following this situation very well.

United States says there are terrorists in Northern Iraq. Saddam says there isn't. Said group of terrorists kills an Australian TV crew with a car bomb. You say that is "just some nut blowing up a car." I guess 9/11 was "just some nut[s]" flying planes into things, and not part of some terrorist activity. Interesting logic you use, too bad it has no basis in reality. Conveniently dodge the missile issues, of course. Is it ok to say you don't have illegal weapons, and then use them if attacked? How is that a good thing? If you are arguing that the terms of the cease-fire that Iraq agreed to are something they should not be bound to, then that is something entirely different. If Iraq breaks the terms of their cease-fire agreement, then the cease-fire is over.

I have problems trusting the US government, as I have stated in other threads. At the same time, it is only responsible to evaluate the evidence as it comes in, and to gather it from around the world, from multiple sources. These aren't things only said by US and British media. You can keep your head in the sand, and maintain this entire thing has been a 'fix' from the start. The evidence so far doesn't indicate that, but I suppose you can just ignore that because you are only human and bound to make mistakes. It is unreasonable for me to expect more out of someone that may be unable to deliver it.

"Car bombs" may not stop anything, but they have been used in terrorism for years. They are a staple of terrorist groups.

You will have to make up your own mind, but the least you can do is do your work and be honest with yourself and others. I was as skeptical as anyone about all of this, but the truth about what was going on in Iraq is slowly coming out and so far has nothing to do with anything being 'planted' by anyone other than Iraqi leadership.

[Daimyo]

Is it really terrorism if you blow something up in the middle of a war? Or are we the only ones allowed to actually try to hurt the enemy?

[Taur]

Or, could this just be some Iraqi defending his home?

In a battle for your homeland it is acceptable to get as dirty as you can. There are no rules in defending your home from an invasion. Just ask the British about those American terrorist that would not fight fairly in 1776.

[KWhit]

I think one terrorist blowing up a car means nothing. If the US were invaded we'd have the same thing happen. HOWEVER, if the reports are true that US forces are attacking terrorist training camps, that's an entirely different thing.

We aren't attacking Saddam because there may be some terrorists in Iraq. But, state-sponsored terrorism is totally different. These camps would be the state sponsored variety.

As far as the missiles go, there has been no proof that there are scuds in Iraq. The missiles fired so far may all be the short-range missiles that Iraq is allowed by the UN.

I'm sure that once US forces get in, they will find what they are looking for as far as proof goes, but it hasn't happened yet.

Rumsfeld just said the exact same thing on Meet the Press as I am typing this. Wierd.

[CamEdwards]

Iraq is violating the Geneva convention by showing pictures of what they say are American dead and POW's, including one injured female.

Keep in mind, despite what pictures you might be seeing here, that the military isn't releasing those pictures. All media in Iraq is state-run, meaning the government IS in charge of what goes out over the airwaves.

[Taur]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Iraq is violating the Geneva convention by showing pictures of what they say are American dead and POW's, including one injured female.


Last Time I looked the US had not formally declared WAR on Iraq. No formal declaration of WAR no Geneva Articles of WAR! The US can't have it both ways. If they want their troops protected under the articles of WAR they are going to have to formally declare WAR.

Utherwise, we are the terrorists.

[couriers]

Originally posted by Taur
Last Time I looked the US had not formally declared WAR on Iraq. No formal declaration of WAR no Geneva Articles of WAR! The US can't have it both ways. If they want their troops protected under the articles of WAR they are going to have to formally declare WAR.

Utherwise, we are the terrorists.

You might want to do a little more research on that before making such an incorrect statement.

[SplitPersonality1]

Originally posted by Taur
Last Time I looked the US had not formally declared WAR on Iraq. No formal declaration of WAR no Geneva Articles of WAR! The US can't have it both ways. If they want their troops protected under the articles of WAR they are going to have to formally declare WAR.

Utherwise, we are the terrorists.

We are the terrorists? Gimme me a break! Comments like this really anger me. Do you think that we are mistreating prisoners according to the Geneva convention? By your very own argument, I guess we could since we have not formally declared war. But, of course, we are not.

Why are so many anti-war folks bending over backwards to support a known liar, murderer, thief and dictator.

I can understand opposition to war on principle, but I wish folks would stop using twisted logic to come up with statements that the US is the evil/bad guy here and not Saddam Hussein.

[Taur]

Because, it is a slippery slope we are going down, when we start killing people/countries just because we don't approve of them.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Taur
Last Time I looked the US had not formally declared WAR on Iraq. No formal declaration of WAR no Geneva Articles of WAR! The US can't have it both ways. If they want their troops protected under the articles of WAR they are going to have to formally declare WAR.

Utherwise, we are the terrorists.


No offense, but you really need to do some research on the Geneva Convention before posting something this ridiculous.

[Tekneek]

Some people definitely don't know what they think they know. Seems like if you wanted to be taken seriously, you would either do some of the research required, or admit you were wrong. It's ok to not agree with the US government's position on this whole thing, but do it from a position of intelligence, rather than ignorance.

[astralhaze]

Damn lying commie hippie drug addict idiotarians anyway.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Bee
No offense, but you really need to do some research on the Geneva Convention before posting something this ridiculous.

Now now, don't want to go confusing people with the truth, facts, or even reality.

[qmpz]

Wasn't the terrorist group in N Iraq, near the Kurdish controlled area? If so I wouldn't think there would be strong ties with Saddam as the Kurds control the area, but I could be wrong, I haven't researched the specific issue.

As for the missiles, which ones are being used? Are they Al Samoud 2's that were in the process of being destroyed and we knew he had? Again, I haven't tried researching it as all reports I've heard simply say missiles (non-specific).

[Tekneek]

The allegations all along have been of terrorists in a Northern part of Iraq. I didn't believe it, and Saddam denied it, over and over. The truth has come out, though.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Daimyo
Is it really terrorism if you blow something up in the middle of a war? Or are we the only ones allowed to actually try to hurt the enemy?

terrorism (terorist) is indiscriminately applied term these days. This, of course, means that the term will become meaningless as a usable description.

[Tekneek]

I now consider it terrorism to use the same tactics that are normally employed by terrorist groups.

[McSweeny]

i think Fritz hit it on the head...

why aren't we in Ireland taking out the IRA? aren't they a terrorist organization?

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Tekneek
I now consider it terrorism to use the same tactics that are normally employed by terrorist groups.

so if terrorists were able to get hold of nukes, we would also be considered terrorists b/c we used it on Japan. Terrorists use greandes bombs and guns, does that make America terrorists.

It's a war, this kind of shit happens, thats what makes it a war and not happy fun tea time.

[Tekneek]

It's also the way you go about it. Dropping an atomic bomb during a long war, during which both nations officially declared war on each other, and doing it from a plane, would not be a terrorist act. Somehow constructing a nuclear device, and setting it off in Times Square after carrying it in there or driving it would be a terrorist act. There *is* a difference between the two.

Ok. You are telling me Americans are going into cafes, shopping centers, buses, and other obvious and completely civilian areas with their bombs and guns intentionally? That is what terrorists do. You are telling me that American forces are loading bombs into cars and driving them into the cities and blowing them up? Is that what you are saying?

You are telling me that driving a car loaded with explosives to a road checkpoint, where civilians also are, is a legitimate military action, and not a terrorist activity?

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Tekneek
It's also the way you go about it. Dropping an atomic bomb during a long war, during which both nations officially declared war on each other, and doing it from a plane, would not be a terrorist act. Somehow constructing a nuclear device, and setting it off in Times Square after carrying it in there or driving it would be a terrorist act. There *is* a difference between the two.

Ok. You are telling me Americans are going into cafes, shopping centers, buses, and other obvious and completely civilian areas with their bombs and guns intentionally? That is what terrorists do. You are telling me that American forces are loading bombs into cars and driving them into the cities and blowing them up? Is that what you are saying?

You are telling me that driving a car loaded with explosives to a road checkpoint, where civilians also are, is a legitimate military action, and not a terrorist activity?

So, you're telling me the US isn't going to go into the streets of Bagdad with bombs and guns and other weapons, where there are shopping centers, cafe's and buses? We haven't bombed any cities yet? We didn't drop a nuke on 2 CIVILIAN areas during WW2? And if Saddam loaded a 747 with a nuke and sent it to the US, it would be ok, because it would be war, or because it happened to the US it would be terrorism?

Its war. Or, we haven't officially declared war on Iraq, so by your own first paragraph, you conclude that everything the US is doing is state sponsored terrorism. Do I believe that, no, but by your rules it is.

And also, have we forgotten Tim McVeigh? And yes, Americans have done what you said. Tim McVeigh? Maybe its not a "shopping center", but neither was the WTC.

[Tekneek]

Tim McVeigh hit a government building, but he did it with a truck bomb. Terrorist action. If Tim McVeigh had been a member of a national military force, in uniform, and in a marked vehicle as such, and rolled up and started blasting a government building it would've merely been a war action. He did not do that.

Fully loaded planes with passengers flown into the WTC. Terrorist action, especially since the planes were stolen. If they had flown the aircraft of another nation's military into the WTC, or launched missiles, or dropped bombs on them, it would've been an act of war. Hijacking commercial airliners and flying them into it was terrorism.

Dropping bombs from officially marked airplanes is war, not terrorism. Especially when you tell them you are coming.

We have bombed government structures in a city. We have not specifically targeted shopping centers, cafes, and other private businesses. We have bombed cities, you already knew the answer to that.

We dropped atomic bombs on two cities in a country that we were officially at war with. We have not dropped atomic bombs on any country that we were not officially at war with (aside from testing here).

If Saddam loaded a missile with a nuclear warhead and launched it from his land, it would be a part of war. If it was loaded on an Iraqi aircraft, which then flew over the US and dropped it, it would be a part of war. You seem to be starting to get it, but you like to pretend that you don't get it.

I was talking about atomic bombs when I was talking about declaring war. Learn how to read a little, alright? I was specific about atomic bombs in response to what you previously said. So, please stop twisting words into something that they were not.