• Wow what the fuck: Iraqi defector proud of WMD lies
    42 replies, posted
[IMG]http://mit.zenfs.com/101/2011/02/powell.jpg[/IMG] [quote=Yahoo! News] Colin Powell [URL="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/yblog_thecutline/ts_yblog_thecutline/storytext/iraqi-defector-admits-lying-about-wmd-claims/40231730/SIG=129bd60mf/*http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=6079&Cr=iraq&Cr1=inspect"]dramatically made the Bush administration's case for invading Iraq at the United Nations[/URL] just over eight years ago. During that presentation, Powell claimed that Saddam Hussein was hiding a secret biological weapons program, relying on information that came from an Iraqi defector code-named "Curveball." The [URL="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/yblog_thecutline/ts_yblog_thecutline/storytext/iraqi-defector-admits-lying-about-wmd-claims/40231730/SIG=11o3e3kuo/*http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/transcript1.html"]U.S news media barely challenged Powell's claims that day[/URL], with political pundits and columnists largely praising the former secretary of state's methodical performance. Of course, Powell's weapons evidence has been proven bogus in the years since the invasion. But until now, the man who made the false claims to German intelligence officials--later seized upon by the Bush administration--hasn't admitted what seemed apparent after WMDs weren't found in Iraq: he lied. CBS News first identified Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi [URL="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/yblog_thecutline/ts_yblog_thecutline/storytext/iraqi-defector-admits-lying-about-wmd-claims/40231730/SIG=11hgt45as/*http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3450752n"]as "Curveball" in a 2007 investigation[/URL] of "one of the deadliest con jobs of our time." Although U.N. inspectors found no evidence to back up al-Janabi's claims of a [URL="http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110216/ts_yblog_thecutline/iraqi-defector-admits-lying-about-wmd-claims#"]biological weapons program[/URL], the Bush administration still relied on the bogus evidence to start a war that's led to [URL="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/yblog_thecutline/ts_yblog_thecutline/storytext/iraqi-defector-admits-lying-about-wmd-claims/40231730/SIG=12jtnif5h/*http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileaks-109000-deaths-iraq-war/story?id=11949670"]over 100,000 deaths[/URL]. So why did al-Janabi do it? In [URL="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/yblog_thecutline/ts_yblog_thecutline/storytext/iraqi-defector-admits-lying-about-wmd-claims/40231730/SIG=12qmfgslk/*http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war?intcmp=239"]interviews with the Guardian newspaper[/URL], al-Janabi spoke about how he sought asylum in Germany and wanted to see an end to Hussein's brutal regime in his homeland. "Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right," [URL="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/yblog_thecutline/ts_yblog_thecutline/storytext/iraqi-defector-admits-lying-about-wmd-claims/40231730/SIG=12qmfgslk/*http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war?intcmp=239"]al-Janabi said in his exclusive interview with The Guardian newspaper[/URL]. "They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy." You can watch al-Janabi explain why he lied and his reaction to Powell's speech below: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvntaL3nxEw[/media] Al-Janabi said he gets sad when hearing about anyone killed in Iraq, but questions whether there was another solution to ending the Hussein regime. "Believe me, there was no other way to bring about freedom to Iraq," he told The Guardian. "There were no other possibilities." (Photo of Powell holding up a vial he said could contain anthrax during his presentation at the [URL="http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110216/ts_yblog_thecutline/iraqi-defector-admits-lying-about-wmd-claims#"]United Nations[/URL] on Feb. 5, 2003: Elise Amendola/AP)[/quote] tl;dr: Colin used some guys unreliable evidence for WMDs in Iraq. The defector claimed there is WMDs and was even present when an accident occured. Although U.N. inspectors [B]found no evidence [/B]to back up al-Janabi's claims of a[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110216/ts_yblog_thecutline/iraqi-defector-admits-lying-about-wmd-claims#"] biological weapons program[/URL], the[B] Bush administration still relied on the bogus evidence[/B] to start a war that's led to [URL="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/yblog_thecutline/ts_yblog_thecutline/storytext/iraqi-defector-admits-lying-about-wmd-claims/40231730/SIG=12jtnif5h/*http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileaks-109000-deaths-iraq-war/story?id=11949670"]over 100,000 deaths[/URL]. Both the defector and the Bush administration share responsibility for this. Just goes to show how eager Bush was to declare war on Iraq, by going that low to rely on unverifiable evidence (later bogus) to support their claims [editline]17th February 2011[/editline] (Iran is next)
But if we didn't go to war the terrorists would win :downs:
Yeah, they'd been wanting to take out Saddam since Clinton. Was a bullshit reason to go in but what, you gonna get mad at Bush some more? It happened and since we, as citizens, made no actual mistake, there isn't anything to learn from.
No, no one 'shares' responsibility for this, it's all on Bush. Being the boss, the buck stops there. The fact is he wanted to attack Iraq, he got some info(sketchy as it was) that supported attacking, and he went for it. He owns that shiat now.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;28103823]Yeah, they'd been wanting to take out Saddam since Clinton. Was a bullshit reason to go in but what, you gonna get mad at Bush some more? It happened and since we, as citizens, made no actual mistake, there isn't anything to learn from.[/QUOTE] Choosing who you vote for and not forming political opinions based rage instead of reason. If you're an American, I want you to think how aggressive Americans were to anal the fuck out of anyone who had even the most remote chance of being Al Qaida affiliated.
[QUOTE=Lord_Ragnarok;28103876]Choosing who you vote for and not forming political opinions based rage instead of reason. If you're an American, I want you to think how aggressive Americans were to anal the fuck out of anyone who had even the most remote chance of being Al Qaida affiliated.[/QUOTE] Bush didn't run on a platform of invading Iraq. Some people will always want to invade other countries and will use whatever reason they want. People are divided regardless and the fact that leaders can mislead people about the difference between a just war and an unjust one means there is no possible way to differentiate for the mostly, politically illiterate populace.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;28103989]Bush didn't run on a platform of invading Iraq. Some people will always want to invade other countries and will use whatever reason they want. People are divided regardless and the fact that leaders can mislead people about the difference between a just war and an unjust one means there is no possible way to differentiate for the mostly, politically illiterate populace.[/QUOTE] But he was reelected after he invaded Iraq. Most of us didn't see 9/11 coming and weren't even thinking about invading another country. The problem was that we remained supportive despite the fact that Saddam truly had nothing to do with 9/11, but we were so ready to pound the fuck out of the first person to be flashed in front of us that many of us continued to support it zealously.
[QUOTE=Lord_Ragnarok;28104027]But he was reelected after he invaded Iraq. Most of us didn't see 9/11 coming and weren't even thinking about invading another country. The problem was that we remained supportive despite the fact that Saddam truly had nothing to do with 9/11, but we were so ready to pound the fuck out of the first person to be flashed in front of us that many of us continued to support it zealously.[/QUOTE] The fear and that kind of thing didn't dissipate in that time partly due to the media and partly due to that's just how the population is. Plus it's not like kicking Bush out would just stop the war. Being ready to bash the shit out of someone isn't necessarily a bad thing but it needs to be directed. The patriotic passion is what gives them the manpower to actually do something about it. As I said before though, there is little way to determine what is a just war before they go in due to unconfirmed intelligence and flat out lies. People questioned it plenty and lots of people didn't support it afterwards but none of it made a difference.
I read this as WMG.
lmao, Iran is next. Come on.
Hey, lets turn a story of warcrimes into a heart warming story of an Iraqi man who wanted his people to live in freedome and peace. USA, nothing's impossible.
Big companies run the United States, big companies won big on the Iraqi war. At least the people got liberated from Saddam but didn't a wikileak cable prove that they were actually making dirty bombs? Not weapons of mass destruction though.
I bet we (the US government, not the people) knew he was lying, but we used it as a way to justify a war.
So how come George W Bush got away scott free with this atrocity?
[QUOTE=Devodiere;28103989]Bush didn't run on a platform of invading Iraq. Some people will always want to invade other countries and will use whatever reason they want. People are divided regardless and the fact that leaders can mislead people about the difference between a just war and an unjust one means there is no possible way to differentiate for the mostly, politically illiterate populace.[/QUOTE] After seeing his father in office, everyone should have known from the start that bush jr. was going to attempt invading Iraq at one time or another. I just can't believe people were stupid enough to be okay with it. Protip people, any time the government uses the word "terrorist" or "insurgent" it's a buzzword, like a company trying to market a product with emotional phrases. When in reality, those words simply mean people who are in opposition. I'm pretty sure if you had a family, and watched them die after planes flew over and bombed your home, you would pick up what ever you had and start fighting back too. That's what "insurgents" are. "Terrorists" are mythical animals that only exist in fairy tales. Commonly used by governments, throughout history, as an emotion-sparking buzzword to cover up their own actions. Look up the United States history of aggression against other nations. You won't find another nation that's even come close to the death toll we're responsible for, not even nazi Germany.
I love how saying the government was run by big business and just controlled financially was considered weird or crazy around here a few years ago. Now it's just normal and everyone accepts it. [editline]17th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=DrMortician;28104816]After seeing his father in office, everyone should have known from the start that bush jr. was going to attempt invading Iraq at one time or another. I just can't believe people were stupid enough to be okay with it. Protip people, any time the government uses the word "terrorist" or "insurgent" it's a buzzword, like a company trying to market a product with emotional phrases. When in reality, those words simply mean people who are in opposition. I'm pretty sure if you had a family, and watched them die after planes flew over and bombed your home, you would pick up what ever you had and start fighting back too. That's what "insurgents" are. "Terrorists" are mythical animals that only exist in fairy tales. Commonly used by governments, throughout history, as an emotion-sparking buzzword to cover up their own actions. Look up the United States history of aggression against other nations. You won't find another nation that's even come close to the death toll we're responsible for, not even nazi Germany.[/QUOTE] There are some true "terrorists", but not even 1% of the war involves fighting them.
Where's the .gif where the guy taps the should the the person next to him, and the guy gets up and slugs the guy behind him? [editline]17th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=DrMortician;28104816] Look up the United States history of aggression against other nations. You won't find another nation that's even come close to the death toll we're responsible for, not even nazi Germany.[/QUOTE] Source plz.
[QUOTE=DrMortician;28104816]After seeing his father in office, everyone should have known from the start that bush jr. was going to attempt invading Iraq at one time or another.[/quote] Oh yeah, if they have are related then obviously they are going to invade the same country. It's just common sense, right? [quote]I just can't believe people were stupid enough to be okay with it. Protip people, any time the government uses the word "terrorist" or "insurgent" it's a buzzword, like a company trying to market a product with emotional phrases. When in reality, those words simply mean people who are in opposition. I'm pretty sure if you had a family, and watched them die after planes flew over and bombed your home, you would pick up what ever you had and start fighting back too. That's what "insurgents" are.[/quote] Not really. A terrorist is a militant who attacks civilian targets and has the goal of inciting fear among the populace. An insurgent is pretty much a guerrilla, maybe in different circumstances. Opposition is more referred to people who politically oppose them and it crosses over into militant when they take up arms against them. I don't really care if they are upset about their family being killed, revenge isn't really a good reason to take up arms against an organised army. I can understand the bitter feelings, but fighting back is committing yourself to others agendas because of anger. [quote]"Terrorists" are mythical animals that only exist in fairy tales. Commonly used by governments, throughout history, as an emotion-sparking buzzword to cover up their own actions.[/quote] No, Terrorism is a very valid warfare tactic that has been used by many different peoples both successfully and unsuccessfully. Civilian targets are often unguarded and have much more of an impact on the people than a military target. It is civilians who control the armed forces after all, manipulate them and you have gotten around a very powerful military. [quote]Look up the United States history of aggression against other nations. You won't find another nation that's even come close to the death toll we're responsible for, not even nazi Germany.[/QUOTE] Well Vietnam was 65,000 (allegedly) and Wikipedia says the Iraq war was about 110,000 while about a million died when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and an absolute fuckload on the WW2 eastern front. You are blowing smoke out your ass.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;28104958] Well Vietnam was 65,000 (allegedly) and Wikipedia says the Iraq war was about 110,000 while about a million died when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and an absolute fuckload on the WW2 eastern front. You are blowing smoke out your ass.[/QUOTE] The US wasn't founded in 1968. Try again, maybe 1776. You also have no concept of semantics. I'm telling you what the words are used to represent, I am defining them. That's why they're in quotations. Also, if you wouldn't take up arms against an invading nation, you're a traitor.
[QUOTE=DrMortician;28104989]The US wasn't founded in 1968. Try again, maybe 1776.[/quote] Are we talking international intervention or the killing of their own people because they did a lot of that. Overall though, not as many killed. You are still talking bullshit. [quote]You also have no concept of semantics. I'm telling you what the words are used to represent, I am defining them. That's why they're in quotations.[/quote] You are redefining them to suit your purpose when the definitions in place suit perfectly. There are actual insurgents and while there aren't as many terrorists, they certainly exist. People do actually target civilian buildings so I don't think they are mythical creatures. [quote]Also, if you wouldn't take up arms against an invading nation, you're a traitor.[/QUOTE] Nationalistic pride, bah. The urge would be great but I would not run to the nearest militant and fight his war just because someone invaded. It must be taken into consideration what war you are fighting, the one to liberate your country or the one to fight western culture. For someone who talks of manipulative emotive "terrorists" you certainly use many emotional appeals.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;28104687]I bet we (the US government, not the people) knew he was lying, but we used it as a way to justify a war.[/QUOTE] That's what I was thinking, they were desperately looking for an excuse to invade. My conspiracy theory side tells me that the "decfector" worked for the U.S.G. from the start. That possibility cannot be ruled out.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;28105260]That's what I was thinking, they were desperately looking for an excuse to invade. My conspiracy theory side tells me that the "decfector" worked for the U.S.G. from the start. That possibility cannot be ruled out.[/QUOTE] Saddam pissed off a lot of people, pretty sure someone would've gotten sick of his shit if co-operating with the US would give them a position in the new Government. The President they had before Saddam was in exile and was unsuccessfully put back in power, pretty sure someone else would've tried the same trick.
From a Utilitarian standpoint, this guy probably thought that lying and starting a war would be justified of got rid of Saddam.
[QUOTE=DrMortician;28104816]*insane ramblings*[/QUOTE] Whatever your smoking I want some of it.
Well they did find yellowcake and chemical weapons.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;28103794](Iran is next)[/QUOTE] I highly doubt that considering the current public opinion on the war.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack[/url]
[QUOTE=Explosions;28110456]I highly doubt that considering the current public opinion on the war.[/QUOTE] Hahaha don't get me started on the current efforts to change public opinion on war with Iran. If the media keeps it's pace with the "demonize Ahmadinejad campaign" (with most of it being false) you can bet your ass people will support a war.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;28110936]Hahaha don't get me started on the current efforts to change public opinion on war with Iran. If the media keeps it's pace with the "demonize Ahmadinejad campaign" (with most of it being false) you can bet your ass people will support a war[/QUOTE] How do you demonize a dictator? Have you ever been to Iran? I have, the place is an oppressive police-state.
[QUOTE=Winslow;28110959]How do you demonize a dictator? Have you ever been to Iran? I have, the place is an oppressive police-state.[/QUOTE]You can easily demonize a maximum of two four-year term serving "dictator" by exaggerating and deliberately making shit up to outrage the world. [B]Note[/B]: I'm not denying Iran has bad human rights records, is a theocracy, or implying everything about Iran is made up.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.