PDA

View Full Version : U.N. troops buy sex from teen refugees



themuffinman
27 May 04,, 16:25
Posted: May 25, 2004
12:51 p.m. Eastern


2004 WorldNetDaily.com

United Nations peacekeeping troops are sexually exploiting teenage rape victims fleeing war in the Democratic Republic of Congo, according to an investigation by the The Independent newspaper of London.

Many of the girls, as young as 13, are mothers who give up their bodies to the U.N. soldiers in exchange for food to feed their hungry children.


The girls, who live in the Internally Displaced People camp in Bunia, northeastern Congo, already are victims of multiple rape by militiamen.

The British paper interviewed girls and aid workers who said every night girls crawl through a wire fence to an adjoining U.N. compound to sell their bodies to Moroccan and Uruguayan soldiers.

In exchange, they receive a banana or a cake.

The U.N. has pledged a "zero tolerance" attitude to cases of sexual misconduct by its respresentatives and has announced an inquiry into the allegations. But the London paper says doubts remain about the effectiveness of the probe and the ability of the U.N. to bring the perpetrators to justice.

A 13-year-old girl, Faela, told The Independent her infant son is the result of rape by militiamen in her village. Consequently, she is ostracized in the camp and has no one to take care of her.

"It is easy for us to get to the U.N. soldiers," she told the paper. "We climb through the fence when it is dark, sometimes once a night, sometimes more."

The Independent said it spoke to more than 30 girls over five days, and half said they made the journey under the fence to the compound run by MONUC, the U.N. mission in Congo.

A worker with the aid group that manages the camp, Atlas, said staff knew about the sex trade but were afraid to address it.

"There is nothing to stop them and the girls need food," he told the paper. "It is best to keep quiet, though. I am frightened that if I say something I may lose my job, and I have children of my own to feed."

The head of the U.N. in Bunia, Dominique McAdams, said she she saw no evidence of sexual violence in the camp, although she believe it was taking place.
:mad:

Leader
27 May 04,, 17:07
You mean the UN is doing something wrong? no way! :rolleyes:

jth298
27 May 04,, 17:18
This is disgusting.

It is a sorry state when the worlds 'peacekeepers' commit paedophilia and the worlds 'greatest democracy' commit torture and murder.

themuffinman
27 May 04,, 17:25
You mean the UN is doing something wrong? no way! :rolleyes:
I really have not seen this in the news, but The Liberal media never lets us forget how bad American soldiers are. In any news story the will always mention the Grab-An-Arab Prison Scandal. I meant Abu Ghraib prison.

Officer of Engineers
27 May 04,, 18:05
It ain't the UN but the countries contributing troops to those missions. I remembered the Russians who seemed to like vodka a bit too much. East Europeans were frequent visitors to brothels. Their cultures just don't see anything wrong with activities that they see as normal outside of actual duties.

As for MONUC, the majority of the contributing force are Africans. Garbage in. Garbage out.

themuffinman
27 May 04,, 18:14
This is disgusting.

It is a sorry state when the worlds 'peacekeepers' commit paedophilia and the worlds 'greatest democracy' commit torture and murder.
What torture and what murder? You mean Humiliation and war. There are no wars were no one dies. Its not a video game. Those men in that prison were the worst of the worst. Abu Ghraib The Pelican Bay of iraq and you have sympathy for those men.
They are still alive.

Ironduke
27 May 04,, 20:29
What torture and what murder? You mean Humiliation and war. There are no wars were no one dies. Its not a video game. Those men in that prison were the worst of the worst. Abu Ghraib The Pelican Bay of iraq and you have sympathy for those men.
They are still alive.
Actually there has been murder and who knows what else at that Abu Gharaib.

Leader
28 May 04,, 00:37
This is disgusting.

the worlds 'greatest democracy' commit torture and murder.

Can't resist the opportunity to bash the US can you?

Confed999
28 May 04,, 00:41
Can't resist the opportunity to bash the US can you?
Don't you love how he worded it too? We did it, you and I. I guess everything bad the UK countries have ever done is his fault, and that's alot of nasty stuff.

Leader
28 May 04,, 00:55
Don't you love how he worded it too? We did it, you and I. I guess everything bad the UK countries have ever done is his fault, and that's alot of nasty stuff.

He brings it up to distract attention from the ineptitude of the UN. In fact, the UN is not just inept. It is actively causing harm to the world.

ChrisF202
28 May 04,, 02:00
He brings it up to distract attention from the ineptitude of the UN. In fact, the UN is not just inept. It is actively causing harm to the world.
Roger that, the only way these raped women can be safe from gangs and thugs is to sleep with UN peacekeepers, either way they are violated. Sick and discusting. I wonder why CNN or other US news outlets arent reporting this? O How I wonder <rhetorical question btw>

Confed999
28 May 04,, 03:37
This will probably tweak some of you guys, but I blame every one of the good countries not currently helping there, including the USA, for the state of the Congo. Because enough good guys aren't there, lets just say, "less than good" guys have had to take over. That said, I hope the ones who did this are brought to justice, and I neither blame the UN or the people of their countries for their crimes.

jth298
28 May 04,, 10:28
Can't resist the opportunity to bash the US can you?

I am not anti - american. I just cant understand the logic of their foreign policy at the moment.

jth298
28 May 04,, 10:53
Don't you love how he worded it too? We did it, you and I. I guess everything bad the UK countries have ever done is his fault, and that's alot of nasty stuff.

There is indeed a lot that the UK has to be ashamed of. I do not dispute that. Nor do I suggest that everything that my nation has ever done is my fault.

When I said 'peacekeepers' and 'greatest democracy' I am using the labels that these respective organisations have given themselves and the labels by which they wish to be known internationally.

jth298
28 May 04,, 10:56
This will probably tweak some of you guys, but I blame every one of the good countries not currently helping there, including the USA, for the state of the Congo. Because enough good guys aren't there, lets just say, "less than good" guys have had to take over. That said, I hope the ones who did this are brought to justice, and I neither blame the UN or the people of their countries for their crimes.

Doesn't tweak me at all. I agree.

jth298
28 May 04,, 11:01
What torture and what murder?

Come on... you can't be that much in denial.

themuffinman
28 May 04,, 12:16
Come on... you can't be that much in denial.
Show me the facts that we murdered people? In war people get killed not murdered.


Wednesday, May 26, 2004 1:01 p.m. EDT

Media Yawn as Saddam's Torture Victims Thank Bush

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/26/130918.shtml

jth298
28 May 04,, 14:10
Well... there are increasing numbers of soldier testimonies to the effect that they are doing as such... I am not a fan of Michael Moore but his 'Soldier Letters' make for interesting reading... combined with those that I have seen on less partisan media sources (Channel 4, BBC 4 and BBC 5 Radio for example)....

this is of course a debateable point...

Less ambiguous I feel is the death of detainess as a result of torture. To me, that is murder.

Officer of Engineers
28 May 04,, 16:28
It really doesn't matter. To this day, Croats believed that Major-General Lewis Mackenzie ran a brothel and I was the day-to-day operational manager (I WISHED!!!!!!).

The point is that people will believe what they want to believe and no amount of facts is going to sway them. All you can do is affect your local surroundings. The local Croats KNEW there was no brothel.

All the US can do is to show their hands locally. "Yes, torture may go one at AG but you're safe here. Just don't force me to send you there."

As for the Congo, I've had it. I have had it with the UN, keep asking for Western troops while not picking up the slack themselves. All you need to do good is the will to do good. To this day, I cannot understand how countries like Canada and Australia slammed Chptr 7 Interventions (aka military invasions) down the UN throat but Nigeria and the likes sat back and did nothing in Rwanda. Clean up your own houses before demanding we empty ours.

themuffinman
28 May 04,, 17:22
Well... there are increasing numbers of soldier testimonies to the effect that they are doing as such... I am not a fan of Michael Moore but his 'Soldier Letters' make for interesting reading... combined with those that I have seen on less partisan media sources (Channel 4, BBC 4 and BBC 5 Radio for example)....

this is of course a debateable point...

Less ambiguous I feel is the death of detainess as a result of torture. To me, that is murder.
I guess-it's-ok-to-murder-evil-americans-911wasnt that bad

it's ok to advocate the murder of americans but put some panties on an Iraqi prisoners right.

it's honorable for a suicide bomber to blow up a building and kill innocent people but it's not ok to embarass prisoners??
I went to BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2144342.stm no wonder you english think the way you do thats a very Liberal News Agency.
Sorry I guess if thats the kind of news you get thats how you are going to think.

ChrisF202
28 May 04,, 23:55
It really doesn't matter. To this day, Croats believed that Major-General Lewis Mackenzie ran a brothel and I was the day-to-day operational manager (I WISHED!!!!!!).

The point is that people will believe what they want to believe and no amount of facts is going to sway them. All you can do is affect your local surroundings. The local Croats KNEW there was no brothel.

All the US can do is to show their hands locally. "Yes, torture may go one at AG but you're safe here. Just don't force me to send you there."

As for the Congo, I've had it. I have had it with the UN, keep asking for Western troops while not picking up the slack themselves. All you need to do good is the will to do good. To this day, I cannot understand how countries like Canada and Australia slammed Chptr 7 Interventions (aka military invasions) down the UN throat but Nigeria and the likes sat back and did nothing in Rwanda. Clean up your own houses before demanding we empty ours.
Im fed up with the US and Britian constantly having to do everything, where are the other nations in the UN? Why dont the Germans, French or Russians do something for once? Yeah, France does parcipate, but only when a former French coloy is a stake (Haiti, Congo and Ivory Coast).

Trooth
29 May 04,, 02:05
The UN is just an umbrella for national interest endeavours. All nations appear to be equally guilty. It it isn't that good work isn't done, its just the for the peacekeepers to get sent the politicians have to sign up, and they sign up on national interest lines.

OofE, when the peacekeeping missions come up doe the nation states have to volunteer their forces or is their any compulsion or rota system?

Trooth
29 May 04,, 02:07
There has been rubbish reporting on all sides. I mean, look at Jessica Lynch, that was a complete propaganda job. Blanks and all.

Officer of Engineers
29 May 04,, 03:10
OofE, when the peacekeeping missions come up doe the nation states have to volunteer their forces or is their any compulsion or rota system?

The UN bureaucrazy goes hat in hand to several member nations on their list (mostly Western European, UK, Canada, Australia, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Fiji) and start begging. The answer is not always yes.

Chapter 7 Intervention is usually when a country has had enough and told the UN that they're going in regardless of their support or not which usually forces the UN to give support. Up front examples would be the Americans in Kuwait and Somalia, the Australians in East Timor, the French in Rwanda, the Canadians in the Congo. After the fact examples would be SFOR and KFOR.

Confed999
29 May 04,, 04:10
Doesn't tweak me at all. I agree.
No, you don't. If you did you couldn't say:

I just cant understand the logic of their foreign policy at the moment.
Because, call it peacekeeping or not, it is an invasion. There are people with the motive of profit involved in this engagement. The Congo is rich with resources including uranium and cobalt both monitarily more valuable than oil. There will be propaganda about "the real motives" the instant it started, people would die by the dozens, and the media would show it to us live. In short, if you can't understand Iraq, then you can't agree with what I was saying.

Confed999
29 May 04,, 04:16
All you need to do good is the will to do good.
All you need to do good is the will to do good... Nice, I will remember that.

Officer of Engineers
29 May 04,, 06:03
Im fed up with the US and Britian constantly having to do everything, where are the other nations in the UN? Why dont the Germans, French or Russians do something for once? Yeah, France does parcipate, but only when a former French coloy is a stake (Haiti, Congo and Ivory Coast).

Of the Big 5 (Russia/USSR, US, UK, PRC, France), France and the UK each individually outperformed the other three combined. The Germans, like the Japanese, had a revulsion for any expeditionary affair.

French non-former colony participation (off the top of my head) - UNPROFOR/IFOR/SFOR I & II/KFOR, Operation Desert Shield & Storm, Iraq no fly zones, Afghanistan (both Operation Enduring Freedom and the International Stablization Assistance Force), Albania, East Timor, Somalia, UNMEE.

The only significant German and Russian are involved in SFOR II/KFOR. The Germans just returned from the ISAF and they're exhausted from that committement.

Of course, German SOF were involved in Afghanistan. In fact, ALL NATO SOF was in that fight.

Leader
29 May 04,, 23:24
I am not anti - american.

And to prove this by making anti-American statements. You will forgive me if I assess you on your beliefs and not simple knee jerk denials.


I just cant understand the logic of their foreign policy at the moment.

Whether you agree with the American position or not, it is logically valid and thought out.

Trooth
30 May 04,, 00:53
Whether you agree with the American position or not, it is logically valid and thought out.

I agree with the latter, it is definitely thought out to arrive at a goal. As to whether the route is logically valid is a different matter. If the goal is reached we may well still end up with the old "does the end justify the means".

ChrisF202
30 May 04,, 02:14
I agree with the latter, it is definitely thought out to arrive at a goal. As to whether the route is logically valid is a different matter. If the goal is reached we may well still end up with the old "does the end justify the means".
ex. the removal of Saddam (war) was justified by his actions

Trooth
30 May 04,, 02:25
ex. the removal of Saddam (war) was justified by his actions

That works if you believe the removal of Saddam is the end. Since that happened over a year ago and Iraq is far from "liberated" int eh sense that you or i live in, i am not sure we have reached the end yet.

Leader
30 May 04,, 02:30
I agree with the latter, it is definitely thought out to arrive at a goal. As to whether the route is logically valid is a different matter. If the goal is reached we may well still end up with the old "does the end justify the means".

To say something is logically valid simply means that the conclusions that are drawn follow correctly from the premise. Whether or not the premise is correct is not at issue. For example, if Saddam was a threat to the United States then the US must remove that threat. Regardless of your opinion on Saddam's dangerousness the US must act if he is in fact a threat.

Trooth
30 May 04,, 02:34
To say something is logically valid simply means that the conclusions that are drawn follow correctly from the premise. Whether or not the premise is correct is not at issue. For example, if Saddam was a threat to the United States then the US must remove that threat. Regardless of your opinion on Saddam's dangerousness the US must act if he is in fact a threat.

Personally i would substitute "if the US believes he is a threat" into that and i agree totally.

You then come down to an argument amount belief. And if i was so inclined you then do a risk assessment.

visioninthedark
30 May 04,, 13:16
It ain't the UN but the countries contributing troops to those missions. I remembered the Russians who seemed to like vodka a bit too much. East Europeans were frequent visitors to brothels. Their cultures just don't see anything wrong with activities that they see as normal outside of actual duties.

As for MONUC, the majority of the contributing force are Africans. Garbage in. Garbage out.

TOTALLY AGREE WITH THIS OPINION EXPRESSED BY THE MEMBER QUOTED ABOVE.

jth298
01 Jun 04,, 14:32
And to prove this by making anti-American statements. You will forgive me if I assess you on your beliefs and not simple knee jerk denials.

My statements relate to foreign policy. I have no problems with the American people, American values etc. In fact I quite like Americans and I quite like America. I am therefore not anti-american solely because I question issues relating to the foreign policy of the US. I do not subscribe to the 'you are either with us or against us' nonsense that I have heard from certain sections. This attitude is essentially wrong because it assumes that 'we' are always right and discourages the public from questioning their leaders actions (as is their democratic right) on the grounds of being unpatriotic.


Whether you agree with the American position or not, it is logically valid and thought out.

Logically valid and thought out - yeah that really depends upon the type of logic and thinking you subscribe to, who you are willing to believe as a source of information, whether you are pro or anti war etc.. etc...

Leader
01 Jun 04,, 20:46
My statements relate to foreign policy. I have no problems with the American people, American values etc.

Do you know what American Values are? Rugged Individualism, free market capitalism, a believe in spreading freedom to all people.


In fact I quite like Americans and I quite like America. I am therefore not anti-american solely because I question issues relating to the foreign policy of the US.

I judge you on your beliefs not what you say. You can go on and on about how much you love America, but your beliefs say otherwise.


I do not subscribe to the 'you are either with us or against us' nonsense that I have heard from certain sections.

This sentiment was one expressed be the President and is representative of the views of 50+% of the populous. So maybe you should not so lightly dismiss it.


This attitude is essentially wrong because it assumes that 'we' are always right and discourages the public from questioning their leaders actions (as is their democratic right) on the grounds of being unpatriotic.

Logically valid and thought out - yeah that really depends upon the type of logic and thinking you subscribe to, who you are willing to believe as a source of information, whether you are pro or anti war etc.. etc...

The above sentences are what is called subjectivism or relativism. Meaning that there is no absolute moral right or wrong. I do not want to push is down the religion path, but if you believe in God this is fundamentally illogical because God's judgment on a certain matter is the determinant of right and wrong. That is not to say that you are objectively wrong and I am objectively right, but rather that right and wrong do objectively exist.

Confed999
02 Jun 04,, 03:22
'you are either with us or against us' nonsense that I have heard from certain sections. This attitude is essentially wrong because it assumes that 'we' are always right and discourages the public from questioning their leaders actions (as is their democratic right) on the grounds of being unpatriotic.
That statement has nothing to do with asking questions, it has to do with standing with your allies as they go to war. It is a direct and true statement, it doesn't matter if you subscribe to it.

maersk
02 Jun 04,, 03:35
i think its B.S., you dont have to blindly follow anyone cause they tell you that one country is dangerous even if they dont have the facts to back it up. iraq was NEVER a threat to the US, what could they do? launch an anphibious assault on the united states?? launch a missile at us?? bullsh*t, iraq's military posed no threat to the continental US (which bush implied) whatsoever.

Leader
02 Jun 04,, 03:49
i think its B.S., you dont have to blindly follow anyone cause they tell you that one country is dangerous even if they dont have the facts to back it up. iraq was NEVER a threat to the US, what could they do? launch an anphibious assault on the united states?? launch a missile at us?? bullsh*t, iraq's military posed no threat to the continental US (which bush implied) whatsoever.

Hijack an air plain and fly it in to a tower killing 3000 people, give a nuclear material to terrorist that could kill millions.

Confed999
02 Jun 04,, 04:06
iraq's military posed no threat to the continental US (which bush implied) whatsoever.
LOL, show me where Bush said Iraq's military was a threat to the continental United States. I see where he said it was a threat to it's neighbors, but that would be true.

jth298
02 Jun 04,, 12:17
LOL, show me where Bush said Iraq's military was a threat to the continental United States. I see where he said it was a threat to it's neighbors, but that would be true.

So you are saying that Bush was of the opinion that Iraq's military constituted no threat to North America. Of course, this view was not shared by Donald Rumsfeld as this CBS video (http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/) shows.

Tony Blair sold the war to the UK people as a matter of national security - referencing frequently the claim that Iraq could strike at us using weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes. Only after the war, his defence minister Geoff Hoon, sheepishly stated that this claim only related to 'battlefield weapons' and that he'd forgotten to let everyone know that...

Of course none of this had anything to do with the threat from terrorist attack. This was something entirely seperate to Iraq. However, a threat remains from Al Queida as the madrid bombings showed. The threat of planes being flown into buildings and trains being blown up is one to address seriously - because it is real.

jth298
02 Jun 04,, 12:36
That statement has nothing to do with asking questions, it has to do with standing with your allies as they go to war. It is a direct and true statement, it doesn't matter if you subscribe to it.

Believe it or not I firmly believe that since the UK chose to go in with the Americans that we should stick it out with them till the end. The UK and US are allies and its right that we honor that as the US has honoured th UK in past conflict.

Leader
02 Jun 04,, 17:46
Of course none of this had anything to do with the threat from terrorist attack. This was something entirely seperate to Iraq.

Wrong.

I suggest you do some reading:

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=2155

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=1028

maersk
02 Jun 04,, 21:17
"Hijack an air plain and fly it in to a tower killing 3000 people, give a nuclear material to terrorist that could kill millions."



it wasent iraqis who flew the planes into the WTC, in fact i dont think a single one of the terrorists where iraqi.



as for the nuclear material thing, what nuclear material there might have been in iraq (and its highly doubtful that they even had any such material since the isrealies destroyed their reactor in '84) was almost certainly destroyed immidiately after the first gulf war, and if any remained, i doubt it would have been enough to construct any kind of viable weapon.


same goes for the chemical / bioweapons saddam supposedly still had at the time of the us invasion. sure, the troops might find a few shells with traces of degraded anthrax in them, but i doubt that any huge stockpile (like the bush administration was so loudly touting) will be found.

Leader
02 Jun 04,, 21:36
"Hijack an air plain and fly it in to a tower killing 3000 people, give a nuclear material to terrorist that could kill millions."

it wasent iraqis who flew the planes into the WTC, in fact i dont think a single one of the terrorists where iraqi.

Saddam supported Al Qaeda. There does not need to be an Iraqi on one of the planes for Saddam to get some of the blame.


as for the nuclear material thing, what nuclear material there might have been in iraq (and its highly doubtful that they even had any such material since the isrealies destroyed their reactor in '84) was almost certainly destroyed immidiately after the first gulf war, and if any remained, i doubt it would have been enough to construct any kind of viable weapon.

same goes for the chemical / bioweapons saddam supposedly still had at the time of the us invasion. sure, the troops might find a few shells with traces of degraded anthrax in them, but i doubt that any huge stockpile (like the bush administration was so loudly touting) will be found.

You don't need much of anything to launch a terrorist attack.

You should also do some reading:

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=1935

Trooth
02 Jun 04,, 22:06
The nuclear threat was the most absurd of the claims made by the allies. It basically said that if you gave Iraq the right amount of time, money, resources and expertise they could produce a nuclear weapon.

So could anyone on this board.

Also, Bush might not have said a threat to continental US. But Colin Powell did. And he didn't do that without the say so of his boss.

Also, Saddam and AQ link's are about the same as US AQ links. AQ had tried to kill Saddam on a few occaisions after all.

Leader
02 Jun 04,, 23:34
Also, Saddam and AQ link's are about the same as US AQ links. AQ had tried to kill Saddam on a few occaisions after all.

You are wrong. Read the article.

Trooth
03 Jun 04,, 00:15
I have.

AQ offered to place its mujhadeen into Saudi Arabia to defend SA and perhaps launch an attack against Iraq. It was the rejection of this offer and the turning to the US that, apparently, convinced Bin Laden of his cause.

Leader
03 Jun 04,, 00:19
I have.

AQ offered to place its mujhadeen into Saudi Arabia to defend SA and perhaps launch an attack against Iraq. It was the rejection of this offer and the turning to the US that, apparently, convinced Bin Laden of his cause.


Saddam and AQ link's are about the same as US AQ links.

If this is true then you must know the name of the AQ agent that is being protected in the US.

maersk
03 Jun 04,, 00:20
we like to critisicse france for their business dealings with saddam, when in the 80's the reagan administration was involved neck deep in business / military deals with saddam, so the kurds get gassed at halabja in '88, why no military intervention then??? shiites revolt in 91, just after the gulf war, yet we leave em high & dry. why all of a sudden when dubya gets elected is there this full scale move twards war??? bush used 9/11 as a convinient excuse to get back at the guy who tried to kill his daddy.





for all his ineptness, clinton would have known better



yea, call me a pinko, whatever.

Trooth
03 Jun 04,, 00:23
If this is true then you must know the name of the AQ agent that is being protected in the US.

Well, there is in all likelyhood secret service people in the US tha thave had direct links with AQ (when AQ/Taliban were fighting the Ruskies). It wasn't that long ago after all. Would it be unreasonable to assume that some of the CIA's contacts of the time might have visited the US in the height of the cold war? If so, might some of them still be there?

Leader
03 Jun 04,, 00:29
we like to critisicse france for their business dealings with saddam, when in the 80's the reagan administration was involved neck deep in business / military deals with saddam, so the kurds get gassed at halabja in '88, why no military intervention then???

No political will.


shiites revolt in 91, just after the gulf war, yet we leave em high & dry.

Which was wrong.


why all of a sudden when dubya gets elected is there this full scale move twards war???

September 11th changed things. You do not understand, obviously.


bush used 9/11 as a convinient excuse to get back at the guy who tried to kill his daddy.

Stop this bs. I support the war in Iraq, and Saddam did not try to kill anyone in my family.


for all his ineptness, clinton would have known better

Clinton should have taken out Saddam in 98'.


yea, call me a pinko, whatever.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you imaged that I said that.

Leader
03 Jun 04,, 00:30
Well, there is in all likelyhood secret service people in the US tha thave had direct links with AQ (when AQ/Taliban were fighting the Ruskies). It wasn't that long ago after all. Would it be unreasonable to assume that some of the CIA's contacts of the time might have visited the US in the height of the cold war? If so, might some of them still be there?

proof?

Trooth
03 Jun 04,, 00:36
I will only be able to put the same proof together as the article you posted. Drawing together quotes and instances that cannot be directly tied together.

I accept an AQ member might never have visited the US. But we know they did meet CIA types. Or at least their bank accounts met.

Leader
03 Jun 04,, 00:37
I accept an AQ member might never have visited the US. But we know they did meet CIA types. Or at least their bank accounts met.

So the US is funding AQ? Ok were is the proof?

Trooth
03 Jun 04,, 01:36
I didn't say is, i said was. I would be extremely surprised if they had any links now, they probably ended when AQ first turned on the US.

In terms of proof, all i could possibly do i post articles from the web, such as :-
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/465/465p15.htm

Confed999
03 Jun 04,, 03:40
So you are saying that Bush was of the opinion that Iraq's military constituted no threat to North America. Of course, this view was not shared by Donald Rumsfeld as this CBS video (http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/) shows.

Tony Blair sold the war to the UK people as a matter of national security - referencing frequently the claim that Iraq could strike at us using weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes. Only after the war, his defence minister Geoff Hoon, sheepishly stated that this claim only related to 'battlefield weapons' and that he'd forgotten to let everyone know that...

Of course none of this had anything to do with the threat from terrorist attack. This was something entirely seperate to Iraq. However, a threat remains from Al Queida as the madrid bombings showed. The threat of planes being flown into buildings and trains being blown up is one to address seriously - because it is real.
So then you're agreeing with me... good. BTW, the video doesn't work here and anything that comes from "moveon.org" is garbage. If you are not in agreement then find something substantial and text that supports your statement about Bush.

Believe it or not I firmly believe that since the UK chose to go in with the Americans that we should stick it out with them till the end. The UK and US are allies and its right that we honor that as the US has honoured th UK in past conflict.
I never said different.

it wasent iraqis who flew the planes into the WTC, in fact i dont think a single one of the terrorists where iraqi.
How many were there because the US and UK were in Saudi maintaining UN sanctions, as Osama cited?

what nuclear material there might have been in iraq (and its highly doubtful that they even had any such material since the isrealies destroyed their reactor in '84) was almost certainly destroyed immidiately after the first gulf war, and if any remained, i doubt it would have been enough to construct any kind of viable weapon.


same goes for the chemical / bioweapons saddam supposedly still had at the time of the us invasion. sure, the troops might find a few shells with traces of degraded anthrax in them, but i doubt that any huge stockpile (like the bush administration was so loudly touting) will be found.
Even France and Russia thought they had huge stockpiles of the stuff, and they were in bed with Saddam. Either that, or they set us up.

Also, Bush might not have said a threat to continental US. But Colin Powell did. And he didn't do that without the say so of his boss.
Transcript showing Colin Powell saying the Iraqi military was a threat to the continental United States?

we like to critisicse france for their business dealings with saddam, when in the 80's the reagan administration was involved neck deep in business / military deals with saddam, so the kurds get gassed at halabja in '88, why no military intervention then??? shiites revolt in 91, just after the gulf war, yet we leave em high & dry.
Was Saddam under UN sanction when the US had dealings with them? As to all of this, I consider it all bad. Never ever make deals with bad guys. I would have supported removal of any/all of these nasty freaks at any point, you wouldn't have, you don't now.

why all of a sudden when dubya gets elected is there this full scale move twards war??? bush used 9/11 as a convinient excuse to get back at the guy who tried to kill his daddy.
Wow, that is a stupid statement. I can allmost hear you stamping your lil' feet as you type it.

yea, call me a pinko, whatever.
I don't think you're a pinko, I just think you are more about conspiracy than real life.

greenleft.org
I don't believe a word of it and I haven't even read it yet. Hope it's not confirming anything I believe, or I'll be forced to rethink. ;)

Oh, that was decades ago. I'm sure we can find every NATO countries fingerprints on nearly everything that happened durring the cold war, that screwed the USSR. That "enemy of my enemy is my friend" stuff is bunk.

Bill
03 Jun 04,, 03:52
Trooth, Al Q was formed after US assistance to the Afghans ended. The US never in any way, shape or form supported Al Q financially or otherwise.

Your insinuating otherwise is an affront of the worst kind to America, and all Americans in general.

If you spout poisonous lies of this magnitude again i will ban you personally, or resign my post as moderator and desist in posting here if i'm prevented from doing so.

I WILL NOT TOLERATE ABSOLUTELY UNSUBSTANTIATED LIES ALLEGING US GOV'T TREASON AGAINST HER PEOPLE TO BE PROPOGATED AT ANY SITE I AM A PARTY TO, PERIOD.

If you plan to make claims of that magnitude you better be prepared to back them up with at least a half dozen reports from numerous well acknowledged sources when you do so.

Leader
03 Jun 04,, 04:46
I didn't say is, i said was. I would be extremely surprised if they had any links now, they probably ended when AQ first turned on the US.

In terms of proof, all i could possibly do i post articles from the web, such as :-
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/465/465p15.htm

From my understanding of the Afghan conflict the US never funded OLB. There were two groups fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Local Afghans, which were supported by the US and the foreign fighters supported by the Saudis. OBL is obviously one of the latter.

themuffinman
03 Jun 04,, 04:51
Trooth, Al Q was formed after US assistance to the Afghans ended. The US never in any way, shape or form supported Al Q financially or otherwise.

Your insinuating otherwise is an affront of the worst kind to America, and all Americans in general.

If you spout poisonous lies of this magnitude again i will ban you personally, or resign my post as moderator and desist in posting here if i'm prevented from doing so.

I WILL NOT TOLERATE ABSOLUTELY UNSUBSTANTIATED LIES ALLEGING US GOV'T TREASON AGAINST HER PEOPLE TO BE PROPOGATED AT ANY SITE I AM A PARTY TO, PERIOD.

If you plan to make claims of that magnitude you better be prepared to back them up with at least a half dozen reports from numerous well acknowledged sources when you do so.
thank you

Lunatock
03 Jun 04,, 05:07
Trooth, Al Q was formed after US assistance to the Afghans ended. The US never in any way, shape or form supported Al Q financially or otherwise.

Your insinuating otherwise is an affront of the worst kind to America, and all Americans in general.

If you spout poisonous lies of this magnitude again i will ban you personally, or resign my post as moderator and desist in posting here if i'm prevented from doing so.

I WILL NOT TOLERATE ABSOLUTELY UNSUBSTANTIATED LIES ALLEGING US GOV'T TREASON AGAINST HER PEOPLE TO BE PROPOGATED AT ANY SITE I AM A PARTY TO, PERIOD.

If you plan to make claims of that magnitude you better be prepared to back them up with at least a half dozen reports from numerous well acknowledged sources when you do so.

I second that motion. Links like that should be passed around at DU and Jihad Unspun.

Leader
03 Jun 04,, 05:23
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/465/465p15.htm

I didn't relize have bad that is. This article is filled with communist propaganda.

Bill
03 Jun 04,, 05:54
I am sick of the lies propogated by the Left.

I may not be able to stop them, but i can DAMNED SURE ensure that i am not party to any entity that furthers in thier dissemination.

jth298
03 Jun 04,, 15:53
So then you're agreeing with me... good. BTW, the video doesn't work here and anything that comes from "moveon.org" is garbage. If you are not in agreement then find something substantial and text that supports your statement about Bush.


it's a shame you cant see that video. It shows Rumsfeld, after the Iraq invasion, saying that he had never said that there was an imminant threat to the US from Iraq. The CBS news journalists then show him 2 quotes that Rumsfeld made prior to the war stating that Saddam was an 'imminent threat' to and that Iraq's military was only several years away from nuclear capability.

I agree that moveon.org is a very partisan source and the last 2 seconds of the video should be discounted as subjective. Everything prior to this is actual TV footage though.

To summarise this video shows Rumsfeld being caught in a lie about what he had previously said.

themuffinman
03 Jun 04,, 16:05
it's a shame you cant see that video. It shows Rumsfeld, after the Iraq invasion, saying that he had never said that there was an imminant threat to the US from Iraq. The CBS news journalists then show him 2 quotes that Rumsfeld made prior to the war stating that Saddam was an 'imminent threat' to and that Iraq's military was only several years away from nuclear capability.

I agree that moveon.org is a very partisan source and the last 2 seconds of the video should be discounted as subjective. Everything prior to this is actual TV footage though.

To summarise this video shows Rumsfeld being caught in a lie about what he had previously said.

President Clinton has delivered a stinging rebuke to Saddam Hussein in his address to Congress, indicating that a new conflict with Iraq could soon erupt.


President Clinton delivers his warning to Saddam Hussein (0'48")
"The UN inspectors have done a remarkable job finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire Gulf War. Now Saddam Hussein wants to stop them," he said.

" I know I speak for everyone in this chamber - Republican and Democrat - when I say to Saddam Hussein: 'You cannot defy the will of the world. You have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.'"

The situation has been tense since Iraq refused to allow United Nations weapons inspectors unrestricted access to sites, and intense diplomatic negotiations are taking place in an attempt to resolve the crisis.


The BBC's Rageh Omar assesses the situation in Baghdad (3'11")
Some members of the UN Security Council do not want to see a military showdown. France, China and Russia have so far remained opposed to the use of force, and a Russian envoy arrived in Baghdad on Tuesday to try to mediate.

Moscow insists that Iraq conform to UN resolutions on weapons inspections and allows the teams to search Saddam's palaces for weapons of mass destruction but has also told the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, that Russia was still committed to a diplomatic solution.

But US words and deeds are looking increasingly bellicose and President Clinton has found support from across the political spectrum in his own country. The Senate Republican leader, Trent Lott, vowed to support US policy.

He said: "Let me make one thing clear to Saddam Hussein - or anyone else who needs to be told - despite any current controversy, this Congress will vigorously support the president in full defence of America's interests throughout the world. "

There has not yet been any direct response from Saddam Hussein but the Iraqi press accuses the US of planning to attack Iraq to divert attention from alleged sex scandals involving the president.

Babil, a daily newspaper owned by Saddam's son Uday, said: "When Congress members encourage Clinton to attack Iraq, they are attempting to escape their troubles by blaming them on others. They are calling on Clinton to make the final step for the end of his collapsing ethical and political life."


US Defence Secretary William Cohen will soon be flying ot the Gulf
The US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, is consulting foreign ministers on how to proceed. And early next month, the US Defence Secretary, William Cohen, plans to visit the Gulf and check with allies on possible military action.

The Americans already have support from the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who has also taken a tough line with the Iraqi leader and sent the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible to the Gulf.


Madeleine Albright will be discussing the crisis with European politicians
On Tuesday, he told the Arabic language Al-Hayat newspaper: "We do not rule out the use of force if Saddam refuses to change his stance."

The head of the UN inspection team, Richard Butler, has angered the Iraqis by saying that they had enough biological weapons to wipe out Tel Aviv in Israel.

But so far the UN is still maintaining a conciliatory tone.


UN spokesman Hiro Yuwaki explains the UN position (0'32")
UN spokesman Hiro Yuwaki said: "The bottom line is Iraq must comply with security council resolutions, particularly the question of access to the UN special commission, UNSCOM, so that UNSCOM can verify all the data - information that is necessary for them to eventually reveal all the weapons of mass destruction.

"Ambassador Butler as well as the security council members all want a diplomatic solution to the current standoff."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/51325.stm

jth298
03 Jun 04,, 17:50
I WILL NOT TOLERATE ABSOLUTELY UNSUBSTANTIATED LIES ALLEGING US GOV'T TREASON AGAINST HER PEOPLE TO BE PROPOGATED AT ANY SITE I AM A PARTY TO, PERIOD.


c'mon man... chill and put your toys back in your pram... this is a discussion board - people have opinions - I thought his post was tenuous at best too but there's no need for this kind of tantrum response surely...

Trooth
03 Jun 04,, 21:14
Trooth, Al Q was formed after US assistance to the Afghans ended. The US never in any way, shape or form supported Al Q financially or otherwise.

Your insinuating otherwise is an affront of the worst kind to America, and all Americans in general.

If you spout poisonous lies of this magnitude again i will ban you personally, or resign my post as moderator and desist in posting here if i'm prevented from doing so.

I WILL NOT TOLERATE ABSOLUTELY UNSUBSTANTIATED LIES ALLEGING US GOV'T TREASON AGAINST HER PEOPLE TO BE PROPOGATED AT ANY SITE I AM A PARTY TO, PERIOD.

If you plan to make claims of that magnitude you better be prepared to back them up with at least a half dozen reports from numerous well acknowledged sources when you do so.

I didn't mean to cause offence, i was taking part in the debate. The article i posted may contain errors, or even downright lies. Or it might be the whole truth. I am happy for people to criticise anything i say post or link to. But isn't that the same with any post from anyone else?

Regarding the treasonous claim, i never claimed any such thing. History is littered with alliances that start out well and end up bad I am sure more learned people than me can run off a dozen for every nation under the sun. I believe the CIA refers to such arrangements as "blowback", so for them to have a term for it means it must happen.

I am not even claiming that any of these alliances were made in bad faith. Some are made and then a decade later they turn out not have been such a good idea. Hindsight is a wonderful thing after all.

However there are lessons for us all in the consequences of our foreign policy. Perhaps there isn't a consequence in this one, and i am happy to debate that and if proved wrong admit it.

I am not here to cause trouble. If you wish to ban me then I'll just say goodbye and that is that.

Bill
03 Jun 04,, 21:48
"c'mon man... chill and put your toys back in your pram... this is a discussion board - people have opinions - I thought his post was tenuous at best too but there's no need for this kind of tantrum response surely..."

We are at WAR sir, Trooths comments border on Sedition, a Felony of the first degree and punishable by the death penalty in some cases. That is a serious matter(although because he is a foriegn national on foriegn soil he would be exempt). Lies such as these are spread over the internet and become 'gospel' to the tinfoil beanie wearers, who then spam the rest of the net and convince the sheeple that it's true. I will not be a party to such outrageous nonsense.

This is a US based board, i am a US veteran, and my nation is at war. It is my duty as moderator to ensure that WAB does not become a mouthpiece of disinformation that will hurt this nation's war effort.

Further, i will tell you straight out...do not interfere in the running of this board or i'll ban your smartass too.

Bill
03 Jun 04,, 21:51
Trooth, i wish you to not insinuate that the US Government financed Al Qaeda when it is clearly a lie, and a lie that would cause serious damage to the Nation and its war effort should enough people propogate it so that it becomes gospel.

I warned you not to do it again, so don't. If you don't, i will have no further cause for action.

Trooth
03 Jun 04,, 22:15
Transcript showing Colin Powell saying the Iraqi military was a threat to the continental United States?


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html#29

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?

The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world. "

Mr Powell is saying that Iraq has grandiose plans and is posing a risk to the American people and gives 9/11 (an attack on US soil) as his reference point.

From my reading he sees Iraq as capable of attacking US soil.

Bill
03 Jun 04,, 23:10
That was the universal opinion before the war started.

Even the UN held the opinion before the war that Saddam still had bio-chem weapons and an active nuclear program. They only changed their tune after 9-11.

Perhaps the intel was bad(from both the UK and US, because both intel services were saying the same things), perhaps they're still hidden(and that is still a very real possibility, even now).

We don't know yet. Eventually we will.

We did find out that UN personnel appear to have been taking all kinds of kickbacks from Saddam though, which goes a long way toward explaining why the UN didn't want the US going into Iraq.

Confed999
04 Jun 04,, 02:20
it's a shame you cant see that video. It shows Rumsfeld, after the Iraq invasion, saying that he had never said that there was an imminant threat to the US from Iraq. The CBS news journalists then show him 2 quotes that Rumsfeld made prior to the war stating that Saddam was an 'imminent threat' to and that Iraq's military was only several years away from nuclear capability.
By all accounts Saddam was an imminent threat. That doesn't mean Iraq's military was a threat to the continental USA. Saddam could have attacked us through terrorism, but I never heard anyone talk about his military attacking anyone except his neighbors, and American and British forces enforcing no-fly zones.

Everything prior to this is actual TV footage though.
Using the statements made in the video you should be able to locate the transcripts of these speaches and see if they really say this, or if they were taken out of context by moveon, like usual.

From my reading he sees Iraq as capable of attacking US soil.
Through terrorism, I don't see where Iraq's army is accused of being able to attack the continental US, which is what I disputed. I don't doubt Saddam had the ability to attack the US through terrorism, all it really takes is money to do that.