GameBanshee Forums

Third page.

Fourth.

Last one guys

EDIT - Sorry about the amount of posts, I tried to get the .pdf pages to line up next to each other but that didn't work.

Fascinating stuff, that. Thanks for posting it.

Glad it's within the standards of acceptability for being posted.
Cheers for the help @Tam.

Should have taken the Blue pill!

Off on an errand momentarily but this is good stuff.....

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
...I believe he backs his claims (the claim that the Bush admin. knew in advance about 9/11, at any rate) up in the lecture, however I have not had this lecture yet and hence am only going on the word of my best friend, who did the same course last year.
If so I'll probably post more once I learn it.

I think posting more is a good idea. Until then, I'll put the idea that the US government intentionally allowed 3,000 civilians (with potential loss of lfe of up to - what like 14,000 people in both towers?) to die right along side the wonderful idea that the whole thing was a Jewish plot and no Jews died in the attacks.

Please go through those notes and expand on them with some facts and logical reasoning. I can't even get past your first attachment without becoming irate at the idea that this can be posted without any kind of supporting evidence, and people actually congratulate you for posting it.

Originally posted by Lazarus


Please go through those notes and expand on them with some facts and logical reasoning. I can't even get past your first attachment without becoming irate at the idea that this can be posted without any kind of supporting evidence....

Interestingly enough most of the UN feels that way with regards to the US governement's failure in demonstrating substantive evidence that Iraq actually poses a threat......

Originally posted by Lazarus
I think posting more is a good idea. Until then, I'll put the idea that the US government intentionally allowed 3,000 civilians (with potential loss of lfe of up to - what like 14,000 people in both towers?) to die right along side the wonderful idea that the whole thing was a Jewish plot and no Jews died in the attacks.

Please go through those notes and expand on them with some facts and logical reasoning. I can't even get past your first attachment without becoming irate at the idea that this can be posted without any kind of supporting evidence, and people actually congratulate you for posting it.

As I said before, these notes are the work of one of my lecturers, so I don't yet know what evidence and/or reasoning he uses to back up his claims. I think we get the lecture in about 2 weeks, and if so I'll post the support for them the next time I'm at my mother's house and can access the net for any decent amount of time.
You are of course perfectly entitled to your skepticism, and are correct in pointing out they are not corroborated with evidence in their current form. I rather doubt, however, that as a lecturer (in a foundation unit, no less) at a credible university he would be allowed to make these claims without providing supporting evidence.
As far as the government's regard for human life goes, I hardly need to point out the vast concern they've shown over the thousands of inevitable civilian casulaties their "Bomb Baghdad back into the Stone Age" tactic would cause, to say nothing of refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons.

In the meantime, might I suggest that you look through the other attachments? You may see what people are talking about when they say it's fascinating, and "good stuff". These notes aren't chiefly about 9/11, they're more concerned with the war on Iraq-hence my raising them in a topic about the war on Iraq.

@dragon wench: I agree. That doesn't make my point any less valid.

@Ode to a Grasshopper: The responsibility for the protection of civilians in the US is the job of the United States' government. It is not the job of the US government to protect Iraqi lives. In fact, if the US does go to war, I would be appalled at any (military) decision which would sacrifice American lives for Iraqi lives. It stands the very concept of war on it's head.

I do not know what a "foundation unit" is, but I do have great skepticism with regard to what is found to be acceptable for dissemination at the universities these days. I am simply questioning the veracity of information thrown out without evidence - I would suggest that you (always) do the same.

I did in fact read through the other slides. Not being an economist, I cannot say whether anything this guy says is even remotely correct. Is he an economist? Do we have any economists here in GB that would like to comment? I guess I resist the idea that the US government would "collapse" if Iraq (and/or all OPEC nations) went to the Euro. But, again, I'm no economist. I guess the whole scenario would have to be explained in far more detail for me to understand and judge.

EDIT: I just love the little side-note about Al-queda having 20 nuclear devices, too. Ummm - evidence? This comment, along with the one about the US government having knowledge of 9/11 make me exceedingly skeptical about anything this guy has to say. Doesn't anyone else have the same questions?

Originally posted by Lazarus


@Ode to a Grasshopper: The responsibility for the protection of civilians in the US is the job of the United States' government. It is not the job of the US government to protect Iraqi lives. In fact, if the US does go to war, I would be appalled at any (military) decision which would sacrifice American lives for Iraqi lives. It stands the very concept of war on it's head.

?

Are you seriously suggesting that there are no ethics in war? Never heard of Dresden i suppose...Iraqi civilians aren't any less innocent then US civilians.

@Lazarus, do you really mean "Iraqi lives," or "Iraqi militia?" The lives of non-combatants in war are covered by a number of important internationally respected conventions, whose violation has formed much of the case against Slobodan Milosovic.

Granted, Hussein's forces showed scant regard for these rights during its invasion of Kuwait, but the inability of a jumped-up thug to realize such matters is hardly an excuse that can be deployed by an administration that considers itself very much better.

the plot sickens

I saw this fascinating piece on the CBC news last night, here is a full transcript:

Chemical or biological attack is reason enough for US

PETER MANSBRIDGE: A chemical or biological attack launched by Saddam Hussein, for the Kurds of Iraq, it 's a big fear. For the United States, it's a big reason for going to war. Tonight, a reality check, something we'll be doing from time to time during the Iraq crisis. In this one, senior correspondent Neil MacDonald looks at a dramatic shift in the US attitude towards Iraq and its chemical weapons. His story includes some graphic pictures.

GEORGE W. BUSH (US President): This is a nation run by a man who is willing to kill his own people by using chemical weapons.

TONY BLAIR (British Prime Minister): And he uniquely is a leader that has used these weapons actually against his own people as well as others.

NEIL MACDONALD (Reporter): It has almost become shorthand for Saddam Hussein's monstrous record and it is fact. Saddam Hussein is one of the few leaders to actually have used chemical weapons in the second half of the twentieth century, first against Iranian soldiers, then against his own Kurdish citizens. It was mass murder, and it was a war crime by international convention. No wonder it is held up as the principal justification for toppling him.

BUSH: If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

MACDONALD: But US policy makers were reading from a much different script back in the 1980s. Researchers here at the National Security Archives of George Washington University have assembled quite a library of government documents from the old days of the American alliance with Saddam Hussein. The documents reveal the true extent of that relationship, and some of them make the stream of moral outrage pouring forth from the White House nowadays sound a bit rich.

JOYCE BATTLE (George Washington University): The parts that were blacked out were originally...

MACDONALD: Researcher Joyce Battle had to go to the Supreme Court to obtain some of the documents after Washington tried to censor them. The documents show conclusively, the US knew as early as 1983 that Iraq was using chemical weapons to massacre Iranian troops and that Saddam was buying chemicals from American interests, but it was inconvenient intelligence. Washington had just removed Iraq from a list of states sponsoring terror, and it wanted it to win the war with Iran. That was clearly the overriding concern.

BATTLE: They knew that the US did not, in any way, change its policy of supporting Iraq in the war because of this chemical weapons use.

MACDONALD: State Department documents from 1983 talk about "Iraq's almost daily use of chemical weapons." They express concern that the United Nations would take up the issue and they discuss how to "deter further Iraqi use of chemical weapons as well as avoid unpleasantly surprising Iraq through public positions we may have to take on this issue." And Washington certainly wanted no unpleasantness. It was openly courting Saddam. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who, at that time was a private businessman, had been dispatched to warm up relations and offer whatever help was necessary.

BATTLE: The US concern was to prevent Iraq from being defeated in the war.

MACDONALD: Whether they were using chemical weapons or not?

BATTLE: Right, it was a public relations issue.

MACDONALD: And that's how it was managed. Some months later, the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq's chemical warfare, but documents from the time show that behind the scenes, Washington worked with the Iraqis to prevent sanctions and Security Council censure. Necessary politics, argues this former State Department analyst.

JAMES PLACKE (Former State Department Analyst): Because they're in the middle of a war for survival with Iran and perceived certainly by the Arab states of the Arabian Peninsula and to some extent by the United States as well as the first line of defense against Iranian expansionism.

MACDONALD: And, of course Peter, we all know what happened a few years later. Saddam Hussein dropped chemical weapons on the Iraqi Kurds and massacred 5,000 people. It got worse.

MANSBRIDGE: A lot of documents there, I see you walking through them. You have copies of some of them. What else do they show about American involvement during that time?

MACDONALD: Well, the documents show that not only were the Americans, at the time, protecting the Iraqi war criminals, there's no other word for it, they were actually helping them. The Americans allowed US firms amongst others to ship chemical precursors to the Iraqis, and perhaps even worse, they allowed, they licensed American firms to ship biologicals to Iraq. Now, these are deadly toxins and viruses, exactly the same thing that the whole world is afraid that Saddam Hussein will use now.

MANSBRIDGE: So it wasn't just passive involvement then?

MACDONALD: No, there are strong suggestions it was a lot more than that. There are reliable reports that the American military advisors of the day were participating in formulating battle and strike plans that resulted in the use of chemical weapons. There is strong suggestion that the Pentagon's view of the day was that Iraq was fighting for its life against Iran and if chemical weapons had to be used, well, you know, such is war.

What we probably need to bear in mind is that the UN is only a distraction for Dubya's administration. They are a unilateralist group whose disregard for facts beggars belief. The self-censorship of the American mainstream media (that will run nothing which contradicts widely held opinions) ensures that there is no dialog over the issues raised by this president, or the actions he takes. And we're about to march into a war, invading another sovreign state, all at the behest of a group of compromised, cynical men, who have also put into place a group of laws that hamstrung private rights.

@Audace: Of course I believe that there are ethical aspects to war. I think my statement is, in fact, an ethical one. Maybe you could explain your point a bit further. I'm not sure I understand it.

And, yes, I know of Dresden. As an interesting counterpoint, you have the US victory in Afghanistan, where nothing on the scale of Dresden (or London, for that matter) occurred.

@fable: I know that the intentional targeting of civilians is against international law. On the other hand, I know that civilian casualties are simply inevitable in any significant military action. The bugaboo that people bring up in regards to the impending war is the possibility of "house-to-house" combat. In such a case, I would rather see US military commanders using artillery and bombs to reduce pockets of resistance in a city than sending in troops. Of course every effort should be made to avoid loss of civilian life, but, again, the protection of Iraqi civilians is Saddam's job, not ours.

Also, you (fable) note that this war would entail the invasion of a sovereign nation. Personally, I do not view it as such. Let me say up front that I do not think the US should invade Iraq, but to say that Iraq under the leadership of Saddam has any sort of "rights," is, IMO, going a bit far. The purpose of a state is to protect it's citizens rights while respecting the rights of citizens in other nations. Clearly, Saddam's Iraq falls far short of this. Just as any common individual gives up any claim to freedom of action when they pull a gun on a neighbor, so too, IMO, a nation gives up it's rights when it acts as Saddam's Iraq has done. What "the international community" decides to do about it is another matter.

Of course every effort should be made to avoid loss of civilian life, but, again, the protection of Iraqi civilians is Saddam's job, not ours.

No, it actually isn't, not according to the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, which the US ratified in 1949. Protecting civilians is now considered an international responsibility, and those guilty of violating this--as in the case of Slobodan Milosevic--are deemed guilty of war crimes. (Yes, I know he's also accused of genocide, and this gets all the headlines. That doesn't mean the other charges have been dismissed. They're deemed just as serious.)

In other words, by the terms of international law ratified by the US more than 50 years ago, all nations that are part of any international conflict are required to take care of civilians at such times, and the Convention spells it out in very elaborate detail. The US has been very strict in its regard for the series of Geneva Conventions, including this one--up until now.

Interesting. Could you provide a link to the text of this document? I'd be curious to know how they define things like "protection" and "take care of." I'm not certain that what I have suggested would contradict this agreement, but I would be interested to take a look.

I've just heard Serbia's PM was assassinated. Hope there's another in this particularly explosive region.

(Sorry, nothing to do with Iraq)

Originally posted by Lazarus
Interesting. Could you provide a link to the text of this document? I'd be curious to know how they define things like "protection" and "take care of." I'm not certain that what I have suggested would contradict this agreement, but I would be interested to take a look.

Try this. If you dislike the term "take care of," consider "respect the rights of," instead.

Title of a top story in the Sunday London Times: Quit Baghdad or War This Week, Bush Tells Saddam.

I wonder what Bush is telling the people whose homes will bombed, shortly?