Do Muslims have "a duty to kill" anyone who insulted the Prophet Muhammad?

to specific of your foreign politic

 

You still haven't grasped the reality that the no fly zones included the areas inhabited by the Marsh Arabs.

 

Are you referring to those British Intelligence reports that Saddam could deploy chemical weapons in 45 minutes? Or that he had sought out uranium in Africa? Or was it the French intelligence reports that said the aluminum tubes could be for nothing other than uranium enrichment? Or the Russian intelligence reports that Saddam planned terrorist attacks against the US? Why do you think they would all lie to us?

 

did it stop their total annihilation?

 

No, that required us to remove saddam from power by force. What's your point? We should have removed him in 91? I wouldn't necessarily disagree. For all the Kurds and many of the Shiites, life under the rule of saddam was more detrimental to their health than the 91 invasion and sanctions that followed.

 

Nonsense. You are merely regurgitating the kind of propaganda perpetuated by the liar James Rubin. In an interview with investigative journalist John Pilger, this is what Rubin had to say on the subject of sanctions:

Rubin to Pilger:

"The suffering [of the Iraqi people] is not our fault....they have enormous quantities of food and medicine available. They store it in warehouses; they don't distribute it."

Pilger to Rubin:

"The senior UN Co-ordinator denied this. He said 88 per of all humanitarian supplies were delivered within a week of entering the country. A report by the head of the UN Office of Iraq in New York says that 76 per cent of medicines are distributed and the rest kept as a buffer stock, as directed by the WHO.More than 73 million dollars in food production supplies for Iraq are currently blocked in NY by your government."

Rubin went on to argue that a report by Unicef, the UN Children's Fund, proved that where the Iraqi government was in charge of distribution, in the south of the country, it was to blame for a higher child mortality rate.

However, Pilger pointed out to Rubin that the report had actually stated the opposite. that "the difference in mortality rates between the north and the south cannot be attributed to the way the relief effort has been implemented."

The truth is Rubin misrepresented the Unicef report. The chief UN official in Iraq at the time, Hans Von Sponeck, appealed to the United States and Britain to let supplies through and said that "the battle against Saddam was being fought on the backs of the civilian population."

 

Contradiction in terms.

 

Yet the US government used the knowingly faked by the British "intelligence" facts to convice their gullible population that invading Iraq was the only choice available. Similarly, Britain used the knowingly faked by the US intelligence facts to convice their not so gullible (2 million on street protest plus ministers resignations) popluation that Iraq must be invaded.

 

?? Nope, its the statistics on child mortality in the North, compared to the rest of the country.

 

The Unicef report states that "the difference in mortality rates between the north and the south cannot be attributed to the way the relief effort has been implemented".

 

Of course it does. And what is their evidence for this claim? Revealing, putting some of your Quote into google, searching the entire web, and one single search result comes up. THIS page.

 

You couldnt be more wrong. September 13, 2001 survey showed that 70+% of Americans believe Saddam was involved in 9/11. The Americans didnt need convincing. And neither did the British because the Parliament doesnt make such decisions regarding war and is instead part of the Royal perogative

 

The British i.e. Tony Blair + French were not the only liars the whole US neo-cons administration Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheyne etc
they all lied.


"Lie After Lie After Lie: What Colin Powell Knew Ten Years Ago Today and What He Said "

"
We know this because of some good reporting and what's seeped into the public record via one of the congressional investigations of pre-war Iraq intelligence. The record is still incomplete, because Congress never bothered to look at how Powell used the intelligence he received, and the corporate media has never taken a close look at what happened. But with what's available we can go through Powell's presentation line by line to demonstrate the chasm between what he knew and what he told the world. As you'll see, there's quite a lot to say about it.

Powell's speech can be found on the archived State Department website here. All other sources are linked below.

PUBLIC CERTAINTY, PRIVATE DOUBT

On that February 5 in front of the UN Security Council, was Colin Powell certain what he was saying was accurate? He certainly was:


POWELL: My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.

Later, regarding whether Iraq had reconstituted a nuclear weapons program, he said:


POWELL: [T]here is no doubt in my mind...

That's in public. What about in private? According to Larry Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff, here's what Powell was thinking at the time:


WILKERSON: [Powell] had walked into my office musing and he said words to the effect of, I wonder how we'll all feel if we put half a million troops in Iraq and march from one end of the country to the other and find nothing.

UNAMBIGUOUS LIES

This is some of what Powell said about the infamous aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq, supposedly meant for their covert nuclear weapons program:


POWELL: t strikes me as quite odd that these [aluminum] tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets. Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so.

Powell's own intelligence staff, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), prepared two memos commenting on drafts of the presentation. They were later quietly released as appendices to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on WMD intelligence.
"-----
Clearly, Powell's loyalty to George Bush extended to being willing to deceive the world: the United Nations, Americans, and the coalition troops about to be sent to kill and die in Iraq. He's never been held accountable for his actions, and it's extremely unlikely he ever will be.

===

Read more here :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-schwarz/colin-powell-wmd-iraq-war_b_2624620.html



Twenty Lies About the Iraq War

1 Iraq was responsible for the 11 September attacks

A supposed meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, leader of the 11 September hijackers, and an Iraqi intelligence official was the main basis for this claim, but Czech intelligence later conceded that the Iraqi’s contact could not have been Atta. This did not stop the constant stream of assertions that Iraq was involved in 9/11, which was so successful that at one stage opinion polls showed that two-thirds of Americans believed the hand of Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks. Almost as many believed Iraqi hijackers were aboard the crashed airliners; in fact there were none.

2 Iraq and al-Qa’ida were working together

Persistent claims by US and British leaders that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were in league with each other were contradicted by a leaked British Defence Intelligence Staff report, which said there were no current links between them. Mr Bin Laden’s “aims are in ideological conflict with present-day Iraq”, it added.

Another strand to the claims was that al-Qa’ida members were being sheltered in Iraq, and had set up a poisons training camp. When US troops reached the camp, they found no chemical or biological traces.

3 Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for a “reconstituted” nuclear weapons programme

The head of the CIA has now admitted that documents purporting to show that Iraq tried to import uranium from Niger in west Africa were forged, and that the claim should never have been in President Bush’s State of the Union address. Britain sticks by the claim, insisting it has “separate intelligence”. The Foreign Office conceded last week that this information is now “under review”.

4 Iraq was trying to import aluminium tubes to develop nuclear weapons

The US persistently alleged that Baghdad tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes whose only use could be in gas centrifuges, needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Equally persistently, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the tubes were being used for artillery rockets. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, told the UN Security Council in January that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges.

5 Iraq still had vast stocks of chemical and biological weapons from the first Gulf War

Iraq possessed enough dangerous substances to kill the whole world, it was alleged more than once. It had pilotless aircraft which could be smuggled into the US and used to spray chemical and biological toxins. Experts pointed out that apart from mustard gas, Iraq never had the technology to produce materials with a shelf-life of 12 years, the time between the two wars. All such agents would have deteriorated to the point of uselessness years ago.

6 Iraq retained up to 20 missiles which could carry chemical or biological warheads, with a range which would threaten British forces in Cyprus
Apart from the fact that there has been no sign of these missiles since the invasion, Britain downplayed the risk of there being any such weapons in Iraq once the fighting began. It was also revealed that chemical protection equipment was removed from British bases in Cyprus last year, indicating that the Government did not take its own claims seriously.

7 Saddam Hussein had the wherewithal to develop smallpox

This allegation was made by the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his address to the UN Security Council in February. The following month the UN said there was nothing to support it.

8 US and British claims were supported by the inspectors

According to Jack Straw, chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix “pointed out” that Iraq had 10,000 litres of anthrax. Tony Blair said Iraq’s chemical, biological and “indeed the nuclear weapons programme” had been well documented by the UN. Mr Blix’s reply? “This is not the same as saying there are weapons of mass destruction,” he said last September. “If I had solid evidence that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction or were constructing such weapons, I would take it to the Security Council.” In May this year he added: “I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction, and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were not.”

9 Previous weapons inspections had failed

Tony Blair told this newspaper in March that the UN had “tried unsuccessfully for 12 years to get Saddam to disarm peacefully”. But in 1999 a Security Council panel concluded: “Although important elements still have to be resolved, the bulk of Iraq’s proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated.” Mr Blair also claimed UN inspectors “found no trace at all of Saddam’s offensive biological weapons programme” until his son-in-law defected. In fact the UN got the regime to admit to its biological weapons programme more than a month before the defection.
10 Iraq was obstructing the inspectors

Britain’s February “dodgy dossier” claimed inspectors’ escorts were “trained to start long arguments” with other Iraqi officials while evidence was being hidden, and inspectors’ journeys were monitored and notified ahead to remove surprise. Dr Blix said in February that the UN had conducted more than 400 inspections, all without notice, covering more than 300 sites. “We note that access to sites has so far been without problems,” he said. : “In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew that the inspectors were coming.”

11 Iraq could deploy its weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes


12 The “dodgy dossier”

NINE MORE LIES EXPOSED HERE :

The best lie #20

"WMD were found

After repeated false sightings, both Tony Blair and George Bush proclaimed on 30 May that two trailers found in Iraq were mobile biological laboratories. “We have already found two trailers, both of which we believe were used for the production of biological weapons,” said Mr Blair. Mr Bush went further: “Those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons – they’re wrong. We found them.” It is now almost certain that the vehicles were for the production of hydrogen for weather balloons, just as the Iraqis claimed – and that they were exported by Britain.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/twenty-lies-about-the-iraq-war/5327386

 

There is little doubt that had Saddam seen political advantage in starving and otherwise denying his people he would have done so. But the fact thre was no said political advantage and so he didn't. It was hardly surprising that he looked after himself, is inner circle and, above all, his military and security apparatus. His palaces, self-portraits and spooks were everywhere. Unlike many other tyrants, however, he not only survived, but prior to the Gulf War enjoyed a measure of popularity by buying off his people with the benefits from Iraq's oil revenue. Having sent his opponents into exile or murdered them, more than any other Arab leader he used the riches of oil to modernise the civilian infrastructure, building first-rate hospitals, schools and universities.

In this way his fostered a relatively large, healthy, well-fed, well-educated middle class. Before sanctions, Iraqi's consumed more than 3,000 calories each per day; 92 per cent of peole had safe water and 93 per cent enjoyed free health care. Adult literacy was one of the highest in the world, at around 95 per cent.

(see 'Starving Iraq: One Humanitarian Disaster We Can Stop, Cambridge, pp. 5-6).

In the relatively open and pro-Western society that existed in Iraq prior to 1991, there was always the prospect of an uprising, as the Kurdish and Shi'a rebellions that year showed. In the subsequent era of sanctions that amounted to a siege on that country, there was none. That was the unsung achievement of the Anglo-American blockade.

Of this, ignorance is assured. "Most Americans", wrote Roger Normand, "are unaware that sanctions against Iraq have killed more people than the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan, because the media have focused exclusively on the demonised figure of Saddam Hussein and presented Iraq as a country of military targets rather than people."

(See Covert Action Quarterly, Spring, 199

 

Right, so you trump the obvious political partisan BS of a liar like Rubin over and above the independent Unicef....Awkaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

"Few of us", wrote the playwright, Arthur Miller, "can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that the state has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied."

(New Yorker, October, 1996).

 

So you admit you made it up.

 

How "couldn't I be more wrong"? I would say it would be safe to say that you could put a figure of greater than 80% of Americans believed that Saddam was involved in Iraq. That belief was based on the drip feeding of intelligence that both the UK and US governments knew was fake. You state "neither did the british", the british what? We had no vote, the vote took place in parliament after Blair read out the fake intelligence including the dodgy dossier that was later found out to have been actually a report written by an American student months earlier. When questioned in parliament about what the details of this dosier Blair stated that the information had to stay top secret and will be disclosed after the end of the war when it will all come clear. Members of parliament could only vote based on information that Blair provided. Many British were not convinced. Many Americans were, especially after Powell also read out from the same dodgy dossier to the UN..

 

Nope. That's you projecting. Carry on.

 

Lets see this intelligence from before September 13, 2001

 

You mean the fake Al Qaeda link with Saddam or the fake wmd drip feedings by the US government. The phrases such as "Iraq may have developed {insert some sort of wmd here}" or "He may use them against us" or "we know he may be hiding them" (my deliberate use of the word know). All subliminal messaging; use words such as "may" often enough soon convinces the audience that the word nows becomes "will"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se2mlKTHdUk

 

your are wrong , UK did what any good doggy´d do for a master...

 

So thats it? Bush saying he wants weapons inspectors back in Iraq to ensure they arent developing WMDs?

 

I wouldn't say a "duty" more like a bonus.

 

Quotes from that one of many similar source sound bites "frustrated saddam hussein still lives", "evil" ,Wmd" x2. Anyway dont get your point. What "facts" did the government (starting from clinton) give to persuade the US population that Iraq, 6500 miles away, was a threat to the US?

Other quotes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

 

And a few weeks later in February of 93 an Iraqi bombmaker and Ramzi Youssef, traveling with Iraqi passports detonate a bomb in the basement of WTC, and flee to Iraq. Ramzi Youssef, the nephew of Khalid Muhammad who materminded the 9/11 attacks.

An Iraqi Newspaper in July 2001

Identifying all three targets on 9/11 and couple months later, Khalid masterminds the 9/11 attacks on the twin towers, one of them "already hurting" from the 93 attack.