Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-11-2003, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sir drinks-a-lot : Really? Hussein had nothing to do with the WTC disaster? What is your proof? The fact that you typed the word "nothing" in boldface?

Sorry, I thought people in these fora actually follow the news, such as the many denouncements from the UN, our own intelligence community and certain select few in Congress declaring that there was no (the bold is for emphasis) connection between Hussein and the WTC disaster (not to mention the alleged evidence of forgery in what was offered).

I think Rep. Peter DeFazio put it as succinctly as possible in his Statement: Authorization For The Use Of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution Of 2002 (HJRES 114), where he asked the members of Congress for any legitimate justifications for going to war in Iraq (all emphasis in the folllowing quotes are my own) :

Quote:

There were the horrendous September 11th attacks against the US, but neither the US nor the British intelligence services can find the slightest link between Al Queda and Iraq.

And this from his Floor Statement: Unanswered Questions Regarding Administration Plans for Iraq:

Quote:

But the question for us in the United States Congress is, should we authorize the first ever preemptive war in the history of the United States, and what is the immediate and serious nature of the threat that would have us break from all precedents in our history and all the precedents of international law?

Quite truthfully, thus far in both unclassified and classified briefings, and I cannot talk about what they did talk about in classified briefings, but I can tell Members what they do not talk about in classified briefings. They have not talked about anything in the classified briefings that we have not read in USA Today or heard on CNN, so they have yet to make an effective case that somehow he has been transmogrified from this reprehensible dictator in a mostly impoverished developing or Third World country to this incredible and immediate threat to the integrity of the United States of America.

They can find no links to al Qaeda, who is an immediate threat to the United States of America. In fact, I would say that we are being distracted, as are many of our allies and friends, and not-so-good allies and friends around the world, from the pursuit of al Qaeda and wiping out that threat by propping up suddenly this new threat.

Since you don't apparently follow world events very carefully, Congressman DeFazio is a member of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, with jurisdiction over the newly created Department of Homeland Security, so when he tells Congress that neither our own intelligence community nor the British intelligence community can find any links to al Qaeda, well, I tend to trust him just a tad.

Quote:

MORE: Bin Laden's public denouncement of Hussein? I am sure his only motive was honesty. Koyaanisqatsi, where are your critical thinking skills?

And where the hell are yours? The Bush cabal along with their British counterparts, have even gone so far as to present known forged documents to Congress, the UN and the American people regarding Iraq's nuclear capabilities--the most serious of all WMD's--as a central lynchpin to their justifications for war against Iraq! If they would lie about the most serious threat to the world imaginable, why would you conclude that Bin Laden is the dishonest one?

For a full breakdown on it, click the link, but here are some choice words from the article by Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker, March 31, 2003 (archived with permission by Globalpolicy.org) regarding U.S. and British policy in general with regard to Iraq:

Quote:

Forged documents and false accusations have been an element in U.S. and British policy toward Iraq at least since the fall of 1997, after an impasse over U.N. inspections. Then as now, the Security Council was divided, with the French, the Russians, and the Chinese telling the United States and the United Kingdom that they were being too tough on the Iraqis. President Bill Clinton, weakened by the impeachment proceedings, hinted of renewed bombing, but, then as now, the British and the Americans were losing the battle for international public opinion. A former Clinton Administration official told me that London had resorted to, among other things, spreading false information about Iraq. The British propaganda program�part of its Information Operations, or I/Ops�was known to a few senior officials in Washington. �I knew that was going on,� the former Clinton Administration official said of the British efforts. �We were getting ready for action in Iraq, and we wanted the Brits to prepare.�

Over the next year, a former American intelligence officer told me, at least one member of the U.N. inspection team who supported the American and British position arranged for dozens of unverified and unverifiable intelligence reports and tips�data known as inactionable intelligence�to be funnelled to MI6 operatives and quietly passed along to newspapers in London and elsewhere. �It was intelligence that was crap, and that we couldn�t move on, but the Brits wanted to plant stories in England and around the world,� the former officer said. There was a series of clandestine meetings with MI6, at which documents were provided, as well as quiet meetings, usually at safe houses in the Washington area. The British propaganda scheme eventually became known to some members of the U.N. inspection team. �I knew a bit,� one official still on duty at U.N. headquarters acknowledged last week, �but I was never officially told about it.�

...

On March 14th, Senator Jay Rockefeller, of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, formally asked Robert Mueller, the F.B.I. director, to investigate the forged documents. Rockefeller had voted for the resolution authorizing force last fall. Now he wrote to Mueller, �There is a possibility that the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq.�

So who has been the more "dishonest"?

Quote:

MORE: Is this all you have to bring to the table?

In case it wasn't painfully obvious from my OP, it was I who built the "table" to begin with, inviting others to comment. Again, I was assuming a higher degree of scrutiny had already been applied, so my apologies.

Here's more for the "table" for you to feast on:

From Micheal T. Klare, author of Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict and a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College. He is a military affairs analyst with Foreign Policy In Focus

Quote:

From what we know of Al Qaeda and other such organizations, the objective of Islamic extremists is to overthrow any government in the Islamic world that does not adhere to a fundamentalist version of Islam and replace it with one that does. The Baathist regime in Iraq does not qualify as such a regime; thus, under Al Qaeda doctrine, it must be swept away, along with the equally deficient governments in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. It follows from this that a U.S. effort to oust Saddam Hussein and replace his regime with another secular government--this one kept in place by American military power--will not diminish the wrath of Islamic extremists but rather fuel it.

Why would Bin Laden team up with Hussein or vice versa? The two were in opposition to each other regarding the most actionable of all Bin Laden's issues (fundamentalist Islamic interests) and Hussein and his regime represented, to put it mildly, a slight to fundamentalism in the region (not to mention the fact that Hussein was our puppet in the Iran-Iraq war, thereby directly courting further American influence in the region) and, as a result of his actions will mean a regime even more influenced by American policy and occupation for years to come.

Bin Laden required nothing from Hussein to carry out the WTC attacks and as others have pointed out, no Iraqis were among the al Qaeda operatives. Unless you'd like to argue that Hussein provided the box cutters?

Then, of course, there was the"surprise" resignation of Rand Beers, the top National Security Council official in the "war on terror." This from P. Mitchell Prothero of UPI:

Quote:

Rand Beers would not comment for this article, but he and several sources close to him are emphatic that the resignation was not a protest against an invasion of Iraq. But the same sources, and other current and former intelligence officials, described a broad consensus in the anti-terrorism and intelligence community that an invasion of Iraq would divert critical resources from the war on terror. Beers has served as the NSC's senior director for counter-terrorism only since August. The White House said Wednesday that he officially remains on the job and has yet to set a departure date.

"Hardly a surprise," said one former intelligence official. "We have sacrificed a war on terror for a war with Iraq. I don't blame Randy at all. This just reflects the widespread thought that the war on terror is being set aside for the war with Iraq at the expense of our military and intel resources and the relationships with our allies."

...

"This is a very intriguing decision (by Beers)," said author and intelligence expert James Bamford. "There is a predominant belief in the intelligence community that an invasion of Iraq will cause more terrorism than it will prevent. There is also a tremendous amount of embarrassment by intelligence professionals that there have been so many lies out of the administration -- by the president, (Vice President Dick) Cheney and (Secretary of State Colin) Powell -- over Iraq."

Bamford cited a recent address by President Bush that cited documents, which allegedly proved Iraq was continuing to pursue a nuclear program, that were later shown to be forgeries."It is absurd that the president of the United States mentioned in a speech before the world information from phony documents and no one got fired," Bamford said. "That alone has offended intelligence professionals throughout the services."

...the CIA warned Congress last year that an invasion might lead to a rise in terrorism. This, they say, is evidence there's more than just ambivalence about the war among the spy community. "If it was your job to prevent terror attacks, would you be happy about an action that many see as unnecessary, that is almost guaranteed to cause more terror in the short-term?" said one official. "I know I'm not (happy)."

If Bin Laden and Hussein were so linked as your post implies, then why would our intelligence community and those in the front lines of the "war on terror" be so concerned with resources being shifted to an invasion against Iraq? Wouldn't they be the first to herald an invasion of Iraq, if indeed Iraq was tied to al Qeada? Wouldn't they be thrilled with a removal of the partner in crime, thereby strengthening, not weakening, their efforts?

Littledrummerboy · 04-11-2003, 10:12 AM

I have a question, why does Hussein need to be linked to 9/11? We know he is a terrorist, he killed his own people by gassing them, tourtures his own people, planned an assasination attempt on a former President Bush while he was still in office, while there may not be a link to 9/11 he is a terrorist and we are in a war on terror. Perhaps I am missing something (While I do watch the news, I do not pay much attention to the "fine print") so I am honestly missing a point, please let me know. Thanks

Stephen :notworthy

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-11-2003, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Littledrummerboy : I have a question, why does Hussein need to be linked to 9/11? We know he is a terrorist, he killed his own people by gassing them, tourtures his own people, planned an assasination attempt on a former President Bush while he was still in office, while there may not be a link to 9/11 he is a terrorist and we are in a war on terror.

Beside what I posted above, read US Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup By Michael Dobbs, Washington Post, December 30, 2002, and then see how that sits.

Here, I'll give you the opening paragraphs:

Quote:

High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.

Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Talk about terror!

Quote:

MORE: Perhaps I am missing something (While I do watch the news, I do not pay much attention to the "fine print") so I am honestly missing a point, please let me know. Thanks

Don't worry. We will

. The point is that these were the reasons given for the justification of war; reasons that turned out to be systematic lies, forgeries and misinformation.

Pomp · 04-11-2003, 10:21 AM

Littledrummerboy,

I have a question, why does Hussein need to be linked to 9/11?

Ask the Bush administration. They're the ones who have presented Saddam's unsubstantiated "links" to "al-Queda types" as further justification for their war. I would hazard the guess that it's to drum up public support by linking this invasion to an event that resonates emotionaly with many Americans.

Optional · 04-11-2003, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Littledrummerboy
We know he is a terrorist

Um... What would your definition of 'terrorist' be? What justification do you have for that definition? What evidence is there that Saddam fits that definition?

-me

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-11-2003, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Optional
Um... What would your definition of 'terrorist' be? What justification do you have for that definition? What evidence is there that Saddam fits that definition?

And, more importantly, who facilitated it all, either directly or indirectly?

matthias j. · 04-11-2003, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Littledrummerboy
I have a question, why does Hussein need to be linked to 9/11? We know he is a terrorist, he killed his own people by gassing them, tourtures his own people, planned an assasination attempt on a former President Bush while he was still in office, while there may not be a link to 9/11 he is a terrorist and we are in a war on terror. Perhaps I am missing something (While I do watch the news, I do not pay much attention to the "fine print") so I am honestly missing a point, please let me know. Thanks

The point you're missing is the definition of a terrorist. My English is rather sloppy so I won't try to define the word "terrorist" but all those things you sum up are cruel, inhumane, dispicable deeds but not in any possible sense of the word terrorist acts.

You could off course use the ancient Roman definition and call anyone who uses fear to reign a terrorist, but then again, as Michael Moore pointed out in Bowling For Columbine, the American society thrives on fear created by the media and the politicians. Would that make Fox, ABC and the other networks terrorists?

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-11-2003, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Krieger
US bombing killed around 4000-5000 civilians in Afghanistan.

Currently there have been 1152-1388 Iraqi civilians killed so far.

Where did you get those numbers, Krieger? www.iraqbodycount.net?

For those of you who don't know what that is, it's a group of professors and peace activists in England and the United States who are trying to compile credible accounts of civilian deaths and keep an updated estimate of the total at that web site. Unfortunately, however, as John Broder of the International Herald Tribune pointed out last week (Iraqi Army Toll a Mystery Because No Count is Kept):

Quote:

The group�s current figure, based chiefly on media reports, is between 493 and 652, which is not much different from the tally from the Iraqi Information Ministry.

Broder points out the difficulties and outright refusals to do body counts of both military and civilian dead in that article:

Quote:

The world knows with some precision how many American and British soldiers have been killed so far in the war in Iraq: 77 as of Tuesday. The names of the dead and the cause of their deaths are scrupulously reported by Washington and London, with some delay to notify their families.

But how many Iraqi soldiers have died? It could be scores, hundreds, even thousands. No one outside of Iraq � and probably no one there, either � knows. And, as in the first Gulf War and in Afghanistan, the American military is not counting.

U.S. officials say that numbering the enemy dead in the midst of battle is dangerous and ultimately fruitless. They say it is not a statistic that interests them. They speak in terms of ��degrading�� or ��attriting�� enemy military formations, so they can assess the strength of the force opposing them. They count destroyed tanks and artillery pieces and missile launchers. They count captured weapons. They do not count people, civilian or military.

��You know, we don�t do body counts,�� General Tommy Franks said a year ago in response to reports that American bombing killed 1,000 Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters during the Afghan campaign of 2001-2002.

Even if allied commanders were curious about the number of enemy dead, the Iraq conflict presents a host of challenges. The Iraqi fighting force takes numerous forms: regular Republican Guard units in uniform, paramilitary forces, volunteer brigades and a variety of irregular fighters who carry weapons but do not wear uniforms. Coalition forces also consider members of the Ba�ath Party to be enemy combatants, even if they have not taken up arms.

American and British forces can sometimes estimate the number of enemy casualties in close-in encounters, like a battle Tuesday near Diwaniya, where a Marine officer reported that his unit had killed 90 Iraqi soldiers. British troops said last week they had bombed a Ba�ath Party gathering in Basra, killing an estimated 200 people. But how many Iraqi soldiers have been killed by the relentless bombing campaign waged against Republican Guard units along the approaches to Baghdad? U.S. planes � including B-2 and B-52 bombers � have dropped thousands of bombs on suspected Iraqi troop concentrations over the last three days. Iraqi forces have been subjected to artillery and rocket barrages in recent days as well. Every day, briefers at Central Command here show high-tech images of buildings in and around Baghdad being blown to bits by America�s advanced precision weaponry. Were there people inside? They cannot say.

He ends with a chilling quote:

Quote:

United States officials insist that they make every effort to avoid civilian deaths and note that 90 percent of aerial weapons used are precision-guided. That does not include battlefield weapons such as tank guns, rocket launchers and machine guns.

Brig. Gen. Vince Brooks, the deputy director for operations at Central Command, blames most of the civilian deaths on tactics of the Iraqi government. He said the Iraqis place military equipment in civilian neighborhoods and religious sites, and use women and children as human shields.

��The blood is on the hands of the regime,�� General Brooks said at a briefing today. ��If there�s a question of morality, it really should go back to the regime.��

Does that irony answer your question littledrummerboy?

We concocted a false war and are now killing thousands of innocent people, but if there's a questions of morality, it really should go back to the regime. Question being, of course, which regime?

Blixy Sticks · 04-11-2003, 11:24 AM

Koyaanisqatsi,

I think I like you. You're articulate, you don't mince words and your arguments are well-informed and highly defensible.

The aforementioned coupled with your nick have won my respect and admiration.

:notworthy

fatherphil · 04-11-2003, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Blixy Sticks
Koyaanisqatsi,

That is a fantastic nick. An adage from the Hopi Indians meaning "World Out of Sync."

I saw the film, which was essentially an animated collage put to music. The imagery and music told the whole story. It was a moving experience to watch that movie. I have been searching for it ever since and cannot seem to locate a copy anywhere. I highly suggest it to anyone that can lay his or her hands on a copy.

The Hopi Indians believed that the Nordic invaders were literally "not of this earth" due to the Nordic white man�s disharmony with nature.

i thought it meant "nice movie to see while stoned"

just trying to lighten things up. actually would like to catch the trilogy when it hits the egyptian.

carry on.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-11-2003, 10:12 AM	#22
Littledrummerboy Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Sioux Falls Posts: 13	I have a question, why does Hussein need to be linked to 9/11? We know he is a terrorist, he killed his own people by gassing them, tourtures his own people, planned an assasination attempt on a former President Bush while he was still in office, while there may not be a link to 9/11 he is a terrorist and we are in a war on terror. Perhaps I am missing something (While I do watch the news, I do not pay much attention to the "fine print") so I am honestly missing a point, please let me know. Thanks Stephen :notworthy

04-11-2003, 10:21 AM	#24
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	Littledrummerboy, I have a question, why does Hussein need to be linked to 9/11? Ask the Bush administration. They're the ones who have presented Saddam's unsubstantiated "links" to "al-Queda types" as further justification for their war. I would hazard the guess that it's to drum up public support by linking this invasion to an event that resonates emotionaly with many Americans.

04-11-2003, 11:24 AM	#29
Blixy Sticks Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Until recently, Baghdad Posts: 1,365	Koyaanisqatsi, I think I like you. You're articulate, you don't mince words and your arguments are well-informed and highly defensible. The aforementioned coupled with your nick have won my respect and admiration. :notworthy

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.