Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Larry · 05-02-2003, 07:41 PM

ooops! Wrong button!!

Double posts.

Koyaanisqatsi · 05-02-2003, 10:51 PM

What the hell is wrong with you leonarde? Seriously, I'm at my wit's end.

Could anyone else please explain it to leonarde, because I just can't take this anymore?

I really can't.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

leonarde · 05-02-2003, 11:37 PM

For a look at the French portrait of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program:

http://translate.google.com/translat...UTF-8%26sa%3DN

Quote:

Iraq continues to maintain that following the Gulf war, the late Lieutenant-General Hussein Kamel had taken actions related to Iraq's clandestine nuclear programme that were independent, unauthorized and without the knowledge of the Government of Iraq; that Iraq had not followed up any offers of assistance to its clandestine nuclear programme other than the declared foreign assistance to its centrifuge programme; and that the so-called "high governmental committee", initially described by Iraqi to have been established in June 1991 and headed by Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, had not, in fact, been an established entity. [S/1998/312] Iraq's statements that its clandestine nuclear programme had effectively ceased in January 1991 and had been abandoned in April 1991 are inconsistent with actions taken to conceal and retain programme-related documentation, materials and equipment, until at least August 1995.

Although the IAEA is not "closing the books," activities regarding the investigation of Iraq's clandestine nuclear programme have reached a point of diminishing returns and the IAEA is focusing most of its resources on the implementation and technical strengthening of its plan for the ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with its obligations under the relevant Security Council resolutions. [S/1998/694]

The verification activities have revealed no indications that Iraq had achieved its program objective of producing nuclear weapons or that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapon-usable nuclear material or had clandestinely acquired such material. Furthermore, there are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance. In February 1994, IAEA completed the removal from Iraq of all weapon-usable nuclear material - essentially research reactor fuel - under IAEA safeguards. The IAEA noted that there were no indications of significant discrepancies between the technically coherent picture that had evolved of Iraq's clandestine nuclear weapons program and the information contained in Iraq's "Full, Final and Complete Declaration". Some elements of uncertainty in the completeness of that picture remain because of the inevitable limitations of any countrywide verification process. The limitations in the verification process were not helped by Iraq's lack of full transparency in the provision of certain information and the absence of certain documentation. [S/1998/927]

The statement by IAEA that it has found "no indication" of prohibited equipment, materials or activities in Iraq is not the same as a statement of "non-existence" of prohibited equipment, materials or activities. Indeed, it is prudent to assume that Iraq has retained documentation of its clandestine nuclear programme, specimens of important components and possibly amounts of non-enriched uranium. There remains in Iraq a considerable intellectual resource in the form of the cadre of well-educated, highly experienced personnel who were employed in Iraq's clandestine nuclear program. There is an inherent uncertainty in the completeness of IAEA's "technically coherent picture" of Iraq's clandestine nuclear program, deriving from the possible existence of duplicate facilities or the possible existence of anomalous activities or facilities outside the "technically coherent picture." This inherent uncertainty is compounded by Iraq's lack of full transparency in the provision of information, which has resulted in added uncertainties regarding the extent of external assistance to Iraq's clandestine nuclear program and Iraq's achievements in some aspects of its clandestine nuclear programme, owing to the absence of related programme documentation. [S/1998/694]

There are a large number of unresolved issues regarding Iraq's nuclear weapons program. These issues were raised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in its October 1997 consolidated inspection report, but were never resolved in subsequent IAEA reports. Important questions remain to be answered in the areas of weapons design; centrifuge research and development; missing weapon components and equipment; remaining uranium stocks; the EMIS ("calutron") enrichment program; Iraq's reporting to the IAEA and its efforts to conceal elements of its weapons program from the Agency; and post-war nuclear program activities. [NCI 980512] Even at the present level of highly intrusive monitoring and inspections, under some scenarios, Iraq might be able to construct a nuclear explosive before it was detected. All Iraq lacks for a nuclear bomb is the fissile material.

Above emphases by leonarde. That conclusion, that Iraq lacks only fissile material for a nuclear bomb is what Secretary Powell said in front of the UN Security Council a few months ago.

Cheers!

leonarde · 05-03-2003, 02:19 AM

One item under dispute here is whether the US or UK "forged' some documents. So a relevant story:

Quote:

Posted on Sat, Mar. 15, 2003

Fake document tied to Niger Embassy
BY SAM ROE
Chicago Tribune

CHICAGO - (KRT) - Forged documents that the United States used to build its case against Iraq were likely written by someone in Niger's embassy in Rome who hoped to make quick money, a source close to the United Nations investigation said.

The documents, about a dozen letters on Niger's governmental letterhead, suggested that the African nation had agreed to supply Iraq with uranium, used in nuclear weapons production, the source said. Some of the letters were addressed to an Iraqi official.

But when International Atomic Energy Agency investigators analyzed the contents of the letters, they discovered discrepancies in names and titles that led them to conclude that the documents were fabricated.

An IAEA spokeswoman would not comment on the investigation, though she said the [b/]agency did not fault the United States or Britain for the forged evidence.[/b]

"We believe it was given to us in good faith," the spokeswoman said. "It doesn't seem that it was fabricated by British or American intelligence agencies in order to make a case" for war.

Above from:
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centr...ws/5401751.htm

I can see from the above that I was mistaken: the documents in question were NOT internal Iraqi ones. But it DOES seem that the documents were forged for monetary gain.

Cheers!

Cap'n Jack · 05-03-2003, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Farren
His technique thus far has consisted mainly of cognitive dissonance, red herrings and selective reading.

Not taking sides and off topic, but this can be said of both sides of this argument.

Optional · 05-03-2003, 08:18 AM

First, KOY: OKOK, I *give up*, forget I said ANYTHING!

Sheesh.... Getting all 'factual' and shit on me, not FAIR says I....

Moving along.

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
It is YOU who is assuming that our intelligence community forged documents. I don't know that. Given what I know about the overall situation I find it unlikely.

As you're talking about the Niger documents here, I will too. Have you seen descriptions of the things that tipped off the UN about the fact that the documents were forged? Nothing subtle there, nothing that they had to dig too deeply at... The forgeries were almost childishly, comically wrong.

Any intelligence service employing agents higher on the evolutionary scale than flatworms WOULD HAVE (not should have but WOULD HAVE) detected the forgery.

Therefore, these documents were presented as proof either (a) knowing full well they were forgeries, or (b) without having been critically examined by ANYBODY AT ALL, meaning there were presented without a CLUE IN THE WORLD of whether or not they were in fact legitimate, meaning knowing full well they could easily be forgeries or in some other way wrong. But, again, ,they were offered as PROOF, proof that led in part to an actual WAR, where real human beings DIED.

I tend to agree with you, I doubt we actually forged these documents, I think we would have done a much better job at it. What we actually did with them, though, makes us JUST as culpable as if we HAD forged them.

-me

leonarde · 05-03-2003, 08:57 AM

Partial post:

Quote:

Therefore, these documents were presented as proof either (a) knowing full well they were forgeries, or (b) without having been critically examined by ANYBODY AT ALL, meaning there were presented without a CLUE IN THE WORLD of whether or not they were in fact legitimate, meaning knowing full well they could easily be forgeries or in some other way wrong. But, again, ,they were offered as PROOF, proof that led in part to an actual WAR, where real human beings DIED.

I tend to agree with you, I doubt we actually forged these documents, I think we would have done a much better job at it. What we actually did with them, though, makes us JUST as culpable as if we HAD forged them.

Gosh! So much to disagree on, so little time!

1) Implicit in what you are saying is that the US/UK thought of the UN as a true final arbiter on a) whether Iraq still had WMD programs b) whether war should be waged to eliminate those programs once and for all.

2) but we KNOW that that is not the case: even back in Sept. when Bush addressed the UN he said that if the UN refused to act on Iraq the US would form a coalition of the willing and act in the UN's stead. Both Powell's presentation and the back-and-forth maneuvering at the UN Security Council were sincere attempts to get the UN to enforce its own resolutions on Iraq but all this was done knowing that the opposition to such enforcement was well-entrenched and unlikely to change its mind whatever evidence was produced.

3) There seems to have been a complicated system of deciding what intelligence data ------and in what sanitized form-----to pass on to the UN: a) for we didn't entirely trust UNMOVIC and suspected it of having members all too cosy with Iraq/Iraq's de facto allies: France, Russia. b) there were probably whole categories of intelligence which the UN/world at large got the mereest whiff of.

4) Chronology: I haven't read anything about WHEN these documents first showed up and to whom they were delivered, NOR of how much time went by before they were presented to the UN but IF the documents made an 11th hour appearance, the lack of careful perusal of the documents BEFORE they were given to the UN could be explained by that.

Cheers!

S2Focus · 05-03-2003, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
Partial post:

Gosh! So much to disagree on, so little time!

.....

4) Chronology: I haven't read anything about WHEN these documents first showed up and to whom they were delivered, NOR of how much time went by before they were presented to the UN but IF the documents made an 11th hour appearance, the lack of careful perusal of the documents BEFORE they were given to the UN could be explained by that.

Cheers!

(Presuming that we are talking about the Niger nuclear documents here).

The Bush administration had those documents in its possession for *months* before they were presented to the UN earlier this year. If you weren't already aware of this, then you are quite uninformed about this particular issue.

The documents played a major role in convincing a few wavering Democrats to vote in favor of the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq back in September.

Bush himself directly referred to these documents in his State of the Union address back in January.

The Bush administration didn't turn over those documents to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) until early March (or very late February at the latest). It took IAEA investigators only a few hours to verify that the documents were forged.

Here are a couple of the clues that indicated that the documents were fake: (from http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/)

Sources said that one of the documents was a letter discussing the uranium deal supposedly signed by Niger President Tandja Mamadou. The sources described the signature as "childlike" and said that it clearly was not Mamadou's.

Another, written on paper from a 1980s military government in Niger, bears the date of October 2000 and the signature of a man who by then had not been foreign minister of Niger in 14 years, sources said.

The fact that the Bush administration was waving these documents around for *months*, claiming that they proved that Iraq was actively trying to develop nuclear weapons indicates a breathtaking level of incompetence and/or dishonesty.

Autonemesis · 05-03-2003, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
The document is found at IRAQI MILITARY HQ. It carries signatures of the pertinent Iraqi leaders and indicates DIRECT DEALINGS with al Qaeda. If this is only the "merest hint" for you, you'd better pack it in; you aren't going to get a "gun" any "smokinger" than that.....

Cheers!

Wouldn't it be a kick if the documents turn out to be genuine, but the conversation, when translated, goes something like this:

Saddam: Unite with me against America.
bin Laden: Fuck off, wanker.

The SwampThing · 05-03-2003, 04:47 PM

In fairness to the Inteligence Agencies from the US and Great Britain like MI5, MI6, CIA, FBI and even Army Inteligence, they have always stated either officcially or off the record, that they did not believe Iraq posed any significant threat to the world or the US.
The choice to disregard such reports was entirelly political. The Bush and Blair administrations knowinglly disregarded the reports and went totally in the opposite direction.
Even the CIA director stated there was no reason for concern.

The fact that every piece of "evidence" turned out to be fakes, clearly indicates the political will to follow thru a path of war, despite several advices otherwise.
The documents were just a feable atempt to justify the war to the american public, pretty much aided to that effect by the biased media, controlled by the White House.
It was never intended for the world opinion, it was just for american to see.
George Bush and Co. never cared about the international opinion on this matter. They would go ahead anyway, despite the massive sentiment oposing war.
The only thing that could bring this administration to its knees, would be an oposing american public. That�s why they conducted all these disinformation campaigns, to convince them of a present danger, wich never existed for a fact.
They instiled fear into the people, making it easier to harness support for a totally wrong war...
The documents were just a small part of it all. They served their purpose and now they are being swept under the rug.
Have you noticed how the US media has systematicly downplayed any mention to these documents? The idea was for those documents to plant the seed of doubt in people�s minds, and then disapeering from view, faded out.
It was that seed of doubt wich grew into paranoid behaviour, like the duct tape frenzy, and the gas masks shopping spree!
Most people never stopped to think about how crazy that whole thing was. They were just swept away by this strong current, leading to the White House�s ultimate goal: the inconditional support for the upcoming millitary action.

All it took was a few well placed rumors, a censored media, and people�s natural fears. They used the 9/11 paranoia, the anthrax incidents, and a very convenient Bin Laden at large, to bring people down on its knees with fear of terrorrism strikes.
And then all it was missing was a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, wich was easelly arranged thru shoddy inteligence, forged documents, and a TV apearence by Colin Powell, speaking to the security counsil!
And there you have it.
By the time people start wondering about what just happened, every mention of such documents has been erased, every piece of inteligence denied and have an unavoidable war on their hands.
What else can they do then, if not support their husbands, their sons and daughters who are now right smack in the middle of a dangerous conflict?

This whole thing has been conducted with mathematical precision, orchestrated to bring an entire country on the war path.
People were lied to, they were deceived, tricked, and blinded, by a constant stream of deceptions and ilusions.
They were played like puppets on strings.
And it isn�t over yet...

:boohoo: :banghead: :boohoo: :banghead:

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

05-02-2003, 07:41 PM	#81
Larry Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: USA Posts: 107	ooops! Wrong button!! Double posts.

05-02-2003, 10:51 PM	#82
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	What the hell is wrong with you leonarde? Seriously, I'm at my wit's end. Could anyone else please explain it to leonarde, because I just can't take this anymore? I really can't. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

05-03-2003, 04:47 PM	#90
The SwampThing Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Portugal Posts: 249	In fairness to the Inteligence Agencies from the US and Great Britain like MI5, MI6, CIA, FBI and even Army Inteligence, they have always stated either officcially or off the record, that they did not believe Iraq posed any significant threat to the world or the US. The choice to disregard such reports was entirelly political. The Bush and Blair administrations knowinglly disregarded the reports and went totally in the opposite direction. Even the CIA director stated there was no reason for concern. The fact that every piece of "evidence" turned out to be fakes, clearly indicates the political will to follow thru a path of war, despite several advices otherwise. The documents were just a feable atempt to justify the war to the american public, pretty much aided to that effect by the biased media, controlled by the White House. It was never intended for the world opinion, it was just for american to see. George Bush and Co. never cared about the international opinion on this matter. They would go ahead anyway, despite the massive sentiment oposing war. The only thing that could bring this administration to its knees, would be an oposing american public. That�s why they conducted all these disinformation campaigns, to convince them of a present danger, wich never existed for a fact. They instiled fear into the people, making it easier to harness support for a totally wrong war... The documents were just a small part of it all. They served their purpose and now they are being swept under the rug. Have you noticed how the US media has systematicly downplayed any mention to these documents? The idea was for those documents to plant the seed of doubt in people�s minds, and then disapeering from view, faded out. It was that seed of doubt wich grew into paranoid behaviour, like the duct tape frenzy, and the gas masks shopping spree! Most people never stopped to think about how crazy that whole thing was. They were just swept away by this strong current, leading to the White House�s ultimate goal: the inconditional support for the upcoming millitary action. All it took was a few well placed rumors, a censored media, and people�s natural fears. They used the 9/11 paranoia, the anthrax incidents, and a very convenient Bin Laden at large, to bring people down on its knees with fear of terrorrism strikes. And then all it was missing was a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, wich was easelly arranged thru shoddy inteligence, forged documents, and a TV apearence by Colin Powell, speaking to the security counsil! And there you have it. By the time people start wondering about what just happened, every mention of such documents has been erased, every piece of inteligence denied and have an unavoidable war on their hands. What else can they do then, if not support their husbands, their sons and daughters who are now right smack in the middle of a dangerous conflict? This whole thing has been conducted with mathematical precision, orchestrated to bring an entire country on the war path. People were lied to, they were deceived, tricked, and blinded, by a constant stream of deceptions and ilusions. They were played like puppets on strings. And it isn�t over yet... :boohoo: :banghead: :boohoo: :banghead:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.