Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Koyaanisqatsi · 05-01-2003, 05:24 PM

Quote:

It is almost certain that the debriefings top BND officials gave to senior journalists in Germany were intended, among other things, to prepare German and European public opinion for a possible American offensive against Iraq.

Now where have we heard talk of "preparing" public opinion for a possible American offensive against Iraq?

Setting aside the fact that your own sources are apparently reiterating things from at least ten years ago and setting aside their own corrobaration of what my sources provided (that these "reports" were intended to "prepare" public opinion), explain to me, leonarde why our intelligence community saw fit to rely upon forged documents regarding Iraq's nuclear capabilities?

Would these be the same douments the Germans had?

Note also how your source concluded his piece (emphasis mine):

Quote:

The leak of the German intelligence report is intended to promote the option involving the use of the U.S. Army to topple Saddam, an option that President George W. Bush favors. The report is meant to soften the opposition of some NATO member-states to an American military operation.

Shall I reiterate once more what Senator Rockefeller wrote to FBI director Meuller? I think I shall:

Quote:

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.

And, considering Germany was an ally prior to our decision to instigate a war for no good reason, let me also reiterate this:

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.

See any patterns in any of this leonarde?

Leaked reports, forged documents, misleading information all for the purposes of "preparing" public opinion to support American intervention.

You're right about one thing. Germany's leaks regarding Iraq's WMD programs were, indeed, broadly congruent with that of the CIA and British intelligence!

Curious that with all of that concrete evidence in hand, our intelligence community had to resort to forging documents to present to Congress and Germany came out against the war.

Oh, but that was because we'd find their sales of parts and supplies, right? They tell the world about Iraq's WMD programs in a report leaked to journalists, no less, but they're not then concerned about their part in it? Not to mention our part in at least their biochemical programs?

Yeah, that all adds up.

leonarde · 05-01-2003, 09:33 PM

Posted by Koy:

Quote:

You're right about one thing. Germany's leaks regarding Iraq's WMD programs were, indeed, broadly congruent with that of the CIA and British intelligence!

Koy, there's NOTHING in any of these reports about the BND leaking anything: these news accounts were simply media reports (ie unclassified summaries) of what were evidently annual intelligence evaluations which the BND did of Iraq's military posture and development. LOTS of intelligence agencies do annual evaluations. A "leak" is a surreptitious release of info
(frequently unattributed). This was nothing of the kind!

Moreover, you seem to misunderstand the section you quote:

Quote:

It is almost certain that the debriefings top BND officials gave to senior journalists in Germany were intended, among other things, to prepare German and European public opinion for a possible American offensive against Iraq.

But this preparation was to blunt the "possible American offensive against Iraq" (ie to indicate 'aw, we knew this stuff (about the WMDs) and it's no big deal!"

Cheers!

leonarde · 05-01-2003, 10:49 PM

Having refamiliarized myself with the URL in question, I stand corrected: Koy DID understand the thrust of the writer's idea:
that the German intelligence people were trying to make German
public acceptance of military action easier.

I myself don't agree with that analysis however: given the fact that the political leadership (ie Schroeder's govt) was so wedded to an accomodationist policy, there's little likelihood that the German intelligence service would undercut it this way.

That the BND was resigned to the accomodationist line is indicated here:

Quote:

German spies offered help to Saddam in run-up to war
By David Harrison in Baghdad
(Filed: 20/04/2003)

Germany's intelligence services attempted to build closer links to Saddam's secret service during the build-up to war last year, documents from the bombed Iraqi intelligence HQ in Baghdad obtained by The Telegraph reveal.

Documents recovered from Iraqi intelligence HQ in Baghdad
They show that an agent named as Johannes William Hoffner, described as a "new German representative in Iraq" who had entered the country under diplomatic cover, attended a meeting with Lt Gen Taher Jalil Haboosh, the director of Iraq's intelligence service.

During the meeting, on January 29, 2002, Lt Gen Haboosh says that the Iraqis are keen to have a relationship with Germany's intelligence agency "under diplomatic cover", adding that he hopes to develop that relationship through Mr Hoffner.

The German replies: "My organisation wants to develop its relationship with your organisation."

In return, the Iraqis offered to give lucrative contracts to German companies if the Berlin government helped prevent an American invasion of the country.

The revelations come a week after The Telegraph reported that Russia had spied for the Iraqis, passing them intelligence about a meeting between Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister. Both the British and Italian governments have launched investigations.

Cheers!

leonarde · 05-01-2003, 10:51 PM

Above from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...0%2Fwirq20.xml

Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi · 05-02-2003, 12:46 AM

So, your response to your own source's conclusion is to say, "no, that's not what they meant," and in support you present a story about Germany illogically sending an agent into Iraq in order to secure a "lucrative" deal with a doomed regime?

And this has something to do with countering the forgery of documents and the history of planting false stories in newspapers how?

Given that your link also states:

Quote:

During the meeting, Lt Gen Haboosh tells the German agent that Iraq has "big problems" with Britain and the United States. "We have problems with Britain because it occupied Iraq for 60 years and with America because of its aggression for 11 years," he says.

He adds, however, that Iraq has no problems with Germany and suggests that Germany will be rewarded with lucrative contracts if it offers international support to Iraq. "When the American conspiracy is finished, we will make a calculation for each state that helps Iraq in its crisis."

Don't you think it is more likely that this is the British intelligence agency's way (through the Telegraph; sorry to the Brits on board for my earlier confusion of the Guardian with the Telegraph, btw) of demonizing Germany for not supporting the war? Like, I don't know, an example of providing false information in order to sway public opinion in some way?

This would be the same war that both the British intelligence community and the American intelligence community had forged documents to support and spread false information about for years?

It's not as if the Brits and the Germans had any love for one another prior to the Germans globally denouncing their efforts (and the American's), btw.

Or do you think the Germans were so stupid as to believe that America wouldn't be able to oust the Ba'ath party, so they made a deal with Iraq? Is that it?

Setting aside all of the evidence of deliberate lies and forged documents that British (and American) intelligence operatives are guilty of in regard to Iraq, all this particular "document" alleges is that an "agent" claiming to be on official business from Germany infiltrated Iraq in order to make a deal with a regime after the war was over.

The intent of the Americans to instigate a regime change was clear long before this alleged meeting took place, so why in the hell would the German government be at all interested, let alone impressed by an Iraqi Lt. General's assurances that, "When the American conspiracy is finished, we will make a calculation for each state that helps Iraq in its crisis?"

There would be no more Lt. General Haboosh once the "American conspiracy is finished" for them to make good on such a deal.

Not to mention the illogical act of Germany sending an agent into Iraq! It's Iraq that needed their help, allegedly. Why would Germany send an agent into Iraq in order to make a "lucrative deal" with a doomed regime? Why wouldn't Iraq be the one to send an agent into Germany if such a deal was so important to them?

In this thread you've seen evidence of the British intelligence community planting false information into British newspapers in order to shape public opinion regarding the war against Iraq, so what do you do? You present a link to a British newspaper regarding an alleged event that doesn't even make the most basic sense about an alleged agent who infiltrated Iraq in order to make them a deal once the war is over and their regime is no longer in power.

leonarde · 05-02-2003, 05:54 AM

Partial post by Koy:

Quote:

So, your response to your own source's conclusion is to say, "no, that's not what they meant," and in support you present a story about Germany illogically sending an agent into Iraq in order to secure a "lucrative" deal with a doomed regime?

And this has something to do with countering the forgery of documents and the history of planting false stories in newspapers how?

In just about all journalistic writing there are two elements: the hard-core FACTS presented in a story/column/op-ed piece and the INTERPRETATION of those facts.

So yes, first I did misinterpret what my own source was claiming (ie the interpretation that source gave to the info).
You, Koy, were 100 per cent correct on that (and I was in
error). But:

1) the core facts were/are: the BND was telling its own government in annual evaluations that Iraq's WMD programs were continuing apace and the BND guesstimated that by 2005 or so Iraq would be nuclear-strike capable and was developping missiles that would be capable of hitting Europe (ie Germany),
surely no small fact for a European intelligence agency.

Quote:

And this has something to do with countering the forgery of documents and the history of planting false stories in newspapers how

But that's my point: there's no "false story" involved: the BND merely spread around its candid intelligence assessment of Iraq's WMD programs. Despite the fact that this was hardly congruent with the accomodationist line of the Schroeder govt.
And this it did by supplying newspapers with non-classified summaries of the reports it was issuing to its government.

Cheers!

leonarde · 05-02-2003, 06:08 AM

Posted by Answerer:

Quote:

Originally posted by Farren

Don't you get it? The alleged SINGLE MEETING was FIVE YEARS ago. Bin Laden wasn't even on America's most wanted list and most in the intelligence community feel this is as relevant as discussing Bin Laden's long association with the CIA during the Soviet Era.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Five years ago, 1998, Osama was already a well-known and hated terrorist leader in the world community. So, the meeting did prove Iraqlis connection with terrorism.

Thank you, Answerer!

Optional · 05-02-2003, 07:53 AM

Hmmm... So far it seems that KOY is in the lead, having smashed a few points through LEANARDE's defense, but don't count out the plucky young republican yet, there are still a few in the air as yet unanswered by the jaded New Yorker!

Let's watch as we go into round 23 of this exciting match...

And LEONARDE serves, and KOY...........

-me

Koyaanisqatsi · 05-02-2003, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Optional
there are still a few in the air as yet unanswered by the jaded New Yorker!

What would those be?

Optional · 05-02-2003, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
What would those be?

The primary couple I can see:

You've not really addressed WHY your point about the CIA working with bin Ladin still applies even tho you had the dates mixed up to begin with. By the time of the alleged meeting, the USA was already pissed off at bin Ladin, the guy was already running a terrorist network aimed at hurting, among other things, the USA, so Saddam meeting with him THEN is not quite the same thing as Saddam meeting with him back when we and bL were still buddy-buddy.

And, the idea that it wasn't JUST the US and UK warning about how dangerous Saddam was, even the GERMAN intelligence service, the dirty peaceniks, were warning everybody about 'Saddam's nukes'.

Now, I'm inclined to tentatively give the point to you on the second issue, although a little more spade-work could probably slam-dunk it, but as far as I, the self-appointed line judge, am concerned, the point for issue one is still very much in the air...

Ok, GAME ON!

-me

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

05-01-2003, 10:51 PM	#64
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Above from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...0%2Fwirq20.xml Cheers!

05-02-2003, 07:53 AM	#68
Optional Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Chicago, IL, USA Posts: 1,049	Hmmm... So far it seems that KOY is in the lead, having smashed a few points through LEANARDE's defense, but don't count out the plucky young republican yet, there are still a few in the air as yet unanswered by the jaded New Yorker! Let's watch as we go into round 23 of this exciting match... And LEONARDE serves, and KOY........... -me

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.