Defining the Enemy

[squealiox]

Gee, they made the mistake of accusing someone (George "capitalism is the real enemy" Galloway) of a crime that is still under investigatiion ... plenty of news outlets have made much worse mistakes ... how is this relevant?

The point is you cliamed there was no evidence that Iraq "harboured, supported or allied itself with al-Qaeda et al.": according to the Telegraph (sorry they are incapable of printing anything but false propaganda) the BBC, this is demonstrably false.   Trying to change the subject does not change the fact that evidence and people who claim to have been directly involved exist!

you wanted to know why someone would question the credibility of the Telegraph, and i gave you a reason. galloway is indeed a moron, but so are the journalists at the telegraph who didn't seem to mind uncritically basing stories on forged documents. and i am not aware of any ongoing investigation into these charges. they are, as a british court has concluded, libel.

and a BBC report that baghdad was playing various groups against one another in the khurdish zone (which is part of iraq), does not constitute evidence of a 9/11 link. otherwise, pakistan (a strong taliban supporter) and saudi arabia would have been far more logical targets for a us invasion.

 

[Zartan]

Democracies don't go to war with other democracies.

What about the USA vs the CSA?

 

[Infanteer]

Ah, but if you understand the political climate of the Civil War, the notion that the States were the sovereign bodies within the Union was a very popular one.  The notion was that the elected representatives of the States, who signed and ratified both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, were free to pull out of this agreement as sovereignty lay at the State level and not the Federal Level.  This notion of "State's Rights" was perhaps an even larger factor in the Civil War than Slavery (although it was slavery that was driving the State's Rights argument).

In effect, the elected representatives of the South Confederated their states, elected a Congress and a President and prosecuted the war as such.  Zartan is keen for making the example, although it can be quite a stretch to call the US during the Civil War era a "Liberal Democratic State" as we would understand it now.

A funny notion about sovereignty - the Union was upset that the British refused to recognize the blockades that the Union Navy had put on Southern Ports.  Britain's response - Sovereign nations do not blockade themselves, so the CSA must be a belligerent state; status that Washington vehemently opposed.

 

[tomahawk6]

Perhaps we should start a civil war thread ?

 

[a_majoor]

Calling the CSA a "Liberal democracy" is a very big stretch. As Infanteer pointed out, the United States at the time was more correctly referred to as "These United States", and the theory and practice of the time was that each State was sovereign, and they had collectively agreed to pool assets and resources together to deal with common problems.

Most of the Southern States were effectively oligarchies, where wealthy families controlled the machinery of government and outcomes of elections were quite predictable (sort of like Canada, eh?). One of the great issues which caused the Civil war was social in nature; the North was industrial, capitalist and had a huge influx of immigrants, all which kept the social order in turmoil as compared to the South. If the Southern states were to become capitalist, industrial or take in immigrants, the stable social order that supported the oligarchy would be shattered and the oligarches would be out of power and position.

Segue to the Middle East, where aristocratic rulers see the destabilizing influence of Western capitalism, media, culture and technology threatening their little rice bowls (and I mean little; most Middle Eastern nations have tiny economies and minuscule GDPs, especially if oil revenue is factored out. The one rich Middle Eastern nation is the one that is capitalist, democratic and reasonably open about immigration...). Seeing Saudi Arabia doing the two faced routine, or watching Syria, and Iran "aiding and abetting" the Jihadis, or discovering the connections between Ba'athist Iraq and terrorist organizations is no surprise, these are the only means they have to challenge the United States and the Western Coalition in an attempt to maintain their hold on power.

Like the Northern States in 1861, the United States has a great deal of latent power, but has yet to fully organize and use that power. American field commanders are still McClellan's and Burnsides, unable to use the power of their large armies to their full effect (although without the horrendous casualties and defeats of 1861-3), the Grant's and Sherman's who can find the keys to really unhinging the enemy are still to come.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Body of Evidence
A CNN anchor gets Iraq and al Qaeda wrong. But will the network issue a correction?
by Stephen F. Hayes
06/30/2005 12:00:00 AM

"THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that Saddam Hussein was connected in any way to al Qaeda."

So declared CNN Anchor Carol Costello in an interview yesterday with Representative Robin Hayes (no relation) from North Carolina.

Hayes politely challenged her claim. "Ma'am, I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. There's evidence everywhere. We get access to it. Unfortunately, others don't."

CNN played the exchange throughout the day. At one point, anchor Daryn Kagan even seemed to correct Rep. Hayes after replaying the clip. "And according to the record, the 9/11 Commission in its final report found no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."

The CNN claims are wrong. Not a matter of nuance. Not a matter of interpretation. Just plain incorrect. They are so mistaken, in fact, that viewers should demand an on-air correction.

But such claims are, sadly, representative of the broad media misunderstanding of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post, regularly chides the Bush administration for presenting what he calls fabricated or "fictive" links between Iraq and al Qaeda. The editor of the Los Angeles Times scolded the Bush administration for perpetuating the "myth" of such links. "Sixty Minutes" anchor Lesley Stahl put it bluntly: "There was no connection."

Conveniently, such analyses ignore statements like this one from Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission. "There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." Hard to believe reporters just missed it--he made the comments at the press conference held to release the commission's final report. And that report detailed several "friendly contacts" between Iraq and al Qaeda, and concluded only that there was no proof of Iraqi involvement in al Qaeda terrorist attacks against American interests. Details, details.

There have been several recent developments. One month ago, Jordan's King Abdullah explained to the Arabic-language newspaper al Hayat that his government had tried before the Iraq war to extradite Abu Musab al Zarqawi from Iraq. "We had information that he entered Iraq from a neighboring country, where he lived and what he was doing. We informed the Iraqi authorities about all this detailed information we had, but they didn't respond." He added: "Since Zarqawi entered Iraq before the fall of the former regime we have been trying to have him deported back to Jordan for trial, but our efforts were in vain."

One week later, former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi told the same newspaper that the new Iraqi government is in possession of documents showing that Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Laden's top deputy, and Zarqawi both entered Iraq in September 1999. (If the documents are authentic, they suggest that Zarqawi may have plotted the Jordanian Millennium attacks from Iraq.)  ... {it goes on on}

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/780plthl.asp

 

[squealiox]

it's strange that they would play up a comment kean made last summer (and did not see fit to include in the report) rather than quote a single line of the official report he put his name to. and i can see why:

"But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States." and so on.

Oddly enough, there's no shortage of evidence in the report linking al-qaeda with afghanistan and a few other countries. Maybe the right-wing fringe media got a different version of the 9/11 report than everyone else, but i see a whole lot of clutching at straws going on here...

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

And the goalposts move once again ...

 

[squealiox]

And the goalposts move once again ...

they sure have: from "oh, iraq was involved in 9/11" to "actually, iraq supported al-qaeda" to "well, iraq had 'contacts' with al qaeda".

so far you have shown no evidence that iraq harboured, supported or was allied with al-qaeda or other islamic groups.

 

[muskrat89]

For what its worth, they interviewed a Marine Major (maybe a L/Col) on local radio last year. This Marine told in great detail (he was a brother of one of the hosts) of coming across a terrorist training camp in Iraq. He stated that it contained a "cafeteria", classrooms, and training grounds, obstacle courses, etc. One of his jobs was to catalogue the evidence left behind. A lot of the information was manuals and other documents, pertaining to "terror" activities - as opposed to typical military documents...

 

[a_majoor]

Actually lots of people here, in the Blogosphere and various Intelligence Agencies have shown evidence of Iraq harbouring, supporting and being allied to Al Queda and other terrorist organizations. In a court of law, the amount of circumstancial evidence, as well as documentary evidence captured from the Ba'athist Intelligence organs would be considered a "slam dunk" for the prosecution.

The problem is some people have such a vested interest in a particular world view, they will simply ignore this evidence (until one fine morning they glance out the window of the high-rise office tower they are working in and see the airplane heading straight for them).

 

[1feral1]

they sure have: from "oh, iraq was involved in 9/11" to "actually, iraq supported al-qaeda" to "well, iraq had 'contacts' with al qaeda".

so far you have shown no evidence that iraq harboured, supported or was allied with al-qaeda or other islamic groups.

Irregardless of all the 'what ifs', the fact was Iraq was nasty place with Saddam in charge, who was a wild card in the whole terrorsim supporting system, who even gave bountys out the families of suicide bombers in Palestine, and was involved in other nasty things which in my view either directly, or indirectly were a threat to the west. He is better off gone.

Lets just prosecute this war, and get it over with. Its hard to do with all the PC shit and the one sided media, who always want a controversial story involving body counts and civvy casualties, where maybe they should report more on the successes of the Allied Forces.

Meanwhile today more Australian troops right from Enoggera (no OPSEC here, this was released publically yesterday) leave for Iraq. Their family BBQ and farewell was yesterday. Now, we have learned that more Australian forces will be returning to Afghanistan.

The ADF will continue to grow in it's continued operations in this area, as other nations sit back and do nothing. Even Japan has troops on the ground.

mini rant on

Many complainers of this new type of warfare think we are at fault, and they are somehow immune to the radical islamic threat to the west (yes even living in Canada yet alone here, the ASIO have thwarted several plots just in the past 2 weeks by islamics based in many major Aussie cities). These whingers constantly seem to hack at the US and others involvement, trying to disect things which they really don't have a FUCKING clue (except an opinion) about. Just keep in denial, and keep that head buried in the sand, and your little worlds will be alright. At times I find it quite sickening of the attitude of some 'soldiers' on this website, and I don't think that will change for those few until something bad happens close to home.

If have has pissed anyone off, too bad, just wake up to yourselves.

mini rant off

 

[muskrat89]

so far you have shown no evidence that iraq harboured, supported or was allied with al-qaeda or other islamic groups.

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

 

[Britney Spears]

I don't understand this obsession with Saddam funding Palestinian suicide bombers. What Arab country doesn't do that in some way or other? And further more what does this have to do with attacks on the US and Canada? What would the Palestinians hope to gain from attacking the US? Shouldn't we invade Israel then?

Look, after 5 years of searching, I'm suprised that no conclusive evidence of the Iraq/Al-qaeda/9-11 link has been found, since even before the first tower fell, the Bush administration has been doing EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to try and create one. Can we all agree that even if none of the rather tenuous links presented here existed, the intention of the administration has been to invade Iraq all along?

In a court of law, the amount of circumstancial evidence, as well as documentary evidence captured from the Ba'athist Intelligence organs would be considered a "slam dunk" for the prosecution.

Really? Care to elaborate on this? I mean, assuming that "a court of law" exists with the moral authority to end the lives of tens of thousands of people and displace thousands more. This analogy is ridiculous.

(until one fine morning they glance out the window of the high-rise office tower they are working in and see the airplane heading straight for them).

So Invading Iraq would have prevented 9/11 from happening? The war has gone on for, what, 2 years now? Suppose Iraq is invaded and saddam toppled in 1999. Would 9/11 have been prevented?  "Ignoring the evidence," indeed.

Please explain to me how the ongoing anarchy in Iraq and "the creation of an entirely new wing of Al-Qaeda, with thoundands of new members, that  did not exist before"(I'm borrowing a phrase from an in-the-know poster over at lightfighter)  has made Canada or the US safer from terrorism.


And while we're grasping at straws, <a href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1224075,00.html>US intelligence fears Iran duped hawks into Iraq war</a> 

 

[Greywolf]

I won't go into justifying whether it was right or wrong for the US to invade Iraq, but let's look at the consequences whether intentional or not...
Thousands of Americans have died as a direct result of the war, but so have thousands more of Iraqis, many of whom were innocent and I mean having no direct involvement with any fighting whatsoever...How many times have we heard of Americans "accidentally" bombing or shooting up schools, wedding parties, Iraqi police (established by the American-backed Iraqi government), unarmed Iraqis traveling through checkpoints, American allies (including Italians, British...can't remember other ones...but there could be others), and we wonder why so many people do not like Americans.  

Imagine an Iraqi family who lost their home and all their possessions and some of their members were accidentally killed by Americans, or even by insurgents fighting the Americans...so Saddam the tyrant is removed from power, did their lives get any better?  I would say no...perhaps in some ways, they might have some freedom, but they have also lost a lot more than they had before when living under the Saddam regime.  The war in Iraq has attracted hundreds of fighters from other Arab countries to fight the Americans.  It is a war zone that common Iraqis have to live in everyday now.  Is it all worth it for the common Iraqi?  If I were an Iraqi living in Iraq, I would say no.  

And people wonder why Americans are hated...even people from outside of Iraq can see the destruction visited upon a people because of a country's decision to invade another.  It is precisely this hatred provoked by the war that fuels and encourages more people to join the groups that fight against the Americans and their allies.  

If things continue the way they are now, this War on Terror can never be won.  Is it America's job to remove all tyrants?  There are plenty of tyrants around the world and more might be born everyday.  

Tyranny and terrorism can never be defeated by armed battle because they are ideologies.  One can only defeat them by changing the way people think and this war in Iraq is not helping.

 

[1feral1]

Tell me Greywolf what war has not had unfortunate civvy casualties (the Allies are trying to do their best here), and Allies killed by friendly fire. Remember not all Iraqis HATE the US nad its Allies in this war, but radical islam hates anything which does not comply to their standards harsh ways.

Just remember, its muslims killing muslims there with all these suicide bombers, not Americans, the Poms or Australians doing the deliberate killing of innocents. Most bad guys now are coming in thru the borders and are foreigners hell bent on killing the Great Satan.

 

[Britney Spears]

I suppose, for the sake of argument and to avoid any more circling, I should clarify my basic position.

I really don't give two $hits about the Iraqis. Not before the war, not now.


There, I said it, lest you guys think I have some kind of humanitarian concern for the plight of the Iraqis, or that Saddam owed Spears Consolidated Petroleum Inc. money or something. Truth is, the Iraqis were not facing genocide or some kind of humanitarian catastrophe under Saddam. Yes, by western standards it sucked but Iraq was a fairly modern country with good amounts of infrastructure compared to most ME nations, it was ruled by a secular goverment that allowed women to drive, go to university, and otherwise lead normal lives, Christians were tolerated, the Kurds in the North were safe and pretty much reduced to killing each other, compared to Afghanistan or most of the other spunkpools in the region it was a pretty good go for most people. Given time, Saddam will die or get assasinated, another tin pot dictator comes to power, and the cycle continues until someone with a little vision gets in and see the light of allying with the west, just like how it happens in most of the world.  If my concern were humanitarian there are a hundred other places in the world(like Afghanistan) that I think could use an American Invasion.

What does concern me is destroying Al-Qaeda and protecting the West from Islamic terrorism, and as far as that goal is concerned the Invasion of Iraq couldn't have been done better if OBL had planned it himself. Ask most people in the world what the #1 threat to peace and security in the world is, Hint: it isn't Al-Qaeda or Saddam Hussein. I know this isn't true and it pains me that through either the ruthless self interest or incredible ignorance (pick one) of the Current US administration thousands of good American lives are being used to prove that it is.

 

[1feral1]

Thousands of Americans have died as a direct result of the war

Actually its about 1700, but one is still too many

Saddam the tyrant is removed from power, did their lives get any better?  I would say no...perhaps in some ways, they might have some freedom, but they have also lost a lot more than they had before when living under the Saddam regime.  

At least you said the F word. I am not even going to comment on the rest.

Is it all worth it for the common Iraqi? If I were an Iraqi living in Iraq, I would say no.

 

So you would rather it be the way it was with 100's of thousands of graves from people being executed without reason?

 

Is it America's job to remove all tyrants?  

Good on the Yanks if they want to destroy a clear and direct threat to their security, but maybe you'd think different if 3000 Canadians were were murdered at their workplaces.

Wes  

 

[Greywolf]

Well, that's my point, war always produces unfortunate civilian casualties, that's why it is so undesirable.  Certainly in some instances, it might be unavoidable.  And now in the aftermath, we will see whether the US starting this war is actually worth it.  The Americans chose the killing ground by attacking Iraq.  But it could easily have a number of other countries known to harbor "terrorists".  The Iraqis did not ask for it.  Yes, there are Iraqis who support the invasion and the presence of the Americans and their allies.  But if there was 1 innocent Iraqi or person of another nationality for that matter that got killed as a result of the war started by the Americans, then it is one too many.  To remove Saddam and his party from power, how many would have to die before people realize the number of casualties is unacceptable.  If America wanted to remove terrorists, it cannot be accomplished by attacking a country.  Sure, it is difficult to seek out or identify individual terrorists, but then no one said it was easy!  

 

[Greywolf]

Good on the Yanks if they want to destroy a clear and direct threat to their security, but maybe you'd think different if 3000 Canadians were were murdered at their workplaces.

Wes  

But attacking Iraq did not destroy the threat, in fact, the threat is increased because now people from different countries are going into Iraq to attack because of the presence of a large concentration of Americans.  

If all the people killed on Sept 11, 2001 were  Canadians, I would still think attacking Iraq will not satisfy the dead's family to avenge their loved ones (if indeed that is a legitimate reason), nor would it rid the world of those responsible for the attacks or those who support them.