# Russia had evidence that Saddam planned terrorist attacks against U.S. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 18, 2004, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054 "2004-06-18T15:58:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/101 "2004-06-21T15:42:05Z")
> [@TwistofFate](#): > > Is it possible that Saddam had a rather successful disinformation programme up and running? A good percentage of people were of the impression that he might have had the ability to develop WMD, but it turns out he didn’t. It didn’t stop Saddam from trying to scare the West into thinking he did. There are different kinds of teracts. Saddam might have planned teracts against US in response to looming threat of invasion, which changes everything. If there was a wave of suicide car bombings in American cities after US started bombing Iraq, then they wouldn’t be teracts, but legitimate acts of war. There were Russian military advisors working in Iraq until few days before US invasion, Saddam even gave them some medals at the end. Were they advising him on guerilla warfare, something Russians have a great experience from WWII? In any case, they seem to have been working not for Saddam alone. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/102 "2004-06-21T15:59:51Z")
Cites? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/103 "2004-06-21T17:42:22Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > There are different kinds of teracts. Saddam might have planned teracts against US in response to looming threat of invasion, which changes everything. If there was a wave of suicide car bombings in American cities after US started bombing Iraq, then they wouldn’t be teracts, but legitimate acts of war. Well, it seems to me that by the U.S.'s logic, even if such suicide bombings had started before the U.S. bombing started (e.g., during the build up to the war), they could still be considered a legitimate act of war since it would have been a pre-emptive war in response to an imminent threat. (And, in this case, I think Saddam’s claim of an imminent threat from us would have been much stronger than our claim of an imminent threat from him.) Not that I am endorsing this sort of action. But, I am just trying to understand your distinction on logical grounds. (One could probably make a better case against car bombings on the argument of not purposely attacking civilian rather than military targets, IMHO.) ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/104 "2004-06-21T17:51:08Z")
> [@TwistofFate](#): > > Cites? [Gladly](http://www.gazeta.ru/2003/04/02/Wedidntflyto.shtml). ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/105 "2004-06-21T18:03:37Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > I don’t know about all the people, but most people here, who “want to have a more multilateral coalition”, want it so they can hang more dogs on Bush for “failing” to forge one. If he did forge it, they would say that he is joining with new-KGB, neo-Maoists and French politicos to snuff the freedom in the world. > I can’t see how would it help US. Same US soldiers and Iraqis would die under same circumstances. Except that we might have had change of gov’ts in Paris and Berlin by now, if Chirac and Shroeder joined US in the coalition. So it might have hurt us, actually. This is more or less what I expected. You’re not even familiar with the arguments that you are… not exactly rebutting… um… denigrating. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/106 "2004-06-21T19:25:32Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > This is more or less what I expected. > You’re not even familiar with the arguments that you are… not exactly rebutting… um… denigrating. What arguments are you talking about? Is it my original argument about bottomless duplicity of Bush-haters, as demonstrated by their turn-about on Putin? Or is it an argument about usefulness of international coalitions that you are trying to foist and that nobody cares to discuss? Do me a favor, next time you conceive an expectation of my response beforehand, just take it as an answer and don’t ask unnecessary questions, please. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/107 "2004-06-21T19:32:31Z")
Lord love a duck, **Isk** , is it possible that you are this dense? Look, all you gotta do is cite one example, even _one_, of one of us “Bush-haters” who praised Putin before, and denigrate him now. Just one. Take your time. But failing that, could you kindly slam shut the pie-hole? Its not our fault we refuse to accept your point if you refuse to make it. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/108 "2004-06-21T22:21:39Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > What arguments are you talking about? You don’t understand why people would want to have a more ‘multi-national’ coalition. Your appraisal seems to center around ‘Bush-hating.’ It presents no discussion of the other, more explanatory and ‘realist’ reasons for such a sentiment. It fails miserably to account for proponents of a more multi-national coalition like Brent Scowcroft and George _H_ W Bush. It exceeds the bounds of believability that these two men would reach their conclusions on the basis of some desire to see GWB bedraped in ‘more dogs’. Not knowing why people would favor a different sort of coalition and not knowing why this would be a good thing for America hampers you ability to rebut these positions. There, are, in fact, very sound reasons for these things. Once you’ve acquired a greater familiarity with these reasons, your ability to argue against them will be significantly enhaced. To start you off, here’s a Scowcroft piece from [WSJ.com](http://WSJ.com)’s Opinion Journal: **[Don’t Attack Saddam](http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:YUfMJg4DASMJ:www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html%3Fid%3D110002133+%22Don't+Attack+Saddam%22+%22It+would+undermine+our+antiterror+efforts%22&hl=en) It would undermine our antiterror efforts. BY BRENT SCOWCROFT** _Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT_ > [@New Iskander](#): > > Do me a favor, next time you conceive an expectation of my response beforehand, just take it as an answer and don’t ask unnecessary questions, please. Just abolishing a small bit of my own ignorance. I didn’t know if you understood the position you were belittling or not. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/109 "2004-06-21T22:31:20Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Well, it seems to me that by the U.S.'s logic, even if such suicide bombings had started before the U.S. bombing started (e.g., during the build up to the war), they could still be considered a legitimate act of war since it would have been a pre-emptive war in response to an imminent threat. (And, in this case, I think Saddam’s claim of an imminent threat from us would have been much stronger than our claim of an imminent threat from him.) … I don’t know what standard you’re using when you say “legitimate act of war” in your statement above since you didn’t explain that – However, it is important to note that the translation of Putin’s words used in the article and quoted in the OP indicates that Putin referred to “terrorist acts” — _“After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received information that the official services of the Saddam regime were preparing ‘terrorist acts’ on the United States and beyond its borders,” he told reporters._ And [wikipedia.org](http://wikipedia.org) defines _terrorism_ like this – > [@](#): > > **Terrorism** is a tactic of violence that targets civilians, with the objective of forcing an enemy to favorable terms, by creating fear, demoralization, or political discord in the attacked population. > > **"Terrorism"** is also used as a pejorative characterisation of an enemy’s attacks as conforming to an immoral philosophy of violence, in a manner outside of warfare, or prohibited in the laws of war. > **[Terrorism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism)** > > Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the unlawful use of intentional violence to achieve political aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants (mostly civilians and neutral military personnel). The terms "terrorist" and "terrorism" originated during the French Revolution of the late 18th century but became widely used internationally and gained worldwide attention in the 1970s during the Northern Ir There... Considering the provided definition of terrorism ---- flying planes into buildings full of innocents, exploding bombs in the middle of bus loads of morning commuters, and lopping off heads and disseminating the related video and pictures seems to fall within that definition. Planned terror events designed to achieve the maximum terror bang for their terrorist resource buck. You saying this is a “legitimate act of war?” ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/110 "2004-06-21T23:13:38Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > You don’t understand why people would want to have a more ‘multi-national’ coalition. Your appraisal seems to center around ‘Bush-hating.’ Once again, I don’t care to get involved in the irrelevant argument that you are trying to sneak in. I find your tactics underhanded and very unpleasant. This thread is about Russians suddenly giving some justification to Iraq invasion. It is not about importance of international coalition. Certain Bush-haters who were always saying that Russian opposition to Iraq invasion makes it “illegal”, suddenly saying now that Russian are nothing but KGB liars and not to be trusted at all. I find their arguments duplicitous. Clear enough? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/111 "2004-06-21T23:19:56Z")
> [@](#): > > You saying this is a “legitimate act of war?” Without trying to put words in the keyboard of **jshore** (and without actually supporting this logic, myself), let’s look at one possible thread of logic. \*- Is it a terrorist act to kill civilians for the purpose of affecting change by their government? - Does the method of killing them make a difference? - If the method does not make a difference, is there a genuine difference between using high-level bombers or cruise missiles against which they have no defense or using bombs planted among them by people who walk among them? (If it makes a difference, what is that difference?) Now, based on a presumed reply that _in war_, civilians are slain as part of efforts to reduce the enemy’s capacity or will to fight (say, by high-level bombing), then what is the difference between using a bomber against which they have not the technology to defend or using a suicide bomber against whom they cannot defend?\* If you have followed (not agreed with) the argument thus presented, let us move it one step further. _- GWB has publicly declared that the U.S. has a right to launch pre-emptive attacks on countries that we deem a threat._ - The United States was clearly a threat to the sovereign nation of Iraq. - Following the Bush Doctrine, Bush’s stated goal to overthrow the government of Iraq gave Iraq the right to take pre-emptive measures against the United States. - Given the discrepancy in military might, Iraq might choose to launch terrorist attacks against the U.S., fully justified by the two separate phases of George W. Bush’s rhetoric and announced intentions.\* - There are several points in the above chain with which I disagree, but it seems clear to me that Bush’s unilateral declaration of pre-emptive strikes has, indeed, justified any future nation’s (not terrorist group’s) pre-emptive strikes on the U.S. Thanks George. > [@](#): > > [The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.](http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/112 "2004-06-21T23:29:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Certain Bush-haters who were always saying that Russian opposition to Iraq invasion makes it “illegal”, suddenly saying now that Russian are nothing but KGB liars and not to be trusted at all. I find their arguments duplicitous. Your thesis is entirely false and your conclusion is wholly without merit. The opposition to the war was not based on “Russia” opposing the war. It was based on the U.S violating the covenant in the UN charter which was basically written by the U.S. that said a country may not wage war against another country unless it has actually been attacked. Iraq was not in a position to attack the U.S. and Russia was not the primary opponent to the occupation, so you are delberately misrepresenting the position of your opponents on two key points. (Russia continues to oppose the war, so that point has not even changed from early 2003.) Beyond that, there is no evidence that the Russians actually supplied any information that indicated an attack. (And there is no evidence that any attack that might have been (but probably was not) planned would have justified a war. (Unless you are willing to agree that U.S. terrorism launched against Nicaragua and El Salvador justified their launching a (futile) war against the U.S.?) We only have Putin’s unsupported comment that “some information” was passed to the U.S. (which denies knowing what he was talking about). ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/113 "2004-06-22T01:54:42Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#): > > I don’t know what standard you’re using when you say “legitimate act of war” in your statement above since you didn’t explain that – > > … > > You saying this is a “legitimate act of war?” Well, you might try noticing who first used the phrase “legitimate act of war”. I was in fact simply responding to this (which should have been obvious from the fact that I quoted it in that post): > [@New Iskander](#): > > There are different kinds of teracts. Saddam might have planned teracts against US in response to looming threat of invasion, which changes everything. If there was a wave of suicide car bombings in American cities after US started bombing Iraq, then they wouldn’t be teracts, but legitimate acts of war. And, my point was that, in light of the current U.S. view on “pre-emptive” (really “preventative”) wars, I did not understand why there was a distinction in legitimacy based on whether these acts occurred before or after the US started bombing, since the U.S. did in the months prior to the start of the war clearly constitute an imminent threat to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. However, I did also note: > [@jshore](#): > > One could probably make a better case against car bombings on the argument of not purposely attacking civilian rather than military targets, IMHO. So, in fact, I was not arguing that I thought these were legitimate acts of war but rather questioning why **New Iskander** ’s definition of whether they were or not seemed to hinge on a largely irrelevant point of whether they occurred before or after we started bombing (at least irrelevant by the Bush Administration’s own logic). Reading comprehension can be your friend! ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/114 "2004-06-22T04:49:51Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > …rather questioning why **New Iskander** ’s definition of whether they were or not seemed to hinge on a largely irrelevant point of whether they occurred before or after we started bombing (at least irrelevant by the Bush Administration’s own logic). I agree. As much as I hate Saddam, he had full and complete right to prepare for war in any way he liked and even go pre-emptive. Obviously, he decided not to. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/115 "2004-06-22T04:58:48Z")
Probably misoverestimated us. Didn’t believe we were this stupid. Well, we sure showed him! ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/116 "2004-06-22T18:08:50Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Probably misoverestimated us. Another melodrama. The simple reason Saddam didn’t go pre-emptive on us was because it would unite all US public in favor of invasion. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/117 "2004-06-22T18:22:08Z")
With what? Put up or shut up time, **New Isk**. With what _could_ he go “pre-emptive”? With his WMD’s? Didn’t exist. His mobile trailers of bio weapons? Didn’t exist. His intercontinenteal anthrax chickens? Well, you may have me there, I really can’t actually _prove_ he didn’t have them. But I’m willing to bet he didn’t, aren’t you? So with what, precisely, was he going to “pre-empt”? Voodoo? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/118 "2004-06-22T21:23:16Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So with what, precisely, was he going to “pre-empt”? Whoa, a new twist! So Saddam was not “misoverestimating” US, but was simply lacking the means?! But I know that I shouldn’t read too much from this: any semblance of truth is purely accidental as the next turn is sure to demonstrate… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/119 "2004-06-22T21:39:22Z")
Well, gosh, **Isk** , I’m just a country boy, maybe not up to it with a sharpy like you, but seems to me if you say “the only reason”, it means that you think there is no _other_ reason. Unless “only” means something I didn’t hear about. So I figure I don’t have to claim that Saddam didn’t have the means. As it happens, that is what I think. But you claim that can’t have been a reason, seeing as how it is excluded (see “only”, above). Seems to me, then, that you must have some reason to think so, some means by which Saddam could force his malignant will upon us. And if you don’t, seems to me your original conjecture more or less falls apart, now doesn’t it? So what is it that you know that absolutely nobody else on the planet knows? (By the way, snide slurs on my honesty won’t get you diddly-squat…) ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/120 "2004-06-22T21:51:09Z")
**elucidator** > [@](#): > > Lord love a duck, Isk, is it possible that you are this dense? […] could you kindly slam shut the pie-hole? [Moderator Hat ON] Cool it, elucidator. [Moderator Hat OFF] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054.md?page=7)