The Great Pro-War Massacree Thread (and General Meltdown)

[GIGObuster]

TheodoreBear, I read your first post and still sounds like someone attempting to ignore what was not found: WMDs and connections to Al Qeda, I do know of several more books that have been found to be dead wrong regarding those, and many more issues on Iraq.

Even Josh Marshall, which was enthralled by a book on the case for war, had to acknowledge that his favorite author just missed the boat. At this level, you are only attempting to repeat the discredited points of those books. You need better cites for your position now. Otherwise, the charge that you are propagating ignorance is a valid one.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Ale

the hell hole known as Burundi

Hey! That’s my wife you’re talking about!

:mad:

Daniel

[Dissonance]

** TheodoreBear**, the problem with describing Syria and Iraq as being allies, much less strong allies is that they simply weren’t. Much as China and the USSR had an ideological split in the 1960s, the Syrian and Iraqi Ba’athist parties had an ideological split in 1966 over which of them represented true Pan-Arabism. Aside from the already mentioned Syrian support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, Syria provided ground forces in 1990/91 in the form of the 9th Armored Division and the 45th Special Forces Brigade for operation in the liberation of Kuwait during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. While relations between the two nations thawed slightly over the past two years, it never rose to the level of being allies.

[Ale]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Hey! That’s my wife you’re talking about!

:mad:

Daniel

I deny any knowledge about your wife´s holes and they presumed unholiness.

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Theodore:

I cannot help but notice by your post-count that you are new around here. I generally make it a policy to welcome new members, but this reply will be an exception to the rule.

To begin with, Mr. Bear, this is The Pit. It is a forum wherein we take off the gloves. If you wish a less “patronizing” reply, perhaps a post in MPSIMS would be in order?

Secondly, you’ve stepped into one of the most fiercely debated topics we’ve had in these parts, and posted a very great deal of ignorant shite to boot. Expect to be called on it here, and in a very blunt manner. After all, I started this goddamn thread because I was weary of the garbage foisted upon us by various pro-war types here on the boards. Why should I give you a free ride?

Saddam was a megalomaniac with unlimited funds.

And you accuse others of getting their information from tabloids?

Iraq’s total GDP in 2002 was 58 billion US, with an estimated negative growth of - 3%. (This figure is up somewhat from 2001, when growth was a whopping - 6%.) By comparison, the US GDP in 2002 was estimated at 10.45 trillion US.

The US military budget in FY 99 was approximately 277 billion US. That’s more than 4 times size of the entire Iraqi economy. Iraqi military expenditures for FY 00 are estimated at around 1.3 billion US. This implies that the US military expenditures were about 250 times larger than Iraq’s, or, if you prefer, that Iraq’s military expenditures equaled about .5% of US military expenditures.

(Above figures taken from the CIA’s World Factbook.)

And yet, in your garbled brain, Hussein was the “megalomaniac with unlimited funds.” No, no, friend Bear: if anyone in this fight had unlimited (or nearly unlimited) resources, it was the US.

• Besides already dominating his own country, and the other Arab nations as the acknowledged leader, his vision was to extend their influence, eventually leading the entire Muslim world.*

Name a single other “Arab” nation of which Saddam Hussein was an “acknowledged leader.”

(And Werewolf accuses anti-war movement of “woolly thinking”?)

Following this, you post a little more blah, blah, blah…oh, there’s that narrative element, “Saddam is defiant” that I mentioned in my reply to Go Heels a couple of pages back…blah, “terrorists” want this, that, and the other, my what analytic precision you display…

Oh here:

Although Syria, being also Baathist, was a strong ally….

…is completely false, as has been pointed out to you already; you want to pick nits about the word “strong.” Sure, suit yourself.

So while it is entirely possible that he transferred his chem/biological stockpile to them, which would have been easy enough to have done undetected, I rather imagine that he would have wanted to get it to a more committed party.

This idiotic canard is one of the reasons I opened this thread in the first place. Look, shit-for-brains, for the last time: He didn’t have a “chem/biological stockpile”. What part of David Kay openly conceding, ”We were wrong,” don’t you understand? There never was a “stockpile,” and even if there had been, Hussein would never have simply “given it” to someone else. And even if he had given it to someone else, he would never have given it to one of his regional power rivals, or to a hostile terrorist organization like Al-Qaeda.

Putz.

• It is also no easy matter to accuse the Muslim world of attempting to take over our society, especially in such a covert manner.*

Not only an idiot. Also a racist. Of course, the two often go hand in hand.

This created the atmosphere whereby so much of the media expressed scepticism about the motives, which is why both governments probably embellished the reports of actual weapons he actually possessed, to sell the need to act soon.

I.e., they lied to get the US public to support a war.

This does not mean that he didn’t pose a very real and imminent threat, which brings us to an ‘end justifies means’ situation.

Do you even know what the word “imminent” means, dipshit? You just conceded that the administration had lied in the previous sentence, and thus that the threat wasn’t “imminent.”

It should be remembered that Blix himself did state that there were 10,000 litres of chem/bio cocktail that was known to have existed and was still unaccounted for. It’s still out there somewhere, and there are those who know where it is.

Blix explicitly warned the UNSC on numerous occasions that one should not jump to the conclusion that chemical agents or precursors were still in existence, even though they could not be accounted for. Since you apparently know more about this issue than Blix, I recommend that you contact the US government at once. I’m sure they would be interested in how you know, for a fact, that “It’s still out there somewhere,” especially when leading intelligence experts have publicly stated that they don’t know that at all.

[TheodoreBear]

Still nit-picking and basically re-iterating what I’ve already indicated.

As for the morons who thinks their POV is strengthened by crass insults, which I know full well are intended to bring me down to their level, and is in reality a response of weakness - I see your agenda clearly and know what you’re about. I’ll put in the points I wish others to consider, and their sources, and you can all lump it.

No WMD’s? What do you think 10,000 litres of chem/bio nasties can do?
You can choose to believe that Saddam was not the type to use it if he saw it would benefit his position and lust for power that he had. You can also try to minimise his danger to our society, but then I will have to question your motives and agenda for doing so.

The same if you wish to dismiss the writings of Budansky, whose credentials I’ve already given. Among other things, he detailed meetings held by Saddam and leaders of various regimes, what was said, and what transpired as a result.

Regarding links to Al-Qa’ida, there is clearly an idealogical difference between Saddam and them, but they were united in their common goal - domination of the West and Muslim supremacy, whereby ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ . The main difference was who was going to come out on top at the end of it.

Here’s an article detailing some links between them
by Jonathan Schanzer
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2004
Ansar al-Islam: Back in Iraq

[TheodoreBear]

Ansar Rebounds
Following the fall of Baghdad in early April 2003, some 140,000 U.S. forces occupied Iraq. Since then, relative calm has prevailed in the south under British control and in the north, still held by the Kurds. But U.S. forces in Iraq’s center have become embroiled in a guerrilla war with unspecified numbers of irregular fighters who have inflicted a rising number of casualties.

For the first two months, Bush administration officials appeared certain that Saddam loyalists were the culprits behind sniper attacks and mine explosions that killed several soldiers per week. By July, however, after U.S. forces surrounded and killed Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay, officials began invoking the name Ansar al-Islam.

The resurgence of Ansar al-Islam was no surprise. After all, some 300-350 members fled the Ansar compound ahead of the Iraq war, meaning that the group was bound to survive.[60] And as one prisoner during the war stated, “I don’t think the fight with Ansar will be over when America finishes its bombing.”[61]

As if on cue, in late April, clashes took place between a band of Ansar militants and local Kurdish security forces 45 kilometers east of Sulaymaniya.[62] The following month, just after the war’s end, a Kurdish spokesman stated that the group was trying to “regroup in the mountainous Iraqi-Iranian border region,” and that “a number of Ansar members are trying to join another Islamic group” in the region.[63]

Soon after that, Kurdish officials cited an unconfirmed report that several thousand al-Qa‘ida fighters could attempt to resuscitate Ansar’s activities. Further, one Kurdish spokesman lamented that “if the strikes had occurred one year [before], we would have completely destroyed Ansar. They were half expecting the strikes, which gave them plenty of time to disperse, or for their leaders to relocate.”[64] The official also noted that if the group had developed ricin or other chemical weapons, it likely moved them before the attacks. Thus, Ansar al-Islam could still carry out a chemical attack.

Finally, Kurdish officials also expressed fears that sleeper cells were waiting to be activated in the Kurdish enclave and that they could employ tactics such as suicide bombing. Evidence of this came in two wartime operations: the March 22 suicide bombing, carried out by a Saudi, killing an Australian cameraman at a checkpoint near Halabja,[65] and the thwarted suicide car-bombing on March 27 when security personnel shot an assailant before he reached the Zamaki checkpoint.[66]

Ansar’s website, during the war and after, featured a “Letter from the Emir of Ansar al-Islam, Abu ‘Abdullah ash-Shafi‘ to the Muslims of Kurdistan and Iraq and the World.” The missive threatened that “300 jihad martyrs renewed their pledge to Allah, the strong and the sublime, in order to be suicide bombers in the victory of Allah’s religion.”[67]

Kurdish fears appeared to be vindicated in June when Ansar al-Islam announced that it had opened its doors to volunteers to fight the United States in Iraq. In a statement sent to Ash-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper, ‘Abdullah ash-Shafi‘, the group’s local leader, boasted (falsely) that his group had already destroyed ten U.S. tanks.[68]

When a car bomb rocked the Jordanian embassy in Iraq on August 7, 2003, and killed seventeen people, Ansar al-Islam was among the first suspected culprits. According to Lt. Gen. Norton Schwartz, no specific information about Ansar’s involvement was available, but he still noted that Ansar had “infrastructure in Iraq, and some of that remains, and our effort is focused on eliminating that.”[69] An Al-Hayat article on the same day iterated Schwartz’s concerns, stating that Islamic militants from Pakistan had infiltrated northern Iraq with the help of bin Laden, and “it was suspected that the Ansar al-Islam group was in connection with the Islamists in Falluja, Tikrit, Bayali, and Baghdad” where attacks against U.S. forces were taking place.[70] Washington expressed fears that the number of fighters might have been in the hundreds.[71] Administration officials also expressed concerns that safe houses and other logistical operations in Iraq were being run by Ansar al-Islam.[72]

Meanwhile, the PUK reported in August that its forces had captured several Ansar militants among some fifty people caught infiltrating northern Iraq by way of Iran.[73] Among them were five Iraqis, a Palestinian, and a Tunisian.[74] Information gleaned from subsequent interrogations has not yet been made public by Kurdish officials.

Following the Jordanian embassy attack, there was fear that Ansar was still planning something bigger. Indeed, Bremer stated, “Intelligence suggests that Ansar al-Islam is planning large-scale terrorist attacks [in Iraq] … I think we have to be pretty alert to the fact that we may see more of this.”[75]

On August 13, a number of gunmen attacked U.S. troops in downtown Baghdad and then sped from the scene. Before they left, however, they dropped cards stating “Death to the Collaborators of America—al-Qa‘ida.” This may have been in reference to the Jordanian embassy bombing, or even to the forthcoming bombing at the U.N. compound in Baghdad on August 19, when a suicide bomber drove a cement mixer full of explosives that set off a blast killing seventeen and wounding more than 100 people. While two previously unknown groups claimed responsibility for the attack, The New York Times noted that “the immediate focus of attention was Ansar al-Islam, a militant Islamic group that American officials believe has been plotting attacks against Western targets in Baghdad.”[76]

Ansar’s Network
These operations, in the heart of Baghdad, raised the specter of cooperation between regime remnants and Ansar al-Islam. According to officials interviewed by The Weekly Standard, Ansar cadres were thought to be “joining with remnants of Saddam’s regime to attack American and nongovernmental organizations working in Iraq.”[77] There was much speculation that the Iraqi resistance was being coordinated by ‘Izzat Ibrahim ad-Duri, a Saddam confidant and one of the most wanted Baathists. He was fingered by two captured members of Ansar al-Islam as an instigator of the recent campaign of violence against Americans in Iraq. [78] (However, subsequent reports indicated that ad-Duri was struggling for his life in a battle with leukemia and was probably incapable of coordinating attacks against Americans.)[79]

Meanwhile, a concurrent Newsweek report indicated that “Ansar fighters are joining forces with Baathists and members of al-Qaeda.”[80] That report also indicated that Ansar’s structure was morphing such that each “fighting force is said to be reorganized into small units of ten to fifteen members, each headed by an ‘emir’.”[81] According to this report, Ansar, through its use of cells and contract fighters, had become a microcosm of the larger al-Qa‘ida network, which implements a similar structure worldwide.

Ansar al-Islam’s Iranian connection also gave rise to speculation. In August, suspected Ansar militants and/or al-Qa‘ida cadres continued to stream across the Iranian border. While Kurdish officials arrested some fifty militants in August 2003,[82] it is not known how many have made it across without incident.

Among the infiltrators, some came with fake passports while others had identification from Tunisia and even European countries. Once the infiltrators made it out of Iran, Saddam loyalists were thought to help smuggle them into central Iraq to fight U.S. forces.[83] In this way, it appears that the mullahs ensured continued fighting in Iraq.[84] Iran was also under increased scrutiny for its continued harboring of more senior al-Qa‘ida operatives. Some of these operatives were expelled to their host countries. The whereabouts of others are unknown.[85]

Ansar al-Islam is not only back in Iraq; the group also appears to have gone global—at least, to some extent. Ash-Sharq al-Awsat reported in April that two Tunisians were arrested in Italy for ties to Ansar al-Islam.[86] In August, several suspected Ansar cadres were found with five Italian passports.[87] Italy appears to be a central jumping-off point for Ansar; wiretaps by Italian police confirm this to be true.[88] More recently, Italian intelligence revealed the existence of an extensive al-Qa‘ida support network in northern Italy. The network, established in spring 2002 and based out of Milan, Varese, and Cremona, has reportedly provided funds and recruits to Ansar al-Islam and al-Qa’ida. [89]

But many questions remain about the extent of Ansar al-Islam’s network. Lebanese, Jordanian, Moroccan, Syrian, Palestinian, and Afghan fighters have all fought among the ranks of Ansar. That could mean there is or was a recruiting infrastructure in each country to bring them to northern Iraq. Further, if the group did receive funds from Abu Qatada in London, then Ansar al-Islam also has at least some infrastructure there. If Syria is a staging ground for Ansar fighters, as the Italian wiretaps revealed, then Ansar is one more terrorist organization operating with a wink and a nod from Damascus. And finally, if some funding for the group came from Saudi Arabia, as Michael Rubin suggests, then one can assume that the Wahhabi infrastructure is supporting this group.[90]

Unfortunately, there are no definitive answers to these questions. Ansar al-Islam is a new terrorist group; information about it is still emerging. But one thing is clear: Ansar al-Islam is one of the most dangerous affiliates in al-Qa‘ida’s orbit, with the potential to strike at vital U.S. interests in Iraq. And given its broader links, the group could develop an even wider reach—like al-Qa‘ida itself.

Jonathan Schanzer is a Soref Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. This article draws upon his forthcoming monograph, Al-Qaeda’s Affiliates: Exploiting Weak Central Authority in the Arab World (The Washington Institute).

[1] Colin Powell, remarks to the U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003, at http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm; Stephen F. Hayes, “Saddam’s al-Qaeda Connection,” The Weekly Standard, Sept. 1-8, 2003.
[2] Congressional Record, 108th Congress, 1st sess., “Iraq Intelligence,” July 15, 2003, at http://levin.senate.gov/floor/071503fs1.htm.
[3] Al Gore, remarks at New York University, Aug. 7, 2003, at http://www.moveon.org/gore-speech.html.
[4] Agence France-Presse, July 30, 2003.
[5] The New York Times, Aug. 7, 2003.
[6] Paul Bremer news conference, Aug. 2, 2003, quoted at http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/08/nyt.gordon/.
[7] Michael Rubin, “The Islamist Threat in Iraqi Kurdistan,” Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, Dec. 2001, at http://www.meib.org/articles/0112_ir1.htm.
[8] The New York Times, Jan. 13, 2002; author’s interview with Barham Salih, Washington, D.C., Jan. 10, 2002.
[9] Los Angeles Times, Dec. 9, 2002.
[10] The Kurdistan Observer, Jan. 14, 2002, at http://home.cogeco.ca/~observer/14-1-03-memorandum-kurd-islam-qaeda.html.
[11] Los Angeles Times, Feb. 5, 2003.
[12] NewsMax.com, Mar. 18, 2002, at http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/18/74151.shtml; The Christian Science Monitor, Mar. 15, 2002.
[13] The Jerusalem Report, Nov. 18, 2002; The Christian Science Monitor, Apr. 2, 2002; Le Monde, Nov. 13, 2002.
[14] Los Angeles Times, Apr. 28, 2003.
[15] Rubin, “The Islamist Threat in Iraqi Kurdistan.”
[16] Agence France-Presse, Dec. 4, 2002.
[17] Author’s interview with Barham Salih, Jan. 10, 2003; The Christian Science Monitor, Mar. 15, 2002.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Colin Powell, remarks to the U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003, at http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm.
[20] The Christian Science Monitor, Apr. 9, 2002.
[21] Iraqi Kurdistan Dispatch, July 5, 2002, at http://www.ikurd.info/news-05jul-p1.htm.
[22] The Washington Post, Sept. 5, 2002.
[23] Kurdistan Newsline, July 23, 2002, at http://www.puk.org/web/htm/news/knwsline/nws/kurdlead.html.
[24] Ash-Sharq al-Awsat (London), Dec. 6, 2002.
[25] Associated Press, Dec. 15, 2002.
[26] At http://www.nawend.com/ansarislam.htm (site no longer available).
[27] Author’s interview with Barham Salih, Jan. 10, 2003.
[28] The New York Times, Feb. 6, 2003.
[29] Al-Hayat (London), Aug. 22, 2002; Los Angeles Times, Dec 9, 2002.
[30] The Washington Post, Dec. 12, 2002.
[31] Author’s interview with Barham Salih, Jan. 10, 2003.
[32] Author’s interview with PUK representative, Washington, D.C., Mar. 2003.
[33] Author’s interview with PUK official, Washington, D.C., Apr. 1, 2003.
[34] The New Yorker, Mar. 25, 2002.
[35] The Guardian, Aug. 23, 2002.
[36] “Ansar al-Islam,” Iraq News Wire, no. 8, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Sept. 1, 2002, at http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iraq&ID=INW802.
[37] The Christian Science Monitor, Apr. 2, 2002; Los Angeles Times, Dec. 9, 2002.
[38] The International Herald Tribune, Feb. 7, 2003.
[39] Powell, remarks to the U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003, at http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm.
[40] The Washington Times, July 30, 2003.
[41] Confirmed by source at the Pentagon.
[42] Matthew Levitt, “Placing Iraq and Zarqawi in the Terror Web,” Policywatch. no. 710, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Feb. 13, 2003, at http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/policywatch/policywatch2003/710.htm; author’s interview, Dec. 10, 2003.
[43] The Washington Post, Sept. 5, 2002.
[44] Milliyet (Ankara), Jan. 7, 2003.
[45] Powell, remarks to the U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003, at http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm.
[46] The New York Times, Feb. 10, 2003.
[47] Treasury Department statement regarding the designation of Ansar al-Islam, Feb. 20, 2003, at http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js48.htm.
[48] Author’s interview with PUK official, Washington, D.C., May 2003.
[49] “USWAR/Ansar al-Islam Attacks PUK Positions,” Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), Mar. 26, 2003, at http://www.irna.com/en/head/030326094847.ehe.shtml (site no longer available).
[50] Associated Press, Aug. 12, 2003.
[51] Author’s interview with PUK official, May 2003.
[52] Associated Press, Mar. 31, 2003.
[53] Agence France-Presse, Apr. 9, 2003.
[54] The Washington Post, Mar. 25, 2003.
[55] Author’s interview with PUK official, May 2003.
[56] Agence France-Presse, Mar. 25, 2003.
[57] United Press International, May 9, 2003.
[58] An-Nahar (Beirut), May 21, 2003.
[59] Agence France-Presse, Aug. 13, 2003
[60] The New York Times, Aug. 13, 2003.
[61] The Boston Globe, Mar. 19, 2003.
[62] Ash-Sharq al-Awsat, Apr. 22, 2003.
[63] Author’s interview with Kurdish spokesman, Washington, D.C., May 20, 2003.
[64] Author’s interview with PUK official, Apr. 1, 2003.
[65] Kurdish Media, Mar. 25, 2003, at http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=3635.
[66] Author’s interview with PUK official, Apr. 1, 2003.
[67] At http://www.nawend.com/ansarislam.htm (site no longer available).
[68] Ash-Sharq al-Awsat, June 13, 2003.
[69] Associated Press, Aug. 8, 2003.
[70] Al-Hayat, Aug. 7, 2003.
[71] Agence France-Presse, Aug. 14, 2003.
[72] The New York Times, Aug. 13, 2003.
[73] Reuters, Aug. 12, 2003.
[74] The New York Times, Aug. 13, 2003.
[75] Ibid., Aug. 10, 2003.
[76] Ibid., Aug. 20, 2003.
[77] The Weekly Standard, Sept. 1-8, 2003.
[78] Associated Press, Oct. 30, 2003.
[79] The Washington Times, Oct. 31, 2003.
[80] Newsweek, Oct. 13, 2003.
[81] Ibid.
[82] Ash-Sharq al-Awsat, Aug. 18, 2003.
[83] Agence France-Presse, Aug. 17, 2003.
[84] Ash-Sharq al-Awsat, Aug. 18, 2003.
[85] Middle East Newsline, Aug. 21, 2003.
[86] Ash-Sharq al-Awsat, Apr. 3, 2003.
[87] The New York Times, Aug. 13, 2003.
[88] Los Angeles Times, Apr. 28, 2003.
[89] “Ansar Al-Islam’s European Base,” American Foreign Policy Council, Oct. 31, 2003, citing Corriere della Serra (Milan), Oct. 27, 2003.
[90] Rubin, “The Islamist Threat in Iraqi Kurdistan.”

[Squink]

US: the pro-Sharon thinktank

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy influences the thinking of the United States government and has a near monopoly on the supply of ‘expert’ witnesses to the media. After almost two decades of relative moderation, the institute is now drifting towards the Israeli right.
…
Winep has enhanced its credibility with the Bush administration by recently adding figures with solid neo-conservative credentials to its staff. Jonathan Schanzer, previously a research fellow at the Middle East Forum, is now a Soref fellow at Winep. The director of the Middle East Forum is Daniel Pipes, one of the loudest anti-Arab and anti-Muslim voices in the US. Pipes is now a Winep adjunct scholar. Max Abrahms, a Soref fellow specialising in Israeli security affairs, has been a columnist for National Review Online, a devoutly neo-conservative organ. Matthew Levitt, a senior fellow in terrorism studies and a former FBI analyst, also writes in the National Review Online, where he publicly supports counter-terrorism operations.

[TheodoreBear]

‘Israeli Right’ and ‘pro - Sharon’ being terms ascribed to any who recognize militant Muslim strategy and propaganda for what it is. No wonder the Arab based ‘Jerusalemites’ are nervous.

[Coldfire]

@TheodoreBear

Here’s an article detailing some links between them
by Jonathan Schanzer
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2004
Ansar al-Islam: Back in Iraq

TheodoreBear, don’t quote entire articles. I edited your first post to reflect only the link to the article, and deleted the second post altogether. Quoting a small portion is fine, copying the entire article is not.

[Squink]

Here’s an example of “fair use” for you TheodoreBear:

the fact is that so little terrorist activity originated from Iraq in the late 1990s that the State Department did not bother to list the country as a major terrorist threat.
The main terrorist organization active on Iraqi soil was the Mujahidin-i Khalq Organization, which is supported by Washington Neoconservatives like Daniel Pipes and Richard Perle along with some congressmen.
A small terrorist group, Ansar al-Islam, operated in the part of Kurdistan that was under United States control as a result of the no-fly zone. It wasn’t in the Baath-controlled part of the country.

Juan Cole.

If you put some effort into it, it may be that someday you too can try to get your point across without violating the law of the land.

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Teddy:

1. Posting the content of entire articles here at the SDMB is strictly a no-no, as it creates potential copyright infringement problems. This rule is spelled out quite clearly in the registration agreement, which can be found here. Not that I’m surprised you missed this detail – to judge by your participation in this discussion thus far, reading comprehension is not exactly your forté, now is it, Mr. Bear?

I’ve taken the liberty of reporting your post to a moderator. Please don’t thank me. I insist.

2. Regarding the title of this last response, I heartily invite you to go fuck yourself. I am genuinely glad you’ve decided to crawl out of your slimy little hole, however, since this thread is really dedicated to smug nitwits such as yourself. Do you really think that just because you can reference a book, or cite a journal article, that your arguments are thereby immune to criticism? Perhaps you should take out the time to read citations, and maybe even try to understand them, before you post.

• Still nit-picking and basically re-iterating what I’ve already indicated.*

If you think my comments were in any way a reiteration of your previous arguments, then you’re dumber than a post.

• As for the morons who thinks their POV is strengthened by crass insults, which I know full well are intended to bring me down to their level, and is in reality a response of weakness - I see your agenda clearly and know what you’re about. I’ll put in the points I wish others to consider, and their sources, and you can all lump it.*

No, you see, it is we who have been continuously insulted by the cheap lies and smug rhetoric promoted by the pro-war crowd. I’ve just had enough, that’s all. The time has come to call a spade a spade.

• No WMD’s? What do you think 10,000 litres of chem/bio nasties can do?*

Gee, I dunno – wipe out all of lower Manhattan?

However, more to the point – what do you think 10000 liters of non-existent chem/bio nasties do? And when will it sink into that thick skull of yours that there are no such nasties? An inability to differentiate between reality and fantasy is the hallmark of psychosis, you know, and yet, you still don’t seem to have been able to make that distinction. Perhaps I should call a psychiatrist?

You can also try to minimise his danger to our society, but then I will have to question your motives and agenda for doing so.

My agenda is to try to perceive things as they truly are, and assess threats in a rational and reasonable manner. I therefore do not fear the threat of non-existent chemical stockpiles, nor feel a need to make them up as I go along, or continue to claim that they exist when they clearly do not.

The same if you wish to dismiss the writings of Budansky, whose credentials I’ve already given.

I give not one shit for Budansky’s credentials. Either put up or shut. Arguments based on somebody else’s laurels, supported with no evidence whatsoever, don’t cut it.

• Regarding links to Al-Qa’ida, there is clearly an idealogical difference between Saddam and them, but they were united in their common goal - domination of the West and Muslim supremacy, whereby ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ . The main difference was who was going to come out on top at the end of it.*

And yet still, not one shred of evidence demonstrates a connection between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. You have offered nothing to this debate thus far other than more smoke-blowing.

Turning now to the article you’ve posted, we notice immediately that its purpose is simply to summarize the history and activities of Ansar al-Islam. Hence its relevance to this discussion is tenuous at best. The article does touch briefly upon the possibility of a connection of some sort between Ansar and the Hussein regime at a couple of points, however. But as is typical of pro-war propaganda efforts, no solid evidence is forthcoming at all. Rather, we are relegated to the realm of speculation and innuendo – in fact, the lack of evidential support for such assertions is quite striking. A rational person, reviewing the case, would probably be so struck by the absolute paucity of evidence that he might question whether such a connection actually exists at all. Judging from your comments regarding “chem/bio nasties,” however, it would seem a fool’s hope to expect anything akin to “rationality” to emanate from your pie-hole.

Your article begins by conceding that:

After the war, it became a matter of common wisdom that Saddam had no links to al-Qa‘ida. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that the case linking Saddam to al-Qa‘ida was never “bullet-proof.” Former vice president Al Gore denied that such ties existed at all.

From that point on we find little more than passing references to such links, and note that the authors fail to produce any evidence for them whatsoever.

Even prior to the war, in the days directly after Powell’s presentation, insiders were scratching their heads over his assertions. Ansar operated out of Kurdish territory – territory protected by US military fly-overs – so many wondered how Powell could claim that the organization was sponsored by, or connected to, Hussein. Powell repeatedly claimed that Iraq was “harboring” Ansar, despite the fact that its base of operations lie beyond the sphere of Hussein’s control.

Kurds who inspected Powell’s satellite photo suspected that he had made some kind of labeling mistake: the village referred to as Khurmal in the photo’s title was in fact not an Ansar al-Islam stronghold, but was controlled by a “moderate” Kurdish organization, the Komala Islami Kurdistan. A prominent member of the PUK from the area claimed that he knew nothing of the “compound.” A NY Times reporter who visited the alleged site found it to be a “wholly unimpressive place.” It didn’t even possess modern plumbing, yet this was the supposed site of a high-tech germ- and poisons- laboratory. Your article whistles blithely by these contradictions, noting only that:

** After Powell’s U.N. speech on February 5, 2003, Ansar allowed a small group of reporters to visit their enclave to check for chemical weapons, “especially in the Khurmal and Sargat, areas where Ansar was believed to be developing ricin.” Neither Powell’s claim nor the militants’ denials could be verified.**

None of the other links are at all conclusive. The strongest tie, a man named Abu Musab az-Zarqawi, is said to have a relationship with Saddam as well as Al-Qaeda. While probably an Al-Qaeda operative, the only thread linking Zarqawi to Saddam in Powell’s presentation is the following statement:

** He traveled to Baghdad in May of 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day.**

That’s it, total. Its like saying that the US government “harbored” the 9/11 hijackers, because those hijackers trained to be pilots in the US; or accusing Norway (where Mullah Krekar, Ansar’s leader, currently resides) of “harboring” terrorists.

At the end of March US and Kurdish forces launched an attack on an Ansar stronghold, more or less devastating it, and:

** After rummaging through the debris, coalition officials found a multitude of intelligence leads, including a list of suspected militants living in the United States, the phone number of a Kuwaiti cleric, and a letter from Yemen’s minister of religion. Evidence also reportedly showed that specific meetings took place between Ansar and al-Qa‘ida activists. German media reported that a three-volume manual was found listing chemical and biological experiments, including the use of ricin and cyanide.**

But it is also worth noting what they didn’t find: they found no toxins, no precursor agents, no laboratory equipment, and no evidence of ties between Ansar and Hussein’s regime. They did find a list US operatives, which, using Powell’s bizarre logic, would indicate that the US government was “harboring” terrorists.

And so on.

After all this time, with thousands and thousands of manhours logged in by agents from the CIA, FBI, and the OSP, not a single credible connection between Hussein’s regime and Al-Qaeda has surfaced. Not one. This is not surprising. As Alex Standish, editor of the prestigious Jane’s Intelligence (and scarcely a dove, by any stretch), noted in late August, 2002:

[T]hey [i.e., al-Qaeda and Hussein’s regime] **are diametrically opposed. Absolutely, diametrically opposed. It seems the US State Department and others do not understand the basic, big difference in ideology between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Saddam’s Ba’ath Party regime, despite its Islamic trappings, is a deeply secular and fundamentally socialist ideology. It is an Arab nationalist regime, which clearly resents Western influence anywhere in its backyard. But that doesn’t mean it shares any of the Islamic extremism of al-Qaeda, because it doesn’t.

I can’t see any reason why Saddam, coming from a Arab nationalist, fairly secular background, would have any interest in supporting or promoting an extremist and militant religious ideology that would ultimately be opposed to everything he has ever stood for.

You can think whatever you like about Saddam, but he’s not so foolish that he would threaten his own region’s stability by financing the extreme and violent likes of al-Qaeda. Yet in the face of a complete absence of serious evidence, intelligence officials are suggesting that Saddam might one day provide al-Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction.**

Yet still we have people like Teddy here, droning on and on about non-existent stockpiles of weapons, non-existent connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda, or non-existent plans for a “Muslim” takeover. It’s like listening to a broken record of psychotic gibberings.

Finally, my compliments to Squink – you were fast, dude. WINEP has surfaced in relation to another situation recently, namely the Plame scandal. One of the two men reportedly fingered for releasing Plame’s name is John Hannah, a neo-conservative who formerly headed the WINEP think-tank. Juan Cole, Professor of History at the University of Michigan and specialist on Middle East affairs, characterizes WINEP as:

** The WINEP pro-Likud network, which includes Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith in the Pentagon as well as Libby and Hannah at Cheney’s office, has virtually dictated Bush administration Middle East policy. Wilson’s debunking of one of its central claims might well have led Cheney to fire Hannah or to disregard his opinion. The WINEP crowd takes no prisoners and is very determined, over decades, to get its way… Being male chauvinist pigs, they appear to have hoped to show that Wilson’s trip was the result of nepotism or of female influence, and that Plame had recommended her husband for the job (an unfounded charge). Somehow they seemed to think that this allegation would help discredit Wilson, but to this day I haven’t figured out their weird reasoning on the matter.**

So there you go.

But perhaps Teddy has another irrelevant article he wants to post?

[elucidator]

Teddy Bore

“…No WMD’s? What do you think 10,000 litres of chem/bio nasties can do?..”

Quite a lot! Most especially if they actually existed. Actually, come to think of it, I think that’s pretty crucial, that actual existence thing, there.

“…You can also try to minimise his danger to our society, but then I will have to question your motives and agenda for doing so…”

Would you care to expand on that? What, precisely, are you implying about “your motives and agenda”?

“…The same if you wish to dismiss the writings of Budansky, whose credentials I’ve already given. Among other things, he detailed meetings held by Saddam and leaders of various regimes, what was said, and what transpired as a result…”

Can’t, in all honesty, dismiss these writings, as I’d never heard of him until the moment you revealed him to us. But I am intrigued about his claim to be privy to “detailed meetings held by Saddam…what was said, and what transpired…” Clearly, this man is a force to be reckoned with! You certainly appear knowledgeable about this wonder of international perspicacity, how did this come about? Was he on the “CC” list for transcripts of Saddam’s meetings? Was he there?

“…is clearly an idealogical difference between Saddam and them…”

Now you are on firm ground! Clearly, you are right about this, there is a considerable “ideological difference” between Osama and Saddam. Rather like the “ideological difference” between Lenin and Rasputin.

“…being terms ascribed to any who recognize militant Muslim strategy and propaganda for what it is…”

Ah. Yes. And this would be you?

(Side note: I did not notice the count on your initial posting, if I had, I might have been a bit gentler, a bit avuncular in advisement as to the nature of the forum you were engaged with. I will perform a minor penance before the Egyptian jackal god, Anewbies. But as you have now been so advised, I am content to treat your drivel with the mockery and contempt it so richly deserves. “…your motives and agenda…” indeed! Do you, by chance, have a list of card-carrying Muslim extremist currently employed by the State Dept.? Just asking…)

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Squink:

Apparently, we read the same source material.

[elucidator]

Damn! Posting after Big Svin unaware is like being a squad of Mexican soldiers arriving at the Alamo one day too late. Nothing but smoking ruins and dead peckerwoods. But Teddy Bore presents, as an example, a point I cannot stress enough!

Cognitive Dissonance, my friends! Cognitive Dissonance, the number one threat to the Republic! Behold the devestation of CD! When your CD volunteer comes calling, think of poor Teddy, and give, and give generously…

[Tee]

@Mr. Svinlesha

You have not refuted any of my cites, nor have you been able to present a single shred of evidence to support your claim. Not one. I’ve been waiting for two pages now for you to either support your claim, or admit that you were wrong. I mean, come on: this ain’t exactly rocket science. A single quote, anywhere, in which Powell states, “My presentation to the UN was not designed to convince other nations that Iraq was really a threat; rather, all I wanted to do was demonstrate that Iraq was violating 1441,” will suffice. What’s that? Can’t find one?

No, I’m just kind of lazy. Alright already, here’s what I said:

Powell’s case was devoted almost entirely to holding Saddam to his obligations under relevant UNSC resolutions, and was more about the deceptive practices of the regime and its unwillingness to comply than the cumulative threat it posed to other countries.

The case at the UN spanned about six months. In September 2002 he outlines it in an interview:

The purpose of our meetings on Friday and the President’s speech on Thursday was not to lay out a resolution but to begin a political dialogue for several days to a week – let everybody think about it,reflect about it, and come back, then we’ll begin the work on the resolution and we’ll see what we’re able to accomplish. But I can assure you that the United States is going into this discussion on a resolution or resolutions with a very firm position that Iraq is in material breach. We’ll see what action the Security Council wants to place upon Iraq to perform; but it has to be tough, it has to be something that is not going to be debated and negotiated with the Iraqis, and there has to be a time deadline to it, there has to be some time dimension to this or we’re just kicking the football further down the field.
And then the third element will be, of course, what the UN is willing to say now with respect to the actions it will take in the absence of Iraqi compliance. We have to remember that what the President did is exactly what so many people were asking for the President to do:consult with our friends and allies, bring it to the international community. These are UN resolutions that have been violated, not an issue with the United States alone, but the entire international community. And that’s exactly what the President did. Frankly, I think in that speech the President has changed the entire political environment in which this matter is being considered.
MR. RUSSERT: By challenging the UN to prove their relevancy?
SECRETARY POWELL: By challenging the UN to prove its relevance. In 16 resolutions, multiple conditions have not been met. Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz saying one thing one day, something else the other day, essentially humiliating the UN by the way in which Iraq has responded to the demands of the United Nations. And what the President said, if the UN is to be relevant, especially in a case like this, the UN has to meet its responsibilities, step up to the challenge that has been presented to it by Iraqi intransigence and violation of all these resolutions.

<snip>

MR. RUSSERT: And in the resolution, how much time would Saddam Hussein have to comply with the demand to readmit inspectors?
SECRETARY POWELL: This is something we’ll have to discuss within the Security Council, but it too will be a relatively short timeline.
MR. RUSSERT: Weeks?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, we’ll see. I don’t want to nail myself down yet. But you can be sure that we will go in with a negotiating position that it should be a very short period of time…

<snip>. Are the Iraqis going to make a strategic choice right now to do something other than what they have been doing? The issue isn’t so much inspectors, no inspectors, ultimatums, no ultimatums. The question is, are the Iraqis finally going to obey international law? And if they are, it’s one issue. If they’re not, then the UN has to be prepared to act, in our judgment.

http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091304.htm

Now December 2002, after Iraq had submitted its declaration of weapons:

Powell: “The burden remains on Iraq – not on the United Nations, not on the United States – the burden remains on Iraq to cooperate fully and for Iraq to prove to the international community whether it does or does not have weapons of mass destruction. We are convinced they do until they prove to us otherwise,” he said. (my underline)

“Resolution 1441 calls for serious consequences for Iraq if it does not comply with the terms of the resolution. Iraq’s noncompliance and defiance of the international community has brought it closer to the day when it will have to face these consequences. The world is still waiting for Iraq to comply with its obligations. The world will not wait forever,” he warned. In the wake of Thursday’s meeting, a senior administration official said things are beginning to “coalesce” among U.S. allies concerning holding Saddam to account and forcing him to disarm.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/19/sproject.irq.us.iraq.war/
[/quote]

January, 2003, after inspectors had filed the initial report:

POWELL: Well, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Earlier today, in accordance with U.N. Resolution 1441, Drs. [Hans] Blix and [Mohamed] ElBaradei provided the United Nations Security Council their 60-day reports on inspection activity in Iraq. We listened carefully as the inspectors reported that Iraq has not provided the active, immediate and unconditional cooperation that the council demanded in U.N. Resolution 1441.

As Dr. Blix said, quote, “Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it,” unquote. Let me repeat, because this is the essence of the problem. Dr. Blix said, “Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it.”

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/powell.presser.transcript/

Next, the February 2003 case. This CNNtranscript of the remarks is divided into 10 parts with handy subheadings. He mentions Iraq not complying with resolutions…I lost count. Mentions 1441 in particular quite a few times. Emphasizes Iraq’s obligations at the very beginning to the very end. He does mention the suspicions of Iraq producing WMDs in various forms, and the threats that they pose. But he also mentions terrorism, and human rights issues, and other things contained in previous resolutions that Iraq has ignored.

A week later, 2/14:

More inspectors? Sorry, not the answer. What we need is immediate cooperation.
Time? How much time does it take to say, “I understand the will of the international community and I and my regime are laying it all out for you”? And not playing guess, not forming commissions, not issuing decrees, not getting laws that should have been passed years ago, suddenly passed on the day when we are meeting.These are not responsible actions on the part of Iraq. These are continued efforts to deceive, to deny, to divert, to throw us off the trail, to throw us off the path. The resolution anticipated this kind of response from Iraq, and that’s why in all of our discussions about that resolution we said they’re inmaterial breach; if they come into new material breach with a false declaration or not a willingness to cooperate and comply, as OP 4 says, then the matter has to be referred to the Council for serious consequences.

http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/2003/february/021504.html

It’s now almost year later…recent remarks from Powell on 2/3/04:

QUESTION: What is your position? I know it’s a little bit hypothetical. Had you known what you know now about weapons, would you still have recommended?

SECRETARY POWELL: What I know now is that we were dealing with a despotic regime that had the intention to develop weapons of mass destruction, had weapons of mass destruction, used weapons of mass destruction and had never lost the intention to have such weapons. What I know now, and nothing would have changed this, is that they had the capability and were maintaining that capability by keeping the technical infrastructure in place, making sure they had people around who knew how to make such weapons, make sure they had a warm base, they had the wherewithal to make such weapons.The only thing that is even being discussed right now is what stockpiles were out there, and that is one element that we will let the various communities and intelligence groups that are looking at this, look at this; various commissions will be examining this.

But the bottom line is this: the President made the right decision. He made the right decision based on the history of this regime, the intention that this leader, terrible despotic leader had, and the capabilities at a variety of levels, the delivery systems that were there, and there is nobody debating that, the infrastructure that was there, the technical know-how that was there. The only thing we’re debating is the stockpile.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/28788.htm

I’m bored with this Mr. Svinlesha. I don’t understand what’s so offensive about Powell being interested in getting the UN to enforce its own resolutions over and above collectively flipping out over anthrax, or why you’re not buying it to begin with, but there are your cites and shreds of evidence that that’s exactly what happened. Which would not exactly be front-page news to those who bothered to read the freaking case made to the UN in the first place. I will give you this: you can find plenty of snippets and quotes within each set of remarks to make just about any case you want to make, today. And people do. Why they do it is a whole other issue.

[TheodoreBear]

Hans Blix reported to the UN in December 2002 that 10,000 litres of chem./bio substances KNOWN TO HAVE EXISTED in previous inspections were unaccounted for. Those who wish to believe that they have mysteriously ceased to exist because they haven’t been found are either fools or have a personal motive to downplay this fact. Regarding the wisdom of Hans Blix and his opinion as to what happened to it, it should be remembered that he was already fooled by Iraq, or knowingly looked the other way. As director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 1981 to 1997, he was in charge of overseeing inspections of the country’s nuclear programme. During that time, the Iraqis managed to hide an advanced nuclear weapons development programme from the IAEA. It was only discovered after the Gulf War in 1991. Which was why the US and UK did not want Blix leading the UN inspection team this time around.
Regarding the credentials of Yossef Bodansky, look him up in the internet – DUH.

As to what purpose or motive those who attempt to distort or downplay relevant facts pertinent to this forum, I thought I had made that clear in my original post. If you want to pretend to be engaged in some kind of intelligent debate, instead of slagging off any who post views that do not agree with yours, do pay a little more attention.

Those who would really be taken in by your tactics instead of researching facts for themselves – deserve you – and you deserve them. This is why you will always lose. It is you that would dismiss the real terrorist threat that are part of it.

Now jerk each other off on this post – losers.

[coffeecam]

@TheodoreBear

Hans Blix reported to the UN in December 2002 that 10,000 litres of chem./bio substances KNOWN TO HAVE EXISTED in previous inspections were unaccounted for.

And where exactly are they now? If we knew that they existed, and had inteligence as to their proposed use (against us) why didn’t we find them in the first few hours of combat? If something is unaccounted for then it must exist though, right? Never mind that OUR OWN inspectors said it wasn’t there.

@TheodoreBear

As to what purpose or motive those who attempt to distort or downplay relevant facts pertinent to this forum, I thought I had made that clear in my original post. If you want to pretend to be engaged in some kind of intelligent debate, instead of slagging off any who post views that do not agree with yours, do pay a little more attention.

Those who would really be taken in by your tactics instead of researching facts for themselves – deserve you – and you deserve them. This is why you will always lose. It is you that would dismiss the real terrorist threat that are part of it.

We are paying attention. If you want to participate instead of just ignoring the posts that don’t make sense to you: 1-800-ABCDEFG. Good luck with that.

Also, if you find the terrorist threat (hint, it’s in Afganistan and Pakistan) you’ll find that one of the reasons sane people opposed the Iraq war, once the WMD thing was found to be false, was that it diverted funds and manpower from the war on terror. Wrap your head around that.

@TheodoreBear

Now jerk each other off on this post – losers.

How breathtakingly refreshing. I take everything else back. Truely you are the very image of Cicero come to bring enlightenment and taste to these harrowing times…

As I’m not: Bite me you hypocritcal illiterate ferret fucker.

-C

[rjung]

[QUOTE=TheodoreBear]
Hans Blix reported to the UN in December 2002 that 10,000 litres of chem./bio substances KNOWN TO HAVE EXISTED in previous inspections were unaccounted for.

[quote]

@TheodoreBear

Regarding the wisdom of Hans Blix and his opinion as to what happened to it, it should be remembered that he was already fooled by Iraq, or knowingly looked the other way.

You know, TheodoreBear, it doesn’t help your argument that we should trust Hans Blix about the missing substances when you call him either a fool or a stooge two sentences later. :rolleyes:

As for the 10,000 liters, even assuming that these “substances” are the super-elusive biological and chemical weapons we went to war over, let’s not forget the fact that they are prone to spoilage and expiration. Under ideal conditions, they’d only have a shelf life of two or three years before turning into harmless sludge – and pre-war Iraq was hardly an ideal environment to begin with. So unless you think starting a war over spoiled milk makes sense, I’d advise a little less Fox News and a little more real life from now on…

[Squink]

As to what purpose or motive those who attempt to distort or downplay relevant facts

Such as counting everyday bacterial growth media as Anthrax, Aluminum tubes as centrifuge parts, Yellowcake as enriched uranium, Hydrogen generation facilities as mobile bioweapons production facilities or flimsy RC airplanes as bacterial weapon dispersal units?