Terrorism in London

You can’t be this dumb Holmes, to think that poor little Iraq was just an ordinary dictatorship. Blair didn’t screw up, shouldn’t apologize, and shouldn’t resign. He was wholly justified in his support for the war on terror and the campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan. I find it disgusting that you compare Blair and Bush to Hussein and Jong-Il. It is your kind of rhetoric that helps the terrorists and their cause. Did you know about the London attack ahead of time? Exactly Holmes. We needed to attack before Saddam had a chance to do some terrible things. It was common knowledge that Saddam was going to reconstitute his WMD program. To deny this is to close a blind eye to the reality of the situation.

You are just plain WRONG Holmes. You are dead wrong about this.

• "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
  --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
  ​
• "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
  --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
  ​
• "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
  --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
  ​
• "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
  --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
  ​
• "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
  Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
  -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
  ​
• "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
  -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
  ​
• "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
  -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
  ​
• "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
  Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
  -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
  ​
• "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the! e means of delivering them."
  -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
  ​
• "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
  -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
  ​
• "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
  -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
  ​
• "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
  -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
  ​
• "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
  -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
  ​
• "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
  -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
  ​
• "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
  -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
  ​
• "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
  -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
  ​
• "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
  -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
  ​
• "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
  -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
  ​
• "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
  -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

So you completely avoid the issue as usual. You side step it with name calling. That's par for the course with you when you have obviously lost the point but refuse to accept it. You have never addressed this list before, you ran away from it. Well it's here now, so address it now.You said:"it was also pretty well documented that he likely did not have the capability. It was also pretty well documented (by US intel) that he would not work with AQ, nor use WMDs, unless attacked. He would not provoke a fight."He would not work with AQ----WRONG
He would not use WMDs unless attacked---------WRONG
He would not provoke a fight-------WRONGThe list of Democratic quotes is only a partial list. Anybody can easily find a similar list of Republicans quotes and they all say the same essential thing Holmes.Sadaam Hussein had to be forcibly removed from power before he could develop and use WMDs.He may not have developed WMD’s in 2002 or this year or 5 years from now, but he would have done it sooner or later, and HE WOULD HAVE USED THEM. His track record is clear. It would have happened.That is a fact you simply refuse to accept. And as I have reminded you before, your signature is most appropriate to your posts.

One way or the other implies that we will use whatever means necessary to see to it that Sadaam is denied the capacity to develop WMD’s. The use of the term That is our bottom line, implies a summation of all relevant facts and in the final analysis, Sadaam must be stopped.Clinton is saying Sadaam will be prevented from developing WMD’s, and it will happen one way or another. If one approach is appeasement and containment, then another course is military action. One way or the other.

All those people were NOT proven wrong, that’s the big deception. There was bad intel regarding stockpiles of WMD’s. No debate there. But the phrase No WMD’s found has become a catch all rebut against any rationale or justification for the war.All arguments are summarily dismissed as bad intel because WMD’s were not found. It’s not true. When David Kay made the announcement in January 2004 that there were no stockpiles of WMD’s found, the press didn’t bother to analysis the balance of his report. Aside from the intelligence failure, Kay also said the following in regards to the chances that Saddam was going to continue his pursuit of WMD’s as soon as sanctions were lifted:

quote:

---

First, evidence of Saddam Hussein's intent to pursue WMD programs on a
large scale;

• Actual, ongoing chemical and biological research programs;
  ​
• An active program to use the deadly chemical ricin as a weapon,
  ​
• A program that was interrupted only by the start of the war in March;
  ​
• And evidence of missile programs;
  ​
• And evidence that in all probability they were going to build those weapons to incorporate in the warheads what we know not for sure, but certainly the possibility of weapons of mass destruction;
  ​
• Evidence that Saddam Hussein was attempting to reconstitute his
  fledgling nuclear program as late as 2001;
  ​
• And most important, evidence that clearly indicates Saddam Hussein was conducting a wide range of activities, in clear contravention of the United Nations resolutions.

---

None of these represents bad intel, it’s all true. Kay goes on to state:

quote:

---

With regard to Iraq's nuclear program, the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons. They have told ISG that Saddam Hussein remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons.

​

These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point. Some indicated a resumption after Iraq was free of sanctions. At least one senior Iraqi official believed that by 2000 Saddam had run out of patience with waiting for sanctions to end and wanted to restart the nuclear program.

---

Remember, Kay wrote this after it was known that large stockpiles of WMD’s were not found. Kay continues his testimony to Senator Warner:

quote:

---

Senator Warner, I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein. I have said -- I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought. I think when we have the complete record you're going to discover that after 1998, it became a regime that was totally corrupt.

​

Individuals were out for their own protection, and in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what may turn out not to be a fully accurate estimate.

---

Your question was asked and answered. If you choose to ignore my answers that’s your problem. It doesn’t show any connection to terrorism. I never said it did. It does show an increasing intolerance with Sadaam’s behavior and his flouting of international law and the UN mandates. In most countries, invasion wouldn’t be seriously considered, but Iraq was different and Clinton new it. Not at all. Clinton’s statement shows that Iraq would not be allowed to develop WMD’s and Clinton was indeed implying the use of military force. Clinton made this statement in 1998, long before the Bush administration and was included in the list to show Iraq’s continous, unending pattern of deception and defiance. All of which, when added together with other sources lead towards a solid justification for military action.

Jar, we can go down the list one by one, but I realize that no amount of evidence offered to you or others will justify invasion. The fact is that many people do not subscribe to the Bush Doctrine at all. Period.Especially troubling to these folks is the concept of pre-emption. To those, there is simply no amount of evidence that can be put forward that will justify pre-emptive military action. None at all. Despite the 12 year failure with Sadaam, there are those who hold to the cold war mentality that containment and appeasement with regards to terrorist States is the only way to go.Others accept the reality of a post 911 world and understand the scope and magnatude of the war on terror that we face. Pre-emption is a necessary policy option when dealing with rogue States that endorse, finance, support, or otherwise harbor terrorists.This message has been edited by Monk, Fri, 07-08-2005 08:08 PMThis message has been edited by Monk, Fri, 07-08-2005 08:13 PM

We can do that if you like, but the point is the list was posted in response to Holmes post which said:it was also pretty well documented that he likely did not have the capability. It was also pretty well documented (by US intel) that he would not work with AQ, nor use WMDs, unless attacked. He would not provoke a fight.You seem to expect that each quote listed must have references linking Iraq with terrorism, AND the use of WMD’s AND that Saddam would not provoke a fight AND that invasion was necessary. Your litmus test seems to be that if a quote did not contain all of these references, then is it invalid support for my rebuttal of Holmes post.The fact is that some of the quotes mention some of each of these items. The point being they paint a compelling picture when viewed together. But if you want to specifically look for other evidence linking Iraq with terrorism, then you’re right in that it’s probably off topic.

There is lots of evidence that points that way, here are a few examples:Colin Powell --Remarks to the UN Security Council---
5 February 2003

quote:

---

Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Saddam uses the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the Intifadah. And it’s no secret that Saddam’s own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s.

​

Zarqawi, Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialties, and one of the specialties of this camp, is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp, and this camp is located in northeastern Iraq.

---

A few other links between Iraq and terrorism :

• In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.
  ​
• Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.
  ​
• Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.
  ​
• Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq.
  ​
• In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment.
  ​
• Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."
  ​
• Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.

That’s how you present arguments? You didn’t like the art work so the content of the message must be invalid, eh? Ok, let's examine it:There was a car bomb.
The plot was led by Iraqi nationals.
The target was President Bush and the Emir of Kuwait.
This is terrorism.
This is a link to Iraq.

I guess I need to spell it out to you. I consider this assassination attempt to be terrorism. You don’t. Ok, so we agree to disagree. There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. Here is one from dictionary.com

quote:

---

Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

---

Wikipedia has several definitions and stresses that terrorism means different things to different people. They tend to exclude assassination attempts as terrorism. But a car bomb that has the potential to kill surrounding innocent civilians in a large scale blast especially if occurring in a crowded area, would be terrorism. The Terrorism Research Center explains:

quote:

---

There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism. There are many reasons for this (not the least of which is the cliche "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter"). Even different agencies of the US government have different working definitions. Most definitions usually have common elements, though, oriented around terrorism as the systematic use of physical violence--actual or threatened--against non-combatants but with an audience broader than the immediate victims in mind, to create a general climate of fear in a target population, in order to effect some kind of political and/or social change.

---

Based on this, it is likely that you and I will never agree on whether particular incidents constitute terrorism, but here are a few other viewpoints. The International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism states that terrorism is the intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims. This definition is based on three elements:

1. The essence of the activitythe use of, or threat to use, violence. According to this definition, an activity that does not involve violence or a threat of violence will not be defined as terrorism (including non-violent proteststrikes, peaceful demonstrations, tax revolts, etc.)
   ​
   A car bomb is violent
   ​
2. The aim of the activity is always politicalnamely, the goal is to attain political objectives; changing the regime, changing the people in power, changing social or economic policies, etc. In the absence of a political aim, the activity in questwill not be defined as terrorism. A violent activity against civilians that has no political aim is, at most, an act of criminal delinquency, a felony, or simply an act of insanity unrelated to terrorism. Some scholars tend to add ideological or religious aims to the list of political aims. The advantage of this definition, however, is that it is as short and exhaustive as possible. The concept of political aim is sufficiently broad to include these goals as well. The motivationwhether ideological, religious, or something elsebehind the political objective is irrelevant for the purpose of defining terrorism.
   ​
   President Bush and the Emir of Kuwait are political leaders whose death would necessitate a regime change.
   ​
3. The targets of terrorism are civilians. Terrorism is thus distinguished from other types of political violence (guerrilla warfare, civil insurrection, etc.). Terrorism exploits the relative vulnerability of the civilian underbellythe tremendous anxiety, and the intense media reaction evoked by attacks against civilian targets. The proposed definition emphasizes that terrorism is not the result of an accidental injury inflicted on a civilian or a group of civilians who stumbled into an area of violent political activity, but stresses that this is an act purposely directed against civilians. Hence, the term terrorism should not be ascribed to collateral damage to civilians used as human shields or to cover military activity or installations, if such damage is incurred in an attack originally aimed against a military target. In this case, the responsibility for civilian casualties is incumbent upon whoever used them as shields.

President Bush and the Emir of Kuwait are civilians as would be all the surrounding civilians that would have been killed in the car bomb blast. Some military personnel might also have died, but certainly civilians would have died.So based on this definition, I consider the 1993 attempted car bomb incident to be a thwarted terrorist attack. You seem to want to examine root causes of why this action should not be considered terrorism instead of the event itself. You want to go back in time and go step by step in a methodical way to show there was a perfectly good reason why Bush should have been blown up in a car bomb.But you are wrong. It doesn’t matter whether we find seemingly valid reasons to justify the assassination attempt, it is still terrorism. Al-Qaeda has said that the London attacks are the result of British foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan.By your rationale, it is possible for Al-Qaeda to put forward logical explanations that would remove the London attacks from the characterization of terrorism. To many terrorists apologist, the perpetrators of the attacks are merely freedom fighters. I don’t agree with this. I really don’t know what world lens you are looking through Jar, but to compare Powell’s presentation to Pre-K finger-painting is blind stupidity on your part. You throw these things out, yet you produce nothing to support it. That seems to sum up our exchanges here at EvC. But that’s ok, I leave it up to the reader’s to decide.Ok, on to Powell’s presentation.I think the so called finger painting you are referring to is the mobile biological units: This finger painting sketch as you call it shows how the components would work together in a functioning unit compared to the partial recover of an actual unit. Most Iraq apologist claim these units were nothing more than hydrogen production units, but Powell dismisses this claim:

quote:

---

Senior Iraqi officials of the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development, and Engineering facility in Mosul were shown pictures of the mobile production trailers, and they claimed that the trailers were used to chemically produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. Hydrogen production would be a plausible cover story for the mobile production units.

​

The Iraqis have used sophisticated denial and deception methods that include the use of cover stories that are designed to work. Some of the features of the trailera gas collection system and the presence of causticare consistent with both bioproduction and hydrogen production.

​

The plant's design possibly could be used to produce hydrogen using a chemical reaction, but it would be inefficient. The capacity of this trailer is larger than typical units for hydrogen production for weather balloons. Compact, transportable hydrogen generation systems are commercially available, safe, and reliable.

---

It would have been so much easier for Hussein to purchase mobile hydrogen production units from any number of legal sources. With his financial capability he could have purchased as many as he wanted and had them shipped anywhere in Iraq he wanted to at a fraction of the time, money and effort being expended to create these hydrogen units entirely from the ground up. I’m glad you saw the Kennedy presentation, good for you, but so what? This is another case of you simply choosing to ignore the evidence available. Here is the complete presentation submitted to the UN council on February 5, 2003. There is a lot more here than finger painting. Powell Presentation If you bothered to review the Powell presentation you will see the majority of the discussion is about how Hussein simply refuses to account for where the WMD’s are. They had them, now they don’t have them. Where did they go? No one knows and that’s extremely dangerous.

quote:

---

These quantities of chemical weapons are now unaccounted for. Dr. Blix has quipped that, "Mustard gas is not marmalade. You are supposed to know what you did with it." We believe Saddam Hussein knows what he did with it and he has not come clean with the international community.

​

We have evidence these weapons existed. What we don't have is evidence from Iraq that they have been destroyed or where they are. That is what we are still waiting for.

---

Regarding nukes, Powell never said Sadaam had them. He said:

quote:

---

Let me turn now to nuclear weapons. We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program. On the contrary, we have more than a decade of proof that he remains determined to acquire nuclear weapons. People will continue to debate this issue, but there is no doubt in my mind. These illicit procurement efforts show that Saddam Hussein is very much focused on putting in place the key missing piece from his nuclear weapons program, the ability to produce fissile material.

---

The bad intel concerns the stockpiles of chemical WMD’s which were not found. But my God, to simply throw out of the window all other compelling information based on this one issue is dangerous, short sighted, and ridiculous. Powell’s presentation includes taped conversations with Iraqi military discussing how and when to evacuate the chemical WMD’s.The only conclusion from all of this is that we didn’t find WMD’s because they had already been evacuated. Sadaam certainly had enough time to evacuate weapons during the 7 month rush to war. The New York Times created quite a stir on Oct. 25, 2004 when it reported that 380 tons of powerful explosives had disappeared from a storage site in Iraq. Bush was blamed for allowing the weapons to be evacuated, but what got lost in the article is that the weapons went missing before the invasion.Oh, but the Iraqi apologist ignore all of this. The pat response is always the same,We didn’t find WMD’s, bad intel, everything is all wrong. It’s all a big lie and there never was a basis to invade Iraq. End of story. Bush, Blair, Powell and all others supporting the war are idiots and children who finger paint.This sort of insane nonsense is why we need strong leaders like Bush and Blair who will not bow to terrorism and who will not be swayed by childish illogical terrorist apologists.

Cheers!