Terrorism in London

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.

You posted the quotes as support. All we can deal with is the content of the quotes you provided.Where in the quote is there support for "Iraq’s continous, unending pattern of deception and defiance."?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What evidence have you that the US has gained control over international oil markets for advantage over users? There is none. The democrats originally supported the war - before they didn't. Were they after this nebulous geopolitical oil control too? Or is that only a Republicna thing? Or did the Republicans fool the democrats, who wisened up to this conspiracy later on?Even the Arab press has let go of the war for oil stuff, so untenable is it in light of all the facts.

I have identifiesd several reasons: The islamists are tied up in iraq, making another 9/11 much ahrder to carry off. They're afraid of the US, especially that the US will bring yet another democracy to their world in the battle for the hearts and minds of muslims. Europe is an easier target, especially for smaller scale attacks such as those in GB and Spain, compared to 9/11. There's also that the US has tightened up security far better than either of those countries.But a bottom line remains: there are so many Jiahdis in iraq, and so much of their money is being spent there, that their capacity for mayhem elsewhere has been reduced. There's also that they're recruiting less now that the US, adn not them, is seen as "the strong horse." And, their attacks on fellow Musims (Shia, and they're Sunni) have caused blowback in the Islamic world, furthering the process of their discreditation, adn further weakening their recruitment aims.But, as long as they are muslims who take the war verses and sharia Law for what they say, there will be islamist movements of varying strength and lethality.

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

Again, read tehari who, BTW, is iranian.

Actually, many of us were very concerned about terrorism long before 9-11. In particular, we long argued that the idea of supporting and encouraging terrorism such as under the Reagan administration was a two edged sword. It was sure to come back to haunt us.We also are concerned today with terrorism. Our biggest worry is that the Bush Doctrine is doing nothing to address the issue of terrorism. Instead it is using the few resources available in a totally unneeded personal agenda.The rest of your post has nothing to do with the thread.So do you want to go down your list quote by quote so you can show how they connect Iraq and terrorism?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

You're right, it is pretty much off topic. But if you ever come up with anything that points that way, please let us know.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Why? Does he deny that there were reformist newspapers that would start publishing, and then shut down by the Islamists? Does he deny that there are pro-democracy activists that are beat up and jailed?

quote:

---

The islamists are tied up in iraq, making another 9/11 much ahrder to carry off.

---

You keep saying this; maybe if you keep saying it enough times it will become true?-

quote:

---

They're afraid of the US, especially that the US will bring yet another democracy to their world in the battle for the hearts and minds of muslims.

---

Since the US has never brought any democracy to the Middle East and has actually toppled democracies and populist regimes worldwide, I doubt that is what the Jihadis are afraid of.-

quote:

---

Europe is an easier target, especially for smaller scale attacks such as those in GB and Spain, compared to 9/11.

---

I already agreed with this. In fact, this is probably the main reason there have been very, very few Islamic terrorist attacks in the US (only two so far).--

quote:

---

There's also that the US has tightened up security far better than either of those countries.

---

I doubt this. Perhaps true, but it needs to be demonstrated.-The second paragraph is a list of assertians for which there is no supporting fact.-

quote:

---

But, as long as they are muslims who take the war verses and sharia Law for what they say, there will be islamist movements of varying strength and lethality.

---

This sounds like a tautology to me.

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.

quote:

---

What evidence have you that the US has gained control over international oil markets for advantage over users?

---

I never claimed that the US has gained control over the international oil markets. I'd reply to the rest of this post, but I'll let you reread the previous post first to see if you can figure out what I did, in fact, say.

Well, if you'd like we can work through these one at a time.Let's begin with Powell at the UN. If you watched some of his presentations there they can only be described as embarassing. In particular his drawings of the mobile WMD factories were certainly up to what one would expect from some fifth grade science fair. That makes it pretty hard to credit any of his testamony related to this.Now let's start down the rest of your list. Okay, let's examine this in relation to terrorism.This was an attempt on the life of Former President Bush and possibly the Emir of Kuwait.Did anything happen prior to 1993 that might provide a different motive than terrorism?Once we get this one dealt with we can work our way down your examples one at a time if you'd like.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion