al-qaeda training manual - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

stevo · 06-03-2005, 03:49 AM

I came across this online this morning. Of course curiosity lead me to read it. I hardly know what to say, I just think you all should take a look at it if you haven't all ready. Its an al-qaeda training manual siezed in a raid in manchester and translated in english. Just the introduction itself is eye-opening in a way. It reminds me what we're up against and what these people believe.

I hear arguments all the time about how it is the US's fault that 9/11 happened, that its the US's fault the terrorists hate us and want to kill us. Thats complete bullshit. It says in black and white why the terrorists are fighting us and it is not because of "American imperialism".

It talks about the fall of their caliphate on march 3, 1924. (hardly a US imperialist agenda. and you would think more of islamo-fascist anger would be directed at britain) It goes on to describe the spread of the western way of life. "They aimed at producing a wasted generation that pursued everything that is western and produced rulers, ministers, leaders, physicians, engineers, businessmen, politicians, journalists, and information specialists." but of course according to the terrorists, according to the koran, "And Allah's enemies plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of all planners is Allah." - according to these asshats my way of life is a conspiracy to end theirs.

For them there is no comprimise, no use for diplomacy because, "Islamic government would never be established except by the bomb and rifle. Islam does not coincide or make a truce with unbelief; but rather confronts it." Yeah, if only america would be nicer to the muslims and take their military bases out of saudi arabia the terrorists would stop and be our friends. I've heard that argument before.

The manual also goes on to describe one of the top five missions of the terrorists: that brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security and to spread rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy. - but according to amnesty international these are not just rumors and part of the terrorists plan, but just part of the evil american empire.

I'm done ranting now. Its way too early and I have work to do, but when you find the time, take a look at what the fucks believe and what they want to do to you and your family, and don't ever forget.

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm

Pacifier · 06-03-2005, 06:38 AM

I don't think that this Thread wil last long, but:

First of all I think it is wrong to belive that this manual shows "what we're up against and what these people believe" (who are "these people" anyway?). It shows what AlKaida thinks, not all terrorists, especially in Iraq, are AlKaida. Additionally that manual describes only the views of the fundamentalists, not all muslims (if you meant that with "those people").

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

It says in black and white why the terrorists are fighting us and it is not because of "American imperialism".

I said that numerous times already, the reason for the mess that the middle east is, is the how the whole west acts (IMO). That inculdes the British, who started a lot of the trouble, and the Americans who continue the same shit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

The manual also goes on to describe one of the top five missions of the terrorists: that brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security and to spread rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy. - but according to amnesty international these are not just rumors and part of the terrorists plan, but just part of the evil american empire.

Funny, one second AI is a reliable source and the next second the are not to be taken seriously

But what are you trying to suggest?
That the torture never happend?
Or that the torture is not that bad because the terrorist excepted and planned to get tortured?

Ustwo · 06-03-2005, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

But what are you trying to suggest?
That the torture never happend?
Or that the torture is not that bad because the terrorist excepted and planned to get tortured?

I think the point is not to trust a terrorist at his word.

Lebell · 06-03-2005, 07:09 AM

I'm sure the truth to that is somewhere in the middle.

stevo · 06-03-2005, 07:10 AM

by "those people" I mean terrorists, not muslims as a whole. And yes, terrorists in iraq believe the same thing al-qaeda does, if it were any different they wouldn't be blowing themselves up killing fellow brothers and sisters, only because they are seen as enemies of islam for cooperating with the new government.

I don't know what you are saying, but I would consider what al-qaeda says to their own to be reliable. What they say to eachother and what they print in their handbook has to be reliable-it is what they are fighting for-from their own mouths. To suggest that they don't even believe what they print for their own fighters is assanine. If you put two and two together you can see how alqaeda's claims of torture in guantanamo shouldn't be taken seriously, since in they have clearly stated that it is part of their mission to spread rumors of torture by US soldiers/officials.

What I'm trying to suggest is that the reports of torture grossly overrepresent what is actually going on. Sure, shit happens. some terrorists have probably been, what some would consider, tortured - I suppose abu grahb prison photos would be a good example. But to believe that the US is torturing terror suspects iin a widespread manner is rediculous, especially in guantanamo, which is under a very heavy international eye. IRC, AI, et al.

roachboy · 06-03-2005, 07:12 AM

i have mentioned this parallel before, but here it seems germaine--the americans find themselves in a scenario that is very much like what the french found themselves in during the algerian war.

the use of torture. illegal detensions, the modern gulag in general follow from the fact that the american military is vertically organized and cannot figure out how to deal with horizontally organized/fragmented opposition. the assumption is that an adversary structured like the american military exists out there somewhere, and apparently if you torture enough people would till find it. this use of torture and illegal detention seems to follow from particular types of conflicts, particular organizational assymetries. in both cases, this usage was facilitated by racism and ignorance. in both situations, the central effect was the creation of the conditions that the actiosn were designed to pre-empt. (i refer mostly to iraq here)

the category "terrorist" and the arguments from bush's boy alberto gonzalez about the non-applicability of the "quaint" geneva convention to manly campaigns like bushwar in general are simply ideological screens, meant to provide a pseudo-legal face for the wholesale evacuation of even the most elementary human rights in the name of the war on terror.

al qeada operates as the bogyeman behind this move--the americans need al qeada, and al-qeada needs the americans. for each, the other is the best publicity imaginable.

i think in the main pacifier is correct: the manual is irrelevant.
it seems pretty clear that support for the war is structured to a significant extent around a blurring of iraq into the wider "logic" of bushwar.
stevo's post makes the case for this quite clearly.
but it is irrelevant.

stevo · 06-03-2005, 07:20 AM

I don't think the iraq war needs to be blurred into anything. Its clear to me, obviously not to everyone, that it is a part of the war on terror. People call the insurgents in iraq something akin to freedom fighters. That they are only fighing because we invaded them. Then the question is raised, "well, wouldn't you do the same thing if another country invaded NY?"

I can answer with a straight face - NO.

No, i would not drive a truck full of explosives into a crowded market.
No, I would not walk into a church during a funeral and blow myself up and everyone around me.

The terrorists don't do these things to fight the americans. They do them because they believe the people around them are just as evil as the US for cooperating. For them, an islamic state cannot be created by peaceful means, only through bombs and bullets. Their words, not mine.

Pacifier · 06-03-2005, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

And yes, terrorists in iraq believe the same thing al-qaeda does, if it were any different they wouldn't be blowing themselves up killing fellow brothers and sisters, only because they are seen as enemies of islam for cooperating with the new government.

Bollocks, the same deeds can have different motivations.
Some want an islamic rule, some simple want to get rid of the US.

A small article beside the american mainstream media:
An Anatomy of the Resistance to the American Occupation in Iraq

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I don't know what you are saying, but I would consider what al-qaeda says to their own to be reliable. What they say to eachother and what they print in their handbook has to be reliable-it is what they are fighting for-from their own mouths.

That is brainwashing propaganda and you take it serious?
BTW: I'm lazy, I only read the first part of the manual quickly. Which is the part about the torturing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

If you put two and two together you can see how alqaeda's claims of torture in guantanamo shouldn't be taken seriously, since in they have clearly stated that it is part of their mission to spread rumors of torture by US soldiers/officials.

If only alqaeda make such claims i would agree. But AI and other organisations also make such claims.

stevo · 06-03-2005, 08:00 AM

Suicide bomber kills 10 at Sufi Muslim gathering
Fri Jun 3, 2005 11:08 AM ET
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=8692191

Quote:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A suicide bomber blew himself up at a gathering of Sufi Muslims north of Baghdad, killing 10 people in the latest attack by Iraqi insurgents on religious sects they disapprove of, officials said on Friday.

The bomber detonated his explosives on Thursday evening in a house near the town of Balad as Sufis gathered for a religious ceremony, Interior Ministry officials said.

Sufis follow a form of Islamic mysticism that stresses the need for a personal experience of God. Some conservative Muslims consider them emotional or even heretical.

Sectarian tensions have long been building between Iraq's Shi'ite majority and the Sunni Arab minority that dominated during the rule of Saddam Hussein. But until Thursday's blast, Iraq's small Sufi community had been spared major attacks.

Religious strife in Iraq has been stoked by the killing of dozens of Shi'ite and Sunni clerics in recent months. A leading Sunni group has accused the militia of one of Iraq's main Shi'ite parties of being behind the killings of Sunni clerics, but other religious leaders have called for calm.

On Thursday evening, two gunmen shot dead Ali Abdul-Hussein, the imam of a Shi'ite mosque in the southern city of Basra, as he stood outside his house, police and relatives said.

In Kirkuk, where ethnic tensions have been building between Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen who all lay claim to the strategic oil city, gunmen killed a leading Turkmen official in a drive-by shooting as he left Friday prayers, police said.

The victim, Brigadier General Sabah Qaratun, worked for Kirkuk's local government and was a member of a leading Turkmen party. Over the past month leading officials in all three ethnic communities have been assassinated in the city.

WAVE OF ATTACKS

A sharp escalation in insurgent violence -- particularly suicide bombings -- has put further strain on Iraq's sectarian and ethnic fault lines. Thursday's attack on Sufis was one of at least four suicide bomb attacks across the country that day that killed at least 19 Iraqis and wounded dozens.

Since a new Shi'ite Islamist-led government was named on April 28, more than 800 Iraqis and 80 U.S. troops have been killed, making May the deadliest month since January

Iraq's Shi'ite and Kurdish leaders, who emerged strongest from the Jan. 30 elections, have been trying to include more Sunni Arabs in politics to try to defuse sectarian tensions and to undermine the insurgency.
Most Sunni Arabs stayed away from the polls because of fears of violence and calls for a boycott, and there are only 17 Sunni Arab lawmakers in the 175-member parliament.

Politicians are trying to agree a mechanism to include more Sunni Arabs in a committee that will draft a permanent constitution for Iraq -- the next key step on the country's path to democracy. There are only two Sunni Arabs in the 55-member committee, but officials say more will be added.

Iraq's Sunni Arabs could potentially veto the constitution in a referendum later this year if they feel they have not had enough input, stalling the plan to hold another general election by the end of 2005 to elect a fully democratic government.

This shit happens several times a day in iraq - attacks on fellow countrymen that do not believe the same perverted version of islam the terrorists do. Its a shame and it only goes to show how low these fucks really are. They aren't fighting a war, they aren't fighting troops. They are blowing up innocent people to instill fear and terror in the hearts of the iraqis in hopes that the citizens of iraq will say 'nay' to freedom and 'yea' to a taliban-like regime. The people that want islamic rule are the SAME as the people that want the US out. There is NO difference between them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

That is brainwashing propaganda and you take it serious?

And you don't? The asshats that fly planes into buildings and drive bombs into mosques sure as hell do.

Incosian · 06-03-2005, 08:22 AM

Quote:

I don't think the iraq war needs to be blurred into anything. Its clear to me, obviously not to everyone, that it is a part of the war on terror. People call the insurgents in iraq something akin to freedom fighters. That they are only fighing because we invaded them. Then the question is raised, "well, wouldn't you do the same thing if another country invaded NY?"

I can answer with a straight face - NO.

No, i would not drive a truck full of explosives into a crowded market.
No, I would not walk into a church during a funeral and blow myself up and everyone around me.

The terrorists don't do these things to fight the americans. They do them because they believe the people around them are just as evil as the US for cooperating. For them, an islamic state cannot be created by peaceful means, only through bombs and bullets. Their words, not mine.

It's clear to you that the Iraq War is part of the "War on Terror"? Even though it has been established that there was no credible evidence to suggest that Iraq had a connection to the terrorism that beset the country on 9/11?

The "insurgents" in Iraq are fighting for their right to self-governance in the form of an Islamic state. I think it is clearly an example of freedom fighting; after all, we preemptively invaded a sovereign nation against international law, and proceeded to kill MANY civilians in the process - several thousand. So when they kill civilians as part of their campaign, we have no right to criticize, regardless of what you think of their preferred method of execution.

For them, desperate times call for desperate measures. I will be lambasted for this, but their methods parallel similar tactics that the Americans used in the Revolution. While our revolutionaries did not "blow themselves up", they defied conventional rules of warfare and engaged in guerilla warfare, attacking the enemy unseen. We did not have the manpower, nor the experienced soldiers necessary for the war, so we employed tactics to offset our disadvantage. Likewise, the "insurgents" could not face us openly, for they would surely be defeated. Their killing of civilians is part of their guerilla campaign, whether or not you view it as morally acceptable. We instigated this, not them.

And yes, if NY was invaded we would most assuredly retaliate against the aggressor.

martinguerre · 06-03-2005, 08:24 AM

the only thing that i find interesting about any theology/rhetoric of dark vs. light, sons of evil and sons of heaven, etc, etc....is why people come to beleive in them. the particulars change across cultures, situations, and times, but the outcomes are usually quite similar, including but not limited to extremist violence.

i see this rhetoric a lot. they're hard core, they're fundamentalists, they're unconvincable, they're beyond logic, they'll never stop fighting until we kill 'em... Okay. Maybe, perhaps. But the functional position of those logics is to make it easier for us to consider them a legitimate target of violence.

Which is what those words (the manual) are, flipped around...logics that provide assistance in making us a legitimate target of violence for the Arab world. Is it really more compelling to kill them all, or to figure out how to defuse these logics, to create condititions in which they are not convincing, or offer the best hope?

Incosian · 06-03-2005, 08:35 AM

Quote:

the only thing that i find interesting about any theology/rhetoric of dark vs. light, sons of evil and sons of heaven, etc, etc....is why people come to beleive in them. the particulars change across cultures, situations, and times, but the outcomes are usually quite similar, including but not limited to extremist violence.

I tend to agree with Nietzsche's explanation for this in his argument for the revaluation of values. This sort of religious notion of "sons of evil and sons of heaven" stems from the innovation of slave morality as a weapon against the elites in society.

The moral paradigm originally consisted of good/bad - the good being the ruling elite and the bad being the impovershed, uneducated members of society. Then, with the arrival of Judeo-Christian tradition, the paradigm evolved into the dichotomy of good/evil, wherin the good were the humble and impovershed, and the evil were the oppressing "nobility". Thus, the sons of heaven became the humble and lowly - the "good" - and the sons of hell became the oppressive and "materialistic" nobles - the "evil".

Just my thoughts.

stevo · 06-03-2005, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incosian

The "insurgents" in Iraq are fighting for their right to self-governance in the form of an Islamic state. I think it is clearly an example of freedom fighting; after all, we preemptively invaded a sovereign nation against international law, and proceeded to kill MANY civilians in the process - several thousand. So when they kill civilians as part of their campaign, we have no right to criticize, regardless of what you think of their preferred method of execution.

The insurgents in iraq are are very small percentage of the populace. If the majority of folks wanted an islamic state they could have voted one in. but what has happened is that a small minority wants to impose their will on the 20 million+ people in iraq, when clearly, they do not want that. This is obvious when the insurgents must result in killing just about everyone around them, anyone seen as cooperating with the new govt or coalition forces. If you were to pick out an iraqi at random and ask them what government they want, odds are it would be the one elected.

Pacifier · 06-03-2005, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

This shit happens several times a day in iraq - attacks on fellow countrymen that do not believe the same perverted version of islam the terrorists do

There are currently 50-60 attacks per day, few of them are suicide attacks. The suicide attacks just get more media attention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

And you don't? The asshats that fly planes into buildings and drive bombs into mosques sure as hell do.

ok, used the wrong word here. serious yes, but I don't believe everthing that Al-Kaidia Propaganda writes

frogza · 06-03-2005, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incosian

It's clear to you that the Iraq War is part of the "War on Terror"? Even though it has been established that there was no credible evidence to suggest that Iraq had a connection to the terrorism that beset the country on 9/11?

I would like to know where this warped definition of terrorism comes from. Involvment in the 9/11 attack is not a prerequisite to be a terrorist. A regime that uses murder, rape, abduction, genocide etc. is a terrorist regime, even if they aren't direcly affiliated with Al-Qaeda.

Terrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities.

Just because Saddam wasn't flying a plane or funding the attacks doesn't exclude him and his supporters from being terrorists. He was able to use the means and weapons that these psychopaths employ to take over a whole country. He was a perfect example of what all the little terrorists would like to achieve. Taking him down from his throne was a message to all terrorists that we will not tolerate terrorism no matter how successful they are or how many followers they have.

So taking out Saddam was right in line with a war on terror.

roachboy · 06-03-2005, 09:06 AM

the emphasis on suicide attacks in the press pool coverage of the war in iraq enables positions like stevo's to continue to function, despite the mountain of information that demonstrates that the linkages between the invasion of iraq and the "war on terror" were not worth the paper they were written on. his argument seems to depart from this "information"--suicide attacks are what "terrorists" do, al qeada is a terrorist organization, in the parlance of our times, therefore all suicide attackers are al qaeda. or like al qaeda. so the distinction does not matter.

it is not a very powerful or informative argument, in my opinion, except insofar as it accidentally reveals the source of its logic, which is the stream of infotainment the press pool relays from its daily pentagon briefings. a kind of "public diplomacy" dontcha know.

i suspect this kind of logic is important for the approximately 30% of the american population who actually support this idiotic war in iraq.

Incosian · 06-03-2005, 09:20 AM

Quote:

The insurgents in iraq are are very small percentage of the populace. If the majority of folks wanted an islamic state they could have voted one in.

They DID vote one in; the citizens of Iraq overwhelmingly elected a Shiite Muslim government...one that will undoubtedly rule with religious influences. So while the "insurgents" represent the violent portion of this sentiment, it is quite widespread, except in the case of the Sunni minority, who now have serious representational issues in the new government.

Quote:

I would like to know where this warped definition of terrorism comes from. Involvment in the 9/11 attack is not a prerequisite to be a terrorist. A regime that uses murder, rape, abduction, genocide etc. is a terrorist regime, even if they aren't direcly affiliated with Al-Qaeda.

Terrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities.

Just because Saddam wasn't flying a plane or funding the attacks doesn't exclude him and his supporters from being terrorists. He was able to use the means and weapons that these psychopaths employ to take over a whole country. He was a perfect example of what all the little terrorists would like to achieve. Taking him down from his throne was a message to all terrorists that we will not tolerate terrorism no matter how successful they are or how many followers they have.

So taking out Saddam was right in line with a war on terror.

You bring up good points frogza, except the pretenses for the War on Terror were based on the attacks on our homeland. Regime atrocities have been around for ages; hell, we've been some of their biggest supporters not very long ago. So to tell the American people that we are engaging in a new, widespread War on Terror as a result of the attacks in NYC and then use it as an excuse to fight oppressive regimes is a bit misleading, and not in-line with its original purpose.

Perhaps if the Bush Administration had given us the role of liberator from "regime terrorism" from the get-go, it wouldn't be an issue. But they didn't. They based the case for war on the false pretenses of WMD and terrorism, substantiated by warped intelligence and used as a method to further global ambitions. So you're argument is just a cop-out, in essence. You can't attempt to justify the war based on argument created after the primary goals of military action were proven to be fabricated and/or falsely justified.

You could argue that the mission to free Iraqis from regime oppression was always there, but I think that is bullshit. That line was parroted as a sort of whipped cream on the desert underneath. Given our political history with oppressive regimes - including now with our ridiculous relationship with one of the most oppressive regimes of all, that of Saudi Arabia's royal family - we clearly did not go to war to deliver the "armies of compassion".

Ustwo · 06-03-2005, 09:24 AM

What does it matter if its a suicide attack or just a good old timed bomb?

The method of the attack is not relevant, the targets are.

Suicide attacks just emphasize the fact that we are dealing with nutjobs.

Incosian · 06-03-2005, 09:32 AM

I see your point Ustwo, but civilians are frequently casualties of war, and often deliberately. Sure, we may not view it as ethically acceptable, but they view it as one of the few viable ways to combat the enemy.

roachboy · 06-03-2005, 09:38 AM

another effect of the press pool's repetition of pentagon "public diplomacy": buttressing the illusion that "terrorism" is an adequate category for describing what is happening now in iraq, of pathologizing these actions and in turn justifying the anything goes approach the bush administration has adopted. of course the americans should outsource torture, hold people indefinitely without trial, engage in huamn rights abuses on a significant scale--the Other is nuts.

you could apply the same argument about indiscriminate killing to any air raid, any artillery barrage, any battle. the fact that the people doing this indiscriminate killing wear uniforms does not make it any less indiscriminate. but in that situation, folk like ustwo are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the agents responsable for the carnage...not so when the war is being carried out by folk who do not wear uniforms.

curious, that.

Ustwo · 06-03-2005, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incosian

I see your point Ustwo, but civilians are frequently casualties of war, and often deliberately. Sure, we may not view it as ethically acceptable, but they view it as one of the few viable ways to combat the enemy.

The issue really isn't if the attacks are effective. Of course they are, every casualty helps their cause because its one more body the opposition to the war can point to and say 'See this is what the US caused!', but that does not change the fact that they are terrorists. Their motives are not of those seeking freedom but those seeking oppression. You don't terrorize a population which you want to see freed. You do it as an object lesson. You see THIS is what supporting the government will get you and when we take over you better bow down or we will do even worse!

I am honestly perplexed why so many people in the West are in support of terrorists. I can understand not supporting the war on principle, but that part is now over. The morality of the war is now moot, what matters is the outcome. The most immortal thing we can do at this point is withdraw our forces, it would be unforgivable. Supporting these terrorists is condemning the Iraqi people to another Saddam, and I don't think any political gain in the west (see I told you so!) is worth the sacrifice of so many.

roachboy · 06-03-2005, 10:02 AM

and so here we are again, ustwo:

1. in the above (no. 21) you are but a hair's breadth away from accusing everyone who does not agree with your position on this war as traitors. why do we continually find ourselves back here?

2. you might be persuaded that the questions about the legitimacy of the war are "moot"--but that is not a shared opinion outside the world of conservative media. as as an assertion about a general state of affairs, yours is arbitrary.

i know that this is the main way that the administration has tried to deal with the many many problems their rush to an ill-considered, unjustified war has created for them.

but it is simply a preference: it changes nothing about the facts of the matter.

3. you act as though the argument stevo began the thread with concerning the use of the word terrorist to describe what is going on in iraq is not problematic, ustwo, and this 21 posts into a thread across which over half have tried to raise exactly this problem. which you have not addressed. you act as though simply repeating your premise alot of times constitutes an argument for it.
you simply have not presented a case that stevo's position is justified.
try making an actual argument that the transposition of terms is justified.

4. you also act as though opposing the war in iraq means that you support the fighters who are working against the american occupation. that is not an obvious jump. in this case, i can see where it came from in the thread--but i do not think that it is accurate or interesting to conflate the two. i can see hwo it might be functional for you, given your politics--but i do not think it describes anything beyond the outline of your politics. could you spell out your logic please?

drewpy · 06-03-2005, 10:20 AM

I would like to weigh in support for the insights represented by Ustwo. I too have always been perplexed with symphathy for terrorists (and historically, for communists, fascists etc - not that I'm lumping all in together - i'm not) I sometimes feel that the baby gets thrown out with the bath water - that those who end up as "terrorist supporters" do so by virtue of having other axes to grind (with bush for example) and therefore end up doing more overall disservice than ever anticipated ...

Pacifier · 06-03-2005, 10:23 AM

What "terrorist supporters"?! Who here has supported terror?!
Name one!

You have to try to understand the enemy and his motivations in order to end a conflict. Labeling all terrorists as "islamic fundies" is not helpful since it is just wrong.

stevo · 06-03-2005, 10:29 AM

The enemy's motivations are laid out in the handbook I posted to begin this thread. but then you don't believe them, so I don't know what to tell you.

roachboy · 06-03-2005, 10:33 AM

so here we are, back where we started again.
there is abundant information--ABUNDANT information--that militates against any such claim about the manual, stevo. they have already been mentioned several times above. start with the documentation that has emerged since the start of thei sorry war in iraq about the bush administrations initial claims that al qaeda was in iraq. they werent. move from there.

but maye this is not in fact a discussion of anything.
and i have other things to do.

Incosian · 06-03-2005, 10:49 AM

Quote:

that does not change the fact that they are terrorists. Their motives are not of those seeking freedom but those seeking oppression. You don't terrorize a population which you want to see freed. You do it as an object lesson. You see THIS is what supporting the government will get you and when we take over you better bow down or we will do even worse!

It is true that these people use violent force against those in support of the new government, yet I still believe their cause is ultimately that of freedom, and not of oppression. Their goals are in the interest of driving foreign influences out, and instead propagating their own ideals. The terrorizing of civilians can be considered depraved and indecent, but to them the means justify the ends. I am not speaking on their behalf per se, but I am trying to understand the logic that drives their actions. I do believe, however, that they have a right to defend themselves against invasion and foreign influences.

drewpy · 06-03-2005, 10:51 AM

Pacifier - thanks for pointing that out - my wording, albeit in quotes, was not what I had intended. The term that Ustwo had used was "sympathize" - that is more to the point. Further, I don't view terrorists as "islamic fundies", unfortunately there are too many examples ...

martinguerre · 06-03-2005, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I am honestly perplexed why so many people in the West are in support of terrorists. I can understand not supporting the war on principle, but that part is now over. The morality of the war is now moot, what matters is the outcome. The most immortal thing we can do at this point is withdraw our forces, it would be unforgivable. Supporting these terrorists is condemning the Iraqi people to another Saddam, and I don't think any political gain in the west (see I told you so!) is worth the sacrifice of so many.

This rhetoric is trolling. The morality of the war is not moot. What we plan to do in Iraq and how we do it is still an open discussion. We invaded, yes. But that does not write our further responses in stone. Stay the course is not the only option (even not the only option not involving withdrawl.) You're presenting a series of false dichotomies... Not supporting the current functioning of the "war on terror" is not support of terrorism or extremist Islamacism. Not supporting the current "slow bleed" policy of Iraq re-destruction is not support of the forces American occupation has inspired to attack.

host · 06-03-2005, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frogza

I would like to know where this warped definition of terrorism comes from. Involvment in the 9/11 attack is not a prerequisite to be a terrorist. A regime that uses murder, rape, abduction, genocide etc. is a terrorist regime, even if they aren't direcly affiliated with Al-Qaeda................

Just because Saddam wasn't flying a plane or funding the attacks doesn't exclude him and his supporters from being terrorists..............
So taking out Saddam was right in line with a war on terror.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true</a>
U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 30, 2002; Page A01

High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.

Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Throughout the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq was the sworn enemy of Iran, then still in the throes of an Islamic revolution. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan -- a Middle East version of the "domino theory" in Southeast Asia. That was enough to turn Hussein into a strategic partner and for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad to routinely refer to Iraqi forces as "the good guys," in contrast to the Iranians, who were depicted as "the bad guys."

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

Opinions differ among Middle East experts and former government officials about the pre-Iraqi tilt, and whether Washington could have done more to stop the flow to Baghdad of technology for building weapons of mass destruction.

"It was a horrible mistake then, but we have got it right now," says Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA military analyst and author of "The Threatening Storm," which makes the case for war with Iraq. "My fellow [CIA] analysts and I were warning at the time that Hussein was a very nasty character. We were constantly fighting the State Department."

"Fundamentally, the policy was justified," argues David Newton, a former U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, who runs an anti-Hussein radio station in Prague. "We were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible."

What makes present-day Hussein different from the Hussein of the 1980s, say Middle East experts, is the mellowing of the Iranian revolution and the August 1990 invasion of Kuwait that transformed the Iraqi dictator, almost overnight, from awkward ally into mortal enemy. In addition, the United States itself has changed. As a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, U.S. policymakers take a much more alarmist view of the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. Shifts in Iran-Iraq War

When the Iran-Iraq war began in September 1980, with an Iraqi attack across the Shatt al Arab waterway that leads to the Persian Gulf, the United States was a bystander. The United States did not have diplomatic relations with either Baghdad or Tehran. U.S. officials had almost as little sympathy for Hussein's dictatorial brand of Arab nationalism as for the Islamic fundamentalism espoused by Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. As long as the two countries fought their way to a stalemate, nobody in Washington was disposed to intervene.

By the summer of 1982, however, the strategic picture had changed dramatically. After its initial gains, Iraq was on the defensive, and Iranian troops had advanced to within a few miles of Basra, Iraq's second largest city. U.S. intelligence information suggested the Iranians might achieve a breakthrough on the Basra front, destabilizing Kuwait, the Gulf states, and even Saudi Arabia, thereby threatening U.S. oil supplies.

"You have to understand the geostrategic context, which was very different from where we are now," said Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official, who worked on Iraqi policy during the Reagan administration. "Realpolitik dictated that we act to prevent the situation from getting worse."

To prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through third parties such as Saudi Arabia. The U.S. tilt toward Iraq was enshrined in National Security Decision Directive 114 of Nov. 26, 1983, one of the few important Reagan era foreign policy decisions that still remains classified. According to former U.S. officials, the directive stated that the United States would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.

The presidential directive was issued amid a flurry of reports that Iraqi forces were using chemical weapons in their attempts to hold back the Iranians. In principle, Washington was strongly opposed to chemical warfare, a practice outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol. In practice, U.S. condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons ranked relatively low on the scale of administration priorities, particularly compared with the all-important goal of preventing an Iranian victory.

Thus, on Nov. 1, 1983, a senior State Department official, Jonathan T. Howe, told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW" against the Iranians. But the Reagan administration had already committed itself to a large-scale diplomatic and political overture to Baghdad, culminating in several visits by the president's recently appointed special envoy to the Middle East, Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Secret talking points prepared for the first Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad enshrined some of the language from NSDD 114, including the statement that the United States would regard "any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West." When Rumsfeld finally met with Hussein on Dec. 20, he told the Iraqi leader that Washington was ready for a resumption of full diplomatic relations, according to a State Department report of the conversation. Iraqi leaders later described themselves as "extremely pleased" with the Rumsfeld visit, which had "elevated U.S.-Iraqi relations to a new level."

In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, a claim at odds with declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting with the Iraqi leader. A Pentagon spokesman, Brian Whitman, now says that Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz. The State Department notes show that he mentioned it largely in passing as one of several matters that "inhibited" U.S. efforts to assist Iraq.

Rumsfeld has also said he had "nothing to do" with helping Iraq in its war against Iran. Although former U.S. officials agree that Rumsfeld was not one of the architects of the Reagan administration's tilt toward Iraq -- he was a private citizen when he was appointed Middle East envoy -- the documents show that his visits to Baghdad led to closer U.S.-Iraqi cooperation on a wide variety of fronts. Washington was willing to resume diplomatic relations immediately, but Hussein insisted on delaying such a step until the following year.

As part of its opening to Baghdad, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department terrorism list in February 1982, despite heated objections from Congress. Without such a move, Teicher says, it would have been "impossible to take even the modest steps we were contemplating" to channel assistance to Baghdad. Iraq -- along with Syria, Libya and South Yemen -- was one of four original countries on the list, which was first drawn up in 1979.

Some former U.S. officials say that removing Iraq from the terrorism list provided an incentive to Hussein to expel the Palestinian guerrilla leader Abu Nidal from Baghdad in 1983. On the other hand, Iraq continued to play host to alleged terrorists throughout the '80s. The most notable was Abu Abbas, leader of the Palestine Liberation Front, who found refuge in Baghdad after being expelled from Tunis for masterminding the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro, which resulted in the killing of an elderly American tourist.

Iraq Lobbies for Arms

While Rumsfeld was talking to Hussein and Aziz in Baghdad, Iraqi diplomats and weapons merchants were fanning out across Western capitals for a diplomatic charm offensive-cum-arms buying spree. In Washington, the key figure was the Iraqi chargé d'affaires, Nizar Hamdoon, a fluent English speaker who impressed Reagan administration officials as one of the most skillful lobbyists in town.

"He arrived with a blue shirt and a white tie, straight out of the mafia," recalled Geoffrey Kemp, a Middle East specialist in the Reagan White House. "Within six months, he was hosting suave dinner parties at his residence, which he parlayed into a formidable lobbying effort. He was particularly effective with the American Jewish community."

One of Hamdoon's favorite props, says Kemp, was a green Islamic scarf allegedly found on the body of an Iranian soldier. The scarf was decorated with a map of the Middle East showing a series of arrows pointing toward Jerusalem. Hamdoon used to "parade the scarf" to conferences and congressional hearings as proof that an Iranian victory over Iraq would result in "Israel becoming a victim along with the Arabs."

According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit.

At the same time the Reagan administration was facilitating the supply of weapons and military components to Baghdad, it was attempting to cut off supplies to Iran under "Operation Staunch." Those efforts were largely successful, despite the glaring anomaly of the 1986 Iran-contra scandal when the White House publicly admitted trading arms for hostages, in violation of the policy that the United States was trying to impose on the rest of the world.

Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.

When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret. In February 1984, an Iraqi military spokesman effectively acknowledged their use by issuing a chilling warning to Iran. "The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide."

Chemicals Kill Kurds

In late 1987, the Iraqi air force began using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq that had formed a loose alliance with Iran, according to State Department reports. The attacks, which were part of a "scorched earth" strategy to eliminate rebel-controlled villages, provoked outrage on Capitol Hill and renewed demands for sanctions against Iraq. The State Department and White House were also outraged -- but not to the point of doing anything that might seriously damage relations with Baghdad.

"The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is . . . important to our long-term political and economic objectives," Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy wrote in a September 1988 memorandum that addressed the chemical weapons question. "We believe that economic sanctions will be useless or counterproductive to influence the Iraqis."

Bush administration spokesmen have cited Hussein's use of chemical weapons "against his own people" -- and particularly the March 1988 attack on the Kurdish village of Halabjah -- to bolster their argument that his regime presents a "grave and gathering danger" to the United States.

The Iraqis continued to use chemical weapons against the Iranians until the end of the Iran-Iraq war. A U.S. air force intelligence officer, Rick Francona, reported finding widespread use of Iraqi nerve gas when he toured the Al Faw peninsula in southern Iraq in the summer of 1988, after its recapture by the Iraqi army. The battlefield was littered with atropine injectors used by panicky Iranian troops as an antidote against Iraqi nerve gas attacks.

Far from declining, the supply of U.S. military intelligence to Iraq actually expanded in 1988, according to a 1999 book by Francona, "Ally to Adversary: an Eyewitness Account of Iraq's Fall from Grace." Informed sources said much of the battlefield intelligence was channeled to the Iraqis by the CIA office in Baghdad.

Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation."

The U.S. policy of cultivating Hussein as a moderate and reasonable Arab leader continued right up until he invaded Kuwait in August 1990, documents show. When the then-U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, met with Hussein on July 25, 1990, a week before the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, she assured him that Bush "wanted better and deeper relations," according to an Iraqi transcript of the conversation. "President Bush is an intelligent man," the ambassador told Hussein, referring to the father of the current president. "He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq."

"Everybody was wrong in their assessment of Saddam," said Joe Wilson, Glaspie's former deputy at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and the last U.S. official to meet with Hussein. "Everybody in the Arab world told us that the best way to deal with Saddam was to develop a set of economic and commercial relationships that would have the effect of moderating his behavior. History will demonstrate that this was a miscalculation."

Quote:

<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp-list_x.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp-list_x.htm</a>
9/30/2002 - Updated 02:31 PM ET
A look at U.S. shipments of pathogens to Iraq

Shipments from the United States to Iraq of the kinds of pathogens later used in Iraq's biological weapons programs, according to records from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Senate Banking Committee and U.N. weapons inspectors:

ANTHRAX

Iraq admitted making 2,200 gallons of anthrax spores and putting some of them into weapons. U.N. inspectors said Iraq could have made three times as much anthrax as it acknowledged, and could not verify Iraq's claims to have destroyed all of its weaponized anthrax.

The American Type Culture Collection, a biological samples repository in Manassas, Va., sent two shipments of anthrax to Iraq in the 1980s. Three anthrax strains were in a May 1986 shipment sent to the University of Baghdad, which U.N. inspectors later linked to Iraq's biological weapons program. A 1988 shipment from ATCC to Iraq also included four anthrax strains.

BOTULINUM

Iraq admitted making 5,300 gallons of botulinum toxin, a deadly poison produced by the Clostridium botulinum bacteria, and putting some of it into weapons. Five warheads filled with botulinum toxin are missing.

ATCC sent six strains of Clostridium botulinum to the University of Baghdad in the May 1986 shipment. The September 1988 ATCC shipment to Iraq also contained one strain of Clostridium botulinum.

In March 1986, the CDC sent samples of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxiod (used to make a vaccine against botulinum poisoning) directly to Iraq's al-Muthanna complex, a center for Iraq's chemical weapons program and the site where Iraq restarted its dormant biological weapons program in 1985.

GAS GANGRENE

U.N. inspectors concluded Iraq could have produced hundreds of gallons of the germs that cause gas gangrene, though Iraq admitted producing just a fraction of that amount. Gas gangrene, caused by the Clostridium perfringens bacteria, causes toxic gases to form inside the body, killing tissues and causing internal bleeding, lung and liver damage.

ATCC sent three strains of Clostridium perfringens to the University of Baghdad in the May 1986 shipment and another three strains in the 1988 shipment.

OTHER

The CDC sent bacteria samples to Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission in 1985, 1987 and 1988. The commission was involved in Saddam's attempts to build a nuclear bomb and other weapons of mass destruction.

The CDC also sent bacteria samples to the Sera and Vaccine Institute in Amiriyah, Iraq in 1988. The institute stored samples and did genetic engineering research for Iraq's biological weapons programs, U.N. inspectors found.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp_x.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp_x.htm</a>
09/30/2002 - Updated 02:33 PM ET
Report: U.S. supplied the kinds of germs Iraq later used for biological weapons

WASHINGTON (AP) — Iraq's bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, claiming it needed them for legitimate medical research. (Related story: A look at U.S. shipments of pathogens to Iraq)

The CDC and a biological sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus.

The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran. They were detailed in a 1994 Senate Banking Committee report and a 1995 follow-up letter from the CDC to the Senate.

The exports were legal at the time and approved under a program administered by the Commerce Department.

"I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs," said Jonathan Tucker, a former U.N. biological weapons inspector.

"But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at the time."

The disclosures put the United States in the uncomfortable position of possibly having provided the key ingredients of the weapons America is considering waging war to destroy, said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. Byrd entered the documents into the Congressional Record this month.

Byrd asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld about the germ transfers at a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Byrd noted that Rumsfeld met Saddam in 1983, when Rumsfeld was President Reagan's Middle East envoy.

"Are we, in fact, now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sown?" Byrd asked Rumsfeld after reading parts of a Newsweek article on the transfers.

"I have never heard anything like what you've read, I have no knowledge of it whatsoever, and I doubt it," Rumsfeld said. He later said he would ask the Defense Department and other government agencies to search their records for evidence of the transfers.

Invoices included in the documents read like shopping lists for biological weapons programs. One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three................

Does it follow, then that as co-conspirators with and suppliers and enablers of Saddam, even to the point of continuing a diplomatic, advisory, and ongoing material support relationship with Saddam, even after the "brutal dictator gassed 10,000 of his own people", with our gas.......that the Reagan and Bush '41 administrations, by their complicity, and your own definition, frogza, were "terrorist regimes", and that Rumsfeld was personally culpable, meeting with Saddam, and participating in arming, enabling, and advising him?

macmanmike6100 · 06-03-2005, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

If the majority of folks wanted an islamic state they could have voted one in.

i vehemently disagree with most, if not all, of what stevo has been saying, but everybody else has been doing a pretty good job of objectively disassembling his arguments. however, i can't let this statement go. the "iraqi" government is nothing more than a puppet for ours, and a weak one at that. there is no sense of stability in iraq, and if anything our intrusion into it (under the guise of fighting terrorism, which has only increased worldwide since then) has destabilized it even more. we should remember that even the vicious dictator Hussein outright banned any form of fundamentalist extremism in his country, doing what he could to eliminate it (just as violently as we are) himself.

in any case, it simply isn't true that the the majority could vote one in. (plus, didn't you say earlier that it *is* true that the majority wants a unified state, specifically noting that terrorists are the minority?)

host · 06-03-2005, 12:53 PM

and......frogza, even after Rumsfeld's highly publicized Dec., 1983 visit with Saddam, the <h5>relationship and the support</h5>, the U.S. turning a blind on what you and others, today, claim as justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, after all of the initial justifications emphasized over and over by the Bush administration were revealed to be misleading, deceptive, or false,
continued, and went on and on for nearly another seven years......note the U.S. non-reaction to the 1988 reports of the gassing of the Kurds in northern Iraq....business as usual. Your argument today is as empty and hypocritical as any advanced by Bush or Cheney to justify the invasion of Iraq,

Quote:

http://www.ithaca.edu/politics/gagnon/talks/us-iraq.htm
1983:

The State Dept. once again reported that Iraq was continuing to support terrorist groups

- Iraq had also been using chemical weapons against Iranian troops since 1982; this use of chemical weapons increased in 1983. The State Dept. and the National Security Council were well aware of this.

- Overriding NSC concerns, the Secretaries of Commerce and State pressured the NSC to approve the sale to Iraq of Bell helicopters "for crop dusting" (these same helicopters were used to gas Iraqi Kurds in 1988).

In late 1983, Reagan secretly allowed Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, to transfer US weapons to Iraq; Reagan also asked the Italian prime minister to channel arms to Iraq

December 1983 was a particularly interesting month; it was the month that Donald Rumsfeld -- currently US Secretary of Defense and one of the most vocal proponents of attacking Iraq -- paid a visit to Saddam Hussein in Baghdad as Reagan's envoy.

Rumsfeld claims now that the meeting was about terrorism in Lebanon.

But State Dept. documents show that in fact, Rumsfeld was carrying a message from Reagan expressing his desire to have a closer and better relationship with Saddam Hussein.

Just a few months before Rumsfeld's visit, Iraq had used poison gas against Iranian troops. This fact was known to the US. Also known was that Iraq was building a chemical weapons infrastructure.

NBC and The New York Times have recently reported that Rumsfeld was a key player in the Reagan administration's strong support for Iraq, despite knowing of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. This relationship became so close that both Reagan and VP Bush personally delivered military advice to Saddam Hussein. [1]

1984

In March, the State Dept. reported that Iraq was using chemical weapons and nerve gas in the war against Iran; these facts were confirmed by European doctors who examined Iranian soldiers

The Washington Post (in an article in Dec.1986 by Bob Woodward) reported that in 1984 the CIA began secretly giving information to Iraqi intelligence to help them "calibrate" poison gas attacks against Iranian troops.

1985

The CIA established direct intelligence links with Baghdad, and began giving Iraq "data from sensitive US satellite reconnaissance photography" to help in the war.

This same year, the US House of Representatives passed a bill to put Iraq back on State Dept. supporters of terrorism list.

The Reagan administration -- in the person of Secretary of State George Schultz -- pressured the bill's sponsor to drop it the bill. The bill is dropped, and Iraq remains off the terrorist list.

Iraq labs send a letter to the Commerce Dept with details showing that Iraq was developing ballistic missiles.

Between 1985-1990 the Commerce Dept. approved the sale of many computers to Iraq's weapons lab. (The UN inspectors in 1991 found that: 40% of the equipment in Iraq's weapons lab were of US origin)

1985 is also a key year because the Reagan administration approved the export to Iraq of biological cultures that are precursors to bioweapons: anthrax, botulism, etc.; these cultures were "not attenuated or weakened, and were capable of reproduction."

There were over 70 shipments of such cultures between 1985-1988.

The Bush administration also authorized an additional 8 shipments of biological cultures that the Center for Disease Control classified as "having biological warfare significance."

This information comes from the Senate Banking Committee's report from 1994. The report stated that "these microorganisms exported by the US were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

Senator Riegle, who headed the committee, noted that: "They seemed to give him anything he wanted. It's right out of a science fiction movie as to why we would send this kind of stuff to anybody." [2]

1988

The Reagan administration's Commerce Dept. approved exports to Iraq's SCUD missile program; it was these exports that allowed the extension of the SCUDs' range so that in 1991 they were able to reach Israel and US bases in Saudi Arabia.

In March, the Financial Times of London reported that Saddam had recently used chemical weapons against Kurds in Halabja, using US helicopters bought in 1983.

Two months later, an Asst. Secretary of State pushed for more US-Iraq economic cooperation.

In September of that year, Reagan prevented the Senate from putting sanctions on Iraq for its violation of the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons.

The US also voted against a UN Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons. [3]

1989

In March, the CIA director reported to Congress that Iraq was the largest chemical weapons producer in the world.

The State Dept reported that Iraq continued to develop chemical and biological weapons, as well as new missiles

The Bush administration that year approved dozens of export licenses for sophisticated dual-use equipment to Iraq's weapons ministry.

In October, international banks cut off all loans to Iraq. The Bush administration responded by issuing National Security Directive 26, which mandated closer links with Iraq, and included a $1 billion loan guarantee.

This loan guarantee freed up cash for Iraq to buy and develop WMDs.

This directive was suspended only on August 2, 1990, the day Iraq invaded Kuwait.

One US firm reportedly contacted the Commerce Dept. two times, concerned that its product could be used for nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Bush's Commerce Dept requested and received written guarantees from Iraq that the equipment was only for civilian use.

1990

Between July 18 and August 1 (the day before the invasion), the Bush Administration approved $4.8 million in advanced technology sales to Iraq's weapons ministry and to weapons labs that were known to have worked on biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

So when US ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam the US did not have an official position on disputes between Arab countries, is it any wonder that he thought the US would look the other way when he invaded Kuwait? After this close and very supportive relationship with the Republican administrations throughout the 1980s?

We all know about the Gulf War. But I want to bring in one more piece of history here, from after the Gulf War.

Dick Cheney, before becoming Vice President, was CEO of Halliburton Corp. from 1995 until August 2000, when he retired with a $34 million retirement package.

According to the Financial Times of London, Halliburton in that time period sold $23.8 million of oil industry equipment and services to Iraq, to help rebuild its war-damaged oil production infrastructure. For political reasons, Halliburton used subsidiaries to hide this. [4]

More recently, the Washington Post on June 23, 2001, reported that figure was actually $73 million.

The head of the subsidiary said he is certain Cheney knew about these sales.

Halliburton did more business with Saddam Hussein than any other US company.

Asked about this by journalists by ABC News in August 2000, Cheney lied and said "I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal." [5]

The US media never followed up on this.

Quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...4314%2C00.html
When US turned a blind eye to poison gas

America knew Baghdad was using chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988. So why, asks Dilip Hiro , has it taken 14 years to muster its outrage?

Sunday September 1, 2002
The Observer

When it comes to demonising Saddam Hussein, nothing captures the popular imagination in America better than the statement that 'he gassed his own people'. This is an allusion to the deployment of chemical weapons by Iraq's military in the Iraqi Kurdistan town of Halabja in March 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war, and then in the territory administered by the Tehran-backed Kurdish rebels after the ceasefire five months later.

As Iraq's use of poison gases in war and in peace was public knowledge, the question arises: what did the United States administration do about it then? Absolutely nothing. Indeed, so powerful was the grip of the pro-Baghdad lobby on the administration of Republican President Ronald Reagan that it got the White House to foil the Senate's attempt to penalise Iraq for its violation of the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons to which it was a signatory.....

macmanmike6100 · 06-03-2005, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incosian

I do believe, however, that they have a right to defend themselves against invasion and foreign influences.

To present why Iraq has been so difficult (both the terrorists and its people, who are generally not thrilled about our influence), just close your eyes and imagine looking out through your living room window. You see the beautiful suburban trees, the neighbors dog barking across the street, and finally you see rumbling tanks with a foreign flag cheering "Victory" as they drive down your streets.

And that's just day one. Seeing this foreign flag holding a gun at every street corner, even though it may be for your "freedom," is still a very difficult situation to handle. And then, seeing this foreigner, whom you cannot understand, knock a few Iraqis to the ground because he felt threatened. Even seeing that just once, on *your* block, would change your outlook forever.

Marvelous Marv · 06-03-2005, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incosian

It is true that these people use violent force against those in support of the new government, yet I still believe their cause is ultimately that of freedom, and not of oppression. Their goals are in the interest of driving foreign influences out, and instead propagating their own ideals. The terrorizing of civilians can be considered depraved and indecent, but to them the means justify the ends. I am not speaking on their behalf per se, but I am trying to understand the logic that drives their actions. I do believe, however, that they have a right to defend themselves against invasion and foreign influences.

Just to make sure I'm not misinterpreting, if the terrorists drive out all foreigners, does that mean they have "freed" the Iraqi people? And that they have ended the oppression of the Iraqis?

I can't come up with any other interpretation of your words.

macmanmike6100 · 06-03-2005, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Just to make sure I'm not misinterpreting, if the terrorists drive out all foreigners, does that mean they have "freed" the Iraqi people? And that they have ended the oppression of the Iraqis?

I can't come up with any other interpretation of your words.

anybody who causes terror is a terrorist; I have a feeling that there are some current terrorists who are acting so in response to their current reality. i am absolutely not validating their methodology, but I'm sure that there are some terrorists who would stop terrorizing upon america's departure.

MoonDog · 06-03-2005, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Does it follow, then that as co-conspirators with and suppliers and enablers of Saddam, even to the point of continuing a diplomatic, advisory, and ongoing material support relationship with Saddam, even after the "brutal dictator gassed 10,000 of his own people", with our gas.......that the Reagan and Bush '41 administrations, by their complicity, and your own definition, frogza, were "terrorist regimes", and that Rumsfeld was personally culpable, meeting with Saddam, and participating in arming, enabling, and advising him?

Instead of your supposition, might it be possible that the aims of those administrations was to curb what they believed was the greater threat against US interests - an Iranian Islamic government inimical to the US that might be supportive of terrorist acts against "the Great Satan"? Which side might you pick, especially when many people agree that the Iraq of Saddam Hussein's era - while bloody and repressive, certainly did not seem to be one disposed towards radical Islamic revolution and, indeed, sported a decent standard of living for its citizenry?

Why must everything be black and white? I, for one, would not have relished being in Reagan or the 1st Bush's shoes. We know in hindsight that supporting Iraq against Iran was fruitless and did nothing good for the region, but I would bet that that atmosphere in the White House at that time was to try and limit Iran - a country who's revolution and taking of US hostages at our embassy still loomed large in the country's collective memory.

And once again we have someone trotting out previous US transfers of biological and chemical samples that were used in Iraqi weapons programs. I have some questions here:
1) Did the UN inspectors verify that all such stocks, and the production runs Iraqis made from those stocks, were destroyed? I believe that the first post (from 9/30/02) listing those anthrax transfers states that the UN was UNABLE to verify total destruction. It also stated that botulinum toxin was unaccounted for. That makes me nervous.

2) Where did all of this stuff go? WAS it destroyed? If so - why no records for some items? That makes me nervous.

3) This is the $64,000 Question: If you were responsible for one HELLUVA big mess, wouldn't you be responsible for cleaning it up? My answer to this question is YES. We - the UNITED STATES - had a hand in propping up and supplying Hussein, so WE have a responsibility to clean up our mess.

I won't argue that - in the act of cleaning up our one mess - we've created quite another one. I can only hope that the country has the fortitude to stay in Iraq until they are able to do the day-to-day stuff on their own. And yes - I know that US foreign policy is responsible for other major messes around the globe. Sorry - I guess the blunders that have the most effect on US economic interests get the grease.

host · 06-03-2005, 08:21 PM

MoonDog, I have shown you the info contained in the next quote box before, here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=37

I am almost as tired of posting the same links and info again and again, as I am reading posts that claim, over and over, that the U.S. is vindicated for invading Iraq because the U.S. eliminated a "brutal dictator who gassed his own people".
When I repeatedly offer references to the thoroughly documented and overwhelming evidence that the U.S. administrations of Reagan and Bush '41, not only armed, advised and supported the same "brutal dictator", even during and after the time that he "gassed his own people", the response from you and others is that supporting Saddam in the 80's was the result of supporting the less objectionable of the two evil regimes of Iraq and Iran.

The problem with your argument is that The Reagan/Rumsfeld and Bush '41/Cheney administrations did not practice the policy you explain, and similarly to today, they did not fully or clearly explain the nuances, and contradictions of their Iraq and Iran policies to the American people, and not unlike the situation today, they appeared to operate in secrecy, hypocrisy, illegality, and with a cynical disregard for human rights.

Quote:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/...e/index_5.html

Timeline of Ronald Reagan's Life

1984
April 16: Reagan signs directive for aggressive posture to terrorism. The new policy is set forth in a document officially designated National Security Decision Directive 138.

October 10: Congress passes the 2nd Boland Amendment which outlaws solicitation of 3rd-party countries to support Contras. The amendment bars the use of funds available to C.I.A., defense, or intelligence agencies for "supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua by any nation, group, organization or individual."

1985
June 6: The Senate authorizes nonmilitary aid to Contras. A 55-42 vote authorizes $38 million over two years.

June 18: At a press conference dominated by the hostage crisis, Reagan vows that the U.S. will never give in to terrorists' demands.

July 18: From his hospital bed, Reagan approves National Security Advisor William McFarlane's plan to reach out to Iranian Foreign Minister Ghorbanifar. MacFarlane is interested in an opening with Iran through influence with moderates by helping Iran in war against Iraq. Reagan is more interested in using any influence gained through better relations to free hostages being held in Beirut by extremist Iranian terrorists.

July 25: Israeli representatives meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Ghorbanifar for first time on arms deal. Israel will sell arms to Iran, U.S. will replace Israeli stocks.

August 20: 96 anti-tank missiles are sent to Iran by Israel. No hostages are released in return.

August 30: Israel ships 508 anti-tank missiles to Iran.

November 17: Colonel Oliver North is put in charge of the shipment of HAWK anti-aircraft missiles to Iran.

December 2: McFarlane quits his post as National Security Advisor. His deputy, John Poindexter, steps up to the position.

December 7: Shultz, Weinberger, and Donald Regan advise Reagan to stop Iran arms sales.

1986
February 16: The U.S. ships 1000 anti-tank missiles to Iran.

February 25: Reagan asks Congress for $100 million in aid for Contras. The House rejects appeal; the Senate approves his request. Bill returns to the House.

May 29: Colonel Oliver North tells McFarlane that profits of weapons sales to Iran are being diverted to the Contras.

June 25: The House finally passes the Contra aid package by 12 votes. Reagan calls it "a step forward in bipartisan consensus in American foreign policy."

July 26: Father Jenco, one of the hostages held by Muslim extremists, is released in Damascus.

August 27: Reagan signs an anti-terrorism law that bans arms sales to nations that support terrorism, and strengthens U.S. anti-terrorist measures.

September: Former National Security Advisor WilliamMcFarlane takes 23 tons of weapons to Iran.

October 21: American writer Edward Tracy is taken hostage.

October 30: 500 anti-tank missiles shipped to Iran.

November 2: American hostage David Jacobsen is released in Beirut.

November 3: Lebanese magazine "Al Shiraa" reports that the U.S. has sold arms to Iran. The Iranian government confirms the story. This marks the beginning of Iran-Contra.

November 13: In a nationally televised speech to defend against charges concerning arms sales to Iran, Reagan admits sending some defensive weapons and spare parts to Iran, but denies it was part of an arms for hostages deal. "Our government has a firm policy not to capitulate to terrorist demands.... We did not -- repeat, did not -- trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we." Polls show that the American people do not believe Reagan.

November 21: Attorney General Meese is asked to conduct an inquiry of the Iran affair to get facts straight.

November 22: Meese's office discovers the Iran-Contra connection. When searching North’s office, they found a memo dated 4/4/86 from North to Poindexter, which included an amount that to be sent to the Contras from the profits of the Iran sales. North, who had spent the night shredding papers, later called the diversion of funds, "a neat idea."

November 24: Meese tells Reagan that some proceeds from the sale of arms to Iran went to the Contras. Reagan is visibly shaken and according to Meese, surprised. He is aware that the diversion of funds could mean impeachment for violation of the Boland Amendment.

November 25: National Security Advisor John Poindexter resigns and Oliver North is fired. In press conference, Meese announces Iran-Contra: $10m to $30m of profits from sale of U.S. arms to Iran had been diverted to Swiss bank accounts for use by Contra rebels in Nicaragua.

December 1: Reagan appoints the Tower Commission to review Iran Contra.

December 19: Independent counsel Lawrence Walsh is appointed to investigate Iran-Contra.
1987
February 2: Reagan testifies to the Tower Board for a second time. His testimony is inconsistent and confused. The Board pointed out Reagan hadn’t known about August shipment of anti-tank missiles, but Reagan had said he DID know. When asked for an explanation, Reagan picked up a briefing memo he had been provided and read aloud: "If the question comes up at the Tower Board meeting, you might want to say that you were surprised."

February 20: A Reagan memo to the Tower Board reads: "I don’t remember, period." "I’m trying to recall events that happened eighteen months ago, I’m afraid that I let myself be influenced by others’ recollections, not my own.... The only honest answer is to state that try as I might, I cannot recall anything whatsoever about whether I approved an Israeli sale in advance or whether I approved replenishment of Israeli stocks around August of 1985. My answer therefore and the simple truth is, ‘I don’t remember, period.’"

February 26: The Tower Commission report is delivered to Reagan. The report could not link Reagan to diversion of funds from Iran to the Contras. But it concluded that Reagan, confused and unaware, allowed himself to be misled by dishonest staff members who organized the trade of arms to Iran for hostages held in Lebanon and pursued a secret war against the Nicaraguan government. The report charges that Reagan had failed to "insist upon accountability & performance review, " allowing the National Security Council process to collapse. Reagan’s approval rating is down to 42%.

March 4: On national television, Reagan acknowledges mistakes on Iran-Contra. "A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. <b>My heart and my best intentions tell me that’s true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower Board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind.</b> There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake." Reagan’s approval rating rebounds to 51%.

May 17: A missile from an Iraqi warplane hits the U.S.S. "Stark," killing the 37 sailors onboard. The frigate is part of a naval task force which was sent to the Persian Gulf to keep the waterway open during the Iran-Iraq war.

August 3: Congress completes its public hearings on Iran-Contra. "We may never know with precision or truth why it ever happened." Meanwhile, Reagan’s close aides Lyn Nofziger and Michael Deaver are convicted of influence peddling. Meese is investigated and cleared. Nofziger’s conviction is overturned on appeal.

1988
March 16: Oliver North, John Poindexter, and two others are indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of conspiring to defraud the U.S. government by secretly providing funds and supplies to the Contra rebels fighting the government of Nicaragua.................

MoonDog, as far as undiscovered stockpiles of chemical/bio WMD in Iraq, if I were you, I would not be any more nervous about them than Reagan and Rumsfeld and the CIA seemed to be in the 1980's when they were selling the seedstocks for these weapons to Saddam, and the equipment, as well as technical support to make and deploy them, or as WH press secretary McClellan seemed to be about WMD a few months ago:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050112-7.html
Q The President accepts that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, he said back in October that the comprehensive report by Charles Duelfer concluded what
his predecessor had said, as well, <b>that the weapons that we all believed were there, based on the intelligence,
were not there.</b> And now what is important is that we need to go back and look at what was wrong with much of the
intelligence that we accumulated over a 12-year period and that our allies had accumulated over that same period
of time, and correct any flaws.

Q I just want to make sure, though, because you said something about following up on additional reports and learning
more about the regime. You are not trying to hold out to the American people the possibility that there might still
be weapons somewhere there, are you?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I just said that if there are -- if there are any other reports, obviously, of weapons of mass
destruction, then people will follow up on those reports. I'm just stating a fact.

Marvelous Marv · 06-04-2005, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macmanmike6100

anybody who causes terror is a terrorist; I have a feeling that there are some current terrorists who are acting so in response to their current reality. i am absolutely not validating their methodology, but I'm sure that there are some terrorists who would stop terrorizing upon america's departure.

No argument there. The part I couldn't fathom was

Quote:

It is true that these people use violent force against those in support of the new government, yet I still believe their cause is ultimately that of freedom, and not of oppression.

I can't follow the logic of calling people who indiscriminately blow up children "freedom fighters," and Saddam's regime certainly seemed oppressive.

As does pretty much every theocracy I can think of.

Ustwo · 06-04-2005, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

This rhetoric is trolling.

You know, I REALLY wish every time I stated an opinion it wasn't called a troll by someone who didn't agree with it. Its how I feel buddy, based on some of the stuff host and roachboy post its very mild opinion.

Ever wonder why conservatives just give up on the politics board? Take a guess.

tecoyah · 06-04-2005, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by Ustwo
I am honestly perplexed why so many people in the West are in support of terroriststhis is the troll. I can understand not supporting the war on principle, but that part is now over. The morality of the war is now moot, what matters is the outcome. The most immortal thing we can do at this point is withdraw our forces, it would be unforgivable. Supporting these terrorists is condemning the Iraqi people to another Saddam, and I don't think any political gain in the west (see I told you so!) is worth the sacrifice of so many.

06-03-2005, 03:49 AM	#1 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	al-qaeda training manual I came across this online this morning. Of course curiosity lead me to read it. I hardly know what to say, I just think you all should take a look at it if you haven't all ready. Its an al-qaeda training manual siezed in a raid in manchester and translated in english. Just the introduction itself is eye-opening in a way. It reminds me what we're up against and what these people believe. I hear arguments all the time about how it is the US's fault that 9/11 happened, that its the US's fault the terrorists hate us and want to kill us. Thats complete bullshit. It says in black and white why the terrorists are fighting us and it is not because of "American imperialism". It talks about the fall of their caliphate on march 3, 1924. (hardly a US imperialist agenda. and you would think more of islamo-fascist anger would be directed at britain) It goes on to describe the spread of the western way of life. "They aimed at producing a wasted generation that pursued everything that is western and produced rulers, ministers, leaders, physicians, engineers, businessmen, politicians, journalists, and information specialists." but of course according to the terrorists, according to the koran, "And Allah's enemies plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of all planners is Allah." - according to these asshats my way of life is a conspiracy to end theirs. For them there is no comprimise, no use for diplomacy because, "Islamic government would never be established except by the bomb and rifle. Islam does not coincide or make a truce with unbelief; but rather confronts it." Yeah, if only america would be nicer to the muslims and take their military bases out of saudi arabia the terrorists would stop and be our friends. I've heard that argument before. The manual also goes on to describe one of the top five missions of the terrorists: that brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security and to spread rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy. - but according to amnesty international these are not just rumors and part of the terrorists plan, but just part of the evil american empire. I'm done ranting now. Its way too early and I have work to do, but when you find the time, take a look at what the fucks believe and what they want to do to you and your family, and don't ever forget. http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

06-03-2005, 07:09 AM	#4 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I'm sure the truth to that is somewhere in the middle. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

06-03-2005, 07:10 AM	#5 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	by "those people" I mean terrorists, not muslims as a whole. And yes, terrorists in iraq believe the same thing al-qaeda does, if it were any different they wouldn't be blowing themselves up killing fellow brothers and sisters, only because they are seen as enemies of islam for cooperating with the new government. I don't know what you are saying, but I would consider what al-qaeda says to their own to be reliable. What they say to eachother and what they print in their handbook has to be reliable-it is what they are fighting for-from their own mouths. To suggest that they don't even believe what they print for their own fighters is assanine. If you put two and two together you can see how alqaeda's claims of torture in guantanamo shouldn't be taken seriously, since in they have clearly stated that it is part of their mission to spread rumors of torture by US soldiers/officials. What I'm trying to suggest is that the reports of torture grossly overrepresent what is actually going on. Sure, shit happens. some terrorists have probably been, what some would consider, tortured - I suppose abu grahb prison photos would be a good example. But to believe that the US is torturing terror suspects iin a widespread manner is rediculous, especially in guantanamo, which is under a very heavy international eye. IRC, AI, et al. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

06-03-2005, 07:12 AM	#6 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i have mentioned this parallel before, but here it seems germaine--the americans find themselves in a scenario that is very much like what the french found themselves in during the algerian war. the use of torture. illegal detensions, the modern gulag in general follow from the fact that the american military is vertically organized and cannot figure out how to deal with horizontally organized/fragmented opposition. the assumption is that an adversary structured like the american military exists out there somewhere, and apparently if you torture enough people would till find it. this use of torture and illegal detention seems to follow from particular types of conflicts, particular organizational assymetries. in both cases, this usage was facilitated by racism and ignorance. in both situations, the central effect was the creation of the conditions that the actiosn were designed to pre-empt. (i refer mostly to iraq here) the category "terrorist" and the arguments from bush's boy alberto gonzalez about the non-applicability of the "quaint" geneva convention to manly campaigns like bushwar in general are simply ideological screens, meant to provide a pseudo-legal face for the wholesale evacuation of even the most elementary human rights in the name of the war on terror. al qeada operates as the bogyeman behind this move--the americans need al qeada, and al-qeada needs the americans. for each, the other is the best publicity imaginable. i think in the main pacifier is correct: the manual is irrelevant. it seems pretty clear that support for the war is structured to a significant extent around a blurring of iraq into the wider "logic" of bushwar. stevo's post makes the case for this quite clearly. but it is irrelevant. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 06-03-2005 at 07:14 AM..

06-03-2005, 07:20 AM	#7 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	I don't think the iraq war needs to be blurred into anything. Its clear to me, obviously not to everyone, that it is a part of the war on terror. People call the insurgents in iraq something akin to freedom fighters. That they are only fighing because we invaded them. Then the question is raised, "well, wouldn't you do the same thing if another country invaded NY?" I can answer with a straight face - NO. No, i would not drive a truck full of explosives into a crowded market. No, I would not walk into a church during a funeral and blow myself up and everyone around me. The terrorists don't do these things to fight the americans. They do them because they believe the people around them are just as evil as the US for cooperating. For them, an islamic state cannot be created by peaceful means, only through bombs and bullets. Their words, not mine. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

06-03-2005, 08:24 AM	#11 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	the only thing that i find interesting about any theology/rhetoric of dark vs. light, sons of evil and sons of heaven, etc, etc....is why people come to beleive in them. the particulars change across cultures, situations, and times, but the outcomes are usually quite similar, including but not limited to extremist violence. i see this rhetoric a lot. they're hard core, they're fundamentalists, they're unconvincable, they're beyond logic, they'll never stop fighting until we kill 'em... Okay. Maybe, perhaps. But the functional position of those logics is to make it easier for us to consider them a legitimate target of violence. Which is what those words (the manual) are, flipped around...logics that provide assistance in making us a legitimate target of violence for the Arab world. Is it really more compelling to kill them all, or to figure out how to defuse these logics, to create condititions in which they are not convincing, or offer the best hope? __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

06-03-2005, 09:06 AM	#16 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the emphasis on suicide attacks in the press pool coverage of the war in iraq enables positions like stevo's to continue to function, despite the mountain of information that demonstrates that the linkages between the invasion of iraq and the "war on terror" were not worth the paper they were written on. his argument seems to depart from this "information"--suicide attacks are what "terrorists" do, al qeada is a terrorist organization, in the parlance of our times, therefore all suicide attackers are al qaeda. or like al qaeda. so the distinction does not matter. it is not a very powerful or informative argument, in my opinion, except insofar as it accidentally reveals the source of its logic, which is the stream of infotainment the press pool relays from its daily pentagon briefings. a kind of "public diplomacy" dontcha know. i suspect this kind of logic is important for the approximately 30% of the american population who actually support this idiotic war in iraq. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 06-03-2005 at 09:08 AM..

06-03-2005, 09:24 AM	#18 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	What does it matter if its a suicide attack or just a good old timed bomb? The method of the attack is not relevant, the targets are. Suicide attacks just emphasize the fact that we are dealing with nutjobs. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

06-03-2005, 09:32 AM	#19 (permalink)
Incosian Upright Location: In my head.	I see your point Ustwo, but civilians are frequently casualties of war, and often deliberately. Sure, we may not view it as ethically acceptable, but they view it as one of the few viable ways to combat the enemy. __________________ "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." - Oscar Wilde

06-03-2005, 09:38 AM	#20 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	another effect of the press pool's repetition of pentagon "public diplomacy": buttressing the illusion that "terrorism" is an adequate category for describing what is happening now in iraq, of pathologizing these actions and in turn justifying the anything goes approach the bush administration has adopted. of course the americans should outsource torture, hold people indefinitely without trial, engage in huamn rights abuses on a significant scale--the Other is nuts. you could apply the same argument about indiscriminate killing to any air raid, any artillery barrage, any battle. the fact that the people doing this indiscriminate killing wear uniforms does not make it any less indiscriminate. but in that situation, folk like ustwo are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the agents responsable for the carnage...not so when the war is being carried out by folk who do not wear uniforms. curious, that. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-03-2005, 10:02 AM	#22 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	and so here we are again, ustwo: 1. in the above (no. 21) you are but a hair's breadth away from accusing everyone who does not agree with your position on this war as traitors. why do we continually find ourselves back here? 2. you might be persuaded that the questions about the legitimacy of the war are "moot"--but that is not a shared opinion outside the world of conservative media. as as an assertion about a general state of affairs, yours is arbitrary. i know that this is the main way that the administration has tried to deal with the many many problems their rush to an ill-considered, unjustified war has created for them. but it is simply a preference: it changes nothing about the facts of the matter. 3. you act as though the argument stevo began the thread with concerning the use of the word terrorist to describe what is going on in iraq is not problematic, ustwo, and this 21 posts into a thread across which over half have tried to raise exactly this problem. which you have not addressed. you act as though simply repeating your premise alot of times constitutes an argument for it. you simply have not presented a case that stevo's position is justified. try making an actual argument that the transposition of terms is justified. 4. you also act as though opposing the war in iraq means that you support the fighters who are working against the american occupation. that is not an obvious jump. in this case, i can see where it came from in the thread--but i do not think that it is accurate or interesting to conflate the two. i can see hwo it might be functional for you, given your politics--but i do not think it describes anything beyond the outline of your politics. could you spell out your logic please? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-03-2005, 10:20 AM	#23 (permalink)
drewpy Crazy Location: Chicago-ish	I would like to weigh in support for the insights represented by Ustwo. I too have always been perplexed with symphathy for terrorists (and historically, for communists, fascists etc - not that I'm lumping all in together - i'm not) I sometimes feel that the baby gets thrown out with the bath water - that those who end up as "terrorist supporters" do so by virtue of having other axes to grind (with bush for example) and therefore end up doing more overall disservice than ever anticipated ... __________________ "Once made equal to a man, woman becomes his superior." Socrates

06-03-2005, 10:23 AM	#24 (permalink)
Pacifier undead Location: Duisburg, Germany	What "terrorist supporters"?! Who here has supported terror?! Name one! You have to try to understand the enemy and his motivations in order to end a conflict. Labeling all terrorists as "islamic fundies" is not helpful since it is just wrong. __________________ "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death — Albert Einstein

06-03-2005, 10:29 AM	#25 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	The enemy's motivations are laid out in the handbook I posted to begin this thread. but then you don't believe them, so I don't know what to tell you. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

06-03-2005, 10:33 AM	#26 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so here we are, back where we started again. there is abundant information--ABUNDANT information--that militates against any such claim about the manual, stevo. they have already been mentioned several times above. start with the documentation that has emerged since the start of thei sorry war in iraq about the bush administrations initial claims that al qaeda was in iraq. they werent. move from there. but maye this is not in fact a discussion of anything. and i have other things to do. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-03-2005, 10:51 AM	#28 (permalink)
drewpy Crazy Location: Chicago-ish	Pacifier - thanks for pointing that out - my wording, albeit in quotes, was not what I had intended. The term that Ustwo had used was "sympathize" - that is more to the point. Further, I don't view terrorists as "islamic fundies", unfortunately there are too many examples ... __________________ "Once made equal to a man, woman becomes his superior." Socrates

06-04-2005, 08:54 PM	#40 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	clarification Originally Posted by Ustwo I am honestly perplexed why so many people in the West are in support of terroriststhis is the troll. I can understand not supporting the war on principle, but that part is now over. The morality of the war is now moot, what matters is the outcome. The most immortal thing we can do at this point is withdraw our forces, it would be unforgivable. Supporting these terrorists is condemning the Iraqi people to another Saddam, and I don't think any political gain in the west (see I told you so!) is worth the sacrifice of so many. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha