BOMBSHELL, but really we knew this, didnt we?

[busybody..]

I saw the Iraqi General on TV today

say the same thing

He seemed like he was honest

Not to mention the new news

that the former FM said the same thing, "There were WMDs there!"

 

[phrodeau]

They WERE there...he moved them to Syria. They didnt just disappear and go *POOF*!

Bullshit.

Show me one thing that the US has done about Iraq's alleged WMD's in Syria.

 

[Sean]

It seems all the allegations of "Bush Lied!" are falling apart.

ROTFLMAO! How the Hell do you work that out?

 

[busybody..]

1-Read the thread, especially the last two pages

2-What did he lie about?



as defined


lie2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

 

[busybody..]

Only by author


» All Articles









» Print this article


Prospects of Terror: An Inquiry into Jihadi Alternatives (2)
March 22nd, 2006




[Part 2 in a three-part series. Part 1 may be read here.]



The ultimate in disposing one’s forces is to be without discernable shape

–Sun Tz



It appears likely that Europe will be the next major battleground in the Long War.



The Jihadis, following public humiliation on their own home ground, will need a means of proving that they’re still in the game, and Europe is vulnerable. It abuts directly against ancient Muslim homelands at several points, has a substantial and unintegrated Muslim population, has offered active Jihadis sanctuary within its borders, has pursued reckless immigration and security policies, and has supped with the Devil through its open support of Saddam Hussein (paid for with Iraqi oil funds) and Muslim terror organizations such as Al Fatah and Hamas.



Many observers believe it’s already too late, that Europe is one with Sumeria and Byzantium, that all that remains is the funeral procession. They point to the numbers of native births – below replacement level of 2.1 children per couple in almost every country—compared to those of Muslim immigrants, which are two to three times higher, and echo Bernard Lewis’s now-famous prediction, “Europe will be Muslim by the end of the century.”



Europe in also unfortunate in that its overall government, the European Union, has established itself, in defiance of the experience of the past century, as the kind of managerial superstate proven unfeasible just about everywhere else on earth. EU bureaucrats have set out to demonstrate the obvious once again with considerable eagerness, meddling in international affairs while attempting to micromanage those of its own citizens, wasting immense amounts of resources on trivial aims, and generating completely avoidable crises to no rational purpose. The EU is about the last form of government capable of leading a fight for survival, but it’s what the Europeans have.



Debellicized Europe



As if this wasn’t enough, Europe has also been functionally debellicized, a word coined by British military historian Micheal Howard meaning “a refusal to consider armed force as a means of settling disputes.” It’s not quite the same thing as pacifism, which is based on an idealistic view of human relations. Anti-bellicism is held more as an unthought conviction, the cliché that “war never solves anything” raised to a rule of behavior.



Such a development may have been necessary to avoid further bloodlettings along the lines of the world wars, but never let it be said that it does not have drawbacks. It was anti-bellicism that lay behind Europe’s shameful lack of response to the crimes of Bosnia and Kosovo during the 90s. While debellicized Europeans talked, thousands were massacred and thriving towns turned into wastelands. Anti-bellicism also explains the Spanish reaction to the March 2004 Madrid train bombings, the most successful attack by any Jihadi organization. The 191 victims prompted the defeat of the country’s center-right government in ensuing elections in favor of an appeasement-oriented social democratic administration, by far the most favorable result the Jihadis have yet gained, and one that undoubtedly encouraged later efforts elsewhere in Europe.



But all the same, it’s difficult to see how Europe, massive, far-flung, and variegated as it is, could simply devolve into Eurabia. Many seem to picture such an event as a reflection of the last chapters of Jean Raispail’s dystopian novel The Camp of the Saints, with the Europeans meekly wandering off into extinction while the third-world interlopers settle into their places.



Straightforward conquest of the Ottoman type is another possibility – Muslims taking over by main force, using their weight of numbers to smother all resistance, converting large masses of the native population while subjecting the rest to dhimmitude.



The last possibility is the blazing civil war scenario, a return to the wars of religion, a replay of the Thirty Year’s War fought out across the continent, with native Muslim youths, armed, trained, and led by a resurgent Islam, fighting a war to the death against an aroused European population.



None of these scenarios has the ring of plausibility. A major failing lies in the fact that they’re all based on demography, a subtle field with many hidden variables, any one of which can overthrow the apparent results. It happens to be the case that every single long-term demographic prediction since Malthus introduced the concept two centuries ago has proven mistaken. At times, as in the catastrophic visions of “Population Bomb” theorist Paul Ehrlich, ludicrously so.



A major problem with such calculations is that the basic variable, the population of European Muslims, is unknown. Estimates range from 15 to 25 million, depending on how much weight is given to illegal immigration. In some cases, such as France, where the Muslim populace is stated as 5 -12%, the uncertainty exceeds 100%. Without a clear idea of how many Muslims are living in Europe, not to mention such subfactors as how many are females of childbearing age, the demography argument must be set aside. (There’s also mounting evidence that such demographic swings are cyclical. Native births have increased in the UK, France, and Germany over the past few years, if only by fractions of a percent.)



Also overlooked is the fact that the Muslim population of Europe is not a monolith, but divided into a number of factions, many of which have nothing at all in common beyond Islam. The older populations are often descendants of soldiers who fought beside Europeans in India, Africa, and the Middle East, well-settled and unlikely to turn against what they consider to be their own countries. The majority of the Muslims in Germany are Turks or Kurds, who would rather be flayed than follow the lead of any Arab. Finally there is the Sunni-Shi’ite gap, which is not often bridgeable.



So the idea that Europeans will be outbred, overwhelmed, or even challenged by a suitably numerous home-grown Islamist army can be set aside. But that does not let Europe completely off the hook. Recent events ranging from the London and Madrid bombings to last autumn’s French car-burning festival to the Danish cartoon jihad make it clear that the Jihadis are active and have Europe in their sights. The more recent spate of savage anti-Semitic attacks serve only to highlight the danger. A large number of Muslim youths exist—up to 40% of the Muslim populace in France—isolated, embittered, jobless, and ready to be led. Finally, the failure of Europe to mount any kind of meaningful cultural resistance, to “up and play the game”, in British parlance, has left the field open for Muslim radicals and their allies.



Targeted Violence: A Jihadi Political Strategy in Europe



So if I were an ambitious imam – ambitious both for myself and the European Muslim umma, what would I do? What is required is a strategy that delivers a political solution as opposed to one generating pure terrorist violence, one taking advantage of proven European weaknesses: bureaucracy, debellicism, multiculturalism, and that obscure sense of estrangement that has gripped Europe since the end of the imperial era and is commonly expressed in such salon philosophies as existentialism and deconstruction.



The first step involves lowering the sights. Rather than the apocalyptic scenarios already covered – and which may well not be possible anyway – we set the goal as something more within reach. Say, the complete political autonomy of the Muslim community, the umma, throughout Europe. In many areas, in France in particular, this situation is already half a reality. Something on the order of 800 “no-go” areas exist in Muslim suburbs where police and government officials are simply not allowed to enter and Sharia law is openly enforced. The French government has chosen to deal with this by ignoring it. These areas were the sources of the violence that broke out last autumn. They – and others across Europe like them—would be the centers of a new Jihadi effort.



In a European campaign, the political element would be paramount. Whatever violence occurred would be organized violence, limited and situational, a kind of large-scale behavioral-modification procedure aimed at the majority population and its government. This violence would be terrorist in nature, not reaching the levels that prevail in Iraq or Israel, while constantly threatening to match – or exceed – those levels. Examples would include repetitions of the 2005 auto-burning spree, with other targets added to give the impression of escalation. This could be accompanied by vandalistic attacks on landmarks and public artworks. The occasional bomb would also play a part, though it would be wise to avoid suicide bomb techniques, since this locks you into a certain image of kamikaze-like irrationality that would convince many onlookers that you cannot be reasoned with.



The campaign might proceed to threaten or shut down public utilities and transport, such as the electrical net (still virtually open to attack across the West, five years after 9/11), or the subways. Since the French, with admirable Gallic foresight, intelligently placed their prestressed concrete Muslim ghettoes in rings around their major cities, access highways and ring roads are particularly vulnerable. Tourists would present a worthwhile target, both in violent attacks and kidnapings. A drop in tourist business would represent a serious economic blow to most areas of Europe.



All these actions would be carried out at a tempo fast enough to make it impossible for the authorities – slow-moving European governmental colossi in particular—to properly react. (In modern tactical terminology this is called “getting inside your opponent’s decision cycle.”)



Violent actions would be scheduled for greatest effect and targets selected with precision. Center-right governments and officials would be particularly at risk, since they can, with the open assistance of the media and the left-wing opposition, be painted as irreconcilable enemies of ethnic peace. The European Left would be viewed as a resource—many of them are already allied with terrorists among the Palestinians and almost all would be eager to show their solidarity with an oppressed minority. Note London Mayor Ken Livingstone’s sponsorship of Yusuf al Qaradawi, the well-known imam and Muslim Brotherhood leader who signed the fatwa against the Danish cartoonists.



Making Muslims Seem the Victims



Carom incidents can be fabricated, with bogus evidence pointing to innocents, who can then be held up as martyrs. The reverse can be done with the police, too-effective government officials, and right-of-center or nativist organizations, which can be set up as responsible for atrocities against Muslims, the more blameless the better. (Recall the Palestinian child Mohammed al Dura who was shot by his own side during a confrontation with Israeli troops, or the destruction of Samarra’s Golden Mosque.)



The goal would not be bloodshed for its own sake, but to create an utterly paranoid locked-down state in which even the simplest everyday activities would represent a challenge, maintaining the impression that it can always grow far worse, while holding up the possibility of shutting down the entire country.



But the terrorist aspect would be secondary, the anvil for the political hammer. Politics would be the dominant factor, with terror leveraged to gain political concessions. The first element of this would be to portray the terrorists as victims, neglected third-world types with legitimate grievances. (Not a difficult trick – consider how the Palestinians promoted their victim status over that of the Israelis.)



At the same time, the authorities must be painted as a brutal elite – never a problem in any contemporary European country – overreacting against sincere protest. While this won’t convince everybody (it never has), it will provide plenty of grist for the media and Left-wing activists, who can be relied on to carry the word without instruction or encouragement. Taking advantage of the political and social fault lines that exist within European society, and which in no way have been ameliorated by the establishment of the EU, would be a key element of the campaign.



The Muslim “Man of Peace”



Once the lines are firmly drawn and the country in near-panic, the spokesman would appear. The man representing the “moderate” Muslim population, yearning for peace, wanting only the best for everyone involved. He would of course have a “legend” consisting of good works, cooperation between ethnicities, and membership in various service organizations. (And no connection, needless to say, to any Jihadi group.) Using a variant of Dick Morris-style triangulation, he would establish himself as the sole voice of moderation, the alternative between the terrorist minority and the reactionary government. He would present the impression – without actually stating as much – that connections with the violent few make him only force capable of holding them back. A call would arise from the “public” – the media and the Left – for negotiations. The spokesman would find himself appointed the main negotiator, the only figure acceptable to both sides.



Negotiations would proceed slowly and painfully over a lengthy period, punctuated by sudden bursts of violence. At last a crisis would break out, perhaps involving a number of assassinations, by shadowy figures, of individuals on both sides. The spokesman himself could nearly be victimized. He would threaten to break off his attempts to act as a go-between as pointless, only to be called back, if possible by representatives of the government eager for a settlement.



A Nation within a Nation



This would involve not a complete takeover or any other apocalyptic daydream, but the establishment of a nation within a nation, a formalization of the status of already existing Muslim areas in which Shari’a would rule, with independent government, police, schools, and so on. Other services would be provided by the host government, on the ‘reparations’ principle. The host population would have nothing to say about it.



The host government would reserve all rights of defense, foreign affairs and so forth – except for relations with the Muslim states, which would be handled by the new Muslim communities themselves. Of course, UN and EU representation would also be necessary, to protect the rights of the defenseless Muslim areas. The model would be something along the lines of Palestinian status.



The end result would be a kind of postmodern colonial regime, a reversal of the historic Western model in which the host country services, supports, and protects the Muslim colonies within. The Muslim homelands would thereafter act as bases for further operations, sanctuaries for Jihadis from outside Europe, and constant internal threats preventing Europeans from taking any further part in the war against terror.



This is a grossly oversimplified model, but it does plainly reveal how existing European failings, both social and political, can be exploited. It would require a shift in Jihadi attitudes, involving an abandonment of the eschatological expectations of bin Laden and Zarqawi in favor of an attainable political result.



This is clear break with previous Jihadi practice, possibly excepting the Madrid strike. (Which I strongly suspect surprised even the Jihadis themselves – there were, after all, no follow-up attacks on other vulnerable European targets, unless the London July bombings over a year later were intended as such.) But it’s clear that established Jihadi tactics melded with a plausible political objective would represent the most formidable challenge to Europe since the rise of last century’s police states. It should be taken for granted that no European Jihadi familiar with the works of the founders of modern political terrorism – Lenin, George Sorel, and Franz Fanon – has not considered something of the sort.



Even as the above words were being typed, the British sociologist Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo revealed in the U.K. Telegraph that Muslim clerics interviewed by him all believe that Muslim areas in Britain will be self-governing within a decade. (The Telegraph has since taken down the article, but it is reprinted here). Their entire experience with the British government, which has capitulated in all confrontations with Muslims, leaves them with no doubt of the outcome.



The Danish Cartoon Crisis as a Model of Jihadist Victory



All the imams referred to the Danish cartoon jihad as a representative example. The incident’s status as a wholly manufactured crisis is not as widely known as it should be, but is in no way in question. Although very likely intended to rally the international Muslim umma against democratic developments in the Middle East, it also served a useful purpose in Europe in driving a wedge between native Europeans and the Muslim population while seriously embarrassing the entire European establishment.



The cartoon jihad will serve as a model for future efforts at destabilizing the European community. (One overlooked aspect is the fact that Abu Laban, the Danish imam who engineered the crisis, attempted to present himself as a “spokesman” figure, loudly lamenting the riots on Danish television while at the same time urging his followers – in Arabic – to go for Danish throats. Future jihadi leaders are unlikely to be so easily exposed.)



Above all, the cartoon crisis has revealed Europe as a whole to be utterly defenseless against this kind of program. If viewed as a test of European governmental resolve, it has to be said that every single government in Europe, Denmark excepted, failed miserably. In Norway, government officials forced the editor of the Christian publication Magazinet to publicly apologize to a gathering of mullahs for reprinting the cartoons.



Two Swedish web sites featuring the drawings were shut down by police order. An Italian official who wore a t-shirt emblazoned with one of the drawings was forced to step down. In Britain, demonstrators were in effect defended by police from exposure by the press, and a man wearing a mock suicide belt was allowed to parade unmolested in front of the Danish embassy (he was later discovered to be a felon on parole and sent back to prison).



In no case did any European nation rebuke the demonstrators or demand civil behavior from their Muslim minorities. In the ensuing weeks, critics of Islam across continental Europe have been forced to request police protection, and some have decided to curtail their activities completely. In this sense, Europe is already under siege. (Curiously, the only country that failed to experience disturbances was France, which had been at a constant boil since late last summer. Whether this was due to exhaustion or the Jihadi element conserving its strength is impossible to say.)



European Appeasers in Control



In the 1960s, CIA operatives had a saying: “Whoever wins Africa loses the Cold War.” The same mixture of frustration and contempt is inescapable in contemplating the spectacle of 21st-century Europe. The European response to the Jihadis has been an open scandal, the worst possible combination of bellicose rhetoric and craven behavior.



Abu Hamza, the infamous “Captain Hook” of the Finsbury Park mosque, receives a lengthy sentence for encouraging terrorism only for the British government to apologize for allowing him to run loose for seven years after discovering that he was directly involved in terrorist activities.



A bold statement from the EU’s chief executive Jose Manuel Barasso pledging that Europe would fight “to protect democratic values” is followed the next day by a promise from the European Parliament to “weed out textbooks offensive to Islam”. The same day, Italian judges rule that recruiting suicidebombers to attack U.S. troops is “Not terrorism”, freeing three Jihadis to return to their activities.



Abu Laban, the P.T. Barnum of the cartoon intifada, is allowed to return to Denmark unmolested. An overlooked item in his CV reveals that he is a long-term associate of Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al-Queda’s chief of operations.



Hizb ut-Tahrir (Islamic party of Liberation), commonly known as HT, is the secretive organization responsible for most of the cartoon demonstrations around the EU. It shares goals similar to Al-Queda, and although banned throughout Asia and the Middle East, is allowed to act openly in Europe.



Even more telling is the fact, revealed in early February, even as the cartoon riots spread across Europe, that military budgets throughout the EU (and this includes the UK) have been allowed to drop following 9/11 until they now stand at 1.8% of GDP, less than half the total of U.S. spending. A greater sign of irresponsibility in the face of a global challenge would be hard to come by.

A list of such actions could continue for page after page. Clearly, Europe’s open appeasers are in effective control of overall policy, much the same as in the great British appeasement debate of the 1930s. Today’s appeasers seem to believe that they can persuade the public to live in a state of siege, much as they did during the Baader-Meinhof and Red Brigades terror campaigns of the 70s and 80s (and in the UK for much longer while battling the IRA).



The hope seems to be to placate the Muslim populace and take whatever losses are necessary while the secret services hold back the Jihadi threat long enough for the U.S. to roll them up overseas. (This is in no way meant as a criticism of European security and intelligence services, all of which have earned high praise from the U.S. Intelligence Community.)



Possible European Response



One useful result of the cartoon riots is that this fantasy has been swept off the table. It’s no longer a matter of dealing with bombings widely scattered in time and space. If not an actual clash of civilizations, it’s about as close as anybody will ever care to get. The response of the public at large promises to be much the same as that to the assassination of Theo van Gogh and the London bombings, only on a much vaster scale. Government will follow where the people lead. (It’s curious to note that while many commentaries dwell on the decline of European religious belief as a fatal flaw, the steadiest resistance has come from two of the most secular European states, Denmark and the Netherlands. We may be witnessing a internal power shift, with leadership being transferred from the tired, moribund giants to the nimbler, more lively small states.)



The first challenge involves securing the public peace, accompanied by a quick and thorough housecleaning. The Dutch decision to broadly curtail immigration is a sensible and long overdue move, and will likely be duplicated across the continent.(A French law echoing Holland’s was announced by French interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy in February.)



But there are literally hundreds of hostile imams already in residence throughout Europe—Abu Hamza and Abu Laban being only most well known—preaching the downfall of their adopted homes every Friday. A nation-state has a right to demand three things of immigrants: that they obey the law, that they learn the language, and that they respect the natives. Many Islamists violate at least two of these provisions, some of them all three. Such renegades must be taken in hand. They require investigation, confrontation, and if necessary, expulsion. The fact that many are facing prison or worse in their home countries is not a European problem. There are few things more contemptible than a refugee undermining the nation that gives him shelter.



An effective method of dealing with provocations like the cartoon jihad must be formulated and put into practice consistently across the EU. This was a deliberately conceived conspiracy, and should be treated as such. The people behind it must be arrested and expelled. The nations involved, which include Egypt, Iran, and Syria, must be confronted over their involvement and sanctioned if necessary. Otherwise, Europeans can expect repetition upon repetition, each one more widespread and frenetic than the last. (And it won’t require Danes or cartoonists as a trigger. The French car-burning marathon was kicked off by the deaths of two thugs – both forgotten now – hiding from the police in an electrical station. People died in Pakistan because a Koran was found lying in a gutter. Anything will serve to set off these frenzies.)



Hizb ut-Tahrirm (HT), which organized most of the demonstrations, must be banned, its resources seized, its networks destroyed. HT is already proscribed throughout the Muslim world, no doubt for good reasons. Numerous lesser organizations across Europe should also be rolled up. It would be wise to curtail Europe’s difficult to comprehend support for international terrorists such as Al Fatah and Hamas. There is a point where appeasement reaches the level of the repellent. It has long been passed in these cases.



These actions will cause unrest among the Muslim populace, who have been allowed to go their own way for too long. This must be faced. European governments must lose their fear of these people. The power of the Islamic mob, fully established after the cartoon jihad, must be broken. Attempting to govern in the face of a hostile minority, whether criminals, religious fanatics, terrorists, or any combination, is an absurdity. Nor can a society function if it is held hostage by such a group.



If illegal violence occurs, it must be met and overcome by legal force. No other single action will be more important in curtailing Islamist ambitions.



The governments and native populations of Europe will very likely be surprised how many Muslims choose to stand with the authorities under such circumstances. If others find it impossible to endure, they will perhaps be better off in the Muslim world, where they need never be bothered by the sight of an infidel if they so desire. However harsh this may be, it is nowhere near as harsh as the prospect of a continent in chaos.



It’s unlikely that any of these prescriptions will be followed voluntarily. No democratic government would willingly enter such a gauntlet if it could possibly be avoided. But welcome or not, something similar will inevitably come as events dictate. The current stock of appeasement-prone governments (among them, sadly, the otherwise estimable Tony Blair) are in their last days. The majority will be voted out in favor of figures such as the inflexible Nicolas Sarkozy. A reaction from an aggressive and pampered minority can be anticipated.



It would be best for the U.S. not to become too closely involved. Not merely in response to Europe’s incessant playing of the anti-American card, though such a reaction would not be unjustified. The Europeans can meet this challenge on their own. American power needs to be preserved for use where it is absolutely necessary, where there is no other alternative, as in Iraq. The U.S. cannot throw away its assets, either military or financial, on powers easily capable of taking care of themselves. The EU cynically sat back and manipulated the U.S. into taking responsibility in the Balkans, a situation that they had themselves triggered (through German recognition of Slovenia) and which could not be viewed as anything other than a European problem. Let them save their cynicism for the Jihadis, where it will do some good.



All military and security moves, no matter how far-reaching, will be at best short-term solutions to Europe’s problem. A long-term approach must be social, and involve integrating the Muslim minority. This, as any American can tell you, is not an easy path, but it is the sole route out of the current impasse.



One thing the U.S. can do is teach Europe how to handle relations with minorities.



The Europeans, France in particular, have preened and posed while asserting that they had no racial problems. Today we know why – they deliberately isolated their Muslim minorities rather than confront the challenge in good time. (It’s interesting to note that Muslim leadership fully concurred – in 1980, the Islamic Council of Europe deliberately chose to concentrate the Muslim population into areas easy to oversee and control. This is not only a European error.) What is this other than “separate but equal”, a concept dismissed from the American legal landscape a half-century ago?



The Europeans have gotten themselves into this predicament through living a racist lie. The U.S., as the sole major country that has actually worked itself out of such a situation – rationally, intelligently, and over all justly—could play a role in educating both sides of the European divide.





J.R. Dunn

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

Bullshit.

Show me one thing that the US has done about Iraq's alleged WMD's in Syria.

Not a fucking thing..... yet.

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

ROTFLMAO! How the Hell do you work that out?

There WERE WMDs in Iraq and al Quiada was in Iraq.... or cant you read?

 

[Sean]

There WERE WMDs in Iraq and al Quiada was in Iraq.... or cant you read?

Prove it.

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

Prove it.

There is no need anymore.

 

[busybody..]

facts need not be proved

the sun coming up need not be proved!

 

[Sean]

There is no need anymore.

You really are mentally subnormal, aren't you? where are the WMDs?

 

[Sean]

facts need not be proved

the sun coming up need not be proved!

But it CAN be proved. That's the difference.

 

[busybody..]

not without going INTO Syria and Lebanon!



http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml


JON STEWART interviews Iraqi General George Sada (video is available here) and there's some interesting discussion in which Sada says that there absolutely were Weapons of Mass Destruction. (The interesting part starts at about 3/4 of the way in, with 2:45 remaining.) Sada says they were transported to Syria just before the United States invaded Iraq. "I have seen them myself, because you see I was the number two man in the Iraqi Air Force."

I haven't read Sada's new book, but it seems significant to me that he's getting attention from the likes of Jon Stewart, who's certainly no Administration mouthpiece. (Thanks to reader Adam Jensen for the tip.)


On the OTHER hand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

UPDATE: Reader Alan Goldstein thinks there's less here than meets the eye: "on the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC-FM on March 9th General George said he didn't actually see them himself."

 

[Sean]

not without going INTO Syria and Lebanon!



http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml


JON STEWART interviews Iraqi General George Sada (video is available here) and there's some interesting discussion in which Sada says that there absolutely were Weapons of Mass Destruction. (The interesting part starts at about 3/4 of the way in, with 2:45 remaining.) Sada says they were transported to Syria just before the United States invaded Iraq. "I have seen them myself, because you see I was the number two man in the Iraqi Air Force."

I haven't read Sada's new book, but it seems significant to me that he's getting attention from the likes of Jon Stewart, who's certainly no Administration mouthpiece. (Thanks to reader Adam Jensen for the tip.)


On the OTHER hand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

UPDATE: Reader Alan Goldstein thinks there's less here than meets the eye: "on the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC-FM on March 9th General George said he didn't actually see them himself."

I saw that (The Daily Show) tonight. We get it a day later here. Funny how Iraqi Generals that say what the US govt wants to aren't in GITMO, isn't it?

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

You really are mentally subnormal, aren't you? where are the WMDs?

Only in the eyes of someone who fucks over his friends.

I'll tell you one last time (and I'll type very slowly for your benefit) They...are....in...Syria!

 

[busybody..]

I saw that (The Daily Show) tonight. We get it a day later here. Funny how Iraqi Generals that say what the US govt wants to aren't in GITMO, isn't it?

He wasnt in GITMO

but your response is typical

anything that PROVES your POV is sacred

anything that disproves your POV is sneered at

Its OK

at least we KNOW who the TARGET sign is on

 

[Nostalgy_Prince]

I'm probably insane to even post in here, but...

honnestly, do you believe everything you've told? On what basis? That people feeding you this info are elected in what seems to be a democraty? That their proof comes from .... an-ex ennemy? In the country were there is probably more deal than court judgements?


IF there WMD in Syria, then only time will tell ... and please, my dear Americain friends, go look for them in Syria. Please! Just let the rest of the world out of your crusades! Because in the the last 20 years, you have done such great things for the worlds! Really (I have a bridge sitting on the moon I want to sell you for 1$. Interested? I even have satellite pics!)

 

[busybody..]

have another drink, willya

dont forget the rat poison!

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

I'm probably insane to even post in here, but...

honnestly, do you believe everything you've told? On what basis? That people feeding you this info are elected in what seems to be a democraty? That their proof comes from .... an-ex ennemy? In the country were there is probably more deal than court judgements?


IF there WMD in Syria, then only time will tell ... and please, my dear Americain friends, go look for them in Syria. Please! Just let the rest of the world out of your crusades! Because in the the last 20 years, you have done such great things for the worlds! Really (I have a bridge sitting on the moon I want to sell you for 1$. Interested? I even have satellite pics!)

It is an acknowledged FACT that SH not only HAD WMDs at one time he used them on the Kurds. So you tell me what happened to the REST of them?

Did he destroy them and NOT tell the UN? Or did they just disappear....like steam cooling in the air?

 

[phrodeau]

It is an acknowledged FACT that SH not only HAD WMDs at one time he used them on the Kurds. So you tell me what happened to the REST of them?

Did he destroy them and NOT tell the UN? Or did they just disappear....like steam cooling in the air?

Saddam complied but didn't cooperate.

Did you expect him to send an invitation to all his neighbors, "Cooee! I'm defenseless now!"

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

Saddam complied but didn't cooperate.

Did you expect him to send an invitation to all his neighbors, "Cooee! I'm defenseless now!"

You're not catching on here are you.

We KNOW he had them at one time, because he use them.

Furthermore he DIDNT comply. Thats what the sanctions and the invasion was about. REMEMBER?

So here he was, facing UN sanctions and impending invasion, and instead of complying with inspectors and showing them how and where the WMDs were destroyed or dismantled, he thought it would be better to be invaded. That makes no fucking sense.

The only thing that DOES make sense is he had them and he moved them, (Keep in mind he had a history of moving military assests in the last war) but he didnt tell anyone, because he was hoping to oneday resume power and take them back in the best case and at least give his Baathist brothers the "toys" in the worst case.

 

[phrodeau]

You're not catching on here are you.

We KNOW he had them at one time, because he use them.

Furthermore he DIDNT comply. Thats what the sanctions and the invasion was about. REMEMBER?

So here he was, facing UN sanctions and impending invasion, and instead of complying with inspectors and showing them how and where the WMDs were destroyed or dismantled, he thought it would be better to be invaded. That makes no fucking sense.

The only thing that DOES make sense is he had them and he moved them, (Keep in mind he had a history of moving military assests in the last war) but he didnt tell anyone, because he was hoping to oneday resume power and take them back in the best case and at least give his Baathist brothers the "toys" in the worst case.

He had them, he used them, now he doesn't have them anymore. Is that so strange?

He said he still had them. And he always tells the truth, right?

Saddam has known about Dubya since he was in short pants. He knew Dubya couldn't handle an invasion. And he was absolutely right.

 

[busybody..]

No one ever again can say OBL and SH would not have worked together:

From their OWN files:

I assume we wont see this make BIG news



Iraq Archive Document Describes Bin Laden MeetingU.S. Government Releases Papers From Saddam's Reign


March 22, 2006 — Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries of five documents from Saddam Hussein's government, which have been released by the U.S. government.

The documents discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more.

The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office Web site: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm.

Note: Document titles were added by ABC News.



"Osama Bin Laden Contact With Iraq"

A newly released pre-war Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995 after approval by Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995 and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open (in the future) based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.

(Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere, (e.g. the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.

It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.

The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is interesting to note that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisors. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)





"Osama bin Laden and the Taliban"

Document dated Sept. 15, 2001

An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:


That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.
That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.

At the end, the writer recommends informing "the committee of intentions" about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear.

(Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable — i.e. an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document — four days after 9/11 — is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)


"Election Campaign Laws in France"

Documents dated July-August 1999

Correspondence regarding election campaigns in France. This includes a document from the Iraqi intelligence service classified as "secret," ordering the translation of important parts of a 1997 report about campaign financing laws in France. It also includes a document from the foreign minister's office indicating the report was attached. The attached translated report included very detailed information about all the regulations regarding financing of election campaigns in France. Translation was done by someone called "Salam Abdul Karim Mohammed."

(Editor's Note: This is an intriguing document which suggests Saddam Hussein's regime had a strong interest in the mechanics and legalities of financial contributions to French politicians. Several former French politicians are implicated in receiving oil vouchers from Iraq under the U.N. Oil for Food program.)

 

[busybody..]

(Page 2 of 2)


"Hiding Docs from the U.N. Team"


Document dated March 23, 1997



A letter from the Iraqi intelligence service to directors and managers advising them to follow certain procedures in case of a search by the U.N. team, including:



Removing correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons (proposals, research, studies, catalogs, etc.).
Removing prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored.
Doing so through a committee which will decide whether to destroy the documents.
Removing files from computers.



The letter also advises them on how they should answer questions by U.N. team members. It says the intelligence service should be informed within one week about the progress made in discarding the documents.



(Editor's Note: This document is consistent with the Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence, which described a pattern of deception and concealment on the part of Saddam Hussein's government towards the U.N. inspectors in the mid to late 90's. Hussein halted all cooperation with those inspectors and expelled them in October 1998.)




"Al Qaeda Presence in Iraq"


Document dated August 2002



A number of correspondences to check rumors that some members of al Qaeda organization have entered Iraq. Three letters say this information cannot be confirmed. The letter on page seven, however, says that information coming from "a trustworthy source" indicates that subjects who are interested in dealing with al Qaeda are in Iraq and have several passports.



The letter seems to be coming from or going to Trebil, a town on the Iraqi-Jordanian border. Follow up on the presence of those subjects is ordered, as well as comparison of their pictures with those of Jordanian subjects living in Iraq. (This may be referring to pictures of Abu Musaab al Zarqawi and another man on pages 4-6) The letter also says tourist areas, including hotels and rented apartments, should be searched.



(Editor's note: This document indicates that the Iraqis were aware of and interested in reports that members of al Qaeda were present in Iraq in 2002. The document does not support allegations that Iraq was colluding with al Qaeda.)

 

[busybody..]

Pergy

Because you are just so damn DUMB as to believe that the main Media really just covers the truth

and doesnt have an anti America bias

read these two entries in blogs

and be ashamed of your gullibility



Hugh Hewitt interviewed Christopher Hitchens on the radio yesterday and Hitchens makes some interesting points.



CH: Well, I object to people like Michael Moore for example, or Ramsey Clark being referred to as...in the New York Times as anti-war activists, or anti-war campaigners. They're not anti-war at all. For one thing, they're not pacifists, particularly not Ramsey Clark. For another, they've declared that they believe the beheaders and jihadists and the blowers up of Mosques and mutilators of women and so forth are a liberation force or an insurgency. Michael Moore even said they were the modern equivalent to the American founding fathers. So in that case, fine. George Galloway's the same. Many of them are. They're not really against the war. They're not anti-war, but on the other side in the war for civilization, and they should be called out on it and given their right name.

HH: Do you believe that there are leaders in the Democratic Party in Congress who also belong to that caucus?

CH: No, I can't say that I do think that. I mean, maybe Cynthia McKinney, who is not exactly a leader. She seems sometimes to talk in a sort of MoveOn.org manner, but no, I think that we're far from that in this case. I think what you have there is again, a sort of fatalism, the feeling that if you can say a war is unwinnable, you've also said it's wrong. In other words, that you would desert the side you were on if you thought things were going badly. That's a moral degeneracy of a different kind.



Hitchens then talks of what unnamed media person said to him - that he's suddenly wondering if the media and perhaps the Democrats are giving the terrorists in Iraq the impression that all they have to do is hold on untilthe Bush administration is out of office and then we'll be out of there.

So, the terrorists know that all they have to do is keep up a level of violence for the next two and a half years and then the U.S. will leave under a new Democratic president and they'll have free rein in the place. Is that the message that Democrats really want to be sending?





Lorie Byrd has a column up today at Townhall pondering why the media has suddenly become interested in how the military in Iraq feels about the war.



I don't recall a poll taken of the troops during the Clinton administration to find out how they felt about the operation in Mogadishu. Maybe somebody did take one, but the 99.999 percent disapproval number they got was just more than the media could stand to report. I don't recall a bunch of polls being touted loudly by the media in the Clinton years letting us know how many of the troops respected their commander-in-chief. Certainly polls of the military were done during the Clinton years, but if they were, they were not featured prominently on my nightly newscast. I wonder why that is.

I asked Matt of the excellent military blog Blackfive for his take on the recent efforts of those in the media to determine how the troops feel (Military blogs, referred to as milblogs, are the weblogs maintained by individual members of the military and often include their personal accounts of their experiences in the field, sometimes even including pictures from war zones).

Matt had this to say about the sudden interest in polling the troops, “No one polled my troops about doing a tour in Bosnia or whether we supported the mission. No one asked me if I thought my unit should be involved in El Salvador in the 80s or Iraq in 1991. Would I rather have been drinking a beer, sitting in the bleachers of Wrigley Field? Of course. But there was a job to do and it was mine to complete.” He went on to say that instead of polling the troops on their feelings about Iraq, the media would do better to focus on providing more complete and truthful reporting of what the military is doing there.


Well, we know why the media is suddenly interested in their feelings - they think it fits a storyline that they want to tell. Lorie reminds us of how the New York Times edited the words found on Cpl. Jeffrey Starr's computer after he was killed in Iraq to make it seem like he was against the war instead of including the complete message which showed how he was in favor of the mission there