Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ex-CIA Officers Rip Bush Over Rove Leak

Former U.S. intelligence officers criticized President Bush on Friday for not disciplining Karl Rove in connection with the leak of the name of a CIA officer, saying Bush's lack of action has jeopardized national security.

In a hearing held by Senate and House Democrats examining the implications of exposing Valerie Plame's identity, the former intelligence officers said Bush's silence has hampered efforts to recruit informants to help the United States fight the war on terror. Federal law forbids government officials from revealing the identity of an undercover intelligence officer.

Former CIA analysts, Larry Johnson, center, with former analyst and case worker, Col. W. Patrick Lang (ret.), left, and Jim Marcinkowski, right, testifies on Capitol Hill before a joint Senate and House committee, Friday, July 22, 2005, in Washington. The Democrats of the Senate Policy Committee and House Government Reform Committee held a hearing on the CIA leak and the national security implications of disclosing the identity of a covert intelligence officer. (AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson) (Lawrence Jackson - AP) 

"I wouldn't be here this morning if President Bush had done the one thing required of him as commander in chief _ protect and defend the Constitution," said Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst. "The minute that Valerie Plame's identity was outed, he should have delivered a strict and strong message to his employees."

I think President Bush has more trouble on his hands than he knows what to do with. It is one thing to be at war with Iraq, but to be at war with the CIA will end up being 100 times worse for the president. I agree that he should of immediately moved to discipline his people when they outed Valerie Plame. That is if he wasn't involved in it himself. Just imagine, the president of the United States impeding CIA recruiting procedures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A war based on lies

Actually, if you read the memo, it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the war was based on everything but lies. The memo clearly indicates that the British are genuinely fearful of WMD by Iraq during an invasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush aide misled FBI, say reports

George Tenet, the director of the CIA at the time, took responsibility for the false claim, helping to draw fire away from the White House, but yesterday's report suggests that Mr Rove and Mr Libby had a role in drafting his public admission

Meanwhile, a parallel investigation is under way into who forged the Niger documents. They are known to have been passed to an Italian journalist by a former Italian defence intelligence officer, Rocco Martino, in October 2002, but their origins have remained a mystery. Mr Martino has insisted to the Italian press that he was "a tool used by someone for games much bigger than me", but has not specified who that might be.

A source familiar with the inquiry said investigators were examining whether former US intelligence agents may have been involved in possible collaboration with Iraqi exiles determined to prove that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear programme

Is Tenet going to lose his job, be fired, or go to jail? This is really starting to unravel in a most unfortunate way for Mr Bush. How many remember after 9/11 when Mr Bush made Mr Tenet head of the CIA? THIS APPEARS TO BE ONE BIG GIANT LIE FROM TOP TO BOTTOM.

I incorrectly said Tenet here when I meant to say Peter Goss.

Edited by mirror
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Have you any idea how much tyrants fear the pople they oppress? All of them realize that, one day, amongst their many victims, there is sure to be one who rises against them and strikes back!"

- Albus Dumbledore, from J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

I really like this quote, don't you? At some point someone is gonna get 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How stange seeing as there were not any WMD

How is that strange? Intelligence indicated that Iraq possessed WMD. Intelligence from America, Britain, Germany, France, Russia, China, and even The United Nations. If you actually read the Downing Street memo, America and Britian were genuinely concerned about their forces facing WMD in the event of an invasion.

I thought the US & the UK had the most competent fighting forces and spy networks in the world

They do. Although I'm sure that Russia, China and Japan possess very compentent fighting forces and intelligence networks aswell. However, this is a classic non-sequiter argument.

Is Tenet going to lose his job, be fired, or go to jail?

Two facts:

George Tenet is a Clinton appointee.

George Tenet HAS lost his job.

THIS APPEARS TO BE ONE BIG GIANT LIE FROM TOP TO BOTTOM

LOL, yep, one big giant lie, America and Britian in collaboration with the intelligence agencies of France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Israel, and The United Nations and its Security Council. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Have you any idea how much tyrants fear the pople they oppress? All of them realize that, one day, amongst their many victims, there is sure to be one who rises against them and strikes back!"

- Albus Dumbledore, from J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

I really like this quote, don't you? At some point someone is gonna get 'em.

Do you really want to be taken seriously, quoting from a work of children's fiction and applying it without regard for facts or reason to a real world situation it bears no resemblance to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

That is pure rubbish. The memo indicates nothing of the kind and nobody really thought that Iraq had WMD. That is clear from the ongoing inspections.

Tenet may have been fired because he had to fall on his sword for his Emperor. He was given a medal for doing so. How crass sould it be and how could any take it seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taken from the text of the Downing Street Memo:

"For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."

(Emphasis mine.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Shady,

The memo clearly indicates that the British are genuinely fearful of WMD by Iraq during an invasion.
They may have been genuinely fearful of bogeymen in their closets, as well, but we all know they aren't there. Iraq was embargoed and 'sanctioned' (and spied upon) for 10 years by the USA, and Gen. Colin Powell stated 'Saddam is being kept in his box', which was the accepted method of dealing with, and preventing the development or aquisition of WMDs for, Iraq. I contend that the US knew full well that Iraq had no WMD capability.

Oddly, this thread is listed as Bush vs the CIA, when Bush Sr. was Mr. CIA. They even renamed their headquarters at Langley "The George H. W. Bush Center for Intelligence". Bush Sr. served as director under Ford, and then had Bill Casey, "the spookiest of all spooks" as campaign manager for himself as VP, and his puppet Ronnie Reagan for Pres. The Bush family, through their company Pennzoil, also allegedly employed agent E. Howard Hunt, and another CIA man (both of whom were implicated in the Watergate scandal) when the Bush's were privately funding the 'Contras' in Central America.

Bush reportedly coordinated Frank Sturgis, as well as Watergate team members Rafael “Chi Chi” Quintero, E. Howard Hunt, and Bernard Barker for the Cuban Bay of Pigs invasion—using Pemex and Bush’s Zapata Oil as a staging point (the operation was codenamed OPERATION ZAPATA). Nixon, as Vice President, had supervised Allen Dulles’s planning of the invasion.

Quintero worked under CIA coordinator William F. Buckley, Jr. in an assassination unit Buckley supervised under the cover of Pemex. Bush had a keen financial interest in turning Cuba back into a playground for ultra-capitalist interests, as Bush’s Zapata Oil was one of the key suppliers to Cuba under Batista

A good book (though very pro-american and inadvertently raising some unanswered questions) an autobiography about a CIA operative is "Shadow Warrior", by Felix i. Rodriguez. Felix was a staunchly anti-Castro Cuban ex-pat, himself partaking in the Bay of Pigs invasion. However, there is a photo with him and Che Guevera on the day Che was executed (Felix tampered with someone elses camera so that he would be the only one with a photo that day.) Felix later turned up at the White House, as a guest of GHW Bush, and gave testimony in the Iran-Contra scandal. An amazing individual, I recommend the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good work, Shady. You beat me to all the punches. Left my knuckles itchy, though

Thank you. I'm sorry about your knuckles, however, the constant lies, disinformaiton, and revision of history by those on the left really bothers me.

The memo indicates nothing of the kind and nobody really thought that Iraq had WMD

From the memo:

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary

Link

Hmm, that's odd, don't you think? Contemplating a situation in which you apparently know won't happen because you apparently know that Iraq doesn't possess such illegal weapons in a memo in which nobody else is suppose to see.

They may have been genuinely fearful of bogeymen in their closets, as well, but we all know they aren't there. Iraq was embargoed and 'sanctioned' (and spied upon) for 10 years by the USA, and Gen. Colin Powell stated 'Saddam is being kept in his box', which was the accepted method of dealing with, and preventing the development or aquisition of WMDs for, Iraq. I contend that the US knew full well that Iraq had no WMD capability

There was a genuine fear of Iraq. There was a fear of WMD, and a fear of terrorism. This fear was deemed unacceptable after 9/11. It's accurate to state that Iraq was under severe sanctions and inspections. However, sanctions were at a point of breaking down, and inspectors hadn't been inspecting for a period of 4 years. And history indicates that Iraq did an execptional job of working around such sanctions and inspections. This is evident in 1996 when UNSCOM was about to declare Iraq free of illegal weapons untill Iraqi defectors uncovered chemical, biological and nuclear programs to inspectors. It is NOT an acceptable method after 9/11 to hope for defectors in order to insure one's safety. It is NOT an acceptable method to push for indefinite inspections, and it is definitely NOT an acceptable method to push for indefinite sanctions which only work to starve and deprive millions of Iraqi's from even the basic necessities of life. That's my opinion.

And then there's stories like these, in which some people continue to ignore:

Russia Warned U.S. About Iraq, Putin Says

Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country.

 

Putin, who opposed Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, did not go into detail about the information that was forwarded, and said Russia had no evidence that Hussein was involved in any attacks.

"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said, according to RIA Novosti, the Russian news agency. "American President George Bush had an opportunity to personally thank the head of one of the Russian special services for this information, which he regarded as very important," the Russian president told an interviewer while in Astana, capital of Kazakhstan.

Washington Post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Shady,

There was a genuine fear of Iraq. There was a fear of WMD, and a fear of terrorism. This fear was deemed unacceptable after 9/11.
Fear, schmear,

that is NOT an acceptable excuse for invading another country. I'm sure you'll agree, had Iraq actually done anything at all against the US, and they gave the excuse: 'we were fearful of them, so we attacked', it wouldn't wash with you either.

It's accurate to state that Iraq was under severe sanctions and inspections. However, sanctions were at a point of breaking down,
Actually, sanctions were at a point of possibly being lifted (France and Russia both proposed it, the US resisted)
And history indicates that Iraq did an execptional job of working around such sanctions and inspections.
Sort of, Iraq was the seller, but many groups aided the 'perfidy', including the USA, France, and others, (evidently even Kofi Annan's relative) were all trying to get their fingers in the pie.
1996 when UNSCOM was about to declare Iraq free of illegal weapons untill Iraqi defectors uncovered chemical, biological and nuclear programs to inspectors.
These allegations were never verified, nor did said 'programs' ever develop any weapons. All of them proved to be either mistaken or false. The 'unmanned drone' proved to be a dummy, the 'illegal range missiles' were tested without warheads, etc.
Hmm, that's odd, don't you think? Contemplating a situation in which you apparently know won't happen because you apparently know that Iraq doesn't possess such illegal weapons in a memo in which nobody else is suppose to see.
Military intelligence is all about stuff nobody knows anything about. Contingency plans (such as the invasion of Canada) are drafted to cover as many scenarios as they can, many military plans and developments are borderline ridiculous. But they try to cover all the bases, even when they are out in left field.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, if you read the memo, it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the war was based on everything but lies. The memo clearly indicates that the British are genuinely fearful of WMD by Iraq during an invasion.

That's an interesting spin.

From the memo:

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

As for this:

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

It seem that is a reference to a conversation with Rumsfeld. So it appears in this case that the Brits were basing their assesment of Saddam's WMD capability on U.S. information, information we know know was manipulated. It certainly doesn't square with the earlier assesment in the memo that Sadam's

WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
There was a genuine fear of Iraq. There was a fear of WMD, and a fear of terrorism.

There clearly was not. If anything, we know they knew Saddam was weak and contained. That's what made him such a tempting target over Iran or North Korea: he was easy pickings.

There was a fear of WMD, and a fear of terrorism

We know they knew Saddam's WMD capacity was diminished beyond hope of reconsruction. As for terrorism, I don't think anyone took that angle seriously, given the lack of an Iraqi connection to 9-11.

However, sanctions were at a point of breaking down, and inspectors hadn't been inspecting for a period of 4 years.

inspectors returned in 2002 and, while their findings were critical of the regime, they indicated that slight progress had been made in Iraq's cooperation.

There's nothing in the memo or in any other bit of evidence unveiled before, during or after the invasion, thet there wa sa pressing need to undertake regime change.

And history indicates that Iraq did an execptional job of working around such sanctions and inspections

History also indicates this was not to disguse WMD, but to conceal the lack thereof.

It is NOT an acceptable method to push for indefinite inspections, and it is definitely NOT an acceptable method to push for indefinite sanctions which only work to starve and deprive millions of Iraqi's from even the basic necessities of life. That's my opinion.

Sanctions that were championed by the Anglo-American coalition.

however, the constant lies, disinformaiton, and revision of history by those on the left really bothers me.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure you'll agree, had Iraq actually done anything at all against the US, and they gave the excuse

Have you forgotten the first WTC bombing? Or how about the assassination attempt on George H. W. Bush? Or how about the daily attacks on U.N. (mostly American, but some British and French) pilots patrolling the no-fly zones protecting the Kurds in the north and the Shites in the south? Ever heard of Abu Nidal?

U.S. welcomes news of Abu Nidal's death

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States welcomed news Monday of the death of Abu Nidal, a Palestinian guerrilla leader whose group has been blamed for attacks in more than 20 countries that have killed hundreds.

The Palestinian newspaper Al Ayyam said Nidal was suffering from a serious illness and apparently committed suicide in his Baghdad apartment

CNN

This terrorist leader used Iraq as a safe-haven, where he lived very comfortably under Saddam Hussein's watch, and with Saddam Hussien's money. And let's not forget about Saddam's interest in the financing of suicide bombers, remember? And where was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi BEFORE the war started? Baghdad.

These allegations were never verified

Lies. Pure lies.

Until 1995, Iraq flatly denied ever having a biological warfare program. In that year, Hussein Kamal, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law and the head of Iraq's WMD development efforts, defected to Jordan. He revealed that he had armed 25 Scud warheads and 157 bombs with biological warfare agents. Iraq admitted that it had developed biological weapons, and from July 1995 to September 1997 released -- three times -- its "Full, Final and Complete Disclosures." According to UNSCOM, they were anything but complete.

The Iraqis admitted to loading 16 warheads for its long-range Al-Hussein missile with botulinum toxin, and five with anthrax. They also admitted to producing 200 air-dropped bombs with biological weapons, and claimed that they were all destroyed. UNSCOM says it cannot confirm those numbers at all. The inspectors also say that vast amounts of media -- the substances used as a base to breed germs for any purpose, including biological weapons -- are unaccounted for

CNN
Military intelligence is all about stuff nobody knows anything about

Exactly. So why do you people think you know everything that pertain's to Iraq as a threat, Iraq's WMD capability and possession, as well as it's links to terrorism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

inspectors returned in 2002 and, while their findings were critical of the regime, they indicated that slight progress had been made in Iraq's cooperation
There's nothing in the memo or in any other bit of evidence unveiled before, during or after the invasion, thet there wa sa pressing need to undertake regime change

Yes of course, slight progress. Saddam plays people like you like puppets. It's the same cat and mouse game that went on through the 90's. As for the pressing need for regime change, it was 9/11. Such threats that were tolerated before, were deemed unacceptable after.

History also indicates this was not to disguse WMD, but to conceal the lack thereof

Yes indeed. Saddam's bluff was called, and we only know this because he's been removed. What's ironic, is the only lies that led to the war were being perpetuated by Saddam and Iraq. I'm glad that you people can finally admit it.

Sanctions that were championed by the Anglo-American coalition.

Actually, by much of the world, including Canada. However, this is another non-sequitur argument.

Though such nonsense hardly merits the time

Yes, sometimes there's no nonsense quite like the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Shady,

This terrorist leader used Iraq as a safe-haven, where he lived very comfortably under Saddam Hussein's watch, and with Saddam Hussien's money. And let's not forget about Saddam's interest in the financing of suicide bombers, remember? And where was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi BEFORE the war started? Baghdad.
Abu Nidal split with, and twicwe tried to kill, Yasser Arafat. It was no secret Saddam did give money to the PLO, and Nidal was caught by Iraqi police in a Bagdhad apartment, and commited suicide to avoid capture. Suicide? Evidently he shot himself 15 times.
Or how about the daily attacks on U.N. (mostly American, but some British and French) pilots patrolling the no-fly zones protecting the Kurds in the north and the Shites in the south?
Err, you mean the daily coalition bombings? The 'daily attacks' by Iraq were switching on their radar and 'blipping' the coalition planes. The US/UK planes would then home in on the signal and blast the radar station. The coalition forces bombed Iraq almost daily for years. It actually didn't do either side much good. Nice try to 'spin it', though.
Exactly. So why do you people think you know everything that pertain's to Iraq as a threat, Iraq's WMD capability and possession, as well as it's links to terrorism?
That was meant as a joke, silly. I read about the attacks on the Iraqi National News website long before the invasion, (really good for a laugh, you should have heard the language and the rhetoric. For example, they used to say "we have sent the infidel attackers back to their 'nests of evil", etc. Funny thing is, much of the same rhetoric was, and is still in our western press today). I have read from many sources, both left and right, gov't and private, on this and other issues for years. Sometimes I read 'spin' that is actually bang on, and sometimes it is laughable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you forgotten the first WTC bombing?

The bombing with only a tenuous link to Iraq (in that one of the bombers traveled on a phony Iraqi passport.)

Or how about the assassination attempt on George H. W. Bush?

Which the Clinton administration responded to with a cruise missile attack against a building housing the Iraqi Intelligence Service in Baghdad.

Or how about the daily attacks on U.N. (mostly American, but some British and French) pilots patrolling the no-fly zones protecting the Kurds in the north and the Shites in the south?

The unilateraly declared no-fly zones? The one's imposed without authorisation by the UN and not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution?

Ever heard of Abu Nidal?This terrorist leader used Iraq as a safe-haven, where he lived very comfortably under Saddam Hussein's watch, and with Saddam Hussien's money.

Until Saddam's IIS put four bullets in his head.

Palestinian sources, however, told journalists that Abu Nidal had died of multiple gunshot wounds. Jane's reported that Iraqi intelligence had been following him for several months and had found classified documents in his home about a U.S. attack on Iraq. When they arrived to raid his house on August 14 (not 16 August, according to Jane's), fighting broke out between the ANO and Iraqi intelligence. In the midst of this, Abu Nidal rushed into his bedroom and died, though Jane's writes that it remains unclear whether he killed himself in there or was killed by someone else. Jane's sources insist that his body bore several gunshot wounds. Jane's further suggests that Saddam may have ordered him arrested and killed because Abu Nidal was a mercenary who would have acted against Saddam in the event of an American invasion, had the money been right.
And where was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi BEFORE the war started? Baghdad.

Lie.

After the September 11 attacks, Zarqawi again travelled to Afghanistan and was reportedly wounded in a U.S. bombardment. He moved to Iran to organize al-Tawhid, his former terrorist organization. Zarqawi then settled in the mostly-Kurdish regions of northern Iraq, where he joined the Islamist Ansar al-Islam group that fought against Kurdish-nationalist forces in the region. He reportedly became a leader in the group, although his leadership role has not been established. His followers claimed he was killed in a US bombing raid in the north of Iraq .
Yes of course, slight progress. Saddam plays people like you like puppets. It's the same cat and mouse game that went on through the 90's. As for the pressing need for regime change, it was 9/11. Such threats that were tolerated before, were deemed unacceptable after.

Uh...given that we were right and you were wrong on WMD, it's hard to see how we got played. Saddam was contained, weakened and impotent. No threat to his neighbours and certainly no threat to the west. So, given that reality which was so recognizable before the war, its hard to see how saddam suddenly became an intolerable threat in the 8 months between this:

"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."- Colin Powell, February 24 2001

and 9-11.

Yes indeed. Saddam's bluff was called, and we only know this because he's been removed. What's ironic, is the only lies that led to the war were being perpetuated by Saddam and Iraq. I'm glad that you people can finally admit it.

No. Again, all the intelligence on Iraq was anything but clear cut. Most of the U.S.'s work was manipulated, re-written and cherry picked to support their allegations.

Saddam lied, no doubt. But the Bush administration lied from day one. And their lies haven't stopped and won't stop as long as there are willing dupes around to soak them up and regurgitate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Shady, (and all)

My apologies for this long post, I don't usually do it, but this is an interesting one. This was taken from the Iraqi National News site after 9/11.

A first open letter from Saddam Hussein to the peoples of the United States

September 15, 2001

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most merciful”

Open letter from Saddam Hussein to the American peoples and the western peoples and their governments.

Once again, we would like to comment on what happened in America on September 11, 2001, and its consequences. The comments we made on the next day of the event represent the essence of our position regarding this event and other events, but the aftermath of what happened in America, in the West in particular and in the world in general, makes it important for every leader to understand the meaning of responsibility toward his people, his nation, and humanity in general to follow up the development of the situation, to understand the meaning of what is going on, and hence to elaborate his country’s and people’s position so as not to restrict oneself to only following the event.

When the event took place Arab rulers and the rulers of countries whose religion of their people is Islam, rushed to condemn the event. The Westerners rushed within hours to make statements and adopt resolutions, some of which are dangerous ones, in solidarity with America and against terrorism.

Even before being sure, western governments decided to join their forces to the America even if that meant declaring war on the party that will be proved to have been involved in what happened.

It is only normal to say that by the explanation of the present situation, as it has been said or by comparison to the action previously taken by America against specific countries, it could be enough for some of the executors of the operation to have come from a country named by America or said to have instigated the operation, for the American military retaliation on what they call an aggression. We don’t know if they would do the same thing whether any of the planners and executors of the operation were found, to have lived or held the nationality of a Western country or whether the intention and the designs are already made against an Islamic party.

It is most probable from the beating of media war drums that America and some Western governments are targeting a party who won’t be but Muslim.

The event that took place in America is an extraordinary event. It is not a simple one. According to figures announced by official American sources or by what has been spread by the media, the number of victims is great. Nobody has any doubts, or denies that America and the West have the capabilities to mobilize force and use it, to inflict destruction on others on the basis of simple doubts or even whimsically, and can send their American missiles and the NATO fighters to where ever they want to destroy and harm whoever America decides to harm in a fit of anger, by greed, or by being pushed by Zionism.

Many countries of the world have suffered from America’s technological might, and many peoples do recognize that America had killed thousands or even millions of human beings in their countries.

The event that took place in America was an extraordinary one. It is not a simple event.

It is the first time that someone crosses to America to unleash the fire of his anger inside it, as indicated by what was said by the media, on the hypothesis that the executors of this act came from abroad.

Since this event is unprecedented, is it wise to deal with it by precedent methods that can be used by whoever has the technical and scientific capacities of America and the West !?

If the target and the aim is one or more Islamic countries, as it has been said by the media and the intelligence services of some Western countries, this would only fall in the same direction that America and the West have always taken by targeting their fire on wherever they want to experiment a new weapon on.

We ask again : America’s targeting the fire of its weapons on specific targets, and harming it or destroying it with the support of Western governments and of a fabricated story would it solve the problem? Would this bring security to America and the world? Or Isn’t the use by America and some Western governments of their fire against others in the world including, or in the forefront of whom the Arabs and the Muslims, is one of the most important reasons of the lack of stability in the world at the present time?

Isn’t the evil inflicted on America in the act of September 11, 2001, and nothing else is a result of this and other acts? This is the main question and this is what the American administration along with of the Western governments or the Western public opinion should answer in the first place with serenity and responsibility, without emotional reaction and without the use of the same old methods that America used against the world.

On September 12, 2001, we said that no one crossed the Atlantic to America carrying weapons before this event, except the Westerners who established the United States of America. America is the one who crossed the Atlantic carrying arms of destruction and death against the world. Here we want to ask a question: wasn’t the use of American weapons, including the nuclear weapon against Japan, enough before September 11, 2001, for America to prepare to use it in a heavier and a stronger way? Or isn’t using it in an irresponsible way, and without justification as does any oppressive force in the world, is what made America the most hated country in the world, starting from the Third World, to the Medium World and passing to the civilized world, as is the world divided by the West and America?

The national security of America and the security of the world could be attained if the American leaders and those who beat the drums for them among the rulers of the present time in the West or outside the West become rational, if America disengages itself from its evil alliance with Zionism, which has been scheming to exploit the world and plunge it in blood and darkness, by using America and some Western countries.

What the American peoples need mostly is someone who tells them the truth, courageously and honestly as it is. They don’t need fanfares and cheerleaders, if they want to take a lesson from the event so as to reach a real awakening, in spite of the enormity of the event that hit America. But the world, including the rulers of America, should say all this to the American peoples, so as to have the courage to tell the truth and act according to what is right and not what to is wrong and unjust, to undertake their responsibilities in fairness and justice, and by recourse to reason, passion, according to the spirit of chance and capability.

In addition, we say to the American peoples, what happened on September 11, 2001 should be compared to what their government and their armies are doing in the world, for example, the international agencies have stated that more than one million and a half Iraqis have died because of the blockade imposed by America and some Western countries, in addition to the tens of thousands who died or are injured in the military action perpetrated by America along with those who allied with it against Iraq. Hundreds of bridges, churches, mosques, colleges, schools, factories, palaces, hotels, and thousands of private houses were destroyed or damaged by the American and Western bombardment, which is ongoing even today against Iraq. If you replay the images of the footage taken by the western media itself of this destruction, you will see that they are not different from the images of the two buildings hit by the Boing airplanes, if not more atrocious, especially when they are mixed with the remains of men, women, and children. There is, however, one difference, namely that those who direct their missiles and bombs to the targets, whether Americans or from another Western country, are mostly targeting by remote controls, that is why they do so as if they were playing an amusing game. As for those who acted on September 11, 2001, they did it from a close range, and with, I imagine, giving their lives willingly, with an irrevocable determination.

For this reason also, the Americans, and the world with them, should understand the argument that made those people give their lives in sacrifi, and what they sacrificthemselves for, in that way.

When one million and a half Iraqi human beings die, according to Western documents, from a population of twenty five million, because of the American blockade and aggression, it means that Iraq has lost about one twentieth of its population. And just as your beautiful skyscrapers were destroyed and caused your grief, beautiful buildings and precious homes crumbled over their owners in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq by American weapons used by the Zionists. In only one place, which was a civilian shelter, which is the Ameriyah Shelter, more than four hundred human beings, children, young and old men and women, died in Iraq by American bombs.

In the same day, the 11th of September, one of their aggressive military airplanes was shot down over Iraq. And on the same day of the event in America on 11th September, and American jetfighter was perpetration aggression against Iraq and was shot down.

As for what is going on in Palestine, if Zionist let you see on your TVs the bodies of children, women and men who are daily killed by American weapons, and with American backing to the Zionist entity, the pain you are feeling would be appeased.

Americans should feel the pain they have inflicted on other peoples of the world, so as when they suffer, they will find the right solution and the right path.

All that has been inflicted on the Arabs and Muslims by America and the West, didn’t push Muslims to become racists and harass the Westerners who walk in the streets of Baghdad, Damascus, Tunis, Cairo and other Arab capitals, even when the Westerners, and especially Americans insulted the holy sites of Muslim and Arabs by what is almost an occupation of Saudi Arabia in order to launch their evil fires against Baghdad, and when the American carriers roam the Arab Gulf, and their fighters daily roam the sky to throw tons of bombs and missiles over Iraq, so that about two hundred thousand tons of bombs have been used against Iraq , in addition to using depleted uranium!! All these are facts that are very well known not only to Arabs and Muslims, but to the whole world also. But because of only one incident that happened in America in one day, and upon an unconfirmed accusations so far , Arabs and Muslims , including some who hold the American citizenship , are being harassed openly and publicly in America and some Western countries. Some western countries are preparing themselves to participate in an American military action, against an Islamic country as the indications point out. In this case , who is being fanatic ?

Isn’t this solidarity , and this in- advance approval by some Western leaders , of a military aggression against an Islamic country , the most flagrant form of the new Crusades , fanaticism . It reminds Arabs and Muslims of those Crusade war launched by the West and NATO against Iraq?

Finally, if you, rulers respect and cherish the blood of your peoples, why do you find it easy to shed the blood of others including the blood of Arabs and Muslims? If you respect your values, why don’t you respect the values of Arabs and Muslims?

America needs wisdom, not power. It has used power, along with the West, to its extreme extent, only to find out latter that it doesn’t achieve what they wanted. Will the rulers of America try wisdom just for once so that their people can live in security and stability?

“In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most merciful”

Invite all to the way of thy Lord with the wisdom and beautiful preaching, and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious, for the lord knoweth best who have strayed from His path and who receive guidance.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you mean the daily coalition bombings?
Yes, I do mean the daily coalition bombings on Iraqi military targets, especially anit-aircraft targets that fired upon coalition aircraft on a daily basis. The same coalition aircraft protecting the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south. Those are facts. Deal with them however you like, but please stop providing excuses for Saddam and his regime.
The bombing with only a tenuous link to Iraq
Not so, either is thier sheltering of those who participated in the bombing.
Iraq sheltered suspect in '93 WTC attack
USAToday

Stop making excuses for Saddam and his regime.

had Iraq actually done anything at all against the US
Which the Clinton administration responded to with a cruise missile attack against a building housing the Iraqi Intelligence Service in Baghdad
My comment on the attempted assassination of the former President was in responsee to theloniusfleabag. However, that cruise missle attack accomplished about as much as the cruise missile attacks against Bin Laden in Afghansitan. In other words, nothing.
The unilateraly declared no-fly zones? The one's imposed without authorisation by the UN and not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution?
No, the no-fly zones permitted under Security Council Resolution 688. The no-fly zones which protected the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south.
Until Saddam's IIS put four bullets in his head

Yes, until then, I'm glad we agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And where was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi BEFORE the war started? Baghdad.

Lie

No, you're lying. Try providing links to your references too, it would be most helpful.

Upon release he went to Afghanistan and was part of the top echelon of those who used Taliban rule as a cover for their global jihad.

Possibly injured as he escaped the collapse of the Taliban regime, he seems to have gone to Iran before showing up in Baghdad a few months before the Coalition did.

During that time, according to the Jordanians, he got hold of nerve gas and chemical weapon shells with which to try to blow up Jordan's security services HQ.

He also helped launch a mini-war against the Kurdish leadership in northern Iraq, who were then living outside Saddam Hussein's direct control.

His organisation was then called Ansar al-Islam, or fighters for Islam. It has since mutated to its newly-minted name "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia". This coincided with a recent website proclamation of loyalty to bin Laden

Mirror.co,uk
No. Again, all the intelligence on Iraq was anything but clear cut
That's true. But to suggest there was no intelligence when half the world had intelligence suggesting Iraq was in possession of WMD is extremely irrepsonsible.
Saddam lied, no doubt. But
There's always a but with you people. Saddam lied but. Iraq was in breach but. Stop making excuses for Saddam and his regime. Please.
My apologies for this long post
It's not the length of the post you should be apologizing for, it's the regurgitation of propaganda from a murderous dictator and his regime. This letter has about as much merit as a letter from Hitler being sympathetic to the Jews.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,698
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    IPEM Group of Institutions
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Ethan Wylde earned a badge
      First Post
    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...