From Bill Gertz in the Washington Times, with thanks to Ron:
U.S. intelligence officials say a high-profile political assassination, triggered by the public release of a new message from Osama bin Laden, will lead off the next major al Qaeda terrorist attack, The Washington Times has learned.The assassination plan is among new details of al Qaeda plots disclosed by U.S. officials familiar with intelligence reports who, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the killing could be carried out against a U.S. or foreign leader either in the United States or abroad.
The officials mentioned Saudi Arabia and Yemen, two nations that are working with the United States in the battle against al Qaeda, as likely locales for the opening assassination.The planning for the attacks to follow involves "multiple targets in multiple venues" across the United States, one official said.
The new details of al Qaeda's plans were found on a laptop computer belonging to arrested al Qaeda operative Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan of Pakistan.
"We're talking about planning at the screwdriver level," one official said. "It is very detailed."
Khan was arrested July 13 in Lahore, Pakistan, along with Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian who was indicted in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa and was on the FBI's list of most-wanted terrorists.
U.S. and allied counterterrorism officials are pursuing leads on other terrorists based on the data from Khan's seized laptop. At least one arrest in Britain has been made so far, and others are expected, the officials said.
Additionally, U.S. intelligence officials said they think that several al Qaeda terrorists already in the United States are part of the plot, although their identities and locations are not known.
The targets, in addition to the financial institutions in New York, Washington and Newark, N.J., that have been the subject of public warnings, include such economic-related targets as oil and gas facilities with a view toward disrupting the November election.
"The goal of the next attack is twofold: to damage the U.S. economy and to undermine the U.S. election," the official said. "The view of al Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush.' "
The officials also said the terrorist group has begun using female members for preattack surveillance and possibly as suicide bombers, thinking that women will have an easier time getting past security checkpoints at airports, borders and ports.
They're gonna end up caging, or removing all Muslims from the D.C. area......A message to our Government: Please don't send any more of them to Ohio. With our CCW law now passed and in effect, it will spell the demise for many Muslims that are so naturally involved in crime.
Do the nation a favor, and send them back to the hell hole they migrated from. They are consumers, and non-producers in our society.
They're a rotten tooth, yank em'.
Can you say,"internment"? Can you say,"deportation"?
At this juncture, I can`t help commenting on the left wing democrats hypocritical, and disgusting display yesterday on C-SPAN that was led by Nancy Pelosi .
Here they where emphatically calling for the president to impliment all the recommendations of the 9-11 commission report immediatly and within 6 months..
This is the same group that had repeatedly over the years reduced the funding for our intellegence operations, this is the same group that stood up and applauded when the president announced during his State of the Union address that the Patriot act was coming close to its ending date.
And here they where demanding the that the president get the ball rolling on all the commissions recommendations which by the way states that the Patriot act is a very important tool in the fight on terrorism.
WHAT A BUNCH PHONY POLITICAL HACKS when they feel that the terrorists are directly targeting their sorry liberal asses.
Does anybody remember the FRNHT-911
trailer,Michael Moore pointed out the BUSH was an idiot for not rounding up all Arabs and Muslims
after the attack in N.Y.,although you might have been sold the angle that BUSH "allowed" Saudis and Arabs to fly out of the Country with the Governments OK on 9/13/01 .
Moore may have had something there,put them in large scale internment camps until they prove their innocent,maybe Kerry is the Man for suspending the Constitutional rights and nailing those Satan worshippers. It's really hard to believe that 5 Million Muslims that are devoted
followers of Islam and a tight knit community
wouldn't hear or see one case of criminal plotting against the State. When a Mosque has a minor act of vandalism (eggs tossed at it or a small stone) CAIR and Imam's seem to know it was Christians or Jewish zealots even though nobody saw the crime. So how hard is it to catch a criminal inside a Mosque,oh sorry,I forgot that the Quran allows for Muslims to lie and commit crimes during a time of War or as we know it "Jihad" against the great Satan.
Along the same lines - I saw an article in the paper this morning that all of the medical centers/hospitals are being asked to plan for an attack! These scumbag muslims have absolutely NO sense of honor. Seems their jihadi attack plans include attacking HOSPITALS in a second wave attack after a successful first strike here in the US so that those innocent men, women & children not killed in the first strike would not be able to receive medical treatment & would hopefully die as a result......And we're "sensitive" about causing ANY damage to a shit-hole mosque or graveyard in the middle of a war zone??????????????
Shoot them.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist...but if I was, I could have a field day with this article and the timing of the events mentioned.
Also, let me say that I am completely in favor of showing no mercy to al Qaeda or anyone affiliated with them; the jokers in Guantanamo can rot forever and should never be released as far as I'm concerned, and Muslims in this country need to do a better job in denouncing islamist values, jihad, violence and intolerance, and be very public in their efforts to show the rest of the country that they are not a danger.
"US Intelligence officials" tell the Washington Times (a paper with historically conservative/right-wing slants to its reporting) that there's gonna be a bin laden video released soon, calling for a major political assassination that will occur prior to the US presidential election.
Then this quote:
"The goal of the next attack is twofold: to damage the U.S. economy and to undermine the U.S. election," the official said. "The view of al Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush.' "
*******
So: now we have an official somewhere in the government making the *explicit statement* that al qaeda wants anybody but Bush--implying that anyone in America voting this November that would be against the re-election of Bush is on the side of the terrorists.
********
This is Orwellian. I never would have thought this country would come to this.
In reality, the Bush administration has been the *best thing* to have happened to al qaeda since the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
1. Bush failed to press the attack in Afganistan to the necessary conclusion in a timely fashion by *wiping out* the terrorist remnants in Tora Bora and beyond (including if necessary invading the FATA tribal regions in Pakistan and killing anyone there that needed killing).
2. Instead, he ramps up the military for an invasion of Iraq on false pretenses (no WMD, no al qaeda connections), thereby turning global goodwill against the US. (Did Saddam need to go? Absolutely. Did the US need to do it in a unilateral way that alienates our allies? No way.)
3. Even now that WMD and al qaeda connections have been shown non-existent per the report of the 9/11 Commission, Bush says the war in Iraq has been worth it since it got rid of Saddam--implying that even with this hindsight *he would do it again* in the same circumstances. It's safe to say that if Bush's message in late 2002 had been: "We have no evidence of Iraqi WMD, nor is there any evidence of connections to al Qaeda; but Saddam has been a pimple on the ass of the world for too long, so we're gonna send only American boys and girls to kick is ass."
...there would have been significantly less support in Congress and with the public.
4. Iraq now becomes a focal point for al qaeda recruiting and a training ground for those new recruits. FATA in Pakistan would have served a similar role--but there we would be working toward the ultimate objective (bin Laden and the explicit destruction of al qaeda); it's safe to say that bin Laden and other elements of the ideological center of al qaeda are no where near Iraq.
The only way things could be better in this country for al qaeda than they already are would be to assassinate Bush so that Cheney would become president. Darth Cheney could then complete the US transition to the Dark Side...
Would anyone like to bet me that Al Jazeera and its newfound international prominence and distribution will be used to deliver the trigger speech across the world when the time comes? Coincidence that they have pushed so hard to be in many more markets in time for our elections?
I somehow do not think so.
If and when that happens, I hope that that Islamic terror mouthpiece is finally dealt properly -- cancellation.
typo: "dealt with properly -- cancellation."
Mongo, you ARE a conspiracy theorist.
There were plenty of reasons to invade Iraq. The US, Europe and before it the Clinton Administration believed that Iraq had WMD. Furthermore, there are credible reports that some of these WMD were smuggled into Syria and are stored at al-Baida, Tal Snan and Sjinsjar. As for al-Qaeda and Iraq, the 9/11 Commisiion concluded that the two indeed did have a relationship - just not an operational relationship on the 9/11 attacks (go read the report). While you're cherry picking misinformation, you're overlooking the fact Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, invaded the territories of 3 of his neighbors and constantly flouted UN Resolutions, including ejecting weapons inspectors and firing upon Coalition jets patrolling the no-fly zones. His expulsion was overdue - Clinton should have taken him out in '98 instead of pussy footing around with his Desert Fox operation.
On to Tora Bora and the FATA. Number one, invading FATA was a no-go. Pakistan is a jittery and reluctant ally in the WOT, invading the FATA would have only made things worse on Islamabad and ourselves. That we should have gone into Tora Bora ourselves is 20/20 hindsight. I suspect US civilian authorities sent in the Afghans to mollify people such as yourself who start screaming "Quagmire!" every time US forces take casualties. This is what happens when you listen to Dhimmicrats.
As for al-Qaeda recruitment and training, this has been going on since the Nineties. That the Jihadists have decided to throw themselves in front of the USMC's 11th Expeditionary Force doesn't bother me one bit. Let's kill them over there, not here.
As for whacking Bush so Cheney can take over, that would be a waste of an entirely good bullet - Dick Cheney is already running the country. Or is it Halliburton, Moon Bats?
Conspiracy theorists have no use for facts, Rottweiller. You'd do better just biting them on the ass.
Israel has under gone suicide attacks since the 1960's. It is nothing more than a thorn in their side.
It does not even come close to bringing down their government. These rag tag rag heads can’t kill more than a few people at each attempt. That will not win any wars! They are like a flea. It itches only when they bite, they are just a nuisance. They have no place in our free society. Now we Americans could let them know by our freedom of speech that we do not like them or think highly of the beliefs. I would like to see bill boards along the freeway filled with messages about Mohammed the rapist, a pedophile, a murderer, false Prophet. Tell everyone what Islam is really about. Devil worshiping Hind parts shaver, using rocks for toilet paper. So do they use their heads for toilet paper? Their heads are full of rocks! Blaspheme them until they leave this place. Funny but here in America I bet they could blaspheme my God (which they do every day) it would be a crime if I blaspheme theirs. That kind of stuff makes me want to shoot them all!
I felt some months ago that Fallujah would be the key to both the insurgency and the election. Apparently, and hopefully with some well-vetted intelligence and strategic thinking, Najaf has become the place for our Come to Allah session with the militia. The 11th MEF will do their job, even at 130 degrees F. But we must have the resolve to actually finish the job there.
Consider the effect that a high-profile "lone nut" assassination attempt (either in the US or Europe) will have if we are still locked in a stand off vs. if we have cleansed this particular area of Kool Aid addicts.
We need to take the PR front away from the bad guys. I suggest we all pray for the successful conclusion of this engagement, both tactically and strategically. It's likely to be the most important fight in a long, long time.
Sorry, Rottweiler, where's the conspiracy theory I'm spinning?
And I *did* read the 9/11 report.
1. "There were plenty of reasons to invade Iraq. The US, Europe and before it the Clinton Administration believed that Iraq had WMD."
-->The fact that you or anyone else says "there were plenty of reasons" is irrelevant, as is the fact that everyone in the world actually believed the WMD story to be true. The point that you're missing is: the reasons the Bush administration used to get consensus for war in this country were based on faulty intelligence. What is so troubling is that there is no way he could have gotten agreement in this country to go to war on the basis of "he's a mass murderer and genocidal maniac." The scary thing about this is: He says he'd invade Iraq again given the same circumstances, even with the knowledge that there weren't WMD or ties to al Qaeda, because, for *him*, the fact that SH is a terrible creature is justification enough to send (almost exclusively) US boys and girls to die; trouble is, he'd be a lot more lonely in maintaining that position.
2. "Furthermore, there are credible reports that some of these WMD were smuggled into Syria and are stored at al-Baida, Tal Snan and Sjinsjar."
-->There is *no evidence* to support such claims.
3. "As for al-Qaeda and Iraq, the 9/11 Commisiion concluded that the two indeed did have a relationship - just not an operational relationship on the 9/11 attacks (go read the report)."
-->You and W. with your semantics, huh?
Here's a relevant quote from the 9/11 report. There is no evidence of *any* collaborative operational relationship--not just those related to the 9/11 attacks.
"In July [1998], an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin...Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe
friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor
have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
4. "While you're cherry picking misinformation, you're overlooking the fact Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, invaded the territories of 3 of his neighbors and constantly flouted UN Resolutions, including ejecting weapons inspectors and firing upon Coalition jets patrolling the no-fly zones. His expulsion was overdue - Clinton should have taken him out in '98 instead of pussy footing around with his Desert Fox operation."
-->Not cherry picking, only pointing out what's a relevant fact (e.g., quoted above). I'm also not overlooking the fact that SH needed to go, for all the reasons you cite. I'm saying the US didn't need to do it alone and (in hindsight) clearly should have continued the diplomatic route--just as is being done with North Korea and Iran, two countries with unabashed nuclear ambitions and strong hatred toward the US. Or should we invade them also?
5. "On to Tora Bora and the FATA. Number one, invading FATA was a no-go. Pakistan is a jittery and reluctant ally in the WOT, invading the FATA would have only made things worse on Islamabad and ourselves."
-->The FATA region is Pakistani in name only; the political ramifications of an (initially) afghani battle that ended up extending over the border in that frontier area would have been minor. For all intents and purposes the region is separate from Pakistan's influence and it would have been a politically more palatable approach for the US to attack this area with the express purpose of exterminating al Qaeda fighters, than to have tried to establish illusory Iraq-al Qaeda ties in justifying an invasion of Iraq.
6. "That we should have gone into Tora Bora ourselves is 20/20 hindsight. I suspect US civilian authorities sent in the Afghans to mollify people such as yourself who start screaming "Quagmire!" every time US forces take casualties. This is what happens when you listen to Dhimmicrats."
-->The US military wanted to run it and should have been allowed to. The operation would likely have been over much faster and with a satisfactory conclusion if the US had run it, and I'm sure no one in the US military needed hindsight to reach that conclusion. The notion that *anyone* would have been screaming "quagmire" at that point (December 5, 2001) is preposterous; the US still enjoyed tremendous goodwill around the world. The focus (as always) needed to be on the mission--get Bin Laden--not the politics.
7. "As for al-Qaeda recruitment and training, this has been going on since the Nineties."
-->...and has only accelerated thanks to the invasion of Iraq.
8. "That the Jihadists have decided to throw themselves in front of the USMC's 11th Expeditionary Force doesn't bother me one bit. Let's kill them over there, not here."
-->Agreed, but one doesn't preclude the other.
I agree with some, but not all of mango's points. Regarding Iraq I would have waited until Afghanistan had been totally sorted out. I think if Iraq had really had WMD Israel would have sorted them out. (Didnt they do this in the 80s with one of their reactors?). Saddam was bad and needed to go but Saudi Arabia is/was much much more connected with Islamic terror and so should have been more of a priority.
Its worring that Afghanistan didnt go exactly according to plan vis-á-vis the FATA/ Border Areas. The Soviets suffered from similar problems with the porous nature of the Pakistani border. A CIA agent, Radek Sikorski, at the time wrote in his book that the Soviets should have sealed Afghanistan's southern border(s) as part of the initial invasion. Perhaps this would have been a good idea for the coalition.
Politicians,republicans or democrats don`t care much about the obvious threath that the muslims pose to this country,they don`t care much about the illegal aliens that are invading this country,many of them muslim terrorists,they don`t care much about the letters and e-mails that they get from people like the posters on this site.
They only care about their own interests,to be reelacted,to win more votes by being careful not to offend anybody,by following the pc directives,to the letter.
But when and if the muslim terrorists will start to assasinate high profile politicians,they will be the first to stand up and (hopefully)cry,"deport all muslims".
In other words,our politicians,republicans or democrats,will not do anything about the muslim problem,unless and until their lives will be endangered.
I am a republican,i always was and will be,but president Bush has disappointed me with his "islam is a religion of peace"rethorics.
If i knew for sure that Kerry will close our borders,deport muslims and declare war against islam,i would vote for him without a doubt,but nothing close to that will ever happen,so i will vote for Bush(reluctantly).
Mongo,
On the WOMD issue, just use your brain a little, if a common burgular, with all his stolen jewelry from his last heist hidden in a secret safe in his home, and was given a tip-off that the cops were going to raid his home to find them, do you honestly think the burglar would be stupid enough not to hide them elsewhere, more than likely as far from his house as possible?
The same is bound to be true for Saddam Hussein, he was warned well in advance that the UN inspections were taking place, and was given plenty of time to hide them before the war began.He is surrounded by islamic states, that would have been more than happy ( or afraid not to) help : Iraq has many borders, and with countries that are far from innocent themselves. Perhaps killing 2 birds with one stone and bombing the crap out of Syria wasn't such a bad idea....
Chill with the conspiricies dude, most of it comes from paranoid schitzos anyway!!!
What is it with some people, can't you read?
Where do I state that there is some sort of conspiracy (or even describe a hypothetical one)...?
Rikki wrote:
"On the WOMD issue, just use your brain a little, if a common burgular, with all his stolen jewelry from his last heist hidden in a secret safe in his home, and was given a tip-off that the cops were going to raid his home to find them, do you honestly think the burglar would be stupid enough not to hide them elsewhere, more than likely as far from his house as possible?"
-->As far as "using my brain," I appear to be one of the few on this topic that has that capability. I'm assuming you're trying to draw an analogy here as to why there were no WMD found in Iraq...Where is the evidence that the weapons ever existed, much less were moved outside of that country? The US has had free access to the entire country and nearly all the people that would have been involved in the programs, and there is no evidence that any weapons were developed following the destruction of the WMD programs after the first Gulf War, much less any evidence that any were moved. The administration itself now says that WMD stockpiles likely won't be found.
Oh, and for future reference (to improve your credibility in such anonymous forums): it's "conspiracies", not "conspiricies."
Mongo~ Can you tell us where Clinton got his info about the WMDs he claimed Saddam had?
http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin072103.asp
And why virutally Every democrat in government agreed with his assessment, and the need to do something military about it?
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=3001
http://www.jrwhipple.com/war/wmd.html
Why was he Right and Bush is (supposedly) wrong?
I've asked this question of KeithJoy several times and have Yet to get any answer at all.
Or will you be willing to admit They Lied?
I am interested in your response.
Mongo,
Good points okay, but I still stand by my belief that the WOMD were removed and hidden.
As for the need to attack Iraq, I was against it in the beginning , because despite my total opposition to islam and jihad, I just didn't want our boys going into a death-zone for the sake of "freeing the Iraqi people" who are bunch of ingrates anyway, but I did think Saddams regime needed to be ridden of, and if there were WOMD they needed destroying( but lets face it the UN inspectors would hvae kept letting Saddam play with them forever if Bush hadn't taken a decsive stand).
I don't really care what the rest of europe and the world think about us invading, because they are just too chicken shit to take action against a religion that needs to be dealt with. And this is the reason that I am now glad that we did do it, it's a shame we're still there though ,I wish they'd have just took down Saddams regime and then moved on to the next islamic tyrant, this is the only way the west stands a chance of destroying islamic terrorism, by taking down the corrupt governments and dictatorships of lawless islamic countries, replacing them with fairer governments ,that will become allies of europe and America rather than foes, and then destroy all the religious uprisings and terrorist groups/training camps.
This done, the organizers of islamic terror who want to see the destruction of the west and it's free and democratic society, will have no safe place to conduct their evil plots and no havens in which to hide and become more powerful and recruit more illiterate religious nuts for their cause. As well as this, with new more democratic governments in these former(introspectively speaking) "rogue/terrorist states" will have better education and hopefully the children ,set to become the future generations of these countries, will no longer be brain-washed by ill-education and religious hate preachings, but instead with more moderate and peaceful teachings.
Believe me Mongo if you look at things this way, what is being done now is the right and only way to deal with the problem of islamic terrorism.
rats! I am going to be away before Mongo answers my post- IF he ever answers my post.
To reiterate: Did Clinton LIE about WMDs, or was he telling the truth, Mongo?
And if he wasn't lying then, why is he lying now by claiming there weren't any?
Along with Kerry, Daschle, Gore et al.
I'll be looking up this thread on Monday. Will be curious to see if you even show up in this thread again, or move on to another one for a different set of questions.
Rikki wrote:
1. "Mongo,
Good points okay, but I still stand by my belief that the WOMD were removed and hidden."
-->Fine. Just don't expect to convince many others without being able to provide objective evidence.
2. "As for the need to attack Iraq, I was against it in the beginning , because despite my total opposition to islam and jihad, I just didn't want our boys going into a death-zone for the sake of "freeing the Iraqi people" who are bunch of ingrates anyway, but I did think Saddams regime needed to be ridden of, and if there were WOMD they needed destroying( but lets face it the UN inspectors would hvae kept letting Saddam play with them forever if Bush hadn't taken a decsive stand)."
-->Most rational people would agree with your sentiment that US boys (and girls) shouldn't be dying to "free the iraqi people". Saddam needed to go, but it should have been a truly international effort, and only *after* the real threats to this country had been more effectively dealt with--in FATA. Iraq was "unfinished business" as far as the Bush administration is concerned, and the decision to pursue the invasion and ouster of SH had no justifiable relationship to the more immediate enemies of this country, al Qaeda (see p. 66 of the 9-11 Commission report).
3. "I don't really care what the rest of europe and the world think about us invading, because they are just too chicken shit to take action against a religion that needs to be dealt with."
-->Funny, they weren't too "chicken shit" to provide direct military support against the Taliban in Afghanistan. I can't agree with your argument that somehow our allies didn't have the "balls" to take action.
4. "And this is the reason that I am now glad that we did do it, it's a shame we're still there though ,I wish they'd have just took down Saddams regime and then moved on to the next islamic tyrant, this is the only way the west stands a chance of destroying islamic terrorism, by taking down the corrupt governments and dictatorships of lawless islamic countries, replacing them with fairer governments ,that will become allies of europe and America rather than foes, and then destroy all the religious uprisings and terrorist groups/training camps.
This done, the organizers of islamic terror who want to see the destruction of the west and it's free and democratic society, will have no safe place to conduct their evil plots and no havens in which to hide and become more powerful and recruit more illiterate religious nuts for their cause."
-->I'm not sure where you're going with this. Are you saying we need to wipe out Islam completely? As far as corrupt governments and dictatorships, this effectively characterizes all arab countries, even those that are our "allies"; are you suggesting we invade each of these in turn and displace each dictatorship by force? Such actions play into the very scenarios described by our enemies as to why *we* are the source of evil in the world.
5. "As well as this, with new more democratic governments in these former(introspectively speaking) "rogue/terrorist states" will have better education and hopefully the children ,set to become the future generations of these countries, will no longer be brain-washed by ill-education and religious hate preachings, but instead with more moderate and peaceful teachings."
-->There is no precedent for western-style democracy and individual rights in the countries of the middle east. There is no evidence that the "forced" institution of "democracy" in these countries is going to make people's lives better; they more than likely will go the route of Iran: the people will vote in a popular religious leader as the leader of the country, who will then promptly eliminate any democratic processes that could possibly remove him from power, under the argument that "the people voted me in democratically, they have spoken, I'm not leaving." You're right, the only way to combat the problem on a permanent basis is to modify the education and recruitment of future generations, but this doesn't have to be done by invasions.
Gary wrote:
1. "Mongo~ Can you tell us where Clinton got his info about the WMDs he claimed Saddam had?
http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin072103.asp
And why virutally Every democrat in government agreed with his assessment, and the need to do something military about it?
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=3001
http://www.jrwhipple.com/war/wmd.html
Why was he Right and Bush is (supposedly) wrong?"
-->The war in Iraq has shown that all who thought that Iraq had developed WMD following the destruction of the weapons and programs in that country following Gulf War 1 were wrong--democrats and republicans alike, including Bush.
2. "I've asked this question of KeithJoy several times and have Yet to get any answer at all.
Or will you be willing to admit They Lied?"
-->I've never made an accusation about anyone "lying" about WMD. But you said you were interested in my response...
You appear to be rabidly anti-Clinton, so if you want to consider the Clinton administration's justifications for attacking supposed Iraqi WMD sites to be "lies", feel free. But then by that same reasoning, the Bush administration "lied" in its justifications for invading Iraq. If I were then to compare the relative morality of both such "lies", I would comment that the actions taken by Clinton under the pretense of his "lies" didn't result in the death of hundreds of American service men and women. Actions taken by Bush did.
*My* issue with Bush is his insistence, despite
1) no WMD,
2) no evidence that WMD programs were reconstituted after being destroyed after the first Gulf War, and
3) there being no relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq (9-11 Commission report, p.66)
that he'd do the whole Iraq invasion over again. No thank you.
Mongo,
Let me just point out that I'm british not american, and you "our allies comment" is actually my neighbouring countries and trust me they are so unbelievably CHICKEN-SHIT CITY when it comes to kicking tyranical ass across the middle east.
In answer to your replies:
Funny, they weren't too "chicken shit" to provide direct military support against the Taliban in Afghanistan. I can't agree with your argument that somehow our allies didn't have the "balls" to take action.
Yes you're right Mongo but remember that was after 9/11 and all of europe and , indeed, the world wanted to be seen to be doing their bit to show that they were totally disgusted by the Trade Centre attacks.
I'm not sure where you're going with this. Are you saying we need to wipe out Islam completely? As far as corrupt governments and dictatorships, this effectively characterizes all arab countries, even those that are our "allies"; are you suggesting we invade each of these in turn and displace each dictatorship by force? Such actions play into the very scenarios described by our enemies as to why *we* are the source of evil in the world.
Firstly , I think it's a tricky question to answer--
"Are you saying we need to wipe out Islam completely? "--
Yes maybe eventually that will be the only option after everything else has been tried, they just don't want to be part of the free world and want their religion and laws implemented into our society and will not rest until this is done. We cannot live alongside this kind of insanity, and their is no reasoning with their logic and no compromise that can be reached.I actually think all the violent dictatorships need crushing and the rest of the "moderate" country simply re-educating.
As for your other question, no don't invade them all just the ones that are openly and blatantly allowing terrorist activity in abundance happen in their countries.
There is no precedent for western-style democracy and individual rights in the countries of the middle east. There is no evidence that the "forced" institution of "democracy" in these countries is going to make people's lives better; they more than likely will go the route of Iran: the people will vote in a popular religious leader as the leader of the country, who will then promptly eliminate any democratic processes that could possibly remove him from power, under the argument that "the people voted me in democratically, they have spoken, I'm not leaving." You're right, the only way to combat the problem on a permanent basis is to modify the education and recruitment of future generations, but this doesn't have to be done by invasions.
Again Mongo; fair point but what other method would you suggest, everything else has been tried. There is just no way to have fair political debate with people that are against man-made laws- period.
shells discovered with Sarin gas.
nearly two tons of uranium, most of it ground up suitable for spreading over cities.
A couple other things, but my time is very limited.
There are Two of your weapons of mass distruction, Mongo. Or is a single shell, able to kill 5000, not enough Mass Destruction for you?
Gary wrote:
1. "shells discovered with Sarin gas."
-->Consensus was that the shell (singular) that was discovered after being detonated as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) was from an Iran-Iraq war stockpile. One old shell (that apparently wasn't marked in such a way that a user would even know what they had) does not provide evidence of current weapons programs that threaten this country. Here's one of many links to information on this incident:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:VUuDdxcDm88J:www.guerrillafunk.com/general_info/wmd.html+iraq+%22artillery+shells%22+sarin+discovered+%22weapons+of+mass+destruction%22&hl=en&start=11
"Two former weapons inspectors -- Hans Blix and David Kay -- said the shell was likely a stray weapon that had been scavenged by militants and did not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles of such weapons.
...
Kay, who led a U.S. team hunting for weapons, said it appears that the shell was one of tens of thousands produced for the Iran-Iraq war, which Saddam was supposed to destroy or turn over to the United Nations. In many cases, he said, Iraq did comply.
'It is hard to know if this is one that just was overlooked -- and there were always some that were overlooked, we knew that -- or if this was one that came from a hidden stockpile,' Kay said. 'I rather doubt that because it appears the insurgents didn't even know they had a chemical round.'
While Saturday's explosion does demonstrate that Saddam hadn't complied fully with U.N. resolutions, Kay also said, 'It doesn't strike me as a big deal.'"
2. "nearly two tons of uranium, most of it ground up suitable for spreading over cities."
-->Unless you can supply specific sources for this sort of claim, I have to consider that this such an unsubstantiated comment is as valid as most of what you write--that is, it is at best hearsay and rumor.
I *was* able to find a great deal of information on ground up uranium dust in Iraq; but these references were all about the detritus from DU (depleted uranium) tank rounds from both Gulf Wars, so can't really be ascribed to any sort of WMD programs of SH.
4. "A couple other things, but my time is very limited."
-->This means you have nothing else of value to contribute, and are making this comment in an effort to sway others of your ilk that respond to emotional appeals to action, but not to the sort of rational argument and debate required to create the sort of plans necessary to defeat our enemies in the long term.
5. "There are Two of your weapons of mass distruction, Mongo. Or is a single shell, able to kill 5000, not enough Mass Destruction for you?"
-->Again, at most we're talking about one WMD, as you have provided no evidence of Iraqi uranium. I believe your "5000" figure might refer to the theoretical kill capability of the amount of sarin contained in an artillery shell of the size discovered in Iraq, but this certainly doesn't mean that many would actually *be* killed. The shell in question actually *was* detonated in anger against US troops, and the death toll was--zero (two US soldiers were treated for minor, non-fatal exposure levels and quickly released).
Chemical and nerve agents are strongly dependent on delivery mechanism in order to be effective, and artillery shells are *not* an efficient way to do it (and certainly aren't going to ever achieve the sort of 100% effectiveness implied by the theoretical number of 5000 deaths you reference above). The Aum Shinrikyo cult released sarin gas in the crowded Tokyo subway and succeeded in killing only 12 people.