Slashdot Mirror
10 Years of Translated Bin Laden Messages Leaked
DragonFire1024 lets us know that Wikileaks has obtained 10 years of messages and interviews by Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda. The documents were translated and the messages and interviews were authenticated by the US CIA. "The nearly three hundred page, 'official use only' packet from 2004, translated by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, a division of the CIA, includes interviews with bin Laden from various news agencies and also includes messages he sent directly to the US from the periods of 1994 to 2004. One message includes bin Laden's denial of having anything to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania."
Wow, if the source is credible that's pretty damning. For those who don't like to RTFA:
One message includes bin Laden's denial of having anything to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania.
"Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it. The United States has always accused me of these incidents which have been caused by its enemies. Reiterating once again, I say that I have not done it, and the perpetrators have carried this out because of their own interest," said bin Laden on September 16, 2001, just five days after the attacks.
To me the timing of that message seems far more relevant to 9/11 than a vague message 4 months prior that he could "make life miserable for the United States", "If the Taleban allowed". It seems that in as much as we've had to deal with manufactured evidence to serve the cause of the Bush administration regarding the Iraq war now it's clear that the CIA has also withheld critical counter-evidence that the American people and its allies should have been aware of. Could this message have been too sensitive to release? Well, they seemed to release other messages and video around the time of the event that helped make the case and build support for war..
Anyone who stores local copies of these on their own computer and then get arrested/checked at customs can expect to be answering some very unpleasant questions.
No really, western security services are getting far too paranoid.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
"One message includes bin Laden's denial of having anything to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania."
I don't understand, I was told he is directly responsible for everything that is wrong with the world!
Me lost me cookie at the disco.
I remember Bin Laden denying the attacks. I even remember quite a few people holding up the defense that Bin Laden couldn't have done it because "Muslim is a religion of peace". (Not that the two really go hand in hand, but it was the reaction of the time.) What is interesting here is something I missed when I heard the reports back in 2001. The key reason why Bin Laden denied his involvement:
Bin Laden had a pretty cushy safe-haven there. He figured as long as he didn't piss off the Taliban leaders, they'd give him safe haven. And he figured the U.S. would not attack a sovereign nation. Which may have been true under Clinton, but he probably miscalculated how much the political climate was going to change once those towers fell.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
...for mentioning "his denial" in the summary, you just turned this into a damn forum for "truthers." You know, the people who are do deluded, they thing that Purdue University and Popular Mechanics are part of the "vast right wing conspiracy." Seriously, I've read some of their ideas on the boards. They'll literally go A->B->C->D->E->F->G and be like "and that proves Purdue University's study is faked by the gov't."
Are you really surprised?
This is the administration that, when told that there *were* no wmds, essentially said "Fuck it, they're HIDING them!"
I wish someone had just assassinated that fucker...
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
To be honest, I don't think any of this is at all surprising.
Sure, the 9/11 conspiracy theorists will be able to make a new bunch of YouTube videos, but all the sane people realise that going to war was a sham anyway.
The office of the POTUS chose to ignore relevant information presented to them by other departments, and that there was some other agenda for the war in Iraq, that we are unlikely to find out for a long time if ever.
As the parent said, I think it may have more immediate implications for allies of the US who went to war based on the judgement of GWB etc. But then again, this kind of stuff on the Internets rarely gets looked at.
Speaking as a Brit who had similar bullshitting fed to them by our own Government regarding this issue...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.
Wow, if the source is credible that's pretty damning.
Erm, the "source" in this case is a known terrorist who issued a fatwa in the 1990s calling for Muslims around the world to kill Americans every chance they get. How "credible" can he be? Seriously, there is nothing new here. Bin Laden gave interview well into late 2001 claiming that he didn't do it. (And he probably didn't "do it" in any direct sense, since we know KSM was the main planner who put the operation together). But he has since given speeches praising the "magnificent 19" (what he calls the hijackers) and clearly taking credit for being their inspiration. Whether or not he had any direct hand in it, he was the leader of the organization responsible, and he had been calling (over and against other jihadi leaders) for attacks on the United States (the "far enemy") for quite some time. This message was not "too sensitive to release" -- it differed little from other messages he was giving at the time.
I wish someone had just assassinated that fucker...
Instead you re-elected him because Faux News said his opponent looked French.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I don't see anything particularly damning there. Bad men do bad things, then pretend they didn't in an attempt to avoid the consequences. Why is that surprising?
As I mentioned in my post, that comment does more to explain his denial than it does to provide evidence of his innocence. And don't forget that he later claimed the attacks as his own. After his cushy little safe haven was broken up, of course.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Is it *really* that hard to believe there are bad people in positions of power, even in the United States?
While I definitely agree that all kinds of evidence has been withheld from public knowledge, there are a couple points....
First, this is nothing new. Bin Laden has always denied involvement. The only time he acknowledged being responsible, was in some supposed sham video that was "found" in Afghanistan, and claimed by the CIA as some sort of smoking gun proving he did it.
Second, while I certainly have never seen a solid piece of evidence proving that he was involved... Him saying he wasn't involved isn't exactly proof of innocence either. He is after all a crazy bastard who thinks it's perfectly ok to murder people because of the country they were born in.
not that Bin Laden would ever lie... nor would Bush.. They're both angels!
Just because one's lying doesn't mean the other is telling the truth.
Bin Laden initially denied involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks, and then later claimed credit in a 2004 video for personally directing the 19 hijackers. Sources, including a transcript of the video: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/
And that video has been universally decried as an obvious fake as the person in the video only looks similar to Osama bin Laden if you're a white American who thinks all Arabs look alike.
How we know is more important than what we know.
That's the movie script I was working on.
16 Jan 2004, 8:58am
Tim,
Can you bring some milk and bread over please?
Thanks,
O
18 Jan 2004, 5:24pm
What happened? I'm starving out here you know! I can't just pop down to the shop for supplies, it's a freaking desert out there!
22 Jan 2004, 3:42pm
Tim,
Are you mad at me? Is that why you're not talking? I'm sorry I was angry in my last email.
Just drop by, we'll talk and drink coffee. You'll need to bring the coffee though. And some milk and bread. Maybe honey too. I like honey.
O
28 Jan 2004, 5:30pm
Bob,
Can you check up on Tim for me? It's like he's frozen me out or something. I just want to know everything's okay.
Also, can you send me a few bottles of milk and some loaves of bread. Maybe honey and jam too. Oh, and coffee! Not that I need to stay awake out here. You never think you're bored until you're stuck in a cave in the wilderness. Luckily I've got ADSL here.
Thanks, and say "Hi" to Mary and the kids for me,
O
29 Jan 2004, 12:37pm
O,
I think Tim's gone. Looks like he left in a hurry. Typical of his type - I told you about him, you'll remember. Anyway, I'll get Chuck to drop over some supplies in the next day or so.
Look after yourself,
Bob
29 Jan 2004, 3:52pm
Damn it! I thought Tim was different. I thought he had commitment, you know? What happened to people who could take the long view?
Anyway, thanks for getting chuck to drop the food over. I appreciate it - there'll be an extra virgin for you in the afterlife!
Can you remind Chuck to bring a can opener? I don't want to have to shoot these ones open. Those soldiers nearly heard me last time.
Thanks again,
O
People invested in conspiracy theories that put the US government behind 9/11 will point out that there is no proof directly tying him to the attacks, that the FBI hasn't updated its file to include 9/11 as one of the crimes he is "wanted" for, etc. They'll say that the above video is faked, mistranslated, misinterpreted. And none of it matters -- OBL was the leader of the al Qaeda organization, he has openly called for Muslims to kill Americans going back to 1996, given interviews praising terrorist attacks and claiming that the Quran's proscriptions against killing innocents don't apply when dealing with the American's for various reasons. He led jihadists to broaden the fight against their local governments to a fight against the US and Israel, and transformed a significant part of the jihadist movement along those lines. The obsession with finding OBL's fingerprints on 9/11 begs the question of what we do know -- which is that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed planned the attacks and that they were carried out by Muslim extremists. Saying that we can't prove that OBL attacked the WTC does not mean that Dick Cheney did.
why?
You don't think Peak oil, the fact that the US Dollar is an oil backed currency and the profit, and power that will give to those who control it is enough reason?
You need to take a long hard look at the kind of people running America... And i don't mean the puppet figurehead who is in place.
Deleted
Osama wasn't behind 9/11. Saddam Hussein was! I know because Mister Cheney told me.
The Land of Sarcasm.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Another interpretation is that al-quaeda, "the base" was just a very small group before 9/11 that had no big international contacts. The US administration pointing finger at them helped them gain the stature they have today. The true responsibles of the 9/11 decided then to be part of al-quaeda, like many smaller terrorist group, just because Bin Laden was seen as the archetype of the anti-american terrorist.
From all that I read, it looks like al-quaeda is more of a stand-alone complex than a hierarchically organized group. I think most al-quaeda groups begin as independent entities, make a terrorist attack, claim responsability, get labeled by the CIA as "al quaeda linked group", get contacted or contact al-quaeda. (you can invert the last two steps)
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Sure, if by "liberally" you mean "nonsensically." Bin Laden wasn't even close to being an "ex CIA agent." Chances that he met anyone from CIA in Afghanistan during the jihad against the Soviets are slim to nil. Steve Coll's book does a pretty good job of busting this myth.
No question OBL's gang of jihadists profited off of the CIA's investment in the war against the Soviets, but most of it was indirect. For example, it's true that some of the bases that al Qaeda used were originally built with CIA money. But that's a far cry from saying OBL trained under CIA on those bases.
Of course, arguments over that miss the forest in the trees -- the U.S. was behind bin Laden's rise to power whether or not OBL ever worked for the CIA. The U.S. strongly encouraged Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies to help out in the war in Afghanistan by stirring up Muslims with a call to jihad. The Saudis got clerics to issue fatwas and they underwrote travel and training expenses for jihadists. The way they saw it, it was win-win. Cozy up to the U.S. (we were selling them AWACS and other arms at the time) and get rid of a large group of potential troublemakers at the same time. Other Arab governments followed suit. You don't need shadowy conspiracy theories or phony news stories about OBL being visited in the hospital by CIA agents worried about his kidneys to find evidence for any of this -- it's all a matter of public record.
Exactly. Bin Laden is not in "charge" of Al Qaeda like Blowfeld was in charge of SPECTER. He is a figurehead and inspiration for groups that choose to call themselves affiliated with Al Qaeda. KSM was one of the masterminds of 9/11 and one of Bin Laden's chief disciples. Bin Laden did not come up with the idea of 9/11, mastermind it, organize it, or probably even fund it. He did, apparently, approve of it though beforehand and take credit for it elsewhere afterwards.
Disclaimer: IAAIA (I am an Intelligence Analyst)
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
So we've got reports some of the supposed hijackers are still alive (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm and now this. I'm having a real hard time not reaching for the foil hat these days.
You need more psychedelic art in your life. rhesusmonkey.deviantart.com
Whether or not he had any direct hand in it, he was the leader of the organization responsible,
Whoa... stop right there.
A terrorist organisation - or at least, one that's even remotely successful for any length of time - doesn't have the pyramid-style management structure that you're used to seeing.
Instead, it has a bunch of loosely-organised small groups, each consisting of no more than a dozen people. These groups may have a little communication between them but by and large they're fairly autonomous - they just use a common name to identify with the common cause they share. This is why it's damnably difficult to efficiently infiltrate the organisation - put simply, nobody knows much about anyone outside their own group and this is by design.
It follows that even if there are a few people who are considered inspirational by most within the organisation, getting rid of those few people won't necessarily achieve much. In fact, it could well be counter-productive because you'll turn them into martyrs.
Yeah, in September 2001 maybe he said he didn't do it. But check this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_of_Osama_bin_Laden#December_13.2C_2001
Here's the most memorable quote from bin Laden. I got it from the defenselink.mil transcript; the one in Wikipedia omits much (the part about the iron structure melting is replaced with an ellipsis).
But wait! The 9/11 Truthers say that this was an actor doubling for bin Laden! Oh, then how about the ones broadcast by Al Jazeera, such as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_of_Osama_bin_Laden#October_29.2C_2004
He says it was his idea to strike the towers, and this direct quote: "If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example."
So, unless Al Jazeera is secretly working for Bush or cannot authenticate a bin Laden tape, there you have bin Laden refuting his claim that he had nothing to do with it.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Go look at the the FBI website. Osama Bin Laden is not wanted by the FBI for the attacks of 9/11.
Fat Osama only fooled easily lead sheep who are also fooled by other blatantly ridiculous shit... like faith healers such as Benny Hinn, speaking in tongues, and fools who claim cavemen and dinosaurs were on the Earth at the same time a few thousand years ago.
The summary makes it sound like Wikileaks has some kind of mole in the CIA who handed them documents in a shadowy meeting on a grassy knoll... Wikileaks only "obtained" the documents in the sense that "obtained" means "read about in a blog." The documents were first published a couple days ago on Steven Aftergood's excellent newsletter, Secrecy News.
If not Osama and not Saddam, who did 9/11?
But it actually doesn't matter, bucause not 9/11, but the gov't reaction to it, was what has fucked the US completely. Any mavericks telling me $4 gas, no-fly lists, and spending zillions on war instead of medicare and science is a good thing, plese go wank off elsewhere.
"Who thinks it's perfectly okay to murder people because of the country they were born in."
Take a look at our soldiers and contractors and, hell, our government, and the treatment of Iraqis over in the sandbox. What right do we have to treat them like that?
It's incredibly naive to think that bin Laden is the only one who thinks that way.
And this is coming from a Staff Sergeant who has seen action over there.
Crazy is a very poor way of describing him. He acts perfectly rational given his beliefs.
To describe him as crazy, removes his responsibility for his actions. If he truly were crazy, he would be no less a victim, than the people he has been involved in murdering. No, I want a sane, intelligent and rational Bin Laden - I want him caught, judged and sentenced and I want it done right. I want us to show the world, that we are, in every sense of the word, better.
"On December 20, 2001, German TV channel "Das Erste" broadcast its analysis of the White House's translation of the videotape. On the program "Monitor", two independent translators and an expert on oriental studies found the White House's translation to be not only inaccurate, but also manipulative saying "At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of Bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic" and that the words used that indicate foreknowledge can not be heard at all in the original Arabic. Prof. Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg said "The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it."
- David Stein
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
Indeed the American People. I know I had heard that one on the news in Belgium, Europe just after the attacks. I believe one or two days later. At least it was in the standard period where people would say "probably it group XYZ, but let us wait for the confirmation" and not jump to conclusions for their own interest.
The Spanish have done that with the Madrid bombing and they got not elected because of lying to their public and pointing fingers at the wrong terrorists.
As these 'leaked' documents include things send to news agencies, the real issue is why you did not hear it and other countries with lesser freedom of the press did. Later we did not hear about it anymore, because the fact that he denied it was irrelevant.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Did you just call one of them a queen?
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
"Saddam had no WMD's"
It's funny, and hypocritical in the extreme how everybody keeps claiming that.
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, is doubting even in the slightest that Saddam did this :
http://pukmedia.com/kurdish/images/stories/news_small/m4.2008/halabja%20kolag.jpg
The halabja campaign ... a series of rocket-based poisonous gas attacks comitted by the Iraqi government (the fire order was given by the very son of Saddam) against it's own citizens. Nobody doubts it happened. But for conspiracy theorists it's a really very very very inconvenient truth.
After all, using those weapons obviously proves Saddam had rockets that distributed poisonous gas upon impact. Obviously every single weapon that does this is classified as WMD. It's true that they were not found. Given that Saddam actually USED those weapons that does NOT bring the question "did Bush lie ?", it merely brings the question "where are these weapons now ?". Unless you actually believe Saddam would shoot every last of his best weapons at unarmed civilians.
Can we please bring some common sense into this ? If we know a guy shot some children, then gets arrested with powder on his hands, but without a gun, that does not mean the witnesses who saw him shoot lied. It merely means we're short a gun. That would be a VERY good reason to search the neighbourhood for said gun (especially if the next door neighbour is a Jew hating theocratic massacrer like the Iranian government).
I take it you've never been involved in a truly secret cell operation?
For all they know, Bin Laden or any one of his handlers were assets of the CIA and couldn't be trusted.
Yes, you heard me right -- do you really think it's in the best interest of the CIA to "catch Bin Laden"?
No, you need the figurehead alive in order to have an effective scapegoat.
Politicians get elected based on fear. Fear the terrorists to overshadow your more reasonable fears of big government and big corporations.
Erm, the "source" in this case is a known terrorist who issued a fatwa in the 1990s calling for Muslims around the world to kill Americans every chance they get. How "credible" can he be?
Nothing what you wrote means that he isn't a man of his word. Indeed organization that repeated cry wolf tend to become more and more irrelevant over time. You need credibility to instill fear. It may well be -- though maybe I'm not correct -- that al-Qaeda tends to be fairly straight up with its claims of responsibility.
To whom precisely are you referring? That statement could apply to quite a few people with power these days.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
This was commonly reported immediately after 9/11. It was back when any Osama tape was immediately broadcast and analyzed to death.
Thankyou for saying that. So often when these things are "revealed" I'm just left sitting, "Didn't we know that at the time?!" (Or is everyone else's memory working fine and I'm just mad &/or psychic.
As far as Bin Laden's denial of involvement ... it is not beyond possibilty that a bunch of Islamic terrorists could organise themselves to carry something that 9/11 out, even without Bin Laden's involvement. It would seem to be more self-serving for him to have claimed rather than disavowed it. His actions were (I'm not conviced he lives) usually marked by any fear of American retaliation whatsoever. I'm pursuaded that, on the balance of probabilities, Bin Laden really was surprised by the attack.
'Al Qaida' presents the administration with a convenient brand name. It's easy to talk about a single entity and make the folks in voter land understand what you're talking about, just like it was easier in the 60s and 70s to talk about "the Mafia," instead of confusing people with the reality of multiple (not all Italian) crime families, gangs, etc etc. Secondly it sounds better to say "we are fighting Al Qaida," instead of "we are fighting Muslims," or even "Muslim fundamentalists."
That being said, this isn't a case of some draconian regime of censorship imposed by a tyrranical government. It's just a bit of marketing folks. And if you seriously want to inform yourself and go beyond the 'Al Qaida' label, this is information has been out there, security failures notwithstanding.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
I must confess I am already annoying all my friends in the US to register as voters and to do it right this time. It's a huge problem when the clever ones refuse to vote.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
"Unless you actually believe Saddam would shoot every last of his best weapons at unarmed civilians."
Or that he dismantled them. As he has said to other people, even in private. Why are you erecting a strawman ? The timing is all that's important here. Yes, Saddam used awful weapons on his own people. But that wasn't the question. The question was: did he still have them later on, and the answer to that, it seems now, is: no. Therefore, did Bush lie ? We don't know, but it looks like it an awful lot.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
After numerous rounds of "We don't know if Osama Bin Ladin is still alive," Bin Ladin himself decided to send George W. Bush a note in his own handwriting to let Bush know that he was still in the game.
Bush opened the note which appeared to contain a single line of coded message: 370HSSV-0773H.
Bush was baffled, so he E-mailed it to John McCain. McCain and his aides had no clue either, so they sent it to the FBI. No one could solve it at the FBI, so it went to the CIA, then to the NSA.
With no clue as to its meaning, the FBI finally asked Britain's MI-6 for help. Within a few seconds, MI-6 cabled back with this reply: "Tell Bush that he is holding the message upside down."
Wassup homies. Just wanting to let y'all know thanks for plugging my 10th year anniversary!
Me and the Taliban Massif have got some great stuff coming out for the anniversary, including the long awaited Osama - The Best Of album. Which includes my duet with Britney Spears: "Afghan Rose (Best get yo' Burka on Bitch)". And my own take on that famous Bob Marley classic: "No Jihad No Cry".
All that plus remixes by Pete Tong, Basement Jaxx and newcomers The Scientology Crew with their remix of my gangsta-rap classic: "Pop a Cap in G Dubya (Smack my Xenu Up mix)".
Love,
Osama B. and The Taliban Massif
"You need to take a long hard look at the kind of people running America"
Two things I would like to see are; the missing Saudi pages from the 2002 US intelligence report, and a transcript of the converstaion between Powell and Arrafat when Powell visited Arrafat during Israel's siege of his HQ's. The first was widely reported, the second less so but I am dammned if I can find a decent reference or news report about either.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
ROCKETS that distribute large doses of chlorine upon impact ARE WMD's.
And yes if your chemistry teacher were to make a rocket like that, that would be a WMD.
The cbc article you link to provides about 4 direct quotes from the video, and as far as I can tell none of them are actually "I, Osama Bin Laden, was responsible for the attacks on the WTC." The quotes provided seem only to verify that Al-Queda was responsible, and that Osama was part of that group, and approves.
I'm not saying he didn't do it. I'm not saying that he didn't, at some point, claim individual responsibility. This article, however, does not actually indicate either.
A higher standard of evidence is required. We've all been misled before.
They don't all have Bin Laden's current postal address and telephone hotline. If they did, it would be fairly trivial to track him down.
Of course, as soon as you start thinking of a terrorist organisation like this, you have a huge problem.
Conventional methods that you might use against a country (eg. declare war) or a criminal conspiracy (eg. infiltrate them) don't work. You just wind up playing whack-a-mole with a twist - for every mole you whack, there's a good chance that two will appear in their place.
Exactly how does that differ from the USA's modus operandi? They assassinate democratically elected leaders and bomb innocents civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq and many other countries prior to that.
There have been political tensions on and off between Ireland and the UK since the fifteenth century.
The latest bout has more or less calmed down now, but at one point we were arresting and holding people indefinitely for the "crime" of being Irish in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sound familiar?
The problem with this approach is that as soon as you arrest a man who was thought to be fairly blameless within his circle of friends and family, most of whom were aware of the political tension but were otherwise fairly ambivalent towards you, they turn against you. Lather, rinse and repeat a few times and if you didn't have a terrorist organisation before you do now.
To correct it even more: Bin Laden wasn't even a figurehead or a source of inspiration until the US made him one. He was the source of funding, and incidently the only person tying a several terrorist groups together because they were all smooching off him.
The US loves its conspiracies and the killing of JFK is perhaps the granddaddy of them all.
What is intresting to see is not the theories themselves but how simplistic and wishful they are. You get the idea that conspiracy theorists are people who desperately want to life in an organized world where at least SOMEONE is in charge. Look around, check all the conspiracy theories and they ALL lead to the same conclusion. SOMEONE somewhere is in charge. That makes the world a lot easier to deal with. If you like the world as it is, then X will keep it that way. If you don't like the world as it is, all you got to is topple X. Easy.
With JFK you got several theories who could have done the killing, all shadowy groups that are claimed to control far more then they are supposed to. If only you could expose them freedom of the people could be restored.
Yet the intresting thing is what the conspiracy theorists neatly ignore, because they don't want to hear this, but is far more damning. That several groups had seperate plans to assasinate the president of the united states. For certain groups like members of the FBI this in itself is treason enough. They never actually need to put the plan in motion, even discussing it should be enough to earn them some serious time at a secret location.
But the conspiracy theorists don't want to hear that the world ain't run by anyone and that bad things happen just because one group/person went beyond talking, that makes the world far to chaotic and random.
There were people planning to kill JFK, conspiracy theorists are right, they just didn't carry it out, but for a lot of them the planning alone should still be a crime in itself.
In a way it like a Murder She Wrote episode, where to find out the killer she tells everyone she has the evidence and will be at location Y. The person to then show up to kill her, is the killer. Well not always, SOMETIMES it is a person seeking to protect the real killer. This is what causes all the weirdness around JFK, various groups who had been thinking/hinting that JFK should be killed trying to cover up that they might have been involved. Had someone they knew taken their words to heart? The cover-up happened even when there was nothing to cover up.
The same, in a far more complex mess goes for 9/11. If you look at it, you can hope that someone somewhere is in charge OR come to the sickening conclusion that it all was just a mess of people suggesting things, others listening, misreading, misjudging until you come down to a case where some people did something and others failed to stop them because nobody really is in charge and all the things that normally go right, suddenly went wrong all together. 9/11 if you like was an accident. The idea that there is one person at the top on either side who planned it all is wishfull thinking. Osama on side and Dick Cheny on the other NEVER wanted this to happen. Not 9/11 and NOT the war on terror. Oh Osama wanted an attack BUT not one that would end up with two muslim countries under american control and NO worldwide muslim uprising. Realize this, Osama got NO response from western muslims. There are MILLIONS living in the west, and that is where they stayed.
Dick Cheney and the likes on the other hand haven't gained anything either. High oil prices? So what? America doesn't prosper from that at all.
No, 9/11 was just one of those things that happened.
If you want to make sense of it, then Captain Blackadder said it best. 9/11 happened because it was to much of an effort NOT to have a war.
Nobody planned it, just nobody worked hard enough to stop it. And that includes US the people who voted for the people to incompetent to create world peace.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Oh come on dude, many countries have bad shit, do US kick butt in all those? NO.
Admit it, there is a alternative motive here to take oil OUT of the market to INCREASE prices, to INCREASE demand for US $$$$ to prop up the bad debt USA will NEVER PAY BACK. Even shell have admitted it.
Japan $583b
China $503b
UK $283b
OPEC $170b
Brazil$151b
Caribiean $122b
Russia $65b
The UN/IMF/WorldBank are the worlds most successful criminals.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
The question was: did he still have them later on, and the answer to that, it seems now, is: no. Therefore, did Bush lie ? We don't know, but it looks like it an awful lot.
I don't understand why people believe this. If you look at The Downing Street memo
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/docs/memotext.pdf
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.
This is supposed to be the smoking gun that proves that Bush and Blair lied about WMD. And yet one of the contingencies they planned for was that Saddam would use WMD on Kuwait or Israel. From what I can tell Saddam either destroyed his WMD in secret or shipped them to Syria. But what he definitely didn't do was to comply with the ceasefire at the end of the first Gulf War or the numerous UN resolutions to prove he had destroyed them. Given that Iraq had been found with surprisingly advanced WMD programs at the end of the first Gulf War and that he had used poison gas against both the Iranian army and the Kurds, it's silly to expect that anyone would believe he had disarmed without some sort of proof.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Here is the big issue with this factoid.
Halabja, March 16, 1988
Kuwait invasion / Persian Gulf War August 1990
Iraq War, March 20, 2003
I think once we already go to war with someone, then end that war, and then wait a decade, we cant consider anything that happened before that "evidence". After `91 anything would be fair game, but it looks like Saddam actually kept his nose pretty clean, He probably figured it was all he had to do to keep his position, and that bush wouldn't dare invade without a good reason. Little did he know how unstable our leaders were eh?
The claims the bush administration fabricated involved vials of anthrax and large amounts of yellow cake uranium and weapons grade aluminum with long range missiles that present a clear an imminent threat to America's national security. I don't remember the "For the people who died 15 years ago!" rational for war.
Web Developers: Celebrate to our roots! Animated Gifs and Tiled Backgrounds, dont let our history die!
No, the goal should have been to prevent terrorism. Hint: they don't do it because "they hate freedom".
I own a small company that sells tinfoil hats to angst-ridden European conspiracy "truthers". Thank you for your continued support... and remember: the CIA is watching you.
I'd have thought that one of the relevant points is whether if Iraq had some poison gas weapons somewhere, it was legitimate cause to launch a full scale invasion, occupation and installation of a more amenable government. After all, certain other countries that are considerably less likely to be invaded have much greater stockpiles of "WMD" than Iraq has ever had.
But regardless, the UN weapons inspector (both at the time and a former one) are on record as saying that they were not finding (and had not found) evidence of "WMD". If the aim had been to deal with "WMD violations" then the logical course of action would be to allow the weapons inspectors to continue. However, as it looked more and more certain that they would find no evidence, they had to be pulled out as the US was already beginning its invasion. The carriers were in place, the troops on the move. How much evidence is needed that the US-led invasion was not motivated by WMD in any capacity? It was always a pretext and the attack took place before it could be exposed.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Tell that to any remaining WW1 vets and see what response you get.
After Iraq, if the US asks to inspect anyone people will just say that the US is not to be trusted on weapons inspections. Dictators will be able to claim that the US is sending in spies, not working towards disarmament. With Russia going nuts, and Pakistan on the brink, the US has lost the credibility it needs to diffuse international conflicts.
The question wasn't whether Saddam ever had WMDs, the question was whether he had them at the time we invaded Iraq.
All of the evidence indicated that he did not, including reports from UN weapons inspectors who were actually working in Iraq at that time. By the way, in the month building up to the invasion, George Bush forced the inspectors to leave Iraq.
By now, there is plenty of evidence that the decision to invade Iraq was made long before September 11, 2001. You can bet that John McCain has similar plans for the event of his own inauguration. It's what Republicans do.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The problem seems to be that in this particular case, the mass-killer *didn't* lie. But Bush didn't get his information directly from Saddam, did he ? He can't just make a phonecall or something. Instead, he had to rely on the CIA, who also doesn't ask Saddam directly, but instead (as it seems to be now) is pushed by Cheney's office to produce damning evidence.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
"Do not enforce your values on them and they will not try to enforce their values on you."
Call me a cynic, I can live with it, but everyone stand on their head who believes this.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
I don't think that anyone's disputing that he once had some rockets. However he didn't seem to have any when we invaded. The justification for war was that Saddam apparently possessed WMDs at that time and was preparing to use them. In that context, the fact that Saddam didn't in fact seem to posses any such weapons casts doubts on both the integrity or the competence of those who took us into the war.
You mean he was saving some to use against a greater threat? Like invading foreign troops, maybe?
On the other hands, rockets aren't guns. You shoot a rocket, you don't have it any more. What you're suggesting (to use your analogy) is launching an operation that could engulf half a city in riots, purely on the suspicion that there may be some more bullets somewhere around the place.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
No, there were *three* issues; one (the one that Tony Blair used) was that there were long distance rockets (to deliver a chemical or *normal* payload to Cyprus, for example), the second one was that he had nerve gas (to be delivered on the battlefield). The first one is a threat if you happen to live in Europe, the second one only when you invade his country (or live in it, but that was never really brought up in this context). The third one was that he had Uranium (the Niger letter) - against which there is no real protection on the battlefield. The first and third issues were definitely lied about, the second one was questionable to say the least.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
"Why not write something useful"
In this conversation? OK.
Don't worry about OBL. Worry about the Russian bombers in Venezuela. Worry about the possible share market crash when Wall Street opens. Worry about Pakistan allying with Russia if you cross its border once again. Worry about the unidentified sub seen in Japanese waters.
Then, at the end of all that, don't worry about it because there is nothing you can do about it. Be happy, love one another, and believe in yourself.
I reserve the write to mangle english.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have a feeling there will be more and more information and mis-information of this kind as the Presidential election comes closer.
So with anything this time of year, I'll take it with a grain of salt and speculation.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
Bin Laden was already on the Most Wanted list long before 9/11, for the bombing of the USS Cole.
No portion of this post may be rebroadcast without the express, written consent of Major League Baseball.
See? Bush was right. The US did invade the right country. 9/11 is the whole reason for the war in Iraq.
"And what about the war in Afghanistan?"
Afga-What?
--
Was that a good Palin?
Of course. Was that your point?
Dick Cheney and the likes on the other hand haven't gained anything either.
Four more years?
Patriot act to control the peasants?
High oil prices? So what? America doesn't prosper from that at all.
Some rich fat Americans in Texas probably had to be sedated cause all that excitement over a 4$ a gallon price was bad for them.
9/11 happened because it was to much of an effort NOT to have a war.
Wait...wha... WHAT?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I guess it's impolite to mention at this point that we've just spent 5 years killing the exact same people we're demonising Saddam Hussein for killing, isn't it?
I guess it's really impolite to mention that killing people in a country that hadn't attacked us, hadn't the means to attack us at the moment, and had no plans to attack us in the future makes us murderers.
It's been a long time.
What does the Arrafat thing matter? The Palestinian territories don't have any oil.
What's funny is people think that because they are tolerant, they can convince everyone else to be. People have their values all screwed up...
Talk about intolerance... which societies are more tolerant of gays? Which society is more tolerant of interracial and interfaith marriages?
Yes, a lot of so-called "Christians" will frown upon homosexual relationships... but very few will throw you in jail for it. They will frown upon someone deciding to leave and join another church, but they won't execute you for it. I simply don't understand why we in the west are continuously asked to be tolerant while others get away with honor killings and complete intolerance of others.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
+1
If I read bin laden correctly, his main goal is to replace the corrupt, dictatorial, apostate regimes in the islamic world with a single religious state, the caliphate. He hates us cause we support those govt; he doesnt really care about our western freedom and life style all that much
Bush say that bin laden hates us cause of our freedom.
what is amusing is that bin laden is loosing the war he started - we are more involved, with more corrupt regimes then before 9/11; at the same time bush is loosing his war, as we have less freedom.
I finally understand the curse part of the (supposed) chinese saying, may you live in interesting times.
No, that would be a chemical weapon, not a WMD.
I guess that means it's really Cheney's fault, not really Bush.
It seems to me, that Bush is more of an innocent idiot. Cheney however, knows what the fuck he's trying to do.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
It is precisely because of the fact that he called Muslims to a Jihad against the Americans that I tend to believe this statement. Mind you, Bin Laden doesn't say he didn't want to do this, he plainly states he was not allowed to carry this out by his Taliban hosts. Contrary to popular belief, there are plenty of Islamic clerics who adhere to strict morals and a relatively exhausting honor system. In many ways it reminds me of the Purists, the Calvinists and certain Roman Catholic factions we've had throughout history.
Just because someone has a different religion than yours and just because someone's honor system makes them want to wage holy war against what you stand for it does not render everything they say null and void. I would be much more worried about certain other parties that seem to wantonly install, sponsor, demonize and then eradicate all manner of regimes across the world to further their (financial) self interest or because they misguidedly think their right cause is furthered by those actions. Because the former group is predictable if you know their morals and their honor system while the latter group is totally unpredictable and hence dangerous as hell.
I don't "know" who the main planner of the 9/11 operation is, and probably no one ever really will, nor is it interesting. All I know is that the USSR, the USA and the world at large are partially responsible for the situation in Afghanistan after the Russian withdrawal, and we "corrected" that fuck up by invading that country and bombing it some more while we're at it. In the mean time half of Iraq is dead and/or injured and I'm sitting here wondering who the terrorists are, because I'm quite sure the crunch of army boots on gravel, the roar of jet engines and the crackle and static of radio transmissions between soldiers strike terror into the hearts of Afghan and Iraqi civilians by now.
Here in Israel I see a lot of this. The other party in the conflict is not "credible" because they've issued Fatwahs and called for Jihad. In the mean time, most of the people you talk to feel that this is their country because the Torah claims they once lived here and the death toll on the Islamic side outstrips the death toll on the Israeli side at least ten to one. Religious War, anyone? If I were living in an Arabic town here that doesn't get decent schools or even a closed sewage system from the federal government because the "municipality doesn't receive enough taxes", I'd bloody well declare a bit of a war too. And if it takes religion for people to join it.... You get the point.
If you (us Western nations) beat a dog (most of the rest of the world) long enough, it will bite.
Mazaltov! We've reached that stage.
Actually, along with biological weapons and nuclear weapons, poison gas IS a WMD. With or without a sophisticated delivery system.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
That's not mass destruction. That's just destruction. Most of the poison gas Iraq has was given to it by... US! We used to be big friends with Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld shook his hand. I have the picture. 1970s. WMDs are nukes and such. Duh.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
***Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, is doubting even in the slightest that Saddam did this :***
Not so actually. Do a little research and you will find that the attack at Halabja was originally blamed on the US's enemy d'jour -- Iran. It was not refocused on Iraq until America's great and noble ally Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, an action that caused him to morph into "The Beast of Baghdad".
Most people who have looked at the issue are pretty sure that Saddam Hussein was responsible, but it is by no means the open and shut case that you present.
***
"Saddam had no WMD's"
It's funny, and hypocritical in the extreme how everybody keeps claiming that.***
Get a grip man. The fact that Iraq had WMDs in the early 1990s does not prove that it had them in 2003. In fact, it said it did not. International inspectors with pretty much unrestricted access to Iraqi facilities found none. And US investigators after the invasion found only a handful of chemical tipped artillery rounds of an obsolete type that Iraqi sources with no particular reason to lie said had been collected and destroyed prior to the 1991 Gulf War. If you've ever served in the military or worked for a large company, it'll be pretty clear to you how a few old artillery shells could have survived.
In point of fact, had Iraq had WMDs, it would surely have used them against US troops in 2003 -- probably with devastating affect.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
The vast majority of his chemical weapons were destroyed under the watch of the UN after the first Gulf War. This is well documented for anyone who cares to look. The whole argument was over the few weapons that couldn't be accounted for because of bookkeeping errors and the regular amount of chaos that happens after your country is bombed to hell. Bush did lie about the status of those weapons for political reasons, just like Clinton did in 1998, but at least Clinton had the sense not to try and take over the whole country.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Men's News Daily? World Net Daily? Buh?
From your Washington Post link:
From your Fox News link:
Hmmm. Way to support your own argument there.
So yeah, sure, he had some rotting leftovers, but not the massive "set to attack the US" stockpiles they beat their drums about leading up to our 2003 invasion. Yeah, not everything got dismantled. But, was that malice or incompetence? Looking back at that Washington post article:
Sounds like malice to me. Oh wait, no, that's incompetence.
Program Intellivision!
We shouldn't, and more importantly we shouldn't be changing our rules to bend to the will of others...
If you want to go and live in an islamic country, you will be expected to follow the existing rules, you will be expected not to eat pork etc... You don't see people from the west migrating to islamic countries and demanding the right to eat pork, expected to learn the language or anything else that islam forbids...
Why then should people come to western countries and demand exceptions to the law just for them, like their own religious holidays (in addition to existing holiday allowances), the right to wear a turban instead of a motorcycle helmet etc...
Western countries bend over backwards to accommodate immigrants, most other countries do not...
In my opinion, if you choose to move to another country you should know what that entails and what laws and customs are already in place there... And if you are not willing to obey those laws, respect if not follow the customs, and learn the local language then you have no business going there.
If you want to live in a country with customs laws and language like your home country, then why not stay there? If they way they do things is so great, don't leave... And if you want to move somewhere else because you think that country is better, ask yourself WHY that country is better, could it have something to do with the culture? If you change their culture to match the country you came from, then you will end up right back where you started.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
I think you are being every misleading when you say WMD's were found in Iraq. You're trying to give the false impression that there were WMD's that were still a threat. Basically all that were found were refuse from previous stockpiles NOT a current WMD program. If the agent is no longer active, is it a WMD?
The weapons inspectors were UN, not US
Which Saddam did anyway.
The "credibility" needed to defuse international conflicts is enough military force to make both parties take notice. We don't (and never did) have that with Russia, at least not on their doorstep, as a number of Soviet-crushed revolutions during the cold war should demonstrate.
Did you actually READ the links you posted? Here's a quote from one of them:
http://www.skullsecurity.org/blog/
You didn't get the press release a few moments ago that retroactively changed the reason for the war yet again?
Seriously, though, for some reason I find the constant retconning of the reasoning for the war even worse than the original lie. You might be able to claim that the original reason was due to faulty intelligence and admit to having a "we goofed" moment. (Sure, that goof resulted in tons of deaths on both sides, but stay with me here.) However, to constantly change the reasoning behind the war after the fact ("Sadaam has WMDs and nukes!", "Sadaam was trying to get WMDs and nukes!", "Sadaam was starting up programs which might have eventually, one day, resulted in a WMD/nuke.", etc.) shows that not only does the administration not care whether they lie or not, but they also don't care how good their reasoning is and they think that the American people are stupid.
I guess they're right, though. I had a friend actually try to tell me that the reason we're in Iraq now is so we can keep a better eye on Iran. Yes, folks, the true reason that we invaded a sovereign country that posed no real threat to us, destabilized it to the brink of civil war, wasted the international good will we had after 9-11, fought a war that resulted in thousands of US dead (and even more Iraqi dead), and tied up our military resources so much that other tin-pot dictators feel they can thumb their noses at us is so we could get a bit closer to Iran to keep an eye on them. I guess it makes sense that we'd want to keep an eye on them, though. With our hands tied up in Iraq, and eye is about all we can spare.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Framing Osama bin Laden for 9/11 does not make any sense, it's just plain paranoid.
Actually, there's a fairly straightforward "theory" that makes sense of it. To see the basis of the theory, look up the media coverage of the WTC attack on 2008-9-11. It's fairly clear from the start that: 1) The authorities and media were totally taken by surprise and unprepared for what was happening; but 2) It was immediately clear who they were blaming. Within the first half hour of news coverage, the media was producing a steady drumbeat of "Osama bin Laden ... al Qaeda ... Osama bin Laden ... al Qaeda ... ". They didn't know who did it, but they knew who they were going to blame.
US government agencies weren't much heard from during the first day, probably because they were too busy. By the time they got around to talking to the public, they understood that the job of picking a scapegoat had already been done for them by the media. So they just went with it.
They didn't much want to actually capture bin Laden and his cohort, of course, because they knew that they had little evidence against him that would stand up in any court. He'd probably walk free, with a big propaganda win. From the viewpoint of the Bush crowd, his value wasn't as a jailed or executed criminal; his value was and is as a Foreign Devil. They were interested in finding and punishing the actual perpetrators, yes, but there was little point in going after Osama & Co when they were doing such a commendable job as Foreign Devils.
Of course, this is yet another theory based on sketchy initial facts and little actual inside information. But it does make a bit of sense. It acknowledges the usual government bungling and total failure to pick up on the WTC attack before the fact. It also acknowledges the media's penchant for fomenting mass hysteria and scapegoating of Foreign Devils. And it handles the puzzling question of why US authorities (government and media) show so little interest in hunting down the minor clerical figure who supposedly was the mastermind of it all.
Why not pick a scapegoat who is either easier to blame (like Saddam), or completely fictional (1984 style).
The public image of bin Laden and al Qaeda is mostly fictional. It's true that there are a handful of real people behind the names. But what people "know" about them is pretty much a media creation, with little basis in their actual beliefs or actions. The public Osama is a creation of Hollywood and media newsrooms, with little attention to the person behind the name.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
"interviews were authenticated by the US CIA" Don't you mean censored?
"It is not because no one sees the truth that it becomes a mistake" (Mahatma Gandhi)
Saddam wasn't intentionally killing civilians as such, he was just killing villages with traitors, and the other people were just collateral damage.
It's no different than when we bombed a resturaunt because we thought Saddam may be inside, but he wasn't inside, though a bunch of civilians were. How are we any better -- because we're the "good guys"?
It's been a long time.
Alas, you didn't actually read what I wrote. The parts of the Geneva Convention that make guerrillas "enemy soldiers" weren't signed by the USA. Therefore we are not bound by them.
However, that doesn't actually prevent us from treating them as soldiers (or civilians) at our discretion. Or as common criminals. Or as none of the above. Traditional (pre- those addenda to the Geneva Conventions) usage for guerrillas was to treat them FAR worse than enemy soldiers. They could be killed on sight, executed without trial, all sorts of interesting options, none of which included treatment as soldiers. Note treatment of such during the 19th Century and early 20th Century, before the Geneva Convention tried to give them the same rights as soldiers, without requiring from them the same obligations as soldiers.
Further note that the USA didn't sign those parts of the Geneva Conventions because they were proposed by the USSR during the Vietnam War, and would have required us to refrain from actually shooting at the enemy till the enemy had shot first (armed men not actually shooting at you had to be considered civilians), and to refrain from shooting at them as soon as they stopped shooting at you (again, armed men not actually shooting at you had to be considered civilians). Which would effectively make warfare against guerrillas impossible.
Note that the USSR did not sign onto that provision of the Geneva Conventions either, even though they had proposed it.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I donno. I find that my regimen of listening to NPR on my commute, plus an evening with the voter's guide is generally enough to let me make some kind of informed decision.
I admit that local offices can be a challenge, but I usually find an issue or two that the candidates disagree on for any position, and vote based on that issue.
My general guideline? People are generally selfish - let's get some laws that reasonably mitigate some of that selfishness.
Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
I think once we already go to war with someone, then end that war, and then wait a decade, we cant consider anything that happened before that "evidence". After `91 anything would be fair game, but it looks like Saddam actually kept his nose pretty clean, He probably figured it was all he had to do to keep his position, and that bush wouldn't dare invade without a good reason. Little did he know how unstable our leaders were eh?
CNN may have lost interest but the war didn't end. There was a cease fire and a laundry list of requirements to maintain that cease fire. Saddam then played an interesting game with weapons inspectors (apparently attempting to prove to the US that chemical weapons didn't exist while implying to Iraq that they did) while siphoning funding from oil sales meant to maintain civilian infrastructure.
You can't prove any of this is the truth.
This phrase has much further implications.
How do you prove a negative, anyway ? I don't know how people that comes from a system where everyone is innocent until proven guilty can keep going over and over again that people has to prove Iraq had no WMDs. Or people at least barely scientifically minded.
Is it possible to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, Iraq had NO WMDs ? No. Again, can't prove a negative. All this argument is, at best, pointless.
Was there enough proof to indicate Iraq had WMDs ? That is the point. If there was, it would be very easy for the Bush government to say: "Well, looks like they really didn't have any, but this is the data we had to work with. I'm sure most of you will come to the same conclusion we had".
The problem is that, even to date, the Bush government keeps insisting there were WMDs, but somehow keep failing to find them. And the supporters here and everywhere else keep insisting on that. I will say it again: people are not saying there was enough evidence of WMDs to make an honest mistake; they keep insisting there were WMDs.
With all this denial and cover-ups, I have to ask the same question: was there enough evidence to make an "honest mistake" ? Doesn't seems likely.
morcego
Because insults really help your cause.
In truth WMD is not defined as all, it's a mostly political term that was made popular by a news story from 1937 that described a bombing in spain as being done by weapons of mass destruction.
Since then various people have defined it however they liked and your definition is among them.
So yes you can claim that my kitchen is a WMD by your definition but sane people use the word for nukes.
As an intelligence analyst, what is your take on the possibility of Osama still being an American Operative?
BAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Whoooo. Good one. Do you still beat your wife?
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
This is no big deal. The "Foreign Broadcast Information Service" was a pre-Internet version of Google News, run by the CIA. It was a bunch of people listening to the public radio broadcasts of foreign countries. (Imagine listening to Radio Albania during the Cold War, taking notes, as a full time job.) Once in a while, something important might be mentioned. It wasn't secret, and transcripts were provided to the US press on request. It was a cheap way of finding out what other countries said they were doing.
Saddam Hussein was never near the top of my birthday greetings list, but let us not forget that the US was perfectly content to prop up his regime and sell him armaments when it suited them.
Actually there is nothing new here, Bin Laden credibly denied everything on Sept. 17, 2001 to CNN -- it simply went down the memory hole, since the MSM, has not mentioned his denial since. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/ And let's never forget that Mullah Omar offered to turn over Bin Laden, all he asked was for the US to show him some evidence that Bin Laden was guilty. Bush told him to get lost -- and started bombing. Bush could have had Bin Laden. He did not want him. America can send cruise missiles to Afghanistan, but it couldn't send a fax?
If it's so bloody "mass" how is it that Saddam fought the Iranians for 8 years (using gas), until it ended in a stalemate? Real WMD, i.e. nukes, would have ended it in 20 minutes. You overreach.
There is no "moderate dead". It's a pretty binary thing.
Actually, you could probably say one of the only truly binary things in the world. After "am I dead?", which can be answered with a definitive yes or no(and if you can ask the question, I'm betting you're going to answer 'yes'), pretty much any non-abstract question you ask has to be answered with a degree of "In some cases it can be tough to say for sure".
That's probably why it's so difficult to be moderate about the war. The decision to kill people has a certain finality to it. In fact, the moderate decision is usually not to kill anyone at all. Just look at the muslim world; Who are the "moderate clerics"? The ones who are saying "Let's not destroy the Satan America".
It's been a long time.
It's no different than when we bombed a resturaunt because we thought Saddam may be inside, but he wasn't inside, though a bunch of civilians were. How are we any better -- because we're the "good guys"?
It's completely different. Saddam indiscriminately killed civilians with poison gas. That's barbaric. We indiscriminately killed civilians with high explosives. That's fair game.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne