InfraBlue wrote:The only occurrence of the term "Cooperative Harboring Relationship" is to be found, not in Powell's UN speech, not in the 9/11 commission report, nor in the Duelfer report. It is only found here, in this forum, in the twaddle you post, ican, who are trying to explain that cooperative operational relationships necessarily exclude harboring to allay the extreme discrepancy between what the US government has propagated--to which you cling with a religiously undying devotion--and the facts.
You are partially right despite your obfuscating twiddle. I called the relationship between Saddam and the northern Iraqi
campers a
cooperative harboring relationship to aid you in objective analysis.
President Bush said only:
[9-11 Com; Chapter 10.2; emphasis added by me]
Quote:The United States would punish not just the perpetrators of the attacks, but also those who harbored them.
The 9-11 Commission Report said only:
[Chapter 2.4; empasis added by me]
Quote:In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54
So there are indications that (i.e., there is
some evidence that) Saddam
tolerated and may even have helped the northern Iraq
campers, who called themselves Ansar al Islam, and who were
helped by bin Laden. I think you previously agreed these
campers were affiliated with, or were associated with, or were connected with, or aligned with, or cooperated with al Qaeda and did in fact camp in Iraq.
For the sake of clarity and simplicity in communicating with you, I called that relationship a
cooperative harboring relationship because there was
some evidence that Saddam
tolerated and may even have helped these campers.
InfraBlue wrote:It is not opinion to state that Northern Iraq was beyond the control or governance of Saddam. This is a fact.
It is either your opinion, or the opinion of those to which you adhere, or simply your false inference. It is definitely not a fact.
InfraBlue wrote:It was protected by the Coalition Allies through operations Provide Comfort and Northern Watch. It is not opinion to state that Northern Iraq was an area protected by the Coalition Allies.
It was protected in the
air from the possibility of Saddam directed air attacks. It was not protected on the
ground from the possibility of a Saddam directed
cooperative harboring relationship with some al Qaeda
campers.
InfraBlue wrote:This also is a fact. Officially termed the Combined Task Force (CTF), Operation Northern Watch (ONW was charged with enforcing the no-fly zone north of the 36th parallel in Iraq and monitoring Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council resolutions
Exactly! It was a no-fly zone, and
not a no-walk zone, or a no-run zone, or a no-crawl zone, or a no-drive zone, or a no-slide zone, or even a no-communications zone. Consequently, the claim that "Northern Iraq was beyond the control or governance of Saddam" is a falsification of the facts.
A cooperative harboring relationship between Saddam and the campers:
is not a Quote:1. ... repression of the Iraqi civilian population ...;
is an: Quote:2. ... open dialogue ...;
is an: Quote:3. ... an assistance ...;
is not causing: Quote:4. ... the Kurdish population, suffering from ... repression ... by ... Iraqi authorities;
does not interfere with: Quote:5. ... address[ing] urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population ...;
does not interfere with: Quote:6. ... humanitarian relief efforts...;
does not interfere with: Quote:7. ... Iraq cooperat[ing] with the Secretary-General to these ends;
does not interfere with: Quote:8. ... remain[ing] seized of the matter.
does not interfere with: Quote:... the Kurds and the peoples of Northern Iraq to operate autonomously.
But it does permit a
cooperative harboring relationship between the al Qaeda in northern Iraq (who are not Kurds but are terrorists, and are not the usual people of northern Iraq) and Saddam.
twiddle:Quote:The "evidence" of your so-called "cooperative harboring relationship" to which you cling with the fervent fanaticism of a terroristic Islamist amounts to the words "indications" "tolerated" "may even have." What unequivocally resolute "evidence" upon which to base a pretext for war.
more twiddle:Quote:Bush and Powell promoted the false idea that Saddam Hussein possessed ready-to-use WMD, so all the other reasons they stated become suspect. The argument that Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda was the US government's weakest pretext for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. By the US government's own words, this argument amounts to the words "indications" "tolerance" and the phrase "may even have." How devastatingly damning.
BASIC FACTS
COR = Cooperative Operational Relationship
CHR = Cooperative Harboring Relationship
A COR is a relationship in which the parties to the relationship participate in the planning, training, equipping, financing, and/or the perpetration of an action (e.g., the mass murder of civilians).
A CHR is a relationship in which the parties to the relationship participate in the provision by one or more of the parties of space to one or more of the other parties (e.g., the provision of ground on which to build camps for those in a COR).
9/11 Commission alleged there was
no evidence of a COR between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
9/11 Commission alleged there was
some evidence of a CHR between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
FOUR EXAMPLES OF POPULAR TWIDDLE & WHY THESE EXAMPLES ARE TWIDDLE
1. The 9/11 Commission report discussed COR in Chapter 2.4
before it discussed CHR in Chapter 2.5, so the Commission did not believe there was some evidence of a CHR between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
If the Commission actually concluded there was no evidence of CHR when writing Chapter 2.4, then it would itself have explicitly discounted the evidence of CHR it described when writing Chapter 2.5.
2. The al Qaeda camps in northern Iraq were
outside that part of Iraq controlled by Saddam Hussein, so Saddam Hussein did not have a CHR with the al Qaeda in these camps.
Because the US/Coalition controlled the air in Iraq’s northern no-fly zone and not the ground beneath, there is no evidence that US/Coalition control of the air precluded Saddam from having the CHR with al Qaeda that is described in Chapter 2.5.
3. Bush, Powell, and Franks promoted the
false idea that Saddam Hussein possessed ready-to-use WMD, so all the other reasons Bush, Powell and Franks stated for invading Iraq are also false.
WMD were not used in the mass murder of civilians in the US on 9/11/2001, or in the mass murder of civilians since 1991 in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, or in the mass murder of Israelis financed by Saddam Hussein. Nor is there need for WMD to be used in subsequent al Qaeda mass murders of civilians, in those and other places, before they must be prevented from perpetrating those mass murders of civilians.
4. Franks and Duelfer found evidence of additional reasons for invading Iraq
after the start of the invasion of Iraq, so such evidence is too late to be relevant.
They found: (1) thousands of dumps containing weapons, munitions and explosives; (2) no evidence of WMD in Iraq after 1991, but persuasive evidence that Saddam intended to resume development of WMD after sanctions were lifted; (3) more evidence that Saddam had a CHR with al Qaeda, actual and would-be mass murderers of civilians; and (4) training camps of would-be mass murderers of civilians south of Baghdad. These finds individually provide ample justification for our fears that, absent invasion of Iraq and regime change, our lives and liberty would be continually and increasingly at significant risk.
By the way, Infrablue, I recommend you address your personal advice and personal criticisms to the person you frequently see reflected in your own mirror. That's the person who is clearly in greatest need here of your personal advice and personal criticisms. Perhaps that person will take your advice. Perhaps not. But, what the hell, it's worth your best honest try.
