THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

You are saying that because saddam did not do anything to get rid of that terrorist then that is proof or evidence that saddam harbored terrorist.. You say that even though it is a fact that the terrorist was in a part of the country that saddam had no control of and so he could not take care of that one terrorist that was in the northern part of Iraq. Right there is your proof or evidence that there is reason to doubt your claim that saddam harbored terrorist based on the evidence you have stated so far.

Baghdad Burning

... I'll meet you 'round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend...
Sunday, January 02, 2005

New Year and Elections...
We spent New Year at home (like last year). It was a very small family gathering and E. and I tried to make it as festive as possible, under the circumstances. We agreed, amongst ourselves in the area, to have the generator turned on from 10 pm until 2 am so we could ride out 2004 on a wave of electricity.

The good part of the evening consisted of food. Food is such a central issue for an Iraqi occasion- be it happy or sad. We end up discussing the food before anything else. For us, it was just some traditional Iraqi food and some junk food like pop-corn, corn chips, and lots of candy.

We sat watching celebrations from different parts of the world. Seeing the fireworks, lights, droves of laughing and singing people really emphasizes our current situation. It feels like we are kind of standing still while the world is passing us by. It really is difficult to believe that come April, two years will have passed on the war and occupation. On most days, an hour feels like ten and yet, at the same time, it becomes increasingly difficult to get a good sense of passing time. I guess that is because we measure time with development and since things seem to be deteriorating in many ways, it feels almost as if we're going backwards, not forwards.

On the other hand, the whole tsunami/earthquake crisis also had a dampening affect on celebrations this year. It is a tragedy that will haunt the area for decades. To lose so many people so swiftly and violently is horrific. Watching all that chaos and death kind of makes you feel that maybe Baghdad isn't the absolute worse place to be.

We had our own fireworks as we began the New Year countdown. At around 10 minutes to 2005, the house shook with three colossal explosions not too far away. It came as something of a surprise at that particular moment and my cousin's two young daughters, after the initial fright, started giggling uncontrollably. E. clapped his hands and began to yell, "Yeah- FIREWORKS!! Goodbye 2004!!", which was followed by a sort of impromptu dance by the kids.

The elections are set for the 29th. It's an interesting situation. The different sects and factions just can't seem to agree. Sunni Arabs are going to boycott elections. It's not about religion or fatwas or any of that so much as the principle of holding elections while you are under occupation. People don't really sense that this is the first stepping stone to democracy as western media is implying. Many people sense that this is just the final act of a really bad play. It's the tying of the ribbon on the "democracy parcel" we've been handed. It's being stuck with an occupation government that has been labeled 'legitimate' through elections.

We're being bombarded with cute Iraqi commercials of happy Iraqi families preparing to vote. Signs and billboards remind us that the elections are getting closer...

Can you just imagine what our history books are going to look like 20 years from now?

"The first democratic elections were held in Iraq on January 29, 2005 under the ever-watchful collective eye of the occupation forces, headed by the United States of America. Troops in tanks watched as swarms of warm, fuzzy Iraqis headed for the ballot boxes to select one of the American-approved candidates..."

It won't look good.

There are several problems. The first is the fact that, technically, we don't know the candidates. We know the principal heads of the lists but we don't know who exactly will be running. It really is confusing. They aren't making the lists public because they are afraid the candidates will be assassinated.

Another problem is the selling of ballots. We're getting our ballots through the people who give out the food rations in the varying areas. The whole family is registered with this person(s) and the ages of the varying family members are known. Many, many, many people are not going to vote. Some of those people are selling their voting cards for up to $400. The word on the street is that these ballots are being bought by people coming in from Iran. They will purchase the ballots, make false IDs (which is ridiculously easy these days) and vote for SCIRI or Daawa candidates. Sunnis are receiving their ballots although they don't intend to vote, just so that they won't be sold.

Yet another issue is the fact that on all the voting cards, the gender of the voter, regardless of sex, is labeled "male". Now, call me insane, but I found this slightly disturbing. Why was that done? Was it some sort of a mistake? Why is the sex on the card anyway? What difference does it make? There are some theories about this. Some are saying that many of the more religiously inclined families won't want their womenfolk voting so it might be permissible for the head of the family to take the women's ID and her ballot and do the voting for her. Another theory is that this 'mistake' will make things easier for people making fake IDs to vote in place of females.

All of this has given the coming elections a sort of sinister cloak. There is too much mystery involved and too little transparency. It is more than a little bit worrisome.

American politicians seem to be very confident that Iraq is going to come out of these elections with a secular government. How is that going to happen when many Shia Iraqis are being driven to vote with various fatwas from Sistani and gang? Sistani and some others of Iranian inclination came out with fatwas claiming that non-voters will burn in the hottest fires of the underworld for an eternity if they don't vote (I'm wondering- was this a fatwa borrowed from right-wing Bushies during the American elections?). So someone fuelled with a scorching fatwa like that one- how will they vote? Secular? Yeah, right.

- posted by river @ 2:40 PM

It's not all that surprising to this observer. This country has lost it's moral footing/compass many years ago, and with president Bush at the helm, we've gone further down the tunnel of darkness. [That's a huge exaggeration. By my estimate a majority of Americans (e.g., a majority of the red states and a minority of the blue states), though fallible as they ever were, have their moral footing/compasses working as well as they ever did. This is the first US administration that has restricted our seeing our dead soldiers draped in their coffins, and the maimed soldiers in and out of hospitals. [That's not true! In my lifetime, this is the first time so many have abandoned their respect for the privacy of others, and have instead become preoccupied with complaining about and dwelling on not being able to freely observe the dead, dieing, sick, injured, crippled, deranged, and angry. Perhaps these folks are in need of therapy.] On top of all that, we don't see the numbers of innocent Iraqis killed (now estimated to be over 50,000) by our bombs and bullets. [Where did you get that estimate? How reliable is your source?] Such sensitivity! Hogwash! They are playing with people's perception of what war is all about, and sanitized for the American public. We get what we wish for, and it doesn't look pretty for our children and grandchildren. [Why do you think all this is the motive of they? Who is they? Perhaps this be a symptom of paranoia?]

ican711nm wrote:

[my responses are in blue]

Maybe the following article will help you figure out how to properly debate and what the requirements are for those who start any particular subject and what the requirements are for those responding to a subject.

I infer that it is your proposition that I do not debate properly.

It is my counter proposition that I do debate properly.

Please provide me your specific reasons for thinking your proposition is true and/or mine is false.

I read all of the links you posted and I am unable on my own to determine from those links why I should think my proposition is false. You have not yet told me why you think your proposition is true and/or why mine is false.

links revel wrote:

http://www.sherrin.com/DebateHandout.pdf

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030404.html

http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/004411.html

My proposition to InfraBlue was and is:
Saddam Hussein harbored al Qaeda in northern Iraq.

InfraBlue's counter proposition was and is:
There is zero evidence that Sadda Hussein harbored al Qaeda in northern Iraq.

I provided what I perceive to be some evidence that Saddam Hussein harbored al Qaeda in northern Iraq.

InfraBlue responded by stating my evidence was not evidence; it was only speculations.

InfraBlue has not yet told me why he thinks what he responded is true.

[in what follows, my comments are in green]

You are the one bringing a claim and so it is up to you to prove that it is reasonably true like someone would if they were bringing a case up in a court of law. If there is reason to doubt your claim then that is all the counter person in the debate has to prove. [Sorry! I thought it was your proposition I was not debating properly. I quess I was mistaken. If that were your proposition, then according to the debating rules to which you referred me, it's up to you to provide some evidence that I am not debating properly.]

You are saying that because saddam did not do anything to get rid of that terrorist then that is proof or evidence that saddam harbored terrorist. [You're close but not close enough to what I'm saying. I'm saying that because Saddam did not do anything to get rid of al Qaeda encamped in northern Iraq, that is of itself some evidence that Saddam tolerated al Qaeda being encamped in northern Iraq. And, I am then saying that because he tolerated them being encamped there, that was tantamount to his harboring them there.]. You say that even though it is a fact that the terrorist was in a part of the country that saddam "had no control of" and so he could not take care of that one terrorist that was in the northern part of Iraq. [Again, you're close but not close enough to what I am saying. I'm saying that,
(1) BECAUSE the Kurds, who had previously defeated al Qaeda in northern Iraq by invading it, did not seek to control the reforming al Qaeda in northern Iraq in 2001,
(2) BECAUSE the US chose only to control flights over northern Iraq and did not seek to control ground movements there prior to its invasion of Iraq,
(3) BECAUSE the US merely requested Saddam to stop harboring al Qaeda in northern Iraq, and
(4) BECAUSE Saddam's Iraq regime did not seek control of ground movements there by invading it,
THEN the Kurd's, the US and Saddam's Iraq regime each tolerated to some degree the encampment of al Qaeda in northern Iraq,
BUT Saddam's Iraq regime, which constituted the government of Iraq, did both officially and practically harbor al Qaeda in northern Iraq.]Right there is your proof or evidence that there is reason to doubt your claim that saddam harbored terrorist based on the evidence you have stated so far.[You are very very close to being correct. I have provided only some evidence that Saddam's Iraq regime harbored al Qaeda. I did not provide what I consider conclusive evidence of that. On that account, it is in deed reasonable to doubt my claim that Saddam's Iraq regime harbored al Qaeda. However, it is quite unreasonable to doubt my claim that I provided some evidence that Saddam's Iraq regime harbored al Qaeda.

One more thing I mention here explicitly for the first time, the US did in 2003 cease tolerating the harboring of al Qaeda in northern Iraq by Saddam's Iraq regime, when the US invaded Iraq. ]

THEN the Kurd's, the US and Saddam's Iraq regime each tolerated to some degree the encampment of al Qaeda in northern Iraq,

BUT Saddam's Iraq regime, which constituted the government of Iraq, did both officially and practically harbor al Qaeda in northern Iraq

http://www.sherrin.com/DebateHandout.pdf

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030404.html

http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/004411.html

March 31, 2003
Raid Finds al-Qaida Tie To Militants
A U.S.-led assault on a compound controlled by an Iraqi-based extremist Islamic group has turned up a list of names of suspected militants living in the United States and what may be the strongest evidence yet linking Ansar al-Islam to al-Qaida, coalition commanders said Monday.

The cache of documents, including computer discs and foreign passports belonging to Arab fighters from around the Middle East, could bolster the Bush administration's claims that the two groups are connected, although there was no indication any of the evidence tied Ansar to Saddam Hussein as Washington has maintained.

(AP)
Posted By Billy Beck at March 31, 2003 07:20 PM | TrackBack

[my boldface emphasis added][Chapt. 2.5]
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.75

Now effectively merged with Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad,82 al Qaeda promised to become the general headquarters for international terrorism, without the need for the Islamic Army Shura. Bin Ladin was prepared to pick up where he had left off in Sudan. He was ready to strike at "the head of the snake."

Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.
...
Now effectively merged with Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad,82 al Qaeda promised to become the general headquarters for international terrorism, without the need for the Islamic Army Shura.

...although there was no indication any of the evidence tied Ansar to Saddam Hussein as Washington has maintained.

In "American Soldier," 7/1/2004:
1. [CHAPTER 12, page 483] The Air Picture changed once more. Now the icons were streaming toward two ridges and a steep valley in far northeastern Iraq, right on the border with Iran. These were the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi had trained disciples in the use of chemical and biological weapons. But this strike was more than just another TLAM [Tomahawk Land Attack Missle] bashing. Soon Special Forces and SMU [Special Mission Unit] operators leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, would be storming the camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted.

2. [CHAPTER 12, page 519] And they had also encountered several hundred foreign fighters from Egypt, the Sudan, Syria, and Libya who were being trained by the regime in a camp south of Baghdad. These foreign volunteers fought with suicidal ferocity, but they did not fight well. The Marines killed them all.

3. [CHAPTER 12, page 522] This whole country is one big weapons dump, I thought. There must be thousands of ammo storage sites. It will take years to clear them all.

...Saddam could not move any of his armed forces into northern Iraq because it was protected by the US and British no fly zones.
[Revel, think what you are saying! A no fly zone is a zone in which someone is prohibited from flying. It is not a zone in which one is prohibited from driving, running or walking.]
If he would have moved his armed forces into the area then we would have seen that as a hostile action and taken steps to respond.
[Why in the world would we have done anything to stop him? Why would the Kurds have done anything to stop him? We didn't want those critters there in the first place, and neither did the Kurds. Our response would have been our celebrating not our complaining!]
It is therefore unreasonable to say that Saddam officially harbored AQ in northern Iraq since it was an area that he no control over.
[Of course he had control over the area! He did possess the ability to drive, run or walk his armed forces into that area. He just couldn't fly there. Despite the fact that the Kurd's lacked flying armed forces, they were able to defeat those al Qaeda critters "in the late 1990s." Nothing but the al Qaeda was there to try and stop Saddam's ground based armed forces after 2001, when those critters reformed with al Qaeda's help, but before we invaded Iraq in 2003.]

Joe Nation, It's too bad Bush supporters will never understand what you are talking about or it's meaning, but keep posting.

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

The above link is for everybody except ican.

Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan
1. 2 Killed, 14 Wounded at Allawi Party HQ Wire s...
2 Killed, 14 Wounded at Allawi Party HQ

Wire services and Lebanese Broadcasting Channel were reporting early Monday morning that guerrillas had detonated a car bomb near the headquarters of the Iraqi National Accord party. The party was about to announce its candidate list for the forthcoming elections. LBC reported that Allawi was on the premises but not near where the bomb went off, but this seems to me like Allawi spin. If he was on the premises, he was in danger.

The problematic character of these elections, with their artificial national candidate lists such that people cannot vote for someone from their own city; with almost no announcements of the names of actual candidates so far; with so much of the Sunni Arab population not registered to vote (and often unable to go out of their houses for fear of poor security)-- is underlined by this bombing. When the prime minister's party cannot hold a press conference without getting bombed, this is a walking disaster.

What do do? Probably nothing can be done. The US didn't drive having these elections this way at this time. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani did, though he wanted them earlier. So this is his call. And he can make so much trouble if he doesn't get the elections he wants that it is not worthwhile crossing him.

My guess is that his next call, after the elections, will be for a timetable for US withdrawal. That is one reason I haven't joined Naomi Klein, Pat Buchanan, Christopher Manion and others in saying the US should just get out. I'm watching Sistani. When he says it, it will be time. This is not because I'm abdicating my judgment to him. It is because without his acquiescence, the US presence in Iraq is untenable and really would, globally, do more harm than good.
Mon, Jan 3, 2005 0:30

From Znet Blogs, "A study in the British medical journal, The Lancet puts the death toll in Iraq much higher than previously thought. Researchers from Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University, and an Iraqi university now estimate 100,000 people have died in the 18 months since the United States invaded the country. The number is based on household surveys done mainly by Iraqi doctors."

Kurdish regions during the 1990s had de-facto independence, with fully functioning civil administrations, and were protected by the US-enforced Iraqi no-fly zone which stopped Iraqi air attacks.