0
   

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

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 11:37 am
[analysis by ican in blue]
revel wrote:
Quote:
Iraq Conflict Feeds International Terror Threat -CIA
1 hour, 25 minutes ago

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters)
[Reuters? Hardly a reliable source.]

- Islamic militants waging a deadly insurgency against U.S.-led forces in Iraq (news - web sites) pose an emerging international terrorism threat, CIA (news - web sites) Director Porter Goss said on Wednesday.
[This threat to the US not only existed prior to our 3/20/2003 invasion of Iraq, it was rapidly growing prior to our 3/20/2003 invasion of Iraq. Before we invaded Iraq, the al Qaeda confederation of worldwide terrorist groups fomented the following mass murders of Americans:
1. 10/1983 US Marine Corps Headquarters in Beirut--241 dead Americans;
2. 2/1993 WTC in NYC--6 dead Americans;
3. 11/1995 Saudi National Guard Facility in Riyadh--5 dead Americans;
4. 6/1996 Khobar Towers in Dhahran--19 dead Americans;
5. 8/1998 American Embassy in Nairobi--12 dead Americans;
6. 12/2000 Destroyer Cole in Aden--17 dead Americans;
7. 9/2001 WTC in NYC, Pentagon, Pennsylvania Field--approx. 1500 dead Americans of approximately 3000 dead civilians.

Why would any thinking person conclude that invading al Qaeda at its Afghanistan and Iraq source bases would cause the previous growth of the al Qaeda confederation of worldwide terrorist groups? That previous growth was caused long before we invaded Afganistan and Iraq. That growth's continuation can only be stopped by elimination of al Qaeda bases throughout the world, and the extermination of al Qaeda throughout the world. ]


In his first public appearance as U.S. spymaster, Goss described Iraqi insurgents, including al Qaeda ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, as part of a Sunni militant movement inspired by Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and intent on attacking Americans.

"The Iraq conflict, while not a cause of extremism, has become a cause for extremists," Goss told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

"Those jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries," he said.
[The solution is obvious: we must do everything we can to make sure there are no al Qaeda survivors.]

President Bush (news - web sites), who portrays U.S.-led actions in Iraq as the leading edge of democratic reform in the Middle East, cited Iraqi backing for international terrorism as a reason for the 2003 invasion.

But a top level U.S. inquiry found last year that there had in fact been no collaboration between al Qaeda and Iraq under President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).
[This ignores the obvious collaboration between al Qaeda and Saddam. Al Qaeda controlled bases in Iraq. Neither the Kurds or Saddam's regime ended that control, but at least the Kurds attempted to end that control. Saddam didn't even attempt ending that control despite repeated US demands that Saddam extradite the leaders of those bases.]

Bush critics say the invasion was a distraction from the global war against terrorism declared after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks by al Qaeda on the United States and has stirred up a violent response in Iraq that inflamed further terrorism.
[That's a stupid allegation. The Sept. 11, 2001 attacks by al Qaeda on the United States were in themselves a violent response that was part of an already hotly inflamed terrorism]

"These sentences indicate Goss is very much listening to what his analysts are saying, and not necessarily to what the White House wants to hear," said Kenneth Katzman, terrorism analyst for the Congressional Research Service.

"Zarqawi has sought to bring about the final victory of Islam over the West, and he hopes to establish a safe haven in Iraq from which his group could operate against 'infidel' Western nations and 'apostate' Muslim governments," Goss said.
["Zarqawi has sought to bring about the final victory of Islam over the West, and [hoped] to establish a safe haven in Iraq from which his group could operate against 'infidel' Western nations and 'apostate' Muslim governments," ever since al Qaeda was re-established in Iraq in 2001, after the Kurds defeated them by the end of 1999. It is not a new al Qaeda quest that began with our 3/20/2003 invasion of Iraq. It is not a new phenomenum that began with our killing of al Qaeda in Iraq. It is an old quest and old phenomenum that began when al Qaeda first declared war on Americans in 1996. Al Qaeda made it as plain then as they do now. They want the US to stop limiting their power to establish their allegedly Allah granted right to tyrannical power over the Middle East.]

Presenting the CIA's annual "threat assessment," Goss also said insurgents achieved some of their goals in the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections by keeping Sunni Arab voter turnout low.
[A more than 58% Iraqi voter turnout is not a low voter turnout. I agree the voter turnout in support of establishing an democracy of the Iraqi people's own design would have been much greater were it not for the threat of voter murder by those subversives of democracy in Iraq that included al Qaeda.]

HUGE SPYING LAPSES

A long-time intelligence officer and former chairman of the House of Representatives intelligence committee, Goss took over the CIA last year with a mandate to reform the premier U.S. spy agency after huge lapses in the run-up to the Sept. 11 attacks and the 2003 Iraq invasion.

His predecessor, George Tenet, resigned amid widespread criticism over flawed intelligence about the threat from Iraq that critics say was exaggerated to meet a political agenda.
[What is it, pray tell, about that political agenda that was/is other than what was explicitly claimed was that political agenda. The critics repeatedly say a great deal from their politically inspired hymnal-like agenda. They make it clear as crystal they seek to regain their lost power at the expense of what is in the best interest of our country.]

Goss told the lawmakers that U.S. authorities and their allies had dealt "serious blows" to the al Qaeda network.

"Despite these successes, however, the terrorist threat to the U.S. in the homeland and abroad endures," he said in an assessment that differed little from last year's report.
[Oh my, it's still a work in progress. Shocked ]

Goss was one of several top officials to appear before the Senate committee, which is scrutinizing U.S. intelligence on Iran, North Korea (news - web sites) and other hot spots in hopes of avoiding mistakes committed before the war on Iraq.

FBI (news - web sites) Director Robert Mueller testified al Qaeda remained intent on attacking the United States, likely by using low-tech methods of the kind employed in 2001 when terrorists killed about 3,000 people after hijacking airliners with box-cutters.

Goss said al Qaeda or another group would likely try to eclipse the Sept. 11 attacks by using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons that authorities say could be stolen or purchased from nations such as North Korea.

Officials also warned that North Korea, which declared last week that it had nuclear arms, could soon be ready to test a new long-range nuclear-capable missile which could hit targets across North America.

Private analysts doubt North Korea could pose a direct threat to the U.S. mainland any time soon.
[Private analysts doubt our government officials! Shocked Private analysts have proven that they have been so often wrong over the last few years that it is long past time that they begin doubting themselves--the sooner the better.]
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 12:12 pm
[my comments are in blue]
revel wrote:
How did anyone learn of the "shadowy fleet believed to be smuggling goods for Saddam Hussein?" Where can sources be found to read up on it?
[Long convoys of trucks and other vehicles leaving Iraq for Syria only days before our threatened invasion of Iraq, were seen from US intelligence gathering satellites. One source for this information is "American Soldier," by General Tommy Franks. Exactly what these convoys were carrying was not detectable from the air.

How is this information pertinent to the issues of Iraq today or why we are there?
[It could provide additional evidence of the danger Saddam's regime was to us. Perhaps the Saddam regime was using these convoys to carry conventional weapons/munitions from the hundreds of US discovered weapon/munitions depots, scattered all over Iraq, to Syria to be subsequently sold and distributed to terrorists. But to date, evidence of that has not been found conclusive.

If one were to confirm that WMD components were among the stuff these convoys were carrying, it would tell us where we ought to go next to destroy such stuff: Syria.]


What do those who are accused of drinking on the job say in their defense?
[I don't know. I bet those folks have not yet been questioned. When questioned, I expect they will deny the accusation whether it's true or not.]

[It will be helpful if the answers can be given sans derogatory remarks.]
[Good questions! Smile ]

0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 12:29 pm
Shocked I think I have it Ican .... take a story, any story, throw in some unbased facts ... highlight those home made facts with saay .... the color blue.
Presto change o . .. an article from 'Reuters' no less!
And it lends a taste of truth to your wildest delusion .... NOT
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 01:52 pm
ican711nm wrote:
[my comments are in blue]
revel wrote:
How did anyone learn of the "shadowy fleet believed to be smuggling goods for Saddam Hussein?" Where can sources be found to read up on it?
[Long convoys of trucks and other vehicles leaving Iraq for Syria only days before our threatened invasion of Iraq, were seen from US intelligence gathering satellites. One source for this information is "American Soldier," by General Tommy Franks. Exactly what these convoys were carrying was not detectable from the air.

How is this information pertinent to the issues of Iraq today or why we are there?
[It could provide additional evidence of the danger Saddam's regime was to us. Perhaps the Saddam regime was using these convoys to carry conventional weapons/munitions from the hundreds of US discovered weapon/munitions depots, scattered all over Iraq, to Syria to be subsequently sold and distributed to terrorists. But to date, evidence of that has not been found conclusive.

If one were to confirm that WMD components were among the stuff these convoys were carrying, it would tell us where we ought to go next to destroy such stuff: Syria.]


What do those who are accused of drinking on the job say in their defense?
[I don't know. I bet those folks have not yet been questioned. When questioned, I expect they will deny the accusation whether it's true or not.]

[It will be helpful if the answers can be given sans derogatory remarks.]
[Good questions! Smile ]



Ican, I answered your posts several times and deleted them. I think the answeres can be summed up in two sentences. 1. The article from Reauters is merely a report of what Doss had to say in his senate hearings. 2. The events of the moving convoys has not even been proven to have happened at all much less what was in them so I don't think that constitutes as any evidence.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 02:04 pm
Well, it was said that eight convoys stood out from normal Iraqi military movements. They appeared to have extra security provided by Saddam's most trusted officers, and they were accompanied by what analysts thought to be tankers for decontaminating people and equipment exposed to chemical agents.

However, despite if that was reality or not: once-a-day snapshots from the KH-11 spy satellite can't show where the convoys were going, especially, when you can't re-locate them the other day. :wink:
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 02:08 pm
Revel, I neglected to provide an adequately specific reference for my Syrian convoy comment in my previous post to you: One source for this information is "American Soldier," by General Tommy Franks. Exactly what these convoys were carrying was not detectable from the air. These convoys are discussed in Chapter 12, pages 10, 11, and 19 of Franks's book.


Now for Gelisgestri! [Ican's comments are in blue]
Gelisgesti wrote:
Shocked I think I have it Ican .... take a story, any story, throw in some unbased facts ... highlight those home made facts with saay .... the color blue. Presto change o . .. an article from 'Reuters' no less! And it lends a taste of truth to your wildest delusion .... NOT


This post of yours appears to me to be content free. My explanation of why I think that follows.

Gelisgesti wrote:
Shocked I think I have it Ican ....
What is it, Gelisgestri, that you think you have?
take a story, any story, throw in some unbased facts ...
Can you provide a specific example or two of this being done?
highlight those home made facts with saay .... the color blue.
What facts do you think are "homemade?" Why do you think the color blue was used to "highlight" them instead of merely indicate their source?
Presto change o . .. an article from 'Reuters' no less! And it lends a taste of truth to your wildest delusion ....
Why do you think "an article by 'Reuters' lends a taste of truth?" What specific "taste of truth does it lend?" What specific "wildest delusion" about what?
NOT
What specifically is "NOT", Gelisgestri?


I think you are having great difficulty intelligently refuting what I posted, and consequently are reduced to stupid vaguely articulated allegations like the above that are so content free as to defy rational rebuttal.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 02:59 pm
Ican, from what I have been searching out, I don't think anyone has said anything for sure about the convoys.

General Frank is not an intellegence officer.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 03:20 pm
What I mean is .... saying it does not make it true.
Ya gotta back it up with facts.
Facts is troublesome things .... just ask George.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 03:36 pm
revel wrote:
Ican, from what I have been searching out, I don't think anyone has said anything for sure about the convoys. General Frank is not an intellegence officer.
I agree with your first sentence to the extent that we still haven't any what I consider conclusive evidence about what, other than people, was being carried in those convoys both to and from Syria.

General Franks was Commander in Chief of the United States Central Comand and was the top military comander of our forces that invaded both Afganistan and Iraq. While he was not specifically a military intelligence officer in that roll (he had earlier in his career served as such) he was the commander of all such military intelligence within his command and wrote of his heavy dependence on that intelligence which he described several times in his book as highly reliable.

On page 510, Franks wrote of Baathis leaders and their families fleeing into Syria in "convoys of Mercedes and SUVs". He quoted his intelligence officer: "God knows what they were carrying."

On page 511, Franks's quoted his intelligence officer: "civilian bus loads of foreign fighters are coming in from Syria. Arabs from all over."

On page 519, Frank's wrote of his Marine regimental combat teams encountering "several hundred foreign fighters from Egypt, the Sudan, Syria and Libya who were being trained by the regime in a camp south of Baghdad."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 03:48 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
What I mean is .... saying it does not make it true.
Ya gotta back it up with facts. Facts is troublesome things .... just ask George.
I agree with all three of your sentences. I think your sentences apply to you as well as George. Maybe, even more to you than to George.

So tell me what it is I said that you question and why you question it. I claim that I did "back it up with facts." However, I'm open to the possibility that I did not do an adequate job in backing it up with facts. So help me out here with a couple of specific examples of it, that is, what you perceive to be my inadequate backing up with facts. Maybe I can then supplement what I previously supplied with more facts and maybe I can't. If I can, I will; If I can't, I'll say so.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 03:51 pm
DOH
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 04:01 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
DOH
DOH Question
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 04:31 pm
DOH as in DOH
annoyed grunt ..... I considered 'duh' but it wasn't working for me
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 04:40 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
DOH as in DOH annoyed grunt ..... I considered 'duh' but it wasn't working for me
What's annoying you?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 05:01 pm
Ican, I just don't think Franks is a source to rely on for information about intellegence. We have people for that and they have not confirmed the convoy theory that I am aware of.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 05:08 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Gelisgesti wrote:
DOH as in DOH annoyed grunt ..... I considered 'duh' but it wasn't working for me
What's annoying you?


DOH
:wink:
you have to admit this is better than talking war crap all the time Idea
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 05:51 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
DOH :wink: you have to admit this is better than talking war crap all the time Idea
YCIR :wink:
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 05:53 pm
I don't know, gel, I have been a little bored lately. Not that I want a big horrible thing to happen but it would be nice to have something new and interesting to talk about.

I am glad that the snottiness has died down along with the posters but still does it have to be either one or the other?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 05:57 pm
revel wrote:
Ican, I just don't think Franks is a source to rely on for information about intellegence. We have people for that and they have not confirmed the convoy theory that I am aware of.
That there were convoys between Iraq and Syria both before and after our invasion of Iraq has been confirmed by the CIA. What has not been confirmed is what those convoys were carrying besides people, if anything.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 06:04 pm
Well, that is what I wanted to know. I looked and looked for something about this convoy stuff from news articles and stuff and I couldn't find too much of anything. I am not very good at search engines and they leave me frustrated; so if you would not mind, would provide a source other than General Franks that confirms that there were convoys that went to Syria from Iraq?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 07/12/2025 at 09:06:04