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

old europe wrote:

Discredited by Shadi Abdallah, during interrogations by German authorities, for example:

Quote:
According to Abdallah, Zarqawi's Al Tawhid group focuses on installing an Islamic regime in Jordan and killing Jews. And although Al Tawhid maintained its own training camp near Herat, Afghanistan, Zarqawi competed with bin Laden for trainees and members, Abdallah claimed.

ican711nm wrote:
Do you think this statement implies that Shadi Abdallah thinks that Zarqawi had no ties to al Qaeda and Ansar al Islam?

ican711nm wrote:
To me it is self-evident that extradition of the leadership of the Ansar al-Islam camps is tantamount to removal of those camps unless and until they are re-established by replacement leadership.

That is, undoubtedly, true!

ican711nm wrote:

9/11 Commission in Chapter 2.4 wrote wrote:
Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53

To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. 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

Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.

In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.

You choose to believe Shadi Abdallah who did in fact claim there were no ties between Ansar al Islam and al Qaeda.

I choose to believe The 9/11 Commission Report's claim that Ansar al Islam had ties to al Qaeda.

You choose to believe Shadi Abdallah's statement during interrogations by German authorities, implied Zarqawi was not associated with al Qaeda.

I choose to believe Powell's claim that Zarqawi was a part of the al Qaeda leadership of Ansar al Islam.

I choose to believe Powell's claim that the US requested extradition of Zarqawi by Saddam.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

CORRECTION:
THERE WERE NO PEOPLE IN the neighboring states to Texas WHO WERE PART OF AN ORGANIZATION THAT HAD BOTH declared war on the people of Texas, and HAD murdered 3,000 civilians in Texas. THERE WERE SUCH PEOPLE IN IRAQ. THEY CALL THEMSELVES AL QAEDA.

The US and its allies had no right to attack Iraq.

The US and its allies had the right to attack Iraq to attempt to prevent Iraq from continuing to contain a growing al Qaeda threat to Americans and their allies.

0 Replies

From NYT>
*********

In Jeans or Veils, Iraqi Women Are Split on New Political Power
By ROBERT F. WORTH

Published: April 13, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 12 - One morning last week, three dozen women in Western-style business suits crowded into the office of the man who would soon be Iraq's prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari. Most were members of the newly elected National Assembly, and they had a list of demands.

They wanted women to run at least 10 of Iraq's 30-odd government ministries. They wanted the number of places reserved for women on party slates raised to 40 percent in future elections. Most of all, they wanted a promise of respect for women's rights.

Hours later, another group of women who are assembly members arrived in Dr. Jaafari's office. They wore black abayas, the garments that cover a woman's body from head to foot, and they had another agenda. They wanted to put aspects of Islamic law into Iraq's legal code - including provisions that would allow men as many as four wives and reduce the amount of money allotted to women in inheritances.

As Iraq's first elected parliament in decades prepares to begin its work, the women who make up nearly a third of its members agree on one thing: they want more power. Many say they have been shut out of discussions that led to the new government's formation. In a chamber full of grizzled warlords and clerics, it has not been easy for them.

At the same time, the assembly's women are deeply divided.

On one side are those in the dominant Shiite alliance that was formed under the auspices of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most revered Shiite cleric. Many see their election as an opportunity to bring Iraq's laws into harmony with Shariah, Islam's version of divine law, drawn from the Koran and other religious sources.

This is no accident. The Shiite leadership, in fact, is shrewdly relying on these women to carry much of the fight in the new assembly over where Islam itself, not just its women, should fit in Iraqi society.

That prospect has galvanized many of the assembly's more secular women, including those in the Kurdish alliance that agreed to broker a coalition government with the Shiites. They say Iraq's current laws, which have historically been more liberal than many in the region, must be further liberalized to provide more rights for women, not fewer.

The two camps have been circling each other warily as the new government prepares to take power.

The Shiite women "want to hinder woman, put shackles on her," said Songul Chapuk Omer, an ethnic Turkmen from Kirkuk. "They despise secular women. They consider that she has committed crimes."

For her part, Ms. Omer - who has highlights in her glossy brown hair and favors flared jeans and denim shirts - sometimes refers teasingly to her black-clad Shiite counterparts as "full cover girls."

One early battleground will be the new Iraqi constitution, which the assembly must draft by mid-August. The question of Islam's role in that document was one of the issues that held up the formation of a government for two months after the election.

The secularists have begun inviting Iraq's hundreds of women's groups to take part in drafting the document. A similar grass-roots campaign proved effective last year, after religious Shiites on the Iraqi Governing Council proposed a law that would have extended the power of clerics over matters of family law. Women on the council banded together with secular men, and the proposed law was rejected.

The coming battle may be a tougher one, if only because the conservative cause is now being led in large part by women.

Shatha al-Musawi, for instance, has become one of the Shiite alliance's more visible members. A divorced mother of three, she worked for a decade selling clothes in a market while raising her children in Baghdad as a single mother and putting herself through college.

"To tell you the truth, I am not a feminist," Ms. Musawi said in a recent interview, speaking in English, and dressed in a black abaya. "I don't want to commit the same mistakes Western women have committed. I like that family should be the major principle for women here."

Some liberal assembly members say women who talk like that are just taking orders from the assembly's Shiite clerics.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

I choose to believe Powell's claim that the US requested extradition of Zarqawi by Saddam.

Count me in. I, too, choose to believe Powell's claim that the US requested extradition of Zarqawi by Saddam.

You are, of course, aware, that "extradition of Zarqawi by Saddam" is something completely different from "removal of Ansar al-Islam camps by Saddam".

side note: I'm happy you answered, ican. I feel like we're getting to the core of the whole issue. What do you think?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

McTag wrote:
ican711nm wrote:

CORRECTION:
THERE WERE NO PEOPLE IN the neighboring states to Texas WHO WERE PART OF AN ORGANIZATION THAT HAD BOTH declared war on the people of Texas, and HAD murdered 3,000 civilians in Texas. THERE WERE SUCH PEOPLE IN IRAQ. THEY CALL THEMSELVES AL QAEDA.

The US and its allies had no right to attack Iraq.

The US and its allies had the right to attack Iraq to attempt to prevent Iraq from continuing to contain a growing al Qaeda threat to Americans and their allies.

It took you a long time to dream up that reply, which is arrant nonsense.
The absence of a threat has been well dealt with elsewhere.
Likewise the duplicity of American motives.

0 Replies

from the "Things We Knew Already" department...

Quote:

"The Americans have remained largely in control of intelligence, interior and defence despite the handover of power to Iraqis in June last year," an official said.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=628860

0 Replies

It seems things are going so well now in Iraq, it must be getting near time to attack Iran.

0 Replies

Quote:

Competent Intelligence Urged by Rumsfeld

Ironies of Iraq today:

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is afraid that the new Shiite religious government in Iraq will purge ex-Baathists placed in the army and intelligence services by US ally Iyad Allawi, a long-term CIA asset. Rumsfeld said that competent persons should be retained. This is the same Rumsfeld whose own deputy, Douglas Feith, set up a grossly incompetent cell in the Pentagon to cherry-pick intelligence and produce a false image of Iraq as bristling with weapons of mass destruction and in league with al-Qaeda.

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

Quote:
Competent Intelligence Urged by Rumsfeld

Ironies of Iraq today:

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is afraid that the new Shiite religious government in Iraq will purge ex-Baathists placed in the army and intelligence services by US ally Iyad Allawi, a long-term CIA asset. Rumsfeld said that competent persons should be retained. This is the same Rumsfeld whose own deputy, Douglas Feith, set up a grossly incompetent cell in the Pentagon to cherry-pick intelligence and produce a false image of Iraq as bristling with weapons of mass destruction and in league with al-Qaeda.

interesting articles. I am not surprised at the feelings of the Iraqi women on both sides. Your right about the irony of Rumsfeld too.

(always spell his name wrong; have a habit of spelling like I pronounce words which is usually wrong.)

0 Replies

Quote, "from the "Things We Knew Already" department...
Quote:
"The Americans have remained largely in control of intelligence, interior and defence despite the handover of power to Iraqis in June last year," an official said.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=628860 "

This is what Bush and his gang calls the "New Sovereignty."

0 Replies

When my son was learning to walk, he would fall a lot. I suppose that's normal, but for a while while he was trying to do it on his own, I needed to hold on tight to give him support. I was certainly in control, since he was just a beginner. Pretty soon though he got better and more comfortable with walking, and I was able to release my grip, and eventually let go.

I suppose some people just let their kids just fall over and hit their head on the table ... the kids of those parents probably crawl a lot longer than they need to.

0 Replies

It's America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq (by the Rand Corporation).

(Notable link on that site [bottom right]: "The UN's Role in Nation-Building: From the Congo to Iraq"]

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

When my son was learning to walk, he would fall a lot. I suppose that's normal, but for a while while he was trying to do it on his own, I needed to hold on tight to give him support. I was certainly in control, since he was just a beginner. Pretty soon though he got better and more comfortable with walking, and I was able to release my grip, and eventually let go.

I suppose some people just let their kids just fall over and hit their head on the table ... the kids of those parents probably crawl a lot longer than they need to.

A better analogy I think, would be the one where you have a tiger, or a bull, or a croc (alligator) by the tail.
You dare not let go, for if he can turn on you, you are in big trouble.

(Just for the record, as it's hard to remember who said what, I was never in favour of troops leaving until ALL the mess is cleared up.)

0 Replies

Oh my!

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

When my son was learning to walk, he would fall a lot. I suppose that's normal, but for a while while he was trying to do it on his own, I needed to hold on tight to give him support. I was certainly in control, since he was just a beginner. Pretty soon though he got better and more comfortable with walking, and I was able to release my grip, and eventually let go.

I suppose some people just let their kids just fall over and hit their head on the table ... the kids of those parents probably crawl a lot longer than they need to.

Is this going somewhere?
I got things to do.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

You are, of course, aware, that "extradition of Zarqawi by Saddam" is something completely different from "removal of Ansar al-Islam camps by Saddam".

Yes they are different, but the word completely exaggerates that difference: One is a cause and the other is its effect. The cause is the extradition of Zarqawi. The effect is the removal of Ansar al-Islam camps.

I choose to believe that the following statements in Chapter 2.4 of the 9/11 Commision Report are true:

Quote:

Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53

To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.

The previous quote leads me to choose to believe that the following statement by Powell to the UN 2/5/2003 is also true:

Quote:

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.

If that is true, then extradition of Zarqawi by Saddam would have caused the removal of the leadership of Ansar al-Islam camps by Saddam. The effect of that is the removal of Ansar al-Islam camps by Saddam, until and unless new leadership of the Ansar al-Islam camps were to be re-established. In other words, the effect of removal of the leadership (whoever made up that al Qaeda leadership) of these camps, and prevention of the replacement of that leadership, is the removal of these camps.

old europe wrote:

side note: I'm happy you answered, ican. I feel like we're getting to the core of the whole issue. What do you think?

I'm happy to answer. I too think we are getting to the core of the whole issue.

0 Replies

Grrraar!

Quote:

Bin Laden Bribed Afghan Militias for His Freedom, German Says
By RICHARD BERNSTEIN

Published: April 13, 2005

ERLIN, April 12 - The head of the German intelligence agency, in an interview published here Tuesday, said Osama bin Laden had been able to elude capture after the American invasion of Afghanistan by paying bribes to the Afghan militias delegated the task of finding him.

"The principal mistake was made already in 2001, when one wanted bin Laden to be apprehended by the Afghan militias in Tora Bora," the intelligence official, August Hanning, said in an interview with the German business newspaper Handelsblatt.

"There, bin Laden could buy himself free with a lot of money," Mr. Hanning said.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Hanning confirmed the accuracy of the newspaper's account. She said Afghan forces had told Mr. bin Laden they knew his whereabouts and he would be arrested, but they allowed him safe passage in exchange for a bribe.

In the past, other officials - including Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the former American commander in Afghanistan - have acknowledged that Afghan militias who fought on the side of the invasion coalition had allowed leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban to get away. But Mr. Hanning is the top intelligence official to say Mr. bin Laden was among them.

Military experts have also raised questions about the practice of relying on Afghan militias in the hunt for senior Qaeda and Taliban figures, saying that once the Taliban fell the militias became more interested in gaining power in Afghanistan's many tribal regions than in fulfilling American political goals.

During the American presidential campaign, the Democratic candidate, John Kerry, frequently criticized the Bush administration for what he called outsourcing the hunt for Mr. bin Laden. The search reached its most active phase after the fall of the Taliban, when American and Afghan troops attacked Qaeda hide-outs in the Tora Bora Mountains on the border with Pakistan.

Defenders of the administration have maintained that using local troops to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban was aimed both at minimizing American casualties and preventing the conflict from becoming an "American war."

In his interview, Mr. Hanning was critical of that strategy as it applied to the goal of capturing or killing Mr. bin Laden, who, he said, was able to insulate himself inside a protective network of supporters after the early efforts to arrest or kill him failed.

"Since then, he has been able to create his own infrastructure in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area and has won many friends from the tribal groups there," Mr. Hanning said.

So,

We didn't go after Bin Laden ourselves to Minimize American Casualties, and avoid an American war?

????

Cycloprarararafgghgh!!!!

0 Replies

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8173125

Pentagon's War Spending Hard to Track - Watchdog
Wed Apr 13, 2005 03:47 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Defense Department is unable to track how it spent tens of millions of dollars in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the U.S. war on terrorism, Congress's top investigator said on Wednesday.

The department "doesn't have a system to be able to determine with any degree of reliability and specificity how we spent" tens of millions in war-related emergency funds set aside by Congress, Comptroller General David Walker told a Senate Armed Services subcommittee.

Walker heads the Government Accountability Office, Congress's nonpartisan audit and investigative arm. He disclosed the accounting gap as part of a broader indictment of Pentagon business practices.

Congress approved $25 billion in extra defense spending for fiscal 2005, which ends on Sept. 30. Lawmakers were moving to approve $81 billion more this week outside the normal budget process, including about $75 billion for war-related Defense Department operations.

While there was no doubt that appropriated funds were spent, "trying to figure out what they were spent on is like pulling teeth," Walker said, referring to an accounting effort he said was under way for Congress.

The Defense Department had no immediate comment.

Overall, Walker said the Defense Department, which is seeking $419.3 billion for its fiscal 2006 budget, was wasting billions of dollars a year because of ineffective management of its business operations.

Although Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his top aides have shown a commitment to business management transformation, "little tangible evidence of actual improvement has been seen in DoD's business operations to date," he testified.

Walker argued that the Defense Department needed to appoint a chief manager, who would in effect become the third-ranking official at the Pentagon after the defense secretary and the deputy defense secretary.

Such a position should be filled by presidential appointment and confirmed by the Senate for a set term of seven years, he said.

But the current Pentagon official with responsibility for acquisition, technology and logistics, Michael Wynne, dismissed the idea as he said it would add "layers and players to an already burdened organization."

"That is the last thing we need," Wynne, an under secretary of defense, told the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management.

"Another layer of management would only foster more delays than ever with new relationships and priorities, potentially hurting our product delivery to the warfighter.

"We are bringing the department well forward in financial transparency, using standards and delegated accountability," he said.

0 Replies

I guess we can ignore what we've been told about the four to five billion being spent in Iraq every month. Nobody seems to know how it's being spent, and there's no accountability. Don't you just love the way these neocons are spending our tax dollars?

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
[The US and its allies had the right to attack Iraq to attempt to prevent Iraq from continuing to contain a growing al Qaeda threat to Americans and their allies.

It took you a long time to dream up that reply, which is arrant nonsense.
The absence of a threat has been well dealt with elsewhere.
Likewise the duplicity of American motives.

False again, McTag!

I've been saying the samething here in a varietyof ways over many many months.

You choose to believe the al Qaeda in Iraq were not a growing threat to Americans and their allies.

I choose to believe the al Qaeda in Iraq were a growing threat to Americans and their allies.

I have explained many times why I choose to believe the al Qaeda in Iraq were a growing threat.

You have not explained why you choose to believe the al Qaeda in Iraq were not a growing threat. Rather, you proclaim there were no al Qaeda in Iraq prior to our invasion of Iraq. These repeated proclamations of yours conflict with both Chapter 2.4 of the 9/11 Commission 9/20/2004 Report, and that section of Powell's 2/5/2003 speech to the UN dealing with a "sinister nexus." These two sources of mine are mutually supporting of what I choose to believe. Your evidence so far consists of mere hearsay reported by various alleged news sources that you choose to believe.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know