62% of republicans thinks sadam was involved in 9/11

Lash wrote:

OE--The link spoke to previous infractions by Saddam. The things I mentioned after the link are common knowledge. All you had to do was read or watch anything during the last couple of years before the war. Are you calling those facts in to question?

And, a bit later, without me answering, Lash wrote:

OE, it's hard for me to believe you aren't aware of these infractions--but moreso, the subterfuge that took place during the last round of inspections--the UNMOVIC inspectors were bugged, so SH knew where they were going to inspect on any given day--they were held outside of some facilities, while trucks were loaded with materials in the back of the facilities and driven off--the Iraqi scientists were heavily "mindered" during interviews and reportedly threatened against speaking honestly--one Iraqi scientist screaming for help, was dragged away from a UN convoy by Iraqi "police" and never seen alive again...

Surely, you know these things.

The link was "these infractions" and the rest was separated by "but moreso."

Tsk. How about addressing the issue?

I thought I was addressing the issue, while you were avoiding it. You posted a link with NO relevance to the UNMOVIC inspections.

Of course, I can't blame you for this. You're just echoing doctrine here. It's exactly what the government did. Demand a new round of inspections, supposedly to give Saddam one last chance. Then ignore just these latest inspections and any results they rendered, instead coining the phrase "Look what he's been doing for 12 years now!".

One question could certainly be, "Why 12 years?". Go a little further back, and you have the US in bed with Saddam. Or don't, and take the Oil-for-Food scam, and you have US enterprises in bed with Saddam.

But as you were explicitly talking about the UNMOVIC inspections, we should just concentrate on those results, shouldn't we? Now, concerning your common knowledge on what happened from 27 November 2002 until 17 March 2003 (not the "last couple of years", but I'll assume that was just one sloppy remark and didn't relate to the UNMOVIC inspections at all), here is what UNMOVIC said that Iraq did during this last round of inspections:

- grant the UNMOVIC inspectors full and prompt access to sites everywhere in the country
- allow American U-2 and French Mirage surveillance aircraft into Iraqi airspace
- destroy 50 Al Samoud 2 missiles out of the 75 declared deployed under UNMOVIC supervision
- appoint a governmental commission to research the question of documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programs
- hand UNMOVIC a list of persons Iraq said to have participated in the unilateral destruction of biological and chemical weapons in 1991
- encourage interviewees not to request the presence of Iraqi officials (so-called minders) or the taping of the interviews
- provide additional papers on anthrax, VX and missiles
- re-excavate a disposal site, which was deemed too dangerous for full investigation in the past
- unearth eight complete bombs comprising two liquid-filled intact R-400 bombs, six other complete bombs, and more bomb fragments
- propose an investigation using advanced technology to quantify the amount of unilaterally destroyed anthrax dumped at a site
- with respect to VX, suggest a similar method to quantify a VX precursor stated to have been unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991
- adopt a presidential decree prohibiting private individuals and mixed companies from engaging in work related to WMD

All of this can be found on the UNMOVIC website. So Lash, you're invited to find a relevant source providing evidence that "UNMOVIC inspectors were bugged", for example - as you claimed. And by relevant source, I don't mean a Fox News anchor who couldn't hold back his personal opinion that it's about time to go to war, thank you very much.

Just find one link, one relevant link with information that what you claimed had actually happened.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Lash wrote:
You need not respond to me further re this. You're intentionally avoiding the facts as they were presented in the 911 Commission Report. Pretending it's not there, doesn't make it go away.

As the first person in this thread who actually quoted from and linked to the commission report, I can only say that I find your attempt at "revisionist history" as baffling as the precipitous decline in your GPA.

Point to a comment I made that is incorrect. And prove it.

Your comment above: "You're intentionally avoiding the facts as they were presented in the 911 Commission Report. Pretending it's not there, doesn't make it go away." Not only did I cite the commission report, I quoted relevant passages. Far from ignoring the facts or pretending that they weren't there, I cited them specifically. Your comment was incorrect.

Lash wrote:

Go back and read again. I was using a courtroom case to illustrate how honest people would go about determining whether or not SH and OBL were in league. In court, as I understand it, in the absence of hard evidence, the case would have to be decided on a preponderance of the evidence. I do stop short of saying something of this gravity should be decided on such evidence

.
Then what you said wasn't worth saying.

Lash wrote:

Funding the general group...

What evidence is there for this allegation?

Lash wrote:

...running interference with other world leaders...

What evidence is there for this allegation?

Lash wrote:

...allowing them training grounds...

What evidence is there for this allegation? (and don't bother talking about the Ansar al-Islam training base -- no one has ever linked that base to the 9-11 hijackers).

Lash wrote:

Did Saddam personally strategize with Palestinian suicide bombers? But, he paid their families--giving a high inscentive for Palestinians to blow themselves up. He personally and indirectly had a part in the murder of Israelis. Get it, now?

I don't doubt that someone can be personally-but-indirectly involved in something. I just don't think there's any evidence that Saddam Hussein was personally-but-indirectly involved in the 9-11 attacks. And you have not given me any reason to think otherwise.

Lash wrote:

I quoted the 911 Report.

You selectively quoted it, I'll give you that much.

Lash wrote:

At least he tells the truth about it. He has no evidence. You say it's not possible. He is right. I am right. You are wrong. You have made claims that aren't accurate

"Possible" doesn't mean much in this context. It's also possible, after all, that Saddam Hussein was piloting the plane that hit the Pentagon, and that he ejected at the last second and swam across the Atlantic so that he could get back to Baghdad before anyone noticed. That's possible, but beyond the realm of probability. Just like the notion that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the 9-11 attacks.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Now Iraq: What leads you to the assumption that Saddam Hussein was screwing around behind the backs of the UNMOVIC inspectors?

OE--

Do you deny that Saddam engaged in subterfuge with UNMOVIC inspectors?

0 Replies

I asked you for a relevant link, Lash.

0 Replies

All of this can be found on the UNMOVIC website. So Lash, you're invited to find a relevant source providing evidence that "UNMOVIC inspectors were bugged", for example - as you claimed. And by relevant source, I don't mean a Fox News anchor who couldn't hold back his personal opinion that it's about time to go to war, thank you very much.

Just find one link, one relevant link with information that what you claimed had actually happened.[/quote]

#1

Iraqi scientists refuse private U.N. talks
One meets with inspectors in presence of Iraqi monitors
Saturday, January 25, 2003 Posted: 5:36 PM EST (2236 GMT)

The Iraqi man who stopped and entered a U.N. vehicle is dragged away.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Two days before U.N. weapons inspectors are to report their progress to the Security Council, they were unable to persuade three Iraqi scientists to meet with them privately Saturday, Iraqi officials said.

One of the scientists later met with U.N. inspectors in the presence of Iraqi monitors, officials said. No details of that meeting were released.

The inspectors believe Iraqi scientists who know about possible weapons programs aren't candid when questioned beside government monitors.

Iraqi officials said they have encouraged the scientists to meet privately with inspectors but, so far, every scientist has asked that government representatives be present.

In response, a White House spokesman referred to press secretary Ari Fleischer's comments Friday: "President Bush believes that Iraq's refusal to allow Iraqi scientists to submit to private interviews with U.N. inspectors is unacceptable. Under U.N. Resolution 1441, Iraq has an obligation to comply."

Resolution 1441, adopted unanimously by the Security Council in November, calls on Iraq to declare all weapons of mass destruction programs within its borders.

Fleischer added, "This is not a matter for negotiation. This is not a matter for debate. Saddam Hussein has no choice."

On Monday, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency are scheduled to report on the progress of Iraq's compliance with Resolution 1441.

Earlier Saturday, two Iraqi men breached security near the Baghdad hotel that serves as the U.N. monitors' headquarters.

According to the United Nations, one man approached the hotel's security gate with a metal instrument before Iraqi guards wrestled him to the ground. He was found to have three knives, the United Nations said.

About 40 minutes later, another Iraqi man stopped a U.N. vehicle outside the headquarters, pleading "Save me! Save me!" in Arabic, according to the United Nations.

The man, apparently unarmed, forced his way into the driver's seat of the stopped vehicle. As an Iraqi guard struggled to pull him out, a U.N. inspector watched from the passenger seat.

Iraqi officials took both men into custody.

The man who entered the U.N. vehicle complained that he had been 'unfairly treated.'

Last weekend, inspectors interviewed an Iraqi scientist in his home, where they found thousands of pages of documents that could apply to enriching uranium.

Physicist Faleh Hassan Al Basri complained the inspectors mistreated his wife and resorted to "mafia-like" tactics. The inspectors denied the accusations.

The inspectors have asked to take Iraqi scientists and their families out of Iraq for interviews.

Teams from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the IAEA visited several sites Saturday, the agencies said in a joint statement.

They inspected the Sumaykah surface-to-surface missile facility northwest of Baghdad; the al QaQaa military complex southwest of Baghdad; the colleges of veterinary medicine and education at Quadisiyah University, south of Baghdad; the colleges of education and engineering in Tiklit; and a storage site at the North Oil Co. in Mosul.

0 Replies

More on the way.
The link from the Iraqi scientist, begging the UN for help--dragged away.

0 Replies

PBS summary of pertinent events.

INSPECTING IRAQ

As a new United Nations-imposed deadline loomed, Saddam Hussein accepted a new Security Council resolution on Nov. 13, 2002 ordering weapons inspectors back into Iraq with unfettered access to all sites. It was the latest in a series of chess moves between the U.N., the U.S. and the Iraqi government in the continuing fight to rid the Gulf War state of weapons on mass destruction [WMD].

In August 2002, the Iraqi government delivered yet another refusal to allow United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country. A week earlier, Iraq had sent an invitation to the chief U.N. weapons inspector to come to Baghdad to review the 1991-1998 inspections, Iraq rescinded its offer, calling the U.S. belief that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction a lie.

The recent refusal is just one highlight in the troubled history of U.N. attempts to verify that Iraq has destroyed its WMD. The 1991 ceasefire agreement that ended the Gulf War included Iraq's agreement to eliminate its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and missiles with a range over 150 kilometers. Set forth in U.N. security resolution 687, the agreement tied the lifting of U.N. sanctions to the destruction of Iraq's WMD arsenal.

In the early 1990s, inspectors met with relative success. The United Nations Special Commission on Iraq [UNSCOM] reported in 1992 that Iraq's ballistic missiles had been destroyed.

Over the next few years, however, UNSCOM inspectors met with growing resistance from the Iraqi government. UNSCOM reported that Iraq had offered false documents about their arsenal, destroyed fewer weapons than they claimed and hid weapons at "presidential sites" that were off-limits to inspectors.

In 1995, Iraq's former Director of Military Industrial Organizationconfirmed Iraq's development of a biological weapons program.

The Iraqi government was forced to admit it had built biological weapons, acknowledging the pursuit of a biological program that led to the deployment of actual weapons. They admitted producing 183 biological weapons and having the wherewithal to produce many more. The Iraqis then released three reports between 1995 and 1997, claiming that all biological weapons had been destroyed.

U.N. weapons inspectors denied that these reports were complete and were unable to confirm the weapons' destruction. In 1998, the already hindered inspections faced another challenge when Iraq accused Scott Ritter, a former U.S. military intelligence officer and one of the lead U.N. weapons inspectors at the time, of spying for Israel and the U.S.

In October 1998, Iraq officially ended cooperation with UNSCOM, and many inspectors decided to leave. In late December, all remaining U.N. inspectors were called out of the country and hours after the last inspectors left, the U.S. and U.K. launched the bombing campaign "Desert Fox" that targeted many of the sites inspectors had been barred from entering.

In 1999, the U.N. formed the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission [UNMOVIC] to replace UNSCOM in the hope of removing any obstacle created by the spying accusations. Unlike the UNSCOM inspectors, members of UNMOVIC are not on any individual country's payroll.

[...]

0 Replies

There's a little problem here, Lash.

Lash wrote:

one Iraqi scientist screaming for help, was dragged away from a UN convoy by Iraqi "police" and never seen alive again...

whereas CNN wrote:

About 40 minutes later, another Iraqi man stopped a U.N. vehicle outside the headquarters, pleading "Save me! Save me!" in Arabic, according to the United Nations.

The man, apparently unarmed, forced his way into the driver's seat of the stopped vehicle. As an Iraqi guard struggled to pull him out, a U.N. inspector watched from the passenger seat.

See? You claimed it was a scientist, but CNN was just talking about an Iraqi man.

Makes a bit of a difference. Seems you've made up the bit about the scientist.

Quite apart from that, in this case I wouldn't regard CNN as a relevant source.

Just to clarify: If you can find something on the UN website, or on the UNMOVIC website, or in the 9/11 committee report - that would be a relevant link.

But a news agency that is per se just reporting - and in doing so just repeating other people's claims - is not really a relevant source. Neither would the White House be a relevant source. Nor Al Jazeera, or the French President. I think you agree.

(Note: Finding a report from that UN inspector about a scientist being dragged away on the UN website would qualify. For example, the article explicitly says "according to the United Nations". So why didn't you go there to find the information?)

To sum up, your claims were:

- UNMOVIC inspectors were bugged
- Saddam Hussein knew where the UNMOVIC inspectors were going to inspect on any given day
- UNMOVIC inspectors were held outside of some facilities, while trucks were loaded with materials in the back of the facilities and driven off
- Iraqi scientists were heavily "mindered" and threatened against speaking honestly
- one Iraqi scientist screaming for help, was dragged away from a UN convoy by Iraqi "police" and never seen alive again

So feel free to find something that verifies your claims. Or take them back, whatever you prefer.

0 Replies

I see that in the meantime you posted a bit more, yet again (leaving aside the quality of your source) nothing pertaining to the period of the UNMOVIC inspections between November 2002 and March 2003.

Getting a bit desperate, Lash?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

The link from the Iraqi scientist, begging the UN for help--dragged away.

Excuse me, but where does it say in that link that the man was a scientist? Please point it out.

0 Replies

There were two rounds of UN inspections. During the first, the inspectors were interfered with, and Hans Blix told the UN that.

However, in the second round of inspections, commencing November 2002 until Bush kicked the inspectors out in March 2003, the inspectors were NOT interfered with. And Hans Blix told the UN that, as well.

In order to demonstrate that Bush HAD to invade, you have to show that the inspectors were interfered with in some way during the second round. Because if they weren't, then all Bush had to do was to wait for the inspectors to finish their job and let him know if Saddam had WMD's or not without invading.

0 Replies

which is why the war went ahead without allowing the inspectors to finish their job.

As the invasion was for reasons not really connected with WMD, that was just the public justification, it was imperative to pre-empt the inspectors finally saying "iraq has no WMD". Read what Scott Ritter says about this.

Anyway this is ancient history now. I thought everyone knew history. (But some of us were saying it at the time of course)

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

....Anyway this is ancient history now.

But important. If it wasn't important, especially at this key time, when the public is beginning to reexamine the Iraq war and the Bush Administration generally, then Bush supporters would not be on this forum and countless others tirelessly trying to pound into us that Bush HAD to invade.

0 Replies

Why weren't the inspectors there prior to November 2002? WHY were they allowed in in November 2002? Could it possibly have been the 100,000 coalition forces amassed at Saddam's door? This is a BS argument to try to make... the inspectors were repeatedly blocked and kicked out prior to Bush and no matter what you believe, Saddam never cooperated with them.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Why weren't the inspectors there prior to November 2002? WHY were they allowed in in November 2002? Could it possibly have been the 100,000 coalition forces amassed at Saddam's door?

Sure. I don't see how anybody has argued against this. You certainly noticed that even Hans Blix pointed out that the fact that UNMOVIC inspections were going smoothly was, amongst various factors, certainly owned to a strong military presence in Saddam's front yard.

McGentrix wrote:

This is a BS argument to try to make... the inspectors were repeatedly blocked and kicked out prior to Bush and no matter what you believe, Saddam never cooperated with them.

McGentrix, you can feel invited, too. Find a relevant link that shows how Saddam "never cooperated" with the UNMOVIC inspectors. Or in what way he didn't cooperate.

And, by the way, both you and Lash are showing quite the contrary of what you are trying to show. Neither one of you has paid any attention to what the UNMOVIC inspections actually achieved. Neither one of you took Resolution 1441 serious.

Same goes for the UK and US governments. Resolution 1441 was sold as the 'one last chance, or else'. In reality, it was meant to keep up the facade, which would be: the "coalition of the willing" sets an ultimatum, Iraq fails to comply, Iraq get bombed back to stone age. What neither government had expected was that Iraq was complying with the resolution. Certainly, at that point that didn't matter a lot. Everything was in place, so why not go to war after all?

0 Replies

So, you believe that in the 5 months of inspections, the inspectors somehow managed to accomplish more than the inspectors had in the previous 12 years? How is that possible?

I posted an article here somewhere detailing the discovery of an underground bunker system, larger than a football stadium that had not been previously known. The insurgents were using it as a headquarters I believe.

None of the inspections managed to find that, why should we believe for a moment that more of the same do not exist? The WMD's that Saddam has not accounted for HAVE to be somewhere. As C.I. likes to say, we sold them to him, we know what he had. So, where are they?

As I have stated, using the 5 months of inspections as anything more than a charade of good faith on Saddam's part is fruitless as that's all it was. A farce to appear cooperative. He had his chance long before the forces accumulated on his border.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Why weren't the inspectors there prior to November 2002? WHY were they allowed in in November 2002? Could it possibly have been the 100,000 coalition forces amassed at Saddam's door? This is a BS argument to try to make... the inspectors were repeatedly blocked and kicked out prior to Bush and no matter what you believe, Saddam never cooperated with them.

The inspectors were kicked out by Saddam after we started bombing Iraq in Desert Fox 1998.

Saddam allowed them back in because he didnt want to give Bush any excuse to launch an invasion.

Hans Blix reported they were making progress. Its not true to say Saddam never co operated with them.

They were finally withdrawn by the UN because the US made it clear they would not be responsible for their safety once the bombing began (again).

This whole episode is a disgrace, and I'm surprised anyone still tries to defend the indefensible and inexcusable behaviour of USUK.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Find a relevant link that shows how Saddam "never cooperated" with the UNMOVIC inspectors. Or in what way he didn't cooperate.

In what way

0 Replies

Nice find, Brandon, but it doesn't relate to OE's question at all:

the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) was created through the adoption of Security Council resolution 1284 of 17 December 1999. UNMOVIC was to replace the former United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM).

Your quoted timeline ends on August 5, 1998, one year, before UNMOVIC was created.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Nice find, Brandon, but it doesn't relate to OE's question at all:

the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) was created through the adoption of Security Council resolution 1284 of 17 December 1999. UNMOVIC was to replace the former United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM).

Your quoted timeline ends on August 5, 1998, one year, before UNMOVIC was created.

Maybe, but it sure is a heck of a lot of non-cooperation and subterfuge by Saddam Hussein with weapons inspectors. I forget that he suddenly became trustworthy in 1999.

0 Replies

62% of republicans thinks sadam was involved in 9/11

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know