9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 04:11 pm
ican comments
parados wrote:
Quote:
However, we know that al-Qaeda in Iraq has been able to deal out significant damage to Iraq's infrastructure. If they are not exterminated first, once relieved of having to defend themselves in Iraq against us, the al-Qaeda in America and the al-Qaeda in Iraq can join up in America, and be just as able to deal out significant damage to America's infrastructure. Since America possesses so much more infrastructure than did Iraq, it should be easy pickens for al-Qaeda in America.

No, we dont' know that al-Qaeda has been able to deal significant damage to Iraq's infrastructure. We know that damage has been done. You have no way to quantify what if any of it was the result of al-Qaeda. Most of it has been the result of sectarian violence having nothing to do with al-Qaeda.

Yes, we do know that al-Qaeda has been able to deal significant damage to Iraq's infrastructure. About a week or more ago, I posted much evidence to support my claim that al-Qaeda in Iraq is responsible for both fomenting mass murder in Iraq and itself committing suicidal mass murder in Iraq. These suicidal mass murders of which I speak have destroyed a great deal of infrastructure in Iraq.

Actually, the US wouldn't be easy "pickens". We have a security structure in place unlike Iraq which had their security structure removed by the US and then not replaced. Most of the violence has been a result of lack of security forces and support from the populace as they conduct what is essentially a civil war.

Yes, America would be "easy pickens." US police forces are capable of arresting those who have perpetrated crimes and not died in the process. Generally, prevention of crime in the US is achieved by incarcerating perpetrators after they commit their crimes. Also crime in the US is limited by threatening to incarcerate would be perpetrators.

The problem for the America is that suicidal terrorists cannot be discouraged from committing their mass murders by threatening to put 'em in jail, if they do commit suicidal mass murder. They think their expected reward far exceeds the minor penalty of whatever we choose to do with their dead bodies.

So how can we stop them? We could:

(1) detect them planning their suicidal mass murders;
(2) identify them before they enter the country;
(3) prevent them from entering our country;
(4) search the abodes of those who are in our country;
(5) incarcerate those in our country as prisoners of war before they commit suicidal mass murder.

But all five require significant changes in our privacy, immigration, border control, search and seizure, and prosecution laws. Such changes are not likely to occur before a huge amount of murder and destruction has occured. So like I said: America would be "easy pickens."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 04:16 pm
The problem with your position is that there are a large number of Iraqis who provide the insurgents/terrorists with money, housing, support, and most importantly, secrecy. There is no comparable portion of our society which would give shelter to Al Qaeda, none.

Remember that 'tips' are the most useful ways we have of stopping terrorism; the British plot to blow up airliners? An anonymous tip broke it up. The radicals down in Florida? Anonymous tip. The Canadian fiasco? Once again, anonymous tips. It is ridiculous to think that Al Qaeda would enjoy anything close to the freedom of operation they have in Iraq, in the US, at all.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 04:51 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The problem with your position is that there are a large number of Iraqis who provide the insurgents/terrorists with money, housing, support, and most importantly, secrecy. There is no comparable portion of our society which would give shelter to Al Qaeda, none.

Remember that 'tips' are the most useful ways we have of stopping terrorism; the British plot to blow up airliners? An anonymous tip broke it up. The radicals down in Florida? Anonymous tip. The Canadian fiasco? Once again, anonymous tips. It is ridiculous to think that Al Qaeda would enjoy anything close to the freedom of operation they have in Iraq, in the US, at all.

Cycloptichorn

You are right: "It is ridiculous to think that Al Qaeda would enjoy anything close to the freedom of operation they have in Iraq, in the US, at all."

Al-Qaeda would enjoy far greater freedom of operation in the US than they have in Iraq. We shoot 'em on sight in Iraq.

You claim:"'tips' are the most useful ways we have of stopping terrorism." Yes, tips worked so well in stopping the two WTC terrorist attacks. Didn't they? Rolling Eyes Gad, that is probably the dumbest thing you have claimed here on able2know.

You claim: "that there are a large number of Iraqis who provide the insurgents/terrorists with money, housing, support, and most importantly, secrecy. There is no comparable portion of our society which would give shelter to Al Qaeda, none."

Wow! That is almost as dumb!

The "money, housing, support, and most importantly, secrecy" that can be provided in America far exceeds that which can be provided in Iraq. We have banks, hardware stores, general aviation airplanes, campers, trucks, trains, boats, and automobiles in America that have not yet been destroyed. We have God knows how many Muslim and other al-Qaeda sympathizers in America who we don't shoot on sight and who are much more free and are quite willing to provide "money, housing, support, and most importantly, secrecy" to al-Qaeda. They already have, are, and will continue to provide "money, housing, support, and most importantly, secrecy" to increasing numbers of al-Qaeda in America.

When they are willing to turn 'em (currently resident and future resident al-Qaeda) loose here, there will literally be hell to pay.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 04:58 pm
Ridiculous post, claiming that American muslims will act as cover for Al Qaeda to bomb America. You don't have a lick of evidence of that.

But, it wasn't really necessary to get that far into your post to decide that you're full of sh*t - here:

Quote:
Al Qaeda would enjoy far greater freedom of operation in the US than they have in Iraq. We shoot 'em on sight in Iraq.


Okay, chief, you turn a corner and see this guy:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/Iraqi_man_on_Baghdad_street.jpg/300px-Iraqi_man_on_Baghdad_street.jpg

Do you shoot him or not? How do you know if he is a terrorist, or not? You said 'on sight.' So what's it going to be? You can't say. Why?

Because terrorists look like everyone else ya maroon. But in Iraq, they have people to hide and protect them, who will support their blowing u further stuff. There is zero evidence that any part of America, including the Muslim community here (who also enjoys not being blown up) will provide them with anything even close to the level of support they have in Iraq.

Laughable, really, that one could make such a statement. Laughing

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 06:19 pm
ican coments
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ridiculous post, claiming that American muslims will act as cover for Al Qaeda to bomb America. You don't have a lick of evidence of that.

As I said in my previous post: We have God knows how many (i.e., we don't know how many) Muslim and other al-Qaeda sympathizers in America who we don't shoot on sight, who are much more free, and are quite willing to provide "money, housing, support, and most importantly, secrecy" to al-Qaeda.

Domestic Al-Qaeda sympathizers as well as actual advocates have multiple times identified themselves as such on camera (ABC, CBS, NBC ... TV News) in their own mosques located in America. A few domestic funders of overseas al-Qaeda have been caught, indicted and convicted.


...

Quote:
Al Qaeda would enjoy far greater freedom of operation in the US than they have in Iraq. We shoot 'em on sight in Iraq.


Okay, chief, you turn a corner and see this guy:
...
Do you shoot him or not? How do you know if he is a terrorist, or not? You said 'on sight.' So what's it going to be? You can't say. Why?

That too is dumber than dumb. In Iraq the fact is US military and Iraq military shoot suspect al-Qaeda on sight. What I would do if in Iraq in such an event is irrelevant. What I would do in America in such an event is irrelevant. What is relevant is that America is easy pickens because al-Qaeda has much less to fear in America than it has to fear in Iraq.

...
There is zero evidence that any part of America, including the Muslim community here (who also enjoys not being blown up) will provide them with anything even close to the level of support they have in Iraq.

Your claims and denials are malarkey! (see above)
...
Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 08:15 pm
ican711nm's translation:
Quote:


Your claims and denials are malarkey! (see above)

...

But I don't actually have any facts to dispute what you are saying.


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2007 07:13 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm's translation:
Quote:


Your claims and denials are malarkey! (see above)

...

But I don't actually have any facts to dispute what you are saying.


Cycloptichorn


Smile
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2007 07:26 am
Ican wrote:
Quote:
You claim:"'tips' are the most useful ways we have of stopping terrorism." Yes, tips worked so well in stopping the two WTC terrorist attacks. Didn't they? Gad, that is probably the dumbest thing you have claimed here on able2know.


Might of worked better had the Bush administration had bothered to follow through on any of them.

President's Daily Brief entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S."

Quote:

On December 4, 1998, for example, the Clinton administration received a President's Daily Brief entitled "Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks." Here's how the Clinton administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:

The same day, [Counterterrorism Czar Richard] Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports. [pg. 128-30]

On August 6, 2001, the Bush administration received a President's Daily Brief entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S." Here's how the Bush administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:

[President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so.[p. 260]

We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in the PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period. [p. 262]

Rice acknowledged that the 9/11 Commission report is the authoratative source on this debate: "I think this is not a very fruitful discussion. We've been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said."


[Facts confirmed with links at the source. I left out the parts about Clinton comparisons because to me it is just so unimportant one way or another in this particular debate and it takes away the main point.]

The main point being is that tips were made and tips were ignored, people died.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2007 07:41 am
In the here and now about the Iraqi debate in washington, (feels good to finally be able to say that)

Fred Hiatt and Iraq -- Together Forever

Friday March 23, 2007 07:37 EST
Fred Hiatt and Iraq -- Together Forever
(updated below - updated again)

Quote:
Last Sunday, The Washington Post's Fred Hiatt wrote an Editorial setting forth all of the lessons he claims he has learned as a result of cheering on this disaster of a war in Iraq. Hiatt intoned: "looking back also is essential, particularly for those of us who supported the war." Here are three of the "lessons" he says he learned (numbers added):

The question that Gen. David H. Petraeus posed (as recounted in Rick Atkinson's history, "In the Company of Soldiers") as he led the troops of his 101st Airborne Division from Kuwait across the Iraq border, "[1] Tell me how this ends?" -- that question must be the first to be asked, not the last. The answer won't always be knowable. But [2] the discussion must never lose sight of the inevitable horrors of war. [3] It must not be left to the generals in the field.

War cheerleader Hiatt lectures us: "the discussion must never lose sight of the inevitable horrors of war."

But that was Sunday -- six whole days ago. Today, Hiatt has an Editorial, revealingly headlined "Retreat and Butter," emphatically criticizing House Democrats for what he calls their "retreat" bill, requiring troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by August, 2008 -- almost one-and-a-half years away. By that time, the U.S. will have occupied Iraq for more than five years. But that is not enough for Hiatt:

Representatives who support the bill -- for whatever reason -- will be voting to require that all U.S. combat troops leave Iraq by August 2008, regardless of what happens during the next 17 months or whether U.S. commanders believe a pullout at that moment protects or endangers U.S. national security, not to mention the thousands of American trainers and Special Forces troops who would remain behind. . . .

As it is, House Democrats are pressing a bill that has the endorsement of MoveOn.org but excludes the judgment of the U.S. commanders who would have to execute the retreat the bill mandates.

And what is Hiatt's alternative? This: "The Senate's version of the supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan contains nonbinding benchmarks and a withdrawal date that is a goal."

So Hiatt wants to leave the question of whether we ever leave Iraq to the full and unfettered discretion of the commanders (exactly what he said on Sunday should never be done) and, in reality, to the unlimited discretion of the President. The Senate should politely suggest "goals" but leave it to the Leader to Decide when we leave, which means we never do. That has worked really well so far. Clearly, Hiatt has learned so very many lessons.

Note also the hallmark of the Fred Hiatt/Beltway Media mind: namely, unbridled scorn for the views of the lowly Americans masses. Relying upon the method perfected by Rush Limbaugh, Hiatt complains that "House Democrats are pressing a bill that has the endorsement of MoveOn.org but excludes the judgment of the U.S. commanders." Thus, Hiatt implies with his slimiest innuendo, Democrats are opting for their wild-eyed fringe McGovernite pro-"retreat" base, which stands in stark contrast to the serious, pro-American military commanders who should be obeyed instead.

Why shouldn't Democrats in Congress listen to the views of Moveon.Org members? MoveOn is a grass-roots group driven by ordinary American citizens. The Fred Hiatts of our country sit by quietly when legislation in Congress, as it is every day, is drafted and enacted at the direction of K Street lobbyists and sprawling associations of all sorts of corporate interests. That is all business as usual, things as they should be, our country being quietly moved by the superior, buttoned-down elite. But if Congress once listens to the opinions of actual citizens -- those filthy bloggers and their readers, or grass-roots groups like MoveOn -- that, for Hiatt, is when democracy is imperiled.

More to the point, MoveOn and its members -- unlike Hiatt and his oh-so-smart-and-serious expert-friends at The Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute -- were right about the war. Unlike Hiatt and his friends, MoveOn members don't have to issue confessionals about "Lessons Learned" because they foresaw exactly the horrors that would be unleashed by invading Iraq. So between the Americans who comprise the membership of MoveOn and Fred Hiatt and his friends, it is easy to see who is worth listening to and who is not.

Most revealing of all is Hiatt's decree in his "Lessons" Editorial that "the discussion [over war] must never lose sight of the inevitable horrors of war." But that is something which serious people worth listening to always understood. It was Hiatt and his brilliant- serious- national- security- scholar/experts who saw war -- and still see war -- as nothing more than an abstract policy option, sitting neutrally aside all of the others, for the U.S. to pursue whenever it seems vaguely beneficial.

People who cheer on a war and then admit afterwards that they "los[t] sight of the inevitable horrors of war" are, in essence, confessing to a profound lack of judgment and a warped moral sense. And worse still, Hiatt's words about finally appreciating the "inevitable horrors of war" are completely empty. After all, he still viciously opposes even the most minimal efforts to bring an end to the disastrous and tragic war he helped to spawn, and in spouting such opposition, does not even pay lip service to the ongoing horrors -- foreseeable and unforeseeable -- which his war will continue to create.

Even now for Hiatt, five years of the war he cheered on is not enough. The one option we must avoid at all costs is any limitation whatsoever on the President's power to keep the troops there forever. Polite suggestions to the Leader are fine, as long as they are completely optional. But what is "irresponsible," unserious and to be avoided at all costs is anything that limits in any way Bush's ability to prolong the war for as long as he wants.

Hiatt demands that we stay in Iraq indefinitely even though he has no idea how the war will ever end -- the consideration which, in his "Lessons Learned" Editorial, he said was the "question [which] must be the first to be asked, not the last." But Hiatt and his friends are completely uninterested in the question of how the war will end. Just like Bush, they do not want the war to end ever, because the end of the war will bring about the day they fear most -- the day when it must be acknowledged that the war they brought us was a profound failure and a cataclysmic mistake.

We are staying in Iraq because our elite opinion-makers who bear great responsibility for the war have -- just like their President -- learned absolutely nothing, their self-serving claims to the contrary notwithstanding. And because they learned nothing, we are continuing now to do exactly the same thing in Iraq that we have been doing since March, 2003.

Quite revealingly, in March, 2003, the Fred Hiatts of the world were snidely mocking the "MoveOn.org crowd" for opposing the war. And in March, 2007, they are doing exactly the same thing. Among Beltway opinion-makers, absolutely nothing has changed. The U.S. continues to have little hope of reversing the disasters which have plagued our country for the last six years because the same people, driven by the same intellectual and moral sicknesses, continue to shape our discourse and drive our decisions.

UPDATE: Will it ever happen that people will see enough things like this and finally realize what the "liberal media" really is and what it is not?

UPDATE II: Greg Sargent has the video and transcript of Rep. David Obey's superb response today on the House floor to Fred Hiatt's Editorial. It is worth watching to see the passion in Obey's speech -- Washington needs a lot more of that -- but here is just an excerpt:

Quote:
Let me submit to you the problem we have today is not that we didn't listen enough to people like The Washington Post. It's that we listened too much. They endorsed going to war in the first place. They helped drive the drumbeat that drove almost two-thirds of the people in this chamber to vote for that misbegotten, stupid, ill-advised war that has destroyed our influence over a third of the world. So I make no apology if the moral sensibilities of some people on this floor, or the editorial writers of The Washington Post, are offended because they don't like the specific language contained in our benchmarks or in our timelines.

What matters in the end is not what the specific language is. What matters is whether or not we produce a product today that puts pressure on this Administration and sends a message to Iraq, to the Iraqi politicians that we're going to end the permanent long-term dead end babysitting service. That's what we're trying to do. And if The Washington Post is offended about the way we do it, that's just too bad.


"The problem we have today is not that we didn't listen enough to people like The Washington Post. It's that we listened too much." Precisely. And it is very refreshing to see Beltway politicians not only realizing that, but saying it very clearly.

There is probably no better favor Congressional Democrats could do for themselves -- and for the country -- than to cease paying attention to the mewling, neoconservative-accommodating, principle-free "advice" that constantly spews forth from the likes of Fred Hiatt. That is the advice which, as much as anything else, has led us into the predicament we find ourselves in as a country.

-- Glenn Greenwald


(Underlines, colors and quote box added by me.)
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2007 09:29 am
ican711nm wrote:
ican comments
parados wrote:
Quote:
However, we know that al-Qaeda in Iraq has been able to deal out significant damage to Iraq's infrastructure. If they are not exterminated first, once relieved of having to defend themselves in Iraq against us, the al-Qaeda in America and the al-Qaeda in Iraq can join up in America, and be just as able to deal out significant damage to America's infrastructure. Since America possesses so much more infrastructure than did Iraq, it should be easy pickens for al-Qaeda in America.

No, we dont' know that al-Qaeda has been able to deal significant damage to Iraq's infrastructure. We know that damage has been done. You have no way to quantify what if any of it was the result of al-Qaeda. Most of it has been the result of sectarian violence having nothing to do with al-Qaeda.

Yes, we do know that al-Qaeda has been able to deal significant damage to Iraq's infrastructure. About a week or more ago, I posted much evidence to support my claim that al-Qaeda in Iraq is responsible for both fomenting mass murder in Iraq and itself committing suicidal mass murder in Iraq. These suicidal mass murders of which I speak have destroyed a great deal of infrastructure in Iraq.
These suicidal mass murders have destroyed infrastructure? What infrastructure? Surely you can cite a source that reveals what this infrastructure was. A hole in the road isn't a great deal of infrastructure. An attack on the electricity system would be. But I don't see any suicidal attacks on the power plants. Perhaps you can tell me where to find this evidence.
Quote:

Actually, the US wouldn't be easy "pickens". We have a security structure in place unlike Iraq which had their security structure removed by the US and then not replaced. Most of the violence has been a result of lack of security forces and support from the populace as they conduct what is essentially a civil war.

Yes, America would be "easy pickens." US police forces are capable of arresting those who have perpetrated crimes and not died in the process. Generally, prevention of crime in the US is achieved by incarcerating perpetrators after they commit their crimes. Also crime in the US is limited by threatening to incarcerate would be perpetrators.

The problem for the America is that suicidal terrorists cannot be discouraged from committing their mass murders by threatening to put 'em in jail, if they do commit suicidal mass murder. They think their expected reward far exceeds the minor penalty of whatever we choose to do with their dead bodies.

So how can we stop them? We could:

(1) detect them planning their suicidal mass murders;
(2) identify them before they enter the country;
(3) prevent them from entering our country;
(4) search the abodes of those who are in our country;
(5) incarcerate those in our country as prisoners of war before they commit suicidal mass murder.

But all five require significant changes in our privacy, immigration, border control, search and seizure, and prosecution laws. Such changes are not likely to occur before a huge amount of murder and destruction has occured. So like I said: America would be "easy pickens."

Since our police can in no way prevent terrorist acts on US soil does that mean al-Qaeda has no desire to attack us here? I doubt their first choice would be to attack our military overseas. If it is then they really aren't terrorists or committing terrorism against the US, are they?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2007 05:52 pm
revel wrote:

...
Ican wrote:
Quote:
You claim:"'tips' are the most useful ways we have of stopping terrorism." Yes, tips worked so well in stopping the two WTC terrorist attacks. Didn't they? Gad, that is probably the dumbest thing you have claimed here on able2know.

...

Might of worked better had the Bush [and Clinton] administration[s] had bothered to follow through on any of them.

The main point being is that tips were made and tips were ignored, people died.

Deciding which tips are valid--and should not be ignored--and which ones are invalid--and should be ignored--is very difficult. Unfortunately, a large percentage of tips are invalid. To tell the difference requires close monitoring of communications between badguys. The trouble is one cannot tell the difference between badguys and non-badguys without monitoring all communications. That is currently against the law in America. Currently, one must obtain sufficient evidence to convince a judge that the person (or persons) one desires to monitor is a suspected bad guy, before one can monitor him to determine whether or not he is actually a badguy.

That's one of the reasons I gave for claiming that al-Qaeda badguys are currently more secure in America than than they are in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq and Afghanistan, al-Qaeda badguys are shot on sight. That is, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US and Iraq militaries, and the Coalition and Afghanistan militaries shoot first and ask questions later. Yes, as in any war, that results in both badguys and goodguys in the same vicinity as the badguys being shot first and asked questions later.

Here in America it is against the law to shoot first and ask questions later. In the interest of the survival of our liberty, suspending that law should be done only as a last resort. So the better place to stop al-Qaeda badguys from suicidal mass murdering non-murderers is in Iraq and Afghanistan before more of them come to America.

So let's get on with it in Iraq and Afghanistan as long as it takes, and stop fussin'.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2007 07:11 pm
parados wrote:

...
These suicidal mass murders have destroyed infrastructure? What infrastructure? Surely you can cite a source that reveals what this infrastructure was. A hole in the road isn't a great deal of infrastructure. An attack on the electricity system would be. But I don't see any suicidal attacks on the power plants. Perhaps you can tell me where to find this evidence.
...
Since our police can in no way prevent terrorist acts on US soil does that mean al-Qaeda has no desire to attack us here? I doubt their first choice would be to attack our military overseas. If it is then they really aren't terrorists or committing terrorism against the US, are they?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2007 07:30 pm
One of many examples of al-Qaeda attacks on Iraq infrastructure
Iraq's oil network hit after al-Qaeda call
December 20, 2004

Iraq's oil infrastructure suffered five attacks in 24 hours after a voice identified as al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden ordered followers to sabotage the West's key supplies.

Bombers also targeted a US patrol in Mosul, killing one Iraqi and wounding eight, just 24 hours after four Turkish security guards were mown down in an ambush in the main northern city.

There were two blasts on pipelines on Saturday and three late on Friday, all of them in restive Sunni Arab areas around the capital or in north-central Iraq, officials said.

The saboteurs struck pipelines serving both Iraq's northern and southern oil fields and halted the flow of crude to Baghdad's Daura refinery, interrupting the production of refined fuel, the oil ministry said.

A pipeline carrying refined products from Iraq's main northern refinery at Baiji to storage reservoirs in the capital was also hit, further reducing supplies, officials said.

One of Friday evening's attacks was claimed by an Islamic militant group loyal to bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda Organisation of Mesopotamia, in a leaflet distributed in Baiji.

The leaflet said the sabotage had been carried out in response to an internet message on Thursday from the al-Qaeda "supreme commander", in which he ordered followers to strike oil facilities in both Iraq and the Gulf.

Oil ministry spokesman Jihad Assem condemned the upsurge in "terrorist acts" that he said were depriving Iraqis of essential fuel and the country of desperately needed export revenues.

"These terrorist acts, which coincide with the threats from bin Laden, are aimed at depriving ordinary people of fuel so that the crisis worsens," he charged.

"They are costing Iraqis hundreds of millions of dollars."

In Mosul, one Iraqi was killed and eight wounded by a bomb targeting a US patrol, medics and a witness said. A US spokesman said the blast hit a school bus.

The attack came just a day after four Turkish security guards were ambushed in the city's Yarmuk neighbourhood.

About 70 Turkish nationals, mainly truck drivers, have been killed in Iraq since last year's US-led invasion, most of them in road attacks and several at the hands of hostage-takers.

In Mosul, US Lieutenant-Colonel Paul Hastings, spokesman for Task Force Olympia, said troops had recovered "three male bodies evidently killed earlier during the day in a rebel attack".

"All three had bullet wounds. The fourth, reported by news agencies, was not recovered," he said.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2007 08:08 pm
al-Qaeda in America
Al Qaeda in America: The Enemy Within
Author: Daniel Klaidman, Mark Hosenball, Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas
Publication: Newsweek
Date: June 23, 2003
URL: http://www.msnbc.com/news/926691.asp?0cv=KA01
Introduction: How the terrorist organization is recruiting and planning strikes here in the U.S.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed looked more like a loser in a T shirt than a modern-day Mephistopheles. But "KSM" as he is always referred to in FBI documents, held the key to unlock the biggest mystery of the war on terror: is Al Qaeda operating inside America?

The answer, according to KSM'sconfessions and the intense U.S. investigation that followed, is yes. It is not known where the authorities took KSM after he was captured, looking paunchy and pouty, in a 3 a.m. raid in Pakistan on March 1. As Al Qaeda's director of global operations, KSM was by far the most valuable prize yet captured by American intelligence and its various allies in the post-9-11 manhunt. He probably now resides in an exceedingly spartan jail cell in some friendly Arab country, perhaps Jordan.

He has probably not been tortured, at least in the traditional sense. Interrogation methods, usually involving sleep deprivation, have become much more refined. He probably did not tell all he knew. Qaeda chieftains are schooled in resisting interrogation, and informed sources said that at first KSM offered up nothing but evasions and disinformation. But confronted by the contents of his computer and his cell-phone records, he began speaking more truthfully. According to intelligence documents obtained by NEWSWEEK, many of the names, places and plots he revealed have checked out. After 9-11, Osama bin Laden's terror network "was clearly here" a top U.S. law- enforcement official told NEWSWEEK. "It was organized, it was being directed by the leaders of Al Qaeda" Though rumors of sleeper cells have floated about for months, it is a startling revelation that Al Qaeda's chief of operations was directly running operatives inside the United States. Thanks to some real breakthroughs by the Feds, the Qaeda plots do not appear to have made it past the planning stage. The inside story of the war at home on Al Qaeda, reconstructed by NEWSWEEK reporters from intelligence documents and interviews with top officials, has been marked by good luck and good work. Still, no one in the intelligence community is declaring victory.

RECRUITING TECHNIQUES

KSM revealed an overhaul of Al Qaeda's approach to penetrating America. The 9-11 hijackers were all foreign nationals--mostly Saudis, led by an Egyptian--who infiltrated the United States by obtaining student or tourist visas. To foil the heightened security after 9-11, Al Qaeda began to rely on operatives who would be harder to detect. They recruited U.S. citizens or people with legitimate Western passports who could move freely in the United States. They used women and family members as "support personnel." And they made an effort to find African- American Muslims who would be sympathetic to Islamic extremism. Using "mosques, prisons and universities throughout the United States," according to the documents, KSM reached deep into the heartland, lining up agents in Baltimore, Columbus, Ohio, and Peoria, Ill. The Feds have uncovered at least one KSM-run cell that could have done grave damage to the United States.

It is somewhat reassuring that, so far, at least, the FBI has not uncovered any plots to use chemical or biological or nuclear weapons against America. Al Qaeda chiefs, especially bin Laden's ghoulish No. 2, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, have shown a strong interest in the past in obtaining weapons of mass destruction. The terror network allegedly dispatched a Brooklyn-born Hispanic Catholic who converted to Islam, Jose Padilla, to scout out the possibility of building a radiological device, a so-called dirty bomb (arrested at Chicago's O'Hare airport in early 2002, he is being held as an "enemy combatant" in a military jail). But none of the operatives caught up in the web spun by KSM appears to have been working on a weapon that could wipe out an entire city.

On the other hand, the plotters were apparently scheming to take down the Brooklyn Bridge, destroy an airliner, derail a train and blow up a whole series of gas stations. Fortunately, American law enforcement has been able to nip these plots in the bud. The methods used by the G-men to crack the Qaeda cells, while effective and understandable under the circumstances, raise uncomfortable questions about legal means and ends.

Many of the Qaeda operatives have not been arrested or charged with a crime. The Bush Justice Department is reluctant to throw terror suspects into the American criminal-justice system, where they can avail themselves of lawyers and use their rights to tie prosecutors into knots (the alleged "20th hijacker" of the 9-11 plots, Zacarias Moussaoui, has succeeded in bringing his criminal prosecution to a grinding halt). Rather, the Justice Department has essentially been working in the shadows. FBI agents confronted some of the suspects directly and convinced them that it would be in their interest to work with the government without getting their own lawyers. Attorney General John Ashcroft recently told Congress that the Justice Department had obtained criminal plea agreements" many under seal"--with more than 15 individuals who are cooperating with the government, leading to "critical intelligence" about Qaeda safe houses and recruiting tactics. But others" including some of those identified by KSM's may have been "turned" by the Feds. "You can't say they've been arrested" said one official. Some of the terror plotters confronted by the bureau have been secretly squirreled away in hotel rooms, living around the clock under FBI surveillance and working with the authorities to identify other Qaeda plots inside the country.

PROTECTING THE BIG PLOTS?

The cooperating witnesses have "given us a few leads" about "where to look," said one official, but, as yet, no major finds. That may be because Al Qaeda, like all successful terrorist organizations, is carefully "compartmented." Different cells are kept apart. Some top investigators have a nagging suspicion that KSM just fed his interrogators the small fry to divert investigators from the really big--and deadly--plots. "The problem is," said the senior official, "we don't know what we don't know."

Still, the Feds have learned a great deal more than the public record suggests. Ashcroft routinely gives lurid speeches about the enemy within. But the evidence from criminal prosecutions has been underwhelming. The Buffalo Six (later, Seven) rounded up as a terror cell looked more like some hapless, jobless American Muslims who had been lured into a Qaeda training camp on a pilgrimage to Pakistan. The threat level has bobbed back and forth between Yellow (Elevated) and Orange (High) four times in the last year. Alternately fearful and cynical, the public has become just plain weary.

But the "threat matrix" presented to President George W. Bush every morning at his daily intelligence briefing has been cause for genuine concern. As the Feds, working with foreign police, captured top-level Qaeda operatives after 9-11, interrogations and electronic eavesdropping revealed some scary plans. Abu Zubaydah, the Palestinian terrorist who ran Al Qaeda's training-camp network in Afghanistan, told interrogators that the bin Laden network was deeply interested in bringing down "the bridge in the Godzilla movie." That sci-fi fantasy led New York police to scramble to guard the Brooklyn Bridge every time there is a terror alert. Put under the hot lights, other Qaeda lieutenants named names and pointed to likely targets.

It was the seizure of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in March that allowed the Feds to really begin to connect the dots. KSM is a fanatical and committed terrorist who has spent years planning the mass murder of Americans. Long before 9-11, he had planned (along with his nephew Ramzi Yousef, a plotter in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) a fantastic exercise called Project Bojinka (Serbo-Croatian for "big bang") to blow up a dozen airliners over the Pacific Ocean. KSM's more recent pet proj-ect has been to disrupt the American economy by attacking its infrastructure. He wanted to destroy key transportation nodes--bridges, planes, trains and fuel supplies.

UNPROTECTED FUEL TANKS

Indeed, KSM was planning to time some of these attacks, possibly against gas stations in New York and Washington, to coincide with the 9-11 attacks, but Osama bin Laden himself vetoed the idea, according to intelligence reports obtained by NEWSWEEK. Bin Laden was apparently worried about maintaining operational security for the spectacular hijackings. After 9-11, KSM revived the plans to attack a series of gas stations. According to Justice Department documents describing KSM's interrogation, he "tasked" a former resident of Baltimore named Majid Khan to "move forward" on Khan's plan to destroy several U.S. gas stations by "simultaneously detonating explosives in the stations' underground storage tanks" KSM was intimately involved in the details. When Khan reported that the storage tanks were unprotected and easy to attack, KSM wanted to be sure that explosive charges would cause a massive eruption of flame and destruction.




Khan--a "confessed AQ [al Qaeda] member" who was apparently captured in Pakistan, according to intelligence sources--traveled at least briefly to the United States, where he tried unsuccessfully to seek asylum. His family members, intelligence documents say, are longtime Baltimore residents and own gas stations in that city (a detail NEWSWEEK was able to confirm). KSM told interrogators that he and Khan discussed a plan to use a Karachi-based import-export business to smuggle explosives into the United States.
Khan looked for more help from people who might escape the notice of investigators. KSM told interrogators that a woman named Aafia Siddiqui, a U.S. visa holder who has lived in the United States for a decade, rented a post- office box to help Khan establish his U.S. identity. Siddiqui was supposed to support "other AQ operatives as they entered the United States," according to the Feds' description of the plot. Siddiqui's estranged husband, identified by informed sources as Mohammad Amjan Khan, had purchased body armor, night-vision goggles and a variety of military manuals to send to Pakistan. He apparently returned these items after being interviewed by the FBI. Both Siddiqui and Khan were described as "medical professionals." Siddiqui fled to Pakistan, where she was reportedly arrested.

KSM told his interrogators that he wanted "two or three African-American Muslim converts" to carry out his operation to blow up the gas stations. Majid Khan told the FBI that he had seen "two African Americans (identified as such by their American accents) during a 2000 meeting in Pakistan with KSM and other AQ operatives."

CASING THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE

KSM had more diabolical plans for another of Khan's American relatives, a commercial truckdriver named Iyman Faris (a.k.a. Mohammad Rauf). The truckdriver is a naturalized U.S. citizen, a longtime resident of Columbus, Ohio. His ex-wife told friends that in hindsight she finds it disturbing that her husband, a devout Muslim, had long expressed an interest in learning how to fly. He spent hours, she said, reading magazines about ultralight aircraft, gliders with small engines that can be piloted almost anywhere. The order to study ultralight aircraft came directly from KSM, according to intelligence documents.

The Qaeda operations chief told interrogators that he had a specific assignment for the truckdriver. He wanted Faris to case the Brooklyn Bridge. KSM also instructed Faris to obtain "gas cutters" (presumably, metal-cutting torches) that could be used to cut the Brooklyn Bridge's suspension wires. And more: the truckdriver was assigned to obtain "torque tools" to bend railroad tracks, the better to send a passenger train hurtling off the rails. And still more: Faris recommended driving a small truck with explosives beneath a commercial airliner as it sat on the tarmac. A licensed truckdriver, he said, could easily penetrate airport security.

None of these plots ever came off. Faris has disappeared. No one was home when NEWSWEEK knocked on the door of his apartment in a run-down section of Columbus last week. But as recently as last month, public records show, he paid a $200 fine and got his driver's license restored after being arrested for speeding in Delaware County. (His license recently expired, say Ohio state officials; he has not tried to renew it.)

Qaeda operatives seem to be dangerous drivers. Faris was busted for speeding in 1996 and for "failure to control his vehicle" in 1997, when he flipped his vehicle on a highway exit ramp, local officials say. An arrest for drunken driving marred the otherwise clean record of another suspected sleeper agent whose story is a chilling example of Al Qaeda's foothold in the American heartland.

'THE PERFECT SLEEPER AGENT'

During his interrogation, KSM identified a man named Ali S. Al-Marri as "the point of contact for AQ operatives arriving in the US for September 11 follow-on operations." KSM described Al-Marri as “the perfect sleeper agent because he has studied in the United States, had no criminal record, and had a family with whom he could travel." Actually, Al-Marri had been charged with driving under the influence in Peoria, Ill., in 1990. The Qatari national had returned to the United States on Sept. 10, 2001, to pick up a graduate degree in computer information systems from Peoria's Bradley University. He was accused by the FBI of phoning an alleged Qaeda operative in the United Arab Emirates, Qaeda paymaster Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, and lying about it that same December. Al-Marri's apartment was filled with Islamic jihadist materials. His computer included bookmarked Web sites for hazardous chemicals, computer hacking and fake IDs, according to court documents. Bookmarks in an almanac marked entries for dams, reservoirs and railroads. U.S. officials were outraged when the Saudi Embassy helped Al-Marri's wife obtain a passport to leave the United States in November (U.S. officials say she was still under subpoena; Saudi lawyers disagree). Al-Marri, who pleaded not guilty to charges of lying to investigators and credit-card fraud, is in prison in Peoria, awaiting trial.

Intelligence records obtained by NEWSWEEK list other Qaeda operatives who may be hiding out somewhere in America. "KSM has identified Adnan el Shukri Jumah, a Saudi born permanent US resident alien as an operative with standing permission to attack targets in the United States that had been previously approved by Usama bin Laden," reads one entry in a Homeland Security document. "El Shukri Jumah lived in the US for six years and received an associate's degree from a Florida college. He reportedly surveilled targets in New York, as well as the Panama Canal." Osama's made man has apparently vanished.

Intelligence officials say, however, that they are in some ways more worried about lone wolves who have only distant ties to Al Qaeda. "My concern is what we're seeing in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank," one top official told NEWSWEEK--the solo fanatic suicide bomber, or, in intelligence parlance, a "non-aligned mujahedin." These are the lost souls who wandered through Al Qaeda's Afghan training camps during the '90s and have gone on to create their own cells. They may pose a more imminent threat than the kind of top-of-the-line, well-trained operatives who carried out the complex, almost balletic 9-11 hijack plan.

Canada seems to be a haven for these folk. In late May, Canadian authorities finally moved to expel a pizza- parlor operator and Moroccan refugee named Adil Charkaoui under newly enacted provisions of an antiterrorist law. Charkaoui, who admits he traveled to Pakistan for "religious training,"has long been tied to Ahmed Ressam, the alleged terrorist who was arrested as he entered the United States from Canada at the time of the 2000 Millennium celebrations. In his car were the makings of a bomb, which, he later confessed, was intended for an attack on the Los Angeles airport. Charkaoui, a martial-arts expert, has also been linked to the 9-11 plotters as well as to a plot to blow up an Air France jetliner.

American authorities fret that the Canadians allow sleepers to walk the streets until they are compelled to take legal action. Bush Justice Department officials have not been so reticent. By putting suspects in what one top law- enforcement official described to NEWSWEEK as "a kind of limbo detention"--essentially living with FBI agents who could charge them at any time--the Feds are pushing the legal envelope. "We're making this up as we go along," said the official. "It's a brave new world out there." When FBI agents confront Qaeda suspects, they give them a choice: cooperate or face the consequences, which could include a life in prison and possibly even the death penalty. (Justice Department spokeswoman Barbara Comstock declined to discuss any specific cases, but said that the department has deployed legal tactics that have been "historically used in organized crime and drug cases and proven effective in breaking down conspiracies.") One lever the Feds currently lack is the threat of expulsion from the United States. Some Bush administration officials would like to amend the law to allow prosecutors to strip terror suspects of their naturalized citizenship and deport them.

The FBI cannot hope to find every Qaeda operative, and certainly not every Islamic fanatic who wishes to conduct a jihad against America. Curiously, the best protection may be the soft power of daily life in the land of the free. One intelligence official, wondering aloud why America has not been attacked since 9-11 despite the clear intentions of bin Laden's terror network, speculated that the sleeper agents just plain fall asleep. "A lot of these guys lose the jihadi, desert spirit," said the official. "They get families, they get jobs, and they lose the fire in the belly. Welcome to America."

(With Kevin Peraino, Steve Tuttle, Holly Bailey, Suzanne Smalley and Sarah Downey)
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2007 09:05 pm
al-Qaeda in America? 2004
NEWSWEEK ON AIR | 8/8/04
Terror I: Arrests and Alerts
Evan Thomas, NEWSWEEK assistant managing editor, Washington, and Ron Moreau, NEWSWEEK New Delhi bureau chief, in Islamabad, Pakistan

...

The uncomfortable truth is that a frantic, multibillion-dollar, global intelligence effort has not been able to answer--definitively, at any rate--the scariest and most basic question: are there Qaeda operatives inside the United States? "We have to assume there are," says Townsend. "But we don't know. The reports are mixed." Certainly, at least a few Qaeda operatives have entered America at some point since 9/11. The FBI is hotly investigating whether Khan was one of them. And Khan's arrest has already led to the detention of some major Qaeda operatives in England and Pakistan, and will flush out still more in days to come.

...

The FBI has long been reluctant to investigate mosques in the United States, but last week agents arrested an Islamic cleric who had been caught in a sting operation seeking to fund the purchase of a shoulder-fired missile launcher. The Feds have long had their suspicions about the imam, Yassin Muhiddin Aref, whose phone and e-mail were tapped by federal investigators. He was overheard speaking to contacts in Ansar al Islam, a terrorist group based in Iraq with ties to Al Qaeda. (U.S. troops found an address book at the Ansar al Islam camp with Aref listed as a "commander.") But his Kurdish dialect was so obscure the Feds had trouble getting quick translations.

...
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2007 09:29 pm
al-Qaeda says ... convert or die. September 2, 2006
Azzam - The American al-Qaeda's "Invitation to Islam"
Banner announcing "Invitation to Islam, al-Qaeda's latest videotape. Links to video below.


As Sabah, al-Qaeda's media production company, has released the anticipated videotape of Ayman al-Zawahiri and Adam Gahadn (a.k.a. Azzam the American). This video is the latest in an al-Qaeda media campaign designed to influence westerners, supporters and sympathizers.

In the video, both Zawahiri and Azzam are dressed in white robes and turbans. They are both on message and their statements are clearly coordinated. If they are not in the same location (and they do not appear together) then their messages were coordinated remotely. This is further evidence al-Qaeda's leaders are not operating in distant caves.

While the video is directed at the American public, it is also available online in English, Turkish, Urdu and Bahasa subtitles. Zawahiri has only a small, introductory role in the video (he is on camera for less than 4 minutes). He essentially introduces Azzam, and his presence and words legitimizes Azzam's statements. Azzam speaks for about 44 minutes. Zawahiri is clearly in front of a blue screen, while Azzam is pictured in a room with a flat screen monitor and a number of books on top of a desk. The books will be of special interest to intelligence agencies. He is reading from a teleprompter - watch his eyes, and note the pauses in his speech at odd times.


Adam Gadahn, the American al-Qaeda in "Invitation to Islam" al-Qaeda's latest videotape.

Azzam is the equivalent of an adviser to the al-Qaeda media committee and is believed to be in Northwestern Pakistan. His job is to tailor the message to the disaffected elements of the American public.

Azzam gives a laundry list of grievances against the America and American foreign policy - his arguments are both religious and secular in nature. He quotes copiously from the Koran and Bible. He dwells on "the west's dark and bloody past and dark and bloody present," and invokes a laundry list of anti-American and anti-Western grievances, such as the support for the Shah of Iran, the coup in Chile in 1973, Guantanamo Bay, and other issues. He describes Western culture as "the civilization which enslaved Africa, slaughtered native Americans, fired bombs at Tokyo and Fallujah and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

Azzam also rails against "polytheists," "televangelists" and Zionists. He chastises American counterterrorism personalities yet offers them redemption if they convert to Islam. "If the Zionist crusaders, missionaries of hate, and counter-Islam consultants like Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Michael Scheuer or Steven Emerson and, yes, even the crusader in chief George W. Bush were to abandon their unbelief and repent and enter into the light of Islam and turn their swords against the enemies of God, it would be accepted of them and they would be our brothers in Islam." He commends British Minister of Parliament George Galloway and British journalist Robert Fisk for their pro-jihadi positions and implores them to take the final step and convert. He commends Seymour Hirsh for revealing "coverups" in the war.

Azzam and al-Qaeda are providing a warning to the West and the American public and military in particular. Withdrawal from the Middle East, accept a truce, convert or die.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 04:24 am
Would you like to hear some quotes from Al Qaeda like American conservatives?

Quote:
"The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant-baptism and holy communion-must be denied citizenship."

"This is God's world, not Satan's. Christians are the lawful heirs, not non-Christians."
Gary North (Institute for Christian Economics)http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban_Files/Gary_20North.jpg

Quote:
"Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody's pseudo-right to worship an idol."
Joseph Morecraft (Chalcedon Presbyterian Church)http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban_Files/Joseph_20Morecraft.jpg

Quote:
"When the Christian majority takes over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil."
Gary Potter (Catholics for Christian Political Action)http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban_Files/Gary_20Potter.jpg

Quote:
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."

"Our goal must be simple. We must have a Christian nation built on God's law, on the ten Commandments. No apologies."

"I don't think Christians should use birth control. You consummate your marriage as often as you like - and if you have babies, you have babies."

"When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we'll execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed."*

"There is going to be war, [and Christians may be called to] take up the sword to overthrow the tyrannical regime that oppresses them."

Randall Terry (Operation Rescue)http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban_Files/Randall_20Terry.jpg

Quote:
"Raising your children under Americanism or any other principles other than true Christianity is child abuse."

"You do not have the right to be wrong, regardless of what any man-made or demonic charter says."

"Democracy originated in the mind of a rational being who has the deepest hatred for God."

"Do you realize that the only thing that gives democracy existence is sin? The absence of democracy is perfect obedience to god."

"The best way to insure the earth is never over populated is for sensible and righteous governments to clear all forms of atheism and heresy."
Robert T. Lee (Society for the Practical Establishment of the Ten Commandments)

Quote:
"Anybody that believes in separation of church and state needs to leave right now."
Star Parker (Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education)http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban_Files/Star_20Parker.jpg

Quote:
"There should be absolutely no 'Separation of Church and State' in America."
David Barton (Wallbuilders)http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban_Files/David_20Barton.jpg

Quote:
"George Bush was not elected by a majority of the voters in the United States, he was appointed by God."
Lt. Gen. William G. Boykinhttp://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban_Files/General_20Boykin.jpg

Quote:
"We had lost the fight for the preservation of the white race until God himself intervened in earthly affairs with AIDS to rescue and preserve the white race that he had created.... I praise God all the time for AIDS."

"AIDS is a racial disease of Jews and Niggers, and fortunately it is wiping out the queers. I guess God hates queers for several reasons. There is one big reason to be against queers and that is because every time some white boy is seduced by a queer into becoming a queer, means his white bloodline has run out."
J. B. Stoner (White Supremacist)http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban_Files/JB_20Stoner.jpg

Quote:
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
George Bush Sr. (President of the United States)http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban_Files/George_20Bush.jpg

http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 04:46 am
Quote:
CIA Torture and Khalid Sheik Mohammed
The following further thoughts on confession under torture are from my good friend and fellow Ambassadorial refusenik Ann Wright.

The Sheikh and The Torture Senator
By US Army Reserve Colonel (Retired) Ann Wright

Last week senior al-Qaeda operative Khalid Sheikh Mohammed reportedly confessed during his Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) at the US prison in the US Naval Station, Guantanamo, Cuba to having planned virtually every al-Qaeda attack on the United States. But during the military tribunal proceedings, he also said he was tortured during his four year confinement in CIA secret prisons. Senators Levin and Graham viewed the Guantanamo proceedings over a special video link into the US Senate. Afterwards, Senator Levin said that Sheikh Mohammed's allegations of torture by US officials must be investigated.

Senator Levin, you don't have to go far to find someone who knows about Sheikh Mohammed's torture.

I was in the audience February 12, 2007 during the Washington, DC screening of the new HBO documentary "The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib." After watching the documentary, panelists Senators Lindsey Graham and Ted Kennedy discussed prisoner abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib.

To the amazement of the audience, Graham said, with a twinkle in his eye, that "Americans don't mind torture, they really don't." Then he smiled broadly, almost gleefully, and said that the US had used certain interrogation techniques on "Shaikh Mohammed, one of the "high value" targets," techniques that "you really don't want to know about, but they got really good results."

I firmly believe that Graham's statement acknowledged that US officials have tortured prisoners, and he, as a Senator, knew what was done and agrees with the torture because "it got results."

Except you don't know what the results are. In the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, it appears that with torture you can get someone to confess to masterminding the entire al-Qaeda attack on the United States. Senior FBI officials are questioning some of Sheikh Mohammed's assertions of guilt and remind us of the FBI's concern about torture techniques used by both the CIA and the US military on prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo, techniques that can elicit confessions just to get the torturers to stop.

In January, 2007, I was in the city of Guantanamo, Cuba with human rights activists calling for the closure of the US military prison on the fifth anniversary of the first prisoners being sent there. With us was former prisoner, Asif Iqbal, a 23-year old who told us that he had been beaten by US interrogators until he confessed to helping plan the 9/11 attacks. In reality, he was a completely innocent young man who happened to be in Afghanistan when the U.S. attack began and was swept up with hundreds of other local people. He told us how prisoners in Afghanistan and in Guantanamo confessed to anything the interrogators wanted to prevent further torture.

As a 29 year US Army/Reserves Colonel and a 16 year former US diplomat, I am horrified that US Senators have been complicit in knowing of criminal acts of our intelligence agencies and doing nothing to stop them. Graham told 400 of us in the audience on February 22 he knew of the torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Graham is a military lawyer and a civilian lawyer. He knew that the torture of Sheikh Mohammed was a criminal act and did nothing to stop it.

Senator Levin, if you want to know about torture committed by US government officials, please put under oath your colleague Senator Lindsey Graham and ask him "what he knew and when he knew it."

PS, HBO filmed the Senator's remarks. Please watch the HBO video and see his comments for yourself.

About the author: Ann Wright is a 29 year retired US Army Reserve Colonel
And a 16 year US diplomat who served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. She was on the team that reopened the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan in December, 2001. She resigned from the US diplomatic corps in March, 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq.

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 04:53 am
George Bush and the promotion of democracy in the Middle East.

Quote:
Prisoners of conscience
Some human rights defenders have been prosecuted on charges that were reportedly fabricated, and sentenced to long prison terms after grossly unfair trials that denied basic rights of defence and failed to meet international legal standards.


http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=ENGEUR620022007
Quote:
06/26/03: Let me introduce you to our presidents new best friend, President Karimov of Uzbekistan.

President Karimov government was awarded $500m in aid from the Bush administration in 2002. The SNB (Uzbekistan's security service) received $79m of this sum.

The U.S. State Department web site states "Uzbekistan is not a democracy and does not have a free press. Many opponents of the government have fled, and others have been arrested." and "The police force and the intelligence service use torture as a routine investigation technique."

Now I would like to introduce you to Muzafar Avazov, a 35-year old father of four. Mr Avazov had a visit from our presidents friends security force (SNB), the photographs below detail the brutality and inhuman treatment our tax dollars subsidize, with the full knowledge of our president and his administration.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/images/k-bush-ap-pic.jpg
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3943.htm
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 06:21 am
Disapproval on Iraq Hits Record

Quote:
In a fundamental change, 56 percent now say U.S. forces should be withdrawn at some point even if civil order has not been restored in Iraq. That represents a continued, gradual departure from the "you break it, you've bought it" sentiment that until now has mitigated in favor of continued U.S. involvement until some stability is attained.


Unless the left has now grown to 56% (or 64%), the debate can no longer be framed with phrases like, "you leftist..."
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 0.06 seconds on 07/13/2025 at 11:28:00