Just How Many Muslims Support Terrosism

[Townsend]

However, if you were to ask a faithful Muslim whether or not western materialism and liberalism is a sinful thing, they would undoubtedly say yes. Perhaps this may mean that they 'side' with the terrorists, but that does not mean that they all condone murder.

But couldn't you say something very similar about the average German during WWII? I don't think the average German would have condoned the mass murder of so many Jews but they still sided with the Nazis.

The point is, can't such a position held by the general population lead to a dangerous situation similar to what happened in Germany?

 

[russ_watters]

But couldn't you say something very similar about the average German during WWII? I don't think the average German would have condoned the mass murder of so many Jews but they still sided with the Nazis.

The point is, can't such a position held by the general population lead to a dangerous situation similar to what happened in Germany?

YES! See my new thread...

 

[russ_watters]

Just FYI although certain muslim figures do not treat women well it is a fairly recent phenomenon and is an exception to the norm.

A comparison of male/female literacy rates in most Muslim countries would seem to disagree.

 

[vanesch]

Tactical vs strategic: strategic is the overall goal of the war, tactical is the goal of the specific strike. Both must be judged separately (ie, Bush's motivations are part of the strategic goal in Iraq) and one can never justify the other.

But it can EXPLAIN it. I would even say that tactical and strategic are just the same plan, looked upon at different levels of detail.

You're falling into the trap-argument set by the terrorists: no, it is not ok to be a murderer if you have a larger goal that is rightous.

? First of all I find this remark a strange one coming from an ex-military !
But that's not the point. We're not talking about what is "right". We're talking about what happens. You could argue all day that it is not "right" for bacteria to make someone ill, even if you "understand" their need for proliferation. But the guy with the bacteria in his gut is still ill !

Yet, none of the thousands of family members of victims of 9/11 have done that. Why do Saudis do it and Americans not?

For different reasons. 1) the motivation was not very high. After all, things WERE done (or so these people had the impression) by the US army to "do something about the enemy". So why go and blow yourself up just for the fun of ripping apart some Saudis ? In your words, one was taking care of the strategic goals, with different tactics.

2) Some Arabs DO NOT have the impression that someone is "working on their strategic goals" (the US leaving, and not helping Israel anymore), so they had a higher urge to do things themselves.

3) Statistics. There are far many more disgruntled Arabs who would like to see "things happening" and don't see something happening than that there are family members of victims of 9/11 who would like to see "things happening" and are not happy with what's done about it. After all, 9/11 was more spectacular than anything else, but didn't lower seriously the life expectancy of the average American. Driving cars has more effect than 9/11: there are more deaths on the road than by terrorists, yet nobody straps a bomb on his chest to go and blow up General Motors agents either.

4) I repeat that the knowledge of having ripped apart a few bodies of Americans is only a side pleasure for suicide bombers. They do their thing mainly because they believe they are helping the STRATEGIC plan of their leaders.

Again, I'm not justifying at all these acts, not any more than that I think that bacteria are justified in making me ill. Now, you can get ANGRY at bacteria, but that's not going to cure you. You can try to drink concentrated sulphuric acid to "nuke out all those bastard bacteria in your gut" but it will not help YOUR STRATEGIC GOAL which is to become healthy again, but it will give you more problems than anything else (the last method is the equivalent - imho - of the US government's "anti terrorist" actions).
Or you can try to understand the mechanisms of how these bacteria act, how you can stop them spreading and so on, and once you UNDERSTAND bacteria, you can try to find a medicine that will help you get rid of them.

So I think it is a totally useless exercise to repeat how bad bad bad it is to strap a bomb to your chest and blow up innocent children, in the same way as it is totally useless to say that bacteria are behaving in a bad bad bad way.

 

[Jelfish]

But couldn't you say something very similar about the average German during WWII? I don't think the average German would have condoned the mass murder of so many Jews but they still sided with the Nazis.

The point is, can't such a position held by the general population lead to a dangerous situation similar to what happened in Germany?

Well you have to consider that if they decide to go against the opinions of the extremists, then they are considered traitors and deserve death. It's not that different from people being labeled 'unpatriotic' in the US except that you most likely won't get killed by that label.

 

[Informal Logic]

...and of course even if the UN, in some parallel universe, were to rule that the iraq war is illegal, the US could just ignore them as saddam did, right?

International law and US law are two different things, though even by US law the war is questionable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#International_Law

Legality of the invasion

U.S. Law

Under the United States Constitution, Presidents do not have authority to
declare war. This power is granted exclusively to Congress, and there is no provision in the Constitution for its delegation. As the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it cannot be superseded except by amendment to itself. On October 3, 2002, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) submitted to the House International Relations committee a proposed declaration which read, "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq." It was rejected.[51] Citing several factors, including unresolved issues from the 1991 Gulf War, the Bush administration claimed intrinsic authority to engage Iraq militarily[52], and Congress delegated its war powers to the President[53]; from this point of view, the invasion of Iraq, while a war, may therefore be considered a police action commenced by the executive, like the Korean war.

A police action at best... As for international law, aside from what has been posted above, and in reply to your quote:

However, none have called for the security council to consider sanctions against the United States or the other nations involved, both because of an effort to restore warmer relationships with the US, and because the attempt would be futile since the US has a veto in the Security Council.

Since nothing can be done about it, it makes the war legal?

So...where is your evidence that the war was legal?

 

[vanesch]

International law and US law are two different things, though even by US law the war is questionable:
So...where is your evidence that the war was legal?

To go even further, was the war "legal" according to Iraqi law ? After all, it happened on *their* territory, so that's the law that should apply

 

[devil-fire]

the usa has no problem going against the moral wishes of the rest of the world to its own benefit (as shown in this link posted early http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html) and has the military and political clout to do so vary effectively. the reason why americans don't suicide bomb, or try to kill civilian targets is because they don't have to. the military can change the foreign policy of other nations or groups of people much more affective.

for people who don't have the luxury of an able military to secure national interest abroad, different forms of attack are used. civilian targets can hurt as much if not more then military targets and because of this, civilian targets can still push change.

terrorists are desperate people. civilians are a last resort target, but (as seen by these terrorists) are an effective target. they are doing everything they can to stimulate change. i don't think these people enjoy killing women and children, but they see it as the weakest link in the chain that is preventing them, and their people from getting a better lot in life.

the rest of the world can disagree with them, but they are doing what they have to to enforce or protect their interests. this paragraph can apply to aggressive american foreign policy and islam militants alike.

 

[Antiphon]

the reason why americans don't suicide bomb, or try to kill civilian targets is because they don't have to

There are two nonsensicals in one sentance here Devil-fire.
1) That American's would use suicide-bomb techniques if we "had to". Anyone would do anything if they "had to".
2) The implication is that Muslims "have to." Please show me why Muslims have to kill non-Muslims.

for people who don't have the luxury of an able military to secure national interest abroad, different forms of attack are used.

Which nation? What interests? Who is at war?

civilian targets can hurt as much if not more then military targets and because of this, civilian targets can still push change.

So you explain that the murder of innocent people is an effective way to "push change." Ok.
What change?

i don't think these people enjoy killing women and children, but they see it as the weakest link in the chain that is preventing them, and their people from getting a better lot in life.

Everybody pay attention to Devil-fire here. Because he it telling us something
very important. Apparently the non-bombers of the Muslim world (like him)
believe that the bombers are doing what they can to secure a better life.

Devil-fire, please tell us what this better life would actually be like? I'd like to
understand exactly how Islamic suicide bombers would help you reach a better life.

 

[vanesch]

If I may play the devilfire's advocate :tongue:

There are two nonsensicals in one sentance here Devil-fire.
1) That American's would use suicide-bomb techniques if we "had to". Anyone would do anything if they "had to".
2) The implication is that Muslims "have to." Please show me why Muslims have to kill non-Muslims.

"had to" is taken to mean: "feel a strong urge to". The statements become more reasonable that way.

Which nation? What interests? Who is at war?

Replace "nation" with "group" and "interests" with "Allah's will and the desire to satisfy and please Him"

So you explain that the murder of innocent people is an effective way to "push change." Ok.
What change?

Make life miserable for heathen hounds. Allah likes that a lot.

Everybody pay attention to Devil-fire here. Because he it telling us something
very important. Apparently the non-bombers of the Muslim world (like him)
believe that the bombers are doing what they can to secure a better life.

Devil-fire, please tell us what this better life would actually be like? I'd like to
understand exactly how Islamic suicide bombers would help you reach a better life.

Replace "life" by "after-life".

Your witness.

 

[Antiphon]

Vanesch I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth. Rather, I want to hear
it from them directly.

I don't believe anyone commits murder so they can have a better after-life.
That's just something that makes it easier for someone to convince a
young person to strap the bomb to their chest.

Devil-fire, I want you to tell us exactly how a typical Muslim's life could
improve as a result of bombing these non-Muslim civilians.

 

[vanesch]

I don't believe anyone commits murder so they can have a better after-life.

I think it is the core of the problem. Look at the Middle Ages in Europe. And they were not all cynics. Who was again that King that said: "I prefer to kill them all, rather than to rule over a land of heathens".

 

[The Smoking Man]

I think it is the core of the problem. Look at the Middle Ages in Europe. And they were not all cynics. Who was again that King that said: "I prefer to kill them all, rather than to rule over a land of heathens".

How about "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out"?

Pope Innocent III ordered the Albigensian Crusade, to purge southern France of the Cathari heretics. It began in the summer of 1209, with their first target - the town of Beziers. The Catholic faithful in Beziers refused to give up the Catharis among themselves. The crusaders invaded. When Arnaud-Amaury was asked whom to kill he replied "Kill them all. God will know his own." They did. The crusaders slaughtered nearly everyone in town, over 20,000, either burned or clubbed to death. Thus they achieved their goal of killing the estimated 200 heretics who were hiding in the town among the Catholic faithful. The brutal crusade continued on for the next twenty years. Eventually the Catholics devised a new approach for dealing with the remaining Cathari heretics in France. It was called "the Inquisition".

How many have been chalked up to 'collateral damage' in Iraq?

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

Nice and accurate info u got there Jelfish, but this is not how the idea spread, it's how it spread in Egypt, but it was spread long ago, also that flaw of extremtists was send to foreign countires to train on using guns and stuff, but what really enlarged the movement was Sadat himself, when he wanted to control the Nasserian extremetists party and the communists, he released an opposite flaw that is known now by the muslim brothers...That Nasser himself had almost killed because as i said they were the opposites, they were pilaged...

And he(Saddat) gave them the chance to grow, then like what u said they killed him..And that was the beginning only in Egypt not in the missle east generally..

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

International law and US law are two different things, though even by US law the war is questionable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#International_Law
A police action at best... As for international law, aside from what has been posted above, and in reply to your quote:
Since nothing can be done about it, it makes the war legal?

So...where is your evidence that the war was legal?

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (and currently the War Powers Resolution) stipulates that the President has the legal right to deploy US armed forces without the approval of Congress. A formal state of war was never declared against Iraq, so congressional approval was not needed. There is a time stipulation (I believe that it is 60 days) after which the President must present the military action before Congress and have it approved - this is what was done the current war. Infact, EVERY military conflict that the US has been involved in since the Korean war has fallen under the War Powers Resolution (of GoT), with a formal state of war never having been declared. Does this surprise you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

The War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148) limits the power of the President of the United States to wage war without the approval of the Congress.

These actions also argueably fall under the Executive Orders issued by the Clinton administration regarding sanctions against Iraq and possible military reprocussions against their not abiding by the terms of the cease fire.

In short, as far as the Iraq war being "illegal", you would have a better court case trying to free Charles Manson.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (and currently the War Powers Resolution) stipulates that the President has the legal right to deploy US armed forces without the approval of Congress. A formal state of war was never declared against Iraq, so congressional approval was not needed. There is a time stipulation (I believe that it is 60 days) after which the President must present the military action before Congress and have it approved - this is what was done the current war. Infact, EVERY military conflict that the US has been involved in since the Korean war has fallen under the War Powers Resolution (of GoT), with a formal state of war never having been declared. Does this surprise you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution



These actions also argueably fall under the Executive Orders issued by the Clinton administration regarding sanctions against Iraq and possible military reprocussions against their not abiding by the terms of the cease fire.

In short, as far as the Iraq war being "illegal", you would have a better court case trying to free Charles Manson.

Yup ... and when every excuse has been shown to be an invention and not actual intel, the US government has been offcially deceived.

That makes it illegal.

AGAIN ... look at how they plotted this thing in the Downing Street Memo.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Yup ... and when every excuse has been shown to be an invention and not actual intel, the US government has been offcially deceived.

That makes it illegal.

No, that does not make it illegal, it means that you had bad intel.

Let's suppose that they even intentionally lied about the WMD, it would still not be illegal since Saddam was out of compliance with the terms of the cease-fire, the UN resolutions, US executive orders, congressionally-approved policy and even then they could always fall back on the executive power's legal right to deploy armed forces in the interests of national security.

i'm sorry to disappoint you, but it is a water-tight case legally. those with a flare for the dramatic will continue to say how they think it was "illegal" but until I see something other than that funny little japanese document the war was legal. Isn't it innocent until proven guilty?

 

[The Smoking Man]

No, that does not make it illegal, it means that you had bad intel.

No ... the intel has been proven to be altered by the British and US governments in that all caveats were removed from the intel warning that the intel was less than sound. The French categorically denied that their Intel was trustworthy and had indeed been declared forged.

Let's suppose that they even intentionally lied about the WMD, it would still not be illegal since Saddam was out of compliance with the terms of the cease-fire, the UN resolutions, US executive orders, congressionally-approved policy and even then they could always fall back on the executive power's legal right to deploy armed forces in the interests of national security.

There were no national security issues.

UN non-compliance requires an act of the UN to resolve and there was no invasion option stated in the resolution 1441.

In fact when you gathered the Coalition of the willing, 40 nations joined meaning that you had about 20% of the support of the UN which has 191 member nations.

The USA also chose to apply a resolution 'after the fact'. I mean, I don't know what it is like where you come from but when you have to call for the evacuation of weapons inspectors so that you can invade because the country did not allow in weapons inspectores well ... how absurd an argument are you trying to concoct?

i'm sorry to disappoint you, but it is a water-tight case legally. those with a flare for the dramatic will continue to say how they think it was "illegal" but until I see something other than that funny little japanese document the war was legal. Isn't it innocent until proven guilty?

No, actually, the Downing Street memo expresses doubt over the whole issue of legality and proves complicity in an invasion that was GOING to take place regardless of the position held by the UN.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

No ... the intel has been proven to be altered by the British and US governments in that all caveats were removed from the intel warning that the intel was less than sound. The French categorically denied that their Intel was trustworthy and had indeed been declared forged.

This same intel was corroborated by the Germans and the Russians. Somehow everyone got it wrong.

There were no national security issues.

The national security issues regard the middle east as a whole and extend beyond WMD.

UN non-compliance requires an act of the UN to resolve and there was no invasion option stated in the resolution 1441.

This is your opinion, Smoking, and is debateable. The resolution uses harsh language with regards to non-compliance by Iraq.

One thing that you must understand, the UN does not make anything very clear. There is no standard for such a thing, since it hasn't happened before. The UN is not a well-organized body, merely a collection of interested parties who agree on almost nothing. To hang on the very meaning of the phrase "serious consequences" is an excercise in futility. It was interpreted a certain way by the US and britain, that interpretation was opposed initially but then finally abstained. The UN security council has not approved the action in Iraq, but they have not disapproved it either and it is a bit naive to think that their stance is going to change anytime soon, especially since the new Iraqi government has been formally recognized by the UN, as in UN resolution 1511:

http://www.mideastweb.org/1511.htm

This resolution was the initiative of the USA and Great Britain. It recognizes the legitimacy of the American supported Iraqi government, and authorizes UN aid to Iraq under US supervision, while at the same time calling for submission of a time-table for Iraqi self governance. It also enumerates and condemns numerous acts of sabotage performed by the anti-American opposition forces. It represents a signal victory for American diplomacy, since it means that countries which were opposed to the war, especially France and Russia, and which have a Security veto, have acquiesced in the fact of the US invasion. and removal of Saddam Hussein, and will cooperate on US terms.

[snip]

REAFFIRMING its previous resolutions on Iraq, including resolution 1483 (2003) of 22 May 2003 and 1500 (2003) of 14 August 2003, and on threats to peace and security caused by terrorist acts, including resolution 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001, and other relevant resolutions,

UNDERSCORING that the sovereignty of Iraq resides in the State of Iraq, reaffirming the right of the Iraqi people freely to determine their own political future and control their own natural resources,

REITERATING its resolve that the day when Iraqis govern themselves must come quickly, and

RECOGNIZING the importance of international support, particularly that of countries in the region, Iraq's neighbors, and regional organizations, in taking forward this process expeditiously,

RECOGNIZING that international support for restoration of conditions of stability and security is essential to the well-being of the people of Iraq as well as to the ability of all concerned to carry out their work on behalf of the people of Iraq, and welcoming Member State contributions in this regard under resolution 1483 (2003 ),

WELCOMING the decision of the Governing Council of Iraq to form a preparatory constitutional committee to prepare for a constitutional conference that will draft a constitution to embody the aspirations of the Iraqi people

[snip]

So I think that your presumptions on the legality of the war are in vain, as the UN disagrees with you.

I mean, I don't know what it is like where you come from but when you have to call for the evacuation of weapons inspectors so that you can invade because the country did not allow in weapons inspectores well ... how absurd an argument are you trying to concoct?

It is funny how you can make it sound so absurd. UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq yet they were not given access to areas that required inspection. Infact, they operated out of the UN station set up in Baghdad, the same one that was removed after it was bombed.

No, actually, the Downing Street memo expresses doubt over the whole issue of legality and proves complicity in an invasion that was GOING to take place regardless of the position held by the UN.

Yes, but this is not very damning evidence - it is not very impressive. They realized that this war would be opposed by those who stood to lose a great deal (France, Russia, China).

 

[vanesch]

How about "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out"?

Yes, that one too. But I was thinking about another, earlier one who said something of the kind that he preferred to destroy his country rather than rule over heathens. Just can't remember who it was...

 

[The Smoking Man]

This same intel was corroborated by the Germans and the Russians. Somehow everyone got it wrong.

Except for one thing ... NOBODY else thought it reliable enough to act upon it.

The national security issues regard the middle east as a whole and extend beyond WMD.

So you're admitting that Israel is a part of the USA?

This is your opinion, Smoking, and is debateable. The resolution uses harsh language with regards to non-compliance by Iraq.

Yes, it is debatable and the USA refused to have that debate and invaded without the go-ahead of the UN.

One thing that you must understand, the UN does not make anything very clear. There is no standard for such a thing, since it hasn't happened before. The UN is not a well-organized body, merely a collection of interested parties who agree on almost nothing. To hang on the very meaning of the phrase "serious consequences" is an excercise in futility. It was interpreted a certain way by the US and britain, that interpretation was opposed initially but then finally abstained. The UN security council has not approved the action in Iraq, but they have not disapproved it either and it is a bit naive to think that their stance is going to change anytime soon, especially since the new Iraqi government has been formally recognized by the UN, as in UN resolution 1511:

http://www.mideastweb.org/1511.htm



So I think that your presumptions on the legality of the war are in vain, as the UN disagrees with you.

You are misreading the words and putting your impression upon them. you also put the emphasis on the wrong words ... "This resolution was the initiative of the USA and Great Britain. It recognizes the legitimacy of the American supported Iraqi government, and authorizes UN aid to Iraq under US supervision, while at the same time calling for submission of a time-table for Iraqi self governance. It also enumerates and condemns numerous acts of sabotage performed by the anti-American opposition forces." In other words, the USA and the UK wrote the resolution and other states signed it as a sign of moving on.

It is funny how you can make it sound so absurd. UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq yet they were not given access to areas that required inspection. Infact, they operated out of the UN station set up in Baghdad, the same one that was removed after it was bombed.

What sites were those? Are you telling me you knew of weapons that were not found?

Yes, but this is not very damning evidence - it is not very impressive. They realized that this war would be opposed by those who stood to lose a great deal (France, Russia, China).

As Mercator has pointed out to you ... and he's in the industry. The one who was benefiting the most was the USA and ... they now have exclusive and preferental rights to the supply.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Yes, but this is not very damning evidence - it is not very impressive. They realized that this war would be opposed by those who stood to lose a great deal (France, Russia, China).

Oh, and Q. ... I have been through the entire document and attampted to find France, Russia and China.

Again ... why are you putting words into it that were not there?

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections. [4]

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force. [5]

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change. [6]

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work. [7]

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Except for one thing ... NOBODY else thought it reliable enough to act upon it.

"NY Times: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1362149/posts

So you're admitting that Israel is a part of the USA?

Where did you get this from? What I was saying is that a large part of the world's oil supply comes from the middle east. I could care less about Israel.

Yes, it is debatable and the USA refused to have that debate and invaded without the go-ahead of the UN.

I think that your sense of outrage isn't shared by the UN. The UN's current attitude is (in my words):

"We don't agree with the US invading Iraq, but we are going to let it slide. We recognize the new government there, and hope that things can be wrapped up quickly." That is the spirit behind UN Res. 1511 and the several other resolutions leading up to it.

I guess that must make you steamed.

What sites were those? Are you telling me you knew of weapons that were not found?

I guess that you weren't reading the news those days? Here goes:

http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page277.asp

Iraqi Non-Co-operation with the Inspectors

4. The former Chairman of UNSCOM, Richard Butler, reported to the UN Security Council in January 1999, that in 1991 a decision was taken by a high-level Iraqi Government committee to provide inspectors with only a portion of its proscribed weapons, components, production capabilities and stocks. UNSCOM concluded that Iraqi policy was based on the following actions:

* to provide only a portion of extant weapons stocks, releasing for destruction only those that were least modern;
* to retain the production capability and documentation necessary to revive programmes when possible;
* to conceal the full extent of its chemical weapons programme, including the VX nerve agent project; to conceal the number and type of chemical and biological warheads for proscribed long-range missiles;
* and to conceal the existence of its biological weapons programme.

5. In December 1997 Richard Butler reported to the UN Security Council that Iraq had created a new category of sites - "Presidential" and "sovereign" - from which it claimed that UNSCOM inspectors would henceforth be barred. The terms of the ceasefire in 1991 foresaw no such limitation. However, Iraq consistently refused to allow UNSCOM inspectors access to any of these eight Presidential sites. Many of these so-called "palaces" are in fact large compounds which are an integral part of Iraqi counter-measures designed to hide weapons material.

Click here to view a photograph of a presidential site or what have been called "palaces". Buckingham palace has been super-imposed to demonstrate their comparative size.

Iraq's policy of deception

Iraq has admitted to UNSCOM having a large, effective, system for hiding proscribed material including documentation, components, production equipment and, possibly, biological and chemical agents and weapons from the UN. Shortly after the adoption of UNSCR 687 in April 1991, an Administrative Security Committee (ASC) was formed with responsibility for advising Saddam on the information which could be released to UNSCOM and the IAEA. The Committee consisted of senior Military Industrial Commission (MIC) scientists from all of Iraq's WMD programmes. The Higher Security Committee (HSC) of the Presidential Office was in overall command of deception operations. The system was directed from the very highest political levels within the Presidential Office and involved, if not Saddam himself, his youngest son, Qusai. The system for hiding proscribed material relies on high mobility and good command and control. It uses lorries to move items at short notice and most hide sites appear to be located close to good road links and telecommunications. The Baghdad area was particularly favoured. In addition to active measures to hide material from the UN, Iraq has attempted to monitor, delay and collect intelligence on UN operations to aid its overall deception plan.

Intimidation

6. Once inspectors had arrived in Iraq, it quickly became apparent that the Iraqis would resort to a range of measures (including physical threats and psychological intimidation of inspectors) to prevent UNSCOM and the IAEA from fulfilling their mandate.

7. In response to such incidents, the President of the Security Council issued frequent statements calling on Iraq to comply with its disarmament and monitoring obligations.

Iraqi obstruction of UN weapons inspection teams

* firing warning shots in the air to prevent IAEA inspectors from intercepting nuclear related equipment (June 1991);
* keeping IAEA inspectors in a car park for 4 days and refusing to allow them to leave with incriminating documents on Iraq's nuclear weapons programme (September 1991);
* announcing that UN monitoring and verification plans were "unlawful" (October 1991);
* refusing UNSCOM inspectors access to the Ministry of Agriculture. Threats were made to inspectors who remained on watch outside the building. The inspection team had reliable evidence that the site contained archives related to proscribed activities;
* In 1991-2 Iraq objected to UNSCOM using its own helicopters and choosing its own flight plans. In January 1993 it refused to allow UNSCOM the use of its own aircraft to fly into Iraq;
* refusing to allow UNSCOM to install remote-controlled monitoring cameras at two key missile sites (June-July 1993);
* repeatedly denying access to inspection teams (1991- December 1998);
* interfering with UNSCOM's helicopter operations, threatening the safety of the aircraft and their crews (June 1997);
* demanding the end of U2 overflights and the withdrawal of US UNSCOM staff (October 1997);
* destroying documentary evidence of WMD programmes (September 1997).

Obstruction

8. Iraq denied that it had pursued a biological weapons programme until July 1995.
In July 1995, Iraq acknowledged that biological agents had been produced on an industrial scale at Al-Hakam. Following the defection in August 1995 of Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and former Director of the Military Industrialisation Commission, Iraq released over 2 million documents relating to its WMD programmes and acknowledged that it had pursued a biological programme that led to the deployment of actual weapons. Iraq admitted producing 183 biological weapons with a reserve of agent to fill considerably more.


Inspection of Iraq's biological weapons programme

In the course of the first biological weapons inspection in August 1991, Iraq claimed that it had merely conducted a military biological research programme. At the site visited, Al-Salman, Iraq had removed equipment, documents and even entire buildings. Later in the year, during a visit to the Al-Hakam site, Iraq declared to UNSCOM inspectors that the facility was used as a factory to produce proteins derived from yeast to feed animals. Inspectors subsequently discovered that the plant was a central site for the production of anthrax spores and botulinum toxin for weapons. The factory had also been sanitised by Iraqi officials to deceive inspectors. Iraq continued to develop the Al-Hakam site into the 1990s, misleading UNSCOM about its true purpose.

Another key site, the Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Institute at Dawrah which produced botulinum toxin and probably anthrax, was not divulged as part of the programme. Five years later, after intense pressure, Iraq acknowledged that tens of tonnes of bacteriological warfare agent had been produced there and at Al-Hakam.

As documents recovered in August 1995 were assessed, it became apparent that the full disclosure required by the UN was far from complete. Successive inspection teams went to Iraq to try to gain greater understanding of the programme and to obtain credible supporting evidence. In July 1996 Iraq refused to discuss it's past programme and doctrine forcing the team to withdraw in protest. Monitoring teams were at the same time finding undisclosed equipment and materials associated with the past programme. In response, Iraq grudgingly provided successive disclosures of their programme which were judged by UNSCOM, and specially convened international panels, to be technically inadequate.

In late 1995, Iraq acknowledged weapons testing the biological agent ricin, but did not provide production information. Two years later - in early 1997 - UNSCOM discovered evidence that Iraq had produced ricin.

9. Iraq tried to obstruct UNSCOM's efforts to investigate the scale of its biological
weapons programme. It created forged documents to account for bacterial growth media, imported in the late 1980s, specifically for the production of anthrax, botulinum toxin and probably plague. The documents were created to indicate that the material had been imported by the State Company for Drugs and Medical Appliances Marketing for use in hospitals and distribution to local authorities. Iraq also censored documents and scientific papers provided to the first UN inspection team, removing all references to key individuals, weapons and industrial production of agents.

10. Iraq has yet to provide any documents concerning production of agent and subsequent weaponisation. Iraq destroyed, unilaterally and illegally, some biological weapons in 1991 and 1992 making accounting for these weapons impossible. In addition Iraq cleansed a key site at Al-Muthanna - its main research and development, production and weaponisation facility for chemical warfare agents - of all evidence of a biological programme in the toxicology department, the animal-house and weapons filling station.

11. Iraq refused to elaborate further on the programme during inspections in 1997 and 1998, confining discussion to previous topics. In July 1998, Tariq Aziz personally intervened in the inspection process stating that the biological programme was more secret and more closed than other WMD programmes. He also played down the significance of the programme. Iraq has presented the biological weapons programme as the personal undertaking of a few misguided scientists.

12. At the same time, Iraq tried to maintain its nuclear weapons programme via a concerted campaign to deceive IAEA inspectors. In 1997 the Agency's Director General stated that the IAEA was "severely hampered by Iraq's persistence in a policy of concealment and understatement of the programme's scope."

Inspection achievements

13. Despite the conduct of the Iraqi authorities towards them, both UNSCOM and the IAEA Action Team have valuable records of achievement in discovering and exposing Iraq's biological weapons programme and destroying very large quantities of chemical weapons stocks and missiles as well as the infrastructure for Iraq's nuclear weapons programme.

14. Despite UNSCOM's efforts, following the effective ejection of UN inspectors in December 1998, there remained a series of significant unresolved disarmament issues. In summarising the situation in a report to the Security Council, the UNSCOM Chairman, Richard Butler indicated that:

*
contrary to the requirement that destruction be conducted under international supervision, "Iraq undertook extensive, unilateral and secret destruction of large quantities of proscribed weapons and items";
*
and Iraq "also pursued a practice of concealment of proscribed items, including weapons, and a cover up of its activities in contravention of Council resolutions."

Overall, Butler declared that obstructive Iraqi activity had had "a significant impact upon the Commission's disarmament work."

UNSCOM and IAEA Achievements

UNSCOM surveyed 1015 sites in Iraq, carrying out 272 separate inspections. Despite Iraqi obstruction and intimidation, UN inspectors uncovered details of chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. Major UNSCOM/IAEA achievements included:

* the destruction of 40,000 munitions for chemical weapons, 2,610 tonnes of chemical precursors and 411 tonnes of chemical warfare agent;
* the dismantling of Iraq's prime chemical weapons development and production complex at Al-Muthanna, and a range of key production equipment;
* the destruction of 48-SCUD type missiles, 11 mobile launchers and 56 sites, 30 warheads filled with chemical agents, and 20 conventional warheads;
* the destruction of the Al-Hakam biological weapons facility and a range of production equipment, seed stocks and growth media for biological weapons;
* the discovery in 1991 of samples of indigenously-produced highly enriched uranium, forcing Iraq's acknowledgment of uranium enrichment programmes and attempts to preserve key components of its prohibited nuclear weapons programme;
* the removal and destruction of the infrastructure for the nuclear weapons programme, including the Al-Athir weaponisation/testing facility.

Withdrawal of the Inspectors

15. By the end of 1998 UNSCOM was in direct confrontation with the Iraqi Government which was refusing to co-operate. The US and the UK had made clear that anything short of full co-operation would make military action unavoidable. Richard Butler was requested to report to the UN Security Council in December 1998 and stated that, following a series of direct confrontations, coupled with the systematic refusal by Iraq to co-operate, UNSCOM was no longer able to perform its disarmament mandate. As a direct result, on December 16 the weapons inspectors were withdrawn and Operation Desert Fox was launched by the US and the UK a few hours afterwards.

Operation Desert Fox (16-19 December 1998)

Operation Desert Fox targeted industrial facilities related to Iraq's ballistic missile programme and a suspect biological warfare facility as well as military airfields and sites used by Iraq's security organisations which are involved in its weapons of mass destruction programmes. Key facilities associated with Saddam's ballistic missile programme were significantly degraded.

The Situation Since 1998

16. There have been no UN-mandated weapons inspections in Iraq since 1998. In an effort to enforce Iraqi compliance with its disarmament and monitoring obligations, the Security Council passed resolution 1284 in December 1999. This established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) as a successor organisation to UNSCOM and called on Iraq to give UNMOVIC inspectors "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities, equipment, records and means of transport". It also set out the steps Iraq needed to take in return for the eventual suspension and lifting of sanctions. A key measure of Iraqi compliance would be full co-operation with UN inspectors, including unconditional, immediate and unrestricted access to any and all sites, personnel and documents.

17. For the past three years, Iraq has allowed the IAEA to carry out an annual inspection of a stockpile of nuclear material (depleted natural and low-enriched uranium). This has led some countries and western commentators to conclude - erroneously - that Iraq is meeting its nuclear disarmament and monitoring obligations. As the IAEA has pointed out in recent weeks, this annual inspection does "not serve as a substitute for the verification activities required by the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council."

18. Dr. Hans Blix, the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, and Dr. Mohammed El-Baradei, the Director General of the IAEA, have declared that in the absence of inspections it is impossible to verify Iraqi compliance with its UN disarmament and monitoring obligations. In April 1999, an independent UN panel of experts noted that "the longer inspection and monitoring activities remain suspended, the more difficult the comprehensive implementation of Security Council resolutions becomes, increasing the risk that Iraq might reconstitute its proscribed weapons programmes."

19. The departure of the Inspectors greatly diminished our ability to monitor and assess Iraq's continuing attempts to reconstitute its chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.

 

[Antiphon]

This thread is wildly off course.

In my opinion most Muslims DO support the aims of the terrorist but would not
themselves want to be the man or woman doing the butchering.

Let's hear from some more Mulsims about this.

 

[The Smoking Man]

"NY Times: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1362149/posts

My god man ... did you think that would fly around here?

You linked through 'Free Republic' to a republican 'NewMax' article talking about an article that appeared in yet another publication, the New York Times.

Did you think I wouldn't be able to track down the article?

Here's an 'Outside the Beltway' critique of the piece:

Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Were Iraq’s Weapons Factories Looted?
Posted by James Joyner at 13:45

Christopher Hitchens is bemused that Sunday's New York Times story on the systematic "looting" of Saddam Hussein's weapons plants was so thoroughly misreported.

My first question is this: How can it be that, on every page of every other edition for months now, the New York Times has been stating categorically that Iraq harbored no weapons of mass destruction? And there can hardly be a comedy-club third-rater or MoveOn.org activist in the entire country who hasn't stated with sarcastic certainty that the whole WMD fuss was a way of lying the American people into war. So now what? Maybe we should have taken Saddam's propaganda seriously, when his newspaper proudly described Iraq's physicists as "our nuclear mujahideen."

My second question is: What's all this about "looting"? The word is used throughout the long report, but here's what it's used to describe. "In four weeks from mid-April to mid-May of 2003 … teams with flatbed trucks and other heavy equipment moved systematically from site to site. … 'The first wave came for the machines,' Dr Araji said. 'The second wave, cables and cranes.' " Perhaps hedging the bet, the Times authors at this point refer to "organized looting."

But obviously, what we are reading about is a carefully planned military operation. The participants were not panicked or greedy civilians helping themselves—which is the customary definition of a "looter," especially in wartime. They were mechanized and mobile and under orders, and acting in a concerted fashion. Thus, if the story is factually correct—which we have no reason at all to doubt—then Saddam's Iraq was a fairly highly-evolved WMD state, with a contingency plan for further concealment and distribution of the weaponry in case of attack or discovery.

[...]

Even in the worst interpretation, it seems unlikely that the material is more dangerous now than it was two years ago. Some of the elements—centrifuges, for example, and chemical mixtures—require stable and controlled conditions for effectiveness. They can't simply be transferred to some kitchen or tent. They are less risky than they were in early 2003, in other words. If they went to a neighboring state, though … Some chemical vats have apparently turned up on a scrap heap in Jordan, even if this does argue more for a panicky concealment than a plan of transfer. But anyway, this only returns us to the main point: If Saddam's people could have made such a transfer after his fall, then they could have made it much more easily during his reign. (We know, for example, that the Baathists were discussing the acquisition of long-range missiles from North Korea as late as March 2003, and at that time, the nuclear Wal-Mart of the A.Q. Khan network was still in business. Iraq would have had plenty to trade in this WMD underworld.)

So goes the merry-go-round. Apparently, there were simultaneously no WMD programs, which proves Bush was a liar, and the plants housing said program were systematically looted, which proves Bush is an incompetent boob who really didn't care about WMD after all.

It's truly a wonder such a man was re-elected.

I guess that you weren't reading the news those days? Here goes:

Riiiight ... An undated press release that agrees with the content of 'The Downing Street Memo' ... What are the chances, Eh?

Try listening to what http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv were saying (It's one of my favorite http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv):

During the run-up to the 2003 attack on Iraq, we were repeatedly told by US leaders that Iraq absolutely, positively had weapons of mass destruction [read more]. The country was an immediate threat not only to its neighbors but to the entire world. It had the capability of launching WMDs within 45 minutes.

In August 2002, Cheney insisted: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

In a March 2003 address to the nation, Bush said: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possesses and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

In April 2003, Fleischer claimed: "But make no mistake--as I said earlier--we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about."

In February 2003, Powell said: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."

But two years earlier, Powell said just the opposite. The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

Furthermore, on 15 May 2001, Powell testified before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Several kind readers with access to Lexis-Nexis sent me the full transcript of the questions-and-answers portion of Powell's testimony. Here's the relevant extract:

Senator Bennett: Mr. Secretary, the U.N. sanctions on Iraq expire the beginning of June. We've had bombs dropped, we've had threats made, we've had all kinds of activity vis-a-vis Iraq in the previous administration. Now we're coming to the end. What's our level of concern about the progress of Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs?

Secretary Powell: The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.

So containment, using this arms control sanctions regime, I think has been reasonably successful. We have not been able to get the inspectors back in, though, to verify that, and we have not been able to get the inspectors into pull up anything that might be left there. So we have to continue to view this regime with the greatest suspicion, attribute to them the most negative motives, which is quite well-deserved with this particular regime, and roll the sanctions over, and roll them over in a way where the arms control sanctions really go after their intended targets -- weapons of mass destruction -- and not go after civilian goods or civilian commodities that we really shouldn't be going after, just let that go to the Iraqi people. That wasn't the purpose of the oil-for-food program. And by reconfiguring them in that way, I think we can gain support for this regime once again.

When we came into office on the 20th of January, the whole sanctions regime was collapsing in front of our eyes. Nations were bailing out on it. We lost the consensus for this kind of regime because the Iraqi regime had successfully painted us as the ones causing the suffering of the Iraqi people, when it was the regime that was causing the suffering. They had more than enough money; they just weren't spending it in the proper way. And we were getting the blame for it. So reconfiguring the sanctions, I think, helps us and continues to contain the Iraqi regime.

But Powell wasn't the only senior administration official telling the truth before the truth became highly inconvenient. On 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer (an anonymous reader sent me the full transcript from Lexis-Nexis). Guest host John King asked Rice about the fact that Iraq had recently fired on US planes enforcing the "no-fly zones" in Iraq. Rice craftily responds:

Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly.

Notice that she makes it clear that Bush is the one who considers Hussein a threat. She doesn't say, "I consider..." or even, "We consider..."

Then King asks her about the sanctions against Iraq. She replies:

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

King doesn't think to ask Rice, if Hussein hasn't been getting arms and his forces weren't rebuilt after the 1991 Gulf War, why Bush considers him a threat.

There you have it. Four to seven months before 9/11--and just 15 to 18 months before the drive to attack Iraq seriously revved up--the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor trumpeted that Iraq had a decimated military, no "significant capabilities" regarding WMD, and was so feeble that it couldn't even threaten the countries around it with conventional military power.

Want some more http://billmon.org/archives/000172.html

 

[devil-fire]

There are two nonsensicals in one sentance here Devil-fire.
1) That American's would use suicide-bomb techniques if we "had to". Anyone would do anything if they "had to".
2) The implication is that Muslims "have to." Please show me why Muslims have to kill non-Muslims.



Which nation? What interests? Who is at war?



So you explain that the murder of innocent people is an effective way to "push change." Ok.
What change?



Everybody pay attention to Devil-fire here. Because he it telling us something
very important. Apparently the non-bombers of the Muslim world (like him)
believe that the bombers are doing what they can to secure a better life.

Devil-fire, please tell us what this better life would actually be like? I'd like to
understand exactly how Islamic suicide bombers would help you reach a better life.

(Antiphon was quoting some of my stuff but it wasnt included in the "quote" above")

1/2. i didnt imply that muslims are on a genocide of non-muslims because they "have to" my point was that america can impose it's will on the world without useing tactics that extreamists of militant islam do. i expect there are alternatives to attacking civilians or sucide bombings for people who commit acts of terrorisum, but this is the path they see as most effective, evidently.

what nation and who is at war? i used the word "nation" to apply to a group of like minded people and not a country with internationaly recognized boarders. the sentence you quoted me on was just referring to desperate people in general

is killing innocents effective and in what way? i think it was spain that had bombs go off in the transit system (much like the attacks in london) and as a result, spain withdrew troops from iraq. this is an example of terrorisum working for terrorists.

i don't speak for muslims and i don't know the mission statements of all the "bombers". i think a lot people who commit these acts in the name of islam have the goal of troop withdraw from islamic countrys though.