Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Russia had evidence that Saddam planned terrorist attacks against U.S.

  1. Jun 18, 2004 #1
    After 9/11 and before the commencement of the war, the Russians provided evidence to the U.S. administration that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks against the United States, both within and outside U.S. borders. Here is the link to and a partial quote from the Reuters story -

    http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=5457972 [Broken]

    Why did Putin decide to make this disclosure now rather than a year ago? Could his opposition to the invasion of Iraq have played a role – in that this information would have been used to support an invasion? But why make the disclosure at all – pre or post invasion - and what compels him now, at this late hour? Is he attempting to affect the U.S. politics? Considering that the presidential election is expected to be close, this revelation has the possibilty of affecting the outcome of the election. No? I don’t think there is a question that information like this helps Bush, the question is how much and whether that memory will be played out come the election. Thoughts ---
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 18, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Surely such a paragon of virtue as Putin would not tell self-serving lies. After all, Bush looked into Putin's soul and saw that he was good. One would have to be cynical to think that Putin wants to help Bush get re-elected so that there will continue to be American aquiescence to the reinstitution of totalitarianism in Russia.

  4. Jun 18, 2004 #3
    OK - we have one -- err - vote for Bush's "aquiescence to the reinstatement of totalitarianism ..." Anyone else?
  5. Jun 18, 2004 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    So you think Russia is not reinstating totaltarianism? Or do you think that Bush is not aquiescing?

  6. Jun 18, 2004 #5
    Well if you’re making these ‘assertions’ why don’t YOU provide some evidence – for both - since both seem to be your assertions. They're not my assertions – they’re yours.

    My question is why now and why not a year ago? And whether it is an effort to affect politics here. That's the topic. If you like, you can mix that into your 'on topic' response --- otherwise, if you feel compelled to hijack this thread, it’s best to start your own Bush bashing, wild-eyed, tirade of a thread --- since I’m not interested.
  7. Jun 18, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Wild-eyed Bush bashing?

    I gave Putin's motive, admittedly in a very sarcastic manner. Putin wants Bush in the White House because Bush doesn't give a damn about what Putin is doing in Russia. Bush has been so diplomatically crippled, that even if he did give a damn, he would be powerless.

  8. Jun 18, 2004 #7
    This is a thread about Putin, Putin’s statement, and Putin’s motivations. This isn’t about the problems you apparently have with the Bush Administration. So --- I suppose than, to keep this on topic, it is your position that Putin wants Bush to win the election because Putin sees Bush has someone who passively allow him to further his (Putin’s) covert, evil-minded plans to recreate Russia as a tolalitarian state. Fair enough.

    I suppose the real questions are why Putin revealed this NOW and why couldn’t the Bush Administration use this eariler? I wonder if this was provided on condition that it not be used to support the invasion. Gees, if the Russians had this information AND DID NOT provide this to the US - there would be more than a mere chill in relations if Saddam would have pulled this off - ppost 9/11.

    Also, I really wonder if Putin wouldn’t have denied this information pre-invasion. The US wasn't in a position to bring out this information, at that time, because they were not in a position to know whether that action would have endangered Russian sources. Also, it would have created distrust between the two and possibly dried up the Russians as a future source in these matters.
  9. Jun 18, 2004 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    You may be aware that the US has planned nuclear attacks on Russia, and in fact, the US military was designed specifically to carry them out during the cold war. That doesn't mean that the US intends to carry them out.

    Considering the military situation, and the apparent effectiveness of terrorist attacks, Saddam would probably have been negligent not to consider them as an option - terror deterennce instead of nuclear deterennce.

    Moreover, at least the CNN article indicates that Putin wared the US during the buildup during the war, even though he only went public just now.
  10. Jun 18, 2004 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Leverage of course, but for what purpose...?
    That's flawed logic. Terrorism does not and never has worked as a deterrent.

    Nuclear weapons worked as a deterrent because of the tiny possibility of massive (cataclysmic) damage. Nuclear deterrent is an attempt to increase stability.

    Terrorism works on a small, but real (ie, much higher than the threat of nuclear warfare) threat of personal violence. And its goal is the opposite of nuclear deterrence: increase fear and decrease stability.

    As for terrorsim "working," it depends on the specific goal. For the general goal of spreading fear, certainly yes, it does work. But most terrorists will tell you they have a larger goal - and terrorism has not once ever helped achieve a larger goal - with the possible exception of the atom bomb blast in Japan. Terrorism even has a lousy record with intermediate goals, as seen in the recent beheading of an American in Saudia Arabia. This is the reason plane hijackings largely went out of fashion in the '80s - lots of dead terrorists and not many (no?) terrorists released from prison.

    In any case, its obvious that Saddam was a proponent of terrorism. What isn't clear are the specifics (though it is reasonably clear he had nothing to do with 9/11).
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2004
  11. Jun 18, 2004 #10

    As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". This definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social objectives. (FEMA-SS)

    So Saddam was a proponent of terrorism. By the above definition so is the United States. Should a "coalition of the willing" launch a liberation of America?
  12. Jun 19, 2004 #11
    there is already a coalition of the willing trying to liberate america, al quada. "Liberate" can have many meanings for extremists ;)

    If Russia really did warn the US of Saddams terrorist activities, it should affect elections.
  13. Jun 19, 2004 #12
    The State Department says no reports of Saddam inspired terrorist plotting was passed to them by the Russians. The White House, however, refuses to confirm or deny that this information was sent. And the plot thickens -

  14. Jun 19, 2004 #13
    If you were a leader of a foreign country with secret information, would you pass it to a State Department that appears to have more leaks than the Titanic. This is a bunch of well entrenched bureaucrats, with their own agenda. Both Democrat and Republican administrations have had trouble with these guys.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 20, 2004
  15. Jun 20, 2004 #14
    Is such message from Putin a surprise? Maybe the reasons why to tell it now is a surprise. Several possibilities, but I am sure Bush knows why. Some pressure for another issue?

    But on the content of the message:
    USA tells in the pre-war period that it prepares and will attack Saddam's Iraq. Bush includes all types of lies to motivate.
    Saddam lies too. Pokers.
    But is it abnormal that Saddam looks what he can do back if Iraq is attacked? Planning you know.
    Call it terrorist is cynical.
  16. Jun 20, 2004 #15
    What’s cynical about it pelastration? Saddam is no stranger to the support of like terrorist activities in the Midddle East ---- to the tune of $25,000 per suicide bombing. And so, it follows he was no stranger to the mindset. Considering the common definition of terrorism ---- flying planes into buildings full of innocents, exploding bombs in the middle of bus loads of morning commuters, and lopping off heads and dissemenating the related video and pictures serves what other purposes?



    These terror groups, like al Quida, are primarily organized for just this purpose. They plan these terror events so as to achieve the maximum terror bang for their resource buck, and those events are specifically designed to create terror, not in the military, but in the general population. It doesn’t matter what your political leanings are, or whether you are a man, woman, or child.
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2004
  17. Jun 20, 2004 #16


    User Avatar

    So Russia had evidence before 9/11 proving that Saddam Hussein would attack the twin towers...

    So tell me, why did the US go after Bin Laden?
  18. Jun 20, 2004 #17
    I know the definitions of terrorism. No need to repeat.
    Did Putin told you what targets Saddam was 'planning' to attack in US? Would the Pentagon be a terrorist attack?

    My point was just that US finds it normal that it may attack everyone worldwide doing (or supposed to do) something against the 'national interests' or 'national security' (whatever that is), including pre-emptive attacks, secret missions, bombing houses including civilians, etc. But if someone reacts (or plans so), it's easy to call that terrorism. In Putin's case I have no idea about the target(s). So it's premature to call that terrorism.

    My remark doesn't tells anything about what if think about Saddam. But be sure to me this former CIA-agent is a criminal, a terrible human involved in genocide (with gas components delivered by a Rotterdam daugther of ICI?).
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2004
  19. Jun 20, 2004 #18
    No one has made this claim.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook