Wow Kerry took the Florida primary!

[--Pete]

Hi,

Poor choice with OJ. All that mess did was to show we need to borrow the Scottish "Not proven" option that does not attach jeopardy.

Well, actually, it did two other things. It showed the wisdom of not allowing the media more than limited access to a trial and it showed that the Keystone Cops are alive, well, and working for the LAPD.

Might still didn't make right, but in this case stupidity did let justice down.

--Pete

[nobbie]

The animal world seems to be in panic, too:

[kandrathe]

An idiot's argument.

Touche' You got me Pete. I'm found out.

I don't need to be a major league pitcher to recognize poor pitching.

Yeah, but you need to be at the game and see what is happening. You and I are not invited to that game and so we only know part of what is happening. When the players tell us we don't believe them. Follow the Isreali's lead? They have so many friends and are so good at forming coalitions(sic). Funny you should mention the Munich Masacre, and the Mossad response. I view both the initial German response, and the Mossad retaliation as screw ups.

Are you blind, do you choose not to see, or have you not been in an airport since 9/11? By "dubious characters", I presume you mean people with big noses, a dark complexion and a full beard. Preferably stinking of camel dung and wearing a turban. Because, after all, we all know those ragheads all look alike and can easily be picked out by the well trained minimum wage government employees manning the security gates and making us take off our sneakers to make sure we don't have an assault rifle hidden in them.

No, that might be your stereotype, not mine. People who are trained to be suspicious can spot inconsistencies in documentation and behavior. I travel quite alot, and I'm surprised how subtle the questioning has become. I've been asked to describe the neighborhood where I live, not in a threatening way, but as "chit chat". A terrorist with forged documents would not be able to accurately discuss the address where they live. As for rifles in shoes... Yeah, that's it. No, I think they are worried about plastic explosives, ala the shoe bomber. I am often considered a dubious character, as I travel often and alone all over the world with alot of high tech equipment, and often in the middle of the night. Is it a PITA? Yes. But I'm grateful they are trying to do something.

As to the rest, the illegal immigrant problem has by no means been fixed. If illiterate, unprepared, uneducated people can still get into the country in large numbers, you think the measures taken by HS are going to keep trained agents out? If so, I'd suggest you go get a reality check.

So, "Fortress America"? A big wall, mine fields, barbed wire, guard dogs, and thousands of armed patrols? Quite a nice message to send to our allies, neighbors, and trading partners in Mexico and Canada.

You argue as if the only choices are appeasement and continuing the spasm this administration has been having.

I'm arguing against appeasement, and for you or other critics to offer something other than vitriol against what actions are being taken. You blame Bush, but there is a whole Congress that voted these changes into place and is providing the funding for them. Beyond them there is an entire Federal, State and Local government infrastructure that will not change come the new year. I don't see either Bush or Kerry changing any of the current momentum in Homeland Security that has been initiated by Bush.

Indeed, my greatest complaint is that nothing *effective* is being done in spite of the time, the people, and the money wasted by the present batch of incompetents.

In that we can agree. I'm just more patient. I've worked with government, and paper pushers enough to know that they will eventually get around to doing a mediocre job. It just takes time and taxes.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I view both the initial German response, and the Mossad retaliation as screw ups.

The German response was a screw up. A spasm of direct confrontation that accomplished nothing good and much bad. Much like our present administration's reaction. "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Yeah, it's a quote from SF, but it's still a good point.

But the Mossad's response? From your own link: "In twenty years since 1972, Israel's counter-terrorist Mossad has enacted terminal reprisal on at least eight of eleven Palestinians involved with the attack, and one accidental assassination in what became the Lillehammer affair. All eleven, or pieces thereof, currently rest six feet underground. Only Mohammed Daoud Oudeh (Abu Daoud), the man who conceived the act, remains alive in Amman Jordan. " Looks to me that they did pretty damned well given that (1) they didn't have the aid or permission of the countries in which they operated, and (2) they are funded at a level that would keep all the American intelligence organizations going for about a week (3) they don't have the big stick of being the only nuclear superpower. Think of what the USA could have done in the spirit of unity against terrorism post 9/11. Instead, what we've accomplished is to generate more sympathy and more support for the terrorists. Hell, we've even carved out a safe haven for them in Iraq. Yeah, maybe you are right, maybe the Mossad screwed up. But compared to our actions, they are geniuses.

So, "Fortress America"? A big wall, mine fields, barbed wire, guard dogs, and thousands of armed patrols? Quite a nice message to send to our allies, neighbors, and trading partners in Mexico and Canada.

Don't be an ass. You praise the work of HS, I show you that it's all spin and lies and you accuse me of asking for Fortress America? Again, are you trying to look stupid?

I've seen you use thought and logic in your posts in the past. But on this issue, you are neither observing the reality nor thinking about it. So, continue to regurgitate the administration's propaganda. Be one of the last to see the truth. I'll no longer bother to reply to this nonsense.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Yeah, it's a quote from SF, but it's still a good point.

You and I can think of situations where that does not apply. I would say that violence becomes the option, when rationality and reason fail.

So, "Fortress America"? A big wall, mine fields, barbed wire, guard dogs, and thousands of armed patrols? Quite a nice message to send to our allies, neighbors, and trading partners in Mexico and Canada.

Don't be an ass. You praise the work of HS, I show you that it's all spin and lies and you accuse me of asking for Fortress America? Again, are you trying to look stupid?

Since all you supply is rancor, I can only guess at how you might try to stop the waves of illegal aliens that you decry as a symptom of our poor security. You want me to be blunt? Ok, Pete, how would you stop illegal aliens from crossing our borders? Did I praise the the work of HS? No, I said it was worth having an organization dedicated to it, rather than a thousand each with a different mandate, each with a different source of knowledge, and without any clear leadership. It's not a bad idea to have someone coordinating the myriad of agencies involved with the common defense of our borders. Back when life was simple we used to call that the Armed Forces and the Department of Defense. But, the world and our government is a little more complicated now, and they seem to be busy fighting elsewhere.

Department of Homeland Security <-- Here is the link -- Where is the spin and the lies?

So, continue to regurgitate the administration's propaganda. Be one of the last to see the truth.

Bah. I'm no apologist for this administration. I'm just unwilling to focus only on the negative. This administration has its short comings, and I'm willing to discuss them and I have. Our President may not be the leader that you, or I, or many may want -- we shall see in November -- but, the government is made up of much more than him. What I most see from you is insults, criticism, and rancor -- rather than anything substantitive which we might discuss. Anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, and all I can say is it must be pretty lonely at the top of your mountain.

[kandrathe]

Ok, Ed Kennedy and Chappaquiddick. Power and/or money = acquittal.

Might still didn't make right, but in this case stupidity did let justice down.

Stupidity? Whose? Ours. Which is my point.

[Rhydderch Hael]

Colonel Jack O'Neill (with two "LL"s!), United States Air Force. Sarcastic, edgy fellow. Looks remarkably alot like MacGyver.

The fellow was once accused of offing a Prez candidate, but fortunately for him, it was really a rogue NID agent using an alien mimicking device that generates a holographic disguise of the person imaged into it.

[eppie]

QUOTE&nbsp;
So, continue to regurgitate the administration's propaganda. Be one of the last to see the truth.



Bah. I'm no apologist for this administration. I'm just unwilling to focus only on the negative. This administration has its short comings, and I'm willing to discuss them and I have. Our President may not be the leader that you, or I, or many may want -- we shall see in November -- but, the government is made up of much more than him. What I most see from you is insults, criticism, and rancor -- rather than anything substantitive which we might discuss. Anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, and all I can say is it must be pretty lonely at the top of your mountain.

Well I'm also up there if you state it like this. One very important point as Pete is trying to make, and he is right if you ask me, is the propaganda. Many governements use propaganda to sell their ideas to the people. In some countries this is a bit less, but in e.g. the US it is a serious problem. I mean all those election"movies" they show on television, the ones which eat up most of the campaign budget, don't have to do a lot with democracy.
Anyway my point is, it is good that also in the US a lot of people oppose to this kind of propaganda and don't "continue to regurgitate " it. If you check history this propaganda (ussually in war time) they are filled with lies. During the vietnam war a group of people allready opposed to this, now everybody sees it was wrong.

As last example I want to mention the "trick" of Bush' friend Aznar. Untill last sunday (election day) journalists got the order to tell (and stress) that the atacks on the trains in Madrid were done by the ETA, while at that time (the same day as the attacks) there were allready very strong leads that it was Al qaida who did it. This was just done because if it was ETA, Aznars PP, would remain the biggest party and win the elections while if it was Al qaida he would lose (what also happened now).
You see that governements very often use lies to reach there goal, even when it is about such a terribel thing as the 3/11 attacks.

[kandrathe]

Anyway my point is, it is good that also in the US a lot of people oppose to this kind of propaganda and don't "continue to regurgitate " it. If you check history this propaganda (ussually in war time) they are filled with lies. During the vietnam war a group of people allready opposed to this, now everybody sees it was wrong.

Well, Vietnam is a big topic. If you compare the lives of the people of Vietnam vs the people of South Korea (where we did not pull out) some (like my Hmong friends) might say we were wrong to leave them to that fate. We have stuck it out in South Korea for half a century at a tremendous cost. Was the Korean war wrong? Was the Vietnam war wrong? I guess at some point, when the Soviets and Chinese made them unwinable. Was it right to make a stand against Communism? Maybe. It might be that because of our ten year stand in Vietnam that Thailand is still free.

Propaganda: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. What I try to spread is the truth as I see it, both the good and the bad. What I believe in is the free expression of ideas, and debate of these topics. I could just as well accuse some of spreading Kerry "propaganda" meant to diminish any accomplishments of the USA. Well, heck, they don't even acknowledge any accomplishments, and only focus on the negative.

I object to and I'm a little tired of defacto America bashing -- where everything that we do or try to do is considered wrong. Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. all did some good and some bad things (and some very bad things). Maybe I'm anachronistic, but I find slurs like "Shrub" a tad offensive -- kind of like someone just wiped their feet on our flag. I will defend a persons freedom to do it, but at the same time I find it crude.

As last example I want to mention the "trick" of Bush' friend Aznar.

I too think it would have been better to let the evidence speak for itself.

[Occhidiangela]

Tell you what, give me one example where a democracy invaded a non-democratic country, imposed democracy, moved out, and the imposed democracy survived one decade after the invader left.

I find imposing democracy at the point of a bayonet problematic myself, but a glass half full observation would be "there's always a first time to get something right . . ." I find that a risky position to hold, since that leads us to "hope as a method" approach, which has not been shown to be a sound method of enacting change. The jury is still out.

The question unanswered is: is an Islamic Republic with a multi party parliament a version of democracy? I have no idea, but it would be a very different model than the standard Enlightenment era democracy, which by definition acts toward wresting civil control from both the ancien regime AND The Church. How that fits into the modern world is unknown, since no one has seen one of these work lately. Turkey, however, has shown how a secular state can serve an Islalmic population, but you will note that it was Home Grown by a militarist. Attaturk. The military guarantees the secularity of the Turkish Constitution. Ours does not necessarily work quite that way, and I wonder at anyone trying to import Western Democarcy in a land accustomed to Caudillos.

What I want is to find solutions to terrorism and analyze what have been the results, whether good or bad, of what's happened so far.

You and me both, since about 1972, and personally since about 1979. I consider the assault on the American Embassy and the hostage deal in Teheran a terrorist act, or at the least an Outlaw Act.

So far, the information age and decentralization of political power into the hands of whoever has money has enabled terrorism more than it has curtailed it. Extranational organizations have been on DoD's list of problems to solve since about 1991. Problem is, since we do not officialy sanction assassniation as a policy supporting activity, the ability to use "privileged sanctuary" (see the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos during VN war for an example) by hiding behind the alleged innocence of "legitimate" governments gives the terrorist a safe haven from which to operate, and Belgian, Swiss, and Lichtensteinian banks allow for covert financing to go on virtually unimpeded. With safe haven, resources, and an enemy who retrains himself, the terrorist always has the initiative. Add to that the American Liberal assault on the Intelligence arms for the past 30 years, and the terrorist are working against a handicapped foe. Your Mossad discussion is, or should be, an example for a method on how to "do it in the dark."

Check the principles of war, anywhere, and you find that Initiative is a key factor to keep in YOUR hand. American Doctrine, British Doctrine, old SOviet doctrine, Sun Tzu, etc. If the War on Terror is to be fought, maybe it needs to be fought in the shadows, and maybe the initiative needs to be regained.

Yeah, but to do so you need to understand how things evolve on the world scale. And to do *that* you need to know some history. If every time a certain situation arose the outcome was negative, it takes ignorance or partisanship (or optimism bordering on idiocy) to expect different results the next time that situation occurred. But that is *exactly* what the "at least we brought democracy to Iraq" fools are claiming. Will this be the exception -- possible but not probable.

We brought a lot of high explosives to Iraq, and an aim to change the place. That has happened, for better and for worse. There is an intention to enabling a representative form of government's growth. That is very much a work in progress, and there are those working against the US to prevent just that from happening, not the least of which is, I suspect, the King of Saudi Arabia and the Govt in Iran.

Ignorance? Yeah, it is ignorant to bring up terrorism in a discussion on the invasion of Iraq.

It was an aggressive approach to Mid East security, which includes terrorism and the security of the golabl economy's oil supply. Was it engendered by impatience? Probably, and probably a hard look at how unfruitful the past 25 years of Mid East security policies have been in solving anything. Camp David was the last thing that sorta worked, at the cost of billions $US per year. Ya pay on the installment plan, just like for your house. :blink:

If the global economy hits the skids, then the US and its way of life suffers Big Time. It is the job of any president to protect our way of life. Was invading Iraq a good way to do that? I have no idea. It was a gamble, a risk taken, based on, IMO, the assumption that Pres GW Bush loses in 2004.

At least my bile has some substance. Unlike the regurgitations of those who ignorantly continue to repeat the administration's party line.

Pete, your distaste for GW Bush and his inner circle seems to have influenced your ability to see this as anything other than an "'either/or" issue in this conversation. I contend that "it" is a hell of a lot more complex than that. My only support for the GW Bush position in re the War on Terror that is germane to this conversation has to do with the attempt, possibly Quixotic, to take on anyone who supports or gives harbor to State Sponsored terrorism. The thin thread there is the payoffs to Palestinian bombers. Hmmmm, Maybe Syria should start worrying . . . the safe haven for Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad for years . . .

I am still trying to puzle out whether or not this move was aimed at a secondary effect of smoking out terrorists by getting them to try to move, and act, and to awaken sleeper cells. A hell of an expensive way to make that happen. See your Mossad example again. :rolleyes:

If we base all of our opinions on the administration's rhetoric, the picture painted is . . . ambiguous at best, naively simplistic at worst, and to make matters worse, it depends upon which voice is speaking at the time. I have heard any number of supporters of the Pres describe him as a good leader. ROnald Reagan, for all of his imperfections, was a good leader, in that he got people to me work to do in the same direction and speak, generally, from the same playbook. Some of the strong personalities that Pres Bush has working with him, I won't say For Him at present, sometimes forget, I think, that their role is

To Serve.

They could all take a page out of Sec State Colin Powell's book on that one. Ya know, the page in the play book entitled

Team Player.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

is an Islamic Republic with a multi party parliament a version of democracy?

Good question, maybe even a paradox. I'd say that if by "Islamic Republic" you mean that the citizens have to be Muslim, then I'd say no. But if you mean a republic based on Islamic morals (as opposed to Christian or Judaic) then I don't see why not. After all, Italy, France, Spain and Israel seem to do OK. Or do you believe that there is something fundamental in Islam (not in fundamentalist Islam) that precludes the possibility of a truly free Islamic state? After all, part of any working definition of democracy must be the right to dissent. There is a spirit involved as well as the forms, otherwise we would have to consider the old Soviet Union and Iraq under Saddam as democracies.

Check the principles of war, anywhere, and you find that Initiative is a key factor to keep in YOUR hand. American Doctrine, British Doctrine, old SOviet doctrine, Sun Tzu, etc. If the War on Terror is to be fought, maybe it needs to be fought in the shadows, and maybe the initiative needs to be regained.

Yep, and not just war. Sports, business, etc. all have "the best defense is a good offense" at their core. However, not entirely in shadow. First, as we've discussed before, there is intranational terrorism and international terrorism. How each country handles its internal terrorists is that country's business. The international terrorism needs to be handled through cooperation, and IMO handled like the criminal activity it is and not like a military matter, which it isn't. The FBI rather than the Paras, if you get my drift. And it must be kept in proportion (something we, and most of the world, seem to have lost). During the Napoleonic Wars, the British formed regiments of expatriated French, trained them, equipped them, and landed them in France to foment uprisings. None of them ever amounted to much. One MP (too lazy to look it up, but it might have been Lord Vincent) called it "breaking windows with guineas". The cost was not worth the result. If we spend more lives and money "rooting out" terrorists than they could cost us by their actions, then they've won bigger than had we just ignored them. Somewhere between the inaction of the USA over the years prior to 9/11 and the spasm since lies the appropriate amount of action. And, if the action is actually aimed at a nation that *is* responsible for terrorism, then the results would perhaps be more significant.

Pete, your distaste for GW Bush and his inner circle seems to have influenced your ability to see this as anything other than an "'either/or" issue in this conversation.

I have never met Shrub or any member of his administration. Thus, my distaste for them cannot be based on personal rancor. All that leaves is their policies and actions. I was not impressed by those prior to 9/11, and unlike the majority that seem to be seeking a Rambo solution, I am not impressed by much of anything they've done since.

Two years in Afghanistan, Al-Queda is stirred up but not destroyed. Their main sources of funds are alive and well and living openly in Saudi Arabia (an ally). The main part of their forces, including most of the leadership, seems to have moved to Pakistan (another ally who, BTW, we will not invade because they have nukes (and sell them to anyone with the funds)). And support for their cause is growing about as fast as is dislike for all things American -- and not just in Islamic nations.

So, yes, it is an "either/or" issue to me. Either the administration has done something to curb terrorism or it hasn't. Throw in its creation of a new safe haven for terrorists in chaotic Iraq, and I'd have to conclude that their score is below zero.

It is not that I dislike this administration and so see nothing good (i.e., more value than cost) done. It is because I see nothing done well that I dislike this administration.

I have heard any number of supporters of the Pres describe him as a good leader.

Less than half the nation wanted him in the first place. Two thirds of the nation thought he wasn't doing a good job prior to 9/11. Then the post WTC lynch mob formed up, he jumped to the front of it and became much smarter and much more charismatic? After two years, the population is starting to think with its brains rather than its guts and Shrub's popularity is steadily going down. Leader? Only in the sense that he found a parade, got in front of it, and made a lot of noise.

We did need a strong leader after 9/11. Someone capable of putting the situation in perspective. Someone who could calm the nation, show them that that was a criminal act not an act of war. That could pull the international community together (seldom has there been a better opportunity) to seriously reduce international terrorism (much like crime, I don't think it will ever be eradicated). That could take action that was effective, both in terms of cost and in terms of achieving its goals.

Instead we got bombast, exaggerations, lies, the invasion of two countries (neither of which we can leave, neither of which we can stay and control). We've lost the opportunity to lead an international campaign that would (probably) have been much more effective and would have definitely increased the popularity (and thus the power) of the USA. Instead, we've snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Some of the strong personalities that Pres Bush has working with him, I won't say For Him at present, sometimes forget, I think, that their role is

To Serve.

It was clear to those who looked even before the election that Shrub was a figurehead, a midget amongst giants (or, at least, giant egos). His used car salesman charisma, his political connections, his "brand" recognition won by his father were all that that particular clique wanted. With the exception of Powell, none of them would have garnered much more than a third party's candidate of the vote had they run directly. By fronting a little man whom they could (and did and do) control, the clique could take the power without having to run for office. I would say that both "working with him" and "working for him" are incorrect. At best, he is working for them. In actuality, I often feel he is doing little more than making their speeches.

They could all take a page out of Sec State Colin Powell's book on that one. Ya know, the page in the play book entitled

Team Player.

Doesn't look much like Powell is even on the team any more. He is, indeed, a team player, too much so to repudiate the position in which he's found himself. I had long admired him. I now wonder if he fooled us all, or if his honesty is real. If it is, I often wonder what he thinks of the things he has done in the past two years. Either way, I am looking forward to the second volume of his autobiography.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

UNTANGLING THE TERROR WEB -- Testimony by Matthew A. Levitt, Senior Fellow in Terrorism Studies, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, October 22, 2003 -- Before US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Of particular interest are the links described to Zarqawi. "In addition, a key Zarqawi deputy called Foley's assassins on a satellite phone to congratulate them while he was driving out of Iraq toward Turkey, a mistake that led to his capture and confirmation that an al-Qaeda cell was operating out of Iraq."

Pete, I mirror your sentiment about terrorism and crime. This paragraph in particular resonated with me, and I would guess also with you.

Indeed, similarly unrealistic litmus tests are applied to the war on terrorism itself. Too often people talk about winning the war on terrorism, defeating al-Qaeda, or ending terrorism. Let me be the bearer of bad news: that will not happen. One cannot defeat terrorism. Terrorism, prostitution, drugs -- there are certain infamous business ventures that have always been around and will be around for quite some time. Counterterrorism, therefore, is not about defeating terrorism, it is about constricting the operating environment -- making it harder for terrorists to do what they want to do at every level, such as conducting operations, procuring and transferring false documents, ferrying fugitives from one place to another, and financing, raising, and laundering funds. We need to make it more difficult for terrorists to conduct their operational, logistical and financial activities. We need to deny then the freedom of movement to conduct these activities. In fact, one can so constrict a terrorist group’s operating environment that it will eventually suffocate. In its day the Abu Nidal organization was the al-Qaeda of its time, and it no longer exists. A time will come when the primary international terrorist threat will no longer be posed by al-Qaeda, but by then there will be other groups.

Also, in reference to your opinion on the fall of Baghdad;

These seeds of a pluralistic society in Iraq are now being uprooted - even as coalition forces try to plant them - by swarms of radicals from across the Muslim world who enter Iraq primarily from Syria and Iran but also from Saudi Arabia, to take advantage of Iraq's newfound status as a failing state. Iraq has now become a magnet drawing Baathists, Sunni terrorists, Shia radicals and others opposed to the development of a peaceful, pluralistic society in Iraq, much like Afghanistan, Somalia, parts of Yemen, Georgia's Pankisi Gorge, Chechnya and other undergoverned territories.

Since it is shown that Iraq was an accomplice to terrorism under Saddam, is it possible that if stabilization of a new government and security can be made in Iraq that the new government might be better than the old one? Certainly it would seem all the above states who enable terrorists to enter Iraq have alot to lose if Iraq becomes an open democratic Islamic society, ala Turkey.

Human Right Watch Report on Ansar al-Islam in Iraqi Kurdistan
This was the site of a week long struggle between Green Beret + irregular forces in northern Iraq during the war. The facilities were reduced to rubble by the US airforce.
UK Guardian - US Special Forces take fight to fundamentalist terror group

There was a raid last night by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. What they raided was a training camp near Samanpak (sp). And you can see the explosion along on the map near Samanpak (sp). This raid occurred in response to information that had been gained by coalition forces from some foreign fighters we encountered from other countries, not Iraq. And we believe that this camp had been used to train these foreign fighters in terror tactics. It is now destroyed.

GlobalSecurity.org on Centcom briefing April 6th 2003
GlobalSecurity.org on the Facility at Salman Pak

[--Pete]

Hi,

Matthew A. Levitt gives an interesting presentation. Although what he has to say is said in milder terms, it seems that he is in agreement with my position. He damns with faint praise the actions taken and points out the necessity for other, more appropriate actions. Some of which actions have been taken, but in too limited a scope.

One point that he makes that I disagree with is his lumping of all terrorists into one group. Taken to its logical conclusion, the IRA, the Basque, the various Militia and KKK in the USA would all be working with Al-Queda. That there are multiple terrorists groups with common goals is not in question. That they interact, even sometimes work together again is not a question. But that an Islamic secular state, which the fundamentalist Muslims abhor would work together with a terrorist group of those same fundament defies logic.

As far as to the presence of terrorists in Iraq prior to the war, it is not surprising that they were there. There are terrorists residing in Ireland, in Spain, in France, even (gasp!) in the USA (or have we all forgotten Oklahoma City?) To use terrorism to justify the invasion of Iraq, one must show that those terrorists were working in that country with the knowledge and approval of the government. And not just *some* members of the government. There are IRA supporters in Parliament, Basque supporters in the Spanish government, and, for all I know, militia supporters in the USA. There sure were KKK supporters in Congress within the last seventy years. All of which doesn't make Ireland/England, Spain or the USA terrorist supporting countries. Of course, *after* the US invasion of Iraq, fundamentalist Islamic terrorists will use the fact that Iraq is at least nominally Muslim to spin more anti-USA sentiment.

Since it is shown that Iraq was an accomplice to terrorism under Saddam . . .

Where? That there were some terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion is established. That some members of the Iraq power structure supported terrorism is somewhat established. As I've said above, the same can be said of England. That the Iraqi government under Saddam supported terrorism is not established. That it supported fundamentalist Islamic terrorism is unlikely.

. . . is it possible that if stabilization of a new government and security can be made in Iraq that the new government might be better than the old one.

Big "if". It is also possible that the new government will be worse than the old one. Perhaps its leader will not be as unsavory, but its effectiveness as an enemy of the USA could be better served by someone the rest of the world could more easily stomach. Will either scenario happen? As I've said, I'm willing to wait since all that we have to go on for now is opinion (and history, which does support my side, but which I'll admit is not an infallible guide).

This was the site of a week long struggle . . . and related links.

Again, so what? There are Militia training camps, by all reports, in the USA. From the first of the two links you supplied: "Human Rights Watch has not investigated the alleged links between the Iraqi government and Ansar al-Islam, and is not aware of any convincing evidence supporting this contention. " However, the existence of such factions willing to resort to violence as their first recourse (and similar considerations in Afghanistan) is a large part of the reason why I find the concept of *any* Middle Eastern democracy far fetched. Even Israel seems to be descending into the barbarism of the Middle East rather than bringing the region up to the civilization of the Western democracies. For stability, the ratio of fundamentalist lunatics to rational citizens must be large. That does not seem to be the case there.

As to the last link: "Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility at Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations." Sounds a lot like SAS, Seal, or other *military* training camp. "Iraq told UN inspectors that Salman Pak was an anti-terror training camp for Iraqi special forces. However, two defectors from Iraqi intelligence stated that they had worked for several years at the secret Iraqi government camp, which had trained Islamic terrorists in rotations of five or six months since 1995." And what did those defectors get in return? Has the possibility that defectors from a regime where one was shot (or worse) for not telling the boss what he wanted to hear would do the same for their new bosses? Sorry, the story may be true, but better sources need to tell it.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

One point that he makes that I disagree with is his lumping of all terrorists into one group. Taken to its logical conclusion, the IRA, the Basque, the various Militia and KKK in the USA would all be working with Al-Queda. That there are multiple terrorists groups with common goals is not in question. That they interact, even sometimes work together again is not a question. But that an Islamic secular state, which the fundamentalist Muslims abhor would work together with a terrorist group of those same fundament defies logic.

I understood that more to mean that we need to be careful in either chasing down one particular group, or in defining terrorism too narrowly. I think he was more calling for the clarification in general terms what constitutes a criminal enterprise or an enterprise that supports other criminal enterprises, and therefore when investigating or chasing down the stream of money one may be surprised by whom may be involved with whom. (e.g. is Saudi Arabia and the house of Saud a terrorist supporting organization?) They may not even pursue the same agenda, but if not in direct conflict, individuals may aid one another against the common enemy. That might even extend to domestic terrorist organizations, and it might not be too far fetched to think of a militia group or the KKK getting aid, or aiding international terrorists in striking at the US Federal government or a particular human target.

Even Israel seems to be descending into the barbarism of the Middle East rather than bringing the region up to the civilization of the Western democracies. For stability, the ratio of fundamentalist lunatics to rational citizens must be large. That does not seem to be the case there.

Which is why I was surprised by your reference to the Mossad's tactics. Terrorism in Isreal has only escalated since that time, and the Mossad has been more and more ineffective. Isreal now regularly exercises military extremes in their responses to terrorist incidents which only play into the anti-Isreali propaganda. They do not treat them as crimes.

In general, to the rest of your post I would reply that I have seen evidence to lead me to believe that Saddam, and his administration gave succor to terrorism. Some indications of that before the build up to war involving Zaraqawi, Abu Abbas, and others, and certainly he allowed extremists from Syria in by the bus load in the months prior to the March 2003. My prejudice is in that in all other aspects of Saddam's Iraq he was in total control of his borders, and all actions of his government. How then could these terrorists move freely within his society without his approval? Again, I may be prejudiced by my knowledge of Saddam and his iron grip on Iraq, but to me the err is in assuming there was no link. To me it is err to not be suspicious of the facility at Salman Pak. I'm not sure what evidence would convince you, but in time that too may be revealed. For my part, I will continue to dig until I find it. I think it is a truth that needs revealing.

:D Now if only I could find those stockpiles of WMD.

[Jester]

"How then could these terrorists move freely within his society without his approval?"

Well, they probably didn't. But that hardly means he was supporting them. One of the basic principles of survival as a middle east dictator is the "enemy of my enemy" principle.

Not cracking down on Zaraqawi? Well, why should he? They're not harassing anyone but the Kurds, and that's perfectly okay with him. Does that mean he endorses all aspects of their platform, or would even like to see them more powerful than they are? Very unlikely. But so long as all they're doing is harassing Kurds? He's going to give them leeway. They're doing his work for him, after all.

Ditto with Palestinian extremists. Would he like them running his country? No. But is he going to stop them at his borders? No. They're not hurting him, but they are hurting his enemies. What kind of message would turning them away give? That Saddam's gone over to the Zionists?

"Succor", if by that you mean not closing your borders to them (and that single incident where he hospitalized Zaraqawi) is rather different from the kind of support the administration directly stated they gave to terrorists (Al Qaeda in particular), and they continue to imply, despite a complete lack of evidence. No money, no weapons, no secret meetings, no coordinated attacks, no steady stream of Al Qaeda recruits coming out of Iraq, *certainly* no WMD. Just open borders and one case of medical treatment.

If this is the sum total of everything that will be unveiled about the "connection" between Iraq and terrorism, I feel perfectly justified in saying it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Jester

[LiquidDamage]

Less than half the nation wanted him in the first place.

Same with Clinton.

I'd like to have the system changed to have a runoff between the two who got the most votes. Then, I think more people might actually give independants a chance, instead of thinking they would be "throwing their vote away".

I would consider voting for a third party every time just to give them more legitimacy, and to raise the chances of having someone worth voting for come election year.

[kandrathe]

Saddam's Ambassador to al Qaeda -- by Jonathan Schanzer Weekly Standard, Mar 2004

Found: A Smoking Gun -- William Safire, THE NEW YORK TIMES February 11, 2004

Raid Finds Al-Qaida Tie to Iraq Militants -- AP, March 2003

From:State Department 2000:Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism

The Iraqi regime rebuffed a request from Riyadh for the extradition of two Saudis who had hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad, but did return promptly the passengers and the aircraft. Disregarding its obligations under international law, the regime granted political asylum to the hijackers and gave them ample opportunity to ventilate in the Iraqi Government-controlled and international media their criticisms of alleged abuses by the Saudi Arabian Government, echoing an Iraqi propaganda theme.

Several expatriate terrorist groups continued to maintain offices in Baghdad, including the Arab Liberation Front, the inactive 15 May Organization, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). PLF leader Abu `Abbas appeared on state-controlled television in the fall to praise Iraq's leadership in rallying Arab opposition to Israeli violence against Palestinians. The ANO threatened to attack Austrian interests unless several million dollars in a frozen ANO account in a Vienna bank were turned over to the group.

I think save haven is more what I would call it. Now I feel you are trying to find a justification for Saddam's actions. Is Saddam really the guy you want to defend? I don't have video or audio tape of meetings between Iraqi Intelligence and terrorists. If that ever did exist, I doubt anyone would get access to it anytime soon. If I do, I will post the link. I don't need that level of evidence to have reasonable doubts. If it looks like a fish, and smells like a fish, it is probably a fish.

You say...

and they continue to imply, despite a complete lack of evidence.

... And I would say that as I've attempted to show, it's not a complete lack of evidence and as time goes on, more evidence becomes available.

This site is dedicated to retreiving and translating documents from Iraq as they become available. It provides interesting insight into Saddam's Iraq.
IRDP - Iraqi Research and Documentation Project

[--Pete]

. . . in last month's Scientific American

Hi,

Same with Clinton.

Sorry, I misspoke. While Clinton did not, indeed, get half the popular vote in either election, he did get more votes than any of his opponents. Bush not only got less than half the vote, he got less votes than Gore. In a two person run off, Clinton may well have lost the first election (Perot voters probably going primarily republican once he was off the ballot). He probably would have won the second. In a two person race, Gore would probably have beaten Bush. Just guesses, but the numbers from http://www.uselectionatlas.org/ make it look that way.

I'd like to have the system changed to have a runoff between the two who got the most votes. Then, I think more people might actually give independents a chance, instead of thinking they would be "throwing their vote away".

Indeed, there are better ways to run an election than the way we do. However, the probability of third party candidates winning (even if the rules change) are going to be pretty slim for a long time to come. From the article I mentioned, I especially like the idea of "ranking" the candidates and then tossing out the bottom candidate till only two are left.

I would consider voting for a third party every time just to give them more legitimacy, and to raise the chances of having someone worth voting for come election year.

It's going to take a lot more than that to make third parties viable. The biggest single reform has to be campaign funding. As long as elections are bought with private funds, so long will third party candidates stand no chance. Then there is the way that everything is a "block" vote. As I've pointed out before, if 49.5% of the country is for party B and 50.5% for party A and this mix occurs on all levels, then everyone from the county dog catcher to the president of the USA will be from party A. Although party B is almost half the population, it has no representation.

Even if a third party candidate could become president, he would be an extremely ineffective president because he would have almost no support in congress. Consider how inefficient some presidents have been when the majority in one house or the other was against them, then think of what it would be like when almost the whole of both houses is against him. So, before a third party could become truly viable, the means by which we choose our representatives (both Representatives and Senators) needs to be changed.

The other possibility is for one of the two main parties to split. Don't expect that to happen. Again, because of the way we vote for representation, only a two party system will work. Both halves of a split party would initially be weaker than the party that didn't split. Eventually, one of the two fragments would become the second main party and the other would fade into indifference. But in the meanwhile, a lot of politicians would have had to put their principles ahead of their desire for office. Frankly, I don't see it happening. Then again, I don't see any reforms happening, since those in power have a strong reason to fight change. They're at the top of the food chain under the present system, any change can only hurt them since they've got no way to go but down.

--Pete

[Jester]

"Now I feel you are trying to find a justification for Saddam's actions."

There's a difference between a justification and a reason which denies your conclusions. I'm not particularly interested in excusing him; on a personal level, he's clearly guilty of just about everything in anyone's book.

These articles are retreads of the same stuff. One, ten, a hundred articles, it's all still the same evidence: the one intercepted document of Zaraqwi working with Al Qaeda *after* the fall of Saddam, combined with his having recieved medical treatment in Baghdad, combined with various and sundry support for Ansar al-Islam's operations in Kurdistan, oppressing the Kurds.

Again, since harassing Kurds was on his "to do" list, and defending Israel was absolutely not, I see no reason why this paints a portrait of Saddam as any different from what we already knew for certain: that he was a pragmatic, ruthless, *secular* dictator. His support of terrorism was, as far as we can tell, entirely limited to these two areas, and did not include any support for Al Qaeda, or any other group except Ansar al-Islam. As for his tiffs with the Saudis, that's all neighbourhood business. The Saudis offer a thousand times the support to terrorism Iraq ever has. If Saddam was stonewalling them, it's because he hates the Saudis, not because he really loves terrorism.

Again, not a hill of beans. This is a justification for war, not "Six Degrees of Osama Bin Laden". That Saddam allowed so-and-so to work in Baghdad, when they had known ties to x-y-z, who are a splinter organization of thing-a-majig... it just doesn't cut it. Is there anything more solid than the Ansar al-Islam connection? I haven't seen it.

Jester

[LiquidDamage]

I have never met Shrub or any member of his administration.  Thus, my distaste for them cannot be based on personal rancor.  All that leaves is their policies and actions.  I was not impressed by those prior to 9/11, and unlike the majority that seem to be seeking a Rambo solution, I am not impressed by much of anything they've done since.

Speaking of which, I remembered (and found) a little post Pete made back in February of 2001, after Bush had just gotten into office:

http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/messag...ageid=982427637

Sorry, but last time I checked, Iraq was an independent nation. We have no right to set up laws. Bush senior was an idiot for not completing the job in '91 and his son is an idiot for this bull**** in '01. If we are going to invade Iraq and run it, then let's do that. If we're not, then leave them the hell alone.

I know you were being sarcastic, Pete, but it is still amusing. :)