If the 'Independent Newspaper', was in a infiltrated buy Al Qaeda sympathizers...

[ViolentPanda]

Hi VP, I is a bit like saying, prove to me I will have a car accident and then I will put on my seatbelt.

It's not an analogous situation.

British intelligence actually produced data (quoted during the Hutton inquiry iirc) that set out emphatically that neither US or British intel had been able to find any connection between Iraq (a secular Arab state whose head of state was supposedly on AQs "people to kill" list until the Yanks did it for them) and the Islamist fundamentalists who perpetrated 9/11.

Me, I'm more inclined to give credence to multi-sourced information than to your unsourced speculation.

 

[SuburbanCasual]

Hi VP, I is a bit like saying, prove to me I will have a car accident and then I will put on my seatbelt.

You fucking retard

Christ most of my mates are rightwing but they could wipe their arses with what you know about anything

 

[Greebozz]

Would it help if I asked a weaker question than 'can you prove it'?

What about if I asked why you believe that there is a connection between Saddam's Iraq and 9/11 and why you believe that this is something that others should take into account?

Yours and ViolentPanda's posts are very interesting and intriguing mental processes you are both using to analyse the situation.

I agree 100 percent that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and that Saddam Hussein had no connection whatsoever with Islamic fundamentalists and certainly not 9/11.

But the risk seemed very real at the time, do you remember the Anthrax attacks to major government offices, thousands of people on six months antibiotics courses. These attacks were home-grown. But America it couldn't sleep at night with Saddam Hussein in power, like it all lump it that was the way it was.

 

[rhod]

Saddam Hussein had no connection whatsoever with Islamic fundamentalists and certainly not 9/11.

So how come the more vociferous proponents of the invasion of Iraq kept (keep) mentioning Saddam and 9-11 in the same breath (being careful not to be too explicit in a direct connection which couldn't be proved, of course)?

The risk seemed very real at the time

Hardly surprising, given the 24-7 scaremongering and selective cherry-picking of "intelligence" that bombarded us from the government and media.

It wasn't too difficult to scratch below the surface of the lies and propaganda if you only wanted to look, however. Maybe if you had read the Independent a bit more or listened to some expert opinion (Scott Ritter, for example), you could have cultivated a more balanced opinion of the situation in Iraq, Greeboz. The "artists impression" of the dreaded mobile bio-labs was the final straw. Was that the best they could do? And would Bush really send thousands of troops into an area where they would be subject to bio/chemical attack? It just didn't add up, but you just lapped it up, all the same.

Anthrax attacks

Glad you brought them up. Rememeber them every time Bush says his strongarm tactics have prevented terrorism at home. Bush never did find out who was behind those murders, did he? Another failure (or "success waiting to happen" as one of the more Orwellian Bush admin lackeys said the other day). Now who could possibly have benefitted from scaring Democrat politicians into letting Bush have his little war?

 

[Cid]

I haven't been in this forum for ages, please tell me this isn't the standard level of debate?

Look Greebozz, the Indy isn't always the greatest newspaper but Islamist propaganda?
It does come across as vehemently opposed to the Bush/Blair governments with regards to the current situation in the ME, but this is probably partly due to the fact that Bush/Blair have fucked up monumentally sending Iraq into a downward spiral of sectarian violence, as opposed to your idea that Indy journalists are Islamists in disguise. It's also worth noting that the indy has some journalists (eg Fisky, probably the most experienced ME correspondent alive - even if he does have a tendency to ranting) who are actually prepared to delve into all sides of the conflict, rather than sitting in an office/hotel and waiting for the latest reports from the danger zones.

He's talking about a generation of sheep who willingly bleat the line that America is bad, is after Iraq's oil etc and just swallowing the inane line fed by the Indy.
Badly put, but ultimately a decent point.

I'm sorry? Why exactly do you think they're there? Do you think that Anglo-American government policy in the ME has been good? You're over-simplfying of course, the indy has never pushed the 'they're after the oil and that's it!' line, it goes a lot further than that (puppet state, political gain from war, arms, prxies etc etc ad nauseam) and any half-decent journo recognises that.

 

[Blagsta]

Are you still in the "love in years" let's party and all get along, no one could possibly want to hurt decent nice people like myself? Its all nasty Bush's fault.

What the fuck are you on?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I haven't been in this forum for ages, please tell me this isn't the standard level of debate? <snip>

I'm afraid it is these days ... or at least it rarely gets much better than this, although it does once in a while.

 

[Greebozz]

So how come the more vociferous proponents of the invasion of Iraq kept (keep) mentioning Saddam and 9-11 in the same breath (being careful not to be too explicit in a direct connection which couldn't be proved, of course)?



Hardly surprising, given the 24-7 scaremongering and selective cherry-picking of "intelligence" that bombarded us from the government and media.

It wasn't too difficult to scratch below the surface of the lies and propaganda if you only wanted to look, however. Maybe if you had read the Independent a bit more or listened to some expert opinion (Scott Ritter, for example), you could have cultivated a more balanced opinion of the situation in Iraq, Greeboz. The "artists impression" of the dreaded mobile bio-labs was the final straw. Was that the best they could do? And would Bush really send thousands of troops into an area where they would be subject to bio/chemical attack? It just didn't add up, but you just lapped it up, all the same.



Glad you brought them up. Rememeber them every time Bush says his strongarm tactics have prevented terrorism at home. Bush never did find out who was behind those murders, did he? Another failure (or "success waiting to happen" as one of the more Orwellian Bush admin lackeys said the other day). Now who could possibly have benefitted from scaring Democrat politicians into letting Bush have his little war?

I don't disagree with your argument, and I fully understand and accept way you and many others here are coming from. But I feel there is one factor you are not putting into the equation, and that is risk assessment, that was what the seatbelt analogy was about.

No one knows what Saddam Hussein would have done in the future.

Incidentally Cid your point "It does come across as vehemently opposed to the Bush/Blair governments with regards to the current situation in the ME, but this is probably partly due to the fact that Bush/Blair have fucked up monumentally sending Iraq into a downward spiral of sectarian violence, as opposed to your idea that Indy journalists are Islamists in disguise. It's also worth noting that the indy has some journalists..."

In my view the Iraqis are responsible for sending Iraqi into a downward spiral. Those young guys who are doing the bombing and killing come from families I wonder how the hell they were brought up. Iraqi must take responsibility for what their sons are doing.
The people who are doing this violence are complete dickheads and acting like savages.


By the way Blag and Suberbancasual are on my ignore list, If you are going to insult, for gods sake use an ounce of wit.

 

[Streathamite]

Hi VP, I is a bit like saying, prove to me I will have a car accident and then I will put on my seatbelt.

no it's not you clueless buffoon! al-q had no stronger ideological enemy than Saddam; They were in no less than mortal combat for the political soul of young arabs, and they each represented the only 'growth sectors in arab politics in the heart of the last 100 years, modernising pan-arabist nasserist nationalism and jihadist militant islam.
These ideologies were the bitterest of enemies, as were their respective supporters, and had OBL been staggeringly unwise enough to show his head inside ba'athist Iraq or syria it would not have remained attached tio his shoulders for much longer.
all of the above by the way, is common knowledge to all those above the age of 12 in the arab world, and no news to anyone who knows anything about the subject.
You, however, don't.

 

[Das Uberdog]

How many people died from Anthrax attacks? How come the UN weapons inspection team demanded more time to search for weapons or even evidence that weapons were being produced, because there was none? Do you remember the results of the Hutton inquiry? Do you remember that the government drew up it's case for war from a PHD theory found on the internet? Do you have any recollection of the Downing Street Memo, detailing three years in advance of invasion intentions to invade the country? Have you ever heard of the New American Century? Do you remember that months before the buildup to war began, Iraq changed it's currency to Euros?

You seem to accuse everyone else on this thread of having a bad memory as to the percieved danger from Saddam at the time of the invasion, but you yourself seem to have no recollection whatsoever of pretty much every single controversy and item of evidence presented by the left/anti-war cause up until this point showing that the fear amongst British society at the beginning of the war was entirely manufactured and not real.

We won these arguments at the time and continue to win them when they crop up. It's not us who're using 'bad memory' to wipe away history, it's you.

Plus, Pete the Greek has to be the funniest pillock I've seen in a long time. I especially liked the insultingly patronising way in which he 'stuck up' for his buddy Greebz [the quote was "you lot are being deliberately cruel and unkind towards Greebozz" for those who don't remember ] and the way in which Greebo then lapped it up ["Thank Pete the Greek, for backing me up, great sum up of the situation and the Independent newspaper"] - seriously, you couldn't write that gold. It's like Morcombe and Wise-esque to the max. You're quite a duo.

 

[Streathamite]

Have I made my point clear?

yes, but your point was so shit i don't know why you bothered.

 

[Streathamite]

dupe post PC fucked

 

[Streathamite]

Thank Pete the Greek, for backing me up, great sum up of the situation and the Independent newspaper. And I do read it quite a lot as it is the only one my local library gets. Comeback Guardian all is forgiven.


The point about Iraq and 9/11

Saddam Hussain a total an absolute enemy of the US and Britain. There is no question about this.

no he wasn't; up until 90 he was the US's uber-client, and only invaded kuwait cos he thought the Us gave him permission to; he was in fa ct more like the spurned suitor.
after 1995, he was in fact totally non-threatening, as that is the date when the head of his militarisation projects got rid of all the WMDs, according to info he gave to british intelligence on his defection

He looked like he was developing chemical weapons, he had in the past been exploring nuclear energy but the reactor was bombed by Israel.


Some people think he wanted to act that he still had chemical weapons to keep Iran an possibly the US at bay.

and your evidence for either of this ridiculous assertions is...?
links please.

The Britain and US were concerned that a terrorist group would do a deal with Saddam to carry out a chemical strike against the two countries.


It was felt that the consequences of this happening were so serious that Britain and the US had to be sure.

except jihadist terror groups were the Ba'ath's bitterest enemies and he'd spent the previous 2 decades suppressing thdem, brutally and murderously.
nice try but 0/10

 

[zoltan]

I am enjoying his debate .

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yours and ViolentPanda's posts are very interesting and intriguing mental processes you are both using to analyse the situation.

I agree 100 percent that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and that Saddam Hussein had no connection whatsoever with Islamic fundamentalists and certainly not 9/11.

But the risk seemed very real at the time, do you remember the Anthrax attacks to major government offices, thousands of people on six months antibiotics courses. These attacks were home-grown. But America it couldn't sleep at night with Saddam Hussein in power, like it all lump it that was the way it was.

I utterly disagree that "the risk seemed very real".

It didn't to anyone who bothered to look beyond mass media representations.
The Americans I know and keep in contact with are a fair cross-section of "blue collar" opinion in several states, from left-democrats to old-style small-government republicans, and yet none of them (a couple of dozen people) bought the anthrax hype. Now admittedly that's small sample, but 20+ people from 4 different states, from the pacific coast to the atlantic, all reaching the same conclusion simply through ignoring the media and doing a little research?

Perhaps you mean that the risk "seemed very real"" because it was presented in that way, with media reportage "spun" to make certain conclusions easier to reach than others?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't disagree with your argument, and I fully understand and accept way you and many others here are coming from. But I feel there is one factor you are not putting into the equation, and that is risk assessment, that was what the seatbelt analogy was about.

Again, I disagree with you.
Any government making a standard risk assessment or even simply a cost/benefit analysis (of the anthrax situation for example) would arrive at the conclusion that the issuing of the antibiotics you mentioned would serve a two-fold purpose:
1) To innoculate essential staff.
2) To present the element of threat as greater than it was, so serving a propaganda function.

Little risk, a moderate cost, a great benefit in terms of propaganda.

No one knows what Saddam Hussein would have done in the future.

Given how closely restricted he was in terms of sanctions, finance and "close quarters" surveillance, it is certain that while it is impossible to know what someone will do, it's possible to predict with an acceptable degree of accuracy.
To state that Saddam had to be "taken out" because of his being a "wild card" was always a poor card for the US/UK alliance to play. It flies in the face of too much material that shows otherwise.

 

[Greebozz]

no he wasn't; up until 90 he was the US's uber-client, and only invaded kuwait cos he thought the Us gave him permission to; he was in fa ct more like the spurned suitor.

Very true the US Ambassador did give Saddam Hussein the impression that a blind eye would be turned. But I believe what really soured relationship was when the US intelligence after helping Iraqi gave intelligence to Iraqi to stop Saddam Hussein winning the Iran, Iraq war.

It is funny how now and all through history the most detesable and unlikely regimes become friends to unite against a common enemy.
But luckily that would never ever have been a possibility with Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda apparently.

after 1995, he was in fact totally non-threatening, as that is the date when the head of his militarisation projects got rid of all the WMDs, according to info he gave to british intelligence on his defection

What about his avowing to destroy Israel and his sending large amounts of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

and your evidence for either of this ridiculous assertions is...?
links please.

Regarding his nuclear power stations I first heard about this in the panorama TV programme.

As for his reasons for all the bluff and brigmanship that is anyone's guess, that it happens to be an opinion I agree with

except jihadist terror groups were the Ba'ath's bitterest enemies and he'd spent the previous 2 decades suppressing thdem, brutally and murderously.
nice try but 0/10

 

[Streathamite]

What about his avowing to destroy Israel and his sending large amounts of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

have you never heard of the phrase 'playing to the gallery? it is de rigeur for any would be 'caliph of the arabs' to rain curses down on israel and big up the palestinians

Regarding his nuclear power stations I first heard about this in the panorama TV programme.

oh well, if a journo says it it must be true!

But I believe what really soured relationship was when the US intelligence after helping Iraqi gave intelligence to Iraqi to stop Saddam Hussein winning the Iran, Iraq war.

this makes absolutely zero sense. sort it aht, do.

As for his reasons for all the bluff and brigmanship that is anyone's guess

no it isn't it's bloody obvious; in the politics of the M/East a sign of weakness is effectively a suicide note. this is not surrey of which we speak.

 

[Greebozz]

have you never heard of the phrase 'playing to the gallery? it is de rigeur for any would be 'caliph of the arabs' to rain curses down on israel and big up the palestinians

Fair point

oh well, if a journo says it it must be true!

The ruins of the nuclear power station are still there.

this makes absolutely zero sense. sort it aht, do.

I believe this to be a well recorded fact.

no it isn't it's bloody obvious; in the politics of the M/East a sign of weakness is effectively a suicide note. this is not surrey of which we speak.

again fair point you make

 

[Streathamite]

The ruins of the nuclear power station are still there.

except the ruins of a nuke power station look much like the ruins of any other power station, obnce they've been pounded. and I'd like to see that backed up, please

I believe this to be a well recorded fact.

ermm...no, it made no grammatical sense whatsoever.

 

[Greebozz]

except the ruins of a nuke power station look much like the ruins of any other power station, obnce they've been pounded. and I'd like to see that backed up, please

ermm...no, it made no grammatical sense whatsoever.

Red Jezza old chum, for me this forum is not a gruelling research project and I'm not going to spend hours searching for references. But that said, there is a small risk to your credibility because if the facts I have stated are true it does not make you look very good does it.

 

[Streathamite]

Red Jezza old chum, for me this forum is not a gruelling research project and I'm not going to spend hours searching for references. .

a) thank fuck for that - i'd hate to be the lecturer who marks your grammatical wasteland!
b) until you produce ONE bit of evidence to support what you say, you have no credibility, frankly. might as well say 'bloke in pub told ne'. this is somewhat underlined by the fact you've shown yourself to have no real understanding or knowledge of the m/east

But that said, there is a small risk to your credibility because if the facts I have stated are true it does not make you look very good does it

but HAVE you produced ANYTHING to back up your claims? no. So they're bullshit.

and, fwiw, why shouldn't Iraq get into nuclear power? - it's the green fuel of the future, and even oil states run out of oil at some stage.

 

[ViolentPanda]

a) thank fuck for that - i'd hate to be the lecturer who marks your grammatical wasteland!
b) until you produce ONE bit of evidence to support what you say, you have no credibility, frankly. might as well say 'bloke in pub told ne'. this is somewhat underlined by the fact you've shown yourself to have no real understanding or knowledge of the m/east


but HAVE you produced ANYTHING to back up your claims? no. So they're bullshit.

and, fwiw, why shouldn't Iraq get into nuclear power? - it's the green fuel of the future, and even oil states run out of oil at some stage.

Jezza, Iraq were building (or rather had commissioned from France) an (iirc) experimental reactor near Baghdad. The Israeli air force bombed Osiraq to dust way back in 1981, so Grebozzs' mentioning it is hardly relevant to events that took place q10 and 20 years or more later.

Sad that he didn't know the details and/or couldn't be bothered to google them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Red Jezza old chum, for me this forum is not a gruelling research project and I'm not going to spend hours searching for references. But that said, there is a small risk to your credibility because if the facts I have stated are true it does not make you look very good does it.

Hours?

About 5 seconds on dial-up if you google the words "Iraq, nuclear reactor, Israeli air strike".

You're also hardly in a position to witter about credibility when you couldn't even be bothered to do less than a minute's research, are you?

 

[iROBOT]

Well, if you don't like reading in the Independent about the tremendously advantagous new deals that the oil majors are in the process of signing with the present weak and divided Iraq government, you can always read about it in mainstream papers elsewhere than the US and UK.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,456212,00.html

I still haven't seen any evidence whatsoever suggesting that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 though, so that point is still a confusing me a bit.

However, I don't really understand exactly how making an informed judgement based on evidence that controlling Iraq's oil was a major motivation in invading them, rather than swallowing government propaganda and lies about a non-existent connection between Saddam and 911, is 'self-hatred'.

Can you help me to understand this part of your reasoning Greeboz?

I'll help him out with a few links to some left wing liberal namby-pamby publications.

The Iraq Connection
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed
By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01


The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link

Bush maintains Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda are connected
US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.

The comments - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally (!!!!!!!) involved in the attacks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3118262.stm

Rumsfeld sees no link between Saddam Hussein, 9/11
WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday he had no reason to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-16-rumsfeld-iraq-911_x.htm

It scares me to think that an educated western mind can be so easy swayed by neo-conservative shite like linking any Muslim you happen not to like to 9/11

I think it's high time a few posters on here started to think for themselves...or (at least) listen to the cunts that started this mess in the first place. And I've made that so easy for you (above)

Aint I nice...?

 

[Streathamite]

Jezza, Iraq were building (or rather had commissioned from France) an (iirc) experimental reactor near Baghdad. The Israeli air force bombed Osiraq to dust way back in 1981, so Grebozzs' mentioning it is hardly relevant to events that took place q10 and 20 years or more later.

Sad that he didn't know the details and/or couldn't be bothered to google them.

my confession; I knew about Tammuz and was waiting for grebozz to come up with the goods which would then be pounded. sorry VP. no fair. - I also knew the end use was unproven (impossible to prove either way)

 

[ViolentPanda]

my confession; I knew about Tammuz and was waiting for grebozz to come up with the goods which would then be pounded. sorry VP. no fair. - I also knew the end use was unproven (impossible to prove either way)

Ah. Sorry for spoiling your fun.

 

[Streathamite]

Ah. Sorry for spoiling your fun.

not to worry!

 

[rhod]

The ruins of the nuclear power station are still there.

That's more than can be said for the huge arsenals of weapons and explosives, much of it sealed and accounted for previously by UN inspectors. Most of it got looted and will end up God-knows-where, because President Cheney wanted the oil fields protected at all costs.

All that stuff in general circulation poses a very real risk, wouldn't you say?

 

[Greebozz]

Urban 75 it for discussion and entertainment, the sharing of ideas and the cut and thrust of argument. Okay I confess I am lazy I can't be bothered to Google even for five seconds to backup what I know to be true.

It is almost impossible for a person to change their view about a subject. There is instead something I call, the democracy of ideas, the forums are a chance to layout one's own personal stall of ideas and opinion. In many ways the reality does not matter, history becomes what the majority agree on.

The history of Iraqi, Saddam Hussein and the US and the war is being shaped. One more point to bear in mind if your criticism of Bush and Blair and the war are valid. And it was an illegal war, we will owe Iraqi billions of pounds in war reparations. Now that will come out of taxes money they could go to hospitals etc. be careful about what you campaign for, because one thing about the future you never know what the hell is going to happen. At the moment there is no personal cost to attacking our countries decision.

Many arguments here are unwittingly moral justifications for a catastrophic terrorist attack on this country, as punishment for the crimes of Bush Blair. If a terrorist was reading this thread they would feel like they were carrying out a great blow for justice with the support of many of this forum and society at large. I presume many people here are looking forward to their future, please don't write in a way that gives moral support and moral justification for terrorist acts against this country.