Punishing the French

[xoxoxoBruce]

I was a news junkie until a few years ago. I finally got tired of being pissed off about things I couldn't do anything about. Enjoyed being fat, dumb and happy but like all junkies I started to crawl back for a fix after a year or so. Inquiring minds want to know.

[Undertoad]

Al Qaeda-tied terrorist nabbed in Iraq

Senior Bush administration officials Tuesday said a member of an al Qaeda-affiliated terror group operating in Iraq has been captured by U.S. forces.

Sources said the individual is a member of a group operating in western Baghdad under the leadership of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian believed by the United States to have been the mastermind behind the assassination of American diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman last October.

[juju]

Lies.. all lies!!

[ScottSolomon]

From the article:

<i>"Administration officials say they do not know yet whether the newly captured individual -- as yet not named by U.S. officials -- had any connections with the government of Iraq. "</i>

It is amazing how credulous you guys are.

Let me break down the story for you.

The first 8 paragraphs outline the backstory and the horrible nature of Abu Musab al Zarqawi. If a person was not critically reading - and simply scanning the article, one might think that Zarqawi had been captured, and that the Al Qaeda, Iraq connections had been confirmed.

If you actually read the article, you find out that the guy they captured - who was not named - who is said to be a member of a group operating in western Baghdad - which is reportedly under the leadership of Abu Musab al Zarqawi - has been captured.

So a guy that works for an organization that might be lead by a foreign national that was briefly in Iraq a few years ago is definitive proof that Iraq and Al Qaeda were in bed together.

If your burden of proof is this low, I guess anything will convince you.

[ScottSolomon]

The U.S. is working with terrorist groups, again. Our glorious leaders signed a ceasefire agreement with an Iranian opposition group that the United States lists as a terrorist organization. I thought we were supposed to be fighting the war on terror - not cooperating with terrorists.

from the article:

It had a history of violence against Americans. It supported the takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and killed several US military and civilian officials in the 1970s. But the group developed a significant following in Congress for its opposition to Iranian fundamentalism.

Last November 150 US congressmen signed a petition urging the Bush Administration to remove the organisation, which is led by a woman and has an estimated 10,000 members in Iraq, from the US terrorist list.



My point with bringing this into the discussion is, we - as a country - see a very selective picture of the world. Our media is saturated with pro-American dogma that highlights our good points, downplays our bad points, uncritically reports anything the administration releases, and refuses to report "off message" news.

I think it is a dangerous idea for us to support or ignore the activity of one terrorist group because they happen to have one of our goals as their own - if we are trying to end terrorism. Didn't we learn not to work with terrorists in Afghanistan?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I think it is a dangerous idea for us to support or ignore the activity of one terrorist group because they happen to have one of our goals as their own -

Why not, that's the way we elect our politicians.

[Undertoad]

But that's how it works with intel; you look for things that quack and if you have enough of them you have to assume you have ducks. Because not only is the other side not talking, they're actively trying to hide the information and throw off the scent.

If you have intercepts of people explaining how to get rid of the evidence that they have WMD, although it would never stand in a court situation, for certain equations you HAVE to assume it is true because you have to figure a worst case.

In theory, North Korea doesn't have nukes. They haven't tested one, right? You could never prove to a court that they do have them, but nobody's actually operating by that theory because it would be insane to do so.

So when Saddam supports Hamas and Hezbollah and al Fatah and Abu Nidal "commits suicide" in Baghdad and soldiers find $1B in US currency and there are al Qaeda documents and al Qaeda invitations and al Queda training camps in the north with al Qaeda manuals on how to create chemical weapons, and suddenly an actual al Qaeda thug turns up in the middle of it, the next question is... how many ducks have to quack here?

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
But that's how it works with intel; you look for things that quack and if you have enough of them you have to assume you have ducks.

Abu Nidal, the most dangerous terrorist of his time, received medical treatment in the US including surgery in Boston. IRA obtained most financing and weapons from the US. Much of the technology used by S Africa to create nuclear and biological weapons came from the US. It quacks like a duck. Therefore the US is a terrorist nation.

Using UT logic, then most any nation can be proven to be a terrorist nation. But then he tends, lately, to emphasis any fact that meets his conclusions.

Back we go to the aluminim tubes. Even the US government stopped trying to prove they were for a nuclear program. To make his point, UT must reject any suggestion that they were used for missile reverse engineering. Even the George Jr administration stopped trying to counter that argument . And they routinely seek the most mundance fact to prove their agenda.

[Undertoad]

But then he tends, lately, to emphasis any fact that meets his conclusions.

Of course, we are left to do that sort of thing on items that are still up for opinion. For the items not still up for opinion, such as how long the war will take, how many casualties it will cause, and what we will find after, my record is simply outstanding. And everyone else was presenting a muddle of what-ifs that never happened, including yourself.

(This is part of my week of statements of undiplomatic bravado, which I feel I should be permitted, one week per year. I hope this time period does not discourage others from posting.)

[ScottSolomon]

Of course, we are left to do that sort of thing on items that are still up for opinion.

Some things are not really up for opinion. Specious arguments presented to the public as proof - then later disproven - do not tend to create an overwhelming positive interpretation of items of evidence.

Furthermore, when you control the narrative, it is easy make the facts and history fit your point of view. Most of the right insitsted that Iraq would surrender without a fight - and the people would cheer our arrival. It turns out that Iraq put up a stronger fight than expected, and the cheering crowd was little more than a photo op edited to make a few hundred look like a few thousand.

The hawks said that the precision guided missiles were so much better now than ten years ago, but they ended up killing thousands of civilians anyway.

Most people on the anti-war end of the left thought that there would be far more civilian casualties than there were, but that is because most of us assumed that Iraq actually had SOME NBC weapons. I was surprised that they had used none, and I don't buy that they would have destroyed a potent weapon when the enemy was at the gate. People also remembered that the vast majority of the deaths from the last Gulf War were from post-conflict disease, and infrastructure damage. We still don't know the final death toll, but we do know that at least 2000 civilians have been killed, thousands more have been maimed.

I am sure that you were vindicated by your version of the story UnderToad. It is nice to know that believing in Santa Clause is still possible when you are an adult.

[Undertoad]

Yes, I'm sure it was the anti-war's careful and studied opinion of the military that led Ms Garafolo to wring her hands over 500,000 possible civilian casualties. Of course if she had wrung her hands over a lower number, her ad might not have had such punch. And now that the actual number is actually even lower than Saddam's regime would have effectively killed during the same time period as the war, some people should be wondering where the hell they dropped their moral compass.

But follow me now -- if, as you say, the anti-war folks believed that Saddam DID have NBC, AND believed that his possible use of them would lead to higher civilian casualties, you're simultaneously admitting that the inspections were a farce AND that Saddam was so irrational as to detonate WMD in a city or otherwise kill a huge number of his own people.

Either of which, alone, would be excellent grounds to go to war.

Now, I know this stuff is hard, but you really shouldn't be offering up softballs like that. As far as vindication goes, no, despite what I said earlier I really don't think of this as a competition. Nor do I think I'm a better person if I happen to get something right. It's far more interesting just to see who thinks what and why.

[Undertoad]

Tony Blair just said what I said about a month ago.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85579,00.html

Anyone who believes Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction will be left "eating some of their words" when the banned arms are found, Prime Minister Tony Blair predicted Wednesday.

So rant about lack of WMD findings all you like; just stick around long enough to take yer ass-whuppin'. (I'm here no matter what, and all too ready to accept a beatdown if I blew it.)

[xoxoxoBruce]

We may not find them. Saddam was/is a despot but not stupid. He knew he couldn't beat us even if he had an atomic (dating myself) bomb. I'm sure he made escape plans in advance. The last I read he went to Belarus. Anyway, exporting and/or destroying his WOMD's would help elicit sympathy and possibly jihad. We will probably find enough evidence to prove he had the capability, but the weapons themselves, probably not.

[Griff]

The WMDs could very well be reaching terrorist hands right now. Saddam didn't have any motivation to arm terrorists when he had a country. Now he does, unless he's in little bitty pieces. If thats the case, the individuals who had the WMDs in their power now have a very marketable resource. Saudi oil money can buy a lot...

[ScottSolomon]

Saddam Hussein did not have to actively give terrorists anything. The U.S. let looters run through the country and take anything they could get their hands on - including the Iraqi radioactive waste repository. But this still does not matter since we really waged war on Iraq because of oil. But even that does not matter since apparently Saddam destroyed his only ace in the hole shortly before the war started.



I don't understand how you can justify this shifting rationale. If the administrations of Blair and Bush can lie to you to start a war. Lie about securing Iraq after the war. Lie about why we even fought a war... How in the hell can you believe that the WMDs that they will undoubtedly find - were actually there?

These people are willing to lie about tax cuts, environmental impact, national security, 9-11, Iraq, and the war on terror. How can you trust anything they say or do?

Yes, all politicicians lie, but they shoudl be held accountable when they lie - NOT PRAISED BLINDLY BY SHEEP!