War against terror

[theavonlady 2]

No avon i wasnt flamebaiting you , i was only implying there that most of the time your logic on islam is equivalent to some fanatical mullah , i find it difficult to udnerstand why you always have to pick on the negative instead of for once seeing a positive.

I have no problem seeing the positive.

I argued against your claim of nukes "NEVER" being allowed, according to Islam. And I brought a practical example from Iran, an Islamic state, ruled by Islamic law, where its leaders go beyond reciprocity in advocating the "first use" of nukes.

In this case, your statement was a false positive.

[Acecombat 0]

No avon i wasnt flamebaiting you , i was only implying there that most of the time your logic on islam is equivalent to some fanatical mullah , i find it difficult to udnerstand why you always have to pick on the negative instead of for once seeing a positive.

I have no problem seeing the positive.

I argued against your claim of nukes "NEVER" being allowed, according to Islam. And I brought a practical example from Iran, an Islamic state, ruled by Islamic law, where its leaders go beyond reciprocity in advocating the "first use" of nukes.

In this case, your statement was a false positive.

False?

After all i have said and explained , i am still false and some god damn iranian political power hungry , religiously fanatical mullah is true .

And nukes cannot be used , how many times to have to repeat myself. The very concept of their indiscriminant killing is against the islamic ideals. Unless you got a place on earth where only armys meet in traditional fashion to fight (a battle specific arena if you will) theres no way you can use a nuke without breaking islamic rules. Can you after firing a nuke guarentee that will only hit the desired target and only damage/kill it and leave the rest alone?

[theavonlady 2]

No avon i wasnt flamebaiting you , i was only implying there that most of the time your logic on islam is equivalent to some fanatical mullah , i find it difficult to udnerstand why you always have to pick on the negative instead of for once seeing a positive.

I have no problem seeing the positive.

I argued against your claim of nukes "NEVER" being allowed, according to Islam. And I brought a practical example from Iran, an Islamic state, ruled by Islamic law, where its leaders go beyond reciprocity in advocating the "first use" of nukes.

In this case, your statement was a false positive.

False?

After all i have said and explained , i am still false and some god damn iranian political power hungry , religiously fanatical mullah is true   .

I'm not taking sides as to whose interpretation is correct.

When I used the word "false", I'm not accusing you of lying. I'm claiming that your positive statement does not bare out what we see is being proclaimed by others in slightly more influencial positions than you (a mere OFP forum member) about Islam's ruling on nuclear weapons usage. Those are facts. Face them.

Quote[/b] ]And nukes cannot be used , how many times to have to repeat myself. The very concept of their indiscriminant killing is against the islamic ideals. Unless you got a place on earth where only armys meet in traditional fashion to fight (a battle specific arena if you will) theres no way you can use a nuke without breaking islamic rules. Can you after firing a nuke guarentee that will only hit the desired target and only damage/kill it and leave the rest alone?

Again I refer you to the links I posted of what other Islamists of various levels and methods of influence say in the name of Islam, contrary to the opinions that you refer to.

[nSe7eN 0]

The same terrorists that attacked many parts of the world would use the nuclear weapons or any other kind of weponas if they knew it will cause enormous destruction for their enemies, and they won’t feel sorry!

Quote[/b] ]And nukes cannot be used , how many times to have to repeat myself. The very concept of their indiscriminant killing is against the islamic ideals. Unless you got a place on earth where only armys meet in traditional fashion to fight (a battle specific arena if you will) theres no way you can use a nuke without breaking islamic rules. Can you after firing a nuke guarentee that will only hit the desired target and only damage/kill it and leave the rest alone?

If Islam is so perfect like that, why every Islamic group has its own understanding for Islam? , including some groups that belief in theirs enemies completes termination, including other groups that fighting for such reason, and other groups that fighting the whole world, and you gave an excuse for those terrorist, and that excuse was they misunderstood the Islam teachings!

Quote[/b] ]I'm very happy for you Miles that you're cozy with your interpretations of the Quran. Miles has a dream - and you seem to agree - that he can rationally convince Islamic terrorists that they are misinterpreting the Quran's teachings.

Exactly its dream, centuries passed without solving such problems in many other religions including Islam, that’s impossible or really hard, or just dream!

[miles teg 1]

Its not so unusual for religion to be perverted for horrific things.  The fact of the matter is that human beings are very quick to believe some religious leader's interpretations that justify militant thinking or hatred rather then the opposite.  It is much easier to do because war and hatred is MUCH MUCH easier then peace, forgiveness, mercy and love.   Many Christians I've met here are very much the same.  They believe the war in Iraq is a good Christian war and they prefer to ignore the teachings of Jesus that very clearly show that they are wrong.  

Christianity has a LOOONG history of militancy.  However even Hinduism and BUDDHISM (one of the most pacifist religions) have histories of being used to justify warfare.  The Japanese Samurai were examples of where a warrior culture and religion blended together seemlessly...and while the goal of honorable warfare was a noble and highly romantic one...in reality, the Samurai were often far from noble and committed horrific attrocities.

The problem today with some moderate Muslims supporting terrorist ideologies is very simple.  Their fundamentalist Imams start mixing their religion with politics and doing exactly what we are talking about... taking a few verses out of context to justify political ideologies.  Those Imams realize the power in those out of context verses and in his legitimacy as an Imam to radicalize and militarize his people to take up arms against what he may honestly see as an enemy towards Islam.  It is easy to believe that the ends justify the means and that God will forgive you.  But also often in hatred, people become highly biased and just refuse to look at verses that contradict their beliefs.  They believe they have the truth and don't want to study further.  They have enough.   Moderate Muslims listen to these so called "scholars" and believe them because like most religions, the vast majority of followers do not closely study their own religions.

However...  what I have found in my own research is that WHEN you do patiently and respectfully talk to people who have been radicalized and listen to their views in a respectful manner, that if you begin to discuss the verses WITHIN context and bring in all the verses that clearly oppose their political/religious ideologies and ask them if they are now sure they are still going to heaven, you will very often see them begin to question their beliefs.   For a terrorist who is deeply religious there is no question in his mind that he is going to paradise as a martyr.  But once he begins to question...the battle is won because if he does his own research and you point him towards some strong sources and scholars, and you teach that terrorist how to guard against emotional rather then Qu'ranic law driven religious arguements, you will have yourself a reformed man who views the Qu'ran and what is happening with his eyes open.  I've seen this process occur amongst fundamentalist (not necessarily militant) Muslims who have spent time around knowledgable Sufis who are very patient with them.   I'm not sure what Judaism teaches, but in Christianity I know that patience, tolerance, mercy, and forgiveness is what Jesus taught if a Christian believes that the New Testament is what is to be followed and not the Old Testament laws.  I have seen Christians who really practice the faith engage in some fantastic dialog with Muslims and Jews who have done the same and who have REALLY had a powerful positive influence on the Muslims they talked to.  

But my own belief is that while interfaith dialog is fine, it is limited.  Ultimately mass media has to be incorporated to change perceptions amongst people of all faiths.  It is here where you get into some touchy subjects such as whether tax payer dollars should be used for religious programs whether it be in educating American school children about Muslims, or pushing Islamic based anti-terrorism messages on Al-Jezeera.  

THis is where I believe the CIA has the ability to redeem and transform itself into a potent terrorist fighting machine.  While they are a intelligence gathering agency...the beautify of terrorist reform programs is that once a terrorist's eyes are opened to the truth in the Qu'ran, many of them may turn out to be excellent intelligence assets with the ability to infilitrate highly secretive terrorist cells all over the world.

You will have a Jihad against hypocrits...not always a violent one, (as a good Muslim will always be highly reluctant to take up arms even against a hypocritical Muslim but rather first try to teach them) but perhaps in most cases a very slow one as the message spreads across the internet and traditional media outlets that practicing Al-Qaeda style ideologies will almost certainly cause you much grief in the after-life and may ultimately prevent you from getting into paradise.  

Many can argue that I am nieve, but I can point out many examples of where it has worked both in my experiences talking to fundamentalist Muslims and more importantly in successful terrorist reform programs being done in Yemen.  

However the US government has NOT tried it.  If there is even a remote chance of success I believe my country would be FOOLISH not to at least attempt these peaceful methods of counter-terrorism.  

Ultimately they could even be focused against nations like Iran where their leadership practice HIGHLY distorted teachings of the Qu'ran.  I have nothing against Shi'a other then a few disagreements with some of their interpretations and practices, but the Shi'a leadership in Iran is sadly very corrupt in some cases.  But nevertheless, many Iranian scholars are studying with Iraqi Shi'a Imams like Al-Sistani and learning a more accurate version of Shi'a teachings that often goes strongly against what the Iranian ruling Ayatollahs teach.

So a crack is emerging that once opened can be used I believe to radically reform the Iranian government into a much more democratic institution with greater seperation between state and religion in which the Ayatollahs do not directly pass laws, but in which they simply advise politicians and law makers.... but where the politicians also have certain secular views in which one holds the political clout and economic know-how and the Imams, the religious clout and following of the masses.   It is a system of checks and balances of sorts that I believe can compliment each other if done carefully.

This is one of the successes of the Ottoman Empire. 

I think enough Iranians remember the extreme secularist movement under the Shah which in many ways was just as radical and brutal.  So I don't think Iranians or most people in the Middle East want to see a return to a totally Western government where everyone just copies whatever America or Europe is doing culturally and brutally oppresses Muslims.

But it will require, as we are seeing in Iraq, MUCH trial and error as different methods of government are experimented with.  Sadly in Iraq this goal is complicated heavily by the constant attacks of terrorists.   If the militants had any sense they'd chill out for a bit and get politically active at this key stage in Iraqi development.  

Right now, I see Afghanistan as a nation undergoing this delicate transition and hopefully eventually maybe will provide a model for other nations.  Maybe, Inshallah (God Willing), Iraq also will in the near future stabilize and become a model after much sweat, blood, and tears.  

And as to Israelis and Palistinians.  Ultimately will have to put aside their differences or continuously fight each other (or commit genocide).  But right now their is a chance for peace and hopefully it won't get screwed up again.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[theavonlady 2]

This could have been posted on the US Politics or Iraq threads but I think that it's most on-topic here:

Quote[/b] ]Panel: Agencies 'Dead Wrong' on Iraq WMDs

11 minutes ago White House - AP

By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - In a scathing report, a presidential commission said Thursday that America's spy agencies were "dead wrong" in most of their judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the war and that the United States knows "disturbingly little" about the weapons programs and threats posed by many of the nation's most dangerous adversaries.

The commission called for dramatic change to prevent future failures. It outlined more than 70 recommendations, saying that President Bush must give John Negroponte, the new director of national intelligence, broader powers for overseeing the nation's 15 spy agencies.

It also called for sweeping changes at the FBI to combine the bureau's counterterrorism and counterintelligence resources into a new office.

The unclassified version of the report does not go into significant detail on the intelligence community's abilities in Iran and North Korea because commissioners did not want to tip the U.S. hand to its leading adversaries. Those details are included in the classified version.

The commission was formed by Bush a year ago to look at why U.S. spy agencies mistakenly concluded that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, one of the administration's main justifications for invading in March 2003.

"We conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its prewar judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," the commission said in a report to the president. "This was a major intelligence failure."

The main cause, the commission said, was the intelligence community's "inability to collect good information about Iraq's WMD programs, serious errors in analyzing what information it could gather and a failure to make clear just how much of its analysis was based on assumptions rather than good evidence.

"On a matter of this importance, we simply cannot afford failures of this magnitude," the report said.

But the commission also said that it found no indication that spy agencies distorted the evidence they had concerning Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, a charge raised against the administration during last year's presidential campaign.

"This is not `politicization'," the panel said of its own report. "It is a necessary part of the intelligence process."

The commission gave Bush a specific suggestion about the daily intelligence briefings he receives — traditionally delivered by the nation's most senior intelligence official. The panel said that Negroponte should not be the person who briefs the president, or even be in the room every day when the report is given.

"For if the DNI is consumed by current intelligence, the long-term needs of the intelligence community will suffer," the report said.

Overall, the report delivered a harsh verdict. "Our intelligence community has not been agile and innovative enough to provide the information that the nation needs," the commission said. It noted that other investigations have reached similar conclusions. "We should not wait for another commission or another administration to force widespread change in the intelligence community," the report said.

Looking beyond Iraq, the panel examined the ability of the intelligence community to accurately assess the risk posed by America's foes.

"The bad news is that we still know disturbingly little about the weapons programs and even less about the intentions of many of our most dangerous adversaries," its report said. The commission did not name any country, but appeared to be talking about nations such as North Korea and Iran.

"Our review has convinced us that the best hope for preventing future failures is dramatic change," the report said. "We need an intelligence community that is truly integrated, far more imaginative and willing to run risks, open to a new generation of Americans and receptive to new technologies."

The report urged Bush to give more authority to Negroponte, his new director of national intelligence, overseeing all of the nation's 15 spy agencies.

"It won't be easy to provide this leadership to the intelligence components of the Defense Department or to the CIA," the commissioners said. "They are some of the government's most headstrong agencies. Sooner or later, they will try to run around — or over — the DNI. Then, only your determined backing will convince them that we cannot return to the old ways," the commission told Bush.

The commission was unanimous in its report and recommendations.

The panel recommended that Bush demand more of the intelligence community, which has been repeatedly criticized for failures as various investigations have looked back on the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

"The intelligence community needs to be pushed," the report said. "It will not do its best unless it is pressed by policy-makers — sometimes to the point of discomfort."

It said analysts must be pushed to explain what they don't know and that agencies must be pressed to explain why they don't have better information on key subjects. At the same time, the report said the administration must be more careful about accepting the judgment of intelligence agencies.

"No important intelligence assessment should be accepted without sharp questioning that forces the (intelligence) community to explain exactly how it came to that assessment and what alternatives might also be true," the report said.

[walker 0]

Hi All

From Avon's post it apears the US would be best suited to outsource its Inteligence to the French who got it right all the way on Iraq.

Except for one thing: the US inteligence actualy did a good assesment of the situation and the NeoConMen of TBA completely ignored the assesment because it would not allow them to go to war on Iraq and steal Iraq's oil to cut down the percieved power of OPEC (OPEC was already in decline, more oil comes from Russia, Europe, Venezuela now any way).

I think now would be an opertune time to remind people that TBA was not listening to its Intel neither CIA or Pentagon nor FBI.

There has been no failure of intelligence that is a myth put out by TBA and TBA2 to blame someone else for the war on Iraq and the failure to find Bin Laden.

TBA has not been listening to intelligence for over three years they have been listening to The Office of Special Plans, Rumsfeld's Amateur Private Secret Service.

The CIA, Pentagon and other professional intelligence analysts have not been able to speak to the US President for all that time. Instead they have to go and speak through a filter; in meetings with The Office of Special Plans, Rumsfeld's Amateur Private Secret Service who often don't want to hear their reports as they dont jell with what TBA wants to hear.

Avon's post points to a whitewash of the real culprits TBA.

You all need to read this article 3 pages in a US Republican magazine.

http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html By Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski recently retired from the U.S. Air Force. Her final posting was as an analyst at the Pentagon. Hence I believe it to be the most honnest and verifiable of sources. Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski was pointing out where the problem lay long before the whitewash report came out.

I would remind all of you that both UK and US intelligence communities are seriously hacked off at their respective political masters and are going to start leaking like sieves as TBA and TBA2 have been using them as a scape goat.

When US and UK defense relies on them it does no good to try scapegoat the Military Intelgence services for TBA's blind obsesion with stealing oil especialy at a time when Bin Laden has still not been found.

Filtering your intelligence, so it only gives you the info you want it to, clearly places the blame for any failure in intelligence assesment with the people who set up the system; TBA and TBA2, not those forced to work under it.

Quote[/b] ]MI6 chief told PM: Americans ‘fixed’ case for war

Nick Fielding

THE HEAD of MI6 told Tony Blair that the case for war against Iraq was being “fixed†by the Americans to suit the policy, according to a BBC documentary that will reignite its battle with the government.

Blair followed the US lead by failing to reveal publicly doubts about the quality of intelligence that he had requested to support the case for war, the programme claims.

Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6, briefed Blair and a select group of ministers on America’s determination to press ahead with the war nine months before hostilities began.

After attending a briefing in Washington, he told the meeting that war was “inevitableâ€. Dearlove said “the facts and intelligence†were being “fixed round the policy†by George W Bush’s administration.

The allegations against Blair just weeks before a general election are likely to reopen the feud between the government and the BBC that came to a head over the death of Dr David Kelly, the former weapons inspector. It led to the resignations of Gavyn Davies, its chairman, and Greg Dyke, its director-general.

The documentary — to be shown on BBC1’s Panorama tonight — reveals that Britain and America were anxious to present a united front on Iraq despite a paucity of new data on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

It quotes from a leaked memo on the presentation of intelligence sent by Peter Ricketts, political director of the Foreign Office, to Jack Straw, foreign secretary, in March 2002.

The memo says: “There is more work to ensure that the figures are accurate and consistent with the US. But even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years.â€

The programme argues that Blair had signed up to follow Bush’s plans for regime change in Iraq as early as April 2002. It quotes Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary who resigned as leader of the Commons over Iraq, arguing that the threat of WMD was not Blair’s true reason for going to war.

Cook says: “What was propelling the prime minister was a determination that he would be the closest ally to George Bush and they would prove to the United States administration that Britain was their closest ally. His problem is that George Bush’s motivation was regime change. It was not disarmament. Tony Blair knew perfectly well what he was doing.

“His problem was that he could not be honest about that with either the British people or Labour MPs, hence the stress on disarmament.â€

The intelligence services had little evidence to show that Iraq was a serious threat. At the meeting with Dearlove in July, Straw was still not entirely convinced. But, the programme claims, Blair had to keep talking up the threat posed by Iraq to justify his policy of supporting Bush. MI6 was then tasked to seek new information from its limited Iraqi network to make the case for war.

The little intelligence that could be gathered was seized upon by Alastair Campbell, Blair’s press secretary, and John Scarlett, the official leading a team drawing up the now notorious intelligence dossier.

The new material came mostly from two sources. The first, who was new and untried, reported that Iraq had restarted chemical agent production. The second, who had never previously provided details on WMD, was the source of the claim that Iraq was able to deploy WMD within 45 minutes.

When Dearlove briefed Blair on the first source, only days before he presented his dossier to parliament, the MI6 chief told him “the case is developmental and the source remains unprovenâ€. Nonetheless, Blair told MPs two weeks later on September 24, 2002: “The intelligence picture they paint is one accumulated over the past four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative.†...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1533385,00.html

Using the intelligence communities who regularly risk their lives to get info on the dangers in our world as a scapegoat is a truly sickening trick by TBA and TBA2. The buck stops at the top it and it always has.

Regards Walker

[theavonlady 2]

That's right. No intelligence failures. All a neocon ploy. Good for you, Walker.

Here. Let me refresh your memory or what major Democrats said both during Bush's first term and even before he set foot in the White House:

Quote[/b] ]"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

  - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

  - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

  - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

  - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

  - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

  - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton.

  - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

  - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

  - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

  - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

  - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

  - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

  - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

  - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

  - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

  - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

  - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

The above is from here, where you'll find the links to the quote sources.

No intelligence failure. Right!

Repeating lies does not make them true. Learn to move on.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]This could have been posted on the US Politics or Iraq threads but I think that it's most on-topic here:

How so?It specificly relates to Iraq war,it was the most intense subject of debate for more then one year on that thread,and it is the ultimate slap on the face for those blind and arrogant people who were still contradicting others and refused to change their views in front of irefutable edvidence.

In fact,even this month...

Quote[/b] ]No WMDs? We may never know for sure but there very well seems to have been a potential, according to this NY Times article:

Now you know for sure.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]This could have been posted on the US Politics or Iraq threads but I think that it's most on-topic here:

How so?It specificly relates to Iraq war

It relates to the US intelligence situation as a whole. The article also mentions its relevance to Iran and N. Korea.

It also says things like "It also called for sweeping changes at the FBI to combine the bureau's counterterrorism and counterintelligence resources into a new office.

But feel free to discuss it on the Iraq thread, too. We powers that be grant you our approval.

Quote[/b] ]Now you know for sure.

Not so. It says it doesn't know what it claimed to know. It does not state that there were certainly no WMDs.

[ralphwiggum 6]

That's right. No intelligence failures. All a neocon ploy. Good for you, Walker.

Here. Let me refresh your memory or what major Democrats said both during Bush's first term and even before he set foot in the White House:

Quote[/b] ]"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

  - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

  - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

  - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

  - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

  - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

  - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton.

  - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

  - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

  - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

  - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

  - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

  - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

  - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

  - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

  - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

  - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

  - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

The above is from here, where you'll find the links to the quote sources.

No intelligence failure. Right!

Repeating lies does not make them true. Learn to move on.

some of them were taken out of context.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Quote[/b] ]All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

second, if you want to quote Democrats on this one, you also need to accept the fact that they were right and GOP were wrong, and thus GOP is the one who dragged the whole situation down to this.

[Akira 0]

Man. I remember debunking every one of those quotes during the election when you brought them up first Avon. I see you have learned little since then...

[theavonlady 2]

several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S.

No problem. Who's arguing? Even if all of the statements made about the assumed WMD had been 100% true, there was still room to argue against a US lead offensive. The point here is that US intelligence failed (still does IMO).

Quote[/b] ]Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

Wait a minute! Is that true or not? If true, what is the implication of "degrading"? It is not the same as "eliminating". If that military action lead to following reports of Saddam making his labs mobile, rather than staionary targets, then?

Quote[/b] ]second, if you want to quote Democrats on this one, you also need to accept the fact that they were right and GOP were wrong, and thus GOP is the one who dragged the whole situation down to this.

Now who's playing the blame game? Let's assume the GOP was wrong. Today's report says why.

Man. I remember debunking every one of those quotes during the election when you brought them up first Avon. I see you have learned little since then...

Remind us with a link, if possible.

[Akira 0]

Man. I remember debunking every one of those quotes during the election when you brought them up first Avon. I see you have learned little since then...

Remind us with a link, if possible.

I wouldn't even know where to begin with a search. If you want to find it you can look through the 300+ pages of the US election thread....or one of the other pre-election threads....its in there somewhere.

EDIT: Hmmm....actually could have been in one of the Iraq Threads....don't remember.....in any case it was a very looooong post.

[ralphwiggum 6]

avon, as always, you post something and then go on defensive action...tsk tsk tsk...

[walker 0]

Hi Avon

Where is the WMD?

What about the fact the intelligence services told TBA point blank that there was no link between Sadam and Al Qaida?

Where was the threat to the USA?

What about the fact we now have proof in the form of two plans from the respective wings of GOP, the traditional conservatives and the commie NeoConMen that TBA started the War for Oil and only for Oil.

Where is the TBA Whitewash Commitee's report on Donald Rumsfeld's Office of Special plans?

After all they are the ones that fed the Doctored intel to TBA just the Way TBA wanted it.

Here is that diagram again that explains how TBA filtered the intel to only get what they wanted to hear.

You put up the TBA Whitewash Commitee Report not an indepedent one to say that TBA blames the people who actualy risk their lives getting intel. What happens when people say TBA got it wrong? TBA go telling journalists who the spies are so their sources get killed and tortured and risking the lives of those agents in perpetuity so they can never again go back in the field and meaning they have to check under the car they take their kiddies to school in every morning.

TBA's answere to everything it was not us it was our upbringing that done it. TBA should grow up and start repsoncibility for their wrong doing.

That said I do not expect any thing else from a bunch of commie NeoConMen like TBA.

Sadly Walker

[theavonlady 2]

Where is the WMD?

/avon asks children at home to come clean

Quote[/b] ]What about the fact the intelligence services told TBA point blank that there was no link between Sadam and Al Qaida?

OK.

Quote[/b] ]Where was the threat to the USA?

Supposedly in WMDs, as US intelligence agencies had been claiming for over a decade.

Quote[/b] ]What about the fact we now have proof in the form of two plans from the respective wings of GOP, the traditional conservatives and the commie NeoConMen that TBA started the War for Oil and only for Oil.

Proof? What you drinking?

Sorry, don't know any commies you refer to. Your non-stop barking is most ineffective.

Quote[/b] ]You put up the TBA Whitewash commitee report not an indepedent one to say that TBA blames the people who actualy risk their lives getting intel.

I refer you to the same assumed intel from back in the Clinton administration, with the CIA under the directorship of a Clinton appointee, who only left this past year - for obvious reasons.

Quote[/b] ]What happens when people say TBA got it wrong? TBA go telling journalists who the spies are so their sources get killed and tortured and risking the lives of those agents in perpetuity so they can never again go back in the field and meaning they have to check under the car they take their kiddies to school in every morning.

Please speak coherently.

Quote[/b] ]TBA's answere to everything it was not us it was our upbringing that done it. TBA should grow up and start repsoncibility for their wrong doing.

There are different wrongdoings here and there are disagreements over exactly what was wrong and to what extent.

The issue of bad intelligence comes as no suprise to me. It became blatantly apparent on the morning of 9/11. And it took way to long for the US government to admit it.

Quote[/b] ]That said I do not expect any thing else from a bunch of commie NeoConMen like TBA.

You being an anarchist, I really don't think they expect anything from you other than your hyped conspiracy fantasies. No one really cares.

Sorry. My time is up for this evening. Maybe maniana. G'nite.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]maniana

I assume you mean mańana.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Although I pretty much agree with walker, I dont understand the 'commie' comments. As far as I understand it the Neo-conservatives are about as far away politically and philosophically from communists as it is possible to get. Explanation? Did I miss it earlier in the thread?

[walker 0]

Hi Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX

Why the NeoConMen are commies

Go have a look at the NeoConMens agenda it says what they intended to do. Here are some starters but do a search on NeoConservatism and Leo Strauss the chief philosophical touchstone of the NeoConMen.

Lets begin with wiki a bit dry and academic but it gets to the point.

Freedom

Quote[/b] ]Strauss, neither a liberal nor a democrat, admired the moralism of classical political philosphers such as Plato. He disparaged modern liberalism for its giving primacy to individual  liberty at the expense of social cohesion.

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

So like the commies the NeoConMen hate individual liberty what you and me call freedom and the NeoConMen prefer colectivism which is another word for social cohesion.

Stealing power: Entryism and the Max Shachtman link to Trotsky

The NeoConMen learned of Entryism from their other great philosophical touchstone Max Shachtman who was the famous American Trotskyist.

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

Err any one seeing a pattern here?

The bolshevics gained power in Russia through the commies taking over the anti royalist revolution which would have turned out like the US anti royalist revolution other wise. The boshevicks used Entryist techniques to take over the communist party and used that as a political vehicle, they then manipulated the masses to gain power in the second part of the Russian revolution. The first people they killed were the Anarchists.

The NeoConMen are the new bolshevics they are an Entryist group, one that steals power, it has to manipulate a larger group to gain power, in this case the republican party as the political vehicle and the religious right as their masses. It is essentialy a parasite.

What NeoConMen's philosophy says about how you gain power

Quote[/b] ] A fundamental concept in Strauss's political ideology is the "Straussian text." This is a piece of philosophical writing that is deliberately written so that the average reader will understand it as saying one ("exoteric") thing but the special few for whom it is intended will grasp its real ("esoteric") meaning. Because Strauss holds that philosophy is dangerous: it calls into question the conventional morality upon which civil order in society depends; it also reveals ugly truths that weaken men's attachment to their societies.

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

In other words they say one thing while meaning and doing another, with the intention of keeping the masses dumb and watching Fox News (pravda) while they wonder arround as the social elite. George Orwell would have recognised it in an instant it is in the text of his books 1984 and Animal Farm that is why the commies banned them.

They have misused people's religion and patriotism to organise groups of Americans into colectivist mindset to make them more easily mannipulated. They have done it using the classic Straussian text. It is NeoConMan philosophy to reduce the inteligence of religious thought in order to make a vast army of worker proles. I know it sounds far fetched but read their philosphy it is there as plane as the nose on your face.

Power Elites: Why the NeoConMen hate the Amercan Dream

You can have look here for potted tabloid style description of NeoConMen's philosophy, a bit simplistic but a fare precis of what the NeoConMen think and intend to do to the majority of Americans;

Quote[/b] ]Many neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz are disciples of a philosopher who believed that the elite should use deception, religious fervor and perpetual war to control the ignorant masses.

http://www.alternet.org/story/15935

They want to rule over the masses as a bolshevick elite.

I would expect a vast asault on education to be their next step but that will inevitably doom America to a declining economy as less and less innovation comes from a less educated people. Not that that will bother the NeoConMen if they attain their goal they will be in power much like Kim Jong-il and his cronies on in North Korea they still get to ride around in imported cars and watch imported films. The NeoConMern will just do the same.

What the commie NeoConMen do

Commies hate freedom of the press and had big politicly owned media they even had their people write the news as do the NeoConMen only they go further they have their own fake journalists to present their own news.

Commies like the state to be able to lock up people without due process just like the NeoConMen.

Commies have big state supported industries as do NeoConMen what the heck else would you call Halliburton.

Commies send people off to far away gulags to torture and imprison them as do the NeoConMen.

Commies live high on the hog while the economy goes to the dogs as do the NeoConMen. $40 million spent on the inauguration parties that could have paid for 200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq, or could have paid for Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami, or a down payment on the nation's deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year.

Etc. Etc. It is a big list.

When you look at a politcal party you look at what they do not what they say. It is a fundamental part of making a political judgement.

Hence why I shout loudly:

WAKE UP AMERICA! the Reds are in your bed!

Kind Regards Walker

[miles teg 1]

Well there are some who say that the former director of the CIA (his name slips my mind at the moment) basically took the fall in order to keep his job.  I do remember clearly before the war several CIA "memos" leaked to the press that predicted exactly what happened in Iraq.  Also from what I gather ALOT of junior level CIA analysts and field agents are VERY VERY VERY pissed off at the Bush administration for pinning all the blame on the CIA for everything thats gone wrong in Iraq. This is because they DID write many reports highly critical of intelligence on Iraq...most of which were ignored because they did not fit the overall goals of US foreign policy under the Bush administration.  

This is most likely one major reason why so many senior level CIA administrators have retired or have been forced out and why many Bush friendly admins have been inserted along with alot of the reorganization stuff which in effect gives the Bush administration more control over the CIA.  

I find it absolutely shocking that no mention of Rumsfeld's group (Office of Special Plans) in the Pentagon is mentioned in the report even though many former intelligence officials have come forth publicly complaining about how intelligence was filtered through them.  

What I wonder is where the hell the Democrats are on these committees.  Have they no backbone?  I'm a registered Democrat but quite frankly I'm disgusted with my political party as they have failed miserably in this investigation and they failed miserably expressing rank and file democrat concerns over electronic voting fraud during the last election.

It really is disgusting, but hopefully some new more passionate Democrats will rise up in the party to challenge the old guard who are willing to sell their souls it seems.

But anyways, thats another topic for the US politics thread.

The report to me is plain a mixed message.  Reorganizing will do NOTHING.  Its been done before.   I've seen it done in corporations.  It will do NOTHING to promote innovations in intelligence gathering capability.  What the CIA and FBI needs are massive changes in their culture.  They are both still in a Cold War mentality and they seem to have no clue at how to break out of that box.  Those agents that try to actually use common sense are often penalized in their careers for rocking the boat from some sources I've read.  Too many professional beauracrats with MBA's and no rewards for successful programs and innovations is major problem in the CIA.  In the FBI, they still got that stupid J.Edgar Hoover "Gang-Busters" mentality with very few people with any talent in dealing with American Islamic communities.  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[ralphwiggum 6]

you mean George Tenet?

[theavonlady 2]

From some of the things said here, it appears that the US intelligence services have already reorganized accordingly.

Anyway, some of you may have missed this a few days ago:

Quote[/b] ]Koran scholar: US will cease to exist in 2007

By KHALED ABU TOAMEH

A thorough analysis of the Koran reveals that the US will cease to exist in the year 2007, according to research published by Palestinian scholar Ziad Silwadi.

The study, which has caught the attention of millions of Muslims worldwide, is based on in-depth interpretations of various verses in the Koran. It predicts that the US will be hit by a tsunami larger than that which recently struck southeast Asia.

"The tsunami waves are a minor rehearsal in comparison with what awaits the US in 2007," the researcher concluded in his study. "The Holy Koran warns against the Omnipotent Allah's force. A great sin will cause a huge flood in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans."

Silwadi, who is from the village of Silwad near Ramallah – the home of Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal – is not a world-renowned scholar. He said he decided to publish the findings of his research "out of a sense of responsibility because what is about to happen is extremely shocking and frightening."

His fear, he said, is that the world economy, which relies heavily on the US dollar, would be deeply affected by the collapse of the US.

"It would be fair to say that the world would be better off with a US that is not a superpower and that does not take advantage of weak nations than a world where this country does not exist at all," he added."The world will certainly lose a lot if and when this disaster occurs because of the great services that American society has rendered to the economy, industry and science."

Silwadi said his study of the Koran showed that the US would perish mainly because of its great sins against mankind, including the Native Americans and blacks.

"As soon as the Europeans started arriving in the new world discovered by Christopher Columbus in 1492, they declared a war on the so-called Red Indians, the legitimate owners of the land," he wrote. "Then they began enslaving and humiliating Africans after kidnapping them from their countries and bringing them to America. Millions of blacks were brought to the US and treated with unprecedented harshness. Those who became ill during the journey were thrown overboard to feed the fish."

Silwadi pointed out that the US continued to commit war crimes and "ethnic cleansing" against humanity by becoming the first country to use nuclear weapons during World War II.

"International law penalizes such crimes," he said. "If these laws were not applied then, they are certainly implemented in heaven. If no one on earth is capable of punishing [the US], Allah was and remains able to do so. All these actions have been documented by Allah in a big archive called the Koran."

Silwadi said he reached the conclusion that several suras (chapters) in the Koran that talk about punishment for those who perpetrate heinous sins actually refer to the US.

As an example, he quotes in his study verse 40 of the Spider Sura, which states: "So each We [God] punished for his sin; of them was he on whom We sent down a violent storm, and of them was he whom the rumbling overtook, and of them was he whom We made to be swallowed up by the earth, and of them he whom We drowned; and it did not beseem Allah that He should be unjust to them, but they were unjust to their own souls."

Drawing parallels between Pharaoh and the US, who share the same "sin" of arrogance and excessive pride, Silwadi noted that the Koran mentions at least 12 times the fact that Pharaoh was punished by drowning for his evil deeds.

The Narrative Sura, he noted, clearly suggests that the US will drown in the sea: "And Firon [Pharaoh] said: O chiefs! I do not know of any god for you besides myself; therefore kindle a fire for me And he was unjustly proud in the land, he and his hosts, and they deemed that they would not be brought back to Us. So We caught hold of him and his hosts, then We cast them into the sea, and see how was the end of the unjust [verses 38-40]."

Explaining his theory about the approaching extinction of the US, the scholar went on to analyze many numbers and letters mentioned in the Koran. He said a careful reading and analysis of words appearing in the Opening and Yusuf suras show that the US will exist for only 231 years.

How did he reach that number? Silwadi said that by combing a number of suras hinting at US sins he reached the numbers 1776 (the year the US achieved independence) and 231. He added the two numbers and the result was 2007, the year when the US is expected to disappear.

In his lengthy study, which is being circulated in many Muslim countries, Silwadi noted that the US has often been compared to a tree that grows very quickly and bears fruit, but has no roots.

In an attempt to find a reference to this metaphor in the Koran, Silwadi said he counted 1776 verses from the beginning of the Koran until he reached verse 26 of the Ibrahim Sura, which states: "And the parable of an evil word is as an evil tree pulled up from the earth's surface; it has no stability."

Well, today I got really disappointed about this because it turns out that it's possible that Allah cannot do this on His own. Make sure that you listen to Internet Haganah's expert analysis.

[Acecombat 0]

I cant wait to see the guys face during 2007 and at 1 Jan 2008 .

[walker 0]

Hi All

I heard the some guy called Ali Bin Lir-Paloof has a plan to drill down into the yellowstone national park and drop a Pakistani Nuke into the Magma chamber to trigger a super eruption that would wipe out the USA.

Bin Lir-Paloof got the idea from news and science programs on the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4326987.stm

Horizon on the BBC did a program about Avon's Mega Tsunami.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/mega_tsunami.shtml

Quote[/b] ]Scattered across the world’s oceans are a handful of rare geological time-bombs. Once unleashed they create an extraordinary phenomenon, a gigantic tidal wave, far bigger than any normal tsunami, able to cross oceans and ravage countries on the other side of the world. Only recently have scientists realised the next episode is likely to begin at the Canary Islands, off North Africa, where a wall of water will one day be created which will race across the entire Atlantic ocean at the speed of a jet airliner to devastate the east coast of the United States. America will have been struck by a mega-tsunami.

Aparently Bin Lir-Paloof was looking at this also.

Worried walker