Is there a deal between al-quaida and the us?

[denoir 0]

Then why wasn't the UN itself satisfied over all those years?

Becuase it was pushed by parties interested in keeping the embargo. Mainly USA and Russia.

Quote[/b] ]Why didn't Saddam hand over the reports of their destruction?

He did, but nobody wanted to believe him. Also evidenced by interviews with scientists a considerable amount of WMD were destroyed in the first gulf war and along with them the documentation. So Iraq had simply no paper trail of everything that was destroyed.

Quote[/b] ]Why did he put Iraq through a decade-plus embargo when he could have invited UN and world representatives to eye witness his compliance with the world's demand?

He didn't put Iraq through an embargo, the rest of the world led by a few nations did. Do you need a reason? Food for oil.

Anyhow, Saddam broke off cooperation with the UN in 1998 becuase it turned out that half of the UNMOVIC staff were on the CIA employment list. That's why Blix gave guarantees that it would not be repeated and that's also why Saddam cooperated with the UN much better this round (well, that and US aircraft carriers of course).

[theavonlady 2]

Then why wasn't the UN itself satisfied over all those years?

Becuase it was pushed by parties interested in keeping the embargo. Mainly USA and Russia.

And you're claiming that this bullying by the US and Russia is what caused the UN Security Council to create UNSCOM back in 1991? The US and Russia said "jump" and everyone jumped? I don't think so.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Why didn't Saddam hand over the reports of their destruction?

He did, but nobody wanted to believe him.

Maybe because they were bologna.

Quote[/b] ]Also evidenced by interviews with scientists a considerable amount of WMD were destroyed in the first gulf war and along with them the documentation. So Iraq had simply no paper trail of everything that was destroyed.

Yes, so Iraq said and so you bought their story. Still doesn't explain why Iraq continued to hinder UNSCOM's work for almost 7 years before proclaiming the spy allegations.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Why did he put Iraq through a decade-plus embargo when he could have invited UN and world representatives to eye witness his compliance with the world's demand?

He didn't put Iraq through an embargo, the rest of the world led by a few nations did. Do you need a reason? Food for oil.

If Saddam didn't comply with the UN - and so the UN says - then he's the cause of the embargo being invoked. Do you need a reason? Maintain a military threat.

Quote[/b] ]Anyhow, Saddam broke off cooperation with the UN in 1998 becuase it turned out that half of the UNMOVIC staff were on the CIA employment list.

You mean UNSCOM. UNMOVIC was created in 1999 and chaired by Blix.

BTW, how many staffers did UNSCOM have and how many them were accused of spying?

Quote[/b] ]That's why Blix gave guarantees that it would not be repeated and that's also why Saddam cooperated with the UN much better this round

That's very relative and after 7-8 years of uncooperation and an interim reprieve of any monitoring between UNSCOM's demise and UNMOVIC's creation, that's not reassuring, to say the least.

Interesting 1999 PBS article: Who Killed UNSCOM?.

Interviews include Scott Ritter, David Kay, Richard Haass, Barton Gellman and Dr. Kidir Hamza.

My favorite quote:

"The French have been saying for awhile -- and I think the American government has come around to this view -- that the only way to disarm a country against its will is to occupy it". - Barton Gellman, Washington Post

[ozanzac 0]

Quote[/b] ]And you're claiming that this bullying by the US and Russia is what caused the UN Security Council to create UNSCOM back in 1991? The US and Russia said "jump" and everyone jumped? I don't think so.

Back in 1991, events like Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia and the like hadn't occurred yet, and with the cold war over, the security councils big players had no reason to bicker between each other concerning the potential outcomes that entailed weapons inspections in Iraq. The world was (mainly) at ease and peace was high on the agenda. So if it was for peaceful purposes, if the US and Russia said jump, most did jump, especially after Iraq had invaded Kuwait, thus disrupting world peace.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Why didn't Saddam hand over the reports of their destruction?

Maybe because they were bologna.

Maybe because prior to the Richard Butler's UN team being withdrawn due to Iraqi interference in inspections, the team had found damning evidence against Iraq, but were continually prevented from recovering it. When the team was harrassed for one last time, the team withdrew. And the small NATO campaign against Iraq began, destroying many potential WMD sites and offices where evidence once was.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Also evidenced by interviews with scientists a considerable amount of WMD were destroyed in the first gulf war and along with them the documentation. So Iraq had simply no paper trail of everything that was destroyed

Yes, so Iraq said and so you bought their story. Still doesn't explain why Iraq continued to hinder UNSCOM's work for almost 7 years before proclaiming the spy allegations.

Because the Weapons Inspectors (WI for short) had picked up that documents regarding the intent use of Enriched Uranium were located at a Baghdad Government office. When the team got there, they saw the documents, but were kicked out by force by the Iraqis into the carpark, where a standoff ensued.

This was easily the most damning paper trail the UN WI's came across. Yet they were powerless, apart from alerting the international media of their plight, to recover it.

In short, Iraq still had a functioning WMD program in 1997. And were doing all they could to hide it from the UN. Everything short of executing the WI's.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]And you're claiming that this bullying by the US and Russia is what caused the UN Security Council to create UNSCOM back in 1991? The US and Russia said "jump" and everyone jumped? I don't think so.

Back in 1991, events like Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia and the like hadn't occurred yet, and with the cold war over, the security councils big players had no reason to bicker between each other concerning the potential outcomes that entailed weapons inspections in Iraq. The world was (mainly) at ease and peace was high on the agenda. So if it was for peaceful purposes, if the US and Russia said jump, most did jump.

Just a semantic note:

The saying "when I say 'jump', you jump" implies that the respondant does what's expected of him in dog-like obedience.

What you're saying is they had no reason to bicker and they agreed in concept and principle with the US and Russia.

That's not what I implied by "jumping".

[ozanzac 0]

The saying "when I say 'jump', you jump" implies that the respondant does what's expected of him in dog-like obedience.

I know, see my edited post.

Iraq had just invaded Kuwait. Saddam was seen as evil for his actions. He had used WMD's on the Kurds. The world wanted to see a stop to this. Thus UN Weapons Inspections began, in an effort to stamp out Saddams ability to attack others, especially those who attempted uprisings after Gulf War 2. (I see Gulf War one as Iran vs Iraq)

This eventually lead to the UN endorced/Nato enforced no-fly zones, and embargoes above those already in place e.t.c.

[denoir 0]

Then why wasn't the UN itself satisfied over all those years?

Becuase it was pushed by parties interested in keeping the embargo. Mainly USA and Russia.

And you're claiming that this bullying by the US and Russia is what caused the UN Security Council to create UNSCOM back in 1991? The US and Russia said "jump" and everyone jumped? I don't think so.

Basically yes. The reasons for the war don't have to be explained - I'm fairly sure we're all aware of them. The US was primarily interested as it is being world's largest consumer of oil plus it gets its oil primarily from Saudi Arabia. Not that the rest of the world did not agree. But it was a US initiative.

Anyhow the harsh sanctions were suggested and pushed for by the Russians as was the oil-for-food program. The reason for this and also the reason why Russia so much opposed the current war is the problems of the Russian oil industry. They have had a big cash problem since the dissolvement of the Soviet Union. Nope, it's not what you think - they have too much cash. Other people's cash that is. When the Soviet Union collapsed there were huge foregin investments made into the Russian oil industry. Too huge - the Russians could not cover it. They owe people oil which they can't deliver. The sanctions against Iraq and the oil-for-food program saved the Russians. They got oil for free which they could forward instad of their own oil (which they didn't have enough of).

Notably nobody else in the world had anything against a source of free oil. Until Bush came and spoiled it all by hijacking Iraq and putting the oil under American control. Not very popular with the Russians.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Also evidenced by interviews with scientists a considerable amount of WMD were destroyed in the first gulf war and along with them the documentation. So Iraq had simply no paper trail of everything that was destroyed.

Yes, so Iraq said and so you bought their story. Still doesn't explain why Iraq continued to hinder UNSCOM's work for almost 7 years before proclaiming the spy allegations.

Who knows? It's obvious that they did mess around with the inspectors. It's also obvious that they did not have WMD when this new war started. And you can't just dismantle that and the entire infrastructure overnight.

Iraq has had WMD for the last 30 years. They've been bombed seriously three times in the last 20 years. It's nothing short of amazing that no WMD at all have been found. One would expect at least some remains lying around, but no. That means that there was a very conscious effort to get rid of them. And if the various intelligence agencies did not pick up that it was happening, well, then some people should looking for new jobs.

The fact is that there has not been found any evidence of Saddam lying about the WMD program. No evidence has been found. TBA & Co claimed not only that he had WMD but that he was ready and willing to use them. This claim was obviously falsified by the war itself. And no weapons have been found and more importantly - no infrastructure capable of sustaining a WMD program has been found. So it would seem that Saddam was telling the truth. And the hundreds of scientist interviewed both before and after the war have confirmed that there was not active program.

Why did Saddam then make life difficult for UNSCOM? Your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps he did not like having foriginers poking around in his top-secret weapons facilities.

Quote[/b] ]"The French have been saying for awhile -- and I think the American government has come around to this view -- that the only way to disarm a country against its will is to occupy it". - Barton Gellman, Washington Post

Indeed, but apparently Iraq did disarm willingly.

Quote[/b] ]Iraq had just invaded Kuwait. Saddam was seen as evil for his actions. He had used WMD's on the Kurds. The world wanted to see a stop to this.

Worng decade mate. Saddam gassed the Kurds in the early 80's, and everybody just loved him. He was the good buddy of USA at that point in time.

The reason was the risk of Saddam continuing to Saudi Arabia. Terrible deal to have one man controlling world's two largest oil reserves. Plus had he failed it could have had led to a regional war which is terrible for oil prices.

Quote[/b] ]This eventually lead to the UN endorced/Nato enforced no-fly zones, and embargoes above those already in place e.t.c.

Actually the no-fly zones were a violation of the UN resolution that was defined after the war. Iraq's territorial solvreginity was to be respected according the resolution. USA and UK violated that resolution by the no-fly zones.

[ozanzac 0]

Quote[/b] ]Worng decade mate. Saddam gassed the Kurds in the early 80's, and everybody just loved him. He was the good buddy of USA at that point in time.

Indeed. My timeframe of the gassing of the kurds was wrong.

It's interesting that when the UN was discussing Iraqs violations of human rights back then, all but the Scandanavian countries, Australia and Canada condemned Iraq for it's use of Chemical weapons. Most others, America in particular, got Iraq out of trouble, and look where America was at the begining of this year. Justifying their war on the fact that Saddam might use his supposed stockpile of Chemical weapons again.

Quote[/b] ]Actually the no-fly zones were a violation of the UN resolution that was defined after the war. Iraq's territorial solvreginity was to be respected according the resolution. USA and UK violated that resolution by the no-fly zones.

I never knew that. And for all this time I thought the UN had endorsed them. It's making sense now. Thanks Denoir.

[theavonlady 2]

Actually the no-fly zones were a violation of the UN resolution that was defined after the war. Iraq's territorial solvreginity was to be respected according the resolution. USA and UK violated that resolution by the no-fly zones.

According to UN Secretary General Kofi Anan, in a June 2001 press conference, it is debatable whether the no-fly zones are a violation of the UN's resolution:

Question: The Iraqi people appreciate the positive role played by the Secretary-General to ease the suffering of Iraqis. My question: is there any reaction from you regarding the killing of Iraqis as a result of the no-fly zone imposed on Iraq?

The Secretary-General: The question of no-fly zones is one of the issues that the Iraqi authorities have discussed with me each time we have met. This no-fly zone was imposed by two members of the Council, and they are enforcing it. I know that there is a question of whether this is an action sanctioned by the Security Council or one unilaterally imposed by the two countries. I noticed recently that Iraq had indicated than the air action had killed 23 people, which the United States and the United Kingdom denied. But I hope that as the Council continues its discussions and its attempts to find a way out of this impasse, we will be able to move forward, and that sooner rather than later the issue of no-fly zones will also be put behind us.

You know my position on this, and I have indicated that when you analyse and read the Security Council resolutions I do not see the Security Council resolutions as a basis for that. But there is a debate. The two countries believe that the Security Council has given them legitimacy to enforce the no-fly zone.

[Acecombat 0]

Man Kofi should be given a third term whether or not a third term is allowed for a Secretary General.....

[Postduifje 0]

Hmm, I planned on following this thread, because the original cospiracy-theory promised to make an interesting discussion. But it turned out to be another endless one concerning Iraq, it's a shame...

-Post

[Acecombat 0]

Yeah MOD's should merge the above posts in the Iraq thread ...

[walker 0]

Hmm, I planned on following this thread, because the original cospiracy-theory promised to make an interesting discussion. But it turned out to be another endless one concerning Iraq, it's a shame...

-Post

Hi all

Well to get us back on track here is a re-post of something I put in the Iraq its is more relevant here.

I will also put in some sources as Acecombat felt it was wrong and I should realy put things in context.

Quote[/b] ]There are two oposed fundamentalist so called Muslim/Islamic radical groups.

1) The Iranian backed early groups that are Shiite and include I think Isalmic Jihad in the Palistinian (Freedom fighters/terrorist) Suprisingly these rarely attacked Americans.

2) The Pakistani/Saudi Arabian based and originaly CIA created and backed Al Queda.

Some History

Half the reason the Muslim religion has been getting bad press lately is that has been used as a puppet of CIA policy in Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion then as usual the CIA did not have an endgame for what to do with its funded puppets such as those in Al Queda.

Into this pot you need to put another ingredient the young children of the Muhjahadeen the true original freedom fighters of Afghanistan. They were sent to safety in the tribal areas of Pakistan. What to do with all those kids?

The Mhadrassas were set up part funded by Saudi Arabia and organised by Pakistani Saudi and Yemeni fiery preachers who their former states were glad to see the back of. Some bright spark, probably in the CIA, thought the war could be going on for a while. The longer the better as it drained the soviet economy and mesmerized it's politicians. So a good trick would be to get these kids well indoctrinated in fighting the godless. The US bean counters long ago realized that foreign labor is cheaper, that applies to spies as much as anything so the CIA has long outsourced its manned spying to local franchises. In step the Saudi Client states US trained Secret Service.

Enter Osama Bin Lahden former alcoholic playboy millionaire who lived in Saudi Arabia but originally from the Yemen now a born again Muslim with a mission and the charisma of a reformed sinner. Marry that with a bunch similar bureaucrat types from the same area. Their Job funnel monies US weapons and trained zealots, true believers, freedom fighters and nutters (every country has some) from Saudi Arabia the rest of the Muslim world and for the CIA to those fighting the soviets.

The Muhjahadeen won the war the soviets left.

Then the fight began a small group of Saudi Pakistani backed fighters were avialable and both the Saudis and Pakistan wanted somone on Iran's North Eastern border this little known group became the Taliban. They never had much power at this stage and Afghanistan might have developed in to a stable none agressive administration probably under the hero and most succesful fighter agains the Soviets and who never got any CIA backing; Masoud.

To begin with the CIA liked the idea of another client state and helped them kill off or subvert the other factions in particular the true Muhjahadeen but over time the Taliban became more anti US.

The CIA tried to pay them off and send them back to their countries of origin such as Saudi Arabia and the Yemen. Their Governments did not want them (Would you want a bunch of trained insurgents in your country?) the Afghanis didn't want them. Plus as I said Saudi Arabia wanted to pay Iran back for the bombings in Mecca and get an anti Shiite neighbour on the NE border of Iran The Sunni Pakistan government of the time wanted the same and saw a way to caspian oil and a pipeline through Afghanistan into Pakistan and out through the Rhan of Kush. The Saudi business men liked that one a lot and the CIA did not want the Iranians to have the Caspian Oil so they turned a blind eye even when US citizens diasapeared.

Iran wants that same pipeline through Iran and has a Caspian coastline.

The CIA managed to give about 2000 of the (foreign/mercenaries/religous fighters/ insurgents) fake passports and documentation for Algeria, Sudan and Morocco the Saudi Government and the Americans helped pay for it through trade deals etc for those countries. Some went to work for the countries in their security service they went to, some probably work for the CIA and have US passports, others became normal people working in shops, factories, TV stations, airports etc. about 200 became the core of a terrorist group and provided the basis for the men in the planes in 9 11 many of whom had Algerian passports but were born in and around Saudi Arabia.

Some who didn't take the CIA pension plan went to Bosnia and latter a few die-hards from that group went to Chechnya. Many had CIA and criminal links that alowed them to get fake passports. Some of those became normal people working in shops, factories, TV stations, airports etc. A few live the fantasy twilight world of deep cover agents.

Another group stayed in Afghanistan some to live normal lives, others to live as warlords or run drugs

The final faction the Taliban continued to carry on their (Crusade/Jihad) these had access to the Mahdrasas and all those Young boys schooled to folow the orders of their religious leaders a ready made fit unquestioning army.

With that force and Pakistan and the Saudis support the Taliban took power and the Mhadrassa boys killed the true heroes of the Afghan War the Muhjahadeen even Masoud. So the greatest sin of that war was that the Mhadrassa boy Sons killed their Muhjahadeen Fathers who had stayed behind to fight and had sent them to safety. It sounds stranger than fiction but it is all verifiable fact.

As you said Sadam is against the Iranian backed Islamic (Jihad/Crusade)

But he is less against Al Queda.

They might not like him as a former US lacky and Sinner but hey he can repent like bin laden or at least pretend to.

Saudi Govenrment backed site explaining interest in Afghanistan and work with the US There is also important information about Saudi Arabia patching up its relations with Iran to agree a Caspian Oil Treaty on the same site.

BBC articles over the last few years about Ahmed Shah Masood true hero of Muhajadeen and longterm enemy of the Taliban betrayed by the CIA

Ahmed Shah Masood Obituary in the Guardian

The Lion of Afghanistan

The Carlyle Group. It wanted run pipe line through Afghanistan for Caspian Oil. Saudi Arabia the Bin Laden Family and Gerge Bush all on the board of the Same Company

Kind Regards Walker

[theavonlady 2]

The Carlyle Group. It wanted run pipe line through Afghanistan for Caspian Oil. Saudi Arabia the Bin Laden Family and Gerge Bush all on the board of the Same Company

Regarding the Carlyle-Bin Laden connection, more conspiracy blah-blah.

Even this article at Judicial Watch (the same organization that you linked to) has a third of the decency to state that:

"Osama bin Laden had supposedly been “disowned†by his family".

If you remove the word "supposedly", it's just another deal with another extremly wealthy and known Saudi family.

[walker 0]

The Carlyle Group. It wanted run pipe line through Afghanistan for Caspian Oil. Saudi Arabia the Bin Laden Family and Gerge Bush all on the board of the Same Company

Regarding the Carlyle-Bin Laden connection, more conspiracy blah-blah.

Even this article at Judicial Watch (the same organization that you linked to) has a third of the decency to state that:

"Osama bin Laden had supposedly been “disowned†by his family".

If you remove the word "supposedly", it's just another deal with another extremly wealthy and known Saudi family.

Hi Avon

Actualy no one is Certain that the Bin Laden's have cut the awkward relation off.

You realy need to research things carefully and give full quotes "Other reports have stated his Saudi family have not truly cut off Osama bin Laden."

It is standard business practice is to use subsiduaries to do the dirty work. Idealy wound up little puppets that dont even know they are doing it.  So you are probably right that they have cut him off for now.

Its just that annoying history thing that George Bush was on the same board as the Bin Ladens, and met the family a couple of times, when the they were wanting to bring Caspian Oil through an Afghanistan ruled by the Talibans when Osama was the man supplying funding and weapons to the Taliban and Al Queda. Wonder where he got all that from and why any one would give him the stuff at the time?

Never the less the Carlyle Group, wanted the Caspian Oil it wanted it to go through its client state of Taliban Afghaninstan unfortunately the puppet got it self some independent thought and bombed the US on 9 11.

All of a sudden the Carlyle Group members are running for cover. The Bin Laden's, the people who share board positions with George Bush get special flights out of the US when all other flights are are banned curtesy of the US Government The FBI are investigating but decided to make it secret. I wonder why?

Bin Laden and the Saud Family get special flight out.

So yeh if you want to call it "conspiracy blah-blah"

Answer just this though:

How were the Carlyle Group going to get the Oil through Afghanistan?

Kind Regards Walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

In order to aid peoples understanding of the history of the pipeline through Afghanistan I put forward this linkhttp://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipeline_timeline.htm

This pipeline huh On Off On again

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

I guess the Saudis must be a bit cheesed off what with their backing the the Iranian pipeline

Nothing to stop them putting in the pipeline though is there. I mean it aint like someone would bomb them or anything.

Meet the Carlyle Group Is a source with an axe to grind but follow its sources. Then do searches on the reliable ones.

People may be able to get some more information if they were to visit this sitehttp://www.oilandgasinternational.com/

Try Doing a search for "(Unocal Carlyle)" tantilsiingly close are a over 200 links to articles mentioning them in the same article. Not being logged on yet I don't know what they are. Maybe later today.

Kind Regards Walker