The Iraq thread 4

[Balschoiw 0]

Insurgents attack patrols, oil pipeline

Quote[/b] ]Insurgents fired rocket-propelled grenades from a mosque at US troops in northern Iraq yesterday, sparking clashes that left two dead and 34 wounded, the military said.

Army Captain Angela Bowman said patrolling US forces were attacked twice before dawn near Tal Afar, about 50km west of Mosul. Soldiers returned fire during both assaults, killing two of the attackers, she said. No US casualties were reported.

Provincial health chief Rabie Yasin al-Khalil said 32 people were injured in the clashes.

Citing a doctor at a hospital in Tal Afar, the US military said 34 civilians were wounded, 26 of them women and children, "by flying debris and broken glass during the attacks on multinational forces.

Many civilians were sleeping on their rooftops to escape the summer heat."

The military said troubles began at 3am when insurgents fired eight rocket-propelled grenades at a passing US patrol. Seven of the RPG rounds were fired from a nearby mosque, the statement said.

Guerrillas attacked again three hours later, also from the mosque, and US troops fired back, killing two assailants, the statement said.

Meanwhile, saboteurs blew up an export pipeline in southern Iraq on Sunday in the latest in a series of attacks targeting the volatile country's crucial oil industry, a senior oil official said.

The explosion occurred in al-Radgha, about 50km southwest of Basra, an official at the state-run South Oil Co said on condition of anonymity.

The pipeline, which connects the Rumeila oilfields with export storage tanks in the Faw peninsula, was ablaze after the attack and emergency workers were struggling to put the fire out, the official said.

Insurgents have launched repeated attacks on Iraq's vital oil industry in a bid to undermine the interim government and reconstruction efforts.

On Saturday, insurgents blew up another pipeline in the West Qurna oilfields, about 150km north of Basra.

Also Saturday, a domestic oil pipeline in Nahrawan, a desert region 20 miles east of Baghdad, was ablaze, though oil officials could not confirm if the fire was the result of sabotage. The pipeline transports oil to the Dora refinery near the capital.

It was unclear how the latest attack would effect exports out of the south, which have already fallen to about 900,000 barrels a day -- about half the normal average of 1.8 million barrels a day -- after an attack Wednesday on a cluster of pipelines linked to the Rumeila oilfields.

RPG´s, RPG´s , RPG´s...they really must have a lot of them.

I wonder when similar stories will pop up in the USA:

Ex-BBC chief says Blair `duped' public on Iraq

Quote[/b] ]Greg Dyke, the former BBC director general ousted over the broadcaster's coverage of the Iraq conflict, yesterday unleashed a scorching attack on British Prime Minister Tony Blair, blaming him for trying to bully the BBC into submission.

Dyke, in excerpts of his upcoming book Inside Story published in the Observer and the Mail, also scalded the BBC governing board for pandering to Blair's office by pushing him out.

"We were all duped," he said of the argument Blair made to drum up support for the Iraq war. "History will not be on Blair's side, it will show that the whole saga is a great political scandal."

Blair was "either incompetent and took Britain to war on a misunderstanding, or he lied when he told the House of Commons that he didn't know what the 45-minute claim meant."

Dyke referred to a claim made, then retracted, by Blair's office in arguing for Saddam Hussein's overthrow, that Iraq could deploy chemical or biological weapons in just 45 minutes.

A BBC reporter accused the government of "sexing up" its dossier with the false claim, thereby triggering a scandal that pitted the BBC against the government in an open conflict.

Blair's former media advisor Alastair Campbell, too, was a "deranged, vindictive bastard" who vilified the BBC for its refusal to bow to Downing Street over the war, Dyke said.

He also reveals that when the BBC did finally apologize after Dyke had quit, they first checked the statement with Number 10.

"I had no idea I would be fired by a board of governors behaving like frightened rabbits caught in car headlights," Dyke says.

Dyke also revealed that Blair sent a letter to Dyke and the BBC chairman a week before the war in Iraq started.

"It seems to me there has been a real breakdown of the separation of news and comment," Blair wrote.

"I believe, and I am not alone in believing, that you have not got the balance right between support and dissent; between news and comment; between the voices of the Iraqi regime and the voices of Iraqi dissidents; or between the diplomatic support we have, and diplomatic opposition," he wrote.

The book also claims that Blair broke a promise to the BBC chairman that he would not demand the resignations of either himself or Dyke following publication of the Hutton Report.

The Hutton inquiry was set up after the death of David Kelly, the government scientist linked to claims on the BBC radio Today program that Downing Street had manipulated its intelligence data to make a stronger case for war.

Both Davies and Dyke left the BBC within 36 hours of the report's appearance, after Campbell accused the corporation of lying in an officially sanctioned statement.

After Kelly's death, the government further tried to turn the screw, with one Cabinet minister briefing journalists that "the problem with the BBC was ... too much money and Greg Dyke." The minister also spoke of "revenge."

I guess everyone knew the "either with us or against us" method of controling the media and public opinion will not proove to be the the right approach to a war with such dimensions and global effects.

[ran 0]

The information is still a France 2 exclusive but Yasser Arafat made a statement about the two french reporters and urged their kidnappers to release them alive.

[theavonlady 2]

I wonder when similar stories will pop up in the USA:

Ex-BBC chief says Blair `duped' public on Iraq

I wonder when you'll post Downing Street's reply.

Quote[/b] ]Number 10 dismisses Dyke's attack

Downing Street has dismissed a scathing attack by the BBC's former director general Greg Dyke on Tony Blair's handling of the war in Iraq.

In the Mail on Sunday, Mr Dyke accuses Mr Blair of either being incompetent or lying to Parliament about the war in Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.

It comes as Mr Dyke publishes his memoirs, in which he claims the prime minister tried to bully the BBC.

Number 10 said Mr Dyke was entitled to his view but said it did not share it.

A spokesman said: "Greg Dyke is entitled to his opinion. It is not one we share. There have already been four extensive inquiries and we have nothing to add."

Mr Dyke was forced to resign in January after the Hutton report concluded the BBC had been wrong to claim the government "sexed up" its dossier on Iraq's weapons.

In his book Inside Story, serialised in The Observer and the Mail on Sunday, Mr Dyke attacks Mr Blair personally over the affair.

He writes: "He was either incompetent and took Britain to war on a misunderstanding or he lied when he told the House of Commons he didn't know what the 45-minute claim meant."

He goes on: "We were all duped. What is really frightening is that Blair still doesn't believe or understand that what he did was fundamentally wrong."

Campbell 'obsessed'

Mr Dyke claims the prime minister "unleashed the dogs" on the BBC after it was heavily criticised by Lord Hutton.

He accuses Mr Blair of reneging on an earlier promise that no heads should roll at the corporation over the row.

He also says Mr Blair forced his communications director Alastair Campbell to leave Downing Street because he was "out of control" and "obsessed" with his battle to beat the BBC.

Mr Dyke publishes letters from Mr Blair which he claims show how the government tried to "bully" the BBC into changing its coverage in the run-up to the Iraq war.

In one letter sent to former chairman of the BBC board of governors Gavyn Davies, Mr Blair says: "It seems to me there has been a real breakdown of the separation of news and comment."

Mr Dyke says the six governors still on the board who forced him to resign should quit themselves, saying they panicked "like frightened rabbits" under pressure from Downing Street.

A spokesman for the BBC refused to comment on Mr Dyke's call saying the corporation was "keen to draw a line" under the whole affair.

The BBC's media correspondent Nick Higham said the prime minister could point to the Hutton and Butler inquiries, both of which cleared him.

And former Downing Street advisor Tim Allan said he was not impressed by Mr Dyke's attack on the government or by his defence of the BBC's reporting.

'Take responsibility'

He said: "The facts are that they broadcast a story that wasn't true.

"He [Greg Dyke] defended it without even the most basic editorial checks and, even now, he's failing to face up to his responsibilities.

"It was him that led the BBC into the biggest crisis in its history. He needs to take his responsibility seriously."

Andrew Gilligan, whose claim in a BBC Radio 4 report that the government knew its dossier on Iraq was wrong sparked the row, spoke out earlier on Saturday.

He strongly criticised the government, the BBC's governors and Lord Hutton in a speech at the Edinburgh Television Festival.

Mr Gilligan criticised the "over-reaction" of BBC governors, who "turned a crisis into a disaster" by sacking Greg Dyke.

He warned the BBC was in danger of being "cowed" as a result of the Hutton report's criticism.

Lord Hutton's inquiry was prompted by the suicide of Dr David Kelly, the source for Mr Gilligan's report.

[theavonlady 2]

As Ran wished and as was expected:

Quote[/b] ]France Will Not Repeal Head Scarf Law

1 hour, 44 minutes ago

By THIBAULT LEROUX, Associated Press Writer

PARIS - France on Monday rejected a demand by kidnappers of two French journalists in Iraq to revoke a law banning Muslim head scarves in public schools in order to free the men.

"The law will be applied," government spokesman Jean-Francois Cope told Canal Plus television, saying that France would not compromise its national values in the pursuit of winning the hostages' release.

.................................

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I wonder when you'll post Downing Street's reply.

When it contains relevant info´s and not just: We haven´t done anything wrong..we are innocent...this is the bad guy...

That´s when Avon. When they admit their flaws, admit that they have pressured press, admit that the whole madeup nonsense prior the war was flawed and directed to one purpose only.

To start a war.

That´s when I will post a statement from Downing street. The truth, not some endless winding in despair and hope to keep people uninformed and stupid about the Iraq deal.

[Balschoiw 0]

There is some initiative from France on the way:

France sends minister in effort to save journalists

Quote[/b] ]France last night dispatched its foreign minister, Michel Barnier, to the Middle East in an attempt to save the lives of two journalists kidnapped by Iraqi militants who have demanded that Paris revokes its ban on Islamic headscarves in schools.

With the 48-hour ultimatum due to expire today, President Jacques Chirac and a team of ministers spent yesterday in crisis meetings, discussing how to respond to the emergency, but there was no hint that they planned to yield to the demands of an extremist group, the Islamic Army of Iraq.

In a televised address on Saturday, the kidnappers gave France two days to overturn a law, due to come into force this week, banning all conspicuous displays of religious faith in state schools, describing the legislation as "an aggression on the Islamic religion and personal freedoms".

Mr Chirac said he would spare no effort to free the two men, but defended the new law. "France ensures equality, the respect and protection of the free practising of all religions. These values of respect and tolerance inspire our actions everywhere in the world ... They also inspired France's policy in Iraq."

The timing of the threat, three days after an Italian journalist, Enzo Baldoni, was killed by the same organisation, prompted alarm.

"The situation is serious," the prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, said. "We have mobilised all our energy to secure the liberation of our compatriots who have been taken in such an odious manner."

Christian Chesnot, a radio journalist, and Georges Malbrunot, of Le Figaro, were seized on August 20 while travelling on the notoriously treacherous road between Baghdad and Najaf. Their employers had no information about their whereabouts until the Arabic television station al-Jazeera broadcast footage of them, looking tired and frightened, late on Saturday.

There was dismay in France that a country which has vehemently opposed the conflict should be vulnerable to the same kind of violence used against states participating in the war. But the government's decision in March to strengthen its secular principle in the face of rising Islamic extremism with a law banning the veil in schools was greeted with hostility in much of the Arab world.

Earlier this year Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, accused France of "crusader hatred" against Muslims, while an Islamist group called the legislation "a declaration of war to the Muslim world" and threatened "to plunge France into terror and remorse and spill blood outside its frontiers".

Asked if France was ready to review its position on the headscarf ban, a spokesman for the president's office said: "I don't think we are at that point for the moment."

Lhaj Thami Breze, the head of the Union of French Islamic Organisations, which is encouraging schoolgirls to break the new law, stressed that it was a domestic matter. "There can be no negotiations. France deserves thanks from Iraq, not punishment," he said.

Although little is known about the Islamic Army of Iraq, the journalists are almost certainly in the hands of a hardline Sunni Islamist group with close links to the "resistance" in Falluja. The journalists' employers expressed hope that the ultimatum was a demand for a response from the French government rather than a countdown to murder.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]I wonder when you'll post Downing Street's reply.

When it contains relevant info´s and not just: We haven´t done anything wrong..we are innocent...this is the bad guy...

That´s when Avon. When they admit their flaws, admit that they have pressured press, admit that the whole madeup nonsense prior the war was flawed and directed to one purpose only.

To start a war.

That´s when I will post a statement from Downing street. The truth, not some endless winding in despair and hope to keep people uninformed and stupid about the Iraq deal.

So now you want them to lie?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]So now you want them to lie?

Very funny...I guess we heard enough lies already. How about the truth ?

Or do I have to remind you of certain things the Brits claimed prior war that have already been proven as a lie and/or willingly bad investigated intel ?

Or can your remember that by yourself...googling might help you...

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]So now you want them to lie?

Very funny...I guess we heard enough lies already. How about the truth ?

Or do I have to remind you of certain things the Brits claimed prior war that have already been proven as a lie and/or willingly bad investigated intel ?

Or can your remember that by yourself...googling might help you...

You want to talk about uranium again, perhaps? Go ahead.

[theavonlady 2]

that have already been proven as a lie and/or willingly bad investigated intel ?

and/or just plain bad intel.

Quite a difference between those possibilities.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]and/or just plain bad intel.

Aha. Of course it´s ok that a government starts a war with that. Right ?

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]and/or just plain bad intel.

Aha. Of course it´s ok that a government starts a war with that. Right ?  

When they mistake it for good intel? Yes.

[Balschoiw 0]

Pointless discussion...as almost every other world intel angency has told them that the 45 minute claim was rubbish. So sticking your fingers to your ears is the way to check if the reasons you use to justify a war are ok or not ?

Avon, Avon...sometimes I really wonder about your selective memory.

[theavonlady 2]

Pointless discussion...as almost every other world intel angency has told them that the 45 minute claim was rubbish. So sticking your fingers to your ears is the way to check if the reasons you use to justify a war are ok or not ?

I never said anything about anyone claiming that Iraq could attack anyone with 45 minute.

Quote[/b] ]Avon, Avon...sometimes I really wonder about your selective memory.

I remember MI6's chief's testimony quite clearly from the Hutton inquiry.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I never said anything about anyone claiming that Iraq could attack anyone with 45 minute.

Maybe it would be good if you did say something about it as it was the number 1 Brit reason for the war.

Quote[/b] ]I remember MI6's chief's testimony quite clearly from the Hutton inquiry.

Was it done under oath ?

And he certainly did so well that he chose to resign...

MI6 chief to quit after split on Iraq

Do we really have to start from the scratch again for you , Avon ?

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]I never said anything about anyone claiming that Iraq could attack anyone with 45 minute.

Maybe it would be good if you did say something about it as it was the number 1 Brit reason for the war.

No problemo!

Quote[/b] ]Iraqi officer identifies himself as source of 45-minute claim on W-M-D

London-AP -- An Iraqi officer has identified himself as the source for a British claim that Iraq could have deployed weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes.

The Sunday Telegraph in London has identified him as Lieutenant Colonel al-Dabbaugh (al-duh-BAH'), who was the former head of an Iraqi air defense unit in the country's western desert.

The British government put the 45-minute claim in a report in September of 2002. The British Broadcasting Corporation later accused the government of exaggerating to make a more convincing case for military action.

Weapons adviser David Kelly apparently committed suicide after being named as the source of B-B-C's report.

Al-Dabbaugh told the Sunday Telegraph the information is "100 percent accurate."

He says to "forget 45 minutes" -- Iraq could have fired the weapons within half an hour. He says the weapons weren't used because most of the Iraqi army didn't want to fight for Saddam.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I remember MI6's chief's testimony quite clearly from the Hutton inquiry.

Was it done under oath ?

And he certainly did so well that he chose to resign...

No. He did it so poorly, which is what I said in the first place. His resignation was well justified. Nice to see Tennet go, too.

Quote[/b] ]Do we really have to start from the scratch again for you , Avon ?

Please don't bore us.

<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>EDIT: 25,000th POST!</span>

<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>(Ralph understands) </span>

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]and/or just plain bad intel.

Aha. Of course it´s ok that a government starts a war with that. Right ?  

When they mistake it for good intel? Yes.

I am sorry to interfere AvonLady but I would like to point out that basing a case for war on a CIA operative who hasn't steped foot in Iraq for the last 15 years a bit more then bad intel abd go figure the man in question is none other then the current prime minister Allawi.

What do you think would have happend if the Kennedy administration would have trusted a Russian exile that had no contact with the communist government for the last decade if he claimed Hrucov is preparing an imminent large scale attack on USA?

I am also surprised you are still sticking to blaming this on bad intel as I would expect it more from the republican peanut minded folks,so I must ask.

Do you really think if Saddam had indeed a working WMD system,nuclear capability,a capable army he would have been ever attacked in the first place?

I also urge you to bare in mind Bush other policy of doing everything possible to negotiate with a country rulled by a man more vicious that Saddam Hussein that is suspected to have tested chemical weapons on his own people,has admited to be holding a nuclear arsenal that could target USA and has even threaten to use it.Something just doesn't add up,does it now?

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]and/or just plain bad intel.

Aha. Of course it´s ok that a government starts a war with that. Right ?  

When they mistake it for good intel? Yes.

I am sorry to interfere AvonLady but I would like to point out that basing a case for war on a CIA operative who hasn't steped foot in Iraq for the last 15 years a bit more then bad intel abd go figure the man in question is none other then the current prime minister Allawi.

What do you think would have happend if the Kennedy administration would have trusted a Russian exile that had no contact with the communist government for the last decade if he claimed Hrucov is preparing an imminent large scale attack on USA?

I am also surprised you are still sticking to blaming this on bad intel as I would expect it more from the republican peanut minded folks,so I must ask.

Do you really think if Saddam had indeed a working WMD system,nuclear capability,a capable army he would have been ever attacked in the first place?

This has just as much to do with Democrats . Why don't you ask that of Clinton (both hubby and wife), Albright and other major players in Clinton's administration. They were rattling their sabre back then, based on the same foundation of cruddy intel.

Quote[/b] ]I also urge you to bare in mind Bush other policy of doing everything possible to negotiate with a country rulled by a man more vicious that Saddam Hussein that is suspected to have tested chemical weapons on his own people,has admited to be holding a nuclear arsenal that could target USA and has even threaten to use it.Something just doesn't add up,does it now?

Are you referring to N. Korea?

[Apollo 0]

Wait a minute ,didn't the Hutton inquiry explicitly say that most of the intel leading to the war was "sexed-up" and at some points even just invented by the Blair administration?

All the Hutton inquiry didn't do was blaming the Blair administration after clearly showing that the Blair administration forged the evidence ,however they'd blame the BBC wich was quite ridiculous actually.

Even then ,weapons of mass destruction was just a way for Bush to build a coalition for going to war with Iraq instead of doing it tottaly unilateral (something he considerd before even comming up with the weapons of mass destruction) ,in fact Bush and his horde of neocon buddy's were plainning to attack Iraq even way before 9/11 ,with explicit statements to that direction.

Besides if you take into account that no weapons of mass destruction have been found and that all the after war contracts have gone to big bussiness supporters of Bush himself then it's not hard to see that this war was fought for oil and for the American economy ,Iraq being a insurance should Saudi Arabia become problematic for the U.S.

These same bussines owners are now pumping a monumental amount of ellection funds into G.W Bush his pockets ,atleast 10 times larger than the funds Kerry can trust on.

This is all in line with GW Bush his domestic policy's.Lowering taxes for rich strata , destroying ecology regulations so that Industry can decrease it's costs and make use of resources beneath normally protected nature parks and other policy's that mainly are interresting for big bussines.Bush his policy's clearly carry's the mark of a big industry supporter ,America is almost descending in Oliarchy with it.

And the U.S media is clearly in most cases taking the Bush side.Channels like Fox and CNN are in hands of investers that profitted a lot under GW Bush his policy's both domesticly and Iraq ,and are clearly taking side of Bush ,as is about 80% of the American media landscape.Rupert murdoch ,a fanatic republican supporter ,is owner of Fox in addition to about 35 news channels and about 175 newspapers in the USA ,with this media powr he reaches more than 40% of the media share in the U.S ,just an example.

Therefore i fear that Bush will win afterall ,given his Hughe ellection funds and Media support.And if not they can always tamper a bit with the Ballots ,Just ask Jeb Bush of Florida to stall a bit.

[theavonlady 2]

Wait a minute ,didn't the Hutton inquiry explicitly say that most of the intel leading to the war was "sexed-up" and at some points even just invented by the Blair administration?

No.

Quote[/b] ](viii) The term "sexed-up" is a slang expression, the meaning of which lacks clarity in the context of the discussion of the dossier.

It is capable of two different meanings. It could mean that the dossier was embellished with items of intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable to make the case against Saddam Hussein stronger, or it could mean that whilst the intelligence contained in the dossier was believed to be reliable, the dossier was drafted in such a way as to make the case against Saddam Hussein as strong as the intelligence contained in it permitted.

If the term is used in this latter sense, then because of the drafting suggestions made by 10 Downing Street for the purpose of making a strong case against Saddam Hussein, it could be said that the Government "sexed-up" the dossier. However in the context of the broadcasts in which the "sexing-up" allegation was reported and having regard to the other allegations reported in those broadcasts, I consider that the allegation was unfounded as it would have been understood by those who heard the broadcasts to mean that the dossier had been embellished with intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable, which was not the case.

Chapter 12: Summary of conclusions

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]This has just as much to do with Democrats . Why don't you ask that of Clinton (both hubby and wife), Albright and other major players in Clinton's administration. They were rattling their sabre back then, based on the same foundation of cruddy intel.

The more I read your posts,the more surprised I am with this standardised answers that I've read more then a hundread times and every time I found them as ridiculous as ever.

Did the Clinton Administration use that intel as justification for waging a war against Iraq-No.

Did th Clinton Administration start a war that killed tens of thousands of civillians and a thousand US serviceman based on that intel?-No.

Is it fair to say that had the case for war been brought up they wouldn't have rushed to invade Iraq,but instead struggle to keep peace and gather better intel before any actions that could have been prooved later as hastly and unjustified?-Well I belive in innocent until prooven guilty not the other way around so comparing TBA actions to those of Clinons's is frankly utterly nonsense by any standard.

So back to my other question,if you fancy to answer it..

''Do you really think if Saddam had indeed a working WMD system,nuclear capability,a capable army he would have been ever attacked in the first place?

I also urge you to bare in mind  Bush other policy of negotiating with a country(N Korea) rulled by a man more vicious that Saddam Hussein that is suspected to have tested chemical weapons on his own people,has admited to be holding a nuclear arsenal that could target USA and has even threaten to use it.Something just doesn't add up,does it now?''

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]This has just as much to do with Democrats . Why don't you ask that of Clinton (both hubby and wife), Albright and other major players in Clinton's administration. They were rattling their sabre back then, based on the same foundation of cruddy intel.

The more I read your posts,the more surprised I am with this standardised answers that I've read more then a hundread times and every time it's as ridiculous as ever.

The feeling is mutual, I assure you.

Quote[/b] ]Did the Clinton Administration use that intel as justification for waging a war against Iraq-No.

Did th Clinton Administration start a war that killed tens of thousands of civillians and a thousand US serviceman based on that intel?-No.

Is it fair to say that had the case for war been brought up they wouldn't have rushed to invade Iraq,but instead struggle to keep peace and gather better intel before any actions that could have been prooved later as hastly and unjustified?-Well I belive in innocent until prooven guilty not the other way around so equalling TBA actions to those of Clinons's if frankly utterly nonsense by any standard.

Except for the fact that the poor intelligence had been building up for years and the warnings of an imminent danger only came about later on and were taken much more seriously after 9/11. You might say that US intel agencies were paranoid at that point.

Quote[/b] ]So back to my other question,if you fancy to answer it..

''Do you really think if Saddam had indeed a working WMD system,nuclear capability,a capable army he would have been ever attacked in the first place

Yes.

Quote[/b] ]I also urge you to bare in mind Bushr policy of doing everything possible to negotiate with a country(N Korea)

Kindly remind our readers under which US administration Korea's nucler program was allowed to thrive.

It was Clinton's defense secretary, William Perry, who said he though it ""necessary to move forward in a more positive way with North Korea."

Quote[/b] ]rulled by a man more vicious that Saddam Hussein that is suspected to have tested chemical weapons on his own people,has admited to be holding a nuclear arsenal that could target USA and has even threaten to use it.Something just doesn't add up,does it now?''

Threats to the USA from N. Korea appear to humble little me to be much less imminent than the mistaken assumed threat to the US by Hussein.

That's just my opinion.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Except for the fact that the poor intelligence had been building up for years and the warnings of an imminent danger only came about later on and were taken much more seriously after 9/11. You might say that US intel agencies were paranoid at that point.

Innocent until prooven guilty Avon Lady,I keep telling you. Iraq war has been disastrous by now,the intelligence used was mostly obsolete and at times based on people that had nothing to do with the regime but all to do with craving for power after Saddam's deposion,again is counter productive to say the democracts would have done the same mistakes first of all because they didn't.

Quote[/b] ]Yes.

Wouldn't it be great if that were trough but you see in the harsh place we call reality this is at best wishful thinking as brutal regimes as history has already prooven can ensure their survival by owning such weapons a fact prooven by both past and present.

Quote[/b] ]Kindly remind our readers under which US administration Korea's nucler program was allowed to thrive.

It was Clinton's defense secretary, William Perry, who said he though it ""necessary to move forward in a more positive way with North Korea."

Since when do we listen to the Clinton Administration,Avon Lady?They also deemed starting a war against Iraq as unnecesary yet Bush did just that.

Isn't this a blatant show of double standard ignoring tens of millions of North Koreans right to enjoy freedom and democracy as Bush in his own words has set to do.

Also,why is Bush negotiating with a man who treathend to attack USA,something Saddam never did,a man who acknowledged he has a nuclear arsenal and a WMD program again something that Saddam never did.

Quote[/b] ]Threats to the USA from N. Korea appear to humble little me to be much less imminent than the mistaken assumed threat to the US by Hussein.

Your logic baffles me.How can you compare a country that could have develope nuclear capability in 5 years(atleast by the intelligence provided pre-war) to one already acnkowledging it had it

And about the 45 minutes claim take a good read at this article,hopefully it will set some things straight in regard to your skewed judgment

Iraqi man says he is source of 45 minutes threat-continued from Avons's link

Quote[/b] ]

The December 7 edition of Britain’s Sunday Telegraph featured an interview with a Lieutenant Colonel al-Dabbagh, who claims to have passed information to British intelligence warning that Saddam Hussein had deployed “weapons of mass destruction†that could be used against coalition troops in less than 45 minutes.

Far from helping the Blair Labour government in Britain by verifying its claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, however, al-Dabbagh has only added to its difficulties arising from the inquiry by Lord Hutton into the death of Dr David Kelly.

Kelly, a top weapons inspector, killed himself last July after he was exposed as the source of a report on BBC’s Today programme claiming that the Labour Government had included the 45-minute claim against the wishes of MI6 in order to “sex up†the September 2002 intelligence dossier on Iraq in order to justify going to war.

During the Hutton inquiry, MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove said that the information contained in the dossier relating to the 45-minute claim had come from a single “established and reliable†source serving in the Iraqi armed forces. According to the Telegraph, “Privately British intelligence officers have claimed that they believe the original source was killed during the war.â€

They clearly did not want any examination of the source because it was already apparent that even were his information accurate, it was used wrongly. The information was supposed to relate only to battlefield weapons, but Prime Minister Tony Blair in his foreword to the dossier cited the 45-minute claim next to details of Iraq’s alleged possession of al-Hussaid missiles—which it was said could strike British bases in Cyprus.

The possibility of weapons of mass destruction being used to threaten British interests became the excuse for Britain joining the US-led attack on Iraq, as numerous newspapers focused on the alleged threat.

The claim made by Blair has already been exposed as a lie. John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, admitted to the Hutton inquiry that the 45 minute claim did not relate to chemical and biological weapons at all, but to “battlefield mortar shells or small calibre weaponryâ€.

Former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who quit the cabinet over Iraq, also cited a private conversation on March 5, 2003 during which Blair had accepted his conclusion that Saddam could not attack foreign cities, let alone in the 45-minute timeframe implied by the September dossier. Cook had come to this conclusion, he says, based on a presentation on February 20 by Scarlett.

When he was questioned during the Hutton Inquiry, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said he knew the claim in the dossier referred to battlefield weapons only. He was asked by Andrew Caldecott QC, for the BBC, why, after newspapers had led with suggestions that the 45-minute claim related to strategic missiles, “was no corrective statement issued for the benefit of the public?†Hoon had replied: “I don’t know.â€

Despite expressing his desire to help the Blair government, Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh compounds its difficulties with his claims.

The Lieutenant Colonel is said to have commanded an Iraqi air defence unit in the western desert during the build-up to the war in Iraq. He believes that his reports were the source of the dossier’s claim that Iraq could launch WMD within 45 minutes and after reading the relevant passage declared, “I am the one responsible for providing this information.... It is 100 percent accurate.â€

He states that cases containing WMD warheads were delivered to front-line units, including his own, towards the end of 2002 that were to be used by Saddam Hussein’s Fedayeen paramilitaries and units of the Special Republican Guard if the war with the US and Britain reached “a critical stageâ€. But he then goes on to describe weapons that could only be for battlefield use. The devices were, he says, designed to be launched by hand-held rocket-propelled grenades.

The Telegraph report continues, “Although he gave details of Iraq’s battlefield WMD capability, he said that he had no knowledge of any plans by Saddam to use missiles to attack British bases in Cyprus and other NATO targets.

“Col al-Dabbagh said that he doubted that Iraq under Saddam had this capability. ‘I know nothing about this. My information was only about what we could do on the battlefield.’â€

Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh has offered to give evidence to the Hutton Inquiry if it were reconvened. He told the Telegraph, “I admire Mr Blair because he made Iraq secure from Saddam. If Saddam’s people kill me for saying this, I do not mind. I have done my duty to my country and we have got rid of Saddam.

“And if the British Government wants me to come to London to tell the truth about Saddam’s secret weapons programme, I am ready to help in any way I can.â€

But, as one would expect from people with a great deal to hide, the government’s reaction to an offer to open up an old political wound has been decidedly cool. Prime Minister Tony Blair said of the Telegraph report, “We’re not prepared to comment but we urge all those involved to provide the Iraq Survey Group [the coalition body searching for Iraq’s alleged WMDs] with whatever information they believe they have.â€

No comment was forthcoming from either Whitehall or the Foreign Office.

There are other awkward questions raised by al-Dabbagh’s assertions, which do not ring true. Despite the mass of detail he cites, including descriptions of the boxes containing the weapons and the location of the factories at which they were produced, on other specifics he is less forthcoming. He claims he does not know whether they were “either chemical or biological weapons†or where they are now. They have been simply hidden by pro-Saddam loyalists.

And when he is more specific, the dubious character of his claims becomes apparent.

The Telegraph reports, “Saddam’s officials also gave elaborate instructions on how to use the weapons. Because of their limited range, those responsible for firing them were to dress in civilian clothes and drive in civilian vehicles with yellow number plates.

“‘Each military unit was given two four-wheel drive Isuzu cars,’ said Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh. ‘We were not allowed to use them and they had to be kept in good condition.’ If the war reached a critical stage and Iraq’s forces were in danger of being overrun, then designated officers would be given the task of driving the vehicles towards coalition positions and firing the weapons.â€

The Telegraph states that al-Dabbagh saw “a group of Fedayeen attempt to use one of the warheads against an American position on the outskirts of Baghdad on April 6. ‘They were going to use this weapon, but then they realised that they would kill lots of Iraqis who did not have masks, so they put them in their cars and drove off.’â€

This raises the question of what use small arms weaponry that had to be fired from a nearby car would have been in a battle with the US? Major Charles Heyman, editor of Jane’s World Armies, commented: “This is a very strange report, frankly.

“Biological weapons can’t really be used effectively at short range, and are no use to a frontline commander.â€

In al-Dabbagh’s case the presumption should be that his evidence is not to be believed, given that he is a man with a definite political agenda. His aim is not only to support Blair’s claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, but also to insist that they are a continued threat that can be employed by remnants of the old regime. In this way he hopes to justify further repression by the occupation forces and their puppet government, for which he functions as an advisor.

As was so often the case, if al-Dabbagh claim of origin is to be believed then the intelligence cited in the September dossier came from forces anxious to bolster the case for war against Iraq and with a vested interest in the Bush administration’s plans for regime change.

Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh was spying on the Iraqi government on behalf of the Iraqi National Accord (INA) or Wafik, a London-based exile group that was set up by MI6 after the first Gulf War and later backed by the CIA.

Dr Ayad Allawi, the head of the INA, and General A.J.M. Muhie, both prominent member of Iraq’s Governing Council, have confirmed that they passed al-Dabbagh’s reports to both British and American intelligence officers “sometime in the spring and summer of 2002.â€

In the 1990s the INA was involved in a failed CIA attempt to overthrow Saddam Hussein. It was made up of military and security officers who had defected from Iraq and who were believed to have continued influence within the country’s military and security elites. From 1995 the INA was allowed to operate openly from Amman, Jordan. Its leaders assured the CIA that they were in close contact with top officials still in Baghdad and these insiders could oust Saddam. But Iraq’s intelligence services were able to penetrate the INA and in June 1996 a hundred military officers linked to the INA were arrested and 30 were executed. Successive US governments had given the organisation upwards of $16 million dollars and they would have expected favourable intelligence reports at the very least in return for their investment, once the planned coup had failed and all-out war had been decided on.

I know what you're thinking''they based the 45 minutes threat on this man babblings'' and ''why weren't the British citizens told it was a threat about mortar shells and rpg to which only troops in Iraq would be subjected too  

So how was it again,Saddam was ''mistaken'' a bigger threat then N Korea,mind you further explain?

[ran 0]

There is some initiative from France on the way:

France sends minister in effort to save journalists

The Arab league apparently stepped up in favor of the French asking for the release of the hostages under the shortest delays (a bit less than 4 hours ago).

France 2 article (in French)(no mention of the Arab league statement but a link to the video of Arafat in which he asks for the hostages to be freed)

[quicksand 0]

12 Nepalese HOSTAGES KILLED

Quote[/b] ]Twelve Nepalese hostages have been executed by their captors in Iraq.

Last Updated: 12:18 UK, Tuesday August 31, 2004

The hostages were kidnapped by the Islamist Army of Ansar al Sunna, which has shown a video of the slaughter.

The footage, which appears on the army's website, shows a masked militant apparently slitting the throat of a blindfolded man lying on the ground.

Other pictures show an armed man firing single shots from an assault rifle at the back of the heads of 11 others.

A statement on the website said: "We have carried out the sentence of God against 12 Nepalese who came from their country to fight the Muslims and to serve the Jews and the Christians ... believing in Buddha as their God."

The statement also said the militants will continue to fight against US forces in Iraq.

"America today has used all its force, as well as the help of others, to fight Islam under the so-called war on terror, which is nothing but a vicious crusade against Muslims," the statement said.

At the end of the four-minute video, a man reads another statement off-camera, vowing to fight the Iraqi government.

"We will work on exterminating them until the last fighter," he said.

Nepal's ambassadors to Pakistan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, speaking to media in the kingdom, had expressed hope in recent days that the hostages would be freed after the kingdom stressed it was not part of the US-led coalition in Iraq.

Nepal declined US requests to contribute troops, saying its army was busy fighting a bloody Maoist insurgency.

No words can do justice for this tragic event,come to think of it no words can do justice for any days events in Iraq,as none came short of claming it`s averge dose of Iraqi and foreign lifes- children, sons,mothers,fathers lifes shattered in a few moments,be it the cause of militants or US forces.What's worrying is not this hardline extremists that had no chance of an education that would help them distinct wrong from right,I find it more worrying that many US citizens share this common lack of life value and the same mind clouded by hate to a lower level of course,not once have I heared statements such as "I would rather see 1.000 Iraqis dead then one US soldier" even on this forum.

As to the Nepalese murderes,I hope one day they will realise that shooting in the head 12 innocent human beings that ended up in Iraq in a bid to feed their desperate suffering famillies working not as armed contractors but as simple cooks ,was not a heroic deed that helped the resistance struggle, was not the will of a god that condones purrifying the world of all infidels but see their crime as what it was a useless act of savagery that the world has seen more then enough of.