Iraq trains terrorists? Conclusive evidence from our leaders?
September 26, 2002 12:37 AM   Subscribe

Iraq trains terrorists? Conclusive evidence from our leaders? Why do I suddenly feel like I am living in Oceania?
posted by FilmMaker (39 comments total)
 
I thought it was pretty much common knowledge by now that Iraq allows terrorist groups to group and train in it's borders?
posted by PenDevil at 12:52 AM on September 26, 2002


Its not that... its the sudden bit of information from the government (in a time when they are drumming up support for a war) very conveniently provided by prisoners out of the public eye linking Iraq to our "dreaded foe", Al Qaeda.

Just felt very Orwellian...
posted by FilmMaker at 12:58 AM on September 26, 2002


I think I need a little more compelling evidence than the confessions of a guy being held in a dog cage in Cuba.
Aren't these the same guys that have identified just about every landmark that has been shown to them as a target for the next big thing?
Let's ask them who is behind all of those crop circles, while we're at it.
posted by 2sheets at 1:12 AM on September 26, 2002


The dogs in the 'dog cages' in Guantanamo aside, I'm sure Orwell would have considered Saddam the living embodiment of Big Brother, moustache and all, not Mr. Bush. But then Orwell's work has been used to make weak political analogies since it was written, so have at it, the damage has been done.

But somewhere Orwell's spirit weeps silently in the night.
posted by evanizer at 1:13 AM on September 26, 2002


this is news?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:18 AM on September 26, 2002


Wow, that photo clearly shows Hussein mixing up some biochemical weapons with his Al Qaeda buddies/operatives. I'm convinced--let's roll!
posted by kirkaracha at 1:20 AM on September 26, 2002


While I understand some pent up anger that may still linger over the 9/11 tragedy, I hardly think calling the suspects 'dogs' plays to the higher ideals of our national consciousness.

My point was simply that there seems to be a lot of formerly 'secret' evidence being leaked (created) to fill the gaps in the "Why we should start WW III" argument. Its important that, as Americans, we hold our government up to the light of truth. Otherwise, we might as well be slaves.

Whatever your interpretation of Orwell, the 'Three Slogans of the Party' speak for themselves:

"WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
"

Forget history, and you get to live it ALL over again...
posted by FilmMaker at 1:23 AM on September 26, 2002


WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Sounds like the slogans of Mr. Hussein, as well as most of the leaders of the 'Arab world' if you ask me.
posted by evanizer at 1:31 AM on September 26, 2002


Rove: "George, as soon as they start asking questions - you know the drill - right?"
George: "TERRAH! TERRAH! TERRAH!"
Cheney: "Good boy."

But really, if we knew this all along - why is it comig out just now - right when questions are being asked?
posted by owillis at 1:36 AM on September 26, 2002


If you were a simple Iraqi:

War is Peace=What the fuck, why can't I get rid of these ulcers?

Freedom is Slavery=What the fuck, why can't I get rid of these ulcers?

Ignorance is Strength=I'm so goddamn consumed with the fact that I can't get shit and don't know when the hell America's going to decide to swoop in on me, nevermind the safe water situ, I just can't get rid of these ulcers anyhow.

We have it so lucky, being on the other end.
posted by crasspastor at 1:40 AM on September 26, 2002


We are so lucky rather. . .
posted by crasspastor at 1:40 AM on September 26, 2002


2sheets: Camp X-Ray of the so-called "dog cages" has been closed for months, replaced by quasi-permanent buildings with roofs, electricity, plumbing, and room service on a site labeled Camp Delta.

We have even previously discussed the construction contracts for the expansion of Camp Delta.

FilmMaker, your comments about timing are legitimate but really uninstructive; of course the White House would use its bully pulpit and timing to its advantage, a tactic which is hardly unique to Bush or in and of itself indicative of creeping fascism. The administration has been lambasted for months, here and elsewhere, for not making their case. Well, here they are, making their case. Do you have specific reason to doubt the information presented, or do you just like making cheap Orwell references, which are becoming a daily occurrence on MeFi? Love your use of scare quotes, by the way. Marks you as a troll to avoid.
posted by dhartung at 1:59 AM on September 26, 2002


Hell in a handbasket, folks.

I mean, we can't even get "it's" and "its" right, fercryinoutloud.

Y'know?
posted by Bixby23 at 2:42 AM on September 26, 2002


Do you have specific reason to doubt the information presented, or do you just like making cheap Orwell references, which are becoming a daily occurrence on MeFi?

Oh, give it a rest and try reading the thread carefully before spouting off with your drivel. The poster already gave a "specific reason to doubt the information presented" -- that the sources of information were "very conveniently provided by prisoners out of the public eye linking Iraq to our 'dreaded foe', Al Qaeda." And along comes the administration scrambling to "make their case" with sources which no one can apparently check . Apparently you never read 1984, but certainly prisoner "confessions" by "nonpersons" used for propaganda purposes is analogous to what we are reading this morning from Rice.

Love your use of scare quotes, by the way. Marks you as a troll to avoid.


Embarassed at your apparent inability to process information as noted above, and your willingness to merely label instead of reason (calling someone a "troll" is merely your own use of "scare quotes"...a pretty hypocritical thing to do.)
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:53 AM on September 26, 2002


Wanted to add to post but the name calling put me off, once again.
posted by Postroad at 3:27 AM on September 26, 2002


(You and me both, Fred. Hell in a handbasket is right. Ad-hominem attacks and unpleasantness and downright dumbness as far as the eye can see, all over the mighty 'filter, these days. Depressing.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:57 AM on September 26, 2002


Newsflash: the CIA could not find convincing evidence of Iraqi ties to Al-Qaeda, even though they were looking for it. I just don't think wars can be waged on the words of some guys sitting in a jail cell with a lot to win by talking, even if it is out of their asses.
posted by magullo at 4:22 AM on September 26, 2002




Jesus, the War on Terror (or Iraq, or whatever it is now) becomes more predictable by the day. This 'revelation' was inevitable, and reads like a veritable line-up of pantomime bad guys: Saddam, Al-Qaeda, Chemical Weapons, the whole shooting match! And all in one place. That's pretty fucking cool. May the bombing commence. Funny, I always thought that the next Iraqi gig was to be about getting shot of Saddam because of his ambitions to develop WMD's....at least, that's what Tony Blair told me on Tuesday.

There's no doubt that Saddam was jumping with glee on September 11th, but possibly not for the same reason as your average Islamic fundamentalist headbanger in the street. As well as the CIA lads that magullo linked to, I bet some of the State Department guys are a bit embarrassed today, because their Report on Patterns of Global Terrorism 2001, released only last May, paints a very different picture of Iraqi involvement in terrorist activity(.pdf, page 3). Sure, you might say, but since then new information has been extracted from the bad guys we've captured - however, the fact that Al-Qaeda wasn't even mentioned in relation to Iraq as opposed to a good number of other countries, suggests, to me at least, that historical links between Iraq and Al-Quaeda are tenuous at best, and speculative at worst.

In any case, I'm not clear why it can be taken as a given that a bunch of avowed Islamist fundamentalist nutjobs would want to cultivate an intimate relationship with the type of secular Arab leader which they profess to despise, and whose goals (retaining power at all costs) are not aligned with theirs (set up a fundamentalist utopia, kill infidels etc., etc.) America may have plenty of enemies in the Arab world, but they are not automatically a homogenised mass, working in unison to a common end.

There is no doubt that from an objective viewpoint, Saddam belongs in a hole in the ground, but peddling links with established baddies while not providing evidence seems like a cheap shot, and a bit of an insult to the intelligence of informed Americans (and foreigners (me!) too!!). Your government belongs to you, and not the other way around. That seems to have been forgotten by the U.S Administration lately.

As servants of the people, if there is durable evidence to support the accusation of terrorist linkages, surely the onus is on your Government to provide some elaboration at least before risking fellow-citizens' lives abroad in your name?? Until such a case is made, the scepticism of FilmMaker and others is not only understandable, but healthy.

btw: what Postroad and stavros said, squared - personalising threads surely defeats the purpose of metafilter as a forum for opinions on issues of common interest, not on each other
posted by Doozer at 4:35 AM on September 26, 2002


This is just as true today: "The full range of Iraqgate allegations involves a complex cast of characters and an intricate and intertwining succession of events. The personages involved include an international array of arms dealers, bankers, merchants, lawyers, military officers, foreign agents, and government officials. "

Let's not forget that in 1982 the United States government lifted restrictions on Iraq. The result: "The investigations revealed that exports had been approved for military recipients and others involved in military research and development, including the Iraqi Air Force, Iraq's Ministry of Defense, the Saad General Establishment (missile research), the State Organization for Technical Industries (military production), and al-Qaqaa Stater Establishment (explosives and propellants research and production). "

Many of the people advocating war are connected to the people who sell the tools of war. The paragraph above left out another party: "the citizens who allow the politicians to create war."
posted by ?! at 5:34 AM on September 26, 2002


Condi is pretty careful about how she couched these revelations, "...that there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time." This is the part I'd like them to clarify but suspect that they won't. How far back? During the Iran - Iraq war? Were these members of al Qaeda called Muhajadeen then? Is everyone who had prior contact with the current members of al Qaeda dirty? As Ms. Rice may recall, we had some hand in laying the groundwork that led to the creation of that organization. Of course, I'm being unfair because that is going back quite a long time.
posted by putzface_dickman at 5:58 AM on September 26, 2002


of course the White House would use its bully pulpit and timing to its advantage, a tactic which is hardly unique to Bush or in and of itself indicative of creeping fascism.

Yeah, that's a popular method. Even Hitler did that.

At the same time, she cautioned that "no one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on September 11th, so we don't want to push this too far."

It's only a matter of time, Condi. Once you start down the slippery slope, soon anything is possible. Soon, Osama won't even have existed.

(An aside: I caught the video footage of Bush asked who was the most dangerous, Osama or Saddam. His initial answer, after 20 seconds of 'thought', all the while with that bloody vacant smirk? 'I'm trying to think of something humourous...' Well, George, we're laughing: but it's not with you.)
posted by riviera at 6:01 AM on September 26, 2002


Doozer--

Not to comment on the rest of your input but no surprise on the Dept. of State's snafu -- they have their own entrenched bureaucracy & inertia, often at odds with objective facts & whatever administration is in office, & many of their luminaries in the past have proven misguided (Joseph Kennedy's - ambassador to England - support for, or at least reluctance to confront, Nazi germany comes to mind).
posted by Pressed Rat at 6:09 AM on September 26, 2002


Let's ask them who is behind all of those crop circles, while we're at it.

Mel Gibson

Seriously, my idea is that the Guantanamo prisoners are basically Al Qaeda foot soldiers who know very little about future operations -- the real big guys who know the good stuff are being kept abroad, where it's easier to ask them, not very gently, with the aid of foreign secret services, the important questions

But somewhere Orwell's spirit weeps silently in the night.

Especially when he's misquoted by the heirs of the right-wingers he disliked so much
posted by matteo at 6:25 AM on September 26, 2002


Well it only took 22 posts till someone invoked Godwin's Law...
posted by PenDevil at 6:31 AM on September 26, 2002


Doozer - Thank you for a well thought out, and thread-saving comment.
posted by zpousman at 6:45 AM on September 26, 2002


In any given country, the majority of the populace won't engage in a deep analysis of information provided by their government unless it has a percieved direct effect on their day to day lives. For example an increase in taxes.

Looking at American media (CNN, NY Times etc), there doesn't appear to be as much analysis/debate of news items as appears in other countries. Thats just my opinion btw. These two items make it relatively easy for the government to shape the opinion of Joe Public on foreign policy. Joe Public also has faith in his elected government (even if he most likely didn't vote), especially in matters of 'us vs the scummy terrorist scum'.

George Bush may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I'm sure that he has a huge public relations team/army of spin doctors. Its these people's jobs to shape public opinion in a way conducive to governmental policy, and I'm certain they're not as ham-fisted and obvious as they may appear - after all, big money attracts intelligent people.

I fell asleep when watching Signs, a truly terrible movie..
posted by Mossy at 7:29 AM on September 26, 2002


Oh, give it a rest and try reading the thread carefully before spouting off with your drivel.

f&m, you should try that some time, your self.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 8:20 AM on September 26, 2002


zpousman: Agreed...

Thanks to Doozer and others... I absolutely abhor being called a "troll" when I certainly did NOT bait. This is a legitimate issue and sadly too many folks are wrapped up tight in a false patriotism that surrounds the issue.

As for being some socialist, left-wing, government hating flag burner... let me just tell you that I spent 10 years of my life in military intelligence and was a die hard Republican voter for many years (that has changed). Its time to cease flag-waving because some ad agency tells us to and assert our patriotism in a constructive way.

- - -

Mossy says:
"I'm certain they're not as ham-fisted and obvious as they may appear - after all, big money attracts intelligent people." Take a look at THIS link and then convince me of that. It doesn't take smarts to inherit something...
posted by FilmMaker at 8:32 AM on September 26, 2002


Why do these threads always end up in name calling and insults? Are we on the left so blinded by our dogma that we can not longer even debate issues on their merits? Once you can a person a name you dismiss that person. The after you dismiss that person you trivialize their point a view. After that, you ignore them and close your mind. Is that we, "the left," stand for? Closing your minds? Is that best way to dissent? I hope not.

We should not have to go to war. But if we do, at least we she do so the property was (Congress, the UN, etc., which the Bus Admission as some willingness to do so).

The fact that Bush has made this argument shows that he has yet to get enough support for war, as a recent poll indicated. A poll shown on CNN (sorry no link) sated that 14% are against the war and 46% are against war without the approval of Congress or the UN. Those numbers suggest that there is meaningful disagreement and no B.S. Hitler or 1984 can change that.

If you don't like what Bush is doing use the democratic methods at your disapproval (vote, express your opinion to your politician, etc.). Just because our view is somewhat unpopular doesn't mean we have lost our ability to dissent or that we being oppressed. Further, just because we don't get our way, doesn't make Bush Hitler or Big Brother.
posted by Bag Man at 8:39 AM on September 26, 2002


In 1990, a widely reported story had Iraqi soldiers taking Kuwaiti babies out of their incubators and leaving them to die. It never happened, but it convinced a lot of people that going to war with Iraq might not be such a bad idea.

The same year, George H. W. Bush's administration claimed that satellite photos showed up to 250,000 Iraqi troops preparing to invade our ally Saudi Arabia as justification for quick action. A reporter obtained satellite photos of the same area at the same time that showed no such troop buildup, and the photos the government based its claims on have not yet been declassified.

So, I'm going to take any evidence that this administration brings forward as justification for immediate action with a healthy dose of skepticism. I'm not saying the claims are false, but it'll take a lot more than Condoleezza Rice on a talk show to convince me.
posted by muta at 8:42 AM on September 26, 2002


Well, I am not saying that Bush is Hitler, but don't you think its even moderately ironic that the current administration is committed to fighting an invisible enemy (much like the Ministry of Truth did)?

What started as a very innocent poke at the current campaign towards war has blossomed into a full fledged cat-fight over the issue. IMHO, that lends credence to just how important an issue it is...

I absolutely agree with you, Muta. I too am skeptical and that was the intent of my MeFi post.
posted by FilmMaker at 8:50 AM on September 26, 2002


in case al-queda still has a cell in US, lets bomb ourselves since we support terrorists. Same in other countries, if you have terrorists in your boundaries which is a probability then you become a country candidate for regime change....
posted by pyr at 9:00 AM on September 26, 2002


Newsflash: the CIA could not find convincing evidence of Iraqi ties to Al-Qaeda, even though they were looking for it.

There may not be direct ties to Saddam, but there does appear to be some armed Qaida sympathizers causing trouble in northern Iraqi Kurdistan. Their backing may be coming from Bin Laden, or it could just be flowing from Saudi Arabia directly, since they've been pouring money into Kurdistan since 1991. Also, since Saddam would like to prevent a united Kurdish front, funneling money to these folks would do the job. Saddam and Bin Laden don't have to see eye to eye to make use of each other.

I don't know if this problem in Kurdistan justifies a larger war on Iraq, but the Ansar al-Islam look like eligible W-O-T targets all on their own.
posted by BinGregory at 9:20 AM on September 26, 2002


FilmMaker - Rich people hire clever people to look after their PR and image. Rich governments can do the same. Thats why I find it odd that the US govt can seem so simplistic sometimes..
posted by Mossy at 10:13 AM on September 26, 2002


FilmMaker - If you read my post again I think you may notice that I never called the detainees "dogs", I was referring to the conditions that they are being held in.

Dhartung - thanks for the info; I hope that the conditions that the detainees are kept in are somewhat more humane now in spite of what crimes they may have committed.

My point was that the detainees are a proven source of DIS-information. The current and past administrations are also proven sources of disinformation. So when the administration passes along information gleaned from the detainees, I am beyond skeptical.
posted by 2sheets at 10:54 AM on September 26, 2002


Well, I am not saying that Bush is Hitler, but don't you think its even moderately ironic that the current administration is committed to fighting an invisible enemy (much like the Ministry of Truth did)?

Valid point, but Saddam is not an "invisible enemy." While a "terrorist" is an invisible enemy Saddam is not. Also, one huge difference between 1984 and USA 2002 is that there was no independent press in 1984. While the mainstream press is heavily influenced by public opinion and can be used by politicians, time and gain the press has exposed people like presidents for the liars and cheats that they are. Further, the net and alternative can press expose additional stories.

However bad Bush is, I'm a bit sick of the "he's Hitler" and "the US is now 1984" crap (self post to bring out my point) because it takes away from the merits of the debate that is occurring. Further, such talk only alienates people. It prevents people on the "right" from seeing the merits of our arguments and drives people in the political middle away from joining our cause (even if those people agree with our points on their merits). Such talk is very harmful to the actual message we are promoting.

Its not that... its the sudden bit of information from the government (in a time when they are drumming up support for a war) very conveniently provided by prisoners out of the public eye linking Iraq to our "dreaded foe", Al Qaeda.

This is a tactic that has been used since time and memorial, it is not unique to Bush or Republicans. Welcome to politics. Maybe I'm cynical, but spin and timing is part of life and huge part of politics.
posted by Bag Man at 12:03 PM on September 26, 2002


are these revelations (iraq/al queda connections) coming from the same "al qaeda high ranking officers" that have caused the bevy terror warnings from john ashcroft and gang in months past? - i seem to remember something from the training manuals about disinformation and lying when captured being a part of their training manual.
posted by specialk420 at 3:07 PM on September 26, 2002


2sheets... that was in response to Evanizer further up the thread. I understood and agreed with your post...

:)

Other than that, I am off for the weekend...

Happy posting.
posted by FilmMaker at 4:15 PM on September 26, 2002


« Older The Guardian announces weblog competition winners!   |   Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments