Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: FUNKED1 on June 20, 2006, 05:34:46 PM
-
Don't worry about the government. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/3985098.html)
-
shut up terrorist.
-
Who do you believe? A source by who chooses to remain silent that spoke with the press, or the FBI? I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle...
FBI lawyers rationalized that even though data brokers may have obtained financial information, agents could still use the information because brokers were not acting as a consumer-reporting agency but rather as a data warehouse.
The FBI said it relies only on well-respected data brokers and expects agents to abide by the law. "The FBI can only collect and retain data available from commercial databases in strict compliance with applicable federal law," spokesman Mike Kortan said Monday.
I understand that the Canadian's busted 11+ terrorist by illegal internet tapping, the Canuck mounties aren't saying much because its most likely that they used more illegal means to get their men...but hey, no one died because of lack of intelligence.....;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I understand that the Canadian's busted 11+ terrorist by illegal internet tapping, the Canuck mounties aren't saying much because its most likely that they used more illegal means to get their men...but hey, no one died because of lack of intelligence.....;)
I don't know if that's true or not. The story fell off the radar 3 days after the busts.
So do you have a source on this? I'm interested.
-
Yes! I always thought this would happen. I predicted this back in the 70s.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I understand that the Canadian's busted 11+ terrorist by illegal internet tapping, the Canuck mounties aren't saying much because its most likely that they used more illegal means to get their men...but hey, no one died because of lack of intelligence.....;)
Giving up on America already Rip?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Giving up on America already Rip?
Nope. We're clean here for the time being, until more unfolds to the press. Meanwhile, we're aiding other countries to take out yet more terrorist cells abroad, but I'm sure you don't notice these successes.
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.296596956&par=0
A suspected al-Qaeda cell has been broken up and its members arrested in Turkey. Among those detained was Abdolhalim Sad, an Iranian, who the Turkish authorities believe is the new leader of the global terror network in Turkey. The cell was dismantled by the Turkish security forces who had been put on the trail by the American secret service, the CIA. The operation dates to two weeks ago but the news of the arrrest of Abdolhalim Sad and other members emerged only on Tuesday.
Turkish intelligence services say that the militants were preparing an attack against the military base at Incirlik which is home to divisions of the US airforce.
The other three arrested were Turkish citizens; Mehmet Yilmaz, Mehmet Belut and Murat Estenleg, who according to Turkish media reports had attended a military camp run by al-Qaeda in Iran, near the border with Iraqi Kurdistan.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I don't know if that's true or not. The story fell off the radar 3 days after the busts.
So do you have a source on this? I'm interested.
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I understand that the Canadian's busted 11+ terrorist by illegal internet tapping, the Canuck mounties aren't saying much because its most likely that they used more illegal means to get their men...but hey, no one died because of lack of intelligence.....;)
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=aa8696a1-5a53-40ca-868a-3c8f6009581c
The group was watched by intelligence officers before being broken apart in an inter-agency operation involving the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Canada Border Services Agency and police.
A senior CSIS counterterrorism official, Larry Brooks, announced the dismantling of the cell at a closed-door national security workshop held this week at a hotel north of Toronto.
"CSIS's mandate is to collect, analyze and report threat-related intelligence to government. This means that effectively, our intelligence is shared with a variety of domestic and international security intelligence and law enforcement partners," Barbara Campion, the CSIS spokeswoman, said yesterday.
"CSIS does not discuss details of specific cases," she added.
But on Monday, Mr. Brooks, the chief of counterterrorism for the Toronto region, gave an outline of the case to delegates at the National Security Workshop 2005, a federal initiative that brought together security officials and representatives of Ontario industries involved in critical infrastructure, such as telephone, hydro and transit.
http://michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_content/task,view/id,1279/comment_write,/comment_view,1/
This weekend's arrest of 17 people in Toronto on terrorism-related arrests have generated significant worldwide attention. Not to be overlooked are the reports that Internet monitoring played a key role in the investigation. According to the Toronto Star "when CSIS began monitoring the sites allegedly used by some of the 17 men and youths arrested on terrorism-related charges in a sweeping series of raids across the GTA Friday evening, the Canadian spy agency heard enough to remain interested, and increased surveillance of the group. While CSIS and police typically won't talk about their operational methods, the available techniques range from monitoring electronic communications, from cell phones and landlines to emails and computers, to physically following persons of interest as they move about and talk to others."
-
First of all... If you expect your phone conversations to be private then you probly desrve the slap in the face...
next... It really is time to draw the line and to say.... no further. We need to vote down every new tax and every new law that ever comes up no matter how much someone convinces us that it will only get "the other guy" and give us something for nothing.
Then we need to get to work shutting down tax supported government offices that intrude into peoples lives.
It matters not who is in power.... to some extent we are doing it to ourselves.... If we vote for more taxes we are voting for less control over our lives and more people to suppress us. It matters not what the taxes stated purpose is... it all goes to a bigger and more intrusive government.
Vote down every new tax that you are given an opportunity to no matter how good it sounds or what movie star or evangilist supports it.
lazs
-
That's all very well, Ripsnort.
Sorry if my question was a little vague, but what I really wanted was a source for your claim that the terrorists were busted as a result of "illegal internet tapping."
I look forward to that. Thanks in advance.
-
Originally posted by Nash
That's all very well, Ripsnort.
Sorry if my question was a little vague, but what I really wanted was a source for your claim that the terrorists were busted as a result of "illegal internet tapping."
I look forward to that. Thanks in advance.
There is no report of legal means to gain information that was accumulated by internet monitoring. You would think that would be the first thing mentioned to prevent lefties like you from crying like a baby about "your rights". That's why I made the assumption that it was indeed illegal. They don't want to talk about it, what else am I suppose to presume?
-
Ahh.... an assumption. Big surprise. Thanks for clearing that up.
I thought maybe, you know... well, it's stupid, but... I just thought that maybe you weren't talkin' out yer arse this time or something.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Ahh.... an assumption. Big surprise. Thanks for clearing that up.
I thought maybe, you know... well, it's stupid, but... I just thought that maybe you weren't talkin' out yer arse this time or something.
Do you have difficulty debating a topic without smart alec insertions, Nash? If anyone sounds like they're talking out of their proverbial arse, its you Nash.
-
Can anyone even make sense of lazs arguments anymore? You shouldn't expect phone conversations to be secure, but we should shut down tax-funded efforts to intrude into people's lives. Huh?
We can't reconcile privacy and security anymore, the world won't allow it. So - all phone calls you make from any phone - needs to be recorded. The source and destination and the time/date and duration. Even content, using supercomputer systems that can do voice recognition. Just like in that movie with Gene Hackman.
But it needs congressional oversight. The Bush administration started tracing a reporter from ABC calls to see if they could find who his leak was in the White House. They only way to prevent the data from being mishandled is to have oversight. Otherwise you get fascism. It's amazing how the current administration bungles these things - if they could have just refrained from touching the damn data they would have been fine. But all the did is demonstrate how tempting it is. Internet as well. All websites, all emails - should be indexed and retrieveable in an investigation. If you download a lot of hardcore porn - well, there's no law against it so chill out. Nobody gives a damn if you are banging the babysitter - the feds are looking for terror cells.
Complete surveillence society, but with CONTROLS over how the data is used. That's how you find the cells, find the guys in the mosques who are planning to do bad ****. Make it efficient and make it scalable. Otherwise it costs too much to set up and run. It has to be effective and cheap.
-
Rip, be nice to nash. He will be mean to you, but he is just trying to get you kicked off the playground.
-
The U.S. wiretapping is all legal. Even the far left senators & representatives know this; that's why they have not raised a holy uproar over it. If the govt. of the U.S. wants to record every conversation on every phone & every P/C e-mail & I.M. they can.
The laws of the U.S. changed after 9-11, we went into it with our eyes open & now we do not like the outcome - too bad. We the people have to make a choice.
We are in this for the long haul folks, the time frame was open ended when all this started & the govt. through the media said this could go on for generations. Keep in mind that we didn't start this terror campaign; the hijackings & the subsequent loss of life on 9-11 were the straw that broke the camels back! Those were not the first attacks on our citizens, they were just the ones that woke our leadership up & caused them to say ENOUGH! We should not just forget the Leon Klinghoffers or the Robert Stethems of this world.
I am in the minority, I feel like we are not doing enough. We should institute the draft & put as many able bodied men under arms as our country can mobilize & then remove every threat to our country whether they are hostile nations or terrorist gangs. I would rather we go down with a roar swinging than a whine & a whimper cowering in a corner.
We are either going to win & be safe in our own country or we will lose & no one will be safe anywhere.
-
This was copied from another forum & it highlights what I have felt all along.
"Let me count the atrocities committed against Americans (and Westerners in general) by Islamic "extremists:
In November 1979, fifty-two American citizens were taken hostage when militant Islamic students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
Between 1982 and 1992, 30 westerners were kidnapped and held hostage in Lebanon.
In April 1983, a vehicle packed with explosives was driven into the U.S. Embassy compound in Beirut, killing 63 people.
In October 1983, a large truck containing canisters of explosive gas wrapped with explosives was driven into the U.S. Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut, killing 241 U.S. servicemen and wounding over 100 more.
In December 1983, the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait was bombed in a series of attacks whose targets also included the French embassy, the control tower at the airport, the country's main oil refinery, and a residential area for employees of the American corporation Raytheon. Five people were killed and more than 80 others were injured.
In September 1984, a truck bomb exploded outside a U.S. Embassy annex near Beirut killing 24 people, two of whom were U.S. military personnel.
In December 1984, Kuwait Airways Flight 221, on its way from Kuwait to Pakistan, was hijacked and diverted to Tehran. The hijackers demanded the release of the 17 terrorists convicted for the December 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait. When the demand wasn't met, the hijackers killed two American officials from the U.S. Agency for International Development.
In June 1985, TWA Flight 847 was hijacked en route from Athens to Rome and forced to land in Beirut, where the hijackers held the plane for 17 days demanding the release of convicted Islamic terrorists. When these demands weren't met, hostage Robert Dean Stethem, a U.S. Navy diver, was shot and his body dumped on the airport tarmac.
In October 1985, four gunmen hijacked the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and demanded the release of Palestinian prisoners in Egypt, Italy, and elsewhere. When the demands weren't met, they killed Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old disabled American tourist.
In December 1985, airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, five of whom were Americans.
In April 1986, an American soldier was killed when a bomb was detonated at a discotheque in West Berlin known to be popular with off-duty U.S. servicemen. A Turkish woman was killed, and nearly 200 others were wounded.
In April 1986, three American University of Beirut employees were found shot to death near Beirut.
In April 1986, a terrorist bomb exploded on-board TWA Flight 840, killing four. Among those killed were Maria Stylian Klug and her infant daughter Demetra, who were blown out of the plane and fell thousands of feet to their deaths.
In December 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 from London to New York exploded over the small town of Lockerbie, Scotland. All 259 people on board were killed, along with 11 on the ground.
In January 1993, two CIA agents were shot and killed as they entered CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
In February 1993, a van packed with explosives was detonated in the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing six people and injuring over 1000.
In November 1995, a car bomb exploded at a U.S. military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing seven service men and women.
In June 1996, a truck bomb destroyed the Khobar Towers, a U.S. Air Force barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 and injuring over 500.
In August 1998, simultaneous attacks on two U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed 224.
In October 2000, the USS Cole was attacked in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 U.S. Navy sailors.
On September 11, 2001, coordinated attacks using hijacked U.S. airliners killed approximately 3000 in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
In January 2002, reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped in Pakistan. The following month, his captors released a video tape showing his murder by decapitation.
In April 2004, American contractor Nick Berg was kidnapped in Iraq. In May, a video was released on the internet showing Berg's gruesome decapitation.
In June 2004, American contractor Paul Johnson was kidnapped in Saudi Arabia. His captors demanded the release of all al-Quaeda prisoners by the Saudi government. When their demands were not met, they beheaded Mr. Johnson, and posted pictures of his decapitated body on the internet.
Do you get the picture? We may have only realized we were at war on September 11, 2001, but the enemy has been at war against us for the past 25 years."
-
Could you calculate amount of corpses made by US Army before 1979 and after?
Honestly no wonder they pissed.
-
Originally posted by Nash
That's all very well, Ripsnort.
Sorry if my question was a little vague, but what I really wanted was a source for your claim that the terrorists were busted as a result of "illegal internet tapping."
I look forward to that. Thanks in advance.
Do Canadians even have a constitutional right to privacy? If not then any wiretapping or eavesdropping would seem to be legal there.
-
I thought the us constitution covered canada?
-
I'm curious here.
Which is the bigger problem?
The fact that govt. agencies make use of commercially available data tools?
or
The fact that there ARE commercially available data mining operations outside of the constitutional constraints the govt. has to operate under?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I'm curious here.
Which is the bigger problem?
The fact that govt. agencies make use of commercially available data tools?
or
The fact that there ARE commercially available data mining operations outside of the constitutional constraints the govt. has to operate under?
The latter. But hey, its okay if some stalker uses the information out there, but "HOLY CRIPES if the FEDS use it, BAD BAD BAD..."personally I don't understand that logic...:huh
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I'm curious here.
Which is the bigger problem?
The fact that govt. agencies make use of commercially available data tools?
or
The fact that there ARE commercially available data mining operations outside of the constitutional constraints the govt. has to operate under?
Well in Michigan there is a bill on the Gov's desk that i'm sure she is going to sign to make it illegal for private citizens and business's to access this info, as expected government access is still fine.
If they precluded government access as well, there would be no market and those data bases would dissapear, that wont happen, they want to keep the nice little end around of the 4th.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I'm curious here.
Which is the bigger problem?
The fact that govt. agencies make use of commercially available data tools?
or
The fact that there ARE commercially available data mining operations outside of the constitutional constraints the govt. has to operate under?
The latter, by a wide margin. It's like TSA, eventually the federal government realized it had to federalize airport security. Same here, if your business is to collect records for data mining, it's a lot better if your paycheck comes from Uncle Sam.
-
dos ekk... in this age of cell phones and cordless phones.. do you really expect that your conversations are secure?
I don't want the government to listen in but I don't care who is in power.... I"m not gonna trust em.
If we run em out of money that is the best defense... the fewer people they have to monitor conversations the more secure our freedom will be... the less tax money they have to mind our business the less they will mind our business.
We neither of us can understand the other.... I can't understand how you want more and more and bigger and bigger government and then are amazed and shocked when they abuse the power you gave em.
Thats what governments do.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
dos ekk... in this age of cell phones and cordless phones.. do you really expect that your conversations are secure?
We neither of us can understand the other.... I can't understand how you want more and more and bigger and bigger government and then are amazed and shocked when they abuse the power you gave em.
Thats what governments do.
lazs
Not a properly structured government with three branches that can put checks and balances on each other. The framers understood this. Governments role is to keep private interests at bay. To build roads, to set up power plants or regulate the purchase of power for the citizenry from private power generation companies.
When one branch of government starts running programs off the books, then it's time to go dig your foxhole. There was legislation to allow congressional oversight of the tapping program. Bush felt he needed something where only he got the info, and so he went and did it.
That's bad.
On your first point. I can decide to employ my own strong encryption on phone calls. It's called zFone and it was written by the guy who wrote PGP. I'm pretty damn sure that nobody can act as man in the middle or spoof that one.
And in about 2-3 years, everyone will use encryption. The Clinton administration saw that, and tried to get in with the clipper chip. Remember that? They backdoored that puppy.
The internet will also make it hard if terror units suspect they are being surveilled. That's why keeping it secret is important, to let them think its ok to use cellphones if they get rid of them quick. That's probably what Zarko thought just before the bomb hit him.
When the executive branch goes rogue, and people start leaking - it's just doing more harm than good.
-
Originally posted by KgB
Could you calculate amount of corpses made by US Army before 1979 and after?
Honestly no wonder they pissed.
I don't really understand the question but...I'm 100% certain more people have died over the lifespan of Islam & in the name of Islam than the lifespan of the U.S. Army & the majority of the dead because of the U.S. Army has been in defense of our country or one of our allies.
But making the U.S. war on terror about body counts is just an attempt at distraction from the main issue & that is we were attacked for many years before we acted & when we did everyone acts like we should have limited our actions to a police/arrest type action against a handfull of murderers.
I do not have a problem with the govt. keeping records of my phone & internet traffic because I am not trying to hide terrorist activities. If you are worried about it then you must have something to hide. I recall someone in the CIA saying way back in the early 80's that one of the first internet programs they instituted along with the NSA was for listening to conversations & watch for key words & phrases like - "bomb,shoot,assassinate,overthrow,president etc" & that computer program has/had been running for years before they ever mentioned it in public. Somewhere in the belly of CIA HQ there is a monster bank of reel to reels with miles of magnetic tape no one has ever even looked at.
Be on the lookout for the black nelicopters & the black vans...they may know you cheated on your wife & smoked a joint :noid
-
At first glance you would appear to be insane but on further study I would say that you simply do not understand historical timelines.
To say that the three branches have worked to stop intrusions into our human rights is naive at best... it matters not what political group is in power...
When the left is in power they take away the rights of the right... When the right is in power they take away the lefts... What we end up with is less and less rights every year.... examples would be right wing admins attacking groups like the SLA and other left wing fringe groups and using their "threat" to expedite (play fast and loose with) the "laws" and then...
when the lefties get in they attack right wing groups like militias and oddball fundamenalist religions and loners who shun society like.... Koresh and Randy weaver... with the same results of course.... "stern measures are needed" rights trampled.. we all suffer.
The bill of rights are not even a guarentee.... the left leaning judicial and legeslative destroys the ones they hate when they are in power and the right wing guys destroy the rest when they are in power.
You want to give em more power. you are the problem not the solution... your "the right kind of dictator is ok" thinking is what got us into this mess. The rights you give "the good government" come back to bite you in the butt when the guys you don't like get in...
They all have plenty of shady powers right now to pick and choose which ones they will use or not use on whichever group ticks em off.
The only solution is less government with even stronger bill of rights.
lazs
-
[ ...but hey, no one died because of lack of intelligence.....;) [/B][/QUOTE]
Rip,
Frontline had an interesting program regarding just that.....the lack of intelligence with regards to Iraq, WMD's and Bush's '03 State of the Union address and the infamous "16 words", and Powell's speech to the UN Security Council (written by Scooter) and the lack of intelligence to back up the claims made in those speeches. If you get the chance to get a transcript, I would do it. Tenet took a big beating in that piece and rightfully so.
I'm by no means a leftie (sorry but you'll have to put your label maker away ;) )....but I do believe in accountability. Americans have died and are dying due to a lack of intelligence.
I agree with what Hang said in another thread.....there is no "win" in a low-intensity" conflict...just prolongation and stagnation......since we're there, then go all out to get it done.
-
There were WMD in Iraq, just not in the huge numbers that were assumed to be there. I'm a firm believer that the WMD was a front to get a foothold in the middle east, and put a base of operations there to keep an eye on the rest of the mindless radical muslims (Syria, Iran) and to depose of an idiot who not only harbored terrorists but would have used them sincerely in the future if given a chance. So WMD or not, it was a brilliant move by this admininstration and history will prove that it was the right thing to do.
Sleep tight tonight, the fights not near your house, thanks to a few good men.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
That's why I made the assumption that it was indeed illegal. They don't want to talk about it, what else am I suppose to presume?
Tell us your most secret wish Rip... come-on share something really personal with us all.
Wait a minute, you don't want to say?... It must be illegal then!!!!
Rip is a criminal!!!!!!!!
:O
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Tell us your most secret wish Rip... come-on share something really personal with us all.
Wait a minute, you don't want to say?... It must be illegal then!!!!
Rip is a criminal!!!!!!!!
:O
Okay. I really wish I could be a manager of minimum wage employees and have Walmart airplane toys in my office.:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Work hard.. you can get there someday.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Work hard.. you can get there someday.
Do I start at McDonalds and work my way up to Burger King? :rofl
-
um. sure.
:huh
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
There were WMD in Iraq, just not in the huge numbers that were assumed to be there. I'm a firm believer that the WMD was a front to get a foothold in the middle east, and put a base of operations there to keep an eye on the rest of the mindless radical muslims (Syria, Iran) and to depose of an idiot who not only harbored terrorists but would have used them sincerely in the future if given a chance. So WMD or not, it was a brilliant move by this admininstration and history will prove that it was the right thing to do.
Sleep tight tonight, the fights not near your house, thanks to a few good men.
The facts say you are wrong about WMD's being in Iraq. Facts admitted by the Admin, admitted by the CIA, and admitted by the Inspection Team sponsored by the US after the invasion.
I'm not OK with the our government lying to me to gain support for military action. I support military use and the projection of our power, but either you make the case for your REAL reasons for going to war so the public can make an INFORMED decision or you don't go using trumped up reasons. If the reasons are valid and justifiable, this nation will support military action, I honestly believe that, and that belief is proved right by the nations continued support of our action in Afghanistan.
Conservative media voices such as William F. Buckley, Jr, are saying Iraq is a mistake. Military voices are saying our prosecution of the Iraq situation continues to be mis-handled.
BTW, I sleep tight everynight :) Of course, I'm just as safe or unsafe from terror attack before 9/11 as after 9/11.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
I'm not OK with the our government lying to me to gain support for military action. I support military use and the projection of our power, but either you make the case for your REAL reasons for going to war so the public can make an INFORMED decision or you don't go using trumped up reasons. If the reasons are valid and justifiable, this nation will support military action, I honestly believe that, and that belief is proved right by the nations continued support of our action in Afghanistan.
This just in: WMD was not the sole reason for going to war. I rest my case.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
This just in: WMD was not the sole reason for going to war. I rest my case.
What case? You have yet to make a case.
BTW, this just in....WMD was THE reason for going to war. You can't try to re-write THAT history.
Saddam was/is a vile evil human being, but he was not an iminent threat to this country as state below...
Again, if you claim iminent threat and WMD's you'd had better be right.....the Admin wasn't right.
And it looks like it was about WMD from his speech:
"Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.
We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause"
-
Originally posted by Stringer
What case? You have yet to make a case.
BTW, this just in....WMD was THE reason for going to war. You can't try to re-write THAT history.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
I'd suggest you get caught up on your history.
Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.
WMD? nope. (A minimal amount, sarin shells, but not the quantity we expected)
History of agression? Check
Seeking Nuclear weapons? Check
Violated numerous UN resolutions? Check
Undermining the sanctions put forth against that country? Check
Practicing terror on its own people? Check.
harboring terrorists? Check.
Incidently,you hijacked the thread. Why not start another thread if you want to debate this stuff?
-
LOL...i posted at the same time you did, just a less abridged version, but lets run through the check list
WMD--nope...
History of Aggresion: To lesser neighbors (and sponsored by the US)..yes.
Seeking Nuclear Weapons:..Not according to the CIA.
Violated UN Resolutons:...yep..OK..hmmm..are we in full compliance...
Undermining Sanctions: yep...not sure that's a invasionable offence...
Practicing terror on his own people: yep...but if that's a litmus test for military action, we've got some friendly dictators and government's to get rid of...(of course at the time that happened we sat on our hands...can't play that one both ways)
harboring terrorists:...shaky connection at best, if it all.
I think the best of all is the whole mobile lab thing that Powell cited in his UN SC Speech. Turns out is was from a single source that was not reliable. There never was any cross-verification of that. Powell did not like that kind of egg on his face.
I suggest you get caught up on actual history.
Apology's to Funked for the hijack.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
LOL...i posted at the same time you did, just a less abridged version, but lets run through the check list
WMD--nope...
History of Aggresion: To lesser neighbors (and sponsored by the US)..yes.
Seeking Nuclear Weapons:..Not according to the CIA.
Violated UN Resolutons:...yep..OK..hmmm..are we in full compliance...
Undermining Sanctions: yep...not sure that's a invasionable offence...
Practicing terror on his own people: yep...but if that's a litmus test for military action, we've got some friendly dictators and government's to get rid of...(of course at the time that happened we sat on our hands...can't play that one both ways)
harboring terrorists:...shaky connection at best, if it all.
I think the best of all is the whole mobile lab thing that Powell cited in his UN SC Speech. Turns out is was from a single source that was not reliable. There never was any cross-verification of that. Powell did not like that kind of egg on his face.
I suggest you get caught up on actual history.
Apology's to Funked for the hijack.
I'll give you that they got caught with their pants down on the WMD, but I still think they are looking at the bigger picture. The WMDs was a cover. The US needed to establish a base in Iraq since Saudi Arabia was becoming too hot for the royal family to handle. And US can not leave the middle-East since we actually are the stabilizing power there. These countries are ruled in an autocratic manner and do not have an established tradition of transfer of power (e.g. in a democracy).
If we are not there, another power will come in and fill in the vacuum. There is a reason that the Chinese and the Russians are willing to do nuke deals with Iran. Do you want the world's oil supply to be controlled by the Russian Mafia or the Chinese Communist or Osama's Islamists or public US corporations ? I am personally shocked at the lack of strategic vision often displayed by the "Where are the WMDs?" brigade.
This week's TIME magazine is a must read for anyone who wants to understand the threat we face from the Middle East.
-
When it comes down to it, saddumb could have short circuited the entire invasion and resulting action very easily. All he had to do was open up the areas the UN teams wanted to inspect. Had he done that the oil scandal could have gone on fattening some euro wallets and he'd likely still be sitting in his palaces. He was freaking STUPID in thinking nothing would happen by not cooperating.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
When it comes down to it, saddumb could have short circuited the entire invasion and resulting action very easily. All he had to do was open up the areas the UN teams wanted to inspect. Had he done that the oil scandal could have gone on fattening some euro wallets and he'd likely still be sitting in his palaces. He was freaking STUPID in thinking nothing would happen by not cooperating.
Mav,
Absolutely agree. He absolutely miscalculated, period. And was an idiot in doing so. Hell, I'd be willing to wager that if he cooperated we would have used him to counter Iran (again, but with a lot less leash this time).
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Mav,
Absolutely agree. He absolutely miscalculated, period. And was an idiot in doing so. Hell, I'd be willing to wager that if he cooperated we would have used him to counter Iran (again, but with a lot lease leash this time).
He was an idiot. He became delusional with his power. He and his sons would still be alive and free to run the rape rooms, if he had just cooperated and been willing to do what we put him in there to do in the 1960s, be a force against Iran and let the Saudis have some of the contracts.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
When it comes down to it, saddumb could have short circuited the entire invasion and resulting action very easily. All he had to do was open up the areas the UN teams wanted to inspect. Had he done that the oil scandal could have gone on fattening some euro wallets and he'd likely still be sitting in his palaces. He was freaking STUPID in thinking nothing would happen by not cooperating.
That's not true. Cheney and Rummy had decided on 9/11 (their words are documented) that they were going after Saddam. Nothing the UN or Saddam could have done was going to stop them.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
That's not true. Cheney and Rummy had decided on 9/11 (their words are documented) that they were going after Saddam. Nothing the UN or Saddam could have done was going to stop them.
Until you can provide confirmation of this, in other words, proof, you should make statements like this preceeded or suceeded by the words in my opinion.
-
Mav,
Look for the Frontline Program that was on last night. Bruno posted a thread about it.
That's the same Program I referenced earlier in this thread. If it's just opinion, it's got some strong proponents saying that "opinion" who were there.
-
Like I said I am after proof. Words on a TV program, particularly not even under oath aren't my idea of proof. I'm not sure testifying under oath is really much better, example, clinton before congress.
If there is sufficient proof bring charges and lets get it out in court. No proof = opinion only. IMO. :p
-
Hehe Mav,
I understand, but I'll say this.....the interviews are with many of the principles involved in this. They know their words will be measured during an interview and program of this stature.
Hell the same goes for stating "opinions" in a State of the Union address as well :)
But, if you're that hung up on opinion vs facts, there's alot of folks in this thread you need to chastise as well.....you know, the guys on the right side of the aisle also ;)
As for the program, do I believe the statements made by gentlemen of long, distinguished government service and careers....yes..yes I do.
BTW, have you read the transcripts from the program?
-
Stringer,
Nope haven't read the transcript. I've been offline due to a t-storm here this afternoon.
Seeing a transcript still wouldn't be convincing to me as anything said is still not even under oath much less documentation of some kind of conspiracy. I'm just tired of the claims of "lying" several have made on the bbs.. Until they can back it up it remains merely "noise" and unsubstantiated.
Lotsa arm chair generals, lawyers, judges etc. here who have never spent any time in those professions yet feel free to expound with their "expertise". :huh
-
lol
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I'm a firm believer that the WMD was a front to get a foothold in the middle east, and put a base of operations there to keep an eye on the rest of the mindless radical muslims (Syria, Iran) and to depose of an idiot who not only harbored terrorists but would have used them sincerely in the future if given a chance. So WMD or not, it was a brilliant move by this admininstration and history will prove that it was the right thing to do.
Let's break this down a little
Alot has been made on this board that Saddam harbored terrorists...according to Michael Scheuer who headed the CIA's Bin Laden desk from '95 to '99 that link did not exist...
Tenet, to his credit, had us go back 10 years in the agency's records and look and see what we knew about Iraq and Al Qaeda. I was available at the time, and I led the effort. We went back 10 years. We examined about 20,000 documents, probably something along the line of 75,000 pages of information, and there was no connection between [Al Qaeda] and Saddam.
There were indications that Al Qaeda people had transited Iraq, probably with the Iraqis turning a blind eye to it. There were some hints that there was a contact between the head of the intelligence service of the Iraqis with bin Laden when he was in the Sudan, but nothing you could put together and say, "Here is a relationship that is similar to the relationship between Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah," which was what Doug Feith's organization was claiming. There was simply nothing to support that.
So we did the research, we gave him the documentation, we came up with a conclusion. But then we turned all of that information over to the analysts, and the analysts then did the same thing. They, as far as I know, found no connection that was remotely approaching what DoD was claiming in regard to Saddam and Al Qaeda. So there was a great deal of surprise when we heard Secretary Powell at the U.N. discussing the existence of that kind of a relationship. At least in that aspect of going to war with Iraq, it seems to me that the president was told what he wanted to hear. ...
need to point out that during the period from when we started to chase Osama bin Laden, from 1996 until 9/11, there was not a lack of people looking for a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. We looked for it consistently, and we would do [a] periodic review of all of the information we had, and we could never prove a connection. ...
As far as taking the fight to them, his take is an interesting one....
Yeah. And that takes you directly to the point where our bipartisan leadership doesn't understand: These guys don't scare. They don't have palaces to take care of. They don't have electrical grids. They don't have missile sites. This is what they think of your threat and your deterrence. There's no way to scare these folks. So we're stuck in the mind-set of speaking as if we're trying to scare [Cuban President Fidel] Castro, who has things to protect in the country, and boundaries and electrical grids. But Osama bin Laden and his allies, you know, what are we going to do?
This last quote is very interesting...
Truly it's a historical moment. I'm not sure that any great power in the history of man has been in the position if we're attacked again, we have absolutely nothing to respond against. That's an issue which no one seems to be taking very seriously. If Osama bin Laden detonates a small nuclear device in an American city, what do we do? Do we just literally wipe Mecca and Medina off the face of the earth in order to feel better about it? There is no "there" there for this enemy, and until we come to grips with that idea, the idea that we're fighting an effective war is probably a mistake.
^^That's what I hope we wrap our brains around, because I want us to be able to mount an effective campaign (and yes that means military) against terrorists, but if we keep within conventional wisdom, it may later than sooner.
Then there's Syria...
I think we weren't giving them the answers over the years that they wanted to hear. Syria is a perfect example. Syria, in my adult life, has always been tagged as an enemy of the United States and as a threat, but once you get inside the intelligence community, you find out that the Syrians are bankrupt, a police state that's riven with factions and couldn't threaten the United States in 100 years.
But because Rumsfeld and [then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas] Feith and Wolfowitz are so pro-Israeli, the answer needs to come back, "Yes, Syria is a threat." Over the course of a decade and longer, even back into the first Bush administration and into Mr. Reagan's administration, the enemies of Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Feith, Mr. Wolfowitz were not necessarily the enemies that you could derive from the intelligence material.
And in his view, the invasion of Iraq has hurt our ability to get to the group that is actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks
But by the spring of 2002, it was becoming very apparent that they were thinking about going to war against Iraq. I think it could be said that the people working counterterrorism didn't take it all that seriously. In the judgment of people who were working the issue of Al Qaeda and thinking about Iraq, the threat level was so infinitesimal from Iraq and so dramatic from Al Qaeda that I don't think people really took it seriously. It was kind of talk. You knew that Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld [had] and certainly the president has the reputation of wanting to get Saddam for having tried to kill his dad.
It was a nightmare. I know Tenet was briefed repeatedly by the head of the bin Laden department, that any invasion of Iraq would break the back of our counterterrorism program, and it was just ignored. Maybe the part of the agency that dealt with Iraq was eager to get rid of the problem and tried to do it, but the counterterrorism section of the agency thought it was really shooting your foot with a great big gun, because compared to Al Qaeda and what it represents, Saddam was a zero threat. ...
Those quotes are from the Frontline Program already mentioned...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/
It was an interesting program, I know not everyone will agree with the statements made, but they are from the folks who were there at the time. And like I stated earlier, George Tenet takes a real beating in this program, and rightfully so, IMO. He went along to get along it seems.
-
BTW a memo dictated by Rumsfeld, 2:40 PM on 9/11/01
"Judge whether good enough hit S.H. at same time. Not only UBL"
"Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
BTW a memo dictated by Rumsfeld, 2:40 PM on 9/11/01
"Judge whether good enough hit S.H. at same time. Not only UBL"
"Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
Sounds like a plan to me. :aok
-
Yeah, it's going great! :aok
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Yeah, it's going great! :aok
Except for all the pissin' and moanin', yeah, I think it's going pretty well.
-
Well yeah, the pissin' and moanin', the mounting body count, the chaos in Afghanistan and Iraq, the skyrocketing debt, and the loss of global prestige and respect. But other than that it's going swell. Yaay USA!!! :aok
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Well yeah, the pissin' and moanin', the mounting body count, the chaos in Afghanistan and Iraq, the skyrocketing debt, and the loss of global prestige and respect. But other than that it's going swell. Yaay USA!!! :aok
When did we have that? Oh that's right, just before Kennedy started putting "advisors" over in Vietnam....
-
good one! :aok
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
When?
I think it happened around the same time as this....
(http://www.uspoliticstoday.com/graphics/uspolitics/cartoons/uspol_20040526_1.gif)
This article is dated June 2003...
Poll suggests world hostile to US (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2994924.stm)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I think it happened around the same time as this....
This article is dated June 2003...
Poll suggests world hostile to US (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2994924.stm)
If you think this hatred for USA began in this century, then I'd like to use those rose-colored glasses you have...(brush the sand off them first though, please)
-
Well yeah it didn't start just now but wasting a hundred thousand foreigners under false pretenses didn't help a whole lot. :aok
-
and you conveniently forget the huge amount of good will that was expressed throughout the World after 9-11. And you forget that the same good will remained after the Afghanistan invasion.
Where is it now? .... Did Kennedy come back from the dead and sabotage all that good will? Maybe it was Hillary... yea! That's the ticket!
:aok
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
and you conveniently forget the huge amount of good will that was expressed throughout the World after 9-11. And you forget that the same good will remained after the Afghanistan invasion.
Where is it now? .... Did Kennedy come back from the dead and sabotage all that good will? Maybe it was Hillary... yea! That's the ticket!
:aok
Ah yes, those flags they burned in the middle eastern countries the day after 9/11 were simply misunderstood cultural offerings of sympathy...yes, I understand the liberal mind now...:huh
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Ah yes, those flags they burned in the middle eastern countries the day after 9/11 were simply misunderstood cultural offerings of sympathy...yes, I understand the liberal mind now...:huh
Global rip, the point was about global prestige...
I think you're confused.
You can't seem to stay on topic.
You feeling OK?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Global rip, the point was about global prestige...
I think you're confused.
You can't seem to stay on topic.
You feeling OK?
I didn't realize that the middle east was not part of the global overall picture. Thanks for edu-ma-cating me.:rolleyes:
-
Don't confuse sympathy with prestige. They are not the same and may not even be related. Example. One can feel sympathy for somalia but that does not mean the world respects it as a nation or people.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
When it comes down to it, saddumb could have short circuited the entire invasion and resulting action very easily. All he had to do was open up the areas the UN teams wanted to inspect.
He did. After Security Council resolution 1441, Iraq gave the UN inspectors prompt access to anywhere they wanted to go.
-Briefing the Security Council,19 December 2002: Inspections in Iraq and a preliminary assessment of Iraq's weapons declaration
"· Access to sites has been prompt and assistance on the sites expeditious. It seems probable that a general instruction has been issued not in any way to delay or impede inspection of the kind of sites we have gone to so far. This is welcome and it is to be hoped that such an instruction will extend to all sites we may wish to inspect in the future, regardless of location, character and timing."
-Briefing the Security Council, 9 January 2003: Inspections in Iraq and a further assessment of Iraq's weapons declaration
"I now turn to the role and results of our current inspections. Evidently if we had found any 'smoking gun' we would have reported it to the Council. Similarly, if we had met a denial of access or other impediment to our inspections we would have reported it to the Council. We have not submitted any such reports."
-Briefing of the Security Council, 27 January 2003: An update on inspections
"Cooperation on process
It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.
Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.
Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct."
-Briefing of the Security Council, 14 February 2003: An update on inspections
"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming."
Found this nugget as well.
"· We have identified the location of some artillery shells and containers with mustard gas. They were placed under UNSCOM supervision in 1998. They will now be sampled, and eventually destroyed."
-
Back to the original article... does anyone here actually believe this is a party specific thing? Does anyone actually believe that any form of government would not sieze the opportunity to use these type of resources? Why is this a political discussion?
-
By resources are you refering to the mustard gas or the information about the mustard gas?
If it's the information then it is obviously political. The people who feel they can use this tidbit to garner a few more votes will spin it as "Woo hoo! we found the WMD!" and people with any sense at all will see it as a load of crap.
No bias here.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Back to the original article... does anyone here actually believe this is a party specific thing? Does anyone actually believe that any form of government would not sieze the opportunity to use these type of resources? Why is this a political discussion?
I think we need to bomb those data base companies with 20 year old mustard gas so the government can't get access to the phone records.
shamus