- Joined
- Aug 11, 2005
- Messages
- 2,231
- Reaction score
- 129
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Simon W. Moon said:Are you talking about whether the info contained in the document is true?
Are you asking if the documents are what they are purported to be?
Are you asking about the quality of the transcription?
Are you talking about some implication(s) of what you're quoting?
While I'm sure you know what you're getting at, I don't.
But yes, I trust the FMSO's translations more than I do Tierney's.
Tierney said:Saddam Hussein
Terrorism is coming . . . with the Americans, two years ago, not a long while ago, with the English I believe, there was a campaign [unintelligible] with one of them, that in the future there would be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction . . . . . ..
Saddam Hussein
what is it that we . . . consider this technique . . and use people involved with smuggling. . there were stories on smuggling.
Unidentified Male
But sir, germ warfare –
Saddam Hussein
Before a little, in 89, . . they said in the future they would see a car [unintelligible] a nuclear explosion in, for example, Washington . . or germ, or chemical.
Tariq Aziz
Sir, germ, biological, we can arrange a house, we can arrange a truck, with –
Saddam Hussein
This is coming, this story is coming, but not from Iraq . .
Tariq Aziz
Sir, they can’t do it.
Saddam Hussein
It is coming from others.
Tariq Aziz
biological, this is simple to arrange. This is easy. With any biological [weapon], you can use a truck with germ . . and fill the water tank and kill [unintelligible]. And this not a country, it is not necessary to suspect a country, anyone can do it.
Tariq Aziz
Anyone can do it, an American, in a house near the White House. They would not have much reason, except the institutes. They have big institutes, like Hakim. [unintelligible] Hakim, and it is known that it was destroyed.
Tariq Aziz
They, if they can convince the others also, that this institute has the equipment, I don't think there would makayin [unintelligible]. There would be. [mumbling] Yes?
Unidentified Male
The reaction?
Tariq Aziz
Yes, care with all the shibabish. I mean, if actually, there is going to be destruction, I think our position is not going to be strong. The others are going to say that this is true, the five are not going to accept –
Saddam Hussein
Yes, that is like all, enough of [unintelligible].
Unidentified Male
[a speaker at a distance from the microphone raised concerns about such an attack]
Saddam Hussein
[unintelligible] I know that biological is the farthest thing away from there being a story. Wadiyan [friendly?], they ended it, their work and [unintelligible]
Unidentified Male
[Mostly unintelligible, but mentions a window and air conditioning].
USAFMSO said:Male 2
Terrorism is coming to them, Americans before 2000 long time and I think the British too, it exist I think Hamid was recording with one of them, I told him in the future terrorism will be with weapons of mass destructions, so what’s going to prevent? Technology will advance and this is long time ago I mean on 1989, we shouldn’t be surprise to see to see a car bomb with nuclear explodes just like Washington, either Germ or Chemical.
Male 3
Sir, any Germ or biologist expert can make it at his home a bottle filled.
Male 2
So this is coming, it means this story is coming, but not from Iraq.
Male 3
No, Sir this they can’t do, especially Biological, biology is so simple in it’s composition, any biologist can make a bottle filled with Germs and throw it in water tank, and kill 100.000 person, so this is not a country, you can’t accuse a country, one person can do it. One American person can do it in a house, next to the White House; there is no real logic in it except if there is a large establishment, like Al-Hakam, in fact Al-Hakam is exposed for destruction, because if they can convince the others too that this establishment with what it
has of equipments, it doesn’t have Machines does it Abu ‘Ali?
Male 4
No, No, it has reactors.
Male 3
Yes, just walls and windows, so for fact they will demand to destroy it, then our position will be strong, because the others will say get rid of this one and…
Male 2
Just like we got rid of the others.
Male 4
Sir in Al-Hakam they measured everything, all Air-conditioning, and its soil, and the surrounded area, and its labs, and it ended on 1992 Biology ended.
Male 2
We know that Biology is far from becoming a story, and then when they finished their job.
Wow. You think "the Democrats and liberals" are really powerful folks to get their wishes granted like that. If they weren't so powerful as to be able to make their wishes reality, we might have to conclude that the relative lack of signifcance assigned to the docs was somehow related to the documents themselves. But, as long as we can posit "the Democrats and liberals" as the puppet masters controlling the American public's "focus," this examination of the documents themselves is meaningless.easyt65 said:The newly released documents are not a 'big deal' simply because the Democrats and liberals do not wish them to be a 'big deal, do not wish the American people to focus on them, because they prove that Bush is correct.
Lol! Of course, of course they did.easyt65 said:If attention and credibility is given to this new evidence, not only will it prove that Bush was tright but it will also paint a VERY NEGATIVE historical picture of the Democratic Party who spent an extremely large amount of time and money fighting their own President, the troops, and this nation! The Democratic Party/Liberals have done nothing but try to villify the President and our troops in public, thereby helping the enemy by attacking this country's reslove and our troops' morale!
AFAICT, this is just as untrue today as it was the last time you said it. Please provide the information you saw that led you to the conclusion that there were "tapes ... where Hussein was talking about moving his WMD into Syria."easyt65 said:We have audio tapes just prior to the war where Hussein was talking about moving his WMD into Syria.
This evidence doesn't need credibility. It's already widely believed.easyt65 said:We have ecidence showing Hussein/Iraq was in contact with Al Qaeda, that Al Qaeda had even come to Iraq.....and there are 'americans' who are fighting to ensure such evidence never gets any credibility ...
Simon W. Moon said:Wow. You think "the Democrats and liberals" are really powerful folks to get their wishes granted like that.
What if ...
What if "the Democrats and liberals" weren't powerful enough to control the minds of the American public?
AFAICT, this is just as untrue today as it was the last time you said it. Please provide the information you saw that led you to the conclusion that there were "tapes ... where Hussein was talking about moving his WMD into Syria."
So it's not the info that needs credibility, it's your unsupported conlusion that the evidence constitutes an operational or collaborative relationship between Hussein and aQ that lacks credibility.
easyt65 said::shock: NAH - gotta be BS, a lie, GOP :spin: ! EVERYONE, according to the Libs, knows that there was no connection bewteen Al Qaeda and Hussein! It's all a LIE, right Moon?! :roll: Besides, he PROMISED he wasn't talking to Al Qaeda! If you can't take the word of a dictator who rapes, tortures, and murders his own people, who can you trust?!
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&issue=20060316The War On Terror: The government is finally getting around to unloading some of Saddam Hussein's secret documents. A look at just a few pages already leads to some blockbuster revelations.
In the early stages of the war that began three years ago, the U.S. captured thousands of documents from Saddam and his spy agency, the Mukhabarat. It's been widely thought the documents could shed light on why Saddam behaved as he did and how much of a threat his evil regime represented.
Yet, until this week, the documents lay molding in boxes in a government warehouse. Now the first batch is out, and though few in number, they're loaded with information.
Among the enduring myths of those who oppose the war is that Saddam, though murderous when it came to his own people, had no weapons of mass destruction and no terrorist designs outside his own country. Both claims now lie in tatters.
As we've reported several times, a number of former top military officials in Saddam's regime have come forward to admit that, yes, Saddam had WMD, hid them and shipped them out of the country so they couldn't be detected. And he had plans to make more.
Now come more revelations that leave little doubt about Saddam's terrorist intentions. Most intriguing from a document dump Wednesday night is a manual for Saddam's spy service, innocuously listed as CMPC-2003-006430. It makes for interesting reading.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/945usqnx.asp?pg=2For months, Negroponte has argued privately that while the documents may be of historical interest, they are not particularly valuable as intelligence product. A statement by his office in response to the recordings aired by ABC said, "Analysts from the CIA and the DIA reviewed the translations and found that, while fascinating from a historical perspective, the tapes do not reveal anything that changes their postwar analysis of Iraq's weapons programs."
Simon W. Moon said:This evidence doesn't need credibility. It's already widely believed.
Perhaps if you were to show how these docs show "Bush was right" then we could debate this point. However, until we get around to showing that these docs show "Bush was right," the obvious answer is that they don't show this. So, we should debate this first.easyt65 said:1st, why isn't the information/news that Bush was right, based on these docs, getting hardly anyair play?
Lol! Another humorous meme.easyt65 said:the Democrats own Al Jazeera
Just liek here. The other day these guys rebuilt some roads, renovated some schools and a fireman got a kitten out of a tree. But none of that made the evening news. That damn evil MSM. It's a conspiracy to make us think that everything's going poorly here in my city. Has to be that powerful folks are out to cover up the truth. It couldn't possibly market forces having an impact on a business. I mean everyone'd rather hear about the repaving of the on ramp than the school shooting and city council scandal. The MSM are trying to keep this good news bottled up.easyt65 said:by posting almost every negative story about Iraq and hiding any of the stories about anything good going on over there!
I said the the existence of a tape where Hussein said he moved his WMD to Syria was untrue.easyt65 said:Also, the fact that you are claiming that my statement about Hussein/Iraq being in contact with Al Qaeda is as toothless as the 1st time you declared, based on your own opinion, that it was a lie.
I'm not sure what statement you think I want a link to. I've only asked for link re the tapes where Hussein said he shipped his WMD to Syria.easyt65 said:I have posted links to that statement. Go back and look them up again - I can't keep posting the same links over and over everytime you wait until they fall a few pages back, call them a lie, and demand I post them again.
I'm more than happy to provide you with citations. All you have to do is ask. Which items would you like to have a citation for?easyt65 said:Instead of posting your opinion alone, try throwing in a link or two of your own every now and then to try to give your opinion some credibility!
It's well known that aQ and the Baathis tried for a deacde or so to reach some agreements, but were unable to arrive at a mutually acceptable situ re operational and collaborative efforts.easyt65 said:Hey Hip, speaking of the last gasp effort to deny Hussein had met with Al Qaeda?! Despite having a death-grip on denial about the documents coming out to show otherwise, try reading some of this:
Hussein’s Link to Bin Ladden/Al Qaeda
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85256,00.html
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092503F
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
Let go of the hate, brutha, put down the Lib Kool-aid, and try reading once with an open mind!
Simon W. Moon said:It's well known that aQ and the Baathis tried for a deacde or so to reach some agreements, but were unable to arrive at a mutually acceptable situ re operational and collaborative efforts.
This is not in dispute. It's interesting that you think it is.
I feel quite certain that there had been ongoing military contingency planning continuously since way before Gulf War I in regards to the ME in general, and following Gulf War I, concerning Iraq specifically. Certainly, as Iraq moved closer to reality, those plans were moved more and more into the immediate operational sphere, but it would be quite strange indeed had not planning for various contingencies in Iraq (as well as other parts of the ME) been continuously updated - and continues to this day.
What would have been bad would have been not considering how to deal with a commodity that is the principal means of support for the entire country of Iraq.
What would have been bad would have been to not consider and plan for the handling of such an important commodity to the US and the entire world. Over the months and years following Gulf War I, as the Iraqi violations of UN sanctions and dissembling with regard to the WMD inspectors continued, how could any party to the imbroglio not consider how to best handle such an important part of a country's economic life (both theirs and ours) in the event of war?
That indeed is a good question. A partial answer may lie in the fact that your cite, being circa 2003 and essentially identical to previous CIA conclusions, is considered by many to be 'old news', while to those anxiously awaiting these documents, the docs are 'new news' and offer the enticing possiblity of validation of one (at least one and maybe more) of their principal thesis (that the CIA and the opponents of the war were wrong - there was an 'operational and collaborative' relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam). Wishin' and hopin' and lack of pragmatism hasn't thus far made it so, but maybe some new docs will.
Whether these docs will contain enough new fodder to satiate remains to be seen. My guess is that both sides will be at least somewhat disappointed: new insights and details but not enough new 'old' info to vindicate, validate or dominate the principal arguments of either.
Well, you have my sympathy. As these folks are neither you nor me, we can move on past this particular point as we both know that aQ and Iraq have had "contact".easyt65 said:I have lost count on how many times Libs have challenged me saying Iraq and AQ have not been in contact.
If you would please be so kind, it would further the debate if you would quote the language from the texts to which you are referring and provide a link to the individual document. It would make your point more powerful if you were to do so.easyt65 said:The latest tapes/memos that have been translated show AQ operatives were in Iraq before we went in and how Hussein was aware how we would react should the U.. find out about their presence.
DivineComedy said:Am I missing something here Simon W. Moon? Can I trust this “US Army Foreign Military Studies Office” evidence of a war crime from your link:
“Presidential Office/ Special Office
The Secretary:
Re / Kuwaiti POW’s
Regarding the execution of Mr. President, Commander Saddam Hussein’s (God protect
him) orders, according to the decision of the Revolutionary Command Council on Friday,
March 4, 2003.
Transfer all Kuwaiti POW’s / a total of 448 captured Kuwaitis who are located at the Al-
Nida Al-Agher Prison and the Intelligence / General Center and Kazema Prison in Al-
Kazema, to make them human shields at all locations that are expected to be attacked by
the American aggressors. Put them in communication locations and essential ministries,
radio and television, Military Industrial Commissions, and all other locations expected to
be attacked by the criminal Anglo-American aggressors.
Transporting them should be in coordination with:
Intelligence Services Directorate
Republican Guard Chief of Staff
Under direct supervision of the Special Security Organization / Organization Security
[Signature]
Qusai Saddam Hussein
Supervisor
of the Republican Guard Secretariat
March 14, 2003”
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/CMPC-2003-012666-Translation.pdf
“Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,”
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F67B4E35-E25B-4306-B68D-E99A58070ACC.htm
for... what exactly?DivineComedy said:Waiting...
Simon W. Moon said:for... what exactly?
If the missing verb is 'has,' then I would guess that the answer is yes. It would seem that internal memos would constitute evidence.DivineComedy said:Can I trust that “US Army Foreign Military Studies Office” evidence of a war crime?
ashurbanipal said:This will be seen. What I think we do know at this point is that we went to war for false cause and that our actual reasons for being there have to do with energy.
If you are able, would you please provide a cite for this assertion?easyt65 said:Brit Special Forces have reported the nuclear material leaving Iraq to Iran days before we went in. The UN Nuclear commission has confirmed the Brits turned over serial numbers collected from the material and that the iranians will not allow them to inspect the material to check the serial numbers.
Several? I"m only aware of one. Would you please enlighten me and allow me to learn more about this by providing me with a link to more info about the several generals?easyt65 said:We have had several Iraqi Generals come forward about WMD Hussein had and sent to Syria.
As I noted earlier, it's widely accepted (your unfortunate experiences w/ unnamed individuals notwithstanding) that Iraq and Al Qaeda were talking. What's not widley accepted is what you seem to be trying to imply - that aQ and Hussein had an operational/collaborative relationship.easyt65 said:If we have to wait for the Democrats/Liberal Bush-haters to finally conclude for all of us that Hussein had WMD and that Iraq and Al Qaeda were talking...
Why was "contact" good enough for the "Bush lied" crowd before the war and not good enough now? Why is there a sudden caveat called "Operational relationship"? Why was there no need to distinguish this before?Simon W. Moon said:Did you adequately distinguish "did not have contact" from "did not have a collaborative / operational realtionship"?
I have no idea about anyone else's criteria re "good enough." So, I'm not sure what to tell you. Perhaps you could ask someone who has changed their position.KCConservative said:Why was "contact" good enough for the "Bush lied" crowd before the war and not good enough now? Why is there a sudden caveat called "Operational relationship"? Why was there no need to distinguish this before?
Good idea. Do you have the number for Sen. John Kerry?Simon W. Moon said:I have no idea about anyone else's criteria re "good enough." So, I'm not sure what to tell you. Perhaps you could ask someone who has changed their position.
KCConservative said:Good idea. Do you have the number for Sen. John Kerry?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?