See no evil?

[DivineComedy]

Did “Able Danger” have more evidence, prosecutable evidence, against the 911 plotters in 2000 than our troops had against those they rounded up on the battlefield?

Is the British release of the “spiritual advisor” of Osama, deporting him, the same kind of mistake?

Considering the terrorist tape of the guy from down under that was released recently, I would like everyone to eat their Greens:

“Those who desire to face up to the Zionists conspiracies, intransigence, and aggressiveness must proceed towards the advance centers of capabilities in the greater Arab homeland and to the centers of the knowledge, honesty and sincerity with whole heartiness if the aim was to implement a serious plan to save others from their dilemma or to rely on those capable centers; well-known for their positions regarding the enemy, to gain precise concessions from it with justified maneuvers even if such centers including Baghdad not in agreement with those concerned, over the objectives and aims of the required maneuvers." (On the 29th anniversary of Iraq’s national day (the 17th of July 1968 revolution). President Saddam Hussein made an important comprehensive and nation wide address) http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/countries/Iraq/speech.htm

What well-known group, that “liberals” have harped endlessly was not in agreement with Baghdad, had a “serious plan” in 1997? Do you believe those maneuvers that Saddam was talking about were going to be according to the rules of warfare? Especially considering the February 23, 1998 fatwa, is it really illogical to believe that it was an Al Quacka that Saddam was inviting to Baghdad? I do not expect an ambushing creed and their sympathizers to be honest and straightforward.

“Again we say that when someone feels that he is unjustly treated, and no one is repulsing or stopping the injustice inflicted on him, he personally seeks ways and means for lifting that justice. Of course, not everyone is capable of finding the best way for lifting the injustice inflicted on him. People resort to what they think is the best way according to their own ideas, and they are not all capable of reaching out for what is beyond what is available to arrive to the best idea or means.
To find the best way, after having found their way to God and His rights, those who are inflicted by injustice need not to be isolated from their natural milieu, or be ignored deliberately, or as a result of mis-appreciation, by the officials in this milieu. They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

Understanding why people do things is one thing, supporting the conclusion is another. Who are the magical mis-appreciated “they” that Saddam said should be helped to save themselves and their surroundings? Al Quacka and the Taliban surroundings should be obvious…why is your knee jerking? Remember what he was responding to. We have all heard the “liberals” claim that Saddam and Osama did not like each other! Saddam was secular…say that “God is Great” three times and see if I hear you. Who is the milieu? Is it logical to suspect he was talking about an Al Quacka and the Saudi type milieu that sent Osama into exile?

Dear Saddam, which came first the chicken or the egg? Did you say that the terrorists who did the calculations are increasing in number?

“Hundreds of people used to doubt you and few only would follow you until this huge event happened. Now hundreds of people are coming out to join you. I remember a vision by Shaykh Salih Al-((Shuaybi)). He said: “ will be a great hit and people will go out by hundreds to Afghanistan.” I asked him (Salih): “ Afghanistan?” He replied, “” According to him, the only ones who stay behind will be the mentally impotent and the liars (hypocrites). I remembered his saying that hundreds of people will go out to Afghanistan. He had this vision a year ago. This event discriminated between the different types of followers.
UBL: (...Inaudible...) we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.” http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ubl-video.html (December 13, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF USAMA BIN LADEN VIDEO TAPE)

“The world focused its full attention on the analysis and follow up of the events of last September, but those who made an in-depth analysis may have not been the majority of the people. Nevertheless, it seems to us that they have, now, increased in number.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

Dear Saddam, I know who you think increased in number but what in-depth analysis are you talking about there?

“The victory of the US and its allies over Iraq would conceal the opposing attitude and analysis, and would not allow it to emerge again for a long time.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

Yeah, that is what I thought.

 

[VTA]

A very interresting read, but it seems Shaykh Salih Al-((Shuaybi)) had his signals mixed up. -And people will go out by hundreds to Iraq.

 

[cnredd]

A very interresting read, but it seems Shaykh Salih Al-((Shuaybi)) had his signals mixed up. -And people will go out by hundreds to Iraq.

Heard on the TV a few days ago...Judge for yourself...

Approximate number of Americans who went to fight for the insurgency=50

Approximate number of British who went to fight for the insurgency=3000

 

[DivineComedy]

A very interresting read, but it seems Shaykh Salih Al-((Shuaybi)) had his signals mixed up. -And people will go out by hundreds to Iraq.

They are centrally located like Saddam said.

 

[DivineComedy]

Heard on the TV a few days ago...Judge for yourself...

Approximate number of Americans who went to fight for the insurgency=50

Approximate number of British who went to fight for the insurgency=3000

Britain is more “liberal.”

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Did “Able Danger” have more evidence, prosecutable evidence, against the 911 plotters in 2000 than our troops had against those they rounded up on the battlefield?

I'm not too sure about either one of these things. Apparently, there're some reports that say Able Danger didn't collect individual names etc. so that makes the question somewhat odd. Also, a sizable percentage of those rounded up by our troops were found to be held w/o reason.
So, all in all, it's really a disjointed and tough question.

Is the British release of the “spiritual advisor” of Osama, deporting him, the same kind of mistake?

Could you be more specific, same kind of mistake as what?

Considering the terrorist tape of the guy from down under that was released recently...

Could also be more specific here? Perhaps a link describing what you're talking about, or a link to the "terrorist tape" itself would be in order.

...I would like everyone to eat their Greens:

“Those who desire to face up to the Zionists conspiracies, intransigence, and aggressiveness must proceed towards the advance centers of capabilities in the greater Arab homeland and to the centers of the knowledge, honesty and sincerity with whole heartiness if the aim was to implement a serious plan to save others from their dilemma or to rely on those capable centers; well-known for their positions regarding the enemy, to gain precise concessions from it with justified maneuvers even if such centers including Baghdad not in agreement with those concerned, over the objectives and aims of the required maneuvers." (On the 29th anniversary of Iraq’s national day (the 17th of July 1968 revolution). President Saddam Hussein made an important comprehensive and nation wide address) http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/countries/Iraq/speech.htm

That's a somewhat shoddy transcription/translation. Given the obvious errors, I'm hesitant to put too much stock in a close parsing of the text. Saddam appears to be saying that those at the Arab summit meeting need Iraq even though they don'tlike the idea of needing iraq.

What well-known group, that “liberals” have harped endlessly was not in agreement with Baghdad, had a “serious plan” in 1997?

Could you please clarify this? It's very vague. It seems you're trying to relate it to the above text about the Arab states who excluded Iraq "from attending Arab summit meetings." Are you talking about the League of Arab states or what?

Do you believe those maneuvers that Saddam was talking about were going to be according to the rules of warfare?

From the context of the text it seems he was discussing things well beyond a merely martial scope. I'd guess he was discussing PR and diplomatic efforts as well as back-room dealings.

Especially considering the February 23, 1998 fatwa, is it really illogical to believe that it was an Al Quacka that Saddam was inviting to Baghdad?

Could you provide a link to the fatwa you've referenced?
If you're asking about whether or not it's logical to believe that the above text quoted from Hussein was referring to al Qaeda, then I'd say it's not a matter of logic. The site you cited clearly provides a context for the remarks that has nothing to do with aQ.
I'd say that believing the above cited text is evidence "that it was an Al Quacka that Saddam was inviting to Baghdad" would be a matter of skimming instead of actually reading the page that the text comes from. Logic doesn't come into it.

I do not expect an ambushing creed and their sympathizers to be honest and straightforward.

I carry an extra pistol just in case I'm walking home lat at night and some creeds try to jump me from behind. Or, "Umm WTF?"

“Again we say that when someone feels that he is unjustly treated, and no one is repulsing or stopping the injustice inflicted on him, he personally seeks ways and means for lifting that justice. Of course, not everyone is capable of finding the best way for lifting the injustice inflicted on him. People resort to what they think is the best way according to their own ideas, and they are not all capable of reaching out for what is beyond what is available to arrive to the best idea or means.
To find the best way, after having found their way to God and His rights, those who are inflicted by injustice need not to be isolated from their natural milieu, or be ignored deliberately, or as a result of mis-appreciation, by the officials in this milieu. They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

Understanding why people do things is one thing, supporting the conclusion is another. Who are the magical mis-appreciated “they” that Saddam said should be helped to save themselves and their surroundings? Al Quacka and the Taliban surroundings should be obvious…why is your knee jerking?

Since the quote is presented w/o any useful context it's hard to say for sure; however, it seems as if Saddam's referring to the Palestinians.
Would you care to offer some more context for the quote?

Remember what he was responding to.

No, actually, I don't. That sort of context was not supplied.

Saddam was secular…say that “God is Great” three times and see if I hear you.

Did you hear me?

Who is the milieu?

This is another one of those foggy, trick questions. A milieu is not a "who," it is a "what."

Is it logical to suspect he was talking about an Al Quacka and the Saudi type milieu that sent Osama into exile?

Given the limited context provided to use for interpretation, I'd have to say that such a conclusion was clearly not logical.

Dear Saddam, which came first the chicken or the egg? Did you say that the terrorists who did the calculations are increasing in number?

I don't know, did he? Did he discuss accountants of terror somewhere and you forgot to include the text? What are you talking about?

“The world focused its full attention on the analysis and follow up of the events of last September, but those who made an in-depth analysis may have not been the majority of the people. Nevertheless, it seems to us that they have, now, increased in number.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

Dear Saddam, I know who you think increased in number but what in-depth analysis are you talking about there?

Perhaps if you would provide the context for these quotes the answer would be more readily discernable.

Yeah, that is what I thought.

Welp, I have waded through your series of misguided extrapolations from quotes provided w/o context or with their context ignored.

Now I will ask the question that you specifically invited me here to ask:
"If Iraq never needed to be connected directly to Al Qaeda in order to justify military action, why'd the pro-war folks try so hard to sell the idea of a meaningful connection between the two?"

 

[DivineComedy]

In responding I just hit that limit on length again, I cannot get a handle on that. Maybe we just need to hit one point at a time from now on.

The question: “Did ‘Able Danger‘ have more evidence, prosecutable evidence, against the 911 plotters in 2000 than our troops had against those they rounded up on the battlefield?”

Simon W. Moon’s response: “I'm not too sure about either one of these things. Apparently, there're some reports that say Able Danger didn't collect individual names etc. so that makes the question somewhat odd. Also, a sizable percentage of those rounded up by our troops were found to be held w/o reason.
So, all in all, it's really a disjointed and tough question.”

“According to the official record of the meeting, the officer "recalled seeing the name and photo of Mohammed Atta on an 'analyst notebook chart' assembled by another officer," Kean and Hamilton said.
‘The officer being interviewed said he saw this material only briefly, that the relevant material dated from February through April 2000, and that it showed Mohammed Atta to be a member of an al Qaeda cell located in Brooklyn,’ the joint statement said.
‘The officer complained that this information and information about other alleged members of a Brooklyn cell had been soon afterward deleted from the document because DOD lawyers were concerned about the propriety of DOD intelligence efforts that might be focused inside the United States.’” http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/17/sept.11.hijackers/

The question is not odd. I am quite sure that someone would have claimed that Mohammed Atta was held without reason, if he had be detained prior to the attacks. The fact that the enemy does not wear insignia or carry arms openly means that trust is hard. Can we be expected to stop attacks when we cannot trust that everything we see is innocent until proven guilty? It is scary.

The question: “Is the British release of the ‘spiritual advisor‘ of Osama, deporting him, the same kind of mistake?”

Simon W. Moon’s response: “Could you be more specific, same kind of mistake as what?”

Let us assume for purposes of argument that our justice department received “Able Danger” intelligence that simply said it “showed Mohammed Atta to be a member of an al Qaeda cell located in Brooklyn,” and they could not say how they arrived at that conclusion. Would you detain Mohammed Atta indefinitely if he protested his innocence, claimed he did not support Osama, and did not reveal the plot? I would not expect you to support that. If you would not detain him simply for be associated with al Qaeda, like the guy the British deported was deliberately saying he supported Osama, you could not reasonably prevent an attack. As far as I am concerned releasing the supporter is even worse than releasing the suspected soldiers that we do not have enough evidence against.

I said: “Considering the terrorist tape of the guy from down under that was released recently…”

You responded: “Could also be more specific here? Perhaps a link describing what you're talking about, or a link to the ‘terrorist tape‘ itself would be in order.”

Intelligence was released about a guy with an Australian accent that said he was going to kill you, it was the longest terrorist propaganda tape released so far, you were not paying attention to all of the news programs, so for purposes of argument you are now dead.

As to the quote that you claim was about the Arab summit, how do you know when you admit the quote was out of context? Saddam sponsored terrorism and terrorists do not wear insignia for a reason, we can be too trusting. You could be right about the quote from that national day speech, I accept that, but considering how Saddam speaks in his writings how can we know for sure that it was not an embedded message? I do not expect a drug dealer to say “marijuana.”

“A third open letter from Saddam Hussein to the peoples of the United States, Western peoples and governments.” I just assumed that you read letters that are written to you. Hear is a link: http://www.angelfire.com/ex/projecthatfill/openletter.html

As to the rest of the comments and unanswered questions, since you did not read the Saddam letter written to you in 2001, I will have to wait until you get around to reading your mail.

*****

Simon W. Moon asked:
"If Iraq never needed to be connected directly to Al Qaeda in order to justify military action, why'd the pro-war folks try so hard to sell the idea of a meaningful connection between the two?"

It has to do with the One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq February 23, 1998 fatwa that you apparently are unfamiliar with:
One (“The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people…”), Two (“despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance…”), Three (“if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq…”)! http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

The obviously endless continued containment of Saddam which was really the only policy offered by John Kerry, as he clearly stated on October 9, 2002 (http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html), could not end the war. The fatwa could never be defeated through the continuing containment and “protracted blockade” of sanctions inherent in the use of lukewarm “liberal” arts of war that UNICEF said killed 500,000 while Saddam said one million. Really, in answer to your question Saddam was also a sponsor of terrorism, that makes him an ally of Al Quacka! Simply killing Osama could not end the war. I see no reason to free an ally of our enemy especially when that ally of terrorism has kept us so seized as to breed every hate against us. Also since long before I read the letter that Saddam wrote to us, I have been for finishing the war that caused me to vote against the first George Bush. As the troops were heading to Baghdad Gorby’s saying “that is far enough,” was not far enough; it was a clear violation of the purposes of the United Nations as outlined in Article One of the United Nations Charter to contain Saddam and treat him as sovereignty while the people of his nation had no equal rights or self-determination. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! When are you going to see the evil?

As an aside I do have a cousin that wants those gas prices down, at any cost, and I know how to do it that way. I guess we could get gas prices down if the formerly accused communist and mayor of Paris Jacques Chirac has another Ayatollah, like the one that was in Paris before the 444 days of glory in Iran. And if we elected another Jimmy Carter like president, who would see no evil in the Socialists like the Soviets that invaded Afghanistan. Like we all remember Jimmy finally jawboning and dealing with OPEC price increases one month before Socialist supported Socialist Saddam seized power on Jimmy’s watch. Hit them with a jawbone, that is what John Kerry said he would do, right? Too bad Jimmy could not get that second term and benefit from the inevitable conflict. I do not understand complex foreign policy, and I remember a French guy saying something about Bush not understanding that stuff either. Everyone knows that Democratic presidents are smarter, yes, let us elect one and hit OPEC with that very effective jawbone.

I would just like the Iraqis to live in peace, free from a need for containment that keeps us seized of the matter until people forget why and believe any nutty conspiracy about a war for oil!

 

[DivineComedy]

I see dead Simon is still reading the letter to him.

Oh well, I will move on:

“Once again, we say that, injustice and the pressure that results from it on people lead to explosions. As explosions are not always organized, it is to be expected that they may harm those who make them and others. The events of September 11, should be seen on this basis, and on the basis of imbalanced reactions, on the part of governments accused of being democratic, if the Americans are sure that these were carried out by people from abroad.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

He knew who did it, as he knew they had increased in number, so what “abroad” is he talking about? I guess it is relative to what you consider “abroad.”