Apologistas Hear this...HanoiScotty just recanted his 1998 testamony.

Hey DK...

You ARE a Halvarti Eating Surrender Monkey aren't you?

Cool, now we know why your interested in Americans dying to prove your worthless 1 World crap.

And have a pleasent day.

Yuk. We're back to personal name calling again.
Look guys, I don't know whether we should go after Saddam or not. One day I think one way and then some piece of info  or opinion pops up that makes me wonder about whether or not I should believe the other way.

And no, I'm not a weak minded clod. Most folks who know me consider me the most opinionated SOB they know.  But I do know that calling the guy who disagrees with you names isn't going to settle anything. We all want the same thing here, a safe and free environment for us and ours to live in.  And I don't think anybody, including the President, has been up on Mount Sinai lately, to get any answers written in stone.

I want to see both sides of this issue discussed here, cause the more I can learn about what's going on, the more I have to base my own decisions.  None of us has the time to search out every piece of info on the 'net or anywhere else. That's why  discussion forums like this are valuable, to me at least.[:D]

Yeah and praise Allah eh Trickshot...nudge nudge wink wink say no more say no more!?

So if your not a mideastern person trolling then what tropical island have you been stranded on. While propaganda is out there make no mistake this bastard has the nasty stuff and he has used it more than once AND the other inpectors all disagreeing with Ritter seem to feel this way too. You believe Ritter is the only one that knows the truth? WRONGO!

Unless you are brain dead, you have to ask just why Ritter has done a flip-flop of the highest order.

We all know what he said circa '98, based upon current, first-hand intel.  

Now, his view is diametrically opposed based upon shitty intel (read: Saddam's version of the facts).  

He's either conmpletely lost his marbles, greedy (which makes him a traitor), or being blackmailed.  Or, he's telling the truth (yeah, RIGHT.  Saddam is an angel!)  

You choose; I don't have enough info to tell.  

He definitely cannot be trusted as a current source of intel re Iraq's capabilities.  

Edited to add:  
Hint: He's not telling the truth.  

I'm with magnum_99

As Ritter's former boss said, "Scott was either lying to me then or he's lying to you now"

Either way, he can't be trusted.

Most of the nations of europe, as well as the US have used WMD's. The US has also used chemicals on their own citizens....

Please provide evidence for your allegation that Iraq is producing WMD. Saudi IS IN FACT a "clear and present danger" to the US. It was Saudi citizens that planned and executed 9/11, as well as Saudi $$ that financed them. Unlike the ALLEGATIONS against Iraq, these are FACTS......

Please demonstrate, using Ritters own words, where he has "flip-flopped". His message to the Iraqi assembly was "let the inspectors back in, or else". What $$ did he receive from Iraq? Please document it. He has stated that he paid for the trip with his own funds, and has offered to open his accounts to investigators....

Ex-inspector: Iraq not pursuing nuclear arms



(CNN) --With increasing talk of U.S. military action to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, a former U.N. weapons inspector spoke out Sunday against President Bush's position.

Scott Ritter, who is an American, addressed the Iraqi National Assembly on Sunday and said the United States "seems to be on the verge of making a historical mistake." He said the Bush administration has not substantiated its case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

After addressing the Iraqi representatives, Ritter spoke with CNN's Miles O'Brien from Baghdad, Iraq.

O'BRIEN: You seem very certain that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein is engaged in an effort to build weapons of mass destruction. How can you be so certain?

RITTER: What I'm very certain of is that the Bush administration has not provided any evidence to substantiate its allegations that Saddam Hussein's regime is currently pursuing weapons of mass destruction programs or is in actual possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Based upon my experience as a weapons inspector from 1991 to 1998, while we had serious concerns about unaccounted aspects of Iraq's weapons program, we did ascertain a 90 [percent] to 95 percent level of disarmament that included all of the production equipment and means of production used by Iraq to produce these weapons.

So if Iraq has weapons today, like President Bush says, clearly they would have had to reconstitute these capabilities since December 1998. And this is something that the Bush administration needs to make a better case for, especially before we talk about going to war.

O'BRIEN: Just to be clear, while you've been there in Iraq, you've had no firsthand looks at any of these suspected sites where weapons of mass destruction might be produced?

RITTER: That's absolutely correct. Look, I'm not here as a weapons inspector. The only people that can make that kind of finding of disarmament are weapons inspectors mandated by the [U.N.] Security Council. Right now, these inspectors are not at work here in Iraq.

And one of the things I made absolutely clear to the Iraqi representatives [Sunday] -- and I will continue to do so with any government officials I have the opportunity to meet with -- is that Iraq must allow the unconditional return of weapons inspectors and grant them unfettered access to sites designated by the weapons inspectors for inspection.

O'BRIEN: When you say that to them -- that it's important to allow these inspections to resume -- what's the reaction?

RITTER: I think the Iraqi government understands that if they do not allow the unconditional return of inspectors with unfettered access, that war is all but inevitable -- that there will be nothing that can stay the hand that President Bush and [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair seem prepared to unleash on Iraq.

And so that's why I've proposed that a mechanism be put forward that provides a confidence-building measure for the Iraqi government so they can allow these inspectors to return unconditionally and give them unfettered access.

[b]Let's keep in mind that the reason why inspectors are out of Iraq isn't because Iraq kicked them out, but rather they were ordered out by the United States after the United States manipulated the inspection process to create a confrontation that led to Operation Desert Fox [red]and then used intelligence information gathered by inspectors to target Iraqi government sites, including the security of Saddam Hussein.[/red][/b]

So it's going to take awhile to convince Iraqis that they should once again trust inspectors. But frankly, they have no choice.

O'BRIEN: But the situation had become untenable for those inspectors, it's worth reminding our viewers. You're taking that a bit out of context. The inspectors, at that juncture, weren't really able to do their job properly, were they?

RITTER: No, absolutely false. The inspectors were able to do their task of disarming Iraq without any obstruction by Iraq.

Let's keep in mind that from 1994 to 1998, the weapons inspectors carried out ongoing monitoring inspections of the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure. And at no time did Iraq obstruct this work.

[red]The obstruction only came when weapons inspectors sought to gain access to sites that Iraq deemed to be sensitive. And many of these sites -- including intelligence facilities, security facilities, Saddam Hussein's palaces -- had nothing whatsoever to do with weapons of mass destruction.[/red]

So we've got to put this in its proper perspective. Yes, there were obstructions. But this obstruction had little, if anything, to do with actual disarmament.

O'BRIEN: Let me ask you this though, Mr. Ritter. It seems that sometimes we avoid seeing the forest for the trees here. Is there any doubt in your mind -- taking aside what you've seen firsthand or heard from the Iraqis -- is there any doubt in your mind that Saddam Hussein would love to get hold of nuclear weapons?

RITTER: I think we have to be careful about trying to compare with what Saddam Hussein's regime was trying to do in the past with the current situation today.

[red]Saddam Hussein is a man who's very interested in the continued survival of Saddam Hussein.[/red] And I believe he recognizes that any effort by himself or his government to reacquire any aspect of weapons of mass destruction -- let alone nuclear weapons -- would be the equivalent of taking a suicide pill. It would invite the immediate, harsh response of the international community and would result in his ultimate demise.

So, yes, I truly believe that Saddam Hussein today is not seeking to acquire not only a nuclear weapon but weapons of mass destruction of any kind.

O'BRIEN: I guess the concern is though that we're perhaps in an era which invites the necessity of a pre-emptive strike, and that perhaps the only smoking gun evidence we will ever see here in the West of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, might well be a mushroom cloud. The stakes are pretty high, aren't they? Isn't it time to act differently, perhaps?

RITTER: No, I agree. The stakes are very high. That's why it's imperative that the United States acts in accordance with its obligations under international law. We are a signatory of the United Nations charter, and in doing so we've undertaken to respect international law, especially in regard to issues pertaining to war.

If the United States shreds international law, rips up the United Nations charter and intervenes against Iraq unilaterally, we will be redefining the entire way the world chooses to deal with situations of this sort. What will then stop India and Pakistan from going to war? What will stop China from intervening in Taiwan? There will be no guarantees. There will be no mechanism. We will be unleashing chaos.

This is a bigger fear than any hypothetical concept of an Iraqi mushroom cloud exploding anywhere in the world. This is a reality. An Iraqi nuclear weapon, at this point in time, is sheer speculation.

O'BRIEN: I'm sure you've heard the criticism that you are acting in a disloyal manner toward the United States. How do you respond?

RITTER: I think I made it very clear that I'm acting as a fervent patriot who loves my country. As an American citizen, I have an obligation to speak out when I feel my government is acting in a manner which is inconsistent with the principles of our founding fathers.

We have a Constitution which says we will abide by the rule of law. We are signatories of the United Nations charter. Therefore, we are to adhere ourselves to the United Nations charter. And I see my government drifting decisively away from this.

So I feel I have no other choice, as an American citizen, than to stand up and speak out. It's the most patriotic thing I can do.


 

 

The last paragraph says it all.......

Ritter dismisses report on Iraq


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) --Ex-U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter has branded an independent think-tank's report on Iraq's capability to launch a nuclear attack as "all speculative."

Ritter, who criticised the U.S.' threat of military action against Baghdad during a speech to the Iraqi National Assembly at the weekend, attacked the report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) as being only "rhetorical."

The IISS's report into Iraq's arms programmes, published on Monday, warns Iraq could assemble a nuclear weapon in months if it receives foreign help. (Full Story)

The independent international research group that examines political, economic and military trends, also said at a news conference in London that Iraq could have been stockpiling chemical and biological weapons since 1998 when U.N. inspectors left the country and were refused permission to return.

Ritter, who resigned from his job in 1998 amid acrimony with the U.S., said: "Where are the facts... what evidence do they cite for this enduring interest?

"Where are the factories? Where are the weapons?" He added: "It's all rhetorical. It's all speculative.

"It is meaningless, with the sad exception that hawks in the Bush administration are going to point to this as a justification for war."

Ritter quit his job as weapons inspector after claiming the U.S. deliberately instigated a crisis with the regime of President Saddam Hussein so it could launch a bombing campaign -- despite there being no longer any need for aggressive inspections of Iraqi sites after 1995 when UNSCOM verified that it had fundamentally disarmed.

He also accused the U.S. of preventing UNSCOM inspectors from doing their jobs effectively and now appears set to enter a slanging match with the U.S. over its claims that Saddam now holds weapons of mass destruction which he plans to use.

U.S. President George W. Bush is trying to garner international support for military action against Saddam. (Full story)

U.S. Senator Richard Shelby, vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CNN Ritter was "idealistic", adding there was no credence to Ritter's statements and he appeared to be courting Saddam.

When asked about Shelby's comments, Ritter said, "Well, Senator Shelby, with all due respect, back off buddy, I'm an American citizen doing the right thing for the United States of America. I'm not courting Saddam or the Iraqi people. I'm courting the American public."

'Let's go face-to-face'
He challenged Shelby to a debate on the weapons issue.

"Let's do it face to face in front of a TV camera," Ritter said. "I guarantee you this. I'll win that debate."

Ritter also threw scorn on U.S. claims that Saddam is trying to bolster his nuclear programme by attempting to acquire aluminum tubes, an element in producing nuclear weapons.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has said the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programmes, centrifuge programmes."

Centrifuge programmes are one way to separate weapons-grade uranium from natural uranium.

"We're going to go to war over thousands of aluminum pipes?" said Ritter. "This is patently ridiculous. These are aluminum pipes coming in for civilian use. They are not being transferred to a covert nuclear processing plant."

"I'm going to need a helluva lot more than some aluminum tubes before I'm convinced there's a case for war," Ritter added. "We cannot go to war because Vice President (Dick) Cheney is worried about aluminum pipes. This is ridiculous."

He quoted a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1998 which said Iraq had no nuclear weapons capability, so how, he asked, "suddenly are they an emerging nuclear threat?"

Ritter added that when the inspectors left Iraq, they had certified the country was between 90 and 95 percent disarmed.

During his speech to the Iraqi parliament on Sunday he denied allegations that the Iraqis had interfered with the inspection process.

He said the United States "seems to be on the verge of making a historical mistake" in its calls for ousting the Iraqi president and his regime. (Read the interview)

But in a CNN interview Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said previous international efforts to contain Iraq have failed -- which "puts us in the position we are in today where we even have to think about the possibility of military action in Iraq."

"We have to deal with that emerging threat," Cheney said. "The question is how best to do it, and we would like to have the support of the international community as we go forward here." (Full story)

The White House accuses Hussein of seeking weapons of mass destruction, violating U.N. resolutions dating back to the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Secretary of State Colin Powell told NBC's "Today" show Monday that the U.S. has the intelligence to prove that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction - but [red]"It is not for us to prove they have it; it is for them to prove they don't have it,"[/red] he said.

No he didn't. Cite your source...

*Underline added*

WofWof:  Dude, you owe me a new Flat Panel monitor for that remark!  I laughed so hard at that I spit out my Propel sports water all over the screen.

Too Funny!

I'm not familar with the last time the US (or Europe for that matter, other than Hitler's Germany) has used WMD to kill tens of thousands of its own citizens.

Please enlighten me to your "facts"

[url]http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/iraq-wmd.cfm[/url]

Listed below is a chronology of key developments in Iraq's WMD programs, including the latest U.S. and UN concerns.

1) Iraq has produced several thousand tons of chemical weapons over the last 20 years. Iraq had roughly 1,000 metric tons of chemical weapons on hand when it invaded Kuwait, split roughly equally between blister agents and nerve agents.
 
2) March 16, 1988 — Iraqi President Saddam Hussein attacks the Iranian occupied Kurdish town of Halabja with chemical weapons killing 5,000 civilians.
 
3) Iraq had a crash effort in 1990 to recover enriched fuel from nuclear reactors in an attempt to build a weapon by 1991. Coalition aircraft destroyed the facilities on Jan. 17, 1991.
 
4) The UN inspection regime (UNSCOM) destroyed more than 27,000 chemical bombs, artillery shells and rockets, including 30 Scud missile warheads. About 500 tons of mustard and nerve agents and thousands of tons of precursor chemicals (choline and phosphorus pentasulfide for example) were also destroyed.
 
5) Iraq admitted prior to the Gulf War that it maintained large stockpiles of mustard gas and the nerve agents Sarin (GB) and Tabun (GA).
 
6) Iraq had a large VX production underway, and has not offered any evidence that the capability and stockpile have been destroyed. In 1996, Iraq admitted it had produced at least 3.9 tons of VX and at least 600 tons of ingredients to make it. (It is one of the deadliest forms of nerve gas and easily storable.)
 
7) Defection of Iraqi Lt. Gen. Hussein Majid, formerly in charge of WMD programs, led Iraq to admit its bio-weapon program in August 1995. Baghdad admitted to producing 90,000 liters of Botulinium toxin, 8,300 liters of Anthrax, and significant quantities of other agents, plus a laboratory and industrial-scale facility to continue production.
 
8) Defectors reported in December 2001 and March 2002 the existence of mobile germ laboratories disguised as milk delivery trucks, and a network of underground bunkers for chemical and biological weapons production. U.S. officials released evidence on March 8, 2002, allegedly showing that Iraq has been converting dump trucks bought through a UN humanitarian program into military vehicles, in violation of UN sanctions. An Iraqi defector stated that he had converted Renault trucks into mobile laboratories with incubators for bacteria, microscopes and air conditioning.
 
9) Intelligence reports indicate that Iraq is also developing newer and longer range missiles, with initial ranges of 600-700 miles; far enough to hit Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Ankara in Turkey, Cairo and Alexandria in Egypt, and Tehran in Iran. During Desert Storm, Iraq launched some 45 Scud missiles: one at Bahrain, five or six at Saudi Arabia, and 39 into Israel. Development of the Al Samoud liquid-propellant missile is ongoing; Iraq also is actively developing solid-propellant engines to build a multi-stage surface-to-surface missile.
 
10) Several reports indicate that Iraq is closer to a nuclear bomb than most people think. It has an efficient nuclear bomb design - with the new warhead weighing only about 1,300 pounds and 2 feet in diameter. The one thing lacking is fissile material to fuel it. Nuclear weapon specialists estimate if Saddam could buy the materials he is missing, it would only be a matter of months until Iraq created a weapon.
 
11) In January 2002, U.S. intelligence sources estimated the United States could face a ballistic missile threat from Iraq by the year 2015, well before such a threat emerged from Iran or North Korea.
 
12) Rumsfeld stated on April 15, 2002, that new equipment had allowed Iraq's weapon program to become more mobile, "enabling them to go underground to a greater extent than they had previously."  

Sources:

Richard Butler, "The Greatest Threat", Uncorrected Proof, New York, N.Y., Public Affairs 2000.

Cordesman, Anthony H., U.S.Forces In The Middle East, Resources and Capabilities, Boulder, CO; Westview Press, 1997.

Newsweek (Web exclusive), "Access Must Be Unrestricted," April 15, 2002.

Greg Jaffe, "Skepticism Of New Weapons Search In Iraq Seems To Counter Bush Call," Wall Street Journal, April 16, 2002.

Colum Lynch, "Annan Urges Iraq To Permit Arms Inspectors' Return," The Washington Post, March 8, 2002.

Chris Alden, "Defector Reveals Extent Of Iraqi Weapons Program," The Guardian, April 4, 2002.

Chronology of UN inspections derived from an October 1998 UNSCOM document.

Howard Schneider and Walter Pincus, "Iraq And U.N. To Talk Today About Weapon Inspectors," The Washington Post, May 1, 2002.


[b]As far as Saudi Arabia is concerned, please offer ME proof (other than the fact that the terrorists happen to be Saudi) that the Government of Saudia Arabia funded or supported the September 11th attacks.

I don't know you, so I can't speak on your apparent conscious decision to ignore the facts before you.  Either you simply choose not to acknowledge it or you have some other agenda.

Which is it?[/b]

TINFOIL HELMET TIME DUDE!

Bush and Blair admit they are releying on old info...

BLAIR: I'VE NO IDEA WHAT SADDAM'S UP TO



Sep 9 2002




By Bob Roberts And Richard Wallace

 
TONY BLAIR admits he hasn't the "faintest idea" what is going on in Iraq.

In an unguarded comment he revealed there is little new evidence that Saddam Hussein is developing or building weapons of mass destruction.

Speaking at his Camp David council of war with President George Bush at the weekend, the PM said virtually no information had come from inside Iraq since the departure of United Nations weapons inspectors 1998.

He said: "We haven't the faintest idea what has been going on in the last four years other than what we know is an attempt to carry on rebuilding weapons.

"The details of it is something that the Iraqi regime should be forced to disclose."

President Bush appeared to admit his claim that Saddam wanted nuclear missiles was based on four-year-old reports.

But he said: "I do not know what more evidence we need."

Mr Bush and Mr Blair have consistently said massive military action is justified because Saddam is on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon.

They also claim to be preparing a "dossier of evidence" to be published within two weeks which they hope will swing world opinion in their favour.

But critics believe it will be nothing more than a rehash of old information and anti-Saddam allegations.

And other senior US figures also admitted that evidence against Saddam was patchy.

Richard Haass, director of policy at the State Department, said the US was in no doubt that Saddam was seeking nuclear capability.

But he added: "We don't know exactly the true dimension of the threat.

"One of the questions for the British and US governments is what measure of uncertainty we are prepared to live with, given the man's track record."

The PM's slip came as he and Mr Bush bowed to massive international and grass roots opposition - after three hours of talks over grilled swordfish and Chardonnay they decided the UN must be given one last chance to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

Mr Bush will tell the UN this week that Iraq is "a ticking time bomb".

In a speech on Thursday he called for a final ultimatum to allow the return of weapons inspectors. Any failure to meet the deadline would mean military strikes with the blessing of the UN.

And he will urge that it is time to take quick, tough action to topple the dictator.

But if they fail to support an assault, Mr Bush will it make clear the US will go it alone.

Vice-President Dick Cheney claimed yesterday that Iraq recently tried to buy thousands of special aluminum tubes it was thought could be used in making enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.

He said: "We know about a particular shipment. We've intercepted that. We don't know what else, what other avenues he may be taking out there." Asked about a possible invasion of Iraq by US troops, Mr Cheney claimed: "I don't think it would be that tough a fight."

He admitted they would have to stay a long time to ensure a peaceful transition to a new government.

But he added: "The danger of an attack against the United States by someone with the weapons that Saddam now possesses or is acquiring is far more costly."

Mr Blair will tell the TUC conference tomorrow he wants the UN to take a new lead. But he will also insist it does so quickly and firmly.

A senior British official said: "The UN is the right place to deal with this but it has to address the issues.

"We cannot have a situation where year after year after year Saddam just flouts the will of the international community."

Looking tired after the summit, Mr Blair said: "The key thing is that we have shared values and a shared determination to deal with the issue of weapons of mass destruction ... on the basis of the broadest possible international support.

"This challenge is not simply for America or for Britain but for the whole international community.

"We have a shared strategy on how we believe this should go forward, based on the absolute determination that we have to deal with the issue. Doing nothing is not an option."

But he also repeated dire warnings that Saddam poses a threat to the world. In a TV interview he said: "I can't say it will be next month or even next year but at some point as a result of this the danger will explode. To say there is not an issue here is totally irresponsible."

Mr Bush is under growing pressure at home and abroad not to risk going it alone on military action.

In another blow a poll said 64 per cent of Americans - including 57 per cent of those in favour of an attack - believe he has not made a clear case against Saddam.

And 66 per cent told the New York Times the US should wait for allied support. Only 25 per cent backed a go-it-alone strategy.

A survey of the studio audience for Channel 4's War on Terrorism on Trial also showed firm opposition. Three quarters said Britain should not join an attack.

 
 




 

Link please.

And the article isn't what you're presenting it to be.  Blair is indicating that he has no idea where in development the Iraqi WMD program is BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T BEEN THERE FOR SO LONG.

Not because we don't know if he has WMD's or not.

Please "enlighten" me as to when Hussein has killed "tens of thousands" of his own citizens with WMD. Besides, who cares if he kills his own. It's like gun control because the inner city "gangstas" are killing each other... They're doin us a favor!
It is well documented that the US has conducted biological/chemical weapons experiments on it's own citizens without their knowledge/consent. The leval of toxicity of the gas used at Waco meets the qualification for WMD (deadly). The use of WMD was widespread in WWI. The US currently has the largest known stockpiles of chem/bio weapons in the world.

Liberty86:

You have nothing to say about the facts I brought before you?

I'm still waiting for your reply about Saudi Arabia.

[url]http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12183299&method=full&siteid=50143[/url]



If we haven't been their, then we don't know do we?
According to UNSCOM, when they left, 95-98% of the weapons had been destroyed. It was suspected, (and is probably true), that Iraq had disbursed components hidden around the country.
Here's my, (one of 'em), bitch.
We started our "war on terror" with the idea of getting those responsible for 9/11, and preventing it from happening again. Almost 1 year later, with very little to show for our efforts, we are talking about invading Iraq because we want a "regime" change (this was the original excuse, now it's WMD). We KNOW Bin Ladens top guys and maybe him are in Pakistan. We KNOW the former head of Saudi Intelligence, (and also member of the ruling family), was funneling $$ and hard assets to Bin Laden in Afghanistan before 9/11. We KNOW that members of the "House of Saud" were supplying $$ and materiel to Al Quaeda. We KNOW that Pakistans ISI, (intelligence service), was also providing $$ and material support to the attackers of 9/11. So why all the shit on Iraq?? Could it be a diversion to take our minds off the unsuccessful "war on terror"?? I think so. Could it be personal between the Bush family and Husssein? I think so. I don't know about you, but when I ask someone to go die for their country, I wanna be DAMN SURE it's for a good cause. I fought in one of our phoney wars, and lost a lot of friends. For.....NOTHING!!!

Blair; [b]TONY BLAIR admits he hasn't the "faintest idea" what is going on in Iraq.

In an unguarded comment he revealed there is little new evidence that Saddam Hussein is developing or building weapons of mass destruction.

Speaking at his Camp David council of war with President George Bush at the weekend, [red]the PM said virtually no information had come from inside Iraq since the departure of United Nations weapons inspectors 1998.[/red]
[/b]

Terrorists Trained at US Bases
by Daniel Hopsicker
October 17, 2001

Despite earlier denials, terrorists in the September. 11 attacks received training at secure US military bases, a Defense Department spokesman admitted in an interview Friday.

Three days after the WTC disaster, Newsweek, the Washington Post and the Knight Ridder newspapers reported claims that five of the terrorist hijackers in the September 11 attacks received training at secure US military installations during the 1990s. The reports also claimed three of the terrorists had listed their address as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, and had participated in military exchange programs for foreign officers at the Pensacola Naval Air Station in Florida.

In an interview with a reporter questioning the vaguely-worded September 16 Pentagon denial, the Defense Department spokesman was asked to explain the particulars of fuzzy statements in which officials said "name matches may not necessarily mean the students were the hijackers," and that discrepancies in biographical data indicate "we are probably not talking about the same people." (Italics added.)

Pressed repeatedly to provide specifics, the spokesperson finally admitted, "I do not have the authority to tell you who (which terrorists) attended which schools."

So it appears certain that at least some of the previous denials have been rendered inoperative, and that a list exists in the Defense Department which names September 11 terrorists who received training at US military facilities, a list the Pentagon is in no hurry to make public. This admission has significant import.

Consider: Foreign nationals training at secure US facilities do so almost solely at the behest of governments considered friendly to the United States.

Gaining admittance to the International Officer's School at Maxwell AFB in Montgomery -- which terrorist ringleader Mohamed Atta was reported to have attended -- would have required Atta to be someone well-connected with a friendly Arab government. (For the record, the spokesperson denied that the International Officer's School attendee named Mohamed Atta is the same Mohamed Atta who piloted a passenger plane into the WTC, while repeatedly declining requests for biographical details about a second Arab pilot with the same name as the terrorist.)

Take the (online) resume of someone who indisputably did attend the US Air Force's International Officers School, for example, as an illustration of just how connected these foreign nationals must be.

Colonel and Staff Pilot Mohammed Ahmed Hamel Al Qubaisi is currently a Defense Military Naval & Air Attache at the United Arab Emirates Embassy US embassy, after previous stints in his country's Embassy & Security Division as Chief of Intelligence, and in the UAE's Security Division/Air Force Intelligence & Security Directorate Security Officer/Air Force Intelligence & Security Directorate.

Arab Emirate-wise, International Officer's School graduate Al Qubaisi is a homeland-security kind of guy.

A former Navy pilot quoted in Newsweek's September 15 report stated that during his years on the Pensacola base, "we always, always, always trained other countries' pilots. When I was there two decades ago, it was Iranians. The shah was in power. Whoever the country du jour is, that's whose pilots we train."

The "country du jour" at US military installations during the 1990s, according to numerous reports, was Saudi Arabia. Newsweek's prematurely "discredited" report, for example, states that according to a Pentagon source at least two of the terrorists trained at U.S. military facilities were former Saudi Air Force pilots. Mohammed Atta had a Saudi passport, early reports also indicated. Waleed Alshehri and Marwan Alsherhri had been living in Saudi Arabia before they arrived in Florida to train for their missions.

Alleged associates had listed Saudi Arabian Airlines' post office box in the Saudi city of Jeddah as their home address on their commercial pilots' licenses. And some of the pilots had licenses indicating they were sponsored or employed by Saudi Arabian Airlines, owned by the Saudi government.

Then, too, Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia told Washington 10 days before the September 11 terror attacks that US policy towards the Arab-Israeli conflict had become untenable. And the October 12 Times of London reports that the White House is frustrated with the lack of help from Saudi Arabia in freezing Osama bin Laden's assets and tracking those behind the September 11 hijackings, and that the Saudi regime has so far refused to clamp down on the assets of bin Laden or other al-Qaeda figures, despite repeated requests from Washington.

This official admission -- that the "Terrorist 19" have suspicious connections that are still-unexplored -- puts even more of a spotlight on the two Dutch-owned flight schools in Venice, Florida which were the initial "port of entry" for terrorist pilots inducted into the US flight training program.

Shame on you.
"Terrorists Trained at US Bases
by Daniel Hopsicker
October 17, 2001 "

I did a search and found this crap on "antiwar.com".

Lies masquerading as innuendo.  None of the articles on this subject EVER say conclusively that ANY of the hijackers attended.  All these articles do is establish that yes, foreign officers attended these schools.  

When YOU repeat lies, without so much as an editorial comment, YOU lie.

Here is one reason why we will be unsucessful unless we change our ways. We actively support govts. which oppress their own people. Would we tolerate it here in the US?? I do not want to waste life following the wrong strategy.

Politics & Prose | by Jack Beatty



The autocratic regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt distract their citizens from repression at home by directing their anger toward the U.S.

.....

ebate over the causes of the terrorist attacks on America has been inhibited by the fear that to inquire into them is somehow to extenuate evil. So let's substitute "sources" for the morally fraught "causes." Do that, and this becomes clear: All but three of the terrorists, like Bin Laden himself, were from Saudi Arabia; Mohamed Atta, their ringleader, was from Egypt, as is the number two man in al Qaeda, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri. Something about these countries helped to produce the terrorists. The terrorists are dead; bin Laden will soon join them. But that something endures. The domestic political arrangements of Egypt and Saudi Arabia should be regarded as among our real enemies in the war on terror.

The regimes in these countries, we know, are repressive, but so are governments throughout the Third World. What is special about the repression in Egypt and Saudi Arabia is that both governments escape its consequences by redirecting popular anger toward the United States. Thomas Friedman, of The New York Times, has written several columns documenting how this works. Through government-sponsored media in Cairo and Saudi support of fundamentalist schools, or madrassas, at home and abroad, these regimes have made anti-Americanism the equivalent of their missing domestic politics. "The terrorists who perpetrated the September 11th attacks were products of a system that allows individuals no room for legitimate political activity and little alternative to the mosques and madrassas that fill their minds with hate," writes Martin Indyk, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel.

Egypt, under threat from Islamic terrorism, has been governed under a state of emergency virtually since 1967. A glance at the Human Rights Watch report on Egypt for last year reveals a political tourniquet: suspects arrested and held without being charged, dissidents tried by military courts, parties outlawed, opposition candidates from Islamic parties jailed on security charges just before elections and thus kept from winning office, torture used to extract confessions, political prisoners dying while in custody. The U.S. gives Egypt $1.2 billion in military aid every year, and doubtless Egypt uses a considerable amount of that to keep the tourniquet tight. Egypt exports the terrorists the repression produces, but not before its state-dominated media has taught them to blame the misery and backwardness of Arab nations on the U.S. The terrorists then attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We are not a wicked nation but, as long as we subsidize this fated cycle, we are a stupid one.

The alternative is to make our aid, which also includes $700 million in development assistance, conditional on reform. Our government should tell Egypt: You want our money? We want more for it, after September 11, than simply peace with Israel. Loosen the tourniquet. Call off the media attacks on America. And do this to preserve yourselves, you Egyptian governing elites. Consider Algeria: a secular regime that denied its Islamic opposition political space—even cancelled an election because the Islamists would have won—and paid for it in a civil war of unimaginable savagery. And note: the Islamic terrorists in Algeria targeted the Westernized elites for assassination early on.

But the chances of the U.S. saying anything like this to Egypt look to be low. It would require President Bush to think through the difference between the causes of September 11, the evil hearts of "the Evil One" and his henchmen, and the sources of the attack. For the same reason it is unlikely that we will put pressure on Saudi Arabia, even though it sponsors madrassas across the Muslim world— most of the Taliban leadership learned their attitudes on women and infidels at madrassas in Pakistan—and otherwise spreads its home-grown radical Islamic faith. "For decades," the Middle East scholar Kanan Makiya wrote recently, "the Saudi royal family could count on support from the United States even as it allowed Wahhabism to project its hate-filled vision of Islam around the world. Such support, so contrary to American principles of freedom and toleration, is widely interpreted in the region as indifference to the suffering of ordinary Arabs in the Middle East..." Since we protect the Saudi oil fields we have leverage to tell the princes to curb these institutions, and to cease exporting the anti-Western fundamentalist strain of Islam that numbered the Taliban among its converts. But President Bush, as reported by Maureen Dowd in The New York Times, thinks this is out of bounds. We have no more right to ask them to change their religious practices, according to Bush, than we do to ask the Methodists to change their practices because Timothy McVeigh was a Methodist. The analogy is depressing: the Methodist Church is not teaching hatred of America.

Instead of taking the war on terror to Iraq, we need to take it to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, terror's source. We need to reach beyond these autocratic regimes to their peoples. Stability and protection of the oil fields, the two pillars of U.S. policy in the region, are rightly seen on the Arab street as selfish aims, and our claims to stand for human rights and democracy are seen as hypocritical—human rights, but not for Arabs; democracy, but not for Arabs. The region won't be stable, the oil fields won't be secure, and America won't be free of the fear of terrorism unless we identify with the aspirations of the Arab people to live under legitimate governments. The risk of reform is the one Algeria faced a decade ago: that radical Islamist parties will gain popular favor, win elections, and establish a theocratic state. But if that risk exists today, imagine how much higher it will be tomorrow.

You really make this too easy for me

[url]http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0513/p08s01-wome.html[/url]

(During the Anfal campaign, rights groups say more than 100,000 men disappeared, 4,000 villages were destroyed, and 60 more villages were subject to chemical weapons attack.

.."5,000 Kurds died during the gassing of Halabja alone..)



I think that comment speaks volumes about you.  But whether or not you give a shit about them is not the point, it indicates that if he has WMD (and he does, regardless of what you think) he will not hesitate to use them against his enemies.



Are you saying that the US government sought to kill thousands of our own citizens.  Please provide a link to that little gem.



This is really just a Red Herring argument.  Whether or not we used chemical weapons in WWI or currently have chem/bio weapons does not detract from the point that Iraq does, has used them in a deliberate manner to kill his own citizens/opponents and has the proclivity to use them again.

Seem like pretty good sources to me.....

[red]Three days after the WTC disaster, Newsweek, the Washington Post and the Knight Ridder newspapers reported claims that five of the terrorist hijackers in the September 11 attacks received training at secure US military installations during the 1990s. The reports also claimed three of the terrorists had listed their address as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, and had participated in military exchange programs for foreign officers at the Pensacola Naval Air Station in Florida.
[/red]

Not if you look into it.

Those stories turned out to be false.
Hopsicker, anti-war.co, and now you, merely repeat what is false.
You insinuate that because this false story had been previously reported in "Newsweek, the Washington Post and the Knight Ridder newspapers", that somehow that means it's true!
Wrong.
Very misleading, dishonest actually.

Please do not use selective quotation.  What you've cited was the reporter's interpretation.  What did Blair actually say?

[b][Blair] said: "We haven't the faintest idea what has been going on in the last four years [red]other than what we know is an attempt to carry on rebuilding weapons.[/red]"[/b]

This is what he ACTUALLY said.

Wow.
That sure is some creative editing.

Again Libert86, try to be more truthful.

You forgot to cite this paragraph in your article...


With regard to Husseins actions against the Kurds, two facts emerge.
1) Some of this territory was under Iranian control, during war time, and C/W was used against them.
2) The Kurds have for many years been engaging in armed insurrection against the Iraqi govt. Hussein did what any sovereign has/would do. Put down the insurrection.

Again, I repeat. It is not worth American blood to dispose of every dictator who represents a threat to his own people, or his neighbors.
Saudi, Pakistan, or Egypt should be our next target. THAT's where the terrorists that threaten US are coming from...

[b]"Hussein did what any sovereign has/would do"[/b]

Gas 5,000 civilians who oppose him politically?
Is that what "any sovereign would do"?
Even the US?

Do you really believe the crap you post?

It's remarkable how similar libertarians and leftests are, in their beliefs.
Your above quote is pure moral-relativism.
If everyone one is evil, and would do such a hideous thing, then no one is evil.

Interesting article with links to documentation..
[url]http://emperors-clothes.com/news/probestop-i.htm[/url]

Saudi support of terrorists..

[url]http://www.idf.il/saudi_arabia/site/english/main_index.stm[/url]

Hmm, kinda sounds like Neville Chamberlain in 1939.

I agree it's not wise to believe everything our own government says, but it is just as unwise to believe that everything they say is a lie as well.

There are some here who are so blinded by their hatred of our own country, probably brought on by the Clinton and administration, or hatred for Israel, or both, that they can't help believe that everything is a lie.  The topper was when someone asked for proof that Saddam had used chemical agents on his own people, as if he didn't believe that happened.  It sounds like some people here are apologists for Saddam.  That may not be the case, but that's what it sounds like, with the constant asking for proof of his deeds and proof that he wants WMD, when anyone with an unbiased view can easily see that he has, he does want WMD, and he will use them if he has a chance.  Some say that he doesn't have a delivery system to get anything to the US.  You don't need a missile delivery system, there are all kinds of primitive ways to sneak bioligical, chemical, or even nuclear weapons into this country.

Liberty86 you seem to have this boner for attacking Saudi but even if it were the country of origin for many of the hijackers and even if the Saudi government is developing WMD we dont have a blatant cause to wage war on them. Iraq on the other hand has shown itself to be a very real enemy with direct ties to many of the terrorist organizations that have attacked us or allies. Remember the spiel, your either with the war on terrorism or your no better than terrorists. OF course this has not be adhered to very well ie. Palestine, France etc.

You indicate that we have supported oppressive regimes in the past. Here is an interesting thought, there have NEVER been regimes in the mideast that havent been oppressive. That is basically their culture. They are not us and we are not them. In reality you could say that any country that does not have a Republic based on Democracy is in fact an oppressive government, that by our standards, deserves to be overthrown. Its a hell of a lot more complicated than that and we as Americans are egocentric with our views of "how things should be". I would also point out hindsight. Yes the US has funded and trained groups that AT THE TIME appeared to be working toward a better government for a particular country or region, only to be later attacked by that person or group for some perceived wrong. So yes we have "created" some of the terrorists that are now attacking us. Hindsight shows that we f,ed up but I guess the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Also is pisses me off that we view things here in the US from an apologists standpoint, we also play the blame game way to easily and make excuses for individuals or groups actions without holding them accountable. There is never an excuse for mass murder of civilians no matter how much shit you have had to eat in the past, no matter how much you hate our way of life, no matter how many virgins will waiting in heaven. Some people are so bad that they simply cease to be human. These people need to be taken out with extreme prejudice for the greater good. On one hand you say leave him alone he really isn't a threat and on the other you say he is an evil despot. What do we do?

Did I say this guy is not evil?? [b]NO![/b]
Is it the responsibility of the US to go after evil dictators? [b]NO![/b]

Tell ya the truth, I'm more interested in the evil in my own country. Aren't you? Or would you rather hide your head in the sand....

***Duncan's Tinfoil Helmet is slipping off again***

FYI, It appears the Iraq has just declared war on us. The Foreign Secy of Iraq seems to have said somthing to that effect in his recent call for ALL Arabs everywhere to attack us.

And to I have a suprise for the guy across the street from me if he comes over here!

We have evidence of Saudi involvement with terror. More so, than Iraq actually. The Chinese also have WMD. Targetted on our cities in fact. How 'bout if we go after them?



It is not our job to take out "evil despots"....

Now you're just being out and out dishonest.  Here is the FULL paragraph and the one following:

[b] Today, Iraq's exact chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capabilities remain unknown, since United Nations weapons inspectors were kicked out in 1998. [red]While they made broad progress up to that point, few dispute that Iraq's programs and expertise were among the most sophisticated in the Middle East.

Iraq has sought to upgrade [u]all[/u] its weapons programs in the intervening years, and has most recently installed a top-notch Chinese air defense system. [/red]



Huh? No they were not. Where did you get this info?  The Iraqi Information ministry?  Most gas sites were more than 50 miles from the border with Iran.  16 known gas sites were in the Northern No-Fly Zone (border with Turkey. Are you going to argue that Turkey may have gassed some Kurds too?)



Okay, now this has just gotten stupid.



You must differentiate between individuals and state sponsors.  A terrorist state is more threatening to the US than an individual simply because it has more resourses.  

Iraq AS A STATE has shown its willingness to use WMD against its enemies.  Iraq AS A STATE tried to assassinate Bush I.  Iraq AS A STATE gassed tens of thousands of its own people.

Wake up and smell the Hummus.

Without citing ANY evidence.....

I like this quote concerning ALL TerrorMongers "The hostility which these regimes, and the terrorists they sponsor, feel towards the West is existential. It cannot be assuaged by more international aid, a reordering of the world financial system, a new peace plan for the Palestinians, the signing of the Kyoto treaty or any other of the panaceas for soothing away world tension peddled by the new Left or old Arabists. As with Nazis and the Communists, they hate us for what we are, not what we do. And that hatred, being molten, is dynamic. It cannot be limited by lines in the sand, or constrained by diplomacy. Just as it is in the nature of totalitarians to hate so it is endemic to them to attack, to expand, to export their violence." - Michael Gove in the Times (of London) today.

Okay.  I've come to the conclusion that you simply do not want to acknowledge information because it doesn't correspond to what you want to believe, regardless of the truth.

Just be careful not to sail too far off the coast of Oregon, you might fall off the edge of the world.

[b]Quoted:
Saudi, Pakistan, or Egypt should be our next target. THAT's where the terrorists that threaten US are coming from...[/b]

Patience grasshopper, there are many stops along the road to victory and iraq is just one of those stops.
Destroy the enemy in iraq, and move on. I agree that saudi, paki and egypt should be included all while keeping a carefull watch on china.

Lest we not forget the Son of a Butcher (Also a Butcher)in Syria.

And Duncan M'lad...another wrapping of foil around that Noggin of yours is called for, post haste.

That really does sum it up. Their view is not shades of gray. To "them" its black and white. We represent what they percieve as the antithesis to their way of life, and religion. There doesnt appear to be any cohabitation on their mind, its either your like us or dead, really. How do you deal with something like that?

[img]http://www.thegeekhost.com/helfire/funnys/capacity.jpg[/img]

Thanks to Liberty86's selective editing. ANYTHING to make your case, right?

We shouldn't go after EVERY evil despot, that's true. However, you may not be aware of this, but we actually have some history with Iraq. This is not the totally new, fabricated scenario for the purpose of coming up with a boogeyman to feed the military industrial complex that you may believe. Iraq is a defeated foe that not only has not lived up to the terms of it's surrender, but attempted to assassinate former President Bush. We have every right to go after them, for the same reasons you think we should go after Saudi, Egypt, etc. They are clearly a threat to our security and that of our allies.

If you thought we shouldn't move against any country in the region that would at least be consistant (wrong but consistant); but to say we should ignore Iraq and go after Pakistan (which is doing practically every thing we have asked - provided basing, fired all the top military and intelligence leadership with a radical bent, etc.) is simply ludicrous. I don't actually think you favor any military action, whether it's Iraq or your hit list; you're just trying to come up with every arguement you can think off. Sad.