And they say Iraq doesn't support terrorism.

Well, that's One documentable terrorist the invasion caught. But the only one, thus far.

(sarcasm on)

Tsk, tsk, tsk people. How blinded by your ideology can you possibly be? There are no terrorists/bad people in Iraq...er, of course, except for the blood-thirsty/women and children murdering/non-protectors of museum artifacts/responsible for every single imaginable bad outcome American soldiers.

(sarcasm off) and sorry for the mini-rant

Rose:

What "ideology" did you have in mind?

Unless you wish to assert that the USofA "supports terrorism" because it was the Home of the Brave Tim McVeigh, your assertion here is mere Overstatement for Effect.

Now calm down a tad, and revisit the definition of "terrorism" -- as in the War On.

What Iraqis do to their own nation is not Terrorism as it's generally defined in the War On.

Off topic:

Bush has sky-high rates for the successful conclusion of war in Iraq, despite an anemic economy, the year before an election.

Meanwhile, Rodney King is demonstrating his driving problems in LA.

It's deja-vu all over again.

If Ross Perot starts talking, break his jaw. We don't need another Clinton.

Frankly, I liked it better when Monica was going down and the Dow Jones was going up.

Don,

How many "documentable terrorists" would you have to see caught before you conceded that Saddam's regime supported terrorism? Three? A dozen? One hundred? Two thousand? 17 hijackers? Or one mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking?

If Saddam's payment of reward money to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers is not 'state-sponsered terrorism' to you, then I think you're the type of person who will never be convinced of Saddam's participation in international terrorism.

Now we need to catch the 1993 WTC turd and his uncle that have been hiding in Bagdad.

Don,

The difference is, we didn't house Tim McVie because he was a terrorist. In fact, when he did his Evil act, we put him in jail, and then we killed him.

Sorry, but that analogy doesn't fit. You must aquit.

Sorry, I'm in retro-rewind mode.

Beyond that, however, this is IslamoFascism/Terrorism. Connect the dots, it should have to bite you in the tush or be printed in neon lights to figure out.

Abbas handcuffed to a wheel chair and pushed into the deep blue sea. Thats a picture.

Frankly, I liked it better when Monica was going down and the Dow Jones was going up.

The Dow will go up again. Stop suing successful IT companies, win the war on Terror, it will happen.

Clinton or his BJ had nothing to do with the Dow. This business cycle is coming to a close, and knowing that we won't be killed by Terrorists makes the market look like a better place to invest than in duct tape.

Don,

You liked it when Monica was going down, The Dow was going up and American foreign policy was going nowhere you say? When Clinton was kicking the can of terrorism down the road to his successor? Well, I guess denial is bliss.

365:

At least as many as we got in Afghanistan, with a whole lot less effort. But we agree -- we got One, thus far. If you can come up with a whole bunch more, please do!

As for Proof of Iraq's involvement in State Sponsored Terrorism, the nature of the Proof required is simple:

What groups?
Where did/do they operate?
What have they done?

Remember -- al Qaeda isn't among them, or so says the CIA anyway. Dubya has mentioned "organizations like al Qaeda," but hasn't named them or provided any other information.

As for the payments to the families of suicide bombers, that is, in that society, considered an Act of Charity -- not ex ante support for specific terrorist attacks. It has not and cannot be demonstrated that Saddam's payments to the families of the suicide bombers is any different than similar solatium payments to those same families that have come from several of the Saudi charitable foundations. Saddam just like to rub the West's nose in his support for anti-Israel activities. But that's a PR grandstanding -- a photo op ploy.

There is no evidence that Saddam contacted the bombers before their "martyrdom," selected targets, provided explosives or any other specific actions that were tantamount to "supporting terrorists/terrorism."

After-the-fact payments to families in the Islamic culture is considered a charitable act. No -- I am Not making this up. Since they pretty much all support activities and organizations that are anti-Israel across the board, it's just not a big deal at all to those folks.

That may well shock and dismay folks in The West, but it's a fact. Better learn to live with it, unless you're prepared to similarly label any organization that tries to support destitute families, some of whom may well have had suicide bombers as members, as Terrorist Supporters. There's several Western organizations that have done that, through the years -- including some of the better-known charitable NGOs.

Complicated Place, the Middle East.

Don, I was off on little quasi-parody of some people's position vis-a-vis reality. You know, the type of people who think the statue removal was staged, the soldiers are shooting journalists, etc. So, I guess you could call it the "idealogy of ignoring reality". It truly has nothing to do with one's political/moral/life view.

I posted an OpEd on this story.

Careful people: Never feed the trolls. Don is a troll by difinition.

Abu Abbas in US custody. How very nice. You've heard of the "peace dividend". Let's call this the "war dividend" shall we?

Abu....how's it feel to know your remaining days on earth will be spent behind bars?

Don, complicated place, your mind of jumbled casuistry which makes excuses for evil.

TMcV is still considered a bit of a Heero to a bunch of wingnut types. They point to his Wartime Service in GW1 as proof of his Great American Fighting Spirit! But as for an expectation that other nations should put suicide bombers to death because of their evil acts, there's this small problem.... OTOH, starving their families might well be fair game.

If another terrorist or two is/are caught, I will be pleased to bring the total to Three.

Sometime, when there's room on the Time/Space continuum, we can discuss the overall status of American Foreign Policy at the moment. I can remind you that until 911, Dubya didn't have one. But he didn't have a domestic policy either, so it all balances out.

Absolutely, the Dow will go up again. And down. And up. Just as it's been doing reflexively for the past several years.

Meanwhile, if anyone has Proof of a documentable connection between any Known Terrorist Group and Iraq, please send it to the CIA. Thus far, they're a tad short on such material. I don't believe they are offering Americans a cash reward for it, though. Perhaps cutting a deal with an Iraqi to share the gain might be worth exploring.

There's this guy Chalabi....

So since that culture sees paying the families of suicide bombers tons of dough as right then, heck, what could be wrong with it. That culture also has rather non-progressive views on women, female circumcision, stoning and basically conquering all those that don't believe like they do, but shoot that's just their little idiosyncrasies so no biggie. Who are we to judge?

hello to all you PEOPLE WHO JUST DONT GET IT..........THE FINATICAL{terrorist world} ARABS AND MUSLUMS WANT US DEAD.......THEY WANT TO KILL ALL OF US....THIS INCLUDES YOU.....EVEN IF YOU LIVE IN HOLLYWOOD OR NEVER NEVER LAND...and no i wont apoligise for all caps....if you dont like it tie a bomb to your butt and blow me up.or better yet pretend your monaka lewinsky and blow me up.

What exactly was Bill Clinton's foreign policy for eight years? Half commitments to Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia (ending in 18 soldiers losing their lives). Then appeasments to North Korea, who now have 2 nukes reportedly and are close to a few more so that any bargaining power with them is effectively zero. What else? Oh yeah that's right letting Osama get away on mulitple occasions and allowing acts of terrorism to escalate against US interests. Meanwhile the economy prospered on speculatative investing surrounding the tech sector, most notably dot coms (oh but that's right Al Gore invented the internet).

Hmmm... I'm going to make one more comment and then stop feeding Hillary -er, I mean, Don.

243 Marines in Lebanon, 53 hostages in Iran, dead israelis everywhere, Pan Am flights bombed out of the Scottish sky, etc.

Don would have us believe that the men who killed these innocents are not soldiers but civilians themselves, and that the burden of proof and rights of the accused should follow the American court system.

Those of us who have witnessed 25 years of attacks by IslamoFascists and have connected the dots do not. These guys are different species of maggots that live together and feed together. They go by different names, and do everything possible for plausible deniability to prey on America's weaknesses - our Dons.

After 9-11, we could not play this game any more. When we are struck, we turn and strike those who hit us with our backs turned. We don't wait for the video or DNA test.

Hammas, Hezbollah, Al Queda, the PLO, etc. are all one and the same but by different names. They kill Americans, Israelis, and Europeans. The status quo could continue until Don is one of their victims, and then he can pull out his law book from the other side and figure out how justice can be served.

Fortunately, Clinton is gone, and it is no longer possible to deny the first WTC incident, the Cole, embassies in Africa, etc.

As long as dictators rule the Arab world, the Arab world will be full of Jihad Lemmings ready to kill as many Americans as possible. They must be sorely disappointed that Don's vote didn't count twice.

As for the number of terrorists we caught in Iraq? By most accounts, there are thousands of dead Syrians rotting on the streets of Baghdad, and I'm sure most could tell you where Hezbollah meets each week in their home towns.

And better the streets of Baghdad than in the street in front of Don's New York apartment, I think.

And STFU about McVie. We killed him. That's called justice. You seem to idolize him more than any extremist who supported his views - it's convenient for you.

Hey Don--

It's been reported in numerous places that the mothers of Palestinian suicide bombers talk with tearful pride of their shaheed and to-be-shaheed sons and daughters, citing the money they know they'll get as one big plus. They know their kids will go to paradise, they'll kill some Jews, and they'll get a big fat $25K check sent to their loving parents. What's not to like?

This isn't disaster relief. This is incentive.

People, the fact that a state sponsors terrorism, in some way or form, like Saudi Arabia for example, does not make a military effort automatic.

The trollish folks like Don don't understand the concept of defensible positions, strategy. By not going to war against Saudi Arabia, to him that means that the US doesn't consider SA a terrorist threat.

Rest assured, people in the US government surely do feel that way, but there is an order to things when you have a strategy, something Clinton didn't have much in the way of, although I'll admit I supported him for 8 years.

Just like France wasn't the main enemy in WW2, they were the road to Germany. It's called

S-T-R-A-T-E-G-Y

Stop making arguments like a 2 year old might and start thinking outside the box. Iraq has been involved with terrorism for as long as Saddam has been in power. Read Threatening Storm (written by a CIA analyst, Don ;) and then get yourself a six-pack of Clue.

Until then, kindly STFU.

sarcasm off:

Did anyone NOT think wanted people were hiding in Iraq?
that doesn't mean saddam was sponsoring terrorism.
Paying money to Palestinians who blow themselves up, is that sponsoring terrorism?
(my opinion says yes)
But, the UN says they are freedom fighters, so, thats not sponsoring terrorism.

Now, having groups like Al quada, hesbila, etc. within your borders, and seemingly with permission, and funding them, THAT is sponsoring terrorism.
And we have Iraq dead to rights on that.

Sarcasm on:
Lets all jump to conclusions, it's far more fun than fact, be fisk for a day!!!!

I wonder if Chirac has saddam DNA on his Blouse'

"And better the streets of Baghdad than in the street in front of Don's New York apartment, I think."

Oh Cowboy Bob (echo), may I remind you we already have enough reality-impaired people in the city. Please, no more!

As for the names of terrorist organizations getting money from Saddam that Don wanted--they've been named: Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Ansar Al-Islam--who just a lttle while ago fought the Kurds in northern Iraq. Not counting Al Qaeda, which I am sure he was supporting too.Qaeda--

Gabriel, I need you as a spell check. I couldn't remember Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade for the life of me, although I've read about them for years.

Hey Don, sponsor those guys, you'll get a Nobel Peace Prize!!!

I remember Al Aqsa because it is an Arabic name for Jerusalem. Somehow they claim Jerusalem for themselves, despite the fact that the Arabs murdered or drove out all the Jews in their half of Jerusalem between 1948 & 1967--I don't think much of "rights of return". As far as I'm concerned, the Palestinian homeland is called Jordan--and they can have a state when Saudi women can drive.

But since my rank in the International Zionist Conspiracy is merely Pliable Gentile 3rd Class, what is my opinion worth?

I thought Al Quds was the name for Jerusalem in Arabic.

Skeptical Steve is right... Al Aqsa is the mosque, I think...

I would consider the Fedayeen a state sponsored terrorist organization. They are/were Saddams thugs.

Us gentiles only know fact, not desire.

in '48, the land was assigned. But, Arab muslim didn't want jews there at all, and on we go.

when arab countries attacked Israel, they lost land, spoils of war as far as I'm concerned.
Also unadressed is Israel occupies even less of that land assigned, and some of that land is unassigned, a royal brit screw up, but never the less, something that needs to be resolved.

Lets all just go back to the origional plan.

#1. is Muslims have to accept the right of Israel to exist.

#2. Arabs have to accept the origional land division of the old ottoman division, if not, then I want Saudi arabia, because it was mine first.

sarcasm on:

see what I mean?

I looked it up and Al Aqsa is indeed the mosque near the Dome of the Rock.

You beat me to it. Al Aqsa is the mosque. I'm only a 3rd rate Gentile in the Zionist conspiracy, but I am a decorated Lt. Col. in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy back in the states.

My dual status makes me responsible for figuring out why Jewish Americans keep voting for useless tools like Hillary Clinton, when it's obvious Dubya is the guy who has their back. Our preliminary assessment is because the Dons of the world keep telling them that we're going to burn crosses in their yards.

The irony, however, is that with Dubya, terrorists are getting killed. When Clinton was in office, they were getting the Nobel prize. I don't know how many IQ points one has to drop to become a Liberal, but doing this to the fine Jewish people is especially criminal.

I know a Palestinian--he was born in Jordan, but that cuts no ice with Jordanians from what he says.

WSJ just recently ran an Iraqi POW's story of being screwed over in 1991 by some non-Iraqi Arabs.

It's easy to see why none of the pan-Arab movements really got anywhere. Syria and Iraq managed to work together, but not always smoothly.

Gabriel, there was no mosk in Jerusalem before Mohammed invented Islam in 632, plus, it was long after that when Muslims reached that area.

To be historicaly correct, israelites were in that area long before Muslims ever were, and also long before any pagan arabs as well.

Now, what is a true israelite? white christians.

You guys have missed the point! Syria kept this guy from entering their country, and sent him back into Iraq. Wow! Were they listening to somebody, or what?

If I remember correctly, the Al Aqsa was once the site of the 3rd Jewish Temple.

I've also heard (Ok, I read it on my heavy metal albums in the 80s) that rebuilding the 3rd temple would result in Armageddon.

Which makes since, because I think it would send 1 Billion muslims into a coniption fit.

The point is right, however. This land belonged to the Jews a few decades after the Hebrews left Egypt. I think they're awfully tolerant to allow Muslims to have any portion of Jerusalem, considering is the 3rd most holy site in Islam, but the #1 in Judaism and Christianity.

Al-quds is the arabic name for Jerusalem (in some circles it's also known as dar-al-salam (door of peace))

Al-aqsa is a mosque on the Temple Mount, towards the side, like if you look at a picture of the Temple MOunt or skyline, Al-aqsa has a silver colored dome.

The "al-aqsa martyrs brigade" is another name for the terror group Fatah which is the PLO

Saddam also supported the Jihad Islami (PIJ), Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), Abu Nidal Org. (ANO), the PLO--among others.(the state dept. has a report on this; Section L I think)

For more history visit http://www.palestinefacts.org

IQ points to be a liberal? Are you canadian too?

here in Canada, first you must be french, And aslo, from Toronto.
This is how Liberals control canada.

IQ requirment? Zero, (0) nothing,
dumb as a brick.

Or, you must be from the west coast of America, a political refugee, hiding in canada from weed prosecutions

Ok, leave it to 49erDweet to send us back to the point at hand. Yes, I think Asshat -er- Assad got the message. Interesting. They may have just sent him back as the sacrifice, however. These guys never shoot straight.

for Vlad:

If you're going to stamp out suicide bombers, best you know how they get started. There is No evidence that the promise of a payment to their families post mortem is what motivates them. That sort of monetary motivation is a Western projection. It bespeaks a lack of knowledge of how they perceive martyrdom. They'd do it, even without the payment.

for Aby:

No -- sorry to disappoint you, but we're not going to nuke the entire Middle East. Whatever else has to happen, we've got to respond a tad more specific than that. You have a Nice Dream, now, y'hear?

for Cowboy:

Negation by characterization is the sign if a truly weak mind. Still, there actually is a direct link between Terrorist Groups and Syria, e.g. the group offices in downtown Damascus. No such link has been demonstrated for Iraq -- not by anyone.

for Gabriel:

The names you mention are the ones specifically linked with Damascus -- not with Baghdad. Ansar al-Islam was a splinter group of Kurds, located in a far NE area of Iraq that Baghdad never had under control at all. Despite its being overrun by Kurdish troops, with USAF capable assistance -- during which action most of them escaped over the nearby mountain ridge -- none of the documents found within the camps have supported any link with Baghdad. It just isn't there -- sorry. As for a direct connection with al Qaeda, even the CIA has not been able to demonstrate it, even obliquely. But if you want to send your personal information to Langley, they'd surely welcome something -- just Anything -- that would demonstrate the truth of the assertion. Have at it!

for Brian:

"It's been reported in numerous places that there are WMDs in Iraq." Sounds sorta like your assertion. There's only one problem -- neither seems to be verifiable. Western Xtians sorta gave up on martyrdom some centuries back. Islam still thinks it's a good idea. But to "support terrorism" means something more than sending a check to the family. If you can't comprehend that, then you're unlikely ever to close with the entire Terrorism discussion at all.

for Cowby:

I sponsor those charities that suit my purposes. None of them operate in the Middle East. Not even a nice try with that attempt.

for Gabriel:

Do make a smallish attempt not to confuse Saudi Arabia with Jordan, Palestine and other Middle East locations. The Wahhabis don't control all of it -- but then, you don't know how to differentiate. You should learn -- it's quite the interesting thing.

You do have to recall the history of Israel, Jordan, Palestine and the Middle East generally when the English and French divided it up after WW1. They drew lines on a map that pretty much ignored ethnic, tribal/clan and religious matters entirely. That's one of the reasons why Iraq is as strange as it is, internally.

Finally: A policy disagreement and a general distaste for being a cheerleader does not constitute Trollism. It's a far more thoughtful stance than merely that.

I know that there was no mosque before that land passed into Arab hands... and I know that a significant percentage of Jews in Israel are descended from people who never leftnever left there. I know that "Palestine" is the Roman name for the territory, and that the land that is now the West Bank was never called anything but Judea and Samaria. I know that the Arab war against Jews long predates 1948 and that Arafat's terrorism precedes 1967, the supposed grievance.

The "settlement" that most inflames the Arabs is really Tel Aviv. Sensible people know this.

As for Christians being the true inheritors of Abraham; theological disputes need to be settled 'tween y'all. I have very little interest.

Who exactly turned him away from the Syrian Border?

Surely not the Syrians??

Was Spartacus a "terrorist"? Geronimo? Sitting Bull? The French Resistance? John Paul Jones?William Tecumseh Sherman? The Irish Reppublicans? Celebrated founders of Israel who wore civilian clothes and killed both British military and Arab civilians?

Let's leave the racism out of this.

Abu Abbas is a reprehensible figure to be sure. But let's look at the elements of "terrorism."

Against combatants: The attack on the US marines can not be described as terrorism. It was pure asymetrical warfare against combatants, who incidently, were not in their own country. There is nothing you can do to enemy troops that is rightfully considered terrorism. You can commit breaches in the normal or legal conduct of war, such as perfidious surrender. Of course US Naval hero John Paul Jones is glorified here for doing that quite a bit.

Weaker groups, if they are smart and successful, always resort to asymetrical warfare. The stronger always consider the tactics of the weaker to be unfair, cowardly and against the rules of war.

The classical victries by the Greeks against the Persians are widely celebrated in the Western world, and western military history, as brilliant and heroic. They pulled about every nasty trick in the book. Fake surrender, dressing as the enemy, massacreing prisoners, killing envoys under truce, etc.

Civilians: Let's stick to terrorism as events staged against civilians in order to frighten them. If we are intellectually honest and know our own history this is a moral quandry, isn't it? To be sure most US bombing of civilan areas in World War two for example was incidental to hitting a military target. But quite a number of actions were not so at all. We did bomb cities simply to give a message.

There are statues in Washington to US generals who burned US cities to give a message to civil populations.

so with civilians one has to ask the question: do we repudiate our own heroic myths (as recent as they are), or are we, and this is Orwellian, saying killing large numbers of civilians by highly advanced military technology is "warfare" and by low tech is "terrorism?"

Before I get flames, I am no apologist for Abu Abbas but some of the sweeping statements here are in error. The PLO engaged in asymetrical warfare early on. So did Prime Ministers of Israel. The Hizbollah is not at all of the same class as Islamic Jihad or Hamas, even friends of mine in Israeli security make a distinction.

I agree, at this moment parts of the Islamic world do represent the biggest threat for a number of reasons, some of which arise out of Islam's difficulties with modernity and some of which are clearly external in cause.

But our problem is much bigger. Asymetrical warfare, hisotrically celbrated and villified, depending on who won, is now a threat to the entire world and humanity's future. One state can destroy a region, soon one group, and eventually one individual can conceivably kill everyone.

conservatives (and I'm one), like individual freedom. Well the club of terrorism prevention irrefutably indicates state, group an individual freedom will have to be drastically revisited in the years to come. We will have to know all kinds of things about idividuals. Maybe that is so, but let's be a bit more circumspect and avoid the hyperbole (a nice way of saying prejudice).

Just how many of those wailing covered women in Syria are there, after the Americans destroyed about 3,000 of their offspring...send in the clowns to Iraq now.....they'll meet paradise by morning....sorry, but the 72 virgins will all look like Susan Sarandon...sorry, but thats all thats left now, there are so many of you guys!
The last 500 martyrs will get Madonna look alikes on your pleasure cloud...just the right kind of slutty touch!! Please hurry!

Don,

You need only listen to these people talk. They swear they will kill you, and when someone dies, you look for "proof". They hold up their hands and say "not me". Repeat.

If you are not a troll, you are anal retentive. There is a disease by which process becomes more important than results. While you loop in your flow chart and keep coming back to "repeat", people are dying.

When you step back and look at the larger collective of IslamoFascism, it becomes pretty easy to connect the dots.

I'm sorry if this success won't get John Kerry elected, but I would rather live.

Wow. I am almost afraid to open my mouth for fear of having my head handed to me.

But, being a fool, rushing in where angels fear to tread -- We have just captured some archives. Lots of them, if half the tales be true.

In a month, two, or three, we will have some of the names and numbers you wanted, Don.

Please, people, remember -- the day is yet young. We have stopped the major shooting, and now we must clean up the pieces as best we can. And to give you an idea of just how long it may be ... we are STILL going through the archives of the Nazis, discovering new things.

Abu Abbas is only the biggest terrorist fish we have captured.

As I understand it we have captured and killed quite a few folks who have connections with terrorist organizations, but they are all little fish unworthy of their own front page headline.

We have also captured at least three terrorist training grounds. One in the north with documented Al Queada connections and possible Iraqi intel connections. Two in the Bahgdad area. One was a Palistinian terrorist camp and the other was a training ground with a jumbo jet for hijack training. Some sources are convinced some of the 9/11 guys trained at this one.

Here's something funny Don: the biggest winner of the last few weeks is a country that was created with no regard for racial or ethnic boundaries, and is full of armed religious nuts. It's called the United States of America.

Leftists always assume that people who disagree with them are ignorant or evil. You assum I know nothing about the history of the Middle East, based on the fact that I used Jordan and Saudia Arabia in the same sentence?

During Ramadan last year I was a guest at our local mosque more than once--I brought cheesecake, which went over well. I know something of Muslims and Islam. I live in a college town with a significant number of Arabs and Muslims, some of whom I count among my friends. So don't patronize me. It's trollish.

You can say that paying off the families of suicide bombers is not supporting terrorism: but it certainly doesn't discourage terrorism and it certainly makes things easier for the families of terrorists, REGARDLESS OF THE MOTIVATION. It's a distinction without a difference.

As for the WMD, UNMOVIC was not empowered to search for anything new. THEY WERE ONLY THERE TO FIND WHAT UNSCOM HAD ALREADY DOCUMENTED. Even Hans Blix agreed that Iraq had WMD. NOT ONE of the permanent UNSC members disagreed on this. They disagreed only on Iraq's cooperation and what consequences were to follow.

So, you might do some fact-checking as well.

Shit, Don, if we are going to go by Arab standards of what does and does not constitute "supporting terrorism"--THEY DON"T CONSIDER KILLING JEWS TO BE MURDER! So why are we even talking about applying their standards?

I mean, how many times have they said that because Israelis all serve in the military, there is no such thing as an Israeli civilian? Do you agree with that too, Don?

"and the other was a training ground with a jumbo jet for hijack training. Some sources are convinced some of the 9/11 guys trained at this one."

WTF sources are those? Let's not get stupid here people.

Hal, here is one link, to one camp.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=52792&ran=127976

"... by Arab standards ...--THEY DON"T CONSIDER KILLING JEWS TO BE MURDER!
Posted by Gabriel Hanna at April 15, 2003 09:05 PM "

Racism. There is not on shred of evidence that most Arabs believe this.

Who sais anything about a majority of Arabs believing this? The ones in the governemnts and the mosques say it. Do you EVER read MEMRI?

Whatever your expectations are about the person behind the posts that you are reading, you might be wrong.

Interesting link to Don. http://www.vietnamexp.com/newguestbook/newguestbook2.htm

I'm standing beside Gabriel with this. I do not believe that the majority of the Arab population believes in killing Israelis, but their leaders have turned Jews into scaqpegoats. They encourage violence against Jews and would not punish it (see Arafat).

Chairman of the Arab Psychiatrist's Association (Egypt):
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=egypt&ID=SP37302

An article in a Saudi government daily about Jews taking over the world:
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=saudiarabia&ID=SP32101

Excerpts from the Syrian Minister of Defense's book about how Jews using human blood for Yom Kippur:
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=syria&ID=IA9902

Panel discussion about the Intifada from Al Jazeera:
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=persiangulf&ID=SP24501

Government paper in Iran saying that those calling for democracy and liberty and human rights are acting against Islam:
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iran&ID=SP46303

In America you can find all sorts of nuts saying all sorts of things--but in the Middle East the nuts are in charge. They print the textbooks, write the newspapers, preach in the mosques.

Gabriel is my hero.

MEMRI is of course an arm of AIPAC.
Their board is identical. Get a clue. They pick the worst stuff.

Racism. There is not on shred of evidence that most Arabs believe this.

Posted by aaron at April 15, 2003 09:19 PM

here, go to this site

http://abbc.com/talmud/index.htm

and this

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-genocide-USSRchristians-usexpeditionaryforces.html

and this

http://www.ety.com/HRP/jewishstudies/ritualmurder.htm

and this

http://www.jeffsarchive.com/ritual_murder/History%20of%20Jewish%20Ritual%20Murder.htm

You see, this is all for the most part, muslim sponsered web sites, and clearly shows the islam hate for jews.

Go ahead, visit them all, and then come back and tell me isalm, arabs, muslims LOVE the jews.....

look outside your door before you make statements,

muslims don't like christians either, and jews like niether as well

So, do your religious research first

"Go ahead, visit them all, and then come back and tell me isalm, arabs, muslims LOVE the jews.....
look outside your door before you make statements,"

you are childish and either racist or unaware of thosuands of screeds by one group against another.

There are a myriad of extreme sites showing that "the Jews hate the Arabs", the "Christians hate the Jews", the "Hindus hate the Moslems" and on and on and on.

Do you base your worldview on that kind of stuff? Give it a rest.

Got to agree with "numbers" on this:

This "proof" that Arabs hate Jews can also be said to prove that
"Christians hate Jews."

People need to get out of the gutter.

Whoo-hoo, Flame War! Flame War!

OK, can we go back in celebrating that we caught this bastard?

The green-bunny worshipers hate the pink-squirrel worshipers, too.

Do you have an opinion? Racist! Stop having an opinion. And stop observing things and comming to conclusions. Watch it - I'll say "Racism" again. I'm warning you, I will. You'll never get a job in this city again, because you're a racist. The sky is mauve and that's the end of the story. Be color blind.

What? You disagree with me? You green-bunny worshipping racist! Childish infidel!

I'm warning you all, I will call each and every one of you a racist if you don't stop having you're own opinions. I'm serious. That's bad. Especially if you drive an SUV, because that's racist. God -er, I mean Pink-Squirrel help you if you disagree with me. You must acquit.

"
"and the other was a training ground with a jumbo jet for hijack training. Some sources are convinced some of the 9/11 guys trained at this one."

WTF sources are those? Let's not get stupid here people."

i have heard the following author suggest Bahgdad may have been part of the 9/11 training.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-ijaz041003.asp

note the part on Salman Pak

I don't know if anyone is even reading this thread, but to the asshat that noted that MEMRI has the same board as AIPAC, and that they pick the worst stuff, bro, this stuff is *representative* of the freaking smut that passes for journalism in the middle east.

You cannot find even one f'ing broadcast or article in any major media outlet that has an equivelent amount of baseless hate driven lies as does exist in the Arab media.

Find me an American or Western re-enactment of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or any obscenely rasist piece of myth as this.

Man, the fact.. FACT, is that anti-Semitism in the Arab world is freaking PERVASIVE.

It is NOT pervasive in the West or Israel.

Get. A. F'ing. Clue!

I will say this one MORE time since some of you are still missing the goddamned point.

In the West there are lots of racists and lunatics and unpleasant people, of all stripes. They are continually marginalized, denounced, ridiculed and rebutted.

In the Middle East, however, the same sorts of people are running the place. They are the only voices allowed to freely express their opinion. Leftists in this country take their opinions seriously, as the "voice of the oppressed" or something. Despite the fact that these "oppressed" drove away all of the Jews in their lands fifty years ago, and that they mainly oppress each other.

In the Middle East, racism and homophobia and hatred of the West and incitement to murder are RESPECTABLE, and in some places, STATE-SANCTIONED.

Mind you, NOTHING in these countries gets published or aired without their government's permission.

I've had it with the "moral equivalence" arguments. It's bullshit a child can see through--or anyone who hasn't had their ability to see evil educated out of them.

And the accusations of racism are just mau-mauing. I've already--and Bob too--acknowledged that we have no way of knowing what the majority of Arabs think.

But it is clear as day what their clerics and rulers and intellectuals think. They are shouting it every day.

I have to agree on MEMRI, look at its main location: Jerusalem.

Kinda like passing around analysis of the Pakistani press from India or India's lobbyists. You know what they are going to pick....

"Find me an American or Western re-enactment of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or any obscenely rasist piece of myth as this."

Now that is abject ignorance. Is thisperson saying the protocols of the Elders of Zion crap was authored by the Arabs? And FYI you can find it today in public libraries ALL OVER "new Europe."

The irony is that these writers, in condemning the Arabs as a whole fo the sins of a few are doing EXACTLY what they claim the Arabs are doing.

You guys would be quite at home in the KKK.

Incidentally I followed the link on Don--it appears he served in Vietnam. Consequently, I respect his sacrifice and he has my gratitude for it.

My comments have been addressed, however, to what he has said here--not to who he IS. I still disagree completely with what he's been saying--and if he's not a leftist I'm sorry that I implied he was.

However, veterans can be wrong about things too, and in this case I think he is. But if he found my tone offensive, he has my apologies and I hope he accepts them.

Of course: MEMRI is based in Jerusalem and everyone knows Jews lie.

Today, you say that there is tolerance in the Arab world that we don't see?

Fine--show us the links. We've showed you ours. We've produced SOMETHING to back the opinion.

Those arguing aginst us haven't produced anything.

Show me the Muslim clerics in the Middle East preaching peace and tolerance. Show us the Arab government discouraging people who incite terrorism or repeat lies against Jews.

Yes, you find the Protocols in libraries in the West. YOU DON'T FIND THEM MADE INTO A MINISERIES AND BROADCAST ON A GOVERNMENT TV STATION.

I have been looking at MEMRI regularly for quite a while. I'm sure it's being put together by right wing Israelis, but they're not making this stuff up. And occasionaly they run pieces from Liberal Arab commentators. I think it's a useful web site, and unless someone can prove otherwise, I'm inclined to think the translations it provides are representative of a lot of opinion in the Middle East. I mean, the Egyptians did just film a huge miniseries based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

"Of course: MEMRI is based in Jerusalem and everyone knows Jews lie."

"Gabriel" you are the only one who seems to be bigoted here. I am Jewish and I would have noticed if someone on this comments had said "Jews lie." You seem to be the only liar here by contending that is the case.

Now, is that your anwer to someone legitimatly pointing out that MEMRI is associated with a lobbying group, based in Israel and associated with and funded by the Israeli right?

Are you going to post news articles clipped by Greenpeace and say they paint an accurate picture about energy use debate?

Grow up, advocacy groups have a bias, they pick what serves their cause. MEMRI clearlypicks the most inflammatory press articles.

You could spend some time and peruse our own Israeli press and find things there that would make your hair stand on end as well. Grow up.

for Gabriel:

You need nor proffer either gratitude or apology. Nothing I did in Viet Nam had anything at all to do with you, the US, the Glorious Cause of Freedom, foiling the Communist Conspiracy or any other of those wonderful shibboleths at all.

I knew what I was getting into when I enlisted. When I figured out the whole thing was a Charlie Foxtrot, whatever I did was mostly involved with staying alive and keeping the folks for whom I was responsible alive. When I left, they were all still alive, and I had written commendations for Valor for several of them. We did our mission honorably and competently, and then we went home. 52,000 or so did not. Whatever you owe in Gratitude might be to them, but it has no particular meaning. Those folks really did Die In Vain, sad to say.

On the apology side, disagreeing with sycophants of the administration does not consign one to being Of The Left. I can quite assure you that I have a fair number of policy stances that are not Lefty, and certainly hardly of the Looney Left. I have always, for example, disliked Ralphie and the Greenies for their excess silliness. But I also dislike the Right Wingnuts for their excess in an entirely different vector.

Yes, veterans can be Wrong. That being said, they can also be Correct -- and best to keep each possibility open when one is discussing Public Policy matters. But some veterans know when they've been sold a crock, having had the experience previously, and are thereafter wary of the same crock being sold again. Consider me to be somewhere within that bunch.

At this point, the sycophantic cheerleaders are beginning to assert that the victory is the cause for the invasion in the first place. See, inter alia, Cart, Horse for a further explication of the matter.

Still, the two justifications for the invasion remain unsubstantiated with anything that can be examined close-up:

* The entier WMD discussion didn't have Proof prior to the invasion, and even now still has none. The cheerleaders are now resorting to the Wait and See -- just Any Day Now, some will certainly show up. No doubt -- they will; they simply Must. But the level of Proof required is now an order of magnitude higher, given the changed circumstances.

* The direct connection between any Known "Terrorist Organization" and Iraq still has yet to be established. You asserted that you really do believe Iraq and al Qaeda were directly intertwined, but you have nothing other than your unsubstantiated Belief to provide to back up the assertion. That's more along the line of Religious Faith, than it is Actual Proof of anything at all.

* The importance of the capture of Abu Abbas is open to considerable conjecture. A quick check of my contacts in the intelligence community indicate the guy has not done anything specific for the past 15 years or so, other than reside in Iraq, Tunisia, Gaza and one other Middle East location that I don't recall at the moment. While it's nice that he was captured, it's Old News as such things go. No information exists that he has been able to put together any sort of terrorist network, nor even to become directly involved in one. Apparently his old contacts with the Palestinians have found him a bit of an embarassment because of the egregious nature of the whole Achille Lauro matter, and have preferred that he simply stay out of sight. Best thing to do now would be to give him to the Italians, who have sentenced him to 5 life terms, and get on with matters that constitute a CAPD now.

Still, if the only thing we can come up with is an individual with a 17-yr-past criminal history to justify the entirety of the whole Direct Terrorist Connection as it exists now, what we're seeing is the over-inflation of a single example to somehow capture the whole. There are greater, more imminent dangers out there than Abbas. His capture is, at best, a small thing when looked at in the appropriate context.

Still, we need something to justify the Direct Terrorist Connection assertion, and if he's all we've got (and he clearly is all we've got at the moment) then that's what will be emphasized.

Meanwhile, there's still no direct connection to be found with al Qaeda, or even that other group of "organizations like al Qaeda" that no one but Dubya seems to be aware of.

Much smoke, little heat, less light -- but Great Photo Ops and Sound Bites withal. The stage management is coming along nicely.

Don, I said it before but you just ignored it. So I will say it one more time. What happened to everything that UNSCOM found before 1998? What happened to it? It was found and documented; anthrax, VX, the whole bit... and in 2002 when the inspectors went back in it wasn't there.

You're asking us to believe that Saddam, after 7 years of resisiting his obligation to destroy these weapons, after kickingout UNSCOM in 1998, just up and destroyed them voluntarily without documenting anything or telling anyone.

That is complete nonsense. It shows you haven't been paying any attention to this. The UN disarmament activities are published every year and most big libraries have them.

You've also acknowledged that Saddam paid off the families of suicide bombers but you say it's charity, not supporting terror. Well, the terrorist in Israel say that there is no such thing as an Israeli civilian. Do you accept that characterization as well? If not, I would say that pating off families of suicide bombers is by our standards supporting terror, just as Israeli civilians are civilians by our standards, whether terrorists consider them so or not.

You're argument about liberation not justifying invasion is unconvincing. It is true that America did not fight Nazi Germany to stop the Holocaust and it is true that the desire to free slaves was not why the North fought the South in 1861. Will you say that putting an end to the Holocaust and slavery were not justification for these wars?

Yes, I believe that Al Qaeda and Saddam mutually aided each other. I have based no argument on that belief. What I have based my arguments on is Saddam's unquestionable support of other terrorists, notably the ones operating in Israel. It seems odd that he'd support so many terrorists but NOT Al Qaeda--in any case he is aiding them indirectly, because terrorists move around a lot and help each other.

for Gabriel:

I don't know how old you are, Gabriel, but had you been watching the UNSCOM inspectors during their first pass, you would have seen a whole bunch of stuff destroyed in place during that time. It was carried on the networks.

I have run across the assertion that it was entirely tagged and left in place elsewhere. That is not the case.

During the pre-Iraq Invasion pass, when UNSCOM went back to the previously tagged locations, all of them were still there with the seals still intact. IIRC, the NYT had that story back in late Feb or early March. Any specific change in those materials would instantly have become a cause celebre internationally. It didn't.

The document provided to the UN per the inspection request really did document a bunch of other materiel and sites that had been eliminated. It was Never the case that All such materials were unaccounted for.

The discussion, for example, of the al Samouds was contained in that 12k page documentation package. Interesting case. As configured as deployed, the al Samouds were incapable of exceeding the prohibited range. UNSCOM called in some experts who evaluated them at length, and determined that IF they were modified, then the MIGHT be capable of flying beyond the range and ordered them destroyed. It is documented that they were in the process of actually being destroyed at a rate that would have had them gone completely in perhaps another 2-3 weeks at the most. That's just a Fact, not open to argument.

Now if you look at what Powell said when that evidence was presented to him, his response was words to the effect that perhaps these were being destroyed, but that only meant that others were being produced elsewhere, at a Secret Factory that no one knew about.

Heh!

Including him, it would seem. The location of the al Samoud fabrication plant was known, and it was also known that no more were being produced There. But Powell had made yet another unsupported assertion, which got some Press then faded from view, having had its effect. Note that afterwards, only a few were flown during the invasion, and never enough to justify Powell's statement.

There have been No -- repeat No "Scuds" found either, regardless of the media reports to the contrary. To the clueless noozemeeja, apparently *any* Iraqi missile was a "Scud" and the term was used generically. It's not a generic term -- it refers to a Specific Missile.

The entire matter of "unaccounted for" WMDs involved a lack of paperwork and acceptable documentation. It did Not involve any Actual Evidence of anything that UNSCOM or US Intelligence sources could claim they actually Knew about.

Face it -- there was not and still is not Any actual Proof that such weapons exist in Iraq. Just isn't. And lacking that Proof, we apparently were guessing when we said there were WMDs that we actually Knew about. We didn't Know any such thing, it is now clear.

There is, for example, the allegation of the Biological Weapons Growth Medium that is unaccounted for. Years back, I used to work in a USDA Radiation & Metabolism Lab as a researcher. We were doing investigations of pesticide effectiveness on certain indigenous Pests -- specifically insects. We used organophosphate insectides in various formulas and concentrations. Precisely as it should be in any agricultural facility.

Have you noticed how many Agricultural Facilities have been looked at as WMD locations in Iraq? The number increases every day, so I will leave it to your capable skills to find the latest number. And what has happened? We've found pesticides!

Quelle surprise!

We've found No WMDs however.

When one is doing laboratory research, one often uses a Growth Medium known as "agar" on which to grow cultures. It then came in hundred pound bags. I don't know if that has changed in the meantime.

Just in the single Lab I was working in, we went through 2-3 bags of that stuff a week, while processing thousands of samples. When we were done with the cultures, we disposed of them by (a) killing off the culture entirely with a poison, then (b) flushing the agar down the sink with lots of hot water!

Had someone asked us to document where that went, I can quite assure you we would not have been able to provide Anything At All as Proof we had done away with it. We could have shown receipts for its purchase and delivery, but no Proof we destroyed it.

This selfsame Growth Medium is also used in schools, other sorts of laboratories and even hospitals. It goes well beyond even Dual Use, in that respect. Growing one germ is rather like growing another -- but there is no Growth Medium that is somehow unique to biological weapons research of which I am aware, or that was specified in the UNSCOM report ftm.

So, where did it all go?

If we take a clearly pragmatic approach to the answer, it went to schools, hospitals, research laboratories for use in growing bacteriological cultures. Afterwards, it was simply flushed down the sink with hot water, and the residue destroyed via a trisodium phosphate bath commonly used to clean glassware in labs.

Over ten years, could a nation consume tons of the stuff? It certainly could! How many tons? Damnifino -- and neither does anyone else.

But let's say there were a bunch of it unused, and one wished to destroy it. What would be the best way to do that? Answer: Dump it onto the desert and hit it with a blast of water. It dissolves and sinks into the sand.

Is it possible that was done? I surely believe the possibility that was done is far greater than to assert that it still exists -- a huge storehouse of agar waiting to be weaponized.

The more key question is, was it used for bacteriological warfare research? No evidence of that -- not anywhere, thus far. A bacteriologist working on BW applications is rather exactly like a bacteriologist working on a plant infection elsewhere, and the procedures and materials used are Precisely the same.

There is no particular evidence that in the interim, Iraq imported other large quantities of growth medium for such use, yet clearly such uses went on. Leading one to believe that probably most of the previous Unaccounted For stores were being used up. Which is, if you ponder on it for only a few seconds, a perfectly reasonable thing to do with Growth Medium like agar -- a substance which in itself is entirely benign, cannot be weaponized, and is certainly better used than thrown away.

There is no Proof of its existence or use, other than that can be inferred from the knowledge of and circumstances surrounding the agar. Lack of Proof that it was "destroyed" is simply not Proof that it was used to weaponize something. By itself, it has no weapons use.

Just fwiw, that single datum is the one most often mentioned in connection with Bacteriological Warfare matters. But even now, it is a lack of paperwork.

Your discussion of charitable contributions to the families of suicide bombers amounting to Supporting Terrorism still misses the essential question: Would those self-appointed "martyrs" have done the bombing without the post mortem contribution to their families?

Every answer I've seen is affirmative. They would indeed have done so, even without Saddam seeking good PR by giving their families money afterwards.

But if it is your contention that we invaded Iraq to protect Israel from suicide bombers, I wouldn't advise someone like Dubya to say that. He's gone well out of his way to avoid any such intimation. Reasonably so, I think.

In WWII, clearly putting an end to the Holocaust was not the initial justification for going to war with Germany. Fact is, the US didn't really Know anything much about the Holocaust until well after we were in it, and once we did have reason to know, ferdamshur we didn't ever talk about it much until after the war was over. We went to war with Germany initially because (a) Germany declared war on us first, and (b) because we figured we needed to protect England RFN, before we lost it entirely. We were making contingency plans to conduct the war from CONUS had England fallen.

WRT the Civil War, initially we did not go to war over slavery or for freedom. The Emancipation Proclamation did Not free "all the slaves" -- it only freed those who were in the confederacy, if you bother to read it. When the South fired on Ft Sumter, that was the initial trigger. From that point well into the second year of the Civil War, we were fighting For the Union, and not to free the slaves.

Hate to pour cold water on both those little historical shibboleths, but perhaps a more focused knowledge of History would be worth noting before you start making such otherwise baseless assertions.

And finally to the al Qaeda connection with Iraq. Your religious-like convictions on the matter are noted, but they are and remain faith in Things Unseen. Which is not surprising -- oftimes the more that such Faith is challenged, the harder it is clung to in the hope that it will finally prove out.

But even well before the war, the CIA made it clear as could be that they could find No direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. They still cannot. If they can't, neither can you.

In years past, no love has been lost between Saddam and ObL. Saddam was considered Far Too Secular for ObL's religious sort of extremist purity. The dislike was apparently mutual -- Saddam made no known overt gesture toward al Qaeda at all. It was only after the invasion threat came up that ObL began to suggest that protecting Iraq was part of the Jihad he had called for.

Bear in mind -- the entire US Intelligence community has been looking hard for even a shred of evidence with which to back up claims of such a connection. There is, as of today, None to be had -- not anywhere. Which is the proximate reason why Dubya changed his assertion from "support for al Qaeda" to "support for terrorist organizations *like* al Qaeda."

Problem is, no one in the administration has ever specified what those organizations are, what they are called, who runs them, or where they operate.

Leaving you with your own groundless assertion, to which you cling by virtue of your Faith. Or is it Hope? Hard to say.

Whatever it is, it just isn't Evidence or Proof. Which is the sort of thing that most rational folks require just a modicum of.

But you keep on Hoping, y'hear! That's a Good Thing. Just keep your mind open to the possibility that you might be wrong. One hates to see a person lose Hope and Faith simultaneously, and Lowered Nose Dubya and the group will give it their best try not to leave you disappointed.

But as of today, face it -- ya got nuthin', other than some press conference sound bites.

It ain't much, but it's all ya got!

For the record, I'm 27, and I was 15 when the Gulf War started.

I didn't assert that the Civil War was fought to end slavery, nor that WWII was fought to end the Holocaust. You put that in my mouth. I specifically said that these wars were NOT fought for these reasons; rather that these were the EFFECTS of these wars. Read my post again. Your careless reading of my posts does not reflect on MY knowledge of history.

I have conceded that I have no evidence of a direct link between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. I have never asserted that there is such a direct link. All I am saying is that abscence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. I am not asking anyone to act on the assumption of such a direct link. I am saying that I believe that such a link may be found, because of Saddam's support for other terrorists...

Which brings me to the next point--you say it's not supporting terror if the terrorist would still do it even if you didn't help him? What a novel idea of "support". No one can deny that Saddam was helping the families of suicide bombers with huge cash payments. Whether they'd do it or not or not otherwise is irrelevant. If a terrorist is going to hijack a plane with box knives, I can't reasonably claim that my giving him firearms isn't supporting terrorism. You're just playing semantic games here.

As for the WMD, lack of paperwork and documentation was exactly the whole issue--specifically, the presence of paperwork indicating WMD and the absence of paperwork indicating it had been destroyed. Saddam's government lied and understated continually until UNSCOM was kicked out in 1998. True, UNSCOM destroyed a lot of stuff. Nonetheless, there was lots more that there was evidence of that was unaccounted for. It is the things previously accounted for that are not accounted for now that UNMOVIC was looking for in 2002.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/index.html
http://special.fco.gov.uk/

Your position, Don, is "no body, no murder". However, it is possible to convict a murderer, even without a body, because there can be other evidence that indicates that there was a murder and the murderer was guilty of it. UNSCOM did find evidence of VX on Iraqi warheads that was independently confirmed by other laboratories. UNSCOM did have testimony from defectors that led to new discoveries when Iraq wasn't able to obstruct them too badly. You can say that there was nothing, but UNSCOM didn't think so, neither did UNMOVIC. And I don't think you know better than they did.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/s98-995.htm

The labs found decomposition products associated with VX. It is true that there are other ways those compounds could have been presnet in the warheads, but not if Iraq was telling the truth about what had been done with the warheads. Let me quote from the report, for the benefit of anyone besides us still reading the thread:

"The existence of VX degradation products conflicts with Iraq's declarations that the unilaterally destroyed special warheads had never been filled with any chemical warfare agents. The findings by all three laboratories of chemicals known to be degradation products of decontamination compounds also do not support Iraq's declarations that those warhead containers had only been in contact with alcohols."

Iraq was unquestionably NOT cooperating with the inspections as was required by the terms of the ceasefire. Legally, that in itself was sufficent reason to end the ceasefire.