New Bin Laden video

by Seán Ryan Sat Sep 08, 2007 21:51

Bush responds to the new tape in that semi-literate fashion we've grown to recognise.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a57_1189248402

by Nailz Sun Sep 09, 2007 21:10

Here you can find conclusive evidence that it is not him.
In particular note the facial definition. Now as we know biometric technology works on recognising facial features, these do not change substantially with age as it would render the technology useless.

by Kasey Sun Sep 09, 2007 21:58

Latest bin Laden video is another fraud
Osama Bin Laden's latest video address to American has several flaws that show it is a fraud.

The video freezes at 1:58 min and resumes again at 12:35. The video then freezes again at 14:02 and stays frozen. All current references are inserted when the video is frozen! The words spoken when the video is in motion contain no references to contemporary events and were made before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

'Bin Ladens' beard is fake and the nose of the person playing him is much too thick to be Sheikh bin ladens. They say he dyed his beard but it is prohibited in Osamas religion to dye the beard black: only reddish with henna after the Haaj pilgrimage.

The script and delivery of this video is not bin Ladens style and is more like the speeches written for Dubya.

Nice try George, but no banana

Watch the fake video here:
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message.php?messa...rum=1

BBC pushing the propaganda:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6985086.stm

Here is the real Osama a few years ago.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=55b_1189309134
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=81b_1189310260

by Seán Ryan Sun Sep 09, 2007 23:16

The chap in the video looks very like the guy in the video they found in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attack.

I think proving the person to be or not to be Osama Bin Laden is a moot issue, that's why in the first line of the article I expressed doubt as to whether it was Osama. I think the video does not come from the US or any of its slaves and for this reason alone I consider it to be genuine. There could be a number of reasons as to why the person in the 'authentic' video is not Bin Laden. Some of these reasons are:

i. Bin Laden is dead.
ii. Bin Laden might be too ill to make a video.
iii. Those who oppose the US and Co. might want to have folks suspect that Bin Laden is dead or very ill.

Of course there's another possibility. The guy in the Afghanisan tape wasn't Bin Laden. Maybe Bin Laden is a red herring, maybe he had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attack. Roll on the conspiracy theorists and those who oppose them.

by Cael Mon Sep 10, 2007 01:33

That website claiming to show that this vid is a fake must surely be regarded as some kind of joke.

Id have to say Bin Laden's critique of what passes for "democracy" in the West is spot on. Its nothing more than a window dressing for corporate power, with the ordinary people frightened into submission.

by Enlightened Mon Sep 10, 2007 16:10

From the transcript of Osama's latest message:

"Yet in spite of that, you permitted Bush to complete his first term, and stranger still, chose him for a second term, which gave him a clear mandate from you - with your full knowledge and consent - to continue to murder our people in Iraq and Afghanistan."

So he was urging Americans to vote for Kerry in his 2004 message, as some had suggested.

Nice to have that cleared up.

by John Mon Sep 10, 2007 20:22

Six years tomorrow since Bin Laden's last murderous attack on the U.S. Longer than World War 2. I'm sure its not for lack of desire. Its because he can't. Therefore, we must assume Bin Laden is beaten. Halleluia!

by Louth Tue Sep 11, 2007 16:46

Why has no one (except John) condemned Bin Laden in this article or the comments. As for his critique of 'What passes for democracy' in the west, well, name one more democratic culture. In the vid he tries to portray the middle east as a cultural melting pot and criticizes Europe for THE SPANISH INQUISITION. Get a life. I mean, honestly, the grievances we all (rightly) have with western society and capitalism do not excuse tolerating someone who believes it's OK to fly passenger planes into civilian targets, bomb londoners on their way to work or who condemned the humanitarian intervention in East timor because it freed a Christian minority from Muslim dominance. I hope it is fake, too.

by Shakes Spears Wed Sep 12, 2007 16:35

The impact of this video is far from the impact [or claimed impact by security personnel] of the first few taped messages from Bin Laden.

He's become almost an irrelevance. Also, he's grasping at straws trying to present his view as some ecologically and ethically more sound way of life.

His reference to global warming and the recent sub-prime crisis in the US is the despereate attempt of a man at odds with Western Culture to use some of the topics most often tapped by political groups in the West; far from offering an alternative to Western Culture, he shows he's firmly embedded in it.

But as I said, it's not worked. The Britney performance at the VMA dealt a more severe blow to the US psyche than the latest dribblings of this hate-filled madman!

by pat c Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:05

Yes, I will condemn Osama, but I will also condemn those who trained him. The Dr Frankensteins of the CIA along with the Inter-Services Intelligence of Pakistan trained thousands of Afghan and foreigh mujahedin including the future cadre of Al Qaeda. They were trained to fight the "Godless Communists" in Afghanistan.

An estimated 35,000 foreign mujahedin were trained by the CIA/ISI between 1982 & 1992. Then a bitter blow-back harvest was reaped. Ramzi Yousef who planned the 1st WTC attack in 1993 was a graduate of this school as was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of the architects of the second attack.

Yes, condemn Osama, but also condem those who created him.

by Louth Fri Sep 14, 2007 15:42

It's nice to finally hear that on this site but surely, since the CIA helped create this frankenstein, as you say yourself, this only increases the responsibility that America has to confront Bin Ladenism and extreme islam in all it's dreary, horrific, dead eyed forms. For America to not confront this mess would be lazy and easy and morally unpardonable, in my book. To be honest i'm sick of an 'anti-war' movement that only condems one side, even when the other is a threat to everything people in liberal societies hold dear.

by Seán Ryan Fri Sep 14, 2007 17:38

America does not have the right to confront a monster of its own making until it realises, admits and makes reparations for its creation. Only then will confronting the monster be legitimised.

For the record I'm sick of those who bad mouth the anti-war movement out of ill-considered information that they have been fed and swallowed hook, line and sinker.

What about American propaganda, empire building and genocide. Are they to be forgotten as you spew your crap for the hearts and minds?

by Sceptic Sat Sep 15, 2007 09:13

There has been blowback in the US policy of supporting the resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan but some of what is posted here is an exaggeration. The Afghani resistance with its Pakistani and Saudi support was brought into being by the invasion itself in 1979 - US support followed. Moreover the support was principally financial and with some arms supply. But its not true to assert that Al Qaeda was "created" by the US. The fact that remnants of the foreign Afghani fighters later formed into Al Qaeda and began attacking western targets
does not necessarily invalidate the decision to support the resistance to the Soviets - there were few other options available if an activist policy was to be followed in the wake of fears that the USSR would destabilize Pakistan. Al Qaeda depended on Saudi wealth and was hosted by the Taliban regime post 1995. The US did not train the then mujahedeen itself nor was much of the mujahedeen actively related to the type of urban terrorism practiced by Al Qaeda. Arranging bombings or suicide
hijackings does not depend on a high degree of technical knowledge that only a Government can provide. Its low-tech stuff. What is remarkable about Al Qaeda is it’s hijacking of a world faith to create a very perverted faith-based hyper-terrorism of unprecedented ambition and its lack of respect for any civilization rules in pursuit of this. However as a phenomenon it is indigenous to the Muslim world. It is an inaccurate simplicity to say it was a US creation.

by Louth Sat Sep 15, 2007 17:48

I'll thank you for not patronizing me by assuming my opinion has been 'fed' to me. Perhaps i'm not as enlightened as you but are you saying that America cannot fight extreme interpretations of islam until... well, until what, i'm not sure. It's this kind of Platonic thinking that annoys me. We don't live in a perfect world. The americans are in Iraq now, Afghanistan, ditto. What's the best that can be done, given this situation? Waggling your finger at that country for it's past isn't going to do much. In fact, you've just illustrated my point about the 'anti war' movement. Because i side with the feminists and democrats in the muslim world like Shirin Ebadi i'm suddenly uncle sam's mouthpiece. Would this go for the Iraqi communist party too? After all, they've sided with the Coalition backed government.

by Seán Ryan Sat Sep 15, 2007 19:31

I most certainly didn't patronise you. Neither did I suggest that you had been fed your opinion. I said that information that you had been fed had been ill-considered by you. Your opinion is of your own construction and it is totally faith based. To compound this, you then go on to have a rant at Islam.

You have not dealt with a single point I made. You just expanded the argument and supposed the points that I made would be lost.

Allow me to expand on the points I made and that way we can ignore the carpet bombing you attempted with the hope of confusing the picture.

If you, for a period of time continuosly supply a person with alcohol and encourage them to drink and then you subsequently persecute them for drinking, you are not tackling the problem, indeed you are compounding the problem. You are compounding the problem in a number of ways and not all of them are immediately obvious. You have indicated that a certain lifestyle is acceptable and then have blamed another for your faults. You have fuelled this lifestyle and you have set this person up as a person that is answerable to you, and ultimately you still consider them answerable to you eventhough it is your actions and thinking that have facilitated the outcome. This particular picture could be developed more, but I think I've made my point. You'll note that I've not dealt with the responsibility of the person who took the alcohol at all in this example. If you are responsible in some way for this drinker's problem and have never once recognised this or indeed feel any shame, are you capable of sorting it out? Your very record of your judgement would argue that you are neither capable of understanding the wrong you have perpetrated, nor are you capable of seeing a solution as you still insist on wrongly apportioning the blame.

Let's tie this example into the topic at hand.

After 9/11 the war on terror begins in earnest. Suddenly there are extremist Islamics coming out of the woodwork. You say it is their interpretation of Islam that is at fault. Why were they not active until the war on terror began?

I say the extreme interpretation of Islam is but a vehicle. I say it is neither the cause nor their intended solution. I say capitalist exploitation, particularly the form of capitalist exploitation commonly referred to as 'American Foreign Policy' is the cause and the cessation of it is the solution. I say that this policy is both the primal cause and that the continued practice of it is portrayed as the solution. I say that you cannot argue otherwise and that this is why you carpet bomb the argument. I hardly call this platonic thinking.

I say that you cannot conceivably hope to fix the ills of the world when you are the sickest person in the world and fail to admit to it. Admitting to it is only the first step (one which has not been taken yet), you must then conceive of a methodology to cure this ill and then cure yourself. Then and only then can you promote that methodology as a cure. Even then, you, having the audacity to presume to foist this cure on another without their consent, should be viewed with suspicion, keeping in mind that you were the initial source of the infection and that you spread this infection willfully and without conscience. Please note that when I use the word 'you' I am using it as a generalisation and mean you Louth no disrespect.

by Louth Wed Sep 19, 2007 19:49

You said that my opinion had been fed to me.

I didn't have a go at Islam but extreme interpretations of it (like killing the barbers of basra for shaving mens beards), hardly an excusable reaction, even to decades of exploitation. I think it's entirely legit to criticise extreme interpretations of any faith whatsoever.

Your point about extreme Islamists only coming out of the woodwork after 9/11 doesn't make sense to me, either. Were they not active on the day of 9/11? Also, before in Iran, Afghanistan etc.

My problem is that America's enemies are mostly far worse than America itself. This kind of reactionary fascism that's seen in some of the muslim world is still something i find inexcusable, like driving a car bomb into a market.

Here's my general thoughts which, alright, i should have stated from the off.

I genuinely don't want to be put in a position of making excuses for American foreign policy over the years (a difficult job) but i see the coalition as by far the lesser of two great evils. America going into Iraq was something i actively opposed for the reasons you stated but an American imediate withdrawal or military defet in Iraq now would only compound the disaster.

by Seán Ryan Wed Sep 19, 2007 23:06

Of course it's legitimate to criticise extreme interpretations of faith. I'm an anarchist and I'm an athiest, i'd have criticism for all faiths, and my criticisms rise in proportion to the extremity of the interpretations. However, I completely disagree with your view in this particular instance. I think you are mixing apples with oranges as it were. At least you are if you are referring to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The atrocities committed in Iraq currently are at a pretty extreme level, conservative estimates put the civillian death toll at around 300 per month. I'm quoting DOD figures here only for example, I believe the actual figures to be much higher and the sources to be much more reliable, but that's a different argument. Approximately 100 people a day are being killed needlessly and horribly. God knows how many injuries there are per day. Let's pretend the US forces do not directly perpetrate any of these deaths, though I reckon we both know that's very untrue. Let's pretend that Al Qaeda perpetrate all of these deaths or at least that these 'extremist muslims' are responsible. That's 36,000 innocent deaths that they are responsible for each year, and that doesn't include non-civillian deaths and it's limiting us to Iraq alone. How many were killed in the Twin Towers? Wouldn't you describe this as a bit of an escallation?

'No fair' you say, Al Qaeda are not responsible for all these deaths. We probably don't want to examine this too closely as it might put the US military in a very poor light, and that's not the point I'm trying to make here, at least not yet. Let's say Al Qaeda are responsible for only 20% of these deaths. That's 7,200 civillian deaths per year, remembering that my figures are very very conservative. That's still a massive escallation and it begs two very important questions.

i. If the US inspired war exists to quell terrorism, why has terrorism dramatically increased and consequently, how can the war be described as functional?

ii. The US military have been killing and capturing large numbers of Al Qaeda according to Bush and the military - isn't this a prima facie example of the war being responsible for the swell in Al Qaeda numbers and the corresponding rise in atrocities? Remembering here that the instances of terrorists and terrorism are increasing despite the US's ability to kill and nullify.

And that's before one ever looks at religion. As I've said already, religion is but a vehicle in all of this and for the most part it's a major red herring. It's the misdirection that Bush employs as he accomplishes his trick.

Now allow me to shoot my own argument in the head. The logic of the argument is well constructed but it exists only to illustrate my point. There are two problems. The bodycount is way way too low. The actual bodycount is that somewhere between 650,000 and 1.2 million innocents have been butchered since the war in Iraq began in 2003. The 650,000 figure is from LANCET and the new 1.2 million figure was derrived by a British polling firm ORB, who went about and interviewed 1,700 Iraqi adults in 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces. Two of the provinces Anbar and Karbals were too dangerous for those conducting the pole to visit and officials in Irbil, wouldn't give permission for ORB to conduct its polls. It is reckoned that there's a margin of error of 2.4% plus or minus. That's the first problem, the figures are way too low, but my point was made so I'll not argue this particular issue too harshly as it's the second point I wish to make that's important here, I'll get to that shortly. First I want to talk of suicide bombers.

When I consider US planes, tanks and what have you, dropping ordinance on people and killing and injuring them, I feel sick. When I hear of the latest instance of suicide bombing I have the exact same feeling. I don't see one methodology as being worse in a moral sense than the other, particularly so when those who are killed or maimed are not deserving of it. Beware of offering a counter argument to this point as saying that the US did not kill a sizeable ammount, is to say that you wholeheartedly agree with my argument that the US invasion both escalated terrorism and is responsible for the attrocities inspired by the invasion and the increase in terrorists available to perpetrate these atrocities.

Again note that I do not need to point to religion as a cause in any of this, well not Islam anyway.

Now for the second point, that kills my initial argument, though the point it exists to make, remains very valid. There is no Al Qaeda in Iraq. And as part of US foreign policy, the US are funding the two sides in the religious divide in order to escalate the civil war in Iraq. This has the short term effect of lowering the casualty rate of US soldiers and facilitates plundering the country, but these effects will obviously be short lived. On the other hand watch out for the dramatic increase in civilIian casualties in both the short term and the long term. I won't go into the proofs of this here on this thread as I've done so here already (In particular check out the video that I've supplied links to):- http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84262&comment_limit=0&c...07345

You'll note that this is the only point at which I see and describe the religious card as being played and that the only party playing this trump card is the US, or rather the US are responsible for playing it and the consequences of playing it. You'll also note that the Iraqi war was supposedly started to reduce the number of countries who possessed WMD's from 36 to 35. The war on terrorism is not working. The war on terror is responsible for the escallation of terrorism in the world. With 1/36 of the job very far from being finished, how can anyone who is sane argue that the current approach is correct or that the US are capable of deciding a humane and feasible approach?

by Seán Ryan Thu Sep 20, 2007 16:34

The gremlins got at my last post. In the first paragraph, the figure of 300 might make my mathematical ability look a little bit like a disability, when one examines the rest of the figures I arrive at using this number. I should have typed 3,000 not 300. My apologies to all.

by aspidistra Thu Sep 20, 2007 17:32

I never doubted it would. Osama as I hope you all realise has just declared war on Musharraf of Pakistan. That was pretty much taken for granted all along and there was little room for forgiveness after the Lal Masjid / Red Mosque of Islamabad kerfuffle. If you've forgotten about that particular karfuffle here's a reminder - http://indymedia.ie/article/83379

As a reminder that it's not just a one man show, Al Q's number 2 the reverend Al Zawahiri has released a video today announcing that North Africa (the Maghreb) is to be cleaned of the sons of France & Spain. That's gone down very well with both Spanish & French media who've had an opportunity to remind their readers of their long standing & deeply profitable post-imperialist legacies along the southern coast of the Mediterranean where indeed the Spanish state still counts 2 completely integrated enclaves Ceuta & Melilla which they're always going on about as being nests of Al Q.
You can watch that video listening to a dubbed version in Spanish by clicking this link whilst reading the English subtitles...............production values.
http://www.antena3.com/a3noticias/servlet/Noticias?dest...01169
Curiously the French media are not linking to the vid, just talking about it. http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/monde/279772.FR.php
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3216,36-957286@51-895309,0.html PRIZE COMPETITION!
I will send an Aspidistra to whomever can correctly name the Islamic books which appear like a pub's "by the yard" behind the reverend Al Zawahiri almost every time we see his face.

Last bit of Al Q news this Thursday is the sad announcement that Jane Felix-Browne, 51, the British granny who wed Omar Bin Laden (Osama's son) on the 26th of April 2007 has told the Sun of her the couples' plans to divorce.

: "We are both in fear of our lives. People are opposed to my marriage because I am British. I wasn't prepared to see the man I love die. That is why we have decided to end our marriage."
She told how Al-Qaida terror chief Osama's powerful Saudi family had been humiliated by their marriage. She claimed threats were made that scrap metal dealer Omar would be flung in prison on trumped-up charges. Omar feared losing all his business contracts unless they divorced.
In a trembling voice, five-times wed Jane insisted: "It was a really, really good marriage, a strong marriage. But I cannot stand by and watch my beloved husband die before my very eyes. I love him enough to let him go. I want him and his son, who is just three, to return to as normal a life as possible."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/UK_granny_Osama_son_...8.cms

Wet yourself! It's this weeks top Al Q vids & news.

by Jim O'Sullivan Fri Sep 21, 2007 08:37

"Imagine the outcry if the US had bombed Algeria and killed even one Muslim, but Muslim on Muslim terrorism passes with hardly a comment."

Presumably the US can bomb everywhere else apart from Algeria without causing any expectation of "an outcry" The fact is that the US is directly responsible for more deaths in the area that all other entities put together. You obviously find that easy to live with or in some way excusable.

by Sceptic Fri Sep 21, 2007 20:26

Last week Osama's boys killed 28 coastguard personnel in Algeria, all
Muslims presumably. What is your view of these killings, pray tell us.

by aspidistra Fri Sep 21, 2007 21:01

To be quite honest with you now, without equivocation or hesitation, did you see how quickly I ripped myself away from the NY stock exchange to answer that. Spelled it out I did. C-o-n-d-e-m-n-a-t-i-o-n.
Now you be good chap & let Osama know.

by Sobieski Fri Sep 21, 2007 23:25

“This is why I tell you: as you liberated yourselves before from the slavery of monks, kings and feudalism, you should liberate yourselves from the deception, shackles and attrition of the capitalist system.”

by Jim O'Sullivan Sat Sep 22, 2007 07:53

"Last week Osama's boys killed 28 coastguard personnel in Algeria, all
Muslims presumably. What is your view of these killings, pray tell us."

This is hardly more than infantile "whataboutery". Even the link does not claim to know who perpetrated the atrocity. Alas we have no doubt where the bombs that flattened Iraq came from.

by Sceptic Sat Sep 22, 2007 09:18

The US is morally responsible for what it does. I have no difficulty whatever in holding it to account where it does things which I regard as morally wrong. Likewise any other actor. Its you who cannot call AQ what it is - a terror group and much else without getting into whataboutary about the US - yes but the US did this and that and what about Afghanistan in the 1980s etc etc. The Algerian murders of 28 coastguards were just the latest AQ atrocity – there have been others in four continents too numerous to mention killing thousands. Yet you cannot bring yourself to unequivocally condemn it. Also it was wrong to sneer at people who are frightened of AQ - they have good reason to be and the cartoon posted above by another author was distasteful as was his message. If he really condemns the slaughter of AQ he should not be posting this type of material .

by Jim O'Sulivan Sat Sep 22, 2007 09:32

"The US is morally responsible for what it does. I have no difficulty whatever in holding it to account where it does things which I regard as morally wrong. Likewise any other actor."

Where have you condemned the US for the atrocities it is committing in the Mid east, Afghanistan etc?

" Its you who cannot call AQ what it is - a terror group and much else without getting into whataboutary about the US - yes but the US did this and that and what about Afghanistan in the 1980s etc etc. The Algerian murders of 28 coastguards were just the latest AQ atrocity – there have been others in four continents too numerous to mention killing thousands."

This is all heresay neo-con proaganda. To justify the US's plundering of the world's resources, they create fear and then ride to the rescue killing those pesky locals who don't want to have their resources plundered and their fellow citizens slaughtered.

"Yet you cannot bring yourself to unequivocally condemn it."

My last post included the word "atrocity" in reference to the Algerian bomb. Nobody bar yourself, by the way, has stated with certainty that this was al-qaeda. Another horror story?

"Also it was wrong to sneer at people who are frightened of AQ "

Never did. Nor do I sneer at people who fear the US- with better reason.-

" If he really condemns the slaughter of AQ he should not be posting this type of material "

Don't follow this point. But lets agree to condemn all slaughter. The real problem here is sorting out the real dangerous nutters from the ones created as a cover/justification. And lest there be any doubt, we need to do this urgently. The whole thing is sliding into mayham.

by Sceptic Sat Sep 22, 2007 10:31

The "related link" below is an Al Jazeera report which identifies AQ as the author of the attack on the cadets.
The other recent bombing in Algeria has also been claimed by AQ:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E4D3C88A-FC18-47...7.htm

I suppose George Bush is responsible for these mass murders in your thinking .

by Seán Ryan Sat Sep 22, 2007 13:39

Here's a video for you to watch Sceptic. Please note that it was made before 9/11 and the subsequent illegal invasion of Iraq. Try explaining this one away.

It should give you some idea as to why the US and its allies are hated. Imagine it was your beloved US rather than Iraq. Would you have cause to hate if it were?

I think so.

Paying the price:- http://www.boxsweeper.com/redir.php?l=9/5757/8580/55103...79062

Now please go troll somewhere else, your retarded logic and filth disgust me.

by Sceptic Sat Sep 22, 2007 14:43

The sanctions were UN sanctions (not only western as Saddam and his apologists liked to claim) and brought in as a non-war method of modifying the behaviour of the Saddam regime which had been invading its neighbours and oppressing its people. It was the work of the antiwar left that did more than anything else to undermine the sanctions regime. You are rejecting war as well as the only peaceful tool available to the international community to put pressure on an irresponsible regime. The rejection of sanctions makes war more not less likely. AQ did not attack the US because of sanctions against Iraq. It attacked the US in order to undermine moderate Governments in the middle east which it did not regard as fundamentalist enough. Sanctions did work against Rhodesia and S. Africa but the record is mixed. The problem is that an entrenched dictatorship in the circumstances of Iraq is very hard to influence or remove without actions which have humanitarian consequences. Its ok to for you to reject any notion of influencing the situation in Iraq 1990 to 2003 but those in positions of authority in the neighboring Sates and their allies could not be too sanguine. Having responsibility for Government sometimes means unpalatable choices - as the Green Party is discovering in Government here just now.

by Louth Sat Sep 22, 2007 18:43

You're right. You have convinced me by talking of your opponent's 'retarded logic and filth'. Sage words. They've settled it for me now so i now realise that it is at least easy to hit a nerve with you. As for your reply to me:

I'm genuinely not trying to sound like a wise arse but keep it brief; longer points meander and, to me, indicate panic.

Don't coat speculation in accuracy. Lancet says 650,000, ORB 1.2 mill but you include that the orb margin of error was estimated less than 3%. This doesn't make sense. Why include contradictory stats? Indeed, these have been dismissed by most every other group that's an authority on this disaster. I don't try to minimise the violence in my argument yet you feel the need to inflate the numbers in yours.

I have still yet to hear you propose a better model for Iraq than the one that is currently being fought for.

Most of your points could be simplified (and i'm not trying to reduce to the absurd) as: 'no matter what, it's all America's fault'.

This is the last thing i'll say. Feel free to reply. I might read it but i don't want an internet screaming match.

by Jim O'Sullivan Sat Sep 22, 2007 18:53

Sceptic's view of the world is classic John Wayne. He of the "The reason that we slaughtered the "injuns" was because they would have never brought America into the twentieth century" school of thought. And, "the US have every right to invade other countries and those that resist are in the wrong and their slaughter is justified" Is it worth pointing out to Sceptic that the GW style of freeing you from oppression is a six foot hole in the ground.

This is the stuff that the families of these thousands of victims have to put up with, "the UN sanctions brought in as a non-war method of modifying the behaviour of the Saddam regime which had been invading its neighbours and oppressing its people."

We all know by now that Saddam was created by the US to do precisely what he did.

" It was the work of the antiwar left that did more than anything else to undermine the sanctions regime."

You must explain how this was done.

"You are rejecting war as well as the only peaceful tool available to the international community to put pressure on an irresponsible regime. The rejection of sanctions makes war more not less likely."

In my view the most irresponsible regime in the world today is that of the Bush adminstration. Where do we go to get sanctions applied to "modify" their behaviour?

"AQ did not attack the US because of sanctions against Iraq. It attacked the US in order to undermine moderate Governments in the middle east which it did not regard as fundamentalist enough."

How could 9/11 undermine Governments in the MId east? The thinking was simply to strike back at the US who was killing thousands of citizens of the Mid East in the hope that such an attack might "modify" their behaviour. It was a tactic of desperation. The notion that al-qaeda could mount an attack of any substance on the US or any organised State is rediculous proaganda designed to scare US citizens and the rest of us into thinking that we are vulnerable and into remaining silent in the face of the atrocities that are being committed in their and our name. The US is in the MId east for oil, no other reason. If you think that the US invaded to free the oppressed then why have they not invaded many other countries where oppression occurrs? (The other countries have no oil) 9/11 could be said to have played right into the hands of Bush, so much for the tactically sophistication of Mr bin Laden!

" Its ok to for you to reject any notion of influencing the situation in Iraq 1990 to 2003"

By what right do you claim the right of the US and allies to decide what countries merit invasion and which do not?

"Having responsibility for Government sometimes means unpalatable choices "

The choices made by the Bush administration were unpalitable and also murderous. What would happen if we ever crossed their interests? Is it ok by you that a few visits from stealth bombers is in order?

by Sceptic Tue Sep 25, 2007 18:41

Where was the US killing thousands in the Middle East in 2001 when the 9/11 attacks happened? That is another red herring. The US was in fact at peace then with all Middle East States. What is the QQ strategy? To take power in the Muslim world by undermining the Saudi Regime and the more secular leaning governments. It is not a very rational strategy or a rational organisation nor do I have to explain it. You claim to see the 9/11 as a sort of desperate defensive measure by far away victims of the US. Really Jim, you are a more sophisticated poster than most around here but you embrace the most primitive unthinking canards of the lefty extremists. This is an absurdity - only someone who inhabits the wilder shores of political extremism could say or believe this. That is so far out that it is not possible to counter argue it. This is just an attempt to shoehorn the events of 9/11 into a pre-existing far leftist critique of the US. In any case the Bush administration was very new then and 9/11 was conceived during the Clinton administration - is your beef
really with him? My worldview has nothing to do with cowboy stuff. The Iraqi intervention was an exercise in liberal intervention as per Blair speech at Chicago in 1999. It was US led but supported by other States, eg- Spain, Italy, UK, Portugal. All of these Governments and their legal counsel regarded the intervention as legal, legitimate and justified in the circumstances. The same is true of several of Iraq’s neighbours such as Kuwait and Qatar. These are not rouge states. The tactic of liberal intervention might be controversial but the primary motivation was sincere.
Saddam was not created by the US - this is just another false canard. He was an indigenous product of Iraqi and society. The Baathist takeover in 1968 was preferred to a communist takeover that might be understandable in the cold war context. In the event Saddam pursued a more or less pro western policy until the end of his war against Iran in 1988. It would
be too expected that the west would engage with him. However the arms suppliers to Saddam were the USSR and France. The US was not. The link provides Blair's speech that merits careful reading. It was this that provided the mindset that give rise to the events of 2003. One might disagree but was a genuine attempt to make the world a better place and the strategy was seen as successful at Kosovo.

by Jim O'Sullivan Tue Sep 25, 2007 20:32

" The US was in fact at peace then with all Middle East States"

I have just run a cursory check on the known interference from the US from the end of the second world war. It's a long list so don't fall asleep now.

!947/8 US supports the partition of Palistine. Palistinians whose families have lived in the area for yonks are expelled and despite appeals to allow them to return, the US supports Israel to keep them from returning to their homeland.

1949 The CIA are directly involved in the coup that brought down the Syrian government.

1953 The CIA drive the overthrow of a democratic govenrment in Iran and replace it with the Shah.

1958 US troops arrive in Lebanon to protect Israel

During the Kennedy presidency it is known that the CIA had an assassination squad operating in the area and made a number of unsuccessful assassination attempts on Arab leaders.

Many now agree that the US directly supported the coup by the Ba'ath Party and handed over their files identifying socialists and communists who where murdered by the Ba'ath regime

In the 70's the USA were heavily involved in the tensions in the area and supported Israel by supplying arms. The episode whereby the Kurds were first encouraged to rebel only to be abandoned when it suited and a blind eye was turned as Saddam sets out to annihalate them is well known.

Add to this the fact that the US throughout this period repeatedly blocked the Security Council enforcing 242 and any Security Council resolution that condemns Israel's attacks on Palistinians refugees
The US has not been at peace with the Mid East for decades. This claim is absurd and is a denial of history.

by Sceptic Tue Sep 25, 2007 20:41

In 2001 the US was at peace with all states in the middle east and in south west Asia. There was no state of war - the peace was broken by Al Qeda hosted by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. That is a matter of fact.

by Jim O'Sullivan Tue Sep 25, 2007 21:02

"In 2001 the US was at peace with all states in the middll east... - the peace was broken by Al Qeda hosted by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan."

Why?

by Sceptic Wed Sep 26, 2007 17:26

To advance the cause of militant Salafism by mass terror in the hope that something really spectacular and successful would rally people to their cause especially in Saudi Arabia. The destabilisation of the Kingdom is the primary aim and disturbing of relationship with the US seen as a means to bring this about. Note the seminal 1996 fatwa - in reality the material about Palestine is a decorative flourish. The detailed criticisms are concerning the peninsula and its lack of true piety. AQ were basically Qutbist dissidents from Saudi Arabia and Egypt and the violence followed a pattern commenced by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
with the assassination of Sadat who was too secular for them and who made a peace deal with Israel.

They were not elected or lawfully appointed, they did not represent any sovereign or legitimate entity. Whatever the reason for the attacks this lot had no legitimacy or authority to undertake these attacks. It's not the cause that counts in the modern age of hyper terrorism. Why did the IRA bomb Birmingham pubs in November 1974 killing 21 people mostly teenagers and young people? One can explain it by reference to Northern Ireland etc but that is not the point. The point is it was an atrocity in a campaign that could not be justified by civilised norms. This holds even when one recognizes legitimate grievances did exist within Northern Ireland in the early 1970s. A state can go to war but in restricted circumstances only and within certain codes. A rouge state can go to war eg. Nazi Germany in 1939 or Iraq in 1990 but these can be held to account and war made on them in turn to check their behaviour or change
the offending regime. However there can be no tolerance or quarter given to Islamist or other middle eastern based or inspired terrorism in the west or elsewhere on the lines of Black September, the Abu Nidal Organization or Al Qaeda. Moreover every civilized norm in conflict whatever was abandoned by AQ - no warning, massive in scale, entirely and only directed at civilians - the point being to kill as many civilians as possible (unlike the IRA, to give them some credit). Those who still justify them or seek false analogies by conflation with lawful states are marginalizing themselves and contributing to a process of re-primitivising the world as is desired by the brutalism of AQ.

by Jim O'Sullivan Wed Sep 26, 2007 20:23

"To advance the cause of militant Salafism by mass terror in the hope that something really spectacular and successful would rally people to their cause especially in Saudi Arabia. The destabilisation of the Kingdom is the primary aim and disturbing of relationship with the US seen as a means to bring this about. Note the seminal 1996 fatwa - in reality the material about Palestine is a decorative flourish. The detailed criticisms are concerning the peninsula and its lack of true piety. AQ were basically Qutbist dissidents from Saudi Arabia and Egypt and the violence followed a pattern commenced by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
with the assassination of Sadat who was too secular for them and who made a peace deal with Israel."

The US is in the Md East to advance the cause of militant Capitalism.
In truth we could go on for ever throwing this stuff backwards and forwards. The real question is- why are these people not allowed to live their lives as they see fit?
US intervention in the region is in the interests of the US, no one else. Their behaviour is immoral. They are there because they covet the resources of the area and because they have the biggest hammer.

by Sceptic Thu Sep 27, 2007 20:51

The real question is why are these people not allowed to live their lives as they see fit?

Well they are for the most part if they are let by their rulers. Were the Kurds allowed to live their lives in Iraq as they fit until the west protected them? Before then they were subject to the tender mercies of Saddam. How about the marsh Arabs of Iraq? Ditto. The Kuwaitis in 1991 likewise. These are examples of western nations stepping in to protect abused people from tyranny. There was nothing of strategic interest to the US in Kosovo yet the US was protected a small and powerless oppressed Muslim victims from white Christian oppressors . It was just the right thing to do or at least many people thought so. If you disagree with Blair's doctrine of liberal intervention you should say so and not just make assertions about militant capitalism and the like.

by Jim O'Sullivan Thu Sep 27, 2007 21:17

"The real question is why are these people not allowed to live their lives as they see fit?
Well they are for the most part if they are let by their rulers."

It is interference from the the West that creates a continum of instability. Under these circumstances it is very difficult for a nation to evolve.

" Were the Kurds allowed to live their lives in Iraq as they fit until the west protected them? Before then they were subject to the tender mercies of Saddam. How about the marsh Arabs of Iraq? Ditto. The Kuwaitis in 1991 likewise. These are examples of western nations stepping in to protect abused people from tyranny."

This is nonsense and once again the only reason the US is in the region is because of oil. The suggestion of a noble cause will not wash. Even US citizens know the truth behind whts going on and are beginning to mobilise opposition to involvement in the area.

" If you disagree with Blair's doctrine of liberal intervention you should say so and not just make assertions about militant capitalism and the like."

Tony Blair is a product of Thatcher and is an arse licking closet capitalist who has sold out the people of his own country. Why would anybody pass a blind bit of heed to anything this turncoat either says or does? Your problem is that you think political pygmies are Spartans. Bet you think Harney is great!

by Sceptic Fri Sep 28, 2007 20:31

You can't just dismiss Blair with glib ad hominem clichés when he has given a well argued intellectual and moral case for interventions with repressive regimes on moral grounds. You have nothing to say about those instances where the doctrine did work as intended like Kosovo and Kurdistan which now enjoys the fruits of liberation and autonomy. Also it is not a right v left issue. The Blair doctrine its defenders on the left as well as the right. Check the Euston Manifesto for instance as well as the link below.

by weighty words Fri Sep 28, 2007 22:10

It's the second time today I've seen it alluded to. The first was in a comment appended to a piece by Tom Fawthrop "who has been based in SE Asia for the past 25 years and is currently based in Chiangmai, Thailand. A Guardian stringer in Manila in the mid 1980s, during the revolt against the Marcos dictatorship, he also covered the region for the Irish Times and various radio stations". Anyway he wrote a piece entitled "let's get serious" on Burma published yesterday http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/tom_fawthrop/2007/0....html
& someone in the comments brought up Euston or rather Eustonites. Hmmmmmmmm. Would you bring us through this Euston thing? Since we're all in the dark now & being be really cautious about what goes on the airwaves & grapevine & madame blavatsky's telepathy - I reckon we've time to read you.

ta very much.

by Jim O'Sullivan Sat Sep 29, 2007 09:32

"You can't just dismiss Blair with glib ad hominem clichés when he has given a well argued intellectual and moral case for interventions with repressive regimes on moral grounds"

Firstly I do dismiss Blair. He is as hollow as a lead soldier and history will establish that. Pity he didn't keep his hair long and stay in the pop band.

One of the great obstacles that humanity has to overcome in it's pursuit of truth is the English language. It is pliable and can be used to present arguements that sound plausible but are in fact bunkum. The English language gives us the sound bite. If the case for intervention that Blair presents is a moral one then it follows that whenever a situation arises that requires it, intervention should follow. We know that that is not what happens. The intervention is selective and accordingly that fact renders it immoral. Burma.

by Sceptic Sat Sep 29, 2007 14:45

One cannot intervene everywhere but that is not to say you can intervene nowhere if circumstances allow – something Blair acknowledges. (Incidentally the Chicago speech was clear and spelt out – it was not a sound bite(s).) Therefore Burma couldn’t be the subject of a western military intervention in current circumstances without Chinese agreement – otherwise standoff or a quagmire. Burma is a classic example of a fear society which some would argue is the real dividing line between Governments. See Sharansky and Dermer for instance: www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_For_Democracy

Euston Manifesto is at the link below.

by Jim O'Sullivan Sat Sep 29, 2007 18:21

"One cannot intervene everywhere but that is not to say you can intervene nowhere if circumstances allow – something Blair acknowledges. "

This is claptrap. If you want to assume the role of world policeman than you must intervene in every place that violates the code of conduct that you set out as contrary to good behaviour or none at all. The rules of engagement must be pre-set so as to allow the people to determine the motives involved. I make this point purely as a reply and not as any concession to the view that the US and Allies have some right to behave like latter day John Waynes. They do not.

" Therefore Burma couldn’t be the subject of a western military intervention in current circumstances without Chinese agreement – otherwise standoff or a quagmire."

What you are now saying is that the US and Allies policy of intervention to stop tyranny can only be undertaken within their sphere of influence. Saudi Arabia is an abomination as far as human rights are concerned. Not only is the US and Allies not about to intervene there, they are in the process of supplying 30 billion dollars worth of arms to make sure that nobody else does either.

With regard to your Euston Manifesto-why would anyone look twice at an obvious attempt to justify the actions of Blair in supporting the activities of neo-con greed merchants? This nonsense emerged from a right wing think-tank that set out to cobble together an apparent rational policy that would lend justification to the slaughter that the UK Labour Party is now up to it's necks in. As stated before, history is full of this stuff if you take time to find it. Slavery was justified by similiar tactics by those that were pofiting from this evil trade.

by Sceptic Mon Oct 01, 2007 19:55

World policeman is nowhere mentioned except by you.

Iraq was in a different category from the other nations you mentioned because it had been defeated in war and a ceasefire had been put in place subject to certain conditions which were not perceived as having been met. The legitimacy of the operation in the minds of its proponents flowed from that.

Saudi Arabia is not a threat to international security, does not attack its neighbours and does not engage in genocide. It is a coercive confessional monarchy but with widespread internal consultation and wealth sharing which is what had made it durable compared to the Iranian monarchy for example. It also the possibility of transforming into time into a more participative polity on the lines of Kuwait or Qatar. Unlike Iraq there are not a large number of exiles and dissidents pressing for a western intervention. Anyway the social contract has been better kept by the Arab monarchies than the Arab republics and the ruling regime in the Saudi Kingdom seems relatively popular. Would the US prefer if Saudi Arabia were a Jeffersonian democracy instead of a Wahhabist monarchy? Of course but in instance one has to accept the world as it is in this instance. The political complexion of the kingdom is a reflection of its time and place. The US can best use its influence to curb flows of funds to those who would support terrorism etc. Saudi Arabia is not an “abomination” as far as human rights are concerned as you put it or at least not by regional standards. It has Sharia and the death penalty and few rights for women but by the standards of the region it is not very internally repressive. De jure political freedom is non-existent but defacto the Majilis as-Shura forum and lesser and informal Majilis ensure a high degree of consultation which equates to a native form of democracy of sorts. Women are working the system internally to promote greater liberty - the last thing anyone is pressing for is a foreign intervention to improve the situation. Saudi exiles and dissidents are pressing for a more restrictive form of wahabism, not less.

The intervention in Kosovo was to prevent a violent take over and genocide by Serbia, a belligerent state, which had form in this manner. Foreign policy is not a morality play nor can it be except for a small country nor there be consistent application of strategy across different regions and circumstances. You don’t take an action that would bring more risk and harm than any good it might do. Therefore it is not appropriate to risk a standoff with China over Burma. Similarly the west could not intervene in Hungary in 1956 without risking a war with the USSR but it could intervene in Kosovo without the risk of such a wider war. Therefore it did and it succeeded. It’s a matter of pragmatism, not spheres of influence.

Euston Manifesto – it’s not my Euston Manifesto as you put it. . It has been produced by left-wingers such as Nick Cohen who has a track record of anti Americanism – see link below. Your can’t seem to engage in a debate about ideas. When you come against reasoned arguments you just bluster about neocons, slaughter and totally irrelevant stuff about the slave trade. Can you countenance the reality that there are many well intentioned, highly moral people on the other side of the debate about the Iraqi intervention? Constant sloganeering and dismissal is not debate, is not persuasive and is not illuminating.

by Jim O'Sullivan Mon Oct 01, 2007 20:47

Your entire response is founded on the notion that the US has a right to intervene anywhere it wishes to with the odd exception, when they are not allowed to by a nation with similiar firepower. This is selective intervention and to suggest that we can achieve an ordered world with this carry on is just plain silly. It is equally silly to suggest that the US undertakes these interventions in the interests of others. All of their actions are based on self interest.

"Saudi Arabia is not a threat to international security, does not attack its neighbours and does not engage in genocide."

Are you really suggesting that Iraq was such a treat? This is fanciful-as events showed very well. The US knew well that Saddam's military capabilites were limited in the extreme. War was not necessary in this case. Thousands died unnecessarily.

" Saudi Arabia is not an “abomination” as far as human rights are concerned as you put it or at least not by regional standards. It has Sharia and the death penalty and few rights for women but by the standards of the region it is not very internally repressive."

You damn Saudi Arabia yourself. Also check with Human Rights Watch regarding the treatment of foreign workers. Should open even your eyes.

"De jure political freedom is non-existent but defacto the Majilis as-Shura forum and lesser and informal Majilis ensure a high degree of consultation which equates to a native form of democracy of sorts."

We are now in the kindergarten playing with dolls, aren't we?

" Women are working the system internally to promote greater liberty"

Such as how?

"Euston Manifesto- It has been produced by left-wingers"

The Manifesto was cobbled together to provide what appears a rational and reasoned excuse for the Blair decision to go to war with Bush. It was produced after the event. The reference to anti-americanism contained within the manifesto concurs with the stock response that anyone who criticised the Bush administrtion is anti-american.

"Can you countenance the reality that there are many well intentioned, highly moral people on the other side of the debate about the Iraqi intervention? Constant sloganeering and dismissal is not debate, is not persuasive and is not illuminating."

No I can not. The Iraqi invasion was not necessary on any grounds other than to give to the US control over the areas oil . Regarding the level of debate, re-read your post-slowly. No need for any further comment.

by Sceptic Mon Oct 01, 2007 21:44

Firstly there is a right of intervention under international law for reasons both of international security and of genocide which has been invoked several times since the UN charter and system of collective security was adopted. Iraq under Saddam had a history of genocide, attacking its neighbours with the attempted complete anexation of one, renewed sponsorship of terror (payments of fortunes to the families of suicide bombers) and the development and use of WMD and deception over WMD which taken together put it in a category of its own. Moreover it was a State which had been defeated in war and the law officers in the four principal coalition States - the US, UK, Spain and Italy were of the opinion that there was sufficient legitimacy under the 1990/1991 resolutions to intervene. Additionally it was felt that there was a moral imperative to intervene as best articulated by Tony Blair's doctrine of liberal intervention. Putting a bar on intervention under any circumstances is to hold steadfast to a Westphalian notion of absolute national sovereignty which ignores any calculation of the internal character of a regime and will continually allow tyrants to act with impunity with respect to internal suppression. Moreover you also reject even non war measures such as sanctions even though these were also adopted under the aegis of the UN and thus had full legitimacy. There is an important strand of traditional left wing opinion that opposes tyranny and abuse of human rights - eg. Orwell, Kostler, World War II, the actions of the Atlee Governments in establishing NATO and adoption of the Truman doctrine. Apart from the Blairite and Euston tendency there is too much reflexive anti Americanism's for its own sake on the part of the left today which forgets or ignores the very strong anti tyrannical and anti totalitarian history of the western left and labour movement. The NATO intervention in Kosovo put an end to both a threat of ethnic cleansing and of forced annexation. It cannot be denied it was the right thing to do given its results. I am not personally defending Saudi Arabia - it is a fact that by the standards of the region it is much less oppressive than is Syria or was Iraq and its regime seems to rest more on the consent of the governed than would be explicitly apparent in a formal democracy. The majority of Saudi nationals either are happy with the present system or wish to employ the representation and consultation organs which are available to them. Thats not to say that there are not human rights abuses, even grave ones, which should be exposed and highlighted. But the Kingdom has never committed genocide or presented a threat to international peace - the two very things that caused the interventions in Iraq and with Serbia. On the contrary it is a regional stabilizing and moderating influence and lends protection to the more vulnerable minor sheikdoms of the Gulf which might otherwise be gobbled up by Iran. I'm not saying that that there is or should be a general policy of intervention - only that there were good intentions behind the motives of the coalition to move on Iraq in 2003 or with NATO to move against Serbia in 2003. You just ignore this and sloganize about neocons, oil, capitalism and the rest. The issue deserves fuller treatment than that as Nick Cohen and others have recognized.

by Jim O'Sullivan Tue Oct 02, 2007 08:36

Interventaion that is selective is wrong and extremely dangerous and it is folly for us or anyone else to become bystanders. We at least must condemn it if only in our own self interest. With an entity riding roughshod over the place nobody is safe.
Your defence of the Bush administration's actions are becoming tiresome. The now totally debunked WMD excuse is trotted out, continued reference to a "right of intervention" and even a so called "Blair doctrine" that we are to accept without question. Your failure to assess the players involved, their connections with big business that is profiting out of this military activitiy and assigning morality to the likes of Bush have led you into a muddle from which you refuse to even try to extracate yourself.
Lets be clear, no country has a right to intervene in the affairs of another. If we do not accept that then there is no such thing as sovereignty and the world is totally controlled by the guy with the biggest hammer.

To excuse the invasion of Iraq you repeat verbatum the proaganda of the Bush/Blair camp. None of it washes. The WMD excuse was a lie, plain and simple and the so called threat posed by Saddam to international security is a joke. The Iraqi army had trouble getting out of bed in the morning.

To understand what the US is about history must be visited. That tells us that Saddam and the Iraq that he ruled was essentially a creation of the US as it pursued a policy of destablising the region to maintain control over local resources-oil. The road that led directly to Saddam was started as far back as 1953 when the CIA gave direct aid in the overthrow of the elected Mossaseq government to be replaced by repression under a puppet of the US, the Shah. It is regarded as likely that what prompted this intervention was the nationalisation of the oil companies under the control of Britian. As is the case now, the US will not let control of oil supplies out of it's reach.

You go on to describe Iraq under Saddam as a country with a,

"history of genocide, attacking its neighbours with the attempted complete anexation of one, renewed sponsorship of terror (payments of fortunes to the families of suicide bombers) and the development and use of WMD and deception over WMD which taken together put it in a category of its own."

This actually is a more accurate description of Israel yet no intervention under these international rules you speak off and where, oh where is Mr Blairs "doctrine of liberal intervention"?

"There is an important strand of traditional left wing opinion that opposes tyranny and abuse of human rights"

All left wing opinion opposes tyranny, that is why all left wing opinion opposes the Bush administarion

" Apart from the Blairite and Euston tendency there is too much reflexive anti Americanism's"

This is not discussion of the issues but rather the reflex of those that are caught with no answers. If you oppose Bush you are anti-american. This is bull.

" I am not personally defending Saudi Arabia "

Yes you are- read your posts again.

" it is a fact that by the standards of the region it is much less oppressive than is Syria or was Iraq and its regime seems to rest more on the consent of the governed than would be explicitly apparent in a formal democracy."

What? To speak out again the ruling elite in Saudi Arabia is lethal.

" Thats not to say that there are not human rights abuses, even grave ones, which should be exposed and highlighted."

Now we agree, Sauidi Arabia abuses human rights. When will the cavalry intervene?

"But the Kingdom has never committed genocide or presented a threat to international peace - the two very things that caused the interventions in Iraq"

Here we go again with the claptrap that Saddam posed a threat to international peace.

"I'm not saying that that there is or should be a general policy of intervention"

Yes you are-read your post again.

"only that there were good intentions behind the motives of the coalition to move on Iraq in 2003"

The intentions were self interest. The fact is that a dictator or despot can do as they please providing they do not encroach on what is regarded a US interests.

" The issue deserves fuller treatment than that as Nick Cohen and others have recognized."

We agree again. But Nick Cohen is not a role model I would recommend if you are interested in left wing values.

by Sceptic Thu Oct 04, 2007 20:20

"LETS BE CLEAR, NO COUNTRY HAS A RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN THE AFFAIRS OF ANOTHER. IF WE DO NOT ACCEPT THAT THEN THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SOVEREIGNTY AND THE WORLD IS TOTALLY CONTROLLED BY THE GUY WITH THE BIGGEST HAMMER."

Then you disagree with the collective security doctrine of the UN which does allow for intervention in certain circumstances where a breach of international law has occurred as in 1990 in Kuwait which was itself an annexation of one UN member by another. It’s when there is no intervention that the aggressors prevail. Having a right of intervention does not abolish the notion of sovereignty - that is absurd. You seem wedded to a notion of absolute sovereignty that is unrealistic though the Chinese and Burmese Governments might agree fully with you.

"THE WMD EXCUSE WAS A LIE, PLAIN AND SIMPLE AND THE SO CALLED THREAT POSED BY SADDAM TO INTERNATIONAL SECURITY IS A JOKE."
Not at all. Saddam had form in WMD. Halabja showed that. He does not seem to have disarmed until after his brother in law's disclosures of 1995.

Israel did not commit genocide. That is a calumny on a nation that was born out of the worst ever genocide. And the US is a liberal democracy not a tyranny. These are completely false polemics.

As elicited by the Euston Manifesto there is a strong if not dominant
strain of anti-Americanism on the left today. Nobody said that to oppose Bush is to be anti American so there is no need for you to call it bull. This is a red herring.

"ALL LEFT WING OPINION OPPOSES TYRANNY" - does it really? Did George Galloway oppose the tyrant in Baghdad? That the left does not is the point the Euston group is trying to put right. The left had a proud and honourable record of opposing tyranny but in recent times has lost sight of this is its disdain for the US which has becomes a fixed point in its thinking and caused it to become myopic about the nature of regimes that are an inversion of every value that the left supposedly upholds except that anti-Americanism.

What is your policy towards Saudi Arabia? What should be the goal of the west's foreign policy there in your view Jim O'Sullivan?

I did not suggest Cohen was a "role model". Him and others like him are have put their case but all you do is denigrate or dismiss rather than deal with arguments or else you imply they all have commercial interests in Iraq or are class traitors (Blair). This is vacuous. Would you recommend George Orwell for someone interested in left wing values. He is the spiritual father of the Euston Group.

Self interest: Foreign policy is usually a mix of interest and
principle. Many would say the Iraqi intervention was altruistic for the
most part. The co-existence of interest does not invalidate all however.It was in the US's economic interest to liberate Europe from fascism - that does not mean it was the wrong thing to do. Other higher concerns were paramount. Getting rid of the Saddam regime was arguably in the best interests of the Iraq and the world in general.

by Jim O'Sullivan Fri Oct 05, 2007 09:56

This has got to stop out of respect for the medium, but a couple of points among the usual load of half baked facts has got to be challanged.

"Saddam had form in WMD. Halabja showed that."

The atrocity committed at Halabja occurred in 1988 and there are two very importatnt facts that cannot be overlooked. 1st) The material used in that attack more than likely came from US sources. Alcolac Inc and Phillips Petroleum come immediately to mind. 2nd) the US administration repeatedly accussed Iran of committing the atrocity and did not change it's position until close to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Everybody knows that the WMD that was being touted as an excuse to launch the invasion were nuclear weapons. BLix scoured Iraq and declared that none existed.

"Israel did not commit genocide."

This may be a matter for debate, but the fact is that Israel repeatedly launches attacks on her neighbours, the vast majority of those they kill are civilians, is armed to the teeth with WMD and yet no talk of intervention of any kind.

"As elicited by the Euston Manifesto there is a strong if not dominant strain of anti-Americanism on the left today. "

That's why it's of no significance. This "manifesto" was merely an attempt by Blairs friends to "give him a dig out"

"What is your policy towards Saudi Arabia? What should be the goal of the west's foreign policy there in your view Jim O'Sullivan?"

No invasion or sanctions or bombing that's for sure. Leave them to their own devices. The present form of governance of Saudi Arabia continues to exist because of the support it gets from powerful nations. It is an abomination.

"Foreign policy is usually a mix of interest and principle. Many would say the Iraqi intervention was altruistic for the most part. The co-existence of interest does not invalidate all however."

This sentence clearly demonstrates that may in fact know the truth that lies behind all this. Trust the force.

by Jim O'Sullivan Fri Oct 05, 2007 16:53

"Everybody knows that the WMD that was being touted as an excuse to launch the invasion were nuclear weapons."

Lest we get embroiled in more piffle, the above sentence should have read "Biological weapons" and not "nuclear weapons"

by Sceptic Sat Oct 06, 2007 05:06

Ah yes, now the US is responsible for Halabja too though this is groundless. Chemical WMD material was traced back to certain German private sector exporters of dual use material but while blameworthy this does not put the moral responsibility for the crime onto anyone but Saddam and Chemical Ali and the rest of the regime. What did happen was that the process of ending the Iran-Iraq war was at a delicate stage and therefore the international reaction was more muted than it might have been – a wholesale condemnation of Iraq might have upset the process and prolonged that war. However there was never any denial by the US of the fact that it was an Iraqi atrocity – it was Saddam who attempted to blame Iran. George W. Bush repeatedly damned Saddam in 1990 for the attack – it is completely false to contend that the condemnation only took place in 2003. What Halabja and the gas attacks during the Iran war showed was that not only did Saddam have WMD but he was unscrupulous enough to use even on his own innocent civilians it if it suited him. In other words he had form in WMD which made him uniquely sinister and dangerous a judgment which played no small part in the eventual decision to isolate and undermine him.

Israel did not commit genocide – it is not a matter for debate at all as you put it – that’s another porky from you – a rather heavy allegation to make considering there is no truth in it.

“Leave the Saudis to their own devices” you say. But that is US policy towards Saudi Arabia so what’s your problem?

by Jim O'Sullivan Sat Oct 06, 2007 09:25

"Ah yes, now the US is responsible for Halabja too though this is groundless."

Check your facts. I have named two of the US companies involved. There was also German and Dutch involved if memory serves me correct. US companies require the permission of the government before supplying war materials.

"it was Saddam who attempted to blame Iran. George W. Bush repeatedly damned Saddam in 1990 for the attack – it is completely false to contend that the condemnation only took place in 2003."

Post the speech by Bush condemning Iraq for Halabja. It is a well documented fact that the US government blamed Iran for the atrocity and maintained that position up until late 1990's.

"What Halabja and the gas attacks during the Iran war showed was that not only did Saddam have WMD but he was unscrupulous enough to use even"

Correction- had WMD in 1988 which were supplied by the US. What did the US suppliers think he a was going to do with them?

"Israel did not commit genocide – it is not a matter for debate at all as you put it – that’s another porky from you – a rather heavy allegation to make considering there is no truth in it. "

Any honest assessment of the actions of Israel since it's inception could very easily conclude that the annihalation of the Palistinian people is planned and deliberate. At the very least their behaviour is murderously indifferent to Palistinians.

“Leave the Saudis to their own devices” you say. But that is US policy towards Saudi Arabia so what’s your problem?"

That surely is meant to be a joke. The US are supporting and arming the regime to maintain the imbalance in the region and ensure that the regime can resist any attempt to overthrow it. That is interference.

by Sceptic Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:47

I don’t have an immediate subscription free link for G. H. Bush commenting on Halabja – he did say it at some of his Maine press conferences during August of 1990. These were impromptu and not formal speeches that would be easily linked. From it was also reported in the book below. Halabja was very widely covered in the world press at the time – there was never the slightest question in anybody’s mind that anyone other than the Iraqi regime had done it. The Reagan administration did not shift the blame to the Iranians – no well-informed person would have believed it. Much of this is smearing – always trying to make the US complicit in the worst of atrocities when there would be no earthy reason whatever why the US Government would want to see a poisoned gas attack on villages in Kurdistan quite apart from the issue of humanity and principle involved. This is a old chestnut often retailed on the wilder shores of the “antiwar” movement but has no foundation. Reeling off the name of this or that chemical company is not sufficient.

The Palestinian Arab people are very much still around – some of them in the Israeli Government. They have not been “annihilated” as you out it. You should withdraw the charge of genocide against Israel, which was utterly false.

Saudi Arabia is there – it was not put there by the US or the west. The ideology and creed is native to the area. They have the oil and the rest of us have to pay for it. The US is not the only arms supplier to the kingdom and if they did not sell it arms others would. The regime is durable and is not propped by the US though it wants to be friendly to the west and was always wary of the soviets, with good reason.
Change is happening there though slowly:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/05/africa/ME-GEN...y.php

by Jim O'Sullivan Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:26

Although it is becoming clear now that you have no clue of the matters on which you speak, untruths must be challanged.

Halabja

Stephen Pelletiere wrote in the New York Times that Iran, not Iraq, gassed the Kurds of Halabja. And this;

“This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defence Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.” [Pelletiere, "A War Crime, or an Act of War?" ]

"The Palestinian Arab people are very much still around – some of them in the Israeli Government. They have not been “annihilated” as you out it. You should withdraw the charge of genocide against Israel, which was utterly false."

The history of Israeli attacks on Palistinians is there for all to see. There is a clear policy to render a Palistinian State unviable and Israel has demonstarted a total indifference to Palistinians. It is not only bombing and shooting, but the continuous destruction of the means to fed and clothe themselves, cutting off access to schools, health facilities etc, that makes it a legitimate conclusion to draw that Israel is about genocide

"Saudi Arabia is there – it was not put there by the US or the west."

It's existance is maintained by the US and the west.

"Change is happening there though slowly:"

More attempts at wit I presume.

by Sceptic Sun Oct 07, 2007 15:17

Stephen Pelletiere was not a spokesman for the Reagan or George H. Bush or Clinton administrations none of which sought to portray the gas attack on Halabja as an Iranian attack. The NYT article quoted does not materially change anything in this regard. The weight of evidence was always that it was an Iraqi attack but there were reasons not to make too much of an issue of it initially because of the volatility of the situation regarding ending the war which had dragged on for 8 years and could have continued instead of stopped.
The Palestinian people have not been subject to genocide – that is not to say that there are not pretty serious historical and current issues with Israel but you claimed boldly that Israel had committed genocide which it has not.

What is your point on Saudi Arabia – what kind of alternative regime do you want to see there or do you mind so long as it is more anti western than the current one? There are reformist trends there – why do you sneer at that? Do you mean trade and diplomatic recognition from western nations maintains an unpopular regime in power? Are you saying the west should stop trading with it and let it trade exclusively with non-western states. How workable or realistic would this be? At the moment the policy is to leave it be and to trade with it. What do you think say the Irish or EU policy stance to Riyadh should change to ?

by Jim O'Sullivan Sun Oct 07, 2007 16:23

"Stephen Pelletiere was not a spokesman for the Reagan or George H. Bush or Clinton administrations none of which sought to portray the gas attack on Halabja as an Iranian attack".

The United States Defence Intelligence community , the heart of the US administration, did. Stop making a fool of yourself.
Saudi Arabia is an abomination as far as civil rights are concerned. Anyone that defends it is either blind, ignorant or profiting by it's existance.

by Sceptic Sun Oct 07, 2007 22:53

While playing the man not the ball yourself are you sure it is not you that is making a fool of yourself? This guy worked for the CIA at one time it seems and was not a Director or a principal there. Thousands of people have worked there at one time or another and many write about stuff with theories and judgments of various kinds, some of it off the wall. There is a market for it, they have opinions like anyone else and it’s a free country and public sector pensions for middle or junior level staffers are not huge. Even if he had formed the view that Iran did Halabja it was not acted upon by the higher ups in the agency or the executive branch and that is what counts. William Webster who was CIA Director at the time of Halabja made no assertion of Iranian culpability and neither did the other administration principals. It’s a non-issue.

You seem to have a “thing” about the CIA - an irrational view of it - something various far leftists have and share in common with certain extremists in the Middle East. The new Iranian regime in 1979 were convinced the CIA were everywhere in Iran pulling the strings when in fact there were only three agents in Tehran, none of which could speak farsi or knew much about Iran or had been there for any length of time, let alone were controlling anything.

As regards Saudi Arabia I asked what you think the object of say EU foreign policy towards Riyadh should be? A direct question that you ignored. If you don’t have a realistic alternative policy you should not be traducing existing policy. It’s not good enough to denounce unless you can say what the realistic alternatives are which you favour. A starting point of diplomacy is accepting the reality of the world as it is.

by Jim O'Sullivan Mon Oct 08, 2007 08:44

" This guy worked for the CIA at one time it seems and was not a Director or a principal there. "

The guy referred to was Senior Political Analyst for the region and a professeor at the US Army War College. I think he knows a bit about the subject.

"Halabja... It’s a non-issue. "

Halabja was central in the propaganda campaign waged by Bush and Blair to soften public opinion pre-invasion. In Bush's first "Address to the Nation" speech that kicked off the campaign, Halabja is used to paint Saddam as a "monster who gassed his own people"

"You seem to have a “thing” about the CIA - an irrational view of it - something various far leftists have and share in common with certain extremists in the Middle East."

This is gobbledigook. The CIA are anywhere they want to be. It's what they do.

by Sceptic Mon Oct 08, 2007 20:12

The former CIA man might know a bit about the subject. But all I am saying is that the view that Iran was responsible for Halabja was not peddled by the various administrations between 1988 and 2003 as you assert. I did not say Halabja is a non-issue. Rather that your claim that the US linked it to Iran does not stand up. The link below has G.H Bush speaking of Saddam’s crimes at Halabja and other villages in January 1991.

by Seán Ryan Mon Oct 08, 2007 21:33

This current argument seems to be about removing the US from the picture of Halabja and in doing so, remove all blame from the US.

Please note that the US had been well aware of the gassing of Halabja, long before the pictures taken by an Iranian war correspondent (I'm afraid I forget his name) hit the world media. At the time there was a CIA report floating around Washington which blamed Iran for the incident (the blood agents vs. mustard gas observations etc. Indeed Saddam had been threatening to use this very report in his defence - before the US shut down his ability and right to defend himself and of course put a stop to the world at large from having information put into the mainstream and into context.). There are two points I'd like to make here before I bow out of the argument that Mr. O'Sullivan is handing out an education in.

The first point is that when the US got around to condemning the gassing, they only condemned the gassing and not the fact that Saddam had murdered his own people. This might seem like an introduction of semantics on my part, I assure the readers that it is not. It's very important when considered beside my second point. We must remember that Saddam was an American puppet in this war against Iran. Saddam's military elite had been taken to and trained in the US in insurgency tactics (coming in very handy at present) in case Iran successfully invaded and occupied Iraq - for example.

The second point is that when the incident made world headlines, Al Gore, Senator Pell and Jesse Helms tried to introduce legislation titled the 'Prevention Of Genocide Act 1988' which passed through the US Senate unanimously after a single day of debate. Reagan vetoed this bill.

If the US gave a singular damn about the innocents in Halabja, why the veto?

One should note here that at this time the US was still not signed up to the Genocide Convention. That had to wait until Clinton assumed power. Of course when Clinton put pen to paper he actually nullified the Genocide Convention on behalf of the rest of the world.

Both Powell (national security advisor at the time) and Cheney (a congressman at the time) did nothing to support either the Kurds or morality. Why should we believe them now, when the lies told are historical fact and are still flowing with neither remorse nor conscience. Why did they not suggest and push for sanctions at this time...

Questions are a burden unto others.

The lack of answers and accountability is deafening.

by Jim O'Sullivan Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:24

The following is from Worldiq.com and gives many sources that can be referred to for those that wish a broader view of these events.

"Some debate continues, however, over the question of whether Iraq was really the responsible party. In part, this controversy stems from the fact that the Halabja incident and other uses of chemical weapons by Iraq occurred while Iraq was receiving military and economic support from the United States. "By any measure, the American record on Halabja is shameful," says Joost R. Hiltermann of Human Rights Watch, which has extensively investigated the Halabja incident. In fact, the U.S. State Department even "instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame. The result of this stunning act of sophistry was that the international community failed to muster the will to condemn Iraq strongly for an act as heinous as the terrorist strike on the World Trade Center."
In addition, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study following the incident concluded, apparently by determining the chemicals used by looking at images of the victims, that Iran was responsible, and this assessment subsequently became the position of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for much of the 1990's"