An internal planning document from Al Qaeda in Iraq, discovered after the raid on Al Zarqawi’s safe house.
The situation and conditions of the resistance in Iraq have reached a point that requires a review of the events and of the work being done inside Iraq. Such a study is needed in order to show the best means to accomplish the required goals, especially that the forces of the National Guard have succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting the American forces and have reduced substantially the losses that were solely suffered by the American forces. This is in addition to the role, played by the Shi’a (the leadership and masses) by supporting the occupation, working to defeat the resistance and by informing on its elements.
As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries, due to the losses they sustain economically in human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons:
Their number one strategy:
1. To improve the image of the resistance in society, increase the number of supporters who are refusing occupation and show the clash of interest between society and the occupation and its collaborators. To use the media for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance.”
I guess that’s better described as a “continuing strategy”.
AP;
American and Iraqi forces have carried out 452 raids since last week’s killing of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and 104 insurgents were killed during those actions, the U.S. military said Thursday. […] The raids also resulted in the captures of 759 “anti-Iraqi elements.”
And there’s more here.
Part 2 of the strategy: get a dimwitted US president to invade Iran and start a war there.
You know, just like he did in Iraq.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/15/D8I8NEB80.html
Keep it up, Dubya! The terrorists love ya!
Tony, I’d like to hear your thoughts on preventing Iran from nuking Israel or are you like most on the left who have zero solutions aside from burying your head in the sand and letting Pali’s run riot over Israel with a “right of return”. Sorry for the run-on sentence.
I’d simply venture that security intelligence, diplomacy, and working through back channels with Iranian opponents of the regime would work a helluva lot better than bombs.
Because hateful ideologies are like weeds: You can pick at ’em all you want, but they keep popping up in additional places. Now the radical Islamists have taken over Somalia and bombed Thailand — just this week alone.
WE CAN’T KEEP INVADING PLACES EVERY TIME THIS HAPPENS! It’s impossible from a mathematical standpoint, and it’s foolish to think we can deploy battalions everywhere in the world hateful ideologies spring up. And not only is it technically impossible, but it’s counterproductive in that it just fuels additional hatred.
I think this letter from Zarqawi’s aide offers the proverbial proof in the pudding.
These scumbags WANT a military war. I say give ’em an economic, political and diplomatic one — with carrots in one hand and a big, fat giant stick in the other.
Look at what’s happening in the Palestinian territories now: You’ve got Palestinians storming Hamas buildings now, because of economic sanctions imposed on them. If we’d invaded, they’d be swarming our troops instead, with rocks and rocket-propelled grenades.
That’s my suggestion. And I have a feeling that that’s exactly what these jihadist arsewipes DON’T want.
Let’s not give ’em what they desire.
Guess you missed how they’re saying that the current strategy is working against the insurgent groups in Iraq, huh Tony? As they’ve already said, time is now against the terrorists. Let’s run right now while we’re winning! Brilliant strategy. Now I’m not saying that there should be any military action against Iran right now. I just don’t think the force could sustain it. However, this is clearly a sign that the war in Iraq is being won, and yet somehow you try to spin it as a bad thing.
I dont want to get to heavy into Vietnam comparisons but there is an interesting parallel.
The TET offensive has generally been pointed to as the turning point for America.
1) They didnt expect it, so mistake
2) They saw a spike in casualties which pushed support for the war in the US underwater.
However,
Documents and interviews with VC generals post war essentially said that the VC were exhausted and had blown their bolt. They were worried the US would counter attack as they were incredibly vulnerable. The US had withstood the attack and had they wanted, because they had the resources, could have pushed the VC back on their heels and potentially over the edge.
I dont want this to be a they shouldnt have been there, they should have been there point….The point is that if the US stays the course militarily they may actually “win” whatever that means. This doesnt surprise me, the US has lots of resources, highly qualified army and the lesson they took out of vietnam was get the home country trained up so that the US forces are support and back up. In Vietnam they took the front role and never really got the SVRA going in the manner they needed to. (of course there may be reasons for that in terms of desire on the SVRA’s part)
Anyway, assuming this is an accurate report then Western method of fighting (per Keegan) will win out. The constant, unwavering use of resources and technology and force.
Anyway, interesting find, lets hope its true. If true it will mean an ultimate extrication of Western forces from Iraq sooner rather than later. Which means this method can be reapplied to Afghanistan….Then watch for Al Queda to look for another state to cause failure in or attempt to take over….worry would be Pakistan. That will be difficult…too many moderates, too many secularists.
This report is good news for those who wish to see Iraq on a course to proper functioning statehood and US forces leaving Iraq as soon as they possibly can.
Note how the terrorists define Iraq as ‘occupied’? Really? By whom? The Iraqi people themselves, in overwhelming numbers, voted for their government. Their own government. They wrote up their constitution. Themselves.
Iraq is not occupied. But, there IS a terrorist militia who are determined to prevent the Iraqi people’s government from succeeding in its legitimate role of government. The US Army is helping the Iraq people defeat these terrorists.
Hey Combat Jump Star,
No, it’s a great thing that the insurgency is falling on hard times.
I was only trying to make four points:
1) The insurgency WANTS the U.S. to invade Muslim countries. It’s important to remember this.
2) With that in mind, it’s probably best to note that launching military strikes against targets in Somalia, Iran, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Algeria, Sudan, Indonesia, and any other country with strong radical Islamic movements, is not only technically impossible but also counter-productive for the West.
3) There are more effective means than military invasion — like the economic means being used to undermine the Hamas government.
4) A military invasion in Iraq is what gave us an insurgency in the first place. The international community could, in my opinion, have gotten farther by squeezing Saddam’s political and economic nuts than by launching a military strike.
Huggy,
You cannot stop Iran from nuking israel, if they are stupid enough to do it they will.
Giving them a pretext for doing so is not the right idea.
Best thing to do is work hard at preventing them from getting the bomb. And Israel has subs with nukes on them so MAD is the only thing to save the region, or Israel.
Iran will collapse on its own, just put more and more economic and political pressure on. Problem will be the leaks through Russia and China. The real question is how do you make a nuclear armed Iran a Chinese and Russian problem…
Tony,
Dont know if I agree with point 4….is it local insurgency we are worried about or the foreign Al Queada stuff…..There were prior links between Zarqawi and Hussein…it isnt that simple.
If the foreign fighters werent entering iraq then the “domestic insurgency” might have died away by now.
Tony right on point for narrative control. Just like Zarqawi pointed out.
Kate got you good.
At least we know what side you are on. 😉
Tony said:
“I’d simply venture that security intelligence, diplomacy, and working through back channels with Iranian opponents of the regime would work a helluva lot better than bombs.”
Agreed. That is what is happening now. But this charade will go on until Iran has a bomb and then what? What motivation could Iran have for diplomacy at that point? Don’t forget they have China and Russia in their hip pocket. So, what are the chances of some meaningful and enforceable UN Security Council resolutions? I’d say NIL. Which means, Israel will bomb the crap out of them, which will further inflame who? Anybody… Anybody… That’s right Muslims. Then the crap will really start hitting the fan. Iran should be stopped by the UN or NATO, with force. However, this will not happen. Therefore, the U.S. (already stretched to thin) will have to shoulder the load (as usual).
“These scumbags WANT a military war. I say give ’em an economic, political and diplomatic one — with carrots in one hand and a big, fat giant stick in the other.”
Actually, I think they want this more:
“1. To improve the image of the resistance in society, increase the number of supporters who are refusing occupation and show the clash of interest between society and the occupation and its collaborators. To use the media for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance.”
That was from a document found in the rubble of Zarqawi’s former home.
And this supporting comment via http://www.instapundit.com/
“Interesting that leveraging the western media before all else is (and presumably has been) Al Qaeda’s top strategy. And shitty how many people have bit hook line and sinker. I bet this will be head line news… or not.”
They are primarily focused on using the media.
They, better than us, understand our lack of will as a culture in whole, to really fight terrorism. That is our real weakness. We just don’t believe. They do.
I feel the need to close with a Christopher Hitchhens quote: “Don’t let them win, you won’t like it”.
These scumbags WANT a military war I say give ’em an economic, political and diplomatic one
And just how would that work? The scumbag are roving stateless terrorists with financial and physical support throughout the ME. They get money and safe havens from various ME sources.
How and who are you going to realistically sanction? You need responsible and willing allies. The UN is useless. They were useless and even criminal under the oil-for-food program with Saddam. The weapons inspectors cut and ran. Oil starved Europe won’t play hardball with Iran. Putin is playing games by encouraging Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Freezing terrorist assets where we can and warning states that sponsor terrorism have be done by Bush. The terrorists still need to be physically exterminated.
You’ve got Palestinians storming Hamas because of economic sanctions
Dead wrong. There is a leadership power struggle going on with Hamas.
And, of course, never mind, Tony, that Israel, specifically and repeatedly told it will be turned into glass by Iran, has a perfect right to unilaterally do what it needs to do.
Tony,
Kate doesn’t like people using the comments section for too much discussion, so I’ll be ending with this.
1.I’m simply talking about Iraq. This is clearly a sign that the war is being won. As far as I know, there hasn’t been talk of invading other muslim countries. Perhaps there was talk of destroying Iran’s Nuclear sites from afar, but not an invasion as far as I know.
2.Again, basically the same point. It’s also basically impossible to do, so do you really think we’re planning on getting into a 3 pronged war? I doubt it.
3.Economic means can work in certain circumstances, I won’t deny that.
4.This is the part I take exception with. The international community tries sanctions. And Europeans and far left wingers complained that the US was starving and killing the Iraqi people. And really, the international community is anything but. The French were the biggest dissenters in any invasion of Iraq. Why? Most likely because they were reaping huge benefits from arms sales and other sales to the Iraqi government. The international community is the same one that had UN weapons inspectors tell us they saw no sign of intermediate range ballistic missiles. The same one that sniffed at the US and said that Iraq was unlikely to possess these same IRBM’s. By the way, these are weapons he was forbidden to have under terms of the cease fire agreement after the first Gulf War. And by the way, he did have these missiles, and fired them at Camp Champion in Kuwait before the invasion. By violating the cease fire agreement, he restarted the war himself. He also swore before the UN that he didn’t have these weapons. Obviously political sanctions won’t work on a liar, and a man willing to murder his own people.
Now again, I’m not talking about any other muslim nation here but Iraq, as I said before. I’m simply saying that this is a clear message that we are winning the war, so don’t try and spin it into something else.
Nice CH quote, huggybear.
I agree with point 1 of Tony’s list but not with point 4. The insurgency hasn’t emerged from the war on Iraq; the insurgency is a tactic of Al Qaeda, which is an ‘arm’ of the agenda to maintain tribalism in the region and prevent the development of democracy.
The result of tribalism, maintained by military and religious dictatorships long after its functionality as a political and social mode, is extremism, i.e., islamofascism. Rather than moving from tribalism to democracy, which the ME should do, because of its massively increased population – the ME has ‘chosen’ to maintain tribalism. But, because of the population base, it has become a perverted tribalism, with a focus on Pure Origin and No Change From This Pure Origin. That’s fascism.
The basic cause of Islamofascism, terrorism, extremism (pick your name) is tribalism in the ME. That has zilch to do with the West.
The correct tactic? I think the military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, removing dictatorships and opening up the area to democracy is correct.
Then, the West has to openly and forcefully reject Islamic extremism, reject its ideology of privileges and terror, which hides behind the wall of ‘we are a religion, don’t question or criticize us’. The West has to reject multiculturalism; it has to reject groups attempting to live as isolate tribes in societies that have developed as civic rather than tribal systems.
And, moderate Muslims have to take back their religion, reform it from its medieval practices and move it into the modern industrial world.
hmmmmm, Iran with a nuclear bomb.
It looks to me like that day is coming as most of the nations who could stop it are choosing appeasement and/or procrastination.
It will be a new world on the day Iran gets the atomic bomb.
The Iranian people are disarmed and defenceless.
IMO, there are no sanctions that will change that fact.
Their only hope to rid themselves of the mullahs is if their own army refuses the order to fire on civilians and so far that has not been the case.
Also I do not see the USA getting completely out of Iraq for many years.
It is a strategic position that was hard won so why would they?
The USA may keep a base there for quite a long time just as they have in the Phillipines and Germany and Japan.
Hey Combat,
For the record, I believe we’ll win this one. Freedom will always trump tyranny, because it appeals to the basic hopes that live in each one of us.
I just personally disagree with your road map for getting us there. I’ve always felt the invasion of Iraq knocked us off-course, inflamed tensions around the world, and slowed down our march to inevitable victory.
But what pisses me off is how some people react to a valid point — that militarily induced regime change almost never works and almost always creates more problems than it solves.
You get automatically labelled a lefty. Or even worse: hear some people on this site say, “You hope we lose.”
Bull—-.
I want the exact opposite of what al-Zarqawi wants: for the United States and other Western powers to use the military sparingly and wisely, and only when necessary.
And for us to use even more powerful Western tools — money and politics — to make those jihadist bastards’ lives a living hell. And to do it quietly, or subversively, in a way that you hammer ’em before they even have a chance to get worked up against you.
Case in point: the new Hamas government. The new government’s in a shambles. Wanna bet on whether the Iraq approach would have had similar success?
Liberalism’s new hero in Iraq replacing Zarqawi doesn’t seem up to the job.
Zarqawi made for good TV, Hollywood loved the guy because he slowly hacked off the heads of aid workers and truck drivers right on camera. Even off camera he was dramatic, killing dozens of kids on school buses at one time proved his ‘freedom fighter’ credentials to leftists everywhere. This new guy seems too much of a pansy to become a great hero of liberalism.
Zarqawi is a hard act to follow, if the new guy can’t provide the bloodshed and mayhem demanded by leftists, the left may well turn against these ‘freedom fighters’ of the ‘resistance’ and simply call them what they really are – murderers.
Which is fine except that if the Left in the West realizes that Iraq will actually become a functioning democracy ruled by the will of the people instead of a dictator – they will oppose it even more vofericiously than they do now.
“guess you missed how they’re saying that the current strategy is working against the insurgent groups in Iraq, huh Tony? ”
The current strategy CAUSED the insurgency, for God’s sake.
Feeling good about this is about as reasonable as being happy about finally making progress cleaning up after that house your incompetence burned down.
Given that most of the insurgency is LOCAL and not affiliated with the likes of Al Zarqawi, this isn’t much progress.
The ‘crisis’ with Iran was caused by incompetent US diplomacy. Iran was reforming until Bush came around and handed the hard-liners a threat they could use to justify their BS.
And don’t you think that if the US hadn’t installed the Shah and kept him in power in Iran for 25 years that maybe, just maybe, Iranians wouldn’t be so distrustful of the US?
Is that why thousands marched yesterday demanding the troops to leave?
Now its coming out that our troops are raping the women in their units
The May 27 report, sparked by complaints from women’s groups and female lawmakers about an apparent increase in reported assaults against U.S. servicewomen in Iraq and Afghanistan, states that the Army lacks “an overarching policy” for dealing with the problem, and that as a result it “does not have a clear picture of the sexual assault issue.”
Wait until the troops bring the problems home.
Ever wonder why the people of Iraq didn’t know Zarqawi before the US started using his name?
I have an easy solution that stops terrorism, stops proliferation, and doesn’t risk engendering an insurgency: application of mass quantities of thermonuclear warheads to countries supporting terrorism and ungovernable regions of other countries that are used by terrorists that attack western interests or are aligned with the salafis.
Quick, no muss, no fuss.
So, for all of you pacifist, anti-imperialist, self-hating leftists out there, realise that invasions and air strikes are the humane alternative. We will not quietly go to our dhimmitude. The question is rather can we invade and pacify these regions, leaving them to their inhabitants once we have wiped out the salafis, or do we have to turn them into glass parking lots? Your actions against the “evil imperialist war” bring the Nuclear option ever closer to the table. It will be your fault, tony, if we have to nuke Iran until the cockroaches glow. Not that you care, as you only want us evil fascist ‘wingers to die.
Sorry, but that’s not the way the world works.
Well I will leave it to someone more articluate to make the case
Chris Hitchens setting up his opponents case
“The man’s (Zarqawi)power was created only by the coalition’s intervention, and his connection to al Qaida was principally opportunistic.”
Chris Hitchens knocking down the case
“On this logic, the original mistake of the United States would have been to invade Afghanistan, thereby forcing Zarqawi to flee his camp outside Herat and repositioning him for a new combat elsewhere. Thus, fighting against al-Qaida is a mistake to begin with: It only encourages them.”
The full article here
http://www.slate.com/id/2143305/
philanthropist,
You’ve been giving away too many of your brain cells.
Left this and liberalism that. Give it a break my friend.
If you replace left with right and liberalism with conservatism and write the same post it makes more sense.
Playing the blame game is an old rightist ploy that is just plain immature and childlike.
“The current strategy CAUSED the insurgency, for God’s sake.”
Perhaps, but if these are just “Freedom Fighters” as people seem to want to call them, then why are they killing their own people? Do you really believe that it’s only foreign fighters doing that? The Sunni groups have claimed responsibility for a great number of the attacks on civilians, including the large number of recent attacks on students. These people were brutal before the invasion, and they’re brutal now, because they don’t like having lost their power. Do you have a strategy that would have worked better? Clearly the old appeasement strategy didn’t work, since the Iraqi government still had large quantities of weapons that they weren’t allowed to have as terms of the ceasefire agreement.
“Now its coming out that our troops are raping the women in their units
The May 27 report, sparked by complaints from women’s groups and female lawmakers about an apparent increase in reported assaults against U.S. servicewomen in Iraq and Afghanistan, states that the Army lacks “an overarching policy” for dealing with the problem, and that as a result it “does not have a clear picture of the sexual assault issue.”
It’s not “just coming out now” That May 27 report was from over 2 years ago, first of all. Don’t try and act like it just came out this year. And perhaps it you had ever been in the military or read any regs, you would see that following that report, Army policy was completely rewritten. They no longer use the “McDowell Checklist” As it was clearly found to be completely wrong minded.
While I certainly don’t condone rape or sexual assault in any way shape or form, let’s look at the facts. According to MILES, a womens group dedicated to stamping out sexual assault in the military, 3% of all feamle service members have been sexually assaulted during their time in the military. Compare that with 4.9% of all women on college campuses that even report sexual assault, and the 17.6% of women that say they’ve been raped at some time during their life in America. And in fact, if you believe asome feminist groups, which I actually do, up to 50% of women in America will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. I would say the Military isn’t looking to bad.
Now if your referring to the statements by Janis Karpinski, that female soldiers died from dehydration because they were scared to drink water after dark so they didn’t have to go to the bathroom at night, those statements have been proven to be laughable lies meant to save her own skin. According to research, even if these soldiers were drinking NO WATER AT ALL(which Karpinski states they were, just not after dark) it would take a minimum of 3 days to die of dehydration, even in hot weather. Before someone dies of dehydration they have quite noticeable symptoms, including:
The mouth would dry out and become caked or coated with thick material.
The lips would become parched and cracked.
The tongue would swell, and might crack.
The eyes would recede back into their orbits and the cheeks would become hollow.
The lining of the nose might crack and cause the nose to bleed.
The skin would hang loose on the body and become dry and scaly.
The urine would become highly concentrated, leading to burning of the bladder.
The lining of the stomach would dry out and the sufferer would experience dry heaves and vomiting.
The body temperature would become very high.
The brain cells would dry out, causing convulsions.
Now somehow, you’re telling me no one noticed that these women had any symptoms for at least 3 days? Of course they would. And they would force water down their throats or give them an IV of saline solution. And as the commanding officer, shouldn’t Karpinski have been aware of what was happening with her soldiers? She’s trying to save her own butt with that whole line, and anybody that actually believes her claims hasn’t taken thetime to do a little simple research.
My, the lefty trolls are busy today…
Yes, they’re entirely correct and wise:
1. Those 300+ mass grave sites discovered after the ouster of the Saddam regime are entirely the fictional product of Ann Coulter’s fevered neo-con imagination.
2. And those torture jails, rape rooms and industrial grade shredding machines found caked with blood and guts are likewise the product of Rush Limbaugh’s right-wing imagination.
3. All those photographs of gassed Kurds-obviously Photoshopped by the Republican Party and/or Halliburton. They were really just Kurd villages engaged in their custom of mass communal afternoon naps.
Now, if you agree with the above, here’s some more fiction to take to heart, like true lefty believers:
1. The invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam & Co. and liberate the Iraqi people was unnecessary. After another 16 UN Security Council resolutions, the first 16 Security Council resolutions would have been obeyed by Saddam. Then everybody at the UN could have sung a chorus of Kumbaya and gone home in time for dinner.
2. UN sanctions weren’t falling apart, ever more successfully evaded by French, German, Russian and Chinese companies for whom Iraqi blood and suffering were barbarically ignored, for profit.
3. What a vicious lie that Saddam was in effect able to buy French foreign policy with oil contracts and other hugely profitable illegal business deals! Everybody knows it’s Halliburton and Dick Cheney who are the arch-criminals.
4. It’s not Al Qaeda, Baathist terrorists (excuse me-“militants”, nope “activists”, nah “upset citizens”) who are the bloodthirsty murderers. They’re the patriots! It’s those evil American, British, Australian, Italian, Polish, Japanese, Czech, even Fijian soldiers…the real criminals, right?!
The Americans went to Iraq looking for terrorists(at least that was one of the excuses) and found them. More than that they created a training ground for them.
But now the Americans don’t want to play anymore, there is an election coming, so they got some help in Afghanistan, just in time too, and now they want help in Iraq. Any takers?
But the insurgency is over now. I just saw it on Fox news, the insurgency is in its last throes! Zarquawi himself said so, they have it in writing. The troops will be home next week.
Dave
What did the Americans find in North Korea, or Darfur? Oh, I forgot, no oil there.
Don’t forget Dave, the Americans loved and fed Saddam arms before they hated him. You know all those people he killed? Ever wonder how many have American bullets in them? I am too harsh? No just historically accurate. You do like accuracy don’t you Dave?
Ok, just curious. The Americans fed Saddam weapons back in the 70s to fight the Iranians who attacked the American embassy there? Later (80s?) he starts murdering his own citizens and the Americans disown him. In the 90s he invades Kuwait, but is given a 2nd chance to clean up his act. Finally he is taken to task for his ongoing trangressions, and now we are supposed to think ill of American foreign policy for supporting him in the 70s? Am I reading this correctly? I don’t want sanitized propaganda, but it seems to me that steve d isn’t very fair in his assessment either.
Ok steve, can you name any American made weapons that were in the Iraqi arsenal during the initial invasion? Can you name any weapons that are currently being used against us?
As for the Iran/Iraq war, the US supplied the Iraqi’s with satellite information on where and when the Iranians were going to attack. This was, of course, when the ayatollah was saying “death to America” on a pretty regular basis, and had threatened to turn the Gulf region into “a sea of fire” The Reagan administration, aware of this, helped the Iraqi’s so they wouldn’t lose the war. They did not go so far as to help Iraq win the war.
In fact, when it appeared that Iraq was about to win, the Reagan administration transferred real weapons to the Iranians. A large number of TOW anti tank missiles were transferred to Iran. Remember Iran-Contra? That didn’t have to do with giving weapons to the Iraqi’s, I’m pretty sure. As a result, the war ended in a stalemate.
In fact, research done by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute(not likely to be too pro American) shows that from 1973 to 2002, the top suppliers of weapons to Iraq were:
USSR/Russia-57%
France-13%
China-12%
Czech Republic-7%
Poland-4%
Brazil-2%
Egypt,Romania,Denmark,Libya,USA-1%
So again, based on your claim that we “fed Saddam arms” can you name any US made weapons that were being used by Iraq at any time or are currently being used against us by the terrorists?
I just read the first 30 minute of the Doulas Creek land claims. Oh my G*@! That is just so funny, but sad that it’s the truth. This just decribes exactly how this is being dealt with… Need a good laugh, check Kate’s post……..
combat jump star
You are correct, I am wrong.
The US only sold about 115 helicopters to Iraq. Russia was the main supplier. My bad.
It looks like you pretty well nailed it and I didn’t.
The US interest apparently was to protect the supply of oil. Not to them specifically because they only got 3% from there but to protect the West and their economies. Also to block the Russians from gaining any more influence. Reagan opened up trade with Iraq to undercut Russia. The Americans saw Iran as a more important strategic partner but Komeini wouldn’t have anything to do with the US or the Russians.
Here’s a good laugh. Nealenews link to Globe & Mail story: CSIS spoke to terror suspects’ parents prior to raids.
Apparently they used escalating disruption techniques. If they don’t work they can then call RCMP to lay charges.
Terrorism experts reached yesterday said they were unfamiliar with some of the tactics used in this investigation.
“It is so quintessentially Canadian — a stern lecture to the parents,” University of Toronto professor Wesley Wark said.
Apparently parental interference didn’t work too well. — Quintesssentially Canadian. Maybe they should have tried “pretty please”. The courts will be saying uncle soon enough.
In December 2002, Iraq’s 1,200 page Weapons Declaration revealed a list of Eastern and Western corporations and countries—as well as individuals—that exported chemical and biological materials to Iraq in the past two decades. By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm of Singapore supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard-gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq. See What Iraq Addmitted About its Chemical Weapons Program for additional information.
By contrast, only two American names were on the list. Alcolac International, for example, a Maryland company, transported thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, to Iraq. Alcolac was small and was successfully prosecuted for its violations of export control law. The firm pleaded guilty in 1989. The Al Haddad trading company of Tennessee delivered 60 tons of DMMP, a chemical used to make sarin, a nerve gas implicated in so-called (Persian) Gulf War Syndrome. The Al Haddad trading company appears to have been an Iraqi front company. The firm was owned by Sahib Abd al-Amir al-Haddad, an Iraqi-born, naturalized American citizen
After the list of US firms are these remarks: “In addition to these 24 companies home-based in the USA are 50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises which conducted their arms business with Iraq from within the US. Also designated as suppliers for Iraq’s arms programs (A, B, C & R) are the US Ministries of Defense, Energy, Trade and Agriculture as well as the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories.” (Anu’s translation)
Here’s a place to see the full list of companies.
This same arguement was hashed out a few days back.
neutralsam
Of course, America has such huge economic tendrils I should have thought of that aspect. Subsidiaries and front companies are ideal ways to deal in items you want to keep at arms length while still doing business. Most people don’t realize that the UN oil for food scandal had American companies involved. Usually, people list every country except America! As if America wouldn’t be in on a business deal legal or not.
I read where that is how they got the precursors into Iraq, they were shipped from Chile when Pinochet was in power. I will have to see if I can find that reference.
Actually steve, 87 of those helicopters were sold to Iraqi corporations and citizens for private use. Since they were unarmed helicopters, not attack helicopters, or even helicopters intended for military use, that were confiscated by the Iraqi military and converted, I don’t see how that’s “arming Saddam.”
As for neutralsam, steve said “Don’t forget Dave, the Americans loved and fed Saddam arms before they hated him. You know all those people he killed? Ever wonder how many have American bullets in them?” I was unaware that Chemical Weapons fired bullets. But we can talk about chemical weapons. First of all, a chemical weapon needs some way to be delivered. It doesn’t just stream through the ether. The US never supplied delivery systems to Iraq, as far as I know.
Second, most of the “chemical agents” were just biological cultures, freely given at the time to just about anyone who asked for them (anthrax for cattle vaccine, etc) who had the proper technical credentials (they were sent to universities in Baghdad). They were also approved by the Commerce department, which, while technically part of the “administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush”, were really just bureaucrats doing their job without any influence from any higher authority.
If the same argument was already hashed out several days ago, that’s fine, I’ll leave it alone. But it’s rather ridiculous to claim that we armed saddam, when clearly our contribution to Iraq was quite minimal, at best, when compared to the likes of Russia, France and China.
In fact, a chemical agent is not an arm without a delivery system, and as far as I know, we never supplied a delivery system. But again, with all the “arms” we supplied to the Iraqi’s, where are they? Where are the M-16’s, M-4’s, M-240B’s, M-249’s? The Iraqi’s have always used the ubiquitous AK-47’s, and RPK, RPD’s, RPG’s etc.
But there must be some M-1 Abram’s there right? Hmm, well no, actually there’s T-72’s and T-55’s, along with Chinese Type-59’s and Russian BMP armored troop carriers. Strange, no M-1’s, anywhere.
Artillery then? No, not really. French 155’s and Russian 122’s. No US artillery either. Strange.
Attack Helicopters surely? Nope, Russian Mi-24 Hinds and French Gazelles. Where are the Apache’s, Cobra’s, and Super Cobra’s? This is getting spooky how much US equipment they have.
Has to be the Air Force then right? Wrong again, my friend. Russian Mach 3 Foxbat interceptors, MiG-29 Fulcrum Fighters, Chinese Chengdu F-7’s, and French Mirage F-1’s rounded out the Iraqi airforce. Not an F-15 or F-16 in the crowd.
But surely, surely, we must have given them some missiles. Has to be. Well, no, it doesn’t. Their primary missile was the Russian made Scud and FROG-7, the Exocet from France, and the Silkworm from China. Even their missile defense doesn’t come from the US. It was all Russian French and Chinese. Again, no US missiles.
So with all the “arms” we supplied them, what with us “arming Saddam” and all, where is all the US equipment? Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?
People, you are all missing the point. In order to deal with Iran, Iraq et al, we have to look at Canada’s answer to attrocities that ex PMs Cretien & Martin used.
The dreaded strongly worded diplomatic letter!
Now that was a bomb if I ever saw one.
Even the strongly worded diplomatic letter had little teeth whilst Martin openly courted (for donations of course) the Tamil terrorists.
after the tsunmani – the first aid from Canada went there.
ample payback for the donations and votes delivered in T.O.
combat jump star
poison gas can be dropped from helicopters. similar to the way zirkon was dropped into gas chambers. That is likely how it was delivered to the Turks.
These helicopters were delivered in 84. They were at war with Iran until 88 and then the Gulf War would have finished any remaining.
The Reagan administration changed their policy to exempt Iraq from its label as a terrorist state so that it could sell arms in 83-84. In 88 when Saddam gassed the Kurds, the congress wanted to slap Iraq with the label again but Reagan refused. The Russians were on the run and Reagan would not let up on pressuring them anywhere.
Steve,
No, it can’t. I’m sorry, obviously you’ve never seen a smoke helicopter. They have to be specifically modified in order to hold the gas, and then specifically modified to properly deploy the gas so it’s not sucked back into the bird by the rotor wash. You can’t just take a load of anthrax up in a helicopter and drop it out the open door. It doesn’t work like that.
As far as the helicopters go, 27 out of the stated 115 were actually sold to the Iraqi government, the rest to corporations or individuals. The ones sold to individuals were not military aircraft. Now, we don’t know what type of birds the others were. They could have been Chinook’s or unarmed Kiowa’s. Hell, they could have been old unarmed Marine transports from Vietnam or unarmed Loach’s. If they were unarmed birds, how is that “arming?” So these 27 maybe attack/maybe not attack helicopters constitutes “arming” Saddam, when the Russians and French supplied a far larger number of birds individually, let alone put together? Hell, Canada sold all their Chinook’s to the Dutch. Apparently, by your logic, Canada armed the Dutch!
Yet again, Where are the US weapons? They didn’t have them in the first Gulf War either. There were no Abrams, Cobra’s, M-16’s etc, arrayed against our troops. Did they decide to use inferior equipment for fun? If Reagan was selling them weapons, where were/are they? The US supplied 1% of Iraq’s arms from 1973-2002. So over a nearly 30 year period we supplied 1 % of Iraq’s entire arms imports, most of it probably made up of those 27 birds. If that’s your idea of “arming”, I have no idea what to tell you.
The bell copters were suppose to be for spraying crops, but saddams gas worked better on people.
I don’t think I want anything to do with Saddam’s gas. BA DUM BUM CHING!
Ok, seriously, that’s my last comment on this thread. I’ve said what I had to say, no use in going over it again.
Jump Star,
You’re wasting your time with the bozos, they know there’s only one true source of evil in the world, the Americans.
Mostly sounds like displaced envy.
Kate:
I can say with absolute knowledge that your 30 minutes of the Douglas Creek land claims post is 180 degrees from the truth. You trivialize a most complex negotiation. There is a reason I have not posted regularly for the past several weeks and this negotiation is it.