Nine Danger Signs--Or Is It Ten, Now That The Senate Has Canceled Scheduled Hearings?
According to the American Congress for Truth, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee suddenly canceled the October 25, 2005 hearings:
"This hearing would have exposed Saudi support for the wrathful dogma of Wahhabism, the rejection of the co-existence of different religions and condemnation of Christians, Jews, and all other non Muslims. It would have revealed their attempts to instill contempt for America and its non Wahhabi-style of government.According to Frank Gaffney's recent commentary in the Washington Times,
"Witnesses called by the Judiciary Committee to testify were former CIA director Jim Woolsey, Steve Emerson of The Investigation Project and several U.S. Islamic community advocates. These are highly informed experts who have information that our policy makers need to hear."
"...The reason this question deserves urgent attention should be obvious: Since November 2001, there has been a roughly three-fold increase in the price of a barrel of oil, from $18 to as much as $70. As a result, Saudi Arabia -- which currently exports about 10 million barrels per day -- receives an extra half-billion dollars every day from oil-consuming nations.At the same time, while our elected officials are delaying hearings, the United American Committee (UAC), a nonpartisan and diverse group whose focus is Islamic extremism in the United States, is distributing the following material to the Muslim community:
"If even a fraction of that $500 million in found-money -- to say nothing of the other resources of the Saudi kingdom -- is being put in the service of our Islamofascist enemies, we are likely to face an even more serious problem in the future than we do today.
"As today's Judiciary Committee hearing would surely have demonstrated, it is a safe bet that a significant portion of the Saudis' petro-windfall will be put in the hands of Islamist totalitarians bent on our destruction. That is not simply because Saudi Arabia has long had ties to Islamofascist terrorists, however.
"Worse yet, the Saudis are themselves the wellspring of Sunni Islamofascism....
"Had the hearing not been cancelled, senators would have received powerful evidence of the Saudis' true colors. From former Clinton CIA Director James Woolsey and a member of the International Religious Freedom Commission, Nina Shea, they would have heard the breathtaking results of a study performed earlier this year by Freedom House. It indisputably demonstrated that the Saudi government has been directly responsible for putting materials rife with jihadist propaganda and incitement in American mosques.
"From Yigal Carmon, the founder of the highly-respected Middle East Media Research Institute, legislators would have seen videos of similar hate-mongering that represents standard fare on Saudi television. (It is to be hoped that, when the hearing is held, senators will examine whether such material will now be beamed directly into the United States via DirecTV. This would appear to be the upshot of a deal whereby a controversial Saudi prince, Al-Waleed bin Talal, purchased more than 5 percent of the voting stock of the satellite company's parent and of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, parent of Fox News. (See this).
"And from Steven Emerson, world-renowned anti-terrorism expert, senators doubtless would have heard chilling details about the Saudi footprint in America. The mosques, schools (madrassas), student organizations, Muslim-American and Arab-American agitation operations, businesses and recruitment operations -- notably in U.S. prisons and the military -- that are funded and dominated by Islamist Saudi Wahhabis...."
Addressed to the Islamic community of AmericaOne hopes that the laudable words of the above UAC material is interpreted without the nuances of "Differing Definitions." According to Islamic leader Sayyid Qutb,
NINE DANGER SIGNS OF MILITANT ISLAM
1. Justification of any Islamic Terrorism, Palestinian or otherwise
2. Supporting or refusing to condemn Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Hamas, or other terrorists or terrorist organizations by name
3. Promoting jihad for Muslims to fight against what they determine is "injustice" or "aggression"
4. Demands for Sharia law in the West, or denying that Sharia forbids equal rights for women and members of religions other than Islam
5. Demanding that Americans accommodate the public expression of Islamic laws, customs, and practices that conflict with, or are harmful to American laws, customs, and practices
6. Denying that Muslims were involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and other attacks around the world
7. Refusal to cooperate with or inciting others not to cooperate with authorities or standard security procedures
8. Branding progressive Muslims or Muslims of different opinions as apostates.
9. Refusal to interact, converse, or socialize with non-Muslims.
Peace-loving Muslims everywhere agree on the need to be alert for any incitements to hate, violence, religious intolerance, or outright lying. We need your help to keep Islam a religion of peace.
"When Islam strives for peace, its objective is not that superficial peace which requires that only that part of the earth where the followers of Islam are residing remain secure."And the last section of the Koran to be revealed contains Sura 9:5, which, back in the fourteenth century, was interpreted as follows:
"Mainstream and respected Qur'an commentator, Isma'il bin Amr bin Kathir al Dimashqi (1301-1372), known popularly as Ibn Kathir, declares that sura 9:5 'abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term....No idolater had an more treaty of promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed.'"Furthermore, a search of the web sites of CAIR and MAS, two of the most prominent Muslim groups in the United States, indicates no support or endorsement of either the Senate hearings or the efforts of the UAC. But both CAIR and MAS are staunch advocates of Sign 5:
"Demanding that Americans accommodate the public expression of Islamic laws, customs, and practices that conflict with, or are harmful to American laws, customs, and practices."So, do we see a Sign 10 to add to "Nine Danger Signs of Militant Islam"? In spite of more than four years having passed since 9/11, our elected representatives refuse to take decisive steps in investigating Saudi Arabia's support of terrorism.
posted by Always On Watch @ 10/29/2005 04:47:00 PM
41 comments
41 Comments:
What a GREAT post. I've added it to my list of blogs reporting on the Saudis. Now, if you only had trackbacks ;-)
"They may agree but they are awfully silent."
Their silence is deafening.
Samwich,
I missed that story. But admittedly, I've been out of the loop most of this week with all the personal crises (as you've read a bit about here, I know).
There's no doubt in my mind--our oil dollars fuel terrorism when we buy from Saudi. Can we curtail that support and help Iraq at the same time? We shall see.
For the first time in 40 years, we now have an operative fireplace here in our home. And we have no need to buy firewood as we have a wooded lot with lots of dead and felled trees.
Elmer's Brother & Bozwell,
I, too, am still waiting for that stampede of moderate Muslims. But I hear about terrorists' bombs in India on tonight's news.
Some Muslims, among them Irshad Manji, have managed to compartmentalized the ideology. Can others so the same? Can compartmentalization succeed? It takes only a small minority of jihadists to exert a vast amount of control.
As always AOW, well written and articulated.
I have a new post up, I think you will find interesting. Haven't had a lot of time to research it, but I did give my first impression of the situation.
Excellent post!
Thanks for sharing,
Jake
Great post! Government bureaucracy is adding to the danger that we're in--not helping. People are in a definite fog on this one; that government will protect us from another 9/11.
If we don't watch out, we'll be living under sharia law; some schools are already teaching Islam and how to wage a jihad to our children, while at the same time, banning prayer in schools and the pledge of allegiance because it says "one nation under God". It's mortifying! I suppose they'd allow it if it said "one nation under allah"?
Our elected representatives are getting paid a Dhimmit tax (oil money from Saudis goes into campaign donataions) from the Saudis. Right now, the Saudis are the minority in the West, so they're paying, but, as we know, they intend to make us pay, and big.
Besides, they can afford the tax, they just take it out of us on the other end.
Contact members of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee and urge them to reschedule the hearings. Remind them of the fact that they work for us. (BTW) My Question Of The Week has been posted now, a little late
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
The baloney happening in DC is taking our eyes off the prize -- security for our citizens. Your post points this out with a glaring spotlight. Excellent job.
Always,
Thanks so very much for addressing this issue, and thanks to all of you who suggest that we get in touch re: a rescheduling of the hearings. My guess is that CAIR et al. are having bloody diarrhea over the possibility of hearings like this.
It's important that we make the distinction between an evil organization (in this case, "Islam") and its membership, many of whom have no real choice about their membership (in this case, "Muslims").
I used to be very critical of people like Irshad Manji, who despite seeing the evil that is the organization "Islam," still retained membership in it.
I've since softened my view; as G.Edwards Demming, the American responsible for the healing and rise of Japanese business after WWII said, "85% of the problem is with the system, not the people."
People like Irshad want to change the SYSTEM, make it something NOT evil.
The evidence for the possibility of such a change lies in the history of Islam itself. Way back when, between the time of the death of Mohammed and the fixation of Islam in the form we see today, there was a very different group of Muslims called the "Mu'tazilites." These guys maintained that people had free will, that the contents of the Koran were allegorical, that debate, questions about religion (including Islam) was a good thing, that innovation was not a sin, that reason was the path to knowledge (not the Koran), and a lot of other things that we, today, would see as familiar and comfortable.
The Mu'tazilites, as you may well imagine, were the people, the scholars and philosophers, who were active during the so-called "Golden Age," and were essentially responsible for it. Unfortunately, for reasons too complicated to go into here, they ended up eliminating themselves from being able to influence the course of Islam by a couple of hundred years after Muhammed's death; that was when the Islamic equivalent of the Conference of Nicea was held, and the groups who took every word in the Koran literally won the "Influence War," locking Islam into the form we see today.
It doesn't have to be that way; if the latter-day Mu'tazilites like Irshad Manji could gather together strongly enough, my guess is that everything would be a whole lot better for everyone.
There are quite a few such people "out there." If only we could distinguish between the genuine article and the practitioners of kitman and taqiyya, some real progress could be made.
I agree that in the absence of some sort of significant change in Islam doesn't happen reasonably soon, more drastic measures will have to be taken to protect ourselves against the pestilence it has become.
It's an "us or them" situation, and as things are going now, either Islam changes or it will be helped to fade from existence.
Cubed,
"People like Irshad want to change the SYSTEM, make it something NOT evil."
I agree with you in principal, however it is almost impossible task to accomplish since the Quran openly says otherwise and after all the holy book is recognized as exact words of Allah.
While encouraging such moderates I think that the Muslims should be made aware that we do not think that Islam is allright-religion of peace-like any other religion etc.
Majority of Muslims are "good" people as all human beings are but they are being trapped by the system in their own countries (very much like most people living in USSR were not real communists).
Now, what happens when they try to escape from this system?
Our governments help the oppressive system to follow the "refugees" and take control of them in OUR countries.
Saudi money comes handy here.
Felis,
Yeah, frankly, I don't hold out much hope, at least in the immediate to intermediate future, that Islam will undergo the foundational changes that are absolutely essential if Islam is to survive at all. It's very hard for people to reject something (e.g. the Koran) that they sincerely believe to be the word of Allah, particularly under the sorts of threats that are issued for doing so, both here on earth and in the Hereafter.
About the best that can be reasonably hoped for, I think, is that bit by bit, the "compartmentalizing" Muslims who want to live happier lives, and simultaneously understand that the "lessor jihad" is doomed to failure, will form spinoffs at a time when massive "defections" from the current Islamic mainstream will occur so rapidly that what is now the mainstreat will find itself isolated.
I brought up the idea of the Mu'tazilites because for "compartmentalizing" Muslims, this could conceivably form an anchor within Islamic history itself for the changes they would like to see in Islam. They could point to the Mu'tazilites as an example of the kind of Muslims they would like to be.
They would have to change their interpretation of the Koran as it stands today, and reinterpret it in somthing resembling the way the Mu'tazilites did; they might even eventually compose other documents which would reinforce the more reasonable version of Islam, and which would eventually carry some moral weight. They could be derived from some of the "nicer" parts of the Koran, the Hadith, etc.
Basically, though, this is a fantasy; unless such a movement can gain speed in the very near future, I must agree that such hope for change, for a "New Islam," remains remote and basically hopeless.
If someone were to hold a gun to my head and say "Guess whether Islam will ever reform" I would have to answer "No," for the very reasons you cite. Leaving Islam can be a very dangerous business, and is unlikely to appeal to any but a very courageous few.
My crystal ball is all smudged up right now though, and since some really strange and improbable things have happened across time, I continue to entertain the fantasy that the "Islam Problem" can be solved without the widespread conflict that I, along with many of us, become more and more convinced will be the route that will be taken in the future.
Cao,
Interesting point you've made about the Pledge of Allegiance. Years ago, I had several Pakistani students in my class; only the secret convert to Christianity recited the Pledge and only when her siblings were not present. They all stood out of respect, but didn't cover their hearts.
Our government is not protecting us! The cancellation of these hearings is more proof of that fact.
Yesterday, I obtained a copy of the Council on Islamic Education's guide as to how to teach Islam in the public-school systems here in the United States. The actual definition of jihad is patently denied! We are indeed moving toward shari'a law as Islamification continues apace. And the Senate doesn't hold the hearings on Saudi!
LA & Jake,
Thank you for the compliment. With all the stress from all the flat tires, I somehow managed to get this post up. Don't ask me how!
I visit both your sites on a regular basis--good work! And if you ever have anything which needs my immediate attention, do as you did, LA, and notify me here. Or email me at the address in my profile. I don't check the email as often as this site, however.
Pastorius,
You said, Our elected representatives are getting paid a Dhimmit tax (oil money from Saudis goes into campaign donataions)
YES!!! And how to put a stop to it?
David,
I've already fired off some letters, as have some of my friends. This is a matter of national importance!
BTW, love your question-of-the-week feature. I'll stop by to see what others have said.
Esther,
You said, The baloney happening in DC.
"Baloney" is one way of putting it. LOL. But, of course, the matter is not funny at all, is it? I also find it astounding that absolutely no news media I have seen are covering the story of the cancellation of the hearings.
Felis & Cubed,
Can Islam reform or compartmentalize (however you want to term what you've been discussing) in time? A detonated nuclear weapon would change the world order. Iran continues apace in its quest for world dominance. And various jihadi groups continue to seek WMD's.
As I see it, the problem today with the collapse of Islamism from within is the enormity of power which modern weaponry, nuclear and otherwise, affords jihadists. Such a factor was not in existence in previous pushes to establish Islam as the worldwide ideology.
Now, even if the worldwide caliphate were established (God forbid!), I believe that tribal infighting will bring it down. But the cost beforehand to Western civilization is horrifying.
UAC is trying very hard to "do something," as the saying goes. And our elected representatives sit on their hands. Makes me furious! And I suspect that the delay is all about the money--Saudi money, as Pastorius pointed out. Of course, were there to be an attack, the Committee has already put out the pr that the delay is because of the Miers (sp?) nomination. Well, keep fooling around, Senators, and there won't even BE a Supreme Court building! Am I over-reacting? Maybe. But I keep coming back to the fact that we still don't know how many planes grounded on 9/11 were destined for other targets. Say what you will about GWB...Grounding all airplanes on 9/11 was a gutsy and smart move. I doubt that Gore or Kerry would have done the same.
Felis and Cubed, both of you have made excellent comments. I'll need to go back to study them more thoroughly to let the information soak in. Thanks to both of you for your extensive comments here!
Duck, a classic post by you:
Let me surmise for you what in all actuality you have just tried to softly suggest, using the tactic of "flanking" the issues.
First, you immediately try to take the discussion off topic, and refer everyone to the “moonbat” theory that Moore originated that the entire thing is about oil. You completely ignore the fact that the American left has so handicapped our ability to produce refined petroleum product, that even four refineries being shut down caused gas shortages and huge temporarily spikes in prices.
Second, just in case everyone did see it from your first “paragraph”, you actually mention Michael “MoonBat” Moore by name, and cite specifically his “it was all for oil” black helicopter theory, that has yet to pan out (as no one has gotten any oil from Iraq).
Third, you try to insinuate that:
A.) We are not doing enough in aid to Pakistan
B.) There Islamofascist indoctrination is our fault because of the shortfall of aid
C.) If we just given enough, those silly Muslims wont hate us.
Fourth, and last, you try to re-direct the argument against radical, militant, and aggressive Islam to (so stereotypically) Christians. You fail to mention things like “Southern Baptists” (along with almost every other denomination of Christianity) pushing for laws and legislation through accepted channels of proposal then vote, versus sue and then court.
And of course, in all these bogus arguments, you coincidentally ignore the fact that Christians are currently sending aid and assistance to those displaced Muslims in Pakistan and India, as well as Iran. They have missionaries all over the globe that do nothing but deliver needed supplies and comfort, while conversely the only “aid” the western world receives from Islam is aggressive push to either convert, or die.
And please, if you attempt to argue again, don’t cite Moore as your source. I take you as serious with that, as you would me citing Rush Limbaugh.
fundamentalist is Christian means something very different from Islam. To ignore that to make your point is partisan, at best.
And Iraq was "All about" changing the status quo of geopolitics in that region that have given us about 40 years of heartburn.
Iraq was the easiest target in the middle of a virtual dartboard. Regardless of the oil situation, we needed to take out one existing regime in that area, and install a pro-American regime that would enjoy the benefits of an open society with Democratic roots... thus speeding up the time line of "reform" in the other countries around them.
But, thanks to our American Left (the leadership of which I think knew full well the real intention), we've tried time and time again to discredit any reason given.
The American people in mass, would never accept this as a valid rationale for war. But in the grand scheme of things, it is the most valid. While Saddam had nothing to do (first hand) with 9/11, he and his ilk had a great deal to do with the rise of global terrorism. Rather than pick a radically zealous theocracy like Iran (and inflame the entire Muslim world), or our biggest supplier of oil (Saudi), we choose Iraq, the UN's current whipping boy.
Now, I realize you're devotion to the socialistic model of "if we give enough, they will like us", but I also understand that it just doesn’t work.
We have been dumping billions into that area for decades. And they still hate us. I think th real reason that the American Left hates the current Administration, and their aggressive policies so much, is because it singles out and amplifies their strategy that has failed so miserably (the giving tree stated above).
I think hard core leftists are very worried that a little bit more time (without their constant sabotage) will show that tax cuts actually help the economy, aggressive foreign policy keeps enemies away from American soil, and radical social reform is not necessary to keep America strong.
Cubed,
What you said is basically what I think myself.
No argument here at all.
AOW,
Now, even if the worldwide caliphate were established (God forbid!), I believe that tribal infighting will bring it down. But the cost beforehand to Western civilization is horrifying.
Absolutely.
And it is not for the first time that as soon as the political power of Islam seemed to be unstoppable the construction collapsed because of the two elements that all totalitarian systems try to control without success - human nature and economy.
But.., as you said the cost that we (as human kind) paid every time such spectacular collapse occurred was enormous.
Those nine danger signs could easily be a CAIR press release. Not only does Saudi Arabia support Wahhabism...but it is its home. The ruling family made deals with
Wahhabist leaders after Iran took American hostages,to look the other way and to support them financially.
In Duckyworld, the Saudis control Washington on Tuesdays, followed by Zionists on Wednesday through Saturday, followed by Pat Robertson on Sunday and Bill Gates on Mondays.
AOW...I just spent some time researching UAC. I noticed besides a homesite they also have a blog. After reading several of their blogs plus going over their home site, they seem to be aware of what we are facing. I looked up earlier the British Nationalist party, onetime anti-American and anti-semite organization and it seems that a long a broad front many diverse groups see Islam as the major danger facing Western society. I also posted this on my site. Most of the information came from the Muslim Militant Monitor.
Excellent post, AOW! Frank Gaffney, each time I have heard him speak, has his finger right on the pulse! Unfortunately, this side of the Atlantic, one hears him speak only too little.
Yes, with the price of oil soaring, it is troubling indeed that so much of this extra revenue could be, and probably will be, spent on proliferating Islam in the West. And just as galling is the fact that our politicians do NOTHING about it!
Another good American blogger on the ball ;)
To all commenters:
I'm in the busy phase of my work week right now, so don't be put off if I'm quiet for a bit.
Carry on! I read the comments but don't always respond when work beckons.
Back later,
AOW
Duck,
You said a couple of things that reiterate your unceasing devotion to partisan spin, and not factual representation. First and foremost is the “one cheap dictator for another” comment. While you are correct in assuming that Saddam was a cheap dictator, you blatantly (again) ignore that he was also a murderous horror.
While we can debate the values of the budding theocracy all day, in truth, they are now a representative government that will be held accountable to the people. Regardless of how they choose to make their laws, they must represent the will of the people (something very foreign in that part of the world).
In an attempt to increase political power and standing, you, and many of your ilk try to marginalize the impact this will have on the region. However, rest assured, your word games will not change the vast impact this will have on the region. 20 years from now, the Mid-East will no longer be the hot bed of injustice and radicalism it is today. It wont be because we prosecuted anyone to the “fullest extent”, and it wont be because we “held discussion”. It will be because someone (GWB) took bold and decisive action that change the paradigm the region currently operates under. The royal families and religious theocrats currently in power realize the danger their standing is in, and thus have been fighting this transition with all of their time, money and power.
Now, I know you don’t like this line of thinking because it completely contradicts your reason for political activism (Bush is the Devil), but step back for a moment, and really think about who gains from an insurgency in Iraq. Is it the people of Iraq? Is it GWB? Is it Americans? Or is it the powerful clerics and other theocrats, royal families, and the political left?
When finding the root cause of any problem, you usually only have to look at who stands to gain the most. In this case, it is so clear, your lack of perceiving it astounds me almost as much as your misguided ideals of economics and social progress.
By your logic, we should hurry and lock up all the gun manufacturers, and gun shop owners/operators. They are complicit in every murder since the invention of gun powder.
I think you miss some important things with your misplaced conclusion about Iran’s victories. You seem to forget the current geography climate they no longer enjoy thanks to the wars. Again, you assume that we “ex-military” have a knuckle dragging mentality that cannot grasp the entirety of the situation, when in fact, you can look to yourself for that folly.
The big picture Duck, as you seem not to grasp it, is that now Iran and Syria find themselves isolated and alone in a region they used to have firm political and ideological control over. Iran, formerly surrounded by nations that were unfriendly to the US and Israel, now has its most sensitive military and strategic areas in very close proximity to US (and US allies) controlled lands.
For evidence of this, not the very recent Russian and Chinese support for the embattled Iranian nuclear project (someone is worried that the US is gaining too much control), and Syria’s complete lack of support in the current UN investigation of assassinating the Lebanese PM. Did you also notice, soon after the Iraq invasion, Lebanon’s quick change of heart?
Of course you could assume these are all isolated incidents and unrelated events. But I am guessing you are smarter than that.
Once again, think in the big picture, and long perspective. Israel, Qatar, Kuwait. All three are in that region, and are allies. All three have real things they need from us to continue to survive. You are still trying to ignore the paradigm shift that is now taking place. You ignore the recent changes in events, and you ignore the mobilization of other nations now trying to influnce the region.
G & Duck,
I haven't had time to read all your comments thoroughy, and I don't know how much credibility the following has, but I'm tossing it in before I have to dash off to work....
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19899 :
[Ryan] Mauro: My book ["Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq"] compiles all the evidence available that demonstrates Iraq worked with Al-Qaeda on all levels.
In the 1980s, Saddam regularly sponsored Palestinian groups and Iraqi intelligence even poisoned Israeli oranges that they exported to Europe, an obvious economic assault. After the Gulf War, Hasan al-Turabi, the spiritual leader of Sudan, helped bring all sorts of Islamic groups together--this included the Iraqis and Osama Bin Laden. It was a time of great reconciliation. Iraq and Iran began burying the hatchet, and Sudan became a base for cooperation.
The Iraqi Intelligence Service deputy director Farouq Hijazi met with Ayman al-Zawahiri, head of Egyptian Islamic Jihad who would eventually become the second-in-command and "brains" of Al-Qaeda. According to Iraqi intelligence documents, Bin Laden "also requested joint operations against foreign forces." It should also be mentioned that a group now closely tied to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi began cooperation with the Iraqis at this time.
Iraqi intelligence documents seem to identify the Somalia ambush as the first incident of cooperation between Sudan, Iraq, and Osama Bin Laden. An Iraqi document signed by Saddam's secretary shows that the regime demanded that action was made to "hunt the Americans" in Somalia using "Arabian elements, or Asian (Muslims) or friends." The Iraqi documents list a range of groups available for participation in the operation. Muhammad Farrah Aidid, who led the ambush, even met with Iraqi intelligence in Khartoum.
From then on, there are periodic meetings between the Iraqis and Al-Qaeda officials. Training of Al-Qaeda operatives began in 1995 as a result of meetings between the Iraqis and Abu Hajer al-Iraqi, known as Osama Bin Laden's "best friend." From then on, there would be a great number of meetings, participated in by many different leaders and officials of the Iraqi regime and Al-Qaeda. A stream of defectors would report cooperation between the two, as would many intelligence services.
Cooperation from the mid-1990s up until the war steadily increased, eventually culminating in Iraqi training of Al-Qaeda members in document forgery, bomb production, WMD development, and other activity. On more than one occasion, the Iraqis would go on alert and then an Al-Qaeda terrorist attack would be attempted. Iraq would also actively work with Al-Qaeda (and Syrian intelligence) to prepare the guerrilla war we're facing today.
I'm aware of new evidence that Iran played a direct role in 9/11 and sponsoring Al-Qaeda and this is not contradictory. In fact, documents brought to light by Ken Timmerman show that Imad Mughniyah of Hezbollah, high-level Iranian officials, high-level Iraqi intelligence officials and high-level Al-Qaeda operatives met in Iran in October 2001. So Bin Laden relied on several avenues of support, which made sense, as this meant he couldn't be held down by one state's interests.
FP: Your book also shows how Saddam moved his WMDs into other countries. Can you give us a summary of the evidence?
Mauro: Saddam passed his WMDs into other countries long before Operation Iraqi Freedom began. Iraq's WMDs have long been, all the way back to the 1990s, connected to other state's WMD programs. By the late 1990s, a great part of Iraq's nuclear program was based in Libya as a joint project. Iraqi WMD would be routinely moved in and out of Syria to avoid inspections.
So the fact that Syrian defectors, Iraqi scientists and foreign intelligence sources indicate the WMD was moved to Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Iran is not surprising at all. American satellites saw traffic moving from Iraq into Syria between January 2003 and the war's beginning, and at this time the Iraqi border guards were replaced with Iraqi intelligence. Iran has even taken in some Iraqi chemical and biological weapons equipment, just like they took in Iraqi aircraft in 1991.
I detail in my book how this was not some change in policy by Iraq, it was simply an expansion of previous cooperation. UN inspectors even confirmed in the 1990s this was going on. Iraqi WMD expertise has been confirmed to be in other countries as well (and Duelfer confirmed that Qusay Hussein prepared for such expertise to go to Syria). This is not at odds with Duelfer or Kay, who both confirmed there were reports of WMD going to Syria and that trucks full of "Iraqi equipment" went to Syria but we don't know the contents. Duelfer even said there was evidence Syria offered to harbor Iraqi WMD, but he couldn't confirm that they did in fact do that because the insurgency stopped his team from completing the investigation.
[end of excerpt]
Mauro's web site:
http://www.worldthreats.com/
But there was no connection, and Bush just lied for the oil AOW, otherwise, the entire argument by the left is nothing but partisan hack games.
By the way, nice catch. I might just use that on something later.
Always on Watch,
It is amazing that you find so many interesting sites and blogs.
The danger signs listed here are very helpful to check potential threats in advance. People can do something on the community level. Saudi Wahhabists are the problem.
By the way, I am coming to Washington DC from November 5 to 9.
Shah,
Thank you for the compliment.
So you're coming to my area? I'm guessing that you've visited here before. I hope that you'll find time to get in some sight-seeing here. The autumn colors are starting to appear, so this area is quite beautiful right now.
Duck,
AOW, you are getting your news from an 18 year old's conspiracy site.
Well, I DID say that I didn't vouch for the reliability. I just tossed in what I had seen. Take it, or leave it. I think that I have a NYT article with some similar information, but the details are vague in my mind.
Furthermore, if--and I am saying if--Saddam had WMD's, he had plenty of time to move or to hide them. How many warnings had he received? Something like 14?
Did you check out the Washington Post today.
I haven't read today's paper yet, but I did see the headline. I plan to read the paper tonight. I do see a picture caption: "In 2002, Abu Zabaida, left, al Qaeda's operations chief, was covertly imprisoned in Thailand. Later, 9/11 planner Ramzi Binalshibh was sent there." Certainly those two fellows would be important to question.
Well, as long as we only torture folks that scare AOW then we aren't becoming like the enemies you profess to hate most.
1. I'm not scared.
2. I don't set government policy. LOL.
3. I have never advocated torture, precisely because I don't think we should lower our ethos to that of the enemy. Also, secret overseas systems have much potential for abuse. However, I have no problem with holding and questioning terrorists.
In sum, I'll have to read the article.
Duck,
Worrying about CAIR and Nuber 5 is hardly worthwhile. Hell, Southern Baptists are pushing for religious law and we don't pay them enough mind. They are certainly a larger threat to American culture than CAIR.
I disagree. Southern Baptists are not the equivalent of Wahhabists. Furthermore, Baptists are evangelical and advocate changes via conversion, as opposed to declaring those who disagree as infidels or apostates--worthy of immediate subjugation or the death penalty.
Saddam Hussein had 64 months to move his WMD between the time he told his lackey Bill Clinton that he would not allow Americans to be on UN inspection teams in his country to the time President Bush gave him 48 hours to leave Iraq.
Of course, we can't rule out the possibility that Saddam Hussein morphed into Winnie the Pooh when Bush was elected in 2000.
C'mon you can't deny it. Democrats act like we went to war with Winnie the Pooh.
Duck,
Of course, you know about Mahdi Obeidi and his book The Bomb in My Garden. Centrifuge and all that. Obeidi says that the scientists were ready to fire up, so to speak, "at the snap of Saddam's finger."
Saddam was certainly no Winnie the Pooh!
Just saw this one...
Jack Kelly
Friday, 04 November 2005
The president went on television to announce: “Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years,” the vice chairman of the Intelligence committee told the Senate.
The president was Bill Clinton (Dec. 16th, 1998). The senator was Jay Rockefeller (Oct. 10th, 2002).
These statements should be kept in mind when assessing the hissy fit Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid threw Tuesday when he called the Senate into secret session to discuss whether Bush administration officials had exaggerated prewar intelligence about Iraq.
Ducky,
Explain this away.
Post a Comment
<< Home