T Nation

Hypocrisy...

Interesting discussion of this on the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm

My question would be, if it is not an immoral practice, why did the US military first deny it?

Makkun

[quote]doogie wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
On what thunderbolt23 wrote:

HOLY SHIT - I had no idea how much shit we were wrong about!

Really, that’s the best you could come up with? Take your time. Read it again. Research it. Refute it. Go ahead, we’ll all wait.[/quote]

Do you really wanna to go there? Any chemical weapons Saddam ever had, we gave to him - and condoned the use of. All while companies like Halliburton did business with him. The only people who don’t know that are the people who just pretend not to know.

Iraq didn’t attack us on 9/11 but supposedly helped al Qaeda (which they didn’t). But even if that were true, the irony is al Qaeda was a product of the CIA.

Regardless of any other reason - WMD’s were the sure thing. Tons and tons and tons of WMD’s - absolutely, positively, without a shadow of a doubt – backed up with aerial and satellite photos and real intelligence and eye witnesses. THEY WEREN’T THERE!

Research it. Refute it.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Iraq didn’t attack us on 9/11 but supposedly helped al Qaeda (which they didn’t). But even if that were true, the irony is al Qaeda was a product of the CIA.

Regardless of any other reason - WMD’s were the sure thing. Tons and tons and tons of WMD’s - absolutely, positively, without a shadow of a doubt – backed up with aerial and satellite photos and real intelligence and eye witnesses. THEY WEREN’T THERE!

Research it. Refute it.
[/quote]

There has ever been a STRONG possibility that evidence of WMD’s were shipped to Syria prior to the invasion. Leftists like to forget this.

http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200511181121.asp
November 18, 2005, 11:21 a.m.
Facts of War
Yes, there were connections between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 bad guys.

What is this baloney that there were no connections between Iraq and Osama bin Laden? Even the 9/11 Commission Report, which I believe is lacking in many respects, includes some useful findings all but ignored today by the media and war critics. Consider the following excerpts:

Page 61:

Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda ? save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against ‘Crusaders’ during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.

To protect his own ties with Iraq, [Sudan’s Islamic leader] Turabi, reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremist operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to his request. … [T]he ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish common connections.

Page 66:
… In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large are attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occured in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. …

The report goes on to say that no evidence was unearthed of a “collaborative operational relationship” or Iraqi cooperation in the 9/11 attacks. However, the existence of bin Ladin/al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein/Iraq connections, over a number of years, is indisputable.

Given this fact, and that both the president and Congress were informed by numerous intelligence officials and agencies that Saddam Hussein was pursuing weapons of mass destruction, it is simply a falsehood to claim that Iraq did not pose a national-security risk to the United States, or that there were no serious connections between Iraq and al Qaeda ? connections which could develop further if Iraq had not been attacked.

Here’s what Congress itself said in October 2002 in passing a joint resolution justifying and authorizing war against Iraq:

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; …

Did Iraq pose a serious threat to our national security? Yes. Did Congress believe Iraq posed a serious threat? Yes. Did Iraq have or seek to obtain weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Those are the facts.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
doogie wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
On what thunderbolt23 wrote:

HOLY SHIT - I had no idea how much shit we were wrong about!

Really, that’s the best you could come up with? Take your time. Read it again. Research it. Refute it. Go ahead, we’ll all wait.

Do you really wanna to go there? Any chemical weapons Saddam ever had, we gave to him - and condoned the use of. All while companies like Halliburton did business with him. The only people who don’t know that are the people who just pretend not to know.

Iraq didn’t attack us on 9/11 but supposedly helped al Qaeda (which they didn’t). But even if that were true, the irony is al Qaeda was a product of the CIA.

[/quote]

Wow. For somebody who throws out tons of links and always has an argument (or, more often, a conspiracy theory) at the ready, you really don’t know what you’re talking about. Al Qaeda WAS NOT a product of the CIA. Bin Laden never received CIA funding in Afghanistan, and certainly not thereafter. There were plenty of other nasty people (Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, most prominently) we funded in Afghanistan in the 80’s, due both to the Pakistanis and to the political calculations of the time. Hindsight is 20/20. But Al Qaeda is not and never was some CIA creation. Read a book instead of trolling the internet for articles on how Mossad blew up the Twin Towers.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Hey John…nice articles I was following this also…but I think you spell it “Hypocrisy” [/quote]

I was going to correct him on this too but apparently it’s a neologism meaning ‘a government characterized by hypocrisy’. Incredibly witty eh?

Although considering the WP BS I might be giving him too much credit.

[quote]dermo wrote:
White phophorus in approved for creating smokescreens and blowing things up. As an incendiary device, I don’t think that it is legal to use it against people, regardless of whether they are soldiers or civilians. [/quote]

Several years ago I was told that according to Geneva Convention the .50 cal machine gun could not be used against personnel only equipment. Of course I later found out that the person who told me that was full of crap.
The same applies here. I gave my reference for The Law of Land Warfare. If you have a reference that says otherwise I would be very interested in knowing about it. For professional reasons not the sake of arguement.

Okay, I’m curious.

Did anyone say Bin Laden received CIA funding in Afghanistan, or after?

That seems a funny qualifier does it not?

So, was or is Bin Laden the leader of Al Queda? Did Bin Laden receive funding or training from the USA at some point, in order to hone his skills prior to that?

I’m just asking because a lot of funny word games are getting played on the public…

[quote]doogie wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
On what thunderbolt23 wrote:

HOLY SHIT - I had no idea how much shit we were wrong about!

Really, that’s the best you could come up with? Take your time. Read it again. Research it. Refute it. Go ahead, we’ll all wait.[/quote]

I think what he was saying was that it would be better had we only said it was about the WMD’s, because then it would be only ONE thing that the Bush administration was completely wrong about.

[quote]sjoconn wrote:
dermo wrote:
White phophorus in approved for creating smokescreens and blowing things up. As an incendiary device, I don’t think that it is legal to use it against people, regardless of whether they are soldiers or civilians.

Several years ago I was told that according to Geneva Convention the .50 cal machine gun could not be used against personnel only equipment. Of course I later found out that the person who told me that was full of crap.
The same applies here. I gave my reference for The Law of Land Warfare. If you have a reference that says otherwise I would be very interested in knowing about it. For professional reasons not the sake of arguement.
[/quote]

SJOCONN,

Here are the relevant citations:

White phosphorus is covered by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, which prohibits its use as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations or in air attacks against enemy forces in civilian areas.
The US - unlike 80 other countries including the UK - is not a signatory to Protocol III.

However…

US Army Command and Staff College’s “Battle Book”, ST 100-3 (1999), Chapter 5, Section 3
b. Projectiles.

[…]

(4) Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
…Do you really wanna to go there? Any chemical weapons Saddam ever had, we gave to him - and condoned the use of. All while companies like Halliburton did business with him. The only people who don’t know that are the people who just pretend not to know.

[/quote]

Lies, Russia and France and other Western Europeans gave/sold him almost all his standard weapons as well as biological and chemical weapons.

Most of the US aid was in the form of satellite intel and the like.

Well Zap, I think you’ve just encouraged a post with 18 links to online sources explaining the history of weapons in Iraq… :wink:

vroom, I am sure you are right. I wish I had the time and patience of JTF.

I have read this a number of places, most recently in Crusade by Rick Atkinson of the Washington Post. A long, detailed examination of the first Gulf War. He pulls no punches in his criticism of Bush and the military but he was also fair in many areas.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:

Do you really wanna to go there? Any chemical weapons Saddam ever had, we gave to him - and condoned the use of. All while companies like Halliburton did business with him. The only people who don’t know that are the people who just pretend not to know.[/quote]

The question raised was to refute the other writs against Saddam. Take a Ritalin and keep up.

Let’s take all your facts to be true.

So what? What does that have to do with rightness or wrongness of the war? We gave the Soviet Union tons of aid in WWII (including GMC trucks), and then they became our Cold War enemy. Because we aided the Soviet Union in furtherance of our goal to defeat the Nazis are we then therefore prohibited from defending ourselves from the Soviet Union? Because we were once strategic allies?

Nonsense. We could have sold Saddam 100% of daycare-seeking missiles - and that doesn’t foreclose any right or obligation to deal with him now as an enemy.

I’d even make the argument that, assuming your facts are true, we have an obligation to defang the snake we created, not throw our hands up and decided we are pre-empted from doing anything about Saddam because we once helped him. If we helped create the mess, doesn’t it make sense that we do something to clean it up?

Radical Islamists were not the product of the CIA. Did we assist the Islamists against Communist penetration? Yes. Same as we did with the Soviet Union in WWI in furtherance of our strategic interests then.

Yep, and other neocon Carlyle Group flunkies like France and Russia came to the same conclusion. How do you explain that? Don’t tell me - some retarded machinations about a New World Order and a mothership just outside the Sector 5 galaxy.

Another burning question - why would Bush risk going into Iraq if he knew full well there were no WMDs but lied anyway? For a man interested in consolidating power, he sure took an enormous risk starting a war in Iraq with an election coming in two years after - which he could have easily lost.

Doesn’t make sense. Under the conspiracy theory, Bush knows there are no WMDs, but fabricates belief in their existence, knowing full well that once we got into Iraq, all of his claims would be refuted after we win the war.

Moreover, 77 Senators came to the same conclusion - which means they are part of the scam or criminally negligent.

Bull. Shit.

JTF, not only are your posts pathetic and stupid, but your very residence in the USA belies your own belief in your claims. If half of the shit you posted was true, no reasonable person would still be living here. Yet you remain in the country, and have for years, despite your ‘belief’ that all these incredibly sinister things are afoot.

Your own actions refute all this garbage you post - how do you expect us to believe any of it of you don’t yourself?

[quote]dermo wrote:

SJOCONN,

Here are the relevant citations:

White phosphorus is covered by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, which prohibits its use as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations or in air attacks against enemy forces in civilian areas.
The US - unlike 80 other countries including the UK - is not a signatory to Protocol III.

However…

US Army Command and Staff College’s “Battle Book”, ST 100-3 (1999), Chapter 5, Section 3
b. Projectiles.

[…]

(4) Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.

[/quote]

It appears though that ST 100-3 referencing the use of WP by artillery.
I was under the impression, perhaps wrongfully, that the WP in question was being employed by infantry to clear bunkers and spider holes. If that is the case then acording to Law of Land Warfare it is a legal usage.
However, if it was imployed by artillery then that would appear to be wrong and using artillery to destroy a bunker or spider hole is overkill anyways.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
doogie wrote:
Really, that’s the best you could come up with? Take your time. Read it again. Research it. Refute it. Go ahead, we’ll all wait.

Do you really wanna to go there? Any chemical weapons Saddam ever had, we gave to him - and condoned the use of. All while companies like Halliburton did business with him. The only people who don’t know that are the people who just pretend not to know.

Iraq didn’t attack us on 9/11 but supposedly helped al Qaeda (which they didn’t). But even if that were true, the irony is al Qaeda was a product of the CIA.

Wow. For somebody who throws out tons of links and always has an argument (or, more often, a conspiracy theory) at the ready, you really don’t know what you’re talking about. Al Qaeda WAS NOT a product of the CIA. Bin Laden never received CIA funding in Afghanistan, and certainly not thereafter. There were plenty of other nasty people (Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, most prominently) we funded in Afghanistan in the 80’s, due both to the Pakistanis and to the political calculations of the time. Hindsight is 20/20. But Al Qaeda is not and never was some CIA creation. Read a book instead of trolling the internet for articles on how Mossad blew up the Twin Towers.[/quote]

Bin Laden comes home to roost
His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story
MSNBC

Vital intelligence on the Taliban may rest with its prime sponsor - Pakistan’s ISI
Jane’s Defence
01 October 2001
Along with Osama bin Laden, intelligence sources say a number of other infamous names emerged from the 1980s ISI-CIA collaboration in Afghanistan.
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/misc/janes011001_1_n.shtml

“CIA worked in tandem with Pakistan to create Taliban”
LONDON: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the “monster” that is today Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban, a leading US expert on South Asia said here.
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/taliban.htm

U.S. Taxpayers send Billions to our Enemies in Afghanistan
Rep. Ron Paul
November 5, 2001
We should recognize that American tax dollars helped to create the very Taliban government that now wants to destroy us. In the late 1970s and early 80s, the CIA was very involved in the training and funding of various fundamentalist Islamic groups in Afghanistan, some of which later became today’s brutal Taliban government. In fact, the U.S. government admits to giving the groups at least 6 billion dollars in military aid and weaponry, a staggering sum that would be even larger in today’s dollars.

Bin Laden himself received training and weapons from the CIA, and that agency’s military and financial assistance helped the Afghan rebels build a set of encampments around the city of Khost.

Our government publicly supported the Taliban right up until September 11.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst110501.htm

FBI claims Bin Laden inquiry was frustrated
Officials told to ‘back off’ on Saudis before September 11
The Guardian
November 7, 2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,589168,00.html

Bin Laden’s Military Mole
http://www.aim.org/aim_column_print/1449_0_3_0/

And I never said the Mossad blew up the twin towers - merely that they were involved in some way shape or form. It’s obvious they were up to something and to try and deny the absolute FACT looks even more suspicious.

FOX did a 4 part series on it and then acted like it never existed. Your calling their involvment a conspiracy theory when all anyone has to do is Google “Israeli spies” and you can read a thousand legitimate articles on the subject of 9/11 alone - including the official DEA report.

So watch the video and do the research and then tell everyone again how the Israelis’ had no involvement whatsoever in 9/11. Either you have never even bothered to check it out for yourself or your openly denying something that ANYONE can verify for themselves beyond a shadow of a doubt with a simple search.

FOX four part video series: Israel Spying on the US
http://207.44.245.159/article7545.htm

Something else for you to research while your at it -

U.S. Arms Sales to Israel End Up In China, Iraq
From 1990 to 2000 U.S. military aid to Israel totaled over $18 billion. No other nation in the world has such a close relationship with the U.S. military and arms industry.

The real danger comes in Israel’s habit of reverse engineering U.S. technology and selling to nations hostile to U.S. interests.

Perhaps the most troubling of all is the Israeli/Chinese arms relationship. Israel is China’s second largest supplier of arms. Coincidentally, the newest addition to the Chinese air force, the F-10 multi-role fighter, is an almost identical version of the Lavi (Lion). The Lavi was a joint Israeli-American design based upon the F-16 for manufacture in Israel, but financed mostly with American aid.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0509-07.htm

Oops! You’re Racist.
Nothing says bias like the federal government protecting against discrimination… of only one ethnic group.

“It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the state of Israel.” - Colin Powell

Unfortunately, combating anti-Semitism is now politically intertwined with hatred for Israel’s disastrous policies. The association is by design, as Israel has worked to blend any criticism of its goals of warmongering and genocide into contempt for all Jewish people. The resultant deflection marginalizes earnest discussion of the woes in the Middle East at the expense of the collective Jewish reputation.

However, Israel does not speak for all Jews, and sweeping generalizations that brandish critics of Israel as anti-Semites are a far greater crime than a defaced cemetery or vandalized car (as many of these “hate crimes” are ultimately hoaxes). Jews are no more responsible for the actions of Israel than Catholics are for the actions of the Vatican.
http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/0869_oops_racist.html

Oops, my bad… I may have exaggerated.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Oops, my bad… I may have exaggerated.[/quote]

But you must admit, that was fairly impressive either way.

It was indeed, but I’ll be more impressed if people that cheerlead are able to read the material and incorporate it into their world view…

I see a connection here…

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
…Do you really wanna to go there? Any chemical weapons Saddam ever had, we gave to him - and condoned the use of. All while companies like Halliburton did business with him. The only people who don’t know that are the people who just pretend not to know.

Lies, Russia and France and other Western Europeans gave/sold him almost all his standard weapons as well as biological and chemical weapons.

Most of the US aid was in the form of satellite intel and the like.[/quote]

I’ll go easy on you today ; )

Following Iraq’s bioweapons trail
By Robert Novak
Sun-Times Columnist
September 26/02
Sen. Robert Byrd, a master at hectoring executive branch witnesses, asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a provocative question last week: Did the United States help Saddam Hussein produce weapons of biological warfare? Rumsfeld brushed off the Senate’s 84-year-old president pro tem like a Pentagon reporter. But a paper trail indicates Rumsfeld should have answered yes.

An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease- producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American- exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Saddam used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran.

This record is no argument for or against waging war against the Iraqi regime, but current U.S. officials are not eager to reconstruct the mostly secret relationship between the two countries. While biological warfare exports were approved by the U.S. government, the first President George Bush signed a policy directive proposing ‘‘normal’’ relations with Saddam in the interest of Middle East stability. Looking at a little U.S.-Iraqi history might be useful on the eve of a fateful military undertaking.
http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/following.html

A look at U.S. shipments of pathogens to Iraq
USA Today
9/30/2002
Shipments from the United States to Iraq of the kinds of pathogens later used in Iraq’s biological weapons programs, according to records from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Senate Banking Committee and U.N. weapons inspectors:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp-list_x.htm

[quote]vroom wrote:
Well Zap, I think you’ve just encouraged a post with 18 links to online sources explaining the history of weapons in Iraq… ;)[/quote]

What. Me? I never do that : )