More evidence, as published by Reuters today (and not in its “oddly enough” pages) is coming out that Saddam’s Iraq was a key supporter of Islamic terror. Looks pretty damning to me.
Come on peaceniks, please tell us this is all a CIA-inspired plot.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
10 comments to More terror links exposed |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
I thought the installation of the Ba’ath party was a CIA inspired plot. But I’m probably confusing that with the installation of the Shah of Iran. Or am I thinking of the Muhudjadeen in Afghanistan…
…no I think it was in Iraq. But it was all so long ago now that I forget. Has anyone got a history book that hasn’t been revised by the Ministry of Truth or the Ministry of Love? I’ll nip down to the Victory Bookstore and look.
Still, now we have knocoked Iraqi suppoort for terror on the head we can start on that den of iniquity next door in Saudi Arabia. Apparently (it is alledged) the Suadis have definate links to terrorist organisations. And they execute people by beheading and all sorts, just like in Iraq.
Would be a push over should we be willing to fight all sources of terror…
Then of course one could counter that report in the Telegraph (quoted by Reuters) with the news on the front pages today about British Army involvement in Northern Irish “loyalist” terroism. Apparently the “loyalists” in question were “on our side”.
Surely the forces of law and order currently in Baghdad aren’t related to those in Northern Ireland that not only turned a blind eye to sectarian killings but actively supported it. Are they?
As Mr Orwell once observed at the end of his famous tale, ” As he looked from man to pig and pig to man, it was difficult to say which was which”.
Plus ca change?
A. I don’t see how this conflicts w/ claims that Saddam was originally a CIA stooge (regardless of whether he got out of control).
B. I don’t see any direct threat to American civilians, which was the excuse for this war.
well said Scott. Reading up about the ADF, they sound like disgusting people, but certainly no mention of any intent to strike at the West.
Let the government that doesn’t support violent civilian-murdering, atrocity-committing groups with local agendas cast the first (rhetorical) stone.
(and all you kneejerk anti-peacenik peeps, yes! it’s a good thing Saddam’s government is gone; i’m not implying some kind of moral equivalence between Saddam & the US government in general terms, just saying you can’t present support for this group as proof of ‘evil’, or immediate danger, as then by extension the US government, and probably most other western governments would also qualify.)
But surely Saddam’s support for terrorism was obvious already, from his payments to the families of suicide bombers, the wailing of the Palestinian irredentists and the al Qaeda mouthpieces over his downfall, the terrorist training camps in Iraq, and the discovery of Abu Abbas in Baghdad?
At this point, anyone who isn’t convinced of the links between Saddam and terrorism cannot be convinced, just as anyone not yet convinced that Iraq had a WMD program never will be (1.5 tons of near-weapons-grade uranium? Missiles with gas-dispensing warheads? Machines for reducing the size and increasing the buoyancy of anthrax spores? You think the CIA planted all of that??).
The only point on which honest men can differ is whether it was America’s job to take the Iraqi dictatorship down — a question on which there will always be some dissent. But the other aspects of the thing are firmly settled. It’s time we stopped batting our heads against the “fact-proof screen” around the minds of those who oppose Operation Iraqi Freedom on (ugh) moral grounds.
Re: MadDog
The restoration of Shah of Iran in the ’50s was a CIA plot. Ba’ath ascension in Syria and Iraq is CIA’s fault. Afterall, these two country went right ahead and become an allie state to Soviet right away.
I sure wish somebody at the CIA would find the Magic Regime Changing Wand. It has quite a successful history from what’s reported in twitdom. Waving it a few times in the direction of the Middle East would save us all a lot of blood and money.
I take the point BigFire, but when they “immediately became the allies of the Soviets” what possessed us to sell Anthrax spores to the Iraqi government?
Why couldn’t they just use the Soviet crap that was issued to everbody else. As a result of our governments donation to the forces of err, whatever, in Iraq. The Soviets and now the Russians have the same better strain.
My main problem is that no one seems to be able to provide much real direction in this game of soldiers. I mean Ollie North was flogging arms to Iran and now he’s a minor hero. Everytime I attempt to take a position on Anglosphere politics I am either involved in Democracy’s Friendly Fire or Republican plate tectonics.
My only one consistant observation is that if one is particularly relying on the truth of any particular government statement to support one’s position then one is usually holding a entry ticket for an egg based facial treatment
A_t writes:
“well said Scott. Reading up about the ADF, they sound like disgusting people, but certainly no mention of any intent to strike at the West. ”
Let’s go back to the source, shall we? An ADF document seen by the Daily Telegraph states: (its mission) “… will be to smuggle arms on a global scale to holy warriors fighting against US, British and Israeli influences in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the Far East.”
You may, of course, continue to believe whatever suits your argument – but I think the evidence appears to be against you. And yes, ‘influences’ implies both institutions and personnel. No doubt, including aeroplanes and Embassies
Hmm.. ok, if you count “the west” as our various military & diplomatic outposts, then yes, i guess they were planning to strike at the west. However, I was thinking more along the lines of sept. 11th style actual attack on our countries and citizens… absolutely no proof of that.
That was my (and i suspect many people’s) understanding of the rhetoric spewing from official British & US mouthpieces; direct danger to *us*, western citizens living in our own countries. Without wishing to sound callous, if people had realised the only folk under terrorist threat were a few oil workers & diplomats in the middle-east, they might not have been quite so up for this war.