Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

Ron Paul speaks the truth

May 17th, 2007 . by Matt

Ron Paul spoke the truth about why America is being attacked by Islamic extremists, and was attacked by former Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani for it. Giuliani is still out there trying to sell the story that the US is being attacked because Islamic extremists “hate freedom”, rather than the reality that they are extremists with political objectives. Ron Paul dismantles him in this video clip below (Hat tip to Liberal Japan).

UPDATE: Looks like the American people agree with Ron Paul, and not the other republican candidates that think they are running for “Warlord of the United States” and not the office of President.

UPDATE 2: Footage of the actual debate.

UPDATE 3: Rudy Giuliani says that the reason that the US was attacked was because the Islamic extremists hate America’s “freedom of religion” and “freedom for women”. Either he knows the truth and is lying, or is just plain delusional. What absurd comments!

UPDATE 4: This program on fox news has to be one of the most blatant, no the most blatant, political hit piece that I have ever seen. In it they say that Ron Paul is a conspiracy theorist, and that Ron Paul believes Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened (and let it happen). These are the same kinds of lies that got the public to accept the Iraq war, and now they are trying to take Ron Paul out for speaking the truth about it.

UPDATE 5: Michael Scheuer, the former head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit, has explicitly agreed with the comments made by Ron Paul at the 2nd GOP debate that US policy in the Middle East was a contributing factor to the 9/11 attacks, saying “I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World – because ‘we’re over there,’ basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate.”. Listen to the MP3 below via antiwar.com.


28 Responses to “Ron Paul speaks the truth”

  1. comment number 1 by: kjeff

    “They hate us.”

    The U.S. will probably never win the ‘war on terror’, because she just doesn’t know who ‘they’ are. She really needs to understand that regardless how many virgins “they” are getting in after life, beyond the rhetorics, “they” and “us” share similar values. I’m pretty sure “they” would be willing to exchange that ‘bomb vest’ with ‘working suits’, decent job, a roof over his head, security for his family, education for his children, and dignity for his people(go to any U.S. embassy in countries with large muslim population, and you’ll get to know a watered-down version of what ‘check-point’ is). It’s always better to work from ‘similarities’ and branch out, than the other way around.
    And vetoing every single U.N. resolutions against Israel doesn’t really help…

  2. comment number 2 by: Rhesus

    Any idiot can see that Al Qaeda has the moral imperative in this conflict, and not the U.S. The puzzling thing is why so many people call the WTC destruction an atrocity, when its moral necessity should have been obvious. The U.S. needs thousands more such lessons before its crimes are paid for. The liberation of American Muslims will be part of this.

  3. comment number 3 by: Matt

    Any idiot can see that Al Qaeda has the moral imperative in this conflict, and not the U.S. The puzzling thing is why so many people call the WTC destruction an atrocity, when its moral necessity should have been obvious. The U.S. needs thousands more such lessons before its crimes are paid for. The liberation of American Muslims will be part of this.

    I am not sure if that is a sarcastic denunciation of my post, but that is certainly not the line of thought I have on the matter. I simply agree with Ron Paul that we should not be stirring up the hornets nest.

  4. comment number 4 by: kjeff

    Rhesus,

    Any idiot can see that Al Qaeda has the moral imperative in this conflict, and not the U.S. The puzzling thing is why so many people call the WTC destruction an atrocity, when its moral necessity should have been obvious. The U.S. needs thousands more such lessons before its crimes are paid for. The liberation of American Muslims will be part of this.

    Don’t know what your intention is, but that will get you on the no-fly list, and rightly so; that’s coming from a citizen of a country with the largest muslim population in the world. There’s a limit to free speech, talking about “such lessons” doesn’t qualify. You should have stopped at the end of your first sentence. I hate for Matt and Gerry to get into trouble because of this.

  5. comment number 5 by: kjeff

    Rhesus,
    If you were being sarcastic, lighten up the tone, or give some clear indications because people get into trouble for a lot less these days.

  6. comment number 6 by: T_K

    Some people still seem to think that “freedom” is a magic word that will get them anywhere.

  7. comment number 7 by: crypticlife

    “Any idiot can see that Al Qaeda has the moral imperative in this conflict, and not the U.S. The puzzling thing is why so many people call the WTC destruction an atrocity, when its moral necessity should have been obvious. The U.S. needs thousands more such lessons before its crimes are paid for. The liberation of American Muslims will be part of this”

    I hope you’re trolling. I was in the WTC. I know lots of people who died, and I think you’re forgetting you’re talking about killing lots of people wantonly. Pregnant women, parents of young children, people visiting for the day.

    I’ll agree that US policy needs to change. I won’t agree that there was a “moral imperative” to fly planes into buildings. I won’t agree that American Muslims need “liberation” (incidentally, they are free to leave the US if they choose. Most of them want to stay, and we’re happy to have them.)

  8. comment number 8 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Ron Paul and Matt are wrong. Al Qaeda terrorists did not attack the US because the US was bombing Iraq; they attacked because they are Islamic extremists who want to create radical Islamic states around the world. They do not want peace and freedom; they want a war between Muslims and non-Muslims, and “Freedom of Religion” is not in their dictionary.

    The US was right to go into Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant to his own people and a supporter of terrorism against Israel and the US. Yes, the war was handled badly, and many have died, especially Iraqis, but it was either now or later, and later would have been worse. Just as it was wrong to wait for Hitler to build up his strength, it would have been wrong to wait for Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda to build up theirs.

    The reason there is so much fighting in Iraq now is that the Islamic extremists know how important that country is. It is smack-dab in the middle of a region controlled by dictators and terrorist supporters. These states do not want a free, democratic state on their borders, fearing that it my cause people in their own countries to want similar freedoms.

    America’s war on terrorism may have created more enemies for the US, but it has also opened the eyes of many Muslims to the evils of terrorism and Islamic extremism. That is a painful, yet necessary prerequisite for solving the problems of terrorism and Islamic extremism.

  9. comment number 9 by: General Tiger

    Gerry:
    Seems like you and I agree on most things besides Dokdo.

  10. comment number 10 by: Matt

    Ron Paul and Matt are wrong. Al Qaeda terrorists did not attack the US because the US was bombing Iraq; they attacked because they are Islamic extremists who want to create radical Islamic states around the world. They do not want peace and freedom; they want a war between Muslims and non-Muslims, and “Freedom of Religion” is not in their dictionary.

    Gerry, I do not think (and neither does Ron Paul) that bombing Iraq was the only reason that the west is being attacked. There were other motivations, laid out by Bin Laden himself.

    1. Presence of infidel (American) bases in Saudi Arabia.
    2. Sanctions and Bombing of Iraq.
    3. Financial support to Israel.

    Nowhere have I seen that the Islamic extremists are saying they did it because they hate our freedom. They certainly do not hate our freedom of religion because our freedom of religion allows them to spread their religion in the west. It is only religious freedom in their countries they do not permit. I do not see any Islamic extremists issuing ultimatums to veil our women, either.

    The US was right to go into Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant to his own people and a supporter of terrorism against Israel and the US. Yes, the war was handled badly, and many have died, especially Iraqis, but it was either now or later, and later would have been worse. Just as it was wrong to wait for Hitler to build up his strength, it would have been wrong to wait for Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda to build up theirs.

    There was never a shred of evidence that Saddam was sponsoring terrorism, or had anything to do with 9/11. In fact, Saddam was an enemy of Al Queda, and before Saddam was overthrown, Al Queda did not have a presence in Iraq. Iraq did not have the economic size to ever present a threat like Hitler did, and Iraq did not have any WMD anyway.

    The reason there is so much fighting in Iraq now is that the Islamic extremists know how important that country is. It is smack-dab in the middle of a region controlled by dictators and terrorist supporters. These states do not want a free, democratic state on their borders, fearing that it my cause people in their own countries to want similar freedoms.

    Al Queda has so much support in Iraq because by invading Iraq America fulfilled Koranic prescriptions for a broad based jihad. We should not forget that most of the dictators and terrorist supporters are either presently supported by the US government, or were before, including Osama Bin Laden.

    I think it is pretty clear that the Iraqi people resent the military occupation of their country, now 5 years in. Ron Paul would change that.

    America’s war on terrorism may have created more enemies for the US, but it has also opened the eyes of many Muslims to the evils of terrorism and Islamic extremism. That is a painful, yet necessary prerequisite for solving the problems of terrorism and Islamic extremism.

    The war on Iraq is not a war on terrorism. Ron Paul said he would have gone after Bin Laden (still living free, by the way). Everything that was used as justification for the war on Iraq, has turned out to be totally false. The justifications were –

    1. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
    2. Iraq is collaborating with Al Queda.

    These two justifications were total lies. It is not something that is open to debate, it is objective fact. I respect your opinions, Gerry, but on this you are dead wrong.

    Think about some other, post-facto justifications for the war. “Saddam tortures his people”, they said. Well, now it is the US doing it but because they are calling it “enhanced interrogation techniques”, and not torture, its ok. The Iraqi people do not want the US in Iraq, and that has forced the US into the un-American role of oppressor. The Iraqi people are entitled to self determination, and “freedom” and “democracy” while the US is still occupying Iraq is not going to work because the Iraqi’s will keep on electing, or trying to elect, people that the US government finds unacceptable.

    We do not share the same values as these people, not the Iraqi people nor the extremists. We need to leave them to sort this out themselves, because it is our countries that are the main source of instability in Iraq. Ron Paul would go after Osama Bin Laden and withdraw from Iraq. Then we wont have boys coming back from Iraq, a war that no longer has any clear objectives whatsoever, like this –

    war

  11. comment number 11 by: madne0

    Matt: “There were other motivations, laid out by Bin Laden himself.

    1. Presence of infidel (American) bases in Saudi Arabia.
    2. Sanctions and Bombing of Iraq.
    3. Financial support to Israel.”

    Do you really think that if the US (and the West in general) were to acquiesce on these Al Qaeda demands they would stop attacking the West? Are you that naive? Remember the Bali bombings? Those were supposedly because of East Timor. The Madrid bombings? One of the excuses for that one was the loss of “Al-Andalus”. That was over 500 years ago. These guys are only looking for excuses. They’re real goal is the creating of a worldwide extremist islamic state. And i’m not just making this up. They themselves have come out and said it.

  12. comment number 12 by: Matt

    Do you really think that if the US (and the West in general) were to acquiesce on these Al Qaeda demands they would stop attacking the West? Are you that naive? Remember the Bali bombings? Those were supposedly because of East Timor. The Madrid bombings? One of the excuses for that one was the loss of “Al-Andalus”. That was over 500 years ago. These guys are only looking for excuses. They’re real goal is the creating of a worldwide extremist islamic state. And i’m not just making this up. They themselves have come out and said it.

    We will not be able to stop the worst of the extremists from attacking, but we will be able to reduce their ability to recruit disaffected and angry Arab, South Asian, and South-East Asian youth. They cannot follow us to our own countries, and if the situation is deemed bad enough, we can simply exclude immigrants and even travelers from those countries, and work harder to monitor radicals already inside western countries.

    If you think I am naive, look at my posts about the war on terror. I do not excuse Islamic terrorism in the slightest, but I also do not want to give them ammunition in their grievance against us. A policy that considers the potential for blowback is important in dealing with the middle east.

    madne0, the security situation is worse now than it was before we invaded Iraq. Before we invaded Iraq there were no terrorists there, and now it is full of terrorists. You think that terrorists found fertile recruiting ground in Iraq because Iraqis hate American freedom? That is like ignoring the huge invasion white elephant in the livingroom.

    You need to think about the clannish and tribal nature of the Iraqi people. 500 000 Iraqi children died as a result of sanctions on Iraq. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died as a result of the occupation and the war. That means that every Iraqi alive in Iraq would have at least one family member, extended family member, or tribesman, killed by sanctions or armies of the coalition of the willing. It is quite simply impossible to win Iraqi hearts and minds in these circumstances, and every day it just gets worse.

    If you want to talk about terrorism, dictators, and radical Islam you need look no further than the friend and ally of the US, Saudi Arabia (the country that most of the 9/11 hijackers came from). There is an evil and oppressive regime, far more evil and oppressive than that of Saddam Hussein, in my opinion, and a major source country of terrorists.

    There will always be a certain degree of terrorism, but we can deal with it and we can formulate policies that do not exacerbate it. Here is an interview with the CIA guy that was in charge of monitoring Osama Bin Laden. He says much the same thing as Ron Paul, and the 9/11 commission report.

    At the same GOP debate where Ron Paul made his comments about 9/11 and Iraq, the GOP candidates were trying to out do each other in endorsing torture of terrorist suspects (with the honorable exception of Sen. McCain and Ron Paul) and of throwing out the right to a trial. Once the US starts torturing people (well, it already has) and throwing people into camps overseas (where they will be tortured), what “values” or “freedom” is the US fighting for? Ron Paul wants to bring the US back from the brink, and bring decency back to the federal government. Given the excellent poll results from the debates Ron Paul is getting (usually winning the polls), I think the American people agree with him. If Ron Paul is nominated the republican nominee, you can be sure that he will not appeal to ignorance and fear, as are the other candidates, especially Rudy Giuliani.

  13. comment number 13 by: Gerry-Bevers

    You seem to be throwing up a lot of strawman arguments, Matt. For example, I did not say that Muslim extremists said they attacked the US because they hated freedom, though the kind of Islamic states that Al Qaeda wants are ones similar to what Afganistan had under the Taliban, which I wouldn’t call free. Also, I do not remember saying anything about ultimatums for Western women to wear veils.

    If the war in Iraq is not a war on terrorism, then what is it, Matt? And please don’t tell me it is about oil.

    There were terrorist training camps in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein supported terrorism against Israel by paying money to the families of suicide bombers.

    No, there were not weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, but Saddam Hussein had used such weapons in the past, and he could have very easily made them, again. In fact, he hinted that he did have them. And, these days, a country does not need to have the economic power of Hitler’s Germany to build weapons of mass destruction. North Korea is a good example of that.

    Bush is going after Bin Laden, but Bin Laden is not the only terrorist out there. I also agree with the above poster when he said that you are naive, Matt, if you think the terrorists will go away if we just leave them alone. Leaving them alone will only give them time and breathing space to come up with another terrorist plot that will make 9/11 look like a picnic in the park.

  14. comment number 14 by: Matt

    If the war in Iraq is not a war on terrorism, then what is it, Matt? And please don’t tell me it is about oil.

    I do not know what the war in Iraq is for. It is a war without objectives. Do you know what it is for? I will get to your terrorism comment in a moment.

    There were terrorist training camps in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein supported terrorism against Israel by paying money to the families of suicide bombers.

    Yes, Saddam did provide condolence money to the families of suicided bombers after they committed suicide, which is probably what they were going to do anyway. As far as I know they did not do it for the money. I suppose that can be considered terrorism if the money helped convince them to do it.

    As for the terrorist training camps, you are buying into the lies that got the war started in the first place. There were no terrorist training camps in areas under of the control of Saddam Hussein. I am surprised that you do not know about this because this lie was most famously exposed, and Colin Powell made a fool of himself at the UN saying it (he said a lot of things at the UN, which is why his career is over).

    The terrorist training camp (yes, a single camp, not ‘camps’ although there are probably many camps now) was located in an area not only not under Saddam Hussein’s control, but was in an area under US protection in a no-fly zone Kurdish area. The US blamed Saddam for the camp when it was actually in an area under US influence, and under US protection. By the way, the camp was lead by a terrorist named Zarqawi, that became famous for killing Americans. By brandishing photos of the camp at the UN, the terrorists were given forewarning, and the terrorists at the camp were able to escape. The area was under US influence and they could have taken them out. Here is a clear cut case of the US government abandoning the war on terror to go after Iraq, which has nothing to do with terrorism, and I am glad you brought it up. The war in Iraq has been one great big red herring, allowing the villains to get away, including Osama Bin Laden, who has been declared “dead” (convenient way of giving up, I guess).

    No, there were not weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, but Saddam Hussein had used such weapons in the past, and he could have very easily made them, again. In fact, he hinted that he did have them. And, these days, a country does not need to have the economic power of Hitler’s Germany to build weapons of mass destruction. North Korea is a good example of that.

    The US president did not have a mandate to invade Iraq based on lies. These lies will continue to damage the US in the future, and continue to provide propaganda for terrorist recruiters. The fact was in Gulf War 1, when Saddam did actually possess WMD, they went unused. There is no reason to believe that Saddam would have used them the next time around. Furthermore, Iraq was to be subject to continuing inspections so they could not get hold of WMD. The reason why Iraq started to resist inspections towards the end was that the US continued to insist that they had WMD when they did not (it is not a case of WMD not being found, they were not there), and the US refused to lift sanctions after the Iraqis complied with all the demands of Gulf War 1.

    Bush is going after Bin Laden, but Bin Laden is not the only terrorist out there. I also agree with the above poster when he said that you are naive, Matt, if you think the terrorists will go away if we just leave them alone. Leaving them alone will only give them time and breathing space to come up with another terrorist plot that will make 9/11 look like a picnic in the park.

    The last thing I heard was that the administration said that Osama Bin Laden was dead. Are they looking for his corpse? I am not saying we should leave the terrorists alone. I am saying that we should go after the perpetrators of 9/11. I am saying that we should focus on the people that did that, beat them, then get out. Iraq is a different matter altogether, and nothing good has come of it.

    Terrorism on American soil (or Australian) can be dealt with easily. Entry into the country can be restricted entry to people from places that are a source of terrorists. They can be monitored. Any domestic Islamic extremists can also be monitored as needed. As it stands, Iraq was not a country that had terrorists, and now it is full of aggrieved people that want to sign up to kill Americans (and other members of the coalition of the willing). Ayman Thawahri, the second man in Al Qaeda, said that “Iraq made a historical trap for the US forces”, and he is right. It is time to get out, as soon as possible.

  15. comment number 15 by: toadface

    Gerry’s idiom of the month.

    Strawman arugument.

  16. comment number 16 by: pook

    wow. if all the US news channels are like that it’s no wonder Bush got re-elected. Isn’t there some kind of broadcasting standard they need to comply with..?

  17. comment number 17 by: jion999

    matt

    I have a question.
    How can I put a picture on the comment section like you?

  18. comment number 18 by: Matt

    matt

    I have a question.
    How can I put a picture on the comment section like you?

    You cannot. It only works for the admins. If it worked for others then we would be bombarded with graphics spam.

  19. comment number 19 by: jion999

    Matt
    I see.
    BTW, if US goes out of Iraq, What would happen?
    The worst case would be the establishment Islamic extremists’ government in Iraq.
    Iraq is different from Vietnam.
    Iraq owns the third biggest deposit of crude oil in the world.

  20. comment number 20 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Matt,

    The terrorist training camp being talked about in this article was south of Baghdad, not north.

    The US did not go into Baghdad during the first invasion, which is probably one of the reasons he did not use his weapons of mass destruction (WMD). If he had had them during the second invasion, you don’t think he would have used them? Bush and the US were not the only ones who thought Iraq had WMD.

    The Iraqi government played all kinds of games with the weapons inspectors, including denying and delaying access to facilities. Hussein denied access to key witnesses in his government, if I remember correctly. Also, Iraqi artillery and missle batteries were taking pot shots at the planes patroling the no-fly zone. Iraq was also selling its oil for hard cash, which was not permitted from what I remember.

    Can you post a link to an article, Matt, that says that Iraq complied with all the demands from the first Gulf War?

    The US does not need to leave Iraq; she just needs a new strategy for dealing with the terrorists there. For example, I think the US needs to focus more attention on intelligence gathering and covert operations and get the uniformed soldiers off the street.

    Rather than letting our soldiers run wild in military vehicles on the streets of Baghdad, we could grid Baghdad with fortified, self-sufficient observation and sniper posts in high-rise buildings. They could be resupplied by nighttime helicopter drops on the rooftops. Survellance cameras could be set up at strategic points in the neighborhood to cover blind spots. Iraqi police would do the street patrols. And special outside units could be used to raid suspected hideouts or check out suspicious characters in the area. I also wonder if we are making good use of bugging devices and zoom microphones?

    I know my suggestions probably sound silly, but the point I am trying to make is that we need to consider new strategies and tactics. I also think we need to put more emphasis on OPSEC. We seem to be acting too cavalier over there. We have to stop giving the terrorists targets.

  21. comment number 21 by: kjeff

    madne0,

    Do you really think that if the US (and the West in general) were to acquiesce on these Al Qaeda demands they would stop attacking the West? Are you that naive? Remember the Bali bombings? Those were supposedly because of East Timor. The Madrid bombings? One of the excuses for that one was the loss of “Al-Andalus”. That was over 500 years ago. These guys are only looking for excuses. They’re real goal is the creating of a worldwide extremist islamic state. And i’m not just making this up. They themselves have come out and said it.

    Do they want Islamic states around the world? Sure. However, prior to the invasion of Iraq, these extremist groups were mostly inactive because they simply didn’t have resources to do anything significant. The invasion was/is the poor man’s ‘scholarship’ for those jihadists because prior to that there’s not much to entice them to go to ‘heaven'(you can’t really pay someone to blow himself up). The Israel-Palestinian conflict was in a stale-mate, and they didn’t really like Mr. Hussein(and he didn’t really like them back. Kuwaitis are muslims too). But, the Iraq’s invasion is truly a Jihadist recruiter’s wet dream. No WMD, no Al-Queda’s connection, a ‘messy’ occupation, what more he can possible hope for? Oh yeah, OIL… Gerry, it’s naive to think that the U.S. went to Iraq for oil alone, but kaching…kaching…kaching for those who have government contracts.
    And I must say, if you want to prevent Islamic states springing up around the world, the like of Mr. Hussein is exactly what you need. Secular dictator HATES religious extremists; they undermine his power; they make him feel uneasy(it’s hard to scare the shit of a guy who’s not affraid of death). If you think democracy and freedom will prevent Islamic states, then I’m affraid you are naive. What do you think will happen to Pakistan without the ‘iron hand’, and balancing act(for appearance purposes), of Pres. Musharraf? A free and democratic election will surely bring a ‘true’ Islamic state into power in Pakistan?(I must note that some have argued that the threat is exaggerated by Pres. Musharraf to ensure continued support)
    And if you look back to Mr. Suharto’s presidency in Indonesia, you’ll see that extremists were not hiding underneath a rock, they were hiding six feet deep; he probably killed hundreds of thousands of them during his regime. With a democratic Indonesia we have today, Abu Bakar Bashir, the founder of JI, Al-Queda branch in the S.E, is in and out of jail todau(thanks to ‘appeals’ and the ‘free’ justice system). He was, under Pres. Suharto’s rule, in exile in Malaysia for two decades, and came back shortly after to set up ‘shop’, in my hometown no less.
    P.S. Bin Laden was dead wrong if he thought that liberation of East Timor had anything to do with Islam. The province was one of the very few in Indonesia who have non-muslim majority(Bali is the only other I can think of).

  22. comment number 22 by: kjeff

    Gerry,

    The Iraqi government played all kinds of games with the weapons inspectors, including denying and delaying access to facilities. Hussein denied access to key witnesses in his government, if I remember correctly. Also, Iraqi artillery and missle batteries were taking pot shots at the planes patroling the no-fly zone. Iraq was also selling its oil for hard cash, which was not permitted from what I remember.

    Can you post a link to an article, Matt, that says that Iraq complied with all the demands from the first Gulf War?

    If he hadn’t done so, he’d a lame duck to Iran. You kind of expect C.I.A. to do better than that on pre-war intelligence. Sunni running a country with Shiite’s majority, next to a Shiite’s power, can’t be ‘easy.’

  23. comment number 23 by: Matt

    Matt,

    The terrorist training camp being talked about in this article was south of Baghdad, not north.

    Gerry, that is another lie designed to justify this war. You have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

    In a response to questions from Committee staff asking if DIA recovered or received information or intelligence, after the raid on Salman Pak in April 2003 that indicated non-Iraqis received terrorist training at the Salman Pak facility, DIA said it has “no credible reports that non-Iraqis were trained to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations at Salman Pak after 1991.” DIA assessed that the foreigners were likely volunteers who traveled to Iraq in the months before Operation Iraqi Freedom began to fight overtly alongside Iraqi military forces…DIA said it has “no information from Salman Pak that links al-Qa’ida with the former regime.”

    In June 2006, CIA told the Committee that: There was information developed after OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedem) that indicated terrorists were trained at Salman Pak; there was an apparent surge of such reporting. As with past information, however, the reporting is vague and difficult to substantiate. As was the case with the prewar reporting, the postwar sources provided few details, and it is difficult to conclude from their second-hand accounts whether Iraq was training al-Qa’ida members, as opposed to other foreign nationals. Postwar exploitation of Salman Pak has yielded no indications that training of al-Qa’ida linked individuals took place there, and we have no information from detainees on this issue

    A November 2003 assessment from DIA noted that postwar exploitation of the facility found it “devoid of valuable intelligence.” The assessment added that CIA exploitation “found nothing of intelligence value remained and assessed that Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) cleaned it out.” The DIA assessment concluded that “we do not know whether ex-regime trained terrorists on the aircraft at Salman Pak. Intelligence in late April 2003 indicated the plane had been dismantled. DIA and CENTCOM asses the plane was sold for scrap.

    There were no terrorist.

    The US did not go into Baghdad during the first invasion, which is probably one of the reasons he did not use his weapons of mass destruction (WMD). If he had had them during the second invasion, you don’t think he would have used them? Bush and the US were not the only ones who thought Iraq had WMD.

    Well, does that not suggest to you that Saddam Hussein is rational, and not insane? I mean, if another country invaded and attacked Baghdad, would Saddam really be begrudged for using WMD? The US has plenty of WMD that it would use in its own defense, I am sure. Anyway, he did not have have them, so the invasion was done under false pretenses.

    The Iraqi government played all kinds of games with the weapons inspectors, including denying and delaying access to facilities. Hussein denied access to key witnesses in his government, if I remember correctly. Also, Iraqi artillery and missle batteries were taking pot shots at the planes patroling the no-fly zone.

    For the inspections, see my answer about Scott Ritter.

    As for Iraqis taking pot shots at US planes, well, that seems a reversal of cause and effect to me. The US planes were bombing Iraq for 10 years, so in the rare instances that they were able to catch a glimpse of a plane, of course they took pot shots at it. It could be on a bombing raid. What would you do in the same circumstances?

    Iraq was also selling its oil for hard cash, which was not permitted from what I remember.

    Yes, the were smuggling a bit of oil out of the country because they desperately needed the revenue for the basic needs of their people, not for WMD or nefarious purposes. The sanctions were on Iraq so tightly that 500 000 children had died as the direct result of the sanctions. What would you do in the same situation?

    Can you post a link to an article, Matt, that says that Iraq complied with all the demands from the first Gulf War?

    Yes. Read Justin Raimondo’s column at antiwar.com. Look at the archives from before and after the invasion, and you will see that many people, including people that were in charge of the weapons inspections (like Scott Ritter), said that Iraq had complied with its obligations. Justin Raimondo was also one of those that had debunked the US government’s claims before the invasion. Of course, the whole point here is that the mainstream media failed to give the American people and the people of the world the truth because they wanted to sell this war and uncritically reported what the goverment told them as the truth. Everything reported has been shown to be false, from terrorist training camps, WMD, “rape centers”, connection to 9/11, and more.

    The US does not need to leave Iraq; she just needs a new strategy for dealing with the terrorists there. For example, I think the US needs to focus more attention on intelligence gathering and covert operations and get the uniformed soldiers off the street.

    Rather than letting our soldiers run wild in military vehicles on the streets of Baghdad, we could grid Baghdad with fortified, self-sufficient observation and sniper posts in high-rise buildings. They could be resupplied by nighttime helicopter drops on the rooftops. Survellance cameras could be set up at strategic points in the neighborhood to cover blind spots. Iraqi police would do the street patrols. And special outside units could be used to raid suspected hideouts or check out suspicious characters in the area. I also wonder if we are making good use of bugging devices and zoom microphones?

    I know my suggestions probably sound silly, but the point I am trying to make is that we need to consider new strategies and tactics. I also think we need to put more emphasis on OPSEC. We seem to be acting too cavalier over there. We have to stop giving the terrorists targets.

    In my opinion, white or black skin will be uniform enough to determine who to target.

    Gerry, think about what you have written above. The kind of thing that you are proposing would be intolerable even to Iraqis that are friendly to America. The fact is the Iraqi people do not want the Americans there, and the Americans (and my country as well) are insisting that they will stay, and provide freedom at the end of a gun barrel. The choice for the Iraqis seems to be “accept liberty or we will throw you in jail on anonymous tips and torture you and otherwise abuse you”. We do not even have the moral high ground anymore, now that we torture people and throw them into prisons indefinitely without trial or due process. Do not delude yourself into thinking that each and every person so treated is really a terrorist. Pointing out people that you don’t like as terrorists for cash rewards must be quite a cottage industry in Iraq. The situation in Iraq is damaging to America because it places Americans into the role of oppressor, and the idea that if the coalition of the willing remains long enough the Iraqis will finally give up their demands for self determination will is a false one.

    It is time to get out of Iraq, and start pursuing the terrorists of 9/11. Ron Paul will do that, which is why he is right. Remaining in Iraq will only leave us as targets for their nationalist insurgency.

    Anyway, the Iraq war was sold as a pack of lies, which is why Saddam Hussein famously (and repeatedly) said that “history will judge me”.

  24. comment number 24 by: Matt

    Here is an Iraq veteran giving his heart breaking story of his patriotism being abused by the war organizers that got him involved in the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses.

  25. comment number 25 by: jion999

    Matt
    It is true that US government exploited many lies to invade Iraq.
    However, US has opened a Pandora’s box of religious and nationalistic problems in the middle east already.
    Is it possible for US to withdraw and watch Arab terrorists establishing the Islamic extremists’ government in Iraq and handling the natural resources which have enormous power in world economy?

    The victory of Arab terrorists in Iraq against US would have a devastating influence to the neighboring country, Saudi Arabia, which is the biggest oil exporter in the world. Most of 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, which has very religious custom and very corrupted royal family.
    The situation of this war is like the quagmire of Vietnam.
    However, the beggest difference is that there is so much oil under the quagmire of Arabia and world economy depends on this.

  26. comment number 26 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Matt wrote:

    Gerry, that is another lie designed to justify this war. You have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

    Stop exaggerating, Matt. The report did not say it was a lie, and it, especially, did not say it was “a lie designed to justify war.” The report simply said there were “no credible reports that non-Iraqis were trained to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations at Salman Pak after 1991,” but there were such reports, credible or not, from Iraqi sources. The report also mentioned the 2004 findings of the Iraq Survey Group, which, according to your link, said the following:

    M14, Directorate of Special Operations: M14, directed by Muhammad Khudayr Sabah Al Dulaymi, was responsible for training and conducting special operations missions. It trained Iraqis, Palestinians, Syrians, Yemeni, Lebanese, Egyptian, and Sudanese operatives in counterterrorism, explosives, marksmanship, and foreign operations at its facilities at Salman Pak. Additionally, M14 oversaw the ‘Challenge Project,’ a highly secretive project regarding explosives. Sources to date have not been able to provide sufficient details regarding the ‘Challenge Project.’
    Structure of M14: Special Operations Department, composed of a foreign and a domestic section, performed government-sanctioned assassinations inside or outside of Iraq.

    The ‘Tiger Group’ was similar to Special Operations, except that it was primarily comprised of suicide bombers.

    The Training Department provided training for all IIS officers going abroad.

    The Counterterrorism Department handled counterterrorism activities in Iraq and at embassies; reportedly, it disarmed terrorists hijacking a Sudanese airliner from Saddam International Airport.

    The Administrative Department provided support services such as administration, finances, communications, and logistics.

    The Anti-Iranian Department infiltrated operatives into Iran for intelligence collection and operated against Iranian groups attempting to enter Iraq.

    Notice the part describing the “Tiger Group,” which was described as being “primarily comprised of suicide bombers”?

    By the time the Senate Report was written in 2006, politics had entered into the picture. That is probably why, by a vote of 8-7, General Vincent Brooks’ April 6, 2003 press statement was not included in the report. Here is what the general said:

    A raid occurred [at a training camp near Salman Pak] in response to information that had been gained by coalition forces from some foreign fighters that we encountered from other country, not Iraq, and we believe that this camp had been used to train these foreign fighters in terror tactics…Some of these fighters came from Sudan, some from Egypt, some from other places. We have killed a number of them and we have captured a number of them. That’s where the information came from…The nature of the work being done by some of those people that we captured, their inferences to the type of training that they received, all of these things give us the impression that there was terrorist training that was conducted at Salman Pak. We did also find some other things there. We found some tanks and destroyed them, we found armored personnel carriers and destroyed them in small numbers. We destroyed buildings that were used for command and control and other buildings that were used for morale and welfare. We destroyed the complex. All of that when you roll it together, the reports, where they’re from, why they might be here tell us there’s a linkage between this regime and terrorism and that’s something that we want to break…There’s no indications of specific organizations that I’m aware of inside of that. We may still find it as with all operations that we conduct into a place, we look for more information after the operation is complete. We’ll pull documents out of it and see what the documents say, if there’s any links or indications. We’ll look and see if there’s any persons that are recovered that may not be Iraqi. All of that is detailed and deliberate work that happens after the fact.

    The way I read it, the report was inconclusive, and your claim that the Salman Park facility was a lie to justify the war is, at the very least, unsupported exaggeration.

    You can continue to post what you want on this topic, but I do not intend to discuss it with you any further, since I consider it a waste of my time and do not like the tactics you are using.

  27. comment number 27 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Matt,

    Sorry about my tone in the above post. You are not doing anything wrong. I just do not have the time or desire to debate that subject.

    I do not even really follow the Iraq war in the news, anymore. All I know is that if we leave Iraq now, it will be a diaster, probably not much different than the diaster that happened when we left Korea.

    Take care.

  28. comment number 28 by: YoshoMasaki

    The FEAR of anti-interventionist foreign policy folks: The U.S. is a big bully, motivated by [money/oil/greed/power/hatred of Muslims/???]. Their buffoonish actions are directly responsible for the deaths of many innocents, foreign and domestic. We must mobilize, galvanize, and manipulate people’s emotions of sadness, pity and regret with photos and testimony of injured soldiers, dead soldiers’ mothers/families … by making the fight about human cost and bringing it home. All death must be stopped at any cost.

    There never was a good war or bad peace.

    – Benjamin Franklin

    The FEAR of pro-interventionist foreign policy folks: The U.S. is the target of radical Muslims and organizations which support them, motivated by [money/oil/greed/power/hatred of America/???]. If left be they will increasingly be directly responsible for the deaths of countless innocents, foreign and domestic. We must mobilize, galvanize, and manipulate people’s emotions of anger, patriotism and fear with photos and testimony of enraged jihadis, dead suicide bomber [including 9/11] victims’ mothers/families … by making the fight about protecting our way of life and taking it abroad. This global holocaust must be prevented at any cost.

    We make war that we may live in peace.

    – Aristotle

    These are as close to the “real” positions as I can discern. This is an emotional debate on both sides because real facts elude everyone in the mix of spin and cooked numbers. It is against reason to assume that you or [insert politically motivated organization here] knows any better than the rest of us.