Political activism, Islamic style

[Mycroft]

Iraqi Group Holds 2 French Journalists Hostage

DUBAI, Aug 28 - An Iraqi militant group has kidnapped two Frenchmen and given the French government 48 hours to end a ban on Muslim headscarves, Arabic television station Al Jazeera said on Saturday.

The channel aired a brief video showing two men standing in front of a black banner bearing the name of the Islamic Army in Iraq. One man told the camera: "I would like to tell my family that everything is OK." [quote]

Wow, that's optimism! He's being held captive, an implied threat of murder, and he says everything is okay?!

[quote]The journalists -- who work for Le Figaro and Radio France International -- were declared missing on the same day that Italy said freelance journalist Enzo Baldoni was also missing and that his driver had been reportedly killed.

Baldoni was taken hostage by the Islamic Army in Iraq and on Thursday, Jazeera said the group killed him because Italy refused to heed a deadline to withdraw troops from Iraq.

So Italy has troops in Iraq, so we can sort of expect them to react this way to Italians, but to the French?! What do they do, grab someone and then figure out who and what to blackmail for their lives?

A French Foreign Ministry spokesman in Paris said: "We have nothing to say. We are trying to analyse the information we have learned the same way you did."

Hmmm, I wonder how this analysis will go?

I know, let's talk to the UN and see if we can get a strongly worded condemnation!


Editied to add link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41871-2004Aug28.html

[epepke]

Russians, now French. Next it will be Germans.

You know what it means. A lot of people will have to smoke a lot more dope to remain stupid.

[corplinx]

Terrorists attack targets of opportunity. They see a weakness and they take it.

I offer the Spanish train bombing as an example. Spain wasn't exactly the UK as far as US allies in Iraq go. I think its likely that terrorists realized that a train bombing in Spain would be successful so they did it.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mycroft

I know, let's talk to the UN and see if we can get a strongly worded condemnation!


Better still, let's get an army and invade Iraq!

Oh, wait...

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Better still, let's get an army and invade Iraq!

Oh, wait...

Or we could be like the French and appease them.

Oh, wait...

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Or we could be like the French and appease them.

Oh, wait...

Or we could be like the Americans and support them with weapons and other types of assistance until it's no longer politically expedient to do so.

Oh, wait...

[BPSCG]

Why don't we just ask them what they want, and when they tell us, give it to them. Then they'll let the hostages go and we'll all live happily ever after. That's always worked before. The sweet voice of reason always works when dealing with cutthroats. We just need to make them understand that what they're doing isn't nice.

I'm pretty tired tonight, so there may be some tiny flaws in the above argument, but I'm sure y'all will point them out to me...

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Or we could be like the Americans and support them with weapons and other types of assistance until it's no longer politically expedient to do so.

Oh, wait...

Yes, you realised your mistake here -- you were STILL talking about the French. Or Germans. Or possibly the Russians.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Yes, you realised your mistake here -- you were STILL talking about the French. Or Germans. Or possibly the Russians.

Impossible. Otherwise he would have added something on the subject of illegal oil contracts facilitated by their UN cohorts. But I guess he can't be blamed for forgetting about that bit... God knows the French and the UN already have.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Or we could be like the Americans and support them with weapons and other types of assistance until it's no longer politically expedient to do so.

Oh, wait...

Actually the French were the second biggest supplier of weapons to Saddam, right behind USSR/Russia.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Jocko
Impossible. Otherwise he would have added something on the subject of illegal oil contracts facilitated by their UN cohorts. But I guess he can't be blamed for forgetting about that bit... God knows the French and the UN already have.

Don't forget the cute double game thay some countries in the EU are fond of playing.

Give indignent moral lectures to the US about "supporting dictatorships" then lift arms exporting embargo to PRC over US objections. High-Tech weapons the PRC will use to threaten democratic Taiwan get lots of money.

(This happened recently, and strangely The Don, EJ Armstrong, Chaos, MM, etc. were all quiet about it.)

[Mycroft]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040829/wl_nm/iraq_france_government_dc

Chirac Sends FM to Mideast to Win Iraq Hostage Release

PARIS (Reuters) - French President Jacques Chirac sent his foreign minister to the Middle East on Sunday to try to win freedom for two journalists held in Iraq (news - web sites) by militants demanding France end its ban on Muslim headscarves in schools.

"Today, the whole nation is united because the lives of two Frenchmen are at stake," Chirac said in a televised address on Sunday evening.

"Backed up by this national unity, I solemnly call for the release of Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot. Everything is being done and everything will be done in the coming hours and days to achieve this."

Hmm, I wonder what they will do?

[shecky]

Such kidnappings are to be expected in a democracy.

[003998]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Wow, that's optimism! He's being held captive, an implied threat of murder, and he says everything is okay?! [/B]

I find this comment to be very sad. I would call it not optimism but courage. Trying to comfort his family while being in such perilous personal danger seems to me like the ultimate act of love and bravery.
That`s the kind of thing that makes me keep my faith in humanity even when reading about his disgustingly stupid and morally corrupt captors.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Actually the French were the second biggest supplier of weapons to Saddam, right behind USSR/Russia.

The French didn't sponsor a coup which put the Ba'athist regime in charge of Iraq, allowing Saddam to take power.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
The French didn't sponsor a coup which put the Ba'athist regime in charge of Iraq, allowing Saddam to take power.

Neither did Bush. But Chirac did help Saddam in his quest to build nuclear weapons with the Osirak reactor. Funny how recent European sins get washed away so easily for you by much older American ones.

[Flo]

Originally posted by 003998
I find this comment to be very sad. I would call it not optimism but courage. Trying to comfort his family while being in such perilous personal danger seems to me like the ultimate act of love and bravery.
That`s the kind of thing that makes me keep my faith in humanity even when reading about his disgustingly stupid and morally corrupt captors.


Well, you can't very well put "French" and "courage" side by side, can you ? You know perfectly well that the French are "cheese eating surrender monkeys" ... ;)

Besides, be charitable and allow Mycroft and his fellows French-basher here their daily dose of gloating ... :D

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Neither did Bush. But Chirac did help Saddam in his quest to build nuclear weapons with the Osirak reactor. Funny how recent European sins get washed away so easily for you by much older American ones.

Sorry, where did I say that I support France's support of the Iraqi regime? Do you think that I've forgotten about France's attack on the Rainbow Warrior, too? You're very quick with that mouth of yours. Pity about the brain.

PS- how 'old' is the American sin of murdering thousands of Iraqi civilians based on bullsh!t?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
PS- how 'old' is the American sin of murdering thousands of Iraqi civilians based on bullsh!t?

You, along with most "anti-war" people, never calculate the costs of inaction in your arguments. Iraqis were dying already, and would continue to do so indefinitely as long as Saddam (or his sons) were in power. Would you then blame those deaths on US inaction? Or maybe French inaction? No, I do not see how deposing one of the century's worst tyrants can be considered a sin. I guess I'm funny that way, though.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
You, along with most "anti-war" people, never calculate the costs of inaction in your arguments. Iraqis were dying already, and would continue to do so indefinitely as long as Saddam (or his sons) were in power. Would you then blame those deaths on US inaction? Or maybe French inaction? No, I do not see how deposing one of the century's worst tyrants can be considered a sin. I guess I'm funny that way, though.

Don't make me laugh. People are dying indefinitely right now. And just to add to the comedy, a thug has been deposed to be replaced with... another thug. Call that progress? 'Cause I don't.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx
Terrorists attack targets of opportunity. They see a weakness and they take it.

I offer the Spanish train bombing as an example. Spain wasn't exactly the UK as far as US allies in Iraq go. I think its likely that terrorists realized that a train bombing in Spain would be successful so they did it.

The Spanish participation in Iraq was not popular from the start. The bombing had nothing to do with a pull out.

[c0rbin]

Originally posted by Mycroft
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040829/wl_nm/iraq_france_government_dc



Hmm, I wonder what they will do?

Hold on. Don't FM deal with other recognized governments?

If I held a French citizen hostage should I expect French diplomatic visits?

[Skeptic]

Don't make me laugh. People are dying indefinitely right now.

Yes, but you don't care, unless their death can somehow be blamed on the US/israel.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Don't make me laugh. People are dying indefinitely right now.

Yes, but you don't care, unless their death can somehow be blamed on the US/israel.

Sorry, did you say Ukraine famine (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41489)?

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The Spanish participation in Iraq was not popular from the start. The bombing had nothing to do with a pull out.

So its just pure coincidence that they pulled out after the bombing?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Hold on. Don't FM deal with other recognized governments?

If I held a French citizen hostage should I expect French diplomatic visits?

I would guess you could expect unconditional surrender. They're due, after all.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The Spanish participation in Iraq was not popular from the start. The bombing had nothing to do with a pull out.

Right. The bombing unseated the government, and the new government pulled out. How anyone could draw a line through this is beyond me.

Sheesh.

[epepke]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Yes, you realised your mistake here -- you were STILL talking about the French. Or Germans. Or possibly the Russians.

In terms of military support of Iraq in the old days, Russia was number 1, France number 2, and China number 3. Everyone else was distant. The US gave about as much military support as Argentina. In the early days of the war, when Iraq was obviously the aggressor, the US gave far more military assistance to Iran. (Remember Iran/Contra?)

Yes, the US did give Iraq satellite intelligence during the Iran/Iraq war. But then only after the tide had turned and it looked as if Iran had a shot at taking Baghdad. The idea that the US played a substantial role in building up Iraq is just nonsense.

[c0rbin]

Originally posted by Jocko
I would guess you could expect unconditional surrender. They're due, after all.

"Surrender, my sweet..."


http://pw62.free.fr/page25/cn003.jpg

[Jocko]

Damn. Is she French? I don't dare take too close a look here at the office. But the pits looked shaven, so I'm guessing not.

[c0rbin]

Monica Bellucci

IMDB Link (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000899/)

You might have seen her lately in The Matrix Reloaded (2nd flick).

[Jocko]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Monica Bellucci

IMDB Link (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000899/)

You might have seen her lately in The Matrix Reloaded (2nd flick).

It bears mentioning that I've never seen an Italian pull out.

Of Iraq, that is.

[c0rbin]

Oh crap, I would have sworn she was french!

Oh well, I don't mind being wrong :)

In this case it would be difficult for an American to pull out of Italy.

Edited to add: Try this one (work safe, but titillating to be sure) (http://www.filmkultura.iif.hu:8080/articles/films/images/ridi/2.jpg). She was born in Paris.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by epepke
In terms of military support of Iraq in the old days, Russia was number 1, France number 2, and China number 3. Everyone else was distant. The US gave about as much military support as Argentina. In the early days of the war, when Iraq was obviously the aggressor, the US gave far more military assistance to Iran. (Remember Iran/Contra?)

Yes, the US did give Iraq satellite intelligence during the Iran/Iraq war. But then only after the tide had turned and it looked as if Iran had a shot at taking Baghdad. The idea that the US played a substantial role in building up Iraq is just nonsense.

Evidence?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Evidence?



"Where Iraq Purchased Weapons 1973-2002
The purpose of this post is to address one of the many mythical claims about the United States popularized by some Leftists who would have us believe that the United States is the cause of most of what is wrong with the world. The myth under examination here is the claim that the United States played an important role in arming Saddam Hussein. The data comes from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in the form of a table of the value of arms imported by Iraq from 1973 through 2002. (PDF format)

Figures are trend-indicator values expressed in US $m. at constant (1990) prices.

Note: The SIPRI data on arms transfers refer to actual deliveries of major conventional weapons. To permit comparison between the data on such deliveries of different weapons and identification of general trends, SIPRI uses a trend-indicator value. The SIPRI values are therefore only an indicator of the volume of international arms transfers and not of the actual financial values of such transfers. Thus they are not comparable to economic statistics such as gross domestic product or export/import figures.

...

Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002

Country $MM USD 1990 % Total
USSR 25145 57.26
France 5595 12.74
China 5192 11.82
Czechoslovakia 2880 6.56
Poland 1681 3.83
Brazil 724 1.65
Egypt 568 1.29
Romania 524 1.19
Denmark 226 0.51
Libya 200 0.46
USA 200 0.46
South Africa 192 0.44
Austria 190 0.43
Switzerland 151 0.34
Yugoslavia 107 0.24
Germany (FRG) 84 0.19
Italy 84 0.19
UK 79 0.18
Hungary 30 0.07
Spain 29 0.07
East Germany (GDR) 25 0.06
Canada 7 0.02
Jordan 2 0.005
Total 43915 100.0


I made my own percentage calculations. Also, the original PDF document has the amounts by year but I extracted out only the final total column. Note that post-1990 sales listed under "USSR" probably refers to Russia or perhaps Russia plus former USSR states.

Given the US's position as largest arms merchant in the world the fact that it ties Libya for 9th place with only 0.51% of Iraq's total arms imports makes it obvious that the United States was not an important source of arms for Saddam's regime, that the US didn't even seriously try to be, and that US arms sales gave the US little or no leverage over Saddam.

In a report published in 1998 Anthony Cordesman places an even lower estimate on US arms exports to Iraq. See page 22 of this PDF which shows the US selling Iraq $5 million in arms in the late 1980s. Cordesman's report has many charts which also show just how far Iraq's economy fell during the war with Iran and afterward.


Iraq seemed to be on the edge of sustained economic development in 1979. It was a nation of 12.8 million people with a per capita income well in excess of $10,000 in constant $US 1994. However, its economy was dependent on oil wealth and construction and infrastructure oriented with massive distortions in the state and agricultural sector.
By 1986, the worst year of the Iran-Iraq War in economic terms, Iraq’s per capita income was down to $2,174, and its population was up to 16.2 million.
By 1991, the last year for which we have hard data on the Iraqi economy in market terms, Iraq’s per capita income was down to $705, and its population was up to 17.9 million. Iraq’s GNP in constant $1994 had dropped from $48.3 billion in 1984 to $16.3 billion.
Iraq’s current per capita income is probably under $1,000. The World Bank estimates that its population will climb from 21.0 million in 1995 to 24.5 million in 2000, 28.4 million in 2005, and 32.5 million in 2010.

US policy in the 1980s favored a stalemate in the Iran-Iraq war. But the US role in ensuring that outcome was very small as compared to the roles played by the USSR, France, China, and other countries in making sure Saddam's regime was not overrun. What intelligence and other assistance the US provided to prevent Iranian victory pales in comparison to the roles played by several other countries."

here (http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001853.html)

I know it is a very useful meme for the editors of "The Guardian" and others of that ilk to repeat constantly, "THE US ARMED SADDAM!!!"

But sorry...it just aint true...

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Iraq seemed to be on the edge of sustained economic development in 1979. It was a nation of 12.8 million people with a per capita income well in excess of $10,000 in constant $US 1994. However, its economy was dependent on oil wealth and construction and infrastructure oriented with massive distortions in the state and agricultural sector.
By 1986, the worst year of the Iran-Iraq War in economic terms, Iraq’s per capita income was down to $2,174, and its population was up to 16.2 million.
By 1991, the last year for which we have hard data on the Iraqi economy in market terms, Iraq’s per capita income was down to $705, and its population was up to 17.9 million. Iraq’s GNP in constant $1994 had dropped from $48.3 billion in 1984 to $16.3 billion.
Iraq’s current per capita income is probably under $1,000. The World Bank estimates that its population will climb from 21.0 million in 1995 to 24.5 million in 2000, 28.4 million in 2005, and 32.5 million in 2010.



Wait, you mean Saddam actually impoverished Iraqis?

Obviously he used the .51% of his arsenal to accomplish that. Otherwise, how could it be America's fault?

Manifesto, please write Mike's post down. You've been called and corrected on your blithe "the US created/armed Saddam!" propaganda so many times it deserves a place in your sig line. Just so you don't forget again.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Evidence?

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0825449.html Iraqi occupation of portions of Iran done by 1982, Iran starts offensive.

http://www.borderlandnews.com/war/stories/0319timeline.html 1984, US resumes formal relations with Iraq and begins supplying intelligence.

http://www.mideastweb.org/iraqtimeline.htm 1985, Iran still recieving significant US military support.

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html 1986, US establishes satellite link to give Iraq intelligence.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Jocko
It bears mentioning that I've never seen an Italian pull out.

Of Iraq, that is.

Didn't they promptly surrender and swtch sides in BOTH world wars?

[Skeptic]

Romania 524 1.19
Denmark 226 0.51
Libya 200 0.46
USA 200 0.46

Ah, yes. But it was THAT 0.46 that KEPT SADDAM IN POWER. It's all the USA's fault after all.

P.S.

Both Romania and Libya were/are led by loony dictators who would sell an H-bomb to Charley Mason in a second for the right price... but Denmark??? What the...???

[epepke]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Given the US's position as largest arms merchant in the world the fact that it ties Libya for 9th place with only 0.51% of Iraq's total arms imports makes it obvious that the United States was not an important source of arms for Saddam's regime, that the US didn't even seriously try to be, and that US arms sales gave the US little or no leverage over Saddam.


Thanks. My numbers were a little earlier, and the US was around #20 then.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Didn't they promptly surrender and swtch sides in BOTH world wars?

Sure did. But when you've got dollies like that - who can COOK on top of everything else - who cares? :)

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mike B.


I know it is a very useful meme for the editors of "The Guardian" and others of that ilk to repeat constantly, "THE US ARMED SADDAM!!!"

But sorry...it just aint true...

Your blog fails to emphasise that it only talks about conventional weapons. For example, the figures don't mention chemical weapons, dual-use biological agents that can be converted to biological weapons, and items sold ostensibly for one reason but used for another (eg, helicopters sold as 'crop dusters' used to disperse gas agents on Kurds). This is how the US likes to do business. It allows her to put on an innocent face when she is called to account.

So, thanks for the cut-and-paste, but it was a waste of your time.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Your blog fails to emphasise that it only talks about conventional weapons. For example, the figures don't mention chemical weapons, dual-use biological agents that can be converted to biological weapons, and items sold ostensibly for one reason but used for another (eg, helicopters sold as 'crop dusters' used to disperse gas agents on Kurds). This is how the US likes to do business. It allows her to put on an innocent face when she is called to account.

So, thanks for the cut-and-paste, but it was a waste of your time.

How about a little backup? And no, I'm not referring to your goalpast shuffling. Care to cite a source on this, and perhaps someone making a weighted argument (i.e., 10,000 grenades as harmful as 10 kilos of mustard gas, for instance)?

Otherwise, this is still nothing more than the tired platitudes you've just been corrected on (again).

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Jocko
How about a little backup? And no, I'm not referring to your goalpast shuffling. Care to cite a source on this, and perhaps someone making a weighted argument (i.e., 10,000 grenades as harmful as 10 kilos of mustard gas, for instance)?

Otherwise, this is still nothing more than the tired platitudes you've just been corrected on (again).

:roll: You've got a nerve asking me to 'backup'. You haven't backed a single assertion that I've asked you to provide evidence for.

Info on the ATCC providing bio-agents to Iraq here (http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/seed.htm) and here (http://www.nti.org/e_research/e1_iraq_BWagents.html).

It's impossible to get an exact figure on just how much chemical weapons have been supplied to Iraq by the US. A bit of a hot potato, that one. Here (http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/Iraq/121802_leaked_report_says_german_and_us.htm) is an article which talks about those lousy Frenchies and Krauts Oh, and the US supplying chemical weapons to Iraq. Similar articles may be found elsewhere using Google. Here's another (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336826636.html?from=storyrhs) article which names the specific companies involved.

Here (http://www.ithaca.edu/politics/gagnon/talks/us-iraq.htm) is an article detailing support the US provided Iraq, including 45 helicopters for 'crop dusting'. I never knew that the Kurds were a crop.

[CBL4]

Of course, the French would never support anybody bad. Just ask the Tutsis in Rwanda - at least the few who survived.

CBL

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
:roll: You've got a nerve asking me to 'backup'. You haven't backed a single assertion that I've asked you to provide evidence for.

Name a quantifiable claim I've made and refused to back up, or quit this silly game of tu quoque because you're not very good at it. You and I both trade in opinions and generalities, except unlike you, I'm usually wise enough not to confuse my opinion with statements of fact and cross the line. You do it regularly, which is why you're singlehandedly repsonsible for 30% of the hits on Google - AFTER you make your claims.

Now, to the substance of it.

Info on the ATCC providing bio-agents to Iraq here (http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/seed.htm) and here (http://www.nti.org/e_research/e1_iraq_BWagents.html).

It's impossible to get an exact figure on just how much chemical weapons have been supplied to Iraq by the US. A bit of a hot potato, that one. Here (http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/Iraq/121802_leaked_report_says_german_and_us.htm) is an article which talks about those lousy Frenchies and Krauts Oh, and the US supplying chemical weapons to Iraq. Similar articles may be found elsewhere using Google. Here's another (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336826636.html?from=storyrhs) article which names the specific companies involved.

There are no specifics mentioned in the first as far as US sales, except for a potential "dual use" kidney machine. Only one mention of chemical weapons at all, in fact, and its in the context of defining WMDs in general.

The second talks about nothing more than US selling cropdusters, pretty ironic that it's so hard to find among all the details of the French nuclear assistance around the same time. It does make mention of the anthrax and botulism toxin, however, and this is where things get interesting. Read on and I'll show you why.

Here (http://www.ithaca.edu/politics/gagnon/talks/us-iraq.htm) is an article detailing support the US provided Iraq, including 45 helicopters for 'crop dusting'. I never knew that the Kurds were a crop.

As was included in your links above. Even you must admit that's pretty thin - even in our post 9/11 word, the danger of cropdusters was never really raised HERE until two years ago.

So I appreciate your backup. There's an element you haven't considered, though - I can't find any record of Iraq DEPLOYING either anthrax or botulism at any time. His favorites were mustard gas and VX nerve agent, neither of which (near as I can tell) came from the US. I find mention of antidotes, but no nerve gas.

So if you want to argue the practicalities of the arms trade into Iraq before the war, you should really weigh the harm caused by the conventional arms (billions of $$, mind you) from other nations, compared to the damning, ill-considered but apparently moot sale of toxins that were never used. Perhaps I'm missing something, but this site (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_knowledge_1980s) does a good job of summarizing your data too.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Jocko
Name a quantifiable claim I've made and refused to back up, or quit this silly game of tu quoque because you're not very good at it. You and I both trade in opinions and generalities, except unlike you, I'm usually wise enough not to confuse my opinion with statements of fact and cross the line. You do it regularly, which is why you're singlehandedly repsonsible for 30% of the hits on Google - AFTER you make your claims.

Now, to the substance of it.

Jocko tactic #1- Assert someone isn't 'very good' at debate and hope it will become fact.

Wanna know an assertion you haven't backed up? There're several of 'em here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44564&highlight=tehran). None of these statements are undisputed facts:

Majority of Iraqi 'insurgents' are 'generally not Iraqis'
That there are loads of Syrian fighters pouring in, as you suggest
That Moqtada al Sadr is 'directed from Tehran' (he might be getting support from Iran, but that's not the same as being directed)

You didn't back it up. Because advertisers prefer to use facts out of context, and hence do not like to be pinned down by individual ones.

In this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870582803#post1870582803) thread you made a few other assertions, without bothering to back them up with anything resembling evidence. More advertisers' tactics.



There are no specifics mentioned in the first as far as US sales, except for a potential "dual use" kidney machine. Only one mention of chemical weapons at all, in fact, and its in the context of defining WMDs in general.

Jocko tactic #2- Don't read links properly, and hope no-one else will either.

From the first link:

Between 1985-1989, the ATCC supplied Iraq with several pathogens, including Clostridium botulinum, and various strains of anthrax

There are several other examples, including West Nile, and aspergillus fungus cultures (used for alfatoxin). So we know you can't read links properly. Moving right along...

The second talks about nothing more than US selling cropdusters, pretty ironic that it's so hard to find among all the details of the French nuclear assistance around the same time. It does make mention of the anthrax and botulism toxin, however, and this is where things get interesting. Read on and I'll show you why.

Jocko tactic #3- Don't read posts properly. Read my posts again, Jocko. This relates to your following point, so I won't waste time re-quoting it (enough crap in the world already, I say). The US knew damn well Iraq was gassing her enemy, Iran. She also knew that international opinion would be pretty low of her if she sold single-use chemical weapons technology to Iraq. The solution? Simply say it's for another purpose. So, 45 cropdusting helicopters are sold to a country the size of Idaho with 12% arable land, and no-one raises an eyebrow. Especially not Reagan-worshippers like yourself.

Stick to advertising. You're baaad at history.

[Jocko]

I'm sorry you mistook my summarizing for omission, but since you didn't offer any relevant passages yourself I was left to evaluate the links myself. Sorry if my relevant points differ with yours, but that's what happens when you throw up a lot of links and no excerpts. Plus, your own glib summaries were, shal we say, incomplete in describing the full content of each.

So again, my question: Can you find an instance of Iraq deploying botulism, anthrax or west nile? They made their own nerve agents, remember.

Edited to add: Another thing we learn in advertising, Mr. M, is a great deal of group and individual psychology. I must confess I find you a rather fascinating specimen.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Jocko
The second talks about nothing more than US selling cropdusters, pretty ironic that it's so hard to find among all the details of the French nuclear assistance around the same time.

That's Ideologically Irrelevant™ As are the Russians or USSR and the Chinese and, well, practically everyone else.

And haven't we all heard this "dual use" stuff somewhere before? Set the wabac machine a year and a half ago. Aluminum tubes? Mobile fermenters and distillers that might be mobile brewpubs? Because we all know how much Muslims love their beer and liquor!

Funny how that vague crapola is suddenly all OK now, depending on whose ox is getting gored.

So I appreciate your backup. There's an element you haven't considered, though - I can't find any record of Iraq DEPLOYING either anthrax or botulism at any time.

That's because he didn't. The killed samples of clostridium botulinum and baccilum anthracus that Saddam Hussein bought on the open market (yes indeedy from an American company) were totally useless except for research and testing purposes. Because they were dead. If you wanted to make an anthrax or botulin weapon, you'd have more luck digging it up from soil or letting some beans rot.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by epepke
That's Ideologically Irrelevant™ As are the Russians or USSR and the Chinese and, well, practically everyone else.

And haven't we all heard this "dual use" stuff somewhere before? Set the wabac machine a year and a half ago. Aluminum tubes? Mobile fermenters and distillers that might be mobile brewpubs? Because we all know how much Muslims love their beer and liquor!

Funny how that vague crapola is suddenly all OK now, depending on whose ox is getting gored.

The difference is that the aluminium tubes couldn't be used for uranium enrichment. Not at all. Impossible. The aluminium tubes? Can't be used to enrich uranium.

The helicopters, now that's another story. Not only could they be used to disperse CW, they were used to disperse CW. And the American government couldn't pretend that they didn't expect that, because they knew Iraq liked to use CW from the Iran-Iraq war.

As to your assertion that the bio agents weren't weaponised, read the links again.

Jocko: Whether or not the bio weapons were deployed is irrelevant. What it demonstrates is that the US supported Iraq's WMD program, then turned around and waged war, killing civilians, based upon the claim that she had them and shouldn't. Hypocrisy at its finest. If you want to study 'fascinating specimens', why don't you take a goood long look at those in the Bush administration who've been up to their neck in Iraq since the '80's?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

The helicopters, now that's another story. Not only could they be used to disperse CW, they were used to disperse CW. And the American government couldn't pretend that they didn't expect that, because they knew Iraq liked to use CW from the Iran-Iraq war...

... If you want to study 'fascinating specimens', why don't you take a goood long look at those in the Bush administration who've been up to their neck in Iraq since the '80's?

Hmm. Helicopters. Conspiracies.

Truly fascinating.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Jocko
Hmm. Helicopters. Conspiracies.

Truly fascinating.

I suppose if France sold a bunch of tubes just perfect for use in centrifuges for enriching uranium, but said that they were for purely agricultural purposes, you wouldn't see the conspiracy in that, would you?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I suppose if France sold a bunch of tubes just perfect for use in centrifuges for enriching uranium, but said that they were for purely agricultural purposes, you wouldn't see the conspiracy in that, would you?

I imagine they probably threw them in for free with the Osirik reactor. No conspiracy there at all. Your point?

[LW]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Didn't they promptly surrender and swtch sides in BOTH world wars?

No, they didn't. Italy never fought on side of the Central Powers but entered the war directly on the Allied side. Italy had been allied to Germany and Austria-Hungaria before the war but the alliance terms spoke only about "defensive war" so Italians were not compelled to enter the war that started with German and Austrian offensives.

Though, I don't think that details like that matter to a person who believes that Arabs are the cause of the problems between Turks and Kurds.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Wanna know an assertion you haven't backed up? There're several of 'em here. None of these statements are undisputed facts:

Majority of Iraqi 'insurgents' are 'generally not Iraqis'


Iran admits to be providing facilities to Al-Zarqawi to conduct his operations in Iraq

A reliable Iranian source confirmed that Brig. Gen. Qassim Sullaimani, the commander of Al-Quds corps in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, told a closed seminar that Iran provides facilities to the Jordanian extremist scholar, Abu Mosaab Al-Zarqawi. Al-Zarqawi is accused of conducting most of the suicide operations and attacks in Iraq. Sullaimani justified this cooperation because Al-Zarqawi's activities in Iraq "serve the high interests of the Islamic Republic." Among these interests is the prevention of a federalist secular regime in Iraq that cooperates with the United States.

http://fayrouz.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_fayrouz_archive.html#109415983198622045

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Jocko
Right. The bombing unseated the government, and the new government pulled out. How anyone could draw a line through this is beyond me.

Sheesh.
You're confusing causation and correlation. An election was scheduled. Current admin was VERY unpopular because (in part) of support for war. Polls showed incumbents would lose. A bombing occurs. Incombents lose.

And you blame the bombing!

Sheeeeeeeesh

[E.J.Armstrong]

Political activism, Islamic style

Would that be Islam, as in the entire religion of Islam - as opposed to fundamentalist extremists?

Same old, same old.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Would that be Islam, as in the entire religion of Islam - as opposed to fundamentalist extremists?

Same old, same old.

That would be a good question to put to the kidnappers. I wonder what their answer would be?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by RSSchlueter
You're confusing causation and correlation. An election was scheduled. Current admin was VERY unpopular because (in part) of support for war. Polls showed incumbents would lose. A bombing occurs. Incombents lose.

And you blame the bombing!

Sheeeeeeeesh

Don't know what polls you were reading - the sitting government was comfortably ahead before the bombing. It bloody well was causation.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mycroft
http://fayrouz.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_fayrouz_archive.html#109415983198622045

A reliable Iranian source confirmed that Brig. Gen. Qassim Sullaimani, the commander of Al-Quds corps in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, told a closed seminar that Iran provides facilities to the Jordanian extremist scholar, Abu Mosaab Al-Zarqawi. Al-Zarqawi is accused of conducting most of the suicide operations and attacks in Iraq. Sullaimani justified this cooperation because Al-Zarqawi's activities in Iraq "serve the high interests of the Islamic Republic." Among these interests is the prevention of a federalist secular regime in Iraq that cooperates with the United States

And that proves that the majority of insurgents in Iraq are foreigners... how?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


And that proves that the majority of insurgents in Iraq are foreigners... how?

Do you know the difference between evidence and proof?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Do you know the difference between evidence and proof?

Have it your way.

And that's evidence that the majority of insurgents in Iraq are foreigners... how?

[zenith-nadir]

Militants Seek Edict on Iraq Kidnappings - Sun, Sep 05, 2004 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=2&u=/ap/20040905/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_hostages) BAGHDAD, Iraq - An Iraqi militant group appealed Sunday to an influential Sunni Muslim organization for an edict on whether the kidnapping of foreigners who work for occupation forces is acceptable under Islam.

The appeal came in a video aired on the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya satellite channel, which showed a masked man reading a statement seeking a "fatwa" from the Association of Muslim Scholars.Radical cleric issues fatwa demanding release of French reporters - Sun, Sep 05, 2004 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040905/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_france_hostages&cid=1514&ncid=1480) BAGHDAD (AFP) - A leading radical Iraqi cleric issued a fatwa (Islamic decree) demanding the immediate release of two French reporters held hostage for more than two weeks.

"We issued a fatwa urging the group to immediately free and not to harm the two French reporters, in recognition of France's position on Iraq," Sheikh Mehdi al-Sumaidaie, a senior cleric from the strict Wahhabist current of Islam, told AFP. I'm sorry but something is really really wrong with Islam when people ask for fatwas to kidnap and behead hostages and fatwas to release hostages. How about a frikkin fatwa to stop all terror? Now that is a fatwa that would restore my faith in Islam.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
That would be a good question to put to the kidnappers. I wonder what their answer would be?

Rfusing to answer simple questions yet again. Same old, same old.

I don't know. Because a fundamantalist group claims religious support for their actions, does that allow anyone to smear an entire religion on account of their actions?

If so, what do you call the terrorist actions of Sharon? Judaic terror or just state terror?

These enlightened clerics below might have something to say about your type of smear tactics about an entire religion.

'More than 400 rabbis from North America and Europe have in eight days signed a letter of protest to the Israeli government against the arrest of
Rabbi Arik Ascherman, executive director of Rabbis for
Human Rights, and against the policy of demolishing
Palestinian homes.

Rabbi Ascherman stood nonviolently in front of Israeli
Army bulldozers that were about to (and did) demolish
two Palestinian homes.' from http://www.shalomctr.org/index.cfm/action/read/section/IsPal/article/article542.html