Political activism, Islamic style

[Jocko]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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).

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 and here.

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 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 article which names the specific companies involved.

Here 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]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
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.

Quote:

Info on the ATCC providing bio-agents to Iraq here and here.

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 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 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.

Quote:

Here 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 does a good job of summarizing your data too.

[Mr Manifesto]

Quote:

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. 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 thread you made a few other assertions, without bothering to back them up with anything resembling evidence. More advertisers' tactics.

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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...

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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'

Quote:

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_...15983198622045

[SezMe]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft
http://fayrouz.blogspot.com/2004_09_...15983198622045

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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/a...rticle542.html