Posted on 09/26/2003 12:25:46 AM PDT by kattracks
Saddam's regime said it had imprisoned Yasin since arresting him in 1994, and that offers to turn him over to the U.S. government were rebuffed in the weeks before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
So, did they offer to turn him over this spring? Or, did they offer to turn him over during Clinton's term? If the later, then add him to the list with OBL on terrorists that Clinton refused to apprehend.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney asserted that one of the bombers - a U.S. citizen and one of the FBI's most-wanted terrorists - received help from Iraq.
Cheney, speaking Sept. 14 on NBC-TV's ``Meet the Press'' program, did not mention the suspect by name.
``And we have learned subsequent to that, since we got into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government, as well as safe haven,'' Cheney said.
Cheney said the man was Iraqi.
Cheney's description came after ``Meet the Press'' moderator Tim Russert asked him about Iraqi connections to al-Qaida and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, which destroyed the World Trade Center.
``Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in '93?'' Cheney said. ``We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did in fact receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact.''
President Bush, though, said last week there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in the 2001 attacks.
[* My note : President Bush also said in the same breath that there is no question that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda. Funny how the press almost always carefully edits that half of his statement out.]
[* My note : Unnamed counterroriosm officials. Maybe nonexistant counterterrorism officials...unnamed uninformed counterterrorism officials.]
At the time, al-Qaida was in its formative stages in Sudan,...
Formative? This is simply not true. Al Qaeda had formed in 1989, and not in Sudan but in Afghanistan and Peshawar, Pakistan. By then bin Laden had already split with the Mekhtab al Khidemat and Azzam over the issue of priorities and the two went their own way, with bin Laden forming his own group, al Qaeda, in 89. When Azzam died in late 1989, Azzam's organization MAK again split, and the more extremist fsction among them joined up with Bin Laden's group al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda most certainly did exist years before the 1993 WTC blast.
The "only" difference? As if that were a "small" difference!
I am saying there is a great divide between the strategies and tactics of a country with a goal of providing Constitutional and enduring freedoms contrasted with the strategies and tactics of a dictator whose overall concern is keeping his domestic problems under an iron boot and exporting terrorist actions upon my enemies.
Until you can understand that, we have nothing more to discuss.
…a dictator whose overall concern is keeping his domestic problems under an iron boot and exporting terrorist actions upon my enemies.
In some cultures that is the preferred form of government.
I am saying there is a great divide between the strategies and tactics of a country with a goal of providing Constitutional and enduring freedoms contrasted with the strategies and tactics of a dictator whose overall concern is keeping his domestic problems under an iron boot and exporting terrorist actions upon my enemies.
I am saying there is a great divide between the strategies and tactics of a country with a goal of providing Constitutional and enduring freedoms contrasted with the strategies and tactics of a dictator whose overall concern is keeping his domestic problems under an iron boot and exporting terrorist actions upon my enemies.
You must have a learning disability.
As your intelligence level is showing, no further discussion would be productive.
I agree, as mine is on a higher plane than yours, and you're obviously unwilling to attempt to make a leap to reasonability, we can end it here.
"Jingoistic" is a punk term. And so is "freedom fighter" when used to refer to a terrorist.
They both generally have the same meaning, being differentiated only by which side is being supported.
You can fight for freedom without becoming a terrorist. Or do you think the American War of Independence was terrorism?
A “terrorist” is a person who opts to bring about wanted change through instilling terror in those considered enemies.
But what kind of a change does the person want? Does he want an end to oppression or does he want to create oppression? Does he want to enforce his rights, or does he want to violate the rights of others?
While all fighters may, in a very technical way, qualify as terrorists, the use of the term terrorist almost invariably implies moral condemnation, as in "a terrorist is a person who employs terror to achieve unjust ends."
After all, when people say, "X is a terrorist," the undertone is always that X is a despicable criminal, isn't it?
A “freedom fighter” is fighting for freedom. It is usually defined as a person fighting to repel a foreign invader and establish a desired form of government.
Yes, all freedom fighters fight to repel what is usually a foreign invader--but not all people who fight to repel a foreign invader are freedom fighters. Saddam's thugs, for example, fought to repel the invading forces, but they hardly did it for freedom--they did it to keep freedom away from Iraq!
It can be truthfully said that the terrorist will generally attack defenseless civilian targets. It is a maxim of warfare to attack where the enemy is weakest. That is why they strike undefended targets. That is why we rendered Iraq nearly defenseless before the ground invasions.
This is all true. But I suppose you meant this as a response to my point about true freedom fighters targeting the oppressors and not the innocent, didn't you? If so, I will remind you that "defenseless" is not a synonym of "innocent." The technical fact that all fighters will tend to attack the enemy at its least-defended point has no bearing on the moral distinction between an attack by the innocent on their oppressors and an attack by an oppressor on the innocent.
To give you an analogy: During a car chase, both the pursuer and the pursued make extensive use of the accelerator pedal. This is a technical fact pertaining to all cases where a person wants to make a car go fast. It has no bearing on the distinction between the pursuer (who is driving fast in order to catch up) and the pursued (who is driving fast in order to get away). The distinction between stepping on the gas and not stepping on it is orthogonal to the distinction between wanting to catch up and wanting to get away.
And then, the moral question of why the pursuit is taking place (is a criminal wanting to get away from justice, or is an intended victim wanting to get away from a criminal?) is on yet another orthogonal axis.
If my defenseless civilian family were to be killed by a foreign power I would try my best to retaliate any way I could
Good for you! You would do this as a retaliation for the violation of your family's right to their life. Your retaliation would not constitute a violation of the invader's rights, as they have forfeited their own rights when they showed disrespect for the rights of others.
Now, if you wanted a CD player and your neighbor had one, would you try your best to terrorize your neighbor into giving it to you? I'm sure you wouldn't, as the neighbor has a right to keep his CD player, and you wouldn't want to violate his rights.
Do you see the moral distinction?
be it an unofficial power or an official military power.
Again, the important distinction is not whether it is an "official" power (whatever that means) but whether they fight for their rights or against your rights.
Or do you think the American War of Independence was terrorism?
Yes, there is a moral distinction.
To make my position as simple as possible, I detest blatant propaganda. The term “terrorist” as used today is an instrument to influence people’s emotions – and it has worked as intended. We also see where the White House statements would have us believe all that oppose our occupation are either “Saddam supporters” or foreign Al Quida terrorists. The idea that some could be Iraqi nationalist is never mentioned. They all can’t be foreigners – the attacks are too well planned and executed not to have local help, and it only takes the support of a small percentage of the population to have a successful revolution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.