Axis of Evil 2.0a - Iraq, Al-Queda & France

[Stvn]

Report: Iraq-al Qaeda link found

Documents discovered in the bombed out headquarters of Iraq's intelligence service provide evidence of a direct link between Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network, a newspaper reported Sunday.

Papers found Saturday by journalists working for the Sunday Telegraph reveal that an al Qaeda envoy met with officials in Baghdad in March 1998, the newspaper reported.

... snip snip snip ...

Separately, The Sunday Times reported that its own journalists had found documents in the Iraqi foreign ministry that indicate that France gave Saddam Hussein's regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials.

The newspaper said the documents reveal that Paris shared with Baghdad the contents of private transatlantic meetings and diplomatic traffic from Washington.

One document, dated September 25, 2001, from Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri to Saddam's palace, was based on a briefing from the French ambassador in Baghdad and covered talks between presidents Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/26/sprj.irq.britain.iraq.ap/index.html

Looks like we are going to be eating "Freedom Fries" in the US for a long time now.



-stvn

 

[nelg]

Or look at this. If you have a subscription.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-659974,00.html

 

[Silent_One]

There appears to be other ties to Al Qaeda as well.
From the front page of the NYT today:
Instruction and Methods From Al Qaeda Took Root in North Iraqhttp://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/international/worldspecial/27NORT.html

Documents gathered in 2001 by a correspondent for The New York Times 1,300 miles away in Kabul, the Afghan capital, suggested that Al Qaeda was then helping to unify the Islamic groups that became Ansar and was encouraging them to establish strict Islamic rules in villages they controlled.

The documents spoke of the groups in Iraq and said they should be urged to unite. Kurdish officials and Ansar defectors have said leaders of the groups that formed Ansar went to Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001 to meet with Qaeda officials.

American military officials say the new materials indicate that a methodical collaboration has gone far beyond helping Ansar get its start and demonstrate that Al Qaeda has the ability to export its training lessons from place to place.

Interviews with prisoners and translations of internal documents and computer disks show that Ansar possessed manuals from Al Qaeda in printed and digital form, ran two training bases with curriculums strikingly similar to those taught in Afghan camps, and managed its affairs much as Al Qaeda did.

The group also had poison recipes much like those found in Qaeda buildings in Afghanistan after the Taliban fell.

 

[dee]

Looks like we are going to be eating "Freedom Fries" in the US for a long time now.

I'd heard that there's been a big slump in French Fries sales recently & assumed that this was anti-US humour. Is there a bit of truth to what I was told?

 

[pax]

Links to al ansar is pretty old news. So 2 small terrorist groups in the region had links to each other? Not very surprising... I find the documents supposedly linking Saddams regime to al quaeda odd... Why werent they shredded for one thing... The French one makes no sense at all save for maybe some low level french official being bribed by Iraqi agents... If this is still used to rename freedom fries its pretty pathetic in my book.

After the forgeries of the documents telling of Iraqi attemps to buy Nigerian uranium I wouldnt put this one past a forgery...

 

[Stvn]

Looks like we are going to be eating "Freedom Fries" in the US for a long time now.

I'd heard that there's been a big slump in French Fries sales recently & assumed that this was anti-US humour. Is there a bit of truth to what I was told?

There was actually an ad campaign run in NYC to encourage people tp go to French resturants, apparently they were loosing business.

-stvn

 

[kihon]

Have you guys read this?

http://theregister.co.uk/content/6/30441.html

While I agree that the war was needed - if only to get rid of saddam, this is taking the proverbial isnt it?

 

[Natoma]

If the french are indeed guilty of this, there really needs to be some international condemnation. Can they be removed from the UN Security Council for something like this? Or does permanent really mean permanent? hehe.

 

[pax]

Nothing indicates its official gov business involved here. It really does only look like some low level official spying for the Iraqis... Cant blame France for that.

 

[Nagorak]

Why should the French be condemned for being a little bit bad, when the US is running around roughshod and invading countries on a whim?

 

[JacksBleedingEyes]

Why should the French be condemned for being a little bit bad, when the US is running around roughshod and invading countries on a whim?

Because the Americans, are currently the two faced bullies of the world, and they will stick their hand in anything that interests them as well as make an example of any nation that may remotely stand up to them. Whats France got, not a lot. (when comparing military and economical power). EU does however pose an a threat to Americas all might economical dominance. So the states might just have another interest to fuck up France considering the it is what the first or is it second to Germany (economically speaking)

 

[MrsSkywalker]

I hope you are being sarcastic, because even the most devout US haters realize the stupidity of saying that the US is out to crumble Europe's economy. If we ever wanted to "take over Europe" and crumble their economy, then we missed our shot by a good 60 years. Instead we put not only time and effort into rebuilding Europe, but we spent an enormous amount of money to make a better, stronger Europe. To crush their economy now would be the most retarded thing our government has ever done.

As far as France goes, I think that citizens over here will remeber France's behavior through all of this for a long time. I must say that every time I pass by the WWII memorial in my town, I feel a surge of contempt towards France. We put so much out there for them when they needed us, and then we find out that they not only promised to veto any plan we had for Iraq, but that there were those in France who were supplying/spying for/supporting Hussein...it stings. And it doesn't matter to the average Joe if Chirac and his crew were directly involved in it. They are the mouthpieces, they are who we see in the news, and they are the ones who'll have to take the blame. Perhaps it is unfair, but that is human nature.

 

[JacksBleedingEyes]

I hope you are being sarcastic, because even the most devout US haters realize the stupidity of saying that the US is out to crumble Europe's economy. If we ever wanted to "take over Europe" and crumble their economy, then we missed our shot by a good 60 years. Instead we put not only time and effort into rebuilding Europe, but we spent an enormous amount of money to make a better, stronger Europe. To crush their economy now would be the most retarded thing our government has ever done.

As far as France goes, I think that citizens over here will remeber France's behavior through all of this for a long time. I must say that every time I pass by the WWII memorial in my town, I feel a surge of contempt towards France. We put so much out there for them when they needed us, and then we find out that they not only promised to veto any plan we had for Iraq, but that there were those in France who were supplying/spying for/supporting Hussein...it stings. And it doesn't matter to the average Joe if Chirac and his crew were directly involved in it. They are the mouthpieces, they are who we see in the news, and they are the ones who'll have to take the blame. Perhaps it is unfair, but that is human nature.

I never said America would cirpple Europes economy. Hello that does not advantage anyone, because it wuoldnt be beneficail for America (to have a weak trading partner). It does however interest America to be in front of Europe and as a result you boys will fight as dirty as you can just to do it, just as europe is finally posing a threat.

 

[micron]

Now there's an informed opinion <disgusted>

 

[micron]

.....Also, let me add this,....Do you have any idea how completely stupid you sound?

 

[Sabastian]

.....Also, let me add this,....Do you have any idea how completely stupid you sound?

The problem is I don't think he really does know...

The arguement is absolutely rediculous and for the most part totally unfounded. The irony is when you actually ask these nuts just what the heck they are talking about they go off on rants about capitalism and imperialism .... which mostly in the end amounts to retarded, outdated, socialist based arguments that are nothing short of slander towards the US, Democracy and Capitalism.

micron.... go to your nearest Liberal Arts University and take a look around. Pay particular attention to the students that are majoring in a Sociology degree.... But this doesn't mean that every lunatic mutering that crap knows why they are saying it. No they were simply privy to someone whom thinks they know what the heck they are talking about. You won't believe what is being passed off as legitimate "science" at these schools. It is more difficult then that though you have to know a few things about the assumptions they make before you can find the root of this mindlessness. Anyhow mostly what you will see are a bunch of left wing lunatics hell bent on creating their utopia at any cost.

EDIT: Sorry for the rant .. couldn't help myself.

 

[Humus]

Sabastian ranting against socialism ... well, at least something is constant in this ever changing world.

 

[pascal]

 

[Clashman]

Given Sabastian's accounts of China, I'm going to go out on a limb and say he doesn't have a clue what socialism actually is. There's nothing Marxist about China anymore except the name, although one could make an argument for Leninism. Even that, however, is tenuous, as they seem to be more and more modeling themselves after Singapore or Pinochet-era Chile more than taking cues from the Bolsheviks of old.

 

[Sabastian]

Given Sabastian's accounts of China, I'm going to go out on a limb and say he doesn't have a clue what socialism actually is. There's nothing Marxist about China anymore except the name, although one could make an argument for Leninism. Even that, however, is tenuous, as they seem to be more and more modeling themselves after Singapore or Pinochet-era Chile more than taking cues from the Bolsheviks of old.

Oh Clashman.... your probably going to wish you never said that..... but then you make some sort of half assed disclaimer eg.

There's nothing Marxist about China anymore except the name, although one could make an argument for Leninism.

lol, elitist. Somehow someone whom is opposed to the ideology of Socialism could never know or fully understand its principles somehow. Bah...

I find it funny that after the collapse of the main tumor that communism was Socialist are now seemly more and more trying to align themselves with advanced democracy of the west. Let me ask you something is socialism like capitalism (eg free markets and so on.)or communism? This is so elementary I feel like I am talking to a child here. lol.

Seems now Socialist are trying, desperately so, to distance themselves from their own ideological founders and communistic sympathisers. Engels thought that the "Communist Manifesto" could also have been called "The Socialist Manifesto". I know what socialism is ..... it is a social cancer, that while the main and most offensive tumor has been removed it is spread throughout the body that the globe is. But here are some definitions of just what the academic community believes socialism is.

so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.


Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
[Buy it]


socialism

\Socialism\, n.

Socialism of the chair [G. katheder socialismus], a term applied about 1872, at first in ridicule, to a group of German political economists who advocated state aid for the betterment of the working classes. Sock \Sock\, v. t. [Perh. shortened fr. sockdolager.] To hurl, drive, or strike violently; -- often with it as an object. [Prov. or Vulgar] --Kipling.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


socialism

\So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.

[Socialism] was first applied in England to Owen's theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those also of St. Simon and Fourier . . . The word, however, is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by economists and learned critics. The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference undertaken by society on behalf of the poor, . . . radical social reform which disturbs the present system of private property . . . The tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with the most advanced democracy. --Encyc. Brit.

We certainly want a true history of socialism, meaning by that a history of every systematic attempt to provide a new social existence for the mass of the workers. --F. Harrison.

I know what socialism is... sigh because I have a liberal arts degree and attended university and BTW that is how I know that the logic is being prepetuated there as well. In fact I was socialist.. So if you have any questions about just what socialism is I don't think there is a better source then myself.

The irony here is that Chinas own government calls themselves socialist and they implement a wide variety of socialist policy. Just because you have a democratic system does not make you any less a totalitarian system. Here is another definition......

totalitarian

adj 1: characterized by a government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control; "a totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul"- Arthur M.Schlesinger, Jr. 2: of or relating to the principles of totalitarianism according to which the state regulates every realm of life; "totalitarian theory and practice"; "operating in a totalistic fashion"

A society in which familial matters can be dictated by political authority (In some cases even by deadly force) is the tyrannical conception of totalitarianism. The experience of this was bad enough during the the French Revolution, that was inspired by Rousseau, but its horrors and toll in lives were only really displayed in its Fascist (yet another malign form of socialism) and Communist incarnations of totalitarin countries in the early to mid 1900s. The political morals, as well as objectives to atain a society with no social statification, of a totalitarian state can literally rob all private choice and preference of individuals.

The argument of leftist that the Soviet regime was not really Marxism or socialism, and that a democratic Marxism/Socialism is possible. A society without government intervention is clearly rejected as a bourgeois conception that not only Marx but Socialist prescribe to . Marxist economics is a condemnation of economic exchanges, as well as private property, which means that the way in which one must act to earn a living is excluted from civil society. Under a socialist system the individual is taxed heavily and the government has the compulsion to control what sort of trade occurs. The socialist really want to regulate the free market and this is the slippery slope that advanced western capitalistic democracies face. In the end Socialism takes on a very communistic face particularly when these states are driven by the notion that inequality(particularly financial) is the root of human despare.

However unlikely the slide towards more and more communistic tendencies are the adoption of more and more socialistic measures the unlikely becomes more reasonable and possible. I believe that it is a slippery slope. The idea that this could be implemented while preserving non-economic privacy and liberty is now contradicted by, amongst a variety of other matters, the use of sexual harassment for example and other laws to undermind the first amendment to curtail even prohibit freedom of speech in the workplace. The truth is that Marxism/Socialism is based on the ideal of the French Revolution, with all its Rousseau-inspired totalitarianism, despite the leftist compulsion to put a liberal happy face on it.

The idea that economic exchanges should be entirely governed by political governance is socialism or, with provision for some civil liberties, social democracy or democratic socialism. Its clear though from the practice of its zealots, however, that "social democrats" have only the softest commitment to privacy and civil society, and they are often driven by more radical activists whose totalitarian sympathies, as in the "the personal is political"(so much for privacy.) slogan of feminism, and distain for all civil liberties are obvious. (eg freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms ...etc.)

There is nothing about the notion of democratic socialism that would prevent the version of democracy in just the way it was conducted in the Sovietized regimes, the people are always on the minds of the tyrants. What we see is the tendency of government to increase and liberty to decrease, it has been the experience of liberal societies that socialist and totalitarian criticism has led to an assault on voluntary relationships and exchanges and a steady growth in law and authority to invade and govern a free society.

The reason I "rant" about socialism is because I believe that it is the root of allot of social and political problems and sadly the mentality seems wide spread. Hence so much seemingly disinformation/supspisions with regards to the US and its intensions. I hold stedfast to the premiss that society is and always will be stratified dispite social activists beliefs that they can level it via statistical equality of incomes and using "positive" rights to force their morality on the rest of what used to be a free society. To even begin to try to do this evolks the same ideologies that Carl Marx held dear to his heart as do socialist. Anyhow I have no more time to explain these things to you today. Go and educate yourself.