Ahmadinejad calls for UN 9/11 investigation

[Argamemnon]

Who cares what this clown 'calls for'? First it's the Holocaust, and now 9/11. He should be treated with the contempt he deserves, although no doubt his intended audience (which is not the UN) will be suitably impressed by his rhetoric.

Western leaders are the clowns and hypocrites, not Mr. Ahmadinejad. He speaks the truth, that's why people like you are annoyed because the truth hurts.

As for the so called "holocaust"; you seem to be unaware of the falsification and exploitation of the Nazi genocide. The "6 million" figure is pure fabrication. It has been used to justify criminal policies of the Israeli state and U.S. support for these policies. The Zionists indeed learnt well from the Nazis!! Personally, I don't give a **** about the "holocaust". Thousands of Iraqi and Afghani women are currently being raped by western thugs in Afghanistan and Iraq, which of course you won't hear in western media. Millions of innocent people have died due to western aggression and for some strange reason you're still obsessed with the "holocaust"? Why are you living in the past, why are Jewish lives more important to you than Muslim lives?

 

[Argamemnon]

What 'logic' is this supposed to be? That second sentence has no relation at all to what I said. Try re-reading my post.

To be frank, you are one of the most illogical and hateful people I have ever come across. It amazes me how moderators have been able to tolerate your nonsense and deeply ingrained hatred of Muslims and Islam.

 

[Pygoscelis]

When you have no rational argument, attack the poster. This seems to be the trend around here.

 

[Ramadhan]

What 'logic' is this supposed to be? That second sentence has no relation at all to what I said. Try re-reading my post.

I was making sure that you actually believe the US intelligence was telling the truth when they said saddam had WMD.

 

[Trumble]

Millions of innocent people have died due to western aggression and for some strange reason you're still obsessed with the "holocaust"? Why are you living in the past, why are Jewish lives more important to you than Muslim lives?

I referred to the Holocaust and 9/11 together because Ahmadinejad has called for 'investigations' into both. Any obsession is his, not mine.

To be frank, you are one of the most illogical and hateful people I have ever come across.

I love you too. :wub:

I was making sure that you actually believe that the US intelligence did believe saddam had WMD.

Actually, my guess is that both US and British intelligence didn't actually know. A 'black and white' picture is just too simple; intelligence work is all about shades of grey as are most things in the real world. As they didn't know, they presented reports to their political masters that could be interpreted as they wished to interpret them. The relevant question is whether or not the politicians believed it, or wanted to believe it.

 

[Dagless]

Actually, my guess is that both US and British intelligence didn't actually know. A 'black and white' picture is just too simple; intelligence work is all about shades of grey as are most things in the real world. As they didn't know, they presented reports to their political masters that could be interpreted as they wished to interpret them. The relevant question is whether or not the politicians believed it, or wanted to believe it.

Your guess is wrong. A few people who were analysts in the British government have done interviews and even written books about how the prime minister and Bush knew there was no threat. As recently as this year the head of MI5 at the time (Eliza Manningham-Buller) was interviewed (as part of an investigation) and said the reasons the Bush administration gave were lies, and that the truth was known at the time.

 

[Trumble]

Your guess is wrong. A few people who were analysts in the British government have done interviews and even written books about how the prime minister and Bush knew there was no threat. As recently as this year the head of MI5 at the time (Eliza Manningham-Buller) was interviewed (as part of an investigation) and said the reasons the Bush administration gave were lies, and that the truth was known at the time.

I don't think so. What she actually said was that, in her opinion, the intelligence held was "not substantial enough" to justify military action. If you have a source quoting her regarding 'lies from the Bush administration' and the 'truth' being known, please provide it.

 

[Dagless]

I don't think so. What she actually said was that, in her opinion, the intelligence held was "not substantial enough" to justify military action. If you have a source quoting her regarding 'lies from the Bush administration' and the 'truth' being known, please provide it.

The public were told there is an immediate threat, but she herself testified that the PM and Bush were told the threat "certainly wasn’t of concern in either the short term or the medium term to my colleagues or myself."
What do you call that, if not a lie?

An example would be if you said I did something, then I turn around and say "no, that's nothing like what I did. In actual fact I did the opposite". That would indicate I am saying you're a liar.

I know people such as yourself don't accept this premise, but in the real world shouting "you big fat liar" from the rooftops is not very polite. Just the fact she said what she did is huge considering it is a direct contradiction to what the PM said in the same investigation.

edit: btw it's not just her, many analysts (and ex-analysts) have come forward with the same information. I am quoting her because she was head of the agency so this is from the horses mouth.

 

[Ramadhan]

Actually, my guess is that both US and British intelligence didn't actually know. A 'black and white' picture is just too simple; intelligence work is all about shades of grey as are most things in the real world. As they didn't know, they presented reports to their political masters that could be interpreted as they wished to interpret them.The relevant question is whether or not the politicians believed it, or wanted to believe it.

So, you think the US government did believe Saddam had WMD?

 

[Ramadhan]

Bin Laden isn't the excuse they are using anymore to stay in Afghanistan. They are trying to, according to their Publicity, secure Afghanistan so it's not used by enemies of USA as a base.

And you believe this?

 

[AzizMostafa]

Did the US government believe that Saddam had WMD and nuclear missiles?!
http://typophile.com/node/53099?page1#comment-321741

 

[Trumble]

The public were told there is an immediate threat, but she herself testified that the PM and Bush were told the threat "certainly wasn’t of concern in either the short term or the medium term to my colleagues or myself."
What do you call that, if not a lie?

Again, what she actually said was that the theory that Saddam’s regime would bring together international terrorism and WMDs in a threat to western interests “certainly wasn’t of concern in either the short term or the medium term to my colleagues or myself". I can find no reference to her saying anything about knowing 'the truth' that Iraq did not have WMDs or that the US or UK administration had lied about anything. The politicians are under no obligation to agree with MI5 or the CIA particularly when, as I have suggested, it is likely intelligence reports were provided they could interpret according to their inclinations. Bush and Blair wanted to believe Saddam had WMD.

edit: btw it's not just her, many analysts (and ex-analysts) have come forward with the same information. I am quoting her because she was head of the agency so this is from the horses mouth.

Again, if you have sources that claim it was known definitively that Iraq did not have WMDs, and hence that any statement that they did was a deliberate lie, please produce them.

 

[Ramadhan]

Bush and Blair wanted to believe Saddam had WMD.

You seem to be certain about this.
What is the evidence that they "wanted" to believe Saddam had WMD.
and even if it is true that they "wanted to believe", why is that?
Please provide concrete evidence (lest someone accuse you for being "conspiracy theorist").


By the way, read this:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd

Thursday, Sep 6, 2007 07:16 ET
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.
By Sidney Blumenthal

*

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

On April 23, 2006, CBS’s “60 Minutes” interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam’s foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. “We continued to validate him the whole way through,” said Drumheller. “The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.”

 

[Trumble]

You seem to be certain about this.
What is the evidence that they "wanted" to believe Saddam had WMD.
and even if it is true that they "wanted to believe", why is that?
Please provide concrete evidence (lest someone accuse you for being "conspiracy theorist").

How do you suggest I provide 'concrete evidence' of what was going on in their heads? Aside from which, I'm puzzled as to why you need it; are you suggesting they really wanted to believe Iraq didn't have WMDs?! That would, after all, seem to be the only alternative.

" The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."

That's exactly what I've been saying!!

 

[Dagless]

Again, what she actually said was that the theory that Saddam’s regime would bring together international terrorism and WMDs in a threat to western interests “certainly wasn’t of concern in either the short term or the medium term to my colleagues or myself". I can find no reference to her saying anything about knowing 'the truth' that Iraq did not have WMDs or that the US or UK administration had lied about anything. The politicians are under no obligation to agree with MI5 or the CIA particularly when, as I have suggested, it is likely intelligence reports were provided they could interpret according to their inclinations. Bush and Blair wanted to believe Saddam had WMD.

Everyone can read the entire quote and reach a conclusion about whether the threat from Saddam was immediate and severe as stated by Bush and Blair.

UNIDENTIFIED: Does it therefore follow from that that you don't subscribe to the theory that at some point in the future he would probably have brought together international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction in a threat to Western interests?

MANNINGHAM-BULLER: It's a hypothetical theory. It certainly wasn't of concern in either the short term or the medium term to my colleagues or myself.

Again, if you have sources that claim it was known definitively that Iraq did not have WMDs, and hence that any statement that they did was a deliberate lie, please produce them.

This is why we have intelligence agencies. If they tell you there is no significant threat, you can say there is no threat. By ignoring the reports, and saying the intelligence shows there is a threat, you are lying.

 

[Lynx]

And you believe this?

Not entirely. But my point was it's no longer 'convenient' to not catch Bin Laden.

 

[Trumble]

This is why we have intelligence agencies. If they tell you there is no significant threat, you can say there is no threat. By ignoring the reports, and saying the intelligence shows there is a threat, you are lying.

Do you actually read my posts? I've been saying that they weren't told that, neither were they told the opposite. Manningham-Buller did NOT say they were told that. I'm suggesting that as the intelligence community was uncertain, their briefs were presented in such a way as allow interpretation by their political masters as they wished. It's simple psychology; nobody is going to declare "Saddam has no WMDs" if any doubt remains, and they can avoid doing so. They would tend to look rather stupid had Saddam then gone and actually used one. It's not as if he hadn't done so before.

 

[Dagless]

Do you actually read my posts? I've been saying that they weren't told that, neither were they told the opposite. Manningham-Buller did NOT say they were told that.

I find your comments quite amusing now So you're saying that the head of MI5 believed there wasn't a significant threat BUT when asked she lied to the PM? There is no doubt she was asked so what exactly are you saying?

I'm suggesting that as the intelligence community was uncertain, their briefs were presented in such a way as allow interpretation by their political masters as they wished. It's simple psychology; nobody is going to declare "Saddam has no WMDs" if any doubt remains, and they can avoid doing so. They would tend to look rather stupid had Saddam then gone and actually used one.

It is plain to see that nobody can be 100% sure but according to the intelligence there was not a threat - there was no ambiguity in this and it has been stated by many sources. Even if there was ambiguity it's no reason to invade a country. There should have been STRONG EVIDENCE for WMD's to justify an invasion. So therefore there was no legitimate reason to invade. Would you support the invasion of any country without evidence, simply because you cannot prove or disprove some random reason?

It's not as if he hadn't done so before.

So by that logic - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
We'd better invade the US. They have nukes, and hey it's not as if they haven't used them before.

"Manningham-Buller said there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement in the September 11 attacks on the US, a view she said was shared by the CIA and which prompted the then US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to set up an alternative intelligence unit."

Maybe she also decided not to talk about this? Maybe she said there was involvement when asked and then laughed about it on the way home? According to you the head of MI5 is quite the joker

 

[Trumble]

I find your comments quite amusing now So you're saying that the head of MI5 believed there wasn't a significant threat BUT when asked she lied to the PM? There is no doubt she was asked so what exactly are you saying?

I'm afraid I find your apparent lack of comprehension skills rather less amusing. No I'm not saying that she lied, I'm saying that - for about the fifth time - that as UK and US agencies were still uncertain, whatever their respective brass' personal opinions might be, they provided reports that could be interpreted either way. Do you get it now? Once you escape cyberspace into real life you will learn that not everything is black and white, and that most people, to some degree, try and cover their backsides when possible, particularly in the 'corridors of power'.

Even if there was ambiguity it's no reason to invade a country. There should have been STRONG EVIDENCE for WMD's to justify an invasion. So therefore there was no legitimate reason to invade.

I agree. But had you actually been paying attention you would notice I am not attempting to justify the invasion of Iraq. I am simply offering an explanation as to how/why it happened other than the fact that everybody 'lied' about everything.

So by that logic - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
We'd better invade the US. They have nukes, and hey it's not as if they haven't used them before.

I am offering no such 'logic'. Again you are simply not reading. I did not mention Saddam's use of chemical weapons as a justification of the invasion of any state that has used WMDs. I mentioned it to demonstrate Saddam's willingness to use weapons that at at one time he certainly possessed, and hence presumably if he possessed them again in the context of intelligence reports on Iraq.

Maybe she also decided not to talk about this? Maybe she said there was involvement when asked and then laughed about it on the way home? According to you the head of MI5 is quite the joker

As you seem to resorted to asinine gibberish, you will hopefully forgive me for not addressing that 'point'.

 

[Dagless]

I'm afraid I find your apparent lack of comprehension skills rather less amusing. No I'm not saying that she lied, I'm saying that - for about the fifth time - that as UK and US agencies were still uncertain, whatever their respective brass' personal opinions might be, they provided reports that could be interpreted either way. Do you get it now? Once you escape cyberspace into real life you will learn that not everything is black and white, and that most people, to some degree, try and cover their backsides when possible, particularly in the 'corridors of power'.

This is getting silly now. Who do you think wrote or authorised those reports? Who do you think oversaw them? The explanation you are offering is not only incorrect but flies in the face of the information you're being given. You are saying that the UK and US agencies were uncertain, she is saying that the UK agencies saw no threat (her and her colleagues opinions). That is the agencies official opinion (I think you really need to read the whole interview because you seem to think they sat her down and asked her what her favourite biscuit was this week. The investigation cared only about what was said and the information available at that time).
So who are we to believe? You are trying to make out she was uncertain, whereas she is saying she saw no threat (not only did she say that but she also added that those around her saw no threat), how the hell can that be uncertain?

"I did not know if there was a threat or not" <-- this is uncertain.
"I saw no threat" <-- this is NOT uncertain.

Do you see the difference? From your previous drivel I honestly doubt it.

I think any rational person would believe her recollection of her opinion than your recollection of her opinion.

I am offering no such 'logic'. Again you are simply not reading. I did not mention Saddam's use of chemical weapons as a justification of the invasion of any state that has used WMDs. I mentioned it to demonstrate Saddam's willingness to use weapons that at at one time he certainly possessed, and hence presumably if he possessed them again in the context of intelligence reports on Iraq.

You wrote one line with a link, I think my reply was appropriate.

As you seem to resorted to asinine gibberish, you will hopefully forgive me for not addressing that 'point'.

Sure I forgive you, it's not like you've addressed any other point either (not unless you count expressing an opinion in opposition to the facts).