Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
Thu May 21, 2015, 12:55 PM May 2015

CORRECT QUESTION ON IRAQ WAR: not "IF" but "EVEN IF" Saddam had WMD

It's disturbing to hear even some Democrats trot out old lies to justify their support for the Iraq War, particularly the "bad intel" one, when whether Saddam Hussein had nukes is irrelevant to whether we should invade.

The real question that should have been asked over and over again was "EVEN IF every piece of cooked intel was true and Saddam had or sought nukes, why would he commit suicide and take his whole country with him by using it on us or Israel?"

You could certainly make the case that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, even evil, but he did not get and keep power by being an idiot.

CIA director at the time, George Tenet was forced to say as much:

But in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee, CIA director George Tenet also said the likelihood of Iraq launching an unprovoked attack on the United States was "low".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2312369.stm


That is true because the United States has THOUSANDS of nukes to retaliate with, and we are the only country in the world to have ever used them. Even when the Soviet Union had as many or more nukes than us, they dared not use them because whatever damage they did, we would still have more than enough to strike back. Saddam Hussein would know all that.

Likewise, Israel has HUNDREDS of nukes, and while they haven't used any, it's not hard to imagine them doing so in retaliation given their history of attacking their neighbors (including Iraq) when they thought it was in their interest. Saddam would certainly consider that since Israel attacked an Iraqi nuclear plant while he was in power.

For those same reasons, neither Saddam not any other state leader would be willing to give or sell nukes to terrorists. Once the weapon is out of their hands, they would have zero control over how it was used, and if it was used, since terrorist don't typical have a return address, we would strike whoever gave it to them. And if we didn't know, our government would hit whoever we SUSPECT gave it to them (or whoever is next on our shit list).

Saddam Hussein would know all that too, especially since we were doing that shit list trick to him with 9/11 before we invaded.

Everyone in Congress old enough to remember the Cold War did not need to be privy to any secret intelligence or told directly that Saddam didn't have those weapons or even that if he did, he would not be a threat to us.

They just had to remember why we didn't have a nuclear war in their lifetime.

Anyone in Congress who says otherwise is either lying or they are so corrupt, they don't care what the truth is anymore.

25 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CORRECT QUESTION ON IRAQ WAR: not "IF" but "EVEN IF" Saddam had WMD (Original Post) yurbud May 2015 OP
We do it with Iran too: a nation of suicidal maniacs who hope to drop one nuke and then die. arcane1 May 2015 #1
yep. You can dislike the ayatollahs but they aint suicidal yurbud May 2015 #3
I think the fact that a terrorist group.... MaggieD May 2015 #2
that is a strong argument for invading Saudi Arabia when they get nukes from Pakistan yurbud May 2015 #4
what country has been taken over by suicidal terrorists? yurbud May 2015 #5
Iraq for one MaggieD May 2015 #6
those two countries are unstable because we backed Islamic fundamentalist to yurbud May 2015 #7
Regardless, the risk is there MaggieD May 2015 #8
suicide bombing is not the same as committing national suicide yurbud May 2015 #9
Are you so naive that you don't think.... MaggieD May 2015 #11
at most they want ALL of Israel instead of just the Palestinian areas. Nuking someplace you want yurbud May 2015 #19
also, it is dishonest for our government to wring their hands about a problem they created yurbud May 2015 #10
Obama didn't "create" it.... MaggieD May 2015 #12
back to that DLC talking point? Why don't you guys try running on your ideas yurbud May 2015 #17
And Hillary wanted to make the same mistake with the Kurds. Luckily Obama learned from history and Exilednight May 2015 #14
Obama must have forgotten by the time he got to Libya and Syria. yurbud May 2015 #20
I am certain that will ce to bite us in the ass, but arming the Kurds Exilednight May 2015 #21
Out of everything we do here is a lefty group that we probably should help JonLP24 May 2015 #25
Did you see her word-for-word case for it JonLP24 May 2015 #24
WHO is "we"? reddread May 2015 #16
They don't have the capacity to attack the United States. Anyone who believes they Exilednight May 2015 #13
I think it's more like a money hat yurbud May 2015 #15
Israel has hundreds of nukes. When do the calls for inspection and sanctions start? Tierra_y_Libertad May 2015 #18
as soon as they are no longer of use to our financial elite yurbud May 2015 #22
I look at it this way JonLP24 May 2015 #23
 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
1. We do it with Iran too: a nation of suicidal maniacs who hope to drop one nuke and then die.
Thu May 21, 2015, 01:27 PM
May 2015

It's amazing that people fall for it, over and over again.

 

MaggieD

(7,393 posts)
2. I think the fact that a terrorist group....
Thu May 21, 2015, 01:32 PM
May 2015

Could take down a government and appropriate nukes that a rational leader would not use is a legitimate concern. Unstable governments with nukes are certainly a concern.

That said, the fact that Iraq did not actually have a nuke program going on was not a surprise to me at all. But since your question was "even if" - that's the answer.

 

MaggieD

(7,393 posts)
6. Iraq for one
Thu May 21, 2015, 02:38 PM
May 2015

Libya is unstable. Syria is unstable. Hamas is not the most rationale actor.

Are you seriously saying that should not be a concern?

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
7. those two countries are unstable because we backed Islamic fundamentalist to
Thu May 21, 2015, 03:37 PM
May 2015

overthrow their governments.

It's kind of odd to pay someone to create a problem and once they are successful, immediately pretend that your proxies ARE the problem. If they are really so terrible, why did Washington support them in the first place.

You can dislike some things Hamas does, but they are hardly suicidal.

 

MaggieD

(7,393 posts)
8. Regardless, the risk is there
Thu May 21, 2015, 03:40 PM
May 2015

And if you don't know that Hamas has claimed responsibility for suicide bombings you are sorely uninformed about this issue.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/30/hamas.profile/

 

MaggieD

(7,393 posts)
11. Are you so naive that you don't think....
Thu May 21, 2015, 04:05 PM
May 2015

They would use nukes instead of the bombs they use now if they could get them?

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
19. at most they want ALL of Israel instead of just the Palestinian areas. Nuking someplace you want
Fri May 22, 2015, 02:12 PM
May 2015

to live doesn't make any sense.

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
10. also, it is dishonest for our government to wring their hands about a problem they created
Thu May 21, 2015, 03:57 PM
May 2015

and pretend it just popped up out of nowhere--especially when they do it again and again.

 

MaggieD

(7,393 posts)
12. Obama didn't "create" it....
Thu May 21, 2015, 04:06 PM
May 2015

But he still has to deal with it. Thanks, Ralph and the lunatic fringe that voted for him.

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
17. back to that DLC talking point? Why don't you guys try running on your ideas
Fri May 22, 2015, 01:36 PM
May 2015

instead of bullying and smearing?

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)
14. And Hillary wanted to make the same mistake with the Kurds. Luckily Obama learned from history and
Thu May 21, 2015, 04:14 PM
May 2015

Didn't listen to her bullshit argument about arming the Kurds.

If he had, the Kurds would have created another Palestine and Turkey would take the role of Israel.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
25. Out of everything we do here is a lefty group that we probably should help
Fri May 22, 2015, 06:27 PM
May 2015

I mean might as well right but they have assisted with numerous problems of the oppressive Iraqi government which were ruled by Al-Maliki who responded with brutal & torture of Sunni civilians right away -- it is giving that government weapons which they will give to the Shia militias which will accelerate the problem that exists because of that right there. The current issue of this is due to KRG specifically requested they go them to directly if the intention is to give them the arms because if they give them to the government to give to them than they aren't going to reach them because the government is pissed off at them but if the idea is to keep Iraq as is isn't helpful considering this is where we are today.

Assad jailed people together the religious cult leaders then released them and this is from someone known for torture & "disappearances" so he had a good idea since a terrorist group leading the rebels certainly discredits the rebels even though he is "human rights violator of the year". (Al-Baghdadi recruited in a US-run detention facility that didn't allow prisoners to challenge their detention -- better for them if you give them ammo rather. US actually have their sights on without a doubt one of the worst but their reasons for this are because he doesn't share the oil with British (he did very briefly I think in '11 but it didn't work out) or US multinationals. Exxon Mobile has contracts in both Kurdistan and Iraq but with Syria a "race to the bottom" of who to commit more human rights violations I just don't see how giving KRG weapons unforeseen circumstances. KRG has been operating with a very rational & human rights perspective (I doubt their hands are entirely clean but Syria is so awful and I mean one of the most dangerous places right now no matter which side of Syria someone is on because they are being indiscriminantly shelled by the 'wrong side of town'. I may support the same idea "regime change" but for the same reasons the US does. "Give up your alliances and your oil" (which is what I them to say to the House of Saud and this is the one that bit us in the ass and will continue to do so because they need outraged & unhappy people to recruit which is why they are in the chaotic war zones or places of poverty

Ultimately I support political solutions since it is obvious one is needed and KRG is the group that is legitimately dealing with those issues as well as establishing the territory they've been calling for Kurdistan which is gaining support with Israel & Turkey -- most people in those countries have fled or our trying to flee creating an European crisis with the mass exodus which became huge were over a thousand (700-900 estimate on 1, 400 or so the week before) drowned from 2 boats a week apart capsized heading to Europe. Turkey has handled a lot (since the battles take place in cities like Aleppo -- so near the Turkey border the flee across the border when it happens. Syria was a country taking in Shia refugees but fled Syria back to Iraq or elsewhere. Saudi Arabia has taken in Sunni refugees but neither of those sound like options to me. Kurds have nowhere but you know what? Instead they have refugee camps tackling the refugee crisis head on indifferent to political alliances as people by and large don't want this war or any war having to live in it. Bite us in the ass "far worse"? I just don't see it honestly, Kurds have often been used than discarded throughout history whenever they happen to be "the enemy of the enemy" political situation is different but there is still the Iraq where the northern part of the people don't view it as legitimate (2010-2014 Iraqi protests = ISIS offensive)

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
24. Did you see her word-for-word case for it
Fri May 22, 2015, 05:53 PM
May 2015

I couldn't help but notice what "gun control" means outside our borders is something very different than inside. The solution is to have "skin in the game"

Hillary Clinton: 'Failure' to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS

This is what Clinton said about Obama’s slogan: “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”

She softened the blow by noting that Obama was “trying to communicate to the American people that he’s not going to do something crazy,” but she repeatedly suggested that the U.S. sometimes appears to be withdrawing from the world stage.

During a discussion about the dangers of jihadism (a topic that has her “hepped-up," she told me moments after she greeted me at her office in New York) and of the sort of resurgent nationalism seen in Russia today, I noted that Americans are quite wary right now of international commitment-making. She responded by arguing that there is a happy medium between bellicose posturing (of the sort she associated with the George W. Bush administration) and its opposite, a focus on withdrawal.

“You know, when you’re down on yourself, and when you are hunkering down and pulling back, you’re not going to make any better decisions than when you were aggressively, belligerently putting yourself forward,” she said. “One issue is that we don’t even tell our own story very well these days.”

(on edit: this isn't part I wanted to post but the last paragraph is very interesting. I'm trying to figure out what the last sentence is what she meant by that. I get that standing up for yourself is certainly better than being a push over but becoming a bully yourself may get respect from those that fear you. I imagine Russia citizens see right through US especially with "what we tell the world" or "our own story".)

<snip>

“One of the reasons why I worry about what’s happening in the Middle East right now is because of the breakout capacity of jihadist groups that can affect Europe, can affect the United States,” she said. “Jihadist groups are governing territory. They will never stay there, though. They are driven to expand. Their raison d’etre is to be against the West, against the Crusaders, against the fill-in-the-blank—and we all fit into one of these categories. How do we try to contain that? I’m thinking a lot about containment, deterrence, and defeat.”

She went on, “You know, we did a good job in containing the Soviet Union but we made a lot of mistakes, we supported really nasty guys, we did some things that we are not particularly proud of, from Latin America to Southeast Asia, but we did have a kind of overarching framework about what we were trying to do that did lead to the defeat of the Soviet Union and the collapse of Communism. That was our objective. We achieved it.” (This was one of those moments, by the way, when I was absolutely sure I wasn’t listening to President Obama, who is loath to discuss the threat of Islamist terrorism in such a sweeping manner.)


(I'll get to it but OMG. "We did some things that we are not particularly proud of"? Containing terrorism how?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/money/top-donors-clinton-foundation-include-saudis-blackwater-article-1.357326

JG: Do you think we’d be where we are with ISIS right now if the U.S. had done more three years ago to build up a moderate Syrian opposition?

HRC: Well, I don’t know the answer to that. I know that the failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.

They were often armed in an indiscriminate way by other forces and we had no skin in the game that really enabled us to prevent this indiscriminate arming.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/

I really didn't remember much worse than that quote but my god -- I'm not familiar with The Atlantic but who the hell was she pandering too not that I didn't already associate this sort of behavior and rhetoric with her. Its entirely logic of countries that are not subordinate to the US, especially the "defeating Communism" stuff. Plus we did have "skin in the game" .

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/syria-arming-the-rebels/

Just the arguments weren't even the sort that sounds good like we would know whose arming ISIS if he were out there selling arms. The Vice documentary where the reporter somehow imbedded with them has opening footage rolling around in a US tank and they got it from somewhere. Re-reading that Atlantic article led to my approval rating of her to go way down. She can't walk back from that no matter how hard she tries to convince us that she has.

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)
13. They don't have the capacity to attack the United States. Anyone who believes they
Thu May 21, 2015, 04:11 PM
May 2015

Even might have the capacity needs to have their head examined, providing the doctor could get the tinfoil hat off them.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
23. I look at it this way
Fri May 22, 2015, 05:24 PM
May 2015

Either they were telling lies or telling the truth. If he had it it still doesn't justify lies but that is just on that issue.

The bigger problem is when the US is worrying about WMD threats as the US seems very selective even though our allies & friends were the real exporter of terror & more directly the ideology comes for the Saud Dynasty, hell they were terrorists when Wahabbism started they have been at non-stop war since they started taking their ultraconservative views & enforcing it others. When oil came into the picture they started becoming more hypocritical meaning the Westerners get an exception and hell we'll build a Saks 5th Avenue more glamorous than any the US has but if a single Saudi national male(or anyone not rich) better not be caught here alone or a woman anything less than Burka will be punished. They literally troll the the Saks 5th Avenue searching for rule breakers.

On human rights or freedom issues there usually better candidates no matter how bad the guy is currently -- I'm so suspicious of the Putin portrayal as if he's the US -- there is just one question or one comparison to highlight the hypocrisy but I bite me a tongue because it isn't a game to me, I'm on the people's side and want World Justice & equality, freedom, and really hate a double standards foreign policy. When is the shit ever going to change? On me -- since it is less than honest it come across me worse similar to Saddam & 9/11 -- that was the weakest argument ever but so many we're on board since this was there idea what this was all about when they don't have a clue and neither did I at-the-time, just know the argument was bullshit, but the ideology & everything else comes south of border. Bush simply had to change the words Iraq & Saudi Arabia -- Saddam Hussein & House of Saud and he would have been correct and I'll spare you the details of the shameful practice of using their labor system to do most of the work in Iraq & Kuwait. I really can't believe the lack of controversy there but so many are more interested on how much money they are making or how much more than they were making than the troops. Instead, they subcontract out to the Saudi & Kuwaiti contractors who already do this and for well over a decade (where did the CEO of Halliburton get the idea? Instead they subcontract out, use EEOC & Arabian American Co Supreme Court case as precedence since no labor rights, laws or whatever and there are so poor where ever they are coming from I lawsuit (where a Nepali was beheaded) was dismissed due to "inactivity by the plaintiffs" which was his family from Nepal. So even if the war was completely 100% justified, it wasn't acceptable because of what was done on a large scale for well over a year and every American businessman getting rich drilling oil in Saudi Arabia off their cheap imported labor who are beaten & executed for breaking the wrong rule (whether they knew the rules or not is a different story since trials are conducted entirely in Arabic without translators)

Basically a playground for sociopaths is the way I see the world which Saddam Hussein (his son Uday was far worse so if the reason for war was to prevent his son from taking over -- Saddam certainly have thought so at-one-time but getting them death penalty and pressure from Jordan of all countries urged him to reconsider but since Saddam was so paranoid of "traitors" and Uday showing off with his brutality, Uday's goal in life was to have his seat when he died or no longer was dictator so everyone were servants afraid of him he was what you could expect someone who would easily qualify as a "sadist", particularly if you were a "traitor". certainly was though he probably was confused on why Reagan/Bush were worried about chemical weapons from 1989 to 1990 -- the receipts literally came from US business, the orders came from the evidence is all there which is why any existence was kept a secret down to soldiers couldn't get help because their illness wasn't allowed -- the old stuff buried in the ground. I think they were looking for biological weapons labs on trucks with illustrations from the media who helped out with Pentagon propaganda by all those "defense experts" were private contractors with orders on what to say, what to say instead, etc.

If US were legitimately interested in human rights issues than they wouldn't need to make up reasons, make up chemical weapons, make up WMD, make up whatever and just use those but it was like we'll use this piece, this piece, then make up the rest as if he was this imminent threat but wake up. Defense contractors have too many hooks into the government (like European Organized Crime in Russia or Ukraine) that war is too profitable but it is our friends we are selling the guns & helicopters too that are the same ones creating the terrorists in the first place. Oh certainly they turn against them, hit them with attacks because they have the oil & they don't but they certainly practice what they preach. Its like when a fundamentalist becomes a hypocrite but in reality they are more like cult leaders that bend & twist when it is about control over them. I'd put them #1 on a war list with the conditions we get out and don't mess with the oil, particularly if they want to give back what was taken from them which was the people's wealth. They were extremely vulnerable in the 1930s which is why the asked for the US to defend them militarily.

One of many wars -- gives an understanding where this is coming from

Ottoman–Wahhabi War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ottoman–Saudi War
Date Early 1811 – 1818
Location Arabian Peninsula
Result Decisive Ottoman victory
Destruction of the Emirate of Diriyah (First Saudi State)
Belligerents
Flag of the First Saudi State.svg Emirate of Diriyah
Al-Qasim Ottoman flag.svg Ottoman Empire
Flag of Egypt (1793-1844).svg Egypt Eyalet
Commanders and leaders
Flag of the First Saudi State.svg Saud Ibn Abdul Aziz Ibn Mohammed Ibn Saud
Flag of the First Saudi State.svg Abdullah I Executed
Flag of the First Saudi State.svg Ghassab bin Shar'an Executed Ottoman flag.svg Mahmud II
Flag of Egypt (1793-1844).svg Tusun Pasha
Flag of Egypt (1793-1844).svg Muhammad Ali Pasha
Flag of Egypt (1793-1844).svg Ibrahim Pasha
Strength
20,000 50,000
Casualties and losses
11,000 dead
3,000 wounded 2,000 dead
1,000 wounded
50 captured
[show]

v
t
e

Ottoman–Saudi War
[show]

v
t
e

Campaigns of Muhammad Ali of Egypt

The Ottoman–Wahhabi War also known as the Ottoman–Saudi War or the Ottoman-Salafi War, was fought from early 1811 to 1818, between Egypt Eyalet under the reign of Muhammad Ali Pasha (nominally under Ottoman rule) and the army of the First Saudi State. It resulted in the destruction of the First Saudi State.

Contents

1 Background
2 Campaigns
3 Aftermath
4 See also
5 Sources

Background

The Wahhabi movement was part of a fundamentalist/revisionist movement within Islam that would lead to creation of the first Saudi State, and its crushing by the Ottoman empire’s Egyptian viceroy Muhammad Ali Pasha.

Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab and the amir Muhammad ibn Sa’ud launched their campaign to reform Islam and consolidate power in Arabia from their power-base in Diriyah. By 1805, the Wahhabis controlled Mecca and Medina, had attacked Karbala and the Imam Husayn Shrine.[1] The Wahhabis also attacked Ottoman trade caravans which interrupted the Ottoman finances.[2] The Saudi amir denounced the Ottoman sultan and called into question the validity of his claim to be caliph and guardian of the sanctuaries of the Hejaz[3] and the Ottoman empire instructed the upstart Muhammad ‘Ali, viceroy of Egypt, to fight the Wahhabis. The Ottoman empire was suspicious of Muhammed Ali’s ambition, and thought that by ordering Ali against the Wahhabis, the defeat of either would be beneficial.[2]
Campaigns
Painting of Abdullah bin Saud, convicted and executed after losing the war.

Muhammad ‘Ali was ordered to crush the Saudi state as early as December 1807 by Sultan Mustafa IV, however internal strife within Egypt prevented him from giving full attention to the Wahhabis. The Egyptians were not able to recapture the holy cities until 1811.[3]

However, it would take until September 1818 for the Wahhabi state to end with the surrendering of the its leaders. Ibrahim Pasha, Muhammad ‘Ali’s son, had taken over the campaign in 1817. Gaining the support of the volatile Arabian tribes by skillful diplomacy and lavish gifts, he advanced into central Arabia to occupy the towns of Unaizah and Buraidah. Joined now by most of the principal tribes, he appeared before the Saudi capital Diriyah in April 1818. With their march to Diriyah plagued by Wahhabi attacks, they arrived in Diriyah in April 1818. It took until September for the Wahhabis to surrender, in part due to Ibrahim’s poorly trained army. Diriyah was destroyed on June 1819, and Egyptian garrisons were posted in the principal towns. The head of the Wahhabi state, Amir ‘Abd Allah, was sent to Constantinople to be executed.[3]
Aftermath

Amir ‘Abd Allah, as head of the Wahhabi state, was sent for execution to Istanbul, while most of the political leaders were treated well. The empire was far more harsh with the religious leaders that inspired the Wahhabi movement. The execution of Sulayman ibn ‘Abd Allah and other religious notables reflects the resentment of these extremist views. Religious leaders were thought to be uncompromising in their beliefs and therefore a much bigger threat than political leaders.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Wahhabi_War

Sykes -- Picot had A LOT of help from the Saud Dynasty, they had Mecca taken back from them so many times until this went on for far too long and it is way too late to walk back from it, I don't know if it is a global version of The Wire where drug investigations targetting drug dealers or drug users is OK (as long as it is "fast, clean, and simple", "buy busts", "on the street" (rather than in the office on the computer listening to wiretaps) but if they target the money all hell breaks lose. They'll shut it down -- who is getting rich off this is my question.

This is actually, for real, the bio from a regular cast member on The Wire

The murder of Meir Kahane

While commander of the 17th Detective Squad, Norris led the investigation into the murder of Meir Kahane, an American-Israeli rabbi and ultranationalist writer and political figure. At the time, the NYPD officially classified the murder as the act of a lone gunman, over the protests of Norris who warned of a bigger conspiracy. After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, it was later revealed that Meir Kahane was the first al-Qaeda murder inside the US, as well as the first incident leading up to 9/11.

Kahane was killed in a Manhattan hotel by an Arab gunman on November 5, 1990 after Kahane concluded a speech warning American Jews to immigrate to Israel before it was "too late.” He was shot by El Sayyid Nosair, an Egyptian-born American citizen. Nosair fled the room, shooting 74-year-old Irving Franklin. As Nosair continued onto Lexington Avenue, attempting to flee in a taxi, he saw a police officer approaching him. Nosair stepped out of the taxi and fired shots toward the officer. The officer returned fire and both men lay wounded in the street. Upon searching Nosair's wallet, a list was found containing the names of several New York elected officials along with Nosair's New Jersey address.

At Nosair's home, detectives found and arrested two Egyptian men who admitted to driving taxis for a living as well as being in the vicinity at the time of the shooting. The ensuing search of Nosair's home revealed many items of concern including photographs of New York City landmarks, classified US Military documents, bomb-making manuals and books containing Arabic diagrams that Norris believed to represent plans to hijack an armored car. These diagrams were later revealed to be a plan to assassinate then Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak.

The next morning, while briefing the Chief of Detectives, Norris refuted the NYPD's assertion that this was the act of a single crazed gunman. Norris described the evidence and the drivers of the believed get-away car in custody. The Chief of Detectives told Norris, "you shut up and handle the murder, they do conspiracies," pointing to the FBI agents in the room. Norris was then ordered to release the cab drivers and turn over his documents. Nosair was sent to prison for the Kahane assassination and the cab drivers were released.

One of the released cab drivers later rented the van that was used in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. During the World Trade Center bombing trial, the documents uncovered from Nosair’s home were translated to reveal the words Al Qaeda, and a descriptive roadmap of 9/11. Norris' vision of a bigger plot in the single murder case have been mentioned in The Cell by John Miller and Michael Stone, 1000 Years for Revenge by Peter Lance, House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship between the World’s Two Most Powerful Dynasties by Craig Unger, and several others books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Norris

I'll mention something about Hillary Clinton for a moment. In her speech on her Iraq war vote, she slammed Russia early on for not joining them on their Security Council resolution regarding Albanians (don't know what their position, do know their history but not their position on that one) & there was one more thing but I forgot what it was. Not coming back to me, though do remember she started the speech with the "great dissenters" in history were proven to be right (during her opening where she slammed those for disagreeing with the Iraq as "unpatriotic" which is how bad I remember it being. It was way worse then being called unpatriotic, you were cowards, wimps, "pussies", "Saddam lover", but I get her point though the irony probably didn't catch her then.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»CORRECT QUESTION ON IRAQ ...