from omegaprojektet:
"Iran gave free passage to up to 10 of the September 11 hijackers just months before the 2001 attacks and offered to co-operate with al-Qa'eda against the US, an American report will say this week. The all-party report by the 9/11 Commission, set up by Congress in 2002, will state that Iran, not Iraq, fostered relations with the al-Qa'eda network"
Amazing! It was Iran, not Iraq! What a fucking suprise! So when Bush was making all those links with Iraq for all that time he was actually slurring? Thats why he got it wrong!
"I was trying to say Iraq. No one around me was listening. All the media around me are so used to not asking questions they all wrote it down, went away, and we invaded the wrong country."
Can some of you Republicans find out? Is he still pissed? A secret coke head?
13 comments:
Here is what Christopher Hitches (certainly no rightwinger!) said about the connections on MSNBC:
"...these movements had taken over Afghanistan, had very nearly taken over Algeria, in a extremely bloody war which actually was eventually won by Algerian society. They had sent death squads to try and kill my friend Salman Rushdie, for the offense of writing a novel in England. They had sent death squads to Austria and Germany, the Iranians had, for example, to try and kill Kurdish Muslim leaders there. If you make the mistake that I thought I heard you making just before we came on the air, of attributing rationality or a motive to this, and to say that it's about anything but itself, you make a great mistake, and you end up where you ended up, saying that the cause of terrorism is fighting against it, the root cause, I mean. Now, you even said, extraordinarily to me, that there was no terrorist problem in Iraq before 2003. Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?"
"Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it?"
"When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you
Remember Bush's "Axis of Evil"? Iraq, Iran, North Korea.
Iraq still had lots of links to terror.
Here's Congress' authorization for the Iraq war. Despite WMD, the reasons still seem pretty sound. Refute it point-by-point if you'd like.
And the 9/11 Commission's Report, pg. 66 (PDF pg. 83): After three paragraphs of links between al Qaida and Iraq in general, they conclude there's "... no collaborative operational relationship" for the 9/11 attacks specifically (the scope of their investigation).
So your source, saying "...not Iraq, fostered relations with the al-Qa-eda network," is flat wrong. Plenty of connections.
Oh and to answer your question. No. The President is not a cokehead. He is a good man, a good husbnad and father, and a great president.
He isn't "pissed" either, which I believe in Britspeak means drunk, but in Americaspeak it means mad.
;-)
so do you two want your soldiers to invade Iran now?
Invade? No. But a change would be nice. I don't know if you read my post about Iran a while back. In August a 16 yr old girl was brought to trial for having sex with a man. Usually an offense worth 100 lashes. But she became angry and tore off the face of her burka (I forgot what it is called)The judge decided she would hang for that and she did. By a crane for all the city to see.
Nice place.
I know. In the cities Islam is "imposed" by a voluteer police force. I don't know if they still do it but women in this force used to lift girls veils and slash the lips of those who wore make up with razor blades.
A lot of people are as westernised as us behind closed doors.
Everyone I met travelling overland said that outside the cities Iranians are the friendliest people they had met. I got that feeling in Pakistan. Mountain Muslims who worked the land had traditional roles but rarely seemed opressive to women.
In cities like peshawar people made much more of a show of their religion and things seemed more intimidating.
"He isn't "pissed" either, which I believe in Britspeak means drunk, but in Americaspeak it means mad."
In Britspeak pissed does indeed mean drunk, although pissed off still means pissed in the US sense... In Britspeak, mad means insane or deranged while in Americaspeak it means angry...
The Iranians I found to be a deeply civilized and surprisingly educated people. The ultra-repressive Islamic system seems to be imposed on them from above, by a repressive government.
This is in contrast to north-west Pakistan, where no one has the slightest respect for the law or the government - the ultra-repressive social system has its roots in the family/tribal traditions - ie. the system is imposed from the bottom up.
Arriving in Iran from Baluchistan and the north-west frontier was like arriving in the 20th century. In Esfahan, while women have to stick to the letter of the law by covering their hair and body with the hejab, often use see-through hejabs just about revealing jeans or short skirts underneath, and use make-up... Persian women are stunning...
I would be delighted to see the Iranian religious right lose their grip on power... It's a fascinating country and I would love to see it sans ayatollahs... Hope the Iranians manage to do it somehow without necessitating US involvement, which I believe would push the general atmosphere and attitude back towards fundamentalism...
DB: "so do you two want your soldiers to invade Iran now?"
Your original point was that we'd be justified in invading Iran. No?
M: "Hope the Iranians manage to do it somehow without necessitating US involvement, which I believe would push the general atmosphere and attitude back towards fundamentalism..."
I hope so, too. But would the typical Iranian choose today's repression just to spite the US? Isn't that messed up? But as you say, their repression was imposed on them, so what the typical Iranian thinks doesn't really matter.
But that's the dichotomy, isn't it? We shift from thinking about it as a popular movement to brutal minority rule and back again, as it suits us.
I have heard that about the Iranian people. That they are the nicest most generous of hosts.
In an article by christopher hitchens I read recently he said a devout Mulsim woman asked him if the Americans could invade Iran and get rid of the mullahs and then leave after a week?
I thought that funny in a sad way. They want us to free them, but not to really have anything to do with them. And I understand that. America is a hedonistic society. From porn to abortion, I can see why they think us terrible. There must be some way both of our societies to not oppress nor exploit women.
I too wish the people of Iran could change things themselves, but the people of Iraq never could seem to. I wish there were a better answer.
Mike and I met the guys who were setting alight to themselves outside the French embassy when the French arrested their leader. They thought Mrs. Rajavi was going to lead them to victory. Apparently their army is 60% women and no one wears their rank on their arm. They sat out the Iraq war on the border.
They said they didn't want US help. Other Iranians I have spoken to say they are nothing.Its hard to tell.
In reply to your point about America seeming corrupt, I think its the arabs own upper classes which provide the most clear cut reasons for a Muslim to become a jihadi.
scrutinator:
"Your original point was that we'd be justified in invading Iran. No?"
not my point, or Mikes.
We all seem to agree that change is a good idea though.
I wonder if a shariah system of devout Islam could ever be un-repressive. The concept is often popular in the Middle east, and often had been crushed by despots.
I'll ask Abdullah and co what they think of the Irani situation. They speak of Sharriah law in such glowing terms. I've got to get it all down on film and post it somewhere
And Iran keeps pursuing nuclear weapons, too.
Strong ties to terrorism and WMD? Sounds like you're making Bush's case for him.
Post a Comment