We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
It is possible Iraq was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing, the first World Trade Center bombing, the Anthrax attacks and 9/11 itself. Although it is not in the list of events the media hounds are baying after, I would also toss in TWA Flight 800. I simply never bought the NTSB story on that one.
I don’t like conspiracy theories. That doesn’t mean conspiracies never happen. They do – and I am beginning to think this is one of them. Unlike most of the tales of twisted logic to be found in dusty corners of net.news groups, this one doesn’t set off my bullshit detectors. It’s perfectly plausible. Motives for all parties are believable and most importantly, the total incompetence of the authorities gives it a level of believability often missing from such tall tales. Most conspiracies theories would have us believe US government agencies are capable of keeping a secret, are highly competent and in some cases capable of intentionally doing weirdly evil things. All three are contrary to the embarrassing reality. None of the agencies are outright bad guys. They are just a bunch of buffoons led by idiots. In other words: totally normal government bureaucrats.
Saddam had a motive and would not blink an eye at mass murder. He’s quite experienced at it. He’s already used poison gas in battle against Iran and there is evidence he used bios against the Kurds back in the ’80’s. Bush Sr and Bill Clinton both had reasons for avoiding the war which would have ensued if investigations had proceeded to their conclusion.
A lot of very knowledgeable and quite “serious” people are questioning the official line now, and they have good information to back them up. It’s not even a hidden trail, just a baldly denied one. I’m not going to rewrite what can be read elsewhere. First look at this article from the Opinion Journal. Investigative reporters are digging out facts and getting affidavits which put Iraq up to their necks in Oklahoma City and the first WTC bombing. If Iraq really is running a hijacker training school with an old airframe one starts wondering about 9/11 as well.
We have known from the very beginning Atta met with Iraqi undercover agents in Prague. There have also been reports that Atta and friends stayed at a Kansas motel where Iraqi’s are purported to have been before the Oklahoma City bomb.
The Wall Street Journal and various reporters are not the only ones digging into this mess. Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana has a committee looking into who worked with McVeigh.
Earlier I mentioned TWA 800. The official explanation of this disaster was a spark in a fuel tank caused an explosion. I find this very hard to buy. The aircraft in question was just off the US coast on a trans-Atlantic flight. That means it had a full fuel load. A bigger explosion you might think? Not at all. Fuel vapor can only blow if there is a critical mixture of fuel and air. With the tanks near full, there would not have been much room for said vapor. My bullshit detectors went off like an Armageddon Day air raid siren on this one.
I’m willing to listen if someone can show me the numbers that prove a full fuel tank could explode. Until then, I reject the NTSB report.
Some intelligence types believe it was a missile. In particular there was a very good article in the November issue of Air Forces Monthly by Ronald Lewis, a former USAF and Army intelligence analyst (“War in the Shadows”, p34-p38) that is quite an interesting read. He does not finger Iraq, but does make an interesting case that we have been at war for nearly 10 years and the government has been keeping the lid on it, perhaps to avoid popular pressure for taking out Saddam Hussein.
We wouldn’t want to upset the Saudi’s.
A reader has noted a 747 would not require a full fuel load for this run. I still have not seen information on whether the Wing Center Tank was partially full and thus potentially explosive or if there is no way to vent and purge empty tanks on a 747.
It looks like Tony Blair has decided which of Jim Bennett’s two horses to ride and has selected the Anglospherian one..
It certainly does look like the ducks are lining up in a row really fast now.
For a number of months I’ve had it in the back of my mind September 11th would be a really good day to begin the take down of Saddam & Co. I think I’d still put a small wager on it.
I would guess the DOD re-arming has progressed sufficiently by now; troops are certainly in place or at least near at hand. The deployment of a major medical unit is indicative a serious ground offensive is due about now. The recent news from Kuwait (all thanks be to Instapundit for the link) reveals there are friendly places from which to launch an attack. We’ve long known preparations were under way in Turkey.
I’d expect we have serious forces already across the Turkish border working with the Kurds in Northern Iraq and either in Kuwait or perhaps already into the the Southern no-fly zone. Airfields were purportedly under-construction in Northern Iraq and are probably in service now. Special Forces will be in-country and ready to move on their objectives: the early capture of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and the extremely prejudicial termination of Mr Hussein. It would not surprise me in the least if contacts have been made and entire Iraqi divisions are ready to turn coat when the shooting starts.
It is difficult to read the Saudi situation: they could actually be supporting us behind the scenes. There is a lot of very empty desert out there in which to hide a US division or two. Logistical support flights could come from Kuwait or the Emirates so long as the Saudi Air Force is in on the deal, and they know where their spares come from. Out of sight, out of mind as far as Saud internal problems go. You just can’t be sure, particularly when masters are doing their best to maximize the fog of war. That is comforting: it also means Saddam doesn’t know from whence the hammer will fall.
I’ll bet on an armoured nutcracker from north and south backed up by airborne troops delivered to key objectives. Blitzkreig American Style. Our pieces are in place on the battlefield and the initiative is all ours. The eleventh would be a good day symbolically but the attack will come when the commander decides it will come. If Saddam were to attempt a pre-emptive strike to seize the initiative, we’d just chew up his best forces and spit them out. A classical offense takes a much larger force than a classical defense. The force tables are only turned when one side has near total battlefield information, absolute air superiority and the ability to place a bomb in a bunghole from ten miles away.
Saddam had better be taking care of the “eat, drink and be merry” part… his tomorrow is not long to come.
Some of the more perceptive anti-war bloggers like Jim Henley must despair when certain opponents of possible U.S. action against Iraq turn out to be little better than odious apologists for Saddam’s regime. An example of this breed is former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who has been touring Iraq warning that a strike against Iraq would constitute a huge violation of international law.
Watching Britain’s Channel Four television news show last night, we were treated to an interview with this gentleman, and it had the effect of hardening my conviction that Saddam’s regime has to go. How come? Well, when asked about the reported use of chemical weapons against Kurdish villagers in the 1980s, Clark dismissed it out of hand. When asked if he thought weapons inspectors should be let into Iraq to verify whether weapons of mass destruction were being stockpiled and manufactured, he dismissed the notion, saying such inspections could never work. He claimed – without citing hard evidence – that WMDs hardly exist in Iraq and that Saddam has no desire to build them. And of course he repeated the line that economic sanctions against Iraq have led to the deaths of millions, though he declined to cite clear evidence or reflect on the fact that if Iraq is so poor, it is odd that it can afford to offer financial rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
There are perfectly honorable reasons for opposing war with Iraq, such as concerns about the aftermath of such a war, the possibility of igniting further trouble down the line, and the fact that Iraq, may not be the prime mover behind the 9/11 attacks. But when supposedly eminent folk seek to portray Saddam as some kind of misunderstood old gent who simply is the victim of hostile forces and events, then one has to smell a rat. With friends like Ramsey Clark, Saddam hardly needs enemies.
There is a weird article in the Sunday Telegraph about how Abu Nidal was killed by Saddam Hussain’s security services because he refused to help train Al-Qeada fighters for terrorist strikes against the West.
Sorry but my bullshit detectors are honking extremely loudly. 
Now let me nail my colours to the mast before I proceed: I want war with Saddam Hussain and his vile brood. I want Saddam Hussain dead and his supporters slaughtered in vast numbers. I want to see the laser guided hammer of God strike Baghdad and the skies filled with thermobaric fire on a biblical scale. I want passage of B-52 bombers to register on the Richter scale. I actually do think the Iraqi regime poses an unacceptable threat to me. And before anyone says ‘and by that interventionist logic, why not take out North Korea and China too?’… yes, that would be fine by me. Hell, feel free to add Saudi Arabia, Syria and maybe even Pakistan to that list. It seems to me that if we are going to turn back the tide of statism in the Western World, lets hurry up and remove the justification of ‘security considerations’ as quickly as possible (this is obviously somewhat of a caricature of my actual position, but in essence that is where I stand).
That said, is it just me or is this latest spin on the death of Abu Nidal not the most crassly obvious media plant by The Boys in Langley to justify an attack on Iraq that has ever been printed in a ‘serious newspaper’?
Face it, how the hell would these ‘intelligence sources’ have the foggiest idea why Saddam’s lads killed the psychopathic Abu Nidal? Frankly it would make political sense for Saddam to publicly say “Look guys, I just blew away the odious Abu Nidal cos he was playin’ footie with those awful Islamic fundamentalist Al Qaeda fruit loops, so as you can see, it makes no sense whatsoever to attack me, a secular socialist in the Ba’athist tradition”.
I mean, how stupid is this?
Claire Berlinski, a professor at Niccolo Machiavelli University, has some fresh Swiftian thinking that could really crack some ice in the Middle East. We are privileged to publish a preview of a working paper she has written for the Bilderberg Trilateral Commission Council on Foreign Relations… well we’d rather not say actually
SADDAM, LET’S THINK outside the box for a change.
We know you don’t really give two shits about the Palestinians, and you sure as hell don’t give a rat’s ass about Islam, either. And we know you’re a practical kind of man. So here’s a little suggestion that might meet both of our needs.
Here’s the way it is. Unless we make some kind of arrangement here, we’re going to have to turn all of Iraq into a pane of stained glass. It’ll be an ugly business; everyone in the world will get their panties in a wad about it, and we’ll all have to waste a lot of our valuable time and energy holding useless press conferences explaining things we’d rather not explain. We will, that is. You won’t, because you’ll be dead. You can take Israel with you, sure, but you’re still going to be dead as a dodo, and there ain’t no 72 virgins in Paradise waiting for you. Take my word for it, we know from the pleasures of the flesh in our country.
Now here’s what we suggest, Saddam. This might come as a surprise to you, but we’ve been giving it some thought, and lately it occurs to us that the Iraqis and the Americans might actually have more in common than we first thought. You know that book about what to do when someone moves your cheese? Well, we’ve read it too, and it really spoke to us. It’s time to look at that cheese again.
For one thing, we’ve noticed lately that we really don’t feel a lot of love for the Saudis, and it just doesn’t seem to us that they’re running those oil fields as responsibly as they could. And you know the Kuwaitis? Well, we were wrong, you were right, and we’re man enough to admit it. They’re repulsive little ingrates and they’re too damned cowardly to have a country of their own. Hell, they probably were stealing your oil.
So you know what, Saddam?
Go ahead.
Yep, you heard us right. That was the green light, just like the one you thought you got from that Glaspie woman, only this time we mean it. Take Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia too. It would take you what, three days? Go ahead and butcher the Al Sabahs and the whole Saudi royal family. Have at it. Any dissent? We know you know how to handle it, just don’t tell us about the details. Let Noam Chomsky worry about it.
And hell, Saddam, you want a free hand over Iran? We see no problem with that either. We know they gave you a bit of hassle the last time around, but after 23 years under the Ayatollahs, this time they’ll probably be throwing roses at your tanks. As far as we’re concerned, you can have the whole Persian Gulf. All of it. You can even keep your WMD program. We’ll sell you the damned Trident missiles if you like, just as long as you keep them pointed toward the right people. Oh, and we’ll give you a free hand to slaughter all the Islamic fundamentalists you want – in Saudi Arabia, outside Saudi Arabia, in Iran, Yemen, wherever. We know you’re dying to do it anyway; heck, you love killing people. Give ’em a taste of what the Kurds got. Like I said, we don’t want to know the details. Kind of like we said to the Indonesians back in the day. Let Robert Fisk worry about getting the scoop. (Oh, and if something unfortunate were to happen to him, you didn’t hear it from us, but you know – accidents do happen. The will of Allah and all that.)
Way we see it, Saddam, there’s really no reason the two of us should go to war when we really have a lot of common emotional needs. Sure, we think you’re a little ruthless, a bit of a homicidal maniac, but you know, we managed to see the bright side of Stalin when we needed to, and in retrospect, it’s a fine thing what those Russians did at Stalingrad – that could have been our boys taking losses like that. We think we might have sort of a similar situation here. Let’s face it, we Americans just don’t have the stomach to do what it really takes to wipe out these Islamic lunatics. And they seem awfully serious about wanting us all dead. So why not give the job to a man who has both the appetite to do the job right and the expertise?
We just have a few little things we’d like in return. Lay off of Israel, stop sending money to those idiotic suicide bombers, and keep the price of oil below nine dollars a barrel – forever. The way we see it, everyone ends up happy, except maybe the Al Sauds, and frankly, at this point, their happiness is just not our number one priority. You get what you always wanted – total control of the Gulf. We get what we always wanted – – cheap oil and the assurance that every fundamentalist maniac in the Middle East will enjoy your excellent vacation facilities and your trademark Iraqi hospitality. We can be buddies again, just like we were during the Cold War. Remember the good times we had together back then?
What are the Europeans going to say about it? They’re the ones who keep blathering on about how they don’t want us to antagonize you, so they should be thrilled by the announcement of the Iraqi–American Peoples’ Alliance for Peace. And figure this: We lift the sanctions, you control all the oil in the Gulf, you start pumping it out like there’s no tomorrow, and within a week you’ll be able to feed all those poor little starving Iraqi children and keep your palaces maintained in the fashion to which you’ve become accustomed. No more of this undignified slinking from house to house every night to escape detection – you could really live in style. And a constant supply of nine–buck–a–barrel oil will do wonders for this unpleasant little economic slump we’ve been facing here. It’s a win-win situation.
So that’s really the deal, Saddam old buddy. It’s simple, isn’t it? Lay off of Israel, do the needful with the terrorists, and the Gulf is yours. We tried to do the right thing by the Kuwaitis and the Saudis, but you know, there comes a point in every relationship where you have to ask – “Am I giving more than I’m getting here?” And honestly, we think that point came and went a long time ago. It’s like they say in the books about healthy relationships. We feel like one of those women who love too much. Have you read that one? It really spoke to us, all that stuff about being co–dependent and all. Always bailing out some penny–ante, Jew–hating Gulf potentate whenever he gets himself into some stupid mess, and getting no thanks, none at all, not one word, just more abuse about how we’re such bullies and warmongers.
Well, we’ve talked it over with our therapists and we’ve seen that we’re worth more than that. It’s all about Toughlove now. If they think they don’t need us, fine – let them go it on their own, just don’t come crying to us when the Republican Guards start yanking out the plugs on those tiny widdle incubating babies. They had their chance.
Nine dollars a barrel. Lay off of Israel. Do whatever it is that you do best with the Islamic Fundamentalists. And the Gulf is yours forever. Tell me you don’t see the beauty in it, Saddam.
And of course, remember the alternative.
Claire Berlinski
One of the great things about the blog phenomenon is that it gives we humble writers the chance to subject the frequently idiotic views of newspaper columnists to systematic criticism. In the past, the best we could hope for would be a letter published in an editorial page. Blogs often contain line-by-line dissections of an article which shred an argument in a way that reminds me of a particularly rigorous university seminar.
Step forward Pejman Yousefzadeh for this brilliantly detailed take-down of Brian Whitaker, a writer for the British daily, the Guardian, who wrote a sneering piece about the website MEMRI, a site charting the often violently anti-semitic content of certain Arabic-speaking newspapers. The wretched Whitaker, in accusing MEMRI of being a shady organisation and therefore of dubious value, only fuels precisely the kind of mindset which MEMRI is determined to highlight. Pejman’s piece of Fisking is a must-read.
I’ve actually waited some time and thought a great deal about posting the local angle on the Middle East. I find it sad when a community I am close to sides with my enemies.
Yes, you heard me right. I have known for some time there is considerable sympathy in West Belfast towards everyone in the Middle East who hates the US. I’ve been in heated arguments with dear friends over it and they and I just let it drop.
The sympathy seems to have moved beyond words in the last few months. A source close to me said there were Palestinian fund raisers at a local Republican bar the last time he spent an evening there. Those of you in Boston, New York, Pittsburgh and other heavily Irish cities who remember Republican fund raisers for NORAID should know the model. I never took part in any such myself but I knew well enough about them. A girlfriend bartended one spot North of Pittsburgh that ran them. I also remember being offered a genuine souvineer Derry Rubber Bullet while ordering in my own local of some 20 years standing. Funny enough, that pub was in a Jewish and Academic area of Pittsburgh, so go figure.
If anyone is reading this who actually did “help the cause” back then, I think you should be aware the same people are now using the same techniques to raise money for people who want to see you dead. If the American side of Republicanism has any influence whatever over here, I think a very loud message should be sent back to just “knock it on the head” and send our enemies back where they came from.
I do not wish to classify all Palestinians as my enemy: only those who celebrate the deaths of my countrymen and who support brutal and unhuman tactics of war. Whether the fund raisers are from the suicide bomber tactions or not I do not know. Perhaps someone on the inside can find out.
And yes, I do know a Palestinian or two and they are very decent people thank you. I define my enemies by their actions, not by broad labels.
I ran across this article from my old home city of Pittsburgh. A local unit was called to active duty in May. I was of course interested because the unit is based near my home town of Coraopolis, But I’m sure anyone should see the implications. A large medical unit was called up and sent off “somewhere”.
I would take it as an expectation of some serious ground combat, and if I were to make a really good stab at where they are going I’d put southern Turkey (by a wide margin) on the top of the list and northern Saudi Arabia as the number two.
I think September 11th would be a lovely day to hang Saddam, don’t you?
The other day I made my humble effort at trying to make the case for why we (the U.S., Britain and a few other Anglosphere nations) should boot out the odious regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. I must confess it is a tough call for a minarchist verging on anarcho-capitalist to make.
Well, Mark Steyn in the British weekly magazine, the Spectator, has penned what is for me the best argument for why deposing Hussein is necessary and will trigger off beneficial consequences in the Middle East, and by extension, everywhere else. It is a must-read.
Further proof also, I reckon, that Mark Steyn is the best columnist around. And he regularly refers to bloggers in his articles, showing he knows where the real intelligent action is.
It is nice to think that the lure of filthy lucre might help spread the capitalist bug around the planet to even the most inhospitable regions. In a story which caught my eye, Reuters reports that a host of western banks are gearing up to cash in on growing demand in Islamic countries for bank services.
Ok, the banks will have to negotiate their way around the thicket of prohibitions on interest payments and so forth, but even so, if commercial ties spread, I think that is a good thing. And over time customers may even get to realise that interest – damned as wicked usury in the Islamic credo – is in fact no more than the price attached to deferring current spending over future gain. It is another chink in the armour of ignorance about business, another step in that great and glorious thing – globalisation. Who knows, one day Muslim investment bankers will be holding conferences on “how to spread business to backward statist economies in Europe”? You read it here first.
The arguments are intensifying at the highest levels about whether the U.S. and its closest allies could or indeed should, oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Let me get straight to the point – I am not 100 percent convinced, if it were ever possible, that moving against Saddam is top priority in the war against terror as opposed to say, moving against Saudi Arabia (where most of the September 11th hijackers came from), Iran (a major sponsor of terror), or for that matter some other nation/body which is potentially posing a lethal threat to our civilisation. However, as I will argue below, I think crushing Saddam is a vital necessity, though one fraught with risks.
Of course, as has occasionally been noted on this blog, some of those who would oppose military action against Iraq are idiots who dislike any such action, usually out of a desire to see America’s face ground into the dust. Their arguments can be dismissed as self-evidently malevolent in intent. The Robert Fisks, John Pilgers and most of the Left fall into this camp, albeit with honorable exceptions.
There is another camp of war sceptic, represented by such intelligent and good souls like Jim Henley of Unqualified Offerings who doubt the efficacy of military action and who also fear it may trigger off even worse crises, as well as swell the bureaucratic monster of the State and further erode remaining civil liberties. I have a good deal of sympathy with that view, given that war has almost always been attended by serious loss of liberty, often never to be reversed.
And there are those who argue that all we need to do is to contain Saddam and his ilk rather than pre-emptively crush his regime. Into this category falls former top British defence civil servant Sir Michael Quinlan, writing a critique of such action in today’s Financial Times.
His is one of the most closely argued cases against invading Iraq I have read so far. But reading the article through finally convinced me that we do need to take out Saddam’s regime. And he does this, ironically enough, with the opening paragraph of his article:
“Saddam Hussein is a malign tyrant with a history of aggression against his neighbours. He almost certainly has chemical and biological weapons and would like to get nuclear ones, in breach of United Nations Security Council edict. We can place no trust in his denials or his current manoeuvering.”
Well, Sir Michael, if that is the case, then clearly the U.S. and its allies have a clear duty to their citizens by taking this man out of circulation, seizing/destroying his stocks of weapons of mass destruction, and attempting to place a form of government less likely/able/willing to menace its neighbours! Of course the problem is that Saddam is not uniquely evil and there are other potentially lethal regimes (China springs to mind) which we could act against, but for the much greater risk. But just because we cannot take out all the world’s monsters in one go does not mean we should not move against some of them. At least doing so can deter others.
The bulk of Sir Michael’s argument becomes one, long eloquent case for doing, well, nothing. Apparently, poor old Saddam has no hostile intent, it is just that he is frightened of what other terrible folk next door will do to him. You know, like Joe Stalin invading half of Europe because he was worried someone would want to invade his socialist paradise:
“Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, unconscionable thought it is, is entirely capable (entirely?) of explanation as an act of defiance, a bid for prestige (gotta kill those Kurds, impresses the ladies) and an insurance against mortal attack.”
The clincher argument for me is this – if Saddam has or is trying to get horror weapons, he is going to use them sooner rather than later. The evidence exists. He has used them before. He has invaded his neighbours, brutalised his people and sponsored terrorism abroad. We haven’t got time to wait for the monster to die of old age. I wish we could. I wish we could worry about school vouchers, restoring the right to trial by jury in full and ending the Nanny State. But priority Numero Uno right now is getting rid of regimes that could make our humble ruminations so much blather and radioactive dust.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
