From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Mon Aug 12 2002 - 13:49:46 MDT
On 12 Aug 2002 at 13:11, Hermit wrote:
>
> Khidhir Hamza appears to be doing exceptionally well for himself. The
> US government assisted him in in obtaining asylum and in paying him
> for information. His books are doing remarkably well and he is a
> frequent (paid) speaker at forums and symposiums, not least htose
> supporting various "anti-Saddam" meetings. Yet The Bulletin of Atomic
> Scientists thought - and thinks that his "revelations" are made up
> nonsense, glorifying his own role (he claims to have gone from head of
> the "weaponization program" to "junior lecturer") and documents
> supposedly provided by him turned out to be "amateur forgeries" which
> the BAS is convinced were designed to ensure that U.N. sanctions on
> Iraq were maintained. The FAS has come to the same conclusion.
>
> We have the same problem with the "Mohammed Atta" story. I refer you
> to the congressional record
> http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr121901.htm:Mr.
> Speaker, House Joint Resolution 64, passed on September 14 just after
> the terrorist attack, states that, "The president is authorized to use
> all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,
> organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed
> or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or
> harbored such organizations or persons." From all that we know at
> present, Iraq appears to have had no such role. Indeed, we have seen
> "evidence" of Iraqi involvement in the attacks on the United States
> proven false over the past couple of weeks. Just this week, for
> example, the "smoking gun" of Iraqi involvement in the attack seems to
> have been debunked: The New York Times reported that "the Prague
> meeting (allegedly between al-Qaeda terrorist Mohammed Atta and an
> Iraqi intelligence agent) has emerged as an object lesson in the
> limits of intelligence reports rather than the cornerstone of the case
> against Iraq." The Times goes on to suggest that the "Mohammed Atta"
> who was in the Czech Republic this summer seems to have been Pakistani
> national who happened to have the same name. It appears that this
> meeting never took place, or at least not in the way it has been
> reported. This conclusion has also been drawn by the Czech media and
> is reviewed in a report on Radio Free Europe's Newsline. Even those
> asserting Iraqi involvement in the anthrax scare in the United States
> B a theory forwarded most aggressively by Iraqi defector Khidir Hamza
> and former CIA director James Woolsey B have, with the revelation that
> the anthrax is domestic, had their arguments silenced by the facts.
>
> Absent Iraqi involvement in the attack on the United States, I can
> only wonder why so many in Congress seek to divert resources away from
> our efforts to bring those who did attack us to justice. That hardly
> seems a prudent move. Many will argue that it doesn't matter whether
> Iraq had a role in the attack on us, Iraq is a threat to the United
> States and therefore must be dealt with. Some on this committee have
> made this very argument. Mr. Speaker, most of us here have never been
> to Iraq, however those who have, like former UN Chief Arms Inspector
> Scott Ritter -- who lead some thirty inspection missions to Iraq --
> come to different conclusions on the country. Asked in November on Fox
> News Channel by John Kasich sitting in for Bill O'Reilly about how
> much of a threat Saddam Hussein poses to the United States, former
> Chief Inspector Ritter said, "In terms of military threat, absolutely
> nothing. Diplomatically, politically, Saddam's a little bit of a
> threat. In terms of real national security threat to the United
> States, no, none." Mr. Speaker, shouldn't we even stop for a moment to
> consider what some of these experts are saying before we move further
> down the road toward military confrontation?
>
> Finally we have the icon of the moment, "Daniel Pipes." Noting the
> reviews at
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195060229/002-1467547-1821613
> might be enlightening for those of you who hadn't realized of what
> persuasion somebody so lauded by the new Joe Dees must be. Let me
> quote from two: "The book contains a highly distorted account of the
> history of the region. Unfortunately, to those unfamiliar with the
> subject, it may look like a scholarly work. Also, the author's
> profound anti-Arab sentiments are clear throughout the book. What a
> waste of money!" This is dated 1999-10-8 well before his startling
> rise to prominence and large cheques for his supposed expertise. A
> second review (2001-08-10) reads in part, "Daniel Pipes aspiration for
> academic legitimacy is hardly helped by this book. Pipes is not an
> 'Orientalist' in the common sense. He does not view Syria, for
> example, from the point of view of Cromer and Balfour and their latter
> day cultists. He does so, from the
> point of view of the Paul Johnson's of the world. Those who attempt
> through unabashed distortions (the overwhelming number is truly
> overwhelming) and short-changing the reader (by half truths already
> debunked by a number of Israeli historians), to relive the golden age
> of conquest, of colonialism." Digging back earlier, we find that,
> "Pipes also wrote a feature article in the October 30, 1992, Wall
> Street Journal, with the racist title, Fundamental Questions About
> Muslims. Imagine the outcry that would result if a racist article
> entitled, "Fundamental Questions About Catholics, American Indians,
> Jews, or Blacks --" was published by the Wall Street Journal! Yet,
> this kind of inflammatory journalism has become an everyday event in
> the lives of American Muslims, several million of whom are citizens
> of the USA. The effect of this propaganda on American Muslims will be
> treated at a later date." http://www.whtt.org/articles/feb_97.htm
> Indeed, he still writes regularly for the Jer!
> usalem Post and is the editor for security policy at Kesher
> Talkhttp://www.hfienberg.com/kesher/2002_03_10_kesher_archive.html.
> Both Right Wing Zionist publications. As we can see, our "impartial"
> expert is not always regarded so.
>
He has certainly had members if CAIR, who have publicly called
for the US to be subjugated to Shari'a law, conduct an extensive smear
campagn against him, probably including derogatory Amazon book
reviews in order to impact his revenue. CAIR is not a moderate Islamic
group; they only (poorly) masquerade as one; they are allied with the
Wahhabist element of Islam which Saudi Arabia has been attempting to
import into the minds of American Muslims by paying for expensive US
mosques, then installing Wahhabists as their imams. CAIR is incensed at
Daniel Pipes for keeping these facts in the public eye, thus blowing their
moderate cover.
As to the title of Daniel Pipes' paper being racist, this comment
suggests a fundamental confusion; Muslims arent just Semitic, or Arabic,
or Persian (in fact, the most populous Muslim majority country is
Indonesia). Muslims are found in practically every ethnic group in the
modern world; therefore, it is in willfully bad faith to attempt to smear an
ideoreligious critique titled Fundamental Questions About Muslims as a
racist screed.
There is little disagreement that Saddam Hussein will be able to
go nuclear within three to five years. He would not need ICBM's to deliver
same; a suicide aircraft or a ship sailed into a US harbor serve his
purpose just fine. Considering his past record of using WMD's against his
own people and those of other nations, and his stated intention to do so
against Israel (a 'Jerusalem Brigade' of Iraqis officially tasked with the
eventual mission of 'liberating Jerusalem' is being trained in Baghdad) and
the US (a past president of which he attempted to assassinate), his
continued rule poses a clear and present nuclear danger to the US, and
that being the case, preemptive action to forfend nuclear holocaust is
eminently sensible andd, in fact, necessarily entailed.
>
> ----
> This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of
> Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=26068>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:52 MDT