RWS
Qatari denies terror involvement
A Qatari man, 26, has denied "planning and carrying out four armed attacks on US troops in Iraq in the period between December 20, 2004 and November 11, 2005".
The Public Prosecution also accused him of "joining hands with people outside the country to carry out terrorist crimes, collaborating with Iraqi factions and receiving weapons training".
The man was captured in Syria last August and extradited to Qatar in November. He is currently in remand.
His lawyer claimed that he had made the confession "under duress, which is evident from the injuries on his body". The judge ordered medical check-ups on the man.
The lawyer said the Syrian interrogators were burning cigarettes on his client’s legs.
The Public Prosecutor, however, told the judge that "the accused told, when asked by the interrogators, that he was treated well in Qatar, much better than in Syria".
However, the defence lawyer said only a "neutral authority" should ask this question.
The defence lawyer told the judge that his client "was denied access to a lawyer before the case was brought to court".
He told Gulf Times that his client had "never visited Iraq but was moving between Syria and Lebanon".
The lawyer’s request to release the accused on bail was rejected.
The trial will resume on June 18.
What does that matter? We still haven't captured Osama, and he's the only one left plotting to kill Americans.
Sparkle,
When are you going to call out Amir Taheri and the media that bandwagoned on his story for punking us on the Iranian badge thing?
I would think common decency would at least dictate a correction for something you so loudly and proudly posted on.
These guys are Al Qaeda?
Has there been a 6 month investigation into that? Aren't you presuming guilt?
Look out for geoff and JD --- they may have a bone to pick with you.
Macswain - I find a fundamental difference between taking the word of a jihadist over taking the word of the USMC. I tend to believe the Marines, while I tend to view self serving statements from terrorists as just that.
Apparently, on the other hand, you tend to not believe the USMC, but give some amount of deference to the terrorists.
Really nice priorities there.
JD,
Don't sell yourself short --- you believe in taking the word of any Bush supporter over anyone who is not a Bush supporter. That truly is your evidentiary standard. And even when the military has lied to you twice - Haditha - you'll still say the word of proven liars regarding that incident are paramount over all others.
I like your little jihadist bit though --- anyone accused of it has no credibility and is guilty as accused. No sense analyzing the facts of each instance, if someone in the military or Bush administration says it, its resolved. Screw Brandon Mayfield, Mahar Arar, Khaled Masri, anyone every placed in Gitmo, etc. Jihadists and liars all!
I'm afraid Macswain has impossible standards that we just can't live up to. He even wants to tell RWS what she has to or not post!
I don't even know what he is talking about.
Blake,
I'm sorry --- I didn't understand your standard that a Comments section should not include comments about a post by the host that turned out to be bogus.
I should've known that you righties can't admit your mistakes. My bad.
Macswain is now a psychic mind reader, and knows what I believe. That is quite a skill.
Yes, despite your gross characterization of the US military, the fact remains that when the charge against are troops is the cold blooded execution of innocent men, women, and children, my evidentiary standard is proof that the soldiers in question did, in fact, do what you are accusing them of.
It is unfortunate for those in Gitmo that were taken from the battlefield where the US military was conducting operations. Still, willing to take the word of the US military over them.
Macswain - post whatever you wish on your own site, so your 9 readers can salivate over your screeds.
Going to other's sites and demanding that they post something is simply rude.
Macswain is an amusingly self-righteous little fella.
Pay no attention to the buffoon behind the curtain (Macswain).
Last I heard, Taheri was sticking by his story, though it does seem unlikely.
These guys are Al Qaeda? Has there been a 6 month investigation into that?
Well, yeah. We've been investigating the Al Qaeda organization for nearly 5 years. And of course, as POWs, different standards of proof apply. But don't worry your head about that: you've got bigger problems with moral equivalences.
JD,
I made a suggestion, you call it a demand ... but you certainly do know rude. Just ignore the fact that the point is the story was wrong and appears toi have been a case of intentional conservative spin.
Its been over 6 months since Haditha and info and evidence about the incident is widely available --- you've never hesitated to have a take before; please tell us what you think happened.
You've now admitted, at least, the initial lie --- typically people who've been lied to will speculate as to why the lie?
Macswain :
Based on my experience, I do not feel that it is responsible to speculate as to the facts of the incident in question. As I have stated, repeatedly, I am confident that the USMC will look into the matter, and I am willing to accept their findings.
I am not willing to speculate, as opposed to you. I would be willing to state that things happen during the course of combat that may not have the desired result, but were not necessarily acts of execution and murder.
You, nor I, have sufficient information to reach any informed conclusions. You are willing to believe the worst about the service men and women of the US military. I am not. I prefer my position to yours.
typically people who've been lied to will speculate as to why the lie?
Are you being coy here, MacS? Cuz' it's kind of stomach-turning. But, in the interest of inter-species cooperation, I'll give you a list of possible answers:
1. Bush made them lie
2. Cheney made them lie
3. Rumsfeld made them lie
4. They're lying, bloodthirsty Marines
5. who are part of the lying, bloodthirsty military
6. They wanted to protect the reputation of the child you're carrying to term
or
7. They didn't want to get in trouble, and the officer who filed the after action report rationalized his falsification.
But in reality, we're not yet asking that question. The investigation is asking the questions, and we're waiting, admittedly with trepidation, for the answers. In the meantime you can entertain us with your conviction predictions - I'm sure you've got them all laid out.
JD,
That is the difference between you and I. When there are 24 civilians who have suffered violent deaths (people who seem to have no place in your consideration of the issue), I do not believe it honors them to ignore the circumstances of their deaths. Like Murtha and Time magazine, I'm willing to look at the evidence and ask the hard questions even if those questions lead logically to uncomfortable places.
I do not believe the worst of our troops and find it disappointing that you feel the need to engage in such demagougery to justify your position. In fact, the vast majority of them are doing their best in the awful circumstances in which people like you have placed them.
The victims matter too.
Hey Macswain, if you really care about "victims," you'd be denouncing the (real) terrorists who are setting off the car bombs amidst innocent civilians. But you don't care about those folks, only about alleged victims that were killed by US military, eh? Well, it's not the first time you've demonstrated your hypocrisy here.
And I know you fear and loathe the American military. Apparently you think the Al Qaeda types are nice boys. So here's a deal. I'll go off camping this weekend with some US Marines, if you'll go off camping with some Al Qaedas. Guess which one of us will come back alive, and which one won't?
Is there any difference between Al-Queda in Iraq and the Bin Laden run Al-Queda organization which is now in hiding in the mountainous region between Pakistan and Afghanistan?
What was Al-Zarqawi's relationship to Osama's group prior to 3/03? What is it now?
Who is arming and funding the Iraqi group and why can we not stop them?
How is it you are so sure this is the same organization responsible for 9/11?
You also raise some good questions about what it takes to qualify as a "senior aide" in Al-Qeada in Iraq. My bet is getting captured qualifies you, but I could be wrong.
Not fair Garry K, but if MS did come back I'd check him for explosives. Oh BTW I'd put my money on you coming back sans TNT.
Remember Macswain, we really know nothing yet, there are no Abu Ghirab pictures, We do have a dead Marine (They tried to kill all of them) and we have people running away from armed troops, in a conflict (not smart) also, look at my first post, living over here in the middle east 90 miles away from the shores of Iraq, there are no protests in the streets, they are thanking God there are a few less terrorists, because you see, these animals have been given aid and shelter and have killed more Arabs than soldiers. No one wants them, no one.
Macswain : Please show me where we should ignore the circumstances of their death. I will save you the effort of making shite up. I did not say that should be done, suggest that should be done, or allude to that in any way, shape, or manner.
Feeling a bit grandiose today, comparing yourself to Rep. Murtha and Time ?
You are just asking the hard questions. How very patriotic of you.
You do not believe the worst of our troops, yet are willing to presume that they executed innocent civilains. Interesting, that.
jandrew,
Of course! Cuz America is always wrong.
Good Grief.
EricPJohnson:
Yeah, no one wants terrorists, or occupation by a foriegn army, or war, or famine and desease. Great sentiment.
The protests would have taken place back in November when the events happened, not now. The military has been very thorough in this particular investigation because the media has called them out on it. They also is videotape and photos of the victims, statements by the mortician, statements by some of the marines involved in the clean-up, and a separate investigation of another incident regarding the same division currently going on. The locals appreciate that.
They don't hate us or love us any more than they hate the terrorists, but they are likely willing to side with however can promise them peace the fastest. The fact that the terrorists have killed more civilians than the U.S. Army is not lost on them, but incidents such as how this one is alleged is not really doing a lot to maintain our moral highground.
How much worse would it have been if Time magazine had not shown the videotape to the military and they had stuck with their first report of how things happened.
RWS:
That was a little non-sequitor, no? Are you reading the thread or do you just come on to call people un-patriotic for asking questions?
BTW, what's your take on the U.S. "diplomacy" route with Iran announced today. It's really pathetic when countries such as Iran can sway the international community using the "moral highground" card. We need better leadership, or at least a better politician in office soon.
jandrew - You are a big one on airing all information. Why isn't anyone calling on Time to release their footage of this event, including the events that led up to this alleged "massacre" ? Isn't that their solemn duty ?
Where did RSW call you unpatriotic ? Or, are you pulling a Kerry, and claiming that somebody questioned your patriotism because they disagreed with you ?
Where do you live in CA ? I had a fabulous 4 days out there this past weekend. Great state. Used to live there for a while myself.
Jandrew, When did Iran "sway" the international community with the moral high ground? Even if that's true, it says a lot more about the so-called international community than America.
jandrew,
Your right! We all knew the left insisting that Bush didn't go down enough diplomatic avenues before the war was just a farce!
I'm sure you just want us to bomb the hell out of them, right?
*shakes head*
Jandrew
Well, lets think the worst then, I'm not in their shoes but they keep mine from being blown off my feet. And, (hint to terrorists) if they stop the killing, we will go!
Makes you think
Also remember your history, what military Occupation by the USA caused the 1990 Kuwait Invasion, the 1990 seizure of land from Qatar by Saudi Arabia, the Chad Libya Conflict, The massacres in the Sudan and Somalia, the Yemen Egyptian crisis that killed thousands and the Iran Iraq war whick killed maybe million or two and the problem with the Sunni's, the deaths of over 100,000 Kurds etc
What did the American forces have to do with the last 20 years of fighting in the "peaceful until we got here middle east"
BTW left out Palestine, Lebanon and Azerbijan - ethic cleansing in europe and Russia
We are hardly a "destablizing" force in the region
Blake:
I wouldn't be able to give you a specific time and date, but the NAM countries and China are siding with Iran's "Right" to develop nuclear technology for civilian power purposes. Further, Russia is willing to provide them with all the power they want, and the EU is clamoring to get back to the table.
The U.S. approach up until today was that we had nothing to discuss with them, and we are doing plenty of sabre ratling, which doesn't seem to be helping the situation at all.
I remember about six weeks ago, Bush was clear that there were no negoatiations necessary between the U.S. and Iran excepting those which would help to resolve the situation in Iraq (which he later backed out of).
Today, his verbal stance changed, but I'm betting he'll send in a very diplomatically challenged representative such as John Bolton to insure that talks don't actually achieve anything.
As to your isolationist attitude.... A three day general worker's strike in China would cripple the American economy. A refusal by Saudi Arabia, Japan or China to reinvest in American Public Debt would cripple the American Economy. You just keep believing that we alone rule the world.
You know, there are only three nations who are threatening other nations with nukes. North Korea, Iran, and.... France.
Funny how its the US is accused of sabre-rattling.
Whose "nukes" is Iran threatening someone with?
They are at least 5 years away from being able to produce anything resembling a nuclear weapon, and don't have a delivery system to pose a threat.
Is no-one threatened by India's "nukes"?
How about Pakistans?
Isreals?
BTW:
Whats the status of the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline? I'm betting India is not far from being swayed in the direction of allowing Iran to have a monitored Nuclear program.
RWS:
I'm not sure if it was India's wavering, Russia's ability to gain the upper hand in oil negotiations, or Bush finally realizing he is truly not "king of the world", but this type of negotiation was obviously inevitable. Why was it not agreed to prior to the first sucessful test of Iran's refining abilities? Why all the tough talk leading up to this? What was accomplished by our tough talk on a historic global front? Is Iran closer to being the peace loving democracy the world needs it to be right now to stop the U.S. from invading another nation than it was six-months ago?
How is it you are so sure this is the same organization responsible for 9/11?
That's kind of moot isn't it? We never said, liberal misperception aside, that we were going to war on the perpetrators of 9/11. We said we were going to war on terrorists and the countries that harbor them. So we don't care if Zarqawi was somehow involved in 9/11.
this is some classic, if not vintage, jandrew ramblings.
Who said I was isolationist? If the "international community" thinks Iran has the higher moral ground (as you claim), then I don't give a damn about them.
Apparently, you must have approved of Bush's approach to Iraq since it was "unilateral". But now that he's letting Europe negotiate with Iran (fruitlessly, I might add), he's going about it the wrong way.
From what I understand, this supposed overture to Iran comes with some pretty strict conditions that must be met. If Iran turns it down, who do you blame then?
Jan: are being deliberately obtuse?
Pardon my typonese.
What I meant to say is: "Jan: Are you being deliberately obtuse?"
Blake - that is spot on. This says much more about the ointernational community" than it does the US.
We never said, liberal misperception aside, that we were going to war on the perpetrators of 9/11. We said we were going to war on terrorists and the countries that harbor them.
We went into Afghanistan because thats where OBL was and the Taliban in Afghanistan harbored terrorist.
That justification is not the principle reason we were given for going into Iraq. The primary justification was Saddams WMD threat. And we all know now how credible that justification was now!
rws, most of us remember al Qaeda, and most of us know their leader OBL is still sticking his tongue out at us from the Afghan/Pakistan border area.
In the words of George Bush, "I'm really not that concerned with him, I don't give him that much thought."
All I can say is that al Qaeda must be an extremely top heavy organization, because we must have captured or killed 2 or 3 hundred of there top leutenents already.
And we won't bring up that nasty business about how Bush had Zarqawi in his sites before the war and COULD have killed him at any time, and didn't because he didn't want to ruin his chances for war...
Should ALL suspected alQueda terrorists be given the same presumption of innocence as given to say Tom DeLay or to the marines accused of the atrocity in Haditha ?Look things are not going well in either Afghanistan or in Iraq. Firepower is a poor weapon against an insurgency. Hearts and minds are the way to go !
Do you guys even listen to yourselves???
Bush didn't kill Zarqawi because it would ruin his chances for war????
Good Grief. That is just delusional.
JoeTX, I suggest you use spellcheck or at least preview before posting your ignorance. (dictionary.com might be useful.)
Do you honestly believe a President would lie about WMD's, knowing full well they wouldn't be found, and still go to war? If so, you are delusional (as RWS says) and can't be considered a thoughtful critic of the war.
(Which brings up another question. If the President is so powerful as to concoct this lie, why didn't he plant some WMD's in Iraq?)
A three day general worker's strike in China would cripple the American economy
Funny. A three week UPS strike, a 5 week dockworkers' strike, didn't cripple the American economy.
I would have said you're so stupid.
But the reality is you're so partisan and that leads to stupid.
Dave in Texas, Not only that but he claims we are doing the "sabre rattling." Apparently, he hasn't read what the nutjob Iranian president has been saying lately.
Strange, by his implication or omission, Iran is perfectly calm and rational compared to us.
WMDs were found in Iraq.
Sarin gas was classified as a WMD by the CIA before the war. Stockpiles of sarin gas weapons were found in Iraq.
Several labs and binary material were found that could be used create WMDs.
A top scientist revealed the plans and material that could be used to create nuclear weapons.
A top Iraq air force general revealed that WMDs were shipped to Syria.
And that's what's unclassified.
No kidding
Israel must be wiped off the map and the Jew pushed into the sea = not saber rattling.
Iran must cease its efforts to develop nuclear weapons or face sanctions from the international community = shrieky saber rattling.
Got it.
Nations threatening other nations with nukes = North Korea, Iran, and France.
DIT,
The guy's no doubt an antisemite but I believe the quote you attributed to him was actually determined to be a misinterpretation --- though I don't think that changes your point that Ahmadinejad is a sabre rattler.
Sparkle,
The failure-to-attack-Zarqawi story was actually confirmed by the CIA agent (a staunch conservative even) in charge of the Bin Laden unit. Nobody in the administration has even denied it.
You've been told this before --- so I guess we can see who the real wingnut is that will jump to the defense of Bush regardless of the facts.
Pitiful, Macswain. Keep hawking the should've-bombed-Zarqawi story, even though you've failed to support the conclusions you've drawn from it.
Like: the administration's rationale for not pursuing that option.
Like: your assumption that the strike would've been successful.
Like: your inherent claim that Zarqawi's presence was necessary for the argument for invasion.
We can't say going all out at Tora Bora for Osama would've been successful either ... that's no excuse for keeping your powder dry and passing up on our best opportunities to get these guys.
The "Blame France" rationale for not going after Zarqawi is laughable given the administration's all out unsubtle contempt for France openly expressed at the time. Tell the American people Bush didn't attack Zarqawi because he wanted to appease the French and/or Russians. You'll get a resounding "WTF"?
On the other hand, one need look no further than this blog to see the right's ongoing use of Zarqawi as a justification for the Iraqi invaision. They needed him to continue the misleading claim of a connection between Iraq and terrorism.
Every issue was secondary to invading Iraq - even passing up bombing Zarqawi and his training camp.
Macswain - You have succeeded. When you post your drivel, I am no longer surpised or shocked at what comes out of your pie hole.
BigDog:
Which threat is more credible.... the unspoken one from a country with Nuclear Weapons pointed at you, or the one coming from a demagouge who is at least 5 years away from having the ability to even posses nuclear weapons.
Iran is not currently threatening anybody with anything more than tough talk. We could as easily derail this threat in three years as we could have three years ago.
Are you being deliberately misleading?
Which nation in the world do you believe is so foolish as to believe Iran poses a credible threat to unleash a nuclear weapons arsenal on them in the next 2-3 years?
who is at least 5 years away from having the ability to even posses nuclear weapons.
We may be revising that estimate in the near future:
On a visit last month to Tehran, International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei announced he had discovered that Iran was constructing a facility to enrich uranium — a key component of advanced nuclear weapons — near Natanz. But diplomatic sources tell TIME the plant is much further along than previously revealed. The sources say work on the plant is "extremely advanced" and involves "hundreds" of gas centrifuges ready to produce enriched uranium and "the parts for a thousand others ready to be assembled."
Iran announced last week that it intends to activate a uranium conversion facility near Isfahan (under IAEA safeguards), a step that produces the uranium hexafluoride gas used in the enrichment process. Sources tell Time the IAEA has concluded that Iran actually introduced uranium hexafluoride gas into some centrifuges at an undisclosed location to test their ability to work. That would be a blatant violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory.
Macswain - You have succeeded. When you post your drivel, I am no longer surpised or shocked at what comes out of your pie hole.
Yes, he and jandrew have gone over the edge. They're pulling in all sorts of nonsense now. Pretty soon they'll be linking to Loose Change.
geoff:
Let me know when it gets revised... until then, 5 years is pretty much the consensus low end estimate of those informed on the situation.
Yes, credible estimates range from 3 to 10 years, so 5 years is a reasonable number. But the Time article shows how uncertain these estimates can be. Articles 2 months ago were talking about how much work Iran had to do to bring their centrifuges on line. Now we see that: 1) they're doing the work, and 2) it's proceeding more quickly than the IAEA anticipated.
But Iran has been immune to diplomacy, doesn't appear concerned about the NPT, and Elbaradei is cautioning us against sanctions - what exactly is going to stop them, in the next 5 years?
Let's say we all accept 5 years as a reasonable date. Why in the hell should they be allowed to even get that close?! Are you so naive to think that they can only pose a threat to others if and only if they have nuclear weapons? Outside of having one of the largest, if not the largest, standing armies in the region, they can cause plenty of problems without being nuclear. I suppose we should wait until they attack Israel before we consider them to be a threat in that region.
there is no winning with these people. If you take Iran seriously, we are talking tough and sabre rattling. If you do not take action based on non-specific threats, you were asleep at the wheel. Form an international coalition, though not as big as previous ones, and you are going unilateral. Propose multi-lateral talks with the whack job in North korea, and we are not leading. Working with the EU to attempt diplomacy with Iran, you get the point ... There is literally no position that a Republican could take that they would not find fault with.
If by "they" you are referring to the comments I made on this board, I would have to question your sources. Which of the Foriegn Policy moves of Nixon, Bush I, or Reagan have I been critical of? I supported McCain's initiatives on Foriegn Policy which he discussed in his 2000 campaign. Has he changed parties?
The world did not begin in 2000 when G.W. Bush took office, and if you truly believe that he is the only voice of the Republican Party, you have some serious problems with the political party you support.
I think that the current administration has an extremely shallow pool from which to find solutions to foriegn policy problems, and that there is no desire to find alternatives to their predetermine policy regardless of it's "fit" for the particular situation.
yet again ... utterly non-responsive. typical.
Commenting by HaloScan
