Gwynne Dyer explains Iraq

[ebbomega]

Probably one of the best explanations as to what actually happened (can't wait for all the negative karma from the conspiracy theorists) with Iraq, Al-Queda and the whole reasoning behind 9-11.

I've seen Dyer speak twice and both times he has had the most level head about current politics that I've seen from anybody.

Saying "I told you so" usually just annoys people, so I try to
avoid it. The milk has been spilled, and it won't help to rub their noses
in it (to mix a metaphor). But in this case I just have to say: I told
you so.

Last week Omar Nasiri, a Moroccan who spent seven years
infiltrating al-Qaeda as a double agent working for the French and British
intelligence services, told the BBC's Newsnight programme that al-Qaeda
deliberately fed false information to the US government in order to
encourage it to invade Iraq. According to Nasiri (a pseudonym), Ibn Sheikh
al-Libi, who ran al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and was captured in
the US invasion of that country five years ago, told his US interrogators
that Saddam Hussein was cooperating with the terrorist organisation to plan
attacks with chemical and biological weapons.

That was exactly what poor old Colin Powell, US Secretary of State
at the time, told the United Nations Security Council in February, 2003,
when he was trying to get the UN to back the invasion of Iraq. He said that
"a senior terrorist operative" who "was responsible for one of al-Qaeda's
training camps in Afghanistan" had told US interrogators that Saddam
Hussein had offered to train al-Qaeda in the use of chemical and biological
weapons.

With the wisdom of hindsight it is obvious that either the US was
lying, or else that the "senior terrorist operative" had lied to the US,
since Saddam didn't have any chemical and biological weapons. Practically
everybody else in the region has them -- Iran, Syria, Israel, Egypt -- and
the US knew that Saddam had once had them too because it helped him to get
them (during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s). What nobody knew at that time
was that Saddam really had destroyed them all as ordered after the Gulf War
of 1990-91.

So American forces scooped up Ibn Sheikh al-Libi in Afghanistan in
November, 2001, and sent him off to Egypt to be tortured (because the US
itself doesn't do torture) in the presence of American interrogators. And
Libi told his lie about Saddam Hussein's complicity with al-Qaeda, which
Colin Powell seized on as justification for the US attack on Iraq.

How do we know that Libi lied under torture? Well, we know that
part of al-Qaeda training focussed on withstanding interrogation and giving
false information. We know from Colin Powell that some senior al-Qaeda
operative did give information that later turned out to be deliberately
misleading. And now we know, from Omar Nasiri's testimony, that Libi had
declared that Iraq was al-Qaeda's main target well before he was captured.

Nasiri told Newsnight that months before the 9/11 attacks and the
US invasion of Aghanistan, he had been in a mosque where the question was
asked "Where is the best country to fight the jihad?" and Libi had replied
that Iraq was the chosen country because it was the "weakest." By
"weakest," he presumably meant that its economy was crumbling under UN
sanctions, its once-high living standard was falling fast, and its ruler,
Saddam Hussein, was both incompetent and deeply unpopular. So Iraq was the
right place to start the jihad.

For the extremists of al-Qaeda, the "jihad" had to be waged first
and foremost against the existing governments of Muslim countries, to
replace them with regimes made up of people like themselves who truly knew
and obeyed the will of God. Al-Qaeda, a largely Arab organisation operating
from exile in Afghanistan, was looking for a first foothold back home in
the Arab world, and Libi was saying that the leadership had chosen Iraq as
the best place to start. So when he was faced with Egyptian torturers and
American interrogators a few months later, the obvious thing would be to
tell them lies that would persuade the US to invade Iraq.

I'm not saying that that's why the US invaded Iraq. The invasion
was already being advocated and planned by the neo-conservatives who
surrounded George W. Bush even before he won the presidency, for
ideological and geo-strategic reasons that had nothing to do with
terrorism.

Why Bush himself went along with it is an enduring mystery, and
Maureen Dowd's hypothesis that it's really driven by Oedipal conflict ("Dad
didn't take Baghdad, but I will") is as good as any. But the invasion would
have happened without Libi's lies. It would even have happened without
9/11, if the neo-cons had got their way.

The point is that al-Qaeda wanted to attack Saddam itself, but was
happy to have the US invade Iraq and overthrow him instead because it knew
that in the long run it would benefit from the ensuing war of resistance
against foreign occupation. I have been saying this all along, because I
know a little about how Salafists think, and quite a lot about how
terrorist strategies work. However, Nasiri's revelations are the first
circumstantial evidence that al-Qaeda leaders actively tried to encourage
the US invasion.

Every day that US troops have been in Iraq since March, 2003 has
been a day when they served the purposes of al-Qaeda. Every day that they
remain, they will continue to serve its purposes.

[dj_soo]

i believe it.

Bush and his cronies have been so ridiculously short sighted or overly idealistic in their "war on terror" that the whole scenario looks like it was easily exploited by anyone with half a brain.

Seems like 9/11 and "terror" was simply an excuse to draw public support on what had already been existing plans to invade of iraq. What's really dumbfounding is how they seemed to honestly think that US forces would be welcomed with open arms during and after the invasion.

The worst part is that a mass foreign troop pull-out will most definitely leave the area in a much worse situation than before the war.

[fable]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Probably one of the best explanations as to what actually happened (can't wait for all the negative karma from the conspiracy theorists) with Iraq, Al-Queda and the whole reasoning behind 9-11.

I've seen Dyer speak twice and both times he has had the most level head about current politics that I've seen from anybody.

The best explanation you've ever heard is one about al queda operative being able to lie under torture and one written by Gywne Dyer?

In terms of the reasoning behind the Iraqi Invasion Im sticking to:

_the nature of monopoly capitalism,
_the US intervention into what was amounting to a real uprising of regular people against Suddam and a fledgling social/political consciousness that could have meant a severing of US influence in Iraq

[fable]

Originally Posted by dj_soo

The worst part is that a mass foreign troop pull-out will most definitely leave the area in a much worse situation than before the war.

But the only way for the country to actaully heal.

[Revolver]

I'm not saying that that's why the US invaded Iraq. The invasion
was already being advocated and planned by the neo-conservatives who
surrounded George W. Bush even before he won the presidency, for
ideological and geo-strategic reasons that had nothing to do with
terrorism.

.........taA daa!

[Diamonite]

True the longer they are in there. The worse it will get.

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by fable

The best explanation you've ever heard is one about al queda operative being able to lie under torture and one written by Gywne Dyer?

You're right. Silly me for thinking the simplest answer to be the true one. What an idiotic idea.

*roll eyes*

[decypher]

I would think Iran would have played a larger role in regime change for Iraq.

Iran is a Shia theocratical state and Al-Qaeda subscribes to a radical sunni ideology. The sunnis held the power in Iraq under Saddam and now the Shia's hold the power with shia cleric Al-Sadr's militia having huge governmental sway.

Some say this has and will bring Iraq closer to Iran. So if Al-Qaeda was responsible for regime change as said, it didn't really play into their hands and i doubt they would have lacked that sort of foresight.

[ebbomega]

Again, the point was more that they could fight against the government in power easily because that government would forever in the hearts and minds of the people be seen as instituted by an oppressive foreign power (US). It's generally easier to fight an insurgency if the people don't like who's in power. So it's not who's in power after Saddam that they were after, more the inevitable revolution following his fall from power.

They don't want governmental sway, at least not with this government. They want popular sway, which is the only real way to win a war like this.

[esoter1c]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

more the inevitable revolution following his fall from power.

You mean civil war.

[decypher]

EDIT: reply to ebbomega

Yeh i understood that, i'm just throwing more points from the spectrum out there. It was beneficial for Al-Qaeda insofar as it achieved ideological gains (popular sway).

But still the point remains that it didn't play into sunni hands since their is a civil war now and they have lost power. Maliki has been more defiant against the US lately to gain credibility and it seems as if he is being influenced by Al-Sadr. Again, Since Al-Qaeda is generally vehemently anti-Shia (so i've read) that would put evidence against the above theory.

I do find his theory highly likely since, yes, the civil war in Iraq is pegged as US made thus fostering more anti-american/anti-british support in the middle east and in urban areas such as London.

But it neglects to take into account the differences between Sunni and Shia muslims and instead focuses on a simply secular/theocratic basis. You think Al-Qaeda would have attempted to play more support into the hands of Sunni arabs in Iraq instead of turn two religious factions against each other and give the balance of power in Iraq to Shia muslims.

[mapleleaf4ever]

I finished reading Gwynne's Book "War" not too long ago and it was very well written.


Totally makes sense too.

[fable]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

You're right. Silly me for thinking the simplest answer to be the true one. What an idiotic idea.

*roll eyes*

Jesus, its me thats silly! Here I am using history, precedent and lessons that every US instigated war ever carried out, a little smattering of an understanding of why countries of the US need to expand their markets to sell their products, the current reality that millions of Iraqi's face, and connections made with the disolving of rights and freedoms on the home front as a basis for understanding why the war in Iraq, when all I needed to do was realize it was one big Al-Queda plan, that used Iraq as a trap to further diminish the reputation of the US!?!?!

Thank god you clarified everything!!!!

[fable]

Originally Posted by decypher

EDIT: reply to ebbomega

Yeh i understood that, i'm just throwing more points from the spectrum out there. It was beneficial for Al-Qaeda insofar as it achieved ideological gains (popular sway).

But still the point remains that it didn't play into sunni hands since their is a civil war now and they have lost power. Maliki has been more defiant against the US lately to gain credibility and it seems as if he is being influenced by Al-Sadr. Again, Since Al-Qaeda is generally vehemently anti-Shia (so i've read) that would put evidence against the above theory.

I do find his theory highly likely since, yes, the civil war in Iraq is pegged as US made thus fostering more anti-american/anti-british support in the middle east and in urban areas such as London.

But it neglects to take into account the differences between Sunni and Shia muslims and instead focuses on a simply secular/theocratic basis. You think Al-Qaeda would have attempted to play more support into the hands of Sunni arabs in Iraq instead of turn two religious factions against each other and give the balance of power in Iraq to Shia muslims.

Stop trying to analyse secular Muslim relationships. Its reactionary, and doesnt contribute to the US, or coallition forces leaving anytime soon. Nor does it help any work in Canada uniting oppressed peoples, or building any movement.

There is one simple and inescapable truth - some Canadians, Americans, etc etc would rather discuss issues that they have no clue about, or even any vested interest in, all the while playing no part, or taking no role in trying to create the conditions (forcing our governments to withdraw troops) so that the very people WHO DO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST (ie. people living in Iraq!) can carry on what they need to take care of!

THIS IS TEXTBOOK ACADEMIC BULLSHIT!

Ebbo tell gwynne I say hello. An author who's prose line their pockets with gold, and stuff your ears with cotton, and sew your eyes shut.

'Cyph, im pretty sure you have been back in town for some time now, its time you come out and get involved. I hope you gain all the intellectual acolades your heart desires but really your degrees mean nothing. Your empathy and intelligence could move mountains, you need to put your energies elsewhere.

In Baghdad, Basra, In Fallujah, across the entire Anbar province, millions of Iraqi people wring their hands in frustration at our lazyness and ignorance. They fight and die against our troops who we know are their for the wrong reasons. But instead of fighting our own government, we would rather debate over Iraqi sectarian politics and Al-Queda.

what the fuck!?

[Senior]

I like how you're calling us reactionary in one breath and telling us to just take action in the next. I don't think you mean to but in my opinion you come off as being overly condescending. We have no clue or vested interest? I've been reading about World issues for many many years and have both a clue and a vested interest. You make light of intelligent ideas by dismissing them as academic bullshit but fail to realize that academic ideas can be more persuasive than 10,000,000 protests at the art gallery.

My family has involvement with www.tidescanada.org/ http://www.convergecom.ca/ www.endswell.org/ www.renewalpartners.com/ http://hollyhock.ca/ www.votevision.ca/ http://www.pivotlegal.org/

We believe that creating social and political change within the mainstream will create the largest gains for all people in this World. So please stop telling me I'm supposed to be part of some movement when I am and have been since I was just a child. Now unlike some people I actually respect and appreciate what you are trying to do. I believe that it takes all kinds to create social and political change and that some of that can be driven by the fringe elements. Maybe just maybe you could realize that the work I'm involved with and support helps a lot of people and also plays an important role.

Originally Posted by fable

Stop trying to analyse secular Muslim relationships. Its reactionary, and doesnt contribute to the US, or coallition forces leaving anytime soon. Nor does it help any work in Canada uniting oppressed peoples, or building any movement.

There is one simple and inescapable truth - some Canadians, Americans, etc etc would rather discuss issues that they have no clue about, or even any vested interest in, all the while playing no part, or taking no role in trying to create the conditions (forcing our governments to withdraw troops) so that the very people WHO DO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST (ie. people living in Iraq!) can carry on what they need to take care of!

THIS IS TEXTBOOK ACADEMIC BULLSHIT!

Ebbo tell gwynne I say hello. An author who's prose line their pockets with gold, and stuff your ears with cotton, and sew your eyes shut.

'Cyph, im pretty sure you have been back in town for some time now, its time you come out and get involved. I hope you gain all the intellectual acolades your heart desires but really your degrees mean nothing. Your empathy and intelligence could move mountains, you need to put your energies elsewhere.

In Baghdad, Basra, In Fallujah, across the entire Anbar province, millions of Iraqi people wring their hands in frustration at our lazyness and ignorance. They fight and die against our troops who we know are their for the wrong reasons. But instead of fighting our own government, we would rather debate over Iraqi sectarian politics and Al-Queda.

what the fuck!?

[Senior]

Originally Posted by dj_soo

The worst part is that a mass foreign troop pull-out will most definitely leave the area in a much worse situation than before the war.

With or without foreign troops a full scale civil war is very likely. Sorry to say but like Vietnam there isn't going to be a dignified retreat from Iraq.

[fable]

Originally Posted by Senior

I like how you're calling us reactionary in one breath and telling us to just take action in the next. I don't think you mean to but in my opinion you come off as being overly condescending. We have no clue or vested interest? I've been reading about World issues for many many years and have both a clue and a vested interest. You make light of intelligent ideas by dismissing them as academic bullshit but fail to realize that academic ideas can be more persuasive than 10,000,000 protests at the art gallery.

My family has involvement with www.tidescanada.org/ http://www.convergecom.ca/ www.endswell.org/ www.renewalpartners.com/ http://hollyhock.ca/ www.votevision.ca/ http://www.pivotlegal.org/

We believe that creating social and political change within the mainstream will create the largest gains for all people in this World. So please stop telling me I'm supposed to be part of some movement when I am and have been since I was just a child. Now unlike some people I actually respect and appreciate what you are trying to do. I believe that it takes all kinds to create social and political change and that some of that can be driven by the fringe elements. Maybe just maybe you could realize that the work I'm involved with and support helps a lot of people and also plays an important role.

1.) Reactionary refers to enagaging in action or debate that convolutes the most effective or dire priorities, not reactivety

2.) The core of my analysis was relations or current lack there of in Iraq between various sects are NOT the priority for people such as ourself who exist in the belly of the very countries that are destroying those such as Iraq. We cannot make any significant change in this arena. Our responsibility lies in fighting to create the conditions in which said Iraqi peoples can THEN take on the challenges that effect them on a daily basis.

3.) I was talking specifically to ebbo and 'cyph

4.) Charitable donations and orginizations are a benefit, but only serve as a band-aid if they do not work in the context of creating new movements and leadership. The world needs less Bono's and more Sankara's.

5.) "but fail to realize that academic ideas can be more persuasive than 10,000,000 protests at the art gallery."

Within social justice work academic ideas are a given/demanded, being well read is a given/demanded, understanding a scientific approach to politics is a given/demanded, understanding the news is a given/demanded, wheras committing all your time, effort and money towards movement and action for social change is not. This is the core of the challenge. The understanding of this, is what differentiates between Patrice Lamumba and Noam Chomsky, Che Guevera and Gwynne Dyer, Granma International and Adbusters.

Senior, before you lump the work that I am involved with into the "eat sleep breathe mindless rallies" sector, do a little research.

Tonight at 6:30 at Joes Cafe off Commercial Drive and Charles Street MAWO will be having our bi-monthly political class. Tonights session will be centered on the Sudan. We see an average of 40 people attend since we have integrated these classes into our regular scheduale of organizing meetings. If you want to understand what I was talking about earlier, come down, and Ill buy you a coffee.

ez
shak
604.719.7410

[mekim]

Originally Posted by fable

In Baghdad, Basra, In Fallujah, across the entire Anbar province, millions of Iraqi people wring their hands in frustration at our lazyness and ignorance. They fight and die against our troops who we know are their for the wrong reasons. But instead of fighting our own government, we would rather debate over Iraqi sectarian politics and Al-Queda.

i'd be more than willing to bet that they're cursing north americans and wishing the same fate on us rather than wringing their hands.

[esoter1c]

Feel that draft ?

[Noah]

^^ That I think would be over the top. There is no need for a draft. Can you just think what would happen if Canada had a draft?

Its a good thing we dont, we have the best soldiers in the world!

[Gunter S]

they have sattelite technology that makes it possible to see ONE SQUARE METER of resolution, and to send a tomahawk cruise missile thousands of miles away through a window when neccessary.

and you're telling us that cave dwelling terrorists were able to dupe the US military with false info?

hahahahaha!!

does it strike you as odd that Afganistan, which is under the auspices of the US military, is once again the world's largest opium producer? just another big mistake right? Just like a protracted war isn't in their best interests right? unless you're a weapons contractor that is...

i honestly shook my head when reading this.

[Senior]

Thanks random!

Originally Posted by Gunter S

they have sattelite technology that makes it possible to see ONE SQUARE METER of resolution, and to send a tomahawk cruise missile thousands of miles away through a window when neccessary.

and you're telling us that cave dwelling terrorists were able to dupe the US military with false info?

hahahahaha!!

does it strike you as odd that Afganistan, which is under the auspices of the US military, is once again the world's largest opium producer? just another big mistake right? Just like a protracted war isn't in their best interests right? unless you're a weapons contractor that is...

i honestly shook my head when reading this.

[Senior]

Originally Posted by fable

1.)
4.) Charitable donations and orginizations are a benefit, but only serve as a band-aid if they do not work in the context of creating new movements and leadership. The world needs less Bono's and more Sankara's.

I'm guessing that you have no idea what those organizations are?

You're always so quick to challenge people to read up on what your doing but obviously didn't take a look a what I'm interested in.

You claim to have an interest in building new movements and leadership. Renewal Partners is a venture capitalist company that places equal importance on social and environmental returns as they do on financial returns. They provided the seed money for Happy Planet Juice. Happy Planet was co founded by Gregor Robertson who went on to such success that he was named to the Globe and Mail's Top 40 under 40. He has now gone on to be elected as an MLA in Vancouver Fairview.

This is an example of creating real social change and is just one of many.

[fable]

Originally Posted by Senior

I'm guessing that you have no idea what those organizations are?

You're always so quick to challenge people to read up on what your doing but obviously didn't take a look a what I'm interested in.

You claim to have an interest in building new movements and leadership. Renewal Partners is a venture capitalist company that places equal importance on social and environmental returns as they do on financial returns. They provided the seed money for Happy Planet Juice. Happy Planet was co founded by Gregor Robertson who went on to such success that he was named to the Globe and Mail's Top 40 under 40. He has now gone on to be elected as an MLA in Vancouver Fairview.

This is an example of creating real social change and is just one of many.

My personal thoughts are that what you believe in as orginizations for change and building are really about careerism and personal benefit. It exists in the status quo, where charity and palatable development for a relatively small demographic are substituted for actually fighting for self-determination of all oppressed nations.

*I missed the link for The Pivot Legal Society. Some of our organizers have worked together with PLS in the past (via the APC) and perhaps will work again in the near future, but matters of criticism will be internal only.

Using Happy Planet and a Vancouver MLA is not something I would recommend to continue using as a platform to have your points taken seriously. Neither is Vision Vancouver.

Although we will work with status quo groups and social democratic based organizations, we are working towards building an independent alternative.

The reality is the coalition that I work with, is more connected to the very lives that many SQL social justice initiatives claim to be a part of. This isn’t being condescending; it’s only the truth.

I put out the invite, and you can take it or leave it. But the core of this discussion started with only one point I wanted to make:

Self determination refers to a nation being able to take on the challenges they face independent of foreign intervention, however dire, brutal or long lasting. Getting in debate about the internal religious / sectarian issues in a country that is under Imperialist occupation is both reactionary and exposes the vested interest one has in actually fighting for the real human rights of the Iraqi people – which is either none, or indicative of deep seeded confusion about what the specific objective conditions really are.

Good luck with all your endeavors, hopefully our work will have us cross paths one day in more positive fashion. It would seem our politics are similar but the way we formulate strategize, test, take action and define tactics are very different.

ez

[decypher]

Originally Posted by fable

Stop trying to analyse secular Muslim relationships. Its reactionary, and doesnt contribute to the US, or coallition forces leaving anytime soon. Nor does it help any work in Canada uniting oppressed peoples, or building any movement.

There is one simple and inescapable truth - some Canadians, Americans, etc etc would rather discuss issues that they have no clue about, or even any vested interest in, all the while playing no part, or taking no role in trying to create the conditions (forcing our governments to withdraw troops) so that the very people WHO DO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST (ie. people living in Iraq!) can carry on what they need to take care of!

THIS IS TEXTBOOK ACADEMIC BULLSHIT!

Ebbo tell gwynne I say hello. An author who's prose line their pockets with gold, and stuff your ears with cotton, and sew your eyes shut.

'Cyph, im pretty sure you have been back in town for some time now, its time you come out and get involved. I hope you gain all the intellectual acolades your heart desires but really your degrees mean nothing. Your empathy and intelligence could move mountains, you need to put your energies elsewhere.

In Baghdad, Basra, In Fallujah, across the entire Anbar province, millions of Iraqi people wring their hands in frustration at our lazyness and ignorance. They fight and die against our troops who we know are their for the wrong reasons. But instead of fighting our own government, we would rather debate over Iraqi sectarian politics and Al-Queda.

what the fuck!?

Ok, don't tell me what i ought to study.

Can a prescriptive statement of what ought to be really be derived from what is? -- hume

My energies are right where they need to be. Sorry i don't want to enter the assimilating forces of your grass roots movement. I applaud what you do but as the above statement points out, you are attempting to derive your own conclusions from what is and so do many other people.

To say a conflict analysis that debates other points of view is useless is reactionary in itself. oh the irony in so many ways.

I was simply throwing some other knowledge out there for people to make up their own minds.

Saying my education means nothing is a pretty flacid assertion resting in shallow waters. Everyone has their own route to attainment. I'm still early in my education and being into philosophy i can see multiple viewpoints in any argument.

There's hypocricy behind every face of rhetoric. Words are but words and people use them to their advantage in every aspect.

...


I believe this is a better path for me to have a larger understanding in the end. I enjoy increasing my abilities at harvesting information and thinking in complex systems. To say what i do is nothing is unfounded. I have a vested interest in my family of which is a driving force in my studying. I also feel for the downtrodden as you do. Just because i do not participate in your movement doesn't make my path any less passionate. I do not need to follow.

I am quite proud that i have the oppurtunity to study at university and possibly use that to live abroad and work on these issues with large organizations. As you get older you realize not to take something like that for granted.