Could this have influenced the Iraq decision??

[Tgace]

In my meandering about the internet, I came across this study presented by the Task Force on Terrorism & Unconventional Warfare to the US House of Representatives in 1996. In brief, the report tells us that such nations as Syria, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Egypt are planning and building for a final, devastating war of annihilation against Israel. This includes acquiring nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (NBC) in a mix with conventional weapons, e.g. tanks, aircraft, and soldiers, all in massive, overwhelming numbers." [P. 43]

Could it have played a role???

http://www.freeman.org/m_online/feb97/bodansk2.htm

 

[rmcrobertson]

This website--put up by some group calling itself, "The Maccabean," also contains articles bemoaning the disappearance of colonialism in Africa, asserting that Israel is in no way to be considered an, "occupying county," since they have the right to all the Holy Land and more, and chewing out Ariel Sharon (of all people...it's like bitching at Custer for not being tough enough on Indians) for being a peace-wimp.

I wouldn't take it all that seriously.

 

[Tgace]

What does the site its posted on matter? I can find it on others if you like.


The Author and Org exist. They conduct studies and submit papers to our gvt.
http://t8web.lanl.gov/people/rajan/CT2002/BIO/bodansky.html

Not arguing its content, just if the study had an influence on mid-east policy.

Heres another one of their studies. Hope the site meets approval...
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:bjAH5y7s-WAJ:www.stratwise.com/taskforce-980210%255B1%255D.pdf+%22TASK+FORCE+ON+TERRORISM+%26+UNCONVENTIONAL+WARFARE%22&hl=en

 

[michaeledward]

Seems to me that an article submitted the United States House of Representatives that has 10 Isreali flags across the bottom of the article should certainly be viewed as 'biased'.

Please note, there are no American flags on the article.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Tgace, the article would just be a helluva lot more credible if it was linked directly to a congressional website, rather than a copy of document on some private group's site. However, I don't know how time-consuming such a search would be, so....I don't know how to end this, so I'll take a bow. :asian:

 

[Tgace]

I dont know what you guys want. The author is the director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare for the U.S. House of Representatives. The sources I found were posted on various web sites. I dont know if the gvt. posts them or not. Do you believe them to be fake (no such organization, never submitted to the House)? Or just doubting their validity because it was posted on a Pro-Isralei website?

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/bodansky.html

Heres a .mil refrence.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/house1.htm

A .gov refrence
http://johnshadegg.house.gov/rsc/word/Cantor3.doc

.edu refrence to the author
http://intellit.muskingum.edu/alpha_folder/B_folder/bo-bol.html

 

[Tgace]

Seems to me that an article submitted the United States House of Representatives that has 10 Isreali flags across the bottom of the article should certainly be viewed as 'biased'.

Please note, there are no American flags on the article.

Ummm. I dont think it was submitted to the House via the web. Or with any flags on it.

I believe that the people hosting the site just posted the report there.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

In my meandering about the internet, I came across this study presented by the Task Force on Terrorism & Unconventional Warfare to the US House of Representatives in 1996. In brief, the report tells us that such nations as Syria, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Egypt are planning and building for a final, devastating war of annihilation against Israel. This includes acquiring nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (NBC) in a mix with conventional weapons, e.g. tanks, aircraft, and soldiers, all in massive, overwhelming numbers." [P. 43]

Could it have played a role???

Yes. The Neocons, led by Norman Podohertz, are all very much pro-Israel and all for breaking the Muslim world's back and shaping it into their own creation. They've been influencing Bush from day one...and have clearly outlined their political agenda. See the Disinfopedia for information on that.

I think if those nations listed attack Israel they'll get their butts handed to them. They always have in the past. The Arab states can't fight, and the Israelis are among the best in the world.

As for the nukes...I suspect Israel has them as well.


Regards,


Steve

 

[PeachMonkey]

I think if those nations listed attack Israel they'll get their butts handed to them. They always have in the past. The Arab states can't fight, and the Israelis are among the best in the world.

It would be even worse now. The Israelis, rather than using a mixture of hand-me-downs, have the most advanced weaponry in the world. Israel's greatest military threats, Syria and Egypt, have nothing like the quantity of materiel they used in past conflicts.

Egypt was the only Arab army (once the Arabs were no longer being led by British expatriates) that briefly showed initiative and warfighting quality. Nowadays, Egypt actually recognizes Israel, and has a formal defense and aid relationship with the US that they cannot afford to jeopardize.

And, of course, Israel has a stock of nuclear and biological weapons.

Finally, unlike past conflicts, there is no Soviet Union actively supporting Arab clients, and the United States' level of support for Israel is greater than it has ever been. The likelihood of American intervention is significant, and a major deterring factor.

 

[loki09789]

Ummm. I dont think it was submitted to the House via the web. Or with any flags on it.

I believe that the people hosting the site just posted the report there.

Need we go back and check some of the other 'credible' sources that have been cited in past discussions.

I would say that this is at least a smidge more credible than some other discussion sources.

What happen to 'open mindedness' or 'being willing to consider all sides' or just plan 'being informed...?'

Looks to me like a case of "I don't like what it says so I won't pay it any heed."

Here is a potential piece of text/information that may have previously not been known to most/all of us. What do we do with this information now that it is shared: Deny, reject, or read it and at least 'be open' to the possibility that it could be a small piece of rational justification (though not enough to justify the whole shabang) for military action in Iraq? I thought that we were suppose to be open to Synthesizing when new information and opinions were presented....

 

[michaeledward]

Need we go back and check some of the other 'credible' sources that have been cited in past discussions.

I would say that this is at least a smidge more credible than some other discussion sources.

What happen to 'open mindedness' or 'being willing to consider all sides' or just plan 'being informed...?'

Looks to me like a case of "I don't like what it says so I won't pay it any heed."

Here is a potential piece of text/information that may have previously not been known to most/all of us. What do we do with this information now that it is shared: Deny, reject, or read it and at least 'be open' to the possibility that it could be a small piece of rational justification (though not enough to justify the whole shabang) for military action in Iraq? I thought that we were suppose to be open to Synthesizing when new information and opinions were presented....

Okay then, Let's take a closer look. When I looked earlier, I did not examine the article closely. The article has as a header 'United States House of Representatives', but the names were unfamiliar to me. I googled both authors, and found that Mr. Bodansky appears to have quite a bit of an agenda, although, I was just looking to see if he was a member of the United States House ... which he is not, and never has been. In fact, the first google link I hit had very prominately listed this sentence:

The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the members of the Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, U. S. Congress, or any other branch of the U.S. Government.

http://ikashmir.org/Bodansky/

This certainly did not express confidence in Mr. Bodansky's writings. And yes, this sentence did not refer specifically to this article.

OK, let's look closer at the article.

Indeed, this crisis is escalating even as all key players continue to reassert their commitment to the US-inspired "Peace Process".

This is a rather odd sentence, the last sentence in the first paragraph. It looks to me a bit oxymoronic.

For example, in late October {1996}, a senior Jordanian diplomat warned that "Syria is preparing for a surprise military attack on Israel in the coming weeks."

Hmmm, I don't recall a surprise military attack on Israel in 1996 or 1997.

I continued to review the document, and it seems that everywhere the author looks, he sees people preparing attacks on Isreal. Of course, he does not examine any other possibilities for the listed activities, the only reason the countries could be taking the described actions is to attack Israel. Could the Iranian Military practice exercises without them being a pre-cursor to an Iranian/Isreali conflict? The author does not examine this thought.

The Author quotes an Egyptian Brigadiere General (Retired) who states Egypt must prepare for a conflict with Israel. This confused me, because I thought Egypt and Israel signed a treaty during the Carter years. Part of that treaty is that Egypt receives approximately 2 Billion dollars a year in United States aid money as long as they remain at peace with Israel ... although I could be wrong about that. The quote did seam out of context a bit, though. So I performed a Google on the General "Mohammed Muawad Gad al-Moula".

The only reference to this gentleman in the Google databases are the very article in question. Nowhere else on the internet does Google find this General. Does that mean anything? I don't know.

OK. ... I read the article ... allies sharing information, governments agreeing to assist each other in the event of a war. Israel is going to attack Syria. Syria is preparing to attack Israel. Back and forth, forth and back.

To me, it seems the author is portraying ordinary inter-governmental activities and military actions in the most sinister possible ways. All of the activities described between Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt & Syria could just as easily substituted with United States, Canada, England, and Germany (at least in 1996).

Could this article have played a role in the decision to invade Iraq? Of course. There are probably tens of thousands of documents that could have played a role, however, this article could just as easily be a chicken little crying 'The Sky is Falling'.

If it did play a role, we need to look at the judgement of our leaders. This article is talking mostly about Syria and her intentions, supported by Iraq, Iran, Egypt & Saudi Arabia. Of course, invading Iraq based on this article would be like ... well, invading Iraq because there were no good targets in Afghanistan.

Just my .02 ... but I still think this article was useless.

Mike

 

[loki09789]

Just my .02 ... but I still think this article was useless.

Mike

Mike,
Thanks for understanding my point and putting it into action. Well structured submission.

Some things to consider though:

(NOT that I think the document is GREAT AND TRUE)

1. The disclaimer is a standard thing when working with documented opinion papers. EVERYONE does it as standard liability coverage now a days (look at the network disclaimers for infomercials as an example or the releases students sign when they join a class). I would say it isn't necessarily a demonstration of lacking faith as much as a precautionary measure.

2. The document may have been originally intended for the HOR and not authored by a member of HOR. The other thing to consider is how this document was commisioned, published and distributed too. If the copy of the doc that we are seeing was from an in house distribution copy, of course it will be on an internal letter head. That would be like saying that something that was copied into a MT thread was MT text...well it is and it isn't.

This, at best, is second/third and possibly doctored text, it should be viewed critically at the very least because of the path it took before it got to our eyes.

3. The sentence about Peace Process IMO was to point out that vigilence cannot stop, even in light of a peace process. In other words, the peace process is not the END ALL and we can relax. I don't know if it is Oxymoron as much as warning.

4. It is a POSITION PAPER, so of course it has an agenda. The 9/11 commision report had an agenda. Bod. is trying to support a thesis that there is a collaborative threat (whether the Israel attack in 96 happened or not - just like a drug deal that might have been planned but never happened - even if you got wind of it's intended occurance ahead of time).

With all the "We should have known" talk about 9/11, I think this idea that this and other papers crossing the desk of decision makers and about all these topics lends credence that even if all the evidence is sitting right in front of your face, the pattern may not be obvious until it is too late OR that you might grab a piece of data, form an opinion based on that and ONLY see the rest of the material with that bias in your head....

 

[Tgace]

Yes. The Neocons, led by Norman Podohertz, are all very much pro-Israel and all for breaking the Muslim world's back and shaping it into their own creation. They've been influencing Bush from day one...and have clearly outlined their political agenda. See the Disinfopedia for information on that.

I think if those nations listed attack Israel they'll get their butts handed to them. They always have in the past. The Arab states can't fight, and the Israelis are among the best in the world.

As for the nukes...I suspect Israel has them as well.


Regards,


Steve

That may very well be. I bring it up as a discussion piece. Somehow certain people are seeing it as a Bush defense apparently. The authors part of a Task Force, never said he was a member of the house.....