PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: videoholic on January 31, 2003, 08:46:09 PM
-
Now if these tapes and this evidence are really what they seem to be, will you people still be pizusses and not want to bomb the shit out of these people? This is a total joke. These people have got to be dealt with. I\'m sorry to start another thread, but this is extremely interesting and I didn\'t want to slip it into the thread about how we should all be worried about Cyprus because we here in the US are evil.. Um yeah, whatever.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/867105.asp?0cv=CA01
THE DECISION TO allow Secretary of State Colin Powell to use the electronic intercepts in his speech next Wednesday to the U.N. was described by U.S. intelligence officials as extraordinary. Electronic intercepts by the NSA are considered the most jealously guarded of all U.S. intelligence secrets and government officials are normally loath to even refer to their existence for fear of tipping off targets and drying up invaluable sources of information.
But in this case, officials said, the intercepts are so damning and dramatic that officials say their release outweighs the potential harm—especially given the increased likelihood that the United States will shortly be launching an invasion of Iraq anyway.
“Hold onto your hat. We’ve got it,” said one U.S. intelligence official familiar with the evidence gathered by the NSA.
For the past two months, ever since the U.N. inspectors re-entered Iraq and began searching for weapons of mass destruction, the NSA has been closely monitoring the conversations of Iraqi officials. The NSA intercepts establish conclusively that the Iraqis have been “hiding stuff” from the inspectors, the U.S. intelligence official said.
“They’re saying things like, ‘Move that,’ ‘Don’t be reporting that’ and ‘Ha! Can you believe they missed that’,” the official said. “It’s that kind of stuff.”
Other officials cautioned, however, against viewing the intercepts as the long-sought “smoking gun” in the search for Iraq’s purported stockpile of banned weapons. There may still be some ambiguity about what the Iraqis are referring to in some of the conversations. Some of the material being concealed may be precursors to building weapons, or even documents and computer disks as opposed to actual chemical or biological weapons themselves. The transcripts “show that there’s been a pattern of deception,” said another official, who had been briefed on the evidence. “But does that make the case that you have to go to war?”
One official who had reviewed a transcript of the conversations disputed suggestions that the Iraqis were “joking” about deceiving the inspectors, describing them as “straightforward” discussions that nonetheless clearly showed concealment by the Iraqis in their dealings with the inspectors. A White House aide said the electronic intercepts were only one part of a much broader picture that would include satellite photos and other evidence showing Iraqi noncompliance. “There won’t be a smoking gun, but when people hear it all you’ll see a burning forest,” said one senior administration official.
Powell’s speech will contain “a lot of different pieces of information that add up to painting a compelling picture,” an administration official said. Another official said the administration had evidence that Iraq had set up “deception teams” that were orchestrating the concealment of weapons from the inspectors.
Officials at the CIA, the State Department, the National Security Council and Vice President Cheney’s office were said to be “working shoulder to shoulder reviewing raw data” to determine precisely how much information can be declassified for use in Powell’s report to the U.N. scheduled for next week.
While precise details have yet to be worked out, officials described the decision to use the intercepts at all as stunning—especially in an administration that has prided itself on its commitment to secrecy in national-security matters. One official said next week’s speech by Powell will amount to the most significant release of this kind of sensitive information since President Ronald Reagan revealed NSA intercepts that linked Muammar Kaddafi to the 1986 La Belle disco bombing in West Berlin.
One argument for releasing the intercepts, officials said, is that the normal reasons against doing so—tipping off the Iraqis to phone lines or cell phones that were being monitored—may not matter if the U.S. military is about to invade anyway. Another argument is that full disclosure, or at least substantial disclosure of the intercepts, will persuade an increasingly skeptical public in the United States and other Western nations about the nature of the case against the Iraqis.
“I’m all for it,” said Rep. Jane Harman of California, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “It’s very important to have popular and multinational support for this effort.” Harmon said the administration’s body of evidence, which has been shared with the intelligence committees, is strong enough that it will accomplish that purpose. If so, Harmon said, she was still hopeful that Iraq would be forced into compliance and war could be averted.
The White House has been regularly receiving the NSA transcripts ever since the inspectors returned to Iraq late last year. The damning nature of some of the transcripts, officials said, explain President Bush’s occasional outbursts of anger at the Iraqis, as well as the willingness by Powell—who had previously cautioned against war—to lay out a damning picture of Iraqi noncompliance in next week’s speech. One official who had dinner with Powell recently said the secretary remarked how “we have a stronger case than many people realize.”
-
no.......
-
poor vid, he actually expects people to read that. Well it ain\'t gonna happen here buddy, not with our attention spans.
But I\'ll give it a friendly bump in hopes someone may take the time to read it.
-
If you don\'t read it then you are an idiot. This could be intelligence that could change the face of the world. I can\'t imagine that we aren\'t bombing the shit out of this guy any more than 1 week after displaying these tapes.
There is a good chance that this will damage our intelligence ability and I\'m willing to bet the only reason they are even putting this info out is because it doesn\'t matter. All these people will be goners soon anyway.
-
Textblock. My eyes.. :eek:
Ok enough with the complaining.
Interesting, if its true.
This could indeed be the news that will change alot of peoples minds.
Of course source criticism must be used even against “news” from the US gov, IMO.
-
Werent they "monitoring" Iraq in the past?:confused:
-
Of course they have always been. But they have never come out and said what their evidence is.
-
This is american propaganda do bring the nation behind him ! .... anyway he better have damn good proof if he wants canada to join in !
and ofcourse they think they have weapons of mass destruction !!! US gave it to them !!!!!!! and its been a long while since i heard bush say he wanted benladen dead , i guess he slipped trough the american lines
-
Do really think we give two craps about Canada joining us?
Ace
-
You stole my words Ace.
Of course it\'s propoganda. But it\'s truthful propoganda. At least it\'s not a bunch of crap like Saddam telling his people that if the UN finds something that it was planted by the US.
This board has definitely made me realize that there are people that are absolutely set in their ways and nothing can change them.
If this evidence shows people laughing at the UN and how they can\'t find the stuff. If they really are moving stuff around to prevent the UN from seeing it (Which we all know they are doing). If they really do have chemical and biological weapons then they should be destroyed.
We gave them weapons back in the 80s, but we did not give them biological/chemical/nuclear weapons. And even if we gave them 10 nuclear warheads, they are suppose to remove all these weapons according to the resolution from the gulf war. They are being defiant and their regime must be destroyed.
-
Canada could fill sandbags while real soldiers do the fighting.
-
Wow interesting stuff Vid... most of these anti war people won\'t believe the truth even when its staring them right in the face.
-
ofcourse Sadam having warheads is dangerous and all , but Us is moving too fast and doing just what they want ! they want the oil in Iraq , thats what they want
-
^^^are you 10 years old?
Oh, wait a minute... you\'re french....
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Wow interesting stuff Vid... most of these anti war people won\'t believe the truth even when its staring them right in the face.
That has nothing to do with it. The good guys are comming home in body bags this time.
Im anti-war, especially when there isnt sufficient evidence. In this case, i dont know what is real and what isnt. Sure it looks legitimate, so even if it is, what is wrong with sending 1000 cruise missles in and some air raids? Continue bombarding them, but keep the good fight off the ground.
He wont hesitate to use what he supposedly has within his own borders once the soldiers are down.
-
Originally posted by jp6666
ofcourse Sadam having warheads is dangerous and all , but Us is moving too fast and doing just what they want ! they want the oil in Iraq , thats what they want
It\'s been 12 years.
Don\'t worry JP, absolutely no one will be injured from Canada.
-
I\'ve been on the fence about this whole thing so far. Something about GW\'s exuberance for attacking Iraq just smelled wrong. I\'ve been amazed at how many people have been aggressively supporting another war on Iraq without seeing any evidence. It seemed they based their entire support on unquestioning trust in George W. and the executive "braintrust." That hasn\'t been good enough for me. I need to see evidence.
Now it\'s looking like they might show some evidence. If it looks good, I\'ll get behind this. I\'ll support it. They should have done this months ago. The hyperparanoid attitude our intelligence agencies have toward revealing their secrets has pissed me off for a long long time. I know it can be counterproductive to their mission in many cases, but it\'s also necessary for we citizens to know what they\'re up to. Some public oversight and communication has to take place, or the atmosphere of distrust and hostility gets much too far out of hand.
-
I agree completely with Coredweller !
-
Originally posted by videoholic
Of course they have always been. But they have never come out and said what their evidence is.
WHAT?
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
Werent they "monitoring" Iraq in the past?:confused:
You were insinuating that we don\'t have evidence since we\'ve been monitoring them in the past. What I am saying is that they don\'t say everything they have right as they get it.
Take this for an example.
You going over to your neighbor\'s house. They have a really hot daughter. You are about to walk in as you pass her bedroom window. She\'s butt naked changing clothes. Do you stand there and look before you go in? Do you tell them you were able to see her through the crack in the window? Heck no. You don\'t tell them a thing in hopes that they never figure out that crack is there.
-
Originally posted by videoholic
You were insinuating that we don\'t have evidence since we\'ve been monitoring them in the past. What I am saying is that they don\'t say everything they have right as they get it.
Take this for an example.
You going over to your neighbor\'s house. They have a really hot daughter. You are about to walk in as you pass her bedroom window. She\'s butt naked changing clothes. Do you stand there and look before you go in? Do you tell them you were able to see her through the crack in the window? Heck no. You don\'t tell them a thing in hopes that they never figure out that crack is there.
How about this one.
Me and my friends know that sexy neighbor changes her clothes at a specific time everyday and we want to see her naked.But We dont know a way yet.So we start a conversation to create a plan of a way to see her naked without her noticing.
-
But here is the thing. You\'ve been watching her get naked for 12 years and you are tired of her being naked all the time. It\'s time to tell her parents. If you don\'t tell her parents quickly that there is a crack in the window there is a good chance her parents could catch you peaking and then dump chemical weapons on your house.
-
I\'m soooo confused!
Ace
-
Originally posted by videoholic
But here is the thing. You\'ve been watching her get naked for 12 years and you are tired of her being naked all the time. It\'s time to tell her parents. If you don\'t tell her parents quickly that there is a crack in the window there is a good chance her parents could catch you peaking and then dump chemical weapons on your house.
Well thats not logical.Its like you are telling me the government thought like this "Oh they are planning on creating weapons of mass destruction.Oh what the hell lets just monitor them for a decade just to waste our time." And then many years after that react like this: "HOLY SH!T THEY ARE MAKING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!GOD LETS STOP THEM BEFORE THEY READY THEM AND ITS TOO LATE!!!"
The other meaning of your post goes like that:"If I never watched her there would have never been a chance of a thread".With other words its like telling me that its USA\'s fault there is chance of a thread against them.
-
The point is that we have been listening to them gathering information. We are not allowed to give out this information because
A) NATO is not suppose to be acting like an agent of the US. They are an impartial world advisor.
B) We give up this info then our source of info will dry up. If they realize we can here their calls and hear them laughing at NATO, they will shut up. Then our info dries up. (No more naked neighbors)
Now that we are about to blow the shit out of them it really doesn\'t matter. Plus we have probably so much info now that we don\'t care if this source dries up..
This is as elementary as I can get. Sorry.
-
Originally posted by videoholic
The point is that we have been listening to them gathering information. We are not allowed to give out this information because
A) NATO is not suppose to be acting like an agent of the US. They are an impartial world advisor.
B) We give up this info then our source of info will dry up. If they realize we can here their calls and hear them laughing at NATO, they will shut up. Then our info dries up. (No more naked neighbors)
Now that we are about to blow the shit out of them it really doesn\'t matter. Plus we have probably so much info now that we don\'t care if this source dries up..
This is as elementary as I can get. Sorry.
Hey the Iraquis must be really stupid not to know they can be monitored.Even in the very weak Cyprus they are taking isolation precautions in the General Army Staff offices of the defence ministry because they know there are 1000 ways of "monitoring".
And the supposed "creators of weapons of mass detruction" are so naive to let leaked informatoin so easily?If they are THAT stupid then they arent "smart" enough, capable enough or threatening enough.
-
Tomorrow is the big day - or so its been said.