Bring Back Capital Punishment.
If for no other person than Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi.
I will personally administer the poison/pull the handle/switch on the current, whichever method is approved.
I will personally eat my Quaker principles â on behalf of the estimated 109,000 people who have died as a result of his Machiavellian machinations.
Tony Blair is said to have blood on his hands as a result of his support for George Bush and his deadly attempts to topple the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Alastair Campbell has come in for some heavy criticism as a result of his dodgy dossier written and produced by him to back up his masterâs wishes to follow Bush to war.
George Bush has been vilified world wide for his decision to unleash awesome firepower on the Iraqi nation.
If you are of a generous disposition towards these three â and I rarely am â you could say that they were all decision makers presented with evidence on which they had to make hard choices on behalf of us all. Misguided choices. Choices with deadly consequences for thousands of people. Disgraceful choices. We did, however, help to elect at least two of them to do just that, however much we disagree with their choice.
Right at the bottom of the pile of people with blood on their hands, lurking in the shadows, not called to the Chilcott enquiry, not facing the hectoring from parents of brave young men sent to their death, is a man so despicable I can barely write this.
Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi.
He was the alleged whistle blower who claimed to have worked for Saddam as a chemical engineer assembling germ-warfare units, mobile bio-chemical factories. He was safeguarded, protected by secret service men who would have given their lives to save his miserable skin, housed, fed, clothed, rewarded. The entire war effort was ultimately built on his weasel words, even after no evidence of the existence of those weapons was discovered, so convincing was he.
So many deaths, so much heartbreak, so much disruption â and now he admits he was lying after all. He âhad a problem with the Saddam regimeâ â he had fallen out with them and been forced to emigrate. Woo-bluddy-hoo!
âI wanted to get rid of him and now I had this chance. Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right. They [the US government] gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy.â
I am struck dumb.
February 18, 2011 at 21:41
-
I wish folk would get off the revenge/oil meme as a justification. It
really isnt as simple as that.
Post 9/11, it became apparent to many people (that we had elected etc etc )
that there was a nexus of people with Really Bad intent to us in the west-
people with whom the normal rational of political discourse, threat of
imminent death etc holds no sway. These people were (and are, actually) intent
on trying to find ways of delivering their murderous intent in more efficient
ways. (Chief amongst these being Mr Ahmadinnerjacket who is diverting the
power of the state to that end â but that is a separate debate) â anyway â our
leaders at the time had come to the view that in the current phase of our 1400
year war, pre-emption was justified.
Why?
Saddam had used WMD on his own people â so his posession and intent were
not in doubt.
He had refused to comply with multiple UN (UN mind -not just USA/UK)
resolutions to come clean â he was demonstrably hiding something and we know
that indeed he was hiding something with deliberate intent (being that he had
calculated we were not serious and he was concerned that if Iran found out he
really had stopped his WMD program he would be attacked. In retrospect this
must go down as one of the worst played poker hands ever!).
Add to that various bits of intelligence and there you have it.
I agree with the earlier comment â this evidence being available, or not,
would not have changed anything about the other arguments.
The biggest villain in this whole sorry mess is Saddam Hussein â again
people fall into the modern progressive trap of turning the world upside down
â the good guys are painted as the devil incarnate, and the bad guys are not
so bad , we just need to play nicely with them.
Dangerous and stupid thinking â¦.
February 17, 2011 at 23:09
-
Blair is a lawyer. His wife is a lawyer. Many of the people who came into
contact with Blair were lawyers. Among the main principles of law is that
uncorroborated evidence is weak evidence, or even inadmissible. Hearsay is not
admissible. Were Rafidâs antecedents examined by any intelligence agency, his
motives questioned? Can it be true that our leaders, as lawyers, on such weak
or inadmissible evidence, sent our troops to fight and kill and die on the
sort of evidence that wouldnât convict a shoplifter?
Joe Public is right in
that Blair was committed to follow Bush, and both B & B believed what they
wanted to believe. And they probably even asked for dossiers to confirm their
entrenched beliefs. None of which makes Rafid the good guy, but he wasnât the
one with the power to do such a great wrong.
February 18, 2011 at 00:25
-
I refer you to Thomas Ricks book â really, you can get a well thumbed one
for the cost of postage.
Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi was only one of a raft of sources selected
for the suitability of their output to the PR campaign. Other verifiable,
corroborated and authoritative sources were very deliberately suppressed by
the guys pushing the war and their place men.
I was surprised how many experienced principled very senior US military
voted early on with their feetâ¦
Nah, this guy isnât worth even vilifying. Sending back to Baghdad maybeâ¦
â let the locals know heâs comingâ¦
Read the book â itâs all laid out and cross referenced. Itâs stark and
uncompromising.
As for Blair â intoxicated by what he naively thought his own relative
success in Sierra Leone and he old Yugoslavia â he was up for it â
whateverâ¦.
- February 18, 2011 at 00:30
-
Oh, and I should add that this smacks of the legal vultures going in for
a second meal â I suspect theyâd be less keen if the hearing were actually
to be held in Iraqâ¦.
I cannot state this strongly enough â all this is simple window dressing
â the story is there if you wish to see it.
February 17, 2011 at 22:40
-
Gosh itâs getting heated !
- February 17, 2011 at 22:02
-
Well, first off, Iâd suggest you are doing Machiavelli a grave disservice
by invoking his name to describe this thug.
Try Reading : http://alturl.com/dvh7t
Secondly, the view that Blair et al (our collection of naive deluded
scumbuckets ) were were in some way taken in by this is far fetched to the
point of vanishing.
The 2003 adventure in Iraq was as clear a example of policy based evidence
making as it is possible to contrive (not to mention boobery on an epic
scale).
If youâve some stamina read Thomas E Ricks âFiascoâ
http://alturl.com/eh4h6
You
*will* have cause to re-evaluate your post.
It might say âAmerican Military Adventureâ in the title but I can assure
you we arenât left out. This guy is a bit player, pond life, possibly even a
fall guy (likeliest scenario).
The folk that were in the driving seat knew the truth all along (or⦠in
many cases didnât care about it).
Shame, really â that there havenât been any really Renaissance outcomes for
the perpetrators. I doubt Niccolo Machiavelli would have approved of âThe
Fiasco in Iraqâ
February 17, 2011 at 20:33
-
Never having been near the seat of power, Iâve no idea if this is true, but
â just how much intelligence information was there to put together the âdodgy
dossierâ? In his evidence to Chilcott (or possibly one of the other enquiries)
John Scarlett opined that intelligence reports are always hedged about with
qualifications and uncertainties â phrases like âon the balance of
probabilitiesâ are frequent. I would strongly suspect that the Intelligence
Services would have regarded this single source with some scepticism, and
their initial reports to Cabinet or PM would have reflected that. Scarlett, I
seem to remember, said as much. The documents used by Blair to persuade
Parliament of the need for war had fewer corollaries, thanks to the massaging
of one A. Campbell.
RAAaJ is just a pawn (albeit quite a large one), whoâs word alone would not
have persuaded anybody that war was justifiable, unless they already wanted an
excuse. I will never be able to prove this, but I will suggest that we already
have far more solid information against, say, Iran or North Korea, but we are
not seeking conflict.
My suspicion is that Bush wanted to promote democracy in the middle east,
and didnât have the patience to allow diplomacy to work. Blair wanted a
Falklands style event to secure his historical legacy by emulating Thatcher,
and was too quick to grab the opportunity Bush afforded him, and not wise
enough to think through the consequences. Campbell was too loyal to his
master, and too inexperienced in foreign affairs to see the possible
consequences of his actions. Only the Attorney General at the time had
reservations, and he had his arm twisted.
RAAaJ may have been a useful contributory factor, but the decision makers
where in Washington and London â and no amount of massaging of history will
change that.
February 17, 2011 at 21:40
February 17, 2011 at 19:08
-
February 17, 2011 at 21:01
-
I think I may have to read that again tomorrow when the wine with diner
hashad a chance to reduce its influence.
February 17, 2011 at 17:58
-
If ever there was a case of a mass murderer, surely it is this man.
It could be alleged by a sycophant that Bush and Blair merely acted under
information received from this individual: were they to try this however I
would suggest that Nuremberg be reconvened.
February 17, 2011 at 17:58
-
âI had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my
sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq
the margin of democracy.â
***
Itâs the âIâm proudâ said NOW that really
gets to me!
- February 17, 2011 at 18:24
-
Blair has also said that he considers what he did was right. He believes
that God will judge him. I hope he is right on that at least.
February 17, 2011 at 17:52
-
The first casualty of war is the â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.. ??
February 17, 2011 at 17:35
-
Hi Anna
Irrespective of what one individual told Bush & Blair, they were
looking for any excuse to start the punch-up. RAAaJ simply told them what they
wanted to hear.
B & B are the gullible idiots who are 100% responsible for all those
unnecessary deaths.
By definition there was no other corroborating âevidenceâ.
February 17, 2011 at 17:34
-
Gen. Colin Powell also had satellite pictures of mobile germ warfare labs â
no one told him that they were for launching weather balloons.
It is the
job of politicians to question evidence before presenting it â especially if
it is being used to justify going to war.
February 17, 2011 at 17:02
-
lâm in agreement with Radders. Decision was made by Blair and Co ⦠Rafid
Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi was used along with others â¦. nothing more.
February 17, 2011 at
17:10
-
So, pretend Rafid didnât exist â what would they have based their
decision on?
General â canât think of the name, Iâm so angry, made the
speech to congress based on Rafidâs evidence.
February 17, 2011 at 17:19
-
Gen Colin Powell was the Sec of State who waved the phial of WMD (?)
around in his speech to Congress
- February 17, 2011 at 17:44
-
Anna,
Have no doubt that I too am incandescent â the man is culpable.
However, Bush, post 9/11, set out to prosecute war on terrorism and
decided Saddam was a convenient, self-evidently abhorrent target. Blair
agreed to assist with whatever Bush initiated. Problem â any rational
review of Iraq would identify that there was no possible way that AQ would
work with Saddam or vice-versa. Fortunately, up pops this disgruntled
employee of said target who advises that there are WMD. Unfortunately, as
has been posted earlier, no self respecting intelligence organisation
would trust single source and, to make matters worse , the UN inspectors
advise that there is no evidence to support the claims. Game
over?
Afraid not, it is at this point that our freind Bad Al starts his
Machiavellian manouvering with the inevitable result.
Both sets of people lied in a attempt to start a war to remove an evil
man from power. They all believed that the end justified the means. I do
not accept that they were right to lie to provoke a war whatever their
self justification may have been and may still be. A li8e for revenge or a
lie to get your own way, is there a difference in degree of culpability
when the end result is war!
- February 17, 2011 at
17:50
-
Bush â Iâll grant you that could well have been revenge â and ego, a
desire to finish the job his father abandoned. Hardly a superior
reason.
Blair, believed that he must support the Americans â for what
reason weâll never know, though some claim a religious fervour. Again
hardly a superior reason.
To personally get even with someone? In the
annals of âdisgruntled employeesâ Rafid takes some beating.
I find it
hard to come up with any justification for war short of self defence â
and imminent, immediate self defence â not âcould be a breeding ground
for training people we might have pissed offâ. That is not a reason to
ask your fellow countrymen to give their lives.
-
February 17, 2011 at 17:53
-
I still cannot accept that ther are levels of culpability for
fomenting a war
- February 17, 2011 at 17:56
-
Agreed, but someone has to be first in the queue for the electric
chair â and Iâm voting for Rafid!
-
February 17, 2011 at 18:19
-
Why a q? Why not a bank of 3 or more?
- February 19, 2011 at 04:46
-
yup â interesting though that this person was a product of his
society (eg Saddam) â one wonders how many other folk in Iran,
Libya, Egypt etc etc believe, like him, that the end justifies the
meansâ¦.
and if we believe there is a Good v Evil contest â perhaps it
does?
-
February 19, 2011 at 18:47
-
âThe end justify the meansâ? yeah, some result eh?
Hmmm⦠I can do nothing but parrot âread the bookâ â see the
sock puppet role the American administration played for the
Saudis, the true state of Iraqâs ability to threaten itâs
neighbors after after Clintonâs bombing campaigns, the
suppression of information, the breathtaking ineptitude
(stupidity) of Bushâs team, the hubris displayed by the US Army,
shorn of itâs senior in theater experience.
Contrast it with the coat tail riding and showboating of
British politicians allied to a UK military ill prepared in oh
so many ways for a scrap.
The undertow to all this is the schism in Islam and regional
power plays pivoting on this â as we can see at the momentâ¦
Regime change in Iraq â the opening of Pandoraâs Box?
February 17, 2011 at 16:48
-
.. and it would never occur to the most advanced and experienced
intelligence services in the world that a disgruntled former employee might
have been lying? Something that occurs to even low-level bodies such as the
Federation Against Software Theft, or the Mechanical Copyright Protection
Society, when they are given âevidenceâ that a former employer is running
bootleg software or playing the radio illegally in the canteen?
Câmon Anna. You wouldnât mount a raid on a back-street garage on the basis
of a single, uncorroborated source, let alone invade a country. Youâre
crediting this bloke with far too much.
It was Blair who lied to Parliament, Blair who lied to the country and
Blair who lied to his own cabinet. It was Blair that against all the
professional advice pretended to give credence to fairy-tales in order to
deliver a promise heâs already made to Bush. The blood of Iraq is on Blairâs
hands, not this patsyâs.
- February 17, 2011 at
17:08
February
17, 2011 at 17:09
-
ââ¦.. and it would never occur to the most advanced and experienced
intelligence services in the world that a disgruntled former employee might
have been lying?â
Probably did. It just fell into the category of âinformation too
good/useful to questionâ.
- February 17, 2011 at
17:11
- February 17, 2011 at 17:17
-
At this level of national risk the precautionary principle always
applies.
Would you want to be the PM that let the country be attacked by WMD
when you had the info to prevent it and did nothing? If you act and youâre
wrong (i.e. the evidence is lies) weâre all still here to argue with you.
If you donât and youâre wrong (i.e. we get attacked) weâre all dead. What
choice do you have?
Like Anna I have no time for any of the NuLieBore scum that took us to
war â theyâd also be in the dock, but only after Rafid Ahmed Alwan
al-Janabi had gone âdancing the Tyburn jigâ.
- February 17, 2011 at 17:51
-
The delivery systems Saddam had for WMD would never have been able to
deliver outride Iraq. Blair and Co hinted but never stated that they
could. If there were WMD the only people at risk would be internal to
Iraq or invaders.
- February 17, 2011 at 19:58
- February 17, 2011 at 16:34
-
Count me in!
- February 17, 2011 at 16:27
-
I think youâd have to fight for your place at the head of a very long queue
to âadminister the poison/pull the handle/switch on the currentâ.
This piece of scum knowingly sentenced thousands of his fellow citizens and
those of other countries to death. He doesnât have scrap of remorse â in fact
heâs as pleased as Punch with himself. He might not have fired a single shot
but he is as guilty as any other mass murder for the results of his crime.
Gwand â to try to equate the decisions made in London and Washington, that
were (rightly or wrongly) made in attempt to improve the world and based on
the evidence before them, with lies told in a deliberate attempt to take the
world to war is childish in the extreme.
Iâm with you Anna â and I suspect most other people will be as well.
- February 17, 2011 at 16:38
-
Are you saying that the lies told in London were not a deliberate attempt
to take us to war? What about the deliberate smearing of a weapons inspector
who was telling the truth and was driven to suicide? I admit that what
Rashid did was pre-meditated and malicious but I do not believe it is
childish to consider that deliberate misrepresentation of the facts to esure
that your boss can initiate a war, even if he believes he is making the
world a better place, is in any way excusable â I believe it to be evil.
- February 17, 2011 at 16:41
-
Look at, and deeply consider, Annaâs reply to you.
- February 17, 2011 at
16:46
-
Gwand, I am not exonerating the other three â I am saying the
motivation for âtheirâ crimes pales into insignificance besides
Rafidâs â and they at least have to live with the public scorn â he has
hidden in the shadows until he thought it was safe to come out and have a
little gloat.
February 17, 2011 at 19:29
-
Those three made the choices they wanted to make. Do you seriously
believe Rafidâs âevidenceâ/assertions were anything other than what they
wanted to believe?
February 18, 2011 at 11:59
-
Absolutely right. Those three either used his lies as an excuse to
start a War that they wanted, or they are immensely and criminally
stupid, in which case how did they get elected?
- February 17, 2011 at 16:08
-
And how was A. Campbell (I will not give him the benefit of Esq) not as
bad?
- February 17, 2011 at
16:10
-
He was at least trying to support his boss â totally wrong, but not
acting out of personal maliciousness.
I never thought I would find myself with anything good to say about any
of them â but compared to Rafid, merely settling a personal scoreâ¦.words
fail me.
- February 17, 2011 at 16:16
-
He still generated untruths to ensure we went to war. Do you think 1
source would have been sufficient to quell the doves? I do not believe
that Rafidâs statement alone would have been sufficient to take us into
war!
-
February 17, 2011 at 19:07
-
Good on him.
{ 44 comments }