Exception to comment on handling disaster

Submitted by David Davila (United States), Sep 14, 2005 at 01:43

I do believe that there have been far-reaching changes in the mentality of the Arabs due to the fact that one of their strongmen has fallen in Iraq. It is not easy to build a group of democratically minded group out of one that has never had that experience. True to the
American attitude is that we typically have all problems solved within the hour.... the TV generation. Football games are decided on the basis of a span of 3-4 hours. My goodness, why can't we triumph within the hour ? This is ridiculous.

Now we are hearing the yammering of these same no-patience individuals that because all the Al-Qaeda inspired idiots didn't peacefully lay down their arms, we should wring our hands and run away like so many wimpy cowards. The patience that they have
will surely win the day if we don't change our own attitudes. They think in terms of decades while our TV fed people think in terms of hours.

Again we hear that because Bush didn't just take over immediately and feed all those people immediately, that he is a failure? How ridiculous is that ? If he had, we would be in a dictatorship because he wouldn't have respected States rights. Then the hue and
cry would be because he had overstepped his bounds. This was a disaster of very large proportions. When the storm was dead-on to New Orleans, their sainted mayor should have evacuated 3 days before it hit. His defense for not using the buses was that he couldn't find drivers. Tell that to the 18 year-old that commandeered a bus and drove a bunch to Houston. He hadn't ever driven a bus. Surely they could have enlisted volunteers to take over the duties. Instead he is pointing fingers at everyone but himself. If he had done his job, there wouldn't have been people screaming because they had missed some meals. They would have been on high ground and in a position that others could have given them proper care.

No, the invasion of Iraq was right and Iraqis are showing signs of coming out of their stupor that is induced by a dictatorship that stifles all dissent. Their own sons are beginning to fight the insurgency and winning battles. Our own decadent media that thrives on failure is constantly drumming into us that we are failing, our ideals are no good and we shouldn't impose our ideas on anyone else. Since when is allowing people a chance to have their say in the body politic inimical to them. Truly creative genius is only released when people are allowed to dream of better things. While I don't agree with unlimited 'freedom', being able to vote and speak one's own mind are precious liberties.
Al Qaeda members and the Saddams would have it different. You are free so long as you agree with them. There is no place for the dreamer and the dissident.

I also disagree with those that think that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on the US. Ramzi Yousef , the attacker of the twin towers came into the US under an Iraqi passport. see Laurie Mylroie's account of Ramzi Yousef :

ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1992, Ramzi Yousef arrived at JFK airport. He presented an Iraqi passport without a U.S. visa, was briefly detained (and fingerprinted) for illegal entry, and granted asylum pending a hearing. Yousef went to stay at the apartment of Musab Yasin, an Iraqi living in Jersey City. So too did Abdul Rahman Yasin, Musab's younger brother, who arrived in America from Iraq soon after Yousef. (Musab had an unlisted telephone number under an Israeli-sounding alias, Josie Hadas.) see http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm
for the full version. It is a wonder to me that so many continue to insist that Iraq had
nothing to do with attacks on the USA.

In yet another document we read ::
The logical explanation is that Khalid Mohammed, like Abdul Basit and Hakim Murad, is a stolen Kuwaiti identity. As with Basit, since this identity was undoubtedly stolen when Iraq occupied Kuwait in August 1990, the implication is that Mohammed's identity was stolen by Iraqi intelligence for Saddam's sake. Thus, the family of Khalid Mohammed and Abdul Basit, as well as Abdul Murad who grew up with Basit and was the son of a Kuwait pilot, were likely among the 600+ Kuwaitis that disappeared when Iraq took over the emirate in 1990. These identities were then handed over to Iraqi agents that became key operational planners in al Qaeda and carried out Saddam's revenge in the form of brazen terrorist plots against the United States including 9/11. AND WE CONNECT THE DOTS WITH THE FOLLOWING

When Iraq occupied Kuwait in 1990 and 1991, it used some Kuwaiti files to create false identities for key agents. It tampered with those files. It tampered with Abdul Basit Karim's files to create a false identity for Ramzi Yousef."
http://www.spiritoftruth.org/ksm.htm

It is interesting to note that these names are linked together by the records that were
uncovered by Laurie Mylroie...

RAMZI YOUSEF (bomber of twin towers), AKA ABDUL BASIT KARIM
(flying into usa under Iraqi passport)
ABDUL MURAD
SHEIKH KHALID MOHAMMED (Al Qaeda's Chief of Operations) ( 9-11 mastermind)

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, is a Pakistani Baluch. So is Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In 1995, together with a third Baluch, Abdul Hakam Murad, the two collaborated in an unsuccessful plot to bomb 12 U.S. airplanes. Years later, as head of al Qaeda's military committee, Mohammed reportedly planned the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings, as well as the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. SEE THE FULL ACCOUNT http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003213

While some question that Laurie Mylroie had an axe to grind, I believe that she was right.
So , what if we hadn't attacked Iraq ? Saddam would have continued to send his agents to destroy more of the USA and continued his association with Al-Qaeda.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".