PDA

View Full Version : U.S. military: Iraqi lawmaker is U.S. Embassy bomber


lily
02-06-2007, 03:33 AM
Awesome timing! (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/05/iraq.lawmaker/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)

U.S. military: Iraqi lawmaker is U.S. Embassy bomber
POSTED: 11:17 p.m. EST, February 5, 2007



BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A man sentenced to death in Kuwait for the 1983
bombings of the U.S. and French embassies now sits in Iraq's parliament as a
member of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's ruling coalition, according to
U.S. military intelligence.

Jamal Jafaar Mohammed's seat in parliament gives him immunity from
prosecution. Washington says he supports Shiite insurgents and acts as an
Iranian agent in Iraq.

U.S. military intelligence in Iraq has approached al-Maliki's government
with the allegations against Jamal Jafaar Mohammed, whom it says assists
Iranian special forces in Iraq as "a conduit for weapons and political
influence."

Repeated efforts by CNN to reach Jamal Jafaar Mohammed for comment through
the parliament, through the ruling Shiite Muslim coalition and the Badr
Organization -- the Iranian-backed paramilitary organization he once led --
have been unsuccessful.

A Kuwaiti court sentenced Jamal Jafaar Mohammed to death in 1984 in the car
bombings of the U.S. and French embassies the previous December. Five people
died in the attacks and 86 were wounded.

He had fled the country before the trial.

Western intelligence agencies also accuse Jamal Jafaar Mohammed of
involvement in the hijacking of a Kuwaiti airliner in 1984 and the attempted
assassination of a Kuwaiti prince.

Jamal Jafaar Mohammed won a seat in Iraq's Council of Representatives in the
U.S.-backed elections of December 2005. He represents Babil province, south
of Baghdad, in parliament.

A U.S. Embassy spokesman said officials are actively pursuing Jamal Jafaar
Mohammed's case with Iraqi officials. Al-Maliki has urged American
intelligence officials to share their information with Iraqi lawmakers, who
could strip Jamal Jafaar Mohammed of his parliamentary immunity.

"We don't want parliament to be a shelter for outlaws and wanted people,"
al-Maliki told CNN. "This is the government's view, but the parliament is
responsible. I don't think parliament will accept having people like [him]
or others currently in the parliament."

Al-Maliki's political party, Dawa, claimed responsibility for the Kuwait
bombings at the time but now disavows them. The Iranian-backed Shiite Muslim
party was forced into exile under former dictator Saddam Hussein, who was
executed in December.

The prime minister says the situation is embarrassing -- not only to his
government but to a U.S. administration that holds up Iraq's government as a
democratic model for the region.

Top U.S. officials, including President Bush, have accused Iran of meddling
in Iraq by fomenting sectarian violence and providing arms to illegal
militias. Bush has authorized U.S. troops to use deadly force against
Iranian agents in Iraq to defend American or allied forces, and the
administration's increasingly tough warnings to Tehran have raised concerns
that the four-year-old Iraq war could spread.

Al-Maliki told CNN last week that the United States and Iran should stop
using his country as a proxy battleground, accusing Iran of targeting U.S.
troops in Iraq but saying he doesn't want U.S. forces to use Iraq as a base
to attack Iraq's neighbors.

Waffletush
02-08-2007, 03:40 PM
How is this a conspiracy?

sbannon
02-08-2007, 03:47 PM
Who said it was a conspiracy?

What it might be though, is telling of what we can expect in a best-case scenario from Iraq.

If, by some wild cosmic shift the violence would be brought under control and the representative democracy we've wanted should flourish...this indicates that some of the freely elected government officials (which we've wanted there to be) may well end up just being terrorists themselves. Yeah, that'll be a real victory for us won't it.

What will we do then? When and if a freely elected Iraqi government is comprised of terrorists? Will we invade again? What will be the plan then, to install a dictatorship?

Waffletush
02-08-2007, 03:51 PM
Read lily's comment above the post.

BoogyMan
02-08-2007, 04:01 PM
Who said it was a conspiracy?

What it might be though, is telling of what we can expect in a best-case scenario from Iraq.

If, by some wild cosmic shift the violence would be brought under control and the representative democracy we've wanted should flourish...this indicates that some of the freely elected government officials (which we've wanted there to be) may well end up just being terrorists themselves. Yeah, that'll be a real victory for us won't it.

What will we do then? When and if a freely elected Iraqi government is comprised of terrorists? Will we invade again? What will be the plan then, to install a dictatorship?


Scott, I truly want to think better of the situation than that.

I do wonder, however, if the violence is so engrained into their culture that our expectations are too high?

sbannon
02-08-2007, 04:18 PM
Waffletush, the only comment I see is "Awesome timing!"? Am I missing something there?

Boogy, I don't know that it's the violence which is so ingrained; I rather believe it is a combination of social-environmental factors which allow terrorist groups and leaders to become local heroes by providing food, building schools, hospitals and other infrastructure that many areas are lacking--and the addition of subverting their ancient religion to make everyone else (including and especially us) appear as the aggressors and oppressors who would deny people those necessities or have created their harsh living conditions. It's exactly the same thing we saw with Hezbollah in South Lebanon.

In some aspects, it's not all that different from our own government. There are old-time members of both parties who seem like whack-jobs to most of the country, yet keep getting re-elected over and over. Why? Because no matter how nuts they may seem on the national scale, they bring home the bacon and own their local voters.

I'm not suggesting that we have terrorists in congress by any means, only that it's symptomatic of a representative democracy to not have the best leaders elected, but rather the most popular in their respective communities--which opens the gates to anyone with enough money or influence to gain offices.

Waffletush
02-08-2007, 04:31 PM
Waffletush, the only comment I see is "Awesome timing!"? Am I missing something there?

Yes. (and this is not a personal attack) Lily has commented in the past about how this administration 'times' news releases on Iraq to coincide with whatever 'event' they have going on at the time. Think Iran.

sbannon
02-08-2007, 07:33 PM
Waffletush, I think you may be reaching a bit there. Lily can certainly speak for herself, but I took the brief commentary to be a poke of grave irony at the fact that on the eve of beginning another troop surge to support the Iraqi government, we learn that government includes convicted terrorists who have targeted Americans as well as others in the past.

lily
02-09-2007, 12:11 AM
Thank you sbannon! Yes, that was my intention...well that and to spark debate.

Pookie
02-12-2007, 04:36 AM
Wouldn't the discovery of this be rather important to the idea of the surge of troops in Iraq? Who else is not exactly the best candidate for being in the new Iraqi government? It makes you wonder. Just as in the USA, you can't judge a population on its government officials, but if one were to simply look at Abramoff, Delay, Libby, and others, that would raise a question as well, and I believe it has. Michael Brown didn't do us any favors either.
I agree with Lily.
Hugs,
Pookie