Presumably, they don't want to mention an event that would lead to support for the war on terrorism. Or worse, we might start limiting the mobility of moslems who want to spend graft money in a country with some degree of civilization. If one wants to laugh off threats, and imagine peace in our time to come from appeasement of terrorists, it would indeed be better to not mention an Iraqi-associated attempted chemical attack of this magnitude.

Hi Tim,

I thought I'd just go ahead and answer this one here. You referred to it in our discussion over at:

http://admin.2wgroup.com/mt/mt-snark.cgi?entry_id=961

Here you explain, "Jordan intercepted three tanker trucks filled with twenty tons of chemical weapons sent in from Syria. The trucks were apprehended 75 miles from the Syrian border. One of those captured is saying he was trained in Iraq, before the US invaded in 2003, to use explosives and poisons."

I read the articles plus others related to the story. The details were chilling. The whole plot was outlined how they were going to do the attack. It was devilishly clever. For security they talked about how they would change phone cards after every ten calls or so. There were details on exactly how they modified the truck. You know, it was very curious that of all the detail they never mentioned what the poison was. I mean, they described all the cars and trucks. They talked about how they worked. They described the workshops. They never described the payload.

Oh, one of the details was that they made the chemicals, whatever they were they didn't say, in Jordan. They didn't bring them in from Syria. They made them themselves in the country in a workshop they had.

My take on the government position is that, if anything, they are over-eager to report anything that supports their position on the War On Terror. So naturally I checked them out as I was sure I'd find lots of information on this.

Strangely enough, I could find nothing about this major plot against the Jordanians at any American government websites. That would include the CIA, State Department, Whitehouse, Senate, Congress, etc. That means no senator or congressman mentioned it in a speech.

Apparently this was not deemed "news" by our government. Now as you noted on our other page "...the CIA is hardly omniscient, as we ought to have learned by now...So your argument -- seemingly that if the US intel doesn't know it, it should be discounted -- doesn't really make sense in that context."

So perhaps we would also conclude that perhaps the CIA and the State Department don't know anything about this Jordanian bomb plot yet? I know our intel agencies are pretty slow on the uptake. Do you suppose the CIA didn't hear about it. (If so, perhaps we should notify them right away.)

Because if they did know and didn't have any statement about it, no report about it concerning terrorist activities, no outrage from the Senate, no warning from the CIA, no acknowledgement of this near Hiroshima in Amman, then it would seem that our government agencies are not taking it as an authentic terrorist attempt.

Dave Barry used to add an air of authenticity to his reports by stating "I am not making this up!" In this case, someone might just conclude that if it was never mentioned by a member of our government then the Jordanians were just "making it up".

Oh, one last thing about this attack on Amman, you mentioned, "The trucks were apprehended 75 miles from the Syrian border." Where did you get that?

This is the craziest thing and no one will blame you for being a little off in your Middle East trivia (they say war is God's way of teaching Americans geography), but did you know that Amman is only 30 miles from the Syrian border? That means the trucks were not driving from Syria, they were driving towards Syria. Isn't that funny?

Here's an Encyclopedia Britannica map I found: http://www.shunya.net/Pictures/Jordan/JordanMap.gif

Perhaps you have a better map?

Anyway I'll check this out a little more and get back to you on it.

Dave

I'm continuing to check into this story. In your referred to a quote by Dr Magnus Ranstorp about attempts to destabilize Jordan. Ranstrop had other interesting things to say.

Ranstorp said something related to our discussion on the fact that there was no frank national debate on the Iraq War. In September 2002, Ranstorp warned that military action was likely to happen 'sooner rather than later' to bypass growing public opposition to war. He then predicted a media blitz by Tony Blair and others to try and sway public opinion in favour of conflict.

Sounds like Ranstorp was predicting an attempt to do an end run around the national debate.

He was right on target. It would have been better if Bush didn't get us into this war so fast.

Regards,
Dave

Dave,

Miscellaneous responses; more later when I get time...

Oh, one of the details was that they made the chemicals, whatever they were they didn't say, in Jordan. They didn't bring them in from Syria. They made them themselves in the country in a workshop they had.

See below.

Strangely enough, I could find nothing about this major plot against the Jordanians at any American government websites...

I had a very simple theory at this time to explain it, but it's not very conspiratorial-sounding.

Bush had already been happy to report a few false leads as being evidence of WMD. They'd gotten some false-positive reads on some chemical drums, they'd thought the strange "weather balloon" trucks might have been bio/WMD mixers, etc.

Each time, he was hammered by the press, claiming he'd deliberately deceived people. I didn't think that at all -- the screw-ups were understandable given the initial reports from the field. Had me going too.

So I think Bush and company just stopped saying anything about WMD outside of absolutely sure documentation (e.g. Dueffler report, etc.), realizing that every time they made a mistake, people attributed it a deliberate malicious intent to deceive. So I think they just ignored this one, as they didn't have anyone directly involved, couldn't document anything for sure, since everything came at the words of Jordanian officials.

Do you suppose the CIA didn't hear about it.

No; though I think they can miss some major stuff, I'm pretty sure they read CBS News, Fox News, etc. :-) It was in like a dozen news outlets, eventually, as the trial went on. (Though each source only had like, one story on it.)

Again, most people still don't know this happened, despite the massive scale of the intended attack. Until the bodies start falling, most people ignore the threat. Before such attacks, people say that warnings of terrorism, and attempts to stop it, are just government propaganda and a cover for evil actions. Afterwards, they scream that the government didn't do something to prevent it. They should look in the mirror and figure out which way they want it.

75 miles... Isn't that funny?

That was from the NewsMax article. Very strange, yes, you're right. Wrong number? Deliberate deception? Missing decimal point??? Looks merely like a mistake, given the location of the warehouse:

"Or it could be that these guys did the actual work on their own. Again, it all depends on what those chemicals were, and how hard such would be to obtain or manufacture."

OR, like WMD, if it happened at all. The whole situation, the lack of further details, the lack of anyone in the government, even the more conservative elements, Neocons, anyone, to pick up this story makes it sound like there is something phony about that story.

As your link to the Fox News account raises some questions: "Airing suspects' confessions before their trial is unusual in Jordan. In 1998, six men accused of affiliation with a militant group confessed on television to planting a bomb that exploded outside an Amman hotel. Five years later, a court found them innocent.

"The unusual move may be an attempt to answer critics who claim the government has exaggerated the terror danger to justify tightening security."

Jordan could have staged the whole thing to support their security clampdown.

Dave

OR, like WMD, if it happened at all. The whole situation, the lack of further details, the lack of anyone in the government, even the more conservative elements, Neocons, anyone, to pick up this story makes it sound like there is something phony about that story.

(Ah, yes, the ever-evil and omnipotent "Neocons" now enter the story. The Protocols of the Neocons of Zion. Sigh, I'm dealing with one of those.)

So: Let me get this straight. If a story about a terrorist attack gets a lot of coverage, in much detail, it will prove it was a plant by the Bush administration. Thus you expected such stories to be played up.

But when I present you with a story which has very few details, because it received almost no press nor administration attention, that is -- to you -- also evidence that it was planted by the Bush administration?

Earth to Dave: Can you see how your thinking process has cut you off from reality? If exact opposite things prove the same point, it shows that you've have no functioning critical facilities.

Look, I understand if you just want to believe whatever you want. That's fine. But please don't go through this elaborate charade on my blog as part of convincing yourself of the rightness of that. Because I won't go along:

Dave, such thinking is fallacious.

Jordan could have staged the whole thing to support their security clampdown.

Look, Dave, just because "Fox" as a whole is supposed to be somewhat conservative doesn't mean that applies to each reporter. And note, the statement which is exciting you is the reporter's personal opinion (they couldn't even find a mouth to put it in) injected into an otherwise hard-news story.

The word for that is "spin", and you need to get a bit better at detecting it. Instead, because it apparently told you what you wanted to hear: you took it further. Instead of the airing of their testimony being done to justify more security, in your mind, the entire incident was manufactured, out of nothing, in order to increase security.

Sigh.

Okay, let's review, shall we? Jordan is a monarchy -- basicly an authoritarian state. If they wanted to have a "security clampdown" they would just do it, not stage an elaborate attack, manufacture some vehicles to photograph, etc. All they'd have to do is cite a rumor of terrorism, (if they felt like justifying it at all), not go through an elaborate ritual.

Second: ask yourself: What clampdown? Did they provide evidence one had occurred? Is there evidence one occured afterward?

Right. We have a motive which makes no sense, to do an action which wouldn't even need to be justified, and for which we were given no evidence had even occurred.

Tim,

I will address two issues here. My suggestion that the lack of coverage or acknowledgment of the potential "Hiroshima" in Jordan may be due to the lack of integrity of the report and possible reasons why such a false report would benefit Jordan.

WHY SILENT ON JORDAN "HIROSHIMA"?

I'm afraid you missed the point. My point was that from a standpoint supporting the Iraq War and search for WMD any valid news of a terrorist attack with WMD will support their argument. If this was indeed a "Hiroshima", as it is titled on your webpage, it would be no small thing to overlook. The fact that it was overlooked by our security agencies and government officials and so many others lends credence to the suggestion that the report is without basis.

JORDAN FEARS MASSIVE DESTABILIZATION

To cover another point, Dr Magnus Ranstorp, the terrorism expert that you referred to, stated that Middle Eastern states are very worried, especially Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, since they fear massive destabilization. He said, "Crown Prince Abdullah wrote to Bush before September 11 last year, warning there were cracks appearing and that Arab leaders had to recognize their people's opinion - otherwise they would end up like the Shah of Iran." (1)

Despite the claim that "Jordan is a monarchy -- basically an authoritarian state. If they wanted to have a "security clampdown" they would just do it..." it is not that easy. The Shah of Iran (a dictator who took power after an American engineered coup against the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953) also ruled an authoritarian state.

JORDAN'S CLAMPDOWN AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

When Fox News stated, "The unusual move may be an attempt to answer critics who claim the government has exaggerated the terror danger to justify tightening security," you charged, "Second: ask yourself: What clampdown? Did they provide evidence one had occurred? Is there evidence one occurred afterward?" and

I do not like Fox News either. So shall we just eliminate Fox reports from our discussion?

Nonetheless, while the Fox report did not offer evidence of a clampdown that does not mean a clampdown does not exist. This is a big problem in the Middle East right now as pointed out in testimony before the House:

"In general, the human rights conditions in the Middle East are increasingly precarious, with an increase in violations of the right to express political dissent and widespread clampdowns in Egypt and Jordan, among others, on freedom of expression and assembly, including harassment, arbitrary arrest and detention. Police have reportedly used excessive force against demonstrators, and some of those arrested allegedly have been subjected to torture and ill-treatment. Adoption of the Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism has only facilitated the intensification of the already poor human rights record by the region's governments, which used the pretext of "fighting terrorism" to suppress dissent."

You finished your post with, "Right. We have a motive which makes no sense, to do an action which wouldn't even need to be justified, and for which we were given no evidence had even occurred."

Now we have a motive which does make sense, to do an action which would need to be justified. The lack of follow-up and acknowledgement in regards to Jordan's claims raises serious doubts that it had even occurred.

Finally, I believe I have replied to your posts in a courteous manner. I believe I have demonstrated that there are good reasons why someone would come to the conclusions I have. I know you see the situation differently and I have respected that. But I see no reason for your personal attacks on me.

Regards,
Dave

(1) http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/articles_2002/bi_brink_of_disaster.html
(2) http://wwwc.house.gov/international_relations/108/arri0430.htm