現在地 HOME > 掲示板
★阿修羅♪
|
現在地 HOME > 掲示板
★阿修羅♪
|
|
※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※
『亜空間通信』358号(2002/08/30)
【イラク副首相がアルカイダはいるがアメリカの同盟のクルド地区内とCBSに語る】
※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※
転送、転載、引用、訳出、大歓迎！
ニューヨークにいるアメリカ人から、「アルカイダはイラクにいるが、場所はアメリカと同盟関係のクルド地区である」とイラクの主旨で、副首相のアジズが、CBSニューズのアンカーマン、ダン・ラザーのインタヴューに答えて語ったとの記事が送られてきた。極めて長文で、他の問題も含まれている。
要するに、よくある「泳がせ」戦術であろうか。
以下、『亜空間通信』では、その部分だけを英文のまま転送する。他の部分も面白いところがあるので、阿修羅戦争15掲示板には全文を添えて投稿する。
Subj:[ Yes, Al Qaeda is in Iraq, hosted by Rumsfeld's Kurdish allies
Date:8/30/02 4:44:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Sent from the Internet
From: "Marge O'Brien" CBS News Anchor Dan Rather interviews Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.. (CBS) (Transcript of an interview between CBS News Anchor Dan Rather and Aziz: They are operating in Iraq here but in a location governed by an ally Rather: I want to make sure what they are saying. Yes, there are al Qaeda Aziz: Yes that area is in Iraq, the government of Sullemini the territory Rather: To your knowledge are there any al Qaeda elements in the part of Aziz: No, no not at all, and Jallal Tallabani misled the Americans, he Rather: When did that happen that he and his followers fought al Qaeda and Aziz: Some few months ago. Rather: Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, also today an Iraqi opposition group has Aziz: Well our reaction to that is the responsibility of the German Rather: Mr. Aziz, the U.S. government and the much of the world believe Aziz: Because those allegations are false, the U.S. government has not Rather: If that's true, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, why not say to the Aziz: The United Nations is different because they're like the former Rather: Mr. Aziz, now back to the basic question though, if as you say your Aziz: I made that clear in my previous answer, we did not trust their Rather: Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, do you or your President expect the Aziz: Well we are hearing the threats and according to the responsibility Rather: Now Saddam Hussein has said that he is not given up on averting Aziz: Well this in itself contains irony. When there are threats to invade When we ask the congress, because the congress is not going to stay in Iraq When people come pretending that they are seeking the truth, and in the end Rather: Let me come directly to point. Does Iraq possess nuclear weapons? Aziz: No. No we do not possess any nuclear, chemical, or biological Rather: Mr. Deputy Minister, you are a skilled diplomat, an elegant Aziz: Is the reason behind this invasion the matter of weapons of mass (interruption in interview) Rather: A member of Saddam Hussein's cabinet has been quoted in the last 24 Aziz: Well I don't know, I think many people have read that in the American Rather: Well if it is printed in the American press and mention by the Rather: Is that your opinion? Aziz: I don't know I don't know, the man I do not judge a person whom I Rather: Does Saddam Hussein (Aziz interrupts) Does Saddam Hussein remain Aziz: We are, we are, we are committed to supporting the Palestinian legal Rather: I understand that, the question is whether your president is Aziz: No there's no difference, what I said is that is that we are Rather: It's been widely reported that international terrorist Abu Nidal Aziz:: Abu Nidal, Abu Nidal committed suicide. Rather: Period? Aziz: Yes. Rather: Any idea why he committed suicide? Aziz: Well tomorrow, well tomorrow I hope an Iraqi official who knows all Rather: True or untrue that he was at least suspected of plotting some kind Aziz: No, no, I uh, to my knowledge there was no such attempt but Abu Nidal Rather: How was he doing that? Aziz: By doing things that the official who is going to be appearing in the Rather: But that will be tomorrow, as you know I am in the news business Aziz: Well if I knew all the details, Mr. Rather, I would have said that. Rather: The U.S. government [claims] that Abu Nidal was responsible for the Aziz: We did not give him sanctuary, he entered Iraq illegally, and, uh, an Rather: You've been very patient with us, in uh, especially with your time, Aziz: Saddam Hussein is the leader of Iraq by the choice of the Iraqi Rather: Mr. Deputy Minister I can recall in 1990, 1991 you and I had some Aziz: We are not, we are not underestimating the American military power, Rather: Well, what you call the aggressor, at the time the United States, Aziz: That was Kuwait. It was not Iraq. And there is a difference between Rather:: Mr. Deputy Minister, is your family in Baghdad and have you made Aziz: Well my family was in Baghdad in 1991 and they will stay in Baghdad Rather: Mr. Aziz, you are very well educated and consider yourself a Aziz: These are heroes who are struggling to liberate the occupied Rather: Mr. Deputy Minister, you are privy to the thinking of your Aziz: Well I will, I will speak on my opinion in that. I believe, that Bush Rather: You say that being fully aware many Americans, I venture to say a Aziz: Could he do that? Could he do that? At that time? His son is now Rather: Mr. Deputy Minister you have been very patient with us, I am going Aziz: Well I would like to say that this war which the Bush government is a Rather: Mr. Deputy Minister, thank you. MMII, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved 以上。
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 04:39:17 -0400
To: jacobandesau@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [jacobandesau] Yes, Al Qaeda is in Iraq, hosted by Rumsfeld's Kurdish allies
Iraq Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. The interview was conducted Tuesday
afternoon, Aug. 20, 2002, via satellite with Rather in New York and Aziz in
Baghdad.)
Rather: Donald Rumsfeld has just said in a briefing at American Pentagon
that there are definitely al Qaeda elements operating in side Iraq. Do you
know where they are, what they are doing and if so why are they allowed to
operate in Iraq?
of Mr. Rumsfeld. Which is under the control of Jallal Yallabani who
attended the meeting in Washington and met with Mr. Rumsfeld. If he was
interested in that why didn't he ask Tallabani about the presence of those
people in the area where he is supposed to be the government.
elements in Iraq but they are in an area controlled by Kurdish leaders who
were meeting in Washington.
of Iraq but it is the control of Jallal Tallabani, it is not under the
control of the government.
Iraq controlled by the part of the country controlled by President Hussein?
didn't tell that when he was threatened by those people he asked for our
support and we provided him with ammunition, to fight him, to fight al
Qaeda. Because he's yes, when they attacked his people, his followers, he
asked the government to give him ammunition in order to face them and we
did. Jallal Tallabani did not say that because he joined the group in
Washington to conspire against Iraqi leadership.
the government of Saddam Hussein supplied him with ammunition and other
supplies?
taken over the Iraq embassy in Berlin demanding an end to Saddam Hussein's
rule. What is your reaction to that?
authorities to deal with this matter because this is against the
responsibilities of the diplomatic representation and we hope that the
German authorities will take the necessary steps to evacuate the Iraqi
embassy from those people.
that Iraq has weapons of massive destruction, chemical, biological, if not
indeed including nuclear and that you have been acquiring the increasingly
the ways to deliver those weapons. Now why shouldn't the United States
invade Iraq and put an end to this threat?
provided any solid information evidence about that. We invited the American
congress to come on a fact finding mission, search the country, inspect all
the sights that the American government says that they are being used for
reproduction of weapons of mass destruction. They declined. If there is a
genuine concern about this matter and the American government and the
American congress and opinion, this matter could be resolved very quickly
and we are ready to provide the information and facilities to reach the
truth. Why did not they accept our invitation if they are sure that there
are such places sights that contain weapons of mass destruction? This tells
you, tells any intelligent person that their accusations are untrue.
United States and to United Nations, come take a look, you can go any
place, anytime. You can have unfettered inspections. Why not do that?
UNSCOM stayed in Iraq for seven and a half year and did not report
honestly. It dragged its feet inside Iraq and kept the sanctions in place.
So we didn't reach a conclusion, nobody reached a conclusion. In order to
use that conclusion to lift the sanctions imposed on Iraq according to the
script, letter, and spirit of resolution 687, so we do not trust those
people when they come and given the opportunity to inspect and search they
will report the truth, but when there is a fact finding mission by the
American congress, this mission would be limited in period, it won't be
limited in the ways it conducts, but there will be a conclusion when they
return to Washington they will tell you and the American public opinion we
did not find anything. We do not trust that Mr. Blix and his people are
going to tell the truth if we allow them to return to Iraq as you see. We
are in our experience with UNSCOM.
government is not hiding any weapons of mass destruction. Again why not say
bring your inspectors that can go any place anytime, completely unfettered
inspection and lay this matter to rest for good?
impartiality and honesty. They will stay in Iraq, go to the places whatever
place they go, they won't tell the truth, they keep the doubt about the
situation in Iraq, and the sanctions will remain in place. We would like to
get rid of this matter, we would like to reach a conclusion, why doesn't
Congress send a fact-finding mission equipped with American experts on
those areas, equipped with all the instruments to help them to find the
truth. Why don't they do it you see? Because they don't do it because this
way we are suggestion can reach a conclusion. Can bring about a conclusion.
The inspectors you mentioned are not going to bring about a conclusion.
They will keep the situation vague and leave the sanctions in place. And
don't forget that when the inspectors were in Iraq, America and Britain
attacked Iraq. So how could you deal with the inspections on the one hand
and the continuous threat to attack the country by American troops on the
other.
United States to invade Iraq?
towards our nation we are taking those threats very seriously.
war. But this what has been described dance, promising cooperation and then
offering limited what you see is virtually meaningless inspection has been
going on a full decade. By any reasonable analysis you and your country now
face a choice. Either allow unfettered full inspection or face total
annihilation. Which it going to be?
Iraq to attack Iraq, you send people to collect information about the Iraqi
preparations for the Iraqis defending their own country there is a
contradiction here, and a trick also here. The inspectors were in Iraq in
1998, they withdrew in the morning, and the American and British missiles
attacked Iraq late in the evening. So they were collecting information
providing information to the aggressors to make their targets more precise.
This, there is a contradiction here. You either follow or respect the
United Nations' rules that you don't commit aggression against a country
and then things will be quite different. And I tell you, are these people
honest and impartial enough to reach the truth, to reach a conclusion of
whether there are weapons of mass destruction of not? We suspect their
honesty and their impartiality.
and get money from the United Nations for its work. The congress will come
and find the government's allegations are true or not and they will return
for a certain period and report to the American government and to the
American public opinion what they have seen and what they have not seen We
would like to have a real, interested, impartial, group of people to verify
the facts, not a group of people who live on the continuation of their
work, as UNSCOM experts did for seven and a half years. It was in their
personal interest not to tell the truth. Because they will continue
working, they will continue getting thousands of dollars as salaries and
allowances of their presence in Iraq. This is different Mr. Rather, this is
different. Let the American government, American congress, create a fact
finding mission, with all experts and all fields, and come to Iraq in
arrangement with the Iraqi government. We will give them unfettered access
to each and every place they claim that there are weapons of mass
destruction in it. But when the media is with them, the American media, the
international media is with them, when they go to a site and don't find
anything, then the truth will be known. That's what we want. We want the
truth to be known. We cannot leave it to Mr. Blix and his people to tell
the truth as they want to tell it you see. They won't report. I give you, I
remind you of an example in 1998 when Bill Clinton and Mr. Blair made
allegations about the presidential site. They said that those sites are
full of great quantities of weapons of mass destruction. On those sites
there were factories and equipment producing such weapons. Then we reached
an agreement with the Secretary General of the United Nations. The
inspectors entered all these sites, they inspected each and every corner of
it and they did not report to the Security Council and to the world that
they did not find anything. We are not going to put ourselves in such a
foolish situation.
they do not report the facts as they seem them. We would like to see a
credible group of people who really represent their own constituencies to
come and we will provide them with all the facilities to reach the truth.
And there are equipment in this world, technical equipment that could trace
any, any activity in the biological or the chemical and nuclear areas. If
there is a scientist listening to me now, he will see yes what Aziz, is
saying is correct. You can trace, you can trace by certain sensors, any
activity, even if it took place ten years before in any place, whether
there was an activity or not. But the inspectors who belong to UNSCOM, and
those who are in the new organization are not going to tell the truth. And
we have our experience of 1998, what they did in 1998 is not telling the
truth. They made precise locations, they made by GPS instruments, they made
certain locations, precise, and reported that to the Americans and when
they bombed Iraq in late 1998, they bombed the places where they thought the locations of the leadership of Iraq were staying. This is not the way to reach, yes?
weapons. We are not interested in them. My president has made it clear. We
don't have, and we are ready to challenge anybody who makes allegations
contrary to what I am saying. But it should be done in a perfect manner,
not done by the means of UNSCOM and by the means Mr. Blix is suggesting
because they will not report the truth. They will not reach a conclusion
about realities. Let us think if the American government is genuinely
concerned about that let them come and propose any credible manner to come
and inspect and search and then reach the conclusion about the reality. We
are ready to discuss with them, with the American government, all reliable
efficient means to reach the conclusion.
speaker, and a forceful advocate for your government, but no amount of
rhetoric changes the dilemma you face. You have the most power military
force in history, discussing invasion of your country. Are the Iraqi people
aware of the peril they face?
destruction or the reason behind it is taking over Iraq, running Iraq for
the interest of the United States, the Israeli government, and the Zionist
lobby in the United States. The Iraqi people know that the American pretext
are untrue and they know that America wants to invade their country in
order to occupy it and take over the Iraqi wealth for its own imperialistic
purposes. And for the sake of the Israelis, for Israel, and now look at the
matter, you are also an experienced media man. Who is supporting the United
States in this invasion? If the kind of pretexts are genuine, America says
that Iraq is a threat to the region. It's threat to the U.S. and the world.
Who is saying that except Mr. Bush and his assistants? Who is saying that
except Mr. Sharon and his gang, who are killing the Palestinians,
destroying Palestinian lands, and killing the Palestinian people? Only two
persons, two governments in this globe are creating those false pretexts.
None of America's allies who participated in the war against Iraq in 1991
are supporting the American pretext. The countries in the region have made
it clear. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Iran, all these governments
all these countries around Iraq have said that we are against the American
plan to attack Iraq, therefore whose purpose President Bush is planning to
attack Iraq. The only one encouraging Mr. Bush to attack Iraq is Sharon and
his gang which are killing the Palestinians, the women, the children, and
destroying the houses, destroying trees, etc. So everybody, in Iraq and in
the region, knows that this plan is a criminal plan, it's a criminal plan
against a sovereign nation, a nation which is proud of its independence, a
nation which cares about its own national interest, and everybody knows
that this is an imperialist game, an imperialist plan and that's why people
are criticizing it.
to 48 hours as describing President Bush and his policy toward Iraq as
quote "stupid" unquote, is that correct?
media.
American media, people might think it is correct adjective.
don't know. But my belief, my belief is that his policy towards Iraq is
stupid and it has no justification, it does not serve the national interest
of the United States of America in the long run, it just serves the
imperialist, the Zionist plan of Sharon and his gang and those who support
Sharon and the United States of America
committed to the destruction of Israel? He has been in the past been
committed to the destruction of Israel. Is he still committed to that?
just struggle for the liberation of the occupied territory we support the
struggle of the Palestinians to create their own independent state. That's
what we're committed to, that's what my president is committed to.
committed to the destruction of Israel. That's something different than
creating a Palestinian state.
committed. My president and the Iraqi leadership is committed to support
the Palestinians I did not say at anytime, 'We are, we are, we are seeking
the destruction of Israel.' We didn't say that. When did my president say
that? He never said that, but we also, we always said that we are
supporting the Palestinians and the legitimate struggle for their
legitimate objectives.
was shot to death in a Baghdad apartment. Is this true, can you confirm
that and what else can you tell me about it?
the details about this matter will appear in front of the press and tell
the press what he knows about this matter.
of assassination attempt against Saddam Hussein?
was violating the Iraqi national interests.
press tomorrow will explain that to the public opinion here and outside Iraq..
and I'm looking to make news and was hoping you could give me a preview of
what he might say.
You see, you know I am frank person and I do not cover my information but I
don't know all of the details. The man, the official who is in charge of
this file will appear in front of the press and tell all of the facts about
what he was doing. I know as a member of the leadership that he was
violating the Iraqi national security. I know that for sure. But when you
ask me about the details, I cannot tell you any details. The man whose, who
knows those details is going to tell the public opinion and the press about
that.
killing of some 900 people over a 20 year period. How could the Iraqi
government justify giving sanctuary to such a man in the first place.
official is going to explain that, as I said. He entered Iraq secretly
without the permission of the Iraq authorities. We extradited Abu Nidal in
1983. I informed him I was then the foreign minister of Iraq and I invited
him to my office and told him that you are doing things contrary to the
policy of the government of Iraq and we have decided to expel you outside
Iraq and he left Iraq in 1983. Then entered Iraq secretly from a
neighboring country which is to my knowledge Iran.
and I appreciate it. Is there anyone in Iraq able to lead your country when
Saddam Hussein is removed from power and what in your judgment would happen
in Iraq should your president be removed from power?
people and now we are planning another round of elections next October
because his presidency will expire. And in October and the Iraqi people are
ready to reelect him as their leader so he will stay as long as Allah
decides, Allah wants and as long as the Iraqi people want him to be their
leader
conversations, this was before the United States defeated Iraq. It was very
clear then that you had underestimated both the United States military
might and the will of the United States to do what it felt it had to do.
What are the chances that you are again underestimating these two things?
but uh, we know we are staying in our county and are fighting inside our
territory, we are defending our independence, we are defending our
integrity we are defending our national interest and any aggressor cannot
win a war against us.
won the war in the 1990-91 period.
Kuwait and Iraq.
any provisions for war?
when the aggression occurs. We are deep rooted in our territory and in our
in our home land and we will fight courageously and intelligently against
any aggression -- every Iraqi, child and old man, and the young man. Woman
and man we will defend Iraq perfectly, and the American government will be
surprised how efficient how courageous our reaction to their aggression
will be.
civilized man. How can you justify your government encouraging young people
to blow themselves up killing innocent civilians? The Iraqi government pays
money to suicide bombers. I'd be interested to know how you can justify that..
territory, we respect them. We respect them because they are sacrificing
their lives for a noble cause, they are not terrorist, they are heroes and
heroines. And this is what we believe in -- it's not only myself. Every
educated honest person in the Arab world, in the Muslim world, believes
that these people are heroes and that they are freedom fighters. So we
respect them and if we have any possibility to support their families we
will do it. And we are doing it happily with the great conviction that we
are what we are doing is correct and according the noble human values. The
terrorists are the Israeli government, the killers the murderers are the
Israeli government. The persons who are killing people in Israel are
soldiers. Under the instructions of their leadership, their government,
their generals, there the criminals who should be blamed, not those people
who are sacrificing their lives for a noble cause.
president, is it or is it not the opinion of Saddam Hussein that this
President Bush has in mind invading Iraq to finish, what he believes his
father didn't finish, in the 1990-91 war, is that your president's judgment?
the father is wiser, is more wise than his son. what Bush the father did in
1991 was in the interest of America. What his son is doing now or planning
to do now, is in the interest of Israel snd the Zionists, it's not in the
interests of Americans. If he listens, if he reads the well, if he studies
well what his father did in 1991, he will reach the conclusion that it was
serving the interests of the United States.
majority of Americans believe it was a mistake by President Bush One not to
go Baghdad, and at least force Saddam Hussein out of power.
planning to do it. Let him try and he will find in the end that he will
lose this plan, that he will lose this endeavor.
to give you an opportunity here in the end to tell me what is the most
important thing you have to say today about the possibility of war on Iraqi
soil?
planning does not serve the basic interest in the long run of the American
nation. It serves the imperialistic interest of Israel and the Zionist
groups who have now a great say in the American policy.
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。