No Evidence Against Iraq, You Say?

by DakotaRed 49 Replies latest jw friends

  • DakotaRed
    DakotaRed

    For many who keep saying there is no evidence linking Iraq with Al Qaeda or that they still retain WMDs, here are portions of but a few articles I found tonight with very little trouble. The entire articles may be viewed at the links provided, if you are interested in reading them.

    From a PBS interview with an Iraqi defector Sabah Khodada

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

    Sabah Khodada was a captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992. He worked at what he describes as a highly secret terrorist training camp at Salman Pak, an area south of Baghdad. In this translated interview, conducted in association with The New York Times on Oct. 14, 2001, Khodada describes what went on at Salman Pak, including details on training hijackers

    And they trained people to hijack airplanes?

    Yes.

    For what purpose?

    ... It has been said openly in the media and even to us, from the highest command, that the purpose of establishing Saddam's fighters is to attack American targets and American interests. This is known. There's no doubt about it.

    That was your reaction on September 11 -- that some of these people might be involved?

    I assure you, this operation was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam. And I'm going to keep assuring the world this is what happened.

    Osama bin Laden has no such capabilities. Why? Because this kind of attacks must be, and has to be, organized by a capable state, such as Iraq; a state where they can provide high level of training, and they can provide high level of intelligence to do such training.

    From Guardian Unlimited, we read in part:

    http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,591439,00.html

    His friends call him Abu Amin, 'the father of honesty'. At 43, he is one of Iraq's most highly decorated intelligence officers: a special forces veteran who organised killings behind Iranian lines during the first Gulf war, who then went on to a senior post in the unit known as 'M8' - the department for 'special operations', such as sabotage, terrorism and murder. This is the man, Colonel Muhammed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, whom Mohamed Atta flew halfway across the world to meet in Prague last April, five months before piloting his hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Centre .

    Asked whether he believed the foreigners' camp had trained members of al-Qaeda, Zeinab said: 'All I can say is that we had no structure to take on these people inside the regime. The camp was for organisations based abroad.' One of the highlights of the six-month curriculum was training to hijack aircraft using only knives or bare hands. According to Zeinab, women were also trained in these techniques. Like the 11 September hijackers, the students worked in groups of four or five.

    From a letter to the editors addressed to Mr Blair in the UK from an Iraqi refugee living there;

    http://www.caabu.org/campaigns/iraqi-exiles-letter.html

    Today, in the face of so much opposition, we look to you to remain steadfast for all that is decent and honourable. The anti-war coalition ignores the terror we have lived under for so long. Their demonstration can only bring comfort to Saddam Hussein.

    And in the face of his brutality the protesters offer nothing in comfort to the suffering of Iraqi people; nor indeed do they say how they would seek to disarm a dictator whose weapons of mass destruction threaten not only his own people with his use of chemical weapons, but also that of his neighbours and beyond.

    The last thing we wish to see is war. We do not want war. No civilised person would wish for such a terrible event when lives of people we hold dear could be lost. But we do want Saddam Hussein and his regime removed. You and the UN must persevere in using diplomatic pressure, but if all fails, and as an absolute last resort, then we accept that force must be used to remove him.

    From the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, we read in part;

    http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/scud_info/scud_info_refs/n41en172/iraq.htm

    For Nuclear weapons capability:

    • With sufficient black-market uranium or plutonium, could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year.
    • If United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspections were to be terminated, could produce weapons-grade fissile material within several years.
    • Retains large and experienced pool of nuclear scientists and technicians.
    • Retains nuclear weapons design, and may retain related components and software.
    • Repeatedly violated its obligations under the NPT, which it ratified on 10/29/69.
    • Repeatedly violated its obligations under United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 687, which mandates destruction of Iraq's nuclear weapon capabilities.

    For Chemical Weapons capability:

    • May retain stockpile of chemical weapon (CW) munitions, including special chemical/biological al-Hussein ballistic missile warheads, 2,000 aerial bombs, 15,000-25,000 rockets, and 15,000 artillery shells.
    • Believed to possess sufficient precursor chemicals to produce hundreds of tons of mustard gas, VX, and other nerve agents.
    • Retains sufficient technical expertise to revive CW programs within months.
    • Repeatedly used CW against Iraqi Kurds in 1988 and against Iran in 1983-1988 during the Iran-Iraq war.
    • An extensive CW arsenal–including 38,537 munitions, 690 tons of CW agents, and over 3,000 tons of CW precursor chemicals–has been destroyed by UNSCOM.
    • Repeatedly violated its obligations under UNSC Resolution 687, which mandates destruction of Iraq's chemical weapon capabilities.

    For Biological Weapons capability:

    • Iraq's claim that it destroyed biological weapon (BW) munitions unilaterally– including 157 R-400 aerial bombs and all of its special chemical/biological Al-Hussein warheads–has not been verified by UNSCOM.
    • May retain biological weapon sprayers for Mirage F-1 aircraft.
    • May retain mobile production facility with capacity to produce dry biological agents (i.e., with long shelf life and optimized for dissemination).
    • Has not accounted for 17 tons of BW growth media.
    • Maintains technical expertise and equipment to resume production quickly of anthrax, botulinum toxin, aflatoxin, and Clostridium perfringens (gas gangrene).
    • BW prepared for missile and aircraft delivery during 1990-1991 Gulf War.
    • Conducted research on BW dissemination using unmanned aerial vehicles.
    • Repeatedly violated its obligations under UNSC Resolution 687, which mandates destruction of Iraq's biological weapon capabilities.

    For Ballistic Missile Capability:

    • May retain components for dozens of Scud-B and al-Hussein missiles, as well as indigenously produced Scud missile engines.
    • If UNSCOM inspections were to be terminated, could resume production of al-Hussein missiles within one year.
    • Maintains clandestine procurement network to import missile components.

    In the Washington Times from an Iraqi Nuclear Scientist;

    http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020916-28573872.htm

    Iraq is already using copies of pirated German equipment to process nuclear material for an atomic weapons program, according to a former Iraqi nuclear scientist who testified before the U.S. Senate this summer.

    Khidir Hamza, who led a section of the Iraqi nuclear bomb program before his defection in 1994, said the devices may not be discovered even if U.N. inspectors are allowed to return to Iraq.
    "The beauty of the present system is that the units are each very small, and in the four years since the inspectors left, they will have been concealed underground or in basements or buildings that outwardly seem normal," he said.

    From a CNN article about Iraqs amassed chemical weapons;

    http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/02/iraq.weapons/index.html

    "Iraq continues to possess several tons of chemical weapons agents, enough to kill thousands and thousands of civilians or soldiers," said Jon Wolfsthal, an analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    U.N. weapons experts have said Iraq may have stockpiled more than 600 metric tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, VX and sarin. Some 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells with chemical agents are also unaccounted for, the experts said.

    From a UK Telegraph article about Iraq’s nuclear capability;

    http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/19/wirq19.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/01/19/ixnewstop.html/news/2003/01/19/wirq19.xml

    United Nations weapons inspectors have uncovered evidence that proves Saddam Hussein is trying to develop an arsenal of nuclear weapons, The Telegraph can reveal. The discovery was made following spot checks last week on the homes of two Iraqi nuclear physicists in Baghdad.

    Acting on information provided by Western intelligence, the UN inspection teams discovered a number of documents proving that Saddam is continuing with his attempts to develop nuclear weapons, contrary to his public declarations that Iraq is no longer interested in producing weapons of mass destruction.

    From another UK Telegraph article about Iraq’s murder of Palestinian terrorist, Abu Nadal, for his refusal to train Al Qaeda terrorist inside of Iraq;

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F08%2F25%2Fwnidal25.xml

    While in Baghdad, Abu Nidal, whose real name was Sabri al-Banna, came under pressure from Saddam to help train groups of al-Qa'eda fighters who moved to northern Iraq after fleeing Afghanistan. Saddam also wanted Abu Nidal to carry out attacks against the US and its allies.

    When Abu Nidal refused, Saddam ordered his intelligence chiefs to assassinate him. He was shot dead last weekend when Iraqi security forces burst into his apartment in central Baghdad. The body was taken to the hospital where he had had cancer treatment.

  • Navigator
    Navigator

    DakotaRed

    Good post! It is also clear now the Mr. Blix glossed over in his speech some very interesting data that was contained in his full report. It is naive to think that some of Saddam's "stuff" will not wind up in the hands of terrorists.

  • Max Divergent
    Max Divergent

    Softcocks

    'My enemy's enemy is my friend', and Saddam, OBL and others have declared Jihad.

    Saddam’s a bad Muslim and OBL would no doubt avoid him like a JW avoids an apostate, but can responsible leaders with the power to act really be asked to sit on their hands and rely on these sorts of maddies with this military capability staying apart?

    Here is a clear and well-defined long-standing target that is relatively easily overcome in a unified action for a genuine improvement in security. Yet Russia, Germany, China, France and others are blocking action against this dangerous and tyrannical regime (odd group of countries to be doing ‘the right thing’ in restraining the ‘aggressive’ UK and US in the context of the last 100 years).

    This group may be genuine or may just be fighting America, but they leave the non-Islamic world softcocked, weak and an easy target.

    Max - who declines to celebrate religious freedom expressed by Jihad

  • JH
    JH

    A war in Iraq would cause many casualties, like this report states below.

    Thousands Of U.S. fatalities expected in Iraq
    By: Philip KnightMarch 12, 2003
    Experts say likelihood of urban combat and exposure to WMD will result in "many thousands" of U.S. military dead.
    Low casualty rates in the Gulf War, Kosovo and Afghanistan have led Americans to expect more of the same in Iraq.
    Yet military experts are quietly warning that the impending war will likely yield a high U.S. death toll.
    Analysts suggest that the Bush administration is keeping silent on the issue of casualties for fear of weakening public support for the war.
    "I don't think the American public is prepared for the kinds of casualties that might occur in Iraq," said NBC military analyst Col. Jack Jacobs (ret.).
    A consensus appears to be emerging that U.S. deaths during an operation in Iraq will likely run into the thousands.
    The two concerns most often cited to account for significant U.S. fatality rates are the likelihood of urban combat and of Saddam Hussein's use of chemical and biological weapons.
    "If you want to get a regime to change, you have to go to Baghdad and the casualties are going to be great" said P. Terrence Hopmann, director of the Watson Institute's Global Security Program.
    One senior military official confided, "if we have to fight a pitched battle in Baghdad, it means we screwed up somewhere along the way."
    Yet the latest intelligence seems to indicate that this nightmare scenario is the one U.S. troops will be encountering.
    Hussein is reportedly transforming Baghdad into an "Alamo-like" last stand, and guns and rocket propelled grenades are being issued to the population.
    U.S. intelligence has detected a substantial concentration of forces around Baghdad "with the deliberate intention of creating an urban combat environment," according to a Pentagon official.
    Four of Iraq's six Republican Guard divisions are now concentrated in Baghdad.
    General Joseph Hoar, the former commander in chief of the military's central command, remarked "all our advantages of command and control, technology, mobility, all of those things are in part given up [in cities]."
    The most comparable example of a modern urban war is the Russian offensive against Grozny. In 1994, 1,200 poorly-equipped Chechen rebels held the city against a Russian army of 30,000, resulting in many thousands of Russian dead.
    Whereas Grozny was comprised of a few hundred thousand people, Baghdad is a city of 5 million.
    The administration's expectation of low casualty figures is largely based on the hope that Hussein's government will quickly implode in the face of a U.S. attack.
    "The secret within the not-so-secret plan is that the top decision-makers are hoping that Hussein's regime will collapse," writes The Washington Post's Ralph Peters. "But wise soldiers don't go to war with hope as their primary weapon" (11/15/02).
    "It is always possible that the Iraqi military will refuse to fight for Hussein," notes Mark Bowden, author of Black Hawk Down, "but this is wishful thinking . . . It is far more likely that they will fight, and tenaciously" (Los Angeles Times, 8/30/02).
    The complex web of tribal relationships and loyalties hold the key to understanding the resistance U.S. troops are likely to encounter in Iraq.
    Unlike most of the Shia or Kurdish conscripts who deserted or surrendered during the Gulf War, the Republican Guard, as well as most of Baghdad's population, is comprised of Hussein's own Sunni Arab tribe -- which by all accounts remains fiercely loyal to his regime.
    Military analyst Gwynne Dyer noted that the only reason Hussein survived the Shia and Kurdish revolts after the Gulf War is because the Sunnis "closed ranks around Saddam Hussein and fought to defend his regime."
    More troublingly, according to London's Observer, the Pentagon believes that "they will have 48 hours to find and kill or capture Saddam before he tries to deploy any nuclear, biological or major conventional weapons he may have" (7/14/02). Intelligence sources have already intercepted Iraqi communications authorizing field commanders to use weapons of mass destruction.
    While some analysts have cited less than a thousand U.S. combat fatalities, an emerging consensus of military experts appear to be warning of substantially higher casualty rates given the likelihood of urban combat and troop exposure to chemical or biological toxins.
    The National Security Advisor report to the president advised "if Saddam Hussein retaliates conventionally, estimates of U.S. casualties range from the dozens to tens of thousands."
    According to his discussions with a number of military experts, former senator Gary Hart warned that if the Iraqis mount a resistance in the major cities, American casualties could easily reach 50,000 to 100,000.
    Military analysts such as Col. Jack Jacobs (ret.) warn of the potentiality of casualties in the "many, many thousands, depending upon what kind of war we fight and what kind of weapons are unleashed on our soldiers."
    Likewise, Michael O'Hanlan, a military analyst with the Brookings Institution, estimated that "the United States could possibly lose as many as 5,000 troops if the Republican Guard fights as hard and as effectively as its size and weaponry would plausibly allow."
    Philip Knight is a foreign news analyst and columnist with Knight Syndicate.com based in New York City.

    ©Manchester Times 2003
  • berten
    berten

    As if we ever said that Saddam is innocent.

    Who sold Iran & Iraq WMD's ?

    Who trains terrorists the best and the most?

    Now it all flies back into the faces of the UK and US leaders...

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Hello Dakota,

    What you present above regarding the supposed link between Iraq and the terrorists who committed the September 11th outrage is not evidence. The confession of defectors from the Iraqi regime cannot be constituted evidence. The only real link, a supposed meeting of Mohammed Atta, the 11 September ringleader, and an Iraqi diplomat expelled from the Czech Republic for spying, has now even been dismantled and found wanting even by the US Government. Having been in the military Len, you are well aware of the intelligence resources of the US government. Even all these agencies in concentrated effort since 9/11 have been unable to find evidence linking Iraq with 9/11. If they could find this evidence and present it to the world, many people would have fewer objections to the a potential war with Iraq, but they have been unable to do this as of today’s date.

    Sadam Hussein is a monster, even those who clamor for peace would not deny this. Many of those that you criticize Len are not necessarily against a war with Iraq, they are against an war with no mandate. Remember Hitler triggered of a war with Poland by dressing prisoners in German uniforms taking them to the Polish border shooting them and then presenting it as evidence of Polish hostilities. WWII ensued.

    The US has produced evidence so far that Iraq once had weapons of mass destruction, some of us wish to see evidence that they still have these weapons, which is the foundation of the US/UK war against Iraq. Do I believe US propaganda? Absolutely not. Do I believe Iraq propaganda? Absolutely not. Would I accept evidence unsullied by tampering and presented by thrid parties, like the UN inspectors. Absolutely.

    The only evidence presented to the world that Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction were a concocted, plagiarized, manipulated set of data that even Mr. Powell seemed very uncomfortable in presenting. This rang loud alarm bells with many people, especially as it seemed to be the only ‘evidence’ that the full weight of the US intelligence agencies have been able to find.

    I respect your solidity and loyalty Len, I wish there were more people like you in the world, but this war will effect every person on the planet in some way and some of us feel that the UN inspectors should finish their work first,

    Best regards - HS

  • Mary
    Mary

    You're right. It's all the Americans fault. Poor Saddam Hussein. I feel really sorry for him. Imagine the terrible United States Government coming down on you hard like this when all Saddam wants to do is live in peace and give his people all the best advantages in life.

    I guess America must be really jealous of him, I know I am. I'd really like to live in a country where, as a woman and a human being, I have no rights whatsoever. I also am eager to have no adaquate amount of food for me and my family, no proper clothing or shelter, and where I wonder if my leader is going to come in today and wipe us all out.

    -----------------------
    For all you bleeding hearts out there who think we should just let Saddam be, kindly recall what happened in the 1930s when Winston Churchill wanted to do something about a man called Adolph Hitler. Churchill was roundly condemned because everyone knew that Hitler wasn't doing anything wrong, in fact, he was providing all kinds of jobs for his people and even the Jews! Chamberlain, wanting peace at any cost, confidently waved a useless peace agreement that Hitler had signed, absolutely assuring the world that he wasn't doing anything bad, he wasn't going to invade anyone and everything was just peachy keen.

    We all have 20-20 vision in hindsight. Had Hitler been properly inspected in the early to mid 1930s and been removed from power and/or killed (he would NOT have gone quietly), then guess what? 55 million people would never have died.

    What's it going to take for people to quit blinding themselves about our present situation? Can you say: deja vu?

    Maybe some anthrax released over Germany or France might make Europeans think twice about condemning the States eh?

  • expatbrit
    expatbrit

    Hillary:

    Many of those that you criticize Len are not necessarily against a war with Iraq, they are against an war with no mandate.

    You are subscribing to two myths by holding this viewpoint. Perhaps I could quote an Economist leader at you:

    Two myths have taken hold in the course of this debate. One is that by not ceding sovereignty to the Security Council America, Britain and other allies would thereby be destroying the multilateral system of an international rule of law that was set up in 1945. Another is that somehow the Security Council confers legitimacy on international decisions in the same way as a national parliament does for domestic ones.

    Yet no such system has ever operated, thanks largely to the reflexive vetoing used by the Soviet Union during the cold war. The Security Council has authorised the use of force on just three occasions: Korea (1950), Iraq (1991) and Afghanistan (2001). All other wars and interventions have occurred, rightly or wrongly, outside the UN 's purview. America is now accused of unilateralism by virtue of its threat to bypass the UN if necessary. Yet it is being supported by, among others, Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, Japan, Kuwait and ten countries from central and eastern Europe. The Security Council, by contrast, may have the backing of the 1945 UN Charter, but it consists merely of 15 countries, among whom three—Britain, France and Russia—hold permanent, veto-wielding seats yet plainly are a lot less important in 2003 than they were in 1945. By no stretch of the imagination can it really be seen as a proxy world parliament.

    You'll note from the article above that the military intervention by NATO in the former Yugoslavia was not mandated by the United Nations. Does this mean NATO should not have intervened?

    You also mentioned evidence, as follows:

    The US has produced evidence so far that Iraq once had weapons of mass destruction, some of us wish to see evidence that they still have these weapons, which is the foundation of the US/UK war against Iraq. Do I believe US propaganda? Absolutely not. Do I believe Iraq propaganda? Absolutely not. Would I accept evidence unsullied by tampering and presented by thrid parties, like the UN inspectors. Absolutely.

    To which I would respond that the United States is under no obligation whatsoever to produce any evidence. UN resolution 1441 puts the onus squarely upon the Iraqi regime to comply (as a snidepoint, I wonder how many of the debatees here have actually read the UN resolution?):

    3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclearprogrammes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

    If Iraq does not do this then:

    4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 and 12 below;

    Each of Mr Blix' reports have shown false statements and ommisions. Iraq did not, and has not, complied with the resolution, and it is therefore in further material breach. End of story. That the US has delayed further and tried to satisfy its critics with further inspections and further evidence is to the administration's credit and demonstrates their moderation, but it was absolutely unnecessary and has given Saddam Hussein wriggle room he should not have had. With this wriggle room he has managed to split the security council and the EU. This war should have been over a month ago.

    As for the French, their behaviour has nothing to do with the morality of a war on Iraq, and everything to do with their desire to advance French interests preferably at the expense of Anglo interests, as Mr. Chirac's recent outbursts at the governments in Eastern Europe demonstrate.

    Expatbrit

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Hello Expat,

    What the report from the Economist magazine has described as myth is actually a distortion of the reality and as reporter in the Telegraph said a few weeks ago at least with regard to former Yugoslavia, are not quite what they seem. It would be quite stupid to present a precedent out of context with the Iraq issue as if all military and UN objectives dovetailed perfectly, each situation is unique. In fact it is remarkable that Yugoslavia is the only situation where the UN acted without mandate since its inception. Only accountants expect all the figures to add up...lol

    The UN has acted without mandate before in former Yugoslavia and member nations accepted such without protest. It is obvious that the circumstances surrounding Iraq are quite different and that member Nations are not prepared to allow such a war to take place in Iraq without a mandate from member nations. This is the reality and quite unlike the Yugoslavia situation where the issue was not ‘weapons of mass destruction’ which has international significance but ‘ethnic cleansing’ which has a local, albeit tragic effect. You must also remember that the intervention in former Yugoslavia came hot on the tail of the massacre in Rwanda where the UN were guilty of gross negligence in watching hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered, including many of its own troops, while awaiting a mandate from the UN to intervene. Yugoslavia was a unique situation, especially given the strength of NATO opinion in the region and I would be interested to see any evidence of the UN taking action without mandate before or since.

    As to the second point made:

    To which I would respond that the United States is under no obligation whatsoever to produce any evidence. UN resolution 1441 puts the onus squarely upon the Iraqi regime to comply (as a snidepoint, I wonder how many of the debatees here have actually read the UN resolution?):

    I cannot speak for others, but I assure you that I have read the UN resolutions Expat. The point that you have missed is that the Iraq regime say that they have complied with all the UN resolutions! As of today the inspectors have yet to find the evidence that the US/UK says is available for the world to see that Iraq has not complied. It must be recalled that the UN inspectors were in Iraq, half-way through doing work asked of them by agreement with all member nations of the UN, when the US declared to the world it was heading for war anyway and would present to the world irrefutable evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and had not complied with the demanded UN resolutions by the established dates. What happened was an uncomfortable Colin Powell, obviously aware of the fraudulent nature of the information that he was presenting to the world, undermined the confidence of many UN nations who had been wavering in their allegiance.

    I am saying that these that these weapons do not exist? Of course not, very likely they do. My stance, which is not uncommon, has always been that once the required evidence, agreed on by member nations of the UN is available, then the required action should be taken. In this I have much more in common with the leaders of many of these nations than with a journalist in the Economist magazine.

    Let me ask you something Expat. It is quite clear that the UN mandate that precipitated the Gulf War was not seriously challenged. Iraq had foolishly invaded Kuwait and the world could see what was happening. Why is it then that in this situation, with the same regime in place, the US/UK have lost the confidence of many of the UN member nations in this latest military venture? Have they suddenly become self-serving cowards or are they proceeding with prudent caution?

    Best regards - HS

  • freedom96
    freedom96

    I do support the war, and I support the troops. I sincerely wish the best for them all. I hope it ends quickly, with little loss of life.

    My hat is off to those that have the courage and duty to go and fight.

    Thank you.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit