Iraq crisis: Isis jihadists 'seize Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons stockpile' - live

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: luciddream
Funnything is, Republicans played the "boy who cried wolf" way too many times, that even if they had chemical weapons, people still would not care.

Thanks Republicans war mongers!

You have got to be kidding me. Still blaming Republicans for wars that the Dems have their hands in as well.

That party line you are towing, is pretty frayed and old.

It really is amazing.

Dumbfounding even,

That the right wingers in this country is HATEd more than those right winger over in the ME who go around beheading people and using wmds.

So, they finally found the WMD. According to the CIA… or the Media, or the leaked story to the media from the CIA to be used as "evidence" from now on.

Anyone who believes that WMD is different than any chemically propelled bomb or bullet are almost as deluded as those that believe in "New Iraqi WMD".

a reply to: LeatherNLace

Keep in mind that the US government continually redefines what constitutes a weapon of mass destruction. Initially, it was nuclear bombs...now days, pressure cookers can be considered WMDs.

In regards to the op.

Believe it or not.

But keep in mind that is the same people who DID 'declare' pressure cookers WMD.

All anyone has to do is go ask Tsarnev, and ask him what he has been charged with.

I think the only question now is WHEN will the chemical weapon laden MH370 be "crashed" into Israel ???

I mean just 2 weeks ago we had planes disappearing off radar all over Europe, what better cover for why such an attack could go undetected?? The pieces are starting to come together here.

originally posted by: buster2010
The OP seemed to have forgot this little part from the article.

Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed.

So nobody really knows what was in those bunkers for all we know they could have been the CW's that Rumsfeld sold to Hussein. Now the question is why did Bush and his cronies not destroy these chemical plants before he signed the paperwork that made us cut and run from Iraq?

Oh Wait...This is a page from the Gulf of Tonkin Script...ABSOLUTELY nothing the USA employs as tactics for stirring the war machine have changed since the sinking of the RMS Lusitania.

However, accusations leveled against North Vietnam stating that it attacked U.S. Navy ships in international waters two days later were strongly denied by North Vietnam, which claimed that the United States was using that claim as a pretext to go to war. What really happened on August 4, 1964? Did President Johnson report the truth to Congress? The answer: No, it was a lie. There was no August 4 attack, and in fact, Defense Department planning for war had begun weeks, even months, earlier.

Lies throughout history

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Because they are lying through their teeth to fabricate a reason to get the war machine rolling again.

Was it Westley Clark that said "when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail" ? Somebody said that.

Something has the US government (more likely the banking cartels that employ the USG) spooked to the point of desperation.

Um, yeah. You may want to tell that to the people dying in ISIS assaults every day in Iraq. Jesus, not everything is a conspiracy. ISIS is real and they are killing the hell out of people right now. This is not a lie, it is not make-believe, and it is not going to stop unless someone does something. FOr once in your life stop immediately disbelieving everything and go with the facts.

a reply to: neo96

The strange thing about this situation arose from TheLaughingGod's video link in the ATS thread regarding Zbigniew Brzezinski - ATS post.

Here's the video just in case, and pay close attention (or skip) to the 10:15min mark and listen to Brzezinski discuss the most plausible situation(s) that could lead to a war with Iran.

Video (again, thank you TheLaughingGod):


For those that can't watch, the take away that Brzezinski lists for as he says "plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran" are...
1. "Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks"
2. "Followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure"
3. "Then by some provocation in Iraq"
4. "OR, a terrorist act in the United States blamed on Iran" (notice he said "blamed" not actually committed by Iran)
5. "culminating in a defensive US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan."

So, ISIS has handily pushed the provocation scenario in Iraq. Iraq has failed to defend itself against ISIS and failed to maintain control of it's chemical weapon/WMDs cache (major benchmarks).

Now all we need to do is figure out how the USA is going to work Iran and Syria into this puzzle. I of course added Syria because it's obvious that Syria is on the war table just as much as Iran is.

originally posted by: WCmutant
a reply to: neo96

The strange thing about this situation arose from TheLaughingGod's video link in the ATS thread regarding Zbigniew Brzezinski - ATS post.

Here's the video just in case, and pay close attention (or skip) to the 10:15min mark and listen to Brzezinski discuss the most plausible situation(s) that could lead to a war with Iran.

Video (again, thank you TheLaughingGod):

For those that can't watch, the take away that Brzezinski lists for as he says "plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran" are...
1. "Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks"
2. "Followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure"
3. "Then by some provocation in Iraq"
4. "OR, a terrorist act in the United States blamed on Iran" (notice he said "blamed" not actually committed by Iran)
5. "culminating in a defensive US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan."

So, ISIS has handily pushed the provocation scenario in Iraq. Iraq has failed to defend itself against ISIS and failed to maintain control of it's chemical weapon/WMDs cache (major benchmarks).

Now all we need to do is figure out how the USA is going to work Iran and Syria into this puzzle. I of course added Syria because it's obvious that Syria is on the war table just as much as Iran is.

Yeah, none of those things, with the exception of Iraq failing to be able to actually run a Country, are happening. In fact, we may actually be moving towards working WITH Iran by these events. Fail.

a reply to: jaffo

Yeah, none of those things, with the exception of Iraq failing to be able to actually run a Country, are happening. In fact, we may actually be moving towards working WITH Iran by these events. Fail.

Which we have done in the past that lead us to the cluster eff in Iraq.

The Soviet war in Afghanistan lasted nine years from December 1979 to February 1989. Part of the Cold War, it was fought between Soviet-led Afghan forces against multi-national insurgent groups called the Mujahideen, mostly composed of two alliances – the Peshawar Seven and the Tehran Eight.

en.wikipedia.org...

That is the genesis of most of our modern problems.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: jaffo

Yeah, none of those things, with the exception of Iraq failing to be able to actually run a Country, are happening. In fact, we may actually be moving towards working WITH Iran by these events. Fail.

Which we have done in the past that lead us to the cluster eff in Iraq.

The Soviet war in Afghanistan lasted nine years from December 1979 to February 1989. Part of the Cold War, it was fought between Soviet-led Afghan forces against multi-national insurgent groups called the Mujahideen, mostly composed of two alliances – the Peshawar Seven and the Tehran Eight.

en.wikipedia.org...

That is the genesis of most of our modern problems.

Right. And clearly it is "America's fault" because we, rather than risking a nuclear war which would have destroyed the entire World, funded an opposition group to keep the Soviet Union from taking the center of Asia and continuing to move south. I love the selective start-stop points people here choose for their history. Always, of course, using the point that makes it "America's fault." Because the Soviet Union was fake or was a U.S. conspiracy or something, right? They weren't pretty bad themselves, right? It's not like they tortured, imprisoned, and murdered hundreds of thousands and maybe even millions of their own people in the Gulags of Siberia simply for having opinions or speaking out against the government, right? And they never, ever invaded another Country, right? And they certainly were very, very forthcoming with the people in danger when Chernobyl happened, right? Seriously, the problems of the World DO NOT all lie at the feet of America. There are PLENTY of bad men and women on the planet and not nearly all of them hail from America. Open a history book NOT written by a revisionist with something to sell you once in a while. Start laying blame for things with the people who commit the actual acts instead of always looking to blame some shadowy make-believe person behind the scenes controlling it all. And as to Iraq, I guess everyone should have left Hussein alone, right? After all, if we did here what he was doing to his people there, surely you would have no problem with it, yes? Oh, of course you would. Because he murdered, tortured, and literally raped his own people at will. Because he was evil.

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Because they are lying through their teeth to fabricate a reason to get the war machine rolling again.

Was it Westley Clark that said "when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail" ? Somebody said that.

Something has the US government (more likely the banking cartels that employ the USG) spooked to the point of desperation.

FOr once in your life stop immediately disbelieving everything and go with the facts.

No.

Second

a reply to: jaffo

Right. And clearly it is "America's fault" b

Don't recall saying it was 'our fault'.

What it was is shortsightedness.

And that asinine doctrine of the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' crap.

The leaders of that time could not see the potential dangers in that action?

Well yeah that is our fault.

So now I am saying it.

Or they knew, and didn't care kick the can down the road to make it someone else's problem.

Kinda funny how the US troops were there for a decade and found no chemical weapons, and it took these guys no time at all to find them. Makes me think dere be something fishy goin on in those parts still. Anyone who doesn't think the CIA has something to do with this is a kook imo.

It making me laugh my arse off how gullible people are to believe this BS round a second time!

There are so many holes in the logic that Iraq still have WMD's it looks like swiss cheese.


What the hell was the coalition doing the past decade? Sitting around scratching there arses!

If Iraq still has WMD then doesn't speak well to the competence of US and UK troops!

a reply to: neo96

Thanks Neo96... I was going to point out as such.

Never mind we worked with and aided Saddam Hussein for approximately 20 years before choosing to take him out. The whole video that James Corbett did on Brzezinski is worth watching. None of those things are happening?

I'd say of all the things they failed to do defending the chemical weapons cache is a biggie. Of course, having ISIS take the chemical weapons was a part of the plan. Working with Iran, if it happens, is going to be a way to get the USA's foot in the door. You can't blame Iran for anything until you can get them involved. Best way to do that is to ask for help!


The next step is going to have ISIS roaming between Syria and Iran using chemical weapons ---> forcing military action from one or both Syria and Iran. Once that happens, the USA can step in and be the knight in shining armor! Never mind they masterminded, supported, and funded the whole charade to begin with.

Jaffo - you fail to understand the cancerous nature of the USA. The playbook has had to change a bit because Syria didn't fall like it was suppose to and Iran has maintained it's very isolationist stance toward most ME problems other than spewing anti-Israel/US rhetoric.

As James Corbett recently said... "Iraq's break up is the real MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." Basically, the USA needs ISIS to fuel terrorist fears in Americans. ISIS is the new al-CIA-da, the new boogie man. But don't take my word for it...

Thanks to fear monger Lindsey Graham, now that ISIS has chemical weapons :
L. Graham - Washington Times

And it is the Washington Times, known for some crazy things. So, here's a link to the video because it's actually Graham on Face the Nation:
Face the Nation video

Graham says "the next 9/11 is coming form here [Iraq and Syria]." He further says the "oh, I think it's inevitable. The seeds of 9/11 are being planted all over Iraq and Syria."

But let's skip over the fact that we supported and trained ISIS in Jordan prior to the major incursion in Syria last year.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: jaffo

Right. And clearly it is "America's fault" b

Don't recall saying it was 'our fault'.

What it was is shortsightedness.

And that asinine doctrine of the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' crap.

The leaders of that time could not see the potential dangers in that action?

Well yeah that is our fault.

So now I am saying it.

Or they knew, and didn't care kick the can down the road to make it someone else's problem.

So I guess we should have directly confronted the Soviets? Risked an all-out nuclear war essentially because the rest of the World stood by and did nothing while the Soviets tried to take Afghanistan by force? Funny how all the America bashers on here never say anything when another Nation violates the National sovereignty of someone else's borders, but they never shut up about it if the U.S. gets its hands dirty. It's like there's a contest around here to see who can hate America the most and in order to play it you have to pretend that the Soviet Union didn't exist, that Saddam Hussein was a great guy, that European colonialism in Africa and the New World didn't directly lead to almost all of the inequities those continents still experience to this day, that there are PLENTY of despots in the World who have absolutely ZERO connection to the U.S. You know...because it's all America's fault. Seriously, the World was utterly perfect and everyone sat around singing campfire songs and hugging until after the U.S. appears. So again, as someone who lived through those times, I will ask you: What do you say would have been the right thing for us to do when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and no one was doing anything to stop them and a direct confrontation with them would have led to a nuclear Armageddon?

a reply to: WCmutant

I will take this 'cancerous' nation over ISIS any day.

We have our issues.

Others have them WORSE.

a reply to: jaffo

So I went from a Bush supporter to an

America 'basher'

All in the same thread.

Oh noes!.

Because I can acknowledge America has made some monumental mistakes.

Iraq is one of them.

Afghanistan in the 80s is another one.

originally posted by: WCmutant
a reply to: neo96

Thanks Neo96... I was going to point out as such.

Never mind we worked with and aided Saddam Hussein for approximately 20 years before choosing to take him out. The whole video that James Corbett did on Brzezinski is worth watching. None of those things are happening?

I'd say of all the things they failed to do defending the chemical weapons cache is a biggie. Of course, having ISIS take the chemical weapons was a part of the plan. Working with Iran, if it happens, is going to be a way to get the USA's foot in the door. You can't blame Iran for anything until you can get them involved. Best way to do that is to ask for help!

The next step is going to have ISIS roaming between Syria and Iran using chemical weapons ---> forcing military action from one or both Syria and Iran. Once that happens, the USA can step in and be the knight in shining armor! Never mind they masterminded, supported, and funded the whole charade to begin with.

Jaffo - you fail to understand the cancerous nature of the USA. The playbook has had to change a bit because Syria didn't fall like it was suppose to and Iran has maintained it's very isolationist stance toward most ME problems other than spewing anti-Israel/US rhetoric.

As James Corbett recently said... "Iraq's break up is the real MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." Basically, the USA needs ISIS to fuel terrorist fears in Americans. ISIS is the new al-CIA-da, the new boogie man. But don't take my word for it...

Thanks to fear monger Lindsey Graham, now that ISIS has chemical weapons :
L. Graham - Washington Times

And it is the Washington Times, known for some crazy things. So, here's a link to the video because it's actually Graham on Face the Nation:
Face the Nation video

Graham says "the next 9/11 is coming form here [Iraq and Syria]." He further says the "oh, I think it's inevitable. The seeds of 9/11 are being planted all over Iraq and Syria."

But let's skip over the fact that we supported and trained ISIS in Jordan prior to the major incursion in Syria last year.

No, we most certainly did not, except in the mind of the deluded, train and/or finance ISIS. We absolutely helped people who were trying to take down Assad. And why wouldn't we? My God, you cry the blues if the Fed knows what you do with your cell phone but you have no problem with a murderous scumbag like Assad raping an entire Country? That's insanely hypocritical. We trained some rebels and some of them have now joined ISIS. THAT is what happened. We NEVER directly funded or trained or armed ISIS itself and suggesting that we did is utterly ridiculous. You guys love to complain about abuse of freedom here, but you seem to think everyone else should live in tyranny if getting out of it involves help from the U.S. SMH...

And now Putin has thrown his hat into the ring...

Russia Reignites The Proxy War: Putin Offers "Complete Support" To Iraq Prime Minister Scorned By Obama

Russian President Vladimir Putin has spoken by phone to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, expressing Moscow’s support for his action against the militant offensive.

The Kremlin said in a statement that al-Maliki informed Putin on Friday about his government’s steps to combat the “terrorist groups in the north of the country.” It added that the insurgency threatens security of the entire region.

Putin confirmed Russia’s “full support for the Iraqi government’s action to quickly free the territory of the republic from terrorists,” the Kremlin said, adding that Putin and al-Maliki also discussed bilateral cooperation.

Putin’s expression of support for the embattled Iraqi prime minister comes as al-Maliki’s rivals have mounted a campaign to force him out of office, with some angling for support from Western backers and regional heavyweights.

And just like in Syria from 2012 to 2013, the chessboard is once again set, with a regional middle-east conflict, this time in Iraq, merely serving as the proxy staging ground in which the Iraqi PM, once an obedient US puppet but now an enemy of Saudi Arabia and thus the US, "simply has to go" in the words of Dianne Feinstein, has suddenly become the fulcrum issue behind yet another soon to escalate conflict between Russia and the US.

One thing is certain: the more the US (and Saudi Arabia, and Qatar) pushes for Maliki's ouster, the more involved Russia will become with its offers of support and bilateral cooperation. And if the Syrian fiasco (for John Kerry) is any indication, Russia is about to expand its "national interest" sphere of influence by one more country.

A lot more background info and why Russia is doing this....here....
Russia supports Iraq

Rainbows
Jane