It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 12
74
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
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.


I agree with you completely that Iraq was a mistake. But only because the war itself was undertaken illegally in violation of the UN Charter. As to Afghanistan, you still have not answered my question: WHAT SHOULD WE HAVE DONE INSTEAD?




posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
I don't see why it is so hard to believe Saddam had WMDs.

I don't get it.


Well its pretty simple.

If Saddam had WMD in 2003 then where were they when we went in?

Sure they had the pre 1991. But now?

Unless we sent a army of the blind in then it pretty easy to believe.
If WMD were in Iraq bush and his poodle blair would be shouting "I told you so!".



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: WCmutant

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

We have our issues.

Others have them WORSE.


That's a bad way to look at it given we essentially created, trained, and funded ISIS. Without this cancerous nation ISIS may not even be in the position they are in, nor exist.

Yes, we sit safely (more or less) in our homes and places of employment, it's a matter of time before "another 9/11" happens, according to Graham. Last year Graham was adamant that something had to be done about Syria otherwise Iran might set off a nuclear device in Charleston Harbor.

When the next "terrorist attack" happens are we going to fall for the BS all over again?

ISIS is a known entity, they are proud flag waving terrorists bent on destruction. You know what they are about, they tell you. The USA, is deeply devious and will kill it's own citizens or allow them to be killed to get what it wants. To me, that kind of behavior is worse. Because when it happens you won't expect it.

We only have a perception of safety and as we both know control by a government over its people can only be exercised when it continues to instill fear through words and actions.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

you shouldn't have done # since it wasn't your business in the first place.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: DeadSeraph





You bush supporters are hilarious. You STILL can't accept the fact the man you voted for lied the nation into a war.


I guess this has to be posted for those who don't bother reading the thread.



Bush 'lies' eh.


They ALL lie.

Bush Lies Obama Lies, Kerry Lies, Chenny Lies, Biden Lies, McCain lies, Palin lies, Hillary lies.

Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie
edit on 20-6-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo




WHAT SHOULD WE HAVE DONE INSTEAD?


Not arm and fund the mujahideen.

That was an epic boneheaded move.

How anyone could not see that religious zealotry wouldn't come back to haunt is dumbfounding.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: theantediluvian




Dirty bombs? Are you insinuating that chemical weapon components are radioactive material? That doesn't even make sense.


Seriously shameful that comment EVEN has to be explained.

Chemical agents dispersed by explosive materials.

The chemical equivalent to a dirty bomb.


Nothing of the sort!

Your just fear mongering

Sure you can use Chem weapon precursors in a IED. Hardly a WMD. Will do no more damage than shrapnel. Hell you could just buy Hydrofluoric acid and put it in a IED.


edit on 20-6-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: WCmutant




That's a bad way to look at it given we essentially created, trained, and funded ISIS.


We didn't create that.

Mohammed did some few thousands of years ago.

What we did was pour fuel on that fire that has been burning for the last 2000 years.

And the people who created ISIS are the Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia.

Who is the largest funder of Sunni extremists.



Finances In mid-2014, Iraqi intelligence extracted information from an ISIS operative which revealed that the organization had assets worth US$2 billion,[74] making it the richest jihadist group in the world.[75] About three quarters of this sum is represented by assets seized after the group captured Mosul in June 2014, including perhaps US$429 million looted from Mosul's central bank as well as a large quantity of gold bullion.[76] That will "buy a whole lot of Jihad", regional analyst Brown Moses wrote on Twitter, adding, "For example, with $425 million, ISIS could [recruit and] pay 60,000 fighters around $600 a month for a year."[76] ISIS has routinely practised extortion, by demanding money from truck drivers and threatening to blow up businesses, for example. Robbing banks and gold shops has been another source of income.[77] The group is widely reported as receiving funding from private donors in Gulf states,[78] Nouri al-Maliki has repeatedly accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar of funding ISIS,[79][80][81] although there is reportedly no evidence that this is the case.[82][83][84] The group is also believed to be receiving considerable funds from its operations in Eastern Syria, where it has commandeered oil fields and engages in smuggling out raw materials and archaeological artifacts.[85][86] ISIS also generates revenue from producing crude oil and selling electric power in northern Syria. The crude oil is reportedly sold back to the Syrian government.[87] Since 2012, ISIS has produced annual reports giving numerical information on its operations, somewhat in the style of corporate reports, seemingly in a bid to encourage potential donors.[72]


en.wikipedia.org...

The devil is in the details.

Literally.
edit on 20-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok




Your just fear mongering


Syria tells a different story. Where WMDS were USED.

The seizureof Saddam's chemical complex in recent events tells the reality.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: theantediluvian




Dirty bombs? Are you insinuating that chemical weapon components are radioactive material? That doesn't even make sense.


Seriously shameful that comment EVEN has to be explained.

Chemical agents dispersed by explosive materials.

The chemical equivalent to a dirty bomb.


You're literally just going through the Bush administration playbook. Next you'll be warning that the smoking gun could be a "mushroom cloud." I'm not a munitions expert but chemical agents are a lot more readily available than radioactive material and have been for the better part of a century and though terrorists have used chemical agents in attacks, I have yet to hear of any using thermal dispersion. It stands to reason that it's an inherently flawed method of delivery since a large portion of the agent is likely to be incinerated.

If you'd like to provide some evidence that this is a realistic threat, I'd love to see it.


I DO have a chemistry background.

And you are right. A few Chem weapons precursor in a IED will not do even a 1% of the damage a radioactive dirty bomb will do and you may as well just buy fresh readily available chems if your going do it that way.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96


Syria tells a different story. Where WMDS were USED.

Those were REAL chemical weapons not you fantasy chemical "dirty" bombs made of waste material.


originally posted by: neo96
The seizureof Saddam's chemical complex in recent events tells the reality.

And I call BS

If there were active Chemical weapons there THEN WHY THE FREAKING HELL DID OUR COLLATION FORCES NOT SPOT THEM THERE!

Logic fail on your part here. WHY answer me WHY would US force miss searching A FREAKING CHEMICAL WEAPON FACTORY.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok




I DO have a chemistry background. And you are right. A few Chem weapons precursor in a IED will not do even a 1% of the damage a radioactive dirty bomb will do and you may as well just buy fresh readily available chems if your going do it that way.


I have a phd in American politics.

Where pressure cookers, and pipe bombs have been 'declared' weapons of mass destruction.

Where people in this country get visits from SWAT for having a box of nails, and a bottle of gun powder just laying around.

'bomb making materials' the people claim who said that those chemicals, and materials are 'no worries'.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: luciddream

originally posted by: crazyewok
Well looks like our Politicians are trying to BS us again.



I don't think "OMG WMD IN IRAQ" will work again.....


Who knows, Republcians might fall for it again and wipeout 100,000+ civilians and soldiers and put countries in chaos and inflation.

Looks like your right.....

At least the Republicans on here are lapping it up.

O and I hate both Republicans and democrats before Im jumped on for being Obama lover.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: yeahsurexxx
a reply to: jaffo

you shouldn't have done # since it wasn't your business in the first place.


Thank you, Neville Chamberlain



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: jaffo




WHAT SHOULD WE HAVE DONE INSTEAD?


Not arm and fund the mujahideen.

That was an epic boneheaded move.

How anyone could not see that religious zealotry wouldn't come back to haunt is dumbfounding.


"Criticism" is not a synonym for "solution." So I am going to assume you have only criticism, since you fail to offer any solution. Good day.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
I don't see why it is so hard to believe Saddam had WMDs.

I don't get it.


Well its pretty simple.

If Saddam had WMD in 2003 then where were they when we went in?

Sure they had the pre 1991. But now?

Unless we sent a army of the blind in then it pretty easy to believe.
If WMD were in Iraq bush and his poodle blair would be shouting "I told you so!".


I don't mean to derail the ISIS thread too much, but through my own research (mainly others):
1. Iraq had WMDs because we and the Germans gave them to him (ingredient/precursors of mustard, sarin, tabun, and tear gases)
2. Iraq used it's WMDs (chemicals mainly) and we allowed it because we wanted to see the outcome (think off-sight testing, much like secret, or black site, detention centers in other countries)
3. He used them in the Iran-Iraq war (win for us, sorta), and against the Kurdish population
4. CIA was advising Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war

In fact, the USA and UK blocked the UN condemnation of Iraq chemical weapons use during the Iran-Iraq war. Evidence enough of our involvement?

Now, the question really becomes at what point did he or did he not "have them?"

Here's my theory (esp. for Crazyewok):
-- Could it be that we sent in special groups (CIA, etc.) to move the remaining chemical/WMDs so the "regular" soldiers wouldn't find them?

This might explain why ISIS, trained at a secret base in Jordan, was perhaps later told about chemical weapons cache's in Iraq? Is it possible that the "regular" US/UK troops knew nothing about these caches because CIA and other special units worked diligently to keep them hidden so they would remain available in the region if ever needed?

After the rebels (al-CIA-da + ISIS) used "sarin gas" in Syria, and we found out it was rebels and not Assad, it became plainly obvious that it would be easier to give these groups more powerful weapons by simply telling them where to get them rather than giving them directly to them. (Plausible deniability.)
edit on 20-6-2014 by WCmutant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96



I have a phd in American politics.

Explains the lack of knowledge


originally posted by: neo96

Where pressure cookers, and pipe bombs have been 'declared' weapons of mass destruction.

Where people in this country get visits from SWAT for having a box of nails, and a bottle of gun powder just laying around.

Not my problem you live in a paranoid nanny state.
Just because the USA pisses its pants at a few house hold items doesn't mean the rest of the world should.


originally posted by: neo96
'bomb making materials' the people claim who said that those chemicals, and materials are 'no worries'.



Guess what crap happens. people will always make weapons.
A few house hold items and slapped together in a IED are NOT a WMD. They are just a weapon.

WMD lay cities waste and kill thousands of people with ease.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: WCmutant

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
I don't see why it is so hard to believe Saddam had WMDs.

I don't get it.


Well its pretty simple.

If Saddam had WMD in 2003 then where were they when we went in?

Sure they had the pre 1991. But now?

Unless we sent a army of the blind in then it pretty easy to believe.
If WMD were in Iraq bush and his poodle blair would be shouting "I told you so!".


I don't mean to derail the ISIS thread too much, but through my own research (mainly others):
1. Iraq had WMDs because we and the Germans gave them to him (ingredient/precursors of mustard, sarin, tabun, and tear gases)
2. Iraq used it's WMDs (chemicals mainly) and we allowed it because we wanted to see the outcome (think off-sight testing, much like secret, or black site, detention centers in other countries)
3. He used them in the Iran-Iraq war (win for us, sorta), and against the Kurdish population
4. CIA was advising Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war

In fact, the USA and UK blocked the UN condemnation of Iraq chemical weapons use during the Iran-Iraq war. Evidence enough of our involvement?

Now, the question really becomes at what point did he or did he not "have them?"

Here's my theory:
-- Could it be that we sent in special groups (CIA, etc.) to move the remaining chemical/WMDs so the "regular" soldiers wouldn't find them?

This might explain why ISIS, trained at a secret base in Jordan, was perhaps later told about chemical weapons cache's in Iraq? Is it possible that the "regular" US/UK troops knew nothing about these caches because CIA and other special units worked diligently to keep them hidden so they would remain available in the region if ever needed?

After the rebels (al-CIA-da + ISIS) used "sarin gas" in Syria, and we found out it was rebels and not Assad, it became plainly obvious that it would be easier to give these groups more powerful weapons by simply telling them where to get them rather than giving them directly to them. (Plausible deniability.)


Im not denying they had WMD pre 1991.

Im arguing after the 1st gulf war they didn't make anymore and the remaining WMD just decayed into inactivity. Hence why they didnt find anything in 2003.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok




Not my problem you live in a paranoid nanny state.


A paranoid nanny state who seems to think chemical weapons, and materials in a bunker complex doesn't seem to matter very much.

But if that was here ?

Be a totally different story. Making the nightly news.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: yeahsurexxx
a reply to: jaffo

you shouldn't have done # since it wasn't your business in the first place.


Thank you, Neville Chamberlain


Iraq and Afghanistan are backwards nation in the arse end of nowhere. unlike Germany they had no industry of significance , no Navys, no Aircraft carries, no projection capability to invade us in the west.

We could have just stuck them in quarantine. Shut all travel visa and immigration off to them, blockaded them and left them be to grow up or collapse.




top topics



 
74
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join