Did Saddam have WMDs after all? : ISIS Overruns Iraq Chemical Weapons 'Mega-Facility'

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
well if we know for sure just fire a couple of bunker busters in there....job done.

Who was looking for them 10 years ago..Mr Magoo or Bubbles from Trailer park boys.?

If we use a bunker buster, Obama's friends will not be able to use the WMDs against the Shia.

Oh, I think it was Mr. Magoo, Bubbles was just there looking for a cat.

a reply to: butcherguy

This is utter poppycock!

There is no way, no way in the world that...

A) Coalition forces would have left anything large enough to be called a "mega facility" un-investigated. The war in Iraq was deeply unpopular, and for very good reasons as well. They desperately needed to validate their presence there, so if there was a facility or compound that looked good, they would have searched it, and found these things themselves.

B) They could have missed the existence of this facility. Satellite mapping of Iraq was, and has been extensive for a significant period, and every inch of that nation is known in shape and topography, including all buildings large enough to take a crap in.

C) That if a facility had been discovered that it would not have been reported. For the same reasons of validity as I have already mentioned, any facility which was of a size and type which would have made it possible to create chemical weapons, would have been picked over, decontaminated, and bought crashing down with explosives on television, to ram home the legitimacy of the invasion. Parts of chemical processors would have been paraded before the press, and they would have been invited to watch the demolition process also.

In short, I believe that there is no way that the facility which has allegedly been over run by ISIS forces, existed, or at least, existed in its current format, when coalition forces were in country, and what is more, if ISIS have laid their hands on chemical weapons it is because a twisted web is being woven from outside ISIS, meant to deceive us all into questioning the absolute invalidity of the reasoning that lead to the war in Iraq. Whoever is scribing this twisted tale, ought to off themselves before they make an even bigger mess of things than they already have.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!

Or as Dubya put it:



Sequels do get repetitive. And this could be Iraq War III. Third films in a trilogy can be REALLY repetitive. But even give that ... this is absurd.

Here's an appropriate response for anyone who's actually taking this story seriously:

If history serves me right, there should have been wmd there. Cause the usa sold / give it to Saddam when he was fighting the Ussr. So technically i guess bushammy was told by dad bush the stuff is there i know. My question is if some of those got a rather impressive shelf life. Where is it currently?

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse
a reply to: Greywolf13A

Careful mate-you don't want to give ideas to crazy people who may read this thread...

Any nut job can just google that bit of info.

Ironically I learnt how to make bombs and chem weapons in UK A level chemistry go figure eh.....

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: watchitburn
Of course there were chemical weapons there. I've been telling people that since we started finding IEDs using Mustard rounds. There weren't many, but they were most definitely there.

But this is an awkward turn of events, maybe we'll get some kind of half assed explanation this time.

Of course they were there. Saddaam even used them against the Kurds.

Yes but that was in the late 80's early 90's. By the time we rolled in again in 2003 I thought all the chem weapons had degraded to the point of being of little use as Saddem stopped making them after the first war.

That was my take on it anyway.

This cannot be correct because my sons college professor said "Bush lied and people died".
So no WMD's were there. nananana

a reply to: [post=18055527]butcherguy[/post My understanding is the U.S. gave both the Anthrax seeds and chemical weapons to Saddam to balance off the advantage Iran had against them in the Iran-Iraq war.

That Saddam did use chemical weapons on the Kurds killing over 100K if memory serves.

From that point forward there's enough B.S. being spread to fertilize a farm.

One could see Obama using those same CWs to "act" in Iraq just before the mid-terms....

originally posted by: butcherguy


So we found WMD's... even though the story is that we never did?
And we left them there.... and didn't destroy them?

I`ve always said they have WMDs. The Kurds got killed by WMDs. Rumsfeld sold Saddam WMDs in 1982. It was only the conspiracy-whackis and Bush-haters who kept repeating the lie that Saddam had no WMDs.

originally posted by: howmuch4another
This cannot be correct because my sons college professor said "Bush lied and people died".
So no WMD's were there. nananana

Or more likely Bush lied and people died and Obama now lying and more people will die.

originally posted by: Skyfloating

originally posted by: butcherguy


So we found WMD's... even though the story is that we never did?
And we left them there.... and didn't destroy them?

I`ve always said they have WMDs. The Kurds got killed by WMDs. Rumsfeld sold Saddam WMDs in 1982. It was only the conspiracy-whackis and Bush-haters who kept repeating the lie that Saddam had no WMDs.

Yes he HAD chemical weapons in 1982-1991.

But Chemical weapons have a shelf life. Especially Sarin.

Fact is if there was active chemical weapons why the hell didn't Bush and Blair say eh? If Bush was right the why are we finding out now? Were the logic in that? If he was right he would be shooting from the roof tops.


Sheesh people are so pliable. Looks like they will fall for the exact same lies TWICE!

originally posted by: crazyewok


But Chemical weapons have a shelf life. Especially Sarin.

I hope you are right and I hope ISIS doesn't test that. I am sure you and I wouldn't want to be in that experiment.

Oh yes. There must have been WMD's in Iraq because the failing dictator, with his country in ruins and nothing to lose - facing certain death (and who was subsequently killed), launched a devastating attack on the coalition forces who....

Oh wait. That never happened.

Of course... there were WMD's in Iraq because the investigation by the Coalition forces found them in....

No... that never happened either.

But now.. there are weapons?

I smell something akin to hydrogen sulphide...

originally posted by: howmuch4another

originally posted by: crazyewok


But Chemical weapons have a shelf life. Especially Sarin.

I hope you are right and I hope ISIS doesn't test that. I am sure you and I wouldn't want to be in that experiment.

If they were active Chemical weapons then why didn't the Coalition forces remove them?

Plus just google sarin its common knowledge its a nightmare to keep and store.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Great reply!
The antidiluvian has some great points as well.

How could they NOT know these existed?

Just like how could they ignore a giant multimillion dollar concrete bunker in Pakistan for so many years without being suspicious of who or what may be inside?

This # is so scripted...they're not even trying anymore.
Stop the planet, I want to get off (no jokes please, I know I left myself open with that one).

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: howmuch4another

originally posted by: crazyewok


But Chemical weapons have a shelf life. Especially Sarin.

I hope you are right and I hope ISIS doesn't test that. I am sure you and I wouldn't want to be in that experiment.

If they were active Chemical weapons then why didn't the Coalition forces remove them?

Plus just google sarin its common knowledge its a nightmare to keep and store.

Yeah, they could have just shipped them stateside and dumped them by Virginia or threw them in with our stockpile that just sits in rusting containers...

a reply to: crazyewok

i agree that Sarin has a shelf life. I was just pointing out that regardless of the shelf life neither you nor I would want to test out an expiration date

I have no idea why we would not remove them. I have no idea why we wouldn't be screaming from the rooftops we found them (if we did).

Finally, I have no idea what the real end game is in the ME as both the strategic and tactical decisions by leadership boggle the mind.

a reply to: howmuch4another

Well even when they expire you dont want to be in the same room as them! ok they wont be WMD but certainly a hazard to individuals. In some ways they become a bigger dangers to the user.

originally posted by: Skyfloating

originally posted by: butcherguy


So we found WMD's... even though the story is that we never did?
And we left them there.... and didn't destroy them?

I`ve always said they have WMDs. The Kurds got killed by WMDs. Rumsfeld sold Saddam WMDs in 1982. It was only the conspiracy-whackis and Bush-haters who kept repeating the lie that Saddam had no WMDs.

But if Rumsfeld sold them said weapons...that would place the whole of the Reagan government in breach of the ban on production and sale of chemical and biological weapons...oh yeah, "they didn't recall"...anything. And everyone else was pardoned. Same old same old. As I always say, Washington is Hollywood East. The actors may change, but it's all a show. The directors tend to stay out of the picture.

a reply to: the owlbear

Stopping the planet is no laughing matter! At the speed it moves through space, if it came to an immediate halt, half the planets population would be catapulted into space, and the other half would be turned to a wet mess against the surface of the planet. It would be catastrophic!

However, it is hard to say whether that would be any more catastrophic than allowing the governments of nations to continue to fund terror networks, sell guns to criminals, tap the entire god damned internet, and involve themselves in illegal wars, which they then attempt to justify later by the back door, as I believe we are seeing now.

I am disgusted.