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.

 

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

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
The United Nations and the US knew about this facility long ago and knew it was unusable and was unusable even at the start of the war. The utter crap on the internet about this latest crisis is even more annoying than usual.




posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

Now that an interesting argument. Saddam would have used them if he had them. Then what? Sit there and melt when the retaliatory small tactical nuke warms him up to circa. 20 million degrees...or dies in agony from a nerve gas response?

At the least, he'd have been a dead man walking.....



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: neformore

Now that an interesting argument. Saddam would have used them if he had them. Then what? Sit there and melt when the retaliatory small tactical nuke warms him up to circa. 20 million degrees...or dies in agony from a nerve gas response?

At the least, he'd have been a dead man walking.....


1) USA does not use Nerve gas anymore. Its a banned weapon and only a handful of country have not signed up to the treaty. There would have been NO US or NATO Nerve gas response.

2) IF Saddam DID have WMD's then why has not bush and Blair been shouting it from the roof tops saying "WE WERE RIGHT"

3) Why have all reports since the 2003 from the coalition force been that they haven't found anything?



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
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 gthe 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!
edit on 20-6-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

The guy thought nothing of wiping out 5000 people and seriously injuring 10000 more when he gassed the Kurds. He wasn't exactly a poster child for restraint now, was he?

As for the "we'd have nuked him" - so what?

Only a naive fool would have said that from the day that invasion started Hussein was a dead man walking. Even he knew it (which is why he was in hiding). He obviously didn't give a rats ass about his fellow countrymen.

The man had nothing to lose.

Let me put it this way - If you're staring down a hungry lion and you have a catapult and a shotgun available, you aren't going to use the catapult and hope it goes away.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Now that CW's have been 'found', I'm half expecting MH 370 to reappear, fully loaded......

The cover-up stories are getting pretty lame. They need some new script writers.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Guess my trust level is pretty close to zero these days... Am I the only one that finds this to be odd timing?

Official: U.S. CDC says 84 lab workers possibly exposed to live anthrax bacteria



(Reuters) - The U.S. government said on Friday that 84 scientists and staff were possibly exposed to live anthrax bacteria after researchers failed to follow safety procedures.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announcement on Thursday that at least 75 people had been affected prompted an investigation by federal authorities.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Don't confuse WMDs with chemical weapons. Assad had chemical weapons, but that does not mean he posesses WMDs. The WMD card was played in Iraq mainly because somwhere around the 70s, it actually had a nuclear program. The USSR aided them and helped build an experimental nuclear reactor. Half a decade later, Saddam came to Moscow, asking the Russians to help him build an even bigger reactor. Moscow said they have no problem with that, provided IAEA watches over the whole process, because as we know, such reactors can be used to synthesize all materials, necessary for making a nuclear bomb. The size of the reactor is crucial to the speed at which this can be done. Moreover, it provides groungs for acquiring the nuclear material. You don't just go and buy uranium. You buy it for something and for a peaceful purpose, so it's all good on paper. So if you have to face international court for arming a psychopath with nuclear bomb materials, parts and means of creating the bomb, your lawyers can wriggle their way of it and the country will not face any charges.
So Saddaam does not agree to the Russian terms and heads off to France, where he strikes a deal with Jacques Chiraq instead. As per the terms, France is to build the Osirak reactor and sell Iraq 72 kilos of military-grade Uranium. Then he strikes a deal with Italia for gas centrifuges, capable of enriching Uraniun to Plutonium. Now, you CAN make a bomb with >90% enriched uranium. Reason for enrichment is that plutonium gives a "bigger bang", roughly put and because weapon-grade uranium deteriorates bomb components in a way, which makes it "uncontrollable", meaning it will either not explode at all, or it will go off randomly.
Anyway, soon after all the fuss, Israel bombs the # out all these reactors, centrifuge arrays, science labs, material storages.
BUT
Officially it has not stopped research on the subject. Iraq, fearing international isolation, used this card to play with the West, with UN and IAEA running around like a bunch of horny dogs, sniffing out the bitch. While they did so, Iraq was in the game and had a voice in the world. This goes on for a decade, but right before the war Saddam makes an official statement, claiming Iraq does not possess WMDs.
Now chemical weapons was never the issue. Everyone knew Saddam had them, everybody knew he USED them, but the WMD issue was raised specifically over the nuclear program.
For example, Ukraine is a not a WMD country. Officially. But id DOES possess chemical weapons.
Same with Syria.
And the list goes on and on and on.

So ISIS does NOT have WMDs. What it DOES have is chemical weapons. No "holy crap". Same as Al-CIA-da in Syria. And mostly the same scenario too. We've seen it all before. We see the same in Africa, where CIA backed Boca Haram carries out the same scenario. Nothing new. Move along. Move along.

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

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



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

You know, if we compare those 5000 dead and 10000 injured to the millions and millions that have died up to now, with everyday explosions taking away hundreds of lives each week, I'd say Saddam was a nice chap. More people died WITHOUT Saddam in charge than through the many years he WAS in charge.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I dont find this strange at all. In 2012 the US had two training camps in Jordan where fractions from the ISIS were present. The US could have shared intell about Iraqs weapon Storage back then.

It is sead that the US had this training camp in Jordan do to future conflicts With Syria and iraq. This Whole ISIS in Iraq is all preplanned by the US for some reason unknown to the Public at this time.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: thegeck
I don't believe that I am confused. The term 'weapons of mass destruction' was first used in 1937, before nuclear weapons had been invented. The definition, as currently used, includes nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons.
wiki



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Add Napalm. Area effect weapon, geneva convention came down on it in the mid-80's during my time in the national Guard, Air Fusion bomb designed to replace it..



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: thegeck

Depends on the delivery system. A Crop duster spraying the stuff at height over a city is bad enough. a formation of 12 would be worse...all depends on how many carriers used and the persistancy levels. Mixed with a simple blister agent readilly found in nature, [ poison Ivy or poison Oak] you get a REALLY nasty stuff that adheres to the undersides of lawn furnitire etc. and causes issues months later. DU fragmentsin a hand grenade, can contaminate an area for years..and the death would be slow and lingering..



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Bush doesn't shout from the roof-tops...not his style. Nerve gas, chemical, "banned" neutron bomb, whatever...the point being massive retaliation/he's toast.

Who the hells knows why not? I sure don't. Maybe the Iraqis themselves hid them. Maybe returned from Syria. Maybe found during the Obama administration and buried due to losing face to the Republicans.

Maybe none of the above. Maybe everybody is lying .LMAO.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore Hmm, maybe your right. He was offered his own retreat with mega-millions, etc. to give up his little kingdom.

Suicidal? I don't think so. Then why hide? He did use them on the Kurds.Two possibilities. The Kurds couldn't retaliate and the U.S. could. Or he didn't have them.

The if he would have used them why get rid of them??? He could have buried them anywhere and used them later. That's where I think your logic breaks down.. But , what do I know.LOL



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
So apparently the US did not know about this beforehand? I cannot imagine that the previous administration wouldn't have said "I told you so" if they had the opportunity. They would have scoured Iraq to prove that there truly were WMD's there, and how is it that they missed a facility that was KNOWN to be developing chemical weapons in the 90's? Something is not adding up.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Some people will believe anything, apparently, which might be hilarious -- if it weren't so damn sad.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy
This is the beginning of a False Flag that will carry us straight into Syria. I can not believe people are falling for this BS!! Do people really think there have been stock piles of WMD's just sitting in Iraq while so many Politicians let their credibility be dragged through the mud for not finding them? God help us all............



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 09:54 PM
link   
First Question: Wouldn't the Bush Admin and the News rejoiced in the fact that there were WMD 60 Miles from Bahgdad??

Second Question: If the above is true, why does this news come out now knowing the American Public would pick up on the Irony as soon as the news comes out?? (LOL)

Third Question: Another post mentioned that we put these here just to set up this situation. Why wouldn't we do this same thing during Bush's Admin??

This whole scenario seems like a set up. Meaning, Bush was willing to take the hit to set this up for Obama.

Thats my take on this.



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Greywolf13A

True. There are many ways. And I agree that you can do all sorts of stuff with these chems.
But I wanted to question the definition of WMD. It is a specific term used in specific cases. Iraq is not the case.
Iraq does not possess WMDs. Period.




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join