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.

 

Official: Russia Moved Iraqi WMD !

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kosmo Yagkoto
There is truely no way to know the motives since we don't even live in Russia though, eh? I was only speculating.

No but we have our own people like putin and therefore can reasonably remember they may live somewhere else they still behave like humans.
Yeah but people on here are quick to believe speculating.




posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Well that is the only link I had at this point but here is some more for you,

LINK 1


LINK 2


LINK 3


LINK 4



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Uhh wait we're basing this on a deputy undersecretary's word that he got info about spetnaz movement, although all 4 sources say the EXACT same thing as in word for word. Where's the comment from the GRU?
Wheres the actual document?
Theres lots of questions and frankly i smell BS.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Uhh wait we're basing this on a deputy undersecretary's word that he got info about spetnaz movement, although all 4 sources say the EXACT same thing as in word for word. Where's the comment from the GRU?
Wheres the actual document?
Theres lots of questions and frankly i smell BS.


Well you smell bs because you see the world through 'turdblossom' eyes, not meant as an insult but you do. What I can't figure out is why the US Government is silent on it other than they don't want to admit that they got had........



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well you smell bs because you see the world through 'turdblossom' eyes, not meant as an insult but you do.

From your view and thats your opinion, but opinions arent always right now are they?



What I can't figure out is why the US Government is silent on it other than they don't want to admit that they got had........

I personally think he has recieved documents about spetnaz troops in iraq, BUT he has jumped to a conclusion.
Otherwise the CIA would be ethier roasting his ass on the barbey or standing behind him....



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   
That isn't how this man works and you should see that by now, Bush could give a hoot less what the turdblossoms want or the EU for that matter, I am telling you there is something else we don't know.......has to be...



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13


You are perpetuating the same lie that Bush fed us laced with sugar.



Now assuming what you say was true and not nonsense... if Bush knew there were no WMD, and lied and said there was, what did he think would happen once we got there and didn't find any? Was British intelligence lying too? French intelligence? Russian intelligence? Egyptian? Saudi? etc? etc?

If Bush really wanted to invade Iraq at all costs, he wouldn't use a story about WMD if he knew it was false. Instead he would have invaded based on Saddam's human rights violations, the fact that he shot at our planes in the no-fly zone on a daily basis, the fact he supported terrorism in Israel and most likely other places, the fact he tried to have the first President Bush assassinated. All that is MORE than enough to have toppled the regime. Bush and his advisers are not stupid enough to use something that they know would eventually be found to be not true as a main reason for invasion.

It's sad how liberals will believe anything just out of their hatred for Bush. It's pathetic too, because as a conservative, after Clinton was elected I supported him because he was our Commander-In-Chief at the time and there was nothing that could be done about it. I'm not a self-hating American like most of you left wing radicals are, so I support our leader even when I disagree with them. Especially when we have men and women on the battlefield right now who are counting on our support of their mission.

Someday Bush will be vindicated, as Reagan was. Democracy is already beginning to spread in the Middle East. It's extremely sad when people like you, deep down inside, are rooting for us to be defeated. You're rooting for Bush's policies to fail. The very success of the Democratic party and your liberal ideals hinge on the failure of our policies, and that means the loss of American lives. You know it and I know it. It's pathetic.


Maybe Russia did move the lWMDs to let the US look bad, it might have been a shock for the US to discover that they were gone.
But i know for sure that the motive to occupy iraq had nothing to do with WMD and certainly not to bring liberty and freedom to the iraqis.
And everyone who buys that is either stupid or very ignorant.

The US spend alot of dollars on the war and wasted many thousands of american and iraqi people, there has to be a payoff for the NEOCONS other then the BS they are feeding you.1+1=2.

The payoff is keeping and preferably expanding their economical,militairy and geo-political power on the short and the long term.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Well I posted a link to a book here:

Book - Militant Islam Reaches America - Good read so far

That basically says something similar but that the US had no choice but to make a foothold and Iraq was the best choice and that it had the best shot a democracy and that is the best tool against Fundamentalism.

Go check it out....I am learning something that makes more sense than the Bush is evil and it was for oil crap that the turdblossom media sprouts.....you might learn something also.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Ed can you send me those sources?
I mean come one what possible purpose would russia have for moveing them?
It would be ridiculed by the world, too much risk for the country to do it, I'm sorry but this just isnt probible.


Right...These guys had their troops fighting secretly all over the world throughout the Cold War, and yet this is somehow beyond them?

It was the Russians, I believe, who even gave Saddam the advice years earlier to dismantle their weapons if invaded.

The fact is they'll never be called on this, or many other things they do because of lack of proof. The American government gains nothing by saying it because it'll get attacked by the liberal media in its own country, as well as by its "allies" overseas. Unless we have hard, physical proof, there's no point in even bringing the issue up.

What Russia stood to gain from this is obvious. They were against the war for various reasons. The reason given were WMD's. What better way to discredit America then to have them go in, and not find WMD's?

It sure makes a lot more sense then the idea America lied about WMD's, or our, as well as everyone elses intelligence on Iraq was all wrong. If we were going to lie, why would Bush it in his first term? He could have easily coasted his way into a second term, riding on 9/11 all the way. Why make a controversial move like invading Iraq? If he wanted to make money for his corporate pals, he could have waited a few more years and done it with no political risk.

I don't see the CIA being so wrong on Iraq, especially when most of the world agrees with them. Everyone thought Iraq had WMD's.

There are really only two logical conclusions here. Saddam did everything he could to make it seem like he actually had WMD's, to keep his neighbors, the west, and his own military in check. There's evidence for this. He would tell one general another guy had the weapons, and the other guy the exact opposite. This would explain how the intelligence agencies were wrong.

The other is simply that Saddam had weapons, and got rid of them.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Right...These guys had their troops fighting secretly all over the world throughout the Cold War, and yet this is somehow beyond them?

Is this the same regime?
No, so therefore the rules change, they could do it but i doubt they would.


It was the Russians, I believe, who even gave Saddam the advice years earlier to dismantle their weapons if invaded.

Probably EVERY country because the UN would go nuts over them.


The fact is they'll never be called on this, or many other things they do because of lack of proof. The American government gains nothing by saying it because it'll get attacked by the liberal media in its own country, as well as by its "allies" overseas. Unless we have hard, physical proof, there's no point in even bringing the issue up.

The fact is there is no proof they did it or not.


What Russia stood to gain from this is obvious. They were against the war for various reasons. The reason given were WMD's. What better way to discredit America then to have them go in, and not find WMD's?

...So they want to discredit america and so get involved in "wmd" even though there was none and wouldnt be ready because.....

"Iraq is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme.But it will not be able to indigenously
produce a nuclear weapon while sanctions remain in place,unless suitable fissile
material is purchased from abroad.
[JIC,15 March 2002"


It sure makes a lot more sense then the idea America lied about WMD's, or our, as well as everyone elses intelligence on Iraq was all wrong. If we were going to lie, why would Bush it in his first term? He could have easily coasted his way into a second term, riding on 9/11 all the way. Why make a controversial move like invading Iraq? If he wanted to make money for his corporate pals, he could have waited a few more years and done it with no political risk.

To you but not to every one.
The intelegence on iraq was poor much poorer than made out.
He couldnt be sure of takeing iraq and the second election so he had to act at that time.


I don't see the CIA being so wrong on Iraq, especially when most of the world agrees with them. Everyone thought Iraq had WMD's.

Most of the world had POOR intelegence as admitted by every intel agency.


There are really only two logical conclusions here. Saddam did everything he could to make it seem like he actually had WMD's, to keep his neighbors, the west, and his own military in check. There's evidence for this. He would tell one general another guy had the weapons, and the other guy the exact opposite. This would explain how the intelligence agencies were wrong.

Dont try and make us pick between the two there are more.
The one you stated above seems more likely than russia remoiveing the WMD.


The other is simply that Saddam had weapons, and got rid of them.

If he did he woukd need chemical weapon transporters since he had no nukes...



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
That isn't how this man works and you should see that by now, Bush could give a hoot less what the turdblossoms want or the EU for that matter,

How not?
If you seen information that russian units where in iraq you would believe the russian government is involved.
Bush cares because he is paid to care, arogant leaders often end up with a large number of dead on thier hands.



I am telling you there is something else we don't know.......has to be...

Thats what I'm getting at, if this guy knew it all he would give more proof.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Is this the same regime?
No, so therefore the rules change, they could do it but i doubt they would.


To Putin and Russia, the Cold War is still going on. His goal is to make Russia a world power, and to compete directly with America. It doesn't matter if he's communist or not. The Russians stood to gain here, and at the expense of America. By your logic, Russia wouldn't be selling weapons to Iraq throughout the 90's, along with a whole list of other third world nations who have tense relations with America.


Probably EVERY country because the UN would go nuts over them.


The UN wouldn't go nuts over anything. The UN Security Council was mostly paid off by Saddam. And you clearly don't get the point. Russians who gave Saddam these weapons, told him what to do in this exact scenario.


The fact is there is no proof they did it or not.


Right, there's just a whole lot of strange activity which can't be explained any other way...

You proved my point perfectly. Unless we have complete, 100% proof, bringing this up will have no purpose. Liberal minded fools will always ignore it.


...So they want to discredit america and so get involved in "wmd" even though there was none and wouldnt be ready because.....


This is the most faulty logic I've ever seen. There weren't WMD's in Iraq. That's the point of this topic. They were moved out. And why the hell are you bringing up nukes? WMD does not translate to nuke. We're talking about chemical weapons, and Saddam had factories capable of producing it now that have been found.


To you but not to every one.
The intelegence on iraq was poor much poorer than made out.
He couldnt be sure of takeing iraq and the second election so he had to act at that time.


The intelligence on Iraq was the same all around the world. Once again, everyone is not going to be wrong. I'll give way more then the benefit of the doubt to intelligence agencies, rather then believe Saddam. There was suspicious behavior from Saddam, as well as other nations that would make any logical person question the No WMD claim.

And if you don't know about American politics, you shouldn't talk about them. Bush had nothing to worry about before Iraq. His approval ratings were high. He would have easily ridden in to a second term. Iraq took too much to sell. It was obvious what kind of political disaster Iraq could be.


Most of the world had POOR intelegence as admitted by every intel agency.


I never heard anyone admit anything besides political scapegoats, and whiny politicians.


Dont try and make us pick between the two there are more.


There are more. They're just far too unlikely to even bother considering here. Those two make the most sense by a longshot.


If he did he woukd need chemical weapon transporters since he had no nukes...


It's not hard to transport any of this stuff. We know for fact large shipments were going over that border. It's been widely reported, although burried. Not to mention he could just bury things in the middle of the desert, and they'd be almost impossible to find.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I do not get this, for a start I do not think the Russians moved any none existent WMDs. But even if they did, isn't that what the world wanted? For Iraq to not have them anymore? SO, whocares?



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I'll tell you why you don't get this= Disturbed Diliverer is using sophisticated methods to brainwash readers here, PLEASE ANYBODY go back and RE-read his post above= it doesn't make any sceanse, hahahahaha I know exactly what he was trying to imply, He was trying to iimply because there were no WMD's that shows Russia had a hand in it, what type of thinking is this, it's an American kind of thinking, remember these are the guys that believe there is no "CONSPIROUSIES, NO NWO" ha!, no Disturbed your thinking "LITTERALY" backwards, the proper answer is "IF WMD's WE'RE found it would prove Russia lied because we had something to gain, but in his twisted mentality he wants you to believe the exact opposit, for those reading this if you are real intelectuals go back and read his post and you "CLEARLY understand" what I'm talking about, P.S. the U.S. Media didn't report about Bush is doing this for the oil" it was "Conspirousy theorists" who said it" (WHICH THEY WE'RE 100% "CORRECT") But you still can Phathom that eigther can ya?


[edit on 8-3-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
You know, I'd just like to say I really don't give a damn if Russia had a role in it or not. There is a great deal of evidence that weapons were moved out of that country, and Russian help was a possibility.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
WAS A POSSIBILITY and DID are two different things as YOU Americans like to tell us "Unless you bring FACTS everything else is "PROPAGANDA"



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   
No American has ever told you that. You're probably thinking of when people tell you what you're saying is completely illogical, or impossible, like 3 B-2's being shot down in Kosovo.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   
You just posted it two posts ago DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!
are YOU O.K. Man or do YOU have memory loss???????????????????



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
To Putin and Russia, the Cold War is still going on. His goal is to make Russia a world power, and to compete directly with America. It doesn't matter if he's communist or not. The Russians stood to gain here, and at the expense of America. By your logic, Russia wouldn't be selling weapons to Iraq throughout the 90's, along with a whole list of other third world nations who have tense relations with America.

You make russia out to be the russians to be evil people, are you reading this out of a propaganda book?



The UN wouldn't go nuts over anything. The UN Security Council was mostly paid off by Saddam. And you clearly don't get the point. Russians who gave Saddam these weapons, told him what to do in this exact scenario.

.....Really? You got proof of this...



Right, there's just a whole lot of strange activity which can't be explained any other way...

You proved my point perfectly. Unless we have complete, 100% proof, bringing this up will have no purpose. Liberal minded fools will always ignore it.
[/qoute]
Actually It can be explained in a lot of ways, your just unwilling to accept them.
Yes unless there is actual proof not just someones opinion then there is no justification to accuse them of anything.



This is the most faulty logic I've ever seen. There weren't WMD's in Iraq. That's the point of this topic. They were moved out. And why the hell are you bringing up nukes? WMD does not translate to nuke. We're talking about chemical weapons, and Saddam had factories capable of producing it now that have been found.

Oh the small stockpile of left over bioagents from the gulf war?


the JIC re flected these reports fairly in its assessments of the status of
Iraq ’s chemical weapons programme,especially those on the production and
weaponisation of the nerve agent VX.The intelligence applied mainly to historical (as
opposed to current)activity and,even so,was by no means conclusive.

hmmm....



The intelligence on Iraq was the same all around the world. Once again, everyone is not going to be wrong. I'll give way more then the benefit of the doubt to intelligence agencies, rather then believe Saddam. There was suspicious behavior from Saddam, as well as other nations that would make any logical person question the No WMD claim.

Yes suspicios activicty reported by who?


And if you don't know about American politics, you shouldn't talk about them. Bush had nothing to worry about before Iraq. His approval ratings were high. He would have easily ridden in to a second term. Iraq took too much to sell. It was obvious what kind of political disaster Iraq could be.

Says who?
He went in why then?
Because some man told him there was checmical weapon facilities...cough baby millk factory cough..



I never heard anyone admit anything besides political scapegoats, and whiny politicians.

"David Kay, the man who led the CIA's postwar effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, has called on the Bush administration to "come clean with the American people" and admit it was wrong about the existence of the weapons. "
...............



There are more. They're just far too unlikely to even bother considering here. Those two make the most sense by a longshot.

By whose professional opinion , yours?



It's not hard to transport any of this stuff. We know for fact large shipments were going over that border. It's been widely reported, although burried. Not to mention he could just bury things in the middle of the desert, and they'd be almost impossible to find.

That may be so, but hideing ALL of these weapons takes man power and reasources, yet we have heard of no forces yet being captured or admiting they were part of it.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Just checked a few links provided here about this theory, and this is patent crap.

There is no hard evidence to what John Shaw conjectured. I could have stated that in fact Iranian special forces moved some explosives to Iran, and the veracity of such statement would be the same: none.

Don't you find it ridiculous that there were foreign troops and logistic units complete with Russian trucks (!) during the run-up to the war and the American intel didn't even notice?

I say grey aliens landed in Baghdad and took the alleged explosives. They really did.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join