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’s WMD – Hidden in Syria

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   
There were some WMDs found in Iraq that contained mustard gas, etc., that were a couple decades old and were probably left over from the Iran-Iraq War, obviously. I think these may be the missiles you're referring to. At least two of such weapons were 'accidentally' triggered, but neither even worked anymore, and on top of that, there's a good chance we sold them to Iraq. I think there were 35 such mustard gas weapons found laying around in junk heaps. I think these are the same weapons you're referring to, and this kind of information is probably why it wasn't reported by the mainstream. They didn't work, they were ancient in terms of chemical warfare, and likely came from the US.

If that's all that was in Iraq, I still don't see why that called for an invasion (besides the oil business anyway
). All of Saddam's WMD programs had substantially degraded since the Gulf War. There was no growing threat to the West, etc. etc. But then again, all of Bush's claims about Iraq were bs.




posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
AHA! There's the "WMD stockpile". It was two 155mm artillery shells all along!

Well that's certainly worth starting a war that kills 25,000 people over.

Newsmax, like WMD, is not a "news" site, but a far-right propaganda mill.
There are plenty of them on the lefty side of things too.

I have little doubt that some munitions were missed when Saddam (in fear of GW1 troops marching on to Baghdad) destroyed the bulk of his chem & bio arsenals in 1991. But two leftover shells in all of Iraq hardly constitute the alleged "massive stockpile" of WMD that was used to justify this war.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Newsmax, like WMD, is not a "news" site, but a far-right propaganda mill.
There are plenty of them on the lefty side of things too.


Other major wire services also carried the same story however most of them have been archived. I am sure if you do not trust Newsmaxe a good google search would pull up a source that meets with your approval


Aslo keep in mind that lying sadman told the un he had destroyed the very same bombs that were used.


BTW the only reason they never went off as wmd's was because the bozos that used them did not have the brains to fire them from a cannon that was the only reason the nerve gas was never generated. The only way that can happpen is by firing them from a cannon where the rifling causes the shell to spin which mixes the gas agents in flight.


The point here is he still had them when he claimed he did not. Had they been fired properly there could very well have been hundreds if not thousands of dead people had they landed in the right place, you can take that to the bank.

[edit on 7/25/2005 by shots]



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Other major wire services also carried the same story however most of them have been archived. I am sure if you do not trust Newsmaxe a good google search would pull up a source that meets with your approval


Aslo keep in mind that lying sadman told the un he had destroyed the very same bombs that were used.

You mean the cache that had been forgotten?


BTW the only reason they never went off as wmd's was because the bozos that used them did not have the brains to fire them from a cannon that was the only reason the nerve gas was never generated. The only way that can happpen is by firing them from a cannon where the rifling causes the shell to spin which mixes the gas agents in flight.


Wow 2 shells is worth a war...


The point here is he still had them when he claimed he did not. Had they been fired properly there could very well have been hundreds if not thousands of dead people had they landed in the right place, you can take that to the bank.

[edit on 7/25/2005 by shots]

They where rusted and mistaken for other weapons, it wouldnt have mattered if he had said they did have any.
They stil would not have known those weapons where there.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
I tell you what, since you where there when we hit 'certain' areas, I will just take your word for it that those sniffers did not go off, at least not more than a 1/2 dozen times.

If you actually read the report, as someone pointed out above, it was inconclusive at best. I think they were moved as we gave them plenty of time screwing with the UN and France.



Thanks Ed, i'd love to read the reports from an inspection team which discovered traces of WMDs in Iraq post war.

Can't wait for the links.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 04:02 AM
link   
According to some of the right, these dirty muslims don't like to use WMD on innocent civilians but rather drive them around and bury them, just to see the puzzled faces of the infidels asking where the WMD are. They are a lot like pirates in pirate stories, instead of spending their treasure on hookers, booze and the good life in the Carribean, they rather bury their treasure somewhere on a deserted island in the sand.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
You mean the cache that had been forgotten?


No the cache they had reported as having and then later disappeared.


The mustard gas shell identified by the special WMD inspection team in Iraq appears to be one of 550 declared by Saddam to U.N. inspectors during the early 1990s. These shells disappeared later in 2002 when Hans Blix asked to see them.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Actually, they didn't disappear. Iraq at one point admitted that the number they had was about 550 shells greater than what they previously reported but said they lost track of them in the Gulf War. Your source has its info wrong.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
Actually, they didn't disappear. Iraq at one point admitted that the number they had was about 550 shells greater than what they previously reported but said they lost track of them in the Gulf War. Your source has its info wrong.


Easy cop out for sadman he always has been a known liar. Nothing new there.

Hey UN I lost track of them! Yeah and if you believe that it is time for a brain transplant, considering it was a known liar who said he lost them and claims he had nothing to do with gasing the Kurds, while tons of evidence says otherwise. Oh and let us not forget all those iranians he gased


Tyrants like him desvere only one thing hanging, better yet would be having his head chopped off, unless of course someone can think of a worse way to die. Of course If they find one that is worse, I hope they use it instead of the two previous options I gave



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   
not Syria. Out of the 10 000 people in abu gharib 9700 are IRAQI, and only about 300 are from other countries. Can you explain that in your minds, or are you just going to double think?

Belive me, if you where fighting Syria, you would have already lost the war.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
not Syria. Out of the 10 000 people in abu gharib 9700 are IRAQI, and only about 300 are from other countries. Can you explain that in your minds, or are you just going to double think?

Belive me, if you where fighting Syria, you would have already lost the war.


More untruths from SS one of your own sources states only 7443 are there not 10,000 as you claim and even all of them are not under US control. Also there are only 92 Arabs and foreigners not 300 as you claim. So again I say stop with your lying and or persistent exaggerations of the real honest facts.



As for the number of prisoners, major general Lazem, said, “they are currently 7443 prisoners, suspects and convicted, including 92 of the Arabs and foreigners, whose percentage compared to all prisoners in Iraq is 60%. There are 40% of the detainees under the American forces and the interior ministry. updated as of 7 27 05


www.almendhar.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Belive me, if you where fighting Syria, you would have already lost the war.


LOL. Thats funny.

Syria wouldnt last as long as Iraq did, Syrias army is nothing compared to what Iraq had. At the time of the first Gulf war Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world. They were decimated. Id wager a week or so of air strikes and maybe a few days on the ground and the capital would be in US control. LOL, silly SS.

[edit on 29-7-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Syria's military is less potent than Iraq 1991, but a lot more capable than Iraq 2003. Iraq's army never really recovered from Gulf War 1. We don't have nearly the kind of forces available we did in 1991. Syria would lose in a conflict with the US, but I doubt it'd be a cakewalk. People I've talked to who served in GW1 said they were impressed by the professionalism of the Syrians they worked with in 1991, if you remember, they were on our side back then.

Also, if Iraq is anything to go by, an occupation of Syria would probably not be smooth sailing.

[edit on 7/29/05 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Frosty
Syria is where these insurgents are comming from, as well as SA. So it doesn't seem all surprising to me. We should invade Syria for allowing insurgents to cross the border while taking no action to hault this. They are supporters of the insurgency and are an enemy of the coalition force. Israel I think would more than likely back the US in an invasion against Syria considering their past history.

How many more countries?
How many more Co-alition men will we send home in boxes?


As many as it takes so that we don't have to put people here in the US in boxes like we did on 9/11.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by Frosty
Syria is where these insurgents are comming from, as well as SA. So it doesn't seem all surprising to me. We should invade Syria for allowing insurgents to cross the border while taking no action to hault this.

That's what the US says, without a shred of proof. Maybe you should invade when you have proof, or is proof not required anymore when undertaking a billion dollar and thousands of lives costing enterprise like war? You so easily believe what your government wants you to believe. Sometimes I really think a lot of Americans are perfectly fit these days for living in a Putin style authoritarian regime, disguised as a democracy.

Please, give me a break.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Frosty
They are supporters of the insurgency and are an enemy of the coalition force. Israel I think would more than likely back the US in an invasion against Syria considering their past history.


At best Israel could on its own destroy Syria's airforce. Israel couldn't even successfully occupy Lebanon during the 1980s.

News flash: Occupying a country is not invading a country.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
As many as it takes so that we don't have to put people here in the US in boxes like we did on 9/11.

Oh please, Iraq had little or nothing to do with 9/11, much less Syria. Ever taken a look at the nationalities of the hijackers and planners of 9/11?



Originally posted by Frosty
Please, give me a break.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Selective use of examples. ofcourse some of them are Syrian, but there are several times more of them that are from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other Arab nations with which the US is on friendly terms. Ofcourse, since politically Syria is a target, only the Syrians are highlighted to create the distorted impression that it's coming mainly from Syria. Only gullible rightwingers can be so dumb as to swallow that. Let's take a look at a good indicator: the division of 650 detainees by nationality in Gitmo:

Saudi Arabia: at least 160, or around 1/4
Yemen: 85
Pakistan: 82
Jordan: 30
Egypt: 30
Morocco: 18
China: at least 12
Kuwait: 12
Tajikistan: 11
Turkey: 11
UK: 9
Tunisia: 8
Russia: 8
France: 7
Bahrain: 7

Syria is reported to have at least two citizens there. Nothing quite spectacular.



Originally posted by Frosty
News flash: Occupying a country is not invading a country.

News flash: invading a country means nothing. It simply means you've taken out their army. As we see in Iraq, you can invade a country successfully, but the aftermath can be a disaster.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
not Syria. Out of the 10 000 people in abu gharib 9700 are IRAQI, and only about 300 are from other countries. Can you explain that in your minds, or are you just going to double think?

Belive me, if you where fighting Syria, you would have already lost the war.


More untruths from SS one of your own sources states only 7443 are there not 10,000 as you claim and even all of them are not under US control. Also there are only 92 Arabs and foreigners not 300 as you claim. So again I say stop with your lying and or persistent exaggerations of the real honest facts.



As for the number of prisoners, major general Lazem, said, “they are currently 7443 prisoners, suspects and convicted, including 92 of the Arabs and foreigners, whose percentage compared to all prisoners in Iraq is 60%. There are 40% of the detainees under the American forces and the interior ministry. updated as of 7 27 05


www.almendhar.com...






THE BIGGEST PRISON ON EARTH: Families of Iraqis detained by the US authorities demonstrate in front of Abu Gharib prison, 20 kms north of Baghdad. Abu Gharib prison holds some 10,000 Iraqi inmates(AFP/Ahmad Al-Rubaye)


www.militaryproject.org...

That was back then, perhaps the number now have been reduced to a little over 7000 as you say.

but see even you admit, that out of 7443 prisoners, only 92 of them are non iraqi arabs, some of which have lived in iraq all their lives.

and 60% of the prisoners held in iraq are held in abu gharib.

So really, where are these supposed foreign fighters you where talking about.

YOu previously had over 92 non iraqi arabs, you had about 300 infact if recall correctly. What happened to those men/women?

Where they released?
Just like that? I guess they wheren't really fighters then.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by Syrian Sister]



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
As many as it takes so that we don't have to put people here in the US in boxes like we did on 9/11.

Your strategy is flawed, and BTW you would need to invade my country as well to stop what happened on 9/11 from happening again.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
Oh please, Iraq had little or nothing to do with 9/11, much less Syria. Ever taken a look at the nationalities of the hijackers and planners of 9/11?


I didn't say they had anything to do with 9/11 directly. Saddam funded suicide bombers in Lebanon. What is to stop him with supplying terrrorist with chemicals such as a nerve gas?

Saddam has used these WMD's before. No, he didn't just burry them in the sand or drive around with them.


:::::
Stop calling the war in Iraq a tragedy or flawed or out of hand. 1800 killed soldiers and the democrats want to pull out? This makes no since: pull out and allow insurgents to overrun the state and bring another despot to rule. Smart plan. The democrats are the one's perpetuating this myth on the basis that they don't want it to end up like their quagmire of a war such as Vietnam or Korea or WWI or any other war they have started which could have been avoided. Fact is Republicans have started wars to hault the succession of southern states and to topple Saddam and they are the warmongers??? Give me a break.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
YOu previously had over 92 non iraqi arabs, you had about 300 infact if recall correctly. What happened to those men/women?

I beleive they were sent back to their home countries to be tortured as interrogation no?


So really, where are these supposed foreign fighters you where talking about.

I'd be intersted to know if your iraqi relatives in the resistance infact beleive that there are no foreign fighters. Is that the impression you've gotten when speaking to them?


Simon666
Oh please, Iraq had little or nothing to do with 9/11

Iraq was a state that funded international terrorists and even permited terror groups to train in their borders. It was also a state that had previously engaged in expansionistic wars under the direction of its Dictator. It was also a state that had already had the full brunt of diplomatic sanctions used against it. And it also engaged in secret weapons programs and did not reveal the full scope of its chemical manufacturing infrastructure to the impartial UN Inspectors. Clearly, the only options were to leave it under sanctions, or engage in war. And since the rest of the world was starting to make moves to remove the sanctions, the only option left for the US was to engage in war.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join