It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


U.S. military finds chemical site in Iraq

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 09:25 AM
In Keeping the spirit of this thread alive, we need to remember that what this is really about is a find of a some sort of Chem lab in Iraq. You can believe what you want about the War on terror, but while anyone is playing with dangerous chemicals in a zone where 2 sides are fighting ( Regardless of the reasons) is cause for alarm

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 09:28 AM
I didnt read any of the post before me so if this was mentioned, sorry.

Anything found in Iraq now is suspect. The insurgents are strong in Iraq.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 10:55 AM
Apparently two sites were found.
One site contained chemicals and another site was a factory.
There are pictures of the factory on this site below:


posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 11:10 AM
After reading the article, it sounds like nothing.

The chemicals are commonly used for industrial purposes, but could potentially be combined to produce weapons, said Lt. Col. Jackson McRae, deputy public affairs director for multinational forces in Iraq.

"We have nothing to indicate there's anything specifically going on here," he said. "We're still just in the process of analyzing things and trying to get intelligence to find out just what was going on."

"My experts are still up there or on the way back," he said. "We haven't received anything conclusive except to say they have found some chemicals."

McRae said he did not believe that conventional weapons had been found on the site.

The U.S. military has found many suspected chemical sites in the past, none of which contained chemical or biological weapons, The Associated Press reported, adding that testing can take several days.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 11:54 AM
Isn't it funny that 'all-of-a-sudden', a 'chemical weapons lab' has been found by US troops - acting on behalf of a Lt Colonel Jackson McRae - who is a self confessed deputy public affairs director.

It now seems, to me at least, that 'all-of-a-sudden', the US Army's Public Affairs Unit has specially trained troops attached to it.

According to McRae quote, "My experts are still up there or on the way back. We have not received anything conclusive except to say that they've found some chemicals" end quote.

Well people, if I go into my garden shed, bet I could find some chemicals at least two of which contain glycerin - a bonding agent, also a byproduct of sweating gelignite/dynamite.

Does this make me a terrorist with chemical weapons? No of course not.

In my opinion, any report by any US/UN/BRIT force in Iraq - MUST be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

Let's face it. We've had two or more years to find WMDs but to date, at the time of my typing this post, WMDs have not been found!

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 12:04 PM
however i have seen in recent articles that tells about Zarqawis group attempting to use chemical weapons as IEDs. so wen u destroy the vehicle u still can kill the troops who survived the blast by poisoning the air around them. ill look for the articles.

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 08:30 AM

U.S. probes discovery of shell believed to contain sarin gas

Kimmitt said the shell contained two chemicals which, when mixed during the flight of an artillery shell, formed the nerve agent.

He said the shell had been rigged as a makeshift bomb that resulted in a small dispersal of the agent when it exploded before an ordnance team could disarm it

and yet another reference to chemicals being used in IEDs

They were, however, being used to make improvised explosives," the spokesman said Wednesday, as he showed slides of the chemicals and a book containing chemical formulas. "There were many formulas on how to make explosives and how to make different types of poison."

I think that this is pretty solid evidence that the concept is one that is being considered if not already being done.....

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 10:01 PM

Originally posted by CyberianHusky
Makes you wonder why they didn't plant it there sooner.

Was wondering the exact same thing, i was just waiting as i was scrolling down for that

Actually, if it's a real insurgent lab then it might explain why there are reports of OSB making his way to Iraq. He would definitely want a) access to such equipment for his future plans, and b) would want to be around to claim leadership responsibility if they use chemical weapons on American troops. It would reinforce his role as a major leader amongst Islamic Extremists.

I dont understand why OSB would go to Iraq, surely he would get OUT of an area filled with so many American Troops?

posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 08:42 AM
I don't think OSB needs to be there to get his hands on the weapons... all they need do is use them and "take credit for it" to instill the fear that is the ultimate goal of terrorism....

Once "they" succeed in changing our behavior based on fear of an attack, terrorism has won!

posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 09:10 AM
If I was in control of a large country and had over 6 months to hide or destroy chemical weapons in my country knowing it would make the invading forces look stupid, would I do it? I think I probably would, the fact of the matter is Saddam had a long time to do whatever he wanted with all his WMDs. It's a proven fact he had them before we invaded what happened to them after we gave him over 1/2 a year to get rid of them is anybody's guess. If he never had these weapons then the entire worlds intelligence agencies were wrong and those Kurds up north must have staged a fake slaughter.

As for this stockpile I think it's pretty safe to say it was insurgents not Saddams and most likely not even a functioning lab. Otherwise we would have had troops dead from it right now guaranteed.

posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 09:15 AM
My understanding is that many bio and chem weapons have a short shelf life.
Meaning this is very likely a recent development.

Wouldn't it be an irorny if no chemical weapons production existed when we invaded,
But now, free to act, the Insurgents and terrorists were starting chemical WMD production.

Neocons - so busy falling all over themselves funneling blood money to Haliburton and Bechtel, they shoot themselves in the foot by creating an openning for chemical WMD production by insurgents and new immigrant terrorists.

Can you say 'Counter productive'?
Yes, in the extreme.

Al Qaeda, "We love NeoConArtists!"
Al Qaeda, "They do practically all our work for us!"

posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 09:20 AM
The latest news I've found on them is from the 15th and they say it looks like they were accelerants for explosives.

(I-Newswire) - MOSUL, Iraq - Coalition Forces continue to analyze chemical samples found in the chemical production facility and storage site in Mosul on Aug. 9. Specially trained reconnaissance units collected the samples, which are initially being tested in Iraq and then sent to the U.S. for confirmation. Early indications are that some of the chemicals are accelerants, which can be used in explosive devices.

Additional analysis of the chemical production facility continues. Coalition Forces and Iraqi security forces also continue to investigate additional intelligence information.

For more information, contact Multi-National Corps – Iraq Public Affairs at

posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 01:24 PM
Here is the thing even if they found WMD's it would not make much of a difference in light of the downing street memo that says that we were all lied to, even if they found bunkers full of WMD's everywheres it does not take away from the fact that at the time we were being led into this war we were given so called facts by our leaders that were being fixed around their policy of going to war.

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. [3]

[edit on 19-8-2005 by goose]

posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 02:09 PM
The downing street memo is worthless because it is the observation and OPINION of some analyst. It's an overblown cooked up piece of nothing exactly why no one gives it any serious consideration.(unless your a hardcore liberal desperate to find some 'evidence' to support your rantings).

posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 08:28 PM

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
The downing street memo is worthless because it is the observation and OPINION of some analyst. It's an overblown cooked up piece of nothing exactly why no one gives it any serious consideration.(unless your a hardcore liberal desperate to find some 'evidence' to support your rantings).

The Downing Stret Memo is of the same importance as a leaked White House memo, as downing street is where the Prime Minister Tony Blair has his government offices and residence. The downing street memo was a top secret memo and it is the minutes taken from a meeting of government officials and what was discussed at the meeting, written down by a secretary at the meeting and then everyone there received a copy. Its much more important than you seem to believe but here are two links about it.

posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 08:42 PM
All this take about why things "started"

I sincerely do hope that no -one wants to step up the level of "fight" by using IEDs that contain chemical weapons to increase ( read: "Kill more people") the effectiveness of these cowardly tactics

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 09:26 AM

The world has sat up and started to take note oif this very dangerous issue

While this example below is from Nov 2004 it shows that the knowledge and desire to use Chemicals in weapons exists

posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 04:45 PM
Perfect Stranger, I suggest you download the CNN Special entitled "Dead Wrong." All about the WMD's. The links are posted in this thread on ATS.

Scroll down to the 11th and 12th posts to download part 1 and part 2.

CNN finally airs something worth watching, without propaganda. One of the questions presented in this Special is who is to blame for embellishing the false threat posed by Iraq. (CIA or Bush and the Bush admin) Another good question which is asked is why the govt linked Al-Queida to Saddam, when they had no proof about this claim as well.

It is a very good documentary and I suggest everyone here check it out. It has turned a few die hard supporters, on the war on terror, on ATS the other way and has opened their eyes to the truth. I hope it will do the same for you as well Perfect Stranger.

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 02:02 PM
CPYKOmega thanks for the interesting links. While it sure does seem US had their mind made up in advance and posistioned themselves accordingly.

One thing that really raised an eyebrow for me was (about 10 minutes into the 1st link) when James Pavitt ( CIA deputy director 1999 - 2004) states

"There are not many countries that have used WMD on their own people"

Now I just did a quick search and was unable to come up with another country.... Who else is he refering to? It really makes me think of the Port Chicago event...... what do you think?

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in