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.

 

We are using WMD in Iraq?!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Recently, Al-Zarqawi accuses US of using poison gas in Iraq. Stateing that we have used gas in the offensive against Zarqawi.

"The crusaders mobilised their big armies and used the most destructive and lethal weapons and the most deadly and hurtful poison gas together with their stooges," he said. "But God made them drink at the hands of the mujahideen the different kinds of death and made them face horrible things that they will never forget."


At the same time, the DHS put out the alert that Zaqawi may launch an attack of his own on the troops.

As the US and Iraqi forces continue their week long occupation in Tel Afer, an al-Qaeda linked organization has threatened for a chemical attack if the operation is not ended within 24 hours.

An Internet notice from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi from the Iraqi division of al-Qaeda and other organizations like Ansar al-Sunnah said, If the Tel Afer operation does not end in 24 hours, Ceyh al-Taif al-Mansura military office has decided to organize attacks towards important and strategic targets of the occupation and Iraqi forces using chemical weapons developed by the Mujaheeden.


So we have conflicting sroies, or do we not? Is Zarqawi trying to gain support for the use of WMD in Iraq by lying to the people saying that the US has already used them?

A video was released yesterday from the "American Al Qaeda" talking about an up comming attack as well, but there are other posts on that.

Are the Mujaheeden running scared or are they about to launch a new offensive on the troops?

Then Iran (our good friends making another A-Bomb) was also quoted that they will turn each state in the US into a disaster zone

“The mismanagement and the mishandling of the acute psychological problems brought about by Hurricane Katrina clearly showed that others can, at any given time, create a devastated war-zone in any part of the U.S.”, Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri, the official spokesman of the IRGC, said.

“If the U.S. attacks Iran, each of America’s states will face a crisis the size of Katrina”, he said, referring to the massive hurricane which hit the southern coast of the United States. “The smallest mistake by America in this regard will result in every single state in that country turning into a disaster zone”.

“How could the White House, which is impotent in the face of a storm and a natural disaster, enter a military conflict with the powerful Islamic Republic of Iran, particularly with the precious experience that we gained in the eight-year war with Iraq?” he said.


Sounds like we have got alot of bad guys working against us.


[edit on 12-9-2005 by TacOps Security]




posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Zarqawi's accusation(s) are nothing more than propaganda.

Furthermore, I find it interesting that Zarqawi claims/asserts such, when on the same day of his placing of the accusation [actually reported on the 11th] of the US using poison gas in Iraq [at or around Tal Afar], that this was released by an Al-Qaeda group:


DUBAI (AFP) - An Al-Qaeda linked Sunni group in Iraq threatened to use chemical weapons against "occupation" and Iraqi forces unless they halt their offensive against rebels in the northern town of Tal Afar.

Qaeda group threatens chemical attack over Tal Afar


Not entirely sure what to make of this, but I believe that it is safe to assert that Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda are being hurt by the Tal Afar offensive.






seekerof

[edit on 12-9-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Almost word for word what they tried to say about the Fallujah push. I was in Fallujah for the 2nd push....if there was gas, I wouldn't be typing this.

Total BS



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TacOps Security
Recently, Al-Zarqawi accuses US of using poison gas in Iraq. Stateing that we have used gas in the offensive against Zarqawi.


Yeah, because Zarqawi is going to tell the truth.

As for Iran. Please. They haven't made a single nuclear device and they're still a good bit away from making one.

Every state as a disaster zone? K. And what does Iran think we'll do in response to such an attack? Sanction them? No. We'd turn the entire country into a sheet of glass.


“How could the White House, which is impotent in the face of a storm and a natural disaster, enter a military conflict with the powerful Islamic Republic of Iran, particularly with the precious experience that we gained in the eight-year war with Iraq?” he said.


True. Their military gained experience in the eight-year war in Iraq, but it stands to reason that the Iraqi military also gained experience in the same eight-year war.

How quickly did we obliterate the Iraqi military? =P

[edit on 12-9-2005 by boredom]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Zarqawi wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the ass.
As for Iran, does anyone not believe that they want a nuke?
As for the U.S. using a nuke...



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Some people just don't get it, do they?
While looking for WMD would we use them?

Perhpas if we used ours, they'll be forced to show theirs and then King George III can say, "See! Ah tole y'all oil a long they hadit."



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
If we were using WMD in Iraq then this war would have been over a hell of a lot sooner, and all the protesters would be back on their couches smoking their cheebah with nothing else to do.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 03:27 AM
link   
I would consider area of effect weapons as WMD... and i know they are using Napalm and the like.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corinthas
I would consider area of effect weapons as WMD... and i know they are using Napalm and the like.


WMDs are nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons that injur or kill civilian and military personnel.

Just because a weapon has an area of effect doesn't mean it is a WMD. If that were the case, ALL weapons except for bullets would be WMD because they all (except bullets) explode and therefore have an area of effect.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by boredom
[Just because a weapon has an area of effect doesn't mean it is a WMD. If that were the case, ALL weapons except for bullets would be WMD because they all (except bullets) explode and therefore have an area of effect.

Bullets have an area of effect equal to their cross sectional area. So that leaves them out too.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I could see how being on the recieving end of some of our high yield bombs and ordinance could seem like types of WMD's are being used. Imagine being near a bomb going off but not in the direct blast area; You could still suffer from flash type injuries from super hot gases as well as the sudden lack of oxygen for a few moments.

Being an American, and having buds who serve I find it really hard to imagine that we are using true WMD's. You simply cannot keep that kind of stuff secret for very long. Dont forget Iraq is TEAMING with reporters and media, no way real WMD's could be used without some kind of notice.

Heck, a soldier drops a Qur'an near a toilet in a government controlled prison without any media at all and the world knows about it instantly, you think we wouldnt know about large area's subjected to WMD's in the most examined and studied country in the world right now?

Nope.

Just another propaganda attack from the enemy to gather support against the infidels.

When will Zarqawi bless us all with his martyrdom so we can get on with things?

[edit on 13-9-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   
BTW, we are NOT using Napalm there...too indiscriminant. Makes for big-ass fires that are hard to fight through.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   
"We" have been using depleted uranium tipped weapons in Iraq since 1992, dumping a total 2000+ metric tones in the form of dirty bullets/bombs. I would consider that WMD usage.

But that's ok... Jesus is on our side.

Sri Oracle



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
"We" have been using depleted uranium tipped weapons in Iraq since 1992, dumping a total 2000+ metric tones in the form of dirty bullets/bombs. I would consider that WMD usage.

But that's ok... Jesus is on our side.

Sri Oracle


Depleted Uranium weaponry are not weapons of mass destruction as they are single target weapons.

For a weapon to be classified in the WMD category it must cause MASS destruction with a single use. Each depleted uranium weapon (typically bullets) are single use weapons (it's just a bullet) and do not cause massive amounts of destruction on their own. Many depleted uranium rounds must be used to cause massive destruction, whereas with a nuclear bomb you need use only one to achieve a level of destruction you could never achieve with depleted uranium rounds.

Put another way, if it can't level a city in the blink of an eye, injur or kill tens of thousands of people or more with a single use, or both, and isn't a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon, then it isn't a WMD.

[edit on 13-9-2005 by boredom]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by boredom
Long-term effects are not currently considered when defining weapons of mass destruction.


Says who?



For a weapon to be classified in the WMD category it must cause MASS destruction with a single use. Each bullet is a single use and hardly causes massive amounts of destruction.


www.commondreams.org...

Published on Tuesday, August 9, 2005 by the Battle Creek Enquirer (Michigan)
Depleted Uranium is WMD
by Leuren Moret

# Depleted uranium (DU) weaponry meets the definition of weapon of mass destruction in two out of three categories under U.S. Federal Code Title 50 Chapter 40 Section 2302.

# DU weaponry violates all international treaties and agreements, Hague and Geneva war conventions, the 1925 Geneva gas protocol, U.S. laws and U.S. military law.

# Since 1991, the U.S. has released the radioactive atomicity equivalent of at least 400,000 Nagasaki bombs into the global atmosphere. That is 10 times the amount released during atmospheric testing which was the equivalent of 40,000 Hiroshima bombs. The U.S. has permanently contaminated the global atmosphere with radioactive pollution having a half-life of 2.5 billion years.

# The U.S. has illegally conducted four nuclear wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and twice in Iraq since 1991, calling DU "conventional" weapons when in fact they are nuclear weapons.

# DU on the battlefield has three effects on living systems: it is a heavy metal "chemical" poison, a "radioactive" poison and has a "particulate" effect due to the very tiny size of the particles that are 0.1 microns and smaller.

# The blueprint for DU weaponry is a 1943 Manhattan Project memo to Gen. L. Groves that recommended development of radioactive materials as poison gas weapons - dirty bombs, dirty missiles and dirty bullets.

# DU is the Trojan Horse of nuclear war - it keeps giving and keeps killing. There is no way to clean it up, and no way to turn it off because it continues to decay into other radioactive isotopes in over 20 steps.

# Terry Jemison at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs stated in August 2004 that over 518,000 Gulf-era veterans (14-year period) are now on medical disability, and that 7,039 were wounded on the battlefield in that same period.

# In some studies of soldiers who had normal babies before the war, 67 percent of the post-war babies are born with severe birth defects - missing brains, eyes, organs, legs and arms, and blood diseases.

# In southern Iraq, scientists are reporting five times higher levels of gamma radiation in the air, which increases the radioactive body burden daily of inhabitants. In fact, Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan are uninhabitable.

# Cancer starts with one alpha particle under the right conditions. One gram of DU is the size of a period in this sentence and releases 12,000 alpha particles per second.


Sri Oracle



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   
... problem with that is the US government, and the people whom follow them no matter WHAT the outcome.. will technically find a wrongly worded section in the treaties which ENABLES them to put out as MUCH radiation from the DU As they feel.
because they will find a reason, good bad stupid or what eva that makes it LEGAL to use these weapons.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Sri, great link to a terribly biased site! Beautiful! I notice Ms Moret has zero education or work experience in the nuclear field (her bio, not my words) yet calls herself an "expert".

DU...the first word IS "depleted". Natural uranium puts out over 15,000 alpha particles per second....oops, another ignorant statement proven wrongl.

There have been NO CREDIBLE studies of radiation backgrounds in Iraq..the country has been essentially closed to anyone since 1991. If you can produce such a study, from a non-biased, non-political, non-agenda group, I'd like to read it.

There has been NO link to weapon systems in Iraq, and birth defects. If you can produce such a study, from a non-biased, non-political, non-agenda group, I'd like to read it.

There is nothing illegal about DU projectiles...nothing. There are no Hague Accords signed, no protocols agreed to, no Geneva conventions mention it. Being depleted of dangerous levels of radiation, they have been deemed safe by all countries...evidence of most first world countries using them.


# Since 1991, the U.S. has released the radioactive atomicity equivalent of at least 400,000 Nagasaki bombs into the global atmosphere. That is 10 times the amount released during atmospheric testing which was the equivalent of 40,000 Hiroshima bombs. The U.S. has permanently contaminated the global atmosphere with radioactive pollution having a half-life of 2.5 billion years.

This would be more laughable, if you had a picture of a ruined domed building. Oh please.

518,000+ Gulf era vets? Does the author realize that there were not even half of that number actually in Iraq? Most of the half-million troops were support, and never left Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Germany, Turkey, Baharain, Qatar, Diego Garcia, England, Italy, or the USA. Where does Ms Moret find this incredible number of people that were somehow injured enough to qualify for disability?

Methinks Ms Moret has an anti-American agenda, and is more than willing to spew numbers to confuse most people, astound more, baffle others, and expect the rest to believe her lies. Well, some of us think for ourselves....

...perhaps you should try to.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by boredom
True. Their military gained experience in the eight-year war in Iraq, but it stands to reason that the Iraqi military also gained experience in the same eight-year war.

How quickly did we obliterate the Iraqi military? =P


We (the Coalition) didnt obliterate the Iraqi military. We killed a load of conscripts. Excuse me while I am bowled over by that stunning victory.

The Republican Guard and the Fedayeen were ordered to melt into the populace. Saddam knew he was going to lose, so he made sure his loyalists lived to protect the Sunnis and to launch a terror campaign in occupied Iraq. You don't honestly believe 'Al Qaeda' is the main group pulling the strings against the Coalition do you? Sure they may be the more vocal but its the Sadam loyalists that are causing most trouble.

Just thought I would reveal that pearl of strategic wisdom....



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
that makes sense but explain to me why someone would continue fighting for a man who is going to be executed. did saddam set up a bank account to continue paying them?

also, doesn't WMD cover bombs over a certain size or missiles that extend beyond a certain range? we are using those.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
that makes sense but explain to me why someone would continue fighting for a man who is going to be executed. did saddam set up a bank account to continue paying them?


It's not about money.. The Saddam loyalists of the Baath Party, the Republican Guard, and the Fedayeen are fighting because where they were once the undisputed 'elite' in Iraq, they are now in serious danger of becoming a overlooked and victimised minority.

A lot of old grudges exist in Iraq. Many Kurds and Shi'ites, the ones now taking power have grudges against the Sunnis due to what Sadam and his people did while in power. For the Sunnis, a Government where they are the minority is a disaster, despite what the Coalition says about equal powers.

Saddam is merely a hero to the cause, a figurehead. But it's simple; the Sunnis want it back to where they were on top. A new Iraq is a scary prospect to the Baathists. Note how the 'terrorists' hit far more Shi'ites than Coalition? This is because Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq is much overhyped by US and European Government/media sources, making us think that we are up against the enemy in the War On Terror, when in fact Iraq had nothing to do with the War On Terror and that we are dealing more with a civil war between factions.

[edit on 14-9-2005 by Daystar]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join