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.

 

WMDs Found in Iraq

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:08 AM
link   
"Contrary to ongoing reports by mainstream media outlets, WMDs have been found in Iraq, so reports New York Times best-selling author Richard Miniter in his new book, Disinformation."

• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas

• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs

• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

This is only a partial list of the deadly weapons Miniter reveals in his new book, Disinformation. Miniter systematically dissects the "No-WMD Myth" (how it started, and why it continues), as well as 21 other War-on-Terror myths perpetuated by the media.


www.humaneventsonline.com...


A little truth anyone? Saddam could have been caught with his finger on the trigger and the major media would still be spinning this BS.






[edit on 10-11-2005 by thermopolis]




posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:27 AM
link   
I suppose people are playing with the distinction of actual weapons as opposed to the components of WMDs which in my opinion is the same thing to a degree.The evidence of these components suggests to me intention to build and deploy in my mind but thats just me.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   
I like that, The National Conservative is promoting a book called "Disinformation". Yep, sounds like it.

Good to see Conservatives actually admitting Bush is a liar now thou, i mean if this book could be true then what do these articles mean? They must be pretty amazing if they can make words come out of Bush's mouth!

Bush admits no WMDs found, defends Iraq invasion
www.csm.ornl.gov...

Official: U.S. calls off search for Iraqi WMDs
www.cnn.com...

I'm sure they've removed lots of Uranium in secrecy - they dropped thousands of tonnes of it on them in 1991 and are getting a lot of flake about it now from various groups.

Inspectors have also removed chemicals and biotoxins in 1998 but, they were also America's and were just there for 'comparssions to anything found'.

As for secret stashes being found since the war, well if that's true then the President is a liar and has some very strange reason for not wanting to show the world he was right.

Maybe the US flaq won't rub off and that's why they can't tell anyone?



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:56 AM
link   
so has anyone actually read this book? what are his reasons for the administration covering this up? it kind of plays against them doesnt it? just doesnt make any sense to me.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Chemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction, they couldn't destroy a piece of paper


As for the enriched uranium, that isn't a WoMD either, it's just enriched uranium.

As for the radioactive materials, I'd like to know the details of that...



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak
Chemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction, they couldn't destroy a piece of paper


As for the enriched uranium, that isn't a WoMD either, it's just enriched uranium.

As for the radioactive materials, I'd like to know the details of that...


definition of WMD



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak
As for the radioactive materials, I'd like to know the details of that...


Wouldn't that just be all the depleted uranium that has been dumped on Iraq in the two wars?

I bet most things there have become radioactive.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Jeez, the desperate WMD faithfuls will never concede, eh, even when the glorious leaders already did long ago. Give it up already. Anything that Saddam had was:

a) left over from before 1991.
b) is pathetic compared to half the rest of the countries round the world.
c) does not measure up by a 1000th to what the Bush administration was telling the world and could never have constituted an "imminent and deadly threat to the United States and her allies."
d) does not in any way absolve the administration from the outright lies and fabrication of intelligence perpetrated to drag their nation and the world into a disastrous illegal war, i.e. treason.



CIA: No Chemical Weapons in Iraq
Washington: In a formal acknowledgment of the obvious, the CIA has issued a classified report revising its prewar assessments on Iraq and concluding that Baghdad abandoned its chemical weapons programs in 1991, intelligence officials say.

The report marks the first time the CIA has officially disavowed its prewar judgments, and is one in a "series" of updated assessments the agency is producing as part of a belated effort to correct its record on Iraq's alleged weapons programs, officials said.

But the CIA's decision to distribute the document in classified channels underscores the awkwardness the agency faces. Before the war, the CIA asserted that Iraq had stockpiled biological weapons and that it was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.




[edit on 2005-11-10 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   
-uh, saddam had enriched uranium.. very likely he was gonna stuff it in a tube and sell it to osama and friends. thats a national security threat yall. we all know osama gon' hurt us. he done it in the past. like that time he...

-uh what he do?! .... oh right that 911 plot - prez.Bush said he done it. And prez.Bush knows osama personally, so he knows what kinda crook osama is. *god bless america*

-back to saddam, lets preEmpt his ability to stuff tubes and sell to osama. lets get our wMd and stomp out his wMd. hooah.

-whats that prez.Bush? no wMd? oh well, lets just finish the job then.. we can call it operation Iraqi slaughter -or or wait, operation American sacrifice. yeah.

-whats that somebody somewherE? there IS wMd?! awe man, see we told you so! you been punk'd dummy liberal. yous just a dummy liberal.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   



Seriously, though, even if WMDs were found NOW, we've already changed the whole premise of why were there. When the WMDs weren't found, instead of admitting the mistake, the whole reason for the war was spun into "spreading democracy". Remember?

Most of the people who support this war have forgotton all about WMDs and have switched (with the administration) to the importance of spreading democracy as a way to defeat TERRUH!

They don't need WMDs anymore. We're over there for humanitarian reasons, now. And even if they did find something more than one roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas, it could have been planted. I'm surprised they didn't do that, though...


[edit on 10-11-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   
If there really is enough there to 'change' the perception that there were no
WMD's found......the administration has enough sympathetic press people
to 'get the story out'.

Bill O'Reilly for one would be screaming his head off 24/7, and the Fox News
people would be screaming also.......so why don't they say something about this?

I've been waiting to hear someone in the administration say, "We thought we
would find WMD's there, because we sold them to him a few years ago.....we just, didn't realize he had used them up already!"



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Either produce supporting documents or shut it! Just cause someone wrote it in a book doesn't make it true.

Watch: Bush is actually Jesus Christ dishuised as a moron.

See! That statement is not true and I just wrote it down here. I've got no supporting documents. No evidence. So it's bunch of crap.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   
This is absolute horse manure...

How can that much ' stuff ' be magically hidden from all the media in the world, yet a soilder killing a unarmed man wounded can reach mainstream media.

Saddam had nothing, why wouldnt the government report on it ?

the world KNOWS the us gave him wmds.... why not spin it your correcting your previous mistakes at the same time removing a threat to the world??

I mean your president wouldnt finally FINALLY go back and say there are no wmds.. after so long convincing the public they were there if he had a GOOD speach saying he FOUND What he wanted?....



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
This war really wasn't about WMD's in the first place, but anyway...


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And even if they did find something more than one roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas, it could have been planted. I'm surprised they didn't do that, though...

I have also wondered why they didn't just plant some WMD's and call it a day. Although I think getting caught planting weapons would be more disastrous than not finding any. They can just blame it on Intelligence.


What ever happened to those long range rockets, that they found right before the war? Maybe they only are contraband, and not considered a WMD.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
This war really wasn't about WMD's in the first place, but anyway...


Yeah, I know, but that was the 'official story'. The first one.

And yes, if there were WMDs found, there are plenty of sensationalist 'news' programs and channels (like cnn) out there who would just be chompin' at the bit to run stories on it.

But they're talking about how Al-Zarqawi is the prime suspect in the Jordan bombings...



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Look, for the sole reason that if it were true, Scott McClellan would be talking about this everyday, means that it is either not true, or it is such a distorted and convoluted argument as to be a worthless one. Either that, or the administration doesn't mind being trashed in the media everyday.

Anyway, I fully support a war on Terra! I think we should rid that planet of all ape-like lifeforms so that we can begin Terra-forming. Then we can colonize it.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic



Seriously, though, even if WMDs were found NOW, we've already changed the whole premise of why were there. When the WMDs weren't found, instead of admitting the mistake, the whole reason for the war was spun into "spreading democracy". Remember?

Actually BH there was WMD's found...but not at the levels wht we led to believe.


Most of the people who support this war have forgotton all about WMDs and have switched (with the administration) to the importance of spreading democracy as a way to defeat TERRUH!

Its all fair to generalise but frankly I could say all non supporters simply wont admit the fact that there WAS WMD's there...even if it does prove some of thier own points..


They don't need WMDs anymore. We're over there for humanitarian reasons, now. And even if they did find something more than one roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas, it could have been planted. I'm surprised they didn't do that, though...

Because it would be very easy to trace and make em look stupid.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
A little truth content analysis:

• The lowly enriched uranium "found" was no secret at all, it had been known to be there from 1991 to 1998 and back in 2003 when the UN inspectors were allowed back in, it was still lying there with UN seals attached, no attempt had been made to enrich it. The uranium was enriched to 2,6%, for a nuclear weapon you need at least 93% enrichment.

• The 1,000 radioactive sources were leftovers from Iraq's nuclear program before 1991 that Iraq was allowed to keep anyway and no country likes to import radioactive waste. The US decided to import it however due to dirty bomb fears. The insinuations that Iraq kept it for dirty bombs are just ridiculous. Iraq had by the way before 1991 tested a dirty bomb and found it to be worth crap and stopped development.

• The 1,500 gallons of "chemical weapons" is also pure bull#. First of all, what was found were over 11 precursor chemicals, for use in conventional explosives. "Chemicals" does not equal "chemical weapons". Hell, H2O is a chemical substance and it's quite safe to drink it.
Second, this was found AFTER the invasion and AFTER saddam being caught and appeared to be recently made. Third, the kind of chemicals found are commonly used for industrial purposes, and the list of chemicals included glycerin, sodium hydroxide and ethanol sulfate. All of these could be bought in your local pharmacy.

• The 17 chemical warheads were all from the first Gulf War and hence in very deplorable condition and no longer firable. Only the mustard gas shells found might, although partially degraded, still have the potential to kill some people, although with that amount of shells you might have better luck just mowing people down with an AK-47. The sarin and cyclosarin shells were not binary ammunition and posed no threat to the coalition forces. The US military said that while two of the rockets tested positive for sarin, traces of the agent were so small and deteriorated as to be virtually harmless. "These rounds were determined to have limited to no impact if used by insurgents against coalition forces," a statement by the military said.

• The roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas is actually the only actual item qualifying as WMD in this list. The sarin shell was a binary munition, in this form the sarin is only produces from two precursors when the shell explodes, as sarin itself decomposes pretty fast. The coalition has released no information on the date of the shell, so it might as well have been a dud from the Iran-Iraq war that some insurgents found. The fact that the insurgents didn't know what it was - or they could have made a much deadlier attack - and the fact that no new such shells were found or used by the resistance, seems to point in that direction instead of a deliberate withholding of massive stockpiles east, west, north and south of Tikrit.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
There were many. many reasons to invade Iraq. No-fly zone violations, shooting at our jets, oil-for-food, Saddams tyranny, but, a giant nuke on a scud was never found so no WMD's become the battle cry. People with an agenda only remember what they want to remember to fit their agenda.

Saddam had WMD's, he used them, he had all the parts to create nukes scattered across the counrty, it was only a matter of time. Not unlike the Manhatten project. Until 1 month before we dropped the bome, all the parts were scattered across america. This is no different.

He had VX......Fact
He had anthrax........fact
He had the high explosives needed to trigger nukes........fact
He had the technology and the means..fact

It would appear most of the technology found its way to Iran.

Now the world just sits back and watches as Iran builds nukes, missles, etc. Stupid isn't it.............



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   
A few things...

First, this is a link to an advertisement. As such it's value as reliable information is 0, in my book.

Second, the UN found plenty of WMD material in Iraq in the early 90s. (I've pasted a detailed list in some other threads.) The ad doesn't make clear whether or not it is referring to materials found by US troops recently or the UN findings, which have long been known (although not publicized by the US for some reason- I'm guessing as part of the neocons attempt to portray the UN in as negative a light as possible in just about anything it does.) Alternatively, these materials may not have been "found," but recovered by the US after they let all kinds of radioactive and chemical materials go missing during the looting of Baghdad.

I think what it most likely boils down to is that this guy has a very different interpretation of what WMD's are than the DoD, the President, the CIA, the UN, and just about every other significant player in the WMD hunt.

If you look at this guy's other books, he seems like he's got an axe to grind on many issues. He claims to reveal, amongst other things, how "Iraq is NOT another Vietnam!" I'm dubious anyone can claim conclusively that Iraq is either like OR not like Vietnam, or any other war. There are too many variables to account for. His "Blame Clinton" book may have some good research, I haven't read it, but it is clearly a partisan vehicle given it's subtitle.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join