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.


The WMD Cult

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 6 2003 @ 12:08 AM
When your whole intellectual realm is based on fabrications created by those who share your agenda, I can see how what you are posting would make sense to YOU.

Since mine is based upon the FACTS as they exist in THIS reality I have to differ with you.

My take on this is based on the FACTS as reported by those, we, the human race, trust as our advocates.

Your take on this is based upon "out on the fringe" LOONS who espouse your agenda and thereby become credible to YOU, that can't even get on the global MEDIA scene, much less be trusted by the majority of the free world as an advocate.

So when you opine that I have added no fact to the discussion I take it as a COMPLIMENT.

Based on YOUR perception of "fact" I would rather abstain...


posted on Oct, 6 2003 @ 12:09 AM
*Pheew* Springer & MA! Quite a debate! *s* I've seen many good and informative posts here not to say well formulated. I find that a lot of posts on other subjects are often poorly thought trough and formulated...

Anyway, I was thinking about the whole idea of an oil conspiracy, if you will, in relation to the WoMD issue?
Kegs' post brought this up, as the only one, which puzzled me. I've seen posts about the oil, the natural resource that keeps the wheels turning and the world spinning, so to speak, and the strong forces and interests behind this industry. (which I guess that is an pressing issue within any US Adm, due to the fact that the US is the world's largest consumer of fossil fuels) yet this thread barely mentioned a possible connection.

Another thing that strikes me, is the absence of ATS members from the arab world. To elaborate; with so many threads dealing with subjects concerning affairs in many parts of the world, and so many threads specificly dealing with the US and it's (shady) interests in the manufacturing and control of fossil fuels, surely someone here must must have a different perspective on these subjects, differing from from the predominantly western perspectives mostly encountered here. I'm just thinking, that, if any ATS member were of arab origins/orientation, it would be interesting to hear their point of view.

Just my thoughts...

[Edited on 6-10-2003 by operatoreleven]

[Edited on 6-10-2003 by operatoreleven]

posted on Oct, 6 2003 @ 12:16 AM

You seem not to be able to accept a basic fact: that prior to 9/11, botgh Rice and Powell publicly stated that Saddam Hussein was not a threat, and possessed no WMDs at all.

You will need to deal with your denial before this can progress much further, or it will plague you in your dreams for weeks to come.


There have been 2-3 Arabic members of the Board in the few months I have paid some attention to what people say here. Moku (for short) was probably most vocal. He was taunted and bullied quite somewhat for being who he was, but kept at it until quite recently.

There are also some professed followers of the Islamic faith here, who have views from pacifistic to moderate. Sometimes there are religious differences (ie alternate historical proofs) that cause more agitation than what is going down in the middle east.

Actually, I don't thing Springer has engaged in debate at all. He keeps typing the word FACTS in capital letters without stating any..... Read for yourself!

posted on Oct, 6 2003 @ 12:16 AM
I would LOVE to hear the thoughts of an Arab on this topic. I am not sure what they could lend in the way of the American motivation for prosecuting the war BUT I am SURE they could give a unique perspective on the results of it.


posted on Oct, 6 2003 @ 12:18 AM

Look up my "onion" analogy where actual theft of oil and completion of the Iraq-Afghanistan pipeline are only layers 4 and 5 of an 8-layer onion, the whole thing shrouded in acrid lies.

Iraqi oil is only mentioned in 67 other threads initiated on the Iraqi War since February 14.

posted on Oct, 6 2003 @ 12:24 AM
Your arrogance is only shadowed by your intolerance to REALITY.

Here a poster proclaimed the facts and you deny him his very own thoughts! The HEIGHT of arrogance!

Alas, Old Bean, this is the result of listening to and taking to heart TRIPE like Polger...

I wish you well on you evidently LONG journey to the TRUTH....



posted on Oct, 6 2003 @ 12:34 AM
Springer, here is the full text of the interview with Powell's statement:


The question he was asked was:

"The Egyptian press editorial commentary that we have seen here has been bitterly aggressive in denouncing the U.S. role and not welcoming you. I am wondering whether you believe you accomplished anything during your meetings to assuage concerns about the air strikes against Iraq and the continuing sanctions?"

Powell answered the question in two parts. The first paragraph of his answer was in relation to the air strikes, the second was in relation to the sanctions and there effects. This was the answer on the sanctions:

"We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions--the fact that the sanctions exist-- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."

The point is that in this statement he is making it clear that Saddams efforts to obtain weapons had to that point failed, and he is clearly boasting that the reason it failed and he had no weapons capability to speak of was because of U.S efforts, and that it was the U.S who was responsible for this state of affairs.

Powell went even further in May of 2001 when he stated that Saddam had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". He claimed again that America had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Stating you have the facts and the greater handle on reality does not make it so. Neither, as far as I'm aware, does repeatedly saying you've won an argument make it so.

[Edited on 6-10-2003 by kegs]

posted on Oct, 6 2003 @ 01:18 AM
THANKS for making things UNDENIABLE kegs.

You are TRULY DESERVING of the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE and the TWO MILLION DOLLARS accompanying for showing what was said and making it BEYOND ALL DOUBT FOREVER.

You are a GENTLEMAN and a SCHOLAR and it is GREAT to have you ON SIDE so we can bring some DECORUM to this bunch of RIGHT WING Americans with NO CULTURE.

(Just kidding).

Now, to complete the service for those that care for the truth, here's the video - suits the soundbite generation!!! No leftie loons in sight, just the Bush admin confirmation, in 2001, that there was no possibility Saddam had WMDs.

Powell and Rice, 2001, deny Hussein has WMDs

posted on Oct, 6 2003 @ 01:29 AM
To make it trans-Atlantic, this is Robin Cook giving it as he heard it from PM Blair's mouth...

Cook: 'Blair admitted to me that Saddam had no usable WMD'
By Colin Brown, Political Editor
(Filed: 05/10/2003)

Tony Blair privately admitted that Saddam Hussein could not attack British or United States troops with chemical or biological weapons two weeks before Britain went to war against Iraq, Robin Cook alleges today.

The claim by the former foreign secretary that the Prime Minister misled Parliament and committed Britain to an illegal war is made in his memoirs, which he sold to The Sunday Times for a reputed 400,000.

Mr Cook recalls how he was given an intelligence briefing on Iraq by John Scarlett, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, who has since given evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

(story continues - including the clarity of the statement that the war scheduling was not driven by progress of UN weapons inspections at all).

posted on Oct, 6 2003 @ 03:41 AM
MA, do you honestly believe any American or Brit thought SH could launch a scud with a nuke at either of us prior to or after 9/11???? Ofcourse not.

The idea is to make sure HE DOES NOT EVER HAVE THE CHANCE to do so!!

You can beat your meat till doomsday on who said what and what was said when and why forth and so on ad infinitim for ever and ever - it still does not hurt us Americans to know Sadaam is out of business.

So, be proud of your crusade to enlighten us sheople here in okiedoke land about our demonic leaders and the grand conspiracy to enslave us by shyting down Sadaams throat...whine and cheese??

You should run for office with the green party perhaps, they seem to share similar proclivities.

posted on Oct, 6 2003 @ 03:46 AM

Originally posted by Springer
Is a #ING left wing NUT JOB! NOT a credible source.

You are mistaken, Mr Pilger is unpopular in many people's eyes because the British public certainly DO see him as a credible source. The fact that he provided video footage of the Powell speech doesn't make his claim credible in your eyes, I see.

As for the whole WMD issue, even top Bush administration officials now say they would be "amazed" if any WMD were found in Iraq.

All the crap Seekerof and Springer are spouting means nothing. I don't know about you guys in the US but here in the UK, the majority of the people who supported the war, did so because Saddam Hussein posed a 'current and iminant' threat to this country and our allies. It is clear to everyone today, except the obvious handful here at ATS, that Saddam was no such threat and that the inspections were clearly working, most believe Saddam destroyed his arsenal after the first gulf war.


posted on Oct, 6 2003 @ 04:10 AM
...then the Brits were more gullable than we thought. The threat SH provided was his propensity for destruction via the means either at or soon to be at his disposal via chem or bio agency. Do you not believe his hatred for America and others (fellow Arabs) would not translate into him providing the means to terrorists to carry out attacks???

Surely, you are not so naive??

We here in America are sorry for you if you feel deceived ,but Sadaam is gone and with him one less headache for the world.

posted on Oct, 6 2003 @ 04:43 AM
Wow! Springer you are a fool. Instead of looking at the facts you have A WAY of looking at the facts, unfortunately it's the wrong way.
Trust me when I say you should ALWAYS treat the government with suspicion.

posted on Oct, 6 2003 @ 05:55 AM

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

No, I have not back-pedalled at all.

I have moved forward, in official terms.

AFTER an illegal war comes an illegal occupation.

But the war was not illegal. The war was very justified, you merely refuse to comprehend that. This is because you want it to be illegal.
Another thing that hurts your argument is when people continue to say the son is finishing up the dad's business. You understand that sounds like petty sniping, right?
You know, I remember what Rummy said as well, and I have the same questions. You know, like "Where are all those chemicla or biological weapons that were hidden in the basements of schools? Why haven't you gone into the schools and recovered them? Can't pass the entrance exam?
" But that does not mean the war was not justified, nor does it mean it was illegal.

I'm through, I'm outta this thread. Y'all hang cool. Solid.

posted on Oct, 6 2003 @ 06:52 AM
"...then the Brits were more gullable than we thought."

And you are from... Please, don't make me laugh! gullable, I could write an essay in response to that.

"The threat SH provided was his propensity for destruction via the means either at or soon to be at his disposal via chem or bio agency. Do you not believe his hatred for America and others (fellow Arabs) would not translate into him providing the means to terrorists to carry out attacks???"

Interesting, this is the only part of the case for war in Iraq that i agree with. But any WMD that Saddam did develop would have been purely for defensive purposes (according to British WMD experts).

If you adopt the policy of attacking every country that one day, might be a threat to your country the whole world would be at war with each other, this is why I don't think your reason is good enough to justify the invasion. I do however accept that you make a good point.

"We here in America are sorry for you if you feel deceived ,but Sadaam is gone and with him one less headache for the world."

I don't personally feel decieved, I never bought the WMD argument, what you seem to be missing is that the war was only possible and legal because of the threat supposedly posed by Saddam's WMD, the UN resolutions were not enough to make the war legal. This is why Bush just flung $600 million at the Iraq Survay Team.

As for Saddam, he may not be in his palace any longer and I am glad of that. However, where is he? gone, gone where? From where I am sitting, Saddam is a bigger headache for the world TODAY than he has ever been.

I don't like politicians, they all lie, if they don't lie, they fail, I accept that. But not when innocent people die as a result of these lies. My arguments aren't politically motivated, I am simply making the point that a lot of the rationale presented as justification for invading Iraq has turned out to be untrue. I just hope that the coalition learn some lessons from Iraq and don't repeat the same mistakes again.

posted on Oct, 6 2003 @ 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

WMD's are glorious inventions, chem/bio weapons are not.

When someone describes a Weapon of Mass Destruction as a Glorious Invention, we live in very dangerous times

posted on Oct, 6 2003 @ 03:55 PM
I didn't even pick up on that chebob, very well said. I couldn't agree more.

posted on Oct, 6 2003 @ 04:08 PM
Oh my! See what I miss when Im away!

I think the title of this thread is appropriate. A cult. Indeed, like many cults, they believe in non existant fairy tale entities and beings, objects and philosphies.

I have seen the cultists bring no facts to the table. No verifiable cross refferenced facts that stand up from all views.

Fact: North Korea has KNOWN WMD that they flaunt. they are also ruled by psychotic dictators, who commit the most vile of human rights abuses to showdow anything Saddam ever did. Why havent they been deposed?

Fact: China is ruled by sick brutal dictators who mass murder student protestors who want democracy. They also steal our nuclear secrets. They have many WMD. They kill, torture, and butcher people. Are they on the invasion list?

Fact: Saudi Arabia is ruled by a cruel monarchy that butchers foreignewrs, mutilates and murders women with impunity, and commits many basic human rights violations that I have personally witnessed. Where is our self righteous indignation to the point we shall go over there and regime change?

Fact: pakistan is ruled by a military dictator, who also commits atrocities, who harbors terrorists, who is in possesion of NUKES. Is Pakistan also going to be regime changed?

Fact:Africa is composed of several nations that not only are engaged in atrocities and mass murder of the people, but they also have plenty of bases and activities training terrorists. A couple of the 9/11 hijackers were kenyan I believe. Most of Africa is in misery, with cruel #head dictators who murder people and make mass graves, more than anything Saddam could come up with.

By all justification......if we removed Saddam from power, then we are obligated to remove the cruel dictators who commit human rights abuses and posses WMD, since the cultists on here claim those are the reasons we invaded. China, and North Korea, are a GREATER threat to US security, safety, and well being than Iraq ever was. Yet they are on no danger of our wrath.

But lets talk about the non existant WMD in Iraq.

Fact: We spent the past 12 years bombing the # out of Iraq while crippling the country with draconian sanctions.

Fact: we have been scouring the country for the past 12 years with Satelities, and AWACS. Saddam and his scientists couldnt pick thier noses and sodomize thier goats without us knowing about it. The idea of them sneaking tons and tons of anthrax and nuke materials is amusingly funny. That would be liek trying to drive to canada with about 50 tons of herion with no one knwoing.

Fact: the same chemicals used to make nerve gas, mustard gas, ect are also used to make hosuehold cleaners, industiral chemicals, and...surprise....OIL REFINING! Finding the existance of these raw chemicals is like finding iron at a steel mill and claiming it shall be used for making bad things, other than steel.

Fact: the UN DID NOT approve us going to war. The security council voted AGAINST use of military force to disarm Saddam. Thus, we acted WITHOUT UN approval.

Fact: Israel is in possesion of WMD more than Iraq ever had, and has violated not one, but HUNDREDS of UN relsolutions telling them to get the # out of the west bank and Gaza. The have complied with none. Why is no military force being used there? They violate UN resolutions, and posses a scary arsenal.

Fact: GW Bush the traitor and Skull and Bones man told the American public Saddam had WMD right now ready to use and would use them against us. He lied. Thats what he told us. He lied on the reason we went to war.

Fact:Several scientists, politicans, intelligence officals, have been comming forward saying the reports themselves were falsified. Sexed up. Use whatever term you like.

Fact: David Kelly, the whistle blower, is now dead udner suspicous circumstances. Thats what happens when you try to tell the truth.

So, you cultists want to play semantics, well, thats fine with me! Ill play all day.

Leveler, the UN security council resolution 1441 was a resolution that Saddam must disarm. The UN had not decided to disarm him by force. part of the resolution was weapons inspectors. before they even get to get thier inspections on the road and started sufficently, we basically tell the UN it dont matter, were going in anyway.
1441 did not sanction the use of force. The security council did not approve of the use of force. Thus, we went against the law of the UN. The war was illegal. unfortunately, theres no power big enough to make the US comply, so we pretty much can do whatever we want.

If Saddam was to be ousted because he was evil, then if we are to not be lying hypocrites, we must take on over 50 nations who are ruled by evil dictators.

The difference between this paticular dictator and others is this one was sitting on a motherlode of oil and natural gas. If North Korea had anything like it, we would be over there full balls to the walls.

Saddam had nothing to oppose us with. he crumpled over easily. It was an easy win with huge spoils.

The war was for oil, nothing more. That much is obvious even to a 5 year old child in kindergarten. Why cant adults be as smart?

I do hope these cultists arent planning to have a party anytime soon here large quantities of punch and kool aid are served........

posted on Oct, 6 2003 @ 05:31 PM
I wont really argue the WMD thing since I never saw it as a true reason for the war except that the media just ate it up.
I would just like to mention the strange demeanor change that occured with Powell just as this Iraq situation began. Did anyone else notice how he became less confident for a while and then all of a sudden he was militant? I just found that a bit odd. Almost like the dog that just got it's nose slapped for messing in the house.
I'll save the rest of my arguments about the war for a thread dealing with those issues.

P.S. Those vials with the reference strains, were any live or were they dead? Very important!

posted on Oct, 6 2003 @ 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Leveler, the UN security council resolution 1441 was a resolution that Saddam must disarm. The UN had not decided to disarm him by force. part of the resolution was weapons inspectors. before they even get to get thier inspections on the road and started sufficently, we basically tell the UN it dont matter, were going in anyway.
1441 did not sanction the use of force. The security council did not approve of the use of force. Thus, we went against the law of the UN. The war was illegal. unfortunately, theres no power big enough to make the US comply, so we pretty much can do whatever we want.

Um. Have you ever actually read 1441?
It's not simply "a resolution that Saddam must disarm".
It also specifies the use of force as a punishment for not complying.

Just in case you've never read it (which judging by your post, you haven't) here is a link to it.

If you actually do bother to read it you will find that Iraq actually defied this resolution in several places just as it did the dozen or so others before.

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in