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.

 

500 WMD's found in Iraq

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says


WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.

"Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."

Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn't believe Iraq is a "WMD-free zone."



Weapons of mass destruction......yes, weapons of mass distraction.......... only for those whose ideas are more and more bankrupt.

Wheres the WMD, wheres the wmd, oh wheres the wmd is all I've heard for three years or better.

Now the refrain is.......No WMD, no wmd, no wmd!!!!! please no!!!! no!!!! no!!!!!!!!


Puhleeese




posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Discuss the topic and not each other, YET AGAIN you two(grover, Muaddib). If you guys are going to keep derailing threads, expect to wear the flags.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Discuss the topic and not each other, YET AGAIN you two(grover, Muaddib). If you guys are going to keep derailing threads, expect to wear the flags.


So...Intrepid if it is US TWO (Muaddib and me) then why doesn't Muaddib have a warning as well....Bias?



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   
When we got Saddam or Al-Zarqawi, Bush held a press conference. This seems like an important event, why didn't he go on tv and say, "We found them!"

Sure Rumsfeld alluded to them, but there doesn't seem to be a firm acceptance that this really means anything from the White House.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by intrepid
Discuss the topic and not each other, YET AGAIN you two(grover, Muaddib). If you guys are going to keep derailing threads, expect to wear the flags.


So...Intrepid if it is US TWO (Muaddib and me) then why doesn't Muaddib have a warning as well....Bias?


Because he didn't stoop to this level, "Up yours....". M'kay?

Back to the topic.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
yeah? he does a good job of goading his debators on and has repeatidly belittled people who disagree with him. Bias if you ask me.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
yeah? he does a good job of goading his debators on and has repeatidly belittled people who disagree with him. Bias if you ask me.


Whatever dude, I get the same from him btw.


Now, what part of, "back to the topic" is difficult to understand?



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I've been away for a while - so I'm a bit out of touch. Can someone help me out here please?

...It looks like our "war on terror" has a progressed a bit:

1. We bombed Afghanistan because Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.

2. We attacked Iraq because Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD's) originally supplied to Hussein by the USA when he was our puppet, and because maybe bin Laden was hiding out in Iraq.

3. No WMD's were found in Iraq after several years of searching, despite the economic takeover of Iraq facilitated by the US military. Plus, the US administration "forgot" about bin Laden.

4. People started questioning US credibility.

5. Now, the US has discovered WMD's in Iraq.



Does that about sum it up?

Or have I missed something?





posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
....................
Does that about sum it up?

Or have I missed something?




You forgot quite a few things, including that the U.S. did not provide all nor most of those wmd... in fact you forgot to say that the list goes as it follows Japan, Russia, China, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and then the U.S. (i might be forgetting some countries in between)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyways, welcome back, it is good to know you still stand for the same as you always have, blaming the U.S. for anything and everything.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Key points Mauddib:



No WMD's were found in Iraq after several years of searching.

So...

People started questioning US credibility.

Now, ...

the US has discovered WMD's in Iraq.


Kinda convenient, dontcha think?



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Key points Mauddib:



No WMD's were found in Iraq after several years of searching.

So...

People started questioning US credibility.

Now, ...

the US has discovered WMD's in Iraq.


Kinda convenient, dontcha think?


Key points soficrow,

1)several sources, starting from former Iraqi military officers, officers who were part of Saddam's regime until it was ousted, former Russian military defectors, journalists, etc, etc, they all say there were wmd in Iraq up to the beginning of the war... Many of these people said that there were contigency plans to get rid, hide or move the wmd, and a lot of the evidence points to this being the case...

2) Several things which are needed for a wmd program to continue were found in Iraq, when they were all supposed to have been destroyed, some of these, many of them being documents were partially or totally destroyed when the war started by the regime of Saddam. All of these things prove that there was a wmd program going on in Iraq and Saddam was going after more wmd....

3) Since this is not the first find of proof that there was a wmd program and Saddam's regime did not destroy everything he was supposed to destroy, and since Iraq is a pretty big country...it is normal that they would find more evidence of what Saddam was really doing...

[edit on 8-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   
the question is, is his sources the same phoney iraqi national congress sources or some other ones. Even Saddams foriegn minister who was on our payroll and whose info we chose to ignore said that we had grossly over estimated the threat.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
the question is, is his sources the same phoney iraqi national congress sources or some other ones. Even Saddams foriegn minister who was on our payroll and whose info we chose to ignore said that we had grossly over estimated the threat.


Then there is the second in command of the air force in Iraq, George Sadas, stating that Saddam did have a wmd program and had wmd.

Then there is also Saddam's audio tapes in which Saddam himself is heard talking with some scientists about the ongoing programs to build a nuclear device, as late as 2000.

i am sure someone will come up now claiming, "but why would Saddam had audio tapes of himself? it is obviously something planted by the U.S"....to which i will reply Saddam was in his own turf, he believed nothing and noone could touch him there, hell we didn't oust him on the first gulf war. Hence like so many other politicians, and dictators he taped his conversations in case he could use anything said in them by those foreign people/powers which Saddam had deals with.


[edit on 9-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   
And then we have all the weapons inspectors saying Saddam didn't have any active weapons. All we have left are a few pitiful 80s era weapons that are probably no more deadly than a carton of rotten eggs.


In his report to the UN Security Council on February 14, 2003, Blix claimed that "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament -- under resolution 687 -- could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided." [5] This contradicts stated U.S. policy throughout the 1990s, which was to maintain sanctions whatever the Iraqi regime did.[6].

Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the Bush administration, and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC TV on 8 February 2004, Dr. Blix accused the U.S. and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

en.wikipedia.org...

Before you reply Muadibb, I have this to add for you...

In an interview with London's Guardian newspaper, Hans Blix said; "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media" [8].


[edit on 11-7-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Have you ever wondered why Blix was at first one of the people saying there was evidence of a wmd in Iraq and then one day suddenly he decided to say "there were no wmd in Iraq"?....

Anyways...the people who would know whether or not tehre were wmd in Iraq, are the people who worked with the regime...


General Georges Hormiz Sada (Arabic:كوركيس هرمز ساده )(aka Gewargis or George Hormis) (born ?1939) is an author and member of the current Iraqi government as well as a member of the former government under Saddam Hussein's Regime .

Sada was born to a Assyrian family [1] in Northern Iraq, that belonged to the Chaldean Catholic Church. In 1959 he graduated from the Iraqi Air Academy, and went to study overseas in Britain, the USSR and the United States. Through 1964-1965 he studied piloting in Texas, and in July 1968, when Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr came to power, Sada began serving in the Air Force.

He officially retired in 1986 as a 2-star general, after going through "born-again Christian" phase, but was called back to active service for the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. He claims that he was discharged and imprisoned on February 5, 1991, for refusing to execute POWs and has not been employed in any official capacity in Iraq since then.
.................
On January 24th 2006, he announced the publication of a book he had written entitled Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied And Survived Saddam Hussein, with the tagline "An insider exposes plans to destroy Israel, hide WMDs and control the Arab world."[3] Sada, the former Vice Air Marshall under Hussein, appeared the following day on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, where he discussed his book and reported that other pilots told him that Hussein had ordered them to fly portions of the WMD stockpiles to Damascus in Syria just prior to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.

Well, I want to make it clear, very clear to everybody in the world that we had the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, and the regime used them against our Iraqi people...I know it because I have got the captains of the Iraqi airway that were my friends, and they told me these weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria.[4]

Sada made a guest appearance on The Daily Show on March 21st, 2006 to promote Saddam's Secrets. 100% of the profits from his book go to an organization that donates school bags and items to Middle Eastern children.

en.wikipedia.org...

and then again if Saddam's regime was not working in wmd programs why did they have so many banned items, such as empty chemical warheads, and so many other banned material which they were supposed to destroy yet they didn't.....



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   
So, are you saying that we attacked Iraq because they had empty chemical warheads? I'm sorry, but the thought of rusting, outdated empty warheads somehow doesn't seem like much of a threat to me. That's like saying the police should bust up your local army surplus for having empty grenades.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
The warheads were old and rusty, but they were not empty. And they were still very potent.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   
So is ammonia and chlorox...

Was it worth the trillions of dollars spent and thousands of lives lost?



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 05:49 AM
link   
I agree, the US went into Iraqi because it was reported to have had WMD's that were able to attack the US.
These outdated and rusting warheads do not constitute this.
If there is strong evidence that gives an indication of where these weapons might be, then it might be justified, but up to now there have been no discoveries of newly made WMD's or any way of using them.

Also, Mauddib, if you do have all the evidence as you say, would you please post it here or tell me where to find it, all that I saw on the other posts was attacks on other peoples posts



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join