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.

 

Weapons Meet WMD Criteria

page: 14
2
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   
That definition has been included on posts on ATS and is available for anyone with a computer and the ability to go to www.ggole.com.

However for those unable to do this I will include this.


Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) generally include nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) and, increasingly, radiological weapons.

The term first arose in 1937 in reference to the mass destruction of Guernica, Spain, by aerial bombardment.[1] Following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and progressing through the Cold War, the term came to refer more to non-conventional weapons. The terms ABC, NBC, and CBRN have been used synonymously with WMD, although nuclear weapons have the greatest capacity to cause mass destruction. The phrase entered popular usage in relation to the U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq.

WMDs cause indiscriminate impacts, because of this fear of WMD has shaped political policies and campaigns, fostered social movements, and has been the central theme of many films. Support for different levels of WMD development and control varies nationally and internationally. Yet understanding of the nature of the threats is not high, in part because of imprecise usage of the term by politicians and the media.


Link : en.wikipedia.org...

Claiming to not know the definition of something that has been established beginning in 1937, is not a very productive post as it pertains to the discussion.

Semper




posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1


Muaddib..... you know those were done with Photoshop or Xara. NOT!!! Sure... just like the photos of Salmon Pak, with the 747 used for terrorist training.... not real.


You are kidding right? Are there people now claiming this?.....


Originally posted by zappafan1
By the way, U2U me: where did you find the pic, and point me to where I can find out how to insert photos. Thanks


If you right click on the photo, you will see it came from the Washington times. I just did a search on google about "satellite pictures of trucks in Iraq wmd", or something like that. That photo was taken before the coalition or the U.S were there.

[edit on 23-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
President Bush does not care as much about the political infighting, or points as they may wish he did. He cares about those people over there and all this bickering is irrelevant to him. Maybe?

Makes sense, his convictions have been tried and tried and stood the test of time with so much hate out there for him, also, he can't be reelected, he is just doing his job.


i don't believe he cares about political infighting etc. i do believe he cares about making sure cheney's boys over at halliburton/kbr continue to receive multi-billion dollar contracts in iraq even after numerous scandals involving fraudulent charges for services or materials that were never delivered...all the while the bush administration goes out of its way to block any review of these suspect relationships and activities.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 04:56 AM
link   
enomus,
How many investigations have there been? Five that I am aware of and what did they turn up? SQUAT
Nothing, NADA.

It is a sure bet that if you know about it, the Democrats do as well and would hand him his head on a platter.


The trouble with that is, they can not find that which is not there and have wasted many many tax dollars looking for that ghost of which you speak.

That rumor has been around for a long time. It is a "conspiracy" talking point without any merit at all.

Semper



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   
semper the republicans have controlled all 3 branches of government since 02, there have been no serious investigations of the white house nor will there be because congressional republicans have blocked everything, which, btw is wrong, no matter who is president or which party controls congress.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   
yet Grover,

There were investgations and I can find nothing of substance in reference to any blocking.

This is a great talking point and it has been eluded to for years.

And yes the Republicans do control the majority of Congress, but are there not Democrats there as well? Did they just roll over? More likely they were presented with the facts, saw it was only propaganda and went on their way.

Semper



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   
In regards to the democrats in congress all I can say about them is that it is rather pitiful watching invertabrates trying to stand up.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
enomus,
How many investigations have there been? Five that I am aware of and what did they turn up? SQUAT
Nothing, NADA.



Examining a Halliburton subsidiary's contract to deliver fuel and repair oil equipment, Defense Department auditors found $263 million in charges they felt inflated or unsupported by documentation.

It was part of a $2.4 billion no-bid contract with Kellogg Brown & Root. KBR has reported $15.4 billion in revenue from Iraq.

In late February, however, the Army Corps of Engineers ignored auditors' findings and reimbursed KBR for $254 million of the questioned costs.

.....

A pair of the House's leading sleuths, Dingell and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., tried to act when the House took up a big war-on- terrorism/Hurricane Katrina spending bill.

They offered an amendment to prohibit new contracts to contractors found by the Defense Contract Audit Agency to have had more than $100 million in unreasonable costs in contracts involving work in Iraq.

The amendment was voted down 225-193.

taken from: seattlepi.nwsource.com...


this is the same company that was fined over 3 million dollars for exporting goods to lybia, a terrorist state, which violated US sanctions...yet still it's treated to billions of dollars in no-bid contracts.

just found this little gem as well...


In an effort to stop companies like Halliburton and its subsidiaries from cheating our troops and stealing from Americans, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), introduced S.AMDT.4230 and attached it to the Defense Authorization bill currently being debated in the Senate. The bill was intended to improve contracting "by eliminating fraud and abuse and improving competition in contracting and procurement."

.......

Dorgan's bill -- cosponsored by 17 Democrats and called the Honest Leadership and Accountability in Contracting Act of 2006 -- was tabled by a roll call vote of 55-43, effectively rejecting the amendment. Every single Senate Republican voted against the measure to make the contracting process honest and impose penalties on those who break the law.

And just what were the stern rules that the GOP didn’t think their buddies at Halliburton should have to live with? The text of the legislation spelled out that Bush and Cheney's defense-contractor buddies would be in trouble if they did any of the following:

* "Executes or attempts to execute a scheme or artifice to defraud the United States or the entity having jurisdiction over the area in which such activities occur."

* "Falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact."

* "Makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any materially false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry."

* "Materially overvalues any good or service with the specific intent to excessively profit from the war or military action."

......

"What we have discovered is pretty unbelievable," said Dorgan last week. "We have direct testimony from physicians, Army doctors, and others about providing nonpotable water for shaving, brushing teeth that is in worse condition as water than the raw water coming out of the Euphrates River."

"Let me describe some of the firsthand eyewitness issues in Iraq," Dorgan continued. "Brand new $85,000 trucks that were left on the side of the road because of a flat tire and then subsequently burned. 25 tons, 50,000 pounds, of nails ordered by Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), the wrong size, that are laying in the sands of Iraq. 42,000 meals a day charged to the taxpayers by Halliburton and only 14,000 are actually served."

taken from: www.corpwatch.org...



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: "Qusay (Hussein) had ordered [Sada] to execute all the pilots," said Eberly. "But Georges wouldn't do it. He argued that the rights accorded to prisoners under the Geneva Conventions were inviolable." According to Eberly, General Sada was later arrested and held by the Iraqi Republican Guard. Later, Saddam changed his minds on the executions, and Sada went on to be an Iraqi officer in good standing.

Source?



Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: Don't you read???? I WAS THERE!!!

Can't you read: From below it looks like a bit of a crowd, from above it looks a lot less spectacular. Let alone even if the unverifyable claim you were there is true, you were below.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...



Originally posted by muaddib
Watch him now come up with a new claim....

That claims to show loading activity in Iraq, not a convoy heading to Syria or whatever.



Originally posted by muaddib
Sure... just like the photos of Salmon Pak, with the 747 used for terrorist training.... not real.

First, there are no real photos (only some satellite pics) of Salman Pak because nothing much was really found there. The plane that was visible on satellite pictures was further a Tupolev and not a Boeing nor any other US type. That it was used for terrorist training was further alleged by only one defector with questionable reliability.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

That claims to show loading activity in Iraq, not a convoy heading to Syria or whatever.


and where do you think those trucks and semis went after they loaded whatever they got from that site?....



Originally posted by Simon666
First, there are no real photos (only some satellite pics) of Salman Pak because nothing much was really found there. The plane that was visible on satellite pictures was further a Tupolev and not a Boeing nor any other US type. That it was used for terrorist training was further alleged by only one defector with questionable reliability.



Really?....and what is your source on that?.....

Never mind, let me actually respond by giving evidence to the contrary.


Two defectors from Iraqi intelligence said Wednesday that they had worked for several years at a secret Iraqi government camp that had trained Islamic terrorists in rotations of five or six months since 1995.
They said the training in the camp, south of Baghdad, was aimed at carrying out attacks against neighboring countries and possibly Europe and the US.


www.taipeitimes.com...



Sabah Khodada was a captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992. He worked at what he describes as a highly secret terrorist training camp at Salman Pak (see Khodada‘s hand-drawn map of the camp), an area south of Baghdad. In this translated interview, conducted in association with The New York Times on Oct. 14, 2001, Khodada describes what went on at Salman Pak, including details on training hijackers. He emigrated to the U.S. in May 2001.



www.intelmessages.org...



That airplane is most probably a 727.

BTW...since when satellite pictures are "no real photos" or do not provide evidence of a 727 being at Salman Pak?......

Anyways, supposedly Salman Pak was built in the 80s as a counter terrorism training center to train Iraqi military forces in counter-terrorism training exercises, and it was used until 1992 for this training, when Iraq did not have a functioning airline anymore.

Any country with a mayor airline has such centers, after 1992 the center was transferrred to the Iraqi Intelligence service, but since Iraq did not have a "functioning airline anymore, what was it used for since 1992?


[edit on 25-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahbalhblah...... and so it goes ad nauseum.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahbalhblah......


Wow....humm, if I wasn't told by another member about your response I would have missed this completly, as i still had you in ignore..


Grover, that is the most intelligent thing I have ever seen you post in these forums...
Back to ignore....


[edit on 25-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
and where do you think those trucks and semis went after they loaded whatever they got from that site?....

Isn't that what I asked evidence of?




Originally posted by Muaddib
Two defectors from Iraqi intelligence said Wednesday that they had worked for several years at a secret Iraqi government camp that had trained Islamic terrorists in rotations of five or six months since 1995. Never mind, let me actually respond by giving evidence to the contrary.

Nevermind that only one of them - Khodada - ever gave many interviews, in which he indentified the plane there as a Boeing, moreover of the same type as one used in the 911 attacks, while the actual plane was a Russian Tupolev. So despite "working there for several years" he couldn't tell a Russian and a US plane apart. Hmmmmm... The other guy when interviewed by Seymore Hersch claimed his statements had been twisted and that it had been a training ground for Udai's Fedayeen - not terrorists, even though the Fedayeen were no sweethearts - something which was actually confirmed after the war. Still waiting for pictures of Salman Pak other than the well known satellite pic showing a plane.



Originally posted by Muaddib
Any country with a mayor airline has such centers, after 1992 the center was transferrred to the Iraqi Intelligence service, but since Iraq did not have a "functioning airline anymore, what was it used for since 1992?

The center was used for training Iraqi republican Guard and Fedayeen (in among other guerilla tactics). If there really had been discovered any serious evidence of terrorist training at Salman Pak, don't you think the administration would have jumped and paraded everything in front of the world press? Use your brain.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 06:10 AM
link   
thanks for putting me back in ignore muaddib, my life here is so much more peaceful that way. By the way in case you missed the intent of the blahblahblah...I posted it because you have become so predictable that all you have to do now is to make copies of your responses, since they are all the same and as such interchangeable, and have them posted automatically. That way you never have to log on again.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

Isn't that what I asked evidence of?


...so you think that maybe Saddam's regime decided to load those trucks and semis just to take the explosives, and whatever else they took out for a ride?....



Originally posted by Simon666
Nevermind that only one of them - Khodada - ever gave many interviews, in which he indentified the plane there as a Boeing, moreover of the same type as one used in the 911 attacks, while the actual plane was a Russian Tupolev. So despite "working there for several years" he couldn't tell a Russian and a US plane apart. Hmmmmm...


He was a security officer, not a pilot, and unless you get really close to the plane to see the differences you can mistake the Russian Tupolev 154 with a 727....



Originally posted by Simon666
The other guy when interviewed by Seymore Hersch claimed his statements had been twisted and that it had been a training ground for Udai's Fedayeen - not terrorists, even though the Fedayeen were no sweethearts - something which was actually confirmed after the war.


so why would "Fedayeen" train in an aircraft for?... After 1992 Iraq did not have an airline anymore...so no need to "train for counterterrorism using an aircraft".



Originally posted by Simon666
Still waiting for pictures of Salman Pak other than the well known satellite pic showing a plane.


Ah, so i guess "that well known satellite picture of a plane in Salman Pak" is not evidence according to you?....

Iraq's U.N. ambassador, Mohammed Aldouri claimed that there were no planes there, there were only gardens and trees, and that it was impossible to have such training exercises there...

So why did he have to lie?



Originally posted by Simon666
The center was used for training Iraqi republican Guard and Fedayeen (in among other guerilla tactics). If there really had been discovered any serious evidence of terrorist training at Salman Pak, don't you think the administration would have jumped and paraded everything in front of the world press? Use your brain.


I see...so they were training in military tactics using an aircraft.... What for if there was no airline in Iraq after 1992?....

BTW, i assure you that i use my brain pretty well....perhaps you should follow your own advice.


df1

posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Wikepedia is not an adequate criteria to catergorize weapons of mass destruction one way or the other. The reality is that no criteria for defining WMDs exists. All of the distortion and babble from those partisan to the bush administration will not make it so no matter how many pages of misinformation they continue to spew.
.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Oh doesn't he love to insult and belittle....still hasn't come up with a sound reason why HE should know what happened o the WMD after the Bush administrations stated that they didn't find any. Oh yes Muaddib knows best.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1
Wikepedia is not an adequate criteria to catergorize weapons of mass destruction one way or the other. The reality is that no criteria for defining WMDs exists. All of the distortion and babble from those partisan to the bush administration will not make it so no matter how many pages of misinformation they continue to spew.
.


OK




The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" in official U.S. documents is "nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons."

www.nti.org...
and




weapon of mass destruction, WMD
bioarm, biological weapon, bioweapon - any weapon usable in biological warfare; "they feared use of the smallpox virus as a bioweapon"
chemical weapon - chemical substances that can be delivered using munitions and dispersal devices to cause death or severe harm to people and animals and plants
nuclear weapon - a weapon of mass destruction whose explosive power derives from a nuclear reaction

www.thefreedictionary.com...

and


eapons of mass destruction are weapons capable of inflicting massive destruction to property and/or population, using chemical, biological or radioactive material. Weapons of Mass Destruction are also known by the abbreviation WMD.

www.army-technology.com...

OK, that is enough. It seems the rest of the world does not have quite the difficulty in the definition as some very few on here.

Semper



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1
Wikepedia is not an adequate criteria to catergorize weapons of mass destruction one way or the other. The reality is that no criteria for defining WMDs exists. All of the distortion and babble from those partisan to the bush administration will not make it so no matter how many pages of misinformation they continue to spew.
.


Wow...that's it i guess....df1 debunked all of us government agents and disinformation agents....


What exactly do you think rethoric like what you stated above presents as evidence around here?.... There might be some members that will believe those false claims, but the smart ones know better....

[edit on 27-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Well thats that the partisan to the bush administration has spoken. I wonder how much Karl Rove pays him or is it Cheney?




top topics



 
2
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join