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.

 

No weapons of mass destruction?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   
was Saddam Hussein telling the truth after all?

the man in charge of finding the weapons of mass destruction that were suppost to be located in Iraq has resigned from that responsibility and says it is likely they never existed

[Edited on 29-1-2004 by Morrison]




posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Saddam buried whole aircraft in the desert I wonder what else might be buried;

news.myway.com...|top|01-29-2004::09:01|reuters.html

Or could he have just moved them out of country?

www.debka.com...

I know there are a lot of impatient people out there right now - but I think more investigation is needed before my mind is made up.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   
The evidence, or rather lack of evidence, speaks for itself.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone
The evidence, or rather lack of evidence, speaks for itself.


I agree. They were gunning for Iraq from day one. They used the events of 9/11 as a springboard to attack Iraq. The inspectors never found anything. Our troops haven't found anything. We were duped.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 03:49 PM
link   
and our troops are there dying everyday for a reason that is not understandable to anyone except Bush when it's becoming clear that Saddam did get rid of the weapons just like he said



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Yeah I figured this would happen. Bush just wants to go after iraq, and the WMD's aren't going to be there.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I also read Saddam was polite during his capture and willing to talk and had some manners, same as he always did publically except for things I heard his country's TV broadcast say. He seemed like he was telling the truth during that talk with him and that one news reporter, can't remember his name.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Its obvious that someone didn't read an article I posted that mentioned that a US soldier punched Saddam when Saddam spit on him and talked a little crap?

Its on a thread somewhere...let me know if its needed...will take the time to find it.

regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Its obvious that someone didn't read an article I posted that mentioned that a US soldier punched Saddam when Saddam spit on him and talked a little crap?


How did the soldier understand what he was talking? Is Saddam that stupid to say # when being held at gun piont?

Even if he did, I would think he would curse in some language other than English? If that is so, how in the world did the soldier understand it? Using his pocket dictionary? I doubt it.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Yep...here ya go:

""EXCLUSIVE: SADDAM HUSSEIN SPIT ON A G.I. AS HE WAS HANDCUFFED LAST WEEK OUTSIDE HIS SPIDER HOLE, U.S. GOVERNMENT SOURCES TELL TIME - SOLDIER PROMPTLY SLUGGED SADDAM"
Link:
www.time.com...

Excerpt:

"Sunday, Dec. 21, 2003
New York – U.S. government sources familiar with the accounts given by troops who helped capture Saddam Hussein tell TIME that the fallen dictator apparently made one feeble attempt at defiance, TIME's Timothy Burger and Phil Zabriskie report. As soldiers were handcuffing him after he was extracted from his "spider hole," these sources say, Saddam spit on his captor.

As the incident was reported by the military, according to a U.S. source, a soldier promptly slugged the old tyrant -- probably the first time in more than two decades that Saddam was powerless to exact lethal revenge on someone who stood up to him."






regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 09:49 PM
link   
but then read what's below that:



An official military spokeswoman in Iraq claims no knowledge of the incident. "I think this is an urban legend," she says. But the full story is yet to be told. A U.S. intelligence official, meanwhile, casts doubt on another widely reported tale: that a U.S. soldier hailed the nemesis of two Commanders in Chief named George Bush by saying: "Regards from President Bush." This person says some officials suspect the story is "apocryphal."


apocryphal - Of questionable authorship or authenticity.




posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 09:51 PM
link   
"apocryphal - Of questionable authorship or authenticity."

Then your going to have some serious rude awakenings here Morrison...bet.



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 29-1-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 09:56 PM
link   
haha what is this, I get threatened for an opinion



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Bush Planned Iraqi Invasion Before Sept. 11

www.reuters.com...


Number of threads on this already Satyr.

Correct?
Been virtually proven to be set in motion by the prior administration with the enactment of the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998". In such, planning for Iraq had already taken place before Bush came into office by said prior administration.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 29-1-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Gee didn't Saddam threaten to have WMD and wanted to use them?

It doesn't matter whether he had them or not, he threatened that he did and would use them. Also, we was known around the world to attempt to procure WMDs.

Furthermore, they may still exist either buried under the sand in Iraq or in Syria or elsewhere.

Do we need to keep exploring this story every day here in annother splitting of a single hair into a thousand pieces?



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   
No Morrison ....you just took it that way...besides, hows a
equate to a threat anyhow?

It was prophetic.
You see, there always seems to be alot of "source" and "authorship or authenticity" issues or comments around. Some contend that alot around here...I tend to call it "selecto vision".


TIME is just covering their collective butts by mentioning what they did. Question: IF there is doubt, I have yet to see an article or opinion editorial that has refutted that particular event/happening....have you?
In such, TIME can print "This person says some officials suspect the story is "apocryphal."....it boils to one man's opinion, for which you obviously agreed with, correct? The event/happening still holds, despite "the man's" opinion. It has not been proven to be otherwise.

Peace.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 29-1-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:05 PM
link   
well I just posted what I read and heard about the man in charge of finding the weapons of mass destruction giving up and saying there probably never was any, which is an interesting topic

SeekerOf I know you were playing it's straight


[Edited on 29-1-2004 by Morrison]



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:08 PM
link   
And a very discussed topic in numerous threads already.



regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Curious considering this has been "articulated" many a times, but no one seems to to come up with solild proof.

Deep



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I doubt there will ever be proof and I know we won't take Saddam's word for it so I'm sure it'll always be a subjective topic.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join