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.

 

Saddam Transfered WMD's to Syria

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
The Jerusalem Post is reporting that a joint inteligence report concerning the Sept. 6th airstrike by Israel on Syria will show that Saddam transfered WMD's to Syria.

JP News Story

If true, this report could prove to be an interesting political time bomb.




posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   
On several different threads, I said I saw a bunch of vehicle traffic heading in that direction at the beginning of the war in 2003. And there are a lot of other stories/reports saying the same thing.

When the topic of WMDs comes up, I haven't heard of a good explanation for this on ATS yet.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by jerico65]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Ok so our intelligence people have never seen a magician do the cups and balls. I suggest we score a few of the plastic ball and vase tricks and write WMD on the ball but not the shell.

Then as they learn to do that, we could get them the little kids cup and ball set to practice with.....

So they got fooled with a little sleight of hand, er truck. They will catch on sooner or later. We shouldn't have to do all their thinking for them. Jeez, they get a paycheck for that slop work and no one says a thing.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
For Bible Code folks - (I'm not one of them, but I thought you'd be interested)

Somewhere on the internet (and I'm not going to google around) there is a bible code site that states the WMD was moved to the Bekah Valley in Lebanon. It states that Saddam moved them just before we got there. (Heck .. we warned him for 6 months that we were coming .. he had plenty of warning and plenty of time).



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   
I see this theory crop up from time to time, and it always makes me smile.

I've asked this question so many times, and no ones ever bothered to answer it, but I'll try again.

If you are the worlds biggest dictator, with little/no regard for human life, a real bad-ass person - public enemy No.1 - like Saddam Hussein AND you have a fairly good idea that your forces are likely to get overrun and when you are caught every person you ever wronged is going to want you executed so your life is on borrowed time - why would you be hiding the best weapons you have instead of throwing them at your enemy and taking as many of them as possible out with you?

Shouldn't we be giving the guy a posthumous nobel peace price for showing the greatest restraint ever used by a national leader?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Saddam was one of the most brutal dictators in the world. He was also very crazy in some of his thinking. Even as troops entered Bahgdad, he still believed his forces would defeat them.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
In my humble opinion, I do not think Saddam took the threat of war seriously.
I think that he honestly believed that some 3rd party, i.e Russia, France, the U.N would step in at the last minute and intervene.

Remember the real reason that we did not go into Baghdad in Desert Storm; It would have caused instability between Saudi Arabia and Iran and was one of the conditions set down in order for us to use bases and conduct combat operations from Saudi Arabia.

I think Saddam was counting on that same logic again.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anjin
Remember the real reason that we did not go into Baghdad in Desert Storm; It would have caused instability between Saudi Arabia and Iran and was one of the conditions set down in order for us to use bases and conduct combat operations from Saudi Arabia.


The UN mandate behind Desert Storm covered the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, and nothing else. Thats the reason why no UN troops pursued the war into Iraq and Baghdad.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Birddog26
 


I'm sorry, but to be honest with you, I don't buy the "he was crazy" argument at all. Thats just propaganda that makes people feel better.

Besides, if he was crazy, it adds more fuel to my argument, because not only would he have no tactical reason for using the weapons, he would have no power of reason to prevent him from doing it at all.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Yes let us destroy SYRIA before they use them!! Then once they transfer them to Iran we can destroy them. Maybe they will spread them around the world and we can just nuke every bloody country in the world.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I've heard this before and sounds plausible. What they should be watching out for is a conspiracy. Each country involved makes a single component to try to skirt the UN, then there is a final area(s) where they can quickly be assembled.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Its plausible as someone else said. I have done reading on this and it seems very possible too. There are conflicting results of them being shipped to Syria and some reports of them being in Iraq at the time of the invasion but later removed......

The fact is, we gave him time to wax them to a fine shine and then move them to wherever he wanted them. We screwed up on that BIG TIME. We also screwed up big time in sending enough people over to check out any claims of them being stored at different places after we got there. If we wanted to catch him with them, we did a pretty half assed job of it.

Why he didnt use them: retaliation! He felt, at least this is what he has said, that he could return later and take back Iraq if we invaded. But he didnt think we would or that we'd be stopped. If he used them on the opening day then our basis for war would of been justified. If he used them even after we took Bagdad, our war would of been justified and international support would of grown. Instead our claimed seemed to be false and as you see now, the US has been beaten like a sick dog for "faulty intellegence". This would of given him time to do as he did in 91 and even on the brink of losing power, come back by putting the fear of death into anyone who stood up against him.

Plus he figured that our "invasion" would of been limited and never gone to full occupation. Either we wouldnt have the stomach or support or we'd be stopped by someone like Russia or the UN.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:09 AM
link   
So, Saddam loaded up all his WMD's, and the means to manufacture them and trucked the whole lot across the border into Syria. Right under the noses of the US and UK who were watching the whole area like hawks, not to mention all the satellite surveillance too. Nobody saw a thing, he just kinda sneaked all that stuff across one of the most watched bits of the planet


Seriously, does anyone still truthfully buy this idea?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Where are the photos?
We were monitoring these wmd sites... with sats, and spies etc etc.
We were desperate for some substance to our claims, had ANYTHING of the sort occured the Americans would of paraded it on TV, like there sat photos of 'supposid-stockpiles' and their apparent 'phone taps of Iraqi officails '

Saddam KNEW the threat of war was real, he just couldnt do a DAMN THING about it. The best defense he had were aged AA Guns... whats the point in even attempting to defend when you know its over as soon as it begins?

Saddam was not an idiot, he was a ruthless leader, and back in his early days a lunatic. But after GW1 he learnt his boundaries and limits and did nothing but stay isolated.

Some say Saddam gave money and training to the insurgents, knowing fullwell a gureilla war was on the cards.. why not leave these lawless bandits some chemical/bio bombs to REALLY inflict damage?

Saddam destroyed his WMD's, and left the aging ones buried in the desert knowing full well they would never be dug up by his army, or his government being they were to old to use, and to costly and contaminated to unearth and dispose of.

The concept that saddam sent his WMDs to Syria is right up there with other outrageous accusations...

Why cant people just accept, there never was a WMD programme in Iraq as we stated there to be.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SenHeathen
Why he didnt use them: retaliation! He felt, at least this is what he has said, that he could return later and take back Iraq if we invaded.


Oh, really? When did he say this? Where did he say it? And who did he say it to?Was it public testimony presented at his trial, or hearsay put about by a single person? I don't recall that being front page news at all and I'm damned sure it would have been all over the world. Links please?



But he didnt think we would or that we'd be stopped. If he used them on the opening day then our basis for war would of been justified. If he used them even after we took Bagdad, our war would of been justified and international support would of grown. Instead our claimed seemed to be false and as you see now, the US has been beaten like a sick dog for "faulty intellegence".


And why, do tell me, would this sick-minded mass murdering individual have actually given a damn? He gassed the Kurds in 1988, so why would a few thousand foreign troops suddenly spike his conscience?

The US has been beaten like a "sick dog" for faulty intelligence because - quite simply - the intelligence was faulty.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
If you are the worlds biggest dictator, with little/no regard for human life, a real bad-ass person - public enemy No.1 - like Saddam Hussein AND you have a fairly good idea that your forces are likely to get overrun and when you are caught every person you ever wronged is going to want you executed so your life is on borrowed time - why would you be hiding the best weapons you have instead of throwing them at your enemy and taking as many of them as possible out with you?


My theory: Hussein believed the war would be prevented by international pressure. Several indicators pointed in that direction. He was counting on the fact that Russian and Chinese (in?)action would be enough to disuade a coalition from battle. Seems perfectly reasonably, if not ultimately correct. Perhaps believing an agreement would be reached wherein he would allow large-scale UN inspections, he disperses the weapons to Syria knowing he will win the ensuing propoganda battle. US loses face, and he's the one who had to endure the bullying.
Further, Hussein likely believed any war that did break out would be a short, relatively limited battle not unlike the first. Being sane, he reasoned using chemical weapons in such a scenario would lead to a larger conflict which would not end until he was deposed.
Both scenarios are valid reasons to move contraband to Syria. Of course the problem was he underestimated the goals and resolve of the coallition forces.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
So, Saddam loaded up all his WMD's, and the means to manufacture them and trucked the whole lot across the border into Syria. Right under the noses of the US and UK who were watching the whole area like hawks, not to mention all the satellite surveillance too. Nobody saw a thing, he just kinda sneaked all that stuff across one of the most watched bits of the planet


Seriously, does anyone still truthfully buy this idea?


Right, because trucks never crossed the syrian border in that time frame. If they did we'd magically know what was in them.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   
I think the only reason this story keeps cropping up is because some people are still desperate to justify something that can't be justified.

There's a good case for saying that we (the coalition) did the right thing, but for the wrong reasons.

BUT, we have managed to mess it up in the most spectacular fashion - IMO WE have created the insurgency through mis-management, brutality and inept planning.

WMD's?
The war on terror?

We have created MORE terrorists by our actions - the thing that was needed was a clear mandate from the UN and a proper plan. Neither of those existed, and now we are reaping what we sowed.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Either the entire world intelligence community (not just the US) was wrong, or Iraq had a chemical weapons program. It is possible that everyone and their brother was wrong, but unlikely, imo.
I DO believe (strongly) that the administration badly botched the post-"victory" phase of the occupation. I'm not sure that we created more terrorists per se, but they certainly created an environment enabling them to thrive.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I believe it was in the interview with Saddams interregator. Go to Youtube and look it up, theres 4 parts. But he also said to the interregaor, he had destroyed his WMD, so it would seem you'd like the interview. i dont know what he said in his trail, I dont speak Arabic.

We didnt know what was in all those trucks. He had trade with Syria and we cant monitor everything. I dont give our govts that much credit. Our satellites are good, but not that good. As to why we havent said anything if this is true; then we'd have a stand off with Syria. I'd rather keep t a secret for now than to add Syria into the arena with Iraq and Iran.

I'm not saying I completely buy into this. But I do think there is a possibilty its true. And with the way the war has been managed up until 1.5 years ago, I'm not surprised this info was/is screwy.




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join