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.


Why were WMD's not planted????

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 06:41 PM
There's a few thing's that bug me about why no WMD's were found in iraq

The whole invasion of iraq was based on the fact that sadam had WMD's
and as the war progressed more and more pressure was put on George W and Tony Blair to the where about's of these so called WMD's

we know now that the truth was bent somewhat with the whole using the student thesis thing that was taken from the internet and used in reports in a bid to justify taking our country's to war
We only found this out after we had gone to war though however our leader's and certain people in goverment would have been well aware of the fact that it was B/S and only said it to get us in there for the oil

So this is the problem i have is why was no get out clause put in place why no back up plan to have WMD's planted in iraq after we invaided if they knew there were none to be found they must have knowen that they would come under alot of pressure from other nations/press/other political party's etc etc etc to the where about's of these so called WMD's

I'm sure we can all agree that's it's not beond goverments to pull something like that as we know they have had there hand in some pretty big conspiracies in the past both one's they have admitted having a hand in and some that they there never likely too
Im sure it's quite easy for them to have WMD's smuggled into the country which were brought on the black market or a few dirty bomb's a suitcase nuke maybe anything to back up there claim that there was something worth invaiding over ...yet nothing

Is it just me or does that not seem a little strange to you too?????????

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 07:22 PM
Well, there is always the possibility that they did find WMDs but chose not to tell the public or press due to the fact that there would be a security risk of someone else(terrorists, insurgents, etc.) seizing control of them. But it does depend somewhat on what you think of in terms of WMDs. Most people tend to think of nuclear weapons, but WMDs can include some chemical and/or biological weapons; and chemical weapons were found in Iraq after the invasion.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 07:34 PM
What about two weeks ago? The headline then (for about 10 minutes it seemed) was. "the last of Saddams Yellow Cake leaves Iraq".

It was up, then it was gone. So, he was working on it. But then, that information isn't important any more.

I'm not saying this has all gone down well but the headline that everyone was waiting for came and nobody noticed. Odd, don't you think?

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 07:37 PM
Remember not to long ago the Israeli's blowing up Syrian nuclear facility right?
They also blew up other buildings no one new why they did, warehouses, people were like hey Israeli's take it easy no need to blow up non nuclear facility's stop blowing everything up.
Do you know what was in those warehouses?
Sarin Ricin Anthrax Botchilism etc etc.
Do you know where the Syrians got it from?
Iraq (Saddam Hussein).
Do you know who made it?
Western company's working on contract for the governments.
Bayer Merck Hoerchst DuPont BASF etc.
Do you know who sold it to Iraq?
American English European governments.
The question isn't if there were WMD's because, there is receipts for them.
The globalists made big profits selling WMD's to Iraq then needed to cover this up.
All the problems in Iraq all the deaths caused to cover up treasonous greedy profit making.
They would rather you think there was no WMD's than that there was and that they sold them to Hussein.
A mistake looks much better for them than treason.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 07:41 PM
could have been that maybe they really did believe there were WMD, but i just don't "feel" this is the case.

could it possibly be that they wanted to test the publics reaction? ppl are upset, but no one is really doing much (in this country or in others) to stop what is going on and pull the troops out.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 07:44 PM
reply to post by Being_From_Earth

Interesting information there can i ask what your source is for this info????

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 07:55 PM
reply to post by Being_From_Earth

do you have any proof that Israel destroyed Iraqs WMDS in the syria raid?

seems like a very juicy headline that would justify GW Bush, that was kept quiet.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 07:58 PM
reply to post by justamomma

Ah see now this was what i was thinking i remember Tony Blair and about 6 other MP's being taken to court over the whole illigal war thing but nothing ever came about for it as no one person could be held accountable or some crap like that ...I dont know if anything ever came about in the U.S maybe someone can fill me in on that one

But that was it really nothing else was really said about it in the papers and no one made a big thing about holding someone accountable for the war to tell the truth i dont think the public cared

But then maybe they knew they could get away with it from the start after years of war in iraq and no real WMD's being found the public would just take the veiw 'well it's too late now and we did get a bad bad man out of power' and not look to hold someone accountable so the WMD's never needed to be there in the first place

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 07:59 PM
Maybe we couldnt trust the American army to plant WMD's.
Mayeb because we had to fool the american army into the war, and asking them to plant fake evidence would of completly blown morale
Maybe because Saddam would of immediately declared it planted evidence, because as it turned out, he had no wmd's and no production facilities.

Maybe because there were to many foreign army personnel operating with us

Maybe because its hard to make decade old VX nerve gas bombs, akin to Iraq's capability

Maybe because the UN inspections found nothing,

But the most likely reason I think is becuase they just frankly didnt give a flying fark wether the public beleived them or not..

because once the war was launched, no amount of public pressure was going to pull out the marines from a war torn country making coporations BILLIONS!

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 08:02 PM
reply to post by Agit8dChop

Yeah two words 'nail' and 'head'

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 08:03 PM
It is my understanding that weapons grade nuclear material can be traced back to its site of origin. The neutrino flux etc in breeder reactors and the like give the material a unique signature. It would have been easy to identify said material (or impossible to keep such knowledge quiet.)

I suspect that the admin figured by the time it was found out, Iraq would be pacified and a puppet government in place with no problems and thus reasons and rationals could be brushed aside in the euphoria surrounding that.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 08:15 PM
reply to post by FredT

You are correct. There is a fairly finite signature to weapons grade fissionable material.


To the OP, I've been asking this question also. I remember the reports of massive convoys of trucks going into Syria prior to the engagement. I don't have real-time googleearth, so I can't verify that.

I do recall the buried mobile lab(s)? that were found, but that was only a confirmation of WMD that was already known that Saddam had posessed, as he used these materials on the Kurds. It was hypothesized at the time of their discovery that they could have been used to produce pesticides. I choose to not add my own slant at this time.

The yellowcake. It wasn't WMD YET, same as a collection of gunpowder, primers, bullets, brass and grease aren't cartridges. Yes, I realize my analogy is flawed...... much more complex process to get to a nuclear bomb. Remember the cylindrical tubes that were interrupted prior to delivery to Iraq? yah.

[edit on 17-7-2008 by argentus]

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 08:23 PM
reply to post by FredT

But if they were brought on the black market they could be traced back to anywhere and there's nothing to say that they dont already have something like that stashed away for just such an occasion you would only need a few small 'dirty bombs' to show he had terrorist intention's thus backing up your claim for going in in the first place

And the fact of the matter is law and order wasnt in place and it was far from being a peaceful nation when tony blair and the other mp's were taken to court but still very little public reaction

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 08:27 PM
reply to post by The real world order

True they could have, but if fissile material were readily avalible on the black market or any other market for that matter, then why would Iran be building all of this enrichment capacity? They would have simply gotten the material ready made and persued weapons with it. Hard to do anything about it once they have them no?

The dirty bomb problem is more of a "terror" weapon than any real true WMD agent.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 08:41 PM
reply to post by Being_From_Earth

This is the way i read it also, except the wmd were destroyed in iraq, making the soldiers ill. The US and the UK sold saddam his wmd. If the weapons inspectors had found the wmd they would of been able to tell where they came from so of course they were never found.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 08:42 PM
reply to post by FredT

Yeah but i do seem to remember the story about the 30 suitcase nukes that went missing when the USSR collapsed thay gota be somewhere in the world if the storys true that is!!!

And i know the whole dirty bomb thing is more of a terrorist issue but like i said it could all be used to show intention as he was ment to be haboring terrorists

As for IRAN why souldn't thy be able to build there own enrichment capacity who are we to tell them that they cant it's alright for us but if other nations try it they run the risk of getting invaided is it really up to our goverments to police the world????

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 08:51 PM
reply to post by The real world order

i have been asking the same question that your title asks and until i READ the question of your title in the recent posts, i had never had any type of personal "answer". the minute i read it, i thought "conditioning" bc the first thing that came to mind was an interview bush did (can't remember who it was with), and one thing always stuck in my mind about that interview.

when the interviewer asked how he justified being in iraq after no wmd were found, bush didn't answer "there is a misconception to wmd" or "they were moved," he simply stated "i don't need to justify why we are in iraq." sent shivers down my spine and although it was disturbing at the time to hear, the understanding of it didn't strike me until i read your title.

whether the way i "view" it is wrong or right, one can only speculate for now. however, obviously by the lack of action to get our men out of there and/or for them to get themselves out, he was right

[edit on 17-7-2008 by justamomma]

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 09:12 PM
reply to post by justamomma

'I dont need to justify why we are in iraq'
He dosnt need to justify to the reporter/american public or the world for that matter why he invaided iraq a very powerful thing to say in an interview he needs to give no reasons to anyone why he went in

Its the first time ive heard about that interview in your post and my first responce was 'surly he cant get away with saying that' but well i take it he did as he also got away with killing thousands of soldiers and civilians on both side and he doesnt need to justify why they were there

and from the lack of public responce to it all he can just sit there and carry on doing it. It should be made easyer for the public that if they dont like what there presidents/prime ministers are doing then it should be put to a public vote and let the people decide on wether they stay in office or not not just be there to do what they feel like for four years we need to get more power back to the people let us have a bigger say not just sit by and let it happen

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 09:22 PM
Couldnt risk it..
It would be condemed so highly by the UN and everyone including your best friends, Canada. That there would be some major # going down...

Too many people around.. Soliders everywhere checking everything in an out.
Too big a conspiracy, for a little hide and go # yourself with nukes.

no way..

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 09:31 PM
reply to post by xbranscombex

Your telling me you could't get two CIA agents with suitcases behind the lines before it all kicks off or even after for that matter i belive blending in with the locals seems to be a speciality of there's i know we have the SAS in there weeks before we go to war with a nation i see no reason why they would stand out or be noticed

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in