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.

 

U.S. Unloading WMD in Iraq

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 10:07 AM
link   
U.S. Unloading WMD in Iraq

Tehran Times | March 13 2004

TEHRAN (Mehr News Agency) Over the past few days, in the wake of the bombings in Karbala and the ideological disputes that delayed the signing of Iraqs interim constitution, there have been reports that U.S. forces have unloaded a large cargo of parts for constructing long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the southern ports of Iraq.

A reliable source from the Iraqi Governing Council, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Mehr News Agency that U.S. forces, with the help of British forces stationed in southern Iraq, had made extensive efforts to conceal their actions.

He added that the cargo was unloaded during the night as attention was still focused on the aftermath of the deadly bombings in Karbala and the signing of Iraqs interim constitution.

The source said that in order to avoid suspicion, ordinary cargo ships were used to download the cargo, which consisted of weapons produced in the 1980s and 1990s.

He mentioned the fact that the United States had facilitated Iraqs WMD program during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq and said that some of the weapons being downloaded are similar to those weapons, although international inspectors had announced Saddam Husseins Baath regime had destroyed all its WMD.

The source went on to say that the rest of the weapons were probably transferred in vans to an unknown location somewhere in the vicinity of Basra overnight.

For the rest of the story:
www.propagandamatrix.com...




posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Why am I not surprised at this?
Even if it's not true I fully believe that the US and UK would do something like this to help "Justify" the war.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 11:07 AM
link   
NEWS = ATSNN

Also, don't post full news reports.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   
You don't have to post all news on ATSNN if you don't wish to write up an article. But please don't copy entire off-site articles, a summary and link will suffice



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Like Britman, this doesn't come as much of a shock to me either, nor anyone else around here probably for that matter. Even if it's not true, the idea has been floating around since the beginning.

I think if it is true, it's more than just to justify going to war. Providing justification or even a shred of valid intel for anything so far doesn't seem to REALLY make a difference anyway. Sure there are many who have been putting pressure on BushCo since the beginning, yet so far the simple plan of 'Just Deny Everything & Stick to the Story' seems to be working fine for the most part.

In my opinion this is Justification for War combined with the eventual 'Discovery' happening close to Election time. Then they can keep the Ace in the Hole (Osama) for use later and keep their Enemy at large and War on Terror Going much much longer. However, should the polls still show BushCo losing the election, they can always pull the Ace along with the WMD Discovery too.

The other way it might play out, which is REALLY BAD, would be to keep the Ace, actually use the WMD's in an attack, maybe with partial success and partial failure due to 'Super Commander Bush' and his Crack Team of Terrorist Fighters. But the partial success still being bad enough to cause 'Police State' or whatever. Then they still keep the Ace for ongoing Terror Alert and War, yet BushCo still makes out like 'Team Hero', Re-Election, yadda yadda yadda......Welcome to Hell on Earth for 99.9% Humanity. (Perhaps this post should have gone in the Prediction thread huh?!?!?)



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   
This would not surprise me at all but definitely piss me off. The fact that we would deliberately set up the Iraqi's with false wmd just makes me angry. The sad thing is that the majority of people will believe it, too, as I imagine going something like this: "Hey look at this citizens we found some wmds in iraq, here's one in a van, here's another one that's in Baghdad, oh and here..." noone will question why didn't see them before or why is just now that we are finding them? It's all so Bush can get relected again, I think. Sorry if sound incoherent this just pisses me off.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 01:10 PM
link   
I question whether the article is indicating that the US is indeed setting up Iraq....or is what this article is mentioning pertaining to the US secretly using southern Iraq as a base of operations for a future, undisclosed military base containing WMD, for future use....like the US did in Germany and South Korea.

And as those who questioned the many "source's, 'speaking on condition of anonymity', that claimed such and such", in regards to Saddam and OBL connections, etc topic within ATS, I certainly question this article as hear-say and "source" issues.



regards
seekerof



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I am just curious as to how the "source" got his info.

I would not put this past the current administration, but the Coalition is in control of the region and does not have to tell anyone anything if they do not wish to.

I think something like this would be much more covert.
Something smells fishy.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
I question whether the article is indicating that the US is indeed setting up Iraq....or is what this article is mentioning pertaining to the US secretly using southern Iraq as a base of operations for a future, undisclosed military base containing WMD, for future use....like the US did in Germany and South Korea.

regards
seekerof


I kinda thought about that too. However, let's say that in fact this is a press release is more in line of Exposing sneaky US military tactics that are going to be used, NOT to set up Iraq and cover Lies, but in Traditional Ruthless style Military ways. Wouldn't we then have to deny it was us anyway since we are talking about using WMD's, which are not supposed to be used by ANYONE.

It's not like we can exactly pat ourselves on the back for pulling off a well planned tactical move against our enemy, cause even if that is the case, it's still cheating. I mean setting up some kind of military base in Iraq for use in our "War against Terror-Iraqi Freedom (3rd world invasion
) wouldn't be anything new or even out of line exactly, however, the use of WMD's for anything at all is still concidered a 'No No', right???

Or is it ok for the U.S. to act under the Secret Military Code: 'Do as I say, Not as I do', when it comes to 'Rules of War'.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 02:04 PM
link   
mOjOm...
"Or is it ok for the U.S. to act under the Secret Military Code: 'Do as I say, Not as I do', when it comes to 'Rules of War'."

The US, Russia, UK, Germany, France, etc., etc. have always done, in one form or another, what you have mentioned above. More so with the foremost two. Cold War comes to mind here.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 13-3-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
mOjOm...
"Or is it ok for the U.S. to act under the Secret Military Code: 'Do as I say, Not as I do', when it comes to 'Rules of War'."

The US, Russia, UK, Germany, France, etc., etc. have always done, in one form or another, what you have mentioned above. More so with the foremost two. Cold War comes to mind here.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 13-3-2004 by Seekerof]


Exactly my point. I mean personally, the whole, Rules of Warfare agreement thing, where it's decided that these weapons and things are Ok while these aren't, has always struck me as kinda flimsy anyway. I understand the reason for it, but correct me if I'm wrong here, it's a f*cking WAR.

If enemy forces, who are at odds so far as to even have a War, yet able to even partially agree on such 'Rules', why not work a little harder and come up with an agreement to not fight at all. Honestly, it's just insane. If mOjOmLand was about to wage War with SeekerofLand, I would assume ALL forms of Rules or Agreements failed completely, or about as reliable as the word of your local crack dealer.

However, that is currently the way things are supposed to work between Governments. Everyone is supposed to follow the Acceptable Method of Killing each Other. (What Polite and Civilized Creatures we all are! :dn) Once again though, WE don't have to obey OUR RULES, just our enemy. Ok, Fine.

But when a chemical bomb explodes in a Major US city and everyone cries about 'Terrorists Being InHuman Creatures for not only just being Terrorists, but also using ILLEGAL weapons on us, I'm gonna have to say, "Well, what did you expect?? If we break the 'so called' Rules, they are probably going to do the same people!" I don't want to sound mean or anything, I'm against the whole thing from page one. But I don't want to hear any crybaby sh*t from all the 'Bring em on' War Supporters out there when the Karma comes back around, ya know what I mean?



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I think it would be a little to late to Use that card, of "We Found WMDs" I would bet this would hurt him (bush) more then help at this point, too many people think it is fishy and surly the UN would point out that these aint the weapons they knew about.

Just a thought.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I've just had a horrable thought, and I pray to whoever God is that it doesn't come true.

So we have these possible WMD's now being moved to Iraq.
We have an increased threat from AQ.
So I'm thinking a WMD attack on the US or UK, controlled by OBL (that's what they tell us). The police arrest a man in connection, he's says he's from AQ and the WMD's came from Iraq. The security service then tell the puplic that it came from Iraq, and that they now know where it is. And what do you know they find it, right where they left it.

are we seing the peices start to fall into place, I wonder.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I went to the actual news site that Propaganda Matrix used for their source and their is a bit more info on this:


The source said that in order to avoid suspicion, ordinary cargo ships were used to download the cargo, which consisted of weapons produced in the 1980s and 1990s

The source went on to say that the rest of the weapons were probably transferred in vans to an unknown location somewhere in the vicinity of Basra overnight.

He mentioned the fact that the United States had facilitated Iraqs WMD program during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq and said that some of the weapons being downloaded are similar to those weapons...

Most of these weapons are of Eastern European origin and some parts are from the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. The U.S. obtained them through confiscations during sales of banned arms over the past two decades, he said.

Shane Wolf told the Mehr News Agency that the occupation forces have received no reports on such events, but said he hoped that the coalition forces would find the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction one day.
www.tehrantimes.com.../13/2004&Cat=4&Num=011

I think it is safe to assume that they are implying the U.S. is planning to set-up Iraq by planting WMD's or by (God-forbid) using them, thereby justifying the war and creating the perfect situation for the government to claim Marshall Law.

I also did a little digging around in their archives to see what the paper's position was prior to the 9/11 attacks and the "War on Terror". I found a very interesting piece from Monday, February 23, 1998. Some of you may find it interesting, at least I did. Here's an excerpt:

On the evolving world the comparative advantage of the U.S. lies in military force , in which it ranks supreme. Diplomacy and international law have always been regarded as annoying encumbrance, unless they can be used to its advantage against an enemy . Every active player in the international arena professes to seek only peace and to prefer negotiations to violence and coercion, but when the veil is lifted, we see that diplomacy is understood as a disguise for the rule of force.

With the current configurations of US strengths and weaknesses , the temptation to transfer problems quickly to the arena of forceful confrontation is likely to be strong. Furthermore, though the U.S. cannot regain the economic supremacy of an earlier period, it is committed to maintaining its status as the sole military superpower, with no probable contestant for that role. The consequence will be a renewed temptation to go it alone relying on the threat of force rather than diplomacy which is most definitely the right combination for the formation of a fascist creation.
www.tehrantimes.com... (Do a search for "Deadly Planning, Holding a Nation Hostage?" for the article)




[Edited on 13-3-2004 by jezebel]



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Ah yes, the ever-factually-reputable-reliable-propaganda-anti-American Tehran Times.


Let's see, the US and Iran are in disagreement on Iran's continued subversive nuclear program. Iran is at odds with the US over the US sanctions placed upon them. Iranian and US relations are on virtually the same level they were when Carter was in office. Nah....I wouldn't think this would be biased coming from the Tehran Times, now would it? The Tehran Times is the official Mullah sanctioned mouth-piece for anything anti-Western and specifically of late, anti-American.

And they too, have not given nor identified this mysterious "source"...except that "the source said...".... ironic.

Btw, isn't it amazing how no other international newspaper media outlet has not picked on this?


seekerof

[Edited on 13-3-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Seeing a trend here

seems like arabic news sources are being posted and believed - not many have dealt with the arabic world i guess



posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I dont think this is true. If they were gonna plant the WMD, they would have already done it. This would be too little too late at this point.




top topics



 
0

log in

join