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.

 

WAR: Sarin Nerve Gas Shell Explodes on Iraqi Roadway

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2004 @ 10:35 AM
link   


But was that Sarin originally from Iraq or was it brought in by fighters from outside of Iraq


One of the mens that used to work for Sadam in quimical weapons told CNN this morning that he believe that this gas came from the Syria border. My question is, If USA is in charge of Iraq or as the muslin world say we are invadors are we responsible for the safety of this country? who is protecting or watching this borders? By the way they just killed the leadder of the supouse group to take over power in Iraq. Now to who we are going to transfer power now?


[Edited on 17-5-2004 by marg6043]




posted on May, 17 2004 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix

I think this information is narrowing it down to two possibilities, 1. Iraq has WMD, 2. Iraq had WMD that was hidden in Syria.

There was originally an estimated 870 tons of Sarin.


I think it is both. Notice that Bush is going towards sanctions against Syria? The Arab nations are not happy.

www.arabnews.com...



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 10:41 AM
link   

www.cbwinfo.com...

Well, if that Sarin came from Saddam's stockpiles, it wouldn't be that potent by now unless that IED was a binary weapon that mixed the required components to create the Sarin gas on detonation.

AoB, it was reported to be a binary type 155mm artillary shell
of Iraqi manufacture.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
who is protecting or watching this borders?


This may be why we are sending 4,000 additional troups to Iraq. www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 10:45 AM
link   


I think it is both. Notice that Bush is going towards sanctions against Syria? The Arab nations are not happy.

www.arabnews.com...

Thats a great point you have made, have you seen Agent 47's excellent post on Syrias role in hiding Iraqs WMD?
Agent 47's Syria post



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 10:46 AM
link   
wow quess thier is more than just then woodbee
civilians fighting with tapped up machine guns



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Now they found mustard gas too, Wait a moment I got the feeling that this may had been planted by this adminstration because bush is loosing popularity, so people will said (oh bush was right lets vote for him.) I am sorry but this is just to timely.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Now they found mustard gas too, Wait a moment I got the feeling that this may had been planted by this adminstration because bush is loosing popularity, so people will said (oh bush was right lets vote for him.) I am sorry but this is just to timely.

Yeah, two weeks ago he said.
Why not tell us then?

Within the next 6 months we can expect Bin Laden to show up.


[Edited on 17-5-2004 by AceOfBase]



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   


TextYeah, two weeks ago he said.


I am confuse or just paranoid? how come the US convoy found this artillery but it explode before it had a target? and the best thing, how lucky for our troops it happend this way, and no body got gas and not casualty. I smell a rat.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I would be willing to say that we should check for made in the USA on it. Fox is really jumping on this and really taking some long strides on who did it.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 11:10 AM
link   
This is just the begining.

Trust me.

It is all going according to plan, the Bush administration knows plenty about the WMD's that WERE in Iraq. They have an idea where they are in SXXXX and have an idea of how much is currently on the streets in Iraq.

OBL will show up in October in US custody.

There will be no Iraq self rule for at least two to three years. The UN will be in Iraq by Mid 2005. Iraq will be under UN control for at least three years.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 11:14 AM
link   


TexOBL will show up in October in US custodyt


That,s what my husband said to me the day they got Sadam, that bush is keeping bin ladden for elections day.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
It is all going according to plan, the Bush administration knows plenty about the WMD's that WERE in Iraq. They have an idea where they are in SXXXX and have an idea of how much is currently on the streets in Iraq......There will be no Iraq self rule for at least two to three years. The UN will be in Iraq by Mid 2005. Iraq will be under UN control for at least three years.


I have to respectfully disagree.

www.theherald.co.uk...
"Bush and Blair speed up their exit strategy
TONY Blair and George W Bush have speeded up their work on a new plan to ensure the new Iraqi administration to be set up on June 30 is a sovereign government supported by a new UN resolution, according to the prime minister's spokesman last night."

Now why would they speed up their exit strategy if they knew WMD's would be found today and the UN would be in Iraq until 2005? That doesn't make sense.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   
jsobecky: "hope that this begins to convince those who have been saying there are no WMD's there.

What is a WMD? Can it be a paint can full of anthrax? How about a liter of smallpox? Or a briefcase full of ricin?

How long would it take someone to bury a tractor-trailer full of these in the desert in an area the size of California? Or to transport them to Syria and house them in a garage until you need them?

The point is, a WMD doesn't have to be the nose capsule of a 40 foot long missile. As a matter of fact, the odds of it being so are slim. "


Okay first off, this proves absolutely nothing. Nobody has said where this came from, it could have been frickin E-bayed to Syria for all we know. No "Made In Iraq" emblazoned on the shell. Some wacko might have had this in his basement for years.

Secondly, the US invaded Iraq based on the fact that Saddam had WMD that he would use against the US. Proven to be a lie, by now, because even if Saddam HAD this one shell, is he going to load it into a giant slingshot and fire it across the ocean at the U.S.? You need METHODS OF DELIVERY and he had zero.

To say that this justifies the illegal invasion of Iraq and the killing of thousands of civilians and hundreds of soldiers is ludicrous. This could have come from anywhere.

And, um, 2 people were injured? WOW, that is some MASS DESTRUCTION! Pfft.

"Two people were treated for "minor exposure," but no serious injuries were reported. "



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043


I am confuse or just paranoid? how come the US convoy found this artillery but it explode before it had a target? and the best thing, how lucky for our troops it happend this way, and no body got gas and not casualty. I smell a rat.


Our troops have become quite adept at identifying and defusing the IED's (Improvised Explosive Devices) the terrorists are using. And there were two casualties, just not any deaths. Two EOD troops were exposed to the Sarin. Luckily, due to chem suits and other precautionary methods, the exposure was minimal, and they have recovered.....



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043


My question is, If USA is in charge of Iraq or as the muslin world say we are invadors are we responsible for the safety of this country? who is protecting or watching this borders?
[Edited on 17-5-2004 by marg6043]


Here's an original concept: How about the Iraqi's themselves get a little more involved in the security of their country? After all, isn't that the game plan? For them to run their own country?




posted on May, 17 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
How convenient.



Yes John, very convenient.
* How convenient that there was supposedly NO, as in none, WMDs in Iraq, according to you, the liberal anti-war media.
* How convenient that the last use of Sarin, by Saddam, was employed against the Kurds.
* How convenient that Saddam proclaimed all such chemical 155mm warheads/shells destroyed prior to 1991 and after, yet then comes out and proclaims that it produced approxly. 800 tons more in 1995.
* How convenient that the liberal, anti-war media and folks spin and will spin such information, besides that fact that the majority of the world community and the UN had documents and reports that Saddam/Iraq had WMDs, and that there are still WMDs listed as unaccounted for.
* How convenient that Mustard rounds were found a few weeks before this incident.
* How convenient is that this will be proclaimed as not WMDs found but only ONE WMD found.
* How convenient that Mr Kay said that "We were wrong about everything".
* How convenient that Blix and Ritter said that these types shells were destroyed and that Iraq had NO more of them.
* How convenient that this will be spun to say that this sarin shell was a left over of the Iran/Iraq war. Hey, maybe by convenience, we'll also find some left over firecrackers from Saddam's last birthday celebrations.....

....how convenient.




seekerof



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Here we go again...

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that no matter what happens, the same people consistently claim that it is some kind of Bush propaganda stunt? I imagine that even if President Bush was himself attacked, that they would claim that it was a psy-op with the intent of building support for his “illegal war for oil, ordered by his New World Order masters.”

Example: In this case, we only have early reports of WMD's appearing in Iraq, and already some here on ATS are screaming “Conspiracy!” Who knows? I personally doubt it, but maybe it is. The point is that in the absence of any FACTS, it is irresponsible at best to make claims either way.

If you recall people, the motto of this site is “Deny Ignorance”. Trying to jam each and every event into your narrow world view, in spite of the facts, or lack thereof will not accomplish that goal. Let’s give this story some time to develop first, huh?



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo


Okay first off, this proves absolutely nothing. Nobody has said where this came from, it could have been frickin E-bayed to Syria for all we know.

You need METHODS OF DELIVERY and he had zero.

And, um, 2 people were injured? WOW, that is some MASS DESTRUCTION! Pfft.



Proves absolutely nothing? It proves what I was attempting to say EXACTLY; that is, a WMD can be in a very small container. I made no claims as to it's origin. Get your facts straight.

You need METHODS OF DELIVERY? Yeah, like the sarin gas that was released on the subway in Japan. No big missile involved there, was there now, jakomo?

The book is far from closed on the WMD issue. To call it a lie is foolish, and a failure is naive.

Only two injured? Would it have made you happier if many were killed?





posted on May, 17 2004 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo

Okay first off, this proves absolutely nothing. Nobody has said where this came from, it could have been frickin E-bayed to Syria for all we know. No "Made In Iraq" emblazoned on the shell. Some wacko might have had this in his basement for years.

And monkeys might fly out Saddam's butt. The shell is consistant with those Iraq had during the first gulf war and claimed to have destroyed AFTER that...

Secondly, the US invaded Iraq based on the fact that Saddam had WMD that he would use against the US. Proven to be a lie, by now, because even if Saddam HAD this one shell, is he going to load it into a giant slingshot and fire it across the ocean at the U.S.? You need METHODS OF DELIVERY and he had zero.

WMD's were NOT the ONLY reason Iraq was invaded. That is the lie the libs like to use to bash the administration. Lack of WMD's has NOT been proven to be a lie, as we are still on the hunt, and as jsobecky says, there is a lot of desert out there to search. It wasn't that Saddam could hit us with a shell or missle, it's that he could have given WMD's to terrorists such as Zarkawi (yeah, that's probably spelled wrong...live with it) who has been in Iraq for years under Saddam's protection, and would love nothing more than to smuggle it in and unleash it on American soil. There's your method of delivery.

To say that this justifies the illegal invasion of Iraq and the killing of thousands of civilians and hundreds of soldiers is ludicrous. This could have come from anywhere.

So why, praytell, is this an "illegal invasion"? Nobody has been able to tell me why. Congress approved it. The president did what congress approved. And the shell and it's contents could and most likely DID come from Iraq....






new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join