Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

At last! Have they finally found a 'weapon of mass destruction' in Iraq?

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
They Did use the same story in 'Sum of All Fears' movie with Ben Aflick?

But Iraq did once plan to build the supergun back in 1990.

Alot of it was rhetoric, they have a big mouth in the Middle East because they have nothing else to defend with, then again suicide is their honour.



[edit on 6-2-2010 by The time lord]




posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
All I know is that ditch appears to be much deeper than the one in Shanksville. Gotta love these fake photo-ops and stories by these supermarket tabloids.

If Iraq had WMDs, why didn't they use them against the invading forces? What exactly is the point of burying and saving them for a rainy day when you knew the coalition forces were coming in to kick your arse? Only a moron believes these types of stories.

Interesting how this story comes out now when there are allegations being made that Bush and Blair colluded to destroy the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Government and media are both pathological liars.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by seattletruth
 



I don't think you understand the definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

WMD means nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon.

An ICBM is not a weapon of mass destruction unless it has a nuclear payload (even if that is an ICBM)


Even the casing of a missile or rocket is a component for a WMD. Wouldn't Saddam Hussein have ordered the components to be hidden away separately to stop anyone else from using them.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity


Hey Doc - Ya had me, I was following along and considering your statements, although deep down they gave off bad vibes. I was with you all the way up to:


"Keep drinking the koolaid, my boy.... perhaps you weren't old enough to read back in the 90s. "


At that point, you became no different then the other 10,000 16 year old's here who become frustrated because the points they are trying to make are not very strong points at all.. Whats left when you can't argue your point?... Call Names. =)

Well Done -

The War in Iraq is complete B.S. Nothing more nothing less.. I was alive and very able to read, spell, and speak during the 80's when the U.S started really getting involved with Iraq.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Al-Cia-da, etc are all examples of what happens when you support a group militarily, and then not keep your word or promises to them.

No different then a Dog, even though you give him food (military supplies), the dog is still not going to be happy with a daily beating, neglect, etc.

That dog will turn and bite you.. Perfect example of what has happened here.

Now, you can Lie to your neighbor, tell um the dog has Rabies, or bad temper, or how ever you want to blame the dog, but deep down, you know the truth..

When you supply the dog food, trying to find a position of superiority after the dog has picked it up and killed someone with it... Can be difficult.

Forgive me if I look at you as nothing more then the neighbor who beats his dog on a daily basis, only then to continue searching for excuses as to why the beating takes place and then start calling people names to justify it.

Thank god for the Ignore option here on ATS.

Watcher73 - Kudo's for also seeing though this veil of B.S.....



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I can have a missle delivery system that can carry a 700 kilo warhead, the real issue is if I have the warhead or not, and iraq doesn't. (didn't)



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


That is a great point. Never heard it before or even thought about it! Yes why wouldn't they have used such weapons to defend themselves if they had them? We were already pulling out the big guns, blowing up factories etc. bombing them. Only it didn't get nuclear. It is a huge catch-22 and just shows how easy it is to get away with such a big lie, and create false wars like the war on terror, war on drugs.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by The time lord
Iraq did once plan to build the supergun back in 1990.

Alot of it was rhetoric, he they have a big mouth in the Middle East because they have nothing else to defend with.


This is more than a story. Saddam Hussein contracted high tech expert and fruitcake Gerald Bull to build him a gigantic GUN he had designed. It was in progress. Someone, probably Mossad, offed Bull. In 1982, to the delight of Iran and the Saudis, bombed out of existence Saddam's nascent nuclear program.

The Middle East cumulatively is the largest buyer of market warfare weaponry and equipment by a wide margin. Unfortunately their knowledge and strategic planning are often lacking. Russia, independent arms dealers, former Soviet states, unload on them all their outdated dysfunctional junk for which they receive 3-4 times the market value. North Korea largely bases it's economy on supplying the Middle East with derived and knock-off WMDs.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
looks totally suspicious to me, with the timing with the Tony Blair inquiry. Also the fact it is covered in arabic writing. Seems just what they would do if they planted a missile there.

Either way its not a WMD.

[edit on 6-2-2010 by asd10]



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Now_Then
 


I'll be completely honest. That missile looks like something my nephew made in his bedroom with toilet paper and Elmer's glue.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I still think what we're looking at is a modified configuration for air-drop, not a self-propelled missile. A configuration like this could be dropped from high altitude a few miles away and could cruise to its intended target without a propulsion system, right.

That's what this discovery looks like to me, anyway.

— Doc Velocity


Which makes this type of weapon completely useless as a WMD as there was an enforced no-fly zone from 1991-2003. No way they were getting a plane in the air loaded with this kind of armament.

OT, I always thought it was funny that they had to change the name of the conflict from 'Operation Iraqi Liberation' to 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'.

Guess calling it OIL was a bit too obvious...



[edit on 6-2-2010 by candide]



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 

Well Doc...the reason why everyone knew it was a lie was for this little reason...

WE SOLD HIM THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION THAT HE HAD. WE SOLD HIM THE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS THAT HE USED AGAINST THE KURDS, THE IRANIANS, AND HIS OWN PEOPLE. IT WAS US ALL ALONG. And Israel was a part of the whole picture as well.
en.wikipedia.org...

So, although I am in definite agreement with you that United States officials were aware that he had weapons,...Sadaam wouldn't have had a slingshot if we hadn't made it for him and given him the instruction manual.

Just an observation.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
The "No WMD In Iraq" propaganda was always known to be a left-wing lie propagated as part of their anti-war, anti-Bush agenda from the earliest days of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

[edit on 2/6/2010 by Doc Velocity]


Sorry, I felt the need to reiterate this post in its proper context...


Well Doc...the reason why everyone knew it was a lie was for this little reason...

WE SOLD HIM THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION THAT HE HAD. WE SOLD HIM THE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS THAT HE USED AGAINST THE KURDS, THE IRANIANS, AND HIS OWN PEOPLE. IT WAS US ALL ALONG. And Israel was a part of the whole picture as well.
en.wikipedia.org...

So, although I am in definite agreement with you that United States officials were aware that he had weapons,...Sadaam wouldn't have had a slingshot if we hadn't made it for him and given him the instruction manual.

Just an observation.

So, just to say it twice...

The reason why our country was SO SURE that Sadaam had WMD was because we were aware of his inventory. Why were we aware of his inventory??? Because we were responsible for giving him his inventory, and we were well aware of the type of person he was when we gave it to him.

Then we run around practicing "Indian Giving." (This, by the way, is a term that really has no merit, but since everyone already knows its meaning, I thought I would apply it here.) As a matter of fact, that phrase just brings up another holocaust that happened before we were even established as a country. I'll be quick with this one. The English come to a foreign land. They befriend the natives. They learn how to farm and utilize the land to support themselves...Then, they slaughter the natives, push them off their land, and make up names against them to justify their actions. Indian Givers, savages, yada yada, blah blah.


Anyway...back to the topic.
We didn't care that Sadaam had killed thousands. We were well aware of it while it was occurring but chose to let him do it, just in case we needed propaganda against him later. As a matter of fact, we helped fund it all the way to the point until Sadaam had gotten greedy and chose to invade Kuwait. But as you're well aware, Kuwait was a no no because it affected our economic interests. So, in other words, our weapons not only killed Kurds, Iraqis, Iranians, and thousands of others, but, they also went towards killing some of our own soldiers and many of which came back with nasty symptoms that we properly coined, "Gulf War Syndrome."

So...yeah Doc. We knew he had weapons. The conservatives and the liberals all played that part quite well. But, I do want to add something...according to this info, at around the year 2000, your conservatives claiming that he had no weapons at all. Can you explain that to me???
www.guardian.co.uk...
And I might want to add, this information came from the CIA concerning Sadaam's capabilities in 2000. There is no liberal agenda here, this was all U.S. intelligence.
www.cnn.com...

So, although you're using this as a way to refuel some wonderful agenda to further the idea that we've done the right thing, I doesn't jive. I will say this though Doc, you're a good member and I have agreed with many of your assessments before.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Uh

Saddam had WMD. There is no denying such. He was a threat to all of us. He had biological/Chemical Weapons that he was willing to use on ANYONE.

And then, the 1980's ended.

War in Iraq = WASTE.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 

It was the US that gave Iraq it's gas capability. The government knew he had gas because THEY SOLD IT TO HIM.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Now_Then
 


Oh man, I thought you were going to expose that WE are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq!



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by seattletruth
I don't think you understand the definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

WMD means nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon.


I don't think YOU know the definition, Seattle.

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill large numbers of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general.

en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 6-2-2010 by KANE OG]



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Oh my, TOO Funny.

The picture of the two soldiers, standing in the dirt, looking at that thing...

First soldier: "Ok we've found it!, run and tell the General, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!- and that we can pull all the troops out immediatly, and head for home!"

Second Soldier: "Yes Sir!" *as he scrambles out of the 3 foot deep hole and runs off into the distance*


Seriously what were they planning on doing with that thing?

"Punting" it over to the UK?



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by KANE OG

Originally posted by seattletruth
I don't think you understand the definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

WMD means nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon.


I don't think YOU know the definition, Seattle.

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill large numbers of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general.

en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 6-2-2010 by KANE OG]


That's funny. By that definition, every army in the world possesses WMD, and most nations possess staggering quantities.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then

But more than the actual missile it is the timing of this find, nearly 10 years and just when the enquiry is at it's peak and now America is lining up against other countries like Iran, North Korea and Syria (among others)



We just entered 2010, and the second Gulf War started in 2003. 10 minus 3 = 7 years... just sayin. BTW Iraq is a pretty big place, I bet I could hide something here in Oregon and it would take an entire Army of people a lot longer then 7 years to find it. But please don't allow something like facts and commonsense stop you people from hating on the military and using fake math.


--Charles Marcello



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by littlebunny

Originally posted by Now_Then

But more than the actual missile it is the timing of this find, nearly 10 years and just when the enquiry is at it's peak and now America is lining up against other countries like Iran, North Korea and Syria (among others)



We just entered 2010, and the second Gulf War started in 2003. 10 minus 3 = 7 years... just sayin. BTW Iraq is a pretty big place, I bet I could hide something here in Oregon and it would take an entire Army of people a lot longer then 7 years to find it. But please don't allow something like facts and commonsense stop you people from hating on the military and using fake math.


--Charles Marcello


And don't let "facts" dissuade you from your position. Facts like after almost seven years --let me repeat that for you: SEVEN YEARS-- no WMD have beem found. Despite everything riding on it politically.

Some people just don't care about facts. WMD detection is highly specialized, but the equipment and knowledge exists that if Iraq actually had WMD it would have been discovered within a year unless they had taken EXTRAORDINARY measures, which it is unlikely they had the ability to have.

We were told the WMD was a no-brainer and would be found for sure.

It wasn't. Over one-hundred thousand Iraquis were killed because of what we WE DID and people like you just shrug and say, "Oh well...the weapons were there even if nobody ever found them because I want to believe that...and if anyone disputes that, well I'll state it's a "fact" anyway, even with no --repeat NO-- facts to back me up anyway."

This is why people hate the USA. The percentage of our population that denies the KNOWN FACTS and insists their version of selective reality is true.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join