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.

 

Obama DNI choice believes Syrians have Saddam’s WMD?

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
hotair.com...


President Obama’s choice to be the next director of national intelligence supported the view that Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq sent weapons and documents to Syria in the weeks before the 2003 U.S. invasion.

A senior U.S. intelligence official said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James R. Clapper, a former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and current undersecretary of defense for intelligence, will be the next DNI. A formal announcemente is expected as early as Saturday. …

Gen. Clapper headed the National Geo-spatial Intelligence Agency between September 2001 to June 2006. The NGA is responsible for creating maps and terrestrial imagery and also assesses what is called “measurement and signature intelligence,” or MASINT, the intelligence function of analyzing such things as radar signals and the composition of air particles, soil samples and other physical characteristics of the earth.

On Iraq, Gen. Clapper said in an interview with The Washington Times in 2004 that “I think probably in the few months running up prior to the onset of combat that … there was probably an intensive effort to disperse into private homes, move documentation and materials out of the country. I think there are any number of things that they would have done.”

The comments came amid the debate over Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, which some U.S. officials had said were moved out of Iraq prior to the invasion of Iraq with the assistance of Russian military intelligence forces.



I'm not sure how reliable the source is since I have never used Hotair.com so if it is unreliable I apologize.

Anyways... If this is true it could help establish his influence in the government by telling them that Syria has Iraq's WMD's and could convince them that Syria is a threat like Iraq was and Iran is now. And since Iran and Syria are in a military alliance, it would be a lot easier since they could take on their whole alliance based around WMD's.




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I totally vibe with you on this one, Op. That Saddam and his WMD's, he's tricky! Sure. It's just another reason to invade somebody else, Syria this time.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
*yawn* this is NOT new News, General Gorge Sada, the commander of Iraqi Air Forces prior to the war stated that Saddam shipped mass quantities of his WMD arsenal to Syria in hollowed out airliners prior to the 2003 invasion.

No one cared to listen to the man then, so I seriously doubt anyone will listen to the report now either. But perhaps I'm, wrong, Bush isn't president anymore so maybe the MSM will in fact report it this time.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Here's the link from wiki that describes General Gorge Sada:

en.wikipedia.org...

I remember hearing the interview with Sada live on Hannity and Colmes and if I recall correctly he named the valley that the WMD was buried. I can't remember the name but I recall that it was biblical. I always wondered why he was ignored after the interview?

STM



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by seentoomuch
Here's the link from wiki that describes General Gorge Sada:

en.wikipedia.org...

I remember hearing the interview with Sada live on Hannity and Colmes and if I recall correctly he named the valley that the WMD was buried. I can't remember the name but I recall that it was biblical. I always wondered why he was ignored after the interview?

STM
Of course he was ignored, his testimony showed that Iraq did in fact have banned WMDs prior to the invasion.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Why would Saddam give these fictional weapons to someone else? Would it not make much more sense to keep them to defend yourself?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
If I recall correctly Saddam, according to Sada, had a major ego and wanted these (the WMDs) to play with, even on his own people. When he realized the US was serious he let go of his toys.

STM

[edit on 6/10/2010 by seentoomuch]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Errm ... we have known this since late 2002/early 2003.

People just chose to ignore it because to admit this would mean that the big bad evil USA was justified in invading Iraq and we can't have that.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
What proof is there of this claim that Saddam had these fabled WMDs or that he sent them to Syria? I'd love to see it.

Wow, maybe they'll have to chase these damned elusive WMDs, invading country after country all over the Middle East, just chasing them down. Perfect excuse.

Amazing how the excuse to invade the NEXT country is that the thing you used to justify invading the FIRST country turned out not to be there.

We haven't had insane logic like this since the witch trials.


[edit on 10-6-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ChrisF231
 


seeing as it was america that sold and furnished Saddam with biological and chemical weapons in the first place I find it hard to justify the action. If it was about the horror and immorality of WMD's, America would never have provided them in the first place. That is not to say we shouldn't be concerned about such weapons. We should be. The problem is the double standard on weaponry.

If it comes down to a debate of the morality of the invasion based on this evidence then one should, to be fair, examine the conduct of their own military. Deplete uranium is and will continue to kill Iraqis into the future. Its just as indiscriminate as a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon though I concede its the long term effects and not the near-term effects that make it so.

I suppose it ultimately comes down to ones feelings on warfare in general. In todays total war its difficult to condemn weaponry when most of it is indiscriminate to an extent. For instance, Just War Theory is often touted because it can provide the justification for a military action. The proportionality principle and the doctrine of double effect which in the past was used as justification for collateral damage no longer holds true.

In the 1990's alone (prior to Iraq and afghanistan) between 75-90% of all war deaths were civilians.(Chris Hedges, What Every Person Should Know About War. New York Free Press, 2003)

I understand the vindication for some this news brings but for me, the line of just cause/intent and unjust cause/intent, is so blurred I feel no excitment or joy in knowing this news could be used to bolster more war.

If its terrorists, then they lack the representation of the people not to mention their targetting of civilians (which alone negates just cause). If its a military than it assumes representation of the people whether its there or not and increasingly has justified collateral damage to the point where more civilians suffer from war than in any period in the last century. example: between 1900-1990 43 million soldiers were killed in wars, while 62 million civilians were killed in the same period. or 69% of all war deaths. (source same as above)

Anyways interesting news but I don't think this adds any moral legitimacy. War and its mechanisms have become wholly unjust all around.


The sad thing is peaceful resolution requires the willingness of all parties and it seems the majority of the world does not want to prepare for peace. Ghandi helped liberate India (and massive conflicts followed) but would it have worked in Nazi Germany where pacifists were tortured simply to see where their breaking point was?

Apologies for the length and rambling nature of post.

Cheers

edited for clarity



[edit on 10-6-2010 by thebulldog]

[edit on 10-6-2010 by thebulldog]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
We must invade syria!



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
A few more interesting items on our new DNI, Gen. James R. Clapper;

On the Impact of the ‘Global War on Terrorism’




Incidentally, we’ve been able to apply our “pull” model to operations outside the Global War on Terrorism as well. We successfully deployed dozens of personnel in support of hurricanes Katrina and Rita readiness, response and recovery operations. As well, we supported the most recent presidential inauguration and Olympiads in Turin and Athens


On Supporting Commercial Space Imagery;




We have multiple industry partnerships in place, many stemming from the NGA role as the functional manager for the National System for Geospatial-Intelligence, dealing with technology, policy and capability integration across the current multi-intelligence environment. I would like to highlight specifically our engagement with commercial imagery. To date, NGA has invested approximately $1 billion in the industry for acquiring and developing commercial satellite imagery. We are thus supporting the U.S. Commercial Remote Sensing Space Policy guidance to use commercial remote sensing data, “to the greatest extent possible.” Our ClearView contract vehicle with high-resolution commercial imagery companies has provided nearly $650 million to purchase commercial satellite imagery from the current operational satellites. NGA’s NextView contract vehicle has provided more than $350 million to date to purchase imagery from the next generation of commercial imagery satellites. We anticipate the ultimate ClearView and NextView expenditures will be in the $1.5 billion range.


And my favorite, Q: From your experience, what are some of the most important future issues or capabilities coming out of the geospatial
intelligence world?




While the current analytical strength of geospatial intelligence lies in depicting what’s where on the earth, we are also pushing this discipline toward a transformation aimed at predictive analysis –– enabling users to glimpse into the future. Given ongoing research from both federal and industry teams, and the rapid advancement of technological capabilities, I think the possibilities for predictive geospatial intelligence are both immense and exciting.


The most interesting part in my view is the 'transformation aimed at predictive analysis--enabling users to glimpse into the future.'

How this fits into Geospatial intelligence I would love to know.

And now that he is DNI, I guess we will find out, IF you have the security clearance!!

But seriously, does anyone have any more info on 'predictive analysis'?
Sounds rather ominous, like Minority Report.

Well, nevermind, seek and ye shall find! But no info on military use..

predictiveanalytics.org...

[edit on 10-6-2010 by ErEhWoN]

[edit on 10-6-2010 by ErEhWoN]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
What proof is there of this claim that Saddam had these fabled WMDs or that he sent them to Syria? I'd love to see it.

Wow, maybe they'll have to chase these damned elusive WMDs, invading country after country all over the Middle East, just chasing them down. Perfect excuse.

Amazing how the excuse to invade the NEXT country is that the thing you used to justify invading the FIRST country turned out not to be there.

We haven't had insane logic like this since the witch trials.


You're kidding right? The proof was presented to the UNSC who found Saddam in material breach. That's why the world was surprised that the WMDs were not there when the invasion occurred. Saddam had them moved to his allies.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The inspectors did not find anything. Hans Blix rejected the claims that the weapons were there.

Saddam had weapons many years ago, when he go them from the West. He used them already.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
If he is to be believed Saddam said he was bluffing having the weapons so as to not look weak in the eyes of Iran.

He tried to bluff the world and it backfired on him. Now everyone blames Bush when we should be blaming Saddam for thinking Bush wouldn't do what he said he was going to do.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The inspectors did not find anything. Hans Blix rejected the claims that the weapons were there.

Saddam had weapons many years ago, when he go them from the West. He used them already.


Many deduce Hans Blix was in the pocket of a few nations on the UNSC for one. (Russia France) that were still doing illegal business with Iraq during the Oil for Food scandal.

LINK



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I believe this story is close to the truth.

The reason the coalition did not take the war to Baghdad in 1991 was because it was feared/known that Saddam was saving his chemical warheads for when the coalition approached the city of Baghdad.

Hence between the two 'Gulf Wars' the focus was on sending UN inspectors back and forth to Iraq.

To my previous knowledge, it was only during 2000-2003, that intelligence sources were satisfied that Saddam no longer posessed these warheads.

They used the WMD story regardless to justify the 'Liberation'.

Many laughed at the stupidity of this justification, not knowing what it was actually derived from.


Kind regards,


Skellon.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by Skellon]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I remember seeing a load of traffic, all heading to the Syrian border, when I was flying in the AOR in 2003, just prior to the war (Jan- Feb timeframe).

Could have been refugees getting out of Dodge, could have been the Iraqi Army moving WMDs, could be both. Who knows?




top topics



 
7

log in

join