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: Iraqi Daily Newspaper al-Sabah Reports Three Nuclear Warheads Found

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by J0HNSmith

If that was the truth than why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? Huge sponsor of terrorism, and last time I looked our "main" allies in the middle east are better explained as being convenient friends. Bush decided to go into Iraq before he went into office. There are much bigger fish in the middle east when it comes to terrorism and we call most of them our friends.


JohnSmith, the first thing you do when you are waging a war against many countries that are sponsors to terrorism, you make a base of operations and find allies in those places you are going to work on, you don't go attacking all countries at once. Even thou Saudi Arabia is not exactly an innocent country, they have been working on changing, and it is a bit more pro-american than other terrorist nations. Also you have to understand that Saudi Arabia has been playing both sides, it is part of their politics. While in one front they claim and show their support for the US, by other devious means they support terrorism, but they have been changing slowly from doing this.




posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Judging from backchannel chatter (you will see references to this topic in various armed forces internal publications and discussion forums), thousands of WMDs have been located and secured in Iraq since the first days of the invasion.

However, there is a news blackout on this matter (embedded reporters have spiked many stories on this), since disclosure of any information on WMDs not only jeopardizes recovery efforts, but may result in some of these weapons falling into the wrong hands (although admittedly, several already have). As with any "secret" of this magnitude, leaks will occur, which are plugged through denials and disinformation techniques. We will see this here, as well.


Do you have any links or evidence to back this up? What makes you think there is a news blackout? More to the point, how could such a thing even be achieved given an international media?

It's quite a claim you're making there, and you should really provide some evidence, links, background info or something.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by 2goodbucs
If what he said is true about the Iraqi news paper being funded by the coalition then you have to take that with a grain of salt until some other arab news companies with an un-bias report like Al-Jazeera confirm of these WMD found in Tikrit.


Err....Al Jazeera unbiased? You are kidding right? Al Jazeera has been found to be a pro-terrorist newspaper, what makes you think they are going to be un-biased?........ Quite a few countries have found reporters from Al Jazeera stationed and ready in an area where a terrorist act was going to happen. They knew before hand what would happen. The newspaper is pro-terrorist...
I do not understand why anyone would take the word from Al Jazeera....it would be like taking the word from a terrorist.....


I posted a back-up reason above your post here it is if you didnt read it....

quote: Originally posted by Gazrok
We've got rebuttals from Reuters and Washington Times...seems like someone cried "Wolf"....

quote: un-bias report like Al-Jazeera


Oh man, I about cracked up on that one, hehe.... Don't do that to me when I'm drinking coffee.....!!!


Ok, let me help you not get coffee squirt out of your nose next time. I said that because Al-Jazeera, though they are biased toward anything Arab, will confirm themselves if that story is true since they are not funded by the coalition while still saying 'but the U.S. are stupid infidels anyways, WMD or not'. That should be better for you to swallow.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 02:50 PM
link   
BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS...there, is that a long enough post for ya?


[edit on 23-7-2004 by neomoniker]



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Halliburton had the concrete contract for the 18 foot deep layer over the WMD's.

Seriously, though, until more WMD's are found and verified by unbiased news sources such as Al-Jazeera, the BBC, and the New York Times, I will be viewing this report with jaundiced eye.



Knowing you jsobecky, I know you must be joking.
Giving Al Jazeera as much credence as the BBC and the New York Times?



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by J0HNSmith
Did you count them your self? Would it be hard for the CIA or other agency to buy a nuke? What would it take to erase all the paperwork on one of our stockpiled nukes and remove it? Or better yet, what about one of the nukes we "destroyed" in a stock pile downsizing? There are 1001 ways to skin a cat, dont' pretend it's not skinable.


JOHNSmith the only countries who had been selling wmd lately to Middle East nations have been China, Russia, some reports say probably NK, and maybe even France, if we are to believe what a French politician mentioned about giving wmd to Arab nations against Israel. BTW, wasn't there at the beginning of the war some weapons, or explosives found that were made in France? My memory is a bit sketchy on this one, but I remember hearing something about it on the news. Except perhaps for France, we have ran articles on every other country i mentioned above, selling wmd to Arab nations, such as Iran and Iraq. If you do a search you will find them.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2goodbucs

I posted a back-up reason above your post here it is if you didnt read it....

Ok, let me help you not get coffee squirt out of your nose next time. I said that because Al-Jazeera, though they are biased toward anything Arab, will confirm themselves if that story is true since they are not funded by the coalition while still saying 'but the U.S. are stupid infidels anyways, WMD or not'. That should be better for you to swallow.


So, you are pretty much saying....lets believe what a terrorist sponsor news media says instead of other sources....
Not me. You can believe Al Jazeera all you want, it is an unreliable news source since their agenda is the same for terrorists.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 06:01 PM
link   
It appears that I may have spoken out of turn regarding the situation in Iraq.

Please disregard my posts on this topic.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
JOHNSmith the only countries who had been selling wmd lately to Middle East nations have been China, Russia, some reports say probably NK, and maybe even France.

Do you intentionally leave out USA? Remember when Rumsfeld was greeted by Saddam?

It was USA supplied biological and chemical weapons during Iraq-Iran war.

When you intentionally leave out facts, your creditibility will be diminished.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib


So, you are pretty much saying....lets believe what a terrorist sponsor news media says instead of other sources....
Not me. You can believe Al Jazeera all you want, it is an unreliable news source since their agenda is the same for terrorists.



By you saying that 'you are pretty much saying' means you are assuming what I am saying. If I didnt type it, I didnt 'pretty much' said anything. I am meaning that since Al-Jazeera IS NOT funded by the coalition at least they would agree that the U.S.A. did find WMD. I think Al-Jazeera IS funded by the terrorist organization because of their backing of terrorist acts by saying that they are called for actions. These actions (by any sane and logical minded person) are always un-called for and Al-Jazeera shows their bias after these acts are taken into effect.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng
Do you intentionally leave out USA? Remember when Rumsfeld was greeted by Saddam?

It was USA supplied biological and chemical weapons during Iraq-Iran war.

When you intentionally leave out facts, your creditibility will be diminished.


I thought I said recently didn't I?
The weapons we gave Iraq back in the Iran conflict was for a war not for terrorism. Nowadays countries are selling weapons knowing some of these countries are terrorists, that they don't care to attack civilians, and have been saying they will use these weapons against the west.

No credibility lost here zcheng.......


Nice try thou...



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
I thought I said recently didn't I?

How are you defining "recently"? 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years? or simply 2 hours ago?


Do you have any time schedule of who sold what to Iraq and at what time?



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I didnt realize how old this arcticle was. I think we would have heard something by now.

[edit on 26-7-2004 by perseus]


df1

posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by perseus
so any justification no matter how pathetic would certainly help.

This is a really bizarre statement. It seems to me that some truth would help a lot more. What would a pathetic justification help?



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 07:06 PM
link   
[edit on 26-7-2004 by perseus]



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
It appears that I may have spoken out of turn regarding the situation in Iraq.

Please disregard my posts on this topic.


Majic, what do you mean by that? Are you retracting the claim that lots of WND have been found (they haven't) or that there is a media blackout? (there isn't).

What changed your mind?



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by muppet
Majic, what do you mean by that? Are you retracting the claim that lots of WND have been found (they haven't) or that there is a media blackout? (there isn't).


They shouldn't find "any" wmd in Iraq, no matter what quantity since they were all banned, and we have found more than a few. So, yeah....there were, and probably still are wmd in Iraq.

[edit on 26-7-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng
How are you defining "recently"? 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years? or simply 2 hours ago?


Do you have any time schedule of who sold what to Iraq and at what time?

There are posts about this on this forum and others, go take a look for yourself.

BTW, as for my definition for recently, i thought it was clear we were talking about the 1980s, when the US was helping Iraq fight against Iran. We were not giving or selling any weapons to iraq in the 90s....because "if" you can remember Saddam invaded Kuwait, one that was not a threat to Iraq at all... and we retaliated back and "liberated" Kuwait....we did not keep kuwait and make it part of our "homeland".....you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that since the 80s we didn't sell any weapons to Iraq.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   

They shouldn't find "any" wmd in Iraq, no matter what quantity since they were all banned


A handful of weapons are easy to lose. Countries lose WMD more than any of us would like to think about. We all know he had them at some point, the US helped him get them in the first place. The question was did anyone know they were still around? The US sure didn't (as they admit now, they were just guessing).

I just hate to see ourselves get into the mess we got into, which was entirely forseeable. Really it was close to best case. If he was as armed and willing as the president said, we would have been sending troops to their slaughter. I can't really see a realistic good outcome to the Iraq invasion which is why I don't understand why it happened.

[edit on 26-7-2004 by perseus]



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by perseus

They shouldn't find "any" wmd in Iraq, no matter what quantity since they were all banned


A handful of weapons are easy to lose. Countries lose WMD more than any of us would like to think about. We all know he had them at some point, the US helped him get them in the first place. The question was did anyone know they were still around? The US sure didn't (as they admit now, they were just guessing).


Any chemical weapons we gave to Saddam are obsolete by now unless they were properly stored, and we did not give him any nukes. In the late 1980s when we realized that Saddam was not a moderate leader, the US government decided not to sell more weapons to him, althou some US companies, not related to the government, kept selling "pesticides" that were fatal to humans until 1988 in large quantities, if I remember correctly.

There are other countries that have been selling wmd and other military arsenal to Saddam until at least 2002, Russia being one of them,the rest of those countries I mentioned before. UNMOVIC and the UN itself have given reports that they have found banned parts, rockets, and other material that were dismantled and sent to scrapyards around the world from Iraq. these banned materials had been in possesion of Saddam/Iraq until late 2003.




[edit on 26-7-2004 by Muaddib]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join