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.
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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Muaddib
I thought I said recently didn't I?
Originally posted by perseus
so any justification no matter how pathetic would certainly help.
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.
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).
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?
They shouldn't find "any" wmd in Iraq, no matter what quantity since they were all banned
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).