Syria's Chemical Weapons Came From Saddam's Iraq

page: 1
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+16 more 
posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   


War On Terror: As the regime of Bashar Assad disintegrates, the security of his chemical arsenal is in jeopardy. The No. 2 general in Saddam Hussein's air force says they were the WMDs we didn't find in Iraq.


Syria's Chemical Weapons from Saddam's Iraq

Bush could be vindicated soon when it comes to light that many of the chemical weapons Syria holds are actually from Saddam's Iraq. Of course if this comes to light, it could call into question many conspiracy threads posted here, such as all the 9/11 threads and many of the false flag thread.



+7 more 
posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 

Bush vindicated huh? Well who do you think designed and sold those chemical weapons to Saddam? Bush senior and Reagan admins, which unfortunately means, we did.

a review of a large tranche of government documents reveals that the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items — those with military and civilian applications — that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague.


"There's a sardonic two-liner making the rounds in Washington these days: 'How do we know that Saddam Hussein has biological and chemical weapons? We have the receipts.'" --Ted Koppel, ABC's Nightline Town Meeting, 03/04/03


All's fair in love and war?

Congressional investigations after the Gulf War revealed that the Commerce Department had licensed sales of biological agents, including anthrax, and insecticides, which could be used in chemical weapons, to Iraq.

www.cbsnews.com...
edit on 23-7-2012 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Um...it was well known before hand that Saddam had Chemical weapons as he used them on his own people.

Also, if your country was getting invaded, wouldn't you hand your most important weapons over to a trustful ally just before your downfall?
edit on 23-7-2012 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
This actually wouldn't surprise me in the least.

There were several trains of thought at the time of the Iraq invasion and one of them was that these weapons had been moved too soon for US troops to find them, and rather than admit failure it was deemed politically prudent at the time to just say that they made a mistake and didn't find any.

The Times of London reported during Iraq war that there was some speculation that Saddam simply moved these weapons before US troops could find them, Syria was speculated as their new home.

12 years later, could The Times be proven correct?


+3 more 
posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I was wondering how this thread would develop.

I remember all the "Bush lied, people died" chants and the endless mockery of his administration for claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Are we agreed that Bush was right? That Iraq did have WMDs? I would hate to think that after all that time the response from ATS will be "Sure, we knew that, we sold them to them years before. We knew they had them, no big deal. Yeah, Bush was right, but so what?"

But let's see what happens.
edit on 23-7-2012 by charles1952 because: bracket problem



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 




Are we agreed that Bush was right? That Iraq did have WMDs?

No. GW Bush proved himself.

edit on 23-7-2012 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital
Um...it was well known before hand that Saddam had Chemical weapons as he used them on his own people.

Also, if your country was getting invaded, wouldn't you hand your most important weapons over to a trustful ally just before your downfall?
edit on 23-7-2012 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)


No, if the time of my downfall was here I wouldn't get rid of my most important weapons.
I would use them on those who were bringing my downfall, after all just like money you can't take it with you when you die.
I didn't think it was so much about him haveing some chemical weapons as you say that was proven by the Kurds not to mention his willingness to use them, but more about the fact he had mobile chemical weapons factories and was making large amounts, nothing to do with old stock bought from the US.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
reply to post by tide88
 

Bush vindicated huh? Well who do you think designed and sold those chemical weapons to Saddam? Bush senior and Reagan admins, which unfortunately means, we did.

a review of a large tranche of government documents reveals that the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items — those with military and civilian applications — that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague.


"There's a sardonic two-liner making the rounds in Washington these days: 'How do we know that Saddam Hussein has biological and chemical weapons? We have the receipts.'" --Ted Koppel, ABC's Nightline Town Meeting, 03/04/03



Yes, duel use items. Not saying the US is innocent, but we sold them a range of chemicals used in a variety of ways, such a vaccines. We (The USA) didn't actually sell them chemical weapons.
All's fair in love and war?

Congressional investigations after the Gulf War revealed that the Commerce Department had licensed sales of biological agents, including anthrax, and insecticides, which could be used in chemical weapons, to Iraq.

www.cbsnews.com...
edit on 23-7-2012 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital
Um...it was well known before hand that Saddam had Chemical weapons as he used them on his own people.

Also, if your country was getting invaded, wouldn't you hand your most important weapons over to a trustful ally just before your downfall?
edit on 23-7-2012 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)


The point I am making, is everyone was and still is up in arms about the invasion due to the Bush administrations reasons for going to war with Iraq, its weapons of mass destruction. Bush has since been criticized over and over again since we never found those weapons. In fact, even though a book was written by the #2 general (I believe) for Saddam describing the move of those weapons, the media over here ignored it.

If those weapons were there and moved as the book states, it would instantly debunk half the false flag and 9/11 conspiracy threads on this site.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


I remember that too, funny how the media swept that under the rug.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital
Um...it was well known before hand that Saddam had Chemical weapons as he used them on his own people.
]


Yes, but the media, hollywood, and half the people that post false flag threads claim the Bush administration made the whole weapons of mass destruction up. Those weapons they used against their own people, according to some, were destroyed or pretty much useless due to age.


+7 more 
posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
reply to post by tide88
 

Bush vindicated huh? Well who do you think designed and sold those chemical weapons to Saddam? Bush senior and Reagan admins, which unfortunately means, we did.



There was plenty of blame to go around.
Iraq's Chemical Weapons Program suppliers by country


  • Singapore
  • Brazil
  • India
  • Germany
  • Spain
  • Belgium
  • Netherlands
  • China
  • France
  • Britain
  • United States of America

Source



Linky here
In the late 1970's, it was actually the German firm 'Karl Kobe' that sold Iraq the ingredients for it's first chemical weapons. Karl Kobe and others sold Iraq over 1,027 tons of the chemicals needed to produce mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and various tear gasses including CS and CN. The chemical weapons program was operational by late 1983/early 1984.

The United States CDC (Center for Disease Control) provided Iraq with biological samples up until 1989 for "Medical research and other purposes". The US supplied anthrax, West Nile virus, botulism, and Brucella melitensis to Iraq for little or no charge.

The United Kingdom paid, in full, for the Iraqi chlorine plant where mustard gas was manufactured. Brazil provided around 100 tons of mustard gas in the early 80's before the British funded plant was up and running. Singapore and India provided the ingredients for VX nerve agent and yet still more Tabun.

Egypt and Spain both provided the majority of Iraq's munitions that were designed to carry and disperse the chemical weapons. In 1984, a CIA leak reported to the Washington Post that the CIA was providing intel to the Iraqis, including the targeting information and coordinates where Iraq used it's chemical weapons against Iran.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 

I figured that out when they couldn't find the weapons Saddam was supposed to have. They were talking about trucks going between Syria and Iraq on the news at that time. There were pictures of them, they were looking at what was coming in to Iraq, not leaving.


+3 more 
posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 





Bush vindicated huh? Well who do you think designed and sold those chemical weapons to Saddam? Bush senior and Reagan admins, which unfortunately means, we did.


Want to try agian?

During the gulf war gas masks and scud launchers all Russian made.

To the op people have been saying Saddam moved his WMDs to Syria for years it was just easier for people to not research like how Russian special forces where in Iraq during the lead up to the war and moved them to Syria where Russia current;y has special forces on the ground and has for years.

edit on 23-7-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


Bush will NEVER be vindicated, by any of his detractors. He will be vilified for Being a President of the United States,for running one of the countries who supplied them, spun in way, where its a non-issue, deflected in way, where he is blamed for the Worlds ills, still. I am not a Bush Fan, but this is what we will see.MHO



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
We see that all of the European and US armed Saddam with WMD ... too bad that was not the original justification for going into Iraq ..

Remember, Iraq was part of the 911 plot ...

this is somewhat like the first Gulf war when Iraq attacked Kuwait. I raq claimewd Kuwait was slant drilling inot the Iraqi oil fields... Bush I denied but it was later proven tue..

and Halliburton sold Kuwait the slant drilling equipment ... how ironic .... profits before-during-after the war .....



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
If I give someone the designs for a gun, I expect him to make a gun.

I don't expect him to shoot me with it.

Am I then to blame if he does?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Ummm DUH. Not ALL of the weapons Syria has are Iraqi but how many news reports did we see prior to Gulf War II about Saddam transferring his chemical weapons to Syria? I mean complete with satellite imagery and everything. Oh and to all the idiots who last week said Syria DIDNT have chemical weapons, what do you say now that even they admit they have them????
edit on 23-7-2012 by princeofpeace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I would say Syria has its own chemical weapons, plus Saddam's chemical weapons.
MHO



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Better to share than to keep making more!





new topics
top topics
 
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join