They didn't find WMD in Iraq so now they are saying its in Syria. Cool story NATO.
Once they invade Syria and they don't find any evidence of WMD they will probably say it have moved to Iran.
What comes after Iran? Russia or China? Well we know they have WMD for sure....

so once again the good people of ATS are distracted by the pretty assistant and forget to watch the magicians hands.
All this debate over an article with no proof, who was it claiming Syria had these weapons?
a defector? of course we should trust everything someone says if it supports an adjective and refuse to hear anything that does not, looking how the article itself was written screamed propaganda

give me a break, there is no support for an attack on Syria no matter how much they pull the dictator is killing his own people card, they cant use the nuclear card so they go with old faithful, Chemical WMD's.

Originally posted by stirling
Truthfuly, WMDs do not include Chemical weapons...thats a new twist they put on it, but it wasnt so in the past....
Chemica weapons are at best very localised things....yes they can kill people, but not destroy infrastructure....
But Chem weapons have ONLY recently been included as WMDs to broaden the fear factor and to dupe the public about the threat.

You are correct about the meaning of the term evolving over the years. The only usage that matters now though is the contemporary meaning of the term Weapons of Mass Destruction. Your just obfuscating.

I assure you they disperse some Sarin over your neighborhood, you won't care what they call it and your family will be needing your life insurance.

The current items deemed WMD's were included by UN Resolutions, not the US acting alone.

Have you completely forgotten that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? There was only one war in Iraq. Saddam kept breaking the Ceasefire from Desert Storm and defied over twenty UN Resolutions. Saddam invaded Kuwait to take their oil planning on taking over Saudi Arabia next. That's why the Saudi's helped us.

What do you suppose it would be like there now if Saddam had been allowed to take Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? Do you think he would have stopped there, or attempted to take the entire area? He had the resources to do that you know? Would that have been OK?

I never forgive Blair for his "Iraq are in collusion with Al Quaida" when the reality is that Saddam's people would never allow AL Quaida to operate. So clearly there were mistruths on Iraq.

Back to Syria - does it really matter whether the WMD came from Iraq or not? If WMD exist then Russia will be just as worried about who gets their hands on the WMD as Syria crumbles as the West. So if WMD exists and Syria continues to disintegrate, you would expect a deal between the Superpowers to sort this out - both have too much to lose

Originally posted by munkey66
so once again the good people of ATS are distracted by the pretty assistant and forget to watch the magicians hands.
All this debate over an article with no proof, who was it claiming Syria had these weapons?
a defector? of course we should trust everything someone says if it supports an adjective and refuse to hear anything that does not, looking how the article itself was written screamed propaganda

give me a break, there is no support for an attack on Syria no matter how much they pull the dictator is killing his own people card, they cant use the nuclear card so they go with old faithful, Chemical WMD's.

You are aware that Assad threatened to use them, right? He has admitted to them, right?

I happen to agree we should stay out of a civil war and I doubt we will get involved in this one. I do however think if we can take out the chemical weapons with surgical strikes we and the whole world would be stupid not to. After all it is Assad himself who is threatening to use them.

The main thing I'm getting from this thread is the insane attempt to rewrite the history of what happened in Iraq and what Saddam's intentions were is working. Once again people prove how easy they are to manipulate; even while those alive when it happened are still around they rewrite it.

That and people don't really give a damn if Assad follows through on his threats as long as it's not in their backyard. To hell with the innocents in his part of the world, right? Hypocrisy in the extreme.

Scared the sheeple stating WMD's were in Iraq and Sadam was going to use them

Invade Iraq

couldn't find WMD's in Iraq

Over 1 million civilians killed over a lie

Gets demonized by the public

Gets defector to state they are in Syria

Sheeple yap let's go to Syria

No WMD's found in Syria

Gets defector to say they are Iran

Sheeple yap, let's go to Iran

Etc.. etc.

Originally posted by tide88
People like to say Bush was a liar and made the whole weapons of mass destructions in Iraq up so he could invade.

Bush wanted to invade Iraq before he was even inaugurated. When he was President Elect, he met Clinton, as it is tradition for outgoing Presidents to meet with their successors. Clinton wanted to discuss what he thought were the top national security priorities, and OBL was at the top of his list. However, all Bush wanted to discuss was Saddam. He was fixated on the topic. WMD intelligence was falsified to provide legal basis for war, see the Downing Street memo and the murder of David Kelly.

This goes back much further, read the PNAC joint letter sent to Clinton during his second term, beseeching him to go to war with Iraq.

Originally posted by tide88
People were saying he was trying to tie 9/11 to Iraq and when he could not, he made up the weapons of mass destruction claim.

The Admin made many statements that falsely connected 9/11 and Iraq. On the day of 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld even asked, "How can we tie this to Iraq?"

Originally posted by tide88
Of course there were, according to the so called "truthers", many other reason for a false flag 9/11, but this does put a ding in the Bush is a known liar, "he lied about the weapons in Iraq."

Al-Qaeda did 9/11, for me it is a separate issue and Bush even admitted this later in his presidency. He said Iraq had "nothing" to do with 9/11, although at the time they desperately tried to make a connection, even suggesting Saddam's intelligence agents met with Al-Qaeda in Prague in 2001.

Originally posted by tide88
Also it vindicates Bush, because if Saddam was currently producing the weapons like Bush said, we had every right to invade Iraq.

What makes you think Saddam had any interest in striking the West? He wrote a letter of condolence to Bush on 9/11. Saddam was surrounded by enemies. Kuwait, Iran, Syria, and Islamic militant groups like Al-Qaeda. Most countries have a WMD stockpile and active programs, Saddam was a target for different reasons.

Originally posted by seenavv
Over 1 million civilians killed over a lie

Over 1 Million killed IS a lie.
Let me guess... The Bogus Lancet report?

Gets demonized by the public

We talking Bush or Saddam?

Sheeple yap let's go to Syria

No WMD's found in Syria

Gets defector to say they are Iran

Sheeple yap, let's go to Iran

The Prophecy and Prediction Forum is that way ---->

Etc.. etc.

Yup...

Well, it makes sense.
We know Saddam had 'em...because he used 'em; Thousands of dead Kurds prove it.
YET,...when American forces got in there...SURPRISE...No WMDs!
Closest (literally and figuratively) ally in the region is ASSad!...Logically they went accross the border.
Guess that validates and vindicates Bush!

I see no evidence here that anything that the original post in this thread stated is legitimate.

I do see people scrambling to believe its real. The reasons why anybody would believe it elude me, but I can guess. Either some people want to defend the legacy of Bush, want to continue the War on Terror into Syria, or a combination of the two.

So we have the words of the Teabagger Daily and a Rumsfeld stooge along the lines of Ayad Allawi or Ahmed 'curveball' Chalabi that we should all apologize to Dubya for lying us into a war to enrich his supporters and business associates, sorry OP it is going to take a little more than that.

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by munkey66
so once again the good people of ATS are distracted by the pretty assistant and forget to watch the magicians hands.
All this debate over an article with no proof, who was it claiming Syria had these weapons?
a defector? of course we should trust everything someone says if it supports an adjective and refuse to hear anything that does not, looking how the article itself was written screamed propaganda

give me a break, there is no support for an attack on Syria no matter how much they pull the dictator is killing his own people card, they cant use the nuclear card so they go with old faithful, Chemical WMD's.

You are aware that Assad threatened to use them, right? He has admitted to them, right?

I happen to agree we should stay out of a civil war and I doubt we will get involved in this one. I do however think if we can take out the chemical weapons with surgical strikes we and the whole world would be stupid not to. After all it is Assad himself who is threatening to use them.

Assad never threatened me, I don't know anyone personally who has been threatened by him with chemical weapons.
what we need is a surgical strike to take out the manufacturing plants and the suppliers, maybe a surgical strike to take out the arms dealers and maybe even a strike against those who interfere with other countries affairs, I mean it would be stupid not to wouldn't it?

or maybe certain countries could just butt out and see what happens, who knows maybe peace may break out?

no money in peace though is there?