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.

 

NEWS: Russia Tied to Missing Iraqi Arms

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
They are in Iraq, we know where they are... They buried them, we will find them once we get in there... They moved them into Iran... They moved them into Syria... The Russians came and got them... Anyone else starting to see a pattern here? Fact is 12 years of UN inspections and two years of military occupation haven't found anything but rotted canisters of Chemical Weapons that the US sold them back in the 80's to use on Iran.


Well, according to IAEA reports from 1993 other countries were supplying Iraq with chemical weapons. I saw this report but didn't save it because I was looking for other information on IAEA. I will see if I can fish it out once more. But you should know that your comment, along with the comment of some other people is at the least uninformed. As always, i see a lot of members stick with "let's blame the US, and I don't want to hear anything else about it...i just want to bash and blame the US...."





posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 03:23 AM
link   
Here is a link which I found where Iraq states which countries provided chemicals to them.



This came from the UN document index site, under "IAEA reports and other documents." This is the link.
www.iraqwatch.org...

Of course, this is what they admitted, but as you can see, there is more than the US only....

[edit on 28-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 06:36 AM
link   
My guess is that the administration knew about this since the beginning( Keyhole sattellites can see just about anything, and it would have taken days to move this stuff), was unwilling to divulge this information to the public for obvious reasons. This was something that we may have been using against the Russians behinds the scenes, but the Washington Times story is a leak.

What we all fail to understand, ironically on a conspiracy web site, is that the government KNOWS a lot more than they tell, and a lot more than the press finds out about. This is a perfect example of something they knew all along, but didn't tell in order to try to maintain good relations with Russia. Just because we JUST found out does not mean the administration just found out. That is a sorta self centered view, if you believe that.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
If this happened that way, and if the U.S. did not know about it or, if they did, stop it is probably more damaging to the administration then if it was simply looted.

If it was looted that simply means that they did not have adequate manpower to gaurd it properly.

If the Russians did this and we are just now learning about it, then we look like total idiots.

[edit on 27-10-2004 by HowardRoark]

The only idiocy I'm reading comes from inaccurate posts jumping to the conclusion that "Oh this is a blunder by Bush" when you have not even read the article.
It clearly states that this transfer by the Russians happened before the March 2003 invasion. But some are just too blinded by their hatred of the Bush admin to read completely and think clearly.
No Bush scandal here -
The Russians were known to have military ties with Saddam prior to March 2003 in violation of UN sanctions.
So are we to call the Russians on the carpet for it or nurture what small amount of alliance the US already had with Putin. The actions taken were prudent.

Move along folks - wanna be scandal busted, nothing to see here.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Something really interesting to watch is how long it takes the major media to pick up on this story, if at all. It's been on Drudgereport since I got to work, at around 7am. it's almost 9, and nothing yet on any of the major websites (cnn, foxnews, msnbc). I guess it's a question of if and when. It really shows how the smaller websites like drudge and this site are becoming the news breakers, and the major ones are becoming more like news confirmers...



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by soulforge
Something really interesting to watch is how long it takes the major media to pick up on this story, if at all. It's been on Drudgereport since I got to work, at around 7am. it's almost 9, and nothing yet on any of the major websites (cnn, foxnews, msnbc). I guess it's a question of if and when. It really shows how the smaller websites like drudge and this site are becoming the news breakers, and the major ones are becoming more like news confirmers...


It's been mentioned on Fox a couple of times.
I'm pretty sure I heard it briefly mentioned on one of the other news networks also. I can't remeber which one.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 08:08 AM
link   
the israeli satellite photos of the 40 vehicle convoy heading to Syria prior to invasion.

In regards to Allies And Enemies... Most countries (including The US) have often skated around the UN resolutions when they felt they could. The UN holds no real power and that's why even the most humane programs tend to fall far short of thier intentions



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:09 AM
link   
from russian principles is that the claim made is fully bogus. They claim all special forces were pulled in 1991.
IMHO- what else are they going to say... the same goes for the French and Germans. They are not going to claim they acted against UN sanctions regardless of evidence leaning against those ascertains



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:47 AM
link   
If the russians removed the 380 tons of explosives from a territory which became a lawless warzone a few weeks later the americans can only thank them for doing so..

It's better than having them in in the hands of the insurgents..

[edit on 28-10-2004 by Judge DredD]



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ptab01
In regards to Allies And Enemies... Most countries (including The US) have often skated around the UN resolutions when they felt they could. The UN holds no real power and that's why even the most humane programs tend to fall far short of thier intentions


The UN is a joke.....not even members of the UN hold any regards for the UN, they just act as if they did.... OFF is a clear example of the inability of the UN....



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Judge DredD
If the russians removed the 380 tons of explosives from a territory which became a lawless warzone a few weeks later the americans can only thank them for doing so..

It's better than having them in in the hands of the insurgents..

[edit on 28-10-2004 by Judge DredD]



How is giving it to the Syrians better? If this material was moved by the Russians with the help of Iraqi intelligence officers, where did it wind up?



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Well it just goes to show that maybe Saddam DID have WMD and they are in Syria/Lebanon. NOw if the Russians removed them then this is a serious claim indeed and would explain why Bush has not used this information until now. Funny how the UN comes out with something, bam, John Kerry jumps on it like stink on #, and Bam, looks as if the 'leaks' etc over the last 2 months were correct. I want to know what the CSN documents state and what is happening with them.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Ed, I don't see how this has helped Bush at all. They still look like a bunch of dofusses for not knowing what is going on.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

How is giving it to the Syrians better? If this material was moved by the Russians with the help of Iraqi intelligence officers, where did it wind up?



Which one is better?
-Material for 300-500 carbombs or thousands of IED's in the hands of various groups in Iraq or 380 tonns of explosives in a Syrian army depot..
Of course, some of it MAY start to flow back back to Iraq IF it was transferred to Syria. But there is too many unconfirmed information around, so we can't know it for sure.
And don't forget guys, these were explosives, not tanks full with sarin or VX...



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 01:37 PM
link   
So the Iraqis just handed over all of this material without anything in return?

And why is Russia denying the claims?


What are they hiding?



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Well let's take a good hard look at your data. First, notice the conspicuous lack of the USA on that list of countries, although it states that the pertinent dates are 1983-1989. There is no mention of US supplied crop spraying helicopters, nor is there any mention of the US selling them anything. Hmmmm. "though all of the chemicals have non-military uses" and "possible weapons uses". Hey what do you know it also fails to list the chemicals involved, just the possible uses. Can you imagine if there were a muder trial, and the prosecution's only arguement was he had the capacity to murder? It's funny all these folks running arouns still trying to prove that Iraq had some kind of extensive WMD program when the Bush administration has already changed their arguement again now claiming that Iraq intended to start its WMD program up again once the sanctions were lifted. In reality here, we haven't found chit in Iraq.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   
"the russa steals explosive" thing might be a speculation, who knows?? one obvious reason why they could deny such a claim is that it's just made up and no part of it is true



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 12:02 AM
link   
It's obvious that John Shaw doesn't have all the facts.

He said "The RDX and HMX, which are used to manufacture high-explosive and nuclear weapons, are probably of Russian origin"

If you look at the IAEA report though, they list the origin of the HMX as China, Yugoslavia and France.

alqaqaa_documents.pdf



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Those whose opinions are given to them by politicians, mass media and talk show hosts have no need to think, and no need to see facts before encasing their opinions in concrete.

Those who choose to think will no doubt have already figured out that there is a lot more to this story than is making it into the press, and be careful about being misled.

Make no mistake: all parties involved in this debacle are being deceptive, each with their own peculiar motives for doing so. Allow any of them to fool you, and a fool is what you will be.

The first casualty of war is the truth.

Combine what has emerged from the Iraq experience, both before and after the U.S. invasion, with other news and a pattern emerges.

What is becoming increasingly clear is that the Cold War never ended, it has merely changed in form -- and not all that much, frankly.

I advise my fellow members to carefully consider the implications of this, and how they explain the behavior of the various parties, if I am correct.

As for the truth about Al QaQaa -- and all the other weapons in Iraq before and after the invasion -- I seriously doubt that anyone here will ever find out the actual truth about it.

But it's still worth trying.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 01:34 AM
link   
The idea that this is in fact the continuation of (or replacement for) the Cold War has been discussed on a number of threads. I feel that certain technologies (like the internet) are making it easier for people to exchange information, making the general population harder to fool. Isn't it strange that ALL of these scandals seem to be more far reaching than most would like to imagine? Personally, I've almost completely lost faith in all forms of government as they all seem equally prone to corruption.

Also, I have to agree that the UN is little more than a stage for insincere posturing.

I wonder what's going to happen when the people of earth get sick of being lead around by the nose by a handful of aristocrats and warlords.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join