11 dual purpose chem/bio labs found underground in Karbala, 1000 lbs of documents seized.

[BaliBabyDoc]

Like I said . . . and apparently the US military . . . these facilities appear more appropriate for conventional weapons R&D/production than chem/bio.

Lemme see . . . if I was going to research/build weapons . . . where would I put the research facility? I know! Close to an artillery plant!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Like I said . . . and apparently the US military . . . these facilities appear more appropriate for conventional weapons R&D/production than chem/bio.

Lemme see . . . if I was going to research/build weapons . . . where would I put the research facility? I know! Close to an artillery plant!

Actually the latest news has the equipment being dual use. One has to wonder why this harmless equipment was buried. One has to wonder if it is harmless why the UN inspectors were not allowed to see it.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Yes, but so is chlorine. Thousands of Iraqis died due to inadequate supplies of potable water. The US insisted on such restrictions for dual use materials. If the US will deny a country the ability to treat its water, it would certainly prohibit material capable of building better conventional weapons.

It was prudent of Saddam to hide this material REGARDLESS of how he intended to use it. Now POS like Saddam might not be able to resist using it for chem/bio but the presence of the equipment is not prima facie evidence it was being used in such a manner or was intended for future use. It is only proof that he possessed material that MIGHT be prohibited IF imported AFTER sanctions.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Yes, but so is chlorine. Thousands of Iraqis died due to inadequate supplies of potable water. The US insisted on such restrictions for dual use materials. If the US will deny a country the ability to treat its water, it would certainly prohibit material capable of building better conventional weapons.

It was prudent of Saddam to hide this material REGARDLESS of how he intended to use it. Now POS like Saddam might not be able to resist using it for chem/bio but the presence of the equipment is not prima facie evidence it was being used in such a manner or was intended for future use. It is only proof that he possessed material that MIGHT be prohibited IF imported AFTER sanctions.

If the materials were being used for good purposes, it should not have been a problem to allow inspectors to see the materials in action.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

You are kinda right. Acceptable conventional weapons would technically qualify as good purposes (dubious but legally correct). But potential adversaries would be aware of their capabilities and possibly even the location of facilities. In light of current events, it is easy to see that allowing inspection of said facilities would directly threaten Iraq's national security.

I'm not defending the regime . . . just saying that their actions make sense under a variety of scenarios that would not qualify as WMD-related.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Well once again Cry Wolf !
Yeah Cesium, like from an X-Ray or Radiarion Therapy device.
They must have been pretty paranoid about the Bush if they thought that they needed to bury every thing they have.
Even stuff that doesn't amount to anything.

I saw a report about the Deadly Killer Mobile Monster Labs I'm pretty sure that they turned out to be
Agricultural Field Lab Equipment - like what is needed when you run a farm - buried that too !

Think about it - You go into a foriegn country, see things that are done different than in your culture.
Do you really understand what you saw Vs. what you 'think' you saw.
Arabs jumping up and down - before or after ? Whats the difference ? How do you know ?
Maybe they jump up and down every time that they get together - like Notre Dame !

Their historical culture may be that of return material objects to the Arabian Sands of Time
as a centuries old burrial routine - I think not, but there are even stranger things in other countries,
like the Snake Handlers for Christ, they get bitten all the time.
( I'll go looking for the BIO-SUV's from HELL, and when I dig them up - I'll update a link )
Y'all come back now, Y'hear !

 

[DT4K]

I watch FOX because they were the only ones who were NOT going on and on about badly things were going for the U.S. the first week because we actually had to fight a little. They were the only ones NOT implying that we had way underestimated the enemy and our war plan was not good.

FOX is the only station that doesn't seem to be ashamed to be American.

FOX at least helps to give a little balance to the blatantly liberal anti-american bias of the rest of the American television and print media. FOX has done stories and reported on many negative things during this war. Just because they also report on the positive things doesn't make them unreliable or biased.

FOX interviews liberal guests all the time and gives them the chance to voice their opinions. How many conservatives do you see being given a chance to speak on the other major networks. Not many.

I do acknowledge that many of the personalities on FOX lean to the right. But I don't think it's nearly as extreme as the other networks and all the newspapers leanings to the left.

Seriously guys, if you had believed ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC a week after this war started, you would have thought we were losing the war and it was another Vietnam. That's how biased and anti-american those stations are.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Shanti . . . you must be looking for a war and the media topic. This thread is the false reports sensationally exhorted on FOX then quietly forgotten during the next news cycle.

But since we are already off-topic . . . FOX could interview a blind, deaf, mute, three-toed sloth for all I care . . . I just want an accurate reflection of verifiable facts NOT somebody's opinion. Everytime I hear someone say "I think", "I believe", "allegedly", or "possibly" I change the channel.

If you want a translation . .

I think: can't verify but my BS is as good as anybody else . . .

I believe: just made it up . . .

allegedly: unverified, dubious source . . .

possibly: sounds better than "don't know" . . .

 

[CaptnKirk]

eeeewwwww, FOX - makes me feel icky to watch it, Slime from the Video - like Zappa said !

Here's some more Nothing Found

Hey - Guess what ! No Scuds either - they were those useless things that they had been destroying.
Sensationalism by Fox doesn't do a service to me

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Ornery
I dunno why anybody would want to watch foxnews when there are better things out there.

and fyi sources that I like: BBC, CBC, Globe and Mail.

Did your "real news source" ever get around to reporting on this at all? If so, What took them so long?

They had a blurb about it in yesterday's paper, and they reported on it without editorializing. An alien concept to you no doubt.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Shanti . . . you must be looking for a war and the media topic. This thread is the false reports sensationally exhorted on FOX then quietly forgotten during the next news cycle.

But since we are already off-topic . . . FOX could interview a blind, deaf, mute, three-toed sloth for all I care . . . I just want an accurate reflection of verifiable facts NOT somebody's opinion. Everytime I hear someone say "I think", "I believe", "allegedly", or "possibly" I change the channel.

If you want a translation . .

I think: can't verify but my BS is as good as anybody else . . .

I believe: just made it up . . .

allegedly: unverified, dubious source . . .

possibly: sounds better than "don't know" . . .

Come on now. All the other stations give unverifiable reports too. No news agency wants to be the last one to report something. They all figure it is better to report the news as soon as they get it, even if it can't be verified.

If all you want is verifiable facts, you shouldn't be watching or listening to any news station.

And you sure as hell shouldnt believe Saddam saying "We destroyed those. yeah, that's the ticket"
Where's the verification there?

Someone else asked for a "real news source".
That's what turned this into a discussion of the credibility of news sources.

Kirk,
watching CNN makes me feel icky. Kinda like a traitor.

 

[CaptnKirk]

watching CNN makes me feel icky. Kinda like a traitor. <B>

Boy, thats really a stupid thing to think.

Puts a new light on uninformed doesn't it.</B>

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Yes, but so is chlorine. Thousands of Iraqis died due to inadequate supplies of potable water. The US insisted on such restrictions for dual use materials. If the US will deny a country the ability to treat its water, it would certainly prohibit material capable of building better conventional weapons.

It was prudent of Saddam to hide this material REGARDLESS of how he intended to use it. Now POS like Saddam might not be able to resist using it for chem/bio but the presence of the equipment is not prima facie evidence it was being used in such a manner or was intended for future use. It is only proof that he possessed material that MIGHT be prohibited IF imported AFTER sanctions.

You mean UN sanctions, yes the US refused to loosen any restrictions of ANY chemicals that are also precursors for WMD, this is hardly suprising. Good question why these were not willingly shown to the UN if they were legal conventional weapons labs.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
watching CNN makes me feel icky. Kinda like a traitor. <B>

Boy, thats really a stupid thing to think.

Puts a new light on uninformed doesn't it.</B>

Glad you could grace us with some more of your incredibly intelligent insights.
Please don't hesitate to make meaningless posts in the future.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

So he hid 20 trailers close to an ARTILLERY plant? He used artillery to launch chemical weapons before.

They were probably thoroughly scrubbed and tested to ensure they were free of traces, possibly modified so that they could not be used to make WMD anymore. When talking about any conventional weapon that could be produced in such a small environment it would seem impossible to be able to adequately produce enough, hence the need for artillery PLANTS, etc.. And why bury them? From the way they are described they seem entirely portable and easily hid without having any sinister appearance that would even draw attention. The documents themselves will probably give us more usefull information than the labs eventually, 1000 pounds of documents is quite alot to translate.[/quote]

Oh please, you guys will invent anything to avoid acknowledging simple, factual, informed information.

It makes perfect sense for trailers to be near an artillery plant. The army expert was quite clear that their purpose was weapons production. Where else would put them, next to a bicycle plant?

This guy also said the containers had the wrong equipment for chemical weapons. He didn't say anything about which materials they did or didn't find. Your line about scrubbing the labs is pure fantasy and has no basis in the facts reported. You could just as well claim the labs were for magic fairy dust, but they scrubbed them so we wouldn't know they mastered wizardry.

As far as them being buried, the army guy speculated that they might have done it to protect them from looting, but he said this was only speculation. The fact is that he didn't know why they buried them, and neither do you. Give it a rest.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Alistar7

So he hid 20 trailers close to an ARTILLERY plant? He used artillery to launch chemical weapons before.

They were probably thoroughly scrubbed and tested to ensure they were free of traces, possibly modified so that they could not be used to make WMD anymore. When talking about any conventional weapon that could be produced in such a small environment it would seem impossible to be able to adequately produce enough, hence the need for artillery PLANTS, etc.. And why bury them? From the way they are described they seem entirely portable and easily hid without having any sinister appearance that would even draw attention. The documents themselves will probably give us more usefull information than the labs eventually, 1000 pounds of documents is quite alot to translate.

Oh please, you guys will invent anything to avoid acknowledging simple, factual, informed information.

It makes perfect sense for trailers to be near an artillery plant. The army expert was quite clear that their purpose was weapons production. Where else would put them, next to a bicycle plant?

This guy also said the containers had the wrong equipment for chemical weapons. He didn't say anything about which materials they did or didn't find. Your line about scrubbing the labs is pure fantasy and has no basis in the facts reported. You could just as well claim the labs were for magic fairy dust, but they scrubbed them so we wouldn't know they mastered wizardry.

As far as them being buried, the army guy speculated that they might have done it to protect them from looting, but he said this was only speculation. The fact is that he didn't know why they buried them, and neither do you. Give it a rest.[/quote]


If they were only conventional labs why not let the UN inspect them willingly? I would have no problem agreeing it would also be very likely they were buried to avoid bombing, much more likely than looting IMHO.

Anything on the documents themsleves? I had stated earlier this would probably be the best source of information as opposed to the labs themselves.

You question my specualtions, but they are line with the way the Iraqi military scientific community was ordered to operate. Multiple independent interviews with former scientists all produce a common description in job desrciption and STRICT time allotment as follows, 4 hours were to be spent developing WMD, the other 4 dedicated to developing means to HIDE them, this was always also incorporated in desgin creation for dispersion and storage methods, the labs themselves were almost always built to be dual use facilities as well.....

And that's all they were, speculation, I didn't invent anything and claim it as truth, however they are in line with the way it is known the programs were run over there.

 

[zer0burn]

after reading some reports seems this was a conventional weapons research facility. I dont know the sanctions but wasnt he not allowed to have certain weapons??? Maybe he didnt want the UN inspectors finding his conventional weapons also. Could've maybe been research for rockets to deliever farther missiles???

I do not believe it was for chem/bio weapons the arguement of it being scrubbed down and cleaned is alittle too far fetched when you consider the other possibilities of what it most likely was used for.

 

[Alistar7]

That's why the documents themselves will provide the most information. That's a great thought though, they could have researching banned conventional weapons.

My speculation was only based off of independent interviews with common stories of the amount of time and effort that went into hiding WMD, what I suggested is more common sense than some of the measures they ACTUALLY employed.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
I like BBC News, they've been pretty neutral all along.

Thank God the Internet provides us with external news sources, to help decide for ourselves who really is biased or not.

So you missed the article a little while back by a former BBC news reporter who recounted how his colleagues at the BBC were rabidly anti-military?

Every news source is biased in some way. It's up to the reader to gleam the information despite the slant and check multiple sources to see what continuity is present.

You are quite correct. No source is completely objective or unbiased, but some sources are A LOT less biased than others. There is a world of difference between the bbc and foxnews. I dunno why anybody would want to watch foxnews when there are better things out there.

and fyi sources that I like: BBC, CBC, Globe and Mail.

You forgot TRL.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Yes, but so is chlorine. Thousands of Iraqis died due to inadequate supplies of potable water. The US insisted on such restrictions for dual use materials. If the US will deny a country the ability to treat its water, it would certainly prohibit material capable of building better conventional weapons.

It was prudent of Saddam to hide this material REGARDLESS of how he intended to use it. Now POS like Saddam might not be able to resist using it for chem/bio but the presence of the equipment is not prima facie evidence it was being used in such a manner or was intended for future use. It is only proof that he possessed material that MIGHT be prohibited IF imported AFTER sanctions.

WHen you say IF you mean like this?

April 21 issue ? The French government insists that it has strictly enforced a tight embargo imposed on Saddam Hussein?s regime by the United Nations in 1990. But Saddam never lost his taste for French weapons or luxury goods. And evidence found by U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq suggests that?despite U.N. sanctions?the dictator continued to receive an abundant supply of both until very recently.

LT. GREG HOLMES, a tactical intelligence officer with the Third Infantry Division, told NEWSWEEK that U.S. forces discovered 51 Roland-2 missiles, made by a partnership of French and German arms manufacturers, in two military compounds at Baghdad International Airport. One of the missiles he examined was labeled 05-11 KND 2002, which he took to mean that the missile was manufactured last year. The charred remains of a more modern Roland-3 launcher was found just down the road from the arms cache. According to a mortar specialist with the same unit, radios used by many Iraqi military trucks brandished MADE IN FRANCE labels and looked brand new. RPG night sights stamped with the number 2002 and French labels also turned up. And a new Nissan pickup truck driven by a surrendering Iraqi officer was manufactured in France as well.