Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says

[BaliBabyDoc]

Listen to part of what Bush said about Iraqi WMD ifilm.

Try to find a citation from Powell's infamous UN speech.

Now let's assume every single gallon of biological and chemical weapons are secreted to Syria.

Now let's assume every single pound of potentially fissile material was also secreted to Syria.

What happened to weapons programs themselves? You know the weapons of mass destruction program related activities? Both Kay and Duelfer (sp?) found neither weapons NOR weapons programs. They came back with a great big ZERO. The US held every weapons expert they could find . . . several for more than a year. They were recently released . . . no charges and no weapons programs found.

Best evidence (which is overwelming) is that Saddam had a bunch of weapons in the 80s and early 90s. War with Iran used up a lot, the first Gulf War destroyed much of infrastructure, UN inspectors dismantled much that remained, and then Clinton/Blair beat him down through 1998.

Finally, Saddam said fux it. Why build crap if the Americans are just going to bomb it?! I will just build palaces, pay my stooges, and pretend I'm dangerous.


Much if not virtually all of our intelligence (and for foreign governments) was provided by people with agendas. Those agendas were dependent on creating a story that was convincing. These people knew that their Western handlers knew VERY little so ANY story they made up 1) couldn't be independently verified, 2) could easily be shopped to multiple governments, and 3) there's no consequence for a lying.

The OP cites various countries, intelligence agencies, and politicians but the information came from a VERY limited number of sources. In the most prominent cases, some foreign intelligence agencies heard the EXACT same intelligence as the US government and gave it ZERO credibility while the US then made multiple claims of substance.

Then of course, those marvelous aluminum tubes . . . where abundant information from the experts (Department of Energy) was totally ignored while the "on-message" fairy tale was repeated ad nauseum.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: conjur
Anyone with a brain sees through this propaganda. Go back to OT

i think anyone with a brain would like to discuss this topic civilly, and OT is not the place for this topic. that is why i brought it here.

That's why your first reply to me was a BS post attacking the diariest at DailyKos?

You want to attack sources? Ok:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Sun

The paper's owners include Hollinger International, the company once led by Conrad Black. According to an article in the Boston Globe, the paper's staff include many well-known political conservatives. Its president and editor in chief is Seth Lipsky and its managing editor Ira Stoll. The Sun is widely speculated to be losing money due to low circulation. The Sun was created to put a neoconservative paper in New York, where the only other broadsheet is the New York Times, which is often considered to have a liberal viewpoint. One of the founders, in fact, made his name by running a website devoted to attacking the Times. Like the Washington Times, which is valuable for its insight into US Republican Party congressional circles, the Sun often gets quotes from neoconservative newsmakers in the executive branch and in the Likud Party. The ideological view of the Sun in its editorial opinions is probably closest to The Weekly Standard magazine or the Jerusalem Post.

BTW, do a bit of Googling on Hollinger and Conrad Black and the massive amount of corruption and criminal trials (and linked to Richard Perle of the PNAC)


As for me apologizing to mosh, mr. mod, don't see that happening. I was just following her lead in the tone of posting and I issued NO personal attacks against her.

--------------------------------------------------------------
1 week for disrespect and in generating a partial personal attack in P&N.

Mod

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: moshquerade
nice try what? your blogger site wants to discredit this guy?

Nice job attack the source, not the information. :roll:

mosh's pathetic m.o.

But thats exactly the same thing the author of that dailykos story did when he attacked the source (sada) without actually presenting any facts that contradict his story.

What's that diarist supposed to do? There were NO facts offered by Sada. Just speculation.

I could write a book and say a Marine buddy told me he was personally ordered to kill civilians. Would that make it a fact?

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: moshquerade
nice try what? your blogger site wants to discredit this guy?

Nice job attack the source, not the information. :roll:

mosh's pathetic m.o.

But thats exactly the same thing the author of that dailykos story did when he attacked the source (sada) without actually presenting any facts that contradict his story.

What's that diarist supposed to do? There were NO facts offered by Sada. Just speculation.

I could write a book and say a Marine buddy told me he was personally ordered to kill civilians. Would that make it a fact?

I'm not taking sides on the story.

There were some elements of his story that could be looked into such as the 56 commercial flights to syria in 2002. If they were disguised as civillian flights maybe there are flight records and what not that could be investigated. If records were found that don't support the story then that say's a lot more than just pointing out Sada's probable agenda.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: moshquerade
nice try what? your blogger site wants to discredit this guy?

Nice job attack the source, not the information. :roll:

mosh's pathetic m.o.

But thats exactly the same thing the author of that dailykos story did when he attacked the source (sada) without actually presenting any facts that contradict his story.

What's that diarist supposed to do? There were NO facts offered by Sada. Just speculation.

I could write a book and say a Marine buddy told me he was personally ordered to kill civilians. Would that make it a fact?

"Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."
this was also noted in the article. so it would seem Sada's facts are backed up by at least one other person unlike your book about your Marine buddy.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: moshquerade
nice try what? your blogger site wants to discredit this guy?

Nice job attack the source, not the information. :roll:

mosh's pathetic m.o.

But thats exactly the same thing the author of that dailykos story did when he attacked the source (sada) without actually presenting any facts that contradict his story.

What's that diarist supposed to do? There were NO facts offered by Sada. Just speculation.

I could write a book and say a Marine buddy told me he was personally ordered to kill civilians. Would that make it a fact?

You seem to want to dismiss this all out of hand. That is so unlike you... (unless it conflicts with your position)


Before we invaded Iraq there were rumors and reports of convoys of semis headed out of the country into Syria. There were also reports of three freighters launched from Iraq steaming around the Indian Ocean in violation of international maritime law. Link Nothing has been proven to this point but it would be interesting to investigate such things, wouldn't you agree?

 

[EatSpam]

:shocked:

 

[her209]

I wonder how the yellow barrels marked with poison were transported from where ever they were being stored, by convoy to the airport, loaded onto two planes that was converted from passenger plane to cargo planes simply by ripping out the passenger seats, barrels loaded with the help of a handful of soldiers from the Special Republican Guard at the very least, the planes then make 56 round trip flights to Syria, and not raise any red flags within our spy agencies?

The article stated that there was a flood of June 2002, but the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of Force didn't occur until October 2002.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: moshquerade
nice try what? your blogger site wants to discredit this guy?

Can't discredit someone with no credibility

Unclever-Snide-Remark Patrol on the loose

 

[EagleKeeper]

Saddam was not a complete fool. He may have planned for a deterrent but caught flat footed.

Look at what he did during the Gulf War I.

Sent his planes into Iran for safety.

Miscalculation on his part - they did not come back.

He had more trust with Assad and more in common.

There are photos of truck convoys moving from Iraq into Syria under guard; no one knows what & why though.

If such things are in Syria, Syria will not acknowledge them; It them acts as a deterrent and also a barginning chip if needed at a later date.

 

[jpeyton]

It's nice to see the tinfoil being used on the other side of the aisle.

There are no Iraqi WMDs. The war was based on lies fabricated by our government to ensure that the wealthy stay wealthy for the next decade off of Iraq.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Unless Saddam has a marvelous transporter AND a fantastic cloaking machine . . . Bush Leaguers are just wrong. Get over it . . . you've been duped . . . sadly you took the thinking part of the population along for your retarded ride.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

This is exactly what I had suspected all along. Perhaps Syria will find itself with a target on its back soon. What would be really sad would be if this were a surprise to the Bush Administration. Come on, how could they not have suspected it? What's interesting is that Bush didn't pursue Syria knowing that if he could prove that the transfer occurred, it would partially vindicate him.

 

[Apocalypse X]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: moshquerade
nice try what? your blogger site wants to discredit this guy?

Can't discredit someone with no credibility

So the pots calling the kettle black??

 

[Apocalypse X]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Unless Saddam has a marvelous transporter AND a fantastic cloaking machine . . . Bush Leaguers are just wrong. Get over it . . . you've been duped . . . sadly you took the thinking part of the population along for your retarded ride.

again.......ye of little faith!!

 

[Velk]

Assuming he had them, what is the motive for Saddam shipping his WMDs to Syria ?

As opposed to say, using them on the invading army ?

I am not sure he would put the same value on embarassing Bush as some of the posters here.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think Saddam hid them on the dark side of the moon.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Saddam was not a complete fool. He may have planned for a deterrent but caught flat footed.

Look at what he did during the Gulf War I.

Sent his planes into Iran for safety.

Miscalculation on his part - they did not come back.

He had more trust with Assad and more in common.

There are photos of truck convoys moving from Iraq into Syria under guard; no one knows what & why though.

If such things are in Syria, Syria will not acknowledge them; It them acts as a deterrent and also a barginning chip if needed at a later date.

He did't. Those planes flew to Iran because Russia requested so. He hadn't paid them yet, and the russian government required Iraq to avoid using them and instead returning them, or face harsh retaliation in the price of goods and natural gas.
Those planes were not formally yet part of the Iraqi air force.

No WMD were found in Iraq because there were none. Very simple:

1- If they had them, they would have used them.
2- If they had them, Israel would have been far more concerned. Israel has arguably the best intelligence service in the world, and they prove to be very belligerant when some country they feel as hostile build weapon stockpiles.

If you believe that Saddam could have flown ALL his weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and research program facilities overbight without the world's intelligence and military services noticing it, then:

a) he had AMAZING miniaturization technologies, and those missiles were iPod-sized,
b) all the satellites, radars and airborne devices a spying on their territory were turned off at the same time
c) all the people working at CIA are so stupid they wouldn't notice this happening

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: Velk
Assuming he had them, what is the motive for Saddam shipping his WMDs to Syria ?

As opposed to say, using them on the invading army ?

I am not sure he would put the same value on embarassing Bush as some of the posters here.

So we would not find them. In the back of my mind, I do not feel completely confident that Iraq never had WMD's. The possibility of relocation is very real. Furthermore, in a time, when Saddam knew his country might be attacked, there might have been some chemicals that, when unleased by bombing, could have been the demise of a neighborhood, city, or the entire country. I'm sure the idea of caring about his citizens would be giving him too much humanitarian credit, but he had himself, his family, and ah, yes his cronies to protect.

I'm not writing the whole idea off, just yet.

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
What's interesting is that Bush didn't pursue Syria knowing that if he could prove that the transfer occurred, it would partially vindicate him.

Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't attacked Syria already. They've been slowly building up for these "The WMDs were moved to Syria" excuses ever since they found nothing of importance in Iraq.

Also, back then a lot of people were making comments about Iran being the next target. But I kept saying "Nah, if they attack anyone, it will be Syria". But strangely enough they have yet to attack Syria, even though they could have done it. I mean, these are the same "He said, she said" excuses they used to attack Iraq.

So what the heck are they waiting for? Get to it. Prove to the world once and for all that these damn WMDs exist. This constant propaganda spewing without any action or proof is starting to get annoying. I want proof, god damn it! If they can't show me proof, and aren't willing to get off their asses and attack Syria, then I do wish they would just STFU and stop making these damn excuses and spewing all this damn non-supported propaganda.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
What's interesting is that Bush didn't pursue Syria knowing that if he could prove that the transfer occurred, it would partially vindicate him.

Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't attacked Syria already. They've been slowly building up for these "The WMDs were moved to Syria" excuses ever since they found nothing of importance in Iraq.

Also, back then a lot of people were making comments about Iran being the next target. But I kept saying "Nah, if they attack anyone, it will be Syria". But strangely enough they have yet to attack Syria, even though they could have done it. I mean, these are the same "He said, she said" excuses they used to attack Iraq.

So what the heck are they waiting for? Get to it. Prove to the world once and for all that these damn WMDs exist. This constant propaganda spewing without any action or proof is starting to get annoying. I want proof, god damn it! If they can't show me proof, and aren't willing to get off their asses and attack Syria, then I do wish they would just STFU and stop making these damn excuses and spewing all this damn non-supported propaganda.

Unlike Iraq

an attack on Syria will anger

Egypt/Saudi Arabia

very much so

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: conjur
Can't discredit someone with no credibility

Man I can't take all this irony :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
So we would not find them. In the back of my mind, I do not feel completely confident that Iraq never had WMD's. The possibility of relocation is very real. Furthermore, in a time, when Saddam knew his country might be attacked, there might have been some chemicals that, when unleased by bombing, could have been the demise of a neighborhood, city, or the entire country. I'm sure the idea of caring about his citizens would be giving him too much humanitarian credit, but he had himself, his family, and ah, yes his cronies to protect.

I'm not writing the whole idea off, just yet.

Don't waste your breath. The libbies here will never accept the idea (or even the mere possibility) that Saddam had vast stockpiles of WMD and that, just maybe, they were moved out before the invasion. Such a finding would discredit their diatribes en masse and render them politically irrelevant (although this is already in progress.)

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
So we would not find them. In the back of my mind, I do not feel completely confident that Iraq never had WMD's. The possibility of relocation is very real. Furthermore, in a time, when Saddam knew his country might be attacked, there might have been some chemicals that, when unleased by bombing, could have been the demise of a neighborhood, city, or the entire country. I'm sure the idea of caring about his citizens would be giving him too much humanitarian credit, but he had himself, his family, and ah, yes his cronies to protect.

I'm not writing the whole idea off, just yet.

Don't waste your breath. The libbies here will never accept the idea (or even the mere possibility) that Saddam had vast stockpiles of WMD and that, just maybe, they were moved out before the invasion. Such a finding would discredit their diatribes en masse and render them politically irrelevant (although this is already in progress.)

QFT! Muwahahaha

 

[tnitsuj]

That's cool and all, but with all the resources of the US government turned towards finding these WMD that were supposed to exist..how come there is no evidence other than hearsay from an unsubstantiated source?