Will Saddam’s WMDs Fall into the Hands of Al Qaeda?

[zimmer]

Probably one of the most despicable lies perpetrated by the Democratic Party was the claim that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs. It was a lie of political convenience by a party whose top politicians had asserted the exact opposite until it became more convenient for them to jump on a new bandwagon.

As Sada told the New York Sun, two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, and special Republican Guard units loaded the planes with chemical weapons materials.


There were 56 flights disguised as a relief effort after a 2002 Syrian dam collapse.


There were also truck convoys into Syria. Sada’s comments came 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.”

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/will-saddams-wmds-fall-into-the-hands-of-al-qaeda/

Now wouldn't that be something.
We didn't have Inspecteurs de la UN in Syria... did we?

Defecting Syrian Officer: Chemical Weapons Already Transferred to Hezbollah
The Syrian army has already used a small amount of chemical weapons in a battle near Baba Amr.


http://www.jewishpress.com/news/def...ady-been-transferred-to-hezbollah/2012/12/09/

 

[Wiseone]

I like how your own source admits no WMD's have been found, but blames a democratic conspiracy as for why instead of you know "They didn't exist." And to prove they exist it cites a book apparently written in 2006, so if this secret came out in 2006, why didn't the government at the time shout it from the roof tops that they'd finally found those WMD's we went into Iraq for?

To you know what Bush was saying about Iraqi WMDs in 2006? He's admitting during press conferences that he had none at all.



Parasite Nation is pretty devious right?

 

[Muddy Creek]

Now wouldn't that be something.
We didn't have Inspecteurs de la UN in Syria... did we?

He never had any....that's been proven. It's one of the treason reasons that Bush committed.

 

[PeteEU]

bait thread....

 

[DaveFagan]

Bashar al-Assad, Syria, and the truth about chemical weapons - Comment - Voices - The Independent

"Bashar al-Assad, Syria, and the truth about chemical weapons

The bigger the lie the more people will believe it. We all know who said that – but it still works. Bashar al-Assad has chemical weapons. He may use them against his own Syrian people. If he does, the West will respond. We heard all this stuff last year – and Assad’s regime repeatedly said that if – if – it had chemical weapons, it would never use them against Syrians.

But now Washington is playing the same gas-chanty all over again. Bashar has chemical weapons. He may use them against his own people. And if he does…

Well if he does, Obama and Madame Clinton and Nato will be very, very angry. But over the past week, all the usual pseudo-experts who couldn’t find Syria on a map have been warning us again of the mustard gas, chemical agents, biological agents that Syria might possess – and might use. And the sources? The same fantasy specialists who didn’t warn us about 9/11 but insisted that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction in 2003: “unnamed military intelligence"

You can read the entire article and find out more. I conclude that the CIA is projecting false info because, like Qadaffi in Libya, we want to remove Assad to get someone more friendly to USA Corporate interests because the average Joe doesn't give a rat's ass about Syria. Although it was darn nice of them to harbor the Iraqi refugees duroing our attack upon the Iraqis.

 

[tech30528]

He never had any....that's been proven. It's one of the treason reasons that Bush committed.

Sooo, who killed all those Kurds? You know, the ones who were gassed to death?

A bit like taking down a rogue shooter and then releasing him because all of his bullets have been fired. Nothing to see here...

It's not even worth it anymore. People are such revisionist idiots they couldn't be convinced that they are breathing unless they heard about it on Facebook.



Oh, and then there were those French rockets that were found, you remember, the ones with the production dates stamped on them that was AFTER UN sanctions were in place forbidding weapon sales to Iraq. Oh but THOSE didn't count either since they were partially degraded. Not that they were harmless mind you, just not AS deadly as they once were...

That being said, I certainly hope so. I live in a pretty rural area out of the drift path of any major cities. If Al Queda decides to kick off an attack here in the states it will likely be in a high population area. You know, one of those blue areas. But even that wouldn't convince many. Liberals could be staggering thru the shopping mall with their skin melting off waving their manicured and moisturized fists in the air blaming Bush.

 

[Wiseone]

Sooo, who killed all those Kurds? You know, the ones who were gassed to death?

A bit like taking down a rogue shooter and then releasing him because all of his bullets have been fired. Nothing to see here...

It's not even worth it anymore. People are such revisionist idiots they couldn't be convinced that they are breathing unless they heard about it on Facebook.

Oh, and then there were those French rockets that were found, you remember, the ones with the production dates stamped on them that was AFTER UN sanctions were in place forbidding weapon sales to Iraq. Oh but THOSE didn't count either since they were partially degraded. Not that they were harmless mind you, just not AS deadly as they once were...

Yes Saddam had and used WMDs in 1988, but he didn't have any by the time we invaded in 2003. Whats hard about that to understand?

 

[johnny_rebson]

Which is why we need to invade Syria immediately.

Saddam was a dictator of a Muslim country who had WMD.

Assad is a dictator of a Muslim country who has WMD.

It's the same scenario. Regime change in Syria is something we must do, just like we did in Iraq.

 

[tech30528]

Yes Saddam had and used WMDs in 1988, but he didn't have any by the time we invaded in 2003. Whats hard about that to understand?

Ah. I see. So if somebody goes into a grocery store and opens fire killing many unarmed civilians and then goes outside and throws the weapon in the river, he is not longer a threat and should be left alone? Never mind the thought process it takes to get to the point of killing strangers, once the weapon has been used and discarded he's fine. You can't prove he would do it again, right?"

 

[tech30528]

Which is why we need to invade Syria immediately.

Saddam was a dictator of a Muslim country who had WMD.

Assad is a dictator of a Muslim country who has WMD.

It's the same scenario. Regime change in Syria is something we must do, just like we did in Iraq.

They are Muslims, they take great pride in dying for their cause, in fact their religion rewards them for it. Who are we to take that away from them?

 

[johnny_rebson]

They are Muslims, they take great pride in dying for their cause, in fact their religion rewards them for it. Who are we to take that away from them?

And unfortunately we have to deal with the peaceniks in America who don't want us to invade another Muslim country. What don't the liberals understand about the danger of dictators of Islamic countries having WMD? What if Assad's WMD falls into the hands of al-Qaida? We must send troops in to prevent that from happening, just like we did in Iraq.

 

[zimmer]

I don't know if Bashterd has WMD, but we were wrong about... IRAN.

They had a nuke program for 18-years. We didn't know about it until a defector told us about it.
A failure of intelligence, and that is what happens in closed societies... thug regimes.

We didn't know about the Nuke black market until we put our foot on the neck of Iraq.

WMD isn't something to play game about. Especially after September 11. 2001. For those retards that act was merely the appetizer.

Even the leaders of Parasite Nation believed WMD weren't a game at one time... for they were on the record and actually voted to send troops into harms way... before they committed the ultimate act of treason... stabbing our troops in the back when they most needed their support.

 

[DaveFagan]

And unfortunately we have to deal with the peaceniks in America who don't want us to invade another Muslim country. What don't the liberals understand about the danger of dictators of Islamic countries having WMD? What if Assad's WMD falls into the hands of al-Qaida? We must send troops in to prevent that from happening, just like we did in Iraq.

Didya ever notice that if some moron doesn't know anything when he goes to bed , he doesn't know anything when he awakens? Saddam did not have WMD. Saddam was no threat to the USA. We sold Saddam the precursors to make the gas used at Halabja. We gave Saddam satellite information so he could accurately gas Iranian troops. We built and armed alQaida in Afghanistan. Thank you CIA. We caused the death of a million Iraqis because of a LIE. What don't you understand?

 

[Wiseone]

Ah. I see. So if somebody goes into a grocery store and opens fire killing many unarmed civilians and then goes outside and throws the weapon in the river, he is not longer a threat and should be left alone? Never mind the thought process it takes to get to the point of killing strangers, once the weapon has been used and discarded he's fine. You can't prove he would do it again, right?"

I don't think the analogy of arresting someone is the same as what we went through in Iraq really holds any water.

I mean I suppose in your analogy the Kurds are the grocery store civilians and Saddam is the shooter, that would mean the United States would be in the police in your comparison. But is the United States the police of the world? Do we really have that role, and do we really want that job? Consider the lack of any threat Saddam posed to the US, consider the thousands of American Soldiers killed in Iraq, consider the 10's of thousands wounded, consider the trillions of dollars spent during that war, and consider the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and their orphaned children and after you've considered all that ask yourself again, is that really comparable to a grocery store shooting?

Was it really worth it? And in the end we gained... what exactly? I mean can you point to something post-Iraq that is better than pre-Iraq from the standpoint of the United States? Sure Saddam is gone and that guy certainly didn't deserve to live let alone run a country, but Iraq certainly isn't more secure than it was before, and it certainly isn't a US ally in fact its actually heavy influenced by Iran.

So what did we get out of it exactly? Its always nice to get the bad guy, and again Saddam was someone who deserved to be killed by any standard, but what did we gain?

 

[Davo The Mavo]

Again, I remember when "WMD" was "NBC", and we expected every country to have them.

 

[Wiseone]

They are Muslims, they take great pride in dying for their cause, in fact their religion rewards them for it. Who are we to take that away from them?

What an ignorant stereotype, take 5 minutes to read about Muslims in the world and you'll see how silly that statement is, why do you willfully deny yourself information and knowledge?

 

[Wiseone]

I don't know if Bashterd has WMD, but we were wrong about... IRAN.

They had a nuke program for 18-years. We didn't know about it until a defector told us about it.
A failure of intelligence, and that is what happens in closed societies... thug regimes.

We didn't know about the Nuke black market until we put our foot on the neck of Iraq.

WMD isn't something to play game about. Especially after September 11. 2001. For those retards that act was merely the appetizer.

Even the leaders of Parasite Nation believed WMD weren't a game at one time... for they were on the record and actually voted to send troops into harms way... before they committed the ultimate act of treason... stabbing our troops in the back when they most needed their support.

Except there was no nuclear weapon program, don't forget that little fact.

 

[tech30528]

I don't think the analogy of arresting someone is the same as what we went through in Iraq really holds any water.

I mean I suppose in your analogy the Kurds are the grocery store civilians and Saddam is the shooter, that would mean the United States would be in the police in your comparison. But is the United States the police of the world? Do we really have that role, and do we really want that job? Consider the lack of any threat Saddam posed to the US, consider the thousands of American Soldiers killed in Iraq, consider the 10's of thousands wounded, consider the trillions of dollars spent during that war, and consider the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and their orphaned children and after you've considered all that ask yourself again, is that really comparable to a grocery store shooting?

Was it really worth it? And in the end we gained... what exactly? I mean can you point to something post-Iraq that is better than pre-Iraq from the standpoint of the United States? Sure Saddam is gone and that guy certainly didn't deserve to live let alone run a country, but Iraq certainly isn't more secure than it was before, and it certainly isn't a US ally in fact its actually heavy influenced by Iran.

So what did we get out of it exactly? Its always nice to get the bad guy, and again Saddam was someone who deserved to be killed by any standard, but what did we gain?

Profits. Got to keep that MIC up and running...

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Which is why we need to invade Syria immediately.

Saddam was a dictator of a Muslim country who had WMD.

Assad is a dictator of a Muslim country who has WMD.

It's the same scenario. Regime change in Syria is something we must do, just like we did in Iraq.

Yea.... :roll: Uhh hows that regime go from the get go? Opened up the door to terrorists, civil war happened (some argue its still going on). Hows that regime change working out in Iraq right now? Averaging a terrorist attack a day, human rights are still ****ty, Iraq is a failed state.

Saddam Huessein DID have weapons in the 80's and early 90's but dismantled them and got rid of them, he did not have any during the 2000's and during the invasion this is a well known fact and to argue otherwise is ridiculous.

 

[Wiseone]

Profits. Got to keep that MIC up and running...

Profits fueled by debt spending and blood sure, not to mention it only serves to further increase the size of government through the expansion and creation of new agencies in response to problems on the ground, AND serves to further tie the government and economy together as government dollars funding projects becomes a bigger and bigger part of the economy.

I can't tell if you're being serious because you're that much of a wacko, or maybe the sarcasm is just because you don't have a real answer when you consider those things.

Maybe you're just a troll.

 

[zimmer]

Except there was no nuclear weapon program, don't forget that little fact.

In Iraq there was; Scientists were forced to bury plans and parts in their yards to hide from the UN Inspecteurs.

CNN.com - Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard - Jun. 26, 2003

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/27/sprj.irq.obeidi/

 

[What if...?]

Yes.

They will be delivered by unicorns led by leprechauns.

 

[wolfman24]

Yes.

They will be delivered by unicorns led by leprechauns.

NO Aliens toke them up in their space ships and landed them safely in Afganistan. The US Air Force knew all about it so they said it was ok.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

In Iraq there was; Scientists were forced to bury plans and parts in their yards to hide from the UN Inspecteurs.

CNN.com - Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard - Jun. 26, 2003
CNN.com - U.S. nearly ignored Iraqi nuclear scientist, intermediary says - Jun. 27, 2003

LOL I think zimmer is the only one still claiming there were WMD's. I haven't seen someone make this claim since like 2006.

 

[VanceMack]

This guy lied...

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

And so did this person...

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”