storm1977 0 #1 December 15, 2003 Hasn't really been picked up in the USA yet, but has been in Europe. Link Below Also off the topic, there is talk that now with sadaam's capture, we (US) have in custody 3 people willing to testify about WMD (including nuclear) from Iraq and in Iraq. These 3 people said months ago that they would only speak if they had proof SH was dead or captured and that their families get safe harbour in an unnamed country. At this point that is all hear say. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr114.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/12/14/ixnewstop.html ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #2 December 15, 2003 Are we really going to go back to the "link" issue again? There's been no evidence... and if there had been, at any point in the last year or two, we would have sure heard about it through the american press. sheesh Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #3 December 15, 2003 Why? Why would we have heard about it in the american press? I think you will be hearing a lot of interesting stuff coming out in the next 6mo or so. It is tough to get people to talk especially when they believe thay still may be killed. Now that SH is captured and next year is an election year, I think you will start to see the pieces fall into place. Wait til all the info of France comes out...that is going to be funny. Not for the people of France, but for Mr. Chiraque (sp?) Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #4 December 15, 2003 QuoteAre we really going to go back to the "link" issue again? There's been no evidence... and if there had been, at any point in the last year or two, we would have sure heard about it through the american press. sheesh Dude, you should consider rephrasing that statement. There is plenty of evidence; mobile labs, video taped experiments, scientist, and thousands of dead kurds, but we have not yet found any WMD. This is a game of hide-and-seek. How easy would it be to find a hidden suitcase nuke? There may, or may not be a link, and I'm interested to see what kind of intel we get in the next few days. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FliegendeWolf 0 #5 December 15, 2003 QuoteThere is plenty of evidence; mobile labs, video taped experiments, scientist, and thousands of dead kurds This is evidence of a Saddam/9-11 link? In what way?A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #6 December 15, 2003 QuoteQuoteThere is plenty of evidence; mobile labs, video taped experiments, scientist, and thousands of dead kurds This is evidence of a Saddam/9-11 link? In what way? You know what? My bad... In my euphoria and having 3 windows open and answering multiple threads I replied to the wrong one. I'll leave it up so people can get pissed off and throw flames at me. I'm wearing Nomex, anyway... You won, okay. Are you happy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FliegendeWolf 0 #7 December 15, 2003 QuoteYou won, okay. Are you happy? Yep, but I'm still retarted! A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #8 December 15, 2003 QuoteThis is a game of hide-and-seek. How easy would it be to find a hidden suitcase nuke? Well, we did find SH in a hole in the ground... two meters by two meters. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #9 December 15, 2003 QuoteQuoteThis is a game of hide-and-seek. How easy would it be to find a hidden suitcase nuke? Well, we did find SH in a hole in the ground... two meters by two meters. And I'd think more people would know about the location of any of the alleged WMD, of which there was supposedly plenty, than knew the location of Hussein. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #10 December 15, 2003 QuoteQuoteQuoteThis is a game of hide-and-seek. How easy would it be to find a hidden suitcase nuke? Well, we did find SH in a hole in the ground... two meters by two meters. And I'd think more people would know about the location of any of the alleged WMD, of which there was supposedly plenty, than knew the location of Hussein. [touches nose] Precisely... Don't we already have people in custody who said they'd tell-all -including info about WMD- but only once they were positive that SH was either dead or captured? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,130 #11 December 15, 2003 >Don't we already have people in custody who said they'd tell-all >-including info about WMD- but only once they were positive that SH > was either dead or captured? It will be interesting to see what they say now. "Yeah, I have information on where _all_ the chemical weapons are that I will trade for a reduced sentence, but I can't tell you exactly where. Why? Because Saddam Hussein's still in power. What? He's caught? Uh . . . I can't tell you until Bin Laden's been caught, too." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,130 #12 December 15, 2003 >There is plenty of evidence; mobile labs . . . They turned out to be hydrogen generators for observation balloons. They were sold to Iraq by the UK a while back. >video taped experiments, scientist, and thousands of dead kurds, >but we have not yet found any WMD. There's no question that he _had_ WMD's (like the old joke goes, we kept the recepits, so we know he had em.) The issue is that he said they had all been destroyed. To prove him wrong we have to find existing ones. >This is a game of hide-and-seek. How easy would it be to find a > hidden suitcase nuke? Pretty easy. You can build a well-shielded nuclear weapon, or a small one, or a light one, but it's hard to do all three. Uranium weapons are heavy and very radioactive; plutonium weapons are easier to hide, but still require a neutron source, and most simple ones contain materials (like polonium) which are themselves radioactive. And plutonium is a lot harder to get. In any case, a conventional "dirty bomb" can be made with tractor fuel, fertilizer, and spent radiological materials from a hospital or university reactor. That's the threat I most worry about. The panic it would cause if detonated, say, in Manhattan, would cause as much death and destruction as a low-yield (sub-kiloton) suitcase bomb. (IMO.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #13 December 15, 2003 Written by Con Coughlin, London Daily Telegraph Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist. Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in US history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service. The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph, is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day "work programme" Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's base in Baghdad. In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy". The second part of the memo, which is headed "Niger Shipment", contains a report about an unspecified shipment - believed to be uranium - that it says has been transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria. Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, Dr Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-man Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine. "We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda," he said. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks." Although Atta is believed to have been resident in Florida in the summer of 2001, he is known to have used more than a dozen aliases, and intelligence experts believe he could easily have slipped out of the US to visit Iraq. Abu Nidal, who was responsible for the failed assassination of the Israeli ambassador to London in 1982, was based in Baghdad for more than two decades. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #14 December 16, 2003 QuoteQuoteYou won, okay. Are you happy? Yep, but I'm still retarted! MWAHAHAHA -- that's hilarious! . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pds 0 #15 December 16, 2003 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou won, okay. Are you happy? Yep, but I'm still retarted! MWAHAHAHA -- that's hilarious! visual aidnamaste, motherfucker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #16 December 16, 2003 The BBC had this interesting "Panorama" report about the hunt for WMD’s. The situation is not clear cut yet. But based on seeing the report I would think that based on current available information it looks like: a) Iraq had a major chemical weapons program and large amounts of these in stock but destroyed it in the 90’s b) Iraq had an active bio-weapons program but never got to the “weapon stage” and the program was inactive in recent years. c) Iraq did not have an active nuclear weapons program in recent years d) Iraq was very active in developing long-range missiles by modifying their existing ones. That was the top priority in recent years (and in violation of UN resolutions). e) The faulty intelligence before the war was based on defectors who were telling “stories” to please the CIA and make themselves more important and secure better conditions. It seems clear that the biggest mistake made by the intelligence services was to un-critically “believe” these accounts. This is quite unusual and might be motivated by “pleasing the political masters” – which is not a good thing if you want good intelligence. f) Saddam might not have known the full extent of the situation (people were very afraid of him) – and if he did, he did not want others to know. This is theory/opinion based on what I have read so far and I could be wrong. Now in regard to the 9/11 “link”: I think the spin-doctors are desperate to create something out of very little. There is no doubt some informal connections can be made. Iraq as most other Arab nations is very anti-Israel and by housing and supporting Palestinian organisations, they would have had some Al Qaeda involvement as these groups have informal networks all over the place.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,130 #17 December 16, 2003 >d) Iraq was very active in developing long-range missiles by > modifying their existing ones. Yep, and this makes sense based on some of Hussein's apparent goals with respect to Israel. >f) Saddam might not have known the full extent of the situation > (people were very afraid of him) – and if he did, he did not want > others to know. I think this is likely. It would be ironic if Bush had a similar problem - that people were telling him what he wanted to hear. >Iraq as most other Arab nations is very anti-Israel and by housing > and supporting Palestinian organisations, they would have had > some Al Qaeda involvement as these groups have informal > networks all over the place. Imagine the incredible stink there would have been if the hijackers had trained to fly 757's in Iraq rather than Florida. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #18 December 16, 2003 Quote Now in regard to the 9/11 “link”: I think the spin-doctors are desperate to create something out of very little. There is no doubt some informal connections can be made. Iraq as most other Arab nations is very anti-Israel and by housing and supporting Palestinian organisations, they would have had some Al Qaeda involvement as these groups have informal networks all over the place. I heard that some of the Al Quaeda operatives received training in Florida. Arrest Jeb Bush!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #19 December 16, 2003 I think this "smells" very much of disinformation. We'll see if this will stand up over time. It might be true but I am sceptical and I’ll tell you why: a) "The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph" - funny how this "top-secret memo" gets to the press. If the US/UK had proof of these things they would probably call a press conference. But no - it finds it way to some newspapers. Classic tactic if you have dodgy information and you want it publicised for spin reasons but can not back it publicly because it might be false. b) "In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy". " Oh goodie - not only did Al Qaeda train in Iraq, but the 9/11 attacks were agreed with Iraq - hmmmmm and funny how this is "expressed" in the memo – (wink, wink) c) "The second part of the memo, which is headed "Niger Shipment", contains a report about an unspecified shipment - believed to be uranium - that it says has been transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria. " Now how convenient is that. We have two major issues on hand - one is the claimed link to 9/11 and secondly the "Niger" issue which both Blair and Bush have been beaten up on. Funny how these issues that have nothing to do with each other end up in the same Memo - poooh the smells intensifies... d) "Although Atta is believed to have been resident in Florida in the summer of 2001, he is known to have used more than a dozen aliases, and intelligence experts believe he could easily have slipped out of the US to visit Iraq. " So Atta is in the final preparations of the 9/11 attacks about 1-2 month away. He risks the whole operation, which has taken a couple of years to prepare, by travelling to Baghdad for training? Travelling to and from Iraq, crossing many borders is not risky for the operation or can draw attention to yourself? Now give me a break. This one snippet alone makes this story very unbelievable for me. This whole thing stinks of trying to create perceptions that will stick in peoples mind long after it is disproven. Remember how a majority of Americans thought Saddam was behind 9/11 when nobody officially claimed it? Somebody should do some more digging and see where this one really comes from. First question I have is: Is the “author” of this hand written memo (how convenient as this makes it harder to disprove its authenticity) still alive or is he conveniently dead? But hey, if this can be proven to be true, I gladly eat my straw hat. I have however a gut feel I might not need to. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #20 December 16, 2003 QuotePost: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You won, okay. Are you happy? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yep, but I'm still retarted! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MWAHAHAHA -- that's hilarious! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- visual aid lol thanks for the laugh Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 641 #21 December 16, 2003 Robin Cook's autobiography outliines the chemical and biological weapons that the US and UK supplied to Saddam in the 80's - including an account of the anthrax botulum that the US supplied him. The interesting bit is that the anthrax has a 3yr life and yet it was included as unaccounted for by Blair nearly 20 years on... On to the subject of this thread though, I now solidly believe that their is a link between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. Since the US needs a military base in the middle east for strategic reasons, they have traditionally been based in Saudi Arabia - the home of most of the Suicide bombers on 9/11. The only way the US could begin to exert pressure on the Saudi's would be to reduce their dependance on them as a strategic ally. I believe they chose Iraq as there are numerous peripheral "excuses" that could be used. There is no evidence that his WMD posed any more of a threat than other peoples, he is no worse than many other dictators, the oil excuse doesn't really stand much scrutiny as a sole objective either. It is interesting to note that within 3 months of the march into Baghdad the US announced it was scaling down significantly its presence in Saudi Arabia. I also think that military/political strategists think in frames of reference far longer term than the average individual (i.e. 10 to 20 yrs ahead may not be unreasonable)Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
