a) I think cell or camp is nitpicking. B) Well this is what I said, they are dead or are not in the country anymore (as severall reports said, their identity was in doubt anyway - see BBC link above). When they are dead or not evailable for trial they cannot defend themselves. This means there needs to be hard evidence for their guilt, whichs seems to be missing. You can declare someone absent guilty without evidence, when he cannot defend himself. Such is the case here. Also a simmilar case could be made for Andreas L. (Germanwings).. c) Seems the trial you are referring too is not yet over: http://www.radiohamburg.de/Nachrichten/Hamburg-aktuell/Politik-im-Fokus/2013/Juli/9-11-Neuer-Prozess-fuer-Mounir-El-Motassadeq Note another guy named Abdelghani Mzoudi was found not guilty. He even received money for his wrong time in jail Ok, most people say they are gulity, this is ok with me. I disagree cause not enough proof for my taste. Let´s leave it there and back to Iraq topic
Did you even look at the data in post 77? I think it's sad that you think some 70's era mobile phones and a blueprint outweigh the ENORMOUS WMD support from Europe. France, Britain, Italy were giving Saddam entire WMD systems, Nuclear plants, nuclear labs, advanced aircraft, yet you blame the US because of some mobile phones? Really? You're so deeply immersed in your anti-American bigotry that you can't even recognize reality.
I think KB you are a bit hasty, because I said "THE WEST" delivered WMDs..... Afaik the "West" is Europe too or isn´t it ? Or only the US ? In my view the US&Europe would qualify as "west". Afaik eg Germany and France provided much weapons/WMD technology to Iraq...which ur list seems to confirm. These 2 countries could be qualified as "west". Your view differs - you mean only the US is "west" (this would be a surprise to me tbh)??
Why? I was under the impression that Germany had banned all trials in absentia back in 1975. According to German law...Section 285(1) StPO states that no main hearing shall be held in respect of a person who is absent. Seems it has... Something a little more current: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/sept-11-conviction-upheld-by-german-court-motassadeq-loses-appeal-a-482445.html
No. He was released not because of resonable doubt, but because the US refused to present Ramzi bin al-Shibh at his trial. Since Mr. Mizoudi could not receive a "fair trial", his case was tossed. It'a also worth noting that Germany deported him in 2005. Apparently Germany didn't want him around.
No, but the US does make smoke detectors...So, put them back in. http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mass-panic-was-aim-of-16370000-dirty-bomb-423425.html
I wasn't looking for an apology on your part I was looking to see if you could substantiate your claim. Since you haven't and apparently aren't going to we can take that as more hot air. By the way on most reasonable forums if you make a claim and someone asks for a source it's pretty much on you to produce it or accept that your position has little credit. You made a claim that you can't substantiate. It's not up to me do disprove it it's up to you to prove it. ??? The US clearly did no about their usage very soon after the fact in at least some of the cases. Not sure how that is relevan to the topic at hand though. I guess it's just another attempt on your part to redirect attention away from your inability to support your position. Garbage. Your pictures at least with no commentary have absolutely no bearing on the topic at hand. That you post then like you do and make coments such as the above indicates you have no real interest in learning or sharing information. Likewise you vidoes are worth little as well. It's not a matter of the "middelages of the internet" (a rather absurd designation in and of iteself), it's a matter of being able to source and discuss facts rather than opinions. Do you really not understand that or are you just trying to create a smoke screen to hid behind. ??? What an rediculous thing to say. In no way do they show any such thing. That's exactly why they aren't valid thank you for making my point. I see you can't prove your point so you insult me. Clever and mature, not. You really think the expression on a diplomat/politicians face tells you how they feel about a subject? How utterly naive. As for me using the "nets" to look for myself I obviously have been. Note the number of decent sources I've produced with relevant quotes in many cases compared to the garbage you usually post. But wait you aren't really interested in facts, logic, and reason are you. You'd rather have eye candy you can interpret the way you want to.
A lot of people are asking how it is that US President George Bush and his Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, are so certain, given the inconclusive nature of the UN weapons inspectors' findings, that Iraq possess weapons of mass destruction. This is how. In December 1983, Rumsfeld, then a special envoy to the Middle East appointed by President Reagan, travelled to Baghdad to inform Saddam Hussein that the United States was ready to resume full diplomatic relations with Iraq. A lengthy report in the Washington Post on December 30, 2002 - based on analysing thousands of pages of declassified government documents and interviews with former policy-makers - said that "US intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defences" following Rumsfeld's visit. The resumption of diplomatic relations was proposed despite warnings from the State Department a month earlier that Iraq was engaging in "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" in the war against Iran. At the time, the US judged that preventing an Iranian victory against Iraq was a higher policy priority than obeying the 1925 Geneva Protocol outlawing chemical warfare. Before the visit, the US had removed Iraq from the State Department's terrorism list, opening the door for arms deals with Western countries. Again according to the Washington Post, a 1994 investigation by the US Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under licence from the Department of Commerce, including various strains of anthrax subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare. These days Rumsfeld likes to downplay or even deny his role in helping arm Iraq with the makings of weapons of mass destruction. He has been quoted as saying he had "nothing to do" with helping Iraq fight Iran in the '80s. However, the Washington Post says "the documents show that his visits to Baghdad led to closer US-Iraqi cooperation on a wide variety of fronts". The scale of the business done between Iraq and US corporations has never been made public, and recent efforts by the US Government suggest that, far from wanting to uncover the extent and details of the sources of Saddam's weapons program, it has every interest in covering it up. In mid-December 2002 Iraq released massive documentation which purported to provide an inventory of its arms programs. The television news showed tables of documents, 12,000 pages in all plus accompanying CD-ROMs. It was made available to the UN weapons inspection team under the terms of the Security Council resolution demanding full disclosure of the country's efforts to build weapons of mass destruction. According to a report in The Guardian newspaper on December 11, the US obtained agreement from Colombia, at the time serving as president of the Security Council, to hand over the documentation for it to analyse and copy. This was an apparent breach of a Security Council agreement that the document would be first analysed by UN specialists before being made available to member states. The US provided copies of the full documentation to the four other permanent members: Russia, China, France and Great Britain. Whether anything was first removed from this report is a matter of contention. What is known is that the 10 non-permanent members had to be content with an edited, scaled-down version. According to the German newsagency DPA, instead of the 12,000 pages, these nations - including Germany, which this month became president of the Security Council - were given only 3,000 pages. So what was missing? The Guardian reported that the nine- page table of contents included chapters on "procurements" in Iraq's nuclear program and "relations with companies, representatives and individuals" for its chemical weapons program. This information was not included in the edited version. On December 11, The New York Times said that Dr Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, had agreed to this. He told the Security Council that he was not going to release the names of the foreign suppliers to Iraq. His rationale: these suppliers could be valuable sources of information to UN inspectors. Others have offered alternative explanations. A former UN weapons inspector, David Albright, told The Guardian in December that there would be widespread embarrassment if the extent to which British, French, German and other Western companies had supplied Iraq's weapons build-up was known. Now a German newspaper has blown the whistle and published a list of all these suppliers. National daily Die Tageszeitung ran its report on December 19 but it has been slow to get an airing in the English-speaking world. The US media has ignored it. Perhaps it hits too close to home. The article claims that what it calls the "censorship" of the original Iraqi disclosure document was done at US urging. The report lists details of suppliers from US, China, France, Great Britain, Russia, Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Sweden - but the standout supplier to Saddam was the US. Twenty-four companies as well as the Departments of Defence, Energy, Trade and Agriculture all took part, as did the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories. The US government evidently did not want this made public. The US corporate contribution includes Hewlett-Packard (nuclear weapon, rocket and conventional weapons programs), Tektronix (nuclear, rockets), Eastman Kodak (rockets), Honeywell (rockets, conventional) and American Type Culture Collection (biological). (Full details can be found in German at www.taz.de/pt2002/12/19/a0012.nf/text.) This cosy arrangement lasted until 1990 when relations were abruptly terminated after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Since the conclusion of the first Gulf War, UN weapons inspectors have scoured Iraq for proscribed weaponry. Whether there is anything left to find is a matter of fierce conjecture. Evidently Donald and Dubya (whose father was Vice-President when Rumsfeld made his mission to Baghdad) think they know something. Isn't it time they came clean? It is in no one's interests for Saddam Hussein to retain deadly weapons he has shown no compunction about using in the past, including on his own citizens. But by what crazy logic does the West go to war to disarm him of weapons it supplied in the first place? Instead of so-called smart bombs, how about a bit of smart diplomacy? Sounds like a job for Donald Rumsfeld. http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/iraq-weapons-mass-destruction/
Why should I do your work for you. You make the claim it's up to you to substantiate it if requested. So far your track record in that if pretty bad. IMO you are wrong on both counts. Just as a matter of curiousity what on that list do you think qualifies as a WMD? Certainly France supplied weapons I didn't see anything on the list to indicate that they supplied WMDs though. Again what do you think qualifies as such? Or do you have a source that indicates other WMDs? Note also that their is a close linkage between pesiticides and chemical weapons the same plants and technology can be used for both and the former has often been used as a cover for the latter.
How Iraq built its weapons programs With a little help from its friends. By TOM DRURY, Times Staff Writer © St. Petersburg Times published March 16, 2003 Say you run a filling station, says Nancy Wysocki, and one of your customers buys some gasoline and commits arson. "Does the person at the gas station feel bad about it?" Wysocki is a vice president at American Type Culture Collection, a nonprofit bioresource center in Virginia that exported anthrax bacteria and other pathogens to Saddam Hussein's Iraq from 1985 to 1989. "You have no crystal ball," Wysocki says, "and you never know what's going to happen 10, 20, 30 years from now about anything." Yet here we are, on the eve of what could turn into a $100-billion war to disarm and dismantle the Iraqi dictatorship. U.N. inspectors are working against the clock to figure out if Iraq retains chemical and biological weapons, the systems to deliver them, and the capacity to manufacture them. And here's the strange part, easily forgotten in the barrage of recent rhetoric: It was Western governments and businesses that helped build that capacity in the first place. From anthrax to high-speed computers to artillery ammunition cases, the militarily useful products of a long list of Western democracies flowed into Iraq in the decade before its 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Said former Sen. Donald Riegle, the Michigan Democrat who once conducted hearings on Iraq's weapons programs and Gulf War Syndrome, in an interview last week, "What is absolutely crystal clear is this: That if Saddam Hussein today has a large arsenal of biological weapons, partly it was the United States that provided the very live viruses that he needed to create those weapons." The if is critical. Whether the Iraqis still have significant chemical and biological weaponry remains an open question, although even French President Jacques Chirac says they probably do. "It's very clear that they did have," and declared as much to the United Nations in 1995, said Jacqueline Cattani, director of the Center for Biological Defense at the University of South Florida. "It's not very clear that they have destroyed it. And so no one knows, basically." Inspecting teams have reported finding little so far beyond 50 liters of the chemical weapon mustard gas. But the country is large and germs are small. Hans Blix in his recent dossier said Iraq may still have around 10,000 liters of anthrax, whether from American sources or elsewhere. * * * American Type Culture Collection was not the only supplier to send biological materials to Iraq in the decade before the Gulf War, when the Reagan and first Bush administrations tilted toward Iraq in its eight-year war with Iran. Also between 1985 and 1989, the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control sent Iraq 14 agents "with biological warfare significance," including West Nile virus, according to Riegle's investigators. "We did work with Iraq's scientists along with other scientists on microbiological agents and reagents," said CDC spokesman LLelwyn Grant last week. "That did occur in the mid-80s but . . . there were no other shipments that were sent after the incident involving Iraq's invasion of Kuwait." Grant and Wysocki both said that Iraqi clients could not have acquired biological materials without setting forth a legitimate research purpose. In a 1995 letter to Sen. Riegle, then-CDC director David Satcher disclosed a shipment that had been hand-carried to Iraq by Dr. Mahammad Mahmud after three months of training in a CDC laboratory. Most of those materials, Satcher said, were "non-infectious diagnostic reagents for detecting evidence of infections to mosquito-borne viruses." And Cattani of USF cautioned against being too quick to judge past decisions. "It's common knowledge that, prior to the events of September and October of 2001, the policy or the ability for anyone to purchase some of these agents for research and testing was unrestricted commercially, and that's changed," she said. "There were uses for these things, especially for testing animals against anthrax. A lot of these are nonhuman pathogens naturally. Anthrax is a disease of cattle, basically. Because they were used in the context of veterinary screening and treatment, no one really thought of their potential at that time as biological weapons." * * * Also before the Gulf War, Iraq took delivery on billions of dollars of equipment "useful for making mass destruction weapons" from companies operating in more than a dozen Western nations: Germany mostly, but also the United States, Britain, France, Austria, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and more, according to Iraq Watch, a research group affiliated with the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control. This wasn't, of course, charity. There was money to be made. The group's analysis of U.S. exports that ended up in Iraq's nuclear weapons and long-range missile programs between 1985 and 1990 found that Unisys made $2.6-million, Semetex $5.1-million, Hewlett Packard $1.6-million and International Computer Systems $7.4-million. "Much of what came from America went with the blessing of the U.S. Commerce Department, which approved the sale of more than $1.5-billion worth of dual-use goods," wrote Iraq Watch's Kelly Motz. "An honest assessment of the problem we face in Iraq is that we are still trying to rectify our past indiscretions. The fact that U.S. troops may one day lay down their lives to destroy these exports is the price we may have to pay." Of course, as Dr. Cattani suggested, much has changed in the last 15 years. These transactions happened before Iraq invaded Kuwait; before Iraq in defeat agreed to disclose and destroy its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs; and long before anthrax became a household word as still-unsolved mailings killed six people and emptied congressional offices in the fall of 2001. "All I can say to you is that Iraq was an ally of the United States in the 1980s," said Wysocki of American Type Culture Collection. "The Department of Commerce approved all requests for shipments of biological samples requested by Iraq, made from ATCC, and that is the law." But even then the United States, if not its scientific supply houses, had strong and growing reason to know that Hussein was dangerous. According to Germs, the authoritative bioweapons book by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists Judith Miller, Stephen Engelberg and William Broad, a classified study produced by the Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center in June 1988 found Iraq "well on its way to building 'a bacteriological arsenal' under the cover of legitimate scientific research." The report even noted that the Iraqis were at the time buying bacterial strains from American Type Culture Collection. Sales of dual-use technology sanctioned by the Commerce Department should have raised red flags as well, said Motz of Iraq Watch. "A number of those sales were going to known entities in Iraq. They sent them to places in Iraq where we knew exactly what they were working on. They were sending to known nuclear entities or known missile entities." And harsher evidence of Hussein's intentions was not hard to find. Iraq had killed thousands of residents of the northern Iraqi town of Halabja with chemical weapons in March 1988, when the town was held by Iranian forces and Kurdish guerrillas. After initial denials, Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz admitted in July 1988 that Iraq had in fact used chemical weapons. None of this was enough to stop the transactions with Iraq. The report of Sen. Riegle's committee says that on Sept. 29, 1988, American Type Culture Collection shipped 11 items to Iraq's Ministry of Trade, including four strains of anthrax bacteria. "At the time, as nearly as one could construct the thinking," said Riegle, "the United States was principally focused on Iran as the main problem in that area. And because Iraq and Saddam Hussein were a direct rival and opponent of Iran, the thinking appears to have been in the Reagan-Bush period that they were prepared to help Saddam Hussein because he was in a sense with us against Iran." As with many "devil's bargains," he said, "it's come back to haunt us." The immediate problem, Riegle said, is that if Iraq does retain biological and chemical weapons, and they're either used on purpose or kicked up by U.S. bombing, "Are we in a position to fully protect our own troops, let alone civilian populations?" He said that more than 100,000 veterans of the 1991 Gulf War came home with serious medical problems as the result of chemical and biological agents stirred up by that bombing campaign. "My concern now is we may now be on the verge of repeating that very same thing." -- Tom Drury is Perspective editor of the Times. http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/16/Perspective/How_Iraq_built_its_we.shtml
In a blockbuster story published last night by the New York Times, C.J. Shivers lays out chapter and verse on the despicable way the US military covered up the discovery of chemical weapons in Iraq after the 2003 invasion. Even worse is the cover-up of injuries sustained by US troops from those weapons, their denial of treatment and denial of recognition or their injuries sustained on the battlefront. Why was this covered up, you might ask? After all, if George W. Bush would joke at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner about looking under White House furniture for Saddam’s WMD’s, why didn’t the US blast out the news of the WMD’s that had supposedly prompted the US invasion? The answer is simple. The chemical weapons that were found did not date to the time frame when the US was accusing Saddam of “illegally” producing them. Instead, they were old chemical weapons that dated from the time Saddam was our friend. They come from the time when the US sent Donald Rumsfeld to shake Saddam’s hand and to grease the skids for Iraq to get chemical weapons to use in their war against Iran. Chivers give us the details: From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule. In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. /snip/ The New York Times found 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve or mustard agents after 2003. American officials said that the actual tally of exposed troops was slightly higher, but that the government’s official count was classified. /snip/ Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war. All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them. But here is the real kicker: Participants in the chemical weapons discoveries said the United States suppressed knowledge of finds for multiple reasons, including that the government bristled at further acknowledgment it had been wrong. “They needed something to say that after Sept. 11 Saddam used chemical rounds,” Mr. Lampier said. “And all of this was from the pre-1991 era.” Others pointed to another embarrassment. In five of six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies. Good old USA technology, conveniently exported to European firms that we helped to build factories in Iraq to produce chemical weapons to be used against Iran. That is what caused injury to US servicemen who were routinely denied care and quickly sent back into battle because they weren’t missing limbs. Chivers talked to a number of those soldiers and their stories are so consistent they nearly blend together. Also consistent was the instant classification of the injuries, presumably because of the embarrassment to the Bush Administration they would cause should the press look into them too rigorously. Sadly, though, the story is not yet over. The US left Iraq in 2011, knowing that chemical weapons were still stored in bunkers at Al Muthanna. At the end of Chivers’ report: The United States had invaded Iraq to reduce the risk of the weapons of mass destruction that it presumed Mr. Hussein still possessed. And after years of encountering and handling Iraq’s old chemical arms, it had retroactively informed the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in 2009 that it had recovered more than 4,500 chemical weapons. But it had not shared this data publicly. And as it prepared to withdraw, old stocks set loose after the invasion were still circulating. Al Muthanna had still not been cleaned up. Finding, safeguarding and destroying these weapons was to be the responsibility of Iraq’s government. Iraq took initial steps to fulfill its obligations. It drafted a plan to entomb the contaminated bunkers on Al Muthanna, which still held remnant chemical stocks, in concrete. When three journalists from The Times visited Al Muthanna in 2013, a knot of Iraqi police officers and soldiers guarded the entrance. Two contaminated bunkers — one containing cyanide precursors and old sarin rockets — loomed behind. The area where Marines had found mustard shells in 2008 was out of sight, shielded by scrub and shimmering heat. The Iraqi troops who stood at that entrance are no longer there. The compound, never entombed, is now controlled by the Islamic State. And ISIS appears to be putting those remaining stocks of chemical weapons to use: Disturbing new photos of ethnic Kurds killed by Islamic State fighters are stoking fears the terrorist army may be using chemical weapons seized from Saddam Hussein’s old arsenals, according to a Middle East watchdog. The pictures, obtained by the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA), show the bodies of Syrian Kurds who appear to have been gassed by ISIS in the besieged Kobani region this July. That fighting came just one month after Islamic State forces surged through the once-notorious Muthanna compound in Iraq, the massive base where Hussein began producing chemical weapons in the 1980s, which he used to kill thousands of Kurds in Halabja in northern Iraq in 1988. The US gifts to Saddam just keep on giving, long after Saddam’s death. https://www.emptywheel.net/2014/10/15/saddams-wmd-technology-made-in-usa-delivered-by-rumsfeld/
by Jacob G. Hornberger October 24, 2014According to a New York Times article today, the Islamic State has employed WMDs against Iraqi police officers. The specific WMD used is chlorine gas. According to reports, ISIS forces set off an explosion that released the gas, causing injuries to 11 Iraqi police officers. Alistair Baskey, a spokesman for the National Security Council, observed: The use of chlorine as a chemical weapon is an abhorrent act. These recent allegations underscore the importance of our work to eliminate chemical weapons in this violate region.” What planet is Baskey living on? It certainly can’t be Planet Earth. Where does he think those chemical weapons came from? Does he think they just mysteriously dropped in the laps of the Islamic State? No, as I pointed out in my blog post of October 15, those chemical weapons came from the United States as part of the U.S. government’s partnership during the 1980s with Saddam Hussein. That’s right — those infamous WMDs that were used as George W. Bush’s excuse for invading Iraq came from the United States. That’s why Bush was so certain that they would “find” WMDs in Iraq. He had the receipts for them. Why did the U.S. deliver that chlorine gas and other chemical and biological weapons to Iraq? So that Saddam could use them to kill Iranians. Why did U.S. officials want Saddam to use chlorine gas and other WMDs to kill Iranians? Because U.S. officials were still angry over the fact that the Iranian people have ousted from power their brutal dictator, the Shah of Iran, whom U.S. officials had installed into power with the CIA’s coup in 1953 that destroyed Iran’s experiment with democracy. In fact, they’re still angry about it to this day. Now, let’s revisit that pointed observation by Baskey: The use of chlorine as a chemical weapon is an abhorrent act. Questions for Baskey: Why is the use of chlorine gas considered good when it is used by a pro-U.S. dictator against the Iranian people and considered bad when it is used by an anti-U.S. group against a U.S.-installed regime in Iraq? Why isn’t it equally bad in both instances? As the New York Times recently disclosed in a shocking story, it turns out that from 2004-2008 President George W. Bush and his people did discover the old WMD caches that the U.S. had delivered to Saddam Hussein. The canisters containing the gases were old and rusting out. Wouldn’t you think that Bush and Vice President Cheney, the Pentagon, and the CIA would trumpet that WMD find, using it to justify their invasion of Iraq? Not so! They instead ordered soldiers to keep it secret, an order that was fulfilled until the New York Times revealed the truth a few days ago. Why would they want such a find to be kept secret? There is one likely reason: They didn’t want the American people to figure out that it was the U.S. who delivered those WMDs to Saddam so that he could use them to kill Iranians. Here at The Future of Freedom Foundation, we alluded to this in 2003 in an article entitled “Where Did Iraq Get It’s Weapons of Mass Destruction?” Needless to say, that was during a time when many Americans didn’t want to hear discomforting things about their federal government, especially with respect to foreign policy. And so now we have the ultimate in blowback. In fact, one might call it “The Mother of All Blowbacks.” The U.S. government invades Iraq under a bogus WMD threat in order to garner support for a regime change against its old partner and ally, Saddam Hussein, to whom the U.S. had given WMDs so that Saddam could use them to kill Iranians. The WMDs are ultimately found but U.S. officials keep the find secret from the American people and the rest of the world. Even worse, they fail to destroy the WMDs. The U.S. government’s ouster of Saddam Hussein unleashes a violent civil war in which the Islamic State is trying to oust the U.S.-installed regime in Iraq. The Islamic State finds those WMDs and uses them against the U.S.-installed Iraqi regime, while U.S. officials publicly condemn the use of the WMDs that the U.S. delivered to Saddam to kill Iranians. Just one more big blowback success story in the history of U.S. interventionism. http://fff.org/2014/10/24/wmd-blowback-in-iraq/
By TOM DRURY, Times Staff Writer © St. Petersburg Times published March 16, 2003 ... http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/16/Perspective/How_Iraq_built_its_we.shtml Good article. Note that it does not support your contention that the US or the West supplied Iraq with WMDs though.
This one however is more of a political diatribe than anything else. Indeed he did say so in his blog but provided no evidence at all. Furthermore the opion above strains credulity. Chlorine is rather easy to come by and there's little reason to suspect that Sadam's stocks were the origin of it. Even if there was I would like to see proof that the US supplied it. Except of course they weren't kept secret. I remember reading that they were found shortly after they were found. If it wasn't widely publisized the fault lies with the media not the US governement. However this clown is to fond of his conspiracy theories to check the facts or apply Occam's Razor.
OOOPS another fellow "conspiracy nut" of mine This time 4 star general, ex Nato BOSS Wesley Clark: General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization was planned as far back as 1991 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7NsXFnzJGw Seems Mr. Clark learned quite a bit from me lol (BTW: for LWD, you can use Firefox and "no script" plug in, if you don´t wanna see videos and you can disable pictures in posts, so your precious bandwith is saved - this hint was for free cause I like you still - ur a cool guy)
You just don't get it do you? Or do you and you just don't want to admit it? Let's see another you tube video which is pretty marginal in and of itself. Then doing a little searching we find this gem: http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166 So we have someone who is considering a presedential bid posting on one of the most rabid anti American programs in existance (Democracy Now in case you weren't aware). Then when we look at it in detail we see he's talking about a document that he didn't see so he has no real context. Yep real useful ... not. By the way have you ever heard of warplan red? Or Green? or Grey? Or Gold? Or ... The existance of various war plans and/or documents of this nature is not a very solid proof of anything unless they can be put in context and the above simply doesn't cut it. Of course you do seem to like opinions that conicide with your own. Try posting facts on ocasion and actually presenting a rational and logical argument and you may have a chance of swaying some of us. Keep posting garbage like the above and you simply are a waste of bandwidth adding nothing but noise to the signal this forum produces.
Funny, well I will weight Mr. Clarks (and other informed persons) opinions let´s say 10000x that of yours....Mr. L "knowitall" WD lol And I do not care about USA inner policies, that´s the US citizens job to sort their mess out - I only care insofar their agressive policies are a danger for the rest of the world) As it´s our job to sort the EU mess out (if not so many people weren´t sheeple this had already happened I supose)
Interesting I guess you have decided I'm not "informed" because I disagree with you and keep pointing out factual and logical errors in your posts. Note that "Mr Clark" as much as addmitted he wasn't informed on the real contents of that memo. He even went out of his way not to see it. Which was actually reasonable given that it was classified. Talking about it now though without haveing seen it or been able to put it into its context is political posturing. But I guesss you trust politicians, at leasat if they agree with you. This is often refered to as attacking the poster rather than the post. It's not only considered rude it is a fairly strong indicator that your position is not well founded. I'm not sure why you even posted this. Perhaps you didn't get the significance differences between a serving military officer, a retired military officer, and a candidate for public office. Or were you just trying to muddy the waters?
Bundesluftwaffe, you can disagree with lwds position on the subject matter and debate with him without resorting to ridicule and name calling, this site frowns on that kind of behavior.
