If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Chemical warfare
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I've noticed a few newspapers today with articles about the possibility of Saddam waiting until the allied forces enter Baghdad before unleashing his chemical weapons within. They are reporting that this is his reason for holding back his airforce at this stage.
What do you al think of the likelihood of this? Do you think it is just tabloid scaremongering?
What do you al think of the likelihood of this? Do you think it is just tabloid scaremongering?
0
Comments
Devlmen, Basra IS a city in Iraq (which is a country). Knowing that much would lend more credibility to your other comments (save for claims of terrorist cells, especially in Basra which is in the Shiite area of Iraq and hardly a stronghold of Saddam support anyways).
as I am well aware of where Basrah is located, spare me the geography lesson ok?
Terrorist link discredited? by whom Michael Moore, Arianna Huffington? Greenpeace? give me someone I can beleive in and maybe then we'll talk. It was common knowledge however that terror cells have operated within Iraq and as with the Al Qaeda link, loosely associated with the Hussein regime.
Yes Im fully aware that Basrah is a Shi'ite populace. I was also 'aware' the FBI had control over the terror cells pre 9/11.
Regardless of all the other possible 'motives' for this war, there is absolutely no link whatsoever between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda or other such groups. Bin Laden himself and other Al Qaeda members had made clear that they despise secular infidel Hussein with passion. Hussein doesn't have much time for the bearded one either, and there is more likeness of Osama bin Laden being the next Mayor of New York than the existence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
There might or might not be genuine reasons for intervention in Iraq, but this supposed "link" was nothing but a pathetic attempt by the US and British governments to win people over and get support for their war. It was groundless, patronising and frankly deeply insulting to the victims of 9/11 and their families. Most sickening was to see Bush hijacking the anniversary of the attacks and linking Iraq and Al Qaeda in his speech marking the event.
I am glad to see that the US and British governments have now effectively abandoned their pathetic attempts to link the two. It's just too bad that some people are having trouble letting it go (perhaps because they have moral doubts about this war and wanting to believe that Iraq was behind 9/11 makes them feel better about it?)
Don't be surprised that we've demonstrated little tolerance for your recent posts as this has been covered repeatedly for the benfit of pnj who has consistently shown an unwillingness to apply any critical reasoning to his posts whatsoever.
Trying to cloud and merge the issues of 9/11 was just another tactic the Bush employed to dupe the public into supporting this dirty self-interested corporate war. It has zero to do with terrorism or Al Qaeda.
Quite frankly I continue to suspect that agencies within our own government had a hand in 9/11. This is something I am at odds with many on these boards, but too many inconsistencies in the cover story offered by Washington so soon after the event and their continued refusal to cooperate with a full scale congressional investigation since 9/11 only adds further suspicion to the mix.
I dont expect you to accept these suspicions, but they do remain and when one considers that the first question in any criminal investigation is "who stood to gain the most" one can see with increasing clarity that an administration that was digging its own grave prior to 9/11 having obtained a virtual blank check to pursue its long planned invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq with huge unquestioning public support certainly gained more than any other named culprit to date.
I totally agree these are societies that are very different in ideaology and function - where I look at it is admittedly simplistic in that I think any M.E. Nation that had an axe to grind with us has to be suspected - granted that would leave the door open to a LOT of people.
The only hand I see so far of US involvement is her uninvolvement which is to say the utter failure and ineptitude of our own intel to provide adequate protection. I know a lot of people hate the Bush administration but I dont know of anyone to think its so bad it would intentionally endanger its own country - I just fail to see any potential gain.
just so long as you know Im no moron on the topic is all I needed to know.
Bush as dirty - I guess we'd have to agree to disagree - and Im no apologist, I voted for Harry Brown!
Yes there needs to be MORE investigation - A LOT more but I dont see it really implicating the present administration. Corrupt cabinet? Corrupt is a strong word - Id temper it to agree somewhat and say instead of corrupt, its a cabinet made of people after their own interests..
then again, what politician isnt in the long run?
i'm not into conspiracy theorist stuff as a rule but ...i may be well off mark here regarding what you wish to discuss but ...the bin laden family are literaly family friends with bush senior as well as important...very important bizz partners. osama has conveniently been forgotten on the whole. i can believe that this administration had a hand in 9/11. sick! look at the history of the world and the atrocaties kings and emporers inflict on their own people.
if you can watch footage of the twin towers just before they collapse....how come there is a series of explosions from within the building, all on one floor. definately from within. know anything about denolition? rewatch the footage. ok i'm a little full of wine. the truth will out one day.
I think that's true...especially about using chemical weapons. Saddam is a sick, but intelligent man. He's playing the world's public opinion to his advantage. That's why he had his newspaper people write headlines that said "Victory" in front of photos of the first big peace marches in Europe. After newspapers called Iraqis 'Savages' after they showed dead and alive US POW soldiers, the next time he showed US POW's, the two helicopter piolets, they weren't even bruised and were holding some bread thing and tea.
So he'll wait until he has to use them.
while Im by no means an expert but having worked for a fire department as a medic for years and having seen MANY structure fires theres a lot to consider that would dispel any notion of a controlled demoliton.
the biggest being that the aircraft lodged in the buildingswhile they did catch fire and explode, there was still pieces of the fuselage all throughout the point of impact - loaded with still thousands of pounds of volatile jet fuel. this easily accounts for the 'secondary explosions' as they were in a super heated environment that exploded.
another is the overall intensity of the first and secondary fires degrading even further the structural integrity of the internal steel supports that kept WTC and several modern buildings together - in fires that reach2000 degrees, steel begins to buckle - estimates of the heat on 9/11 indicate with the fuel and combustable materials involved ranged the heat index to well over 15000 degrees - MORE than enough heat to turn supportive steel, already fragmented from the initial impact, to liquefy and further lead to the collapse we saw.
Finally - having worked in construciton through college, i have seen several demolitions - they tend to be neat, clean and most of all, controlled. The towers from the footage I saw, were anything but that.
Again, I do not profess to be an expert but the experience I had suggests a low likelyhood of such a conspiracy - no building no matter how structrally sound could have been designed or intended to withstand such an impact.
MR is right about the Bush-Bin Laden business relationship. The Bin Laden family, thanks to Bush, is heavily invested in the Defense companies.