Home Politics and Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Limited spaces available! Sign up here

Chemical warfare

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 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?

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Time will tell of course, but i would be inclined to believe the latter. Scaremongering is what got us into this war in the first place so it seems only consistent to maintain the spin and lies whilst prosecuting the attack.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    tabloid scaremongering? don't be so quick to dismiss - almost all works of fiction have their basis in truth - more than likely that it may be scuttlebut theyre getting from Iraqi troops. Another hand to consider is that such weapons may be in the hands of the Saddam sponsored terror outfits in places like Basrah and Iraq for use as a disruptive measure without it being an official military action condemnable by the international community. Either way, I fear our people will be exposed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hey Al, looks like we got another poster who, like pnj, needs to be reminded that the terrorist link was already discredited.

    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).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Indeed. Iraq might or might not have weapons-grade chemical agents, but even if it does there are no links with terrorist groups associated with it, nor would Saddam rely on terrorist organisations to launch a chemical attack. If- and that's a very big if- Saddam decides to use chemical weapons we will get his own forces to fire the shells at allied troops.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    if it does happen we only have ourselves to blame.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    Hey Al, looks like we got another poster who, like pnj, needs to be reminded that the terrorist link was already discredited.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The only common knowledge was that the terrorist cells operating in northern Iraq were in Kurdish territory and in league with the Kurds... not Saddam.

    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?)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just adding to what Al has said, the discreditation claims of Al Qaeda links to Baghdad were made by most intelligence agencies (including the CIA) quite some time ago. That you seem completely unaware of that combined with your odd references to "Basra and Iraq" would lead most here to conclude that youve merely accepted the long running spin on this whole affair rather than bother to do any serious investigation for yourself.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    not bothered at all - point is, Ive done some investigation on the subject and have become increasingly interested in it since 9/11. I am by no means saying that without a doubt there is a definitave link between 9/11 and Iraq. I do think however, no matter how determined the terror network is, there is no way in hell that a ragtag group like Al Qaeda could have acted without the assistance and sponsorship of a large, well financed government. This casts a wide net of suspicion that includes the whole of the Middle East including many countries - I feel with the amount of hate certain reigons have for the US, the finger points both at Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Iraq and Saudi are light years apart in the underlying principles of their societies and their governing regimes. Indeed Saudi money has financed Al Qaeda as has money from Pakistan and perhaps even agencies in Indonesia.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    Iraq and Saudi are light years apart in the underlying principles of their societies and their governing regimes. Indeed Saudi money has financed Al Qaeda as has money from Pakistan and perhaps even agencies in Indonesia.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I would love to discuss my fuller thoughts on the issue with you but wouldnt do it here any longer, i had months of lengthy debate on the issue there but have foudn enough thinking on the subject that I feel it remains a question which should be investigated and scrutinised at the very least. Heck, Pearl Harbour elicited no less than 9 investigations and public enquiries but this has largely been given a pat answer and swept under the rug, I believe for significantly more insidious reasons. And I think those who hate and distrust Bush have the right of it. This is a dirty man with a very dirty and corrupt cabinet and circle of advisors whose own interests are far from what the rhetoric has been claiming.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    I would love to discuss my fuller thoughts on the issue with you but wouldnt do it here any longer, i had months of lengthy debate on the issue there but have foudn enough thinking on the subject that I feel it remains a question which should be investigated and scrutinised at the very least. Heck, Pearl Harbour elicited no less than 9 investigations and public enquiries but this has largely been given a pat answer and swept under the rug, I believe for significantly more insidious reasons. And I think those who hate and distrust Bush have the right of it. This is a dirty man with a very dirty and corrupt cabinet and circle of advisors whose own interests are far from what the rhetoric has been claiming.

    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?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Like i said, id gladly discuss my findings at length with you off the boards.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    email anytime.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    don't discuss through pm's. take it well away from the site. the site have access to pm's i'm sure.
    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 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.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by morrocan roll
    don't discuss through pm's. take it well away from the site. the site have access to pm's i'm sure.
    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.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The leader of the suicide terrorist, was a structural engineer so he knew how to hit the building.

    MR is right about the Bush-Bin Laden business relationship. The Bin Laden family, thanks to Bush, is heavily invested in the Defense companies.
Sign In or Register to comment.