Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Soldier's Chilling Warning


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#1 LifeisGood

LifeisGood

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1934 posts

Posted 10 March 2003 - 10:53 AM

An Iraqi defector has told Sky News that Saddam Hussein will use chemical weapons if the country is invaded.


His warning comes amid revelations Saddam Hussein may be planning to use pilotless drone planes to spray British and US troops with anthrax and sarin gas if they attack.

In an exclusive interview, the officer with Saddam's elite Republican Guard, said the use of chemical weapons by Iraq was "100% guaranteed".

The 26-year-old soldier defected 10 days ago near the city of Sulaymaniyah in Northern Iraq.

Weapons

He is being guarded in a safe house and is said to have provided valuable intelligence to authorities.

"A chemical attack is guaranteed," he warned.

"We have been fully provided with complete protection gear, gas masks, first aid kit, injections."

In the 1991 war, Saddam Hussein deployed his chemical weapons but they were not used.

"We are sure about the chemical bombardment," said the defector, whose identity is being protected.

"In the last stage, he will use it as a last resort."

Fierce

He said Republican Guard soldiers will put up a fierce fight.

"When it is time for war we are fully prepared to fight into the ground. If we don't fight hard, they will execute us," he said.

The defector said Baghdad was full of loyal troops and special forces and the city would see heavy fighting.

"In Baghdad there will be a lot of killing," he added.

Warheads

The suspected plot by Saddam to drop chemical weapons on attacking troops emerged following chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix's 173-page report to the UN Security Council.

The report listed details of missing weapons which Iraq had not accounted for.

They include 50 Scud B warheads and 6,500 bombs laced with chemical weapons, VX nerve agents and anthrax.


Hey, I thought Saddam got rid of the the stuff. Yea right.
  • 0

#2 longrider

longrider

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts

Posted 10 March 2003 - 12:21 PM

the boy in question, was shown as captured in german tv,
and you could see with closed eyes he was willing to
say everything.
I spit on such intelligence infos gained from bestiallity.
You got me.
Use your common sense too, or are you also only here to
spray this doomsday-warmongering-propshit,
this typical jewish neverending hategame.
  • 0

#3 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 10 March 2003 - 12:44 PM

PM Chretien's common sense tells him that
Bush has Saddam on the ropes and to push
the situation to one where Saddam is forced
to use desparate measures would be folly.
  • 0

#4 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 10 March 2003 - 12:58 PM

A Democratic Congresswoman was on TV yesterday
saying what's a few more weeks in 12 years?

What's really at stake here? The per diem cost
of maintaining US troops in the ME?
  • 0

#5 Missouri Mule

Missouri Mule

    Boogiein' along. . .

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts

Posted 10 March 2003 - 02:07 PM

How can this be? Blix says they ain't found no weapons of mass murder.
  • 0

#6 Missouri Mule

Missouri Mule

    Boogiein' along. . .

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts

Posted 10 March 2003 - 02:08 PM

Vig: You just can't mass troops indefintely. Besides already the temperature and sand storms are getting much worse. It is really too long already. Should have been done last month.
  • 0

#7 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 10 March 2003 - 02:11 PM

Howard Dean says you don't go to war just
because the troops happen to be there.

But you are getting Saddam to disarm because
they are there so thank you for that.
  • 0

#8 uglybastard

uglybastard

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 10 March 2003 - 03:01 PM

So Saddam will use weapons of mass destruction?

I hope he doesn't use them where there are a lot of civilians.

Nerve and biological agents will irritate an army. It will murder civilians.
  • 0

#9 pilot

pilot

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2007 posts

Posted 10 March 2003 - 05:21 PM

<<<Nerve and biological agents will irritate an army. It will murder civilians.>>>

Does anyone on this forum believe Sadooooom gives a d-am about the civilians?
  • 0

#10 gonzo

gonzo

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14844 posts

Posted 10 March 2003 - 06:00 PM

LIG
Dont you think Iraq has no right to protect itself? If they nuked a 50,000 American and British troops, wouldnt this be justifieable in the strategies of war.
  • 0

#11 baltoga

baltoga

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3626 posts

Posted 10 March 2003 - 06:08 PM

The threat is real, time to disarm Saddam's "Army of Death".
  • 0

#12 Texas Al

Texas Al

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 10 March 2003 - 06:10 PM

gonzo. No they DON't have the right to nuke American troops. They agreed to dismantle the nuclear program in 1991, such were the terms of the surrender. Without the agreement, the coalition would have continued into, and seized Bagdad, and removed Saddam from power. I wish it had happened, and it should have happened. Colin Powell was soft, and was responsible for talking Bush 41 into withdrawing. I knew this would come back to bite us again. You never let a defeated ruler remain in power, because he will eventually make you pay.

Thats like saying criminals have the right to shoot at the police when they are trying to arrest them.
  • 0

#13 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 10 March 2003 - 06:11 PM

Iraq presents no threat to the USA. An attack would
be an unprovoked serious breach of international law.

If you don't have UN support, then fuggeaboudit.
  • 0

#14 baltoga

baltoga

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3626 posts

Posted 10 March 2003 - 06:12 PM

Iraqis are begging to be liberated. Just a couple of days ago throngs of Iraqi soldiers wanted to surrender. They want nothing to do with Saddam!
  • 0

#15 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 10 March 2003 - 06:14 PM

I like Howard Dean's argument. This is the UN's business
and only incidentally the business of the US.
  • 0

#16 Texas Al

Texas Al

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 10 March 2003 - 06:20 PM

vigorous, the UN is a joke. Its finished. Its done. They sit around and make resolutions that they don't enforce.

Since the UN has no military, when it comes time to enforce the resolutions some country has to have the balls to do it, and as usual its America and Britain. Everyone else is full of crap.

The United States in the only country that ever brings these issues to the UN, everyone else deals outside the UN. I think its a mistake the UN was even brought into the Iraq deal, since it is America that is targeted by Saddam, nobody else (other than Israel). Its easy for France not to be worried about Saddam, because Saddam is a friend to the French. The US is not. Its none of France's darn business, and certainly not that of Russia, China, and Germany.

Example N. Korea. The world is standing around waiting for the US to do something. Why can't China and Russia get involved? Oh, I forgot, they are big allies to N Korea and would back N Korea militarily if necessary. We know who's side they are on. Both would like nothing better than to see the US get nuked.

Better be careful with these thoughts.
  • 0

#17 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 10 March 2003 - 06:24 PM

if you want to know what kind of joke you are referring to,
check out what happened in the Cuban missile crisis.

to do this, simply watch the movie Thirteen Days

meanwhile, take your unilateralist cheeseburg neocons
and shove 'em where the Sun don't shine.
  • 0

#18 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 10 March 2003 - 06:31 PM

Let's get this straight: You are not the boss of the world.
  • 0

#19 Texas Al

Texas Al

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 10 March 2003 - 06:32 PM

I am very familiar with the Cuban missile crisis. The UN was a grandstand, but it wasn't the UN that got the missiles out, it was the US trading the Turkey missiles that got them out. Which is what the Soviet Union wanted in the first place. Similar to how No Korea deals. They threaten something only to have the US give them a concession. It'll probably happen again, I hate to say.

Here again, who besides the US had the balls to do anything about the missiles? Had they not been removed, we would have blown them up before they were operational. Who knows what nuclear catastrophe would have followed. Thank God it didn't come to that. But, the US had to protect itself, the UN would not have enforced anything. You think France would have gone in there and taken them out. Are you kidding? They would have been crapping in their britches, just like they are now.

Do you really think that if the UN had been bogged down like they are now, that the US would have hesitated taking the missiles out? Well, we are in the same situation now. We can't have other countries stopping us from protecting ourselves.
  • 0

#20 Tokyoman

Tokyoman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2784 posts

Posted 10 March 2003 - 06:34 PM

Are Americans scared of Iraq?
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru