Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Not one of you


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#41 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 27 January 2004 - 11:04 AM

Coastal, the article you posted is a fabrication of what Kay actually said.

This is his full quote about the WMDs that were supposed to have gone to Syria:

<<"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons but we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD (weapons of mass destruction) program," Kay was reported saying in the interview conducted yesterday.

"Precisely what went to Syria and what has happened to it is a major issue that needs to be resolved," he added.>>

So, Kay hasn't got any of the components, and the only proof has been obtained under "interrogation".

Kay also claimed that the Iraqi prisoners said that scientists and army personnel fled to Syria and Jordan. Kay gave no indication that the prisoners told him that weapons went there as well. That is a conclusion that is very handy for the Bush Admin to jump to.

Being a little hard am I?

Well, why should I trust them? So far nothing they have said is true. Mobile Chemical Labs anyone? French missiles marked 2003 anyone? WMDs in Tikrit anyone?.....The list is too long.
  • 0

#42 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 27 January 2004 - 11:12 AM

<<Say Brendon,

Today was probably the wrong day to use David Kay to back your argument.>>

Coastal, a little peice of advice. The report from the Washington Times is made up from a AP/Telegraph report. The Guardian used it in one of their stories. The Sunday Telegraph used in theirs. The Winnipeg Sun ran it. Australian papers did it.

But read them all and they pick and choose their quotes from the "source" article to colour each story.

In that way its no different from you and me arguing.

But remember this quote from Kay:

"I don't think they existed," Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties," he said.
  • 0

#43 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 27 January 2004 - 11:16 AM

Thordaddy you say:
<<Why so much time spent rebutting what was merely a possibility?>>

A bit of fun? lol

Hey! You can't have all the fun making it up! You gotta let me have some fun too... ;)
  • 0

#44 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 27 January 2004 - 11:36 AM

Here is another lie about WMDs exposed
-------------------------------------------------------------------


Iraqi who gave MI6 45-minute claim says it was untrue

David Leigh and Richard Norton-Taylor
Tuesday January 27, 2004
The Guardian


<<....He said the Iraqi officer who claims to have been the original source of the intelligence had in fact never seen the purported chemical weapons crates upon which his 45-minute claim was based.

The former INA spy, who calls himself Lieutenant Colonel al-Dabbagh, although this is not his full name, is now said to be "in hiding".

At the time, he says, he commanded a frontline unit.>>

Lie after lie after lie after lie....

Now I am supposed to believe the WMDs went to Iran / Libya / Syria......

Gimmie a break...lol

French missiles marked "2003"
WMDs in Tikrit
Mobile Weapons Labs
WMDs kept under the Palaces (remember that one?....lol)
Hidden amongst the conventional stockpiles (had about 200 guys on that one in June)
Saddam's ex bodyguard escapes to Israel and spills the beans on where they were (Debka interview Dec '02)
....etc


How many lies before you get it?
  • 0

#45 Tokyoman

Tokyoman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2784 posts

Posted 27 January 2004 - 07:50 PM

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George Bush March 17, 2003

No doubt.
  • 0

#46 Tokyoman

Tokyoman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2784 posts

Posted 27 January 2004 - 08:06 PM

I'll try and find something.

In the meantime try this one:

"Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists -- terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries. Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people."

March 7, 2003
  • 0

#47 Tokyoman

Tokyoman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2784 posts

Posted 27 January 2004 - 08:10 PM

Interesting, Bush also said,"He chose not to do so, so we disarmed him."

Eh?
  • 0

#48 Tokyoman

Tokyoman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2784 posts

Posted 27 January 2004 - 08:30 PM

So when Bush said, "...He possesses weapons of terror... Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people," how should this be interpreted?

Is it the truth? Which weapons is he referring to?
  • 0

#49 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 27 January 2004 - 10:52 PM

Coastal,

I used the wrong word when I said "fabrication". That means I think they misquoted Kay. I meant they put a different spin.

I also say there is something going on with Kay himself. He has made a few interviews by now over the past few days. His first one was taken up as proof that there were no WMDs program or stockpile:
-----------------------------------------------------------
"I don't think they existed," Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties," he said.
------------------------------------------------------------
The stockpiles that he is talking about includes a nuclear weapons program in an advanced state, 6000 missiles with chemical weapons warheads, thousands of tons of chemical weapons ready to go. Kay is not saying he found weapons made before that time either.

Kay says he found virtually none, nada.

Then he goes on in another interview the next day to say:

------------------------------------------------------------
"I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat," Mr. Kay said, adding that "what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."
-------------------------------------------------------------

I can put this down to Kay being pressured to say "something" for the Bush team. After all we have witnessed what happens when you don't play ball. I refer to the CIA cover scandal.

I don't know. But could you explain Coastal? The two statements are at odds.
  • 0

#50 thorDADDY

thorDADDY

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts

Posted 27 January 2004 - 11:54 PM

Brendon,

Again, the problem with your analysis is its complete lack of context. Iraqi WMDs, in and of itself, was never the complete justification for WAR. It has only become this SINGULAR justification in your mind because it is the last vain attempt at saving face and for some, to attain any political viability. The justification for WAR with Iraq was a long overdue recognition of the terrifying brew of JIHAD, ROGUE NATIONS and WMDs. The threat still stands as we speak because LARGE stockpiles of WMDs were hardly the threat that was spoken of. No one seriously believed that Hussein would use his LARGE stockpiles of possible WMDs to attack the US. Instead, in a post-9/11 world, collusion between rogue states and Jihad with the potential transfer of SMALL quantities of WMDs presented a situation were REACTION was no longer viable. Preemption became sound policy and giving murderous dictators the benefit of the doubt was a lesson learned the hard way in WWII. This doesn't even speak to the legal and moral grounding the US had in toppling a murderous dictator that defied all international law you so covet.
  • 0

#51 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 28 January 2004 - 12:11 AM

If what you say is true Thordaddy, then American troops wouldn't be in Iraq or Afghanistan. They would be running and interim government in Saudi Arabia. Because that is where most of M.E. terrorism gets its money and brainstrust from. Al Qaeda alone received $5 billion up to and after 9/11 from the elite of Suadi society. The nationality of most of the hijakers were Saudi. Osama Bin Laden is a noted Saudi nationalist. FBI agents used to say the key to terrorism is in Saudi Arabia (read up on FBI agent John O'Neill's investigations on the USS Cole attack).

The Jihad moved into Iraq after the American troops moved in.
  • 0

#52 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 28 January 2004 - 12:21 AM

Coastal you say:
----------------------------------------------------------------
"David Kay has not changed his story a bit."
----------------------------------------------------------------

As far as I can see the two statements that I posted from two different interviews cannot be reconciled.

If he said: "Iraq was still a potential danger, because ....." etc.... maybe. But he didn't say that. How could Iraq be a bigger threat if they had no weapons?

Which is what he said in the first statement: "I don't think they existed."

There is no proof that Saddam was selling small amounts of WMDs to terrorists and Syria already has a WMD arsenal.
  • 0

#53 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 28 January 2004 - 12:37 AM

TD..You have got to be a plant. And a real stupid one at that.

You are so blatantly blindly stupid that you simply cannot be taken seriously.

Go back and tell your bosses that you are a complete failure in your duty..

You cant even look good at trying to twist facts, obscure the truth etc. You quite simply are a moron.

Someone called you educated and bright earlier.

I certainly see nothing bright about you..Owl
  • 0

#54 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 28 January 2004 - 12:59 AM

Coastal,

If the Times article is accurate and Kay's statements are acurate and not wishful, then it means there were two fantasy-lands. One in American intelligence and one in Baghdad. But if it isn't true, then watch for some angry words from the CIA. Leaks, of course.

On the other hand I remember the chief Iraqi military scientist when he surrendered in May 2003 saying: there are no weapons. The were destroyed. I say this for prosperity.

He didn't say anything about Saddam pushing for a new weapons program. And he should have known.

BTW the anomaly between the two statements from Kay still stands.
  • 0

#55 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 28 January 2004 - 02:04 AM

Coastal,

not lying...but read this and tell me what you think...

http://www.casi.org....3/msg04467.html

might give you an idea of the report.
  • 0

#56 Ronnieraygun

Ronnieraygun

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts

Posted 28 January 2004 - 03:04 AM

"tell a lie, that lie gets exposed, tell another to cover for it, that cover gets blown, tell another lie....and on and on.

pretty soon your belief system resembles that of the likes of thorpoop.

in mitigation, this process often occurs on an unconscious level - the perpetrator is unaware of the mess their thinking is creating internally."


I'll bet Hillary knows ALL about this, doesn't she source...:P
  • 0

#57 Rickk

Rickk

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 17843 posts

Posted 28 January 2004 - 03:14 AM

Geee...you must be right!

Okay everybody...put Saddam back in power...ressurect his two worthless off spring! You there! Cover that mass grave back up...you, over there...yes you! Get back in that rape-room! Put those 12-14 year olds back jail for not joining the Baath party, open the terror camp back up, let's start the Oil for Saddam's Palaces back up again!

Whew! Glad we cleared that one up!


These people were all mistaken!



http://www.whitehous...20030603-7.html



http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/
  • 0

#58 thorDADDY

thorDADDY

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts

Posted 28 January 2004 - 04:38 AM

Owl,

Only the truly ignorant would seemingly waste time in claiming the stupidity of others.

Brendon,

Again, David Kays reports signify the real threat that was posited prewar. Rogue nations with WMDs colluding with Jihad. Only the most foolish would look at Iraq, with its ruthless and murderous dictator at the HEART of Jihad, and conclude what the critics are concluding. That Saddam was completely innocent of not only having WMDs but having no ties to terrorism. Not only does it defy all obfuscating actions by Saddam including the need for 17 SCRs demanding DISARMAMENT, but it shows how politically warped are the minds of President Bush's critics. Once more, both SCR 1441 and the incessant calls for more inspections was tantamount to the "world community" claiming Saddam HAD WMDs and AGREEING with the assessment.

As for Saudi Arabia, I believe we had this conversation before. You state an objection to overthrowing Hussein while promoting war with Saudi Arabia. How do you reconcile these views? Secondly, most have suggested that the overthrow of the House of Saud is EXACTLY what OBL wants in order to secure an Islamic stronghold. Is this advisable?

Larani opines,

>And for those folks who go about screaming about what a bad guy Saddam was thats not justification. why, because there are many dictators as bad as Saddam and were not preparing to invaded them are we.

-Where's the nuance? All dictators AREN'T EQUAL when it comes to the PRINCIPLE responsibility of the AMERICAN PRESIDENT. You're suggestion actually says that we either crush ALL dictators or NONE at all. This isn't a view based in reality.
  • 0

#59 James571

James571

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 28 January 2004 - 05:58 AM

You have to admit 3 things could have happened to the WMD.

1.) They are hid somewhere in Iraq.

2.) They were moved or sold to another country.

3.) Saddam actually destroyed them before the war during Bush's "grace period". (grace peroid: the time it takes to get the troops in position to kick some a s s).


The reason I personally think we went into this war was just flat out revenge. I will never forget the facial expression of Bush when they told him in that classroom about the Trade Towers. I was once with someone who was just told a drunk driver hit his wife and kids head on (thankfully they lived), he had that same expression. A few days later he wanted revenge and wanted to kill that guy. The Afganistan war could not quince his thirst for revenge and Iraq was always a thorn in his and Daddys side. If it wasnt for re-election and our troops spread a little thin, he would have taken out Seira as well. You all know his background pretty well, he is not the most intelligent fella and is an athletic, arrogant, and high strung man. Bush is not the guy you can hit at the bar and get away with it. He'll hit back, beat up on your friends and hold a gruge from now on.
  • 0

#60 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 28 January 2004 - 08:14 AM

Larani,

I would have thought that is what most thats what most Americans think.

I had the same opinion as you. It didn't occur to me in 2002 that Iraq didn't have the great arsenal of WMDs. It was only Blix's reports that started to change my mind.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rickk,

While we are at it we can resurrect the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children who died from the sanctions. And the twenty thousand dead Iraqis who recently got blown to bits.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Coastal you say,
Quote:<<Sorry but I don't give much credence to a "biologist" on a "Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq" message board, whos sole identity and credentials consist of tombo_combo @ DELETETHISlycos .com>>

OK Coastal, I won't give any credence to David Kay, a self confessed spy for American intelligence who Blix sacked in '91 for trying to bribe Iraqi scientists to defect. Who also "ceaslessly attacked Blix in 2002 and repeatedly testified before congressional committees in the months preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom as to the ineptness of Blix and the U.N. inspection regimes. Kay argued that Saddam certainly had "weapons of mass destruction".

David Kay doesn't sound to impartial, eh? ;)
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2019 Pravda.Ru