50 false news

CIA sources on Iraq were 'deliberately misleading:' Powell
The Central Intelligence Agency and other US Government institutions were sometimes deliberately misled about alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the war, Secretary of State Colin Powell has admitted.

The comments, made on Sunday in an interview with NBC television, represented the first public official admission that the US Government had been fed disinformation about Saddam Hussein's suspect arsenal of chemical and biological weapons and relayed it to the world community without questioning it.


again
news from this morning
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1110149.htm

I sell bridges for those who beleive that shit is not staged

one so far
more to come
ill let you know when my cia buddies plant them

When you're sitting around your parents' basement masturbating with a jar of peanut butter and molding your shit into 10 pound busts of Lenin, do you know you're insane, or do you think you're normal?

Call us when the shuttle lands.

What difference does it make at this point? :)

Too late and too much doubletalk I think.

I don't think it was staged. If they were going to plant it they'd have planted something serious.

My guess is it came in with some migrating terrorists who decided to set up cells in the new iraq.

is that your new angle now that you cant say "BUSH LIED ABOUT WMD which made the war unjustified" ?

Why wouldn't those migrating terrorists used the WMD somewhere else already? Because the WMD are from Iraq.

Well it's either going to be that or "Bush put them there."

Either way, the leftist peace party will never admit they were wrong.

we have a winner...


hardly seems like that was much of a WMD if it was detonated and nothing was mass destroyed :1orglaugh

i guess the terrorists can afford them but saddam couldnt

Wow..
The prime example of inbred brain washed americans steps forward

the artillery shell was found on an Al-Queda bomber you fucking moron.. Meaning it was probably brought into the country. Plus I don't quite think that ONE artillery shell with a small amount of nerve gas, which didn't even hurt anyone after it went off, really constitutes Weapons of Mass Destruction.. As the name says these weapons are supposed to be able to cause MASS DESTRUCTION..
How is it possible that you could possible be so in love with Bush, so fucking stupid, and yet live in the USA? What the fuck have you been smoking man

haha

its true.

:)

Did everyone else keep their receipts too?

The 12,000-page weapons declaration that Iraq delivered to the United Nations on Dec. 7 details the history of its chemical weapons program before the 1991 gulf war, listing dozens of foreign companies that provided most of the chemicals and equipment needed for the program.
American officials and private weapons specialists say the list identifies 31 major foreign suppliers - including two based in the United States.
Of the 31 companies named in 1996, most are European, including 14 from Germany, 3 each from the Netherlands and Switzerland and 2 each from France and Austria.
Spokesmen for both TUI and one of the successor companies of Hoechst said their major chemical units were sold off years ago; the spokesmen said they were convinced that Preussag and Hoechst had done nothing wrong in their dealings with Iraq.
The Iraqi declaration said that in 1982, Preussag provided Iraq with 30 tons of phosphorous oxychloride, a chemical used to make the deadly nerve gas sarin, and equipment for its chemical weapons laboratories. Hoechst is identified as the seller of 10 tons of phosphorous oxychloride.
Alcolac, the Baltimore company, pleaded guilty in 1989 to federal export violations involving shipments of chemicals that could be used by Iraq to make mustard gas.
According to the Iraqi declaration, officials said, Alcolac provided thiodiglycol, the mustard gas precursor, while Al Haddad, the other American company, was the source of 60 tons of a chemical that could be used to make sarin.
There is no telephone listing for Al Haddad in Nashville, where it was based. News reports in the 1980's identified the company's owner as Sahib al-Haddad, an Iraqi by birth, who denied that he had shipped any chemicals to Iraq for use in weapons.
By sheer bulk, a Singapore-based company may have been the largest supplier of the chemicals used in the 1980's to make chemical weapons, including 3,300 tons of a chemical that can be used to make nerve gas and 950 tons of an separate chemical used to make mustard gas and sarin.

my god you're daft.
ONE round hardly justified an entire war.

you're right. we finished searching iraq completely and only found 1 round. idiot
ill bookmark and bump this thread when they find more
then what will you say? "we only found enough to kill the state of california! hardly enough to justify a war"

Don't go there yet -- I want to watch them squirm about the discovered WMD first, then you can make them dance to that other tune.

when you find more al qaeda members using nerve gas? cool, it'll justify finding osama..

"In 1995, Japan's Aum Shinrikyo cult unleashed sarin gas in Tokyo's subways, killing 12 people and sickening thousands. In February of this year, Japanese courts convicted the cult's former leader, Shoko Asahara, and sentence him to be executed. "

Mass destruction? 12 people out of maybe hundreds on the train?

"Antidotes to nerve gases similar to sarin are so effective that top poison gas researchers predict they eventually will cease to be a war threat. "

Wow, looks so deadly. :1orglaugh





http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...a/iraq_sarin_4

What about the mustard gas that was found 2 weeks ago?

If one of those 12 was your mother, I'd bet you'd have a different opinion.

You're incorrect, the problem with that attack was delivery, if the same attack had used aerosolized sarin everyone on that train would have been dead.

Point is it's no more deadly than a AK14.

i guess if you had enough rounds, you could kill the same amount as a nuke too

this is a moronic statement. one fucking shell isn't the same as finding more. when they find enough to kill a small country then talk.

Correct.

A nuke can kill millions in a few seconds, can't really compare. With your logic, you can kill just as many with knives. Just need lot's of time :)

The thing is everybody with at least half a brain knew they existed in the first place. More don't need to be found to prove their existence. The fact that Saddam used them in the past proved their existence years ago.

You know, Iraq admitted when Saddam's brother in law defected that they had several hundred sarin gas shells, but claim that they exploded them all. I guess they lied...

No, see, there are people HERE on GFY who don't believe that -- they think he destroyed all his WMD under (get this) pressure from the UN!!!

hahahahaha

they dont care, they can spin and belittle it all they want, but the fact is he had them, used them, and they are still there.

No, people just know that he was never a threat to America. People know that Bin Laden was responsible for 911 and Bush shifted the blame on Iraq so people would back his war.

First off they didnt find WMD's , they found one small shell that went off and hurt no one thats not mass destruction. Colin Powell said we had bad information today. Also if blood thirsty, Hitler wanna be Saddam had these wmds. Why didnt he use them when we invaded them ? Knowing the US would bring a end to his reign of terror, he doesnt use these tools to send the white demons back to hell? Use your fucking brains dont be sheep.

So who's a saint then, Bush? Is Bush a "good guy"? You are a fucking sheep.

Great argument, The United Nations destroyed thousands of litre's of chemical weapons, thousands of munnitions that were modified for chemical weapons after the Gulf war, Why didn't he use them in that war? just because he didn't use them, doesn't mean the weapons did not exist?

Every country probably has some amount of sarin somewhere.

I think it's pretty well known information that he did use them in the Gulf War. Recall Gulf War Syndrom?

It's also pretty well known information that he doesn't have WMD's at the present because they were destroyed in 1992's Gulf War. They miraculously found the facilities used for producing the weapons, and amazingly the last date was... drum roll please... 1992.

Sheep. Baaaa.

Does anyone on this board remember why we went into Iraq in the first place?

Al-Qaeda came to Iraq and brought WMD's with them. It's a known fact that they've been working on Sarin Agent but I doubt that Al-Qaeda have lots of such chemicals.

United States was much better prepared for chemical war fare then the Saddam loyalist. By using chemical WMDs during the war Iraq would of inflicted more damage amongest themselves then opposing forces.

For one it would confirm the WMD and justify the war immediately. Other countries would have gotten involved if Iraq deployed chemical weapons

Your not thinking , its the end of his reign this monster wouldnt use them stop this or to go out in a blaze of glory straight to Allah. He was a paper tiger and easier to find and hit then Osama bin Laden whose family Daddy is in business with. 9/11 was all arabs the saudi government has funded terrorists, why havent we hit them? Instead of some weak old man. We supplied all the wmds he had and he killed all those kurds after the us told them rise up and then abandoned them.

I really don't think the terrorists are too concerned about inflicting damage upon themselves. :2 cents: We are there to "fight the terrorists" right?

Almost 800 Americans and 8,000+ Iraqis killed during the past year-odd alone and a single shell claimed to contain Sarin has turned up.

If this claim doesn't turn out to be an outright lie or another false alarm (as all the previous "finds" have done), who in their right minds can believe that it justifies so many dead? Forget the Iraqi dead if you must: can you seriously imagine visiting 800 US families and explaining that this is what our own people died for?

"Gulf War Syndrome" was also blamed on DU, and seeing as no one has come up with scientific data that concludes either were the cause, I'll file that under S for "speculation"

I'll also file the "1992" under speculation seeing as the United Nations Chemical Destruction Group were still destroying Chemical weapons in Iraq in 1994.
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/ik/ik171.htm

How many Iraqis were killed a year by Saddam and his son on average?

And you think that the " evil" Saddam would have cared??/
Hummm: I lose 1000 troops for every 10 US troops I kill" If he had them, he would have used them, as he used the " scuds" in the Gulf War.

LOL... That would have bothered him with the US invaders 50 miles from Baghdad ....
Oh.. other countries??? Didn't you already have all the wothwhile countries in your coalition of " the willing"... A few more would havbe been bad news for Saddam???

You know, it is not because you don't see an elephant in my office that there is none in my office. In fact, I maybe have a full herd of them.

Like I said in above, they destroyed all types of Chemical weapons after the Gulf war, why didn't he use them then? the fact he used didn't use them doesn't prove a thing.

You can file everything that comes out of Bush's mouth as "speculation".

All we know is that the American people are a huge herd of sheep, that will follow a religious leader without question. Such is the definition of being religious, to have faith... blind faith. Such is to NOT question motives, for questioning motives is to question your religion.

So until America can get beyond blind faith, and learn to raise some eyebrows, we will have a bunch of sheep that will follow anyone such as Bush.

Last time I checked, we were still in Afghanistan or maybe my military buddies that I served with for eight years are lying to me....