'Dead Wrong' -- Inside an Intelligence Meltdown

[gworld]

Former aide: Powell WMD speech 'lowest point in my life'

A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state's presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "the lowest point" in his life.

Intelligence Meltdown (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/index.html)

[GTech]

How does something that doesn't exist get removed?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158470,00.html

U.N. satellite imagery experts have determined that material that could be used to make biological or chemical weapons and banned long-range missiles has been removed from 109 sites in Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors said in a report obtained Thursday.



How does something that doesn't exist get looted?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/middleeast/13loot.html

In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein’s most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government’s first extensive comments on the looting.

The Iraqi official, Sami al-Araji, the deputy minister of industry, said it appeared that a highly organized operation had pinpointed specific plants in search of valuable equipment, some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications, and carted the machinery away.

Dr. Araji said his account was based largely on observations by government employees and officials who either worked at the sites or lived near them.

“They came in with the cranes and the lorries, and they depleted the whole sites,” Dr. Araji said. “They knew what they were doing; they knew what they want. This was sophisticated looting.”



How does someone based in Iraq come up with 20 tons of chemical WMD in a location where they didn't exist?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/27/164917.shtml

Twenty tons of chemical WMD in a plot by zarqawi that was uncovered before it could be carried out. Zaraqawi was in Iraq prior to the invasion.


How does something that doesn't exist turn into a chemical wmd lab?

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/08/14/alleged_chemical_weapons_factory_uncovered_in_iraq/
Sunday, August 14, 2005

US troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on US and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said yesterday.

The early morning raid last Monday found 11 precursor agents, ''some of them quite dangerous by themselves," a military spokesman, Lieutenant Colonel Steven Boylan, said in Baghdad.

Combined, the chemicals would yield an agent capable of ''lingering hazards" for those exposed to it, Boylan said. The likely targets would have been ''coalition and Iraqi security forces, and Iraqi civilians," partly because the chemicals would be difficult to keep from spreading over a wide area, he said.



*Note - except the Jordan WMD plot, the other sources are recent events. One within the last week, the others within the past few months.

[Crazy_Rob]

Colin Powell's "lowest point of his life"?

Auhhhh, poor baby! Did he lose any family members as a result of his lies? He should be tried as a criminal just like the rest of 'em! :mad:

I'm going to watch that CNN program tonight. I'm sure it'll be pretty soft and apologetic...but we'll see.

[GTech]

Does that mean these people lied and should be tried as criminals also?

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

[Crazy_Rob]

Does that mean these people lied and should be tried as criminals also?


Some of them most certainly should be.

[GTech]

Some of them most certainly should be.

Such as? And for what?

[gworld]

Bill Clinton, George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Sand burger, Joe Lieberman, Wesley Clark, Colin Powell,......

May be that is the reason it is called "Intelligence meltdown". Some one made a environment of mass hysteria that caused every body in USA jump on the same bandwagon while the rest of the world was wondering what is wrong with these people. From the historical point of view it will be interesting if one day we find out who were the people behind feeding the society false information to cause the intelligence meltdown.

[GTech]

How does something that doesn't exist get removed?

How does someone based in Iraq come up with 20 tons of chemical WMD in a location where they didn't exist?

How does something that doesn't exist turn into a chemical wmd lab last week?

[gworld]

an unidentified man was planning to blow up 20 ton of an unidentified chemical 2 years later and that is the proof that WMD existed. :confused:
Very reliable information. :rolleyes: you can blow up 20 ton of any household chemical or plastic and you will have a lot of poisons gas but I don't think it qualifies as what WMD suppose to be or the reason to go to war for it.

[GTech]

Deceptive, but an inaccurate observation. There were 13 Al-Qaida and Al-Zarqawi loyalists involved and 10 of them were put on trial in May/June, 2005. They are all identified.

It was estimated that the 20 tons of chemical wmd could have killed 80,000 people. Authorities captured the chemical weapons coming into Jordan through Syria.

What were the 20 tons of chemicals? VX nerve agent. Worth noting, that Syria does not produce VX, however, saddam did.

Zarqawi has taken credit for the plot, in addition to members of the group who claimed they worked with Zarqawi in Iraq on the plan.

But that's just one of the three above. 20 tons of VX Nerve Agent is a lot of chemical wmd. So are the 1500 gallons discovered last week in Iraq. Not to mention the looting of something that doesn't exist.

[Design Agent]

Does that mean these people lied and should be tried as criminals also?

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

Basis of going to war: 45 minute claim in the UK dossier. Imminent danger

Untrue.

Weapons inspectors were not allowed to complete their jobs.

Secret (but obvious) objective: Get saddam.

Arms to Iraq - Who makes these bits and pieces you need to build this weaponary? There are only very few countries. ( i dont know if Ive said this before but Africans dont get shot by Swaziland 38s or by a Kenyan made shotgun).

[GRIM]

It was estimated that the 20 tons of chemical wmd could have killed 80,000 people. Authorities captured the chemical weapons coming into Jordan through Syria.

What were the 20 tons of chemicals? VX nerve agent. Worth noting, that Syria does not produce VX, however, saddam did.

Zarqawi has taken credit for the plot, in addition to members of the group who claimed they worked with Zarqawi in Iraq on the plan.

But that's just one of the three above. 20 tons of VX Nerve Agent is a lot of chemical wmd. So are the 1500 gallons discovered last week in Iraq. Not to mention the looting of something that doesn't exist.
It has still yet to be proven that there was any VX, even still it was not '20 tons of VX Nerve Agent'

No body that I see is disputing what was looted, of which from what I've read the UN knew what was there, it was inventoried and made either inoperable, under seal, and or allowed to have by the UN.

[GTech]

It should have been 20 tons of chemical wmd, including VX. I've pointed out where that came from in the past.

Oddly enough, you have still not proven there wasn't any VX. Do you have new information to add?

[GTech]

Wait, I thought it was just mouthwash and hair dye? Nothing to see here, move along :D

[GRIM]

It should have been 20 tons of chemical wmd, including VX. I've pointed out where that came from in the past.

Oddly enough, you have still not proven there wasn't any VX. Do you have new information to add?
Oddly enough you are using the proof that it's vx by ONE supposed expert who had no first hand knowledge and used his best guess it was VX. I honestly would not think there is a need to disprove it as there is absolutely no proof it was VX, have you found something to back it up with any rationale it was?

[GTech]

As I recall in the other thread where we carried this on for quite some time, you needed "absolute proof." Or was that before any action was taken against Iran?

I don't take issue with the WMD expert I've previously quoted. Are you saying you do?

[GRIM]

As I recall in the other thread where we carried this on for quite some time, you needed "absolute proof." Or was that before any action was taken against Iran?

I don't take issue with the WMD expert I've previously quoted. Are you saying you do?
Iran we had pretty much the same stance, you however appeared to jump at speculation to back your points, something you always claim not to use when it does not back your points.

I do not take issue with the expert, he however is guessing and it is far from proof. It is 'speculation' there is no way to argue it is fact. Show proof it was VX and I'll believe you, but an expert guessing it's VX because i believe it was the 'safest to mix in the field' I forget the exact quote is a bit less than proof. No first hand knowledge, no testing, only an assumption that it was VX. Especially using his own statement if he's basing it off of safety in the field, do you realy believe a terrorist on a suicide mission is going to be worried about safety? All he/she would care about is that they live long enough to detonate the device.

[GTech]

You are assuming he is guessing. That's your opinion. Lacking though, as usual, is any proof to discredit his claim. Do you have anything that can discredit his expertise as a WMD expert?

I don't care if you believe the position I take or not. I don't seek your approval!


All he/she would care about is that they live long enough to detonate the device.


In which case, safety would be of the most concern to prevent premature detonation.

I present a source. You present...opinion and speculation. That works!

[GRIM]

You are assuming he is guessing. That's your opinion. Lacking though, as usual, is any proof to discredit his claim. Do you have anything that can discredit his expertise as a WMD expert?

I don't care if you believe the position I take or not. I don't seek your approval!
I know you don't seek my approval, you however are using 'speculation' for your proof.

In which case, safety would be of the most concern to prevent premature detonation.

I present a source. You present...opinion and speculation. That works!
You present a source that is 'speculating' no first hand knowledge. Still no proof, pure speculation, but if fits with your agenda so go ahead use it. I however will call you on it every time as it is not actual evidence, factual, or anything of the sort, as I've stated in the past.

[GTech]

So you admit you have nothing to discredit the WMD expert's analysis? Other than your opinion?

Speaking of agendas, you resurrected this old post, of which this discussion was gone into for many, many pages in another topic since this post, why?

And I will call you on your speculation every time, until you come up with some that says otherwise. But that isn't going to happen, is it? ;)

[GTech]

Let's see...I have a source, by which I can quote. You have...

What was it you have?

[uca]

Basis of going to war: 45 minute claim in the UK dossier. Imminent danger

Untrue.

Weapons inspectors were not allowed to complete their jobs.

Secret (but obvious) objective: Get saddam.

Arms to Iraq - Who makes these bits and pieces you need to build this weaponary? There are only very few countries. ( i dont know if Ive said this before but Africans dont get shot by Swaziland 38s or by a Kenyan made shotgun).


1)Saddam has been a threat since he got the power. That's why he was used against Iran, because he was dangerous and had to be managed and eventually removed. Ask Kuwait!

2)Nor would they ever complete their job, getting so much money, from both the UN and Saddam, living an easy and rich life.

3) What's wrong with getting such a criminal? Not getting him would have been much worse, ask the curds!

4) AK47s are a lot more popular among terrorists, criminals, revolutionary movements and so on, I wonder why? Maybe they are just more available?

[GRIM]

So you admit you have nothing to discredit the WMD expert's analysis? Other than your opinion?
Why would I need to discredit it? It is not proof, even taking what he says word for word he's speculating.

Speaking of agendas, you resurrected this old post, of which this discussion was gone into for many, many pages in another topic since this post, why?
You linked to it, sorry didn't realise it was old my 'bad'

And I will call you on your speculation every time, until you come up with some that says otherwise. But that isn't going to happen, is it?
Where I speculate or you accuse me of it is trying to show an example such as the patriot act, you however are using an experts own 'speculation' for proof, a clear difference. Of course there is going to be some speculation laid out in any sane debate, otherwise there would be no way to debate anything. However using speculation as proof is a total different ball game.


Let those reading see if Loftus's comments are 'speculation' or absolute proof it was VX.

Here is a link to your expert himself talking of the issue, sure doesn't look like first hand knowledge or facts to me, looks like speculation of which 'might' be correct, nothing submitted by your or that I've personally read on the subject though shows proof to it being true.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/larryelder/2004/05/06/11594.html


And from the description it appears this is the form of nerve gas known as VX. It's very rare, and very tough to manufacture . . . one of the most destructive chemical mass-production weapons that you can use. . . . They wanted to build three clouds, a mile across, of toxic gas. A whole witch's brew of nasty chemicals that were going to go into this poison cloud, and this would have gone over shopping malls, hospitals . . .

---edit i'll let the thread DIE, sorry did not realise it was old :( I think enough has been stated that those reading can see the difference between it being fact and or speculation, if they want to see it as fact then fine, they however have a funny definition of proof and or facts ;)

---edit as I said I would let it die I don't wish to bump the thread with a new post

To which you offer nothing to dispute. Not one thing, other than your opinion.

I have a source I can quote (thanks for doing my work for me above!), and you have...?

What do you have?
Not a problem, I have no fear of doing even more research for you on this if it proves me wrong or right. This however does not show proof, it shows one expert stating it 'appears' to be VX, not that it actually definitively is.

[GTech]

To which you offer nothing to dispute. Not one thing, other than your opinion.

I have a source I can quote (thanks for doing my work for me above!), and you have...?

What do you have?

[latehorn]

If someone points a gun against hrblcantra; he will not be afraid because he have no proofs that the gunman have a fullworking gun with deadly ammo.

[GRIM]

If someone points a gun against hrblcantra; he will not be afraid because he have no proofs that the gunman have a fullworking gun with deadly ammo.
Let me ask you, are you an idiot? Do you not see the difference between someone speculating with no first hand knowledge compared to someone who actually has proof. Sorry for the bumping the thread, I appologize.

[gworld]

Let those reading see if Loftus's comments are 'speculation' or absolute proof it was VX.

Quote:
And from the description it appears this is the form of nerve gas known as VX. It's very rare, and very tough to manufacture . . . one of the most destructive chemical mass-production weapons that you can use. . . . They wanted to build three clouds, a mile across, of toxic gas. A whole witch's brew of nasty chemicals that were going to go into this poison cloud, and this would have gone over shopping malls, hospitals . . .



Speculation:

Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.

Appears

1- To seem or look to be
2- To seem likely

Gtech

This the reason when someone says it appears to be then it means he is speculating and have no hard facts. :rolleyes:

[latehorn]

I'l tell ya.. if we could attack Nazi-germany in the early 30-is, cuaslaties would be less than 80 miljon. But I guess thats just what we have to live thruogh again, just because you need primary proofs.

"I don't know with what weapons WW3 will be fought with, but I know that WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones" - Albert Einstein

[GRIM]

I'l tell ya.. if we could attack Nazi-germany in the early 30-is, cuaslaties would be less than 80 miljon. But I guess thats just what we have to live thruogh again, just because you need primary proofs.
You obviously do not know the facts of why this dispute was brought up. Even if I was totally for the war when I see someone putting out something that has not been proven as facts I will call them on it. I am not disputing the war because of this statement.

I'll give Gtech it could very well could be VX, I am not disputing that it is not VX I am disputing the factual basis to come up with that conclusion at this time.

Again I appologize for the bump :( someone yell at me already for this lol

primary proofs
I take exception to this as I would have been for the war with less 'proofs' including a different reasoning and or timing.

[GTech]

Which is where the experience of a WMD expert is vital, gworld. For example, if it were you or hrb, then I would put no stock into it. As as such, neither of you have anything to discredit the WMD expert's opinion.

Just because you don't want it to be true, doesn't mean it's not. Just came across some more info on him:

http://www.slattsnews.observationdeck.org/?p=502


Jordan recently seized 20 tons of chemicals trucked in by confessed al Qaeda members who brought the stuff in from Syria. The chemicals included VX, Sarin and 70 others. But the media seems curiously incurious about whether one could reasonably trace this stuff back to Iraq. Had the terrorists released a “toxic cloud,” Jordanian officials say 80,000 would have died!
So, I interviewed terrorism expert John Loftus, who once held some of the highest security clearances in the world. Loftus, a former Army officer, served as a Justice Department prosecutor. He investigated CIA cases of Nazi war criminals for the U.S. attorney general. Author of several books, Loftus once received a Pulitzer Prize nomination.
John Loftus: There’s a lot of reason to think (the source of the chemicals) might be Iraq. We captured Iraqi members of al Qaeda, who’ve been trained in Iraq, planned for the mission in Iraq, and now they’re in Jordan with nerve gas. That’s not the kind of thing you buy in a grocery store. You have to have obtained it from someplace.


You obtain it from the local drug store! :rolleyes:

An interview with Loftus:

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3670

I quoted a source, I stand behind that source. You have ...? What do you have?

[GRIM]

Jordan recently seized 20 tons of chemicals trucked in by confessed al Qaeda members who brought the stuff in from Syria. The chemicals included VX, Sarin and 70 others. But the media seems curiously incurious about whether one could reasonably trace this stuff back to Iraq. Had the terrorists released a “toxic cloud,” Jordanian officials say 80,000 would have died!
So, I interviewed terrorism expert John Loftus, who once held some of the highest security clearances in the world. Loftus, a former Army officer, served as a Justice Department prosecutor. He investigated CIA cases of Nazi war criminals for the U.S. attorney general. Author of several books, Loftus once received a Pulitzer Prize nomination.
John Loftus: There’s a lot of reason to think (the source of the chemicals) might be Iraq. We captured Iraqi members of al Qaeda, who’ve been trained in Iraq, planned for the mission in Iraq, and now they’re in Jordan with nerve gas. That’s not the kind of thing you buy in a grocery store. You have to have obtained it from someplace.
I am posting this in hopes you at least see my point not to disprove you as it 'may' be VX, it very well could be VX.

However every mention of sarin or vx has come from articles that feature Loftus and or extreme right wing publications with no reference to how they came up with the Sarin. If you have one please post it.

Again it very well could be VX, I'll even give you that you are probally right it is VX if that makes you happy, there still however is no factual basis other than an expert with no first hand knowledge speculating that it is VX.

Maybe I'm being picky, but if your statement would for example state 'it's been reported it could be VX' I would not give it a second thought.

I simply fear others reading a thread and taking that as absolute proof, then spreading to others who don't know the basis of it causing alot of uninformed people. If this was a closed thread forum, with only a few speaking who knows I may not even bring it up.

---edit don't you just hate when you think you fixed a typo only to see it was correct the first time, ohwell sure I missed about 20 others :)

[latehorn]

You obviously do not know the facts of why this dispute was brought up. Even if I was totally for the war when I see someone putting out something that has not been proven as facts I will call them on it. I am not disputing the war because of this statement.

I'll give Gtech it could very well could be VX, I am not disputing that it is not VX I am disputing the factual basis to come up with that conclusion at this time.

Again I appologize for the bump :( someone yell at me already for this lol

primary proofs
I take exception to this as I would have been for the war with less 'proofs' including a different reasoning and or timing.
Thankyou for admitting that you are pro-war. Yes, I also believe that the war appeared for another reason but I guess the basic people would never understand it.

About WMDs.. Saddam actually had WMDs.. but they disappeared :rolleyes:

[GRIM]

Thankyou for admitting that you are pro-war. Yes, I also believe that the war appeared for another reason but I guess the basic people would never understand it.
For the right reasons, in the right time no doubt I would have supported the administrations decision to go to war.

About WMDs.. Saddam actually had WMDs.. but they disappeared
I believe he probally did have some to start with when we went in, but thus far it has yet to trully be proven.

[GTech]

You are being picky. It lends confusion to your positions, because you say you are for one thing, but argue something completely different. Just an observation. I see what you argue and what you don't, I'm sure others do as well. I don't buy the last paragraph. I've seen you skip right over too many things in other topics/threads.

I've quoted a source, a qualified source with the experience to make such a claim. You have ... ?

[Crazy_Rob]

Yes, I also believe that the war appeared for another reason but I guess the basic people would never understand it.


:rolleyes:

[GRIM]

You are being picky. It lends confusion to your positions, because you say you are for one thing, but argue something completely different.
That's your opinion, I see nothing wrong with being for one thing but not allowing those on your side to embelish facts, I think it only strengthens the case when you're willing to get those twisted distortions cleared up and use the actual facts. If you like to use the entire assortment of facts and distortions that's up to you.

Just an observation. I see what you argue and what you don't, I'm sure others do as well. I don't buy the last paragraph. I've seen you skip right over too many things in other topics/threads.
Yes I don't debate every topic, every mistep, I however do when I feel it's important, or I have something to say on the matter. Of course some items I'm not going to have any knowledge on, or care one way or the other as it depends on the topic. I've called even anti war people and stuff have I not?


I've quoted a source, a qualified source with the experience to make such a claim. You have ... ?
You've quoted speculation,



tell you what, I'm still getting into the whole debate as I'm out of practice I do think I'm getting there though, guess that's for you to decide.

If you see an item that is obviously fictional but supporting my position posted by another member call me on it if you wish ;)
I admit sometimes I read a post and either don't respond, or respond to quickly and 5 seconds later it processes to what it had meant and I took it the wrong way.

[GTech]

That's your opinion, I see nothing wrong with being for one thing but not allowing those on your side to embelish facts, I think it only strengthens the case when you're willing to get those twisted distortions cleared up and use the actual facts. If you like to use the entire assortment of facts and distortions that's up to you.


I see what you argue and what you don't. Just an observation.


Yes I don't debate every topic, every mistep, I however do when I feel it's important, or I have something to say on the matter. Of course some items I'm not going to have any knowledge on, or care one way or the other as it depends on the topic. I've called even anti war people and stuff have I not?


Have you? I see what you argue and what you don't. Just an observation.


You've quoted speculation,

I've quoted an expert fully qualified to make such a claim and stick by it. I'm arguing your speculation.

I have a source, you have ... ? What do you have?

[yo-yo]

It was estimated that the 20 tons of chemical wmd could have killed 80,000 people. Authorities captured the chemical weapons coming into Jordan through Syria.


:rolleyes:

Some Experts Scoff at Terror WMD Threat

By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent
Sat Oct 29,11:51 PM ET

AMMAN, Jordan - After the warehouse raid in northern Jordan, the word from authorities horrified the people of Amman. Terrorists linked to al-Qaida had assembled a fearsome array of chemicals and planned a bombing that would send a 2-mile-wide "poison cloud" over this Middle East capital, killing as many as 80,000 people, military prosecutors said.

Osama bin Laden's foot soldiers had finally concocted a weapon of mass destruction.

A year later, in the hard light of scientific scrutiny, that sinister scenario looks more fictional than factual.

"Eighty thousand! That would have been like Hiroshima. And that was an atomic bomb," says Samih Khreis, one of the alleged plotters' lawyers.

The defense attorneys aren't alone in scoffing at the "WMD" claim. International experts checking the suspects' supposed list of chemicals — from the industrial compound ammonium to the explosive nitroglycerin — say either the defendants or the Jordanian authorities, or both, had little inkling about the makings of a chemical weapon.

The compounds "may generate some toxic byproducts, but they're unlikely to result in significant deaths by poisoning," said Ron G. Manley of Britain, a former senior U.N. adviser on chemical weapons.

The poison cloud of Amman is one more dubious episode in the story of the terrorist quest for doomsday arms, a dark vision that has become an axiom of today's counterterrorist strategy. Four years into the "global war on terror," half the Americans surveyed this summer said they worry "a lot" about the possibility of such a WMD attack, according to the U.S. polling firm Public Agenda.

What now Gtech? ;) :p

[GRIM]

Do you have the link to the article yo yo?

n/m googled it

[GRIM]

Have you? I see what you argue and what you don't. Just an observation.
Well then I'm glad for you being a chess master, or could it be that only certain topics have been discussed?


I've quoted an expert fully qualified to make such a claim and stick by it. I'm arguing your speculation.

I have a source, you have ... ? What do you have?
I'm using your own expert who factually disproves your point, He speculates he does not say we know with abolute certainty it has to be, or that he tested and it was found to be, he speculates that it is.

[GTech]

What now? LOL, a lawyer for al qaida? Heh!

Don't know Ron G. Manley.

Heh, surely something better to defend terrorists with?

[GRIM]

What now? LOL, a lawyer for al qaida? Heh!

Don't know Ron G. Manley.

Heh, surely something better to defend terrorists with?
I actually had a post to yo yo about that, then I noticed the quotes from others, why I was hoping to find more info out on it before going one way or the other ;)

copy of the full article
http://www.herald-sun.com/firstnews/37-662148.html
reading it now

[GTech]

I'm using your own expert who factually disproves your point, He speculates he does not say we know with abolute certainty it has to be, or that he tested and it was found to be, he speculates that it is.
[/quote]

You are wishing the expert I quoted didn't say what he said. I'm using his position based upon experience for a point and will continue to do so. And I note you still have nothing.

I have a source, you have ... ?

[gworld]

I've quoted an expert fully qualified to make such a claim and stick by it. I'm arguing your speculation.

I have a source, you have ... ? What do you have?

Since your expert "Loftus" is such indisputable expert that everything he speculates in must be true, do you care to explain his other expert opinions and tell us if you believe it. :rolleyes:

"LOFTUS: Right, Aswat is believed to be the mastermind of all the bombings in London.

JERRICK: On 7/7 and 7/21, this is the guy we think.

LOFTUS: This is the guy, and what's really embarrassing is that the entire British police are out chasing him, and one wing of the British government, MI6 or the British Secret Service, has been hiding him. And this has been a real source of contention between the CIA, the Justice Department, and Britain.

JERRICK: MI6 has been hiding him. Are you saying that he has been working for them?

LOFTUS: Oh I'm not saying it. This is what the Muslim sheik said in an interview in a British newspaper back in 2001.

JERRICK: So he's a double agent, or was?

LOFTUS: He's a double agent.

JERRICK: So he's working for the Brits to try to give them information about Al-Qaeda, but in reality he's still an Al-Qaeda operative.

LOFTUS: Yeah. The CIA and the Israelis all accused MI6 of letting all these terrorists live in London not because they're getting Al-Qaeda information, but for appeasement. It was one of those you leave us alone, we leave you alone kind of things. "

So Gtech do you believe that London bombings were work of MI6 agent because Loftus said so, before you answer I must mention this is from a FOX NEWS program on July 29.

How about claims that Bin Laden was or is CIA asset and had a meeting with CIA in July 2001 in Dubai hospital?

How about the articles in his web site about Bush-Nazi Link?
or how about this form his web site:

Loftus's article proves that Pollard was completely innocent of the major charges against him, namely that Pollard leaked the names of US spies behind the Iron Curtain. The second, and most controversial, part of the article explains why Pollard is still in prison if the Government knows he is innocent. Pollard gave Israel the 1984"blue book" listing Arab intelligence agents, including Usama Bin Laden. Pollard's file shows that, contrary to what Congress was told, US intelligence knew perfectly well that they were laundering money through Saudi Arabia to fund known terrorists in their drive to oust the Russians from Afghanistan. To protect themselves from charges of negligence, senior members of US intelligence covered up the Saudi-Al Qaeda connection right up to 9/11.

Do you believe in all of this or do you chose and pick in the expert opinion?

[GRIM]

You are wishing the expert I quoted didn't say what he said. I'm using his position based upon experience for a point and will continue to do so. And I note you still have nothing.

I have a source, you have ... ?
LOL, I'm pointing out that even your expert does not state he has proof, or without a doubt, he assumes it is of which you continue to try to twist it is. He is making an assumption with his experience, of which you could assume but no you flat out state it is.

[GTech]

gworld, source your material. I might comment if you do.

HRB, he's making an analysis based upon his expertise. But then I'm not going to defend him personally. I accept his position that there was VX.

I have a source, you have ... ?

[GTech]

BTW, hrb, I'm waiting to post any further on yo's post. I want to see if you spot what I do. This would be one of those cases ;)

[GRIM]

HRB, he's making an analysis based upon his expertise. But then I'm not going to defend him personally. I accept his position that there was VX.

I have a source, you have ... ?
I have a source as well, the source I actually gave you from your own expert of which in his expert opinion he believes it to be VX that still is far from proof it is VX is it not?

[IamNed]

Not another 20 page political thread...

[GRIM]

BTW, hrb, I'm waiting to post any further on yo's post. I want to see if you spot what I do. This would be one of those cases
Well #1 the defense attorney's I don't put on credense into, #2 the article does go on, #3 it does not state where the experts came from for the most part. I did read the entire article and am trying to process it thus far, plus it does not mention it was not VX, but then again only 1 expert has stated he believed it to be so I don't see where it would need to say that.

So far I have no real opinion on the article, I see some things I would like cleaned up a bit to believe it though.

[gworld]

gworld, source your material. I might comment if you do.

HRB, he's making an analysis based upon his expertise. But then I'm not going to defend him personally. I accept his position that there was VX.

I have a source, you have ... ?

GO TO HIS OWN WEB SITE. :rolleyes:

You said that he is indisputable expert but now it seems that you are saying when he says it "APPEARS" to be VX, he is an indisputable expert but his other opinions are not expert opinions and are disputable. ;)

[GRIM]

Not another 20 page political thread...
Not another attempt to get to 4 reds first, trying to set a record?

[GTech]

You said that he is indisputable expert but now it seems that you are saying when he says it "APPEARS" to be VX, he is an indisputable expert but his other opinions are not expert opinions and are disputable. ;)

I have said no such thing.

Source your material and I may comment.

[GRIM]

Gtech did I miss something else in the article, if I did please point it to me. I may have read something incorrectly, it does happen and I'm willing to admit it.

[GTech]

Well #1 the defense attorney's I don't put on credense into, #2 the article does go on, #3 it does not state where the experts came from for the most part. I did read the entire article and am trying to process it thus far, plus it does not mention it was not VX, but then again only 1 expert has stated he believed it to be so I don't see where it would need to say that.


Right, it does not state where these "experts" are from when referring to the dashed comments "-".


So far I have no real opinion on the article, I see some things I would like cleaned up a bit to believe it though.

Yea, just a little cleaning will do that ;)

[GRIM]

Yea, just a little cleaning will do that
lol cleaning as in sources to those other 'experts' the article talks about ;)

[GRIM]

might need this with the thread. Funny how repubs only can say there was WMD's because you couldn't prove there were none. Frist, delay, rove all should be let off because clinton did "something" worse. I never hear them say what it was.
to whom left me this, it looks like you're supporting what I said but then why did you give me red?

lol, no hard feelings but thought it was funny.

[gworld]

I have said no such thing.

Source your material and I may comment.

As I posted before, my source is his own site:

http://www.john-loftus.com

His claim about congress 9/11 cover up from congress:

http://www.john-loftus.com/pollard.asp

Bush family Nazi connections:

http://www.john-loftus.com/bushharriman.asp

Different Bush, 9/11, Enron and Bin laden connections:

http://www.john-loftus.com/enron1.asp

Loftus claim that London bombing was the work of MI6 agent:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/London_attack/mastermind_mi6_asset.htm


Is your EXPERT right on all the above cases or ONLY when he claims that it "APPEARS" to be VX? :rolleyes:
It is interesting how you chose and pick the information and sometimes he is an indisputable expert while he is not an expert when it doesn't suit you.

[GTech]

I don't know if he is right on other cases. Do you? I've not argued them or read them.

I do know that you haven't provided anything saying it wasn't VX. As I recall though, you considered it just mouthwash and hair dye. You didn't do a very good job defending the terrorists in that debate :D

I never said he was an indisputable expert either. Why do you suggest I did, when you know I didn't? Maybe I should wait for someone else to call you on that.

But, since you bolded your question, you are obviously right :rolleyes:

[gworld]

I don't know if he is right on other cases. Do you? I've not argued them or read them.

I do know that you haven't provided anything saying it wasn't VX. As I recall though, you considered it just mouthwash and hair dye. You didn't do a very good job defending the terrorists in that debate :D



Does this mean that your indisputable expert is not always right but only when you want him to be?

I don't need to provide anything that says it wasn't VX, you are the one who have to provide a proof that it was VX. As I have mentioned many times before, you can not prove a negative. :rolleyes:

I think everybody can see that you have no proof, after all your searches you have come up with a word of questionable expert that even doesn't say that it was VX but it says it "APPEARS" to be VX. After all, it will be good for him if he says that it appears to be VX since it definitely meant couple of extra shows on Fox news and couple of extra pay checks. ;)