quote:SARGAT, Iraq, April 4 � Preliminary tests conducted by MSNBC.com indicate that the deadly toxins ricin and botulinum were present on two items found at a camp in a remote mountain region of northern Iraq allegedly used as a terrorist training center by Islamic militants with ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network
quote:The field tests, developed by Osborn Scientific Group in Lakeside, Ariz., are regarded by some experts as very effective and have been used by U.N. weapons inspectors and federal government agents around the Sept. 11, 2001, attack site in New York City.
quote:Although U.S. officials for months have leveled charges that the Ansar al-Islam and al-Qaida militants were producing poisons in northern Iraq, it wasn�t until this week that specialist U.S. teams were able to gain access to the Sargat camp to test for traces of biological and chemical weapons.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, first off, I'm going to refrain from placing my confidence in a test carried out by MSNBC. I'm not saying I think they're necessarily wrong, but I'm not going to assume they're right.
But, if they're right, for the sake of arguement... We've found that a terrorist organization in a remote area of Iraqi Kurdistan (almost in Iran) had at least traces of agents used in chemical and biological weapons? What, exactly, is that supposed to prove? This, of course, is assuming that we aren't the ones who bombed them w/ the stuff in the first place...
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Could have been executed; there is also evidence of torture.
The Iraqis have claimed that it is storage for bodies of soldiers from the Iran-Iraq war that have recently been returned. Iran has said that some of the remains may be their soldiers.
"I think this discovery shows what kind of guy is running this country. "This stuff is just dumped in the Euphrates without any concern for the many people who drink and wash with water from the river."
And this differs from the US how? In that the dangerous chemicals being dumped into the waterways are different ones?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
You see, what they dump in there water are "terror toxins," or, in other words, "bad toxins." What we dump in our rivers here are "good toxins." See, there's a difference. Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Their toxins are un-American, wheras our toxins are Freedom toxins, commie boy.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Did those used to be French toxins? Le chlorofluorocarbonnaise?
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Actually around 10:30am (Baghdad time), right after the U.S. destroyed Saddam's self portrayed "Chief Crazyhorse" statue, their propaganda minister claimed to have poisoned the U.S. troops that 'weren't' in Baghdad.
Now obviously EVERYTHING that piece of shit was saying was a lie...but does it really look good for him/Iraq to say to the rest of the world that the they 'poisoned' American troops, in a lie, mind you, when in fact a good chunk of the point of this whole crazy war is to essentially prove that the Iraqis had such "poisons"??
First they lie about not having chemical weapons and then they lie about using them to kill US soldiers...that man much jerk off to his own voice because I really don't see him possibly accomplishing much else with what he is saying, especially when US tanks were only a few blocks away.
Hell, I bet if a US tank rolled by in the background while he was giving one of his interviews, he would probably still tell the world Saddam is baking him brownies in the kitchen rather than admit the ignominy of defeat.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: but does it really look good for him/Iraq to say to the rest of the world that the they 'poisoned' American troops, in a lie, mind you, when in fact a good chunk of the point of this whole crazy war is to essentially prove that the Iraqis had such "poisons"??
Because a large portion of the rest of the world doesn't care about that anymore. They care about the fact that the US has steamrollered in without (in their opinion) sufficient evidence to warrant such an action. They care that the US has taken this action without support from the larger international community. They care that the US has (possibly) broken international law. The argument about whether Saddam actually has illegal weapons anymore is moot.
Or, alternatively, if the police started breaking down doors and searching houses, without warrents, simply because they think that some of those houses might have cannabis in, do you think it'll matter if they actually turn up some cannabis, when the search was illegal in the first place?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Interesting analogy. If this war were a police investigation in the US, any weapons we find there would be inadmissable in court, Saddam Hussein would be released for lack of evidence, and he couldn't be tried again because of double jeopardy.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Of course, the real reason that the "large portion of the rest of the world doesn't care about that anymore" is that when they started to realize that they were going to be proven wrong, that Hussein had retained chemical weapons and was daily misleading their much-vaunted "inspectors," they had to change the main focus of their argument.
Because it was either that, or stock up on K-Y jelly to make it less painful when the US shoved all the chemical weapons it would find in Iraq up their collective asses.
They WERE separate articles. Looks as though they've been merged.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote: April 7 � The U.S. military is testing samples from a site in Iraq where soldiers found possible chemical weapons, defense officials said Monday. Embedded journalists in Iraq reported instances where banned weaponry was found, including on some 20 rockets armed with warheads containing deadly sarin and mustard gas that were apparently ready to fire.
So they have this stuff. They know the USA is going to kick their collective asses. They know if the stuff is found, and Sadam is captured, that he and all of his captured cronies are going to stand trial for war crimes against the Kurds.
I don't know about you, but if I knew it was going to be my ass anyway, I'd have used the things and taken as many people with me as possible. I had figured that we would find WMD the hard way, by having them go off in the midst of Coalition Troops.
Are the Iraqi's so incompetant?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Of course, while it's quite acceptable to think the Iraqis would run truckloads of civilians at US checkpoints or bomb their own marketplaces and leave bits of cruise missile lying around as evidence, to imagine that the US would start planting WMD caches (which the Iraqis had unaccountably failed to use) is totally beyond the pale. The good guys would never do something like that.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
I won't bother translating, as the news will undoubtedly make its way to CNN soon (hooray for objectivity).
Edit: hmm, this appears to concern a second, seperate find.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Yes, you'll notice my most recent article refers to what appear to be at least THREE separate 'finds'.
The tests at Hindiyah, currently reported to be pesticides, have been described as "inconclusive." Some samples show sarin, some show pesticide. As the article states, �Often the first test is wrong, the second as well,� the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. �And believe me, if it turns out to be chemical weapons, you won�t miss the story.�
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Of course, the real reason that the 'large portion of the rest of the world doesn't care about that anymore' is that when they started to realize that they were going to be proven wrong, that Hussein had retained chemical weapons and was daily misleading their much-vaunted 'inspectors,' they had to change the main focus of their argument."
Who ever said Iraq necessarily didn't have the things? If the other countries thought that, they would have been calling for the inspectors to leave Iraq. The arguement wasn't "Iraq has no banned weapons, so we shouldn't attack them". The arguement was "we're still looking for the weapons, so let's hold off on blowing people up while we don't have to".
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Yes, the rest of the world didn't scream too much when Hitler started his happiness in Europe either. Is it only the US and, part of, the UK have learned lessons on how to deal with fucking lunatics?
Too bad the UN has turned in to a weak and pathetic organization, that needs to be proped up by a Coalition. The United Nations will suffer the same fate as the League of Nations...
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"Is it only the US and, part of, the UK have learned lessons on how to deal with fucking lunatics?"
If by "learned lessons" you mean "learned NOT to bring said fucking lunatics to power in the first place", then no.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Yes, no-one seemed too concerned about him when he was just gassing his own people and being anti-Iranian.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"Of course, the real reason that the 'large portion of the rest of the world doesn't care about that anymore' is that when they started to realize that they were going to be proven wrong, that Hussein had retained chemical weapons and was daily misleading their much-vaunted 'inspectors,' they had to change the main focus of their argument."
Who ever said Iraq necessarily didn't have the things? If the other countries thought that, they would have been calling for the inspectors to leave Iraq. The arguement wasn't "Iraq has no banned weapons, so we shouldn't attack them". The arguement was "we're still looking for the weapons, so let's hold off on blowing people up while we don't have to".
And the response was "well, how long will that take, and what's going on in the meantime? I mean, the sanctions are being violated every day, there's widespread smuggling, they're training home-grown and international terrorists in Salman Pak, and there's an offshoot of Al-Qaeda in the north! Meanwhile, the people are starving, and being brutalized, and Saddam's training his next-of-spawn to take over!"
And the reply was "uh... you need to wait and give them more time."
"Time to do what? Hide more stuff? The only reason he's showing the inspectors ANYTHING is because he wants to draw out any action we might take for as long as possible, to HIS advantage. He lied to them for seven years, kicked them out (and we notice you didn't do anything about that then, so no wonder you won't act now,) and continues to be only just 'cooperative' enough to get the more timid members of the UNSC to vote to stave off an attack. Time for what?"
"time... to... um... go... um... and..."
"Yes, it's time for him to go."
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Okay, we shall rectify this previous mistake, and let North Korea about it's happy business, then, when they nuke someone, say South Korea or Japan, we can do nothing, with everyone wanting us to be isolationists now. Oh, wait, reports from around the world have seemed to insinuate that the other governments would rather the US take the leading role in dealing with North Korea. Again, with China doing the blocking, the UN has no ability to do anything, and I say, let North Korea play with their nukes and pull I Corps out of South Korea, after all, we can't have them occupying another nations soil.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I mean, the sanctions are being violated every day, there's widespread smuggling..."
Oh, horrors...
"...they're training home-grown and international terrorists in Salman Pak, and there's an offshoot of Al-Qaeda in the north!"
And the US gov't trains its terrorists at the School of the Americas (though I think they changed the name now). Let's bomb DC before we start on Baghdad.
"Meanwhile, the people are starving, and being brutalized, and Saddam's training his next-of-spawn to take over!"
Okay, you do have a point there. After all, we're seeing now first-hand what happens when you put one war-like leader in control of a country, and later his son takes control...
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"Meanwhile, the people are starving, and being brutalized, and Saddam's training his next-of-spawn to take over!"
Okay, you do have a point there. After all, we're seeing now first-hand what happens when you put one war-like leader in control of a country, and later his son takes control...
I think this should apply to North Korea, instead of a son, you have an equally demented leader in waiting. So why aren't we there when we should be? NK's transgressions are a lot more serious than Iraq. And they shoot missiles with ranges longer than the Al Samoud over Japan. Not at, over.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Heh, cute.
quote: Despite all that is happening we do not hear the voice of the UN. This makes us wonder whether the organisation was hit by friendly fire.
Al-Akhbar - Egypt
But seriously, before this whole Iraqi war/American crusade business, I thought things were looking up with North Korea. They even had that exchange with Japan where they revealed that they had people captured decades ago to train N.Korean agents.
Now, everything seems shot to hell with North Korea randomly threatening Japan and the US. What the heck happened? Aside from being termed part of "The Axis of Evil", although they don't seem to have any real connection with Islamic fundamentalism terrorism....what happened? I need the info. (Exams seriously cut down on news intake)
You'd think that China would be in the back room telling them to "shut the fuck up" considering that the US, Japan, and South Korea probably constitute a huge portion of their trade/economy. China has nothing to gain from North Korea randomly nuking countries. Whether you ascribe to the "Evil Red China" theory or a more realistic benevolent outlook, China has nothing to gain from forcing a confrontation now. China's economy and technology is still catching up with the US much faster than the US can pull away, it would be in their best interests either way to prolong a conflict.
In short, WTF is causing all the ruckus with North Korea when nothing seems to be happening? Insight?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I think this should apply to North Korea, instead of a son, you have an equally demented leader in waiting."
I'm not sure if there was confusion, or if you were just offering an alternate opinion, but I'm going to point out, for clarity's sake, that I was, in fact, referring to the Bush Dynasty here in the US.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Bah double-post.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: And the US gov't trains its terrorists at the School of the Americas (though I think they changed the name now). Let's bomb DC before we start on Baghdad.
Really, you should know better than to start quoting paranoiac conspiracy theories and Urban Legends.
And the old "Bush is trying to take over" crap is REALLY getting tired, it's a clear signal of your increasingly Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaaf-like position.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote: April 8 � Conclusive testing is still pending, but the latest tests indicate that barrels found in central Iraq do not contain chemical weapons agents, as first suspected, U.S. military sources said on Tuesday. Another suspicious find was also being investigated, while a third report dealing with rockets was discounted by a top general.
Looks like that answers my question.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote: And the old "Bush is trying to take over" crap is REALLY getting tired, it's a clear signal of your increasingly Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaaf-like position.
News today has changed my mind. I can not argue against going in after a guy who puts children in prison, but after all of this is over, and the smoke clears, we still have to deal with what the Bush administration pushed through Congress in the name of protecting the Homeland. Untill that crap is over turned, for the most part, then the office of then President is still a danger to the public, if the wrong person is elected.
He getsw a pass from me on the war, I wont hold that against him, but the things we are doing here, in the name of security is going to far.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Yes, the coniving little Bush got that pushed through all too nicely during a time of national duress, that alone should be cause for a full examination and elimination of several sections.
No sarcasm is intended....
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Agreed.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Of course, the "wrong person" wasn't actually elected at all.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Well, no, we are talking after the fact, Bush got it pushed through, a more interesting person could come in to office later....
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote: "You ask yourself a lot of questions when you see the things they [the US] did to try and demonstrate that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons, like the fake contract with Niger," he said.
He was referring to the discovery by UN inspectors that documents the US alleged proved Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state had been forged.
Admittedly, I've been a little out of touch with world events due to organic chemistry studying...and before that combinatorics...and before that.....
But, thats the first I've heard about that. Does anyone have more information on what he's talking about?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kosh: ...after all of this is over, and the smoke clears, we still have to deal with what the Bush administration pushed through Congress in the name of protecting the Homeland. Untill that crap is over turned, for the most part, then the office of then President is still a danger to the public, if the wrong person is elected.
He getsw a pass from me on the war, I wont hold that against him, but the things we are doing here, in the name of security is going to far.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)