Wikileaks: WMD program existed in Iraq prior to US invasion

[dyna mo]

why has this information been ignored?

The release by Julian Assange's web site Wikileaks of classified documents reveals that U.S. military intelligence discovered chemical weapons labs, encountered insurgents who were specialists in the creation of toxins, and uncovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

http://www.examiner.com/article/wiki...to-us-invasion
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010...aks-iraq-docs/

moreover:

WikiLeaks may have just bolstered one of the Bush administration?s most controversial claims about the Iraq war: that Iran supplied many of the Iraq insurgency?s deadliest weapons and worked hand-in-glove with some of its most lethal militias.

The documents indicate that Iran was a major combatant in the Iraq war, as its elite Quds Force trained Iraqi Shiite insurgents and imported deadly weapons like the shape-charged Explosively Formed Projectile bombs into Iraq for use against civilians, Sunni militants and U.S. troops.

A report from 2006 claims ?neuroparalytic? chemical weapons from Iran were smuggled into Iraq. (It?s one of many, many documents recounting WMD efforts in Iraq.) Others indicate that Iran flooded Iraq with guns and rockets, including the Misagh-1 surface-to-air missile, .50 caliber rifles, rockets and much more.

[wehateporn]

Wikileaks is a great source to use

[Ferus]

A report from 2006 claims ?neuroparalytic? chemical weapons from Iran were smuggled into Iraq.

If it had documented the facts , it would be useful. Everything else is just noise, spin and insinuations.

[Harmon]

[Tom_PM]

Why say it's ignored? We knew in 1988 that Iraq had chemical weapons, he gassed the Kurds in norther Iraq with it which was all over the news including the dead bodies.

I think a bigger point is why did we allow Hussein to sign a peace treaty with H Norman Swartzkoff and then use those weapons as an excuse for a new war so much later on?

[Tom_PM]

Then again why do we revere a president who illegally sold weapons to Iran too? Anyway.. guess there's enough facts out there.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

Wikileaks is a great source to use

It is only a good source when it suits your theories.

[DWB]

Assuming they did have them, I wonder where they put them right before the invasion?

Is it really that easy to move something like that while you're being watched and about to be attacked, or are they still there and just very well hidden?

[PornoMonster]

Originally Posted by DWB

Assuming they did have them, I wonder where they put them right before the invasion?

Is it really that easy to move something like that while you're being watched and about to be attacked, or are they still there and just very well hidden?

If they can hide Tanks / Jets and lots of things, they can hide a few 55 gal Drums of Chemicals. YES, no one said how much they had, and not many people know how small amounts it takes for some of them...

Logic, if we wanted to we would of planted them...


They Had them, they hid them or sold them. Trust me 1989-92 it was my Job ....

[_Richard_]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_p...us_use_in_Iraq

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2917701.html

Iraq War Anniversary: Birth Defects And Cancer Rates At Devastating High In Basra And Fallujah (VIDEO)

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by DWB

Assuming they did have them, I wonder where they put them right before the invasion?

Is it really that easy to move something like that while you're being watched and about to be attacked, or are they still there and just very well hidden?

i'm still trying to wrap my head around why this wikileaks wasn't news, does it seem weird to you that this was skipped over?

i did read this though, just c&p'ing-

According to the latest WikiLeaks document "dump," Saddam’s toxic arsenal, significantly reduced after the Gulf War, remained intact. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict and may have brewed up their own deadly agents, according to the WikiLeaks web site.

During that time, former Iraqi General Georges Sada, Saddam's top commander, detailed the transfers of Iraq's WMD. "There [were] weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

Gen. Sada's comments came just a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, claimed that Saddam Hussein "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."

[JFK]

Originally Posted by baddog

It is only a good source when it suits your theories.

indeed, by now Assagne, is trying to get out of the shit he's in , so any "miracle" discoveries are suspect, I would say

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_p...us_use_in_Iraq

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2917701.html

Iraq War Anniversary: Birth Defects And Cancer Rates At Devastating High In Basra And Fallujah (VIDEO)

]

why would you dodge and deflect this?

if there ever were a conspiracy theory, this is it. aren't you interested in the truth?

why would you try to derail this thread?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by JFK

indeed, by now Assagne, is trying to get out of the shit he's in , so any "miracle" discoveries are suspect, I would say

this was discovered 3 years ago.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

why would you dodge and deflect this?

if there ever were a conspiracy theory, this is it. aren't you interested in the truth?

why would you try to derail this thread?

you're talking about WMD and iraq right?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

you're talking about WMD and iraq right?

no, _Richard_, i asked why was and is the information ignored. why are you ignoring it?

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

no, _Richard_, i asked why was and is the information ignored. why are you ignoring it?

you asked three questions

i went with the first one

anyway

[dyna mo]

awesome d&d!

[EddyTheDog]

They had and used WMDs against the Kurds - I have never understood what all the fuss was about - Is it just that they did not use them against 'us'?...

[theking]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

why has this information been ignored?





http://www.examiner.com/article/wiki...to-us-invasion
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010...aks-iraq-docs/

moreover:

This information was reported in the news media during the conflict...so it really hasn't been ignored.

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by baddog

It is only a good source when it suits your theories.

Wrong, Wikileaks is never a good source

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by theking

This information was reported in the news media during the conflict...so it really hasn't been ignored.

i'm mean the wikileaks reveal, why has that been ignored for the last 3 years?

also, we were led to believe there were wmds, then no wmd were found and we were led to believe that we where lied to. that's how i remember it going. i never dug around the wikileaks deal and it never came across my news radar.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Assange and WikiLeaks are about as anti-governmental toward the USA as you can get -- yet he supports the US WMD claim. Supposedly, the Iranian and Iraqi stockpiles of chemical weapons were destroyed after the Iraq-Iran War and you know Iraqis and Iranians never lie ... Alex Jones and others told us so ...

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

Wrong, Wikileaks is never a good source

my question isn't whether or not wikileaks is a reliable source, my question is just like the question you always ask around here-

why has it been ignored?


if it weren't ignored, then perhaps it could scrutinized more.


isn't that what you truthers claim you are doing here? presenting questionable information that provokes thought? this is the same as that.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by DWB

Assuming they did have them, I wonder where they put them right before the invasion?

Is it really that easy to move something like that while you're being watched and about to be attacked, or are they still there and just very well hidden?

He had jets and tanks buried in the desert, not too hard to bury warheads and plastic drums. He had 10+ years to do it.

His primary goal was to keep Iran at bay by making sure everyone believed he had stockpiles without provoking the UN too much. I am not saying the invasion was justifiable on the grounds that he was an imminent threat... but there is no question that he 1) had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and 2) refused to allow UN inspectors to verify or account for everything and 3) no one could account for their destruction, therefore must be presumed to exist.

If Saddam had simply let the UN inspectors do their jobs, he'd be sitting in one of his many palaces right now.

[theking]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i'm mean the wikileaks reveal, why has that been ignored for the last 3 years?

also, we were led to believe there were wmds, then no wmd were found and we were led to believe that we were lied to. that's how i remember it going. i never dug around the wikileaks deal and it never came across my news radar.

It was reported during the conflict...that small amounts of this or that kind of WMD was found...the ability to reconstitute etc...and various types of U.N. violations. It was reported time and time again that Iran was assisting Iraq in various ways. Nothing in the Wikileaks is new so that would be the reason it was/has been "ignored".

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Assange and WikiLeaks are about as anti-governmental toward the USA as you can get -- yet he supports the US WMD claim. Supposedly, the Iranian and Iraqi stockpiles of chemical were destroyed after the Iraq-Iran War and you know Iraqis and Iranians never lie ... Alex Jones and others told us so ...

this really is a fascinating twist on it all.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by theking

It was reported during the conflict...that small amounts of this or that kind of WMD was found...the ability to reconstitute etc...and various types of U.N. violations. It was reported time and time again that Iran was assisting Iraq in various ways. Nothing in the Wikileaks is new so that would be the reason it was/has been "ignored".

well, you and i both see it posted here that no wmd's were found and we were lied to, so maybe the question is why do some people ignore both sets of news? the ones you mention reported during the war and then the confirmation years later, via the leaks?

[seeandsee]

so what, usa have same stuff

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by theking

It was reported during the conflict...that small amounts of this or that kind of WMD was found...the ability to reconstitute etc...and various types of U.N. violations. It was reported time and time again that Iran was assisting Iraq in various ways. Nothing in the Wikileaks is new so that would be the reason it was/has been "ignored".

i'm refreshing my memory on this, but so far

On May 27, 2003, a secret Defense Intelligence Agency fact-finding mission in Iraq reported unanimously to intelligence officials in Washington that two trailers captured in Iraq by Kurdish troops "had nothing to do with biological weapons." The trailers had been a key part of the argument for the 2003 invasion; Secretary of State Colin Powell had told the United Nations Security Council, "We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails.

In a speech before the World Affairs Council of Charlotte, NC, on April 7, 2006, President Bush stated that he "fully understood that the intelligence was wrong, and [he was] just as disappointed as everybody else" when U.S. troops failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.[86]

[L-Pink]

[QUOTE=Harmon;19597269]






.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by theking

It was reported during the conflict...that small amounts of this or that kind of WMD was found...the ability to reconstitute etc...and various types of U.N. violations. It was reported time and time again that Iran was assisting Iraq in various ways. Nothing in the Wikileaks is new so that would be the reason it was/has been "ignored".

ok, this is what you are referring to, in all honesty, i don't recall this, up until i came across that wikileaks stuff recently i was under the assumption that the "we were lied to" conclusion was the right one.

Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, several reported finds of chemical weapons were announced. During the invasion itself, there were half a dozen incidents in which the U.S. military announced that it had found chemical weapons. Some cases resulted in field tests showing false-positives.
A post-war case occurred on January 9, 2004, when Icelandic munitions experts and Danish military engineers discovered 36 120-mm mortar rounds containing liquid buried in Southern Iraq. While initial tests suggested that the rounds contained a blister agent, a chemical weapon banned by the Geneva Convention,[citation needed] subsequent analysis by American and Danish experts showed that no chemical agent was present.[107] It appears that the rounds have been buried, and most probably forgotten, since the Iran?Iraq War. Some of the munitions were in an advanced state of decay and most of the weaponry would likely have been unusable.
A 7 pound block of cyanide salt was discovered by U.S. military in safe-house for Abu Musab Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist residing in Iraq since prior the U.S. invasion.[108] The poison block was discovered in a raid of the safe-house on January 23 of 2003.[109]
Demetrius Perricos, then head of UNMOVIC, stated that the Kay report contained little information not already known by UNMOVIC.[110] Many organizations, such as the journal Biosecurity and Bioterrorism, have claimed that Kay's report is a "worst case analysis"[111]
Beginning in 2003, the ISG had uncovered remnants of Iraq's 1980s-era WMD programs. On June 21, 2006 Rick Santorum claimed that "we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons", citing a declassified June 6 letter to Pete Hoekstra saying that since the 2003 invasion, a total of "approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent" had been found scattered throughout the country.[112][113]
The Washington Post reported that "the U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active." It said the shells "had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988."[114]
On July 2008, 550 metric tonnes of "yellowcake" the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium, arrived in Montreal as part of a top-secret U.S. operation. This transport of the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment, included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a voyage across two oceans. The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars."[115]

[theking]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

ok, this is what you are referring to, in all honesty, i don't recall this, up until i came across that wikileaks stuff recently i was under the assumption that the "we were lied to" conclusion was the right one.

Well that is not the only report...I recall hearing about this or that being found many different times...but the fact is it was never really large amounts...and that report does not say anything about Iran helping Iraq...which was reported on many times.

[Rochard]

I could care less if Iraq had chemical weapons or not. The truth is Iraq signed a peace treaty establishing the no fly zones, and then shot at our planes. No matter what planet you are from, if you shoot at a jet it's an act of war. We were already in a defacto state of war - they would target and shoot at US war planes, and we would bomb them.

The rest is just details.

[MaDalton]

when you look at tens of thousands of dead people, the billions it has cost and the fact that the whole area is much more unstable than before - does anyone still think this war was a good idea? WMD or not? Also considering that Saddam had no connection to Al Quaida?

[media]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

when you look at tens of thousands of dead people, the billions it has cost and the fact that the whole area is much more unstable than before - does anyone still think this war was a good idea? WMD or not? Also considering that Saddam had no connection to Al Quaida?

I tend to side with this statement.. Shoulda just let them motherfuckers sort it out themselves..

[theking]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I could care less if Iraq had chemical weapons or not. The truth is Iraq signed a peace treaty establishing the no fly zones, and then shot at our planes. No matter what planet you are from, if you shoot at a jet it's an act of war. We were already in a defacto state of war - they would target and shoot at US war planes, and we would bomb them.

The rest is just details.

They did not agree to "no fly zones" and it was not even brought up at the time of their surrender. The U.S. and France established the no fly zones unilaterally at a later date when Saddam began to use aircraft against the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the South. If I remember correctly France later with drew from patrolling the "no fly zone".

But yes...Iraq spent years of "lighting" up our Aircraft and even firing on them on occasion...and yes our Aircraft would frequently take out their radar and and anti aircraft defenses.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

when you look at tens of thousands of dead people, the billions it has cost and the fact that the whole area is much more unstable than before - does anyone still think this war was a good idea? WMD or not? Also considering that Saddam had no connection to Al Quaida?

i am not sure what that has to do with the topic of the thread other than

WikiLeaks: The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection Confirmed, Again

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...=1225&bih=1035

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i am not sure what that has to do with the topic of the thread other than

WikiLeaks: The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection Confirmed, Again

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...=1225&bih=1035

So Iraq not only had confirmed WMD, but also connections to Al Qaeda?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Rochard

So Iraq not only had confirmed WMD, but also connections to Al Qaeda?

according to the documents wikileaks leaked.


i think there were rumblings prior to that re: a connection, but like the wmd's, i'll be darned if i ever caught wind of that.

[theking]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

according to the documents wikileaks leaked.


i think there were rumblings prior to that re: a connection, but like the wmd's, i'll be darned if i ever caught wind of that.

Iraq had very indirect ties with Al Qaeda...and no working relationship with them...but there were gunfounded rumors of a close connection.

After the invasion elements of Al Qaeda appeared among the Iraq insurgent fighters at some point in time.

[dyna mo]

here's a reference to tie revealed by the wikileaks:::::::::

The case for removing Saddam Hussein from power just got due to an unlikely source: Wikileaks. Newly-released files about detainees held in Guantanamo Bay identify two individuals who served as liaisons between Saddam Hussein?s regime and the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
A leaked file says that Jawad Jabber Sadkhan, an Iraqi intelligence officer who moved to Afghanistan in 1998, ?admittedly forged official documents and reportedly provided liaison between the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq.? The government of Afghanistan at that time was the Taliban, which employed him as a vicious interrogator for its intelligence service. His driver said he was also close to Osama Bin Laden, who paid him before and after the 9/11 attacks. Another detainee revealed that Sadkhan would travel to Iraq through Iran to retrieve supplies for the Taliban. Sadkhan was not universally popular, as his superior, Abdul-Hadi al-Iraqi, warned Saif al-Adel in November 1998 that he was part of a group of Iraqis ?involved in un-Islamic activities.? This accusation did not end the relationship.
According to another detainee named Abbas Habid Rumi al-Naely, Sadkhan was a member of one of Saddam Hussein?s top units tasked with assassinating political opponents. The U.S. government also identified al-Naely as a liaison between Saddam Hussein?s regime and Al-Qaeda. He joined the Taliban in 1994 while living in Baghdad. One U.S. government memo shows he was accused of preparing attacks on the U.S. and British embassies in Pakistan in August 1998 with an Iraqi intelligence officer on the orders of Osama Bin Laden. Later memos did not include the charge.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

awesome d&d!

was it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iraq...D-4DB8CD7F9357

this is the report, dated 2006.. so x numbers of years after the whole 'wmd' would have remotely mattered.. because the invasion happened years before

[theking]

As to Iraq having large amounts of WMD on hand prior to the invasion of Iraq...it was reported that shortly prior to the invasion there were truck convoys going into Syria and some believe and still believe to this day that is where Iraq's WMD's are.

Me...I believe Saddam. After his capture Saddam told his one and only interrorgator that he eventually had destroyed his WMD...as per the U.N.'s order to do so...after the '91 conflict...and that he was running a bluff...not so much against the U.S. but against other countries in the region...primarily against Iran.

He miscalulated and pushed the bluff to long and to far.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

If Saddam had simply let the UN inspectors do their jobs, he'd be sitting in one of his many palaces right now.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

was it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iraq...D-4DB8CD7F9357

this is the report, dated 2006.. so x numbers of years after the whole 'wmd' would have remotely mattered.. because the invasion happened years before

yeah, again, the op was a question about why the wilileaks report has been ignored, you still choose to not answer. i mean that's fine, either way, but that was my question to gfy, i'm interested in people's opinions on why that has been ignored. i have my opinion on why i've ignored it, was hoping to get some other views.

no biggie if you don't want to participate.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

yeah, again, the op was a question about why the wilileaks report has been ignored, you still choose to not answer. i mean that's fine, either way, but that was my question to gfy, i'm interested in people's opinions on why that has been ignored. i have my opinion on why i've ignored it, was hoping to get some other views.

no biggie if you don't want to participate.

Hotlink

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

yeah, again, the op was a question about why the wilileaks report has been ignored, you still choose to not answer. i mean that's fine, either way, but that was my question to gfy, i'm interested in people's opinions on why that has been ignored. i have my opinion on why i've ignored it, was hoping to get some other views.

no biggie if you don't want to participate.

how was it ignored? you yourself posted links to news articles about it during the time the cables were sent

i did participate. That wikileak is about 2007, 2 years after the battle of fallejuh and the use of white phosphorous.. so when those 'chemical weapons' were being smuggled in by the iranians, US forces had been using chemical weapons so long the birth defects that are devastating that entire area were already well on its way

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by baddog

Hotlink

seriously?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

how was it ignored? you yourself posted links to news articles about it during the time the cables were sent

i did participate. That wikileak is about 2007, 2 years after the battle of fallejuh and the use of white phosphorous.. so when those 'chemical weapons' were being smuggled in by the iranians, US forces had been using chemical weapons so long the birth defects that are devastating that entire area were already well on its way

cool, got it, thank you for your participation.



hoping to hear from some others now on why the 2010 wikileaks was ignored.