PDA

View Full Version : Foiled WMD attack in Jordan tied to Iraq



highsea
05-05-2004, 01:03 AM
In a confession broadcast on Jordanian television, the unnamed WMD conspirator revealed: "In Iraq, I started training in explosives and poisons. I gave my complete obedience to [Abu Musab al] Zarqawi," the al-Qaida WMD specialist whose base of operations was in Iraq.

Excerpts from the WMD conspirator's confession broadcast by ABC's "Nightline" late Monday show that the WMD plot was planned and trained for in Iraq more than a year before the U.S. invasion, with the terror suspect admitting, "After the fall of Afghanistan, I met Zarqawi again in Iraq."

In film footage broadcast by "Nightline," Jordanian television showed hundreds of plastic containers that had been removed from the trucks that Jordanian officials said were filled with chemical weapons.

Jordan's King Abdullah said last week that the five trucks originated from Syria and were intercepted just 75 miles from the Syrian border. Syria has long been suspected as a repository of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

The entire article (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/27/164917.shtml)

-CM

eg8r
05-05-2004, 07:32 AM
No other country in the world doubts Saddam had the weapons and the capability to produce more. The problem is all the naysayers just want to see a big garage filled with the stuff, because they know that will never happen.

The we have people like Q who does not believe chem and bio weapons are WMDs, he somehow believe only Nuclear weapons are WMDs. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif He likes to say this Admin started calling the chem and bio weapons, WMDs when they have been called that for many years prior to the current Admin.

eg8r

moblsv
05-05-2004, 08:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> No other country in the world doubts Saddam had the weapons and the capability to produce more.

<font color="blue"> That must be why we had the whole worlds support &lt;/sarcasm&gt; </font color>

The problem is all the naysayers just want to see a big garage filled with the stuff, because they know that will never happen.

<font color="blue">Maybe that's because that's what we were sold in all those speeches </font color>

The we have people like Q who does not believe chem and bio weapons are WMDs, he somehow believe only Nuclear weapons are WMDs. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

<font color="blue">Again, Nuclear weapons and Mushroom clouds were clearly sold in those speaches to sell the war to the public </font color>

He likes to say this Admin started calling the chem and bio weapons, WMDs when they have been called that for many years prior to the current Admin.

<font color="blue">I can't speak for Q but I saw chem, bio, and nuclear all lumped together in the WMD bucket, by this admin, for the purpose of selling this war. Previous definitions are somewhat irrelevant. I still haven't seen *credible* evidence of usable WMD of any kind. *maybe* something will be found but right now the whole thing is a bust. </font color>

eg8r

eg8r
05-05-2004, 11:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe that's because that's what we were sold in all those speeches
<hr /></blockquote> Were you? When did anyone mention large garage's storing WMDs? Or are you making it up, because you don't really remember anything you were "sold"?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>The we have people like Q who does not believe chem and bio weapons are WMDs, he somehow believe only Nuclear weapons are WMDs. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr> Again, Nuclear weapons and Mushroom clouds were clearly sold in those speaches to sell the war to the public
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> Any chance you could read this again, and explain how your reply made any sense to what I said? I was making making the point that chem and bio weapons are WMDs and Q only feels Nuclear weapons are WMD. You then pop in with your breath of fresh air. Duh!!!! I was not stating that they were not included in any statements on the war. Your reply makes no sense in reference to my quote. Thanks for wasting time.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't speak for Q but I saw chem, bio, and nuclear all lumped together in the WMD bucket, by this admin, for the purpose of selling this war. Previous definitions are somewhat irrelevant. I still haven't seen *credible* evidence of usable WMD of any kind. *maybe* something will be found but right now the whole thing is a bust.
<hr /></blockquote> This is where you are wrong, they are perfectly relevant because Q's definition of pre-Bush-WMDs are the subject matter. Follow along. Yes they were all lumped in together with Nuclear because they have been for a long time. Q was bashing Bush before for making up definitions on the fly (this was some time back). That was the point, and you missed it by a mile.

eg8r

highsea
05-05-2004, 11:32 AM
Even Kerry is toning down his WMD rhetoric...
[ QUOTE ]

But Tuesday night on MSNBC's "Hardball," Kerry retreated.

"It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction issue - and we may yet find them," he told host Chris Matthews. "Look, I want to make it clear. Who knows if a month from now, three months from now, you find some weapons? You may."

Coincidentally or not, Kerry's reversal came a day after the Jordanian government announced that WMDs from Syria were part of an al-Qaida plot to kill 80,000 people in Amman with poison gas. At least one of the plotters has admitted he was trained in Iraq.

The top Democrat's flip-flop also followed news that a suspected weapons of mass destruction production facility in Baghdad - disguised as a perfume factory - unexpectedly blew up, killing two GIs who were searching the plant.

The rest of the article (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/29/100540.shtml) <hr /></blockquote>

CNN also covered the plot in Jordan in this article (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/30/jordan.terror/index.html)

-CM

highsea
05-05-2004, 11:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr> <font color="blue">Again, Nuclear weapons and Mushroom clouds were clearly sold in those speaches to sell the war to the public </font color> <hr /></blockquote>
Please provide an example of the administration claiming Iraq had nukes. You can't.

We were told that Iraq had Chemical and Biological weapons and production facilities, and that Saddam had a program and a desire to acquire Nuclear capacity.

As too the tons of Chem's captures from Al Qaeda in the plot in Jordan, do you think that Syria provided them to Al Qaeda? Does this justify an invasion of Syria?

-CM

moblsv
05-05-2004, 12:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
Please provide an example of the administration claiming Iraq had nukes. You can't.
<hr /></blockquote>
They didn't claim they had nukes, he sold the fear of nukes *along with* the other WMD. It sounds like I need to write a small novel to demonstrate the way the public was manipulated

I'm not arguing against the war, per se. Just pointing out the way the war was sold to the public through the media. I, personally, never believed that they were close to having nukes but if you look at the polls the majority of the public did. The majority also believed that Iraq participated in the 9-11 bombing.

example from a speech in late 2002 -

Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past.

Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, <font color="blue"> it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. </font color>

And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder: After 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now?

There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof <font color="blue"> -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. </font color>

moblsv
05-05-2004, 01:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>
Q was bashing Bush before for making up definitions on the fly (this was some time back). That was the point, and you missed it by a mile.

eg8r
<hr /></blockquote>

Yes, I strayed from that point because I didn't read Q say that in this thread and thought you were the one straying. I don't recall seeing Q post that and I still haven't seen it in context, to be able to respond to that specifically. What I did see was Bush define WMD as Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear and stick with it. Previous definitions is not where I found Bush misleading. If your presentation of Q's statement is accurate then I would agree.

highsea
05-05-2004, 01:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr>It sounds like I need to write a small novel to demonstrate the way the public was manipulated

<font color="red"> Well, at least you can admit it would be a work of fiction. </font color>

I'm not arguing against the war, per se.

<font color="red"> LOL, sure fooled me </font color>

I, personally, never believed that they were close to having nukes but if you look at the polls the majority of the public did.

<font color="red"> I don't know how close they were, just that there was an active program. Apparently the State Dept. felt they were close, based on the speach by Colin Powell you cite here. </font color>

The majority also believed that Iraq participated in the 9-11 bombing.

<font color="red"> Cite the polls, please. I disagree with your assesment here. GWB came right out and said there was no direct tie to 9/11, however, there was growing evidence of ties to Al Qaeda. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

I posted this thread to show that there is a proven tie to Al Qaeda and an attampted WMD attack on the Jordanian Security Services and the US Embassy in Amman.

If you deny that these Chemicals originated in Iraq, you must then admit they came from Syria.

If you deny that they can be considered WMD's, go ahead, but the estimated 20,000-80,000 dead had they been successful satisfies my definition.

But go ahead and write your novel. I can think of 3 or 4 CCB'ers who would buy it.

-CM

moblsv
05-05-2004, 01:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
I posted this thread to show that there is a proven tie to Al Qaeda and an attampted WMD attack on the Jordanian Security Services and the US Embassy in Amman.
<hr /></blockquote>

Sorry, I don't want to hijack the thread, I have bookmarked your link and hope to dig into it soon.

have a nice day /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif