There was a Conspiracy to mislead US citizens into war with Afghanistan and Iraq

I really should stay out of this because it's becoming far too stupid, but the analogy seems straightforward. At the very best, Hitler declares war on Russia and under his sanction, prisoner battalions are conscripted and authorized to burn, loot and kill anything they feel like. Does it matter that Hitler and his staff did not sanction or even know about individual murders or thefts? This is the most straightforward reasoning I could imagine.

All of this brings back my speculation about reasoning ability and verbal skills of conspiracy theorists. This is hard stuff to read and keep track of. Mistakes happen even among people with high levels of ability. I doubt there are a lot of liars among the CTers on the JREF. A typical CTer's verbal and reasoning ability is probably well within the normal range, but it appears to me consistently at the low end of that range. They just seem to make mistake after mistake and not be able to correct later ends of the reasoning chain to account for new information about points at the beginning.
 
conspiracykiller-
good read. i remmeber that ENRON was in talks with the taliban too about a pipeline. was it the same one you are discussing?
 
Travis said:
Having someone telling you something while others say something else does not mean you "know" anything. All you had was a bunch of people with different guesses.

Who cares? No one but an idiot thought Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
Click to expand...

It has been proven by declassified documents that the Bush administration did not have some intelligence officials telling them one thing and other intelligence officials telling them another.

They were told from early on that Iraq did not have WMDs and that even if they wanted to develop WMDs it was impossible for Iraq to start any kind of WMD program because of the sanctions had crippled Iraq so severely that recovery was impossible without US assistance.

Here is Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell in late February 2001 saying Iraq has no WMD’s and couldn’t make them if they wanted to (only :52 sec): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0wbpKCdkkQ
There is also another speech by Powel saying the same thing in early 2002.

But the Bush administration continued to insist that there was evidence establishing WMDs and a link to 9/11, despite that they were told specifically by both US and foreign intelligence agencies that any claims of Iraq and 9/11 or Al Qaeda connections were false/bogus, so many Americans and the military ignorantly assumed that the Bush administration WAS TELLING THE TRUTH.

Travis said:
No one but an idiot thought Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
Click to expand...

85% Of Troops In Iraq Think Saddam Was Involved In 9/11, 77% Think Supported Al-Qaeda
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/7541767/detail.html

Travis said:
No one but an idiot thought Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
Click to expand...

Americans Still Believe Saddam Had Strong Links To Al-Qaeda, Planned 9/11, Had WMD
Quote: "These new poll findings and trends show how slowly most people change their minds once they believe something to be true."
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...04240417&EDATE

Travis said:
No one but an idiot thought Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
Click to expand...

A recent poll in Sept. 2011 by the University of Maryland found that at least 38 percent of Americans still believe the U.S. “found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda.” http://www.sadat.umd.edu/911Anniversary_Sep11_rpt.pdf

Travis said:
No one but an idiot thought Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
Click to expand...

Late 2008 poll shows Number Of Americans Who Believe Saddam-9/11 Ties "RISES" To 41%
41% of Americans answered 'Yes' to the question "Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"

Travis said:
No one but an idiot thought Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
Click to expand...

Survey Shows Misinformation On Iraq Endures
A Gallup poll, found that 39% still believe Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. Shortly before the war began, 51% held that view, but that was before the many official, and media, reports to the contrary. Yet a high number still cling to the view.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/index.jsp

Travis said:
No one but an idiot thought Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
Click to expand...

That total is actually up 5 points since September 2004.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Poll_4...ddam_0624.html
Poll: Nearly A Third Of Americans Still Believe Saddam Personally Involved In 9/11
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...esults_sub.pdf

I could go on and on proving just how damaging the administration LIES to mislead the American public into war were but it seems that you have convinced yourself that their were no such LIES despite the overwhelming evidence.

Also I still do not think this thread has anything to do with 9/11 and therefore THIS THREAD DOES NOT BELONG IN THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY FORUM!
 
What part of no one but an idiot thinks Iraq was involved in 9-11 don't you understand? Apparently a third of Americans are idiots. What else is new? I'm sure a lot of Americans think God exists, too. Does that make it true?

That still means 2 thirds aren't idiots and are very much aware Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
What part of no one but an idiot thinks Iraq was involved in 9-11 don't you understand? Apparently a third of Americans are idiots. What else is new? I'm sure a lot of Americans think God exists, too. Does that make it true?

That still means 2 thirds aren't idiots and are very much aware Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11
Click to expand...

What...? Is our conspiracy friend really citing the fact that some American believe Iraq was involved in 9/11 as evidence that they were? Or even that this is a reasonable argument? Is this a joke? I'm not keeping up on the thread, and this is why.

A couple of years ago, this ConspiracyKiller fellow was posting about Operation Gladio and the P2. He was wrong, but it made sense. It wasn't an argument for the morons, like this one seems to be. He stopped posting for about 2 years. I can only assume he was hanging with the conspiracy crew and picking up their sense of retarded logic and reasoning.

Serious message to you ConspiracyKiller, do you want people to laugh at you? No one thinks this is a sophisticated argument except your conspiracy buddies. There's a lot of facts in it, but that doesn't make it good or even interesting to listen to. Stop your silly game about being an iconoclastic force in political thinking. You and your friends are silly people that everyone, including your kids, your family, and your friends, tolerate because they have to. Your children apologize for you to others because you embarrass them. No one thinks you are smart. Is this the life you want?
 
Last edited:
We are going in circles forcing me to repeat the same answers so I have outlined my reasoning as to why there were more reasons, (geo-political/pipeline, etc.) to invade Afghanistan than what Americans were told.

#1. I have already posted links which confirmed that the Taliban did not want OBL in Afghanistan but because the Afghan people considered OBL as the great hero who helped defeat the soviet empire the Taliban could not simply kick him out or kill him.

But, after OBL had issued a Fatwa in 1998 calling on God fearing Muslims to attack the US, the Taliban in 1999 did kill OBL’s body guards when arresting OBL so that they could monitor that OBL was not in communication with others to plot any attacks and the Taliban forced OBL to publicly declare his fatwa void and declare that the Taliban leader Mullah Omar was the only one who could issue a fatwa and he had to be informed and approve of any and all acts before they could take place.

#2. Yet despite all that, the Taliban still wanted OBL out of Afghanistan or killed so they were begging the US to help so that the Taliban could claim OBL’s death was not their fault or that OBL’s extradition was do to evidence as is required by Islamic law and therefore justified.

But the US refused to kill OBL and there was no evidence that al Qaeda had anything to do with the USS Cole attack because it was an "unproven assumption" in late November. By December 21 the CIA had made a "preliminary judgment" that "al Qaeda appeared to have supported the attack," with no "definitive conclusion."

Proof of the above fact is that in January 25, Tenet briefed the President on the Cole investigation. The "preliminary judgment" was that al Qaeda was responsible, with the caveat that no evidence had yet been found that Bin Ladin himself ordered the attack... in March 2001, the CIA's briefing slides for Rice were still describing the CIA's "preliminary judgment" that a "strong circumstantial case" could be made against al Qaeda but noting that the CIA continued to lack "conclusive information on external command and control" of the attack.

Simons says there was no mention of when the Cole investigation would finish, and thus no talk of a military response. “There was not an escalation in the U.S. stance,” Because the Cole investigation was still ongoing Inderfurth insists, “There was no discussion about a strike plan. None of us would have been privy to such a plan.”

#3. The Bush administration, by their own admission was not concerned with OBL and were not expecting an attack. So why were they making preparations to invade Afghanistan before 9/11 just to apprehend one man, that did not order the USS Cole attack nor masterminded the attack, whom the US had no interest in?

Why would the US NOT simply use any one of several other methods to apprehend or kill OBL that were much cheaper, easier, and legal and would have produced significantly more intelligence than to invade and occupy the graveyard of empires?

Please don’t simply say the Bush admiration was just to stupid to do what Obama did with the seal team because that is just naïve to assume that all those other much simpler methods were not considered, (like handing over evidence to extradite). To suggest that the US would just do some kind of foolishly ignorant cowboy stunt without thinking about the consequences just makes the US governments sound like its ran by a bunch of simple minded children which could not be further from the truth.

Therefor the decision to invade “the graveyard of empires” must have been based on at least a dozen reasons that outweighed using anyone of the faster, cheaper, easier, legal methods that would have gained far more intelligence and cost much less in blood and treasure while pissing off far less Afghans and Muslims into attacking the US. So what were the dozen reasons but those that helped the US achieve its geo-political goals in the region?
 
twinstead said:
What part of no one but an idiot thinks Iraq was involved in 9-11 don't you understand? Apparently a third of Americans are idiots. What else is new? I'm sure a lot of Americans think God exists, too. Does that make it true?

That still means 2 thirds aren't idiots and are very much aware Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11
Click to expand...

This thread is about how Americans were mislead into war with Iraq and Afghanistan.

The reason why the overwhelming majority of US military thought that Iraq was working with Al Qaeda is NOT because the overwhelming majority of US military personnel are idiots but because they were mislead to believe those connections existed by the Bush administration in order to gain support to invade Iraq.

“Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner.” Source: President Bush: “World Can Rise to This Moment”, White House (2/6/2003).

“He’s a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint.” Source: President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002).

“The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.” Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).

"Saddam Hussein had an established relationship with Al Qaida providing training to Al Qaida members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs. He built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." Source: Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks at the James A. Baker, III, Institute for Public Policy, White House (10/18/2003).

“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own.” Source: President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003).

“Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes—this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.” Source: President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003).

“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.” Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

etc, etc, etc,

Declassified documents prove that they were aware BEFORE making the above comments that those comments were FALSE but they continued to say them anyway in order to mislead Americans into war.
 
ConspiracyKiller said:
This thread is about how Americans were mislead into war with Iraq and Afghanistan.

The reason why the overwhelming majority of US military thought that Iraq was working with Al Qaeda is NOT because the overwhelming majority of US military personnel are idiots but because they were mislead to believe those connections existed by the Bush administration in order to gain support to invade Iraq.

“Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner.” Source: President Bush: “World Can Rise to This Moment”, White House (2/6/2003).

“He’s a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint.” Source: President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002).

“The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.” Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).

"Saddam Hussein had an established relationship with Al Qaida providing training to Al Qaida members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs. He built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." Source: Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks at the James A. Baker, III, Institute for Public Policy, White House (10/18/2003).

“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own.” Source: President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003).

“Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes—this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.” Source: President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003).

“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.” Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

etc, etc, etc,

Declassified documents prove that they were aware BEFORE making the above comments that those comments were FALSE but they continued to say them anyway in order to mislead Americans into war.
Click to expand...

Which of the above comments were false? Some of the speculation didn't turn out, but the factual claims look true enough to me.
 
ConspiracyKiller said:
But, after OBL had issued a Fatwa in 1998 calling on God fearing Muslims to attack the US, the Taliban in 1999 did kill OBL’s body guards when arresting OBL so that they could monitor that OBL was not in communication with others to plot any attacks and the Taliban forced OBL to publicly declare his fatwa void and declare that the Taliban leader Mullah Omar was the only one who could issue a fatwa and he had to be informed and approve of any and all acts before they could take place.
Click to expand...
did he ever publicaly declare his fatwa void? gotta link?
 
ConspiracyKiller said:
The reason why the overwhelming majority of US military thought that Iraq was working with Al Qaeda is NOT because the overwhelming majority of US military personnel are idiots but because they were mislead to believe those connections existed by the Bush administration in order to gain support to invade Iraq.
Click to expand...

Where is your proof that "the overwhelming majority of US military thought that Iraq was working with Al Qaeda"?
 
carlitos said:
Which of the above comments were false? Some of the speculation didn't turn out, but the factual claims look true enough to me.
Click to expand...

Before the war The 2001 President’s Daily Brief, 2001-2 Atta in Prague investigations, 2002 DIA reports, 2002 British intelligence report, 2003 CIA report, 2003 British intelligence report, 2003 Israeli intelligence Report all proved beyond any doubt that Saddam’s secular government and Al Qaeda did not trust, did not have ties to, and would not work with OBL and Al Qaeda.

Saddam’s government was secular and Saddam feared all Muslim extremists both Sunni and Shi’a as a threat to his secular government that’s why Saddam had so many Christians in key positions of his government because they were less likely to be influenced by any one of the many Muslim fundamentalists organizations who did not like Saddam’s secular government.

The Bush administration was aware that Al Qaeda hated Saddam’s secular government to the point that OBL called Saddam an infidel puppet of the US and Saddam accused OBL of being a CIA asset disguised as a religious fanatic. Saddam had warrants for the arrest of any member of Al Qaeda and even had ordered the assassinations of key religious enemies both Sunnis and Shi’a since January 1998 such as the killings of internationally respected clerics have been attributed widely to Iraqi government agents by Shi’a clergy in Iran, international human rights activists, the U.S. and other governments.

For example;
According to a report submitted to the Special Rapporteur in September 1999, one of al-Sadr’s sons, Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr, was arrested along with a large number of theological students who had studied under the Ayatollah. Nineteen followers of al-Sadr reportedly were executed toward the end of 1999, including Sheikh Muhammad al-Numani, Friday imam Sheikh Abd-al-Razzaq al-Rabi’i, assistant Friday imam Kazim al-Safi, and students from a religious seminary in Najaf.

And we know that the intelligence reports saying Saddam and Al Qaeda were enimies were correct because of the fact that the joint FBI-INS-police PENTBOM investigation, the FBI program of voluntary interviews and numerous other post-9-11 inquiries, together comprising the most comprehensive criminal investigation in history --- chasing down 500,000 leads and interviewing 175,000 people —- have been unable to show “ANY” operational ties between Saddam’s secular regime and al-Qaeda should be good enough to prove that there were not any links.

Also the 2004 Carnegie study, 2004 9/11 Commission Report, 2004 Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, 2004 CIA report, 2005 update of CIA report, 2006 Pentagon study, 2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence, 2007 Pentagon Inspector General Report, 2008 Pentagon report, 2008 Senate report, including the INS, FBI, DOD, NSA, CIA, DIA, British intelligence, and Israeli Intelligence all proved that there were NO operational ties between Saddam’s secular regime and al-Qaeda.

Even after the CIA had again refuted any connections between Iraq and the 9/11 attack, Cheney still repeated it during a Sept. 2003 appearance on Meet the Press. Shortly after Russert confronted him with polling that showed as much as 69 percent of Americans believed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney responded:

“With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.”
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that the vice president DID know the intelligence was FALSE, but continued repeating it to support his argument for war. As a recently, (JUNE 19, 2012), declassified document by the National Security Archive reveals that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) delivered a briefing to the Bush administration which directly contradicts former Vice President Dick Cheney’s claim that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta visited an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague.

The document dated Dec. 1, 2001 and delivered to the White House on the 8th, claims that Atta “did not travel to the Czech Republic on 31 May 2000,” and adds that “the individual who attempted to enter the Czech Republic on 31 May 2000… was not the Atta who attacked the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.” http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/cheneyiraq911memo.pdf
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
Where is your proof that "the overwhelming majority of US military thought that Iraq was working with Al Qaeda"?
Click to expand...

Please use Google and you will find that at least one poll was conducted every year with the military and you will find that the majority of US military personnel believed until recently that the Bush administration lies linking Iraq to Al Qaeda and 9/11 were true.

Zogby Poll shows almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11 http://www.ibopezogby.com/news/2006/02/28/us-troops-in-iraq-72-say-end-war-in-2006/
 
ConspiracyKiller said:
I think you have failed to grasp that declassified documents have proven that the Bush administration knew, (because they were told), that there were no Iraq/Al Qeada connection and no WMD’s yet they continued to imply both were possible to justify the invasion of Iraq. They argued that lack of evidence was not evidence that there were no Iraq/Al Qeada connection or WMD’s
...
Click to expand...

It really bothers me when people claim that Iraq didn't have WMDs. They obviously had them when they used them against Iran and the Kurds.

And before you say "well, they didn't have them anymore", we (the US Military) found them in Iraq after the invasion.

I'm surprised how many people still think that no WMDs were found in Iraq. :boggled:

ETA: But I guess the "We didn't find enough or the right type of WMDs" argument is still valid.
 
Last edited:
ConspiracyKiller said:
Please use Google and you will find that at least one poll was conducted every year with the military and you will find that the majority of US military personnel believed until recently that the Bush administration lies linking Iraq to Al Qaeda and 9/11 were true.

Zogby Poll shows almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11 http://www.ibopezogby.com/news/2006/02/28/us-troops-in-iraq-72-say-end-war-in-2006/
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks.

Since they took the Zogby poll you cite only from soldiers in Iraq anonymously, I wonder if there was some kind of bias in that data set, e.g. if those willing to answer were also biased one way or another? In any case, the personnel were in Iraq, I also wonder how those results could be generalized to all the military? Plus the poll was in 2006, while the Valarie Plame scandal was still playing out. Are there any more up to date ones you can reference?
 
ConspiracyKiller, I found many of the sentences you are posting here at various websites. You should source this stuff if it isn't your words. Just leave a link, and put the text in a quote box, limiting it to a paragraph or two.
 
swright777 said:
It really bothers me when people claim that Iraq didn't have WMDs. They obviously had them when they used them against Iran and the Kurds.

And before you say "well, they didn't have them anymore", we (the US Military) found them in Iraq after the invasion.

I'm surprised how many people still think that no WMDs were found in Iraq. :boggled:

ETA: But I guess the "We didn't find enough or the right type of WMDs" argument is still valid.
Click to expand...

You are aware that Saddam was helped into power by the US and when Saddam asked for help putting down an attempted over through of his government by the Kurds the US sold him the chemical weapons to do it.

As a mater of FACT the US, under both administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992.

The Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 after the Gulf war, give the time/date/destinations of the exported items. For example, on May 2, 1986, batches of bacillus anthracis -- anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi along with batches of bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.

Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.

The shipments to Iraq continued even after Saddam ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town and strong hold where the revolt to over-through Saddam was at its strongest. The gassing took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.

So yes the US expected to find some really, really, OLD, WMD's but those were useless and not what Iraq was accused of having/making etc.
 
Last edited:
ConspiracyKiller, for real. Please make it clear which words are yours, and which ones you are copying from commondreams or wherever.

For instance:

The Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.

One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.

The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom