The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden

ImpyTimpy said:
I'm not the one making claims Iraq has WMD's.. I'm simply stating no evidence has been presented for their existence and the evidence which HAS been used was shoddy to say the least.
Click to expand...

Yes, there will need to be farther test to confirm it.

There is also the report from an Iraqi scientist.

Baghdad, Iraq, April 20 — A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program for more than a decade has told an American military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/21/i...n=558d236c00fc7bc9&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1
Click to expand...

Now how about you actually address what I said properly rather then skip over the points I made and selectively quoting what I wrote? Or is it you agree that the evidence you provided is worthless but don't want to admit it.
Click to expand...

And skipped over my comment of you only being skeptical of one side of the argument.
You need to practice what you preach.
Unless you can show where you showed skepticism to an anti-war post?
 
Baker said:

Yes, there will need to be farther test to confirm it.
There is also the report from an Iraqi scientist.
Click to expand...

So you do admit that what you posted as evidence wasn't actually evidence just more speculation.

As for the Iraqi scientist I think that was discussed here a fair bit already remember?

And skipped over my comment of you only being skeptical of one side of the argument.
You need to practice what you preach.
Unless you can show where you showed skepticism to an anti-war post?
Click to expand...
How so? I answered you by saying I am not the one making claims for WMD's. So far all I've seen is a bunch of wild claims made with no evidence. If an anti-war person makes a claim you can be sure I'll be there asking for evidence. :)
 
ImpyTimpy said:
What people would they be? Moved to where? Are you saying someone threw a blanket over the trucks containing tons of Sarin/Mustard Gas/Anthrax so the satellites couldn't see them anymore? Then under the cover of the said blanket, they drove away deep into Syria maybe?

Seriously though, US is supposed to know about these sites so it's reasonable to assume they keep an eye on them. How then can those said WMD's just disappear from right under their nose?
Click to expand...

Are you aware that satellites cannot monitor an area, let alone a whole country, in realtime 24/7? If the government takes a sattelite photograph of a nuclear bomb I am building in my backyard I can load it into a truck and 'disappear' without them knowing where I took it. And I would not have to cover anything up with any blankets, neither would the Iraqis. The U.S. was probably keeping an eye on those sites but spying by sattelite is not quite the same as having someone across the street with binoculars.

Do you believe Iraq no longer has any of those weapons? Do you believe that they destroyed them as they claimed? You have said there is no evidence of the weapons, well where is the evidence of their destruction?

*EDITED TO ADD*

Iraq would have to also develop the technology to cover up TRACES left behind at those sites from all those nasty chemicals.
Click to expand...

The government's claim is that they had mobile chemical cleanup facilities. But supposing that they did not have the technology, I doubt anyone would be convinced because we tested the sand somewhere and it came out positive for VX.
 
ssibal said:


Are you aware that satellites cannot monitor an area, let alone a whole country, in realtime 24/7? If the government takes a sattelite photograph of a nuclear bomb I am building in my backyard I can load it into a truck and 'disappear' without them knowing where I took it. And I would not have to cover anything up with any blankets, neither would the Iraqis. The U.S. was probably keeping an eye on those sites but spying by sattelite is not quite the same as having someone across the street with binoculars.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly correct. You're assuming whatever the site was Iraq could've just moved it in a few minutes. Yes, we can assume they had mobile labs but a lab on a truck isn't capable of producing large quantities of chemical or biological agents. Sure, it could make some VX in a beaker, but then so could your chemistry student with access to the right chemicals. It's a useless thing in a war situation, so we'd have to assume they had to have sites. So we have to move large quantities of the chemicals, this takes time. It's not hey, let's pack up and go.


Do you believe Iraq no longer has any of those weapons? Do you believe that they destroyed them as they claimed? You have said there is no evidence of the weapons, well where is the evidence of their destruction?
Click to expand...

I could ask you to show me evidence that God doesn't exist... It's impossible to prove a negative and you should know that :)

Look, all I'm looking for is proof that they do have them, not proof that they don't have them - same way as proof with God, show me proof for God and I'll be the first to preach it but don't tell me I should believe God exists because I can't prove otherwise.


The government's claim is that they had mobile chemical cleanup facilities. But supposing that they did not have the technology, I doubt anyone would be convinced because we tested the sand somewhere and it came out positive for VX.
Click to expand...
I for one would take it as a step to proving Iraq has programs for creation of WMD's, as would just about any other rational person.
 
ImpyTimpy said:

How so? I answered you by saying I am not the one making claims for WMD's. So far all I've seen is a bunch of wild claims made with no evidence. If an anti-war person makes a claim you can be sure I'll be there asking for evidence. :(
Click to expand...

Oh really, you have never questioned them on any claims yet.
When have you asked for evidence that the war was for oil?
And that’s just one of many claims from the antiwar side.
 
ImpyTimpy said:

That's not exactly correct. You're assuming whatever the site was Iraq could've just moved it in a few minutes. Yes, we can assume they had mobile labs but a lab on a truck isn't capable of producing large quantities of chemical or biological agents. Sure, it could make some VX in a beaker, but then so could your chemistry student with access to the right chemicals. It's a useless thing in a war situation, so we'd have to assume they had to have sites. So we have to move large quantities of the chemicals, this takes time. It's not hey, let's pack up and go.
Click to expand...

Maybe not a few minutes, but a few hours yes and without being detected by sattelites yes. If you remeber the first Gulf War, the Iraqis knew when the sattelites would pass over the country so they would hide their mobile SCUD launchers in a grove of trees and move them when the sattelites were on the other side of the planet. They could very easily have done this with the weapons.

I could ask you to show me evidence that God doesn't exist... It's impossible to prove a negative and you should know that :)

Look, all I'm looking for is proof that they do have them, not proof that they don't have them - same way as proof with God, show me proof for God and I'll be the first to preach it but don't tell me I should believe God exists because I can't prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

Bad analogy. Asking for evidence that something was destroyed is not the same as asking for evidence that something never existed (and it is not impossible to prove a negative, I can prove my car is not pink or that the Earth is not flat). Asking for evidence that the weapons we knew they had at one point were destroyed is not asking to prove a negative. If you accept the premise that Iraq at one point had those weapons the next step is to ask what happened to them. Iraq claimed that they destroyed the weapons yet never provided any evidence of that. So, it is more reasonable to assume that they still had them hidden somewhere.
 
ssibal said:


Maybe not a few minutes, but a few hours yes and without being detected by sattelites yes. If you remeber the first Gulf War, the Iraqis knew when the sattelites would pass over the country so they would hide their mobile SCUD launchers in a grove of trees and move them when the sattelites were on the other side of the planet. They could very easily have done this with the weapons.
Click to expand...

That's true but I'm still thinking it'd take a long time to move tons of agents around and you wouldn't exactly be able to do so in one go. Still you make a good point which the more I ponder about the more I agree with. I think I'm going to sit on the fence about this one until more proof is given.


Bad analogy. Asking for evidence that something was destroyed is not the same as asking for evidence that something never existed (and it is not impossible to prove a negative, I can prove my car is not pink or that the Earth is not flat). Asking for evidence that the weapons we knew they had at one point were destroyed is not asking to prove a negative. If you accept the premise that Iraq at one point had those weapons the next step is to ask what happened to them. Iraq claimed that they destroyed the weapons yet never provided any evidence of that. So, it is more reasonable to assume that they still had them hidden somewhere.
Click to expand...
You can't prove something doesn't exist - that is proving the negative. As for what happened to the weapons? Who knows, they said they destroyed them, maybe we destroyed what was left of them in 1998 strikes...

So far we don't see any evidence for the weapons being there. Until I see it I am maintaining a skeptical eye on the situation :)
 
I haven't seen anyone on this board claim that the war was solely for oil. Can you show me who claimed the war on Iraq was solely to secure oil?

Baker said:


Oh really, you have never questioned them on any claims yet.
When have you asked for evidence that the war was for oil?
And that’s just one of many claims from the antiwar side.
Click to expand...
 
I see the title saying "Is oil the reason for..." but not "Oil is the reason for"... Big difference Baker. Randfan is asking a question not making a claim.

But getting to the heart of the dicussion... So has your stance on the evidence provided for the link changed or not? You are yet to provide a single response to my argument about your evidence being very shoddy. So far all you've done is twist and turn :p

Baker said:


That has been the whole argument from the start of the war it wasn’t there only argument but one of the main ones.
There have even been threads on the subject.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12284
Click to expand...
 
crackmonkey said:
It seems some weapons inspectors would disagree with you about likelihood of WMD in Iraq...

Nukes?
Click to expand...

I recommend any info taken from worldnetdaily.com be taken with a grain of salt.
 
ImpyTimpy said:
I see the title saying "Is oil the reason for..." but not "Oil is the reason for"... Big difference Baker. Randfan is asking a question not making a claim.
Click to expand...

I didn’t say he was the one making the claim.
Which I’m sure you know that and you are trying to side step the issue.
So you admitting that you are only questioning one side of the war debate?

But getting to the heart of the dicussion... So has your stance on the evidence provided for the link changed or not? You are yet to provide a single response to my argument about your evidence being very shoddy. So far all you've done is twist and turn
Click to expand...

You are welcome to question the link no its not direct proof I have already told you that.
 
ImpyTimpy said:
You can't prove something doesn't exist - that is proving the negative. As for what happened to the weapons? Who knows, they said they destroyed them, maybe we destroyed what was left of them in 1998 strikes...
Click to expand...

The key is what they said, if they had claimed that we destroyed them all then it would be a somewhat different matter but they said that they destroyed them. Meaning they would know where, when, and how this happened (if it happened) and could provide the information to the UN inspectors. They did not, which leaves me to believe they were lying. Perhaps they were just habitual liars and really did not have the weapons, but I doubt it.
 
crackmonkey said:
You people can keep burying your heads in the sand if you wish... it only makes you appear absurd.

http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1865~1353992,00.html
Click to expand...
From your link:

Hindawi, imprisoned during the final weeks of Saddam Hussein's rule, is now free to talk about his experiences in the program, in which he says he was forced to work from 1986 to 1989 and again sporadically until the mid-1990s.
Click to expand...
(My emphasis.)

And

Even so, he said, there is little need for concern if U.S. military teams hunting for unconventional weapons stumble across such stockpiles: The arsenals would have degraded, he said.

"Even if it's all kept until now, don't worry about it," he said.

In addition, he said, Iraq was never able to make dried anthrax, a medium that would have made the lethal spores far more durable and easier to disseminate.
Click to expand...
Sounds like it was not much of a problem. Was that the point you were making?
 
He said he worked in the bioweapons program into the mid-1990s. If you notice, that was after the Gulf War, during the time the inspectors were scouring Iraq for bioweapons. He was instructed to lie to inspectors about the program...
In other words, Saddam's WMD program was very much in operation while the inspectors were in Iraq, and the participants in the program actively deceived the inspectors.
"Inspections work"... they seem to have worked well for Saddam, anyway.

Any other questions? I'll be happy to help.
 
crackmonkey said:
He said he worked in the bioweapons program into the mid-1990s. If you notice, that was after the Gulf War, during the time the inspectors were scouring Iraq for bioweapons. He was instructed to lie to inspectors about the program...
In other words, Saddam's WMD program was very much in operation while the inspectors were in Iraq, and the participants in the program actively deceived the inspectors.
"Inspections work"... they seem to have worked well for Saddam, anyway.

Any other questions? I'll be happy to help.
Click to expand...
It was the phrase until the mid-1990s, that caught my eye. In other words, he provides no testimony that there has been any WMD program in approximately the last eight years. Consider this information with this comment about how these weapons degrade with time: "Even if it's all kept until now, don't worry about it". This guy’s testimony therefore would not appear to confirm that Iraq had WMD.

Can you therefore please explain how anyone who believes no evidence has yet been found for WMD is burying their heads in the sand? (If that was your point.)
 
Baker said:

I didn’t say he was the one making the claim.
Which I’m sure you know that and you are trying to side step the issue.
So you admitting that you are only questioning one side of the war debate?
Click to expand...

I am admitting no such thing. I said, if someone from the anti-war side makes a claim that is rooted in woo-woo dom, I'll challenge it. That's all, nothing more. Feel free to show me where anti-war makes a woo-woo claim recently and I'll be there guns blazing, I promise.


You are welcome to question the link no its not direct proof I have already told you that.
Click to expand...
It is not proof of anything is the correct wording.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom