PDA

View Full Version : Lets all say together "LoafingOaf is right"



Caleb's Bloody Bride
January 16, 2003, 11:34 PM
Inspectors Find 11 Empty Chemical Warheads in Iraq
U.N. Says Warheads Had Not Been Declared by Iraq
By Hamza Hendaw
Associated Press Writer
Thursday, January 16, 2003; 3:25 PM

BAGHDAD, Iraq –– U.N. inspectors found 11 empty chemical warheads in "excellent" condition at an ammunition storage area in southern Iraq on Thursday, and the components were not reported in Iraq's declaration meant to account for all banned weapons, a U.N. spokesman said.

Iraq insisted the warheads had been included in its declaration. It was not immediately clear if discovery constituted a "material breach" of the U.N. resolution requiring Iraq to itemize all its weapons of mass destruction and their components.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the administration was "aware of the reports and we look forward to receiving information from the inspectors." McClellan would not comment on how significant the find was.

The 122 mm shells were found when inspectors searched bunkers built in the late 1990s at the Ukhaider Ammunition Storage Area, about 75 miles south of Baghdad, said Hiro Ueki, the spokesman for U.N. weapons inspectors in Baghdad, in a statement.

The team examined one of the warheads with X-ray equipment and took away samples for chemical testing, Ueki said.

The United States, which has begun a heavy military buildup in the Persian Gulf, has threatened war on Iraq if it is found to be hiding banned weapons programs. The Iraqi government says it no longer has any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and submitted a 12,000-page declaration to the United Nations last month that it said proved its case.

Ueki told The Associated Press that the shells were not accounted for in the report. "It was a discovery. They were not declared," he said.

But Lt. Gen. Hossam Mohammed Amin, the chief Iraqi liaison officer to the inspection teams, said they were short-range shells imported in 1988 and mentioned in Iraq's December declaration.

He expressed "astonishment" over "the fuss made about the discovery by a U.N. inspection team of 'mass destruction weapons.' It is no more than a storm in a teacup," Amin told a news conference hastily called after the U.N. announcement.

Amin said the inspection team found the munitions in a sealed box that had never been opened and was covered by dust and bird droppings.

"When these boxes were opened, they found 122-mm rockets with empty warheads. No chemical or biological warheads. Just empty rockets which are expired and imported in 1988," Amin said, adding similar rockets were found by U.N. inspectors in 1997.

Physicist David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security and a former nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq, said that the discovery would represent a violation "if Iraq knew that these warheads existed and they are for chemical weapons."

Inspectors will "have to test to see if there are any traces of chemical weapons in the warheads and in the bunkers where they were found, and they will have to talk to the Iraqis," Albright said.

On Dec. 7, a chemical team secured a dozen artillery shells filled with mustard gas that had first been inventoried by earlier inspectors in the 1990s. Those were the first weapons of mass production brought under inspectors' control in the current search, which began in November.

Chief inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei have said Iraq's weapons declaration is incomplete — failing in particular to support its claims to have destroyed missiles, warheads and chemical agents such as VX nerve gas.

Inspectors on Thursday also searched the homes of two Iraqi scientists in Baghdad, escorting one of them to a field to examine what appeared to be a man-made mound of earth. The scientist, who carried a box of documents as he left his house, was then taken to the inspectors hotel along with the documents and Irai officials.

An Iraqi official said the inspectors also asked to interview two other scientists in private, but that the scientists refused to speak unless Iraqi liaison officials were present.

Blix and ElBaradei have stepped up demands that Iraqi improve its cooperation — including allowing private interviews with scientists — and are headed to Baghdad to meet officials Sunday and Monday and seek more information.

"Iraq must do more than they have done so far," Blix said in Belgium after briefing European Union officials. Iraqis "need to be more active ... to convince the Security Council that they do not have weapons of mass destruction."

Otherwise, he said, the alternative is "the other avenue ... we have seen taking shape in the form of military action."

The homes searched Thursday were those of physicist Faleh Hassan and his next-door neighbor, nuclear scientist Shaker el-Jibouri, in the neighborhood of al-Ghazalia.

It was the first time the inspectors have searched private home since they resumed their work. The team searched the homes for six hours, with experts seen going through documents at a table set up near Hassan's front door and having an animated discussion with Iraqi liaison officials.

Afterward, Hassan — who is director of al-Razi, a military installation that specializes in laser development — drove with the inspectors and Iraqi officials to a field about 10 miles west of Baghdad in an agricultural area known as al-Salamiyat. There, Hassan, two inspectors and a liaison officer walked to a bare field and examined what appeared to be a manmade earth mound for about five minutes.

Inspectors did not speak to journalists and it was not clear why they were interested in the mound. An Iraqi official later said the field was a farm that Hassan once owned but sold in 1996.

After the visit, a visibly angry el-Jibouri told reporters the inspectors spent two hours in his home — and cordoned it off for much longer — looking into everything, "including beds and clothes."

"This is a provocative operation," el-Jibouri said. "They did not take away any documents but they looked at personal research papers."

Inspectors also asked to speak privately at their hotel with two other scientists linked to Iraq's weapons programs Thursday, but the scientists refused to be interviewed without Iraqi officials present, Lt. Gen. Hossam Mohammed Amin, the top Iraqi liaison with the inspectors, told reporters.

The inspectors did not interview the two scientists, whom Amin did not identify. The two were on a list of 500 Iraqi scientists believed to have been involved in Iraq's armament programs and which was submitted to the United Nations last month, he said.

U.N. Resolution 1441, which set up the tough new inspections regime, empowers the U.N. teams to conduct private interviews with Iraqi scientists involved in biological, chemical or nuclear programs — in hopes that privacy will encourage them to reveal hidden weapons. But while the Iraqi government says scientists are free to speak without officials presents, so far none have agreed to do so.

© 2003 The Associated Press

Grim O'Grady
January 17, 2003, 09:27 AM

CrushingBore
January 17, 2003, 10:59 AM
For fuck's sake!
Is there a single person on this site who has suggested Iraq either does not have, or never has had a chemical weapons programme?

The shells were empty, for christ's sake! If you imagine this is any sort of pretext for putting the lives of both Iraqis and Americans in jeopardy, you are nothing short of deranged.

It was fine, wasn't it, when Saddam was using these sorts of weapons on the stinking, anti-american towel-heads in Iran?

I'm not saying Iraq has no weapons programme, and I'm not saying some form of military action mightn't become necessary if that proves the case.

But I am sick to death of nationalist breast-beating dressed up as concern for international affairs. And I'm tired of those who appear to be salivating at the prospect of war. And I'm nauseated by the motivations behind it all.

And I'm getting more than a little bored with repeating myself.

LoafingOaf - Islam's Worst Nightmare
January 17, 2003, 11:47 AM
Oh don't be so sure. Hans Blix is probably a co-conspirator with the evil American Empire.

How dare these weapons inspectors actually suggest that Saddam wasn't truthful or cooperative in his declaration to the U.N. Has someone looked into Hans Blix's backround? I know there isn't a large Jewish population in Sweden, but I just bet he's some kind of Zionist!!! JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS ISRAEL ISRAEL ISRAEL ISRAEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what about Saddam? Shut up!! JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS ISRAEL ISRAEL ISRAZEL ISRAEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, we can't allow the the evil Americans and their JEWISH lobby to bully poor old Saddam. I refuse to support any action against Saddam until there's real proof. After all, those 11 or 12 warheads were EMPTY. And Jews probably put 'em there anyway! And Saddam would actually have to take a few minutes and put the chemicals in them before massacring people. Yawn. No, this is nothing. The fact that it's even being reported only proves the American media is trying to beat the wardrum, and we all know the American media is just JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS!!!!!! Why are we even talking about Saddam, when there are all these JEWS everywhere!!

If Saddam actually has nukes and blows up a city, ok, then maybe, just maybe, I'll say a bad word about him. But until then, lets stay on the important topic: JEWS AND ISRAEL.

See, I don't read the Jewish American media anymore. I read the European press now, like these smarty pantses on this board have been telling me. So I'm not blinded by propaganda like you. I know the only thing I'm supposed to ever have anything to say about are the JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS. I'm a sophistcated European now, dammit!! I wish us Americans would have as reposonsible a media as Europe has. Then we too would stop talking about some mere fascist dictator who likes to invade all his neighbors and kill his own people.

Yeah, after he invaded Kuwait the UN spoke and told him to get out. And yeah, after we got him out, the UN told him to disarm. And yeah for 12 years he has defied the UN on this. But so what!! Hey, if the IRaqi people had a beef with him, why would they have given him 100% of the vote in his last election??

CrushingBore
January 17, 2003, 12:31 PM
> Has someone looked
> into Hans Blix's backround? I know there isn't a large Jewish population
> in Sweden, but I just bet he's some kind of Zionist!!!

Yeah, bloody Swedes. I have documentation that shows Mohammed Atta met the members of Abba prior to September 11.
And you should never trust anyone called Hans, period.

> See, I don't read the Jewish American media anymore. I read the European
> press now, like these smarty pantses on this board have been telling me.
> So I'm not blinded by propaganda like you. I know the only thing I'm
> supposed to ever have anything to say about are the JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS
> JEWS. I'm a sophistcated European now, dammit!! I wish us Americans would
> have as reposonsible a media as Europe has. Then we too would stop talking
> about some mere fascist dictator who likes to invade all his neighbors and
> kill his own people.

Nah, don't trust those slimy Europeans, if it hadn't been for them starting that WWII business, Israel wouldn't even exist at all. And they've had ten times as long to sort out Northern Ireland, and have never even attempted a large-scale bombing campaign against the limey bastards - no stomach, that's their REAL problem! You want free and independent media - mate, you have to go to North Korea for that kind of thing ('bout time someone brought them into it).

LoafingOaf - Islam's Worst Nightmare
January 17, 2003, 12:35 PM
> For fuck's sake!
> Is there a single person on this site who has suggested Iraq either does
> not have, or never has had a chemical weapons programme?

Um, yes they have. Within the past 48 hours even. Someone posted in the thread below: "Why haven't the inspectors found anything???" Apparently suggesting there's nothing to be found.

And, gee, people don't pay much attention to what the U.N. resolution says, so here's a clue for them: The purpose of the weapons inspectors going into Iraq was to give Saddam the opportunity to finally cooperate with disarming his regime. Saddam was supposed to welcome Hans Blix, truthfully declare what weapons they have and what weapons they've destroyed, and willingly lead the inspectors to everything and say, "Here, Hans, this is where you'll find the proof of what we did to destroy those weapons you found out we had in 1998. And over here, oh my gosh, we do have some illegal weapons hidden in this underground bunker, you'd probably have had to look around for years to find those but you know, we're a changed regime now, so please take them away and destroy them so we can finally be in full compliance and have peace."

That's how it was supposed to work, which is why it's regime change one way or another. The idea that it's supposed to be a cat and mouse game is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the U.N. resolution.

> The shells were empty, for christ's sake! If you imagine this is any sort
> of pretext for putting the lives of both Iraqis and Americans in jeopardy,
> you are nothing short of deranged.

Gee, last I checked, Iraqis ARE in jeapardy. Iraqis ARE dying. Which is one reason why I don't understand what alternative policy there is which wouldn't be immoral.

> It was fine, wasn't it, when Saddam was using these sorts of weapons on
> the stinking, anti-american towel-heads in Iran?

No it wasn't. And it's not fine now either. People who wanna remain silent about Saddam today as equally immoral as Carter and Reagan were in the late 70s thru the 1980s with their silence about Saddam. I don't see the logic behind letting Saddam do whatever he pleases in 2003 because you didn't like U.S. policy in the 1980s. Gee, that's a nice one for the future victims of Saddam.

> I'm not saying Iraq has no weapons programme, and I'm not saying some form
> of military action mightn't become necessary if that proves the case.

> But I am sick to death of nationalist breast-beating dressed up as concern
> for international affairs. And I'm tired of those who appear to be
> salivating at the prospect of war. And I'm nauseated by the motivations
> behind it all.

I'm pretty damn naseated by the motivations behind those who wanna give Saddam every benefit of the doubt they can.

> And I'm getting more than a little bored with repeating myself.

Well the problem is, who can figure out where you're coming from? You say you're for the U.N. weapons inspectors, but you condemn the American government that got them there. Strange.

You say you know there's illegal weapons in IRaq, but then you say the weapons that were found yesterday were "empty." So what does that mean? That you know the weapons are there, but you're hoping they aren't found so we can just blow the whole thing off for a later day? Or, do you actually believe the weapons are NOT there? Or MAY NOT be there? See, you sound really confused to me. Why would it be such a big point that those warheads were empty when you began the post saying: "Is there a single person on this site who has suggested Iraq either does not have, or never has had a chemical weapons programme"?

I suggest before you go around screaming how "naseated" you are by some of us here, that you first figure out where you're standing. And I'm sorry if the seriousness of Bush and Blair irriates people, but I happen to be pretty damn naseated by SADDAM.

Anyway, I'd agree that it's not a huge deal that we found 11 illegal, undeclared warheads. It's already well-established fact that Saddam has illegal weapons. And it's already established fact that he's in breach. The only thing the 11 warheads adds is less wiggle room for those who wanna let Saddam get away with it again.

CrushingBore
January 17, 2003, 03:59 PM
OK, you agree the finding of these recent shells is not hugely significant. The statement I posted about "but they haven't found anything" was in response to the overblown presumptive rhetoric which appeared to be willing a war. Point was there's a process to be gone through, which you've also argued here, so I don't think we actually disagree there.

> Gee, last I checked, Iraqis ARE in jeapardy. Iraqis ARE dying. Which is
> one reason why I don't understand what alternative policy there is which
> wouldn't be immoral.

Iraquis are dying, some at Saddam's hands, some at the hands of the sanctions which have strengthened his hold on power (and let's not forget it was this outcome which reportedly radicalised Bin Laden and certainly provided the sort of rhetoric which filled his camps in Afghanistan) - but you need to be clear about what this means. I maintain that the despotism of the regime cannot be a basis for the US to take action. Demonstrated contravention of the UN resolution MUST be the trigger.

> No it wasn't. And it's not fine now either. People who wanna remain silent
> about Saddam today as equally immoral as Carter and Reagan were in the
> late 70s thru the 1980s with their silence about Saddam. I don't see the
> logic behind letting Saddam do whatever he pleases in 2003 because you
> didn't like U.S. policy in the 1980s. Gee, that's a nice one for the
> future victims of Saddam.

Glad we agree about past US actions/omissions. But I'm not arguing Saddam be left to do what he pleases. I'm arguing sovereign states must have some right to determine their own course, and you can't overthrow every despotic regime on the planet. If Saddam is disrmed, he cannot threaten other nations or his people en masse - at that point his regime becomes the equivalent of the numerous tin-pot regimes in the region - I don't hear any crocodile tears for the jailed, tortured or murdered political prisoners in Saudi Arabia, for instance. Whilst I have every sympathy for them, I can't say that bombing their country and potentially killing more innocents than would otherwise have been killed is a solution. Plus you'll just be further radicalising another generation of Bin Ladens.

> I'm pretty damn naseated by the motivations behind those who wanna give
> Saddam every benefit of the doubt they can.

Good, because I don't want to give Saddam the benefit of anything. I want the chance to preserve lives if at all possible.

> Well the problem is, who can figure out where you're coming from? You say
> you're for the U.N. weapons inspectors, but you condemn the American
> government that got them there. Strange.

I condemn the MOTIVATIONS of the US government, not the outcome. Not strange at all.

> You say you know there's illegal weapons in IRaq, but then you say the
> weapons that were found yesterday were "empty." So what does
> that mean? That you know the weapons are there, but you're hoping they
> aren't found so we can just blow the whole thing off for a later day? Or,
> do you actually believe the weapons are NOT there? Or MAY NOT be there?
> See, you sound really confused to me.

Not confused at all. I never said I knew there were illegal weapons, I said I felt it was highly likely (otherwise, as a good citizen of the world I'd hand my evidence over to Mr. Blix). It's incontrovertible Iraq has at least had a weapons programme in the past. Surely if these were part of an ongoing weapons programme, they'd be properly hidden away - seems more likely to me they've just been forgotten by the Iraqis at some stage. I just think the whole "event" is meaningless in the greater scheme of things (you seem to agree with this below).

> I suggest before you go around screaming how "naseated" you are
> by some of us here, that you first figure out where you're standing.

I know exactly where I stand, and I've got umpteen million lines scrawled all over this board to prove it.

> Anyway, I'd agree that it's not a huge deal that we found 11 illegal,
> undeclared warheads.

Now who's being inconsistent?

> It's already well-established fact that Saddam has
> illegal weapons. And it's already established fact that he's in breach.

So do you know something the inspectors don't?

> The only thing the 11 warheads adds is less wiggle room for those who
> wanna let Saddam get away with it again.

Yeah? Name them!

Still LMAO
January 17, 2003, 06:00 PM
Yet another smoking gun!!!

I like Rumsfield basically saying...if we find anything in Iraq it is a smoking gun and we'll beat the crap out of Iraq. But if we don't find anything...that is even better proof that there is something they are hiding and we will beat the crap out of Iraq.

CNN: bread and circus to naive americans
January 18, 2003, 12:51 AM