Declassified 9/11 Pages

[fredtoast]

(07-19-2016, 02:21 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Maybe he didn't want to use them until the US military was in the best position to be attacked by them, and then the American military cut off the route to get the warheads.

He knew we were coming well in advance. Why would he let that happen?

Do you ever think about this stuff before you post?

[Brownshoe]

(07-19-2016, 02:26 AM)fredtoast Wrote: He knew we were coming well in advance.  Why would he let that happen?

Do you ever think about this stuff before you post?

It doesn't matter, because it's better safe than sorry. You can't take the risk of him using his WMDs. I have already said that as of right now I don't think that we should have went to Iraq because of the info we know, but in the moment you have to be 100% sure that he has no chance of attacking. He had the means to attack, and he was acting like he had the motive.

[fredtoast]

(07-19-2016, 02:28 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: He had the means to attack, and he was acting like he had the motive.

He had no way to attack the United States with some old artillery shells.

[Brownshoe]

(07-19-2016, 02:40 AM)fredtoast Wrote: He had no way to attack the United States with some old artillery shells.

How do you know that he couldn't make a dirty bomb with some of the chemical weapons he had? You don't know. Better safe than sorry. All we knew at the time is that he had WMDs.

[fredtoast]

(07-19-2016, 02:47 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: All we knew at the time is that he had WMDs.

He never had any WMDs at all.

Even the NY Times story you referenced makes it clear that these were not WMDs.

And even if he did make a non-nuclear "dirty bomb" how was he going to hit the US with it?

[Brownshoe]

(07-19-2016, 03:03 AM)fredtoast Wrote: He never had any WMDs at all.

Even the NY Times story you referenced makes it clear that these were not WMDs.

And even if he did make a non-nuclear "dirty bomb" how was he going to hit the US with it?

Chemical weapons are WMDs.

[fredtoast]

(07-19-2016, 03:37 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Chemical weapons are WMDs.

Now they are not.

[Brownshoe]

(07-19-2016, 10:46 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Now they are not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans

[*michaelsean*]

(07-19-2016, 10:46 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Now they are not.

Yeah they are

[fredtoast]

(07-19-2016, 10:53 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah they are

A military shell can not cause MASS destruction or damage of any kind.

You can not just make up your own definitions.

[fredtoast]

(07-19-2016, 10:52 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans

Thank you for proving my point.

[Brownshoe]

(07-19-2016, 11:17 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Thank you for proving my point.

How does that prove your point? WMDs can be chemical weapons. They found chemical weapons that were considered WMDs.

[fredtoast]

(07-19-2016, 11:21 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: How does that prove your point? WMDs can be chemical weapons. They found chemical weapons that were considered WMDs.

This is directly from the NY Times article you are talking about.

Mr. Duelfer agreed that the weapons were still a menace, but said the report strove to make it clear that they were not “a secret cache of weapons of mass destruction.”
“What I was trying to convey is that these were not militarily significant because they not used as W.M.D.,” he said. “It wasn’t that they weren’t dangerous.”

No where in the story are theses munitions called WMD. So what exactly are you talking about?

[Brownshoe]

(07-19-2016, 11:40 AM)fredtoast Wrote: This is directly from the NY Times article you are talking about.  

Mr. Duelfer agreed that the weapons were still a menace, but said the report strove to make it clear that they were not “a secret cache of weapons of mass destruction.”
“What I was trying to convey is that these were not militarily significant because they not used as W.M.D.,” he said. “It wasn’t that they weren’t dangerous.”

No where in the story are theses munitions called WMD.  So what exactly are you talking about?

No where did he say that they weren't WMDs. He just said they weren't used as WMDs.

[Benton]

I've wondered if part of the reason we were in the wrong place was because we knew what we'd set in motion in Iraq, using the opportunity to clean up some of those bad decisions from the 80s.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp_x.htm
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/dec/31/iraq.politics

[fredtoast]

(07-19-2016, 11:45 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: No where did he say that they weren't WMDs.

How did you miss the direct quote I posted.

They were not “a secret cache of weapons of mass destruction.”


Now please show me ONE PLACE in the story where they are called "WMDs". I'll wait.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-19-2016, 11:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: A military shell can not cause MASS destruction or damage of any kind.

You can not just make up your own definitions.

He said chemical weapons are WMDs and you said they are not.  

[fredtoast]

(07-19-2016, 12:31 PM)michaelsean Wrote: He said chemical weapons are WMDs and you said they are not.  

I know exactly what he said. And I say the artillery shells found in Iraq are not weapons of MASS destruction because they would not cause massive death or damage over a large area.

Size matters. One drop of mustard gas would not constitute a weapon of MASS destruction. A hand grenade can kill several people but it is not considered a weapon of mass destruction.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-18-2016, 02:29 PM)McC Wrote: The military wanted to be established in the ME.  Afghanistan was not the kind of place where you launch an all out invasion.  They needed to go into Afghanistan through Iraq.  They needed an excuse for the world to go in and they would deal with any consequences later.  And they could feel good about taking a genocidal maniac former ally out of power.

Our military was already established in the Middle East. The military was already in Afghanistan for over a year before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The military didn't go to Iraq to get into Afghanistan . . . that's just asinine. Look at a map. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-16-2016, 12:01 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: That's not true. Iraq has used WMDs before, so it wasn't that much of a stretch to think they had them again.

It is true. The Senate's own investigation and report stated the pre-war intelligence was overstated, misleading, or flat out mistaken. The Intel was wordsmithed to support a predetermined course of action. 

Review Colin Powell's speech to the U.N.  He claimed they were actively pursuing nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. No evidence has been found to support those claims. Any chemical munitions found were rusting, unstable, and in many cases inoperable pieces of junk from the Iran-Iraq war. 

He also claimed an al-Qaeda connection. There wasn't any al-Qaeda in Iraq until after we invaded. Do you know what al-Qaeda in Iraq is called now?  ISIS.