Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
And the hits just keep on comin'; Saddam and Anthrax in 2002
Topic Started: Jul 6 2006, 08:49 PM (555 Views)
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
In yet another document captured by the Coalition from the files of the IIS, we have yet another piece of evidence that Saddam Hussein continued his pursuit of WMD. In document BIAP-2003-004552.pdf, we have a short memorandum announcing a transfer to a biological weapons program:

CENTER OF MANAGEMENT AND LAW / PRESIDENT
For that, we order Dr. Hazem Anwar Alnasery, assigned to the Health Department Center, and Dr Mothny Abas, president of the Central Health Testing Department, to be members of the Anthrax Operation Room. This order will not cancel the previous order assigned to Dr. Mostafa Fathee, president of the Central Health Testing Department and president of the Health Research Institute. Thanks.

Signed
Zohir Saeed Abd Elsalam
10/13/2002

El-Salem wrote this memo in October 2002, so this is not a case of pre-Gulf War mischief. Abas got assigned to anthrax operations while Congress debated whether to authorize military force.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Don't you just love the way people like Rick and the other antiwar pacifist pussy crowd write reams and reams of arguments against the war in Iraq - but when an article gets posted that shows how stupid their argument is....

they completely, totally, utterly ignore it?

WHERE ARE YOU, YOU PACIFIST PUSSY HYPOCRITES?? This is what - exhibit 20 that shows your antiwar arguments are total bull****?

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
David Burton
Senior Carp
Don't expect them to answer Larry, they're obviously so smugly smart about such things that it hurts - or stinks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
What is the source of the memo? I googled "Dr. Hazem Anwar Alnasery", and this, "http://70.168.46.200/Released%5C06-29-06/BIAP-2003-004552.pdf", which is a pdf containing nothing but the text GK quoted initially, is the only hit. No source attributed, nothing.

I'd like to see some corroboration here, too, before jumping to conclusions.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
If it were real, the White House would be screaming about it.

The fact that I hear about it from George K, and not George Bush, says quite a lot.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
What do you think it says, Quirt? The Bush administration has consistently been extremely tightlipped about what has and has not been found to date.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
http://www.freerepublic.com/~jveritas/

Here's a sample:

II. SADDAM REGIME WMD PROGRAMS: TRANSLATED DOCUMENTS THAT SHOW SADDAM REGIME CONTINUOUS WORK ON WMD PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES, POTENTIAL STOCKS OF CHEMICALS WEAPONS (CALLED SPECIAL AMMUNITION), AND DECEPTION OF THE U.N INSPECTORS ABOUT HIS WMD PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES.

2003 UN Report: Iraq Sulfur Mustard Gas Chemical Weapons Have High Quality After 12 years of Storage http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1653841/posts

2002 Document: Chemical Material Hidden Underground http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1642403/posts

Iraqi Documents: Plans To Produce Prohibited Chemical Weapons Precursors http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657480/posts

Iraqi Document: Highly Radioactive Atomic Neutron Device http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1651626/posts

2002 Document: Request For 500 KG Of SODIUM CYANIDE A Precursor For A Chemical Weapon http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1637240/posts

2002 Document: Plan To Produce Mobile Laboratories http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1631022/posts

2001 Top Secret Document: Production of Prohibited Nerve Gas Detectors http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1624797/posts

Document: Saddam Ordered Biological And Radiation Test on Presidential Sites Attacked by US in 1998

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1653280/posts

1999, 2000 Iraqi memos: Procurement of 50000 Aluminum Tubes That Can Be Used For URANIUM ENRICHMENT http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1620565/posts

Undated Document: Change Chemical, Nuclear, And Missiles Sites for Fear of Western Attack http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1621334/posts

2001, 2002 Iraqi Memos: SECRET NUCLEAR PROJECT http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1620262/posts

September 1998 Document: Secret Research Programs Related to WMD http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1613509/posts

1997 Document: Orders To Remove All Information Related To WMD From Computers http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1611976/posts

Summer 2002 Document: Destruction And Hiding of WMD Documents and Archives http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1614115/posts

Document Dated February/3/2003: Chemical Gears for The Chemical Group http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1603039/posts

Saddam Regime Document Dated 2001 Shows Chemical Platoon Still Exists And Active http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1602985/posts

Saddam Regime Document: SADDAM MET WITH HIS NUCLEAR GROUP IN 2002 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1608944/posts
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
QuirtEvans
Jul 7 2006, 01:53 AM
If it were real, the White House would be screaming about it.

The fact that I hear about it from George K, and not George Bush, says quite a lot.

Quirt, I know that you and I lock horns on occasion, but the truth is there are times that you write things that I have to acknowledge as your trying to be intellectually honest. It doesn't happen often, but it happens - unlike Rick or Opera Tenor, who are so hopelessly ideologically constipated as to be irrelevant. But the post quoted above is about as lame as it gets.

These documents are as authentic as it gets. What they show cannot be dismissed out of hand just because one doesn't like what they prove. And to attempt to dismiss them on the pathetically flimsy basis that since Bush isn't talking about them they must not be valid is plain silly, and exposes a closed, ideologically motivated mind.

George has been posting these documents for months. They show, irrefutably, that Saddam *was* engaging in things that were a serious - extremely serious - threat to America and the world, and the war in Iraq was and is justified. They also prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the left's arguments are just what many of us have said all along - dead wrong.

Have the integrity to acknowledge the obvious.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
George, I'll head this off at the pass: expect the brain dead leftwing ideologues to attack your links because you got them off the free republic website. They will, because this is the way they *always* dismiss things they don't want to deal with.

So, to you lefties thinking about stooping to your typical dishonest style of debate - where the documents are posted does not alter what's written in the document, or where the documents came from. I'm sure George would have provided you a link to them from a leftist website if he could have found one, but you see, facts are very hard to find on leftwing websites, and you certainly won't find documentation that proves just how misguided the left is posted on one.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
My apologies. For those who question attribution, I accidentally linked to the Free Republic page of translations of the documents. The actual documents are here:

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/index.htm

Foreign Military Studies Office
Joint Reserve Intelligence Center
Fort Leavenworth

Click on the "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in the upper right.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
OT, will the Army do as a corroborating website?
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Nope, but Wiki will:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ira...eedom_documents
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Well OT, I guess it's pretty clear now who it is with their head up their ass.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I don't understand why people (both on the left and on the right) in the US think that the WMDs are so important. Personally, I believe it is irrelevant whether Saddam had a few WMDs or not in assessing the necessity of the Iraq war.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Good point Klaus. Since the "failure" of the US-led coalition to find vast quantities of WMD in Iraq, the mantra of the left has been that the war was built on lies: that the reason for the war was non-existent. There were other reasons that I'll leave to others to more eloquently explain, but that's why the WMD issue keeps surfacing.

"You lied"
"No, I didn't"
"Yes you did!"
"Did not!"
"Did tooo!"
"Read this!"

usw....
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Those of us on the right agree with you - it doesn't matter one way or the other. The war was justified on so many other levels that the WMD issue is actually beside the point. But the democrat party and the antiwar left have used the "lack of WMD" as a bludgeon, and built their entire little house of cards on this one point. Bush "rushed to judgment". It's "Bush's war". Bush "started an illegal war". And the big one - "Bush lied" about WMD. "Bush was avenging daddy". "Bush's unjustified (because there were no WMD) and illegal war to avenge daddy took our eye off the *real* war on terror, and stretched us so thin we cannot fight the *real* war on terror", and on and on and on.

These documents prove irrefutably that the democrats and the antiwar left were 100% wrong, and their continuing to harp on the same discredited arguments while ignoring these documents prove beyond any doubt what the right has been saying all along - they are not concerned with the war on terror, they are not concerned with their country's national security, they are purely concerned with their own political future.

Move politics and politica agendas out of the way, and anyone with an ounce of reasoning power has to admit that Saddam was an extremely serious threat to world stability and had to be removed. But as you will see, the democrats and leftists on the board, as well as democrats and the left in general, will continue to 1: dismiss these documents through all sorts of lame methods, and 2: continue to harp on the same discredited points they've always done.

And that is why the democrat party must *never* again be allowed in power.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
The matter of WMD was always at the center for our invading Iraq but not precisely in the way it has been portrayed. The danger that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed to our national security was that it could become a haven for terrorists if it was not already. Saddam could provide to them training and funding and, most important, WMD. It would not take "stockpiles" of WMD for this danger to exist. Simply passing on small amounts or even the technology to make them was dangerous enough. We now know that danger existed because David Kay, in his report on the search for WMD in Iraq, Said precisely that. In fact, he said, in this regard, Iraq may have been more dangerous than we thought before the invasion and a bazaar-like atmosphere was developing with WMD and other weapons involved.

The WMD issue really got blown out of proportion due to the Bush Administration leaning heavily on it in making a case for invasion before the UN. I think they bungled matters badly by making the UN such a key element in the run up to the invasion since it was clear the UN was never going to go along. They bungled not so much in involving the UN but in fixing in the public mind the idea that a massive arsenal of WMD was waiting in Iraq. I believe that the stockpile would have to have been immense indeed to meet the inflated expectation that was created even though the question of stockpiles should only have been tangentially important in terms of the real danger.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

George, you should post a book with all your info - very good research indeed! :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
JBryan
Jul 7 2006, 07:53 AM
The matter of WMD was always at the center for our invading Iraq but not precisely in the way it has been portrayed. The danger that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed to our national security was that it could become a haven for terrorists if it was not already. Saddam could provide to them training and funding and, most important, WMD. It would not take "stockpiles" of WMD for this danger to exist. Simply passing on small amounts or even the technology to make them was dangerous enough. We now know that danger existed because David Kay, in his report on the search for WMD in Iraq, Said precisely that. In fact, he said, in this regard, Iraq may have been more dangerous than we thought before the invasion and a bazaar-like atmosphere was developing with WMD and other weapons involved.

The WMD issue really got blown out of proportion due to the Bush Administration leaning heavily on it in making a case for invasion before the UN. I think they bungled matters badly by making the UN such a key element in the run up to the invasion since it was clear the UN was never going to go along. They bungled not so much in involving the UN but in fixing in the public mind the idea that a massive arsenal of WMD was waiting in Iraq. I believe that the stockpile would have to have been immense indeed to meet the inflated expectation that was created even though the question of stockpiles should only have been tangentially important in terms of the real danger.

:yes:

Absolutely.

The conservatives on this board, by and large, do not think GWB hung the moon. We are aware of many mistakes he has made, and readily admit to them.

I agree with JB's UN assessment.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Larry
Jul 7 2006, 05:05 AM
Well OT, I guess it's pretty clear now who it is with their head up their ass.

Look, asshole, I simply asked a question. I try to research any information I'm presented with(I don't always succeed, but you'll just say that's because I'm an idiot - you're so predictably stupid) to cross reference it and balance the information. I thought the name I googled would give me a narrow enough list. When it gave me the one hit with no apparent attribution, I came back to ask the question. Why the hell is that so wrong? What's the problem with me trying to learn?

Most of you on the right get overly defensive when one of us God-forsaken liberals asks questions, to the point of being insulting. It's impossible to engage in any rational discussion on those grounds, and in this short time I'm starting to feel like I'm beating my head against the wall for even trying. I experienced this crap when I was in the Navy. Never question authority, and never suggest alternatives. IOW, never try to make things better, just accept it like a good doggie.

You can have it.

Larry, get some professional help.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Everybody knows that Saddam was not a "good guy". Either he got rid of WMDs at some point due to UN pressure, the former Iraq war, or other reasons, or he was hiding them somewhere where they were hard to find. If he didn't have any WMD, it was not because he suddenly turned into a peaceful guy. This is for sure.

However, my interpretation and conclusion from this is different than those from Larry et al (I wonder whether I would already deserve the "braindead" title of honour for this):

After 9/11, the american people demanded that "something must be done". At least Bush was obviously convinced he needed to do "something" right now and fast in order to show that he can deal with the problem. However, the problem is that there is no fast, obvious, clean measure against terrorism. There is no country or army that you can fight against in order to "win".

At that time, Saddam was not a bigger (or smaller) threat than one, two, or five years before. Nevertheless, the Bush administration decided that he would be a good target to show that they can "do something" about terrorism that is quick, tangible, and impressive. Whether or not there was any connection to 9/11 did not really matter. Unfortunately for Bush, it is common to have a reason for going to war with a country (at that point it was not yet commonly accepted that it is enough to claim that a country is a "threat" to go to war). So they were looking for reasons to attack Iraq. This is why WMDs were suddenly so important, since Saddam was not allowed to have them. I believe nobody was really interested in the WMDs as such; their only important property was that they could be used to justify a war.

I believe a successful fight against terrorism must have two facets: 1) A military facet - to fight against the existing terrorists, and 2) a political facet: to dry up the swamp that lets terrorism grow. My reproach to the Bush administration is that they over-emphasized 1) and completely neglected 2).

Terrorism is not like an enemy in a war. It's nature is much more like corruption, or contagion. It's not a war, and it cannot be won on the battlefield. If violence is necessary, then only as a well-defined part of a broader, long-term political plan. This is what I am missing.

Just my 0.025526$ (0.02 Euro).
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Klaus
Jul 7 2006, 09:14 AM
I don't understand why people (both on the left and on the right) in the US think that the WMDs are so important. Personally, I believe it is irrelevant whether Saddam had a few WMDs or not in assessing the necessity of the Iraq war.

The point is made more asinine by the fact that almost everybody thought that he had WMD's, and we were all pretty surprised that none were found. I didn't support the initial invasion, but I was pretty amazed that there were no WMD's found. Those who then went on to claim that they were lied to, or that they always knew there were no WMDs are undermining their own argument by changing horses mid-stream.

If you disagreed with the war, say so, but then accept that the war is now a fact of life. Move on. Harping on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about the same tired points over and over and ...you get the picture...isn't going to make the situation go away. The question that we now need focus on is 'where do we go from here'? This sh!t's too important for partisan thinking and political point scoring. Sadly, the vast majority of politicians on both sides of the divide aren't very good at much else.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
John D'Oh
Jul 7 2006, 12:09 PM
The question that we now need focus on is 'where do we go from here'? This sh!t's too important for partisan thinking and political point scoring. Sadly, the vast majority of politicians on both sides of the divide aren't very good at much else.

Amen.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
George K
Jul 6 2006, 09:49 PM
In yet another document captured by the Coalition from the files of the IIS, we have yet another piece of evidence that Saddam Hussein continued his pursuit of WMD. In document BIAP-2003-004552.pdf, we have a short memorandum announcing a transfer to a biological weapons program:

CENTER OF MANAGEMENT AND LAW / PRESIDENT
For that, we order Dr. Hazem Anwar Alnasery, assigned to the Health Department Center, and Dr Mothny Abas, president of the Central Health Testing Department, to be members of the Anthrax Operation Room. This order will not cancel the previous order assigned to Dr. Mostafa Fathee, president of the Central Health Testing Department and president of the Health Research Institute. Thanks.

Signed
Zohir Saeed Abd Elsalam
10/13/2002

El-Salem wrote this memo in October 2002, so this is not a case of pre-Gulf War mischief. Abas got assigned to anthrax operations while Congress debated whether to authorize military force.

Do we know what the Anthrax Operation was -- or are we making assumptions and using those assumptions to justify the massive losses this war has cost the united States, the Iraqis and the world?
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DivaDeb
HOLY CARP!!!
I have several buddies in SAMS at Leavenworth and am on the base a couple times a week. Maybe I could go have my picture taken with the documents to prove they exist.


John...you're smart.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1