Some of Saddam's WMD in Syria?

[StabbyTheIcePic]

Originally posted by NUKE
find a better source for what? You think the three sources are wrong and the story not true?

Come on Pongo, really.

I think idotic writers that feed off of gulible right wing scare jobs like yourself make alot of money for writing garbage.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
I think idotic writers that feed off of gulible right wing scare jobs like yourself make alot of money for writing garbage.

so basically you will not aknowledge the news report as being true, even though at least 4 sources where quoted.

[Hortlund]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3635381.stm


It is an open secret that the Iraqi WMDs are in Syria.

[rpm]

Originally posted by Airhead
Gixer, basically being labeled a "liberal" is an insult used by those too dense to see the varying shades of grey in what they believe to be a black and white world.

Get used to Bodhi's namecalling- it's all he can offer to a thread.

Once again Airhead hits the bullseye.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by GScholz
While it is an interesting theory, I wonder what Syria would want with Iraqi chemical weapons considering they have plenty themselves?

Weapons are like tools.
You can never have too many of them.

And why not? We had/have more then enough Nukes to blow up the world several times over.
That never stopped us from making more.

[Thrawn]

What the heck is the shelf life on chemical and biological weapons?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by GScholz
Still, why would Iraq take the risk of sending its WMD to Syria rather than just bury it? Syria has chemical factories producing WMD and a Scud manufacturing plant. They have all the chemical weapons they want and the delivery systems. So does Iran. I fail to see why Iraq would risk transporting WMD to Syria.

Because it is easier to look for Iraqi WMDs in Iraq than in Syria... They would be safer where they are now.

[Hortlund]

*shrug*

1. There is plenty of evidence that puts the WMDs in Syria, none that you or anyone else of the anti-war lobby would accept as evidence though, nor would it hold water in a court of law

which brings us to

2. the impotence of the law to combat terrorism

[Hortlund]

1.
Sattelite images of trucks going from known/suspected Iraqi WMD sites in early March and moving to an exact, known, spot in northeastern Syria. A spot that is now "guarded by" (as in grouped in the area) several Syrian army formations.  

Testimony by Iraqi soldiers/"scientists" who took part in the operation.

Testimony by other Iraqi soldiers/"scientists" who all claim to have worked with WMDs.

2.
Impotent as in the law canot be used to fight terrorism. Criminal law is more focused on acting after a crime has taken place. It is designed to discover the crime, and then find evidence to tie the bad guy to the crime.

It is very bad when it comes to crime-prevention. And it is *completely* impotent when it comes to battling the kind of terrorism Al Quaeda stands for.

I dunno if you want me to explain more in detail why it is so, but basically that is what I was referring to.

[StabbyTheIcePic]

Ahhh the burden of proof. Nuke your website is just full of editorials. Come back with something besides the rantings of a scared little man writing off the top of his head.

In all seriousness if these rantings about syria had any bit of truth to them it would be all over the mainstream media. I know you guys think the media is a liberal mouthpiece, but they are in the business of making money and a story on Syria having wmd's would surely make the nightly news.

I do not post NYtimes or washington post editorials as facts nuke.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
Ahhh the burden of proof. Nuke your website is just full of editorials. Come back with something besides the rantings of a scared little man writing off the top of his head.

Did you miss my link to BBC? Or did you ignore that one because you cant just dismiss the source?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
a story on Syria having wmd's would surely make the nightly news.
 

No one in the US or UK administration would say that in public.

Like I said, everyone knows where the Iraqi WMDs are, its just that it would be political suicide to say it. Right now the public is not ready for a war against Syria. Which leaves three options.

1) Ignore the problem for now, see how Iraq/Afghanistan/the war on terror develops, and depending on that, raise the Syrian question in a year or two.

2) Covert operations against the WMD locations in Syria.

3) Have Israel do it.


1) Seems to be the option the US/UK are going with right now. Its ok really, they know where the WMDs are, they have the area under 24 hour surviellance. How for example do you think the Jordanian plot was stopped?

2) Is too risky, basically this is what the Syrians are expecting, hence the army presence in the area. Any operation in the area is bound to cause some casualties, and the media image of an "unprovoked" US attack on peaceful Syria is bound to cause several heads to explode among the pacifists and the arabs. Anyway, it wont really lead to any good PR even if successful "yeah, we destroyed the Iraqi WMDs in Syria" followed by a gigantic "yeah, right" by the collective pacifists in the western hemisphere.

3) Is possibly what is going on too. Might be the reason why the US/UK are letting the Israelis do their thing with the Palestinians right now. Israel could be saying "ok, we will take out the nuclear reactor in Iran, and the Syrian WMDs and take the blame for it, if you let us do our thing in Gaza and the West Bank first to enhance our security situation".

[NUKE]

Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
Ahhh the burden of proof. Nuke your website is just full of editorials. Come back with something besides the rantings of a scared little man writing off the top of his head.

In all seriousness if these rantings about syria had any bit of truth to them it would be all over the mainstream media. I know you guys think the media is a liberal mouthpiece, but they are in the business of making money and a story on Syria having wmd's would surely make the nightly news.

I do not post NYtimes or washington post editorials as facts nuke.

First of all Pongo, the article I posted from newsmax says almost exactly what the BBC article says. You see, newsmax was just reporting from the news services just like the BBC had done.

Second, who said anything about proof of anything? I posted an article about the terorist plot....a VERY significant event which was stopped.

The article I posted simply said that now people will be wondering/questioning weather or not any of Saddams weapons made it into Syria, which seems logical to me. I wonder if Saddams wmd went to Syria too, does that make me "crazy" or something?

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic


In all seriousness if these rantings about syria had any bit of truth to them it would be all over the mainstream media. I know you guys think the media is a liberal mouthpiece, but they are in the business of making money and a story on Syria having wmd's would surely make the nightly news.

I do not post NYtimes or washington post editorials as facts nuke.

you mean the NY Times and Washington post are not mainstream media?

LOL and since when has the mainstream media given a damn about the truth?
They take snippets of the truth and yank,spin,twist and turn it around to make it sound more interesting depending on the point they are trying to make.
But the end product rarely resembles anything like the truth they started with.

[Airhead]

Originally posted by Grizzly
It's funny how liberals don't like to be called liberals... it's like they're ashamed of it.

grizzly

LOL It's not what you say, it's more how you say it. As long as your defination of a "liberal" is a person who hates America and wants to see her defeated and put into her place then being called a "liberal"is offensive, not embarassing. It would be like if I called you a fascist- its only purpose is to deteroriate a discussion into a name calling flamefest.