Freethought & Rationalism Archive

theyeti · 04-30-2003, 08:04 AM

Top Iraqi Prisoners Deny Saddam Had WMDs

Quote:

High-ranking Iraqi prisoners are uniformly denying Saddam Hussein's government had any weapons of mass destruction before the war, U.S. officials familiar with their interrogations said Tuesday.

...

Fears that Saddam's military would use chemical weapons on the battlefield went unrealized, and U.S. officials have not reported any evidence that his military units were equipped with those weapons.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, under questioning before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday, predicted prisoners would yet help U.S. forces find the alleged weapons.

"They will be found," he said.

...

After coming up empty, military officials have largely abandoned earlier methods of searching only suspected weapons sites that were noted before the war. Now, defense officials say they are primarily going where Iraqis point them.

Spurning the proposed re-entry of U.N. weapons inspectors, the Bush administration is sending 1,000 experts to join the 200 already searching in Iraq for evidence of weapons programs.

And in related news...

Report: Iraqi Scientist Says Bioweapons Destroyed

Quote:

A scientist who helped to pioneer Iraq's germ warfare program said that to his knowledge all Iraqi biological weapons were destroyed and no such weapons have been in the Iraqi arsenal recently, ABC's "Nightline" reported on Tuesday.

The official line in all of these cases is that the prisoners/scientists are lying to cover their asses, though it's not clear what they'd have to gain by lying at this point. It seems that they'd have a lot more to gain by pointing US forces to the WMD, assuming they exist.

One thing's for sure. Someone's lying to cover their ass.

theyeti

Gurdur · 04-30-2003, 08:07 AM

Quote:

"They will be found," he said.

Ah, blind religious faith despite all contradicting evidence.

Where's Leonarde ? Surely he'll rush into defending his fellow-religionists.

leonarde · 04-30-2003, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Where's Leonarde ? Surely he'll rush into defending his fellow-religionists.

I don't quite get that:

1) the Wolfowitzes and Perles who are said to be the architects of the overarching Pax Americana are apparently heavily Jewish.

2) Bush and a number of his advisors are Protestants of one sort or another.

3) I'm a bloody Papist.

It just don't compute, senhor!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

One thing's for sure. Someone's lying to cover their ass.

theyeti

Hmm perhaps a clue could be found at the very (second) story posted by theyeti:

Quote:

Hindawi left the weapons program in 1989 but was recalled by Saddam to work as a consultant when U.N. inspectors arrived after the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites).

Hindawi told ABC that he and other bioweapons scientists were coached on how to lie to the inspectors.

The report said the scientist was also ordered to conceal how an animal feed protein factory that he had helped to build could also be used to make anthrax.

"I would try to convince the inspectors that nothing other than the protein was produced in that center. But I was lying to them, and they knew it," Hindawi said.

(emphasis added by leonarde)
So this informant:

1) "left the weapons program in 1989" but served later as a weapons-inspector minder/deceiver. And this was considered a full-time occupation for an Iraqi scientist of the period!!

2) the weapons inspectors "knew" he was lying (but given the time frame, this was prob. UNSCOM, not UNMOVIC).

So in determining which side is "lying" all I have to do is ask myself: who has had more practice? Who was running a state with no free press, assembly etc. ? Oh, and who was claiming that the UK/US coalition was "nowhere near Baghdad" when we were getting live filmed reports from embedded reporters on the outskirts of that very city?

Cheers!

Koiyotnik · 04-30-2003, 11:02 AM

Er, leonarde, I believe the point Gurdur was making was that all the mentioned individuals were religious--which by the points you listed asserts that statement--and not necessarily of the same specific faith.

Zar · 04-30-2003, 11:11 AM

Jack Straw, the prime warhawk from the U.K. (besides Blair) is helping to pave the road for a total failure of the WMD search. Read this pathetic spin:

Quote:

STRAW: IRAQ MAY NOT HAVE WMDs

Mixed message paves way for search failure

By Paul Gilfeather, Whitehall Editor

THERE may be NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw admitted yesterday.

He told the Commons that war was declared because the regime had ONCE been in possession of them.

And he insisted they did not have to be found to justify the invasion.

His astonishing U-turn stunned MPs on all sides of the Commons - and came hours after Tony Blair again insisted that weapons were there and would be found.

Mr Straw said: "I'm absolutely certain that Iraq HAD illegal possession of weapons of mass destruction and had these RECENTLY (?!) and there is every reason why these ought to be found."

See The Mirror (UK)

leonarde · 04-30-2003, 11:15 AM

Well, in theyeti's excepts posted here ONE AND ONLY ONE person is mentioned by name: Colin Powell. I have no idea of Powell's religious beliefs. But I find it absurd to try to claim that opinions about Iraq are primarily driven by religion: at the "anti-war rallies" of recent months there have been MANY MANY ministers, priests, lay devotees (including the very Catholic and very pacifistic Martin Sheen), as well as non-believers. Gurdur's comment is one of his typical nonsequiturs.

Cheers!

Zar · 04-30-2003, 11:41 AM

leonarde,

Gurdur? A non-sequitir? Here we go again with those pocket-book labels that get thrown around so carelessly these days, as if they are mental bricks you can throw at someone when all else fails. Where is the non-sequitir in deriding an administration that continues to say "WMDs will be found", despite overwhelming failures time and time again and an ever-growing mountain of reasons to think they probably won't be found? The word "will" is pretty definite. Perhaps Jack Straw is slightly more sane about this, albeit somewhat more pathetic.

And as far as I can tell, I don't think Gurdur was really talking about Colin Powell's religion. "Religious" is merely an adjective to describe what he sees as an inappropriate level of emphatic devotion to an idea that is, and ought to be, controlled by the evidence, which is lacking. He does not describe Powell's actual religious afilliation when he says this. I really hope I don't have to explain this any further.

Their best propaganda move is to cease talking about what they WILL find and talk about the process and that it will take a long time, etc., etc. Make the public forget. Stop pounding the fist and distract them with something else. Moves like Jack Straw's may not be out of line, either.

slept2long · 04-30-2003, 11:42 AM

Leonarde, if Gurdur's being anything it's his jolly old self. There have been no signs of WMD and like a believer looking for God there are still convinced they will find weapons who's existence no evidence currently available can support.

eldar1011 · 04-30-2003, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
So in determining which side is "lying" all I have to do is ask myself: who has had more practice? Who was running a state with no free press, assembly etc. ? Oh, and who was claiming that the UK/US coalition was "nowhere near Baghdad" when we were getting live filmed reports from embedded reporters on the outskirts of that very city?

Well, alright then. They are liars. Well-practiced, damn good liars. Sure.

Then why bother asking them anything? What would be the point?

And since, by implication, the US are not practiced liars. They do not run a state with no free press, assembly, etc. Then why even question anything they say? Surely, they can only speak the truth.

Gurdur · 04-30-2003, 11:56 AM

Aaaahhhh, prizes to Zar and slept2long.

Minus 10 points to leonarde for a fatal, ever-present inability to comprehend irony, and for an ever-present tendency towards self-parodying.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-30-2003, 11:02 AM	#4
Koiyotnik Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: St Catharines, ON, Canada Posts: 1,920	Er, leonarde, I believe the point Gurdur was making was that all the mentioned individuals were religious--which by the points you listed asserts that statement--and not necessarily of the same specific faith.

04-30-2003, 11:15 AM	#6
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Well, in theyeti's excepts posted here ONE AND ONLY ONE person is mentioned by name: Colin Powell. I have no idea of Powell's religious beliefs. But I find it absurd to try to claim that opinions about Iraq are primarily driven by religion: at the "anti-war rallies" of recent months there have been MANY MANY ministers, priests, lay devotees (including the very Catholic and very pacifistic Martin Sheen), as well as non-believers. Gurdur's comment is one of his typical nonsequiturs. Cheers!

04-30-2003, 11:41 AM	#7
Zar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Chicago, IL USA Posts: 3,477	leonarde, Gurdur? A non-sequitir? Here we go again with those pocket-book labels that get thrown around so carelessly these days, as if they are mental bricks you can throw at someone when all else fails. Where is the non-sequitir in deriding an administration that continues to say "WMDs will be found", despite overwhelming failures time and time again and an ever-growing mountain of reasons to think they probably won't be found? The word "will" is pretty definite. Perhaps Jack Straw is slightly more sane about this, albeit somewhat more pathetic. And as far as I can tell, I don't think Gurdur was really talking about Colin Powell's religion. "Religious" is merely an adjective to describe what he sees as an inappropriate level of emphatic devotion to an idea that is, and ought to be, controlled by the evidence, which is lacking. He does not describe Powell's actual religious afilliation when he says this. I really hope I don't have to explain this any further. Their best propaganda move is to cease talking about what they WILL find and talk about the process and that it will take a long time, etc., etc. Make the public forget. Stop pounding the fist and distract them with something else. Moves like Jack Straw's may not be out of line, either.

04-30-2003, 11:42 AM	#8
slept2long Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 1,066	Leonarde, if Gurdur's being anything it's his jolly old self. There have been no signs of WMD and like a believer looking for God there are still convinced they will find weapons who's existence no evidence currently available can support.

04-30-2003, 11:56 AM	#10
Gurdur Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Buggered if I know Posts: 12,410	Aaaahhhh, prizes to Zar and slept2long. Minus 10 points to leonarde for a fatal, ever-present inability to comprehend irony, and for an ever-present tendency towards self-parodying.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.