Volkswagen Passat Forum banner

1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,535 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,5921220%5E663,00.html


SADDAM Hussein's senior bodyguard has fled with details of Iraq's secret arsenal.

His revelations have supported US President George W. Bush's claim there is enough evidence from UN inspectors to justify going to war.
Abu Hamdi Mahmoud has provided Israeli intelligence with a list of sites that the inspectors have not visited.

They include:

AN underground chemical weapons facility at the southern end of the Jadray Peninsula in Baghdad;

A SCUD assembly area near Ramadi. The missiles come from North Korea;

TWO underground bunkers in Iraq's Western Desert. These contain biological weapons.

William Tierney, a former UN weapons inspector who has continued to gather information on Saddam's arsenal, said Mahmoud's information is "the smoking gun".

"Once the inspectors go to where Mahmoud has pointed them, then it's all over for Saddam," Tierney said.

Tierney, who has high-level contacts in Washington that go to the White House, said the information we publish today on Mahmoud's revelations "checks out, absolutely checks out".

Mahmoud was a member of the elite unit that protects Saddam.

It is called the Murasiq Qun – the "Inner Circle".

He was known as "The Gatekeeper".

Mahmoud is a muscular Saddam lookalike often photographed standing behind Saddam when he is seated, or to his left when on the move.

Last week, Mahmoud was being debriefed at a high-security base in Israel's Negev Desert.

Ariel Sharon, the country's hard-line prime minister, has only allowed snippets of Mahmoud's sensational claims to be shared with the CIA and MI6.

"Sharon intends to shatter the growing anti-war movement," a source close to Mr Sharon said.

"He plans to call all those European leaders who are wavering to let them know how Saddam has continued to fool Hans Blix and his weapons inspectors."

Mahmoud's revelations include locations of five bunkers buried beneath man-made sand dunes.

Stockpiled in the bunkers are warheads identical to the empty shell cases found two weeks ago by the UN inspectors.

Mahmoud said those shells were on their way to be refilled and stored in the bunkers.

A transcript from his debriefing includes:

"Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are also concealed in a tunnel complex deep beneath the sewers of Baghdad and in an underground complex in Ouja, to the north of Tikrit.

"The complex was built five years ago with help from Chinese engineers.

"The entrance to the site is through a house in Tikrit. It is the home of one of Saddam's cousins and is more than half a mile from where the weapons are stored."

In another excerpt from his debriefing, Mahmoud boasts: "I was inside the innermost circle where Saddam eats and sleeps.

"I was among the handful of bodyguards closest to him.

"Very few people are allowed close to Saddam.

"Many of the TV images you see of him were taken years ago. Most people now only speak to him over the phone. He usually calls them.

"If they have to call him back with information he wants, it is passed through his sons (Uday and Qusay) or (Deputy Prime Minister) Tariq Aziz.

"All those close to him have codes, which they use to access the outer circle. But even they can only come so close to Saddam before there is a cut-off point – the Inner Circle. Even Tariq Aziz is checked to see if he is carrying weapons.

"Saddam knows fortunes are being offered to have him assassinated."

Saddam's paranoia increased after Uday, his eldest son, narrowly escaped assassination when gunmen riddled his car with bullets in 1996. Uday was partially paralysed and uses a wheelchair.

To avoid falling victim to even his own bodyguards, Saddam is a walking arsenal.

"He has concealed guns all over his body," Mahmoud said.

"He also has panic buttons to press if he even suspects somebody is about to attack him."

Israeli intelligence sources have hinted that the deal with Mahmoud included smuggling his family out of Iraq.

Mossad agents have done this before.

At the start of Saddam's reign of terror, they persuaded an Iraqi pilot to fly his Russian fighter to Israel – after spiriting out his wife and children.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,236 Posts
Re: Husseins former bodyguard provides details of Iraq's secret arsenal

Wait, so the President was actually telling the truth???? Who would've guessed??? I can almost guarantee you people will say Bush has no proof.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Re: Husseins former bodyguard provides details of Iraq's secret arsenal (dme79)

Given the source, it must be true


Don't worry, you will read that this was a fake a good while after the war, when nobody cares. Remember the "satelite pictures" of massive Iraqi toop movements at the Saudi border right before Desert storm? FAKE STORY! Remember the babies that Iraqi soldiers pulled out of incubators? FAKE STORY! However, both stories "helped to swing public opinion" back then. You can also say we were lied to -depends on what you like.

I have a better story for you: http://www.oilandgasinternational.com/departments/world_industry_news/jan03_france.html

And honestly, this war is not about oil
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,050 Posts
Re: Husseins former bodyguard provides details of Ir ... (Berliner)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Given the source, it must be true


Don't worry, you will read that this was a fake a good while after the war, when nobody cares. Remember the "satelite pictures" of massive Iraqi toop movements at the Saudi border right before Desert storm? FAKE STORY! Remember the babies that Iraqi soldiers pulled out of incubators? FAKE STORY! However, both stories "helped to swing public opinion" back then. You can also say we were lied to -depends on what you like.

I have a better story for you: http://www.oilandgasinternational.com/departments/world_industry_news/jan03_france.html
And honestly, this war is not about oil
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Tehran Times?!? Great news source you got there.
Very reputable.




<![CDATA[<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Given the source, it must be true


Don't worry, you will read that this was a fake a good while after the war, when nobody cares. Remember the "satelite pictures" of massive Iraqi toop movements at the Saudi border right before Desert storm? FAKE STORY! Remember the babies that Iraqi soldiers pulled out of incubators? FAKE STORY! However, both stories "helped to swing public opinion" back then. You can also say we were lied to -depends on what you like.

I have a better story for you: http://www.oilandgasinternational.com/departments/world_industry_news/jan03_france.html
And honestly, this war is not about oil
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Tehran Times?!? Great news source you got there.
Very reputable.




[Modified by Urlik, 6:39 PM 2/2/2003]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,449 Posts
Re: Husseins former bodyguard provides details of Ir ... (Urlik)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Given the source, it must be true


Don't worry, you will read that this was a fake a good while after the war, when nobody cares. Remember the "satelite pictures" of massive Iraqi toop movements at the Saudi border right before Desert storm? FAKE STORY! Remember the babies that Iraqi soldiers pulled out of incubators? FAKE STORY! However, both stories "helped to swing public opinion" back then. You can also say we were lied to -depends on what you like.

I have a better story for you: http://www.oilandgasinternational.com/departments/world_industry_news/jan03_france.html
And honestly, this war is not about oil



Tehran Times?!? Great news source you got there.
Very reputable.



[Modified by Urlik, 6:39 PM 2/2/2003]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh my god this is one of the funniest things i've seen so far. i'd be f'in dumbfounded if a member of the us congress was on record saying people must support the war or they can't access iraqi oil supplies in a post-war scenario. that is just straight dumb.

you know what else is dumb? believing that story and then posting it on the boards. sorry if the tone is a little harsh, but come on.

EDIT: ooh, lookey, he isn't even quoted as saying that! all he said was that they should support us. puh-lease...somebody find where lugar made this so called "statement"

<![CDATA[<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Given the source, it must be true


Don't worry, you will read that this was a fake a good while after the war, when nobody cares. Remember the "satelite pictures" of massive Iraqi toop movements at the Saudi border right before Desert storm? FAKE STORY! Remember the babies that Iraqi soldiers pulled out of incubators? FAKE STORY! However, both stories "helped to swing public opinion" back then. You can also say we were lied to -depends on what you like.

I have a better story for you: http://www.oilandgasinternational.com/departments/world_industry_news/jan03_france.html
And honestly, this war is not about oil



Tehran Times?!? Great news source you got there.
Very reputable.



[Modified by Urlik, 6:39 PM 2/2/2003]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh my god this is one of the funniest things i've seen so far. i'd be f'in dumbfounded if a member of the us congress was on record saying people must support the war or they can't access iraqi oil supplies in a post-war scenario. that is just straight dumb.

you know what else is dumb? believing that story and then posting it on the boards. sorry if the tone is a little harsh, but come on.

EDIT: ooh, lookey, he isn't even quoted as saying that! all he said was that they should support us. puh-lease...somebody find where lugar made this so called "statement"

[Modified by Medrosje, 11:12 PM 2/2/2003]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,116 Posts
Re: Husseins former bodyguard provides details of Ir ... (Medrosje)

Perhaps Berliner's point was that we tend to believe "news" that supports our preconceptions/prejudices/etc.

I read the text at both links and neither of them sound very credible.. Wag the dog..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,780 Posts
Re: Husseins former bodyguard provides details of Ir ... (Macabre)

I'm just curious though... Is there any evidence that, if provided, would convince you that Saddam has failed to live up to the U.N. resolutions or indeed possesses WMD? If so, what do you require...or as a matter of principle do you believe wars in general are not an option under any circumstance?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,292 Posts
Re: Husseins former bodyguard provides details of Ir ... (J-RAD)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I'm just curious though... Is there any evidence that, if provided, would convince you that Saddam has failed to live up to the U.N. resolutions or indeed possesses WMD? If so, what do you require...or as a matter of principle do you believe wars in general are not an option under any circumstance? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me throw this one back to you ...

Is there any evidence that, if provided, would convince you that Saddam HAS LIVED UP TO the U.N. resolutions or indeed DOES NOT possess WMD? If so, what do you require

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,780 Posts
Re: Husseins former bodyguard provides details of Ir ... (flying_scotsman)

Answer my question first!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,116 Posts
Re: Husseins former bodyguard provides details of Ir ... (J-RAD)

There's really nothing you could show me that could conince me without a doubt of much of anything these days. I just hope that those in charge of the red buttons are getting accurate information and making good choices. That's the breaks living in a republic and it's worked relatively well (compared to other systems throughout history) for us so far. I do believe there are cases where war is justified, but my line in the sand is probably further along than most people's. I do not believe based on the information that I've seen that there is justification for invading Iraq... but I'm not in charge of the buttons
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,780 Posts
Re: Husseins former bodyguard provides details of Ir ... (Macabre)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>... but I'm not in charge of the buttons<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...nor am I. Thank God for that on both accounts!


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I do believe there are cases where war is justified, but my line in the sand is probably further along than most people's. I do not believe based on the information that I've seen that there is justification for invading Iraq.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what is your threshold then? What would it take? Not being antagonistic...just curious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,116 Posts
Re: Husseins former bodyguard provides details of Ir ... (J-RAD)

My initial reaction is to say that I'd wait until he used WMD.. but upon reflection perhaps showing me that he had ability would be enough. To put a fairly dull point on it I'd say you would have to convince me that there was ability and intent to use said weapons. I think to some extent that justification of war is one of those "I'll know it when I see it" scenarios and extremely difficult to define in brief terms.

I'm not even sure what WMD means as far as the UN resolutions are concerned. Explosives with a certain yield? Chemical weapons? I'm sure that information is available, perhaps I should look it up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
799 Posts
Re: Husseins former bodyguard provides details of Ir ... (Macabre)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Perhaps Berliner's point was that we tend to believe "news" that supports our preconceptions/prejudices/etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Macabre, a point well made
Of course you didn't need me to co-sign on it since you "da man"


Given the evidence that there is "allegedly" a member of Sadaam's inner circle that has provided sites where there are known WMD's etc. then point the UN inspectors to those sites and see what they find. I'm not from Missouri but "show me."

This wouldn't satisfy ME enough to justify this war because the current administration initially stated that Iraq was linked to Al Quaida and that didn't hold much water, then they announced that Iraq was part of the "axis of evil." Then they presented us with Iraq has WMD's that are a threat to our existence, and then they stated that Iraq needed regime change.
It gives the appearance that the administration has been attempting to find "something" to make it stick. If this was a court of law, the case would be thrown out.

Coupled with the above, if the US. is so hell bent on war against Iraq because of UN resolution violations then shouldn't ALL countries in violation be held to task. At last count there were 60+ resolutions that Israel stood in violation of, yet they are not being held accountable. There appears to be a "double standard" here. Not to mention No. Korea has shown open disdain for resolutions that they are violating as we type, and we know they have nuclear capabilities, yet Washington chooses diplomacy in their case.

I wonder what it could be that incites America's "Dogs of War" against war torn Iraq??
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,050 Posts
Re: Husseins former bodyguard provides details of Ir ... (Juschillin1.8T)

A lot of good points here but to me there is enough justification every time he fires a SAM at a British or American Airman patrolling a UN set up no fly zone.
Guess my line is a little closer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Re: Husseins former bodyguard provides details of Ir ... (Macabre)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Perhaps Berliner's point was that we tend to believe "news" that supports our preconceptions/prejudices/etc.

I read the text at both links and neither of them sound very credible.. Wag the dog.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for picking up my point here.
Am I saying all is wrong or right in either statements? Maybe there's some truth to either of them. Who knows.

Think of the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution etc.? Americans were lied to. My statement above related to the same tactics to get buy-in for Gulf War I. All I'm saying is to be very careful who and what you trust and wonder who benefits from doing certain things. IMO another Gulf war is not in the interest of the American peope.

Believing everything you're told by mainstream media is much easier of course, but think of where this got the people of some other countries . Like the Germans in the 30s - their people weren't "evil" but they bought into a horrible regime, mainly due to the unparalleled media brainwash they got. Then think of the post-war communist block. Similar.

The president said "we are a nation at war". And I believe Truth is the first casualty of war"

Call me crazy, I also don't believe that every other person in my town needs a mid-size or large SUV and that they are so safe and so practical. I still don't buy it. Maybe I'm stupid. Or ignorant. Now please blame me for that!!!

<![CDATA[<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Perhaps Berliner's point was that we tend to believe "news" that supports our preconceptions/prejudices/etc.

I read the text at both links and neither of them sound very credible.. Wag the dog.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for picking up my point here.
Am I saying all is wrong or right in either statements? Maybe there's some truth to either of them. Who knows.

Think of the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution etc.? Americans were lied to. My statement above related to the same tactics to get buy-in for Gulf War I. All I'm saying is to be very careful who and what you trust and wonder who benefits from doing certain things. IMO another Gulf war is not in the interest of the American peope.

Believing everything you're told by mainstream media is much easier of course, but think of where this got the people of some other countries . Like the Germans in the 30s - their people weren't "evil" but they bought into a horrible regime, mainly due to the unparalleled media brainwash they got. Then think of the post-war communist block. Similar.

The president said "we are a nation at war". And I believe Truth is the first casualty of war"

Call me crazy, I also don't believe that every other person in my town needs a mid-size or large SUV and that they are so safe and so practical. I still don't buy it. Maybe I'm stupid. Or ignorant. Now please blame me for that!!!

[Modified by Berliner, 9:17 AM 2/3/2003]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,818 Posts
Re: Husseins former bodyguard provides details of Ir ... (Macabre)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>My initial reaction is to say that I'd wait until he used WMD.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um... I think there are Kurdish families who'd like to chat with you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But upon reflection perhaps showing me that he had ability would be enough. To put a fairly dull point on it I'd say you would have to convince me that there was ability and intent to use said weapons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hussein wants the world to play semantics with the definitions of "WMD" and "disarm" and "sexual relations" and anything else that gives him time to become an even greater threat. Weapons inspectors are the politically correct response to an Iraq that needs to siht or get off the pot. Their people won't stand up to Hussein, so it's time Uncle Sam did.

I trust our intelligence is the best it can be today and what little makes it into the news is sanitized to protect sources, methods, and analysis. When the decision makers move troops, they don't do it on a whim or to intimidate... they do it because they've got access to information we don't and it says we need troops.

<![CDATA[<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>My initial reaction is to say that I'd wait until he used WMD.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um... I think there are Kurdish families who'd like to chat with you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But upon reflection perhaps showing me that he had ability would be enough. To put a fairly dull point on it I'd say you would have to convince me that there was ability and intent to use said weapons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hussein wants the world to play semantics with the definitions of "WMD" and "disarm" and "sexual relations" and anything else that gives him time to become an even greater threat. Weapons inspectors are the politically correct response to an Iraq that needs to siht or get off the pot. Their people won't stand up to Hussein, so it's time Uncle Sam did.

I trust our intelligence is the best it can be today and what little makes it into the news is sanitized to protect sources, methods, and analysis. When the decision makers move troops, they don't do it on a whim or to intimidate... they do it because they've got access to information we don't and it says we need troops.

[Modified by Scotaku, 1:21 PM 2/3/2003]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,721 Posts
Re: Husseins former bodyguard provides details of Ir ... (Scotaku)

course those Kurds we want to protect so badly are most likely al Qaeda. As reported this weekend by ABC...

complicates the issue a bit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
799 Posts
Re: Husseins former bodyguard provides details of Ir ... (Scotaku)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>My initial reaction is to say that I'd wait until he used WMD.

Um... I think there are Kurdish families who'd like to chat with you.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sco, in the interests of fair play I am going to post an article from the NYTimes regarding the Kurdish situation - normally I'd post the link however you have to be registered with NYT in order to view it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A War Crime or an Act of War?
By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE

MECHANICSBURG, Pa. — It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades — not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition — thanks to United Nations sanctions — Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the point made by Berliner and reinterated by Macabre are extremely germain here:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Perhaps Berliner's point was that we tend to believe "news" that supports our preconceptions/prejudices/etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMHO the bottom line is, like several posters on these boards I don't see why we're so hell-bent on attacking an already decimated country like Iraq. Sadaam does need to go, but that's for the global community to decide. Convene a trial against him on human rights violations and maybe that would present "we the people" with full disclosure on events like Halabja.

Also one last point, does ANYBODY have any idea where Osama Bin Laden is??? Isn't he the one we originally started after????
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top