The Smoking Gun re: Iraq?
Hussein bodyguard flees to Israel and appears to <a href="http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,5921220^663,00.html" target="_blank">give up the goods</a> on Saddam's chicanery.
We'll see if he's full of it or not. If he's full of shit then I suppose we'll do some more investigatiosn. If he's right then I don't think you have a more clear "smoking gun" and the war in Iraq will be very very close at hand.
From the article:
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.
...
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.
And much much more.
<a href="http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=137452003"; target="_blank">The Scotsman's article on the defection</a>
Let's see what happens. This could be a very important development. Or it could be a hoax.
We'll see if he's full of it or not. If he's full of shit then I suppose we'll do some more investigatiosn. If he's right then I don't think you have a more clear "smoking gun" and the war in Iraq will be very very close at hand.
From the article:
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.
...
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.
And much much more.
<a href="http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=137452003"; target="_blank">The Scotsman's article on the defection</a>
Let's see what happens. This could be a very important development. Or it could be a hoax.
Comments
funny that Powell is supposed to talk in 2 days on this.
It hasn's shown up on big media yet, perhaps for that very concern. Or perhaps because it's a bunch of crap.
I have to admit that I wouldn't be very happy if this bodyguard story is right. I like to hope for the best and most peaceful outcomes.
Why can't these freaking bastards play by the rules and save the many lives that will be lost? gah
<strong>I find it deplorable that this has been released to the media. It just gives Iraq a chance to attempt to move these facilities...hopefully we have satellites already trained on those positions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with you BR 100% with your feelings on this. The left wing cry babies that demand all the smoking gun evidence have no clue that for the leaders to make it public in such a time of active opperations is beyond uncalled for.
These Anti-War types need to join in the world support for Saddam to come clean if they want no war. If they want war they should continue to support Saddam and he will let it go to his head that not all the world is against him so he will fight thus war. STUPID LEFT WINGERS!
Fellowship
<strong>so is this real or not? if so, why hasn't anyone else picked it up?</strong><hr></blockquote>
IT'S THE LIBERAL MEDIA!!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!! HIDE YOUR DAUGHTERS!!!
<strong>
I agree with you BR 100% with your feelings on this. The left wing cry babies that demand all the smoking gun evidence have no clue that for the leaders to make it public in such a time of active opperations is beyond uncalled for.
These Anti-War types need to join in the world support for Saddam to come clean if they want no war. If they want war they should continue to support Saddam and he will let it go to his head that not all the world is against him so he will fight thus war. STUPID LEFT WINGERS!
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is nothing wrong with demanding evidence. However, only evidence that has been examined by inspectors should be released to the media. This evidence (if it truly exists) has not been examined by inspectors so it should not have been released. However, as I said, once inspectors have seen it and documented it, the public has a right to know before we go to war.
<strong>
There is nothing wrong with demanding evidence. However, only evidence that has been examined by inspectors should be released to the media. This evidence (if it truly exists) has not been examined by inspectors so it should not have been released. However, as I said, once inspectors have seen it and documented it, the public has a right to know before we go to war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with that 100%
What an amazing day it is we agree on something
Fellowship
pull the cactus out your bum BR.
it looks real enough. i'll ask my friend, he's in Oz right now and should be able to find out if that paper is a real one or not.
<strong>pull the cactus out your bum BR.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What cactus? You couldn't tell that I wasn't being serious with that liberal media reply?
<strong>
There is nothing wrong with demanding evidence. However, only evidence that has been examined by inspectors should be released to the media. This evidence (if it truly exists) has not been examined by inspectors so it should not have been released. However, as I said, once inspectors have seen it and documented it, the public has a right to know before we go to war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
By that logic someone could then keep something secret by simply not showing it to the inspectors. For example lets say ... France knows something that they want to keep under wraps. Just don't show it to the inspectors and ... poof. No "smoking gun". Great excuse for a government to hide information.
<strong>
By that logic someone could then keep something secret by simply not showing it to the inspectors. For example lets say ... France knows something that they want to keep under wraps. Just don't show it to the inspectors and ... poof. No "smoking gun". Great excuse for a government to hide information.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You think that doesn't go on now? The US has been hiding information since the beginning of this whole Iraq mess. Hopefully we'll get what we want Feb 5th.
[ 02-04-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
<strong>Also who set up the UN inspectors as the ultimate arbitrator of all information about Iraq? Why should I trust the UN. It's insane.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We belong to the UN whether you like it or not. Either we belong to them and abide by their rules or we get the hell out if we want to play by our own rules. Instead of arguing for us to break UN rules, just argue for us to leave the UN. Until then, quit bringing this crap up.
<strong>
You think that doesn't go on now? The US has been hiding information since the beginning of this whole Iraq mess. Hopefully we'll get what we want Feb 5th.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea but the inspectors haven't seen it
We may see it sooner if a hard nosed reporter gets a good source. Freedom of the press rulz :cool:
<strong>
Yea but the inspectors haven't seen it
We may see it sooner if a hard nosed reporter gets a good source. Freedom of the press rulz :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>
Look. Right now we have to play by the rules of the UN. If this report turns out to be true, Iraq now has a heads up on shutting down operations and moving them. Remember all the talk of mobile biochemical plants?
This is the proper sequence of events:
Information goes to inspectors.
If inspectors ignore, try them again in a day.
If they ignore again, give the information to interested nations.
Interested nations pressure inspectors.
If inspectors still don't budge (which is quite a silly scenario anyway), then you go public.