Chemical Weapons Lab Found in Fallujah

Sleepy

Can it be that Bush & Blair were right all along? :eek:

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1161529,00.html

MeatProduct

Sleepy wrote:

Can it be that Bush & Blair were right all along? :eek:

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1161529,00.html

Worrying but I won't get alarmed until I hear it from a slightly more unbiased source.

Nick

Jim

Possibly a slightly navie Iraqi government trying to please the Americans and British>

Nuttzz

Well even the yanks are pouring cold water on it

On Wednesday, US Marines in Fallujah reported finding a banner of the group led by Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a chemicals lab.

But they said there was no indication the laboratory had been used to produce chemical weapons.

It was not clear whether Mr Daoud was referring to the same laboratory or another one.

US forces said today they were not aware of any more labs having been discovered.

They also doubted whether evidence had been found of the production of chemical weapons.

Sleepy

I'm inclined to think that myself, bloody hell though, can you imagine how insufferable the pro-Bush camp would be on the basis on even a single chemical lab?

Nuttzz

Sleepy wrote:

can you imagine how insufferable the pro-Bush camp would be on the basis on even a single chemical lab?

So all the guff they got about WMD's would be turned back on you. If you cant take it do give it IMO.

Sleepy

One single lab does not a WMD constitute.

Nuttzz

Sleepy wrote:

One single lab does not a WMD constitute.

I totally agree, but IF (and its a major if) WMD were found in Iraq wouldnt the "pro bush" side be right to be insufferable.

But its really a case of nothing to see here.

Redleslie2

Tinfoil hats still selling well amongst the pro-warriors. Propaganda swallowed whole.

BolBill

Its easy to find a Chemical weapons facility, epecially when you've just put it there !!!! Come on folks, don't buy into this rubbish, there ain't no WMD and never were, this was only about the need for a War and Oil - period (as the Yanks might say) :mad:

Magnolia_Fan

I don't think Sky News is Bias at all, I think they are one of the few neutral news sources in Europe....Try watching BBC then switch to Fox then switch to Sky...If anything I'd say they've been leaning left over the past few months

Nuttzz

Its wrong to say that there were never WMD there, thousands of kurd and iranian deaths prove that, but I would say there was very few WMD in Iraq when it invaded Kuwait and none soon after that war.

Magnolia_Fan

Some theorys are that they never actually destroyed them and just moved them out to Syria and Jordan....but if that was true the Jordanians would come out lookin like right oul snakes in the grass

Magnolia_Fan

BolBill wrote:

Its easy to find a Chemical weapons facility, epecially when you've just put it there !!!! Come on folks, don't buy into this rubbish, there ain't no WMD and never were, this was only about the need for a War and Oil - period (as the Yanks might say) :mad:

Everybodys says the war is for Oil, why?

Gurgle

Sleepy wrote:

One single lab does not a WMD constitute.

If they examine the building carefully, they will probably find another lab marked 'Physics' and one marked 'Biology', then down the hall and turn right you'll find where they made all those nukes, marked 'Metalwork'.

"They even talked about the production of anthrax," he added

On a sheet of paper with 'SKY News' on top, beside a dot-matrix printer connected to a 386 PC with a 14.4k modem.
Very suspicious.

Considering that Iraq has been ocupied for over a year, anything that is "found" at this time, is somewhat suspect. Surely, any labs or arsenals would have been found in the month(s) following the invasion?

Everybodys says the war is for Oil, why?

The US economy gussles fuel. Its almost completely powered by it, and the US purchases a fair percentage of its oil from Abroad. Iraq was a fine way of securing oil needed to run the US Economy. There is also the aspect that Oil reserves worldwide will be exhausted in a few decades, so securing the blood of the Mechanised US army would be deemed necessary.

At least in my views. There are other reasons out there, but I place my weight on these.

MeatProduct

Magnolia_Fan wrote:

I don't think Sky News is Bias at all, I think they are one of the few neutral news sources in Europe....Try watching BBC then switch to Fox then switch to Sky...If anything I'd say they've been leaning left over the past few months

Magnolia, I find them terribly biased. The reporters throw in a fierce amount of opinion based on nothing. There is a definite angle with sky. Let's not forgot who owns it.....

Nick

the_syco

Gurgle wrote:

If they examine the building carefully, they will probably find another lab marked 'Physics' and one marked 'Biology', then down the hall and turn right you'll find where they made all those nukes, marked 'Metalwork'.

Ah right. So you say its just your run-of-the-mill school? Does your school have "lab booklets and instructions on how to make bombs and poisons" in it?

Deleted User wrote:

Considering that Iraq has been ocupied for over a year, anything that is "found" at this time, is somewhat suspect. Surely, any labs or arsenals would have been found in the month(s) following the invasion?

Well, eh, no, actually. If you think about it, the last time they tried to take Falluja, they stopped, as the civialian causulties were too high.
So this is the first time they actually got in there, all the way.

Deleted User wrote:

The US economy gussles fuel.

So does China. The price in oil has gone up, as there's not a lot of it, and all economic booms need the stuff. And, since China is going through a boom, it also gussles fuel. Heck, if China wasn't going through a boom, wasn't starting to produce lots of cars, wasn't using lots of oil, the oil prices wouldn't be so high.

Everyone thinks the price of oil has something to do with Iraq. Lets see; amount of oil before ware coming from Iraq was none, and still is none, but Iraq is still seen as the reason for high all price's. I'd love for someone to explain that one to me.

Nuttzz

Deleted User wrote:

The US economy gussles fuel. Its almost completely powered by it, and the US purchases a fair percentage of its oil from Abroad.

I have picked an non us source for this

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2CDA8F31-A5D7-4071-B12D-1B804E1C15EE.htm

Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela are the top three sources of US oil imports. As based on imports of 10.6 million bpd, the total cost of US oil imports averaged $233 million per day. In 2001, total world crude oil production reached an estimated 76.8 million barrels per day.

About 48% of US crude oil imports were supplied by the western hemisphere (19% from Southern African states, 15% from Mexico, and 14% from Canada), while 30% was imported from the Gulf region (35% from Kuwait 18% from Saudi Arabia, and 9% from Iraq)

Gurgle

the_syco wrote:

Ah right. So you say its just your run-of-the-mill school? Does your school have "lab booklets and instructions on how to make bombs and poisons" in it?

Em no, no, why do you ask ?
Who have you been talking to ?

I'm suggesting that based on the information provided it is as likely to be a school chemistry lab as anything else.

Booklets and instructions are suprisingly very portable. It is entirely possible that some insurgents got the instructions off the internet (or something) then headed down to the wreck of the local high school to find the chemistry lab & see what they could do.

I am 100% certain that there were no usable WMD in Iraq before the US/UK invasion.

How ?
Because the US/UK army was not attacked with WMD.

Everyone concentrates on the MD but the W is the most important letter, it stands for 'Weapons' which are usually used in 'War' which is exactly what was happening when the alleged WMD weren't being used.

solas

"Can it be that Bush & Blair were right all along?"
I can't help but wonder if Iraq have wmd why haven't they used them yet? How many Iraqi deaths are they waiting for before using chemical weapons or other forms of wmd as deemed neccessary.

"Everybodys says the war is for Oil, why?"

http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm

.

Gurgle

solas wrote:

"Everybodys says the war is for Oil, why?"
http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm

Very interesting link. I had a vague idea about how that trade deficit stuff worked in their favour but I hadn't seen it that clearly explained before.

On a side-note, Sterling has always been the world's second favourite international currency. In Egypt, (in 2000) even the banks would only accept dollars or sterling (Bank of England only - must have the Queen's face on it). My brother was there this year and now they happily take €uro as well.

sovtek

Nuttzz wrote:

I have picked an non us source for this

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2CDA8F31-A5D7-4071-B12D-1B804E1C15EE.htm

Controlling oil and buying oil are two completely different animals.
It's also suspect that the US military is setting up bases in oil rich Eastern European countries "faster n you can say lickity split".
And Bush's family don't have ANY interest in oil companies.

MeatProduct

sovtek wrote:

And Bush's family don't have ANY interest in oil companies.

And even if they did it's only cause they like the nice colours oil can make....

Nick

marco murphy

Does anyone know this ''factory'' was insurgent run?

OfflerCrocGod

the_syco wrote:

Everyone thinks the price of oil has something to do with Iraq. Lets see; amount of oil before ware coming from Iraq was none, and still is none, but Iraq is still seen as the reason for high all price's. I'd love for someone to explain that one to me.

I'm nearly certain Iraq was pumping oil before the war, I may be wrong but wasn't that the whole point of the Oil for Food program?

Magnolia_Fan

I don't get it, who forced everyone to trade in Dollars?, plus having Japan as the Americas major subsidiser then Japan would have to want to change to euros which wouldn't be very wise for them because they would lose money actually alot of money because if this was to happen the euro would probably become much stronger

cdebru

Magnolia_Fan wrote:

Everybodys says the war is for Oil, why?

why

well there is another country that has a dictatorship oppresses and murders its own citizens is a threat to its neighbours has nuclear weapons and more than likely has wmd that country is well actually there are a couple of them

China
North Korea
Pakistan


to start with
why have they not had regime change all the reasons bush and blair gave also exist in these countries
in fact they are worse because we were told Iraq was only trying to develope
nuclear weapons these countries already have them so are the liberating troops massing at the borders ready to free the poor north koreans chinese or pakistanis. eh no
why not?
because there is no oil perhaps
thats why people think it is about oil

because when we look around the world and see all the things that are worse than saddam more of a threat than saddam
but no big rush to send in troops and sort it out
no rush to stop the genocide in darfur
no oil in darfur

thats why people think it is about oil
rightly or wrongly

Memnoch

Magnolia_Fan wrote:

I don't think Sky News is Bias at all, I think they are one of the few neutral news sources in Europe....Try watching BBC then switch to Fox then switch to Sky...If anything I'd say they've been leaning left over the past few months

you DO realise that sky and fox are owned by the same person?

OFF COURSE they are left leaning, this is because Ruport Murdoch backs Tony Blair in the UK. So basically they take a stance to the right of whatever tony says.

Hobbes

Magnolia_Fan wrote:

I don't think Sky News is Bias at all,

They aren't as bad as Fox news but they are getting there. Owned by the same crowd.

Redleslie2

If they found a badly dubbed video of Jurassic Park 2 tomorrow, they'd say it was proof that the Iraqis were trying to clone dinosaurs. And people here would believe it.