Is the US Planting WMDs in Iraq to Divert Attention?

  • News
  • Thread starter pelastration
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Preparation
In summary, there are speculations that the US may be using the recent unrest in Iraq as a diversion for their shipments of WMD into the country. These weapons are being disguised as relief shipments and transported with heavy security measures. Iraqi scientists are being bribed or threatened to provide information about WMD programs and equipment. The US may be planning to announce the discovery of WMD in Iraq in order to overshadow recent scandals. However, the US has lost credibility and it is unlikely that anyone would believe their claims about the existence of WMD in Iraq.
  • #1
pelastration
165
0
WMD scam in preparation or more ...? Or is this a scam about a scam?

Is the US Planting WMDs in Iraq?
*
Tehran Times* 12 April 2004

BASRA, April 12 (MNA) -– Fifty days after the first reports that the U.S. forces were unloading weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in southern Iraq, new reports about the movement of these weapons have been disclosed.

Sources in Iraq speculate that occupation forces are using the recent unrest in Iraq to divert attention from their surreptitious shipments of WMD into the country.

An Iraqi source close to the Basra Governor’s Office told the MNA that new information shows that a large part of the WMD, which was secretly brought to southern and western Iraq over the past month, are in containers falsely labeled as containers of the Maeresk shipping company and some consignments bearing the labels of organizations such as the Red Cross or the USAID in order to disguise them as relief shipments.

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, added that Iraqi officials including forces loyal to the Iraqi Governing Council stationed in southern Iraq have been forbidden from inspecting or supervising the transportation of these consignments. He went on to say that the occupation forces have ordered Iraqi officials to forward any questions on the issue to the coalition forces. Even the officials of the international relief organizations have informed the Iraqi officials that they would only accept responsibility for relief shipments which have been registered and managed by their organizations.

The Iraqi source also confirmed the report about suspicious trucks with fake Saudi and Jordanian license plates entering Iraq at night last week, stressing that the Saudi and Jordanian border guards did not attempt to inspect the trucks but simply delivered them to the U.S. and British forces stationed on Iraq’s borders.

However, the source expressed ignorance whether the governments of Saudi Arabia and Jordan were aware of such movements.

A professor of physics at Baghdad University also told the MNA correspondent that a group of his colleagues who are highly specialized in military, chemical and biological fields have been either bribed or threatened during the last weeks to provide written information on what they know about various programs and research centers and the possible storage of WMD equipment.

The professor also said these people have been openly asked to confirm or deny the existence of research or related WMD equipment. A large number of these scientists, who are believed to be under the surveillance of U.S. intelligence operatives, have claimed that if they refuse to comply with this request, they may be killed or arrested on charges of concealing the truth if these weapons are found by the Bush administration in the future.

He said that the Iraqi scientists believe their lives would be in danger if they decline to cooperate with the occupation forces, especially when they recall that senior U.S. officer Michael Peterson once said, “Iraqi scientists are at any case a threat to the U.S. administration, whether they talk or not.”

A source close to the Iraqi Governing Council said, “In the meantime, many suspect containers disguised as fuel supplies have been moved about by some units of the U.S. special forces. The move has been carried out under heavy security measures. Also, there are unofficial reports that the containers held biological and bacteriological toxins in liquid form. It is possible that the news about the discovery of the WMDs would be announced later.”

He also said that such mixtures had been used by the Saddam regime in the 1990s.

The source added that some provocative actions such as the closure of Al-Hawza periodical by U.S. administrator Paul Bremer, the secret meetings between his envoys with some extremist groups who have no relations with the Iraqi Governing Council, the sudden upsurge in violence in central and southern Iraq, a number of activities which have stoked up the wrath of the prominent Shia clerics, and finally, the spate of kidnappings and the baseless charges against the Iranian charge d’affaires in Baghdad are providing the necessary smokescreen for the transportation of the WMD to their intended locations.

He said they are quite aware that the White House in cooperation with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has directly tasked the Defense Department to hide these weapons. Given the recent scandals to the effect that the U.S. president was privy to the 9/11 plot, they might try to immediately announce the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to overshadow the scandals and prevent a further decline of Bush’s public opinion rating as the election approaches.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/TEH404A.html
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
tehran times eh?
 
  • #3
phatmonky said:
tehran times eh?
Would Fox TV be more relaible?
Can you tell?
 
  • #4
Pelastration, surely you are aware that only USA news services are reliable! Sheesh!
 
  • #5
Adam said:
Pelastration, surely you are aware that only USA news services are reliable! Sheesh!

Perhaps, ANY news source that is not a clear and defined enemy of our country, that hasn't been labeled in the axis of evil, doesn't have sanctions, and I dunno...perhaps doesn't have tons of reasons to do everything in it's power to try to discredit the country that just said hello on either side of it?


Oh yes, but of course, I said that only US news services are reliable :rolleyes:
 
  • #6
Manufacturing Evidence

Before the Second Iraq War even started, I predicted that the US would manufacture EVIDENCE of weapons of mass-destruction (which they quite clearly did!) in order to justify a pre-emptive attack and invasion.
The US perhaps could have got away with "planting" WMD, if they'd been intelligent enough to do it, say six months ago.
However, I don't think ANYBODY in the world, would be stupid enough to believe the US, if they claim that they "only just found the non-existent weapons."
 
  • #7
No, the USA has basically lost all credibility as far as this sort of thing is concerned. Politicians in USA-allied nations may say whatever they like in support of the US regime, but people don't trust the USA government.
 
  • #8
Speaking of credibility, conspiracy theory websites are not credible sources.
 
  • #9
Attacking the source is a logical fallacy, russ. Funny that Bush's government does it every time someone quits and tries to tell the truth about things.

Can you respond to the material? Or can you only attack the source in an attempt to discredit the material?
 
  • #10
Adam said:
Attacking the source is a logical fallacy, russ. Funny that Bush's government does it every time someone quits and tries to tell the truth about things.

Can you respond to the material? Or can you only attack the source in an attempt to discredit the material?



I have laid out a clear reasoning for why the tehran times should be questioned on this. All you have to do is show ONE international source with credibility that has picked this article up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
It is a possibility that the US govt could manufacture & plant WMD in Iraq, but if they were going to do that, you'd think they already would have, as GWB has repeatedly said that finding WMD was irrelevant to the war.
 
  • #12
A real definitive article...

"Sources in Iraq speculate that occupation forces are using the recent unrest in Iraq to divert attention from their surreptitious shipments of WMD into the country."



Then someone, in Iraq, being asked about WMD? no joke!
"A professor of physics at Baghdad University also told the MNA correspondent that a group of his colleagues who are highly specialized in military, chemical and biological fields have been either bribed or threatened during the last weeks to provide written information on what they know about various programs and research centers and the possible storage of WMD equipment."

This is the second hand information that we are to rely on?
"He said that the Iraqi scientists believe..."

Unofficial!? more speculation?
"Also, there are unofficial reports that the containers held biological and bacteriological toxins in liquid form."
 
  • #13
schwarzchildradius said:
It is a possibility that the US govt could manufacture & plant WMD in Iraq, but if they were going to do that, you'd think they already would have, as GWB has repeatedly said that finding WMD was irrelevant to the war.


But don't you get it? That's the whole point! Bush is so smart, he plays dumb, and then does something so unexpected that it's the ultimate cover up! [/foil hat]

It's an absolute possibility, but I agree. There's no point now. Finding weapons would do nothing for anyone, plus the chance of it being exposed is so great, and so possible, there would be no reason to risk the whole election on it.
 
  • #14
I have laid out a clear reasoning for why the tehran times should be questioned on this.
No, you have laid out a clear reason for those on the aggressive side of a propaganda conflict to distrust the news of a nation they have labelled as untrustworthy, which nobody else sees as untrustworthy. The fact that you see the Tehran Times as untrustworthy has absolutely no bearing on whether they are untrustworthy or not. You speak from a clearly biased perspective.

All you have to do is show ONE international source with credibility that has picked this article up.
Conversely, you might try showing some objective reason for stating that the Tehran Times is lying.

Why argue against a foil hat conspiracy that has no backing?
Why respond to a thread if your only capability is to attack the source, and not address the material?

You have derailed over and over every thread you have entered with Russ or myself. Everytime you have yelled about ad hominem, logical fallacy, or some other catchy buzz phrase nizkor.org has fed you lately.
Um... The logical fallacies are things taught in logic courses in universities around the world. In different places they are often named and organised in different ways, but in general they all have the same components. There are many websites detailing these things. Or you could go to the library and check out a book on logical debating. Here are a few more you might find useful:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.php
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_index_alpha.htm
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/acadwrite/logic.html

AGAIN I say - one credible source that has picked this up?
One: the Tehran Times.
However, given your stated bias, try these:
http://globalresearch.ca/
http://www.mehrnews.com/wfNewsDetails_en.aspx?NewsID=70071&t=Political
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0413-02.htm
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1700
http://trinicenter.com/cgi-bin/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1081908916,22883,.shtml
http://www.stlimc.org/front.php3?article_id=13597&group=webcast
http://www.legitgov.org/

Lots of news websites are carrying the story. But I'm sure you'll find reasons why they're all evil, untrustworthy, et cetera.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
Adam said:
1>No, you have laid out a clear reason for those on the aggressive side of a propaganda conflict to distrust the news of a nation they have labelled as untrustworthy, which nobody else sees as untrustworthy. The fact that you see the Tehran Times as untrustworthy has absolutely no bearing on whether they are untrustworthy or not. You speak from a clearly biased perspective.

2> why respond

3>Um... The logical fallacies are things taught in logic courses in universities around the world. In different places they are often named and organised in different ways, but in general they all have the same components. There are many websites detailing these things. Or you could go to the library and check out a book on logical debating. Here are a few more you might find useful:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.php
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
http://atheism.about.com/library/FA...index_alpha.htm
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/acadwrite/logic.html



One: the Tehran Times.
However, given your stated bias, try these:
http://globalresearch.ca/
http://www.mehrnews.com/wfNewsDetails_en.aspx?NewsID=70071&t=Political
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0413-02.htm
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1700
http://trinicenter.com/cgi-bin/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1081908916,22883,.shtml
http://www.stlimc.org/front.php3?article_id=13597&group=webcast
http://www.legitgov.org/

4>Lots of news websites are carrying the story. But I'm sure you'll find reasons why they're all evil, untrustworthy, et cetera.


1>Do you believe everything you find on the internet? Or only if it fits your goals of demonizing anything and everything the USA does?
The TEHRAN TIMES is a state controlled media, are you just trying to be blind to this conflict of interest?


But that is a moot point, since the article is from the Mehr news agency...
And I just won't waste my time. Anyone who wishes to, can look at the source themselves...
http://www.mehrnews.com/wfNewsView_en.aspx

2>Perhaps because it's a valid question before people embark on a 10 page debate on false information? What do you want me to do? Go out and find these invisble sources who are speculating things? :rolleyes: ONE other news service sir!

3>The point about you wasting time with fallacy talk, is that you use it incorrectly half the time to scapegoat your way out of an argument. Luckily for you, Zero has been a pruning master lately, and the wonderful strawman thread where you posted a link to the very action you were doing was exposed, has been deleted.

2>Sure thing Adam, besides that fact that every link you just posted is nothing more than a reposting of the original article :rolleyes: In a sec, I'll go open a geocities account and post it there too. Again, since you want to continue on and on about "logical" this and that, try to stay on track and I'll try not to lose you again. One credible NEWS service. Not one website that just publishes other peoples stories. Reposting the same story on a bunch of sites that rank lower on traffic than my own personal site (literally) is not exactly anything major. Where is fact finding news services that can coroborate the story? Would make since that there are plenty of French, German, and Russian papers that would love to authenticate this. Alas, it's not being done.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
phatmonky said:
A real definitive article...

"Sources in Iraq speculate that occupation forces are using the recent unrest in Iraq to divert attention from their surreptitious shipments of WMD into the country."



Then someone, in Iraq, being asked about WMD? no joke!
"A professor of physics at Baghdad University also told the MNA correspondent that a group of his colleagues who are highly specialized in military, chemical and biological fields have been either bribed or threatened during the last weeks to provide written information on what they know about various programs and research centers and the possible storage of WMD equipment."

This is the second hand information that we are to rely on?
"He said that the Iraqi scientists believe..."

Unofficial!? more speculation?
"Also, there are unofficial reports that the containers held biological and bacteriological toxins in liquid form."


I see no one wants to concern themselves with the fact that there is nothing but open speculation about what may be in some boxes.
 
  • #17
It is a perfectly valid supposition that any existing Iranian newspaper is an organ for the promotion of the policies of the hard-line antireformist movement in Iran. Simply google <Iranian newspaper closed > and you will see that any paper not conforming to reformist agenda is closed.

No aspect of the story is falsifiable. No fact can be independently checked. I could just as easily print my own paper, "The Njorl Times" and write, "Unnamed sources confirm WMD in Iraq all along" and Phat could reference it.

The story is not logical. The alleged conspiracy is ridiculous. While it is entirely believable that the US could attempt to plant evidence, they would certainly not involve so many different entities. One independent contractor which was a CIA front would fly a cargo plane to Iraq. The cargo plane would have a loaded truck inside of it. That truck would drive into the desert. No more than a dozen people, all Americans or CIA "resources" with security clearances, would be involved. The conspiraccy presented by "The Tehran Times" is laughable. It is a cartoon.

Njorl
 
  • #18
Do you believe everything you find on the internet?
Only the stupidity of the people I see.

Or only if it fits your goals of demonizing anything and everything the USA does?
Ah, the always popular "You're anti-American!" Prove it, or stop saying it.

The TEHRAN TIMES is a state controlled media, are you just trying to be blind to this conflict of interest?
Does the Tehran Times being state run make it wrong? Is CNN absolutely independent of state policy? Actually, I think you'll find that the Tehran Times is as influenced by commercial factors as any news agency in Australia or the USA.

But that is a moot point, since the article is from the Mehr news agency...
And I just won't waste my time. Anyone who wishes to, can look at the source themselves...
http://www.mehrnews.com/wfNewsView_en.aspx
I think you'll find that I posted the link to Mehr News.

2>Perhaps because it's a valid question before people embark on a 10 page debate on false information? What do you want me to do? Go out and find these invisble sources who are speculating things? :rolleyes: ONE other news service sir!
You asked which other news sites were carrying the story. I provided links to several. Why are you still whinging?

3>The point about you wasting time with fallacy talk, is that you use it incorrectly half the time to scapegoat your way out of an argument. Luckily for you, Zero has been a pruning master lately, and the wonderful strawman thread where you posted a link to the very action you were doing was exposed, has been deleted.
Phatmonky, you've been caught lying and making whopping great errors all over the place, which I have outlined. I've shown people precisely how you have mislead and lied, by well-known mechanisms of discussion which honest, intelligent people avoid. If you don't want me to show everyone how pathetic and basically wrong your posts are, then stop doing it.

2>Sure thing Adam, besides that fact that every link you just posted is nothing more than a reposting of the original article
You asked for sites carrying the story. I showed some. Job done. Now stop whinging.

One credible NEWS service.
As I said earlier, you would ignore the seven news sources and simply claim they are all "unworthy" or such. Bravo. Congratulations for being so predictable. So, why do you consider every news service referenced by other people to be unworthy? Simply because it disagrees with you?

Not one website that just publishes other peoples stories.
You're obviously unaware of this, so it's time for a little more education. All the news services buy stories and pictures and such off each other, and off independent reporters. CNN does it. Al Jazeera does it. ABC does it. BBC does it. Every time you look at a news article on CNN (that wonderfully independent news source), and it has Associated Press, or Reuters, or such at the bottom, that means they are reposting a story they got from somewhere else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
Njorl said:
It is a perfectly valid supposition that any existing Iranian newspaper is an organ for the promotion of the policies of the hard-line antireformist movement in Iran. Simply google <Iranian newspaper closed > and you will see that any paper not conforming to reformist agenda is closed.

No aspect of the story is falsifiable. No fact can be independently checked. I could just as easily print my own paper, "The Njorl Times" and write, "Unnamed sources confirm WMD in Iraq all along" and Phat could reference it.

The story is not logical. The alleged conspiracy is ridiculous. While it is entirely believable that the US could attempt to plant evidence, they would certainly not involve so many different entities. One independent contractor which was a CIA front would fly a cargo plane to Iraq. The cargo plane would have a loaded truck inside of it. That truck would drive into the desert. No more than a dozen people, all Americans or CIA "resources" with security clearances, would be involved. The conspiraccy presented by "The Tehran Times" is laughable. It is a cartoon.

Njorl

Well, atleast I'm not the only one :smile:
 
  • #20
Njorl said:
The story is not logical. The alleged conspiracy is ridiculous. While it is entirely believable that the US could attempt to plant evidence, they would certainly not involve so many different entities.
This is where some familiarity with history is useful. It's already been done. The CIA did it for the start of the USA-Vietnam war, planting a barge-load of weapons on a river, then "finding " it later.

Given that they have done it, how can you possibly say it's illogical or unlikely?

In short, your appeal to ridicule (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html) does nothing for you. Try again.
 
  • #21
Adam said:
This is where some familiarity with history is useful. It's already been done. The CIA did it for the start of the USA-Vietnam war, planting a barge-load of weapons on a river, then "finding " it later.

Given that they have done it, how can you possibly say it's illogical or unlikely?

In short, your appeal to ridicule (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html) does nothing for you. Try again.

Please read more carefully. Seeing as how you quoted me saying:

While it is entirely believable that the US could attempt to plant evidence

I would think that you might have read it. What I claimed to be illogical was that they would do it in such a pathetically stupid way.

These remain unrefuted:

The source is not reputable.
The hypothesis is not of a falsifiable nature.
The hypothesis is not logically self-consistant.

Edited to add - By the way Adam, have you ever read that site to which you linked? With regards to "Appeal to ridicule" it states, "It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim. "

Njorl
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Thank you phatmonky
State run news sources are by nature suspect. Americans did bring in WMDs in the form of USMC and they were not hidden they were in plain view.
 
  • #23
Njorl, you said it is not likely, ridiculous, and wouldn't happen with so many people. You were wrong. It's already happened. Deal with it.
 
  • #24
So Adam, when (or if) the CIA engaged in this conspiracy in Vietnam, did they engage the use of foreigners from multiple countries for no apparent reason? Did they engage uncontrolled private contractors? Did they go out of their way to be found out, engaging in reckless, stupid practices to no possible advantage?

Learn to read.

Njorl
 
  • #25
Since you like the Nizkor project so much, here are your fallacies:

Appeal to Authority
You use the Tehran times as a source of authority. You need to present reason for it to be recognised as such.

Burden of Proof
You are the one making an unfalsifiable claim. You are the one who bears the burden of proof.

Njorl
 
  • #26
Njorl said:
So Adam, when (or if) the CIA engaged in this conspiracy in Vietnam, did they engage the use of foreigners from multiple countries for no apparent reason? Did they engage uncontrolled private contractors? Did they go out of their way to be found out, engaging in reckless, stupid practices to no possible advantage?
They used the CIA, arms suppliers, whoever sold them the barge, some reporters, and some locals. A lot of people.

The purpose was to justify invasion. And it worked. Thus the advantage.
 
  • #27
Njorl said:
Since you like the Nizkor project so much, here are your fallacies:

Appeal to Authority
You use the Tehran times as a source of authority. You need to present reason for it to be recognised as such.

Burden of Proof
You are the one making an unfalsifiable claim. You are the one who bears the burden of proof.

That's not actually an appeal to authority. I have not said "This is true because the Tehran Times is an expert on the matter". I have presented news, and people have made appeals to ridicule in response. Here you go: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
 
  • #28
Adam said:
They used the CIA, arms suppliers, whoever sold them the barge, some reporters, and some locals. A lot of people.

The purpose was to justify invasion. And it worked. Thus the advantage.

...and the inventors of gunpowder and the barge were in on it too, indirectly.

Who was "in on it" really. Were the reporters acting as CIA operatives? I'd like some specifics if that's what you allege.

Njorl
 
  • #29
Adam said:
That's not actually an appeal to authority. I have not said "This is true because the Tehran Times is an expert on the matter". I have presented news, and people have made appeals to ridicule in response. Here you go: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html


Oh, so you are not a rational participant in a debate. You are a base rumormonger. This is significantly more condemning of you. It is, I suppose, somewhat noble of you to admit your nature. This also means you should not be protected by any of the rules of debate, as you admit to not being a participant thereof.

Njorl
 
  • #30
Njorl said:
Oh, so you are not a rational participant in a debate. You are a base rumormonger. This is significantly more condemning of you. It is, I suppose, somewhat noble of you to admit your nature. This also means you should not be protected by any of the rules of debate, as you admit to not being a participant thereof.

Njorl


Since this thread is long derailed, I have to say that this is the funniest thing I have read on this board in a long time! :cool:
 

Related to Is the US Planting WMDs in Iraq to Divert Attention?

What evidence is there that the US is planting WMDs in Iraq?

There is currently no evidence to support the claim that the US is planting WMDs in Iraq. The US government has denied these allegations and there has been no credible evidence presented to support this claim.

Why would the US want to divert attention by planting WMDs in Iraq?

There is no clear motive for the US to plant WMDs in Iraq. The US has already declared that Iraq does not possess any WMDs and the focus of the war in Iraq has shifted away from WMDs to other issues such as terrorism and stability in the region.

How do other countries view the accusation of the US planting WMDs in Iraq?

Many countries, including those who opposed the US invasion of Iraq, have not supported the accusation that the US is planting WMDs in Iraq. This is because there is no evidence to support the claim and it goes against international norms and laws.

What is the role of the United Nations in investigating these allegations?

The United Nations has not launched an investigation into the allegations of the US planting WMDs in Iraq. This is because there is no evidence to support the claim and the UN has not received any official request to investigate from member states.

How can we determine the truth about the US planting WMDs in Iraq?

The truth about the US planting WMDs in Iraq can only be determined through credible evidence and investigations. Until then, the claim remains unsubstantiated and should not be taken as fact.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
9
Replies
298
Views
68K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
26
Views
3K
Back
Top