Proof Of Connection between Iraq ,Osama and VX Gas

These are some of the links that between Iraq,Osama and the dirty-bomb and other WMDs planned at Iraq. Request your informed opinion on these topics.

While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is “sure” that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas. Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa’s current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.

Please go through the links below:

www.weeklystandard.com...

www.powerlineblog.com...

www.thirdsuperpower.com...

hnn.us...

www.guardian.co.uk...

www.guardian.co.uk...

www.expatica.com...

I have an opinion that these articles and news materials give a lot of valid facts which put forward a very strong support in proving that there was a very strong link between Saddam's dirty-bomb and VX programmes and Osama - bin Laden.


[edit on 1-6-2007 by AryanWatch]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I am very sure that Saddam and UBL got together ... or at least that UBLs people got with Saddam. Can I prove it? Of course not. at least not at this time. However, it makes sense. Much the same way that Chavez and Castro are buddy-buddy these days.

Did you even read the sources you posted ?
Most of the information in those sources is speculative, possible already debunked and contradictory. Out of the whole lot the only firm bit of information was that Zarqawi was seeking medical treatment in Iraq.

When Clinton went after Iraq and al-Qaeda he was after something that would divert the public attention away from the lapses in his private life rather then global security. Both sides of the political fence see and hear what suits them at the time.

A person seeking medical treatment in a country is hardly the smoking gun needed to validated the invasion of Iraq. Don't get me wrong I would have preferred if current stockpiles of WMDs had been found but really do find it pathetic how the wars supporters can grasp at straws.

You might find this thread more to your liking you should have posted your sources there.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by xpert11]

Originally posted by xpert11
When Clinton went after Iraq and al-Qaeda he was after something that would divert the public attention away from the lapses in his private life rather then global security. Both sides of the political fence see and hear what suits them at the time.

No he wasnt,
You may value the life of a woman, over the life of innocent people... but clinton in my mind.. didnt attack that pharmacutecal company on purpose...

Clinton was being pushed, from within the government to '' go in right ''
The same way, Bush supposidly has achieved...

Lewinski was used as levearge over clinton, because he wasnt prepared to strike the ME, much the same way the generals back in the cold war days push kennedy to kill that big red dog"...

This is proven, because gore was refused his victory.

'they' ccouldnt wait another presidents 'term/s' if he didnt agree with their agender.. Its time to get a patsy in to take the spotlight of us, and do as we please.
... and Bush was the perfect choice.


Why cant people get off Clintons back, and focus on the problem facing us NOW!

Originally posted by xpert11
Did you even read the sources you posted ?
Most of the information in those sources is speculative, possible already debunked and contradictory.

It doesn't mean that the information is wrong.

In my opinion there are two possibilities about WMDs in Iraq.

1. Sadam actually thought that he had a weapons program producing these weapons, but he was being scammed by his own people and instead of producing the weapons they were pocketing the money. This would offer a plausible reason for denying the UN inspectors. The people perpetuating the fraud were afraid that the inspectors would expose it.

2. WMDs were found, but it was covered-up, possibly by a secret agreement between the US and other Governments.

But it would of left something for us to find.
There was no active, weapons programme, producing toxins and chemicals in the lands of Iraq.

Where's options C?

Active overstating of evidence, to con the public into thinking there actually was a threat worth tackling.
like the polish menace was...

Originally posted by JIMC5499
In my opinion there are two possibilities about WMDs in Iraq.

Don't forget #3 - The weapons were there (we know he had them because he used them) but since we gave him a HUGE HEAD START before we went in, he moved them to Syria.

I think it's a combo of Saddam not having as much as he thought he had (the people around him lied to save their backends) AND what he had he moved to Syria for 'safe keeping' (just like Saddam did with a lot of his money, etc )

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Why cant people get off Clintons back, and focus on the problem facing us NOW!

Because some of the problems facing us now are the fault of Clinton. Or at the very least .. he contributed to the problems.



[edit on 6/1/2007 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by JIMC5499
It doesn't mean that the information is wrong.

Maybe but if your going to make an assertion the data you should use should be clear and backed up by solid evidence. I think that we will have to wait quiet a while yet before the true picture about Iraq's WMD programmes emerges. We don't yet know what the CIA gained from interrogating Saddam and co.

1. Sadam actually thought that he had a weapons program producing these weapons, but he was being scammed by his own people and instead of producing the weapons they were pocketing the money. This would offer a plausible reason for denying the UN inspectors. The people perpetuating the fraud were afraid that the inspectors would expose it.

That is very plausible and since there is a lack of solid data I am inclined to think that this is a very logical possibility. Your second option is unlikely unless it was discovered that US firms had been supplying the material to Saddam's WMD programs. If the French or some other power had been involved in Saddam WMD programs they would have been outed a long time ago.




[edit on 1-6-2007 by xpert11]

Several official investigations by U.S. intelligence agencies, foreign intelligence agencies, and independent investigative bodies have looked into various aspects of the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Every single investigation has resulted in the conclusion that the data examined did not provide compelling evidence of a cooperative relationship between the two entities.

Taken from

Saddam Huseein and Al-Quaeda

Which cites all its sources, which saves me doing it.

It also has this in it...

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, Osama bin Laden offered to defend Saudi Arabia by sending "jihadist" warriors from Afghanistan to repel Saddam's forces. After the Gulf War, bin Laden continued to criticize Saddam's Ba'ath regime, emphasizing that Saddam could not be trusted. Bin Laden told his biographer that "the land of the Arab world, the land is like a mother, and Saddam Hussein is &^*£ing his mother."[41]

I think that kind of makes the relationship between the parties fairly clear.

[edit on 1/0607/07 by neformore]

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Because some of the problems facing us now are the fault of Clinton. Or at the very least .. he contributed to the problems.
[edit on 6/1/2007 by FlyersFan]

Well, to be fair there's quite a few more presidents whov contributed..
Can you imagine the problems facing our childeren, becuse of bush's CURRENT events?

Why arent we focusing on the now, and the future, instead of the past..
We cannot change the past, we can only change the now.


[edit: fixed quote tags]

[edit on 1-6-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by xpert11
Maybe but if your going to make an assertion the data you should use should be clear and backed up by solid evidence. I think that we will have to wait quiet a while yet before the true picture about Iraq's WMD programmes emerges. We don't yet know what the CIA gained from interrogating Saddam and co.

If there was clear data backed up by solid evidence availible then we wouldn't be having this discussion. The majority of posts on ATS consist of nothing but conjecture and theories. Some of these reference quotes or information obtained from other sources, but there is very little real evidence produced. If I had access to evidence about the WMD's in Iraq, I sure wouldn't post it here, I'd be negotiating a multi million dollar book deal with some publisher.

You need to bear in mind an couple of things.
The first thing to bear in mind is that ATS members don't go around starting wars based on there pet theory's.

The second thing to bear in mind is that if the topic wasn't Iraq's WMD programmes and alleged ties al-Qaeda would members accepted evidence that is speculative, possible already debunked and contradictory ?
Some members would but IMO the majority of ATS members would not support a theory based on such a shakily foundations.

When it comes to the Iraq war to many people see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe rather then basing there beliefs on the evidence available.

I have a question.

Since all assumptions and information about Iraq and why we went in is coming from the news media, and it's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that the big media is tightly controlled and are basically scribes taking dictation from the king (military industrial complex), what makes you think that any story you've gotten is actually correct?

Just wondering.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
like the polish menace was...

However do you mean?

Originally posted by JIMC54992. WMDs were found, but it was covered-up, possibly by a secret agreement between the US and other Governments.

I personally believe at this point that this is the most plausible explanation but for the life of me I can not understand WHY.

Originally posted by edsinger
I personally believe at this point that this is the most plausible explanation but for the life of me I can not understand WHY.

Well one possibility is that US firms and in particular one that was formerly headed by the VP were supplying Saddam's regime with the material needed for Iraq's WMD and nuclear program programmes.

Since all assumptions and information about Iraq and why we went in is coming from the news media, and it's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that the big media is tightly controlled and are basically scribes taking dictation from the king (military industrial complex), what makes you think that any story you've gotten is actually correct?

WIA - Yes,I agree that the media is controled by the military or the king as the case may be,that is the reason I have chosen to take articles from different news sources.