I Accept Your Challenge

I have been commenting at Adam’s site. There is a pretty good string that started over a war protest and evolved into a he said she said battle. I was challenged by a guy named Scott who said this:

For now, the burden of proof is on you. It’s impossible to prove a negative, so obviously, I can’t prove that OBL didn’t collaborate with Sadaam, or that Sadaam didn’t have WMD’s. You say that Sadaam had WMD’s, well then, prove it. You say OBL collaborated with Sadaam, prove it. I challenge you.

I realize this is an uphill battle because if the source is not deemed good enough there will be accusations of bias and lying. Fortunately, some of the information comes from intelligence gathered during the Clinton administration. It probably won’t matter. If Jesus appeared and said it was true they would say he was a Jew and hated the Muslims. But here goes anyway.

Saddam Hussein had WMD:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

  • In this Fact Sheet, SIPRI provides background information on the international law which has been violated, the two poison gases which the UN team identified in its samples, and the possible origins of the chemical weapons used in the Iraq-Iran War.
  • Joint Task Force Civil Support

  • The war was clearly going against Iraq by 1983, when Hussein ordered the use of chemical weapons against Iran. The first of 10 documented chemical attacks in the war was in August 1983 and caused hundreds of casualties, according to CIA sources. The largest documented attack was a February 1986 strike against al-Faw, where mustard gas and tabun may have affected up to 10,000 Iranians.
  • Chemical & Biological Weapons Resource Page

  • 1984 [CW] – First ever use of nerve agent tabun on the battlefield, by Iraq during Iran-Iraq War.
  • 1987-1988 [CW] – Iraq uses chemical weapons (hydrogen cyanide, mustard gas) in its Anfal Campaign against the Kurds, most notably in the Halabja Massacre of 1988.
  • 1998 [CW/BW] – Iraq is suspected of maintaining an active CBW program in violation of the ceasefire agreement it signed with the UN Security Council. Baghdad refuses to allow UNSCOM inspectors to visit undeclared sites.
  • Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs (CIA)

  • In August 1995, Iraq was caught trying to acquire sensitive ballistic missile guidance components, including gyroscopes originally used in Russian strategic nuclear SLBMs, demonstrating that Baghdad has been pursuing proscribed, advanced, long-range missile technology for some time. Iraqi officials admitted that, despite international prohibitions, they had received a similar shipment earlier that year.
  • Claims and evaluations of Iraq’s proscribed weapons

  • “Parts of the al-Qa’qa’ chemical complex damaged in the Gulf War have also been repaired and are operational. Of particular concern are elements of the phosgene production plant at al-Qa’qa’. These were severely damaged during the Gulf War, and dismantled under UNSCOM supervision, but have since been rebuilt. While phosgene does have industrial uses it can also be used by itself as a chemical agent or as a precursor for nerve agent.”
  • Nerve Gas used in Northern Iraq on Kurds

  • For the first time ever, scientists have been able to prove the use of chemical weapons through the analysis of environmental residues taken years after such an attack occurred. In a development that could have far-reaching consequences for the enforcement of the chemical weapons treaty, soil samples taken from bomb craters near a Kurdish village in northern Iraq by a team of forensic scientists have been found to contain trace evidence of nerve gas.
  • Foiled al-Qaida Attackers Caught Red-Handed With WMDs

  • The discovery of the al-Qaida WMD plot is sure to renew speculation that some of Saddam Hussein’s missing weapons of mass destruction were hidden in Syria before the U.S. attacked in March 2003, and have now found their way into al-Qaida’s hands.
  • Textbook Of Military Medicine (Scroll down for pictures of Iranians exposed to Mustard)

    I would say that this shows that Hussein had WMD and in fact, used them. The pictures of the victims themselves are conclusive evidence that he violated the law. You can say what you want but Hussein had them and intelligence, dating back to the Clinton administration, shows that they were there. I have been involved in the destruction of these kinds of weapons and they do not disappear overnight. It takes a long time and without the proper equipment there would be evidence in the areas where they were supposedly destroyed. They were probably moved just prior to the war. This would be a lot easier than destroying them and would explain the lack of evidence that they were destroyed.

    Now, Bin Laden and Hussein collaberated.

    The Iraq — Al Qaeda Connections

  • That is why is important to remember why we fight in Iraq — and who we fight. Indeed, many of those sniping at U.S. troops are al Qaeda terrorists operating inside Iraq. And many of bin Laden’s men were in Iraq prior to the liberation. A wealth of evidence on the public record — from government reports and congressional testimony to news accounts from major newspapers — attests to longstanding ties between bin Laden and Saddam going back to 1994.
  • Iraq’s State Sponsorship of Osama bin-Laden and the al-Qaeda Terror Network

  • Osama bin Laden had dealings with Iraqi Intelligence as early as 1993 in Somalia. During that period, various militant Islamic groups, to include bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence and military operatives, were in Somalia to organize, train and mobilize radical factions within the Somali populace. 3 In June 1994, bin Laden met with Faruq al-Hijazi, then the director of the Iraqi Intelligence Department, while in Khartoum. Iraqi concern over bin Laden’s militant Islamist zeal restrained their dealings with bin Laden and limited their willingness to provide practical support and cooperation.
  • Iraqi Terrorists Detail Ties To Bin Laden

  • Last September, the officials said, representatives of Osama bin Laden gave Ansar al-Islam $300,000. These officials added that the real leader of Ansar al-Islam is an Iraqi known as Abu Wa’el, who has spent a great deal of time in bin Laden’s training camps but is also, they said, an officer of the Mukhabarat, Saddam’s principal intelligence service.
  • Case Closed

  • OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda–perhaps even for Mohamed Atta–according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
  • Now Scott, this is not idle speculation. These are many sources that give evidence to answer the questions you posed. I doubt you are convinced but here is the information, nonetheless.

    Oh, one last thing. In case there is a desire to say that these sources are biased, perhaps a word right from the horse’s mouth will be convincing?
    Iraq admits plan to use chemical weapons (From 11/28/02)

  • Speaking in an interview with al-Quds al-Arabi, a London-based Arabic newspaper, an unnamed senior Iraqi official said that Iraq had used chemical weapons during the war with Iran and would use them again if necessary.
  • “When the regime was under intense attack in the Fao (Peninsula) and began to be under threat, it did not hesitate to use all the weapons of mass destruction in its possession,” the official told the newspaper in an article published on Tuesday.
  • In spite of Iraq’s denials that it possesses chemical and biological weapons, it has been given until December 8 by the United Nations to make a full admission of its weapons of mass destruction capability. If it does not, the United States and Britain have given warning that they will disarm Saddam by force, if necessary.
  • I believe the ball is in your court.



    Print This Post

    If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

    7 Responses to “I Accept Your Challenge”

    1. Scott says:

      I’m not ignoring you. I’m having a busy time at work right now. I’ll come in here to “play ball” later on. Good work by the way. I didn’t expect you to actually do it.

    2. Surfside says:

      Quite impressive and informative. If only the MSM would have done half the work you did, the country would have been better served. Had I not already been convinced, I would be now.

    3. Scott says:

      Okay, here goes. I know I’m not going to convince you because you’re already convinced, but here goes. I’m not denying that Sadaam had WMD’s, but according to the UN, the DIA, and every inspection team sent to Iraq, those weapons had been destroyed either by Sadaam himself or during operations during the first gulf war, or by the UN between the years of 1991 and 1998. Again, I’m not claiming that he never had them, but that by all estimates, as much as 95% of it had been destroyed. Sadaam wanted to obtain WMD’s, but couldn’t because of sanctions.

      Suspicion of WMD’s is not proof. It’s just some guy saying he thinks that Iraq might be doing something illegal.

      The CIA report saying that Iraq was caught smuggling WMD’s has since been proven to have been false intel. I don’t fault Bush for that one. But again, I think it’s pretty flimsy to be invading nations and killing people over. Just my opinion, and I don’t expect it to influence you at all.

      The gassed Kurds: there’s a mountain of evidence out now that shows that the Iranians actually gassed the Kurds, not Iraq. Do a google search for “Iran gassed Kurds”, and you’ll find it.

      WMD’s hidden in Syria: again there’s no proof. Only suspicion. Suspicion is not proof.

      So, all you’ve got is some suspicion and a faulty CIA report. Granted, the CIA report was probably the strongest thing there, and I definitely don’t blame Bush for it. I think maybe we should have second guessed the intel. Maybe we could’ve gotten a second opinion from the UN? I don’t know what really could have been done. I do know that we at least should have had hard evidence before subjecting the entire Iraqi population to genocide.

      That’s all I have time for right now. I’ll get to the Iraq-Alqueday connection later.

    4. Big Dog says:

      There is even more evidence pointing to Iraq in gassing the Kurds. None of the texts I use to teach about WMD mention this as a possiblity. In addition, if Iran did it Hussein would have been showing it to the world to charge them with war crimes. He basically tried to hide it and say it nev er happened. Forensic evidence was used years later to show chemicals were used. This also backs my claim that if he got rid of them without building an elaborate facility (which we have not found) there would be evidence. The chemical markers remain for a long time.

      There are items in the reports that are “suspicions”. You make the claim Hussein had destroyed most of his WMD and that this report or that says they were destroyed by a certain date (in the 98 time frame) yet it is overlooked that a spokesman for him said that they had them and would use them as recently as 11/02. If we are going to run around and say Hussein said he got rid of them and we believe him then we have to believe it when his people say they have them and will use them.

      There have been Iraqis who have told us that he had them and they were moved. You are right that it is speculation that they went to Syria but the fact that we have sattellite photos of the storage bunkers being emptied and trucks leaving them is a strong indication that they went somewhere.

      We had a great deal of intelligence, some of it still highly classified, that shows he had them. My friends from the weapons inspections teams said they were sure the WMD were there but they were hindered in the investigation. Other information is not out in the open for discussion. Fact is, we used intelligence from our country and many other reputable countries around the world.

      What would it take to make you believe? Perhaps a chemical attack in your home town.

    5. Scott says:

      A chemical attack on my hometown would be impossible for him to perpetrate considering he doesn’t have the delivery methods. But yes, that would make me believe. The fact is, Sadaam didn’t pose a threat to us. We invaded him on spurious claims and bad intel. To me that is a failure.

      Who are you going to believe: some random Iraqis (especially ones with political positions at stake) or Hans Blix; the DIA; the UN? Who’s got the credibility here?

    6. Scott says:

      We had satellite photos of his “mobile wepons manufacturing labs” too. What did those turn out to be?

    7. Big Dog says:

      Credibility is not a word that comes to mind when the UN is mentioned. Given their reluctance to use force in Iraq I would say they had an agenda to show the US was wrong. Blix migh or might not have his own motives. The fact is some of the people who have visited there have told me different things than were reported.

      Why should I not believe the Iraqis who are coming forward. They are more credible than Hussein who everybody wanted to take at his word.

      The threat to the US was the sponsorship and support of terrorists and their leadership. Bush told them we would make no distinction and he gave Hussein and his sons a chance to leave. They chose, mistakenly, to stay.

      If someone wanted to attack your hometown it would not be difficult. Hussein could pay the family of a child to have that child walk in and detonate a chemical filled explosive device. Getting the people and equipment in here would not be a problem for a determined enemy.