NEWS: 'Imbedded' Video Appears to Show Explosives Looted AFTER American Invasion

from JoeUser Forums
The news has been percolating all day that ABC affiliate KSTP had video, from an imbedded reporter, that show the presence of explosives at what is probably the Al-Qaqaa storage facility, immediately after the invasion -- when the site was under American control.

Reuters is now reporting that this video shows the presence of the dangerous explosive HMX, with IAEA and UN markings that show this site was inspected immediately before the war.

In other words, the explosives were looted while under American control, under Bush's watch.

After a long initial silence, the Bush campaign is now furiously spinning, first denying that the explosives disappeared after the invasion, then suggesting the troops were to blame. Don't let your surrogates blame the troops, Mr. President... take responsibility for something.

Bush supporters continue to push increasingly complex conspiracy theories to deny this news. I think that at this point, that conspiracy would have to involve ABC, Reuters, the NY Times, CBS, the Iraqi government, and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Bush isn't worthy of his loyal supporters.
politics
12,733 views 29 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

By contrast the Pentagon released this image today showing trucks loading up stuff from the site just as the invasion was starting:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136897,00.html

Bush supporters don't think there's any conspiracy involved. Simply that Saddam probably moved the weapons when the invasion began.

It's kerry supporters that imagine that somehow "looters" managed to walk up with 300+ TONS of explosive material from southern Iraq.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Draginol, thank you for your comment.

I read the linked article. Regarding the released image, the Pentagon officials are very direct that they're making no claims about what the trucks are doing. In fact, the article seems to make nearly no strong claims based on that image, other than the facility wasn't hermetically sealed.

In fact, even the speculative interpretations made by the DoD, based on images that they haven't shown to the public, are contested. It appears that the trucks -- that the DoD speculates may be carting off explosives -- aren't actually parked next to bunkers that contained explosives, as identified by the IAEA.

So, on one side you have the Pentagon's ability to correctly interpret a satellite image, and on the other side you have the IAEA, the Iraq government, and ABC's imbedded video.

I'm sure you understand that I'm not totally confident in the Bush administration's accuracy, judgment, or impartiality when judging these satellite images. It's hard for me to be as confident as you, after remembering the experience of Colin Powell's "certain evidence" speech in front of the UN. For that matter, Bush has spent the four years demonstrating that his government is either poor at interpreting intelligence, or biased in how they present it.

On the other hand, I see little reason to think that the Iraq government, led by an ally of Bush, would scheme to undermine him -- but that government is insistent that the explosives disappeared while the country was under American control, as is the IAEA. And I find video images of barrels of explosives, and IAEA seals, more compelling than a satellite image that says nothing unless you accept -- without question -- the Bush Pentagon's interpretation.
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is getting more absurd by the minute.



No one has ever suggested that ALL the high explosives disappeared. That some were there when the 101st arrived tells us NOTHING.



Reuters is now reporting that this video shows the presence of the dangerous explosive HMX, with IAEA and UN markings that show this site was inspected immediately before the war.




They show NO SUCH THING. We KNOW the IAEA conducted its last inspection that included an INVENTORY in JANUARY 2003, and that they returned in March at which time only SPOT CHECKS OF SEALS were made WITHOUT OPENING ANY BUNKERS. It is disingenuous at best to say that this "shows the site was inspected immediately before the war," implying Saddam wouldn't have had the opportunity to remove material, especially when we're talking about video of ONE SEAL. We also KNOW that many of these bunkers had ventilation access which was UNSEALED and through which material could have been removed without disturbing the IAEA seals (according to the IAEA itself).



In other words, the explosives were looted while under American control, under Bush's watch.




In other words, this is bullshit. There remains NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS ABSURD CLAIM. Another example of you wildly jumping to a conclusion without a basis in fact, even as you admit the video is only PROBABLY from Al-Qaqaa.



Bush supporters continue to push increasingly complex conspiracy theories to deny this news.[/qhote]



WHAT?!?!? Which "theory" is more complex or implausible - Saddam doing exactly what he had practiced in the past, or a bunch of guys in old beat-up Toyota pickup trucks managing to haul off 300 tons (the number has been reduced by the IAEA, BTW) of high explosives while the US had complete control of the roadways and air surveillance?



And the "conspiracy" which you falsely accuse Bush supporters of pushing requires only that the IAEA (el Baradei) have an agenda and the willful blindness of the NYT & CBS. What SCREAMS CONSPIRACY is CBS holding this story to broadcast it SUNDAY NIGHT, some 36 hours before the polls opened. Yet that doesn't even merit a second thought from you.



You also used this blog to regurgitate previously discredited allegations, such as the one about blaming the troops.



You fail to demonstrate any understanding of logic, despite your handle. I whimsically chided you in another blog about "blogic logic" but it was a serious criticism, which I will repeat here. You take a collection of loosely related factoids, rumors or unsubstantiated allegations, throw them in a blender and presto, you get your pre-determined conclusion.



Here's the example I used:



Fact: The Red Sox last won the World Series 86 years ago.

Fact: The Red Sox last appeared in a World Series in 1986.

Fact: The total number of runs scored in the ALCS = 86.

Therefore: The Red Sox will 86 the Cardinals.



The beauty of this example is that it turned out to be completely true while being completely irrational.



It is the Kerry supporters who are furiously trying to make the facts fit their published theory, blogic. We have no conspiracy theories to push.



Cheers,

Daiwa
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa,
you chide others for lack of logic, yet you consistently defend without any acceptance of legitimate points. Blogic did focus on the legitimate response from the pentagons and discussed his response to that. How can you find fault in this? You may disagree with his conclusions but he was very clear that this was his personal lack of faith in the US 'intelligence' and his belief. You in contrast completely ignore any conflicting points. Rather than discuss the fact that video evidence seems to suggest at least some explosives were present after the invasion, you categorically state there is 'NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS ABSURD CLAIM'. Yes there is. The question is the strength or legitamcy of that evidence and that's what the debate should be about, not just a I'm right you're wrong. Please actually debate the topic a bit more.

To discuss three of your points and ask for further debate from you on them,

- you now seem to accept/believe that maybe SOME high explosives were looted. Why do you believe this means nothing? Is it that you beleive the quantity may be below some trigger worry level or that you don't beleive the US should worry about securing dangerous material that is require for making nuclear bombs?

- you contest that this site was not inspected just before the war. There is indeed a big difference between an inventory and an inspection, but do you have any proof that seals could be successfully tampered with? If not why do you not accept the checking of seals as an acceptabel form of inspection? This is the exact form of inspection that was standard practice and acceptable to the US, why is it not acceptable to you?

- you don't believe that 300 tons of material oculd be looted. How do you explain the 1M+ tons of material looted from all official governemnt sites immediately after the war. The 10's of thoussands of Iraqis who plundered everything they could find while US troops stood around. There was plenty of coverage of thsi immediately after the war as well as widespread condemnation of US troops not stopping it. Whole building have been demolished and thousands of tons of scrap metal appears in junk yards in Jordan. All happened while the US was in complete control of the roadways and had ariel survelience. Why is 300 tons unbelieveable when the evidence immediately after the war a thousand times more looting actually happening?

Paul.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #4 By: Solitair - 10/29/2004 5:35:26 AM
Daiwa,
you chide others for lack of logic, yet you consistently defend without any acceptance of legitimate points. Blogic did focus on the legitimate response from the pentagons and discussed his response to that. How can you find fault in this? You may disagree with his conclusions but he was very clear that this was his personal lack of faith in the US 'intelligence' and his belief. You in contrast completely ignore any conflicting points. Rather than discuss the fact that video evidence seems to suggest at least some explosives were present after the invasion, you categorically state there is 'NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS ABSURD CLAIM'. Yes there is. The question is the strength or legitamcy of that evidence and that's what the debate should be about, not just a I'm right you're wrong. Please actually debate the topic a bit more.

To discuss three of your points and ask for further debate from you on them,

- you now seem to accept/believe that maybe SOME high explosives were looted. Why do you believe this means nothing? Is it that you beleive the quantity may be below some trigger worry level or that you don't beleive the US should worry about securing dangerous material that is require for making nuclear bombs?

- you contest that this site was not inspected just before the war. There is indeed a big difference between an inventory and an inspection, but do you have any proof that seals could be successfully tampered with? If not why do you not accept the checking of seals as an acceptabel form of inspection? This is the exact form of inspection that was standard practice and acceptable to the US, why is it not acceptable to you?

- you don't believe that 300 tons of material oculd be looted. How do you explain the 1M+ tons of material looted from all official governemnt sites immediately after the war. The 10's of thoussands of Iraqis who plundered everything they could find while US troops stood around. There was plenty of coverage of thsi immediately after the war as well as widespread condemnation of US troops not stopping it. Whole building have been demolished and thousands of tons of scrap metal appears in junk yards in Jordan. All happened while the US was in complete control of the roadways and had ariel survelience. Why is 300 tons unbelieveable when the evidence immediately after the war a thousand times more looting actually happening?


Well for one thing it isn't 300 tons, just a little over 200. For another IAEA has stated that they didn't seal the air shafts that lead into the bunker and that they were big enough to bring out munitions. And BTW the "trucks" in the spy photo that aren't parked next to the bunkers? They're parked next to the unsealed air shafts. How can you explain all the tire tracks or the boot prints left in the dried mud around the bunkers. The 300 tons are unbelievable because they (101st) were told to secure the site. For us to believe what is being spouted, we would have to first believe that they didn't do their job. Which I find HIGHLY unlikely! There is a big difference between letting someone loot an office building and letting someone loot a munitions dump. There ain't that much that can kill you in an office building. But there sure is a lot in a munitions dump, now ain't there?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Matthew Bunn, a Harvard University expert in nuclear weapons and terrorism, said that although he is concerned by the removal of the explosives, he is far more worried by IAEA reports that large quantities of sophisticated equipment, such as electron beam welders, were looted and removed from Iraq's nuclear weapons program. "That material, which would be quite useful to a nuclear weapons program, was also well known to the United States, was not guarded." Bunn stated he suspects these materials are now in Iran.

There are also reports that HIV and Black fever virus was looted from the Iraqi equivilent to our CDC AFTER the fall of Baghdad.

Draginol "By contrast the Pentagon released this image today showing trucks loading up stuff from the site just as the invasion was starting:"

Yes, the only problem is that this single satellite image shows this single truck in front of a lone bunker that did not contain any explosives. That has been verified by many weapons experts and inspectors who know the site extensively. The Washington TImes is also reporting that the Russians moved it out before the war started but even Donald Rumsfeld was skeptical of that assessment and says he has not seen ANY evidence to support the claim. It's just a disinformation shell game they are playing. There are also reports on FOX that suggets that looters may have removed the 277 tons of explosives throught the AIR VENTS! I really got a good laugh trying to picture that in my head!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa: “Which "theory" is more complex or implausible - Saddam doing exactly what he had practiced in the past, or a bunch of guys in old beat-up Toyota pickup trucks managing to haul off 300 tons (the number has been reduced by the IAEA, BTW) of high explosives while the US had complete control of the roadways and air surveillance?


This simply isn’t true. I wrote a pretty extensive article on this subject today and posted it in my blog. I will post an excerpt of my article to show you that your assertions are incorrect.

"David Kay, former chief weapons inspector, who spent the better part of 10 years monitoring and dismantling weapons in Iraq, disagrees:

“...We do know that the U.N. certified in early March that the explosives were there. We know that by May, when the 75th Exploitation Task Force went in, they were not there. There's a gap of about three weeks, two and a half weeks, before the war took place until a month after the war took place…”

”I must say, I find it hard to believe that a convoy of 40 to 60 trucks left that facility prior to or during the war, and we didn't spot it on satellite or UAV. That is, because it is the main road to Baghdad from the south, was a road that was constantly under surveillance. I also don't find it hard to believe that looters could carry it off in the dead of night or during the day and not use the road network.”

”I saw many Iraqi facilities in which they came by pickup truck and constantly -- it's amazing to see whole buildings disappear at the hands of looters who are not organized, who do not have heavy equipment. But I also think we ought to put it in perspective. We're talking about 400 tons of high explosives. It would be a great tool in the hands of insurgents and terrorists. But that's a country that is awash with tens of thousands of tons of explosives that have been used now for well over a year against the coalition forces there. “

Who is in a better position to say whether Iraqi's were capable of looting these explosives? David Kay who spent the better part of 10 years in Iraq witnessing Iraqis doing exactly what Rumsfeld says is impossible, a military officer who may never have been in Iraq before in his life prior to the invasion and who didn't know the culture, and didn't have a clue just how capable the Iraqis actually are? I mean no disrespect to the U.S. officer who is making these statements but he doesn't know the country like David Kay and other inspectors who spent YEARS in Iraq.

Anyone interested in reading my article, hop over to my blog whenever you are finished here! Good job, blogic!
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Drmiler, It is exactly 277 tons...the mix up is because the original story used METRIC tons when describing the quantity of the missing explosives but when you convert it to U.S. weights and measures, it's 277 U.S. tons.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yo, Blogic, I've posted on this today, too, after I heard NPR reporting on it. I'm sure the righties will have TONS of EXPLOSIVE responses to us both.

Cheers.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Drmiler: “How can you explain all the tire tracks or the boot prints left in the dried mud around the bunkers.”

First of all satellite imagery can be very misleading as we found out after Collin Powells’s presentation to the U.N. For example, during Powell’s UN presentation, he showed satellite imagery of trucks allegedly being used to move illicit materials that were later determined to be empty and were being used to move mechanical parts. Secondly, Powell showed satellite photos allegedly showing Iraqi sanitization of chemical weapons sites. It turned out that the site was an old ammunition storage area where Iraqi trucks often visited but no evidence of illicit activities had been discovered. One diplomat described the subsequent investigation of the site as a “wild goose chase.” Bernd Birkicht, a former UN weapons inspector said that Powell had shown him satellite photos of an alleged Iraqi “decontamination truck” as proof of Iraq’s on-going WMD program but it turned out to be a fire truck. When inspectors were given exact co-ordinates of alleged Iraqi WMD sites, they “found nothing…just desert.” So I wouldn’t put too much stock into a single satellite photograph when we have no idea what we are actually seeing and do not have any additional context of what the truck is doing or why it was there.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #10 By: T_Bone4Justice - 10/29/2004 10:17:20 AM
Drmiler: “How can you explain all the tire tracks or the boot prints left in the dried mud around the bunkers.”


Excuse me, but this was not from satellite imagery. This was reported by men of the 101st Airborne div upon their arrival at the facility.
Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top
Who is in a better position to say whether Iraqi's were capable of looting these explosives?


Charles Duelfer (who was there THIS year)
From the Duelfer Report:
Iraq under Saddam successfully devised various methods to acquire and import items prohibited under UNsanctions. Numerous Iraqi and foreign trade intermediaries disguised illicit items, hid the identity of the enduser, and/or changed the final destination of the commodity to get it to the region. For a cut of the profits, these trade intermediaries moved, and in many cases smuggled, the prohibited items through land, sea, and air entry points along the Iraqi border.

Paul Bremer (has said that they most probably were gone before in an interview)
The 3rd ID (interviews with people that were there,has said the same)
The 101st (interviews with people that were there, has said the same)
Embedded reporter (interview, has said the same)

First of all satellite imagery can be very misleading


This is not true. What they make public is not near the capability of what they have, I know this for a fact. The images that are made public are comparable to a quick shot disposable, it's 25 year old technology. Conclusions made on best available info can be wrong.

Yes, the only problem is that this single satellite image shows this single truck in front of a lone bunker that did not contain any explosives


Did not contain explosives? Then where were they on March 17, 2003? What about the IAEA seals? Did you look at the photo? Apparently not. There are 2 heavy equipment trailers (18 wheelers) one each in front of two bunkers with two smaller moving van sized trucks behind each of them. What is the plausible explanation for these trucks? Another photograph taken on April 1, 2003, of a nearby airfield (located only a Kilometer or two away from the bunkers) also showed a lot of vehicles on it.

With regard to Powell's testimony, read it, carefully and objectively. There are plenty of caveat's and weasel words (as all these guys use them) and he even directly addressed the fact that there is debate. I've already posted elsewhere that German Intelligence publicly admitted that Germany helped provide the mobile chem/bio lab materials and expertise on building them. The Duelfer Report also concluded the labs/trailers were not for BW production (this is pretty conclusive). However, if you actually read the Duelfer report there is plenty credible, plausible and probable explanations regarding the whole WMD thing (of course you have to be willing to see it). In some instances we were off base, others, not.

Also from the Duelfer Report:

Exploitations of IIS laboratories, safe houses, and disposal sites revealed no evidence of CW-related research or production, however many of these sites were either sanitized by the Regime or looted prior to OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom). Interviews with key IIS officials within and outside of M16 yielded very little information about the IIS’ activities in this area.

From Paul Bremer (NYT 10/8/2004)
What I Really Said About Iraq

snip

The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president’s strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.

The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. He understands that our enemies are not confined to Al Qaeda, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan. As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror - wherever they are. Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq.

President Bush has said that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. He is right. Mr. Zarqawi’s stated goal is to kill Americans, set off a sectarian war in Iraq and defeat democracy there. He is our enemy.

Our victory also depends on devoting the resources necessary to win this war. So last year, President Bush asked the American people to make available $87 billion for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military commanders and I strongly agreed on the importance of these funds, which is why we stood together before Congress to make the case for their approval. The overwhelming majority of Congress understood and provided the funds needed to fight the war and win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were vital resources that Senator John Kerry voted to deny our troops.

snip

U.S. Commander Theorizes on Iraq Weapons
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN
Associated Press Writer

An infantry commander said Wednesday it is "very highly improbable" that someone could have trucked out so much material once U.S. forces arrived in the area.

snip

Two major roads that pass near the Al-Qaqaa installation were filled with U.S. military traffic in the weeks after April 3, 2003, when U.S. troops first reached the area, the colonel said.

snip

John A. Shaw, the U.S. deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, told The Times in an interview: "The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units. Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."

Shaw, who was in charge of cataloging the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services.

snip

CNN (4/6/2003) Russian convoy fired on in Iraq
Link

snip

U.S. Central Command said the convoy was attacked in territory controlled by the Iraqi government, and that no coalition forces were operating in the area at the time of the incident.

snip

U.S. Searches 'Suspicious' Iraqi Site (April 4, 2003) CBS
Link

U.S. troops found thousands of boxes of white powder, nerve agent antidote and Arabic documents on how to engage in chemical warfare at an industrial site south of Baghdad. But a senior U.S. official familiar with initial testing said the materials were believed to be explosives.

snip

"Initial reports are that the material is probably just explosives, but we're still going through the place," the official said.

Peabody said troops found thousands of boxes, each of which contained three vials of white powder, together with documents written in Arabic that dealt with how to engage in chemical warfare.

He also said they discovered atropine, used to counter the effects of nerve agents.

The facility had been identified by the International Atomic Energy Agency as a suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons site. U.N. inspectors visited the plant at least nine times, including as recently as Feb. 18.

The facility is part of a larger complex known as the Latifiyah Explosives and Ammunition Plant al Qa Qaa.

snip

Obviously the 3rd ID knew what it was looking at and that the site was and IAEA site. Hmm, either the IAEA allowed the packaging of unknown white powder with Arabic Chem warfare documents, or the site was tampered with after they left and before the 3rd ID got there. Too bad the officer interviewed in the NYT piece wasn't from the 3rd ID. The bigger question is If the IAEA had found RDX and HMX (and materials capable of detinating nuclear weapons) why the hell wasn't it removed and destroyed? Their solution was to bicycle lock the front doors and ignore vents large enough for people to get through with the removal of six screws? It wouldn't be that difficult to remove the 3 TONS of RDX the IAEA documented through the vents.

Discrepancy Found in Explosives Amounts (ABC 10/27/2004)
Link

snip

But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over three tons of RDX were stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.

The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003.

snip

"There have always been cheerful idiots in this country who believed that there would be no more war for us if everybody in America would only return into their homes and lock their front doors behind them."
-FDR: December 24, 1943

Apparently the IAEA also thought locking the front door was all that was needed.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #10 By: T_Bone4Justice - 10/29/2004 10:17:20 AM
Drmiler: “How can you explain all the tire tracks or the boot prints left in the dried mud around the bunkers.”

First of all satellite imagery can be very misleading


Not true. Evidentually you have never watch Discovery channel. It was on last night and was talking about Area 51. They were using HD satellite imagery to show what the guys were saying was true! They showed close ups of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. done with this satellite. And this was civilian equipment. I would imagine that the US military has better equipment.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks, T B, for such a thorough compilation. I appreciate the leg work that went into it.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top
Thanks, T B,


Welcome Daiwa (I'm sure it won't matter to some, it's amazing to me the ability to filter out only what they want to see and discard the rest, significant events get glossed over and debate rages about the minutiae)

I would imagine that the US military has better equipment


12 years ago I was designing some of this stuff. We had the sort of capability shown in that photo probably around the early 80's and that was for civilian use. You can't even imagine what we were able to do.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #16 By: T B - 10/29/2004 10:49:29 PM
Thanks, T B,
12 years ago I was designing some of this stuff. We had the sort of capability shown in that photo probably around the early 80's and that was for civilian use. You can't even imagine what we were able to do.


What little I saw on Discovery channel simply *AMAZED* me.
Reply #18 from PolMach Forums Top
BTW Arab News reports this (site is REALLY slow, might take a re-load or two)
Link

snip

Maj. Austin Pearson, speaking at a press conference at the Pentagon, said his team removed 250 tons of TNT, plastic explosives, detonation cords, and white phosphorous rounds on April13 ,2003 , - 10 days after US forces first reached the Al-Qaqaa site. “I did not see any IAEA seals at any of the locations we went into. I was not looking for that,” Pearson said.

snip
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks, Solitaire, for helping me clarify things. I'm happy to reply & hope you get back here to review it.

I believe I have been quite consistent in objecting to people stating hypotheses & theories as either factual conclusions or evidence. Much of the stuff tossed out there goes like this: An unsubstantiated theory or accusation is published in such a way as to suggest that it is confirmed or true, often citing references which themselves offer no factual evidence in support. The accusers then challenge the accused to prove their published theory is wrong. No logical person should accept this tactic for what I would hope are obvious reasons. If someone is going to make an allegation, they should have the burden of providing proof. I won't belabor the point further, but get to your specific examples.

you now seem to accept/believe that maybe SOME high explosives were looted. Why do you believe this means nothing?


That's not what I said, actually. The video suggests, and may turn out to confirm, that at least some high explosive material was present on April 18, 2003. That would be evidence that some high explosives remained at Al Qaqaa on April 18, 2003, but that's as far as you can take it. What that is NOT evidence of is that explosives were looted by anyone. Evidence is by definition affirmative of the theory put forth, except in the case of "negative" evidence which excludes all other possibilities. The information we have on hand does is not affirmative of the looting theory, only that looting of some explosives was possible. I have never held that no looting could have happened, only that no proof yet exists that it did indeed happen. And since my initial reply here, a soldier in charge of a munitions disposal unit has claimed that his unit destroyed some 250 tons of munitions & explosives at Al Qaqaa after April 18 & before the arrival of our inspectors in May.

you contest that this site was not inspected just before the war. There is indeed a big difference between an inventory and an inspection, but do you have any proof that seals could be successfully tampered with? If not why do you not accept the checking of seals as an acceptabel form of inspection? This is the exact form of inspection that was standard practice and acceptable to the US, why is it not acceptable to you?


It is not my job to prove that the seals could have been tampered with. It is the job of the accuser to offer proof. I've seen no evidence that the verification of the presence of seals is or ever was "acceptable to the US" and never claimed so. As far as I know, the US has been consistent in its criticism of the international inspections as inadequate and ineffective. This "standard practice" apparently wasn't even acceptable to the IAEA, which in its own report indicated that they just "sealed" the front door, in effect merely identifying the bunker as containing explosive munitions, and that the IAEA was fully aware that the material in those bunkers could easily be removed without disturbing those seals.

you don't believe that 300 tons of material oculd be looted.


I have said I don't believe that 219 tons (that's the correct amount at Al Qaqaa, BTW) were looted by terrorists & the insurgency after the depot came under US control & before the arrival of the US WMD inspectors in May of 2003 who confirmed they were gone. Rememer, the accusation by the NYT & CBS is that 377 tons of high explosives were stolen from out from under our noses by virtue of our incompentence after the invasion, are now in the hands of the terrorists & insurgents, and are now being used against our troops. Once again, it is incumbent on them to offer proof. They've offered NONE. And while thumbing their noses at us for demanding proof, they have the gall to demand that their detractors prove the accusers' wild-ass guess is wrong.

I welcome evidence in support of the NYT/CBS theory, if it exists. So far, no one has provided any & what evidence presently exists favors another explanation.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa,
Thanks for your response,. and I don't mean to sound rude or critical, I just get annoyed when I know someone disagrees with something and I can't actually grasp the precise issue they have. You're last post was clear.

You seem to be unwilling to make any conclusions until a proper investigation has obtained proof of what was there, when it was there, when it went missing and by who. That is fair enough, but many will not be so patient when they don't see any clear investigation occurring and don't trust the authorities to be honest with one. What is known is that at some point a large quantity of WMD component material went missing. At the very least the government needs to acknowledge the seriousness of this and announce an inquiry that people can trust.

The IAEA has used seals for the past twelve years in Iraq and no report critises this approach. In numerous reports to the UN the IAEA lists which facilities and materials had been sealed. Never once did the US or any other country question the wisdom of this or suggest this was unacceptable. 12 years is standard practice and unless any evidence exists that this was unacceptable practice then I take the IAEA statement that the seals cannot be tampered with as fact. This method of controlling such stockpiles was chosen for a reason. It works and in my opinion any burden of proof of otherwise lies with those now after 12 years implying that it doesn't. Circumventing seals through other methods is a different issue and one that would need to be examined in determining when material was removed and when.

Again I point out that as a European I use different ton units here so lets ignore the 'actual' amount, as it depends on the report you read and the units used. The facts are that this material is missing. No proof required about that. The US does not know where it is. Again no proof required on that as the administration has admitted this. This material was flagged by the IAEA before the war as WMD component material. The war happened over 1.5 years ago, yet only now is the government even trying to find out where the material is. So who's problem is it? Who's not doing their job?

In my mind opinion it should not be possible for anyone to make accusations about WMD against the government without the government instantly being able to respond with the facts. These are WMD components that are missing for over 1.5 years and it looks like no one in the administration even noticed or cared. Worst case scenario is that the entire batch of components is sitting in some terrorist lab being assembled into a dirty bomb. Best case scenario is that Saddam moved them before the war and that 377 tons of a WMD component material is still missing. I don't like either scenario or anything in the middle. WMD components should have been top of the list of items to be secured and destroyed during the invasion (not after).

Paul.
Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top
Hay guys, why are we still on this point?

The US Army explosives disposal team is saying that they destroyed 250 tons of the stuff from that site.

Link

For me the issue is dead. You guys can stop beating a dead horse now.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #22 from PolMach Forums Top
You guys can stop beating a dead horse now.


You don't know how fun a game that is until you try it!!

Another favorite game of mine is poking the roadkill with a stick, hours of good wholesome fun to be had there!

SPLAT PLINKO!!
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Forgive me, horse...

Solitair -

many will not be so patient when they don't see any clear investigation occurring and don't trust the authorities to be honest with one. What is known is that at some point a large quantity of WMD component material went missing. At the very least the government needs to acknowledge the seriousness of this and announce an inquiry that people can trust.


This is one point that does get under my skin. We had inspection teams at Al Qaqaa and hundreds of other sites as long ago as May of 2003. We knew that a large amount of high explosives previously inventoried as present at Al Qaqaa in January 2003 were not present in May of 2003. We now know that a significant amount of the "absent" high explosives were apparently destroyed by a munitions demolition team before May of 2003, something the military chain of command presumably knew about, but not something that would have been rocketed straight to Bush's desk. At that point, who had a reason to believe those explosives had been looted by loose terrorists? At that point, the logical assumption would have been Saddam had moved them, as he had dispersed munitions before. The accusation that they were looted from under our noses was made 6 days ago and the Administration has announced an investigation - how in the world can you say "they don't see any clear investigation" occurring? How can you say they aren't taking the accusation seriously? That just indicates a prejudicial mindset - you believe in your gut that the Iraq war was wrong and you're perfectly willing to uncritically accept as probable any allegation that reinforces that mindset. Further, the media are all over this story like a hair shirt and if the NYT had their hands on any real proof it would be page one the instant they got it.

As for the inspections process, I don't know what else to say. The Bush Administration has repeatedly and publicly expressed the firm conviction that the inspections were inadequate. Maybe those expressions were never reported in your country, but the inadequacy of the inspections process was one of the principle reasons for the invasion. If the US had any faith in those inspections accomplishing the objective of disarming Saddam, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The war happened over 1.5 years ago, yet only now is the government even trying to find out where the material is. So who's problem is it? Who's not doing their job?


What in God's name was Duelfer doing over there, then? Have you forgotten we sent him? See my first paragraph - much of it applies here. The fact that the explosives are at the present unequivocally unaccounted for is not and has never been in dispute. What I've been objecting to all along is the leap of irrational logic that their absence is evidence of anything other than their absence. And your claim that "only now is the government even trying" to find out where the material is shows you simply have not been paying attention. There was an inventory from before the war. The US has accounted for and taken possession of more than 99% of the inventory by some estimates and destroyed about half of that inventory already. You think that happened in just the past 6 days?

In my mind opinion it should not be possible for anyone to make accusations about WMD against the government without the government instantly being able to respond with the facts. These are WMD components that are missing for over 1.5 years and it looks like no one in the administration even noticed or cared.


Well, first of all, there were no WMD's in Iraq - remember? I'm being sarcastic, but we're talking about components that could be utilized in WMD's, not WMD's themselves. And I refer you again to my first paragraph - your time frame is simply wrong as the "administration" had no reason at the time to believe the explosives had been looted, in fact had reason to believe that what hadn't been removed before the war by Saddam had been destroyed by an Army munitions demolition unit, not that that specific bit of information, concerning 0.6% or so of the munitions known to be in Iraq, would be expected to percolate all the way up to Rumsfeld & Bush. And they have been actively searching for and securing such material all over Iraq ever since the invasion. Did you think they did all that in the first couple of weeks after Baghdad fell? And as for the expectation that our government should be in a position to instantly respond with facts about a single munitions dump out of thousands in a country the size of California, one that was hardly unique, out of the reams of information collected in the chaos of war is just silly. You know perfectly well your government, and I don't even know which European country you're in, can't instantly respond with facts about anything.

You have to ask yourself how you would have been in a position 18 months ago to do anything differently. And I haven't even touched on the crass political motives related to the timing of the accusation, which all by itself screams for everyone to take a deep breath and give the government and the press an opportunity to sort all this out.

Thanks for listening. And peace, dear horse.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #20 By: Solitair - 10/30/2004 6:37:24 PM
Daiwa,
BR>Again I point out that as a European I use different ton units here so lets ignore the 'actual' amount, as it depends on the report you read and the units used. The facts are that this material is missing. No proof required about that. The US does not know where it is. Again no proof required on that as the administration has admitted this. This material was flagged by the IAEA before the war as WMD component material. The war happened over 1.5 years ago, yet only now is the government even trying to find out where the material is. So who's problem is it? Who's not doing their job?



Solitair...You seem to be overlooking a small but important detail. Why is it only "NOW" that the questions are being asked?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
The timing of the issue is indeed suspicious, but as a non American I try not to get too caught up in partisan politics (such as accusations on the timing). To be fair to the IAEA though, they have never been let back into Iraq and so could not have known about this issue until the Iraqi government informed them at the start of October. Why did the Iraqi government inform them? Because they knew the material was missing and the US obviously never told them that they had destroyed it. So any accusation of timing needs to be made at the Iraqi government itself and not the IAEA or UN.

It's yet again worth stressing that I support the Iraqi war and the efforts at bringing democracy. My focus on this issue is therefore anything but
you believe in your gut that the Iraq war was wrong and you're perfectly willing to uncritically accept as probable any allegation that reinforces that mindset
.

Now the latest twist seems to be that the pentagon is saying that despite earlier releasing satellite photos suggesting the explosives could have been removed pre war, they now KNOW that they destroyed the explosives AFTER the war. While this may indeed be true (despite some issues with the information that the pentagon admit to), the whole handling of this issue is farcical. It should never take 6 days for the US administration to answer a question as to where WMD component material went.

The bottom line for me is not so much about when or where but about why. This WMD component material is serious enough that if more of it had been found undeclared the US would have been justified by article 1441 in invading Iraq. Yet now this material is just a fraction of the normal munitions. This is such a two faced arguement. Either the material is a WMD component and therefore subject to the strictest control in Iraq (which is the case) or it is not. You cannot have both. It is for Iraq but it's not for the US.

Paul.