Saddam could have used WMD within 45 Minutes

[bfp]

Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and his army was capable of firing them off in less than 45 minutes, according to statements from an Iraqi colonel.

Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh told the London Telegraph that cases of WMD warheads were shipped under cover of darkness to front-line units, including his own, near the end of 2002, in a report published in Sunday editions.

In September of 2002 the British government published a controversial intelligence report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, claiming WMD could be launched within 45 minutes. Al-Dabbagh said he believed he was the source of the claim, which was widely criticized as being a ploy by British Prime Minister Tony Blair to gain support for military action in Iraq.

"I am the one responsible for providing this information," al-Dabbagh, 40, told the Telegraph when shown the dossier. "It is 100 percent accurate."

"Forget 45 minutes, we could have fired these within half-an-hour," he was quoted as saying.

Al-Dabbagh told the paper that the weapons were Iraqi-manufactured and were designed to be launched from hand-held rocket-propelled grenades. Whether the weapons contained biological or chemical agents was not made clear by al-Dabbagh, the report said.

Iraqi military commanders could use the weapons only on the personal orders of Saddam, al-Dabbagh told the paper, adding: "We were told that when the war came we would only have a short time to use everything we had to defend ourselves, including the secret weapon."

So why weren't the weapons launched against the allied forces encroaching on Iraq? Al-Dabbagh said the majority of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam.

"The West should thank God that the Iraqi army decided not to fight," he told the paper. "If the army had fought for Saddam Hussein and used these weapons there would have been terrible consequences."

[Adam D]

It doesn't even make sense that one would fire biological or chemical weapons from an RPG, because the firing distance would likely be minimal enough to risk the infection area reaching back to their own troops.


He knew of a secret weapon, but didn't know what it was? That's no proof of anything at all. Once again you fail. You should really be questioning this sort of report for a couple of reasons. One, the British dossier cited the grad student's paper as the source, not this guy. Two, the claim made was that Hussein could attack England in 45 minutes, and I seriously doubt Iraq had or has RPGs capable of distancing Iraq to England.

[bfp]

It doesn't even make sense that one would fire biological or chemical weapons from an RPG, because the firing distance would likely be minimal enough to risk the infection area reaching back to their own troops.


He knew of a secret weapon, but didn't know what it was? That's no proof of anything at all. Once again you fail. You should really be questioning this sort of report for a couple of reasons. One, the British dossier cited the grad student's paper as the source, not this guy. Two, the claim made was that Hussein could attack England in 45 minutes, and I seriously doubt Iraq had or has RPGs capable of distancing Iraq to England.

Once again I fail? Hardly. Show me a report as to where it claims that Saddam could have attacked "England' in 45 minutes. That was not the case. The report claimed that Saddam could launch the Weapons in 45 minutes on US and British troops, and possibly the Iraqi people. And just because it does'nt make sense that the Iraqi Military were going to launch RPG's on our troops, does'nt mean they it was'nt true. What other option would they have? It makes perfect sense to try and attack us when we were brought into range. In this report, an Iraqi colonel admitted they were transported to the Battlefield. The grad student's paper could have quoted US and UK intelligence at that time, dont you think? Maybe our intelligence services were listening in on Iraqi Communications?

[Ash]

I also have a SCUD launcher and a A-10 Warthog in my coat closet. It is 100 percent accurate!

[Element4040]

Originally posted by bfp
Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and his army was capable of firing them off in less than 45 minutes, according to statements from an Iraqi colonel.

Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh told the London Telegraph that cases of WMD warheads were shipped under cover of darkness to front-line units, including his own, near the end of 2002, in a report published in Sunday editions.

In September of 2002 the British government published a controversial intelligence report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, claiming WMD could be launched within 45 minutes. Al-Dabbagh said he believed he was the source of the claim, which was widely criticized as being a ploy by British Prime Minister Tony Blair to gain support for military action in Iraq.

"I am the one responsible for providing this information," al-Dabbagh, 40, told the Telegraph when shown the dossier. "It is 100 percent accurate."

"Forget 45 minutes, we could have fired these within half-an-hour," he was quoted as saying.

Al-Dabbagh told the paper that the weapons were Iraqi-manufactured and were designed to be launched from hand-held rocket-propelled grenades. Whether the weapons contained biological or chemical agents was not made clear by al-Dabbagh, the report said.

Iraqi military commanders could use the weapons only on the personal orders of Saddam, al-Dabbagh told the paper, adding: "We were told that when the war came we would only have a short time to use everything we had to defend ourselves, including the secret weapon."

So why weren't the weapons launched against the allied forces encroaching on Iraq? Al-Dabbagh said the majority of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam.

"The West should thank God that the Iraqi army decided not to fight," he told the paper. "If the army had fought for Saddam Hussein and used these weapons there would have been terrible consequences."

This wouldn't surprise me if it were true, but it really does seem like an awfully crude way to dispense chemical weapons. However, if you are wearing a chemical suit it really wouldn't matter how close you are to firing the weapon.

It seems to me though that the payload carried by the RPG would be too small to be that effective.

I would like to read the article, was this on BBC?

[Xodiac]

Whether the weapons contained biological or chemical agents was not made clear by al-Dabbagh, the report said.

So one Iraqi claims, without any evidence, that the army has some kind of weapon that could be launched from RPG's, and that they just decided to surrender and die instead of using it. We don't even have any idea of what kind of weapon it was, and yet this proves that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?

Not only does this not prove anything, this guy's vague testimony doesn't even make sense!

it is unlikely that any reports that verify possession of WMDs by Sadam will be accepted at this point - regradless of whether they are true or not

those who believe(d) he had them will continue to do so and those who did not will do so as well

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by xiannaix
it is unlikely that any reports that verify possession of WMDs by Sadam will be accepted at this point - regradless of whether they are true or not

those who believe(d) he had them will continue to do so and those who did not will do so as well

There's a difference between evidence of WMDs and one Colonel talking out of his ass. If this guy is telling the truth, have him show us where he left the RPGs he speaks of and we can test them for chemical/nuclear agents ourselves.

[Ash]

Originally posted by Dionysos
There's a difference between evidence of WMDs and one Colonel talking out of his ass. If this guy is telling the truth, have him show us where he left the RPGs he speaks of and we can test them for chemical/nuclear agents ourselves.

Like I said. I also have a nuke warhead in my pantry. Prove me wrong!

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by Ash
Like I said. I also have a nuke warhead in my pantry. Prove me wrong!

In that case, I'm invading your wife to fight the war on terror.

Originally posted by Ash
Like I said. I also have a nuke warhead in my pantry. Prove me wrong!

Your pantry is a remarkably more definite area to search than the entire country of Iraq.

Accepting for sake of argument that we knmew where you live - your possession or non-possession is easily verifiable.

WMDs in Iraq are not.

[Ash]

Originally posted by Dionysos
In that case, I'm invading your wife to fight the war on terror.

10-4

[guerillahost]

Originally posted by bfp
Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and his army was capable of firing them off in less than 45 minutes, according to statements from an Iraqi colonel.

Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh told the London Telegraph that cases of WMD warheads were shipped under cover of darkness to front-line units, including his own, near the end of 2002, in a report published in Sunday editions.

In September of 2002 the British government published a controversial intelligence report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, claiming WMD could be launched within 45 minutes. Al-Dabbagh said he believed he was the source of the claim, which was widely criticized as being a ploy by British Prime Minister Tony Blair to gain support for military action in Iraq.

"I am the one responsible for providing this information," al-Dabbagh, 40, told the Telegraph when shown the dossier. "It is 100 percent accurate."

"Forget 45 minutes, we could have fired these within half-an-hour," he was quoted as saying.

Al-Dabbagh told the paper that the weapons were Iraqi-manufactured and were designed to be launched from hand-held rocket-propelled grenades. Whether the weapons contained biological or chemical agents was not made clear by al-Dabbagh, the report said.

Iraqi military commanders could use the weapons only on the personal orders of Saddam, al-Dabbagh told the paper, adding: "We were told that when the war came we would only have a short time to use everything we had to defend ourselves, including the secret weapon."

So why weren't the weapons launched against the allied forces encroaching on Iraq? Al-Dabbagh said the majority of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam.

"The West should thank God that the Iraqi army decided not to fight," he told the paper. "If the army had fought for Saddam Hussein and used these weapons there would have been terrible consequences."

Spread the PROPAGANDA.