Isil militants seize chemical weapons factory

Isil militants seize chemical weapons factory


UN letter confirms June 19 claim by Washington that Isil had taken control of the facility
afp
Published: 12:51 July 9, 2014


United Nations The Iraqi government has told the United Nations that militants have seized one of Saddam Hussain’s former chemical weapons factories, confirming an earlier claim by Washington.


In a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon dated July 1 and made public Tuesday, Baghdad’s UN Ambassador Mohammad Ali Al Hakim said “armed terrorist groups” entered the Muthanna project site on the night of June 11 after disarming the soldiers guarding it.


As a result, Baghdad was currently unable to “fulfill its obligations to destroy chemical weapons,” Al Hakim wrote, adding that “remnants of the (country’s) former chemical weapons program” are kept at the site.


“The government will resume its efforts with regards to its obligations as soon as the security situation has improved and control of the facility has been regained,” he added.


At dawn on June 12, the site’s surveillance system, disabled by “the terrorists,” showed there was “looting of some equipment and appliances,” he wrote.


The letter confirms a June 19 claim by Washington that islamist militants had taken control of the facility.


State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said at the time that she didn’t think the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) militants would be able to produce usable chemical weapons there because any materials remaining there were old and unwieldy.


The militants have led a month-old crisis that has seen an islamist-led alliance overrun large swaths of northern and north-central Iraq, displacing hundreds of thousands.


The complex, located just 45 miles (72 kilometers) northwest of the Iraqi capital, began producing mustard gas and other nerve agents, including sarin, in the early 1980s soon after Saddam took power, according to a CIA factsheet.


The program expanded to its height during the Iran-Iraq war later that decade, and produced 209 and 394 tons of sarin in 1987 and 1988 respectively.


But the CIA writes that the facility shut down after the first Gulf war, when UN resolutions “proscribed Iraq’s ability to produce chemical weapons.”


In the early 1990s, the site was used to oversee efforts to destroy Iraq’s chemical weapons stockpile.




http://gulfnews.com/news/region/iraq/isil-militants-seize-chemical-weapons-factory-1.1357555

Bush did not lie ,anybody that thinks he did is stupid as hell!

DANNYKELLEY wrote: Bush did not lie ,anybody that thinks he did is stupid as hell!

I was being facetious. I support Bush vehemently. And that being before I found out I am closely related to Gov., and maybe next Pres., Scott Walker, the "W" in the Bushes name.

Does anybody remember the ship thought to be carrying WMDs out of Iraq that was being tailed by US Navy and then that story just vanished? I think the US Gov. knows where the chem agents/weapons went to but cannot disclose that knowledge without sparking a Third World War.

Kenneth E Clodfelter, killed on the USS Cole was my cousin. The weapons were there. But that is not why we attacked. Bushes attack on Iraq was over the Cole bombing, 9-11 and the attempt on his fathers life. A sitting President.

ISIS Has Seized 88 Pounds Of Uranium In Northern Iraq

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-09/isis-has-seized-88-pounds-uranium-northern-iraq

If one or more show up here I wonder who gets the blame for that?

arirish wrote: The complex, located just 45 miles (72 kilometers) northwest of the Iraqi capital, began producing mustard gas and other nerve agents, including sarin, in the early 1980s soon after Saddam took power, according to a CIA factsheet. The program expanded to its height during the Iran-Iraq war later that decade, and produced 209 and 394 tons of sarin in 1987 and 1988 respectively. But the CIA writes that the facility shut down after the first Gulf war, when UN resolutions “proscribed Iraq’s ability to produce chemical weapons.” In the early 1990s, the site was used to oversee efforts to destroy Iraq’s chemical weapons stockpile.

The article clearly states that the CIA believed the facility ceased to produce chemical weapons after the first Gulf War.
Yes, Saddam had and used chemical weapons. That's a matter of historical record and nobody denies it. He used them on the battlefield against Iranian soldiers during the Iran-Iraq war while the US looked the other way, and he used them again on Kurdish villagers using US made helicopters, the sale of which was pushed through by the Reagan administration and Donald Rumsfeld despite congressional opposition. Saddam was a monster, but he was our monster...

Never been a big fan of Dubya (to put it politely) but I have to give Bush Sr a lot of credit for not pushing on to Baghdad while he was opening a can of whoop-ass on the Iraqi Republican Guard. He's a smart man with a wealth of experience, including VP and Director of the CIA, and he knew full well that whoever ousted Saddam would have to run the country by default, and he wasn't willing to commit to a long, drawn out (and expensive) campaign that would undoubtedly turn into a bloody Sunni-Shiite civil war, and a no win situation as it spiraled into sectarian violence. Shame his kid wasn't checking his voice mail messages while Cheney and Rumsfeld were whispering in his ear, because I bet dear old Dad had the phone ringing off the hook.

onefluover wrote: In this regard i suppose Bush may have fibbed after all.

arirish,you are 100% correct.johnray1

don't get me started

http://downingstreetmemo.com/

Bush and Tony Blair are both lying sacks of SH_T

war criminals

and we won't get into the # of governments that the US has overthrown or destabilized

jacksdad wrote: Never been a big fan of Dubya (to put it politely) but I have to give Bush Sr a lot of credit for not pushing on to Baghdad while he was opening a can of whoop-ass on the Iraqi Republican Guard. He's a smart man with a wealth of experience, including VP and Director of the CIA, and he knew full well that whoever ousted Saddam would have to run the country by default, and he wasn't willing to commit to a long, drawn out (and expensive) campaign that would undoubtedly turn into a bloody Sunni-Shiite civil war, and a no win situation as it spiraled into sectarian violence. Shame his kid wasn't checking his voice mail messages while Cheney and Rumsfeld were whispering in his ear, because I bet dear old Dad had the phone ringing off the hook.

jacksdad wrote: onefluover wrote: But there was indisputable proof the weapons were once there somewhere Really? When, where and what kind?

I could dig it all up I suppose but not necessary. Halabja for starters.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm


And as for Bush being so unpopular, well here's a real popular alternative:







Obama approval high with Muslims




The survey underscores a religious divide when it comes to presidential approval. | AP Photo
Close
By JONATHAN TOPAZ | 7/11/14 6:06 AM EDT
President Barack Obama’s approval rating is higher among Muslims than any other religious group, a new poll says.


According to a Gallup poll released Friday that tracked responses for the first six months of 2014, 72 percent of Muslims said they approve of the president, compared with just 20 percent who disapprove.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/poll-obama-approval-muslims-highest-108797.html

The 1988 Kurdish gas attack I already mentioned in my post? So that's why Bush went to war fifteen years later...

Funny thing about that period - Reagan and his lackey Donald Rumsfeld (remember him?) had taken Iraq off the State Department's terrorism list in 1982 in spite of considerable congressional opposition, and declassified documents of Rumsfeld's meetings in Baghdad debunk his repeated assertions that he raised concerns about Iraq's use of chemical weapons to Saddam personally. What was taking place on the battlefields of the Iran-Irag war while Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam's hand was certainly no secret - Secretary of State George Shultz had been told about Iraq's "almost daily use of CW (chemical weapons)" against the Iranians in November 1983 by the State department - and yet nobody was clamoring to invade Iraq back then even though we knew they not only possessed WMDs, but were manufacturing them in huge quantities.

In truth, the rabbit hole goes a lot deeper - the Reagan and Bush Sr administrations didn't just look the other way while Iraqi officials scoured the world for equipment and chemical precursors during the eighties. According to a 2002 Washington Post article by Michael Dodd, “the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague". Dodd goes on to say that after the 1991 Gulf War, U.N. inspectors “compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes” in Iraq. And at least some of the helicopters used in the Halabja attack you mentioned were probably ones that Reagan had sold them in the face of yet more congressional opposition.

And then there's the "Downing Street memo" which references a secret July 23rd 2002 meeting of British government, military and intelligence officials which concluded that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy". Yep, even Bush's staunchest ally in the Iraq War officially considered him a liar.

"My biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq".
George W Bush, 2008.

He's talking about the lack of WMDs, by the way....

Not arguing for the sake of it, buddy. Just telling it like I see it and countering statements that I don't agree with.
Yes, Saddam almost certainly tried to take out GHWB in Kuwait, but does that justify what you're now saying is a Bush family vendetta that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives since 2003, and potentially paved the way for Iraq to become a radical Islamic state that hates us with a passion?
Personally, I don't believe that was the primary reason - too many people had too much to gain from that war. Look at the incredible business opportunity handed to Halliburton from an administration that had their ex-CEO as VP. When it was all added up, Halliburton made $39.5 billion from the Iraq war. Am I being too cynical? Maybe. But if the shoe was on the other foot, and a business that either Obama or Biden had recently left profited to that extent from a contract they didn't even have to bid on, I guarantee that Boehner and co would be shouting it from the rooftops - and rightly so. Solyndra? Give me a break. As much noise as everyone made over that, at least it didn't result in the untimely deaths of over 4000 US servicemen and women, and almost 1.5 million of the Iraqis we were supposed to be liberating.

Okay, I'll zip it now. Probably. Well...

Don't get me wrong, onefluover - I was certainly no fan of Saddam. I just think it's a shame they couldn't get a sniper in there and take the SOB out clean (and his sons, as well as any like minded generals, politicians, ba'athist party officials, etc). He definitely needed to go, but I'm not sure waging war on an entire country and leaving them with a broken economy and a civil war was the best way to do it. However the people in charge pictured a post-Saddam Iraq, I bet this isn't it.
At least I hope not

I'm so sorry to hear about your son. Please thank him for his service for me.

Johnray1 wrote: They did find WMD production plants and precursors fro make the WMD. But they could not report the find because many of the factory parts and barrels of precursors,had "Made in USA"still stamped on them. Saddam had WMDs and we knew that he did,because we gave them to him.Johnray1

Now that I can believe.