Weapons in Iraq

Acrylic-bob · 29-09-2004, 18:47

Just spotted this. What do we make of it?

http://www.ron-siddell.com/MigDig.htm

Ceejache · 29-09-2004, 19:14

Interesting...If indeed WMD's are buried in the desert then it puts a different slant on the war...but the fact that 'we' didn't have conclusive evidence would of course still remain.

WillowTheWhisp · 29-09-2004, 21:35

If this is for real how come it isn't in the mass media? Surely Government spokespersons would have had something to say to the press about it? Odd that it should just be on an obscure website.

Busman747 · 29-09-2004, 22:28

Does the web site give any clue as to what date or month this was discovered?

Quote from the web site, "The recovery of the advanced MiG fighter is considered to be an intelligence coup by the U.S. Air Force.. The Foxbat may also be equipped with advanced Russian- and French-made electronics that were sold to Iraq during the 1990s in violation of a U..N. ban on arms sales to Baghdad."
It seems that in every war or conflict we are involved in, we come up against FRENCH armaments of one sort or another

!!

Busman747 · 29-09-2004, 22:44

Sorry A-b, I would love to believe that story, but if you read the home page, it might just have well been written by Bush himself (except there are no spelling mistakes)

EVERY item is geared to promote him and to put John Kerry out of commission!

More effective than the "Budweiser" adverts!

Darby · 30-09-2004, 05:44

I so these photos almost a year ago. I also spoke to one of the guys who helped to dig them out of their "tombs" (I did 22 years in the RAF, and spent the last 5 attached to the yanks). They are exactly correct in the article, but ommitted to say that they also found Excocet missiles, and that the avionics fitted to the planes were French and in some cases American (USA). Naturally the aircraft were Russian. On the same site they found 4 small release bombs - not primed, containing Russian VX nerve gas. This very nasty stuff kills withing 20 seconds of contact!

However, there are a lot of misinformation being spread around, before and currently regarding Iraq.

But it is true that the French have a great deal to hide!!

Darby · 30-09-2004, 05:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darby

I so these photos almost a year ago. I also spoke to one of the guys who helped to dig them out of their "tombs" (I did 22 years in the RAF, and spent the last 5 attached to the yanks). They are exactly correct in the article, but ommitted to say that they also found Excocet missiles, and that the avionics fitted to the planes were French and in some cases American (USA). Naturally the aircraft were Russian. On the same site they found 4 small release bombs - not primed, containing Russian VX nerve gas. This very nasty stuff kills withing 20 seconds of contact!

However, there are a lot of misinformation being spread around, before and currently regarding Iraq.

But it is true that the French have a great deal to hide!!

PS. Just cjhecked the date I last saw the potos...17.11.03. Remember, the sun doesn't always shine in Iraq!!

Acrylic-bob · 30-09-2004, 07:02

Thanks for that Darby. Personally, I am not sure what to make of the photographs and their re-appearance. One would think that such a discovery would have been trumpeted from every available rooftop in justification, at least in part, of the invasion of Iraq. It would certainly have gone some way towards quietening the dissenting voices. Your revelation that VX was also found doesn't sit well with Blair's confession this week that he was misled over WMD in Iraq. Remind me again, who makes Exocet?

One thing is clear however, the French cannot be trusted to further anything but their own interests. History has proved that contention and the current story merely adds to the pile of evidence. It was noted at the time that Saddam was up to his neck in hoc to the French, German and Russian Governments and that any regime change would result in those debts being dishonoured. Damn right they fought tooth and nail against an invasion. In their position anyone would. One would have thought though that they could at least have had the decency not to try and wrap their objections to it in threadbare concern for the welfare of the people of Iraq

Busman: I accept what what you say about the site concerned. Getting used to the way Americans conduct themselves during presidential elections takes some doing and I am not sure that the internet makes it any easier. But, get used to it we must, for it is certain that the tricks and tactics employed there this time will be rolled out here next time.

Ifty · 30-09-2004, 07:20

There is always going to be lots of things people dont get told. The only way you really going to know for sure of anything is see it with your own eyes. Darby you believe guy you spoke to and expect us to believe you but that is no proof. Im not saying you lie or he lies. I do say why was this not in the news then any more than not in the news now? Blair and Bush need to show prrof> Proof was found so why not shown? Doesnt make sense.

What you say about French Acrylic-bob is very good and make sense. If Saddam owes money to French they not going to want him not able to pay it so dont support to fight him.

Darby · 30-09-2004, 07:26

A-Bob...the French make the Exocets...remember the Falklands?

Ifty,

I would not quote my US friend if I did not believe him. He was 30 years a Marine top sergeant, and I never knew him to lie..so I take his word rather than that of the press and media every time.

I deal a lot with foreign goverments and their military (defensive) NBC requirements, and I believe very little of what they say or promise. Remember "the cheque is in the post"!!

As for the press...they are all manipulated, and only print what is considered politically correct. The story above (very abbreviated) was printed in the British press, on page 17 of the Sun I think, and got more in the NY Times (but how many people in Accy read the NY Times?). The Russian Government (and the French) did not want any adverse publicity, so.....................nothing much in the press.

As for proof, and not believing things until you see them with your own eyes!!! Ask Allah about that one....I've never seen him either .....or Jehova or God or Budda!!

Ifty · 30-09-2004, 07:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darby

As for proof, and not believing things until you see them with your own eyes!!!

You proove my point. This is what the world says. I say why not shown on major news to show the world?

Even then ppeople can say "Its not true" Did you see there are people say nobody walked on the moon? Nobody walked on the moon they say because of Vanallan radiation even though they showed on TV. People who dont want to believe will always say this isnt there or this isnt true even if shown it. So I say why not even shown it? Is this not big enough news? Hidden weapons in Iraq suppoort Bush and Blair to invade but is never shown even by Bush and Blair?

WillowTheWhisp · 30-09-2004, 09:22

I think I vaguely remember something in the paper a while back.

My attention has just been drawn to the home page of that particular site and the opinion expressed there on the reasons for the kidnappings etc. Very interesting viewpoint. It isn't about negotiating with the west. It's about recruiting to their cause. Which just goes to show the kind of people they must be recruiting if videos of executions attract them.

Acrylic-bob · 30-09-2004, 11:06

>>The only way you really going to know for sure of anything is see it with your own eyes. <<

To reiterate Darby's reply to this post: I would hazard the guess that neither Ifty nor any of his brother Muslims have ever seen God and yet they persist in their belief. No one alive was there when God dictated the Koran? No one alive was there when Moses was handed the Ten Comandments. Where is the proof of this?
I could very easily take a trip to the top of a mountain and fill a note book with rules for living and come back down again and swear that God had handed it to me. Who is there to gainsay me? Similarly, I could get up tomorrow morning claiming that I had been given a vision in the night in which God commanded me to destroy the internet because it was a tool of the devil (it is, but that is beside the point) and that henceforth all computer programmers must abjure Macdonalds beefburgers, because they are an abomination (which they are).

But is this really any sane way to run a country? There is a claim on the ownership of Jerusalem because someone in the Seventh century was taken there on a magical horse - in a dream? I had a dream in which God gave me the keys to the Bank of England. I won't be pursuing the claim though, partly because I don't like being laughed at, but mainly because I would prefer not to be labelled as "Delusional"

Darby · 30-09-2004, 11:41

Valid points A-Bob.

Mohammed didn't actually write the Qu'ran. I believe it was one of his relatives many years later who started to write it, and some of the Caliph's changed it to their own versions about 200 years later. Similarly, the bible (new testament) was not written until a few centuries after the death of JC. It underwent hundreds of changes before being written in Greek...which was many years later translated to Latin, and that in turn was translated into a modern language (I think it was the King James's edition in the middle ages). The monks who translated the Greek into Latin admitted that they interpreted different passages in different ways.

So it would seem like we've got a patchwork quilt of a document that could be a load of codswollop, or something near to the truth. Your guess is as good as mine!! And their god only knows what is reality in the Qu'ran.

I have a book entitled the Life of Mohammed, which I must read again...but its currently in Bavaria...next time perhaps when I want to read a farce!!

WillowTheWhisp · 30-09-2004, 13:21

I agree with your comments about Biblical translation and interpretation. If you read different modern translations there are slight differences in some of it but overall it does tell the same basic story.

As a matter of fact one of the "articles of faith" of the church I belong to states "we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly..............." admitting that there can be, and obviously are, mistakes and discrepancies.

The difference between how I view that and how you view that seems to lie in the area of personal belief. If you don't have a personal faith then I doubt very much if it matters to you what the Bible says. For someone who does have that personal faith then the human limitations are overcome by that.