The 9/11 hijackers only took lessons in how to fly airplanes, but not land them. Another part of flight training includes navigation (reading maps and charts) and evidence does not show they took classes in this subject either.

Therefore, the hijackers real target was the U.N. Because they were not trained in navigating, they did not know the difference – from the air, one large shinny building in New York looks like any other when the sun shines on all of that glass.

Hmmm, I’m trying to imagine how anything could do that and drawing a blank…

doriangrey on August 30, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Darfur.

Everybody’s railing about it, nobody does anything. Why? Because America World Police is still an easy scapegoat for inaction. They’re waiting for us so they can avoid the heat. Granted, only people who aren’t blindly loyal to the UN can see it, but its all there for anyone who wishes to see.

Let me understand this… We couldn’t find 10 year old chemical weapons sitting in the freakin’ UN building, but we’re sure Saddam didn’t have them even though everyone’s intelligence said he did, he had ample time to move them to/through Syria

No, as near as I can tell Iraq had WMDs, but the inspectors took them all home as souvenirs or something. No wonder Saddam kept throwing them out of the country.

What are the odds that someone’s going to say something Coulter-esque in this thread and get their ass banned? Approaching 1, I’d guess.

Consider this a pre-emptive warning.

Allahpundit on August 30, 2007 at 12:58 PM

Ummm what? I musta missed something.

- The Cat

Can someone please explain to me the reasoning that Saddam risked sanctions and an invasion of his country in order to hang on to chemical weapons, which he had used before-and then did not use them when his country, indeed his own life, was at risk? The guy was evil, not insane or stupid. And if he had sent them to Syria in a fit of suicidal stupidity, why didn’t he spill the beans in a deal to save his neck from the noose?
I’m sorry, but until I get a satisfactory answer to those questions, I just cannot take the “moved to Syria” theory credibly.
As far as what Saddam was thinking, I have a distinct recollection of an account that his female chemical weapons program director (I can’t recall her name) said that she and her people disposed of the stuff without Saddam knowing about it because he’d have had them executed if he found out. I have not heard anything about this account or about her in a long time. Does anyone have any info on this? Did the interview actually take place or is my memory faulty on this one?

Turns out, their allies in the UN were holding them all the time.
The United Nations found vials of a chemical warfare agent, which had been removed from Iraq a decade ago, in a U.N. building near the body’s headquarters in New York but officials…

Topsecretk9 on August 30, 2007 at 4:04 PM

Heh. That “probably” is a master touch.

United Nations weapons inspectors discovered two vials containing dangerous chemical agents in their office near the UN headquarters Friday.

A UN spokesperson says one of the substances found Friday was suspended in oil and has been identified as phosgene, which can be used as a chemical weapon. The other vial contains a chemical used to calibrate scientific equipment.

Officials say the substances do not pose any dangers now.

“It was immediately secured by UMOVIC experts the office area was screened using UMOVIC chemical weapons inspections equipment and no toxic vapors were found,” said U.N. Deputy Spokeswoman Marie Okabe.

The inspectors were wrapping up their investigation into a former Iraqi chemical weapons facility when they found the samples in their archive.

“There was an inspection in 1996 when we basically dug to the bottom of the Muthana Chemical Weapons Facility and these materials probably came from that plan,” said UNMOVIC Spokesman Ewen Buchanan.

“There was an inspection in 1996 when we basically dug to the bottom of the Muthana Chemical Weapons Facility and these materials probably came from that plan,” said UNMOVIC Spokesman Ewen Buchanan.

huh?

They might make the “international community” look bad!

BKennedy on August 30, 2007 at 3:43 PM

Hmmm, I’m trying to imagine how anything could do that and drawing a blank…

Let me understand this… We couldn’t find 10 year old chemical weapons sitting in the freakin’ UN building, but we’re sure Saddam didn’t have them even though everyone’s intelligence said he did, he had ample time to move them to/through Syria and there are plenty of reports that he did, etc. Yeah, secured at the UN and we just find them now… but hidden in a desert in the middle of a war in which we uncovered buried planes, we can say definitively they were never there!? WTF

RightWinged on August 30, 2007 at 3:38 PM

Now now Rightwinged, we all know bringing up things like that isn’t “speaking truth to power,” so those kinds of questions are forbidden. They might make the “international community” look bad!

Testimony of Major Scott Ritter
Former Chief, Concealment Investigations Unit
U.N. Special Commission on Iraq
House International Relations Committee

September 15, 1998

The argument that saddam is causing more damage than the sanctions is irrelevant and offensive.Let’s see…the man in the past has ordered NERVE GAS and other chemical agents used against military targets AND HIS OWN CITIZENS. He has also prevented needed foodstuffs and medical supplied to reach his populace so that he can use the plight of the Iraqi people as propaganda – increasing international pressure to ease –up on existing sanctions. Once those embargoes are lifted, Saddam is in the world market for long-range missile systems and components as well as chemicals that will be brewed into Iraqi VX, Phosgene, Sarin, CS, Mustard Gas, Anthrax bombs and warheads. THAT is what is RELAVANT and OFFENSIVE. Throw on top of that the possible and I think probable support that Saddam has given organized terrorist organizations and you have a ruler and a country that must be contained. You’ll be singing a far different tune (and doing it CASTRATO) if Toronto, Vancouver, Quebec City or Montreal has a 757 “landing” like the one I see still smoking downtown – maybe next time some lunatic will be carrying little vials in carry-on. We’re preparing ourselves for “what if’s” that we never even thought of and Iraq is high on the list of “where can I get my hands on the most deadly poison, cheap” countries…

My understanding is that UN grounds are considered international territory.

amerpundit on August 30, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Oh good. So, why is that imperialistic evil USA investing all that money in international areas? US out of Turtle Bay NOW!

Okay I’ll go now

Do we know “when” it was discovered in Iraq?

Ace has an update -

Update: The vials were brought to the UN from Iraq in 1996, FoxNews just said.

discovered six to eight vials
which is it, 6 or 8? My guess, eight. They just want to leave it questionable.

Topsecretk9 on August 30, 2007 at 2:37 PM

They’re just covering the margin of error. That is, btw, a hilarious point.