Drones not for WMD

[arcticpenguin]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...p/20030824/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_aerial_weapons

Experts Doubt U.S. Claim on Iraqi Drones

By DAFNA LINZER and JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writers

Huddled over a fleet of abandoned Iraqi drones, U.S. weapons experts in Baghdad came to one conclusion: Despite the Bush administration's public assertions, these unmanned aerial vehicles weren't designed to dispense biological or chemical weapons.

The evidence gathered this summer matched the dissenting views of Air Force intelligence analysts who argued in a national intelligence assessment of Iraq before the war that the remotely piloted planes were unarmed reconnaissance drones.

In building its case for war, senior Bush administration officials had said Iraq's drones were intended to deliver unconventional weapons. Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) even raised the alarming prospect that the pilotless aircraft could sneak into the United States to carry out poisonous attacks on American cities.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Now who remembers which posters it was here who insisted that the glorified flying model planes were WMD dispensers?

 

[corplinx]

So, first the story was these drones didn't exist. Then the story became that the drones existance couldn't be confirmed because all they found were wings. Now the story is, yeah there was a drone program but we it wasn't intended to be used for weapon delivery?

Seems like time and time again this story is comes back and each time its incarnation wrong. Each time the story is "Bush wrong on Drones" and each time the story is never retracted but instead replace with a story getting closer to the intel. I'll wait for more than this story before deciding.

It seems that malachi being the awesome skeptic he is has decided this story was right just like the earlier versions.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

Corplinx, I don't for a second remember anyone claiming that "drones did not exist". I remember speculation as to the exact purpose of these flying machines (with WMD people saying they were proof of active WMD program). It seems finally someone has concluded their exact purpose. Better yet, that someone was actual U.S. weapons experts themselves...

Now if I could just remember who was saying the drones were meant to be used for delivery of weapons...

 

[corplinx]

Corplinx, I don't for a second remember anyone claiming that "drones did not exist".

In this very forum there was a thread about it. Unfortunately, I'm too lazy to go back and find it for you.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

In other words, you made a claim, you got asked to back it up and now you can't.

Hey, look at that, I found an old thread about these Iraqi drones... Aerocontrols was the one who thought they were used to carry WMD's based on his "visual expertise" I guess...

Here it is:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15521

 

[aerocontrols]

Hey, look at that, I found an old thread about these Iraqi drones... Aerocontrols was the one who thought they were used to carry WMD's based on his "visual expertise" I guess...

Here it is:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15521

However, this looks like a weapons program, not a final product. To me, this looks like an avionics testbed program.

Did you even read what I wrote?

 

[corplinx]

In other words,
you made a claim, (true)
you got asked to back it up (false)
and now you can't. (false)

One in three isn't bad, you might make the debate next year slick.

 

[Crossbow]

I remember discussing this topic before the shooting started and sure enough there were a couple of posters who thought they may be able to be used as WMD platforms:

Iraq's Drones
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15582&highlight=drone

Comments made regarding the capabilities of the Iraqi drone.

A comment on the drone by someone that actually knows drones. (me)

All poo pooing by the talking heads on the news that haven't a clue aside, that thing is plenty big enough to do the job of spreading bio or chem weapons.

Drones are not expensive and don't have to look very sophisticated to be effective.

If there is any type hopper that appears to be designed to carry anything other than fuel, it is almost certainly a prototype weapon.

As I have stated in another thread, I have an aircraft in my garage that is quite a bit smaller than this and I have no doubt could be easily outfitted to carry 10kg of payload. 20kgs would be pretty reasonable. It is not nearly the size of the Iraqi plane.

These things are made of wood and fiberglass typically and don't show up on radar. They fly low, make little noise, are fairly unnoticable if you aren't looking for them. How much damage could be done with 20kg of bio agent?

A 50 kg payload is quite feasible with a bird that size. Even as high as triple that is not out of the question.

Comments made regarding how Iraq was so very wrong to develop such a drone.

The fact still remains...it does not matter how much damage this aircraft can do. It is against the rules for the Iraqis to develop aircraft like this, and they did it anyway, while lying about what it really was. That is the issue that is at hand. Why will nobody that is anti-war address it? Is it just because I am a new poster on this forum and I am not taken very seriously? Or is there just no debating the issue, and nobody wants to concede defeat? Is it just that nobody has had the time? Or is it something else? I feel like I am talking to a brick wall, repeating the same thing over and over, all the while hoping for a response, and it makes posting to threads like this pretty unrewarding, so what's the deal?

-Baggle

The below comment supported the above comments and of course the usual stipulation that the anti-war movement was just a bunch of mindless, sign toting, peace chanting sheep who did know anything about anything.

You'll never get anywhere with the anti-war crowd with all these nonsense facts. If you don't have a slogan to chant and a sign to carry, they can't be bothered.