Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: eyespysomething; Cap Huff; onyx; jveritas
I can't find a reference in.....IZSP-2003-00000859....to Anthrax.......

***********************************************

NEED HELP!!!

Can jveritas take a look at that document......

18 posted on 03/21/2006 10:52:10 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: All
From the Blog:

Was anthrax stolen from Iraq?
ISGQ-2003-M0007740 Page 5.

*************************************************

One of the reoccurring themes of these documents is the "Biological file". The term refers to the U.N. resolution that requires Iraq to report the disposition of all biological weapons. Other documents discuss the 17 tons.

The 17 tons are growth media that bacteria, namely anthrax is grown on.

globalsecurity.org

"UNSCOM strongly suspected that admitted Iraqi figures for production of BW agent are still too low. Over Nor are 17 tons of growth media for BW agents are not accounted for - enough to produce more than three times the amount of anthrax Iraq admits it had."

In this tape, a briefer once again tells Saddam that the biological file is the toughest one to complete in order for the U.N. to abandon the sanctions on Iraq.

"The issue of "the material balancing for the cultured medium" (balancing means comparing the accounted for amount with documents that indicate how much there should be- RR) is a numbers issue and it's clear, but they had issues with storage sites, some things changed. And it is true; there were some stolen materials on the local market that we recovered."

Now it is not clear here when this happened. And it is not clear if this media was cultured with anthrax, another bacteria, or uncultured. But it raises a very interesting question when you think about the anthrax attack of 9/11. Did somebody in Iraqi labs steal anthrax and give or sell it to Jihadists? Just a thought...

Update: in another document the theft comes up again. They told the UN the "mob" took it. It sounds like they are covering something up, but it is too ambiguous to make a conclusion.

19 posted on 03/21/2006 10:57:43 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach


LOL -- I can;t help you -- I have even reset my font to LARGE! I really read way TOO MUCH last night.


20 posted on 03/21/2006 10:58:05 AM PST by onyx (Bush/Cheney '08 --- by coup if necessary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I will look at its content and let you know.


21 posted on 03/21/2006 11:04:17 AM PST by jveritas (Hate can never win elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I don't see it in IZSP-2003-00000859, but I do in -00003336


22 posted on 03/21/2006 11:05:17 AM PST by eyespysomething
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I went to the Pentagon/FMSO website and clicked on IZSP-2003-00000859 (Arabic) and all what I got is 9 pages synopsis in English of what appears to be a very long document.


23 posted on 03/21/2006 11:15:59 AM PST by jveritas (Hate can never win elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson