the next big story..."Secret bunkers held chemical weapons, says Iraqi exile"

Iraq Forum

Secret bunkers held chemical weapons, says Iraqi exile

April 1, 2004

A scientist describes Saddam's weapons and stealth technology programs, reports Russell Skelton.

For seven years, before he was tortured and sentenced to death, Rashid (not his real name) worked at the top of Iraq's scientific establishment. He says he regularly met Saddam Hussein and his cousin and strongman deputy prime minister Abdul Tawab Huweish. After the Gulf War he was put in charge of a taskforce code named "Al Babel" to develop stealth technology to make aircraft and missiles undetectable on radar.

Rashid, who now lives in Melbourne, also claims to have had access as a trusted insider to secret underground bunkers where chemical weapons were stored. "Saddam gave me access to everything, he was so desperate to perfect the stealth technology," he says.

Now Rashid's great fear is that Saddam loyalists still active in postwar Iraq may get to the chemicals and weapons he saw hidden away before fleeing for his life.

"If those weapons still exist, the worry is that they will be used against the Iraqi people, the US forces or even sold off to al-Qaeda. Maybe those weapons no longer exist, but I find it hard to believe they could disappear so easily," he says.

Rashid's days of working at the top came to an abrupt end in 1998 when he was arrested with a group of other scientists and army officers on charges of plotting to remove Saddam. He was taken to a high-security jail in the centre of Baghdad, run by the Mukhabarat (secret police), where he was tortured for three weeks, suffering severe spinal injuries.

Rashid was then transferred to the Abu Ghraib jail outside Baghdad for execution. "Each morning prisoners were executed. Some were shot and some were hung. I could see the executions from my cell window. You lived in a constant state of terror because you never knew who was next."

Rashid says he escaped when a high-ranking military officer and close friend bribed the guards to swap his file with that of an executed prisoner. "On visiting day I just walked out. Everything had been arranged; I had false travel documents that got me and my family across the border to Syria," he says.

Rashid's problems did not end there. The Iraqi secret police came looking for him at Damascus University where he taught physics part time, and he fled to Melbourne on an Emirates flight. He says he left his wife and family behind because the family had money to buy only a single ticket and at that stage he was the one whose life was in immediate danger.

Rashid has told The Age he knows of five secret storage bunkers around Baghdad, Basra and Tikrit, three of which he visited regularly as a top scientist and senior employee of Iraq's now defunct Atomic Energy Commission.

One, he says, was under an island in the Tigris River near Saddam University. Another was beneath the house of one of Saddam's cousins, and reached by a tunnel with a hidden entrance 800 metres away.

He described the bunkers as being built 15 metres underground, of reinforced concrete, and multi-storeyed. "Between these layers, pipes would rise up, through the building above to provide access for ventilation.

"The lethal chemicals were stored in drums and the bunkers were air-conditioned. But there were also artillery shells and 122-millimetre rockets armed with chemicals."

He says the sites had been built using foreign construction companies, including a company from China, and that nobody was allowed to approach without authorisation and extensive ID checks by the Special Republican Guard.

Rashid says meeting Saddam was always a bizarre experience. "Suddenly his people would appear unannounced. They would take you to a location and examine you carefully: mouth, hands, eyes and ears. Then you would be taken to another place and checked again. This could happen up to three times. Finally he would come into the room."

Rashid says Saddam was moody but was always on top of what was discussed, and read all scientific reports sent to him. "Nothing ever happened unless he approved it. That included the purchase of special equipment, sending people overseas to be trained. If you told him a project would take six months to complete, he would want it in four months."

After arriving in Australia, Rashid was issued with a temporary protection visa.

Even though Rashid's wife and four children have been processed and found to be refugees by the UNHCR in Syria, they remain stranded there. Australia's immigration laws prevent TPV holders access to family reunion and they have not been issued with a visa.

Although Rashid is known to authorities in Australia, he asked that his real name not be published, to protect him and his family from Saddam loyalists still active in Iraqi communities in and outside Australia.

"It's still too dangerous for us to speak out; I don't know who to trust. There are former army officers living in Australia who were close to Saddam," he says.

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2...l?from=storyrhs

This is been posted for 2 hours and I'm the first to reply.

That's because this is not a surprise to anyone. Everyone knows that Saddam was seeking WMD's and that he had no good intentions. Liberals refuse to aknowledge this.

if they find weapons liberals and all who doubted will eat their words.

personally, I would rather be wrong about it than be a part of country that goes to war over personal agendas. I hope they find the WMDs.

Even if there aren't any WMD's I don't believe this was a "personal agenda". Saddam was still a crucial target in the war on terror.

Guys,

This story might be true - who knows. But in such a case, have these hidden shelters been discovered by the military ? What did they contain ? Why don't we hear about them ?
If "tons of WMDs" - as alledged by Bush - posing an "imminent danger" were discovered, I would acknowledge that the premises for going to war were established. So far, it seems that we are not at all in the case where the "clear and convincing evidence" put forward to justify the invasion has been proven true. More than one year after the beginning of this war. Here is the problem.

well why don't they go check out these alleged bunkers? we should have our answers pretty soon now...

no one will know the truth, so far nothing had been found, and i dont believe the story of the bunkers,

Sayzak, see what you did? Around and around we gooooo…

Since the information is so specific I would think it would be easy to check it out. Oh by the way, the date on that article is APRIL 1st. Do you think it's a joke?

Some one asked why don't they know or have checked all these bunkers? Well just take a house, any ole plain house, say in LA, now put a bunker under it with stairs from a closet door in the house. Now I'll tell you that a bunker exist in LA, go find it. I'll give you 150,000 helpers too.

Hell I don't even know if any of my neighbors have a basement or tornado shelter let alone a hidden bunker.

Ron,

Even though I am not a specialist of this, there exists techonlogies that allow to fathom the superficial layers of the Earth to find caves, specific geological materials, and so on. For example, a radar scanning of Mars is being carried out in order to determine if there is liquid water miles under the surface.
The military have this kind of technologies. I don't want to dissert about a precise topic in which I don't have more insights presently, but I would appreciate any contribution from an Inreview member developping this point.
Finding bunkers below the sand might not be that difficult.

My understanding of that technology is that the device needs to actually touch the ground and moved across the ground. It looks straight down. I don't think there is technology yet that can do it from above the ground as yet.

I think I saw the technology on star trek.

They have a special computer scanner that can analyze a particular planet and figure out all sorts of important things.

Regarding bunkers - I would be surprised. April 1st, etc. But who knows.

Re: oneofpeace vs. unobjective sayzak

Well, peace's argument would be flawless if the only reason for going into Iraq was because we knew he had "WMD." Things get more difficult when he realizes that there were multiple independent reasons.

For "WMD", our job was to verify disarmament.

UNSC resolutions themselves noted numerous reasons, of which WMD was just one.

But peace's entire structure collapses if there is more than one reason. WMD WMD WMD nothing else computes...

Therefore he attacks Sayzak for being unobjective. How can Saz be happy if one of the reasons turns out to be a flop, but the others hold true? He must be crazy because there is only one reason: WMD, WMD, WMD (even though Bush mentioned several).

It is a bit circular...

Charles and Ron,

The technologies I mentioned are not from Star Strek, or limited to devices needing to be in close contact with the ground to explore the layers only straight below. There are a set of devices above to fathom superficial geological layers and give a relevant picture of holes and heterogeneities.
Well, I know that such techniques have been employed to explore the Pyramids in Egypt for example. I will try to find some stuff about it.

If it’s not apparent to many by now, I think it should be in this very thread. I find you guys (Ron, Charles, Sayzak) completely unwilling to accept anything that doesn’t support war. Even in such an article like this, if it were true, the US has long ago looked into these claims.

Ron if what you say is true, how is it that we had all this evidence against Saddam in the first place? Could it have been a matter of interpretation? What happens when everything you see, every move someone makes, every conversation they have is construed to be criminal activity?

Powell Not Sure Iraq Trailers Were Mobile Labs

I consider myself a very logical person. There are many things I can concede to about Saddam. The fact that he was allusive, the fact that he was seeking WMD, but what I don’t see in any of you guys arguments is reason. Instead I see blind prejudices, stubbornness, and complete unreason when talking of this invasion.

There is overwhelming evidence that Bush inflated this case against Saddam and you guys refuse to acknowledge that it was. Bush was presented with evidence that Saddam did not have any WMD as well as he did have it. He chose to believe the latter so that he refused any one with objective information. He leveled so many accusations at Saddam and what has proven to be true? How easily acceptable is for us to believe such accusations against a man we’ve been told was a mad man, even in the face of no evidence?

Now more than a year later we still have nothing and we have those like Ron that holds to the notion that these weapons are still hidden away while others of you don’t even care or that we invaded on inaccurate information at the very least giving the benefit of the doubt. Some of you even believes that this article preceding our posts somehow lends credible validation yet we still have nothing more here but more accusations.

It is clearly evident that the balance it tipped in favor of those that questions why rather than with those that accept it as justified. Whether Saddam may have possessed weapons in the future is certainly plausible, however it’s equally plausible that he would fail since he has done so right up to the day of his deposition.

Now I know we will continue to have those that defend this action. In fact I full expect that given the posts I see in this thread. But how do you have a house without a foundation? Those of you that know debate know then that your argument starts with a foundation and then you support it with your argument. No foundation, no argument and if find it increasingly apparent with time that Bush’s foundation for invading has eroded.
This is exactly why many of you subscribe to other means as a foundation like it was morally justified instead.

I simply believe that there is nothing that will sway most of you. Nothing that comes to light as time passed, the obvious lack of evidence that continues to persist. As Bush continues to tell the world that he’s done the right thing even though his reasons has no validity, many of you will simply believe him because he says so. In as much these debates will continue to go round and round as Curley has put it.

Ok oneofpeace, let's just say for sake of argument that we concede that there were no WMD. What about everything else?

Can you disprove any of the rest of it?

It's not about disproving the rest of it Ron it's about the truth and what was told to us comparatively.

The question is what has been proven by the accuser. When we weigh what we were told and what has happened, what do we come up with Ron? We levied many accusations against Saddam and so far none of why we said we needed ot urgently invade Iraq has proven true.

This would certainly justify invading.

Mobile Labs
Chemical drone planes
30,000 tons of chemicals
Reconstituted nuclear program
Sanitation trucks
Rebuilt nuclear sites

All proven untrue.

These do not.

Phantom links to Al Qaeda (nothing concrete whatsoever)
Gassing of Kurds and Iranians (happened in the 80s)
To free the Iraqi people (absurd )

What is your best argument?

Saddam breeched resolution 1441.

This is the strongest argument you have to invade, however it’s debatable because Saddam started complying with requests in early March. Certainly Saddam did not initially comply and that would constitute action, however because he did in early March and didn’t in January didn’t mean that it was too late for him to comply as some here has insisted it did. Besides, Bush accepted Blix prior report that Saddam wasn’t fully complying in January then rejected his report that Saddam was now complying in March. Bush insisted he was still NOT complying even after Blix said Saddam is now being proactive in helping with the search of his country subsequently asking for more time.

Now why was it so urgent to invade in late March and not afford Blix his request for more inspectors and time to organize an effective search?

Oneofpeace,

This last question in your post is crucial. There were no justifications whatsoever to invade, no "imminent threat", no "tons of WMDs", no "clear and convincing evidence".
And this emergency for going to war is precisely why most of the people abroad the US were distrustful. A lot of things have been written and commented - notably about the resolution 1441.
To give a comparison, this rush to war was like sentencing a criminal prior to collect all the clues to make the case at his trial. In what democratic country would it be admitted that someone, even with a very unfavorable profile, could be sentenced before the accusation process has been completed ? This is definitively not admittable.
The Talibans in Afghanistan were hosting the people responsible of the 9/11 events. They refused to hand them over. The case was clear: invasion and toppling of those criminals accomplices of terrorists were justified.
Iraq: a brutal tyrant, deserving to be toppled, judged, sentenced for his crimes. These crimes are proven facts. But what is used against him ? Imminent threat !
I'm sorry but in such a case the case must be obvious. Now we hear that pre-war intelligence was bad. I just don't like hearing officials blaming intelligence officers, some of them putting their own life at stake, to account for their misuse at worst, cherry picking at best, of the info turned over to them. This is not worth of statemen, plain and simple.

some of us don't trust the government, and with the history our government has had, it's not unreasonable to have mistrust for them...

The Europist weenies will REALLY have something to whine about in about 20 years:
http://www.inreview.com/showthread....8462&forumid=13

Curley Joe,

Here again you keep on your way: dismissing any argumentation that does not fit your (very) selective and biased view, disregarding the facts, celebrating force and power ("might is right", uh ?). Just tell me, genius, is the technology you are bragging about, appropriate to disrupt terrorist networks ? Could it prevent Al Quaeda to import nuclear warheads in the US ? I tell you this: NO, plain and simple. And I'm not the one who asserts this: top american experts do so.
I give you this advice: forget your simplistic black and white categorization of people, forget the goodies and the baddies in Star Trek or Star Wars, the fights with light swords, and so on, and come back on Earth. And - last but not least - your attempts to dilute other people's thoughts and proposals are void of any substance, but more importantly, of any impact on sensible people.

We have not had an al Qaeda attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. I prefer reality, to Europist spin, Frenchie:

So transcendent is the effective military power of the U.S. that no other nation in the world can change its methods, equipment, and defense expenditures to reach a similar status. Further, the U.S. is at the beginning of a rising curve of military power and efficiency. It is perhaps only 10 percent of the way along the curve where current technology and research will take it in the next 20 years. For instance, plans are already under way to achieve by 2010, a Space-Based Radar system that will become the focal point for the integration manned and unmanned vehicles and space platforms, as directed by General John Jumper, USAF Chief of Staff. Space operations hold the potential to eventually put the United States centuries ahead of other nations, as opposed to decades.

—Col. Walter J. Boyne, USAF (Ret.)

We have not had an al Qaeda attack on US soil since 9/11.... kinda weird... it's kinda like saying "we have been attacked since the last attack."

i mean, for over 200 years we didn't have an al Qaeda attack on US soil, then Bush took office and WHAM!


if it sounds stupid, it's cuz I was using Curley-logic

Actually Dekka we did have an attack on the WTC and in Oklahoma. Only that attack in Oklahoma didn't stir up as much passion as those of WTC because we were looking in the mirror.

Isn't it ridiculous to say "We haven't had an attack since 9/11" when in fact there are many reasons for this. How many attacks we had prior to 9/11 and how frequent were they? How do we take silence in the fact that we had no other attacks since 9/11 is certainly beyond reason.

However giving your synopsis about "Curley-logic" I think you have a pretty good grasp on things.

There were many attacks prior to 9/11. WTC 1, Kobar Towers, 2 us embassy's, USS Cole. Not to mention some that were stopped.

Oklahoma was domestic terrorism. And there WAS outrage after that happened as well.

Ron the statement was "We have not had an al Qaeda attack on US soil since 9/11" not the US hasn't suffered any terrorist attack whatsoever. Here in the US we have seen nothing on the scales as the rest of the world (thank God).

Oklahoma was terrorism none the less. Is it less of a priority if its domestic or imported terrorism? I believe if it were done by a Middle Eastern citizen of the US there would have been wide spread violence on everyone that looked like the suspects such as it were here after 9/11.

There is a difference Ron, absolutely and much of the same I'm sorry to say is rooted in much support for Iraq.

I was refering to Dekka statement about the 200 years and the fact that there were more attacks pre Bush then during Bush. And yes the worst happened during Bush's watch.

ahhahhahah