Secret missile plans -- very sophisticated!

These are some of Modher Sadeq-Saba Tamimi’s secret sketches for two illegal long-range missiles, one using two engines and one using five boosters:

Here is the article

I can’t read the article as the link is to a questionare/sign up page.

Works for me.

[quote=“housecat”]I can’t read the article as the link is to a questionare/sign up page.[/quote]Just tell it you’re a 90 year old woman from Afganistan, or whatever you want to make up, then you can see it.
Sandman must have already done it.

“secret sketches for two illegal long-range missiles”

This is a joke, right? I don’t get it though. What’s the punchline?

This is my favorite “illegal long-range missile.” It’s called “Big Gumby”:

If you want plans to build your own you can get them here:

See “Pull My Finger” about half way down the page.

Maybe this is the punchline:
"To fit multiple engines in an airframe based on the existing Al Samoud missile, Tamimi’s designs called for a flared missile that nearly doubled in diameter – from 760mm (30 inches) to 1500mm (59 inches) – from top to bottom. [color=blue]Foreign experts said the shape would produce enormous strains. “If it didn’t break up going up, it would most likely do so on reentry,” said a Western expert who did not want to be named, after submitting Tamimi’s sketches and descriptions to an evaluation team. “To avoid that, they would have to develop some sort of separation system to abandon the wider bit, and also master terminal guidance after the separation.”

Tamimi said “we did not consider the problem of separation.”[/color] For terminal guidance, which steers a missile in its final approach to target, Tamimi pinned his hope on Russian technology he did not have in hand."

Sorta like Libya pinning its nuclear-weapons program on centrifuge parts that a German company was bringing them a few months ago?

In Russia, everything is for sale as long as the price is right. And the Russians were already selling weapons systems to Iraq – remember the anti-GPS transmitters the Russians had sold and installed? Saddam Hussein could have easily met any asking price with a small chunk of the billions of USD he had stashed away.

No Spook, this is not a joke. The US waged war over these. …along with fairy tale WMD.
Frightening, eh?

Saddam at one time had WMD.

Saddam at one time used WMD.

Saddam agreed to account for and provide proof of the destruction of his WMD.

Saddam refused to adhere to his promise to account for and provide proof of the destruction of his WMD.

The US primarily, and some other nations as well, expended a great deal of money and energy and time attempting to force (in a mostly non-violent manner) Saddam to adhere to his promise to account for and provide proof of the destruction of his WMD.

Saddam failed, over a 12 year period, despite repeated efforts by the US and the UN, to adhere to his promise to account for and provide proof of the destruction of his WMD.

The US was attacked on 911 by a terrorist organization that gave, as one of the primary reasons for its attack on the US, the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

US troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia in response to and as a direct result of Saddam’s aggressive moves into Kuwait and toward Saudi Arabia in the early 1990s.

The situation was no longer tolerable for the US and the risk of Saddam’s WMD falling into the hands of terrorists, who for at least a decade had been targeting primarily the US, was deemed too high to disregard.

It was in the interest of the US, thus, to ascertain once and for all the actual status of Saddam’s WMD.

Its that simple, really.

No WMD? Great. But we didn’t know that before. It was Saddam’s responsibility to account for and provide proof of the destruction of his WMD.

Saddam failed and or refused to do so.

Of course you couldn’t know that - after all you ‘knew’ he had WMD:

Cheney confidently claimed “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

Condi once said Saddam Hussein is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Rumsfeld said that Iraq has “amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, and mustard gas.”

Bush said “The danger to our country is grave and growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.”

George Bush said Iraq “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.”

Powell said “Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent … My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.”

Rumsfeld said: “We know where [the WMD] are. …”.

Bush announced “Saddam’s removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Cheney bragged “Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”

Fleischer: “We know for a fact that there are weapons there.”

Bush “We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.”

Bush even knew exactly how much: “25,000 liters of anthrax … 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin … materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent … upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents … several mobile biological weapons labs … thousands of Iraqi security personnel … at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors.”

Fleischer claimed: "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Clark said “One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Too bad they just can’t find what they knew was there and where.

But they never ‘lied’. And of course they never need to prove anything … :unamused:


Based on the intelligence possessed prior to the invasion, it was not unreasonable to assume that Saddam still had WMD.

Saddam could easily have cleared up any confusion regarding the matter. He didn’t do so.

The simplicity or complexity of any missile plans is really beside the point here. The fact is, Saddam’s scientists should not have even been contemplating such missiles in light of the restrictions placed on Iraq by the UN after the first Gulf War, which restrictions Saddam agreed to.

You guys can mock the state of Saddam’s weapons program and or stocks all you want. But the fact is, Iraq was not supposed to have any of that and they certainly were not supposed to be thinking of or drawing up any type of missile plans that contravened the restrictions of the UN cease fire agreement.

As far as I’m concerned, the US was absolutely correct in going into Iraq for a number of reasons, including in order to finally ascertain the actual status of Saddam’s weapons/weapons programs.

I, for one, feel much better knowing that Saddam is no longer in a position to even contemplate, let alone design or attempt to obtain via alternate means, any weapons.

But you are all entitled to your own opinions… :wink:

Your argument fails here. The ouster of Hussein had been sought by neocons since 1991. The only thing 9/11 changed was the standard of proof sufficient to invade Iraq. According to some reports, before Rumsfeld even had the drywall dusted off his blue suit (Pentagon attack on 9/11; at the time he could not possibly have known who was behind that day’s events) he was pushing for the ouster of Hussein. It was publicly urged by PNAC as early as 1998, for example. In addition, the amount of backfilling by those who supported Bush’s war in Iraq, the number of arguments used by the “coaliton” to justify it (5? or 6?), and the fact that the Bushies have pulled weapons inspectors out of the area ( … 8WEAP.html ) despite pleading for all concerned to give them more time (and US$600million) all provide evidence weakening your argument.

The threat from Iraq was never imminent, although it may not have been exactly quantified. It was systematically exaggerated by those within the Bush administration, in order to achieve sufficient political justification to attack Iraq.

[quote=“Carnegie Endowment for Intl Peace”]

I disagree. Look, everyone knows that some of the so-called neocons were in favor of ousting Saddam prior to 911. But that does not in any way negate my argument. Before 911, most people were able to tolerate the situation of terrorists waging war against the US and Saddam continuing to disregard UN cease-fire obligations. Bush stated that the threat (not an imminent one, but a growing one) was posed by the possibility of terrorists and rogue states cooperating. 911 did not lower the standard of proof necessary to invade iraq. 911, rather, raised the stakes of not getting rid of Saddam.

I stated that the 911 attacks made it intolerable for the US to disregard the threat posed by Saddam and terrorists, who had been targeting and attacking the US for over a decade. I stand by this assertion.

I think it was pretty clear to everyone immediately that al Qaeda was behind the attacks. al Qaeda had declared war against the US and had been attacking the US for a decade previous to 911.

I don’t see how this weakens my argument.

Again I disagree. Bush explicitly stated numerous times that the threat was NOT imminent, and that it would be imprudent to wait until the threat became imminent.

[quote=“Carnegie Endowment for Intl Peace”]


Based on the intelligence possessed prior to the invasion, it was not unreasonable to assume that Saddam still had WMD.[/quote]
Yawn. Mr. Laywer should know better: the above statements do not assume, speculate or believe - they are put forward as statements of facts.

The above statements do not mention any clarification required. Though I fully understand what you say it DOES NOT relate.
The US put WMD forward as the main argument to make it’s case (even though they mentioned other reasons and didn’t say something like ‘WMD is the main and only reason’), claming a threat. Obviously that threat never existed in the way the USG claimed and if you read the article carefully you will also find statements supporting my earlier arguments that procedures were in place preventing Iraq from obtaining materials for WMD / pursuing a WMD program.

Nuff said.

The world is full of nations that fear and mistrust one another. The acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by small, rogue nations significantly ups the ante of danger and reduces the margin for error in judging any threats.

Clearly fundamental modifications of the accepted conventions of behaviour between nations are required.

Advocating the flimsy, deceitful, intellectually dishonest and one-sided neoconservative model for dealing with the problem is no solution though. It’s a recipe for tipping an increasingly more dangerous world into a morass of endless warfare and retaliatory acts of terrorism.

I’d say that’s the state of the world already. SOMETHING needs to be done.

Facts are things that can be proven correct or incorrect. That is what distinguishes facts from opinions.

Of course Bush and Co. presented their beliefs as facts. They may be proven wrong… but not proven to be liars.

[quote=“spook”]The acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by small, rogue nations significantly ups the ante of danger and reduces the margin for error in judging any threats.
Please define “rogue nation.”

That’s stupid. The US can attack lots of nations, but it doesn’t. And AGAIN, the US never stated that the threat from Iraq was imminent. But you are free to agree with Mr. Friedman’s opinion.[/quote]

We agree, then, that it was a stupid reason for a war. To be fair to Friedman, though, here’s the abstract of what he actually said (link to the article is not free, only this abstract is):

[quote]EDITORIAL DESK | June 4, 2003, Wednesday
Because We Could

Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 31 , Column 5
ABSTRACT - Thomas L Friedman Op-Ed column on furor over failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq holds real, unstated, reason for war was need to show Arab-Muslim world in wake of Sept 11 terrorism that Americans will fight to defend their open society; holds Saddam Hussein was target because he was vulnerable, deserved it and was in midst of that world; says all neighboring governments got message, which is important because government’s let terrorism happen; holds Iraq must be rebuilt to ensure victory in war (M) … 20Friedman[/quote]

Beggin’ yer pardon, wise measter, but the only reason Blix and the other UN morons were in Iraq in 2002-2003 was because Bush was forcing the issue in the first place.

If it weren’t for Bush, the “inspectors” would have been sitting at UNHQ in NYC, accumulating parking tickets and stiffing hookers.