nacmacfeegle 0 #101 May 18, 2004 "Getting rid of that WMD was justification enough for the war." Ah yes, undoubtedly Saddam is/was a bad guy, a black hat as it were. But that was not the reason we went to war. Not liking your fellow heads of state is not a valid reason to kill tens of thousands of people, and is generally frowned upon as a justification for aggression. We went to war because we thought he posed an imminent threat to the world in general, we had nothing to substantiate that claim, and we still don't. Show me the money. Show me some sort of realistic evidence, and we'll call it quits and go jump together.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #102 May 18, 2004 QuoteI think the largest WMD in the world is sitting in an Iraqi prison. His name is Saddam Hussein. Getting rid of that WMD was justification enough for the war. Even a child could successfully argue that Bush poses a larger threat to the world than Saddam Hussein. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #103 May 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteI think the largest WMD in the world is sitting in an Iraqi prison. His name is Saddam Hussein. Getting rid of that WMD was justification enough for the war. QuoteEven a child could successfully argue that Bush poses a larger threat to the world than Saddam Hussein. OK go ahead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #104 May 18, 2004 Quotethe difference is, that shell detonated correctly - it blew up before it could be defused from that report. Outcome = 2 soldiers were decontaminated and sent back to work that day. OK, try to follow this. The shell did not detonate correctly. It was blown up in an IED. The round needed to be fired as originally intended in order for the components to mix. No one is saying it was an WMD because some POS blew it up in an IED by the side of the road. People are saying it was a WMD because if used properly, it could've kill thousands. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1080685#1080685 It was a chemical weapon. Just because some insurgent didn't use it right, that doesn't change what it was.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #105 May 18, 2004 tQuotehe difference is, that shell detonated correctly - it blew up before it could be defused hmmm, I was under the impression that they used it as a bomb not an artillary shell, if it was used correctly, it would have killed, and killed alot.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #106 May 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteI think the largest WMD in the world is sitting in an Iraqi prison. His name is Saddam Hussein. Getting rid of that WMD was justification enough for the war. Even a child could successfully argue that Bush poses a larger threat to the world than Saddam Hussein. Blues, Dave And many do here on the forums.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #107 May 18, 2004 Quote"Getting rid of that WMD was justification enough for the war." Ah yes, undoubtedly Saddam is/was a bad guy, a black hat as it were. But that was not the reason we went to war. Not liking your fellow heads of state is not a valid reason to kill tens of thousands of people, and is generally frowned upon as a justification for aggression. We went to war because we thought he posed an imminent threat to the world in general, we had nothing to substantiate that claim, and we still don't. Show me the money. Show me some sort of realistic evidence, and we'll call it quits and go jump together. For myself, getting rid of a butcher like Saddam was enough justification. It may not be enough for you but it is for me. History is replete with examples of pre-emptive wars. I for one am sure, that left alone Saddam would never have been satisfied being contained in Iraq. Just look at his history during the period between Gulf War 1 and 2. Constantly firing at coalition aircraft in the "no-fly zones", constantly challenging the terms of the cease-fire, violations of the "Oil for food" programs. The list goes on and on. Most politicians at that time agreed Saddam must go. Now that he is gone, most, like the hypocritical pussies they are, have run for political cover and made up justifications for distancing themselves from their own positions at the time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Newbie 0 #108 May 18, 2004 good point, you could be right. PS whats a POS? "Skydiving is a door" Happythoughts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #109 May 18, 2004 "And many do here on the forums." Ooh, thats like a toad calling a turtle green.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #110 May 18, 2004 QuoteIt would have to have been fired from a 155 gun for a start, making it a battlefield weapon. If it was capable of killing thousands then why was there only two casualtys? I guess an unnamed coalition source is a better source of information than repeated viewing of 'The Rock' Am I the only one who actually read the article rhino posted? Quote...the old “binary-type” artillery shell requires the mixing of two chemical components in separate sections of the cell to produce the sarin... “The cell is designed to work after being fired from an artillery piece,” he said, adding that dispersing the substance from a device such as the homemade bomb "is virtually ineffective as a chemical weapon." If it had been fired from a 155, there would have been more than two casualties. Because the sons of bitches used it in an IED, they rendered it ineffective. It was a WMD right up to the point where the IED around it went off. IF THEY USED IT AS INTENDED, IT COULD HAVE KILLED HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS. IT WAS MADE LESS EFFECTIVE BECAUSE IT EXPLODED WITH THE IED.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Newbie 0 #111 May 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt would have to have been fired from a 155 gun for a start, making it a battlefield weapon. If it was capable of killing thousands then why was there only two casualtys? I guess an unnamed coalition source is a better source of information than repeated viewing of 'The Rock' Am I the only one who actually read the article rhino posted? Quote...the old “binary-type” artillery shell requires the mixing of two chemical components in separate sections of the cell to produce the sarin... “The cell is designed to work after being fired from an artillery piece,” he said, adding that dispersing the substance from a device such as the homemade bomb "is virtually ineffective as a chemical weapon." If it had been fired from a 155, there would have been more than two casualties. Because the sons of bitches used it in an IED, they rendered it ineffective. It was a WMD right up to the point where the IED around it went off. IF THEY USED IT AS INTENDED, IT COULD HAVE KILLED HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS. IT WAS MADE LESS EFFECTIVE BECAUSE IT EXPLODED WITH THE IED. i get it now. Could it really have killed 100,000s though? Is that realistic from one shell? I know little to nothing about sarin other than what i found out about from the Tokyo sarin attack, which i posted in a post above. Is it fair to say that if 3 concentrated litres of the stuff that was released to the point where liquid sarin was spilling over the floor of subway cars, which in itself a "sealed" environment (underground) only ended up killing a dozen people, that 100,000s would have died from this one shell? I know it depends on a number of different variables (if it fell into a concentrated area, wind direction etc) but 100,000s deaths seems quite a high number. "Skydiving is a door" Happythoughts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #112 May 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteIF THEY USED IT AS INTENDED, IT COULD HAVE KILLED HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS. IT WAS MADE LESS EFFECTIVE BECAUSE IT EXPLODED WITH THE IED. i get it now. Could it really have killed 100,000s though? .... I know it depends on a number of different variables (if it fell into a concentrated area, wind direction etc) but 100,000s deaths seems quite a high number. He said "or", not "of". Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #113 May 18, 2004 Och, be fair Dave, Kennedy said hundreds or thousands, not hundreds of thousands. If it had been detonated in a crowded mosque, or market place, or even at the local KFC, things would undoubtedly be different.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Newbie 0 #114 May 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteIF THEY USED IT AS INTENDED, IT COULD HAVE KILLED HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS. IT WAS MADE LESS EFFECTIVE BECAUSE IT EXPLODED WITH THE IED. i get it now. Could it really have killed 100,000s though? .... I know it depends on a number of different variables (if it fell into a concentrated area, wind direction etc) but 100,000s deaths seems quite a high number. He said "or", not "of". Blues, Dave excellent point - i must remember to read things properly in future! "Skydiving is a door" Happythoughts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Newbie 0 #115 May 18, 2004 see my post above. My bifocals were dirty, apologies all! "Skydiving is a door" Happythoughts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #116 May 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteVery bad logic, Michele. You make an assumption and then treat it as fact. You have NO IDEA where this shell originated, all you know is where it ended up. I can't believe I just read that. So, even if we find a stockpile, you'll call "BS"?? WTF is that? Just the facts. It's too late to find a smoking gun now. That shell could have been around the world a dozen times since Bush's invasion. How about applying the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple S...) principle instead? We found a chemical munition in Iraq, and until then, had been buried in the f**k**g desert with a bunch of others. Too late my *ss. If I told you I hid a 12 oz can of soda in my apartment, and you said you were going to come in, look for it, and that you knew where it was...I'd move it. How fast would you find it then?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,216 #117 May 18, 2004 QuoteQuote No he didn't. He trotted out the standard DOE excuses which are all speculation. Kallend, YOU were the one who cited DOE as the source for your assertion that DOE "misplace tons of weapons grade plutonium." I was the one who checked with DOE to determine whether your assertion was accurate. To be charitiable and in keeping with forum etiquette, you were pretty fast & loose with DOE's statements, which, by the way, did not support your statement regarding tons missing plutonium. Now you are attempting to discredit the very source you were relying on to support your statements. I'm beginning to see a pattern here. BSBD. Chuck. Chuck, the point I am making is that even the USDoE has a significant error in accounting for its inventory of the most dangerous material on Earth. An error factor equal to a couple of hundred nuclear bombs. The source of the error is immaterial. If their accounting practices can't account for several tons of plutonium, how do they know that a few kg hasn't been stolen or diverted? How do you or anyone else know that 500kg didn't end up in Dimona? Or Tehran? Or Baghdad when SH was "our" guy. And if the US DoE with all its sophistication is unable to match Pu production with inventory to the extent of a couple hundred nukes, how do you expect a nation in a state of war for the last 20 years and all bombed to hell twice in the last 15 years to manage its inventory of anything.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #118 May 18, 2004 Sarin works better when it is in a mist than poured on the floor. An air burst of the same amount will kill much more than just pouring it on the floor."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,216 #119 May 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteVery bad logic, Michele. You make an assumption and then treat it as fact. You have NO IDEA where this shell originated, all you know is where it ended up. I can't believe I just read that. So, even if we find a stockpile, you'll call "BS"?? WTF is that? Just the facts. It's too late to find a smoking gun now. That shell could have been around the world a dozen times since Bush's invasion. How about applying the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple S...) principle instead? We found a chemical munition in Iraq, and until then, had been buried in the f**k**g desert with a bunch of others. Too late my *ss. If I told you I hid a 12 oz can of soda in my apartment, and you said you were going to come in, look for it, and that you knew where it was...I'd move it. How fast would you find it then? You can ASSume what you want. It doesn't make it a fact, and it may make you as big an ASS as GWB with his "Uranium from Niger" story and the "small and short lived" deficit.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kiltboy 0 #120 May 18, 2004 As a follow up to what Ron has said Sarin is volatile so its classed as a nonpersistent agent. The vapor is more dense than air so it would stay close to the floor meaning there's less chance of inhalation. It could have sank below the train platforms so removing it from other potential casualties. As a liquid it would have taken longer to evaporate than as a mist because of the surface area. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #121 May 18, 2004 QuoteIraq was not allowed to have them,or the chemicals need to make them. Here we get into that wasteland of definitions, specifically of "Iraq", i.e. what constitutes "Iraq" having them. I know that some LAW rockets have been "diverted" into private ownership. If the US were ordered to destroy all LAW rockets, they wouldn't be able to destroy those ones because our government doesn't know where they are. In fact, there is at least one undetonated NUCLEAR bomb that we can't find. If we were subsequently invaded for failure to provide evidence that all LAW rockets were destroyed, and those (now ex) military personnel used them against invading armies, would that constitute justification for the invasion? I'm not saying that this artillary shell was in a similar situation, but the fact that it wasn't marked to indicate its contents nor used to its designed potential suggests it's quite possible. It may have been diverted at some point in the past, and it may have simply been overlooked due to its lack of markings. Hopefully, time and further investigation will tell. In any case, the existence of one or two artillary shells does not justify our invasion. If they turn out to be the tip of the iceberg then I will have to revisit my position. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #122 May 18, 2004 Okay, back on topic. The shell that detonated yesterday was confirmed to contain three to four liters of sarin. Figure 5mg per person, that's 600-800 potentially dead from one shell if it were used properly. Kallend believes these are planted. How many more will be found (or be planted)? If we find even 50 more shells, that's potentially 30,000-40,000 lives saved. Anyone else believe the shell was planted?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #123 May 18, 2004 I do! I believe the shell was planted . . . along with a bunch of other "seeds" so they would not be found by any inspectors or anyone that would thwart Saddam Insane's ideas. Only problem is, theses things do not grow, they do not unearth them selves until someone who knows where they are digs them back up and uses them - even unintentionally. Sad - though - that there are probably 100's and 100's of "Gardens out there. If the murderer himself can hold up in a hole in the ground that is big enough for a person or two - what do you think the possibilities are that he has hidden weapons in a similar fasion?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kiltboy 0 #124 May 18, 2004 Not planted. A left over from the Iran/Iraq war that was lost due to an admin cockup? Yes. Placed amongst other standard shells because of a lack of markings? Yes. Looted from the same depot as lots of standard munitions? Yes. Intended to be an explosive part of an IED? Yes. Intended to be a nerve agent as part of an IED? No. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,216 #125 May 18, 2004 QuoteOkay, back on topic. The shell that detonated yesterday was confirmed to contain three to four liters of sarin. Figure 5mg per person, that's 600-800 potentially dead from one shell if it were used properly. Kallend believes these are planted. How many more will be found (or be planted)? Where did I write that? I wrote there's no proof yet that it originally came from Iraq. I warned about ASSuming anything in the absence of evidence. I wrote that after a year it can't be called a smoking gun anyway. I did not write that it was planted. Very stupid debating tactic to misquote someone when there's a written record of what they wrote readily available.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 5 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Kennedy 0 #104 May 18, 2004 Quotethe difference is, that shell detonated correctly - it blew up before it could be defused from that report. Outcome = 2 soldiers were decontaminated and sent back to work that day. OK, try to follow this. The shell did not detonate correctly. It was blown up in an IED. The round needed to be fired as originally intended in order for the components to mix. No one is saying it was an WMD because some POS blew it up in an IED by the side of the road. People are saying it was a WMD because if used properly, it could've kill thousands. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1080685#1080685 It was a chemical weapon. Just because some insurgent didn't use it right, that doesn't change what it was.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #105 May 18, 2004 tQuotehe difference is, that shell detonated correctly - it blew up before it could be defused hmmm, I was under the impression that they used it as a bomb not an artillary shell, if it was used correctly, it would have killed, and killed alot.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #106 May 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteI think the largest WMD in the world is sitting in an Iraqi prison. His name is Saddam Hussein. Getting rid of that WMD was justification enough for the war. Even a child could successfully argue that Bush poses a larger threat to the world than Saddam Hussein. Blues, Dave And many do here on the forums.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #107 May 18, 2004 Quote"Getting rid of that WMD was justification enough for the war." Ah yes, undoubtedly Saddam is/was a bad guy, a black hat as it were. But that was not the reason we went to war. Not liking your fellow heads of state is not a valid reason to kill tens of thousands of people, and is generally frowned upon as a justification for aggression. We went to war because we thought he posed an imminent threat to the world in general, we had nothing to substantiate that claim, and we still don't. Show me the money. Show me some sort of realistic evidence, and we'll call it quits and go jump together. For myself, getting rid of a butcher like Saddam was enough justification. It may not be enough for you but it is for me. History is replete with examples of pre-emptive wars. I for one am sure, that left alone Saddam would never have been satisfied being contained in Iraq. Just look at his history during the period between Gulf War 1 and 2. Constantly firing at coalition aircraft in the "no-fly zones", constantly challenging the terms of the cease-fire, violations of the "Oil for food" programs. The list goes on and on. Most politicians at that time agreed Saddam must go. Now that he is gone, most, like the hypocritical pussies they are, have run for political cover and made up justifications for distancing themselves from their own positions at the time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newbie 0 #108 May 18, 2004 good point, you could be right. PS whats a POS? "Skydiving is a door" Happythoughts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #109 May 18, 2004 "And many do here on the forums." Ooh, thats like a toad calling a turtle green.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #110 May 18, 2004 QuoteIt would have to have been fired from a 155 gun for a start, making it a battlefield weapon. If it was capable of killing thousands then why was there only two casualtys? I guess an unnamed coalition source is a better source of information than repeated viewing of 'The Rock' Am I the only one who actually read the article rhino posted? Quote...the old “binary-type” artillery shell requires the mixing of two chemical components in separate sections of the cell to produce the sarin... “The cell is designed to work after being fired from an artillery piece,” he said, adding that dispersing the substance from a device such as the homemade bomb "is virtually ineffective as a chemical weapon." If it had been fired from a 155, there would have been more than two casualties. Because the sons of bitches used it in an IED, they rendered it ineffective. It was a WMD right up to the point where the IED around it went off. IF THEY USED IT AS INTENDED, IT COULD HAVE KILLED HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS. IT WAS MADE LESS EFFECTIVE BECAUSE IT EXPLODED WITH THE IED.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newbie 0 #111 May 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt would have to have been fired from a 155 gun for a start, making it a battlefield weapon. If it was capable of killing thousands then why was there only two casualtys? I guess an unnamed coalition source is a better source of information than repeated viewing of 'The Rock' Am I the only one who actually read the article rhino posted? Quote...the old “binary-type” artillery shell requires the mixing of two chemical components in separate sections of the cell to produce the sarin... “The cell is designed to work after being fired from an artillery piece,” he said, adding that dispersing the substance from a device such as the homemade bomb "is virtually ineffective as a chemical weapon." If it had been fired from a 155, there would have been more than two casualties. Because the sons of bitches used it in an IED, they rendered it ineffective. It was a WMD right up to the point where the IED around it went off. IF THEY USED IT AS INTENDED, IT COULD HAVE KILLED HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS. IT WAS MADE LESS EFFECTIVE BECAUSE IT EXPLODED WITH THE IED. i get it now. Could it really have killed 100,000s though? Is that realistic from one shell? I know little to nothing about sarin other than what i found out about from the Tokyo sarin attack, which i posted in a post above. Is it fair to say that if 3 concentrated litres of the stuff that was released to the point where liquid sarin was spilling over the floor of subway cars, which in itself a "sealed" environment (underground) only ended up killing a dozen people, that 100,000s would have died from this one shell? I know it depends on a number of different variables (if it fell into a concentrated area, wind direction etc) but 100,000s deaths seems quite a high number. "Skydiving is a door" Happythoughts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #112 May 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteIF THEY USED IT AS INTENDED, IT COULD HAVE KILLED HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS. IT WAS MADE LESS EFFECTIVE BECAUSE IT EXPLODED WITH THE IED. i get it now. Could it really have killed 100,000s though? .... I know it depends on a number of different variables (if it fell into a concentrated area, wind direction etc) but 100,000s deaths seems quite a high number. He said "or", not "of". Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #113 May 18, 2004 Och, be fair Dave, Kennedy said hundreds or thousands, not hundreds of thousands. If it had been detonated in a crowded mosque, or market place, or even at the local KFC, things would undoubtedly be different.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newbie 0 #114 May 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteIF THEY USED IT AS INTENDED, IT COULD HAVE KILLED HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS. IT WAS MADE LESS EFFECTIVE BECAUSE IT EXPLODED WITH THE IED. i get it now. Could it really have killed 100,000s though? .... I know it depends on a number of different variables (if it fell into a concentrated area, wind direction etc) but 100,000s deaths seems quite a high number. He said "or", not "of". Blues, Dave excellent point - i must remember to read things properly in future! "Skydiving is a door" Happythoughts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newbie 0 #115 May 18, 2004 see my post above. My bifocals were dirty, apologies all! "Skydiving is a door" Happythoughts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #116 May 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteVery bad logic, Michele. You make an assumption and then treat it as fact. You have NO IDEA where this shell originated, all you know is where it ended up. I can't believe I just read that. So, even if we find a stockpile, you'll call "BS"?? WTF is that? Just the facts. It's too late to find a smoking gun now. That shell could have been around the world a dozen times since Bush's invasion. How about applying the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple S...) principle instead? We found a chemical munition in Iraq, and until then, had been buried in the f**k**g desert with a bunch of others. Too late my *ss. If I told you I hid a 12 oz can of soda in my apartment, and you said you were going to come in, look for it, and that you knew where it was...I'd move it. How fast would you find it then?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,216 #117 May 18, 2004 QuoteQuote No he didn't. He trotted out the standard DOE excuses which are all speculation. Kallend, YOU were the one who cited DOE as the source for your assertion that DOE "misplace tons of weapons grade plutonium." I was the one who checked with DOE to determine whether your assertion was accurate. To be charitiable and in keeping with forum etiquette, you were pretty fast & loose with DOE's statements, which, by the way, did not support your statement regarding tons missing plutonium. Now you are attempting to discredit the very source you were relying on to support your statements. I'm beginning to see a pattern here. BSBD. Chuck. Chuck, the point I am making is that even the USDoE has a significant error in accounting for its inventory of the most dangerous material on Earth. An error factor equal to a couple of hundred nuclear bombs. The source of the error is immaterial. If their accounting practices can't account for several tons of plutonium, how do they know that a few kg hasn't been stolen or diverted? How do you or anyone else know that 500kg didn't end up in Dimona? Or Tehran? Or Baghdad when SH was "our" guy. And if the US DoE with all its sophistication is unable to match Pu production with inventory to the extent of a couple hundred nukes, how do you expect a nation in a state of war for the last 20 years and all bombed to hell twice in the last 15 years to manage its inventory of anything.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #118 May 18, 2004 Sarin works better when it is in a mist than poured on the floor. An air burst of the same amount will kill much more than just pouring it on the floor."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,216 #119 May 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteVery bad logic, Michele. You make an assumption and then treat it as fact. You have NO IDEA where this shell originated, all you know is where it ended up. I can't believe I just read that. So, even if we find a stockpile, you'll call "BS"?? WTF is that? Just the facts. It's too late to find a smoking gun now. That shell could have been around the world a dozen times since Bush's invasion. How about applying the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple S...) principle instead? We found a chemical munition in Iraq, and until then, had been buried in the f**k**g desert with a bunch of others. Too late my *ss. If I told you I hid a 12 oz can of soda in my apartment, and you said you were going to come in, look for it, and that you knew where it was...I'd move it. How fast would you find it then? You can ASSume what you want. It doesn't make it a fact, and it may make you as big an ASS as GWB with his "Uranium from Niger" story and the "small and short lived" deficit.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #120 May 18, 2004 As a follow up to what Ron has said Sarin is volatile so its classed as a nonpersistent agent. The vapor is more dense than air so it would stay close to the floor meaning there's less chance of inhalation. It could have sank below the train platforms so removing it from other potential casualties. As a liquid it would have taken longer to evaporate than as a mist because of the surface area. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #121 May 18, 2004 QuoteIraq was not allowed to have them,or the chemicals need to make them. Here we get into that wasteland of definitions, specifically of "Iraq", i.e. what constitutes "Iraq" having them. I know that some LAW rockets have been "diverted" into private ownership. If the US were ordered to destroy all LAW rockets, they wouldn't be able to destroy those ones because our government doesn't know where they are. In fact, there is at least one undetonated NUCLEAR bomb that we can't find. If we were subsequently invaded for failure to provide evidence that all LAW rockets were destroyed, and those (now ex) military personnel used them against invading armies, would that constitute justification for the invasion? I'm not saying that this artillary shell was in a similar situation, but the fact that it wasn't marked to indicate its contents nor used to its designed potential suggests it's quite possible. It may have been diverted at some point in the past, and it may have simply been overlooked due to its lack of markings. Hopefully, time and further investigation will tell. In any case, the existence of one or two artillary shells does not justify our invasion. If they turn out to be the tip of the iceberg then I will have to revisit my position. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #122 May 18, 2004 Okay, back on topic. The shell that detonated yesterday was confirmed to contain three to four liters of sarin. Figure 5mg per person, that's 600-800 potentially dead from one shell if it were used properly. Kallend believes these are planted. How many more will be found (or be planted)? If we find even 50 more shells, that's potentially 30,000-40,000 lives saved. Anyone else believe the shell was planted?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #123 May 18, 2004 I do! I believe the shell was planted . . . along with a bunch of other "seeds" so they would not be found by any inspectors or anyone that would thwart Saddam Insane's ideas. Only problem is, theses things do not grow, they do not unearth them selves until someone who knows where they are digs them back up and uses them - even unintentionally. Sad - though - that there are probably 100's and 100's of "Gardens out there. If the murderer himself can hold up in a hole in the ground that is big enough for a person or two - what do you think the possibilities are that he has hidden weapons in a similar fasion?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #124 May 18, 2004 Not planted. A left over from the Iran/Iraq war that was lost due to an admin cockup? Yes. Placed amongst other standard shells because of a lack of markings? Yes. Looted from the same depot as lots of standard munitions? Yes. Intended to be an explosive part of an IED? Yes. Intended to be a nerve agent as part of an IED? No. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,216 #125 May 18, 2004 QuoteOkay, back on topic. The shell that detonated yesterday was confirmed to contain three to four liters of sarin. Figure 5mg per person, that's 600-800 potentially dead from one shell if it were used properly. Kallend believes these are planted. How many more will be found (or be planted)? Where did I write that? I wrote there's no proof yet that it originally came from Iraq. I warned about ASSuming anything in the absence of evidence. I wrote that after a year it can't be called a smoking gun anyway. I did not write that it was planted. Very stupid debating tactic to misquote someone when there's a written record of what they wrote readily available.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
