Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
380 tons of explosives can create mass destruction. Did you hear? They are in Syria.

I hear Russian special forces used migrating camels to sneak them past our satellites. The Washington Times said so.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by dtb
Fox News

Speaking of Fox News, did you hear that it looks like O'Reilly is going to settle and pay big bucks for the tapes? Damn, we won't get to hear them.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by dtb
Don't pretend this is news to you. Perhaps the Bush ops have gotten enough flak about how completely un-American that is, that they've stopped doing it.

[Joke]Good grief, your side coddles suicide bombers - of course we're more paranoid than you guys are at big rallies![/Joke]

Certainly I knew about those happenings. We all did, because they were outrageous, and made the news. Out of thousands of rallies and events, some local organizers were overly paranoid and stepped over the line. But, no, of all the events I've been to, none were as you suggest.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So what? On the big questions, Wilson was right: The Iraqis were not trying to buy uranium from Niger, and indeed had no nuclear program. Bush was doing whatever he could to scare people about non-existent Iraqi WMD. Wilson was one of the first with inside knowledge to blow the whistle. So what if his face is red? He's not the story.

This whole thread/mess dealt with dishonorable attempts to smear without factual backing. Wilson was one such smearer - the actual things he discovered on his trip added almost nothing to the controversy in reality, and in fact even left the commission in the position of saying that his data and official reports ended up slightly supporting the yellowcake claim - but certainly not refuting it. But his public article turned out to be composed of mostly lies - lies that were central to his case. It was said earlier that the attacks on his report were diversionary - but in fact, they went to the central supports of his public proclamation (which, incidentally and again, were pretty wholely debunked by his commission testimony.) Similarly, it was said here that the attacks on the NYT for publishing this new stolen weapons report without research were only diversionary. People here aren't so naive as to not understand the concept of the news cycle, and the value of even a later-discredited story maligning someone. That was my whole point.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Good point, Hank! Get on the horn and tell the Iraqis that the explosives must still be there somewhere on that base. I hear it's a pretty big base.

wow! turns out you are an idiot who can't follow logic. my point was the weapons were moved before we got there. I don't know is it was the Russians. i do know that truck convoys moving something, and we thought weapons movement, was part of the evidence Powll provided. When you wake up, you might remember and admit, your suck-boy blix poo-poohed the evidence. Do you know if his perdiem came out of the oil for food program- just a hunch!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
an idiot who can't follow logic

I invented that. But it was for AG.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
http://washingtontimes.com/national/...1153-4822r.htm

• Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned. John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, “almost certainly” removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.

If this is true (and I doubt that it is), it means that your side was gloating about getting an endorsement from the leader of a country that actively assists terrorists. When do we invade Russia?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
wow! turns out you are an idiot who can't follow logic.

I guess its Slave's turn to define a term for this civil period. Perhaps "you are an idiot who can't follow logic" means: "you are my favorite poster to discuss things with, which is why I'll interact with you a dozen times today until one* of us convinces the other"

*the "one" being me, and the "other" being you

Whatever it means, I'm sure it was meant in a very nice, kind, gentlemanly and civil way.

Hello

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Honest? You, Ty, ss and maybe some others went off the deep end on the "we let insurgants steal 380 tons of explosives under our noses" act all day yesterday. When I pointed out that it would have required an army of trucks a very long time to take all that, and the country is under constant surveillance, SS had the honesty to agree the story could not possibly be true.

You and the herd? well lets just say, when we see you using the word "honest" going forward, we at best can think you are your own lexiographer.

I have to admit to being curious as to how they moved the stuff. Here's what David Kay says:


DAVID KAY, FORMER CHIEF U.S. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Well, Wolf, this is a very large facility.

And I'm afraid we're into a zone of which we won't know definitively what happened. We do know that the U.N. certified in early March that the explosives were there. We know that by May, when the 75th Exploitation Task Force went in, they were not there. There's a gap of about three weeks, two and a half weeks, before the war took place until a month after the war took place and we simply don't know what happened.

I must say, I find it hard to believe that a convoy of 40 to 60 trucks left that facility prior to or during the war, and we didn't spot it on satellite or UAV. That is, because it is the main road to Baghdad from the south, was a road that was constantly under surveillance. I also don't find it hard to believe that looters could carry it off in the dead of night or during the day and not use the road network.

I saw many Iraqi facilities in which they came by pickup truck and constantly -- it's amazing to see whole buildings disappear at the hands of looters who are not organized, who do not have heavy equipment. But I also think we ought to put it in perspective. We're talking about 400 tons of high explosives. It would be a great tool in the hands of insurgents and terrorists. But that's a country that is awash with tens of thousands of tons of explosives that have been used now for well over a year against the coalition forces there.

Iraq is not short of explosives. The insurgents are not short of explosives.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...27/wbr.01.html

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
When do we invade Russia?

If we keep picking off these dictatorships that the Russians sell weapons to, there is no need to.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
If this is true (and I doubt that it is), it means that your side was gloating about getting an endorsement from the leader of a country that actively assists terrorists. When do we invade Russia?

well we don't. there are islamic fundamentalists who are opposing the Russian government. what we do is fund arm and train these freedom fighters to help overthrow the Russian government.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I also don't find it hard to believe that looters could carry it off in the dead of night or during the day and not use the road network.

Does he know our side has infra red reading technology so we can "see" trucks at night?



it could not have happened while we were there. Youknow that ss. you can keep your bush lied schtick but you have to drop this one. k?

[Not Me]

[sarcasm]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
well we don't. there are islamic fundamentalists who are opposing the Russian government. what we do is fund arm and train these freedom fighters to help overthrow the Russian government.

[/sarcasm]

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Iraq is not short of explosives. The insurgents are not short of explosives.

Here's an interesting scenario:

This stuff is all traceable by manufacture lot. I'm assuming there's some little bit left to test and map. Say we start interdicting terrorists drifting in from Syria with bombs made from the same lots?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

it could not have happened while we were there. Youknow that ss. you can keep your bush lied schtick but you have to drop this one. k?

Paul Bremer agrees.