Jihadists seize nuclear materials in Iraq?

[Theowl32]

Seriously?

You are worried that terrorists will kidnap you and take endless x-rays of you in an attempt to kill you?

Yeap, liberals folks. The same ones that said terrorism is a bumper sticker myth, who said 911 was organized by Bush and Cheney for oil, who then cheered when Obama supposedly killed bin laden (who they had claimed did not do 911), cheered when obama killed the mythical terrorists with drones, and believed him when he said al qaeda is on the run, has no concerns over jihadists getting their hands on nuclear material.

Yeap.

Liberals folks.

Would you like to try that again? This time after you have had a cup of coffee and had a chance to form rational thoughts first?

According to your own OP these are medical grade supplies. You do know that you can find these same supplies at your local dentist just down the road from you?

No, I don't think you do!

I never brought up Bush did I? I just reported what the NY Post reported.

Your pathetic liar in chief you voted for twice is a joke. Anyone that voted for him once is stupid enough, considering no one voted for him for no other reason than he was a democrat and black. If not, then give me the list of things that you thought made this incompetent socialist qualified to be president. I will be waiting for that list.

Then there are those that voted for him again. No need to even explain how stupid one would need to be to do that, cause there is no word in the English language to accurately describe how dumb that is.

No, this report had nothing to do with Bush and I never implied it did. You people on the other hand only bring up Bush and the utterly false notion that he deliberately lied. Considering that the democrats propagated the existence of WMDS before Bush took office.

None of you understand, or refuse to acknowledge that the war on terror was always going to be a lot more than about ONE MAN or one group. Then again trying to explain anything logical to brainwashed, double talking, hypocritical liberals is an exercise in futility.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Theowl32;9422823

Yeap, liberals folks. The same ones that said terrorism is a bumper sticker myth, who said 911 was organized by Bush and Cheney for oil, who then cheered when Obama supposedly killed bin laden (who they had claimed did not do 911), cheered when obama killed the mythical terrorists with drones, and believed him when he said al qaeda is on the run, has no concerns over jihadists getting their hands on nuclear material.

Yeap.

Liberals folks.

Would you like to try that again? This time after you have had a cup of coffee and had a chance to form rational thoughts first?

According to your own OP these are medical grade supplies. You do know that you can find these same supplies at your local dentist just down the road from you?

No, I don't think you do!

I never brought up Bush did I? I just reported what the NY Post reported.

 

[Peach]

Yeap, liberals folks. The same ones that said terrorism is a bumper sticker myth, who said 911 was organized by Bush and Cheney for oil, who then cheered when Obama supposedly killed bin laden (who they had claimed did not do 911), cheered when obama killed the mythical terrorists with drones, and believed him when he said al qaeda is on the run, has no concerns over jihadists getting their hands on nuclear material.

Yeap.

Liberals folks.

My question stands, this was the reason for the war, to remove such material from the alleged co conspirator of 9/11/01. Why wasn't it done?

Because these are basic MEDICAL SUPPLIES for things like x-rays as opposed to what is needed for WMD's.

Thank you for a coherent response; still the question, can IS make a dirty bomb from this material?

 

[Peach]

Anyone with half a brain knows the invasion of Iraq wasn't about the non existent WMD's. ..

Operation Iraqi Liberation.

Cheney said THIS:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said on Monday that what the United States gained as a result of the war in Iraq was that Iraq now does not have weapons of mass destruction.
While professing that he’s not trying to blame Cheney or President Bush for doing anything wrong by invading Iraq, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly wondered what the U.S. got out of the whole thing. “They finger pointed you and Bush and I don’t want to do that,” O’Reilly said, “But we spent a $1 trillion on this with a lot of pain and suffering on the American military. What did we get out of it? Beside Saddam being out of there?”
While Cheney meandered for a few minutes, he finally settled on the main prize: an Iraq without weapons of mass destruction:
O’REiLLY: But what — right now, what do we — what do we get of Iraq for all of that blood and treasure? What do we get out of it?
CHENEY: What we gain and my concern was then and it remains today is that the biggest threat we face is the possibility of terrorist groups like al Qaeda equipped with weapons of mass destruction, with nukes, bugs or gas. That was the threat after 9/11 and when we took down Saddam Hussein we eliminated Iraq as a potential source of that.

Bush blamed "bad intel":

The CIA's Mea Culpa on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction | TIME.com

I remember the "mushroom cloud", and "we know he he has them" statements so pretending the claims were not made to justify the invasion does not stand up.

 

[Theowl32]

Would you like to try that again? This time after you have had a cup of coffee and had a chance to form rational thoughts first?

According to your own OP these are medical grade supplies. You do know that you can find these same supplies at your local dentist just down the road from you?

No, I don't think you do!

I never brought up Bush did I? I just reported what the NY Post reported.

Yeah, you let me know why in your "educated opinion" why Bush was not brought up on war crimes by the UN or was not investigated independently by Obama.




No, I did not bring up Bush. Did I? I only responded after you pathetic left wing assholes predictably brought up Bush and his supposed war crimes after I reported that the NY Post reported that the jihadists got their hands on nuclear material.

Now, what was your point about the medical comment? Is that where they got them?

Ok.

So, what is your point about that? Is is that you still claim Bush is guilty of war crimes, and that it is so obvious to a smart person like you, and you still do not know why Bush has been charged with war crimes?

I am still waiting for the list of qualifications you saw in this socialist in the white house that made you think he was qualified. Other than him being a democrat and black.

I mean a smart person like you ought to be able to give us a reason....

I mean one....other than the superficial reasons I mentioned.

I will be waiting.

 

[Theowl32]

Anyone with half a brain knows the invasion of Iraq wasn't about the non existent WMD's. ..

Operation Iraqi Liberation.

Chebey said THIS:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said on Monday that what the United States gained as a result of the war in Iraq was that Iraq now does not have weapons of mass destruction.
While professing that he’s not trying to blame Cheney or President Bush for doing anything wrong by invading Iraq, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly wondered what the U.S. got out of the whole thing. “They finger pointed you and Bush and I don’t want to do that,” O’Reilly said, “But we spent a $1 trillion on this with a lot of pain and suffering on the American military. What did we get out of it? Beside Saddam being out of there?”
While Cheney meandered for a few minutes, he finally settled on the main prize: an Iraq without weapons of mass destruction:
O’REiLLY: But what — right now, what do we — what do we get of Iraq for all of that blood and treasure? What do we get out of it?
CHENEY: What we gain and my concern was then and it remains today is that the biggest threat we face is the possibility of terrorist groups like al Qaeda equipped with weapons of mass destruction, with nukes, bugs or gas. That was the threat after 9/11 and when we took down Saddam Hussein we eliminated Iraq as a potential source of that.

Bush blamed "bad intel":

The CIA's Mea Culpa on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction | TIME.com

I remember the "mushroom cloud", and "we know he he has them" statements so pretending the claims were not made to justify the invasion does not stand up.

You apparently are one of those naive people who think the war on terror was isolated to one man and one group. (bin laden has been dead for 3 years, and al qaeda is spposedly on the run, so it is turning out the war on terror is a lot more than bin laden and al qaeda after all.)

Amazing to me how you so called concerned liberals over the tortured and oppressed cry that saddam is still not in power.

Which is it? You happy saddam is gone? DO not wish he was still in power? Think he was actually a good guy?

Or......

Are you going to give me the left wing two step......

I hate saddam but.......

I think saddam did sponsor terrorism, but........

I am glad saddam is not in power but.......

-------------------------------------------------

Either way, most of us have no clue what the actual intel says. Hence, the reasons why Obama did not close GTMO, and the reasons why he carried out drone attacks, the reason why he tried to remain in Iraq, and the reason why he expanded the war on terror.

All to loud cheers from the left who had shouted that the war on terror was a right wing myth for oil.

Is it possible that Obama was privy to intel he had not been prior and those are the reasons he carried on the war on terror and the real reason he did NOT conduct an independent investigation?

Oh, that probably has NOT occurred to know it all left wing loons who always have no clue about logistics, have no clue about the intel, but always think they are the smartest ones in the room.

Naaaaaaah.

In the mean time I am still waiting for one of you pathetic ignorant morons to explain to all of us why Bush was not brought up on war crimes, considering he is as guilty as hitler in the left wing toad brain.

 

[Taz]

Apparently, the usual suspects see nothing wrong with the jihadists getting their hands on nuclear material.

Nothing wrong at all.

Remember, the same group who said Bush and Cheney organized 911 for oil, said terrorism was a bumper sticker myth, then cheered when Obama killed supposedly killed bin laden, killed the bumper sticker mythical terrorists, and then bough the notion that al qaeda was on the run.

Other than the destruction of capitalism and the American constitution, what do liberals like JimH stand for?

I see nothing wrong with jihadists getting some big bombs, they'll use them against other Arabs, maybe Baghdad. We should even give them some.

 

[Derideo_Te]

My question stands, this was the reason for the war, to remove such material from the alleged co conspirator of 9/11/01. Why wasn't it done?

Because these are basic MEDICAL SUPPLIES for things like x-rays as opposed to what is needed for WMD's.

Thank you for a coherent response; still the question, can IS make a dirty bomb from this material?

Technically you can make a "dirty bomb" from medical supplies. However the damage from any radiation is not significant compared to that inflicted by the explosives themselves. Instead it is more a matter of the inconvenience it causes wrt to the response and clean up teams. They will detect radiation and have to handle it accordingly.

From the perspective of it "contaminating" and harming individuals outside of the radius of the blast such as you would get from the fall out of a nuclear blast is concerned that is a virtual non issue. You would probably suffer from more radiation just by spending the day at the beach.

There is more about them at the NRC website!

NRC: Fact Sheet on Dirty Bombs

 

[Derideo_Te]

I never brought up Bush did I? I just reported what the NY Post reported.

Yeah, you let me know why in your "educated opinion" why Bush was not brought up on war crimes by the UN or was not investigated independently by Obama.




No, I did not bring up Bush. Did I? I only responded after you pathetic left wing assholes predictably brought up Bush and his supposed war crimes after I reported that the NY Post reported that the jihadists got their hands on nuclear material.

Now, what was your point about the medical comment? Is that where they got them?

Ok.

So, what is your point about that? Is is that you still claim Bush is guilty of war crimes, and that it is so obvious to a smart person like you, and you still do not know why Bush has been charged with war crimes?

I am still waiting for the list of qualifications you saw in this socialist in the white house that made you think he was qualified. Other than him being a democrat and black.

I mean a smart person like you ought to be able to give us a reason....

I mean one....other than the superficial reasons I mentioned.

I will be waiting.

Ask any prosecutor and they will tell you that they only press charges when they believe that they will obtain a conviction.

There is sufficient wiggle room for Bush to claim that he was deceived. In that respect he would most definitely have the benefit of the doubt so the odds of a conviction are slim and none.

This is all very basic stuff. But apparently it is news to someone like you.

 

[Peach]

Operation Iraqi Liberation.

Chebey said THIS:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said on Monday that what the United States gained as a result of the war in Iraq was that Iraq now does not have weapons of mass destruction.
While professing that he’s not trying to blame Cheney or President Bush for doing anything wrong by invading Iraq, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly wondered what the U.S. got out of the whole thing. “They finger pointed you and Bush and I don’t want to do that,” O’Reilly said, “But we spent a $1 trillion on this with a lot of pain and suffering on the American military. What did we get out of it? Beside Saddam being out of there?”
While Cheney meandered for a few minutes, he finally settled on the main prize: an Iraq without weapons of mass destruction:
O’REiLLY: But what — right now, what do we — what do we get of Iraq for all of that blood and treasure? What do we get out of it?
CHENEY: What we gain and my concern was then and it remains today is that the biggest threat we face is the possibility of terrorist groups like al Qaeda equipped with weapons of mass destruction, with nukes, bugs or gas. That was the threat after 9/11 and when we took down Saddam Hussein we eliminated Iraq as a potential source of that.

Bush blamed "bad intel":

The CIA's Mea Culpa on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction | TIME.com

I remember the "mushroom cloud", and "we know he he has them" statements so pretending the claims were not made to justify the invasion does not stand up.

You apparently are one of those naive people who think the war on terror was isolated to one man and one group. (bin laden has been dead for 3 years, and al qaeda is spposedly on the run, so it is turning out the war on terror is a lot more than bin laden and al qaeda after all.)

Amazing to me how you so called concerned liberals over the tortured and oppressed cry that saddam is still not in power.

Which is it? You happy saddam is gone? DO not wish he was still in power? Think he was actually a good guy?

Or......

Are you going to give me the left wing two step......

I hate saddam but.......

I think saddam did sponsor terrorism, but........

I am glad saddam is not in power but.......

-------------------------------------------------

Either way, most of us have no clue what the actual intel says. Hence, the reasons why Obama did not close GTMO, and the reasons why he carried out drone attacks, the reason why he tried to remain in Iraq, and the reason why he expanded the war on terror.

All to loud cheers from the left who had shouted that the war on terror was a right wing myth for oil.

Is it possible that Obama was privy to intel he had not been prior and those are the reasons he carried on the war on terror and the real reason he did NOT conduct an independent investigation?

Oh, that probably has NOT occurred to know it all left wing loons who always have no clue about logistics, have no clue about the intel, but always think they are the smartest ones in the room.

Naaaaaaah.

In the mean time I am still waiting for one of you pathetic ignorant morons to explain to all of us why Bush was not brought up on war crimes, considering he is as guilty as hitler in the left wing toad brain.

You can call it a two step; glad he is out, wish so many had not died, AND wish al Qaeda had not been put on the back burner for Bush's personal war. Saddam was on the way down, the US could have assisted those in Iraq working against him. Instead we flamed the passions and power of radical Islam.

 

[Theowl32]

Yeah, you let me know why in your "educated opinion" why Bush was not brought up on war crimes by the UN or was not investigated independently by Obama.




No, I did not bring up Bush. Did I? I only responded after you pathetic left wing assholes predictably brought up Bush and his supposed war crimes after I reported that the NY Post reported that the jihadists got their hands on nuclear material.

Now, what was your point about the medical comment? Is that where they got them?

Ok.

So, what is your point about that? Is is that you still claim Bush is guilty of war crimes, and that it is so obvious to a smart person like you, and you still do not know why Bush has been charged with war crimes?

I am still waiting for the list of qualifications you saw in this socialist in the white house that made you think he was qualified. Other than him being a democrat and black.

I mean a smart person like you ought to be able to give us a reason....

I mean one....other than the superficial reasons I mentioned.

I will be waiting.

Ask any prosecutor and they will tell you that they only press charges when they believe that they will obtain a conviction.

There is sufficient wiggle room for Bush to claim that he was deceived. In that respect he would most definitely have the benefit of the doubt so the odds of a conviction are slim and none.

This is all very basic stuff. But apparently it is news to someone like you.

So, let me get this straight. You, say it is so obvious Bush lied, that led to millions of deaths.

Yet, you do not think there is enough evidence that Bush lied.


The classic liberal double talk. He says it is beyond obvious Bush lied, which would be a war crime. Yet, he claims there is not enough evidence for a conviction.

Liberals folks. Liberals.

Some how, some way, he is not mystified by the fact that obama did not conduct an independent investigation into the OBVIOUS LIES. In fact, obama expanded the war on the mythical terrorists. He tried to stay in Iraq, and he expanded the number of troops in Afghanistan. He carried out drone strikes across the globe.

Yet, the know it all hippies cheer for his efforts against the terrorists that they had claimed did not exist and was a republican bumper sticker claim.

Liberals folks. Liberals.

 

[Theowl32]

Chebey said THIS:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said on Monday that what the United States gained as a result of the war in Iraq was that Iraq now does not have weapons of mass destruction.
While professing that he’s not trying to blame Cheney or President Bush for doing anything wrong by invading Iraq, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly wondered what the U.S. got out of the whole thing. “They finger pointed you and Bush and I don’t want to do that,” O’Reilly said, “But we spent a $1 trillion on this with a lot of pain and suffering on the American military. What did we get out of it? Beside Saddam being out of there?”
While Cheney meandered for a few minutes, he finally settled on the main prize: an Iraq without weapons of mass destruction:
O’REiLLY: But what — right now, what do we — what do we get of Iraq for all of that blood and treasure? What do we get out of it?
CHENEY: What we gain and my concern was then and it remains today is that the biggest threat we face is the possibility of terrorist groups like al Qaeda equipped with weapons of mass destruction, with nukes, bugs or gas. That was the threat after 9/11 and when we took down Saddam Hussein we eliminated Iraq as a potential source of that.

Bush blamed "bad intel":

The CIA's Mea Culpa on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction | TIME.com

I remember the "mushroom cloud", and "we know he he has them" statements so pretending the claims were not made to justify the invasion does not stand up.

You apparently are one of those naive people who think the war on terror was isolated to one man and one group. (bin laden has been dead for 3 years, and al qaeda is spposedly on the run, so it is turning out the war on terror is a lot more than bin laden and al qaeda after all.)

Amazing to me how you so called concerned liberals over the tortured and oppressed cry that saddam is still not in power.

Which is it? You happy saddam is gone? DO not wish he was still in power? Think he was actually a good guy?

Or......

Are you going to give me the left wing two step......

I hate saddam but.......

I think saddam did sponsor terrorism, but........

I am glad saddam is not in power but.......

-------------------------------------------------

Either way, most of us have no clue what the actual intel says. Hence, the reasons why Obama did not close GTMO, and the reasons why he carried out drone attacks, the reason why he tried to remain in Iraq, and the reason why he expanded the war on terror.

All to loud cheers from the left who had shouted that the war on terror was a right wing myth for oil.

Is it possible that Obama was privy to intel he had not been prior and those are the reasons he carried on the war on terror and the real reason he did NOT conduct an independent investigation?

Oh, that probably has NOT occurred to know it all left wing loons who always have no clue about logistics, have no clue about the intel, but always think they are the smartest ones in the room.

Naaaaaaah.

In the mean time I am still waiting for one of you pathetic ignorant morons to explain to all of us why Bush was not brought up on war crimes, considering he is as guilty as hitler in the left wing toad brain.

You can call it a two step; glad he is out, wish so many had not died, AND wish al Qaeda had not been put on the back burner for Bush's personal war. Saddam was on the way down, the US could have assisted those in Iraq working against him. Instead we flamed the passions and power of radical Islam.

Stop acting as though you understand a thing about war, and stop crowing about al qaeda as though the war on terror was only limited to al qaeda.

To prove that, al qaeda has been on the run (according to obama) and bin laden has been dead for close to 3 years, and terrorism is alive and well.

I get it, let us just leave the area. That way, they would never target us again.

Of course it is that simple. Of course it is.

 

[Theowl32]

Apparently, the usual suspects see nothing wrong with the jihadists getting their hands on nuclear material.

Nothing wrong at all.

Remember, the same group who said Bush and Cheney organized 911 for oil, said terrorism was a bumper sticker myth, then cheered when Obama killed supposedly killed bin laden, killed the bumper sticker mythical terrorists, and then bough the notion that al qaeda was on the run.

Other than the destruction of capitalism and the American constitution, what do liberals like JimH stand for?

I see nothing wrong with jihadists getting some big bombs, they'll use them against other Arabs, maybe Baghdad. We should even give them some.

Liberals folks. Liberals.

 

[Kosh]

A former IAEA inspector who worked extensively in Iraq, George Healey, echoed the suggestion that some of the missing materials may have originally come from elsewhere:


In the late 1980's Iraq operated a secret facility (the Al Jesira conversion plant) about 30 miles west of Mosul for the production of uranium dioxide (UO2) and uranium tetrachloride (UCl4)...
It would not be surprising if Al Jesira had connections with Mosul university while it was an operating plant. After the Gulf War, laboratory equipment not damaged during the destruction of Al Jesira was sent to Mosul university.
It is very likely that, in addition to analytical equipment, some quantity of uranium compounds of various kinds were also sent to Mosul University at that time. The Al Jesira analytical laboratory would have a large inventory of conversion process samples.
The transfer of some Al Jesira process samples to Mosul University could explain the higher than expected uranium chemical inventory. Thus, the 40 kilograms of uranium chemicals "stolen" from Mosul University probable consist of lab reagents such as uranyl acetate (plus other species), yellowcake, ammonium diuranate, uranium trioxide, uranium dioxide and there might be samples of UCl4 uranium tetrachloride], but only gram quantities...

This sounds like a convincing explanation. The questions that remain for the IAEA whether it knew about about this residual stockpile or not. Even if it was 'low-grade' it should have been removed.

The Mosul Mystery: The missing uranium and where it came from | World news | theguardian.com