Why does the left continue to HUMILIATE themselves on the WMD issue?

[Faun]

.

I remain amazed they even want this whole thing brought up.

A reasonable person would be justified in avoiding the whole horrific topic.

.

Well that pretty much nails it -- these aren't reasonable people ... they're mindless ideologues.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

.

I remain amazed they even want this whole thing brought up.

A reasonable person would be justified in avoiding the whole horrific topic.

.

Well that pretty much nails it -- these aren't reasonable people ... they're mindless ideologues.

^ amusing irony from a mindless ideologue with no handle of any kind on honesty.

 

[Billo_Really]

You make that claim even though you have no support for it and it is in contradiction to the actual professional evaluation offered to Congress.

So, yeah. I guess we should take your word for it.

I've already proven your claim is bullshit earlier in the thread using the FBI's definition of a WMD.

Decaying cans of sarin, do not meet that definition.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You make that claim even though you have no support for it and it is in contradiction to the actual professional evaluation offered to Congress.

So, yeah. I guess we should take your word for it.

I've already proven your claim is bullshit earlier in the thread using the FBI's definition of a WMD.

Decaying cans of sarin, do not meet that definition.

The FBI defines WMD?



No no, little one.

The relevant statute does that defining thing.

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are defined in US law (18 USC §2332a) as:

“(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title (i.e. explosive device);
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title)(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.”

The FBI just QUOTES it. FBI ? WMD FAQs

And the stuff recovered sure meets the 2nd definition.

Your fail is not complete, at least not yet, loinboy. Post more of your mindless nonsense.

 

[Faun]

You make that claim even though you have no support for it and it is in contradiction to the actual professional evaluation offered to Congress.

So, yeah. I guess we should take your word for it.

Gonna hang your hat on that? These are clearly left over from the first Gulf War. Or do believe that Saddam was so clever that he could hide the supposed WMD program from us but he couldn't hide himself or his sons? Oh that's right you're a self described "un-persuadable" believer.

Oh well, carry on.

Hey, moron. Yeah. That's you wiho.

If they were left over from the earlier war (which I don't doubt and haven't denied nor have I even bothered to address the notion), that doesn't make them any less a stockpile of WMDs.

I remain un-persuadable by you or by your "arguments" since you have no facts and no logic supporting your inane musings.

And for the record, it is far easier to successfully hide munitions than it was to hide himself which he did fairly well for a while.

Here. A freebie. Go buy yourself your first clue:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOMoKIrBlJE]Buried MiG-25 Foxbat Jet Uncovered in Iraqi Desert, Now Preserved in US. - YouTube[/ame]

Related Stories, News from Iraq, The MiG Dig

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraqi aircraft 'buried in desert'

Yeah, booooy. That Saddam could bury fucking MiGs, but not WMDs.

Check.

Check this.

"the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't," ~ George Bush, 8.21.2006

 

[Faun]

.

I remain amazed they even want this whole thing brought up.

A reasonable person would be justified in avoiding the whole horrific topic.

.

Well that pretty much nails it -- these aren't reasonable people ... they're mindless ideologues.

^ amusing irony from a mindless ideologue with no handle of any kind on honesty.

Ah, wonderful. The ever popular, "I know you are but what am I," pre-K riposte. At least you comfirm you're at a 4 year old's intellectual level. What's next, Buckwheat, "you're rubber, I'm glue ... ?"

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Well that pretty much nails it -- these aren't reasonable people ... they're mindless ideologues.

^ amusing irony from a mindless ideologue with no handle of any kind on honesty.

Ah, wonderful. The ever popular, "I know you are but what am I," pre-K riposte. At least you comfirm you're at a 4 year old's intellectual level. What's next, Buckwheat, "you're rubber, I'm glue ... ?"

Oh. Because you were being original when you call other folks mindless?



Of course.

 

[Faun]

^ amusing irony from a mindless ideologue with no handle of any kind on honesty.

Ah, wonderful. The ever popular, "I know you are but what am I," pre-K riposte. At least you comfirm you're at a 4 year old's intellectual level. What's next, Buckwheat, "you're rubber, I'm glue ... ?"

Oh. Because you were being original when you call other folks mindless?



Of course.

Great. I knew you'd come back with the equivalent of, "I'm rubber, you're glue..." I called that one, eh, Choadbreath?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Ah, wonderful. The ever popular, "I know you are but what am I," pre-K riposte. At least you comfirm you're at a 4 year old's intellectual level. What's next, Buckwheat, "you're rubber, I'm glue ... ?"

Oh. Because you were being original when you call other folks mindless?



Of course.

Great. I knew you'd come back with the equivalent of, "I'm rubber, you're glue..." I called that one, eh, Choadbreath?

But I didn't.

You even lie about shit when the evidence is directly under everyone's nose.

Sorry you bleeding twat, but your credibility is the dregs.

 

[expatriate]

Really?

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dni/dni_ltr_wmd_21jun06.pdf

oops. loinboy wrong again!

Aging cans of sarin buried and forgotton in the desert are not WMD's!

You make that claim even though you have no support for it and it is in contradiction to the actual professional evaluation offered to Congress.

So, yeah. I guess we should take your word for it.

it is common knowledge that sarin has a shelf life of less than five years. Do you really doubt that?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It is a FACT that large caches of WMD's were in fact located in Iraq.

An indisputable fact. That fact has been confirmed by none other than the radical left-wing propaganda machine of the dumbocrat party - MSNBC (see link below which was initially on MSNBC's website and has since been migrated to the NBC website since the split). It has also been confirmed by WikiLeak cables! It has been confirmed by former special forces operators, authors, reporters, and more. How the left can continue to deny the world is round, the sky is blue, and the sun is hot is simply absurd. They have ZERO credibility left when they try to deny fact.

From Chuck Pfarerr's book, Seal Target: Geronimo

It is a chilling fact that thousands of chemical weapons have been uncovered in Iraq. These weapons have been used by Al Qaeda against coalition and NATO forces on dozens of occasions. This has been confirmed by countless sources, most recently in the released WikiLeaks cables.

So why haven't the American people been told of the stock-piled caches of chemical WMD's uncovered in Iraq or of the chemical weapon attacks by Al Qaeda?

The Republicans won’t touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralize the danger of Iraqi WMD (instead of preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists, the 2003 invasion of Iraq has accelerated the acquisition, manufacture, and use of chemical weapons by Al Qaeda).

The Democrats won’t touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment. And the press won't touch it because they had already convinced themselves, and most of the American public, that Saddam Hussein didn’t have any WMD's. The media turned a blind eye to continued reports of chemical weapon attacks because its own credibility was threatened. Several major outlets were deeply invested with the story line of an “unjustifiable war". Not many people can bear to admit they were wrong, especially in print, and especially if they have been very wrong for a very long time.

Sarin-loaded bomb explodes in Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News

NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story

No one is disputing that Al Qaeda brought chemical weapons into Iraq after we invaded.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Aging cans of sarin buried and forgotton in the desert are not WMD's!

You make that claim even though you have no support for it and it is in contradiction to the actual professional evaluation offered to Congress.

So, yeah. I guess we should take your word for it.

it is common knowledge that sarin has a shelf life of less than five years. Do you really doubt that?

It is also true that other biologicals have longer shelf life and they can be increased by the purity of the precursors and by other expedients.

I'm sure a person with your claimed basis and depth of knowledge can discuss "binary" weapons production and why that leads to lengthy shelf life.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

And if you stumbled upon a stash of rusty WMDs full of nerve agents or the like, do any of you actually imagine that they could not be used to inflict hideous injuries and death on large numbers of people even in that degraded format?

 

[Billo_Really]

The FBI defines WMD?



No no, little one.

The relevant statute does that defining thing.

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are defined in US law (18 USC §2332a) as:

“(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title (i.e. explosive device);
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title)(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.”

The FBI just QUOTES it. FBI ? WMD FAQs

And the stuff recovered sure meets the 2nd definition.

Your fail is not complete, at least not yet, loinboy. Post more of your mindless nonsense.

I'm sorry, but the cans of sarin do not meet the definition of a weapon as stated in section 921:

18 U.S.C. 921

(4) The term “destructive device” means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—

(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;​

​

So no, they are not WMD's.

 

[Billo_Really]

And if you stumbled upon a stash of rusty WMDs full of nerve agents or the like, do any of you actually imagine that they could not be used to inflict hideous injuries and death on large numbers of people even in that degraded format?

Even Fox reported they weren't WMD's.

As CNN national security correspondent David Ensor reported on CNN's The Situation Room shortly after the announcement, "Charles Duelfer, the CIA's weapons inspector, tells us the weapons are all pre-Gulf War-vintage shells, no longer effective weapons. Not evidence, he says, of an ongoing WMD program under [former Iraqi dictator] Saddam Hussein." The Washington Post also reported June 22 that "[n]either the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

 

[expatriate]

And if you stumbled upon a stash of rusty WMDs full of nerve agents or the like, do any of you actually imagine that they could not be used to inflict hideous injuries and death on large numbers of people even in that degraded format?

Even Fox reported they weren't WMD's.

As CNN national security correspondent David Ensor reported on CNN's The Situation Room shortly after the announcement, "Charles Duelfer, the CIA's weapons inspector, tells us the weapons are all pre-Gulf War-vintage shells, no longer effective weapons. Not evidence, he says, of an ongoing WMD program under [former Iraqi dictator] Saddam Hussein." The Washington Post also reported June 22 that "[n]either the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

Bingo

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Of course they were WMDs.

Damn. You guys are robotic in your vapidity.

The definition is the definition.

And although they would no longer work as effectively as they once could have, they were still dangerous and no rational person would be happy at the prospect of some al qaeda shithead getting his hands on them.

 

[Billo_Really]

Of course they were WMDs.

Damn. You guys are robotic in your vapidity.

The definition is the definition.

And although they would no longer work as effectively as they once could have, they were still dangerous and no rational person would be happy at the prospect of some al qaeda shithead getting his hands on them.

They do not meet the definition of a weapon according to section 921.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Of course they were WMDs.

Damn. You guys are robotic in your vapidity.

The definition is the definition.

And although they would no longer work as effectively as they once could have, they were still dangerous and no rational person would be happy at the prospect of some al qaeda shithead getting his hands on them.

They do not meet the definition of a weapon according to section 921.

Irrelevant.

They DID under 18 USC §2332a) in that they consisted of being

(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;

Try again.

 

[BlindBoo]

Of course they were WMDs.

Damn. You guys are robotic in your vapidity.

The definition is the definition.

And although they would no longer work as effectively as they once could have, they were still dangerous and no rational person would be happy at the prospect of some al qaeda shithead getting his hands on them.

Yeah? Wow, so we go in and overthrow the established govenment without providing the proper security for country which allowed some shitheads to roam the country looking for WMD? Unless of course we knew Saddam didn't have any usable stores of WMD.