Dave Hinz wrote:
On 24 Feb 2005 13:55:25 -0800,
wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:
On 24 Feb 2005 12:59:16 -0800,
wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:
On 23 Feb 2005 10:02:39 -0800,
wrote:

That situation has. It is a good thing he did not have WMD
since
if he did there is a good chance they would now be in the
hands
of fundamentalist Islamic paramilitary groups.

Amazing. Yes, that is a real danger, Fred. How do you propose
to
know that this isn't exactly one of the places he got rid of
them
to?

What exactly is your antecedent for 'this'?

"them" if you prefer. The destination known as a fundamental
islamic
paramilitary group. Grammar games now, Fred?

Your wording was so poor I could not discern what you were trying
to comunicate.

The meaning was, and is, blisteringly clear.

It still leaves much to be desired. Are
you suggesting that Saddam Hussein may ahve given WMD to
Islamic paramilitary groups?

Yes, there's a real danger that he did just that. Clear now, Fred?

Given that the binary sarin shell in question was not suitable for
use as an IED, which is how it was used, the notion that it was
given by Saddam Hussein to the insurgents to be used by them
is without credibility.

There was never a serious risk that Saddam Hussein would give
WMD to Islamic Fudamentalist paramilitary groups. First of all,
many, if not most were opposed to his rule. This includes
the Wahabbi Sunni and the Shiites. They would be as likely
to use the weapns on him as anyone else. Secondly history
has shown that he maintained a tight leash on his military and
their assets, especially his chemical weapons. Third, his
primary interest that dominated all of his decisions was
to remain alive and in power. If he lost control of any
chemical of biological weapons and they were used, the result
would have been UN support for retaliation which the US would
be happy to lead.
.....

As you know, Islamist extremists, being believers in martydom,
are more inclined to engage in suicide attacks than other
extremists and extremist leaders, in particular, are especially
disinclined to make suicidal decisions.

OK, so you trust SH not to do something that would bring on his
own death. I do not share your trust. Clear now?

It has been clear that you are trolling for quite some time now.
However I will continue to reply because you really do more
to discredit the notions you allege to support than could a
straw man of my own creation.



...
Oh, a variation of "You can find somebody who'll say anything
argument." Quite true. That is why a person must understand
the
issues at hand in order to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

Indeed.

Please do so. I do NOT want you to trust me. I want you to
actually seek out information and understand the issues.

To me, the information presented is clear.

Interesting when you consider that I have presented information.


Why would they hide hydrogen generating trailers, Fred?

As you know I previously responded to your question thus:

Actually, that's lower in the thread, Fred. As you know, since
you had to scroll down to copy it to paste it here.

I origninally wrote it in an earlier article which was posted
higher in the thread. Indeed it was in the same article to
which you were responding. Since you know that, you already
knew the answer to your question beofor you asked. Ergo, More
trolling.



As opposed to what exactly, parking them in the open with
a big sign on top that said "NOT BANNED. DO NOT BOMB!"????

Surely I do not need to explain to you the need to conceal
conventional military assets during wartime.

How is a hydrogen generating trailer a "conventional military
asset" please?

More trolling eh? It is a conventional military asset the same
way that an artillery piece, a tank, an airplane, or anything
else used by the conventional military is a conventional military
asset.

....
During wartime, conventional military
assets will be targeted for aerial attack. Therefor it is
desireable that they be concealed.

You have not established that this is a military asset. Are you
saying
all of the HE devices (also conventional military assets) were
concealed?
Careful how you back yourself into a corner on this one, Fred.

I haven't said anything about HE devices. I do not know whether
or not any artillery pieces were concealed, but I do know that
if a concelaed artillery piece is found not even the Bush
administration would have the arrogance to try to misconstrue
that as a WMD.




I posted it so that a person knowledgible about the issues could
see that the trailer was not for fermentation. In addition
to the other issues I raised, where is the equipment for
safely handling the deadly materials one would recover from
reaction vesselif it WERE a fermenter?

Um, "not in the trailer" maybe?

If not, how would they get the material from the reactor
to the handling equipment?

Piping? Pumps? If we can move liquid helium around, we can
devise a way to get nasties from one place to another.

So why is the reaction vessel not so equipped?

....

You need to work toward clearer articulation. Otherwise, people
might get the impression that you are stonewalling becausee
you have no substantive rebuttal.

My rebuttal is that I neither trust, believe, or respect you.

I do not want you to. I want you to look into these things
yourself. You have never once, in this entire thread, provided
us with even a single reference to anything anyone can read
for oneself.

IOW, as noted, no substantive rebuttal.

You
play word games about "you said it instead of they" or whatever,
rather than seeing the blisteringly obvious statements, and then you
_assume_ that when you don't understand something, or when you put
more
importance on "extremist" than "islamic" or whatever, that it's
specifically deceit on my part rather than a different perspective.
Yes, I understand you all too well.

While it is true that one should not ascribe to malice that which
may be adequately explained by incompetance alone, Heinlien pointed
out that there are degress of incompetance or stupidity so extreme
as to be indistinguishible from malice.

However, in the instant case we have no need to presume malice.

Why would they hide hydrogen generating trailers, Fred?

As you know I previously responded to your question thus:

As opposed to what exactly, parking them in the open with
a big sign on top that said "NOT BANNED. DO NOT BOMB!"????

Surely I do not need to explain to you the need to conceal
conventional military assets during wartime.

And again, that's _LWER_ in the thread... your poorly worded
(wups, I mean "deliberate lie") statement should say "I later
responded".

As you know, it was first stated in an earlier article, earlier
in the thread, the very one to which you were replying in fact.


Evidently I was wrong, You do not understand the need to conceal
conventional military assets during wartime. I shall now
explain this to you. During wartime, conventional military
assets will be targeted for aerial attack. Therefor it is
desireable that they be concealed.

Do you understand now?

See above. You're getting boring.

More trolling.



So, tell me. If these are to make something benign like
hydrogen,
then
why oh why would they have been mothballed and hidden? Is
hydrogen
suddenly a banned substance?

As opposed to what exactly, parking them in the open with a big
sign on top that said "NOT BANNED. DO NOT BOMB!"????

Surely I do not need to explain to you the need to conceal
conventional military assetts during wartime.

If they're doing the "unprecedented cooperation" thing, wouldn't
it be the sort of thing they'd, you know, disclose?

Iraq was NOT required to disclose conventional military assets.
Surely I do not need to explain to you the need to prevent
examination of conventional miilitary assets by foreign
intelligence operatives.

How is a hydrogen generator a military asset?

Trolled and answered above.


Aside from which, as you know since you were following these
issues closely during the winter of 2002 and 2003, (weren't
you?) the Iraqis had agreed to UNMOVIC inspection of
trailers at that time. It's not clear that these were the
same trailers,

No ****. The hydrogen generating trailers are shown on the bottom of
your
CIA link.

Hmm, I'd be surprised if you were agreeing that the trailers
really were hydrogen generating trailers? If not, what are you
trying to communicate here?


after all there is no evidence that Iraq
had trailers of the sort the Bush administartion claimed,

Aside from the trailers themselves, that is, yes.

As noted above it (not they) was plainly designed to generate
hydrogen by reacting sodium hydroxide and Aluminum.

Once IAEA had disproved the Bush Administrations claims about
the Iraqi nuclear program and UNMOVIC had disproved the
Bush Administration claims about Iraq rebuilding WMD factories
the only claim left to be disproven was the mobile facility
claim. As I wrote before, the Bush Administartion invaded
before UNMOVIC had the opportunity to test that claim--though
they could have if the Bush Administration had not kept
them busy by supplying them false information.

You consistently use the plural in reference to items for
which but a single example has been found. Yet you accuse
me of 'word games'.


making it rather difficult to determine which of the many
other permitted sorts of trailers should be inspected.

Amazing. You could be a politician with that doublespeak. That
is not a compliment.

Do you deny that Iraq was permitted many sorts of mobile laboratory
type trailers such as are used elsewhere in the world? If not, where
is the doublespeak?


In the Fall of 2002 the Bush administration told us that Iraq
had chemical and biological weapons and an active nuclear
weapons
program and demanded UN inspections. Iraq complied and during
the
Winter of 2002-2003 UN inspectors had free reign to search Iraq.

Yes. As did the Clinton administration. Do you need the quotes
posted (again)?

No.

So then why bring up something, criticize Bush for it, and then
acknowledge that it's no different than Clinton? It's another case
of you hoping your point would go unchallenged and be let stand.
Sorry, I recognize that tactic.

IRT 'tactics', you just went off on an irrelevant tangent
from the first part of the paragraph. Care to address the
rest, specifically:

"Bush...demanded UN inspections. Iraq complied and during the
Winter of 2002-2003 UN inspectors had free reign to search Iraq."

You really are quite good at accusing me of doing exactly what
you do.



They found no evidence of active WMD programs and the IAEA
certified
^^^^^^

The Bush adminstration then claimed that WMD activity had been
moved to other sites. UNMOVIC inspected those other sites,
sometimes within hours of receiving the US intel. IN all
cases the Bush Administration's accusations were proven false.

Interesting wording. Says it all, really.

Rather than being interesting, your wording is too vague to
constitute an honest attempt at communication.

"accusations". Implies that they are intentionally trying to
cause trouble. "intelligence reports" would be a more objective
way to say it, but it's not as emotionally charged so you didn't
choose
it. "were proven false". Seeing that something isn't there, doesn't
prove that something _wasn't_ there, and you should know it.

Claims that fixed, permanent WMD facilites had been rebuilt
and were in operation were indisputedly proven false.

The notion that WMD were deployed to forward postions but
weren't there when the US arrived because the hastily retreating
Iraqi military took the time to remove and hide them is
a bit much, don't you think.


This isn't getting anywhere. You don't like or respect anything
that Bush does, obviously, and your word games and bull**** are
tiresome.

Want to get somewhere? Look for evidence to support your claims.

--

FF