Dave Hinz wrote:
On 24 Feb 2005 17:39:34 -0800,
wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:
On 24 Feb 2005 13:55:25 -0800,
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 were more WMD there than that one binary sarin shell, Fred.
Nice try, though.
There was also an equally old mustard shell found by a roadside
evidently as part of an abandoned attempt at setting an IED.
Please post a reference for any other biological or chemical
weapons that you think have fallen into the hands of the
insurgents.
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.
Except for the "wups!" lost ones. Maybe.
Agreed. Some were probably lost during the 1991 war when
munitions were removed from bunkers and distributed in
hastily fabricated caches. See the Duelfer report.
As I wrote prior to the 2002 invasion, if Saddam Hussein
did have WMD, invading Iraq was more likely to result in
those weapons getting into the hands of paramilitary
groups hostile to the US than would leaving him in power.
At least my greatest fear, that Saddam Hussein would execute
a tacticly and strategicly effective plan, like concentrating
his forces in Baghdad and forcing the US to lay siege to the
city, were not realized.
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.
....
If he was behaving rationally, you mean.
Yes. Until recently he was good at surviving. The reason he
finally lost power was because Bush made the decision to invade
Iraq no matter how Saddam Hussein responed to the demands for
inspections, hence Bush's plan nine demand that Iraq prove
it had no WMD, a demand no nation can meet.
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.
I'm disagreeing with you, Fred, not trolling. If I was trolling,
I'd do something like, for instance, keep changing the groups and
followups to include a politics group. Like you do.
There is nothing trollish about posting an article about
poitical issues to a newsgroup devoted to those political
issues.
If you were trolling, you'd post off-topic and use a subject
line intended to attract attention without actually informing
anyone of the subject of the article. For example, you
might post an article about Iraq in rec.woodworking under the
subect, "OT but important to us all".
You might also throw a hissy fit if anyone would suggest
posting the articles where they are on-topic.
....
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.
If you can't distinguish between and and fred, that's
your problem.
Your problem seems to be that you cannot distinguish between
a thread and an article, or between the time at which an
article is posted by myself or read by you and the place
in YOUR Follow-up at which you insert your comments.
Perhaps you do not read to the bottom of an article before
beginning to reply. Those are your failings, not mine.
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.
Non-answer noted, and oh, so predictable.
Ok, you tell me why, oh why, would a hydrogen generator NOT
be a conventional military asset? It is not, nor is it
related to, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons which
are the three categories of non-conventional military
assets being discussed.
I haven't said anything about HE devices.
I noticed that. You said "conventional military assets". I am
pointing
out that HE devices _are_ "conventional military assets", and asked
you
to reconcile your statement with the facts regarding those assets.
Clearer
now?
Not at all.
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.
But above you say that these assets would be hidden, Fred. You're
weaseling. Again. Imagine that.
Trolling again.
...
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?
If I was designing something like this, I'd have some sort of port
for transferring things out of the tank. Are you proposing that
there is no type of port on these vessels or associated plumbing?
If that's the case, Fred, how do you propose that your hypothetical
hydrogen gets removed from those same tanks?
Do you understand the difference gas and liquid?
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.
I used your cite to show you're wrong. Why dig for more, when your
own
cite makes it clear?
You might consider providing a cite for some of your contentions.
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.
And yet, you make distinctions where there is no difference. SH is
Islamic. He's an extremist. Apparently, in your mind, "Islamic
extremist"
can only apply to certain types of islamic people who are extremist.
Or
something.
The distinction between a person who is Muslim in name only
and takes extreme actions for purely secular reasons, such
as Saddam Hussein, and a pious Muslim who takes extreme
actions for religious reasons, or to be more accurate, due
to a grossly distorted interpretation of Islam, such as
Osama bin Laden is obvious, I am sure, even to you.
Ergo, more trolling.
However, in the instant case we have no need to presume malice.
Then maybe you could stop accusing me of lying, when I'm just
disagreeing with you.
There is no need to presume malice because you prove your malice
everytime you post.
....
How is a hydrogen generator a military asset?
Trolled and answered above.
You had no answer above. How about this time?
All equipment used by the military is a military asset. How
is that not obvious to you? The Migs Iraq buried during the
1991 war were also a military asset, right? Tnaks are a military
asset right? Artillery pieces are military assets right?
If all of these are military assets, why aren't mobile
hydrogen generators?
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?
On the CIA page that YOU CITED, Fred, they show the weapons trailers,
_AND_ the hydrogen trailers. They compare and contrast the two.
Maybe
you should go revisit your cite and see.
On the webpage in question there are nine images. If we number
them 1 through 9 from the top down, which do you assert are images
of real hydrogen generators that are being contrasted with what the
CIA claims to be a mobile biological fermenter?
If instead, by 'show' you are refering to text, please quote the
text to which you refer.
....
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.
Nothing has been disproved. Things have been not found. There's a
huge
difference.
When UNMOVIC visited a fixed permanent installation and found
it to be in disrepair and abandoned, that is to say in
the same state it was when UNSCOM left Iraq the Bush
administration claim that the facility had been repaired
and operations there resumed was disproved without regard to
whether that claim was made in error or with malice.
Here are some concrete examples:
President Bush, 7 October 2002: "Satellite photographs reveal
that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been
part of its nuclear program in the past." ... The satellite
photos referred to by President Bush were published in the
New York Times on 6 September 2002,...
Both sites have been visited by inspectors from the IAEA
since November 2002, and no suspicious findings at either
site have been reported. The IAEA has reported on inspections
of the Tuweitha site on 6 December 2002 and, more extensively,
on 9 - 10 - 11 December 2002. After a further visit, on 20
December 2002, an IAEA / UNMOVIC joint press statement
concluded that "the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex [..]
now conducts civilian research in the non-nuclear field".
Further radiation testing at the site has been conducted
by the IAEA on 21 January 2003.
At a DoD News Briefing, Tuesday, 08 Oct 2002 - 1:00 pm,
slide 25: claimed al-Qaim plant was "currently active".
Inspectors from the IAEA visited al-Qaim on 10-11 December 2002,
and reported on their on-going monitoring of the DESTROYED plant.
A further inspection took place on 7 January 2003.
[emphacis on DESTROYED mine, FF]
At
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20020912.html
"The al-Dawrah Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Facility is one
of two known biocontainment level-three facilities in Iraq that
have an extensive air handling and filtering system. Iraq has
admitted that this was a biological weapons facility. In 2001,
Iraq In 2001, Iraq announced that it would begin renovating the
[al-Dawrah, FF]plant without UN approval, ostensibly to produce
vaccines that it could more easily and more quickly import through
the UN."
Whereas:
"By the time the inspectors left the plant today, after four
hours, they had concluded that the plant was no longer operational
-- not for the production of toxins, and not for animal vaccines
either. Reporters who were allowed to wander through the plant
after the inspectors left found the place largely in ruins.
Apparently, it had been abandoned by the Iraqis after 1996,
when the weapons inspectors took heavy cutting equipment to
the fermenters, containers and pressurized tubing and valves
used in the toxin production." ("Inspectors Find Only Ruins
at an Old Iraqi Weapons Site", New York Times, 29 November 2002).
See:
http://traprockpeace.org/iraqweapons.html and please note
that this was published shortly beofor the US-led invasion of
Iraq in 2003, it is based on the best available pre-invasion
intelligence.
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.
So, you are contending that Bush intentionally lied to the UN to keep
them from finding the WMD. Is that what you're saying, Fred?
No.
I am pointing out that the Bush Administration foisted forged
documents on the IAEA. That is no longer in dispute. I am
pointing out that the Bush Administration sent UNMOVIC to
numerous
I am pointing out that the Bush adminisstration sent the
UNMOVIC to sites where, according to the Bush Administration
WMD facilites, fixed facilities , not mobile ones, had
been rebuilt and operations had resumed, yet upon arrival
UNMOVIC found those facilites in the same condition as
when UNSCOM left Iraq in 1998.
I am pointing out that, given the decision on the part
of the administration to submit the forged documents to
the IAEA one should suspect that the inaccuarte information
provided to UNMOVIC was also a deliberate attempt at
deception or delay.
The obvious motive was to prevent UNMOVIC from reaching the
same conclusion about Iraqi chemical and biological weapons
that the IAEA had about Iraqi nuclear weapons. Which is
the same conclusion reached by ISG, a couple of years and
thousands of lives later.
I am contending that the Bush Administration intentionally
lied and misdirected the iAEA and UNMOVIC to keep them
from concluding that Iraq was not in substantive breach of
the UN resolutions regarding Iraqi WMD.
And if in fact Sadadm Hussein DID have WMD why did he not use
them when we invaded. What was he waiting for, the NEXT
US invasion of Iraq?
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'.
From your cited site, in the "Overview" section:
"The US military discovered a second mobile facility equipped to
produce
BW agent in early May at the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development,
and
Engineering facility in Mosul. Although this second trailer appears
to
have been looted, the remaining equipment, including the fermentor,
is
in a configuration similar to the first plant."
Thanks for the correction. Been looted eh? Must not have been very
well hidden.
That's the idea. Quote some text and tell us where you got it.
Put some substance into your articles.
Yes, I accuse you of word games, and in this case, an outright lie.
Could you please provide a direct quote, as opposed to one of
your typically inaccurate parphrasals, of what you consider to
be an outright lie?
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?
Iraq isn't supposed to have biological warfare labs, mobile or
otherwise. Elsewhere in the world doesn't enter into it.
Non sequitor. Mobile biological labs are not all
biological WARFARE labs. For example, on the CIA webpage
I cited, there is some discussion of non-warfare related
mobile biological labs of the sort Iraq was permittted.
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."
Why didn't CLINTON demand UN inspections? Because he ignored the
problem and let it grow for 8 freaking years, that's why.
More trolling. I asked you to address a statement, you continued
to pursue the tangent instead. Anyhow:
As you know, CLINTON did not demand UN inspections because
UN inspections had already begun befor he took office and
were not suspected until 1998, when he made the decision to
bomb some of Iraq's suspected WMD facilites.
....
You really are quite good at accusing me of doing exactly what
you do.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Precisely, though since the middle 1960's calling somone or
something 'black' ceased to be an insult.
...
Claims that fixed, permanent WMD facilites had been rebuilt
and were in operation were indisputedly proven false.
And those claims were based on best available intel.
Please provide a reference for the reader.
Here's one that disputes your claim:
http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/5403731
--
FF