On 25 Feb 2005 10:56:57 -0800, wrote:
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.

Yes, there was.

Please post a reference for any other biological or chemical
weapons that you think have fallen into the hands of the
insurgents.

Perhaps "there's a real danger that..." means "I have absolute
evidence of" in _your_ world, Fred?


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.

And nooooobody remembers where those caches are. Riiiight.

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".

I'm replying to, but didn't initiate the subject header.

You might also throw a hissy fit if anyone would suggest
posting the articles where they are on-topic.

I already explained this to you, Fred. You complain about that
which you go out of your way to see. Your choice.

...
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.

The confusion is all yours.

Perhaps you do not read to the bottom of an article before
beginning to reply. Those are your failings, not mine.

You're barely worth reading once, let alone Twice, Fred.


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.

Non-answer noted again.

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.

You're a waste of time.

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?

Yes.

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.

I used your article. You just won't see what it says.

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.

Dislike and disrespect of you and your lies doesn't make me a liar,
Fred.

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?

Are they a MILITARY asset?

(snip more of the usual crap from Fred)

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. ..."
(snip remainder of quote)

Thanks for the correction.

Translation: Dave caught Fred in a direct lie.

Been looted eh? Must not have been very
well hidden.

Red herring.

That's the idea. Quote some text and tell us where you got it.
Put some substance into your articles.

It's your ****ing cite, Fred, I didn't think I had to read and
explain it to you. Will you be wanting milk and cookies next?

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?

Sure, your exact words he

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'.


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.

And yet, these apparently are.

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.

Of which, these are not. That's the comparison and contrast section,
Fred. Try reading that page.

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.

It's not being used as a racial insult, Fred. Again you assume
wrongly. How unexpected. Fred going out of his way to get it
wrong. Imagine my surprise.