Dave Hinz wrote:
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?
No, it does not. Perhaps
"Please post a reference for any other biological or chemical
weapons that you think have fallen into the hands of the
insurgents."
Means the same thign to you as:
"I have absolute evidence of"
to you. It does not to me.
....
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.
HAVE you read the Duelfer report?
...
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.
Now you lie again. Aside from the fact that my participation
in this, er discussion, IS absolute proof of my interest I
have also told you in plain English that I want to see this
discussion. Not only do I want to see it, but I also want
to see it in a newsgroup where it is on-topic so that other
persons who are ALSO interested in topic, can find it even
if they are not interested in woodworking.
You know all these things because I made these points quite
clear to you in our offline communications.
...
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.
Ok, If you were making anthrax, would it come out of the top
of the tank as a gas, the same as hydrogen?
I used your article. You just won't see what it says.
It is not MY article. It is a CIA webpage. I see what it says,
and I dispute what it says. One could determine the difference
between a hydrogen generator and a fermentor by such things
as whether or not there was nickel plating in the gas cylinders,
the capacity of the refrigeration system the precense of absence
of a means for securely removing liquid from the vessel and so
on. The simple fact that the CIA never addresses any of the
facotrs that could definitively establish the use for these
trailers is evidence the webpage is disengenuous.
Also no comparison is made between these trailers and the ones
Iraq used in the Iran Iraq war.
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.
Your near continuous steram of insulting remarks in lieu of
discussion is evidence of malice.
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?
Of course they are a MILITARY asset. What other sort of
asset would they be? Crimony, do you have a point?
Thanks for the correction.
Translation: Dave caught Fred in a direct lie.
A mistake.
Been looted eh? Must not have been very
well hidden.
Red herring.
As you will recall you were making the claims about the significance
of the other trailer allegedly being hidden. BTW, can you
substantiate your claim that any of the trailers were hidden?
Nothing on the webpage I cited says there were hidden.
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?
IOW you went back and found that you were wrong, there is no
comparison on that page between the trailers that were found
and trailers that are 'real' hydrogen generators. Maybe this
time you did note that even the CIA concedes that this use
for the trailers in question is "plausible".
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'.
Thank you. I was mistaken as to the number of trailers the CIA
claims have been found. You were correct, they are claiming
more than one. Your use of the plural in this instance was
correct. Sorry about that.
See? If you give me something to work with, I can figure
out WTF you are writing about.
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.
These aparently are mobile hydrogen generators similar to
those used in the Iran-Iraq war.
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.
That is a comparison and contrast with legitimate biological
laboratory trailers, not, as you previously asserted, with
legitimate hydrogen generating trailers. The fact that they
are disimilar to real biological trailers, while not dispositive
as to their true intended function, supports the conclusion
that they are not biological trailers, does it not?
Here's what you wrote:
"No ****. The hydrogen generating trailers are shown
on the bottom of your CIA link. "
and later:
"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. "
Now you are saying that the disputed trailers are inconsistent
with legitimate biological trailers. On that we agree, though
for different reasons. What happened to your claim that the
disputed trailers were compared and contrasted to 'hydrogen
trailers' on the CIA webpage?
Surely you will not claim that distinguishing between hydrogen
and biological is playing word games.
The only mention on the webpages to any other hydrogen generators
at all is farther up the page and it makes no reference to
"legitimate hydrogen generating trailers". It simply says that
Compact, transportable hydrogen generation
systems are commercially available, safe,
and reliable.
Which is neither a comparison nor a contrast with the trailers
in dispute. Nor are there any illustrations 'showing'
anything about them.
However I will compare and contrast them now.
The hydrogen generating trailers appear to be capable of
generating hydrogen much faster than commercial electrolysis
units. Since time is of the essence on the battlefield a
unit with the 'excess capacity' of the Iraqi trailers would
be highly advantageous. They also have the advantage
of simplicity when compared to commercial electrolysis
units.
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. ...
Oh no worries, I did not suppose it was. Just an aside
on the possible etymology.
Care to comment on any of the references I provided earlier
in this thread on the issues you've snipped?
http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/5403731
http://traprockpeace.org/iraqweapons.html
--
FF