WMD's found in Iraq

[Toad]

it's

[Toad]

all for a good cause, I'll help!

[Ping]

hehehehe

[Twist]

So close to 500...what the hell....in

[yowser]

To sum up, independent sources (Danish) stated initial tests showed the shells contained a blistering agent.  It was also stated in the same news report the results of more extensive tests should be available in about two days.

Of course the more zealous folks on this BBS just could not contain their excitement and started screaming "They ARE chemical weapons" from the rooftops.

9 days later the results of the more extensive tests were released.  No chemicals.

Oops.  Never mind.


yowser

P.S.  If you want to determine for yourself what was in the news report in question, see:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3386357.stm

[Toad]

We'll probably make 500!


Or, you could say that on Sunday, 11 January, 2004, 18:39 GMT  the illustrious BBC said that this was proof of WMD. You know, the "which have provided the only post-war proof that Iraq possessed banned weapons."

Did you write the BBC and reprimand them too? Clearly they should not have made such a definitive statement based on initial tests! Such irresponsible headlines and lead ins!

Get 'em Yowser! Get 'em!




Oh, BTW...... I posted that BBC link a long time ago. Along with the follow-on report.

[yowser]

Here is the BBC news report from Sunday, 11 January, 2004, 18:39 GMT  that Toad refers to above.  Read it for yourself and decide:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3387607.stm


I think that you'll notice that like most people with an agenda that only read what they want to read, Toad only focuses on a part of the story and conveniently ignores the rest of the story that doesn't fit.  Such as:

"...The shells were uncovered on Friday and initial tests showed they contained blister agent, a chemical weapon."

"...Coalition experts are currently examining the 120mm mortar rounds to see if the initial tests are borne out.  Results of more extensive tests should be available in about two days, the Danes said on an official website quoted by the Reuters news agency."

Any objective person reading this news story would deduce that initial tests provide "post-war proof that Iraq possessed banned weapons".  They would then await the results of more extensive testing.  A person who was not objective would ignore the fact that thus far everything was based on initial tests and could change after more extensive testing.

Again, decide for yourself what the story says.  I have much more faith in your honesty and reading comprehension then Toad's.


yowser

[Toad]

Originally posted by yowser

Any objective person reading this news story would deduce that initial tests provide "post-war proof that Iraq possessed banned weapons".[/quote

I think that's pretty much what went on in this thread. The initial tests generated the initial comments. Go figure. Later tests initiated later comments.

 

Originally posted by yowser

They would then await the results of more extensive testing.  
yowser

Which is exactly what happened in this thread.

It all turned out to be much ado about nothing. Which makes it a real consistent thread, considering your contributions.

Toad:

"I don't personally consider this "stash" of mustard gas to be WMD "enough" to trigger an invasion....If he proves wrong, I'll be voting for someone else, contributing to someone else and trying to sway votes for someone else.

Yes-sir-eee! There's an overzealous, total Bush supporter that just couldn't contain his screaming excitment poster.

Thanks, yowser! Keep it going, bud!

[Ping]

Originally posted by Toad
Yes-sir-eee! There's an overzealous, total Bush supporter that just couldn't contain his screaming excitment poster.
[/B]

AH HA....you admitted it!

[yowser]

“...They ARE chemical weapons”


When quoting earlier posts, Toad keeps ignoring, skipping and leaving out this most important line for some reason.  Important, since my only disagreement with him is that he jumped the gun and said “They ARE chemical weapons” when it was not known.  From his last post for example:


Toad: "I don't personally consider this "stash" of mustard gas to be WMD "enough" to trigger an invasion....If he proves wrong, I'll be voting for someone else, contributing to someone else and trying to sway votes for someone else."


It should appear right after "trigger an invasion...".  Check every quote from him in this thread and you’ll see it’s conveniently left out each time.  He quotes everything else but this line.  

Anyways, for your benefit, the post in it’s entirety, including the edited out “They ARE chemical weapons”:


TOAD: And the time is not all that far off, now that Saddam is in hand. I don't personally consider this "stash" of mustard gas to be WMD "enough" to trigger an invasion. OTOH..... and some of you dance around this..... they ARE chemical weapons. Now I haven't checked all the various UN pronouncements to see if they were on the "banned list" for Iraq.

The search isn't over yet. Hold the bile on both sides; give it another few months.

If Bush proves right about WMD, I'll probably vote for him.

If he proves wrong, I'll be voting for someone else, contributing to someone else and trying to sway votes for someone else.

After all, you can't go vigilante on a President, even if he deserves it. But you can kick him out.".




Yowser

[lord dolf vader]

its "on" toad


the bag of putred puss calling it self toad said. in a silly effort to discredit a guy who was there. after being calling on a stupid lie to aggrandize himself. about an incident that is supposed to be classified (confidential at best) read the part about clearances he schooled me about (in his own mind it never happened) im so steamed just like last time when he addmited he would have to get with his remote control airplain buddies and check they are giving out good ( above top secret ?) info to buddies in the club.


toad said ina moment of delerium.

"No, I didn't. Simply because you, who was sitting in the CIC of the USS Virginia, are just wrong.

Remember how you thought "Top Secret" was the highest classification? Did you figure that one out yet? As I recall, I enumerated just a few of the higher classifications for you to research. Or do you still congratulate yourself that you were right about that too?

"I don't know much about what went on in the CIC of the Navy's USS Virginia.

But I know a whole lot about what went on aboard the RC-135s on station and the AWACS with which they were co-ordinating.

And, again, you are simply wrong. Like I said, someday when the truth is finally unclassified, you'll find out USAF fighters were in position to down the Iraqis long before the Saudis.

But, from what you've posted, you vehemently believe in a lot of erroneous stuff. Passion clearly substitutes for judgement. One more thing like that isn't going to be much of a burden for you. Not my job to convince you anyway.

Have a very nice day."


are you are on crack? this is a halucination i am acctualy flabergasted at your blatant lie about this. tell me more about your sniper days mr black opps. "ohh yea tell me about the clearance of ****in tanker pilots smart guy you have waited to distance yourself and now you are just plain lying.

you are a lying buffoon hows the shoe fit walter middy.

[Toad]

Well yes indeed I said that Yowser. Anyone who's read the thread up through page two knows that. I haven't denied it.

Based upon what the source you continually reference (the BBC) said.

So it goes like this:

The world news media says the rounds are "banned chemical weapons" after initial testing. Then it comes up in this thread and I said "they are chemical weapons" and I based that on initial media reports.

Now I posted that "they are chemical weapons" in one post on page 2 of the multipage thread. I think my next post is around page 4 where Scholz and I started discussing UN resolutions and Charters again.

So you go ahead an keep trying to paint this as me being overzealous, unable to contain my excitement and screaming "They ARE chemical weapons" from the rooftops.

It's such a disconnect from the reality of the whole post, especially when an intelligent reader considers that I said it sure wasn't a big enough deal to justify an invasion, that it's making you look...... well, you figure it out.

I love it when folks do it to themselves.    

This apparently has your panties in quite a tight wad, though. So for that alone and for the self-portrait you've painted, I'm glad I posted it.


Go 500!

[Toad]

LDV, so now as well as not knowing that Top Secret isn't the highest classification you also don't know the difference between an RC-135 and a KC-135?

OK. No point in discussing anything with you in that case.

Have a nice day!

[lord dolf vader]

you are trying to quibble.

and a non sequitor will not help either.

pleas produce this straw man argument attack post about me and top secret as well.


thanks liar.

[Toad]

Quibble? Is that your new word for the week from Reader's Digest?

If you don't recall the discussion we had about that shootdown, I do. I'm sure there are some old timers around here that do as well. You do remember that thread don't you? Back when you used the name "towd" on the BBS?

Yeah, you kept telling me you had a "Top Secret" clearance, the highest clearance there was. That really made me laugh. TS wouldn't even get you through the front vault gate in my squadron. And there were three gates.

LDV: clearance of ****in tanker pilots "

If you think RC-135's are "tankers", you're totally clueless; there's nothing to discuss.