Author Topic: 101st:"We were never ordered to search"  (Read 2028 times)

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
101st:"We were never ordered to search"
« Reply #90 on: October 28, 2004, 05:52:48 PM »
Thats a good one. Blame the soldier. The Neo Cons came up with the force levels.

Offline VOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
101st:"We were never ordered to search"
« Reply #91 on: October 28, 2004, 06:09:45 PM »
LOL ok Pongo, ok. I've wasted enough time with this thread. Some cases are well and truely hopeless.

Ya might take the time to read the whole thread, though.

Offline Elfie

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6142
101st:"We were never ordered to search"
« Reply #92 on: October 28, 2004, 06:25:57 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by 10Bears
Elfie: Proud member of the non-reality based community.

Elfie our 1100 troops were killed by:

A: The Good Ship lollypop
B: Mary Popins
C: munitions looted from the unsecured ammo dumps


You dont know if the munitions killing our troops in roadside bombs were looted from ammo dumps anymore than I do. You are assuming.....

rpm...I'm lame?  :rofl That article specifically states that bolt cutters is all that was necessary to get into the bunkers. If those soldiers had resealed the ammo bunkers are you trying to say that Iraqis dont have access to bolt cutters and therefore couldnt break into the bunkers after we resealed them? I'm not sure why the bunkers werent locked again. Not sure how much good that would have done though if all it took was a pair of bolt cutters to gain access to them in the first place.

I'll tell ya what is truly lame rpm....whats truly lame is your attempts to blame Bush for every single incident that comes along before the whole story even comes out. We dont even have enough facts yet to determine exactly when those explosives disappeared, let alone enough facts to determine who, if anyone is at fault. I will reserve my judgement on who is at fault until we have enough facts to do so.

You otoh jump all over the slightest indication that *someone* must be at fault.

With the sheer numbers of weapons and ammo dumps all over Iraq it most likely will be impossible to tell if the explosives used in road side bombs came from THIS ammo dump. When you also consider weapons/ammo caches that are being found buried in the sand it becomes even more unlikely.
Corkyjr on country jumping:
In the end you should be thankful for those players like us who switch to try and help keep things even because our willingness to do so, helps a more selfish, I want it my way player, get to fly his latewar uber ride.

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
101st:"We were never ordered to search"
« Reply #93 on: October 28, 2004, 06:56:28 PM »

Offline Elfie

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6142
101st:"We were never ordered to search"
« Reply #94 on: October 28, 2004, 07:17:43 PM »
Not yet Nash :)

From a link on the page you linked to.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304

Another Concern


The IAEA documents from January 2003 found no discrepancy in the amount of the more dangerous HMX explosives thought to be stored at Al-Qaqaa, but they do raise another disturbing possibility.


The documents show IAEA inspectors looked at nine bunkers containing more than 194 tons of HMX at the facility. Although these bunkers were still under IAEA seal, the inspectors said the seals may be potentially ineffective because they had ventilation slats on the sides. These slats could be easily removed to remove the materials inside the bunkers without breaking the seals, the inspectors noted.

Again, wait until we have ALL the facts before jumping to conclusions :)
Corkyjr on country jumping:
In the end you should be thankful for those players like us who switch to try and help keep things even because our willingness to do so, helps a more selfish, I want it my way player, get to fly his latewar uber ride.

Offline Murdr

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5608
      • http://479th.jasminemaire.com
101st:"We were never ordered to search"
« Reply #95 on: October 28, 2004, 07:17:56 PM »
Havnt seen this specifically mentioned here but the IEAI January 14, 2003 confidential memo sited by ABC said there was only 3 tons of RDX stored at the facility.  Not 141 tons of RDX that was reported by IEAI in July of 2002.  So game set match my ass.  

The 194 tons of HMX that was also sited in the Jan 14 memo was based on the intact IEAI seals on the bunkers.  Reportedly ventilation slats on the bunkers could have been used to access the HMX without breaking the IEAI seals.  So that tonage was also last visualy confirmed in July 2003.

Offline Murdr

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5608
      • http://479th.jasminemaire.com
101st:"We were never ordered to search"
« Reply #96 on: October 28, 2004, 07:19:09 PM »
dam you elf :lol

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
101st:"We were never ordered to search"
« Reply #97 on: October 28, 2004, 07:20:40 PM »
On to excuse number five! Better luck with this one.

I'll dub this one 'The Pink Panther'.

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17773
101st:"We were never ordered to search"
« Reply #98 on: October 28, 2004, 07:22:07 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Elfie
Fact is, no one yet knows when those explosives disappeared. Fact, moving 360 tons of HE wont go unnoticed in a war zone.

 


Heard today on the news there are two roads leading to that dump and both were being heavily used by our forces.

that would make it pretty difficult to move 360 tons unnoticed

Another point that was made was the amount of organization it would take to accomplish such a feat.
And the insurgents Didn't start becoming organized until mid summer.

And on yet another point there seems to be a new rumor about that  the reports that 360 tons was a gross exaggeration and the amount really missing was more like 3 Tons
Which to me would seem far more likely then 360 tons

Add to that another report I just saw that showed the last time the place was even REALLY  inspected prior to the claims of the missing explosives was in Jan 2003 and the amount of explosives according to its own report  was not 360 Tons but 219 And while these bunkers were sealed there was a disclaimer at the bottom of the document that stated that the seals were not exactly foolproof
As quoted from the actual report of the IAEA
 "Of note was that the sealing on the bunkers was only partially effective because each bunkar had ventilation  shafts on the sides of the buildings. these shafts were not sealed and could provide removal routes for the HMX while leaving the door locked"
IAEA inspection report

There was another brief visit to the site in March 2003 but the explosives were not inspected because the seals were still on the doors

If we are to assume they were still inside the bunkers when the inspectors were last there but only looked at the seals in March and follow the timeline the only time the explosives could have been taken was the time between when the inspectors left in march and the time the first US forces arrived.

the first US forces in the area was elements of the 3rd infantry division who first entered the compound on April 3rd
the 101st occupied the area through the 11th

now the next force  to visit the site was the 75th Exploitation Task force which was there on May 7th, 11th, and 27th which is the day they confirmed the explosives were missing.

Now one could say "AHA! we have a period of a month between April 11th and May 11th when it wasn't guarded"
BUT there are only two roads leading to the facility and both were being heavily used by our forces "at all times"

So if we assume nobody touched the stuff between the Jan ispections (which was the last time the stuff was actually seen) and the march observations that the seals were still in place
the only two times it could have been taken was

 Between March and April 3rd when the 3rd Inf div arrived Which was the only time they could have moved the stuff more or less at will

Orrrr

Between April 11th and May 11th with our troops around and the only two roads leading two the area being chuck full of our supply trucks pretty much 24/7

Now. Which is the more likely scenario?
« Last Edit: October 28, 2004, 07:24:32 PM by DREDIOCK »
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
101st:"We were never ordered to search"
« Reply #99 on: October 28, 2004, 07:31:54 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Now. Which is the more likely scenario?


The likely scenario is that we're talking about it. It has been absolutely dominating the news cycle for three days now.

Because it is the perfect metaphor for the Bush failures. Strikes a cord, so to speak.

The next two days? FBI/Haliburton.

(although the doctored Bush tear jerker pic comes in a close runner-up.)

Good times. :aok

Offline Murdr

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5608
      • http://479th.jasminemaire.com

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17773
101st:"We were never ordered to search"
« Reply #101 on: October 28, 2004, 07:42:35 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
game, set, match.


Hardly

"It remains unclear how much HMX was at the facility,"

according to ABC

what if there was more then 300 tons there and that tape just shows what wasnt taken?

after all we've already destroyed not just hundreds of tons but hundreds of thousands of tons of munitions country wide

that report shows nothing more then some explosives.maybe some was left behind

You too are grasping at straws
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
101st:"We were never ordered to search"
« Reply #102 on: October 28, 2004, 07:44:44 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
what if there was more then 300 tons there and that tape just shows what wasnt taken?


Excuse #6 (er that aint official as of this post but who knows.)

"Okay, explosives were looted, but nobody can say how much."

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17773
101st:"We were never ordered to search"
« Reply #103 on: October 28, 2004, 07:47:06 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Murdr
I did post that story about 2-1/2 hours ago by the way.


LOL so you did.
Wish I had seen it sooner.
coulda saved me a bunch of typing.
actually you probably posted it as I was typing as I as writing that in between doing other stuff IRL
brining son to work, getting daughter from her practice for her school play etc
« Last Edit: October 28, 2004, 08:02:37 PM by DREDIOCK »
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline rpm

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15661
101st:"We were never ordered to search"
« Reply #104 on: October 28, 2004, 07:53:46 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Elfie
rpm...I'm lame?  :rofl That article specifically states that bolt cutters is all that was necessary to get into the bunkers. If those soldiers had resealed the ammo bunkers are you trying to say that Iraqis dont have access to bolt cutters and therefore couldnt break into the bunkers after we resealed them? I'm not sure why the bunkers werent locked again. Not sure how much good that would have done though if all it took was a pair of bolt cutters to gain access to them in the first place.

I'm thinking an armed MP unit would be able to stop a pair of bolt cutters. Unless they are "Super Saddam Infidel-proof", in which case 1 MP and a 9mm would be sufficient.
My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.
Stay thirsty my friends.