Still no answer, same simple question for DIXIE!!!

**Jarod** · 09-13-2006, 08:30 AM

Again, were these munitions you keep calling Weapons of Mass Distruction capable of massive distruction?

**Cypress** · 09-13-2006, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Jarod

Again, were these munitions you keep calling Weapons of Mass Distruction capable of massive distruction?

Standard Dixie answer:

1) They were capable of mass destruction twenty years ago - which means that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction!

2) Al qaeda could take these degraded shells, smuggle them into the U.S., and contaminate the linen department at a WallMart store!

**Jarod** · 09-13-2006, 09:25 AM

Three threads, still no answer....

The only responses thus far are...

1) An attack on my spelling ability.
2) Some delusional hypothetical that I have responded to and debunked.

Whats next... I hope an answer to my question.... Ill ask it again! This time in red, maybe now he can see it!

Again, were these munitions you keep calling Weapons of Mass Distruction capable of massive distruction?

**Dixie - In Memoriam** · 09-13-2006, 09:39 AM

Sorry, I have no need to run around all over the board chasing down your stupidity and responding to it. I have answered your question with a few of my own, and you can't give an intelligent response. That's not my fault.

Let's say that 2% of the 500 degraded Sarin bombs made it into the hands of terrorists... that's 10 bombs... they managed to smuggle them across our open border with Mexico... entirely possible... the 10 bombs are detonated across America... New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, Atlanta, Miami, Denver, Cleveland, Seattle, and Washington D.C., in schools, malls, stadiums, civic centers, day care facilities, etc...

Because of the degraded state of the Sarin, they don't actually kill people, it just makes people sick, and injures a few residual bystanders... Are you going to consider them as harmless as Windex and Ammonia? Will it be like a minor rug burn? Will we all breathe a sigh of relief that we didn't spend the money on a war to insure these WMD's were destroyed?

If you have trouble answering, I fully understand. I know it's a difficult thing to have to ponder, and Al Franken hasn't told you how you should respond, so you take your time with it, and think about whether or not you would blame President Bush, if such a scenario occurred?

**Cypress** · 09-13-2006, 09:49 AM

[i]Because of the degraded state of the Sarin, they don't actually kill people, it just makes people sick, and injures a few residual bystanders...

Good.

So you agree they are NOT weapons of mass destruction

**Jarod** · 09-13-2006, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Dixie

Sorry, I have no need to run around all over the board chasing down your stupidity and responding to it. I have answered your question with a few of my own, and you can't give an intelligent response. That's not my fault.

Let's say that 2% of the 500 degraded Sarin bombs made it into the hands of terrorists... that's 10 bombs... they managed to smuggle them across our open border with Mexico... entirely possible... the 10 bombs are detonated across America... New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, Atlanta, Miami, Denver, Cleveland, Seattle, and Washington D.C., in schools, malls, stadiums, civic centers, day care facilities, etc...

Because of the degraded state of the Sarin, they don't actually kill people, it just makes people sick, and injures a few residual bystanders... Are you going to consider them as harmless as Windex and Ammonia? Will it be like a minor rug burn? Will we all breathe a sigh of relief that we didn't spend the money on a war to insure these WMD's were destroyed?

If you have trouble answering, I fully understand. I know it's a difficult thing to have to ponder, and Al Franken hasn't told you how you should respond, so you take your time with it, and think about whether or not you would blame President Bush, if such a scenario occurred?

I would say that would be a bad thing, but it was not a WMD...! I would also wonder about the sanity of the terrorists who could have accomplished the same result by buying some bleach at the local Walgreens and sprayed that around!

Now are you going to answer my question...

Are these munitions you keep refering to as WMD, capable of Massive Destruction?

**IHateGovernment** · 09-13-2006, 10:00 AM

Spoiled meat can also make it sick. Perhaps upon finding that we can have clear consciences about invading a country. After all they could have shipped it over to NYC and had swarthy street vendors peddling it out to unwitting hungry people.

**Jarod** · 09-13-2006, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by IHateGovernment

Spoiled meat can also make it sick. Perhaps upon finding that we can have clear consciences about invading a country. After all they could have shipped it over to NYC and had swarthy street vendors peddling it out to unwitting hungry people.

Good point, and along the same lines... Eating too many oatmeal cookies can make you sick. If we find some oatmeal cookies we could feel better about invading a sovrin nation.... Some whacky Al Queda member could come give them away to unsuspecting school children and send them all home with a tummy ache!

**IHateGovernment** · 09-13-2006, 10:10 AM

Dixies premise is silly. Those weapons found are less dangerous than conventional ordinance if this was a cache of c4 or napalm or something that is a conventional explosive or incendiary it would be far more dangerous to use against civilians than these spend weapons.

Yet no one would argue that discovery of conventional bombs indicates they are weapons of mass destruction. Its just a lethal weapon. There is a difference.

**Jarod** · 09-13-2006, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by IHateGovernment

Dixies premise is silly. Those weapons found are less dangerous than conventional ordinance if this was a cache of c4 or napalm or something that is a conventional explosive or incendiary it would be far more dangerous to use against civilians than these spend weapons.

Yet no one would argue that discovery of conventional bombs indicates they are weapons of mass destruction. Its just a lethal weapon. There is a difference.

Exactly, I think he is realizing that but wont ever admit it.

The reason I think he is realizing that is his failure to answer the question.

**Dixie - In Memoriam** · 09-13-2006, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Cypress

[i]Because of the degraded state of the Sarin, they don't actually kill people, it just makes people sick, and injures a few residual bystanders...

Good.

So you agree they are NOT weapons of mass destruction

No, I am like Damo, I think "mass destruction" is a subjective term, depending on who you are talking to. I believe that if 10 degraded Sarin bombs went off in American schools and malls, it would be described as "mass destruction" here, perhaps it would be just another day, in Israel.

But it's nice to know that you wouldn't consider such a scenario as being "mass destruction" ...merely a minor inconvenience, having to treat kids for a few weeks in the hospital and such. It's nice to know that the prospects of terrorists using these degraded bombs to terrorize us, would not sway your opinion one bit, you'd still think of them as harmless and unworthy of our concern. Glad we could get that on the record!

**Dixie - In Memoriam** · 09-13-2006, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by IHateGovernment

Dixies premise is silly. Those weapons found are less dangerous than conventional ordinance if this was a cache of c4 or napalm or something that is a conventional explosive or incendiary it would be far more dangerous to use against civilians than these spend weapons.

Yet no one would argue that discovery of conventional bombs indicates they are weapons of mass destruction. Its just a lethal weapon. There is a difference.

Excuse me, but you continue referring to the WMD's as "spent" weapons, and they were not "spent" in any aspect of the word. The same holds true for "depleted", your partners continue to use that word as well, and it doesn't apply. The WMD's were not depleted, and had not been "spent". They were old, they were degraded, they weren't completely harmless.

The WMD label is applied to Sarin bombs by the UN UNSCOM and UNMOVIC experts, not me. If you want to get into word-parsing and all, perhaps you should talk to them, they are the ones who classify this stuff.

**Cypress** · 09-13-2006, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by Dixie

No, I am like Damo, I think "mass destruction" is a subjective term, depending on who you are talking to. I believe that if 10 degraded Sarin bombs went off in American schools and malls, it would be described as "mass destruction" here, perhaps it would be just another day, in Israel.

But it's nice to know that you wouldn't consider such a scenario as being "mass destruction" ...merely a minor inconvenience, having to treat kids for a few weeks in the hospital and such. It's nice to know that the prospects of terrorists using these degraded bombs to terrorize us, would not sway your opinion one bit, you'd still think of them as harmless and unworthy of our concern. Glad we could get that on the record!

You yourself said the degraded sarin wouldn't even kill anyone: just make them sick....that's not a weapon of mass destruction:

DIXIE: Because of the degraded state of the Sarin, they don't actually kill people, it just makes people sick, and injures a few residual bystanders...