Dixie dumb or just trying to confuse?

Dixie said:
That's fine, if that is your argument, present some evidence to support it. Show me something from the UN or CWC, or any body of experts, who have made this determination, and have classified which chemical weapons are WMD's and which one's aren't. I'm waiting for you to prove your claim here, and if you can't, there isn't much point in continuing the argument.
Click to expand...

you don't need "evidence" to prove a logical truism. If I say that just because some redheads are Irishmen does not mean that all Irishmen are redheads that statement is true and unassailable on its face, It does need evidence to prove that all Irishmen are not redheads.

No one needs to PROVE that a thimblefull of sarin is not a WMD. No one needs to PROVE that a cannister of sarin that has decomposed and degraded to the point where it is no longer capable of causing mass destruction is also not a WMD. Those statements are true on their face. period.
 
However, just like I could go to Dublin and grab the first brunette off the street to prove the former statement, one could, I suppose, take one of those cannisters of decomposed and degraded sarin and explode it over a remote village in western pakistan and see how many residents of the village were "destroyed".... If it were me, I'd rather test that theory by exploding it over the Birmingham, Alabama trailer park where you live. ;)
 
I'm not going to get into this Sarin discussion again. I had enough of this last week. However I do think that I have a new put-down. I have decided that "Dixie Dumb" is about as dumb as you can get!!!!!!
 
Prakosh said:
I'm not going to get into this Sarin discussion again. I had enough of this last week. However I do think that I have a new put-down. I have decided that "Dixie Dumb" is about as dumb as you can get!!!!!!
Click to expand...


Well that's great Prikster, I'm glad you came up with a new name to call me, since that seems to be what you are best at. I am accustomed to being called names here, it happens all the time, because that's what pinheads resort to, when they can't argue their idiocy anymore. It is wise of you to stay on the porch concerning Sarin and WMD's, since you have nothing to support your pinhead view, and I keep posting the facts to make you look like a complete fool. I don't blame you for running away, and turning around to pop off one more insult at me, well, that just shows what a crybaby sissy pants you are. It sure as hell doesn't break my heart.
 
maineman said:
you don't need "evidence" to prove a logical truism. If I say that just because some redheads are Irishmen does not mean that all Irishmen are redheads that statement is true and unassailable on its face, It does need evidence to prove that all Irishmen are not redheads.

No one needs to PROVE that a thimblefull of sarin is not a WMD. No one needs to PROVE that a cannister of sarin that has decomposed and degraded to the point where it is no longer capable of causing mass destruction is also not a WMD. Those statements are true on their face. period.
Click to expand...


Exactly!
 
Dixie said:
Well that's great Prikster, I'm glad you came up with a new name to call me, since that seems to be what you are best at. I am accustomed to being called names here, it happens all the time, because that's what pinheads resort to, when they can't argue their idiocy anymore. It is wise of you to stay on the porch concerning Sarin and WMD's, since you have nothing to support your pinhead view, and I keep posting the facts to make you look like a complete fool. I don't blame you for running away, and turning around to pop off one more insult at me, well, that just shows what a crybaby sissy pants you are. It sure as hell doesn't break my heart.
Click to expand...

Let's see:

Prikster, pinhead (your favorite), complete fool, crybaby, sissy pants. And then you accuse me of name-calling when I didn't call you a name at all, I simply said that I had a new put-down--"Dixie Dumb"!!!!

But I hadn't actually called you or any of your ignorant ideas "Dixie Dumb" at that point. So it does appear that you are jumping the gun a little, here. Sort of like claiming that 20 year-old Sarin, which would not kill you if you drank it, let alone breathed it, is a weapon of mass destruction. Sorry just more weapons of mass desception...but you wouldn't know the difference. Hey someon'e spreading manure over in the Osama field, you better run over there and slurp some of that down...
 
Last edited:
I dont need a cite when I say:

A weapon of massive destruction is a weapon capable of massive destruction.

A weapon not capable if massive destruction is not a wmd!
 
Jarod said:
I dont need a cite when I say:

A weapon of massive destruction is a weapon capable of massive destruction.

A weapon not capable if massive destruction is not a wmd!
Click to expand...

Oh, you can say it all day long. I can say that Sarin is nothing more than Arabic air freshener, it doesn't mean I am correct... but I can say it. According to the CWC and UN, Sarin nerve agent, used in a munition, is a WMD. According to your pinhead ass, it's not. If you have some evidence to support your position, please put it forward, if not, we'll have to let it stand with your opinion vs. the Chemical Weapons Convention and UN.
 
Prakosh said:
Let's see:

Prikster, pinhead (your favorite), complete fool, crybaby, sissy pants. And then you accuse me of name-calling when I didn't call you a name at all, I simply said that I had a new put-down--"Dixie Dumb"!!!!
Click to expand...

This is nothing. He once debated the existence of 1/3 for about 1000 posts or so.
 
Dixie said:
Oh, you can say it all day long. I can say that Sarin is nothing more than Arabic air freshener, it doesn't mean I am correct... but I can say it. According to the CWC and UN, Sarin nerve agent, used in a munition, is a WMD. According to your pinhead ass, it's not. If you have some evidence to support your position, please put it forward, if not, we'll have to let it stand with your opinion vs. the Chemical Weapons Convention and UN.
Click to expand...


Too bad 20 year old Sarin is no longer an active "nerve agent" isn't it????????

A friend, reading over my shoulder just asked me, "Why can't this idiot understand that"??? My only answer was "Willfully ignorant, I guess." Then we both laughed uproariously...
 
Dixie said:
Oh, you can say it all day long. I can say that Sarin is nothing more than Arabic air freshener, it doesn't mean I am correct... but I can say it. According to the CWC and UN, Sarin nerve agent, used in a munition, is a WMD. According to your pinhead ass, it's not. If you have some evidence to support your position, please put it forward, if not, we'll have to let it stand with your opinion vs. the Chemical Weapons Convention and UN.
Click to expand...

STOP LYING, the CWC and the UN do not say that!
 
A drop or two of Sarin ?
A spore or two of Anthrax ?
A small Nuclear Tactical shell ?
How about a few smallpox germs ?

The subject of the this stupid ongoing crap is WMD....get that ?... WMD.....

WMD has a definition....WMD stands for Weapon of Mass Destruction....

So stop already with the strawman, gotcha bullshit....

Do you have to name EVERY chemical that can cause mass destruction as a WMD ... or every germ....no you don't....

Sarin, Anthrax, nuclear bombs, smallpox germs are all WMD if made into a WMD....thats the fuckin' topic...WMD....

Jarod is a buffoon that thinks he can play the 'word game'...the 'defintion' game.....and now is getting some lame help.....
No one claims a drop of Sarin or one spore of Anthrax is a WMD....
but if the topic is WMD, then the distinction has already been made between a drop of anything and something capable of mass distruction....you are talking about WMD and its already defined....something that can cause mass distruction....
 
Prakosh said:
Don't tell me; he was the one claiming there was no such thing.
Click to expand...

LOL :p yeah. He claimed 1/3 is an abstract concept. That thread delivered: There was a word problem a dollar that couldn't be divided some teacher from his youth and the abstract concept of 1/3.
 
bravo said:
A drop or two of Sarin ?
A spore or two of Anthrax ?
A small Nuclear Tactical shell ?
How about a few smallpox germs ?

The subject of the this stupid ongoing crap is WMD....get that ?... WMD.....

WMD has a definition....WMD stands for Weapon of Mass Destruction....

So stop already with the strawman, gotcha bullshit....

Do you have to name EVERY chemical that can cause mass destruction as a WMD ... or every germ....no you don't....

Sarin, Anthrax, nuclear bombs, smallpox germs are all WMD if made into a WMD....thats the fuckin' topic...WMD....

Jarod is a buffoon that thinks he can play the 'word game'...the 'defintion' game.....and now is getting some lame help.....
No one claims a drop of Sarin or one spore of Anthrax is a WMD....
but if the topic is WMD, then the distinction has already been made between a drop of anything and something capable of mass distruction....you are talking about WMD and its already defined....something that can cause mass distruction....
Click to expand...


I agree, and 20 year old degraded munitions not capable of mass destruction are not WMD's, unless you are a silly idiot!
 
And I agree...20 year old degraded weapons that were once capable of mass distruction but no longer have that potential cannot be described a WMD....

but , you once stated that Sarin was not classified as a WMD and that is not right when talking about WMD.....it the topic is WMD, that that defines and narrows the debate....so many chemicals/germs, whatever can be WMD....and don't have to be named one at a time....

but I agree with your inital arguement....old degraded munitions are not presently WMD...but once were....
 
Sarin bombs that are 20 years old, are not capable of their original intent as a WMD, but the CWC defines Sarin bombs as WMD's, and doesn't discriminate based on age, unless you count their definition of an "old munition" ...one which was made prior to 1946. These particular WMD's might not have been capable of mass destruction in the condition they were found, but this doesn't mean they are not considered WMD's.

You see, we have two legitimate arguments floating around here, over what a WMD is... Jarhead's simplistic laymen's definition, a WMD is a weapon capable of mass destruction... and the Chemical Weapons Convention's definition, any Schedule 1 chemical agent, weaponized for the purpose of warfare.

The problem is, Jarhead doesn't want to acknowledge the CWC definition, which is the one that applies to Saddam and the 500 Sarin bombs found in Iraq. I understand his simplistic viewpoint, however, it doesn't apply to sanctions and legality under international treaty, where people smarter than us, determined what constitutes a WMD.

I certainly understand why Pinheads feel the need to move the goal posts, now that the WMD's have been found, they have to argue that they aren't WMD's, and I can see why they are so compelled, but you can't absolve Saddam from responsibility by pinhead logic like this, the CWC established guidelines to cover these simplistic loopholes designed to deny reality.


And Tiana, ONE can't be divided evenly by THREE, sorry!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top