Dixie ignoring my illistrative analogy!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Is this some sort of pinhead debate style? You do realize, people can read what I posted, and they can Google the Chemical Weapons Convention to confirm what I said, right? So, was this some sort of attempt to convince idiots who don't bother reading the thread? Are you trying to sway those too lazy to Google what I stated? Hey, I guess, whatever works for you, huh? Desperately trying to salvage a couple of idiot supporters is probably a good idea for you at this point. I'm sure Prissy or Notabitwize will chime in any minute now, to give you accolades and support for your brilliance. Meanwhile, those who have been following the debate, realize I have owned you five threads ago on this.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Dixie, do WMD have to be capable of mass destruction?
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Dixie, Maine asks if a thimble full of sarin make a WMD? lol
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
If it says what you claim it says, you would post it here wouldent you?
I've posted it in two threads already, and I've given the source in all your ignorant threads, you are free to look it up and prove me wrong, if you like, I have no need to continue posting the same thing over and over, like you.
To answer the other moron question, no amount of Sarin is a WMD. To be considered a WMD, the Sarin must be weaponized, until then, it's simply a component of a WMD, which was still illegal for Saddam and Iraq to have in any amount.
What you have posted in other threads does not comfirm the definations you have made up... No matter how many times you say it!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Yes it does, and most every nation on Earth agrees with it. In fact, you are about the only brain-dead moron on Earth, who doesn't believe Sarin bombs are WMD's.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
Jaridiot thinks YOU made up the definitions, not the CWC.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Oh, he won't even acknowledge the CWC as being associated with the UN! Even though, the UN called for the Convention to address specifics of WMD's not outlined clearly in the Geneva Conventions. Not only that, but the UN specifically reinforced full committment to the CWC in UN678, and Jarhead didn't understand the rather clear legal-eze. Amazing for someone who claims to be a lawyer, isn't it?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
WMD's are still chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, so I am still right and you are still wrong. I'll bet you in 50 years, you can dig this thread back up again, and you will still be wrong.
Its just not true, not all chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are WMD.
You say so many different things I cant keep em stright...
WE did or did not find wmd in Iraq?
DIXIE... "There was no LIE told, we may or MAY NOT have had faulty intelligence, there are MANY explanations for why WMD's weren't found in Iraq TWO FUCKING YEARS after our CIA said they were there. In fact, most people who are knowledgeable about this, believe they went to Syria."
WE did or did not find wmd in Iraq?
DIXIE... "There was no LIE told, we may or MAY NOT have had faulty intelligence, there are MANY explanations for why WMD's weren't found in Iraq TWO FUCKING YEARS after our CIA said they were there. In fact, most people who are knowledgeable about this, believe they went to Syria."
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Yes, it is true. Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are all designed and intended to produce mass destruction, either in the form of destroying human life or property. To argue otherwise, is sheer idiocy.