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

Cypress said:
Use your brain dixie:

If al qaeda wanted to do a chemical attack on america, it'd be easier and more effective for them to build a nitrate fertilezer bomb out of legal materials, than to go get a 20-year old degraded chemical shell from iraq.
Click to expand...


Several things here... To build a nitrate fertilizer bomb, they would have to buy the stuff, like Tim McVeigh did, and that would leave a trail. They would also have to hire a bomb maker, to make the bomb, as opposed to having a device already made and filled with degraded Sarin. Secondly, a nitrate fertilizer bomb, while it would kill people and cause alarm, would not require community evacuations or the CDC having to monitor the air for remaining remnants of Sarin nerve agent, thus the "terror" created, would be less.
 
Okay but answer the question...

Are the degraded munitions you keep calling WMD's capable of causing massive destruction?
 
Its a simple question, only a pinhead could would turn this into some complicated mess citing what some professor here says or does...

Its basic english.... something a third grader can understand. Now I am not some fancy Harvard Ph.D or something, but I want to know...

Are these munitions you keep calling Weapons of Massive Destruction capable of causing massive destruction? Thats all... yes or no?
 
Jarod said:
Your arguments are soo silly...

The point is these WMD's are not capable of massive destruction... right?
Click to expand...


No.... what's silly is....

Arguing that WMD's don't exit, that we knew existed.
Arguing that Saddam told the truth about destroying the WMD's.
Arguing that Bill Clinton's handful of cruise missiles eliminated all of Saddam's WMD's.
Arguing that 2 tons of fissile nuclear materials were not WMD's.
Arguing that we have found no WMD's, when we have.
Arguing that we found no WMD's because "they aren't the ones we were looking for."
Arguing that they were "spent" and "depleted" when they were not.
Arguing that it was not worth the effort to keep them out of terrorist hands.
Arguing that they are as harmless as a carpet burn.
Arguing that degraded Sarin is like Windex and Ammonia.
Arguing that degraded Sarin is harmless to humans.
Arguing that the war was based on WMD's alone.

Shall I go on?

The point is, your side has made ridiculous and silly arguments from Day One, and shows no signs of letting up... Who brought down the WTC towers? Bush or Cheney? How can two national presidential elections be rigged, yet the latest CNN poll is guaranteed accurate? Answer that one! Silly, my ass! You people wrote the fucking book on SILLY!
 
Dixie said:
No.... what's silly is....

Arguing that WMD's don't exit, that we knew existed.
Arguing that Saddam told the truth about destroying the WMD's.
Arguing that Bill Clinton's handful of cruise missiles eliminated all of Saddam's WMD's.
Arguing that 2 tons of fissile nuclear materials were not WMD's.
Arguing that we have found no WMD's, when we have.
Arguing that we found no WMD's because "they aren't the ones we were looking for."
Arguing that they were "spent" and "depleted" when they were not.
Arguing that it was not worth the effort to keep them out of terrorist hands.
Arguing that they are as harmless as a carpet burn.
Arguing that degraded Sarin is like Windex and Ammonia.
Arguing that degraded Sarin is harmless to humans.
Arguing that the war was based on WMD's alone.

Shall I go on?

The point is, your side has made ridiculous and silly arguments from Day One, and shows no signs of letting up... Who brought down the WTC towers? Bush or Cheney? How can two national presidential elections be rigged, yet the latest CNN poll is guaranteed accurate? Answer that one! Silly, my ass! You people wrote the fucking book on SILLY!
Click to expand...



ALL of your above statements are baseless... Most of them were never said by anyone.

Will you answer the question?:confused:
 
Jarod said:
ALL of your above statements are baseless... Most of them were never said by anyone.

Will you answer the question?:confused:
Click to expand...

he just said it.... how are they baseless ?


if that is baseless, you argument over what can be considered a WMD is also baseless... like you said you could cause mass distruction with a school bus.

you argument is like saing tnt isnt capable of disstruction because its old
 
bob said:
he just said it.... how are they baseless ?


if that is baseless, you argument over what can be considered a WMD is also baseless... like you said you could cause mass distruction with a school bus.

you argument is like saing tnt isnt capable of disstruction because its old
Click to expand...

Its baseless because he has provided no basis for it!

I dont belive you can cause mass distruction with a school bus... you can harm and kill people... but not on the scale people are talking about when they talk about wmd's!
 
Jarod said:
Okay but answer the question...

Are the degraded munitions you keep calling WMD's capable of causing massive destruction?
Click to expand...


Dateline: 2007

Al Gore is in his second term as president, and because of his Pinhead foreign policy, nothing was done about Saddam, and alQaeda stole 10 degraded Sarin bombs from a warehouse in Mosul, smuggled them into the country through Mexico, and planted them in schools and malls across the country.... they explode! All over the news, reports come in... Boston, a mall was bombed, neighborhoods evacuated, hundreds are injured... Dallas, a middle school was bombed, hundreds of kids are being treated for respiratory disorders and the CDC reports high levels of Sarin in the air.... Washington D.C., the Capitol was evacuated and three Senators were admitted to the hospital with breathing difficulty... San Francisco, an IED exploded in a parking garage of a federal building, hundreds are in the hospital being treated at this time... Atlanta, a bomb exploded in the Georgia Dome during a Falcons game, creating meyhem in the streets of the city... You get the drift... this goes on all day and into the night, report after report of a degraded Sarin bomb going off somewhere, people evacuated from the area, CDC monitoring the air quality to see if it's safe yet.

Would you consider it "mass destruction" or not? Yes or No????
 
Jarod said:
Its baseless because he has provided no basis for it!

I dont belive you can cause mass distruction with a school bus... you can harm and kill people... but not on the scale people are talking about when they talk about wmd's!
Click to expand...

so please discribe what exactly a WMD is
 
bob said:
so please discribe what exactly a WMD is
Click to expand...

would a nuke going off and the only thing it distroyed was one human life, is it still a wmd ?

how many people have to die before the wepon used is concidered a wmd ?
 
bob said:
would a nuke going off and the only thing it distroyed was one human life, is it still a wmd ?

how many people have to die before the wepon used is concidered a wmd ?
Click to expand...



Its a matter of how much potential destruction the weapon has... not how much damage it caused when detonated in some barron place...

you are smarter than that!
 
How and why is the depleted uranium used in the bunker buster bombs used widely in the Iraq war considered less toxic than depleted sarin???
 
Its a matter of how much potential destruction the weapon has... not how much damage it caused when detonated in some barron place...

No, this is not so. Check with the UN and UNSCOM, I believe when they destroy WMD's in a clandestine location, even when they are old and degraded, they are still called WMD's. I don't think what they are, or their intended purpose ever changes, although they do start to degrade as soon as they are made, and over time, can be less effective. The people who handle these bombs, consider them WMD's, and take many precautions with their disposal.
 
Jarod said:
Its a matter of how much potential destruction the weapon has... not how much damage it caused when detonated in some barron place...

you are smarter than that!
Click to expand...

you could distroy alot of shit with fire arms, you could distroy alot of shit with a bus.


wepons are mostly made for destruction, measuring potential destruction would be a hard thing too do...

how much potential destruction dose a ak-47 have.. or a RPG, or a tank, how about a cluster bomb, ...hell how about forced starvation ?are these WMDs ?
 
Prakosh said:
How and why is the depleted uranium used in the bunker buster bombs used widely in the Iraq war considered less toxic than depleted sarin???
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as "depleted" Sarin. Uranium becomes "depleted" when it is used to make nuclear materials, and is still toxic and radioactive. For something to be "depleted" it has to be used, emptied, consumed... Sarin degrades, it loses potency, it's not "depleted."
 
Again, were these degraded munitions you keep calling Weapons of Mass Distruction capable of massive distruction?
 
Again, were these degraded munitions you keep calling Weapons of Mass Distruction capable of massive distruction?

sure they are
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top