Quote:
Originally Posted by obvious Child  And you falsely portray the weapons as still being of the same quality as when they were first made. |
I consistently present them as being of varying potency. Please try to stop lying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by obvious Child No one is saying that mustard gas isn't harmful. What I am saying is that those we have found have degraded so far that they are hardly a serious threat and that mustard gas due to its very properties requires a large amount of shells to produce the necessary concentration to do damage. |
Repeating falsehoods doesn't make them true. Mustard gas lingers, and continues to poison, blister, and kill over time, and it would not be the least bit difficult to use it to kill thousands. You're talking about the people who coordinated near simultaneous plane crashes into the Pentagon, WTC, and White House, not some boobs with their fingers up their noses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by obvious Child Mustard gas will only linger if there is no wind. |
And lack of wind movement is a condition easily attainable by terrorists detonating mustard gas shells.
Quote:
Originally Posted by obvious Child Hundreds? And you got this where? Last count, it wasn't even over 10 mustard gas shells in total. |
"Portions of a National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) report made public last month revealed that about 500 rocket and artillery shells were found in Iraq since 2003 containing the lethal nerve agent sarin or mustard gas." Investor's Business Daily. July 3, 2006. Downplaying Poison. Pg. A16. Quote:
Originally Posted by obvious Child Great effect? Seriously? Do you know anything about WWI? The Brits lost a mere 8,100 to gas attacks in WWI. That's less then the total losses from an average attack on a small trench! |
Do I know anything about WWI? Seriously? You think using Mustard Gas to prevent troops from entering entire regions isn't using Mustard Gas to great effect? As usual, you're not thinking it through. There's more to think about than casualties alone when determining the effectiveness of a weapon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by obvious Child You do realize you can touch 2.6% LEU without significance risk to yourself?
At that low level, the only real risk is if you placed it next to your gentiles or if you ground it into a powder and inhaled large amounts of it.
As for the 1,000 other, I'll need to see the list. |
The point remains that when used with conventional weapons, this radioactive material would lethally poison people and constitute a dirty bomb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by obvious Child Actually [Saudis fighting al Qaida] is [a new thing]. We got attacked in 2001. |
And I just cited an article about them cracking down on al Qaida in 2003. You claimed they hadn't started fighting al Qaida until recently. That was a lie.
Way to dig the hole deeper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by obvious Child Furthermore, virtually every Saudi action is a reaction to terrorists. There's a reason why the Saudis make the news about cracking down after they see a pipeline hit. |
And the fact that their motive for fighting al Qaida is self-interest is relevant...how?
Quote:
Originally Posted by obvious Child What the hell are you talking about? |
You argued that we should've gone into Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq. If you can't comprehend my plain English response, that's
your problem.
Here it is again if you want to try to figure it out:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquapub And if 15 years of failed diplomacy wasn't enough to justify eliminating Saddam, then how could we possibly have justified invading Saudi Arabia with none? Wouldn't that just be a distraction from Bin Laden and an "oil war" too? ...or could it be that all this relentless undermining of the troops and their mission from go never really had anything at all to do with truth or substance? |
Quote:
Originally Posted by obvious Child Are you always a liar? We shouldn't have even bothered with Iraq in the first place. I never argued that I was for any of that crap. It is not my fault you attend Navy's School of Dishonesty. |
Are you always so slow to grasp when someone is using your "logic" against you? You said we should have gone into Iran or Syria. We hadn't tried diplomacy with them the way we had with Iraq, for 15 years...so like I said, you oppose war with the regime we've exhausted diplomacy with-Saddam's-but think we should attack the ones we've not even bothered to try it on yet...further proof that it really is only Republicans who want to try diplomacy first.
Grasp it now? Having to re-explain the painfully obvious is why so much of your posts get ignored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by obvious Child Obviously fallacy of confusing corrolation with causation. BEAR PATROL! Furthermore, what is stopping them from getting on a plane to Mexico or Canada or the US and attacking us here?
Nothing. |
Yeah, how could us giving bloodthirsty terrorists an easily accessible fight in their own back yard possibly reduce the amount of them flying around the world to risk getting captured trying to get into the US, to then try to meet up with other terrorists and pull off an un-detected terrorist attack in a post-9/11 world? They must have just stopped flying planes into our buildings for the last 7 years out of
boredom, yeah that's it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by obvious Child I'm not stupid... |
Whatever you've got to tell yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by obvious Child Liar. I never argued that. My point was that if we invaded Iraq for terror reasons, we should have invaded the other three as they are far bigger players.
Stop lying. |
Again, this is why your posts get largely ignored. You argued that invading Iraq took resources away from hunting Bin Laden, yet you also argue that we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran...wouldn't those invasions
also take resources from hunting Bin Laden? Like I said, your contradictions are catching up with you. You seem to forget that your own stated position is that anything other than hunting Bin Laden is invalid. And instead of comprehending that you contradicted yourself, you draw more attention to it by hurling insults at me for noticing. Comical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by obvious Child Only the delusional would say that... |
Or someone catching you in one lie/contradiction after another, sure.
Re: New Propaganda for an Old Fraud 
Linear Mode
Main
Extras
