Sarin Bomb Explodes in Iraq!!

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,663
83
48
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
johnnyhandsome said:
Mensa status???? Does he belong to Mensa??? You are kidding, right??
That's what he says, and don't discount it after all "everything is relative" is such a hard position to defend.

OTB
 

The Shake

Winner (with a capital W)
Feb 3, 2004
1,846
0
0
Maryland
www.drivenbyboredom.com
The_Jaded_One said:
Come on Shake!! His radical beliefs are born from his Christian upbringing. I am not saying all Christians are like that, am I?

SO what do you think came first, Johnny's neo-con ideology or his Christian beliefs? His Christian superiority complex gives rise to his neo-con ideology and his xenophobia.
There is nothing Christian about his attitudes towards Muslims - or even his sense of superiority.

Christ taught us that we are but humble servants of God. Obviously, you weren't implying that all Christians think like John, but even to suggest that there is causality between a Christian upbringing and such opinions is wrong-headed.

I'm sorry to jump on you, but I'm just tired of this inaccurate stereotype of Christians, particularly those who are devout or Evangelical, as intolerant fascists. A person's political philosophy and worldview evolves from the sum total of their life experiences. To suggest that John is a redneck because of his Christian upbringing is the same as suggesting that a suicide bomber blows up babies because of his Islamic upbringing. In both cases, faith is being perverted and used as an excuse for decidedly un-Christian (or non-Islamic) attitudes.

PS - I think you'd find that Neo-cons are no more religious, and perhaps even less so, than the average North American.
 
The_Jaded_One said:
Do you guys ever think? The Republican administration accused Saddam of having WMD. Why wouldn't Saddam have used them before he was caught? Do you honestly think the Republican administration is above planting WMD evidence, when it makes them look extremely bad for not having found them and that was their flimsy justification for going to war? Yeah, they are above planting WMD but not above torturing Iraqis (copper green ever heard of it?).

Besides they haven't found WMD and how many months has it been? Only an idiot would consider the homemade sarin bomb that went off as a WMD.
That indeed didnt take long. Technically speaking Sarin is a WMD and it doesnt matter if the bomb contained just a little because whomever had the stuff probably has access to more. A lot more I assume.

Also your "Bush planted the Sarin theory" is virtually impossible because to "plant" Sarin in Iraq you need to involve a number of players and if even ONE jumps ship and goes to the media with the story Bush would be impeached or perhaps even put on trial.
 

loaded

New member
Jan 22, 2003
222
0
0
BBC article:

"However, a senior coalition source has told the BBC the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity.

He said the round dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and coalition officials were not sure whether the fighters even knew what it contained."
 

Goober Mcfly

Retired. -ish
Oct 26, 2001
10,124
11
38
NE
IMO this doesn't necessarily mean Saddam had WMD, but it does raise questions of whether he had access to them...

I mean if they can get sarin gas into Iraq under American occupation, why not when they had free reign of travel back then?
 
loaded said:
BBC article:

"However, a senior coalition source has told the BBC the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity.

He said the round dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and coalition officials were not sure whether the fighters even knew what it contained."
This sounds like a strong possibility. Question is though how many more unmarked shells are out there to be unwittingly used against coalition troops???
 

loaded

New member
Jan 22, 2003
222
0
0
johnnyhandsome said:
Smallpox can also leave someone pockmarked for the rest of their life after they have contracted the disease, but from what I hear about your facial appearance, Shake, a few pockmarks will just be a another drop in the bucket. ;)
And I use the term 'Facial Appearance' loosely.
you are one naive, self-conceited, arrogant individual
 

The_Jaded_One

sick of it all
johnnyhandsome said:
That indeed didnt take long. Technically speaking Sarin is a WMD and it doesnt matter if the bomb contained just a little because whomever had the stuff probably has access to more. A lot more I assume.
That's not a reasonable assertion. That's like saying if I sell you a key of coke I probably have access to a hundred thousand kilos of it. Not likely (logistics and command control don't work like that).

johnnyhandsome said:
Also your "Bush planted the Sarin theory" is virtually impossible because to "plant" Sarin in Iraq you need to involve a number of players and if even ONE jumps ship and goes to the media with the story Bush would be impeached or perhaps even put on trial. [/B]
I didn't say that. What I said is that if the USA finds WMD (I mean not a little homemade sarin bomb) then the possibility of a plant is quite possible especially when factoring in motivation.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,663
83
48
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Goober Mcfly said:
....

I mean if they can get sarin gas into Iraq under American occupation, why not when they had free reign of travel back then?
Have you been attending the Papasmerf English classes again?

OTB
 
Actually this entire thread is futile because I have a feeling that the Iraqi's didnt know the shell contained Sarin. I guess the next few weeks will tells us if they have more of this stuff.

Also, Shake, my comments on your looks werent very nice so I kinda apologize. I dont know what you look like and I was just trying to get under your skin
 

The_Jaded_One

sick of it all
The Shake said:
There is nothing Christian about his attitudes towards Muslims - or even his sense of superiority.

Christ taught us that we are but humble servants of God. Obviously, you weren't implying that all Christians think like John, but even to suggest that there is causality between a Christian upbringing and such opinions is wrong-headed.

<snip>

PS - I think you'd find that Neo-cons are no more religious, and perhaps even less so, than the average North American.
The fact is that religion can easily be used as a divisive manipulation tool to focus hate and dumb down the masses. All religion is contradictory to some degree and you can practically take any message out of religious texts that you want to and that suits your purposes (so it does in fact get perverted often enough from what the "ideal" message should be - i.e. love and tolerance). George Bush's initial rallying cry after 9/11 was "Operation Infinite Justice" and he referred to the mission as a crusade. As to your PS statement, perhaps it could be said that Neo-con politicians are no more religious than the average North American but they rely on a pretty big religious following for support and hence set their policies to appeal to them.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,663
83
48
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
The_Jaded_One said:
The fact is that religion can easily be used as a divisive manipulation tool to focus hate and dumb down the masses. ......
I think we are seeing quite a bit of this in the Middle East these days.

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,663
83
48
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
bbking said:
I don't think anybody questions the fact that Saddam had WMD, the question was if he destroyed them as he said he did to the UN. This shell is helpful to those of us who think that he had more than a few on hand.
As much of a supporter of this war as I am, one shell does not make a WMD threat. I don't think it addresses the justified concerns of, did this war need to be fought and did it need to be fought now.

OTB
 

The Shake

Winner (with a capital W)
Feb 3, 2004
1,846
0
0
Maryland
www.drivenbyboredom.com
johnnyhandsome said:
Also, Shake, my comments on your looks werent very nice so I kinda apologize. I dont know what you look like and I was just trying to get under your skin
Johnny - No need to kinda apologize, they made me chuckle. I thought it was a fairly clever way to tie an insult to the whole germ warfare theme.
 

train

New member
Jul 29, 2002
6,991
0
0
Above 7
The_Jaded_One said:
The fact is that religion can easily be used as a divisive manipulation tool to focus hate and dumb down the masses. All religion is contradictory to some degree and you can practically take any message out of religious texts that you want to and that suits your purposes (so it does in fact get perverted often enough from what the "ideal" message should be - i.e. love and tolerance). .............. he referred to the mission as a crusade.
I have to agree ............but that holds true for muslim or christian ......jihad (sp?) or crusade .

You must also recognize that the muslim side of this conflict has the outward appearance of considerably more misguided religious fervour at the present moment . How else does one explain suicide missions etc ?
 

The Shake

Winner (with a capital W)
Feb 3, 2004
1,846
0
0
Maryland
www.drivenbyboredom.com
The_Jaded_One said:
The fact is that religion can easily be used as a divisive manipulation tool to focus hate and dumb down the masses.
Sounds like television... ;)

As to your PS statement, perhaps it could be said that Neo-con politicians are no more religious than the average North American but they rely on a pretty big religious following for support and hence set their policies to appeal to them.
I'm not so sure about that. In Canada, the relationship between neo-cons and social conservatives could best be described as a tenuous marriage of convenience. For example, many religious conservatives were appalled by the basically amoral politics practiced by the Mike Harris government in Ontario.

Slate published an interesting article last year debunking some perceptions about religious practice and voting habits (http://slate.msn.com/id/2089641/). Some notable comments:

1) In 2000, at least 10 million white "evangelical Christians" voted for Gore.

2) John Green, a professor at the University of Akron and the foremost scholar of evangelical voting behavior, spliced and diced data some time ago and managed to delineate a group of moderate evangelicals. I like to call them "freestyle evangelicals" because they are socially more liberal (they don't vote strictly for pro-life candidates, for example) and politically "in play." There are about 8 million to 10 million of them. This group went for Bill Clinton 55 percent to 45 percent over Dole in 1996* and 55 percent to 45 percent for W. over Gore in 2000. That's a swing of about a million votes.

3) Turnout among the members of the "religious right" (that's the goofy way pollsters make people self-identify) was 56 percent, says Green, only slightly higher than the national average—and actually lower than that of devout Catholics, mainline Protestants, and Jews. The "religious right" gets a lot of attention because a) to liberals, they are verrrrrrry scarrrrrry and b) their turnout has been on the rise in the past few decades.


Food for thought.
 
onthebottom said:
did this war need to be fought and did it need to be fought now.

OTB
Damned if you do and damned if you don't. If Bush hadnt gone into Iraq and Saddam had harboured Al-queda or some other terrorist group, there could have been some type of proliferation of a WMD like Anthrax or Ebola. Had Saddam used this on a mass-scale in a large city like New York everybody would have screamed: "Why didnt Bush go into Iraq to stop this threat"??

Then you would have gotten congressional hearings like they have about 9/11 right now...etc...etc.

There's a strong possibility that Bush may have saved a lot lof lives by stamping out Al Queda or at least attempting to stamp them out.
 

TravellingGuy

Member
May 22, 2002
580
0
16
52
Around the World
johnnyhandsome said:
possibility that Bush may have saved a lot lof lives by stamping out Al Queda or at least attempting to stamp them out.
And theres a strong possibility that the war in Iraq (which again has no direct connection to Al-qaeda, unless you are still using the good intelligence information that Bush used to justify this war) may end even more lives, may promote even more terrorism, etc.
 

loaded

New member
Jan 22, 2003
222
0
0
johnnyhandsome said:
Damned if you do and damned if you don't. If Bush hadnt gone into Iraq and Saddam had harboured Al-queda or some other terrorist group, there could have been some type of proliferation of a WMD like Anthrax or Ebola. Had Saddam used this on a mass-scale in a large city like New York everybody would have screamed: "Why didnt Bush go into Iraq to stop this threat"??

Then you would have gotten congressional hearings like they have about 9/11 right now...etc...etc.

There's a strong possibility that Bush may have saved a lot lof lives by stamping out Al Queda or at least attempting to stamp them out.
OBL and his followers were trained and financed by 2 governments: USA and Saudi Arabia, you should know the monster you create.....there was a threat and you failed to recognize it

Saddam Hussein had no relationships with OBL, the only terorists that existed existed in the American Protected Areas.....there isn't/wasn't any threat from Iraq yet you recognize the weakness of that country and the potential payoff in oil revenues.......
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts