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

By definition, WMD must be capable of 'mass destruction'.

If sarin is used in sufficient quantities, it will cause mass destruction.

But then, if handguns are used in sufficient numbers they cause mass destruction.

Slingshots, used in sufficient numbers, cause mass destruction....

The term WMD is just for rhetorical use, to move the herd in a direction you require.....
 
Correction - the use of the term WMD in relation to Iraq is a rhetorical tool.

A term WMD can only apply to a singular weapon that can cause mass destruction. A nuclear weapon is a singular weapon that can cause mass destruction. A sarin shell isn't.
 
Arnold, are you a weapons expert? Because every one I have heard, classify Sarin bombs as a WMD. The people who are destroying these WMD's in Iraq, are following U.S. Military procedures for handling WMD's, so they think they are WMD's as well. Before the war, when the case was being made for war, and it was articulated by Colin Powell, that Saddam had WMD's, Sarin bombs were listed as part of the arsenal, and all of the UN agreed these were WMD's. When UN inspectors combed Iraq, they were following guidelines set by UNMOVIC and UNSCOM, which indicated Sarin as a WMD.

To try and win an argument now, based on your opinion that Sarin bombs are not WMD's, is patently foolish. When you present some tangible evidence that Sarin was not a WMD, I will be willing to listen to what you have to say, right now, you are desperately avoiding reality, and looking rather stupid doing it.
 
Jarod said:
You say these munitions would cause massive destruction because you MADE UP a hypothetical where some people were put in the hospital...

But look at what the experts say, they would not put anyone in the hospital... They are no more dangerous than rubbing your skin aginst a rug!

I can see why you support Bush if you are so delusional as to think these degraded munitions merely capable of causing a rug burn are WMD!
Click to expand...


I've not heard anyone compare Sarin to a rug burn, except your ignorant ass.

Link please?

Yes, I made up a hypothetical, one that is very possible, and could have happened. That's what hypotheticals are, things people make up, that could happen. Your problem is, my hypothetical exposes you for the idiot you are, so you are going to attack the hypothetical and insist Sarin bombs are not WMD's. No fucking wonder people won't vote for your party, you don't even know what a WMD is!

Again...
The UN considered them WMD's.
Hans Blix considers them WMD's.
The Kurds consider them WMD's.
The Suni's and Shiia consider them WMD's.
The US Military considers them WMD's.
The people destroying them, consider them WMD's.
The people who said they weren't in Iraq, considered them WMD's.
The people who said they were in Iraq, consider them WMD's.
John Kerry and France, consider Sarin bombs as WMD's.


You and Arnold are about the only two morons I've heard, who don't consider them WMD's. I wonder if this is a classic case of denial, or just a pathetic and lame attempt to spin? Surely you wouldn't be trying to seriously make this point, it must be denial, or you have to be the two most ignorant people on the planet, regarding what IS and ISN'T a WMD.
 
Arnold, are you a weapons expert? Because every one I have heard, classify Sarin bombs as a WMD.

Then they are wrong. Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Explain how a shell containing sarin can cause mass desctruction....
 
When I recieved my training on such weapons, before these days of BS rhetoric, they were known as NBC weapons, Nuclear, Biological & Chemical weapons.

Today, the world is full of sophism and terms like WMD are bandied about.

If you think a sarin shell is a weapon of mass destruction, Dixie, explain how it can cause mass destruction?
 
Dixie said:
Arnold, are you a weapons expert? Because every one I have heard, classify Sarin bombs as a WMD. The people who are destroying these WMD's in Iraq, are following U.S. Military procedures for handling WMD's, so they think they are WMD's as well. Before the war, when the case was being made for war, and it was articulated by Colin Powell, that Saddam had WMD's, Sarin bombs were listed as part of the arsenal, and all of the UN agreed these were WMD's. When UN inspectors combed Iraq, they were following guidelines set by UNMOVIC and UNSCOM, which indicated Sarin as a WMD.

To try and win an argument now, based on your opinion that Sarin bombs are not WMD's, is patently foolish. When you present some tangible evidence that Sarin was not a WMD, I will be willing to listen to what you have to say, right now, you are desperately avoiding reality, and looking rather stupid doing it.
Click to expand...



Dixie... you keep trying to use misleading rhetoric. A Sarin bomb is a type of WMD, a degraded munition that once contained Serin but was then buried under the Iraq dessart and forgotten for 10 years is not any more a WMD than a bottle of bleach. You are the one desperately avoiding reality and looking idiotic doing it!
 
Dixie said:
I've not heard anyone compare Sarin to a rug burn, except your ignorant ass.

Link please?

Yes, I made up a hypothetical, one that is very possible, and could have happened. That's what hypotheticals are, things people make up, that could happen. Your problem is, my hypothetical exposes you for the idiot you are, so you are going to attack the hypothetical and insist Sarin bombs are not WMD's. No fucking wonder people won't vote for your party, you don't even know what a WMD is!

Again...
The UN considered them WMD's.
Hans Blix considers them WMD's.
The Kurds consider them WMD's.
The Suni's and Shiia consider them WMD's.
The US Military considers them WMD's.
The people destroying them, consider them WMD's.
The people who said they weren't in Iraq, considered them WMD's.
The people who said they were in Iraq, consider them WMD's.
John Kerry and France, consider Sarin bombs as WMD's.


You and Arnold are about the only two morons I've heard, who don't consider them WMD's. I wonder if this is a classic case of denial, or just a pathetic and lame attempt to spin? Surely you wouldn't be trying to seriously make this point, it must be denial, or you have to be the two most ignorant people on the planet, regarding what IS and ISN'T a WMD.
Click to expand...


Again you are confusing Serin Gas with these 10 year old munitions that once may have had serin gas in them. Clearly George W. Bush does not consider them WMD!
 
Because Dixie made up a hypothetical that resulted in people going to the hospital... that makes 20 year old buried degraded munitions WMD's, no matter what Gerorge W. Bush says!
 
-DIXIE: “Because of the degraded state of the Sarin, they don't actually kill people, it just makes people sick, and injures a few residual bystanders…” (jpp.com, September 14)


-U.S. Government Definition of WMD: “Weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. Weapons of mass destruction can be high explosives or nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons…”*


*U.S. Department of Defense – “Dictionary of Military Terms” page 575


http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf
 
ROTFLMAO......

Okay so now the Department of Defense and George W. Bush disagree with Dixie's calling these degraded 20 year old burried munitions WMD!
 
To be a WMD, by definition the weapon must be capable of creating mass destruction.

Anyone wishing to deem a weapon a WMD must demonstrate that it is capable.
 
Jarod said:
ROTFLMAO......

Okay so now the Department of Defense and George W. Bush disagree with Dixie's calling these degraded 20 year old burried munitions WMD!
Click to expand...

...and Bush's own Chief WMD inpsector disagrees with Dixie.

Charles Duelfer says the 20-year old, abandoned chemical shells are NOT wmd, and are at worst, a local public health hazard.
 
what if they were dumped in a major city's water supply ? would that be considered mass disstruction, or would it be easily filltered, or become harmless ?
 
bob said:
what if they were dumped in a major city's water supply ? would that be considered mass disstruction, or would it be easily filltered, or become harmless ?
Click to expand...


1) its a gas.

2) I think in its liquid form it would so diluted it would have 0 effect.
 
bob said:
what if they were dumped in a major city's water supply ? would that be considered mass disstruction, or would it be easily filltered, or become harmless ?
Click to expand...

No.

Terrorists who did that would be idiots. Mixing sarin with water, renders the sarin inert. It wouldn't be toxic anymore:

"...the deadly nerve gas, Sarin, owes its toxicity to fluorine...Sarin, like flusilizole, depends on fluorine for its toxic action. It is made up of 46.15% carbon, 8.85% hydrogen, 17.56% oxygen, 17.00% phosphorus, and 10.43% fluorine. Water alone removes the fluorine atom producing a non-toxic acid." *

*http://www.sonic.net/kryptox/history/hodge2.htm
 
Dixie said:
No, I am like Damo, I think "mass destruction" is a subjective term, depending on who you are talking to. I believe that if 10 degraded Sarin bombs went off in American schools and malls, it would be described as "mass destruction" here, perhaps it would be just another day, in Israel.

But it's nice to know that you wouldn't consider such a scenario as being "mass destruction" ...merely a minor inconvenience, having to treat kids for a few weeks in the hospital and such. It's nice to know that the prospects of terrorists using these degraded bombs to terrorize us, would not sway your opinion one bit, you'd still think of them as harmless and unworthy of our concern. Glad we could get that on the record!
Click to expand...

You're such a pathetic retard. More word games only make you look stupider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top