Logic Quiz.... Dixie fails!

[Jarod]

All Weapons of Mass Destruction are capable of Mass Destruction.

Some Seirn gas is capable of Massive Destruction.

Some Seirn gas is not capable of Massive Destruction.

*********************

Please choose the correct answer...

A) All Seirn gas is a WMD.
B) Some Seirn gas is a WMD.
C) No Seirn gas is a WMD.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No Sarin gas is a WMD.

Until the chemical is weaponized, it is merely the toxic and lethal component of a WMD, although it, and it's chemical precursors are still illegal to produce and stockpile.

Sarin is a volitile and deadly toxin, created and invented for the sole purpose of producing WMD's, and nothing else. The moment Sarin is produced, it begins to degrade, so there is no criteria for amount of degradation, with regard to consideration as a WMD, merely the criteria of being weaponized. The Chemical Weapons Convention states that "old munitions" are to be defined as weapons made prior to 1946, so the 500 Sarin bombs found thusfar in Iraq, do not qualify as "old munitions" according to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which is supported by the UN as well.

 

[Jarod]

No Sarin gas is a WMD.

Until the chemical is weaponized, it is merely the toxic and lethal component of a WMD, although it, and it's chemical precursors are still illegal to produce and stockpile.

Sarin is a volitile and deadly toxin, created and invented for the sole purpose of producing WMD's, and nothing else. The moment Sarin is produced, it begins to degrade, so there is no criteria for amount of degradation, with regard to consideration as a WMD, merely the criteria of being weaponized. The Chemical Weapons Convention states that "old munitions" are to be defined as weapons made prior to 1946, so the 500 Sarin bombs found thusfar in Iraq, do not qualify as "old munitions" according to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which is supported by the UN as well.

So now once Serin has been weaponized it will be a WMD into perpetuity?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So now once Serin has been weaponized it will be a WMD into perpetuity?

Yes, Sarin which is weaponized is a WMD. "Old WMD's" are any that were made prior to 1946, but they are still classified as WMD's. The CWC and GC make no provisions for pinhead analysis of munitions to determine their lethalness or lack thereof, they make no stipulation that the criteria revolves around Democratic hacks trying to get elected, or fucktard idiots on a message board who can't spell or apparently read and comprehend plain English. The CWC and GC don't define WMD's merely based on your opinion of what might cause mass destruction, or mine. They don't delineate between WMD's that are known about, and ones that aren't known about, they don't distinguish between WMD's that are rusty and ones that aren't, and they don't set any criteria for an arbitrary point in time where the WMD will no longer be a WMD. They state, quite clearly, that weaponized Sarin is a 'Schedule 1' Chemical Weapon, (aka: WMD), and prohibit the possession, production or stockpiling of these WMD's, as well as the precursor agents involved in making them, and Iraq is a signatory to the CWC and GC.

Now.... Do you have ANY evidence to suggest, that ANY international body, at ANY time, has stated ANYTHING to the contrary, or interpreted WMD's to mean ANYTHING other than what is stipulated by the CWC and GC? If so, you need to present it now, and stop pretending that you know more than everyone else on this subject.

 

[Jarod]

Yes, Sarin which is weaponized is a WMD. "Old WMD's" are any that were made prior to 1946, but they are still classified as WMD's. The CWC and GC make no provisions for pinhead analysis of munitions to determine their lethalness or lack thereof, they make no stipulation that the criteria revolves around Democratic hacks trying to get elected, or fucktard idiots on a message board who can't spell or apparently read and comprehend plain English. The CWC and GC don't define WMD's merely based on your opinion of what might cause mass destruction, or mine. They don't delineate between WMD's that are known about, and ones that aren't known about, they don't distinguish between WMD's that are rusty and ones that aren't, and they don't set any criteria for an arbitrary point in time where the WMD will no longer be a WMD. They state, quite clearly, that weaponized Sarin is a 'Schedule 1' Chemical Weapon, (aka: WMD), and prohibit the possession, production or stockpiling of these WMD's, as well as the precursor agents involved in making them, and Iraq is a signatory to the CWC and GC.

Now.... Do you have ANY evidence to suggest, that ANY international body, at ANY time, has stated ANYTHING to the contrary, or interpreted WMD's to mean ANYTHING other than what is stipulated by the CWC and GC? If so, you need to present it now, and stop pretending that you know more than everyone else on this subject.

Your, AKA does not make it so....

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Yes, Sarin which is weaponized is a WMD. "Old WMD's" are any that were made prior to 1946, but they are still classified as WMD's. The CWC and GC make no provisions for pinhead analysis of munitions to determine their lethalness or lack thereof, they make no stipulation that the criteria revolves around Democratic hacks trying to get elected, or fucktard idiots on a message board who can't spell or apparently read and comprehend plain English. The CWC and GC don't define WMD's merely based on your opinion of what might cause mass destruction, or mine. They don't delineate between WMD's that are known about, and ones that aren't known about, they don't distinguish between WMD's that are rusty and ones that aren't, and they don't set any criteria for an arbitrary point in time where the WMD will no longer be a WMD. They state, quite clearly, that weaponized Sarin is a 'Schedule 1' Chemical Weapon, (aka: WMD), and prohibit the possession, production or stockpiling of these WMD's, as well as the precursor agents involved in making them, and Iraq is a signatory to the CWC and GC.

Now.... Do you have ANY evidence to suggest, that ANY international body, at ANY time, has stated ANYTHING to the contrary, or interpreted WMD's to mean ANYTHING other than what is stipulated by the CWC and GC? If so, you need to present it now, and stop pretending that you know more than everyone else on this subject.

So... they don't classify WMD's on whether or not they can cause massive destruction? Kind of arbitrary and retarded. I wouldn't even listen to such bullshit.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So... they don't classify WMD's on whether or not they can cause massive destruction? Kind of arbitrary and retarded. I wouldn't even listen to such bullshit.

Whether or not some pinhead thinks the WMD's are capable of mass destruction, is of no consequence to the CWC or UN in determining whether something is or isn't a WMD. Sarin is a chemical agent produced for the sole purpose of creating a WMD, and is an illegal chemical to produce or stockpile. When weaponized, it constitutes a Schedule 1 Chemical Weapon, which is one of several weapons the CWC and UN classify as a WMD. You simply can't produce a Sarin bomb, hide it for two decades, then when it's found, claim it isn't a WMD.

Jarhead's logic would lead us to believe we have no actual "free speech" rights, because the words "free speech" are not to be found in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Unless it specifically says, YOU HAVE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS... We can't presume that it means we do, and we have to assume it means we don't, since it doesn't specifically say that. ...This is Jarhead Logic, and I keep trying to tell him, it's not that hard to come up with lame-brain logic, but you know how retarded people get when they become excited.

 

[AnyOldIron]

Isn't it funny.

You'd think that a weapon of mass destruction must be at least capable of mass destruction...

In the days before today's hyperbole and politically charged rhetoric, such weapons were known as NBC weapons, Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons....