Here is your war on Terrorism ! America !

reply to post by SLAYER69


Yeah, I'm sure they CAN be. Doesn't mean that's what it is for.

I remember that Iraq was constructing a nuclear power plant and the Israelis bombed it. Guess they don't see the distinction between nuclear energy and weapons either (probably why the build and store nuclear weapons at their Dimona reactor)

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
This isn't news to me whatsoever. I already know about how some insurgent specialist improvised artillery shells into sarin gas IEDs.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Yeah, I'm sure they CAN be. Doesn't mean that's what it is for.

So let me get this straight.......

Insurgents use Saddam's remaining chemical stockpile and made sarin gas IEDs and that's cool but those very same insurgents who might have gotten their hands on Yellow-cake to possibly make a dirty bomb and that's looked at as less likely?

Come on Dimitri now who is the one hiding their head in the sand here?
If "insurgents" could do it with Saddams stockpile so could of Saddam...

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
This isn't news to me whatsoever. I already know about how some insurgent specialist improvised artillery shells into sarin gas IEDs.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Yeah, I'm sure they CAN be. Doesn't mean that's what it is for.

So let me get this straight.......

Insurgents use Saddam's remaining chemical stockpile and made sarin gas IEDs and that's cool but those very same insurgents who might have gotten their hands on Yellow-cake to possibly make a dirty bomb and that's looked at as less likely?

Come on Dimitri now who is the one hiding their head in the sand here?
If "insurgents" could do it with Saddams stockpile so could of Saddam...

edit on 10-1-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

You're comparing weaponized sarin gas and nuclear fuel

Let's talk about dirty bombs. How about depleted uranium use by American soldiers that has done much more damage to Iraqis than some rare incidents involving sarin gas IEDs. Or what about thousands of tons of nuclear fuel and waste all over the world that could easily be placed beside an explosive device? Or how about ripping apart a few hundred fire detectors for the small bit of radioactive material in them to use in a dirty bomb?

Seriously, this dirty bomb talk is as bogus as the WMD threat argument for invading Iraq. Just because you rationalize that somebody can make a nuclear bomb out of nuclear fuel after the invasion, does not justify the war after it was clear that there was no nukes in Iraq. There was also no "45 minute strike ability" for Saddam to launch chemical weapons against the US with like Powell claimed. It's just silly to believe this crap.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Seriously, this dirty bomb talk is as bogus as the WMD threat argument for invading Iraq.

As I figured. No facts just opinions.

Just because you rationalize that somebody can make a nuclear bomb out of nuclear fuel after the invasion,

So do you deny that possibility?

does not justify the war after it was clear that there was no nukes in Iraq. There was also no "45 minute strike ability" for Saddam to launch chemical weapons against the US with like Powell claimed. It's just silly to believe this crap.

Where was this quoted from?

Source please. I'd love to read the whole quote. It would go a long way to support your claim. Because it was "Tony Blair" Not Powell. But like everything you believe it is a bit twisted.

September Dossier

However, two sections would later become the centre of fierce debate: the allegation that Iraq had sought "significant quantities of uranium from Africa", and the claim in the foreword to the document written by Tony Blair that "The document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them."

Britain's biggest selling popular daily newspaper, The Sun, carried the headline "Brits 45 Mins from Doom", while the Star reported "Mad Saddam Ready to Attack: 45 Minutes from a Chemical War".

The Dirty bomb possibility was discussed and argued over long before this thread ever existed.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Seriously, this dirty bomb talk is as bogus as the WMD threat argument for invading Iraq.

As I figured. No facts just opinions.

Just because you rationalize that somebody can make a nuclear bomb out of nuclear fuel after the invasion,

So do you deny that possibility?

does not justify the war after it was clear that there was no nukes in Iraq. There was also no "45 minute strike ability" for Saddam to launch chemical weapons against the US with like Powell claimed. It's just silly to believe this crap.

Where was this quoted from?

Source please. I'd love to read the whole quote. It would go a long way to support your claim. Because it was "Tony Blair" Not Powell. But like everything you believe it is a bit twisted.

The Dirty bomb possibility was discussed and argued over long before this thread ever existed.

edit on 10-1-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

Twisted, eh?

Actually, I distinctly remember Colin Powel saying those very words. It was on CNN and I must have been around 13 at the time on vacation near the Rockies.

You can say whatever you want, I really don't care. I know what the facts are here and you just seem bent on justifying the US invasion of Iraq and the subsequent murder of over 100,000 Iraqis, the displacement of 6 million Iraqis, turning Iraq into a radiological hotspot through depleted uranium use, raiding and destroying ancient Babylonian relics and history, conducting a hostile privatization of local industry (especially with over a hundred thousand mercs to do the dirty work), and the building of dozens of US bases all along the Iran border.

WMDs had nothing to do with the Iraq Invasion of 2003. Those were just petty words for the coalition's masses to consume in order to justify war by the American Empire.

EDIT: Oh, and dirty bombs? Just more propaganda to fill your head with. What about the real threats that actually took place, like anthrax being mailed out right after 9/11, killing many people around the US? Nobody ever talks about that, just crap about dirty bombs and Iranian nukes.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Twisted, eh?

Actually, I distinctly remember Colin Powel saying those very words. It was on CNN and I must have been around 13 at the time on vacation near the Rockies.

You can say whatever you want, I really don't care.

I thought so.....

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Twisted, eh?

Actually, I distinctly remember Colin Powel saying those very words. It was on CNN and I must have been around 13 at the time on vacation near the Rockies.

You can say whatever you want, I really don't care.

I thought so.....

I edited my post, so re-read it.

What are your thoughts about real things, like the anthrax attacks right after 9/11? Who did those? Why were these specific people targeted? Did Saddam do this or CIA elements? Why is this all hushed up about now?

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Nice try...

I'm headed to the gym now to work out. When i get back we can continue with what we were discussing. If you would like to change the topic then I'd suggest writing a new thread.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Seriously, this dirty bomb talk is as bogus as the WMD threat argument for invading Iraq. ... does not justify the war after it was clear that there was no nukes in Iraq.

When did the allegation change from "WMDs" to SPECIFICALLY "nukes"? How does that moving the target thing work?

Edit to add: You also keep banging on about "depleted uranium". What part of the word "depleted" is slipping past your radar?

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Nice try...

I'm headed to the gym now to work out. When i get back we can continue with what we were discussing. If you would like to change the topic then I'd suggest writing a new thread.

I'm not changing anything. I fail to see how terrorism and the US is not related to the anthrax attacks of 2001. They were clearly conducted in order to spread the perception that the US was being attacked by terrorists, while targeting specific people, and then the attacks promptly ended and so did any coverage and discussion on it.

I deem the anthrax attacks to be real terrorism, regardless of who it is conducted by. This is unlike propaganda fears like dirty bombs.

When did the allegation change from "WMDs" to SPECIFICALLY "nukes"? How does that moving the target thing work?

Right about the time when Mr. Slayer69 started talking about yellow cake. I didn't realize he meant dirty bombs, because I do not see dirty bombs as anything but a wave of propaganda by the US media some years back.

Edit to add: You also keep banging on about "depleted uranium". What part of the word "depleted" is slipping past your radar?

Are you serious? If you don't know what depleted uranium does after it explodes into dust then you should be taking some of the same training as me, or at the very least watch some documentaries or read some reports. Depleted uranium is radioactive, it is nuclear waste used as weapons. It is a mass-produced dirty weapon used extensively by American forces.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

When did the allegation change from "WMDs" to SPECIFICALLY "nukes"? How does that moving the target thing work?

Right about the time when Mr. Slayer69 started talking about yellow cake. I didn't realize he meant dirty bombs, because I do not see dirty bombs as anything but a wave of propaganda by the US media some years back.

WMD takes in a lot of territory. Not just nuclear or radiological. It includes things like... poison gas... even SARIN gas. By your own argument, then, WMDs WERE found in Iraq. I may have to revise my stance aqainst the war now, in light of that.

Edit to add: You also keep banging on about "depleted uranium". What part of the word "depleted" is slipping past your radar?

Are you serious? If you don't know what depleted uranium does after it explodes into dust then you should be taking some of the same training as me, or at the very least watch some documentaries or read some reports. Depleted uranium is radioactive, it is nuclear waste used as weapons. It is a mass-produced dirty weapon used extensively by American forces.

Yup, serious as a heart attack. What part of "depleted" are you missing? From the way you're carrying on about it, one would think Iraq glows in the dark these days. Why would one attempt to "explode it into dust"? It's used as an armor piercing penetrator core, because of it's density.

No, I know what it is, and ain't afraid to eat some.

Oh - one other thing it is - a propaganda topic!

reply to post by nenothtu

WMD takes in a lot of territory. Not just nuclear or radiological. It includes things like... poison gas... even SARIN gas. By your own argument, then, WMDs WERE found in Iraq. I may have to revise my stance aqainst the war now, in light of that.

WMD's are becoming more vague..
Pipe bombs have been called WMD's in the US..

It's getting hard to keep up with definitions.

Originally posted by backinblack
WMD's are becoming more vague..
Pipe bombs have been called WMD's in the US..

It's getting hard to keep up with definitions.

Interesting claim....
When was the last time you came to the US? I'm just curious.
How would you know what goes on here outside of TV and Movies?

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by backinblack
WMD's are becoming more vague..
Pipe bombs have been called WMD's in the US..

It's getting hard to keep up with definitions.

AND...

How would you know what goes on here outside of TV and Movies? When was the last time you came to the US? I'm just curious.....

I'm curious what your post is asking..
Do I need to be in the US to read the news there??

Have YOU been to EVERY country you comment about? I'm just curious..

reply to post by backinblack


You made a very specific claim.
Answer the question....

Which news? Fox, CNN? All the other MSM that you rail against as propaganda?

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by backinblack

 

You made a very specific claim.
Answer the question....

Which news? Fox, CNN? All the other MSM that you rail against as propaganda?

Slayer, I only stated facts..
Most people assume a WMD to be some huge weapon, nuke, dirty bomb whatever..
"Mass Destruction" is what it says..
But lately the definition seems to have altered to include much smaller. homemade bombs..
There are a few cases in the news..

CHESTERFIELD, S.C. — An 18-year-old accused of planning to bomb his high school will be charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction, which carries a possible life sentence, the top federal prosecutor in South Carolina said Tuesday.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Edit: The stories were covered by more than one news chanel and they had interviews with officials..
It's FACT Slayer and I'm unsure what your motive is in proving otherwise.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nenothtu

 

WMD takes in a lot of territory. Not just nuclear or radiological. It includes things like... poison gas... even SARIN gas. By your own argument, then, WMDs WERE found in Iraq. I may have to revise my stance aqainst the war now, in light of that.

WMD's are becoming more vague..
Pipe bombs have been called WMD's in the US..

It's getting hard to keep up with definitions.

I agree with that! I have a shotgun - that's a SHOTGUN, just a normal, average, non-glow-in-the-dark shotgun that has been classified as a "WMD"! Rich, ain't it?

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by backinblack
WMD's are becoming more vague..
Pipe bombs have been called WMD's in the US..

It's getting hard to keep up with definitions.

Interesting claim....
When was the last time you came to the US? I'm just curious.
How would you know what goes on here outside of TV and Movies?

edit on 10-1-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

No, he's right there, Slayer. Pipe bombs have always been Class III weapons, along with grenades and the like under the GCA of 1968, but recently they (along with my poor little shotgun) have been reclassified in some circles to be WMDs. It's not a federal law yet, but it's a working definition for some federal agencies.

You know how fond the feds have gotten of getting around passing problematic laws by simply regulating... which is increasingly taking on the color of Law...

reply to post by backinblack



US dirty bomb fears after nuclear looting

Wednesday 21 May 2003

However, the apparent disappearance of radioactive material from Tuwaitha - the Iraqi nuclear research centre near Baghdad sealed by the UN after the last Gulf war - after looters ransacked its network of bunkers during and immediately after the recent war, has caused alarm at the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Earlier this week, the agency's director, Mohammed El Baradei, said he was "deeply concerned" by the reports from Tuwaitha.

According to some of those reports, uranium was simply emptied on to the ground from metal containers, which were then taken for domestic use, such as milking cows.

IAEA officials are concerned that the uranium could fall into the hands of terrorists who could use it to build a so-called dirty bomb, whereby conventional explosives are used to scatter radioactive nuclear material.

Text

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by backinblack

 

US dirty bomb fears after nuclear looting

Wednesday 21 May 2003

However, the apparent disappearance of radioactive material from Tuwaitha - the Iraqi nuclear research centre near Baghdad sealed by the UN after the last Gulf war - after looters ransacked its network of bunkers during and immediately after the recent war, has caused alarm at the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Earlier this week, the agency's director, Mohammed El Baradei, said he was "deeply concerned" by the reports from Tuwaitha.

According to some of those reports, uranium was simply emptied on to the ground from metal containers, which were then taken for domestic use, such as milking cows.

IAEA officials are concerned that the uranium could fall into the hands of terrorists who could use it to build a so-called dirty bomb, whereby conventional explosives are used to scatter radioactive nuclear material.

Text

I like the title, "nuclear looting" but when you read the extract you posted it's the CRATES they stole to milk the cows.
Though no one likes the idea of nuclear material lying around..
We had this scare with the break up of Russia..
That was a much worse possible scenario with ready made weapons in the hands of many..
None of them seem to have been used anywhere though...

But your post really doesn't alter what I said about WMD's..
Or explain your line of questioning of me...