My ignore list is reserved for those who simply refuse to listen - they don't have to agree, just listen - and I do try to limit who I put there, but I've just found another candidate... Hint, it isn't MacBeth or FB. If you refuse to discuss this rationally, then you will discuss it with yourself.
Well if you feel you must put me on your ignore list go ahead, but I won't do the same. I think you have intelligent ideas that I enjoy reading, tonight my posts are a bit reserved-- I guess i'm just not in the mood for hardcore debating tonight. I didn't intend to offend you if that is in fact what I have done.
tree...I had her take a quick look at it...and she's going to bed, so she just glanced, but she said in terms of components, this is consistent with many purposes, including simply soil sample readings. ( fermentors, bengin gasses, etc.) She didn't have the time, energy, or inclination to read the article, but will tomorrow. But, and I know this wasn't yours, but she is a little skeptical given johheath's previous 'smoking gun' chem discovery that I had her read. She still laughs about that one...and she's not at all a liberal of any description. Now I don't pretend to know much about this stuff, so I will reserve conclusive comment until someone who does ( her) can inform me. I will say, however, that I read the article, and there was nothing conclusive, and based on that and the fact that she told me that these things are common, I have to say that it appears to me to be very short of conclusive at best. And if you're expecting me to jump to conclusions merely because we have people saying that that is theirs, I will merely respond aluminum tubes...or Staphycocolous...or Uranium...or prop planes...or, well, you get my drift.
I'll see your "liar" with a "wrong", and double you a "twit". Unless, of course, you want to explain your latest inanity like an adult.
The article, nitwit (two more letters than just "twit", thus scoring higher, at least in scrabble), was about Iraqi obsfucation and the fact that Iraqi scientists had advance warning of UN inspections.
Ok, I'll play again...I'll go and find your posts in that article, and my response, including my roommates comments..and this is the last time, john. Just like where you claimed you always included admissions that things were unconfirmed, and called Batman a liar to boot, and I went back and posted several times where you didn't, and you tried to avoid it. Or the time you called me a liar because I said that the US was opposed to going to war against Germany, and that Germany decalred war on the US, not the other way around. John, I am one of the few people who even bother to respond to your crap, and it's not just because you call everything you utter FACT, or your annoyinfg habit of running in circles when your proven wrong, but it's because of stuff like this, Calling me a liar. Ok, for the record, I am going to go back and get this thread, and post your comments about it...I agree that you did yammer on about the whole 'obfuscation' quite a bit, and about the fact that they had been forewarned, but you also very clearly called this evidence of chem weapons development. I know because my roommate still brings up things you said. But after this, if you don't apologize for calling me a liar again...or you try to rationalize your way out of it with circular double talk, I am officially not responding to your crap ever again. Let's be clear... Well, I put the question to one of my roommates, who was a Chem. major, and currently works in the pharmaceutical industry, and while she says that she didn't find this as amusing as an earlier johnheath post about Staphycocolous as a bio weapon, she did get a chuckle out of it. That is the comment you called me a "liar" about. Ok...We'll see.
I'd be interested to here what your roommate has to say. Although, the report I heard from NPR which I consider to be ubiased seemed very conclusive that that these labs would be able to be used for legit purposes, but would have been inefficient and more expensive then what was required, while they would have been ideal for bio weapons. The report pointed out other things such as they could not have made chemical weapons, and there was no proof these labs were used etc.
JH... Found it. As I acknowledged, you did yammer on about obfuscation, and the whole UN leaking angle you thought it proved, but when you posted the article which included these statements : " He said the petri dishes held Staphylococcus and E. coli bacteria and a fungus that can cause severe skin problems -" "Such laboratory equipment, used by scientists to grow bacteria for study, could theoretically be used to create biological agents such as anthrax. But the equipment would be much too small to generate biological weapons in the quantities Iraq has been accused of producing. " ...and based upon that article you later posted this : "Congressional Democrats wanted us to beg the UN for the right to defend ourselves against the Iraqi threat. Clearly, all evidence points to an active WMD program inside Iraq, and an UN inspections team compromised by spys. This is just more ammunition that will lead to an inescapable conclusion. The Democrats cannot be trusted to perform the most important governmental task- defending our nation. " To which I responded thus " Re: Staphylococcus and E-Coli... I talked with one of my roommates, who, while not having the expertise of johnheath, or others, is in fact a chemistry major working in the pharmaceutical industry, and when I showed her this stuff she laughed...then told me the following: Staphylcoccus is a naturally occuring bacteria which could, were you to look, be found on the average human hand. Escherichia coli ( E-Coli) is a naturally occuring bacteria found in the average human stomach. Both are charecterized as ubiquitous, and common place in any lab, including 1st year Chem labs...They are used as a standard comparative bacteria...ie you take a sample of Staph, say Staphylococcus aureas, and compare its responses to stimuli with whatever culture you're experimenting on. In other words, it's a standard testing sample. She herself has worked with both countless times, and has yet to be accused of WMD production. My roommate also showed me a mailing order where both Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923 and Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 ( The lethal strain of the bacteria ) are available to anyone in the field. This is the chemical equivalent of finding a screw driver in a garage, and concluding that they were developing bombs... 'Mounting evidence'...lol It might be evidence that, contrary to pro-war reports, the Iraqis were taking the UN inspections very seriously...as they were trying to destroy any evidence that could in any way be construed as anything linked with WMD..but as evidence of WMD production, this is laughable...not that that will, in any way, deter the pro-war crowd from listing this along with other similar reports in their 'mounting evidence' to be refered to in the future...." Remember, you called me a liar for saying this : "Well, I put the question to one of my roommates, who was a Chem. major, and currently works in the pharmaceutical industry, and while she says that she didn't find this as amusing as an earlier johnheath post about Staphycocolous as a bio weapon, she did get a chuckle out of it. " I am awaiting your apology. If you are the person I think you are, I doubt I will get it, but this is here as a clear record of the kind of crap you pull. Oh, and for the record, re: your last "liar" comment, with Batman, you never posted anything about this being unconfirmed either...not that i expect he expects your apology any more than I do.
MacBeth: I am guessing that your friend did not look too closely at the trailer system? Because it is a system of several different kinds of trailers, not just a single biolab on each truck. Please have your friend look at the schematics; these are the prewar representations that Powell presented, and they are apparently extremely accurate with respect to the real trailers found in Iraq (score one for Powell and our intelligence). They are *clearly* production facilities, and not just chemical analysis trucks - another actual Iraqi chemical analysis truck found is shown in the report, and it bears absolutely no resemblence whatsoever to the trailer system. That is the conclusion that the CIA reached, as would any fool who took even a cursory look at them. Why don't you have your friend study them a little harder? The conclusion reached by the CIA is almost inescapable. But if denial suits you... then whatever. Everyone else can see them for what they are. You need "conclusive"? What, you wouldn't be convinced unless anthrax was actually found inside the fermenter? You are aware that they found traces of chemicals that are commonly used to clean biochemical facilities, are you not? Meaning that these were scrubbed down? Hmm... I wonder why someone would scrub down a chemical analysis trailer and then bury it... I still get the feeling that you didn't actually read the report. Because if you did... well, you are not that dense. But it's nice to know that your roommate thinks this is funny. What a girl she must be. (yes, I'll admit, there is something inherently comical about chemical systems designed to produce agents that are intended to efficiently murder thousands of people at a time - the Nazis sure thought they were a hoot)
tree... I explained that she only glanced, and would read/look carefully later. I also explained the context of her finding it funny. I also explained my reasoning. Please save the attempts at biting sarcasm, they lack bite, aren't funny, are off target, and I am not interested. You have these stretches where you are really insulting and basically a jerk, and other stretches where you are ok. Fi you want to have a diologue, ok...If you expect me to just agree with your conclusions because you think that they make sense, and are going to get insulting and condescending just because my reasoning/conclusions differ from yours, just let me know now, and we can forego the entire process.
If we are going to have a dialogue, then you are going to have to agree to follow logical rules here. These trailers are almost certainly (oh, let's say about 98% sure) what the CIA says they are, and that is quite obvious. The odds that they are something other than mobile biological warfare production facilities are extremely low, and if you fail to admit that, then we have nothing to discuss. I am not going to argue the obvious with you - that is why I keep putting people on my ignore list, and you're just too damn interesting to do that to. This is right up there with the time when you tried to posit theories that had those US POWs not being beaten, when it was clear just by looking at TV and photos (and later confirmed by survivors, BTW) that they had been beaten, and several executed. Sometimes your denial is so thick that it is all I can do not to just scream "What in the F*CK are you thinking?!? It's right there in front of your eyes!"... It is times like those when I tend to get nasty, and I apologise for that, but if you fail to be rational in your analysis and this discussion, and to admit the obvious, then there really is nothing to discuss. Look, I am not stupid. I understand that were you to relent and assume that these trailers are what the CIA says they are, then that would disprove many of your other arguments regarding our intelligence, the admin lying, etc. That is why I put the questions in the other thread in the order I did - they are all contingent upon the answer to the first one. But just for the sake of argument, we won't even go past that. I just want you to admit that these trailers are most likely what the CIA says they are. Until you can do that, there is no point in discussing anything else.
It is amazing that Treeman posts something that is so damning to the people who are siding with Saddam, and yet, they still continue to be blind. Unbelievable. How can anyone read that article, see the evidence and come to any other reasonable conclusion? Good work Treeman. DD
Treeguy, you threaten your dreaded ignore list like Dominique Villepin with a UN veto. Ignore lists are for wusses. Either wade through the muck and discourse or have the restraint not to respond if you can't take it.
Holy bad intel! http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...4jun04,1,5296109.story?coll=la-home-headlines 7:51 PM PDT, June 3, 2003 E-mail story Print Iraqi Weapons Expert Says Search is Futile A visibly nervous general says the deadly chemical weapons he helped produce were done away with in the 1990s. By Bob Drogin, Times Staff Writer BAGHDAD -- After decades as one of Saddam Hussein's chief chemical warriors, Iraqi Brig. Gen. Alaa Saeed picks nervously at the kebabs on his plate as he talks about the deadly nerve gases and blister agents that he once produced. His hands shake visibly as he describes his last terrifying meeting with Saddam, even though it was more than five years ago. He worries about his culpability for the sweeping documents he wrote declaring to the United Nations that Iraq was free of banned weapons. And thoughts of the price he may pay for his deeds haunt him. "My future is dark," he says during a rare and secretive interview, dropping his voice to a furtive whisper as a waiter passes the table. "I don't know what will happen." His once-feared boss, Gen. Hussam Mohammed Amin, is now one of five top Iraqi weapons officials known to be in U.S. custody for potential war crimes. A team from Britain's MI-6 intelligence agency grilled Saeed last week. As a new, intensive hunt for weapons gets under way after more than a month of fruitless U.S. Army searches, a U.S. intelligence team has ordered him to appear for questions Thursday. Saeed, perhaps the most senior weapons scientist to speak to a reporter since the war, says he would gladly accept a $200,000 reward that U.S. officials here have quietly offered to anyone who can lead them to the poison gases, germ weapons and other illegal weapons that President Bush repeatedly insisted were secretly deployed in prewar Iraq. But Saeed said he cannot take them to what he insists no longer exists. "Their questions are the same as yours," he said. " `Do you know of any documents or inventory of chemical agents? Any stockpiles? Any production programs? Any filled munitions? Do you have any idea where these weapons are?' I am ready to give them all the information I have. But the answer is always the same: `No, no, no.' "I tell them there are no hidden chemical or biological weapons," he said. "Maybe there is some other group, like the SSO (Saddam's ruthless Special Security Organization) or the Mukhabarat (the Gestapo-like intelligence agency), who have done it. I don't know. " Saeed insists that the combined blitz of allied bombing and intense U.N. inspections in the 1990s effectively destroyed Saddam's chemical, biological and nuclear programs. U.N. sanctions, he said, effectively stopped Baghdad from importing the raw materials, equipment and spare parts needed to secretly reconstitute the illegal programs, even after U.N. inspectors left the country in 1998. "I think, maybe, (Saddam) wanted to rebuild the CW and BW (chemical and biological weapons) programs when sanctions were lifted," Saeed said. Why, then, didn't the Iraqi ruler help U.N. inspectors resolve hundreds of unanswered questions about his banned weapons? "I don't know," he replied. "Maybe he is too proud." Saeed said he believed that had he consented to be interviewed by U.N. inspectors last winter outside Iraq, his wife and three children, perhaps his six brothers, would have been killed. U.N. inspectors who worked with Saeed for a decade confirmed his identity and role. But they cautioned that the story he tells today is consistent with what he told the United Nations after 1995: that all chemical bulk agents and munitions, as well as many key records and reports, were destroyed by 1994. "We still don't know if that is true," said a U.N. official in New York. Although Bush last week hailed the discovery of two tractor-trailers filled with laboratory equipment as proof of illegal Iraqi weapons, other U.S. military officials here and in Washington now acknowledge that the initial weapons hunt in Iraq largely failed, a victim of faulty intelligence, poor planning, inadequate support and outsized expectations. The failure to locate weapons of mass destruction has become a controversial issue for the Bush administration, with several influential lawmakers saying they believe the White House either exaggerated the Iraq threat or was misled by the intelligence community. Members of the initial weapons-inspection teams in Iraq, part of the 75th Exploitation Task Force, have now begun leaving the country. They are being replaced this weekend by an expanded interagency effort, called the Iraq Survey Group, with a broader mandate. Rather than simply searching sites, the new mission will seek out intelligence. In addition to analyzing documents for clues, they will interrogate scientists, factory workers, truck drivers and anyone else who might be able to lead them to a hidden stash. The effort has already begun. Over the last two weeks, U.S. and British intelligence teams have quietly begun interviewing scores of Iraqi scientists, engineers, technicians and others at their homes, their offices and other sites. Saeed arguably knows more than any other Iraqi about Saddam's former chemical weapons programs. He is a short, wiry man with a thinning thatch of white hair above gold-rimmed aviator glasses and an easy smile. His English -- he got his doctorate in analytic chemistry from the University of Sussex in England in 1988 -- is as impeccable as his manners. He graduated in 1972 from the University of Baghdad with a degree in chemistry and joined the army's newly formed chemical corps. He joined the ruling Baath Party in 1980, and when Iraq invaded Iran that year, he was assigned to Project 922 -- the secret development and production of poison gases. "If I say no, they will ship me to the front and I will disappear," Saeed said in an effort to explain his participation in the project. His work took place at the Muthana State Establishment, a huge complex of production plants, research laboratories, bunkers and other facilities built on desolate grazing land about 50 miles northwest of Baghdad. Over the next decade, according to U.N. reports, Muthana would produce thousands of tons of some of the deadliest chemical weapons known, including such toxic nerve agents as VX, tabun, sarin and cyclosarin, as well as mustard blister gas. They were loaded in bombs, artillery shells, rockets and missile warheads, and used against Iran. In 1988, after a three-year break studying in England, Saeed was named head of quality control at Muthana. He supervised the production of a witch's brew of lethal gases, although U.N. inspectors say the exact amounts -- especially of VX, one of the most horrific agents -- is still unclear. Saeed said Saddam ordered Muthana emptied before the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Chemical munitions and other material were dispersed to airfields and military bases across Iraq. None were used in the war, however, and Muthana was heavily bombed by allied forces. After the 1991 war, Saeed was quickly assigned to the U.N. teams as Iraq's liaison for chemical weapons. He ultimately became deputy chief of the "minders" attached to the inspectors. He wrote all three of Iraq's "accurate, final and complete" chemical weapons declarations to the U.N. Security Council, including the one handed in last December. Like its predecessors, that report was quickly denounced as inaccurate and incomplete by both U.S. and U.N. officials. But Saeed confirmed part of what Bush administration officials asserted after U.N. inspectors returned to Iraq last winter. He said he and other scientists were under strict orders to bring "a friend" and a tape recorder to any U.N. interviews. Regime officials had insisted the scientists were under no such pressure. Saeed also explained why neither he nor any other scientist ever agreed to be interviewed outside Iraq, despite U.N. offers of safety. "We were told our families would be killed if we left the country," he said. Steven Black, who served with the U.N. inspection teams from 1992 to 1999, said Saeed "wouldn't necessarily know about covert things" outside his control. "There was a group over the minders who didn't necessarily tell them what was going on," he said. Moreover, Black said Saeed and his colleagues were grilled hundreds of times by U.N. inspectors. "I know he lied to us and he may be lying to you," he said. Despite the ouster of Saddam's regime, Black said senior Iraqis still have reasons to lie. "Some of these guys did really bad things in the past and they don't want to own up to it," he said. "Or they're not convinced that Saddam is gone, and they know that when the U.S. goes, whoever talked will get dipped in an acid bath." In fact, like many Iraqis, Saeed is convinced that Saddam is still alive. His hands still tremble when he describes how Saddam's security agents suddenly appeared at his office in late 1997. They ordered him into a car with shades drawn and took him to an unknown location. The dictator was waiting inside. "He thanked me for my work," he recalled. His voice dropped. "But I am still shaking."
Briiiing! Briiiiing! "Hello?" "Yes, Mr. Kay? This is General Saeed, from over at Muthana? Yes, we're going to be destroying three thousand liters of botulinum toxin today. I was wondering if you'd like to come witness the event?" "Sure! Great! Just let me get my crew together and I'll be right over. Don't start without me!" ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... Why didn't they have anyone verify it? One thing caught my eye: Our intel had the SSO and the SRG as the organizations that controlled the WMD sites, including moving them around in a shell game when inspectors were poking around. Perhaps our intel was right again? It is just a matter of time.
Okay tree...it is becoming increasingly obvious , especially given the first 2 sentences of the post above, that as you see it the only way to have meaningful dialogue is for the other party to start off by agreeing with you, and then progress and rapport can develop from there. Very objective of you. You are also using this flawed reasoning to justify being insulting to anyone who disagrees with you, and insinuating ( by that I mean stating) that the only reason they are not agreeing with you is that they don't want to admit that they're wrong, and see their stance against the war fall apart. Interesting take, given the following facts: * The article you mention isn't anywhere near as certain about this being what you say it is as you are. * There are other possible explanations for this which you won't even discuss...while demanding that others fully and zealously go over the only one you've offered. * Even if you think that the admin had got it right this time what you've got there is 'evidence' that at some point Iraq had a chemical WMD program or that Hussein had at some point set in motion the mechanisms to eventually get one...you have no evidece, repeat and underline, none that he actually had one in the time frame discussed. As the anti-war side has never denied the first of these possibilities, and as the second is theoretical in nature and practice, and not a contravention of anything Huseein agreed to, even if we, as you demand, assume that you are right...it proves nothing, and certainly demands no collapse of anti-war positions. * You have yourself side-stepped other revalations about this war which go a hell of a lot further to undermining the pro-war position than this. The White House told it's people and the world that Huseein had an active and dangerous WMD program..as well as earlier a nuke program, as well as being behind 9-11...etc. and these have proven one after another to be wrong, or at least the evidence we said we had was at best speculative. So the peoiple who have been claiming for months that our evidence was speculative, that we were just syaing whatever we could to get what we wanted done, and the WH admits to overemphasising WMD for the purposes of getting what it wanted done, and you come back with....ot was always about freeing the Iraqi people? You who,prior to the war, said among other things that yes, many nations aren't 'free', but that Iraq demands our attention because it isn't free, has WMD, is therefore breaking UN sanctions, has links to 9-11, etc. And yet now you are the same one demanding that others agree with your take..which happily agrees with that of your position and that of those who have previously mislead us...on the grounds of being objective!?!? * I have told you many, many times that I myself didn't premise my arguments against the war on the frounds that Iraq had no WMD, but on other issues, one of which was we had no conclusive evidence of a WMD program nor reason to fear it's immedite threat. I consider that point proven, as all the places we have searched based on our 'evidence' have come up empty. So this find, even if it is what you say it is, and more..even if they actually find evidence of an active WMD program during the period in question, not that someone at some time had something to do with wanting to someday develop WMD...then unless that find corresponds to the evidence we said we had before we went in, my point remains safely proven, and it's not even my major one. I have gotten involved in this WMD hunt discussion because it seems to show that things were even worse than I had thought before the war, re: the admin's misleading the nation to do what it wants. * Another point, and this is more of a personal thing, so discount it as you will, is that again, even if this is what you say it is...you have shown no, zero, nada, zilch, not a bit of sympathy for the doubts of people who have heard this song how many times now, and seen it proven wrong. Have you heard of the little johnheath who cried wolf? We have been told about something like 25 smoking guns, laughed at, had our anti-war positions mocked, seen demands of admission of error, etc...and when each and every one has been proven wrong, did we see a reverse admission of error? Did we see apologies? No...we saw the next one, with accompanying mockery, demands for admission of error, etc. And now here you are doing the same thing all over again...and what's more, you're incensed, you're downright apoplectic that people are doubting you, are not pouring over the material you present from your side of the argument with righteous zeal and a burning fire for the truth as you see it. Honestly...think about it. Maybe if just once you or jh or sino or T_J had come back after a smoking gun diatribe and said " yeah, we blew it on that one...and oh, about the insults, sorry." If any one of the many deceptions, repositioning on our rationale for the war, erroneous evidence etc. if , even one of the many had caused you to express even the slightest doubt in the admin's position re: the war, or at least an understanding of why those opposed don't trust it ipso facto...well maybe you would have engendered a little more benefit of the doubt. But down the line you have backed find ofter find, Bush or powell statement after statement, and when those have proven wrong, when the evidence behind them has proven incorrect or even fabricated, you have excused it or avaoided it, and moved on to the next one. Try being objective yourself before becoming holier than thou when you feel you see it lacking in others.
