1
   

IRAQ: no WMD's - nothing, zero, nada, zip, f#ck-all

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 04:25 pm
guys

gunga takes the low road every opportunity that arises. Debate above the level of 'yo momma is ugly' won't happen. And life is precious.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 04:49 pm
DrewDad wrote:
For someone "disgusted" by that, you sure do post it a lot.

I notice you prefer to attack Albright instead of defending Rice.


Seems to me there were a baker's dozen psychopaths and super-losers in the Clinton administration, and that W. could have appointed Mrs. O'Leary's cow as secretary of state and it would have been an improvement in every way imaginable. To appoint a shining star like Condi Rice and then listen to all the carping and moaning from these same democrats who gave us Madeline Albright is basically astonishing.
0 Replies
 
Rafick
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 04:52 pm
blatham wrote:
guys

gunga takes the low road every opportunity that arises. Debate above the level of 'yo momma is ugly' won't happen. And life is precious.


Laughing @ blatham

i found some more information on anthrax for Gunga.


The Anthrax Strain-All the genetic evidence presently available points to the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) as the source of the Ames strain anthrax in the letters. Additional analyses may implicate some additional laboratories (that were originally supplied with the Ames strain by USAMRIID) as possible sources.

Properties and Composition of the Anthrax Samples-A biodefense insider who has hands-on experience in weaponizing anthrax says the Daschle sample corresponds to state-of-the-art US anthrax preparations. A number of other inside experts concur. The perpetrator may well be one of those who helped perfect the US technique. No other country is known to have comparable capability.

http://www.911dossier.co.uk/ax02.html

One of the labs capable of producing anthrax spores is the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

"When you think of where did anthrax possibly come from, you have to think of our laboratory," said Maj. Gen. John Parker, who until his retirement last week oversaw the team of scientists at the lab assigned to the FBI case.

Barbara Rosenberg, a microbiologist with the State University of New York at Purchase, accuses the FBI of stalling to protect government secrets.

No connection to Sept. 11

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/26/anthrax.investigation/
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 04:53 pm
Rafick wrote:


The Washington Post, in a front-page report December 16, cited these experts as concluding: "Genetic fingerprinting studies indicate that the anthrax spores mailed to Capitol Hill are identical to stocks of the deadly bacteria maintained by the US Army since 1980." At least one of the scientists told the Post that "the original source" of the anthrax in the Daschle and Leahy letters "had to have been USAMRIID," i.e., Fort Detrick.



As I have noted, that's meaningless. MOST IF NOT ALL of the anthrax involved in government sponsored research programs around the world started out as the Ames strain, which was shipped abroad with the intention of allowing governments to find ways to CURE it. Saddam's scientists took this same stuff and made weapons of it.
0 Replies
 
Rafick
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 04:59 pm
chatting with gunga is like chatting to a brickwall !
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 05:10 pm
gungasnake wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
For someone "disgusted" by that, you sure do post it a lot.

I notice you prefer to attack Albright instead of defending Rice.


Seems to me there were a baker's dozen psychopaths and super-losers in the Clinton administration, and that W. could have appointed Mrs. O'Leary's cow as secretary of state and it would have been an improvement in every way imaginable. To appoint a shining star like Condi Rice and then listen to all the carping and moaning from these same democrats who gave us Madeline Albright is basically astonishing.

OK. "They did it, too" is not a valid argument. Nice chattin' with ya.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 05:18 pm
http://www.peace.ca/whatreportersknew.htm

Quote:

WHAT REPORTERS KNEW ABOUT KOSOVO TALKS -- BUT DIDN'T TELL

Was Rambouillet Another Tonkin Gulf?

The revelation that American reporters knew about a U.S. strategy
to create a pretext for NATO's war on Yugoslavia - but did not report
on it - raises serious questions about the independence of
mainstream news organizations.... More reporting is needed on the
origins of this war, as well as the opportunities for peace that may
have been overlooked."

... a senior Administration official told media at Rambouillet:
"We intentionally set the bar too high for the Serbs to comply. They
need some bombing, and that's what they are going to get."

===============================================

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kosovo-solution.htm

June 2, 1999

New evidence has emerged confirming that the U.S. deliberately set
out to thwart the Rambouillet peace talks in France in order to
provide a "trigger" for NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia.

Furthermore, correspondents from major American news organizations
reportedly knew about this plan to stymie the Kosovo peace talks,
but did not inform their readers or viewers.

FAIR's May 14 media advisory, "Forgotten Coverage of Rambouillet
Negotiations," http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kosovo-solution.html asked whether
the media had given the full story on Rambouillet. News
reports almost universally blamed the failure of negotiations on
Serbian intransigence. The headline over a New York Times dispatch
from Belgrade on March 24 - the first day of the bombing - read
"U.S. Negotiators Depart, Frustrated By Milosevic's Hard Line."

But the evidence presented in "Forgotten Coverage" suggested that it
was U.S. negotiators, not the Serbs, who blocked an agreement.

Now, in the June 14 issue of the Nation, George Kenney, a former
State Department Yugoslavia desk officer, reports:

An unimpeachable press source who regularly travels with Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright told this [writer] that, swearing
reporters to deep-background confidentiality at the Rambouillet
talks, a senior State Department official had bragged that the
United States "deliberately set the bar higher than the Serbs could
accept." The Serbs needed, according to the official, a little
bombing to see reason.

In other words, the plan for Kosovo autonomy drafted by State
Department officials was intentionally crafted to provoke a rejection
from Serb negotiators. In his Nation article, Kenney compares this
plan to the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Providing further confirmation of Kenney's account, Jim Jatras, a
foreign policy aide to Senate Republicans, reported in a May 18
speech at the Cato Institute in Washington that he had it "on good
authority" that a "senior Administration official told media at
Rambouillet, under embargo" the following:

"We intentionally set the bar too high for the Serbs to comply. They
need some bombing, and that's what they are going to get."

In interviews with FAIR, both Kenney and Jatras asserted that these
are actual quotes transcribed by reporters who spoke with a U.S.
official. They declined to give the names or affiliations of the
reporters.

The revelation that American reporters knew about a U.S. strategy to
create a pretext for NATO's war on Yugoslavia - but did not report
on it - raises serious questions about the independence of
mainstream news organizations.

More reporting is needed on the origins of this war, as well as the
opportunities for peace that may have been overlooked.

This release will be updated as new information becomes available.

This media advisory was written by FAIR media analyst Seth Ackerman

0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 06:59 pm
gungasnake wrote:
Rafick wrote:


The Washington Post, in a front-page report December 16, cited these experts as concluding: "Genetic fingerprinting studies indicate that the anthrax spores mailed to Capitol Hill are identical to stocks of the deadly bacteria maintained by the US Army since 1980." At least one of the scientists told the Post that "the original source" of the anthrax in the Daschle and Leahy letters "had to have been USAMRIID," i.e., Fort Detrick.



As I have noted, that's meaningless. MOST IF NOT ALL of the anthrax involved in government sponsored research programs around the world started out as the Ames strain, which was shipped abroad with the intention of allowing governments to find ways to CURE it. Saddam's scientists took this same stuff and made weapons of it.



Of course it was, they were giving it away in breakfast cereal back in those days - we all thought it was healthy, like Vitaman C!!

Here is the REAL story about the sale of anthrax (and just about anything else) to Iraq in the 1980's under the Reagan/Bush regime... (I have lifted it from the FAS site, but the originals are from the US Congressional Record)..

Quote:
But Saddam had to be rescued first. The war against Iran
was going badly by 1982. Iran's "human wave attacks"
threatened to overrun Saddam's armies. Washington decided to
give Iraq a helping hand. After Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad
in 1983, U.S. intelligence began supplying the Iraqi dictator
with satellite photos showing Iranian deployments. Official
documents suggest that America may also have secretly
arranged for tanks and other military hardware to be shipped
to Iraq in a swap deal--American tanks to Egypt, Egyptian
tanks to Iraq. Over the protest of some Pentagon skeptics,
the Reagan administration began allowing the Iraqis to buy a
wide variety of "dual use" equipment and materials from
American suppliers. According to confidential Commerce
Department export-control documents obtained by Newsweek, the
shopping list included a computerized database for Saddam's
Interior Ministry (presumably to help keep track of political
opponents); helicopters to transport Iraqi officials;
television cameras for "video surveillance applications";
chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy
Commission (IAEC), and, most unsettling, numerous shipments
of "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" to the IAEC. According to
former officials, the bacteria cultures could be used to make
biological weapons, including anthrax. The State Department
also approved the shipment of 1.5 million atropine injectors,
for use against the effects of chemical weapons, but the
Pentagon blocked the sale. The helicopters, some American
officials later surmised, were used to spray poison gas on
the Kurds.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 08:34 pm
Wherever he got the stuff from originally, which was probably from us, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Saddam Hussein WAS behind the anthrax attacks of 2001, which is basically an act of war and fully justifies our having taken the baathist state down.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 08:35 pm
gungasnake wrote:
Wherever he got the stuff from originally, which was probably from us, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Saddam Hussein WAS behind the anthrax attacks of 2001, which is basically an act of war and fully justifies our having taken the baathist state down.


No it doesn't, and no it didn't.

Your opinion does not qualify as evidence. Not here. Not anywhere.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 08:37 pm
ehBeth wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
Wherever he got the stuff from originally, which was probably from us, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Saddam Hussein WAS behind the anthrax attacks of 2001, which is basically an act of war and fully justifies our having taken the baathist state down.


No it doesn't, and no it didn't.

Now go slither someplace.


You can back that up?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 09:15 pm
I don't think snakes can back up...
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 09:22 pm
ehBeth wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
Wherever he got the stuff from originally, which was probably from us, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Saddam Hussein WAS behind the anthrax attacks of 2001, which is basically an act of war and fully justifies our having taken the baathist state down.


No it doesn't, and no it didn't.

Your opinion does not qualify as evidence. Not here. Not anywhere.



For you and anybody else who might have missed it the first time...



In the case of nuclear weaponry there appears to have been a three-way deal between Saddam Hussein, North Korea, and Libya in which raw materials from NK ended up in Libya to be transmogrified into missiles pointed at Europe and America by Saddam Hussein's technical people and with Iraqi financial backing (your oil-for-terrorism dollars at work), while Kofi Annan and his highly intelligent and efficient staff kept the west believing that their interests were being protected:

http://homepage.mac.com/macint0sh/1/pict/amos/amos.jpg

Muammar Khadaffi has since given the **** up and renounced the whole business. That sort of thing is one of the benefits of having our government back under adult supervision since 2001. The NK government in all likelihood will not survive this year.

Then there's the case of 9-11. The Czech government is sticking with its story of Mohammed Atta having met with one of Saddam Hussein's top spies prior to 9-11 and there are even pictures of the two together on the internet now:

http://thexreport.com/atta_and_al-ani_photo_and_analysis.htm

http://thexreport.com/alani14.jpg

Then there's the question of the anthrax attack which followed 9-11. Saddam Hussein's the only person on this planet who ever had that kind of weaponized anthraxs powder.

http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html

Thus it should surprise nobody that the first cases of anthrax turned up in neighborhoods where the 9-11 hijackers lived. The odds against that if there were no connection to the 9-11 hijackers are astronomical.

Moreover it does not take hundreds of tons of anthrax powder to create havoc.

The sum total which was used was a few teaspoons full. In other words, a lifetime supply of that sort of thing for a guy like Saddam Hussein could easily amount to a hundred pounds worth, and I guarantee that I could hide that in a country the size of Iraq so that it would not be found.

The question of whether or not Hussein had 1000 tons of anthrax powder is simply the wrong question. The right questions are, did the guy have the motive, the technical resources, the financial wherewithal, the facilities, and the intel apparatus to play that sort of game, and the answers to all of those questions are obvious.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 09:24 pm
For those who might be too young to recognize them, the U.N. staff members pictured above are Amos Jones, Andrew H. Brown, and George Stevens...
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 09:30 pm
Couldn't find a picture of the Three Stooges?
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 09:35 pm
gungasnake wrote:
and there are even pictures of the two together on the internet now:


That's the phoniest hack job photo I've seen in a long time. Surprised they didn't sell it to the National Inquirer.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 09:43 pm
Shhhhhh, pan.

The snake is breaking news.

(Into a million pieces.)
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 09:46 pm
McGentrix wrote:
You can back that up?


I don't need to.

Ya ever take a science course?

Here's a basic: A big claim requires big proof.




I'll let gunga continue to disprove his own claim.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 09:54 pm
PDiddie wrote:
Couldn't find a picture of the Three Stooges?


The stooges would be well qualified for jobs at the UN by aptitudes and skills but they'd not likely get past the UN color barrier.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 09:56 pm
Racist much, snake?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.22 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 09:38:12