President Trump drops "the bomb" on ISIL

[sear]

2:PM radio news reports President Trump dropped "the bomb" on ISIL; a GBU-43 bomb ("mother of all bombs") 11 tons of explosives. The report indicated it's intended to attack tunnels & their contents below the surface. The report did not indicate what aircraft delivered it.

[NightTrain]

One mile blast radius of zero oxygen.

This is the first time the MOAB was used in combat... I'm looking forward to seeing the results of the big boy.

I expect there's a few punch-drunk muzzies wandering around the countryside at the 1 mile marker trying to find that ringing telephone.

[Black Diamond]

One mile blast radius of zero oxygen.

This is the first time the MOAB was used in combat... I'm looking forward to seeing the results of the big boy.

I expect there's a few punch-drunk muzzies wandering around the countryside at the 1 mile marker trying to find that ringing telephone.
I can hear them. Othama. Othama. O--

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

One mile blast radius of zero oxygen.

This is the first time the MOAB was used in combat... I'm looking forward to seeing the results of the big boy.

I expect there's a few punch-drunk muzzies wandering around the countryside at the 1 mile marker trying to find that ringing telephone.

Remember many years ago when THE-- MAIN BODY OF ISIS WAS LOCATED TOGETHER IN A SMALL AREA OUT IN THE DESERT.. WE COULD HAVE DROPPED A COUPLE OF THOSE BOMBS AND ENDED ISIS'S RUN SAVING THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT LIVES!!
WE DID NOT BECAUSE OBAMA BOLDLY SAID--HIS WORDS-- "THEY ARE NOT TO BE DESTROYED, THEY ARE TO BE CONTAINED"!

I saw right then and there that he was on their side because they are muslim like he is...
Later he ran a fake war against them, with an average of 90% of striking airplanes being refused permission to drop payloads on ISIS TARGETS AND RETURNING TO BASE WITH FULL BOMB LOADS!!!
That was to eat up time, and resources while, the enemy grew..
Yet be able to declare how many airstrikes daily he was delivering--conveniently not mentioning how most were not allowed to actually strike!

With this we see that Trump runs no fake war and does not seek to aid ISIS as did the obama(when he engaged in treason)..
First traitor prez and the bastard will never face justice for it..-Tyr

[sear]

"Remember many years ago when THE-- MAIN BODY OF ISIS WAS LOCATED TOGETHER IN A SMALL AREA OUT IN THE DESERT.. WE COULD HAVE DROPPED A COUPLE OF THOSE BOMBS AND ENDED ISIS'S RUN SAVING THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT LIVES!!" TZ

Vividly.
That "SMALL AREA OUT IN THE DESERT" was known as Iraq. And was superbly contained by:
a) Saddam
b) "U.N." sanctions
c) North & South No-Fly zones

Then President GWB lied U.S. into War, thereby destabilizing the region ever since.
And the reports I've read of it indicate ISIL's senior military leadership are primarily if not entirely former Saddam / Iraq military commanders;
you know, the ones the Bush administration fired, unleashing them on the region.

"Keep your friends close. But keep your enemies closer."
Unleashing those monsters on the region, lying U.S. into War was a catastrophe. And you can blame Obama all you like. It was entirely GWB's doing.

[Balu]

Remember many years ago when THE-- MAIN BODY OF ISIS WAS LOCATED TOGETHER IN A SMALL AREA OUT IN THE DESERT.. WE COULD HAVE DROPPED A COUPLE OF THOSE BOMBS AND ENDED ISIS'S RUN SAVING THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT LIVES!!
WE DID NOT BECAUSE OBAMA BOLDLY SAID--HIS WORDS-- "THEY ARE NOT TO BE DESTROYED, THEY ARE TO BE CONTAINED"!

I saw right then and there that he was on their side because they are muslim like he is...
Later he ran a fake war against them, with an average of 90% of striking airplanes being refused permission to drop payloads on ISIS TARGETS AND RETURNING TO BASE WITH FULL BOMB LOADS!!!
That was to eat up time, and resources while, the enemy grew..
Yet be able to declare how many airstrikes daily he was delivering--conveniently not mentioning how most were not allowed to actually strike!

With this we see that Trump runs no fake war and does not seek to aid ISIS as did the obama(when he engaged in treason)..
First traitor prez and the bastard will never face justice for it..-Tyr
The first step is fine. The future will show, as "... One snowflake is not a snow yet. One rain drop is not rain yet....", - the words of Russian song. :slap:

[sear]

The Bushies may have pulled out all the stops in lying the U.S. into War, including swindling the U.N. into approval.

But with 20:20 hindsight we know as a certitude, BUSH LIED !!

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt, that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

U.S. President Bush (the younger) televised address to the U.S. March 17th, 2003
How can there POSSIBLY be "no doubt" about a falsehood?

The Bushies lied.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9842&stc=1

[Black Diamond]

The first step is fine. The future will show, as "... One snowflake is not a snow yet. One rain drop is not rain yet....", - the words of Russian song. :slap:
You're used to uncle vladdy leading the world on his own the last 8 years. There is a sheriff in town now.

[Black Diamond]

The Bushies may have pulled out all the stops in lying the U.S. into War, including swindling the U.N. into approval.

But with 20:20 hindsight we know as a certitude, BUSH LIED !!

How can there POSSIBLY be "no doubt" about a falsehood?

The Bushies lied.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9842&stc=1
How many ?

[NightTrain]

The Bushies may have pulled out all the stops in lying the U.S. into War, including swindling the U.N. into approval.

But with 20:20 hindsight we know as a certitude, BUSH LIED !!

How can there POSSIBLY be "no doubt" about a falsehood?

The Bushies lied.




Allllllrighty, then! Your silly bullshit grows tiresome.

What, specifically did George W. Bush lie about?

[Black Diamond]

Allllllrighty, then! Your silly bullshit grows tiresome.

What, specifically did George W. Bush lie about?
Do you think he saw the first plane hit?

[NightTrain]

Do you think he saw the first plane hit?

Undoubtedly.

It's curious to me that the moonbats who strive to appear to be intellectually elite are inevitably the ones most lacking in that department and paint themselves into a corner immediately. 1 minute spent using DP's search engine just on this site alone would have shown him that his ignorant comments have been disproven a thousand times with gigs of backup articles.

I've been waiting for someone else to pick the low hanging fruit, but it appears that everyone else isn't interested in lowering the boom on the new kid. I understand the reluctance - this is tired old territory for sure, but I've had enough of the foolishness.

KnowwhatImean, Vern?

[Black Diamond]

Undoubtedly.

It's curious to me that the moonbats who strive to appear to be intellectually elite are inevitably the ones most lacking in that department and paint themselves into a corner immediately. 1 minute spent using DP's search engine just on this site alone would have shown him that his ignorant comments have been disproven a thousand times with gigs of backup articles.

I've been waiting for someone else to pick the low hanging fruit, but it appears that everyone else isn't interested in lowering the boom on the new kid. I understand the reluctance - this is tired old territory for sure, but I've had enough of the foolishness.

KnowwhatImean, Vern?
If you were a conspiracy theorist or leftist, why would you assume bush lied re Saddam? Why not go after the people he surrounded himself with? Say they manipulated him and/or lied to him ? It's a much stronger case.

[NightTrain]

If you were a conspiracy theorist or leftist, why would you assume bush lied re Saddam? Why not go after the people he surrounded himself with? Say they manipulated him and/or lied to him ? It's a much stronger case.

That would have been a slightly better move than the obvious checkmate he put himself in right out of the gate, but that argument doesn't hold water, either.

I don't know, man. I gave up trying to understand the lack of depth in liberal logic a long time ago. Mindless parroting & willful ignorance is a hell of thing.

[sear]

"What, specifically did George W. Bush lie about?" NT #10

The exact quotation is in post #7, in quotation marks, with titled attribute, including date.

"Do you think he saw the first plane hit?" BD #11

"Undoubtedly." NT

We know for a fact he did not. It is a certitude that he did not. He was not informed of it until AFTER it happened.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9843&stc=1

[hjmick]

"What, specifically did George W. Bush lie about?" NT #10

The exact quotation is in post #7, in quotation marks, with titled attribute, including date.

"Do you think he saw the first plane hit?" BD #11

"Undoubtedly." NT

We know for a fact he did not. It is a certitude that he did not. He was not informed of it until AFTER it happened.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9843&stc=1



Psst... Hey you... Yeah you with the self proclaimed super intellect...

They were asking whether or not YOU saw the first plane fly into the WTC, not Bush...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS1J3VrxnM0

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/heres-why-mother-bombs-exploded-202500859.html

Here's why the 'mother of all bombs' exploded 6 feet above its target in Afghanistan
[Business Insider]
Rafi Letzter
•Business InsiderApril 13, 2017
MOAB bomb
MOAB bomb

(DoD Photo)

The US just dropped a bomb on an ISIS target in Afghanistan that had never before been used in war.

The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast, sometimes grimly called the "Mother of All Bombs" or "MOAB" because of its acronym, was loaded onto a pallet, flown in a C-130 cargo plane, then dragged out the back of the plane — pallet included — by a parachute.

That left the 21,600-pound bomb free-falling toward earth.

The MOAB isn't the heaviest nonnuclear bomb in the US arsenal — that's the 30,000-pound Massive Ordinance Penetrator — but with a length of 30 feet and an estimated cost of $15.7 million, it's a significant piece of military equipment.

The Air Force bought 15 MOABs from Boeing in 2011, so the deadly machine represented more than 6% of the total US stockpile of such weapons.

In free-fall, the MOAB quickly detached from its pallet and deployed course-adjusting grid fins. Hooked up to a computer and a GPS system, those fins bent the MOAB's Earthward course toward a pre-selected target. In this case, that target was an underground ISIS tunnel complex, according to the Department of Defense.

.@USFOR_A #US Forces targets ISIS-K stronghold, drops GBU-43 #MOAB bomb on #ISIS pic.twitter.com/GYjyMLiqUS
— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) April 13, 2017

The MOAB itself never touched the ground at the complex, however. Instead, like most large weapons (including nuclear bombs), it detonated in the air moments before impact. There were probably about six feet between the MOAB and the ground when it unleashed its destructive force, which was equivalent to about 11 tons of TNT.
moab test
moab test

(Prototype MOAB an instant before impact on Eglin AFB's Range 70.US Air Force)

Why didn't the MOAB strike the ground before detonating?

"The main attribute of the MOAB is that it causes overpressure," Dr. Adam Lowther, director of the US Air Force's school of deterrence, told Business Insider reporter Alex Lockie.

"Overpressure" is a term for the sharp spike in air pressure that a bomb causes. That change in pressure moves away from the bomb in a wave in all directions. Any mines, tunnels, or human bodies caught in the blast would be unrecognizable after it passed.

If the MOAB were to detonate on contact with the ground, a lot of that pressure wave would be sent into the dirt, digging out a small crater around the bomb. Dirt is a lot harder to move than air, so the energy wouldn't travel very far before petering out.

Detonating a bomb of that scale on the ground would still do plenty of damage within a certain range, of course, but weapons engineers use physics to expand the reach of such bombs.
(Illustration of the effect creating a mach stem in a nuclear explosion.Wikimedia commons)
airburst
airburst

When a bomb explodes in the air, the overpressure waves still spread out in all directions, including downward. But the downward-moving waves bounce when they strike the Earth, flying back up through the hot region of thin air that the detonation created just moments earlier.

In hot, thin air, pressure waves move faster. So the bounced waves can catch up with the one created in the initial explosion as it continues to spread outward and sideways above the ground. Those waves combine, forming a "mach stem" that can increase the initial force of the explosion by as much as two times.

That mach stem wildly expands the bomb's kill zone, and creates a larger downward force on the earth that can collapse tunnels and explode mines below the surface without wasting energy carving out huge craters.

If this bomb had exploded somewhere flat (unlike the mountainous Nangarhar province where the bomb was dropped) it would have created a blast radius a mile wide.

MOABs are not the only explosives built to detonate in the air. Nuclear bombs are also built to explode well above their targets, often by a factor of miles, not feet.

It takes a lot of complex science to build machines this deadly.



Here's why the 'mother of all bombs' exploded 6 feet above its target in Afghanistan

Here is why we finally got around to the game winning idea that won WW2!!

KILL THEM UNTIL WE WIN!!!!

DO NOT TRY TO TALK THEM TO DEATH OR APPEASE THEM INTO SURRENDER!!!!

KILL THEM, AS EVERY WAR HAS SHOWN IS THE METHOD TO VICTORY!!!

USE EVERY WEAPON AVAILABLE AND DO SO WITH THE ONLY GOAL THAT MEANS ANYTHING--WINNING!!!

THEY ARE LIKE COCKROACHES, SO BOMB THEM.... USE HEAVY ORDINANCES AS MANY OF US HAVE SCREAMED TO DO FOR YEARS NOW!!!!-Tyr

[sear]

"Psst... Hey you... Yeah you with the self proclaimed super intellect..." h #16

a) You are wrong, almost certainly lying.

b) "Self-proclaimed" means such assertion would have been previously posted under the pseudonym "sear".

It never was.

PROVE ME WRONG !! Quote me with link.

But you and I both know you won't,
because you can't
because I didn't.

"They were asking whether or not YOU saw the first plane fly into the WTC, not Bush..." h #16

1) That makes more sense.

2) That may well have been their intent.

3) It isn't.

I'll quote the post.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by NightTrain http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=863880#post863880) Allllllrighty, then! Your silly bullshit grows tiresome.
What, specifically did George W. Bush lie about?


Do you think he saw the first plane hit?

In this syntax, according to standard rules of American English grammar,
the pronoun "he" refers to the most recently named person; in this case "George W. Bush".

But no.
For my faithful fans that are so deeply emotionally involved in my individual matters, the first airliner strike flagged the attack.
That's why I turned on the video to catch the 2nd strike real time.

I also caught 1st person accounts, including reports of humans leaping from the upper stories of the towers, before they collapsed.

[NightTrain]

The Bushies may have pulled out all the stops in lying the U.S. into War, including swindling the U.N. into approval.

But with 20:20 hindsight we know as a certitude, BUSH LIED !!

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt, that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

U.S. President Bush (the younger) televised address to the U.S. March 17th, 2003
How can there POSSIBLY be "no doubt" about a falsehood?

The Bushies lied.







American troops found nearly 5,000 abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq from 2004 to 2011, but their discoveries were kept secret by the U.S. government, the New York Times reports.

According to the 10,000-word, eight-part interactive report ("The Secret Casualties of Iraq's Abandoned Chemical Weapons") by C.J. Chivers published on the paper's website late Tuesday, at least 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers were exposed to nerve or mustard agents in Iraq after 2003.


On at least six occasions, American troops and American-trained Iraqi troops were wounded by the abandoned munitions, but news of the encounters was neither shared publicly nor widely circulated among the troops, the victims told the Times. Others said they were told to be vague or deceptive about what they found.


"'Nothing of significance’ is what I was ordered to say,” Jarrod Lampier, a retired Army major, said of the 2006 discovery of 2,400 nerve-agent rockets at a former Republican Guard compound, the largest chemical weapons discovery of the war.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9844&stc=1

1 MAY 2004 Two soldiers exposed to sarin from a shell near Baghdad’s Yarmouk neighborhood.


2 SUMMER 2006 Over 2,400 nerve-agent rockets found at this former Republican Guard compound.


3 JULY 2008 Six Marines exposed to mustard agent from an artillery shell at an abandoned bunker.

4 AUGUST 2008 Five American soldiers exposed to mustard agent while destroying a weapons cache.

5 2010 OR EARLY 2011 Hundreds of mustard rounds discovered in a container at this Iraqi security compound.





Discuss.

[NightTrain]

"Psst... Hey you... Yeah you with the self proclaimed super intellect..." h #16

a) You are wrong, almost certainly lying.

b) "Self-proclaimed" means such assertion would have been previously posted under the pseudonym "sear".

It never was.

PROVE ME WRONG !! Quote me with link.

But you and I both know you won't,
because you can't
because I didn't.

"They were asking whether or not YOU saw the first plane fly into the WTC, not Bush..." h #16

1) That makes more sense.

2) That may well have been their intent.

3) It isn't.

I'll quote the post.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by NightTrain http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=863880#post863880) Allllllrighty, then! Your silly bullshit grows tiresome.
What, specifically did George W. Bush lie about?


Do you think he saw the first plane hit?

In this syntax, according to standard rules of American English grammar,
the pronoun "he" refers to the most recently named person; in this case "George W. Bush".

But no.
For my faithful fans that are so deeply emotionally involved in my individual matters, the first airliner strike flagged the attack.
That's why I turned on the video to catch the 2nd strike real time.

I also caught 1st person accounts, including reports of humans leaping from the upper stories of the towers, before they collapsed.

I can confirm that HJ is correct : BD and I were speaking of you, genius.

[hjmick]

"Psst... Hey you... Yeah you with the self proclaimed super intellect..." h #16

a) You are wrong, almost certainly lying.

b) "Self-proclaimed" means such assertion would have been previously posted under the pseudonym "sear".

It never was.

PROVE ME WRONG !! Quote me with link.

But you and I both know you won't,
because you can't
because I didn't.




It's the attitude you convey in every post, shit stain. It's your refusal to learn, or if not learn then your simple refusal, to use the quote function which would make your responses to the board citizenry easier to follow. Everything about you screams that you think you are smarter and better than the rest of us. You are tailfins without a catalogue bride...

[Drummond]

"What, specifically did George W. Bush lie about?" NT #10

The exact quotation is in post #7, in quotation marks, with titled attribute, including date.

"Do you think he saw the first plane hit?" BD #11

"Undoubtedly." NT

We know for a fact he did not. It is a certitude that he did not. He was not informed of it until AFTER it happened.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9843&stc=1

... ah. 'A certitude'. Sear, the last time I saw you allege something was 'a certitude', it turned out that you meant the opposite.

Just sayin' ......

[aboutime]

Haven't we been hearing this crap of 'sear' since 2001? Conspiracy junkies love it. So sear...since 2001. I have been asking liberal liars like you to PROVE G.W. Bush lied to the American people. Not with opinions, rumors, liberal lies, but Documented, Verifiable, Honest Facts.

Bet...not even YOU will be able to prove it either.

As for the delivery plane that dropped the MOAB. It was a specially outfitted C-130.


So....'shitstain' or 'shithead'. PROVE IT. Prove your accusations are anything other than HATEFUL LIES from hateful LIARS.

[Black Diamond]

One mile blast radius of zero oxygen.

This is the first time the MOAB was used in combat... I'm looking forward to seeing the results of the big boy.

I expect there's a few punch-drunk muzzies wandering around the countryside at the 1 mile marker trying to find that ringing telephone.
I wonder if our buddy Kim took notice. Hmmmm

[aboutime]

I wonder if our buddy Kim took notice. Hmmmm


For some reason. I have this cartoon character KIM, FEELING the MOAB effect, floating over the Pacific, then over San Francisco, screaming in KOREAN....."DAMN YOU TRUMP!!!":clap::clap::clap:

[Elessar]

That "SMALL AREA OUT IN THE DESERT" was known as Iraq. And was superbly contained by:
a) Saddam
b) "U.N." sanctions
c) North & South No-Fly zones

Then President GWB lied U.S. into War, thereby destabilizing the region ever since.
And the reports I've read of it indicate ISIL's senior military leadership are primarily if not entirely former Saddam / Iraq military commanders;
you know, the ones the Bush administration fired, unleashing them on the region.

Unleashing those monsters on the region, lying U.S. into War was a catastrophe. And you can blame Obama all you like. It was entirely GWB's doing.

Read this again very carefully, fool!
GWB did NOT lie about anything. He and Gen Powell repeated to the Congress, the People, and the UN what was presented as
intelligence reports that were accepted by most of the civilized world. The UN and France chose not to act on it because both were
mired in a Food For Oil scheme with Saddam.

Convoys of trucks were spotted leaving Iraq for Syria prior to the invasion.
Saddam did not allow the UN to freely inspect much of the county, yet evidence was found
that he did indeed have stocks of WMD's in county. Check Post #19 while you are at it.

Only after 2 years was it found that the intel was contrived by a rogue agent.

So...GWB DID Not Lie! He repeated what he was given and did not make it up.

Let's go to the list of liberals who spoke up about their knowledge of the reported
WMD's shall we? Did they LIE as well? Why not accuse them while you are at it?

Why do whiney liberals always camp out with words like Liar? You are weak and have
blinders permanently riveted to your temples.

[Black Diamond]

Read this again very carefully, fool!
GWB did NOT lie about anything. He and Gen Powell repeated to the Congress, the People, and the UN what was presented as
intelligence reports that were accepted by most of the civilized world. The UN and France chose not to act on it because both were
mired in a Food For Oil scheme with Saddam.

Convoys of trucks were spotted leaving Iraq for Syria prior to the invasion.
Saddam did not allow the UN to freely inspect much of the county, yet evidence was found
that he did indeed have stocks of WMD's in county. Check Post #19 while you are at it.

Only after 2 years was it found that the intel was contrived by a rogue agent.

So...GWB DID Not Lie! He repeated what he was given and did not make it up.

Let's go to the list of liberals who spoke up about their knowledge of the reported
WMD's shall we? Did they LIE as well? Why not accuse them while you are at it?

Why do whiney liberals always camp out with words like Liar? You are weak and have
blinders permanently riveted to your temples.
Tell a lie enough people believe it? I mean the liberals.

[Elessar]

Here is but a sample of DEMOCRAT LIES based on your definition, sear:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
Dec, 5, 2001.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD’S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!

[sear]

NT #19 & #20

"U.N." inspectors Blix & Ritter went over Iraq with a fine-tooth comb.

I'm aware other materials were found.

a) None of it was battle ready WMD.
If it had been, why did Saddam not use it for the one universally recognized legitimate use of such materials; national defense? [when Abizaid's forces were rolling toward Baghdad]

b) At news conference I saw Bush respond to such reports. Bush's statement was unambiguously clear: they were not the WMD Bush's casus belli was based on. Bush said so explicitly.

The sanity check on that is Bush's own words:

"Time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." U.S. President Bush (the younger) in his State of the Union speech Jan. 29, 2002
The junk found in those dumps did not constitute [in Bush's own words] "the world's most destructive weapons".
It was junk found in a dump. Get over it.

"I can confirm that HJ is correct : BD and I were speaking of you, genius." NT #20

And therefore what?
That the opinion of anyone that didn't witness the impact of the first airliner is rendered invalid? What CONCEIVABLE difference could it make?!

"the last time I saw you allege something was 'a certitude', it turned out that you meant the opposite." D #22

Quote me, with link if you please, so we may review the alleged transgression in context.

Thanks.

"I have been asking liberal liars like you to PROVE G.W. Bush lied to the American people." at #23

Been there.
Done that.
Post #7, quotation dated March 17th, 2003.
Referenced subsequently.

"PROVE IT. Prove your accusations are anything other than HATEFUL LIES from hateful LIARS." at #23

Amusing that you equate devotion to truth with hate.
Bush lied.
I attest to it.
And you pretend that renders me hateful? http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9846&stc=1
Truth is not hate cupcake.

"GWB did NOT lie about anything. He and Gen Powell ..." E #26

I've already addressed a GWB lie.
Now for a Secretary Powell lie.

During JFK's Cuban Missile Crisis, the evidence presented included declassified aerial photographs from U.S. U2 "spy plane" of Soviet missiles on Cuban soil.

When Secretary Powell made his presentation to the U.N. General Assembly, his graphics of mobile WMD labs were not declassified photographs. They were U.S. government drawings. Technically "artwork".
And I'm not aware of any evidence that such "mobile WMD labs" ever existed. It's been 15 years, and 3 U.S. presidencies. Not one shred of evidence any such mobile WMD lab ever existed.

For most of his career, I've held Colin Powell in the very highest esteem. His path, from U.S. military enlistee all the way to JCS, and then Secretary of State is extremely impressive.

BUT !!

In my opinion Powell was never at lower ebb than in that U.N. General Assembly address.

"Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return." U.S. Secretary Colin Powell

[Balu]

Snowden: 'Mother of all bombs' in Afghanistan hit US-built tunnels

World (http://tass.com/world)
April 14, 6:21 UTC+3 MOSCOW
A 9.5-tonne bomb, nicknamed ‘The Mother of All Bombs’, was dropped on Afghanistan Thursday

https://phototass3.cdnvideo.ru/width/744_b12f2926/tass/m2/en/uploads/i/20170414/1166276.jpg
Edward Snowden

© EPA/PANTELIS SAITAS

MOSCOW, April 14. /TASS/. Pentagon’s recent test in Afghanistan of a powerful non-nuclear bomb, nicknamed ‘The Mother of All Bombs’ (MOAB), targeted tunnels that were possibly built by the United States, former NSA contractor Edward Snowden wrote on his Twitter page.
"Those mujahedeen tunnel networks we're bombing in Afghanistan? We paid for them," Snowden wrote, attaching an excerpt from a 2005 New York Times article, which suggested that the construction of the Tora Bora cave complex in the province of Nangarhar was financed by the CIA in 1980. At that period, Washington supported mujahedeen, who fought against the Soviet military in the country.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9UGqNNWsAI8G5O.jpg:small
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/852597443237732352


According to earlier media reports, a 9.5-tonne GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb, nicknamed MOAB, was dropped at 7 p.m. local time Thursday. The bomb was dropped by an MC-130 aircraft, operated by Air Force Special Operations Command. CNN reported citing its military sources that "the target was ISIS tunnels and personnel in the Achin district of the Nangarhar province."

More:
http://tass.com/world/941361

[Kathianne]

Which probably helped with coordinates. Seems quite a few ISIS fighters were killed, you disappointed, Balu? Sounds like.

[hjmick]

Which probably helped with coordinates. Seems quite a few ISIS fighters were killed, you disappointed, Balu? Sounds like.


The reports I've seen say 36 were killed. With a $16,000,000.00 (each) bomb. That's just about $444,444.44 for each ISIS scumbag with no U.S. lives put in harm's way. I suppose that's a decent ROI...

[Kathianne]

The reports I've seen say 36 were killed. With a $16,000,000.00 (each) bomb. That's just about $444,444.44 for each ISIS scumbag with no U.S. lives put in harm's way. I suppose that's a decent ROI...

War is expensive, which is why it certainly shouldn't be first resort. I'm just hoping this weekend goes with ONLY the cancellation of Easter services for the Coptic Christians, with no news from NK in the next 48 hours.

[sear]

"War is expensive, which is why it certainly shouldn't be first resort." K #33

Not the way UBL waged it.

The attacks which cost the U.S. countless $Billions on 09/11/01 cost UBL 19 airline tickets.

I'm not saying we can't, or don't spend much on our martial budget.

BUT !!

If you'll pardon the indelicate phrasing, it is possible to get better $bang for the $buck.

[Kathianne]

"War is expensive, which is why it certainly shouldn't be first resort." K #33

Not the way UBL waged it.

The attacks which cost the U.S. countless $Billions on 09/11/01 cost UBL 19 airline tickets.

I'm not saying we can't, or don't spend much on our martial budget.

BUT !!

If you'll pardon the indelicate phrasing, it is possible to get better $bang for the $buck.

Yeah, that works if you don't mind making your soldiers into martyrs, not our first choice.

[Balu]

Which probably helped with coordinates. Seems quite a few ISIS fighters were killed, you disappointed, Balu? Sounds like.
To some extend I am disappointed. As in Afghanistan YOU created Al-Qaeda, who, as you stating, made a terroristic act in New York and Washington (Pentagon) in 2001, and ISIS in Iraq - the net of terrorist in the Middle East we have to fight against in Syria and sometimes in Russia.
I don't know why, but I see no reasons to thank you for this and jumping for joy about this.

[sear]

"Yeah, that works if you don't mind making your soldiers into martyrs, not our first choice." K #35

It is possible make martyrs of ones own fighters.
But it is not an absolute prerequisite of economical warfare.

Poisoning a municipal water supply is an obvious example.

BUT !!

In the latter case, the battle planners need to use their heads for more than keeping rain out of their necks.

[Kathianne]

To some extend I am disappointed. As in Afghanistan YOU created Al-Qaeda, who, as you stating, made a terroristic act in New York and Washington (Pentagon) in 2001, and ISIS in Iraq - the net of terrorist in the Middle East we have to fight against in Syria and sometimes in Russia.
I don't know why, but I see no reasons to thank you for this and jumping for joy about this.

There comes a point where it really is nonsense to keep saying, 'You did this, we do that.' Today is my turn to refer you to what YOU did in Vietnam. It was the Cold War, that only meant the defunct USSR and still great USA fought proxy wars. YOU in Vietnam, US in Afghanistan.

Wouldn't it be nice if our leaders were smart enough to move past that?

[sear]

PS B #36
"in Afghanistan YOU created Al-Qaeda" B #36

No.
It was the Soviets that created al Qaida.

al Qaida simply means the [paramilitary] base.

It was a focus of insurgency against the Soviet occupation.

HOWEVER !!

It is true that those (al Qaida) "freedom fighters" did receive U.S. assistance. Stinger shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles for example; the insurgent's best defense against the formidable Soviet Hind helicopter gunships.

But if it's blame for al Qaida you want to dish out, I'd say the Soviets deserve more than the U.S.

[Balu]

There comes a point where it really is nonsense to keep saying, 'You did this, we do that.' Today is my turn to refer you to what YOU did in Vietnam. It was the Cold War, that only meant the defunct USSR and still great USA fought proxy wars. YOU in Vietnam, US in Afghanistan.

Wouldn't it be nice if our leaders were smart enough to move past that?
We DID NOT create TERRORISTI organizations in Vietnam, but strengthened the Army of Vietnam rendering them military assistance against those who poisoned them by 'Agent Orange' and burning by napalm.

[Kathianne]

We DID NOT create TERRORISTI organizations in Vietnam, but strengthened the Army of Vietnam rendering them military assistance against those who poisoned them by 'Agent Orange' and burning by napalm.

You are a funky monkey. :laugh2:

[Balu]

You are a funky monkey. :laugh2:
I have to remind you, madam, that you are NOT an ordinary user of the forum, but a Super Moderator here.
For me there are 2 ways to reply to you - as Mr. Lavrov, asking 'who was bringing you up', or as our representative with the UN, addressing to the cad from the UK. Which one do you prefer, madam? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/dirol.gif

[Kathianne]

I have to remind you, madam, that you are NOT an ordinary user of the forum, but a Super Moderator here.
For me there are 2 ways to reply to you - as Mr. Lavrov, asking 'who was bringing you up', or as our representative with the UN, addressing to the cad from the UK. Which one do you prefer, madam? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/dirol.gif

:laugh2: Again, you haven't a clue. As for status, we do not give up our rights as posters.

[Balu]

:laugh2: Again, you haven't a clue. As for status, we do not give up our rights as posters.
Your Rights stopped at the edge of the fist of MY Legal Rights, madam. And DO NOT forget about it. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/dirol.gif

[Kathianne]

Your Rights stopped at the edge of the fist of MY Legal Rights, madam. And DO NOT forget about it. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/dirol.gif

My little commie friend, none of your legal right have been abridged, not even close. Whatever are you thinking? or are you just trying to impress with your lack of knowledge?

[Elessar]

I guess that since there is no reply to POST #28, sear feels liberal dems cannot lie!

Not up to the challenge to refute what has been recorded in the media.

[NightTrain]

NT #19 & #20

"U.N." inspectors Blix & Ritter went over Iraq with a fine-tooth comb.

No, they didn't. Frequently they were stalled at the front gates of a complex for a couple hours while convoys of trucks hauled ass out of the back, only allowed access after the trucks were all gone and things were cleaned up for the 'surprise inspection'. Blix was played for a fool and the international community watched as Saddam played his games with him.

If you think Blix and his merry band of inspectors "went over Iraq with a fine-tooth comb", you are either incredibly naive as to how it was supposed to work or didn't pay attention. Which is it?


I'm aware other materials were found.

a) None of it was battle ready WMD.
If it had been, why did Saddam not use it for the one universally recognized legitimate use of such materials; national defense? [when Abizaid's forces were rolling toward Baghdad]

No, your attempt to move the goal posts won't be accepted. I figured you'd go this route which is why I asked clarification and you referred back to your post of :


The Bushies may have pulled out all the stops in lying the U.S. into War, including swindling the U.N. into approval.

But with 20:20 hindsight we know as a certitude, BUSH LIED !!

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt, that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

U.S. President Bush (the younger) televised address to the U.S. March 17th, 2003
How can there POSSIBLY be "no doubt" about a falsehood?

The Bushies lied.

I provided proof that, indeed, 5,000 chemical weapons were found in Iraq by American forces from 2003 to 2011.


Thus, your statement is proven 100% wrong.




b) At news conference I saw Bush respond to such reports. Bush's statement was unambiguously clear: they were not the WMD Bush's casus belli was based on. Bush said so explicitly.

The sanity check on that is Bush's own words:

The junk found in those dumps did not constitute [in Bush's own words] "the world's most destructive weapons".
It was junk found in a dump. Get over it.

He said that, huh? Link?

But while you dig up that non-existent news conference bit, I'd like to point out the 2400 nerve agent rockets found at the Republican Guard base in 2006. The Republican Guards were Saddam's premiere elite fighting force and having rockets equipped with nerve agent makes them "battle ready WMD" (your words).

I trust that clears things up for you.

I still want to see Bush saying what you claimed he said, though. I won't hold my breath, however.



"I can confirm that HJ is correct : BD and I were speaking of you, genius." NT #20

And therefore what?
That the opinion of anyone that didn't witness the impact of the first airliner is rendered invalid? What CONCEIVABLE difference could it make?!

You can take that up with HJ - he's more than capable of spanking you and I wouldn't deny him the pleasure.

I simply confirmed that HJ was correct and it appears that you are the only one on this board that didn't know whom BD and I were talking about.




So, now that you've been proven wrong - as has every other liberal who has come in here confidently spewing the same tripe ad nauseam - I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage you to utilize the search engine on this board. Or, simply browse the relevant forums for such topics. In such ways, you can avoid the pitfalls of all of the other countless moonbats that have come before you and simultaneously educate yourself.

And I wouldn't have to rehash an argument that I've won countless times before.

[sear]

"Here is but a sample of DEMOCRAT LIES based on your definition, sear:" E #28

a) Please post a full quotation of sear's definition of "DEMOCRAT LIES".

b) Why are you pressuring me to answer for DEMOCRAT LIES?

c) You're welcome to mislabel me any way you like. Your bogus, derisive labels do not define me. I define me *. Anyone stupid enough to fall for your lies doesn't merit my concern. And anyone that merits my esteem will see far past your assaultive mischaracterizations.

You have inspired a Good Friday thread: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?58871-Which-is-the-more-conservative-position-What-is-conservatism&p=863985#post863985


* "All honors wounds are self-inflicted." Andrew Carnegie
If that's too complicated for you to understand E, perhaps the following translation of Schopenhaur will be of greater benefit to you.


"Honor has not to be won; it must only not be lost." Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), German philosopher

[Elessar]

"Here is but a sample of DEMOCRAT LIES based on your definition, sear:" E #28

a) Please post a full quotation of sear's definition of "DEMOCRAT LIES".

b) Why are you pressuring me to answer for DEMOCRAT LIES?

c) You're welcome to mislabel me any way you like. Your bogus, derisive labels do not define me. I define me *. Anyone stupid enough to fall for your lies doesn't merit my concern. And anyone that merits my esteem will see far past your assaultive mischaracterizations.

You have inspired a Good Friday thread: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?58871-Which-is-the-more-conservative-position-What-is-conservatism&p=863985#post863985


* "All honors wounds are self-inflicted." Andrew Carnegie
If that's too complicated for you to understand E, perhaps the following translation of Schopenhaur will be of greater benefit to you.


"Honor has not to be won; it must only not be lost." Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), German philosopher

There is no sample of your posts showing democrat lies, and you know it. You just choose to focus
on GWB and disregard the democrats and what they said...which would be LIES by your limited
definition.

Yeah, you sure do define and label yourself - as an egotistical, narcissistic and narrow-minded fool.

[sear]

"There is no sample of your posts showing democrat lies" E #49

None that I recall.
Has anyone asserted otherwise?

"and you know it. You just choose to focus on GWB" E #49

Have you read a newspaper this century?
The Republicans are in power.

- Not only do Republicans control a reported majority of the State houses.
- Republicans also control the house, via Speaker Ryan.
- Republicans control the senate via Majority Leader McConnell.
- Republicans dominate on SCOTUS via CJ Roberts, and a majority of Republican appointees. AND !!
- Republicans also control the exec, via a self-confessed vagina fondler.

"and disregard the democrats and what they said...which would be LIES by your limited definition." E #49

What definition? Please post a complete quotation of what you allege to be a definition of it.

"Yeah, you sure do define and label yourself - as an egotistical, narcissistic and narrow-minded fool." E #49

Thank you E. Your opinion means a lot to me.

If instead of you posting a persuasive logical refutation against any argument I've posted, you turn to insulting ad hom,
it merely demonstrates your frustration, how out of your own depth you have become in attempting to exchange views with me.

You shouldn't be ashamed.
Half the people you know are above average.
Sooner or later you were bound to encounter someone with communication skills superior to yours.
Your error is in exposing your frustration by surrendering.

[NightTrain]

sear

A polite and cheery acknowledgement of being demonstrated wrong instead of pretending the whole thing didn't happen is considered proper etiquette. It's also the mark of a man with a sense of honor.

[Black Diamond]

@sear (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=3782)

A polite and cheery acknowledgement of being demonstrated wrong instead of pretending the whole thing didn't happen is considered proper etiquette. It's also the mark of a man with a sense of honor.
Oh God. Stop it.

[NightTrain]

Oh God. Stop it.

:laugh2:

Hey, thought I'd give the little fella a chance! I've been surprised by a moonbat or two before... not often, but it has happened.

[sear]

"A polite and cheery acknowledgement of being demonstrated wrong instead of pretending the whole thing didn't happen is considered proper etiquette. It's also the mark of a man with a sense of honor." NT

Correct.

[NightTrain]

"A polite and cheery acknowledgement of being demonstrated wrong instead of pretending the whole thing didn't happen is considered proper etiquette. It's also the mark of a man with a sense of honor." NT

Correct.

Can you elaborate?

[sear]

NT #55

Of course.
Anyone that understands the concept could.

The general rule was asserted.
I confirmed it.
The insinuation that it applies to me is trivial, childish. Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas.

Thanks.
But no thanks.

I know the protocol. It's the last thing I need a lesson in from the ad hom trolls that post here.

Perhaps you should review my sig-line.

You'll find I vastly prefer the topic to ad hom.

Please read & heed the sig-line.

Thanks.

[Elessar]

Your error is in exposing your frustration by surrendering.

Ohhh..don't flatter yourself. I did not surrender anything. That hard to do
while laughing at you.:laugh2:

You STILL refuse to refute your one-way definition of "Lies" regarding the WMD dust-up.

So..the dems jumping on the bandwagon with their astute references to past discoveries
are not lies?

what a limited reality you have.

[Black Diamond]

Ohhh..don't flatter yourself. I did not surrender anything. That hard to do
while laughing at you.:laugh2:

You STILL refuse to refute your one-way definition of "Lies" regarding the WMD dust-up.

So..the dems jumping on the bandwagon with their astute references to past discoveries
are not lies?

what a limited reality you have.
He seems to be into that word "surrender" today.

[NightTrain]

NT #55

Of course.
Anyone that understands the concept could.

The general rule was asserted.
I confirmed it.
The insinuation that it applies to me is trivial, childish. Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas.

Thanks.
But no thanks.

I know the protocol. It's the last thing I need a lesson in from the ad hom trolls that post here.

Perhaps you should review my sig-line.

You'll find I vastly prefer the topic to ad hom.

Please read & heed the sig-line.

Thanks.


So, we can chalk this up to refusing to acknowledge that you were completely and utterly wrong with your bold - but silly - statements. I will admit, that was the expected course for you to adopt after the thumping - but as I said to BD, I thought it would be polite to give you a chance to do the right thing.

There's another moonbat that runs around here making foolish statements and then refuses to acknowledge her shortcomings when confronted with the truth. It's quite amusing to see such behavior.

However, I am reminded of an old adage that applies quite nicely to your refusal to observe proper debate etiquette when beaten :


Never try to teach a pig to sing. It annoys the pig and wastes your time.

Another handy quote I've recently become aware of is :


"Don't show your @$$." comedienne Wanda Sykes quoting her mother's advice to her

[sear]

"I did not surrender anything." E #57

Perhaps not deliberately.

"You STILL refuse to refute your one-way definition of "Lies" regarding the WMD dust-up." E

It wouldn't occur to me to attempt it, until one is posted. I don't recall ever having posted any. And I've requested that you do so, to no avail.

"what a limited reality you have." E

Extremely.
It is limited to the cosmos, which author / professor / astronomer Bob Berman suggests is infinite.

[Gunny]

:laugh2: Again, you haven't a clue. As for status, we do not give up our rights as posters.So NOW you're a moderator. Good thing you're all special like that what with me being a class snob no all ... Kathianne. So what "rights" are you supposedly depriving junior of?

[Kathianne]

So NOW you're a moderator. Good thing you're all special like that what with me being a class snob no all ... @Kathianne (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=8). So what "rights" are you supposedly depriving junior of?

Who knows what he's blabbering about, he seems upset and is no longer making sense. :laugh2:

[Black Diamond]

Who knows what he's blabbering about, he seems upset and is no longer making sense. :laugh2:
Vladdy doesn't own the world yet?

[sear]

"Vladdy doesn't own the world yet?" BD #63

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to uhm, get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country, and the best interests of his country." U.S. President Bush (the younger) assessing Russia's Vlad Putin in June, 2001

What a frick
in more on!

That is about the worst mis-read of any character assessment I've ever encountered.

I'm guessing Bush wears Loafers.

[Kathianne]

Vladdy doesn't own the world yet?

But! (lol!) he will! So smart, so strong, so sexy! Our little commie buddy really does have the hots for him.

[Gunny]

Vladdy doesn't own the world yet?Vlad doesn't own even his own message board where he can chirp to himself in the mirror to his heart's content. I wonder if he can put himself on ignore ....

[sear]

"Vlad doesn't own even his own message board" G

Pravda.

[Elessar]

"I did not surrender anything." E #57

Perhaps not deliberately.

"You STILL refuse to refute your one-way definition of "Lies" regarding the WMD dust-up." E

It wouldn't occur to me to attempt it, until one is posted. I don't recall ever having posted any. And I've requested that you do so, to no avail.

"what a limited reality you have." E

Extremely.
It is limited to the cosmos, which author / professor / astronomer Bob Berman suggests is infinite.

Scroll back. I've posted some of the Dem lies in regards to the WMD declaration. I am not going
to do your homework for you.

[Black Diamond]

How much of using this Moab was another shot across the fat Koreans bow?

[NightTrain]

How much of using this Moab was another shot across the fat Koreans bow?

It was a direct message to Fatboy, also to Iran... and I imagine ISIS is trying to figure out how deep they have to build tunnels now. A mile? That's pretty deep.

I've noticed a sudden lack of Iranian gunboats harassing US Navy ships lately, too.

How about the Houthis in Yemen? Pretty quiet over there, too.

[Black Diamond]

It was a direct message to Fatboy, also to Iran... and I imagine ISIS is trying to figure out how deep they have to build tunnels now. A mile? That's pretty deep.

I've noticed a sudden lack of Iranian gunboats harassing US Navy ships lately, too.

How about the Houthis in Yemen? Pretty quiet over there, too.
Trump is daring these fucksticks....

And double daring them.

[sear]

"It was a direct message" NT #70

Excellent.
Please state that message succinctly.

Thanks.

[Black Diamond]

"It was a direct message" NT #70

Excellent.
Please state that message succinctly.

Thanks.
Don't mess with America or we will grab you by the pussy.

[Gunny]

Don't mess with America or we will grab you by the pussy.I am SO laughing my ass off. You're such an a-hole. :laugh2:

Words of wisdom ... don't get BD riled up. I can't keep from cracking up:laugh2: You think I'm bad? Go ahead and piss him off. I'll watch. :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[sear]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png originally posted by sear http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=864119#post864119)

"it was a direct message" nt #70

"excellent.
Please state that message succinctly.
Thanks." s





"don't mess with america or we will grab you by the pussy."
lovl

[Gunny]

lovlSincei we don't have an NT #70 on the board, I wouldn't be holding my breath. I will say his comments were direct and to the point. What more is he supposed to say?

[NightTrain]

Sincei we don't have an NT #70 on the board, I wouldn't be holding my breath. I will say his comments were direct and to the point. What more is he supposed to say?


I thought it was rather straightforward.

[Gunny]

I thought it was rather straightforward.I didn't miss anything. Not sure what the question is,

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/heres-21-000-pound-bomb-183103642.html


Here's how a 21,000-pound bomb like the one just dropped on ISIS in Afghanistan would affect your city
Natasha Bertrand,Business Insider Thu, Apr 13 11:31 AM PDT



The US has deployed the largest nonnuclear bomb in its inventory on an ISIS target in a remote part of far northeast Afghanistan, the Pentagon confirmed on Thursday.

The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast, whose acronym has inspired the nickname "Mother of All Bombs" or "MOAB," weighs over 21,000 pounds.

It was developed during the Iraq War. It had not been used in combat until now.

It was dropped on an ISIS-Khorasan, or ISIS-K, camp in the Achin district of Afghanistan's Nangarhar province, which borders northwest Pakistan, US officials with direct knowledge of the mission told CNN.

An online simulator called HYDESim, which stands for High-Yield Detonation Effects Simulator, "maps overpressure radii generated by a ground-level detonation."

"These radii are an indicator of structural damage to buildings," the simulator says.

Through the simulator, you can see how the MOAB would affect New York City, Los Angeles, London, and other big cities, based on the HYDESim's estimate of its explosive yield. (The exact yield is classified, but it's approximately .011KT)

Based on the simulator's calculations, the effects of the bomb would be widely felt, causing "most glass surfaces, such as windows" to shatter, "some with enough force to cause injury" as much as a mile from the blast site, according to the simulator. The actual blast would likely destroy one or two city blocks.

By contrast, the US's most powerful nuclear bomb — the B83, with a 1.2 megaton maximum yield — would have a blast radius of nearly 20 miles.

The MOAB strike on Thursday "was designed to minimize the risk to Afghan and US forces conducting clearing operations in the area while maximizing the destruction of ISIS-K fighters and facilities," US Central Command said in a statement.

"As ISIS-K's losses have mounted, they are using IEDs, bunkers, and tunnels to thicken their defense," Gen. John Nicholson, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, said in the statement. "This is the right munition to reduce these obstacles and maintain the momentum of our offensive against ISIS-K."

Afghanistan march map isw(ISW)

Watch footage of the MOAB being tested:

Christopher Woody contributed reporting.

Can not find enough good words to praise Trump adequately for hitting the muslim scum with this weapon.
Now he needs to hit the true enemy targets in Syria, and lay off hitting Syrian military forces that are and have been fighting our enemy there(muslim scum-ISIS) for years now, IMHO..-TYR

[sear]

"Now he needs to hit the true enemy targets in Syria, and lay off hitting Syrian military forces that are and have been fighting our enemy there(muslim scum-ISIS) for years now, IMHO..-TYR" TZ #79

It is the Syrian military, Assad's military that's been massacring the good People of Syria for 5 years now.
The resulting exodus has reportedly been a major contributor to the worst refugee crisis in Western Europe since WWII.

I understand.
It is axiomatic in the Middle East: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." And Assad's military are battling ISIL. But that doesn't make the Syrian military a U.S. ally.

[aboutime]

For 'sear'. We all thought you left town (D.C.) on January 20th. You are done. Go away. Just like you did for 8 years...you didn't, and wouldn't follow simple directions, or comply with the wishes of the membership rules....even here at DP.



http://youtu.be/T1XgFsitnQw

[jimnyc]

I was having a grin from ear to ear in NJ when I read they dropped this sucker, made my day. :)

I read earlier, if not written here already (didn't read entire thread), that the body count went from high 30's all the way up to 96 dead today. Such a shame, terrorists snuffed out before their time. :lol:

[Drummond]

"Now he needs to hit the true enemy targets in Syria, and lay off hitting Syrian military forces that are and have been fighting our enemy there(muslim scum-ISIS) for years now, IMHO..-TYR" TZ #79

It is the Syrian military, Assad's military that's been massacring the good People of Syria for 5 years now.
The resulting exodus has reportedly been a major contributor to the worst refugee crisis in Western Europe since WWII.

I understand.
It is axiomatic in the Middle East: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." And Assad's military are battling ISIL. But that doesn't make the Syrian military a U.S. ally.

I am no fan of Assad. He's done some diabolical deeds.

But give him his due. He HAS taken an anti-terrorist line. Though I don't excuse his atrocities against ordinary people, at least it's come at a laudable cost to terrorist scum infesting his country.