How Low Can the New York Times Go?

[stephanie]

Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 9:49:41 pm PDT

The New York Times airs a commercial for Iraqi terrorists. Yes, really.

You have to see it to believe it: Op-Ed: Know Thine Enemy.

(Hat tip: Judith.)
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=8e9862a9f3a8216027ef2f9ecd1c3bc5345b4134

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

[glockmail]

Is the NYT still in business?

[Sertes]

Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 9:49:41 pm PDT

The New York Times airs a commercial for Iraqi terrorists. Yes, really.

You have to see it to believe it: Op-Ed: Know Thine Enemy.

(Hat tip: Judith.)
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=8e9862a9f3a8216027ef2f9ecd1c3bc5345b4134

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

I understand your concern: the video shows iraqui insurgents as freedom fighters rather than terrorists. Normal humans defending their homeland from occupation. That's just the opposite of what military propaganda is telling since "mission accomplished".
A disturbing thought indeed.

[glockmail]

I understand your concern: the video shows iraqui insurgents as freedom fighters rather than terrorists. Normal humans defending their homeland from occupation. That's just the opposite of what military propaganda is telling since "mission accomplished".
A disturbing thought indeed. The NYT "reporting" "just the opposite" of reality? Whouda thunk?

[Sertes]

The NYT "reporting" "just the opposite" of reality? Whouda thunk?

What are your sources about Iraq reaility? I'm curious, do you live there, have you served there a couple months, maybe?

[glockmail]

What are your sources about Iraq reaility? I'm curious, do you live there, have you served there a couple months, maybe? I tend to believe what the soldiers say.

[retiredman]

I tend to believe what the soldiers say.

but only those soldiers who say what you tend to believe!:laugh2:

[glockmail]

but only those soldiers who say what you tend to believe!:laugh2: :lame2:

They happen to be in the VAST majority.

[retiredman]

:lame2:

They happen to be in the VAST majority.


so the ones in the minority are lying?

[darin]

I understand your concern: the video shows iraqui insurgents as freedom fighters rather than terrorists. Normal humans defending their homeland from occupation. That's just the opposite of what military propaganda is telling since "mission accomplished".
A disturbing thought indeed.

From whom are they defending their homeland? Do those fuckwads know if they'd stop killing people we 'infidels' would leave?

[truthmatters]

so the ones in the minority are lying?


I guess they are just phoney soldiers.

[jimnyc]

I guess they are just phoney soldiers.

Hey twit!

Why do you enjoy showing off your stupidity so much?

[retiredman]

I guess they are just phoney soldiers.

I would certainly agree that the right's love affair with the military and with veterans DOES seem to be limited to those who think like they do. :laugh2:

[Sertes]

From whom are they defending their homeland? Do those fuckwads know if they'd stop killing people we 'infidels' would leave?

Really?
I though that the Iraq occupation was about getting rid of WMD.
Then it became to remove Saddam, who had links to Al-quaeda
Then it became to remove Saddam, who was a bad man anyway
Now it's because if we leave Iran will go in.

What is the deadline for the occupation to end? What is the goal, now?

[Sir Evil]

Really?
I though that the Iraq occupation was about getting rid of WMD.
Then it became to remove Saddam, who had links to Al-quaeda
Then it became to remove Saddam, who was a bad man anyway
Now it's because if we leave Iran will go in.

What is the deadline for the occupation to end? What is the goal, now?

Take that big shiny plate of your head, and you will see how it all works.

[Sertes]

Take that big shiny plate of your head, and you will see how it all works.

You sure take answering questions to a whole new level.

Try respect next time.

I asked: what is the deadline of the occupation, the goal they are trying to reach before leaving?

[Sir Evil]

You sure take answering questions to a whole new level.

Try respect next time.

I asked: what is the deadline of the occupation, the goal they are trying to reach before leaving?

Hard to respect the lunacy of conspiracy theorist, my opinion anyway.

Why does there have to be a deadline, and if there is why should it even be exposed to the public? dummies like you want those answers because you have'nt the proper understanding of what is going on.

[Sertes]

I tend to believe what the soldiers say.

So you too are relying on reported news rather on first-hand experiences.
Why do you prefer the military version from the NYT version?

[Sertes]

Hard to respect the lunacy of conspiracy theorist, my opinion anyway.

Why does there have to be a deadline, and if there is why should it even be exposed to the public? dummies like you want those answers because you have'nt the proper understanding of what is going on.

Oh, try to enlighten me, I'm in a forum called "Debate Policy", try to debate instead of insulting away.

I just asked what the official goal of the occupation is now, that the first three goals are gone. Or there's none?

[Sir Evil]

Oh, try to enlighten me, I'm in a forum called "Debate Policy", try to debate instead of insulting away.

I just asked what the official goal of the occupation is now, that the first three goals are gone. Or there's none?

You don't want to debate policy, you want to debate silly theories. There is also a forum here called conspiracy theories, try it.

Official goal or official justification? see you can't seem to seperate the two.
I think the goal has remained the same from the begining, and quite honestly foreign chumps like yourself that are looking for the goals to be met before it is even over is telling.

[Sertes]

You don't want to debate policy, you want to debate silly theories. There is also a forum here called conspiracy theories, try it.

I don't understand why people keep evading my questions.

If I wanted to discuss 9/11 further I would be in the conspiracy theories section.
I'm in the USA current events, if you would answer my question only in the US military section just tell me.


Official goal or official justification? see you can't seem to seperate the two.
I think the goal has remained the same from the begining, and quite honestly foreign chumps like yourself that are looking for the goals to be met before it is even over is telling.

Are you telling me the official goal and the official justification are different?
Well, elaborate a little further, please state openly what the official goal is. It's true, foreign chumps like me can't read your mind, but ask for a clear answer.

[jimnyc]

Well, elaborate a little further, please state openly what the official goal is.

Is it too much to ask for you to read the many speeches of the POTUS and the military leaders? I believe they have explained this endless times.

[Sir Evil]

Are you telling me the official goal and the official justification are different?
Well, elaborate a little further, please state openly what the official goal is. It's true, foreign chumps like me can't read your mind, but ask for a clear answer.

:laugh2:

Do you really need the difference between justification, and goal to be spelled out for you?

Ok, justification is what they brought to the table at the UN, you know, the reasons that Iraq, and Saddam needed to be dealt with.

A Goal is what is hoped for in eventuality. The goal would be to bring a democracy to a country that was ruled by a dictator. The goal in the end is to reach an objective. Justification is quite different.

[theHawk]

I though that the Iraq occupation was about getting rid of WMD.
Then it became to remove Saddam, who had links to Al-quaeda
Then it became to remove Saddam, who was a bad man anyway
Now it's because if we leave Iran will go in.

What is the deadline for the occupation to end? What is the goal, now?

You thought wrong, but thats what usually happens when liberals try to think on their own. The goals of Operation Iraqi Freedom where stated on day 1. Idiots like yourself chose to ignore them and later on claim the mission 'changed'. Try doing some research before you make more statements like that, because you're only announcing yourself as being completely ignorant of the facts, not to mention bereft of intellegence.


Here's the mission statement which was told to those of us in the military upon the start of the war:

The military objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom consist of first, ending the regime of Saddam Hussein. Second, to identify, isolate and eliminate, Iraq's weapons of mass destruciton. Third, to search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from the country. Fourth, to collect intelligence related to terrorist networks. Fifth, to collect such intelligence as is related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction. Sixth, to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needed citizens. Seventh, to secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people. Finally, to help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraqi_freedom.htm


Now go crawl back into your cave, troll.

[Sertes]

Is it too much to ask for you to read the many speeches of the POTUS and the military leaders? I believe they have explained this endless times.

Yes, they explained too much times. In fact that's why I keep asking, they made up a number of reasons for invading Iraq, as the last one proved wrong:

First Iraq was invaded because there were WMD.
When that proved false, because of an alleged link between Iraq and Al-quaeda
When that proved false, because Saddam was an evil man anyway.
Now that he's gone for good, we're not leaving because of the insurrency and because if we do, Iran would turn in.

I was asking sirevil if he supported any or all of those claims.

[Sertes]

:laugh2:

Do you really need the difference between justification, and goal to be spelled out for you?

Ok, justification is what they brought to the table at the UN, you know, the reasons that Iraq, and Saddam needed to be dealt with.

A Goal is what is hoped for in eventuality. The goal would be to bring a democracy to a country that was ruled by a dictator. The goal in the end is to reach an objective. Justification is quite different.

Thanks. That makes perfect sense.

[jimnyc]

Yes, they explained too much times. In fact that's why I keep asking, they made up a number of reasons for invading Iraq, as the last one proved wrong:

First Iraq was invaded because there were WMD.
When that proved false, because of an alleged link between Iraq and Al-quaeda
When that proved false, because Saddam was an evil man anyway.
Now that he's gone for good, we're not leaving because of the insurrency and because if we do, Iran would turn in.

I was asking sirevil if he supported any or all of those claims.

Sorry, conspiracy boy, but the reasons were ALL stated in the beginning. Please get your facts straight as your retarded conspiracies won't fly on this subject either.

[theHawk]

so the ones in the minority are lying?

Are the ones in the majority lying?

[Sir Evil]

Look one post above Sertes, I think Hawk thoroughly explains it. Then go have a bowl of pasta, you will feel better. :D

[Sertes]

You thought wrong, but thats what usually happens when liberals try to think on their own. The goals of Operation Iraqi Freedom where stated on day 1. Idiots like yourself chose to ignore them and later on claim the mission 'changed'. Try doing some research before you make more statements like that, because you're only announcing yourself as being completely ignorant of the facts, not to mention bereft of intellegence.


Here's the mission statement which was told to those of us in the military upon the start of the war:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraqi_freedom.htm


Now go crawl back into your cave, troll.

Thanks, to you too. I would have preferred it without the added insults, but thank anyway.

[Sertes]

Look one post above Sertes, I think Hawk thoroughly explains it. Then go have a bowl of pasta, you will feel better. :D

Yes, that surely do.

So you're telling me you recognize the WMD claim was fake and forged from the start, added to the reasons of invading Iraq (points 2 and 5), and still you don't care?

[theHawk]

Thanks, to you too. I would have preferred it without the added insults, but thank anyway.

When you come on this board and tell boldfaced lies, insult my country and military, I'll return the favor. Have a nice day, slapnuts.

[jimnyc]

Yes, that surely do.

So you're telling me you recognize the WMD claim was fake and forged from the start, added to the reasons of invading Iraq (points 2 and 5), and still you don't care?

Here come the conspiracies again! LOL What a beanhead!

[Sir Evil]

Yes, that surely do.

So you're telling me you recognize the WMD claim was fake and forged from the start, added to the reasons of invading Iraq (points 2 and 5), and still you don't care?

And you wonder why you get insulted.:tinfoil:

Have some proof that the claims were forged? or just more theories? It was the same intelligence relied on by many other countries as well. Perhaps the intelligence was wrong, that has no proof as to them being forged. Do you have any proof that WMD's did'nt exist when the claim was made or do you just go with the thoery that they were never found? Proof & theory are very different things. Please learn the difference.

[Sertes]

Ok, we accepted the goals of the occupation are these:

The military objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom consist of first, ending the regime of Saddam Hussein. Second, to identify, isolate and eliminate, Iraq's weapons of mass destruciton. Third, to search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from the country. Fourth, to collect intelligence related to terrorist networks. Fifth, to collect such intelligence as is related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction. Sixth, to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needed citizens. Seventh, to secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people. Finally, to help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government.

And you say that:

:laugh2:

Do you really need the difference between justification, and goal to be spelled out for you?

Ok, justification is what they brought to the table at the UN, you know, the reasons that Iraq, and Saddam needed to be dealt with.

A Goal is what is hoped for in eventuality. The goal would be to bring a democracy to a country that was ruled by a dictator. The goal in the end is to reach an objective. Justification is quite different.

This is what they bought to UN table:

http://radio.weblogs.com/0102813/images/powell_un.jpg

So...

Have some proof that the claims were forged? or just more theories? It was the same intelligence relied on by many other countries as well. Perhaps the intelligence was wrong, that has no proof as to them being forged. Do you have any proof that WMD's did'nt exist when the claim was made or do you just go with the thoery that they were never found? Proof & theory are very different things. Please learn the difference.

Oh, explain to me the difference, because it seems to me that you don't have proof of WMD existence. Did they find them? In six years, did they found those real, dangerous, ready to be used Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Proof & theory :clap:

[glockmail]

So you too are relying on reported news rather on first-hand experiences.
Why do you prefer the military version from the NYT version? Actually I was referring to the soldiers who were there, not some official military report. They have the best first-hand knowledge. The last one I met and talked to was three weeks ago, as an officer, and he was there for over a year. He also has a scholarship to Wake law school, starting next semester. I'd take his word over some NYT dipshits any day.:coffee:

[Sertes]

Actually I was referring to the soldiers who were there, not some official military report. They have the best first-hand knowledge. The last one I met and talked to was three weeks ago, as an officer, and he was there for over a year. He also has a scholarship to Wake law school, starting next semester. I'd take his word over some NYT dipshits any day.:coffee:

And he told you all Iraqi are terrorists?

[glockmail]

And he told you all Iraqi are terrorists? Not quite.

[Sir Evil]

Oh, explain to me the difference, because it seems to me that you don't have proof of WMD existence. Did they find them? In six years, did they found those real, dangerous, ready to be used Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Proof & theory :clap:

:laugh2:

You really are a stupid ass. Can you point it out where I said that I had proof? Maybe you can point out where I said that they were never found but that does not proove they never existed. You claim forgery, I say proove that, you say they never existed so I lied because I said they were never found.

Good logic ya simpleton, now get back to the pasta.

[theHawk]

Oh, explain to me the difference, because it seems to me that you don't have proof of WMD existence. Did they find them? In six years, did they found those real, dangerous, ready to be used Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Proof & theory :clap:


Most intelligence agencies around the world believed he still had WMD. Clinton himself said they had them.
And of course there is the historical record of him using them, or have you conveniently forgotten that as well?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a7/Halabja1.jpg

Before the war started he had plenty of time to move any wmd to Syria, due to the politcal circus the U.N. put on.

[retiredman]

ah, the old "trucked them to syria" ploy! Always good for a laugh.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501554.html


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6834079/

[jimnyc]

ah, the old "trucked them to syria" ploy! Always good for a laugh.

Not finding them or not having definitive proof doesn't mean it didn't happen. Hell, the liberals always refer to David Kay and UN inspection reports, and even he stated there was evidence of things being moved to Syria. Tis a shame that even a supposed veteran would laugh at such possibilities. Can you please direct us to the reports of what was found when investigations were done in Syria and their results?

[retiredman]

you're right.... just because we think that the backside of the moon is not made of green cheese, does not mean that it really isn't.

I am not "laughing at any possibilities" I am laughing at those who hang onto possibilities as realities in order to keep from admitting we fucked up and Saddam didn't have any viable WMD's anymore.

Here is a news flash: A canister of nerve gas in 1980 is a weapon of mass destruction. that exact same canister in 2003 is sludge that is incapable of massively destroying anything.

and if you want me to try and keep this on a higher plane, perhaps you should not keep tossing out that tis a shame a supposed veteran" crap. that would seem appropriate.

[jimnyc]

Here is a news flash: A canister of nerve gas in 1980 is a weapon of mass destruction. that exact same canister in 2003 is sludge that is incapable of massively destroying anything.

Are you stating for the record that none of the weapons found from the prior war were capable of causing widespread death if used?

[retiredman]

I am stating that what I was taught about nerve agents was that they had a limited shelf life....measured in months and not years and that they typically degraded to the point of being ineffective.

why don't you lay off the "for the record" legalese and let's just talk.

o.k. counselor?

[jimnyc]

I am stating that what I was taught about nerve agents was that they had a limited shelf life....measured in months and not years and that they typically degraded to the point of being ineffective.

why don't you lay off the "for the record" legalese and let's just talk.

o.k. counselor?

No, I won't, because you're talking shit. A ton of the weapons found if used could have easily killed in the thousands if not more, with each shell used. Sure, there were some that were becoming obsolete, but certainly not everything found.

[retiredman]

how do you know that? why would you think that SOME of the cannisters of chemical weapons that were 20 years old were just as dangerous as the day they were made when all the literature on the subject says the shelf life is months and not years?

BECOMING obsolete? Most of them were already obsolete by the FIRST gulf war :lol:

[jimnyc]

how do you know that? why would you think that SOME of the cannisters of chemical weapons that were 20 years old were just as dangerous as the day they were made when all the literature on the subject says the shelf life is months and not years?

BECOMING obsolete? Most of them were already obsolete by the FIRST gulf war :lol:

Do I really need to post reports AGAIN that show the potency of some of the weapons and chemicals found? Try opening your eyes and reading.

[retiredman]

Do I really need to post reports AGAIN that show the potency of some of the weapons and chemicals found? Try opening your eyes and reading.


yeah...if you have something that shows that 20 year old chemical agents had not degraded over that time, I would love to read it.

[trobinett]

yeah...if you have something that shows that 20 year old chemical agents had not degraded over that time, I would love to read it.

Your an absolute hoot manfrommaine, NOW, that its been PROVEN, over, and over again, that WMD did, and to some degree, still do exist, you want these weapons to be "time sensitive"?

I'll have to admit, you just don't "give it up", no matter what the weight of proof.

[jimnyc]

yeah...if you have something that shows that 20 year old chemical agents had not degraded over that time, I would love to read it.

Here's one report of what has been found:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060622055545.07o4imol&show_article=1

And a report of such chemical weapons:

http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/chemical.html


Iraq initially told UNSCOM that 3,080 tons of mustard gas had been produced, but in 1995 Iraq reduced this amount to 2,850 tons. UNSCOM found Iraq's mustard gas to be at least 80% pure and determined that it could be stored for long periods of time, both in bulk and in weaponized form. In its distilled form, mustard gas has a long life, and can be stockpiled for decades. It is relatively easy to produce and load into munitions. Iraq admits filling some 550 artillery shells with mustard gas but says it misplaced them shortly after the first Gulf War.


About the Sarin:


Iraq adopted the "binary" method of weaponization, in which the components of sarin gas are stored separately until use, when they are mixed. The components of sarin are DF 2 and the alcohols cyclohexanol and isoproponal. Iraq manufactured DF 2 with a purity of 95%, and imported alcohols of 100% purity, so the detonation of its munitions could be expected to yield relatively pure sarin.
At first, Iraq told UNSCOM that it had produced an estimated 250 tons of tabun and 812 tons of sarin. In 1995, Iraq changed its estimates and reported it had produced only 210 tons of tabun and 790 tons of sarin. Thus, it is still uncertain how much tabun and sarin Iraq actually manufactured.


So basically, when the chemicals are weaponized in binary form they don't suffer from shelf life.

[Gaffer]

So you too are relying on reported news rather on first-hand experiences.
Why do you prefer the military version from the NYT version?

Simple answer. The NYT is a proven lying rag. While the soldiers serving there and who were there, like my nephew and my son-in-laws best friend give first hand truthful accounts. I'll take the word of a soldier over the NYT any time.

[Gaffer]

Oh, try to enlighten me, I'm in a forum called "Debate Policy", try to debate instead of insulting away.

I just asked what the official goal of the occupation is now, that the first three goals are gone. Or there's none?

The goal, as I have stated many times on this board, is the security of the country allowing them to take over running everything for themselves. It's working in spite of you peoples efforts to stop it.

[glockmail]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=18526&postcount=1

wmds found!

[stephanie]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=18526&postcount=1

wmds found!

That won't matter glock...

Their so invested in the lie...They'll NEVER admit to anything else...

[retiredman]

That won't matter glock...

Their so invested in the lie...They'll NEVER admit to anything else...

oh? have we found chlorine gas cylinders in Iraq? wow.

GO to the yellow pages and see how many places you can get chlorine gas cylinders in the US!

Weapons of Mass Destruction???? Available at any bottled gas distibutor in the US?

Yeah....that was really worth invading for!
:laugh2::laugh2:

[actsnoblemartin]

We could have invaded for humanitarian reasnons, but i dont believe bush lied about weopons of mass destructions, even the russians and so many others believes he had the shit.


oh? have we found chlorine gas cylinders in Iraq? wow.

GO to the yellow pages and see how many places you can get chlorine gas cylinders in the US!

Weapons of Mass Destruction???? Available at any bottled gas distibutor in the US?

Yeah....that was really worth invading for!
:laugh2::laugh2:

[jimnyc]

oh? have we found chlorine gas cylinders in Iraq? wow.

GO to the yellow pages and see how many places you can get chlorine gas cylinders in the US!

Weapons of Mass Destruction???? Available at any bottled gas distibutor in the US?

Yeah....that was really worth invading for!
:laugh2::laugh2:

And I see you failed to respond to my post giving you the information you requested. Hiding from the truth and facts doesn't make you any less wrong, but reinforces the belief that you're a lying, deceiving, opportunistic piece of shit.

[retiredman]

Gosh Jim...I am sorry I did not respond to you quickly enough to avoid your condemnation.... the truth be told, I spent the better part of last night watching Josh Beckett beat the Cleveland Indians and send the ALCS back to Boston. I logged on in between innings, went to the end of this thread and caught the link about the chlorine gas.

Regarding your link. Thank you for that information.

from your first link:

A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings said that all the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions "in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for."

and all of the UNSCOM information in your second link is pre-1998. I wonder if you have any of Blix's findings from 2003?

In an interview with Australian radio from Sweden, Blix said the search for evidence of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons would probably only uncover documents at best.

"The more time that has passed, the more I think it's unlikely that anything will be found," Blix said in the interview, which was broadcast on Wednesday.

"I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed almost all of what they had in the summer of 1991," Blix said.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/091803C.shtml

[jimnyc]

Gosh Jim...I am sorry I did not respond to you quickly enough to avoid your condemnation.... the truth be told, I spent the better part of last night watching Josh Beckett beat the Cleveland Indians and send the ALCS back to Boston. I logged on in between innings, went to the end of this thread and caught the link about the chlorine gas.

Regarding your link. Thank you for that information.

from your first link:

A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings said that all the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions "in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for."

and all of the UNSCOM information in your second link is pre-1998. I wonder if you have any of Blix's findings from 2003?

In an interview with Australian radio from Sweden, Blix said the search for evidence of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons would probably only uncover documents at best.

"The more time that has passed, the more I think it's unlikely that anything will be found," Blix said in the interview, which was broadcast on Wednesday.

"I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed almost all of what they had in the summer of 1991," Blix said.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/091803C.shtml

Selective quoting again huh? From the first link as well:


"But this says: Weapons have been discovered; more weapons exist. And they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," he said.
Asked just how dangerous the weapons are, Hoekstra said: "One or two of these shells, the materials inside of these, transferred outside of the country, can be very, very deadly."


And I further suggest you learn to comprehend what you read a little better in the second link. There is a LOT of information in there regarding Iraq's capabilities after the Gulf war. TONS of chemicals haven't been accounted for. Munitions with deadly capability HAVE been found. These chemicals have been proven to have a long shelf life, especially when weaponized in binary.

You quote Blix stating he believes they destroyed everything after 1991 but yet we have proof of stockpiles of munitions that WERE NOT destroyed being found since Blix left.

The bottom line is that you contend that all the stuff left over from 1991 is useless and degraded, and that's been proven overwhelmingly incorrect.

[jimnyc]

Gosh Jim...I am sorry I did not respond to you quickly enough to avoid your condemnation.... the truth be told, I spent the better part of last night watching Josh Beckett beat the Cleveland Indians and send the ALCS back to Boston. I logged on in between innings, went to the end of this thread and caught the link about the chlorine gas.

Funny how you find time to come back here and reply to something you think you can laugh at in a condescending tone but ignore what you specifically asked for until it's shoved in your face. And you'll further continue to assert that chlorine can't be used in a highly deadly manner when made into explosives as the terrorists have already shown they can do.

[retiredman]

OK...please show me where I have EVER "assert(ed) that chlorine can't be used in a highly deadly manner when made into explosives".

I have only "asserted" that there is nothing illegal about possessing chlorine gas cylinders. every single country on the entire globe has industrial gas distribution businesses that have chlorine gas cylinders stacked out back.

Tim McVeigh made a weapon of mass destruction out of fertilizer. Are you suggesting that every country that has supplies of fertilizer actually has stockpiles of WMD's?

[jimnyc]

OK...please show me where I have EVER "assert(ed) that chlorine can't be used in a highly deadly manner when made into explosives".

I have only "asserted" that there is nothing illegal about possessing chlorine gas cylinders. every single country on the entire globe has industrial gas distribution businesses that have chlorine gas cylinders stacked out back.

Tim McVeigh made a weapon of mass destruction out of fertilizer. Are you suggesting that every country that has supplies of fertilizer actually has stockpiles of WMD's?

Dude, you seem to want people to think that our military is playing with Play-Doh and Michael Jackson's jesus juice over there. The bottom line is that the munitions and chemicals left over from the gulf war are highly deadly. Sure, SOME are obsolete and degraded, and some is highly potent. Would you like some of them randomly dropped in your neighborhood and play russian roulette?

[retiredman]

Dude, you seem to want people to think that our military is playing with Play-Doh and Michael Jackson's jesus juice over there. The bottom line is that the munitions and chemicals left over from the gulf war are highly deadly. Sure, SOME are obsolete and degraded, and some is highly potent. Would you like some of them randomly dropped in your neighborhood and play russian roulette?


dude...I was replying to your comment about chlorine.... care to stay on topic.....dude?

[jimnyc]

dude...I was replying to your comment about chlorine.... care to stay on topic.....dude?

You're wasting my time now, lying navy prick. The topic we've been discussing since yesterday has been the potency of the chemical weapons left over since the Gulf war. I'm sorry you need to let that go since I thoroughly exposed you as a dipshit once again.

I'll re-assert what I said quite a few times already. You are a liar. You have no integrity. And you are a troll. I expose you and it's fun. Have a great day!

[bullypulpit]

Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 9:49:41 pm PDT

The New York Times airs a commercial for Iraqi terrorists. Yes, really.

You have to see it to believe it: Op-Ed: Know Thine Enemy.

(Hat tip: Judith.)
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=8e9862a9f3a8216027ef2f9ecd1c3bc5345b4134

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

So, providing the other side of the story is slander, subversion and treason?

[glockmail]

So, providing the other side of the story is slander, subversion and treason?
Why not just report the truth instead of making shit up?

[retiredman]

You're wasting my time now, lying navy prick. The topic we've been discussing since yesterday has been the potency of the chemical weapons left over since the Gulf war. I'm sorry you need to let that go since I thoroughly exposed you as a dipshit once again.

I'll re-assert what I said quite a few times already. You are a liar. You have no integrity. And you are a troll. I expose you and it's fun. Have a great day!

post #61.

you didn't write that?

[jimnyc]

post #61.

you didn't write that?

And quite a few others as well! Do try and keep up, simpleton.

[retiredman]

And quite a few others as well! Do try and keep up, simpleton.

I wasn't sure...it seems to me that, in that case, we have been talking about more general issues than simply "the potency of the chemical weapons left over since the Gulf war" I was responding to those more general issues.

Is that not allowed here?

[bullypulpit]

Why not just report the truth instead of making shit up?

Do you have anything to support the allegation that the piece is not the truth? Please cite independent, verifiable sources...Not the brain droppings from FOX Noise, NewsMax, the FreeRepublic, or any other right-wing propaganda outlets.

[glockmail]

Do you have anything to support the allegation that the piece is not the truth? Please cite independent, verifiable sources...Not the brain droppings from FOX Noise, NewsMax, the FreeRepublic, or any other right-wing propaganda outlets. The point is that the entire piece was Hollywood-ish, pulling at our emotions. There was very little fact in it at all. The NYT should simply report the facts and forget about all the hype. It makes them look like Mike Moore wannabees.

[bullypulpit]

The point is that the entire piece was Hollywood-ish, pulling at our emotions. There was very little fact in it at all. The NYT should simply report the facts and forget about all the hype. It makes them look like Mike Moore wannabees.

Nice dodge, that.

[gabosaurus]

I understand your concern: the video shows iraqui insurgents as freedom fighters rather than terrorists. Normal humans defending their homeland from occupation. That's just the opposite of what military propaganda is telling since "mission accomplished".
A disturbing thought indeed.

You aren't supposed to say that in America! The Bush Apologists only want you to see one side of the story -- their side.
Iraq invading Kuwait is bad and has to be dealt with. The U.S. invading Iraq is all sweetness and light. Because their terrorist blowhard was bad. Our terrorist blowhard is good!
The alleged "insurgents" are now supposed to be seen as human beings. They are subhuman scum that want to take over the earth!
The Bushies reserve the sole right to exercise their right to take over the earth.

[Yurt]

Once again the communist tymes gets it wrong:


So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will win a hundred times in a hundred battles.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you win one and lose the next.
If you do not know yourself or your enemy, you will always lose.

Knowing your enemy is about battle, not surrender. It is not about knowing every facet of your enemies "reasons" for them battling you, it is about knowing them in order to battle them and win.

The video states:

The "power" of the insurgency doomed the occupation from the start.


This is not knowing your enemy, it is treason and IMO, high treason. Had the loony left stood solid with the armed forces and their goal the gang members in Iraq would be rounded up and done for. Instead, they glorified their victories by glorifying our soldiers deaths and calling for the end of the police action (what they call war) almost immediately. You don't think the Iraqis saw this, you don't think their puppet masters in Iran, Syria aren't using this knowledge to win?

If all of us stood fast behind our soldiers they would have no purported power. However, they know what it takes to divide and conquer a nation that is superior to them because they know very well our achilles heel.