The Nightstar Zoo

Given that chemical and biological weapons don't destroy mass, and even nuclear weapons only convert it into an equivalent amount of energy Saddam cannot possably have weapons of mass destruction.

_________________
Schrodinger's cat is <BLINK>not</BLINK> alive.

I believe the "mass" in that acronym refers to large amounts, i.e. "en masse"

Ah, that's unfortunate. When you define it that way, no he doesn't. I shoulda read your post before voting! Having said that, I'm pretty sure he has the bad stuff.

Of course Saddam Hussien has WMDs. The US sold (gave?) him enough.

_________________
A religion is sometimes a source of happiness and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak.
The great trouble with a religion, any religion, is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fires of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason, but one cannot have both.

Robert A Heinlein (As Hartley M Baldwin, in Friday)

Riiiiight.

And I suppose the World Trade Center bombing was a micronuke.

No, it was a Jewish conspiracy, haven't you been listening to the leftists?

_________________
… there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States…
-- George Orwell

That statement was so nonsensical and idiotic that <b><i>ANON</b></i> mocked you for it. This should tell you something.

What in the name of anything does Saddam's weapons capability have to do with that attack?

_________________
I look good in fur,
-The Dark Tiger

This month's avatar is lifted from Tonja Steele, who remind you to please, pet the Tiger.
No, it's not dark. No, I don't care.

It's possible he's buying the party line about how Iraq did 9/11.

NO. NO. NO. Not 9/11, 1993. Remember that?

Some crazies claim that the bomb was too powerful to have been a conventional explosive and that is was in fact an SADM, a Special-Atomic-Demoliton-Mutinition. It's a 22-ton yield nuclear bomb. Supposedly, it wasn't terrorists, but the evil New World Order that tried to blow up the Twin Towers. If you would believe said idiots, the NWO also blew up the Murrah building, the London financial center, and the tourists in Bali. It's all bullshit of course. I didn't say that Iraq had much of anything to do with '93, and I sure as hell don't think 9/11 was an Iraqi missile. That would make me as dumb as..... you guys.

My question still stands:

<b>What in the name of anything does Saddam's weapons capability have to do with that attack?</b>

_________________
I look good in fur,
-The Dark Tiger

This month's avatar is lifted from Tonja Steele, who remind you to please, pet the Tiger.
No, it's not dark. No, I don't care.

I dunno.

We may not be so lucky in future attacks, depending on what Saddam has already managed to give to terrorists. Of course we'll only know about this stuff once it's used. If it doesn't get used within five years I'll conceed that he probably didn't manage to give/sell any WMDs to terrorists. I'm pretty much on the "guilty until proven innocent" side of things where Saddam is concerned.

Even if our current president's motivations are purely cynical greed for oil (And they might be, I'm not going to claim that our motives are 100% pure, especially as they seem to keep changing.) isn't that a lesser sin (even though many innocent Iraqi civilians will be killed in the war) than the things that Saddam Hussain has done to his citizens and would have done to them had he remained in power?

500,000 "Marsh Arabs" have had thier way of life destroyed.

Going stricly by the numbers we've got a long way to go before we approach the death and suffering that Saddam has inflicted upon Iraqis.

_________________
Schrodinger's cat is <BLINK>not</BLINK> alive.

Okay.

Seeing as how SCUD missiles are on the list of "Toys That Saddam Doesn't Get To Play With", and seeing as how Saddam has fired at least two of the things since the war started... I'd have to say...

<Ermey>OF COURSE HE HAS WMD YOU NUMBNUTS! WHAT KIND OF DISORGANIZED GRABBASTIC QUESTION WAS THAT??!</Ermey>

_________________
Fandemonium 2010 -- No Boundaries.
http://www.fandemonium.org
Friday - Sunday, August 6th - 8th, 2010
Nampa Civic Center - Nampa, Idaho (Only 20 minutes from the airport!)
(Idaho: It ain't just potatoes anymore.)

Today we seem to have found two caches of chemical weapons, one of which consisted of warheads that were primed for use. This is a dead question.

Eh?

The original premise was that the weapons called "WMDs" do *NOT* destroy mass, therefore they are not "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Therefore Saddam can have great whopping piles of conventianally defined WMDs without having any weapons capable of destroying mass.

And what is "grabbastic" anyway?

_________________
Schrodinger's cat is <BLINK>not</BLINK> alive.

...if it's anything like Gravitic they may at least convert M into E.

*ducks tomato*

Found or "found"? Who found them, when, and where?

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/iraq/article.jsp?id=99993599&sub=News%20update

One of MANY news stories on this topic. I'm sure you can find more.

Don't worry about it Raif, he's made up his mind and doesn't want to be confused by facts.

_________________
A religion is sometimes a source of happiness and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak.
The great trouble with a religion, any religion, is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fires of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason, but one cannot have both.

Robert A Heinlein (As Hartley M Baldwin, in Friday)

Just before anybody tries to obfuscate the issue a bit, I should point out "concentrated pesticide" and "nerve agent" are one and the same. That's how the stuff works you know. The more accurate tests that stuff in the barrels will undergo now will only determine what flavor of poison it is. The fact is, if you splash a thimblefull of most oil-soluble pesticides on someone's skin, they will die, and probably within minutes. Forget terms like dual-use. That stuff doesn't belong in the hands of the likes of Saddam. It doesn't belong in/on our food either, but that's a topic for a whole different post. I'd also like to point out that the same stuff was found in artillery rockets, so I really doubt that it was intended to kill bugs. I don't feel very confused by the facts on this one Pronto; I'm majoring in Bio with an eye towards a stint enforcing environmental law with the Coast Guard.

Um did you read that article Matcat? It, like every other article I've seen until today said <b>suspected</b> chemical weapons. You know like I suspect you work for Bush's Ministry of Information?

From here

_________________
I look good in fur,
-The Dark Tiger

This month's avatar is lifted from Tonja Steele, who remind you to please, pet the Tiger.
No, it's not dark. No, I don't care.

Iraq has chemcial weapons because we gave them to Iraq. It's obvious. Get it through your head. Accept the fact. Move on.

_________________
The sun won't set if you always walk west.

1. Most chemcial weapons have a shelf date as I understand it.

2. If Saddam has half a brain, he would have destroyed all the weapons he had and will now spend the next 20 years yelling about how he's been wronged by the U.S.

_________________
I look good in fur,
-The Dark Tiger

This month's avatar is lifted from Tonja Steele, who remind you to please, pet the Tiger.
No, it's not dark. No, I don't care.

Pronto: ouch. I was actually asking for who when and where because I've not heard any non-US media say they found anything specific. But I haven't been looking either. If I had decided right away I would have said this: "No they Didn't." You know me better than to make a comment like that.

I had been looking, (still am) and knew that he was full of bovine end product.
Further, it's a meaningless concern. The US can't afford to not find Saddams evil toys. And the present US administration has pulled lower tricks than planting evidence.

_________________
A religion is sometimes a source of happiness and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak.
The great trouble with a religion, any religion, is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fires of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason, but one cannot have both.

Robert A Heinlein (As Hartley M Baldwin, in Friday)

C'mon Pronto, don't make a fool of yourself. That's just bullshit and you know it too.

By the way Dark Tiger, I've never heard of insecticide placed in warheads, have you? Sure, the stuff is "suspected", but pretty much the only thing that will set off those detectors is certain types of pesticide, and similar types of nerve agent. And I really don't think the Iraqis went and hid drums of insecticide, do you? And Raif, what does it prove that non-us media didn't cover that, except that they have an agenda perhaps?

Actually I find media not directly involved with a particular controversy to be more accurate. Sure they have an agenda, but I doubt it's anywhere near the level of America's. Go read the "media" thread.

Looks like they haven't found those weapons, dude. I'd say its your obligation to lead them to your find. As it seems you're the only one who knows where they are.

BTW, who's your buddy, you know, as in 'we'? Or was that an attempt to lend credibility to your claim?

I think the question rose from the dead.

_________________
A religion is sometimes a source of happiness and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak.
The great trouble with a religion, any religion, is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fires of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason, but one cannot have both.

Robert A Heinlein (As Hartley M Baldwin, in Friday)

No the question, like the mindless zombie that it is, will continue to run around, much like a chicken with it's head cut off. That is to say, it makes a lot of noise, can't think, and goes nowhere. Seriously, do you trust Saddam because he said he got rid of his WMDs? And because a bunch of weapons inspectors who weren't even allowed to interview the people who built those WMDs said he was telling the truth?

As for the warheads that you are too lazy to search for on google, here's a story about 'em. I don't know who these dorks are, (the guy on the left looks especially bizarre ) but the stuff is mentioned.
http://www.kxtv10.com/storyfull.asp?id=4122