Would you like your crow baked or fried?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 7, 2003, 3:13 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83449,00.html

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » April 7, 2003, 3:37 pm

Even though I still prefer FOXNews over most of the other stations here, they have been quick to jump on some of the "breaking news." This can be both good and bad. They were also saying that the chem factory in southern Iraq had NBC items before it was actually tested. This one seems to have more information than the first time they had info like this though.

noel · Post by **noel** » April 7, 2003, 3:40 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83449,00.html

Goodness gracious! I have been shocked and awed!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » April 7, 2003, 3:42 pm

It tested positive for 2 kinds of things from the "Fox" vehicle. This is a mobile chemical "sniffing" contraption.

However, the field test could be indicating a false positive for a type of pesticide. It is an agricultural warehouse where these were found.

The chemicals are not 'weaponized', but that doesnt mean they arent sarin or other nerve agents.

paraphrasing Gen. Benjamin Freakly 101st airborne interviewed by Ryan Chilcote right now.

So we shall see.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 7, 2003, 3:47 pm

I guess we'll have to wait for further tests to see if this is what they allege it to be.

One of the tactics George W Bush used to whip up support in the US was to reinforce that Saddam had chemical weapons and would not hesitate to use them on Americans.
Three weeks into the invasion and we (thankfully) have yet to see any attempt by the Iraqis to use chem/bio weapons. This is one instance where I'm elated that Dubya was dead wrong.

Fizzlewhip · Post by **Fizzlewhip** » April 7, 2003, 3:52 pm

Even if Sarin is found, isn't that also used in Pesticides?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/895392.asp

About two miles away, tests indicated the presence of GB, or sarin, in what was apparently a training camp. But sarin is also used in low levels in pesticides, which were found at the camp, so it is not clear if the facility is a nerve agent site or merely an agricultural facility.

However the suspected presence of blister agents makes it worth investigating.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 7, 2003, 4:19 pm

I don't think anyone with more than two brain cells doesn't think the US will "find" chemical weapons in Iraq eventually. I'm still waiting for the huge mobile chemical laboratories and massive underground nuclear weapons facilities hiding under giant artificial sand dunes that intelligence claims is there.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 7, 2003, 4:20 pm

Doesn't matter if they used it as condiments for food. They are not permitted to have it.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 7, 2003, 4:30 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Doesn't matter if they used it as condiments for food. They are not permitted to have it.

There's a big difference between trace elements of sarin in pesticides and sarin prepped for warheads. I bet it's safe to assume that there are provisions for such in the UN resolutions....

Hell, cigarettes probably have more banned chemicals than a barrel of pesticide.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » April 7, 2003, 4:37 pm

This specific find was found in the basement of a bunker (something like that). The opening to this area was hidden under a rug. Also found in the vicinity were RPGs, AK 47's etc. Near the building was a huge factory where there was ample room for the storage of any types of barrels of legit fluids. The village it was located at was a small one that weapons inspectors most likely never even knew about to inspect. (Got this information when CNN was interviewing someone who was at the find)

Looks to me like it's the real deal, although it's too early to say for sure. Not like it matters, it'll just be said "well inspections would have found them eventually" by the same people who doubted their existence in the first place.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » April 7, 2003, 4:37 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:I don't think anyone with more than two brain cells doesn't think the US will "find" chemical weapons in Iraq eventually. I'm still waiting for the huge mobile chemical laboratories and massive underground nuclear weapons facilities hiding under giant artificial sand dunes that intelligence claims is there.

You know what even if they find that you will want evidence of "The DeathStar" and Imperial Storm Troppers.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 7, 2003, 4:43 pm

I saw the interview with the General on-site, sounded like he thought it was agricultural stuff and not a WMD. He also verified that whatever it was (and they don't know yet, stop jumping to conclusions) it was definitely NOT battle-ready.

My read of what he said and how he said it (even though the CNN anchor kept trying to push him towards WMDs) is that he thought it was not the smoking gun they have been looking for.

Also, note that the soldiers that "got exposed to WMDs and got sick" most likely were having problems with exhaustion and the sun.

noel · Post by **noel** » April 7, 2003, 5:06 pm

Kelshara wrote:I saw the interview with the General on-site, sounded like he thought it was agricultural stuff and not a WMD. He also verified that whatever it was (and they don't know yet, stop jumping to conclusions) it was definitely NOT battle-ready.

Source that or don't say it.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 7, 2003, 5:12 pm

Just caught a CNN bit showing numerous drums of chemical stored in what looked to be open trnches and sandbag enclosures.

Same stash or is this something new?

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » April 7, 2003, 5:13 pm

Aranuil, it was an exclusive interview CNN had w/ the commanding general who was on the scene of the discovery. I saw the same one, although I missed the first half of it (which is I guess when Kelshara saw the stuff that I didn't).

So Kelshara, storing illegal chemical fluids in a hidden bunker isn't enough...now they have to actually be armed to be counted?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » April 7, 2003, 5:25 pm

i saw the interview you are referring too (referenced in my post above), and until the next battary of testing can be done you cannot conclude that these are illegal chemical fluids.

that was clearly stated repeatedly, that another round of testing had to be conducted to eliminate the possibility of a false positve.

i think the odds are that they are chemical weapons, but you should be happy that Gen. Freakly isnt a publicity hound, and is principally interested in accuracy, which protects himself from a horrible embarrasment, if this rush to judgement (by others not the 101st) proves to be incorrect.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 7, 2003, 5:36 pm

Sitting back laughing at the 'pro war' crew.

It seems like you desparately want these to be chemical weapons.
It's almost like you have to continually prove that this invasion is justified.
So far, everytime there is suspected chemical weapons found, it turns out to be a false alarm.

Meanwhile the 'anti war' crew calmly waits for the full story and for the tests to be completed.

Let's think about this logically.

If Saddam has WOMD, why hasn't he used them?
If we are to believe the news reports, the Iraqi resistance is pretty much crushed.
If the coalition forces essentially control 99% of Iraq, why have no WOMD been found?
Where are the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of unaccounted for Bio/Chem agents that people were screaming about?

Salis · Post by **Salis** » April 7, 2003, 5:45 pm

Yep, amazing to see then and now.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2078196/

lets just hope they do find something so all those poor bastards fighting for politic reasons have something to feel good about.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » April 7, 2003, 5:53 pm

miir wrote:Sitting back laughing at the 'pro war' crew.

It seems like you desparately want these to be chemical weapons.
It's almost like you have to continually prove that this invasion is justified.
So far, everytime there is suspected chemical weapons found, it turns out to be a false alarm.

Meanwhile the 'anti war' crew calmly waits for the full story and for the tests to be completed.

Let's think about this logically.

If Saddam has WOMD, why hasn't he used them?
If we are to believe the news reports, the Iraqi resistance is pretty much crushed.
If the coalition forces essentially control 99% of Iraq, why have no WOMD been found?
Where are the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of unaccounted for Bio/Chem agents that people were screaming about?

Ummm This Pro-Kicking Saddams ass did not jump on the OMG they found Chemical Weapons bandwagon. But I dont need Chemical Weapons to be found to jusify this war for me. I saw this report early in the morning and decided to wait before I commented on this.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 7, 2003, 6:16 pm

Wasn't referring to you cart.
I know you're not a frothing at the mouth warmonger.

Our opinions probably sit equal distances away from neutral on either side.

noel · Post by **noel** » April 7, 2003, 6:17 pm

miir wrote:Sitting back laughing at the 'pro war' crew.

It seems like you desparately want these to be chemical weapons.
It's almost like you have to continually prove that this invasion is justified.
So far, everytime there is suspected chemical weapons found, it turns out to be a false alarm.

I had MSNBC on this morning, and they were representing it as, 'chem weapons had been found'. I could have sworn that they were claiming to have found them in warheads in a weapons cache.

Sorry for my skepticism for an unsourced comment where the poster said that her interpretation (read: opinion) was X when I already know she's biased toward one side or another. I will patiently wait further testing.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 7, 2003, 6:28 pm

Two different caches, apparently.

There is a report of twenty to thirty medium range missiles having been found, supposedly loaded with Sarin.

Then a report of a cache, barrels, etc at a different site.

The barrels have been on CNN all day, not another word spoken of the missiles since this morning.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » April 7, 2003, 6:37 pm

miir wrote:Wasn't referring to you cart.
I know you're not a frothing at the mouth warmonger.

Our opinions probably sit equal distances away from neutral on either side.

Ok in looking for a picture of a dog foaming at the mouth I found this.

http://www.omdurman.org/leaflets/maddog.jpg

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 7, 2003, 7:02 pm

Source that or don't say it.

Sorry did a respond to Brotha and didn't think that my comment might not be linked to his. My bad.

So Kelshara, storing illegal chemical fluids in a hidden bunker isn't enough...now they have to actually be armed to be counted?

I refuse to jump to conclusions before real tests are done. Remember the Chemical Factory? Yeah, it was wrong.

They also said that if it was illegal substance it was probably the chemicals they used to create Sarin/whatever WMD flavor of the day is, not the thing itself. Which means, although bad and illega, it is not as bad as WMDs loaded and ready to use.

There is a report of twenty to thirty medium range missiles having been found, supposedly loaded with Sarin.

I've only seen this from one source, nothing more about it? That would be a very bad (or good depending on how you view it) find.

Think I've said it in another post here but USA is shooting themself in the foot by not having international, neutral inspectors with them. The Arab world in particular, and the world in general, would accept proof much easier then.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » April 7, 2003, 7:30 pm

We have about 4000 people, mainly special ops, who have scientists and reporters embedded with them whose sole job is to find WMDs. The second anything is found it's reported...I don't think there's a very good chance something would actually be planted. Not to mention the backlash caused if we were ever caught planting something...that would undermine all of our arguments. But you're right, the Arab world will probably just claim it was planted no matter what the circumstances.

Kelshara wrote:I refuse to jump to conclusions before real tests are done. Remember the Chemical Factory? Yeah, it was wrong.

Ok, hypothetically speaking, if these were drums full of illegal chemical fluids, would you be satisfied by that? Or say it means nothing b/c it's not armed?

Here's a link to the article concerncing the armed warheads:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 3Apr7.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. forces near Baghdad found a weapons cache of around 20 medium-range missiles equipped with potent chemical weapons, the U.S. news station National Public Radio reported on Monday.

I realize none of this has been corroborated yet, but it is going to be found sometime so it doesn't hurt to discuss it.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 7, 2003, 7:44 pm

I am not naive enough to think that there wont be any WMDs found. I believe some will be found. My argument has always been against the timing, and against how Bush handled the time before the war. I've never argued blankly that Saddam does not have WMDs.

I also believe that finding WMDs now after the war will not work as strongly as finding them before it would have. The problem with finding evidence after it happened is that it sets a presedence of acting on "if's". IF Norway might have WMDs, and IF they decide to use them, and IF they decide to use them on USA or an ally, they will be a threat. Does acting on IF's justify going to war?

That is the major question, and I know people in Europe answers it differently in people in USA. Not to mention the Arab world..

Did that answer your question? Sorry, brain fried.. really really tired today.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 7, 2003, 7:48 pm

Eh wanted to add this:

I would find it a lot more serious if the news about the missiles filled with sarin ready to fire are found to be true, than some chemical substances that can be used to create WMDs. Both are illegal yes, but thinking from a wider point of view: Sarin might win some people over internationally, substances that could or could not be for it will not.

noel · Post by **noel** » April 7, 2003, 8:18 pm

Current information available.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/895392_asp.htm?0cv=CA01

Meanwhile, National Public Radio reporter John Burnett said an officer with the U.S. 1st Marine Division told him warheads containing sarin and mustard agent had been found south of Baghdad in a warehouse near Baghdad International Airport, seized last week by coalition forces.

The officer, who said he heard of the discovery over a military intelligence network, told Burnett that the warheads were on approximately 20 Iraqi BM-21 unguided rockets. Those rockets are about 10 feet long, with a range of approximately 15 miles. The BM-21 is a 40-year-old truck-mounted system with 40 rocket tubes, intended for close support of troops.

The Marine officer said the rockets appeared to be ready to fire, Burnett said.

Separately, The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. military officers had told troops that soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division had captured an Iraqi BMP Armored Personnel Carrier that was believed to contain sarin gas and mustard gas.

That information was issued over the military secure radio network, according to several Marine officials who heard the broadcast at about 11 a.m. local time.

They relayed the advisory to a reporter who was standing with them. The radio advisory included no other details, including how much of the material was found or where the discovery occurred.

Adelrune Argenti · Post by **Adelrune Argenti** » April 7, 2003, 8:29 pm

miir wrote:Sitting back laughing at the 'pro war' crew.

It seems like you desparately want these to be chemical weapons.
It's almost like you have to continually prove that this invasion is justified.
So far, everytime there is suspected chemical weapons found, it turns out to be a false alarm.

Meanwhile the 'anti war' crew calmly waits for the full story and for the tests to be completed.

Let's think about this logically.

If Saddam has WOMD, why hasn't he used them?
If we are to believe the news reports, the Iraqi resistance is pretty much crushed.
If the coalition forces essentially control 99% of Iraq, why have no WOMD been found?
Where are the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of unaccounted for Bio/Chem agents that people were screaming about?

I dont need this for justification for supporting this war.

Saddam wont use WOMD primarily because he thinks he has world opinion on his side. If he were to use them, he no longer would have France, Germany, et all sitting on the sidelines most likely.

Iraq is huge and the cities are spread out. There are OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS places things can be hid. Hell, I can hide things in San Diego County alone and it would take people forever to find them. There is a lot of ground to cover and unless you go about systematically combing the area, you can miss things. Especially if you are focusing on population centers as the Coalition forces are doing currently to root out all the Iraqi militia and military.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » April 7, 2003, 8:38 pm

didn't the UN weapons inspectors disarm some WMD's before they left Iraq? i thought i saw on the news that they had disarmed some.

Kguku · Post by **Kguku** » April 7, 2003, 8:42 pm

Spangaloid_PE wrote:didn't the UN weapons inspectors disarm some WMD's before they left Iraq? i thought i saw on the news that they had disarmed some.

They destroyed missles that exceeded the 150Km limit.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 7, 2003, 8:46 pm

They also blew up a suspected chemical factory etc.. not sure if that was now or before inspections got suspended the first time though, was just part of the show I watched and I didn't catch the date etc. Was interesting, you saw them pour out barrel after barrel into a hole they dug, then they blew up the whole facility.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » April 7, 2003, 9:07 pm

Kguku wrote:
Spangaloid_PE wrote:didn't the UN weapons inspectors disarm some WMD's before they left Iraq? i thought i saw on the news that they had disarmed some.
They destroyed missles that exceeded the 150Km limit.

are these not WMD's?

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » April 7, 2003, 9:14 pm

No, they aren't.

WMD pretty much refers to weapons of a chemical, biological, or nuclear nature. What those agents are attached to is pretty much irrelevant. The reason the missles that were destroyed were considered to be a big deal was because they broke the distance barried for missles Iraq was allowed to have, as defined in the UN resolutions that followed the cease fire that ended GF I. I'm sure if I'm wrong or misinformed someone will jump at the oppurtunity to correct the mistake.

Kguku · Post by **Kguku** » April 7, 2003, 10:02 pm

Spangaloid_PE wrote:
Kguku wrote:
Spangaloid_PE wrote:didn't the UN weapons inspectors disarm some WMD's before they left Iraq? i thought i saw on the news that they had disarmed some.
They destroyed missles that exceeded the 150Km limit.
are these not WMD's?

As Kargyle said, it was a distance issue. Unless armed as such (with chemicals, a nuke etc), an empty missle is not a WOMD. Are the cruise missles they've launched into Baghdad etc WOMD? Not in the state they are, however you could alter it so they deliver a different payload.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » April 7, 2003, 10:05 pm

ok, good, we're on the same page.

Dalmoth · Post by **Dalmoth** » April 7, 2003, 11:20 pm

Frankly I don't care if they find WMD.

Saddam is an evil SoB, we can get rid of him, so we are. Good enough for me.

Defend his right to stay in power all you want.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 8, 2003, 1:02 am

Defend his right to stay in power all you want

What thread are you reading?

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » April 8, 2003, 9:40 am

Baked or Fried? You tell me, asshole.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... &ncid=1473

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » April 8, 2003, 10:09 am

LOL. Love the geniuses that can mistake Raid for Anthrax.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 8, 2003, 10:31 am

Kilmoll pwned.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 8, 2003, 1:34 pm

well I'm sure that the locusts and potato worms consider them to be weapons of mass destruction. Maybe Bush can switch his propaganda machine again over to being the saviour of all Iraqi insects.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » April 8, 2003, 1:58 pm

Kguku wrote:
Spangaloid_PE wrote:
Kguku wrote:
Spangaloid_PE wrote:didn't the UN weapons inspectors disarm some WMD's before they left Iraq? i thought i saw on the news that they had disarmed some.
They destroyed missles that exceeded the 150Km limit.
are these not WMD's?
As Kargyle said, it was a distance issue. Unless armed as such (with chemicals, a nuke etc), an empty missle is not a WOMD. Are the cruise missles they've launched into Baghdad etc WOMD? Not in the state they are, however you could alter it so they deliver a different payload.

Just to expand a little for clarity. Iraq is not allowed to have guidance systems in their missiles, when the guidance systems were removed, the missiles got lighter... and so they flew farther. The missiles themselves are designed to stay within the limits, but with the lighter weight they were flying about 15-20% farther and therefor exceeding the limits imposed.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » April 8, 2003, 2:00 pm

Geee I guess no one read the article!

"KARBALA, Iraq — U.S. forces may have found banned chemical weapons stored in huge drums at a military training camp in central Iraq."

The key word being MAY

If tests from our experts confirm this, this could be the smoking gun. It would prove [Saddam Hussein] has the weapons we have said he has all along," Hamlet said. "But right now we just don't know."

The Key Word is IF

"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in a news briefing, downplayed the report, saying the Pentagon would have to take a good look at it before commenting on a media report."

The Military never said that this was a WOMD store!!

The media is the one guilty ( And Kilmoll), for blowing this up.

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » April 8, 2003, 2:31 pm

well I'm sure that the locusts and potato worms consider them to be weapons of mass destruction. Maybe Bush can switch his propaganda machine again over to being the saviour of all Iraqi insects.

This would increase the support of the war here in the States. By acting on behalf of the insects, Bush would gain the support of PETA. Some extreme PETA members would gladly sacrifice thousands of Iraqi troops in order to save one locust. Hell, a few may even head to Bahgdad to throw some cows blood on the iraqi troops.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 8, 2003, 2:38 pm

Iraq is huge and the cities are spread out. There are OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS places things can be hid. Hell, I can hide things in San Diego County alone and it would take people forever to find them

Iraq is not 'huge'.
It's less than 3/4 the size of Texas.
It's less than 1/4 the size of Mexico.
It's double the size of Minnesota.
It has about 25 million residents (which is rougly 20 million more than Minnesota).

Would you consider Vietnam to be 'huge'?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 8, 2003, 2:41 pm

Nah Fox News did their job perfectly.

1. Put on front page about huge chemical weapons facility found
2. Print retraction on page one trillion and six that it turned out to be pesticides.
3. Sit back and watch Americans talk about the huge chemical weapons facility that was found.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » April 8, 2003, 2:42 pm

It has about 25 million residents (which is rougly 20 million more than Minnesota).

Don't forget that more than half the population is under the age of 15!

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » April 8, 2003, 2:42 pm

miir wrote:
Iraq is huge and the cities are spread out. There are OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS places things can be hid. Hell, I can hide things in San Diego County alone and it would take people forever to find them
Iraq is not 'huge'.
It's less than 3/4 the size of Texas.
It's less than 1/4 the size of Mexico.
It's double the size of Minnesota.
It has about 25 million residents (which is rougly 20 million more than Minnesota).

Would you consider Vietnam to be 'huge'?

Miir are you from Minnesota?

miir · Post by **miir** » April 8, 2003, 2:51 pm

Cartalas wrote:
miir wrote:
Iraq is huge and the cities are spread out. There are OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS places things can be hid. Hell, I can hide things in San Diego County alone and it would take people forever to find them
Iraq is not 'huge'.
It's less than 3/4 the size of Texas.
It's less than 1/4 the size of Mexico.
It's double the size of Minnesota.
It has about 25 million residents (which is rougly 20 million more than Minnesota).

Would you consider Vietnam to be 'huge'?

Miir are you from Minnesota?

No, but you are

VeeshanVault

Would you like your crow baked or fried?

Would you like your crow baked or fried?

Re: Would you like your crow baked or fried?