Would you like your crow baked or fried?

miir · Post by **miir** » April 8, 2003, 2:56 pm

Brotha wrote:storing illegal chemical fluids in a hidden bunker isn't enough...now they have to actually be armed to be counted?

No, but they have to be more than barrels of pesticide found in an agricultural facility.

Haha dumbass.
Watching you make yourself look like a complete tool is so entertaining.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » April 8, 2003, 3:16 pm

Cart: Just because some media outlets misrepresented the 'find' does not mean that all did.

additionally, because some people cannot properly interpret clearly speculative reports is not the media's fault.

i think i mentioned clearly in an earlier post a media report airing at the time of these findings that repeatedly stated further testing needed to be done to ensure these weren't pesticides.

i did happen to flip the channel to a different news channel (i often like to see how several different outlets treat the same story - its interesting), and they of course had a graphic on the bottom of the screen that said "Chemical Weapons found by Marines".

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » April 8, 2003, 5:14 pm

Miir, I never said it was definetively chemical fluids. That question in no way depended on THESE being illegal chemicals, it was a question being asked in general b/c it looked like Kelshara was suddenly raising the bar on what he would consider a smoking gun (which he later clarified for me).

Watching you try so hard to find faults in my posts, then showing yourself to be like the desperate, slobbering retard who thinks he has suddenly found a clue when you let us into small confines of your brain by way of the simplistic thinking expressed in your posts isn't really funny...it's sorta sad.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 8, 2003, 5:29 pm

I never said it was definetively chemical fluids

Where did I accuse you of saying they were?
In previous posts you certainly implied that the circumstantial evidence provided by your television set pretyt much convinced you that these were 'the real deal'.

Watching you try so hard to find faults in my posts

Believe me, I don't have to try hard to find fault in most things you say.
It's pretty much a given that you'll say something stupid whenever you post.

then showing yourself to be like the desperate, slobbering retard who thinks he has suddenly found a clue when you let us into small confines of your brain by way of your simplistic posts isn't really funny...it's sorta sad

You're a sad little manling.

Your opinions are unabashed ultra conservative and you have such a 'pro-america anti-everyone else' bias, it's childs play to pick apart your arguments and laugh at your ignorance.

It's one thing when I post obviously stupid shit just to provoke a response from you airheads, and another to post the crap you do and sincerely believe it.

And please stop calling me a 'slobbering retard', it really hurts getting owned so hard.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » April 8, 2003, 5:36 pm

trying to stay neutral on this argument...but I got to ask...

can you do one of those things where you post the definition for "manling"...cause dat shit is funnay!

miir · Post by **miir** » April 8, 2003, 5:37 pm

Kluden wrote:trying to stay neutral on this argument...but I got to ask...

can you do one of those things where you post the definition for "manling"...cause dat shit is funnay!

Say wot?

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » April 8, 2003, 5:55 pm

Something like:

man·ling
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French
1 : the cross between a human and assling; possessing less brain than both combined <The short and stought manling thought over his next move in the game of russian roullete>
2 : one who possesses the mind of a dumbass <a beautiful manling mind>

I just wanted to see the definition of a manling...and this is what came to mind...

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » April 8, 2003, 6:02 pm

I said "It looks like it's the real deal, but it's too early to say for sure." I'm sure you were wondering "what made Brotha think that? I know he's a smart guy who always uses facts but he jumped the gun by saying it may be the real deal!." For the next part of my class in educating (AKA schooling) you, I'll briefly map out how a rational mind works-maybe after much practice you'll be able to duplicate this phenominal feat. If you need for me to explain it in more depth I'll even make an analogy that's more on your level of understanding. There was a large warehouse next to it where there was ample room to store any kind of chemicals. The area these were found in was hidden under a rug inside of a camouflaged building with AK 47s and RPGs in the vicinity. The preliminary tests tested positive. All of this brought me to a conclusion that this has a pretty good chance of actually being what we were looking for. Now, I know you didn't actually question this, but based on the incoherency of thought and reasoning in your previous posts, I thought you could use this lesson on how a rational mind works (free of charge of course).

It's funny Miir...you have never (not even back when we were really debating the war) in a logical or factual manner actually picked apart any of the serious arguments that I've expressed. And ignorance...you have never said anything that I didn't already know. You can continue on your crusade to gain the appearance of having an IQ above 100 by trying unsuccessfully to find small faults in my posts, but I hope you don't really think that you're making a convincing argument on any of the actual issues that have been brought up.

Salis · Post by **Salis** » April 8, 2003, 6:10 pm

Brotha wrote: There was a large warehouse where there was ample room to store any kind of chemicals.

got bored half way, is this part meant to be an analogy of how empty your rational mind is?!

miir · Post by **miir** » April 8, 2003, 6:26 pm

There was a large warehouse next to it where there was ample room to store any kind of chemicals. The area these were found in was hidden under a rug inside of a camouflaged building with AK 47s and RPGs in the vicinity. The preliminary tests tested positive. All of this brought me to a conclusion that this has a pretty good chance of actually being what we were looking for.

See, thats the problem.

You took information from a source without questioning the credibility or validity of what they were telling you and jumped to your conclusion.

If you wanted to avoid looking like a dumbass, you would have looked at the recent history of that news source and seen that their previous 4 stories about potential bio/chem weapons were false.

I'm not the one one looking like an idiot here.
I questioned the validity of the discovery and chose to wait for further tests before commenting.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » April 8, 2003, 7:17 pm

Voronwë wrote:i did happen to flip the channel to a different news channel (i often like to see how several different outlets treat the same story - its interesting), and they of course had a graphic on the bottom of the screen that said "Chemical Weapons found by Marines".

CNN had a big red "developing story" banner on it's website, followed by a <A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/ ... l">regular story</A> yesterday. Today I saw no followup on the story, nor could I find one when I ran a search on the site. They are running stories on finding more chemical protection suits tho.

It is shit like that that has half the US population believing Sadam was responsible for 911.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » April 8, 2003, 7:50 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote: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.

I was at work when I read this and couldn't reply. Nice wit, cracked me up.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » April 8, 2003, 7:55 pm

All 3 of the major news networks in the US do this stuff...say they have a difinitive find, then later retract. It's not just Fox. When the story was breaking, I was actually watching Fox, and they were repeatedly saying that initial testing showed these to be possible sarin etc..., but it was not definite. More testing needed to be done, etc...

That's the major problem with the embedded reporters. The testing equipment the exploitation teams carry around with them purposely indicate whether they sense only the slightest amount of anything that may be dangerous. It's better to have an incorrect false positive than an incorrect false negative. The reporters just take the stories and run with them, whether they've actually been proven or not.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » April 9, 2003, 1:18 am

I still think embedded reporters is a goddamned stupid idea.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 9, 2003, 11:39 am

Have to agree on the embedded reporters. Just because you can report instantly doesn't make it a good idea.

And more noise != more news.

Anyone heard anything more on the medium range missile stash?

miir · Post by **miir** » April 9, 2003, 11:48 am

I can't even be bothered watching any of the continual news coverage.
It seems like 90% of the shit they report is unconfirmed accusations and propaganda.

How many times have bio/chem weapons been BREAKING NEWS then later been silently retracted.
How many times has it been reported that Saddam had been killed?
How many times will they show Iraqis surrenduring and rejoicing then not show them burning american flags and shooting at the US troops?
How many consecutive days have the US forces 'taken Baghdad'?

I usually limit my invasion exposure to late news casts and newspapers.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » April 9, 2003, 11:49 am

i agree that noise != news.

i do think embedded reporters are good for the US military. It allows them to have their actions represented accurately, and not let rumor and stuff turn into news.

this war has been a media feeding frenzy, and ther hasnt been nearly enough news to fill the airwaves.

but i will say, for me the most interesting reporting has been from embedded journalists. i really liked watching the 7th cavalry charge across the desert. i thought it was amazing to watch.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » April 9, 2003, 1:03 pm

http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/canada/corr ... 30407.html

miir · Post by **miir** » June 2, 2003, 2:08 pm

Still waiting for my crow....

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 2, 2003, 2:17 pm

miir wrote:Still waiting for my crow....

Damn I thought I Trolled!! Slow morning Miir?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » June 2, 2003, 10:41 pm

wow, this thread came back outta nowhere...

I would prefer that instead of doing things to crows, exterminate Hyde Park Blackbird's, otherwish known as Grackels around here.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 2, 2003, 11:25 pm

kyoukan wrote: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.

heh this one still cracks me up.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » June 3, 2003, 10:47 pm

Would that not mean that these were actually terrorist weapons unleashed upon the United States already? We should be in Lavender alert or whatever the highest color is! We are under attack I tell you!

Vaemas · Post by **Vaemas** » June 4, 2003, 9:02 am

Boogahz wrote:Lavender alert or whatever the highest color is!

Lavendar is a cooler color and would not adequately express the high risk involved!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 4, 2003, 11:45 am

FUSCIA ALERT!

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » June 4, 2003, 2:10 pm

Condition: Taupe!

Vaemas · Post by **Vaemas** » June 4, 2003, 2:24 pm

Fuscia sounds good. Taupe, I thought, was too blah...

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 4, 2003, 2:49 pm

what we need is a color that signifies a state of anxiety amongst the public sufficient to make them irrationally complient with authority, but not enough to foment mass hysteria.

i think we need to hire a marketing firm to brand this color for us.

i want a curious name that implies meaning but doesnt really mean anything, like "Accenture".

but obviously not something as wimpy as "Accenture" this word has to have some chutspa.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » June 4, 2003, 3:36 pm

"Frissile"?

Vaemas · Post by **Vaemas** » June 4, 2003, 5:03 pm

Frissle sounds too much like gristle and would have the PETA people up in arms. Next!

Willowwing · Post by **Willowwing** » June 5, 2003, 11:12 am

Condition .... Plaid

Guess I should do like the head of the "Homeland Security" says in his commercial. Go read a brochure

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » June 5, 2003, 11:15 am

Can't........do..............PLAID!

poor chameleon...felt so sorry for him in that episode of The Tick animated series

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » June 5, 2003, 12:10 pm

I need a DVD collection of all The Tick animated series', STAT!

Condition: Terrorcotta?

Vaemas · Post by **Vaemas** » June 5, 2003, 1:37 pm

ROFL @ Tanc. Unfortunately, most of us Americans are too damn stupid to catch the pun.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 5, 2003, 2:45 pm

nice!