BREAKING NEWS: nerve gas found in road side bomb in Iraq

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Originally posted by General Ludd
1. They wheren't spraying plants. They where spraying the jungle in it's entirety - that means the villages and people in it.

So? We spray pesticides on entire farms.

Intent is what matters, not effect.

2. Even if it where to only kill plants, that would leave everyone starving and unable to grow more food.

Which is still a) not WMD and b) not true. Do you really think they got their food from the thick jungle shrub-thingies?

3. It's results where not unnattended, but ignored. It is impossible that the scientists who created this chemical where not aware of it's poisonous and toxic nature. They where designing it to to annhilate all life. The fact that they intentionally left animal (human) life out of their equation does not excuse it.

They were designing it to destroy foliage. They couldn't have cared less about whether or not it killed animals.

But I'd say that all weapons lend themselves towards wiping out massive numbers of people with minimal effort, anyways.

But some more than others.

This whole argument is basically pointless anyway, as anyone (important) means NBC weapons when they refer to WMD.

Stop soundly like than evil lawyer defender the Evil America Government.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by General Ludd
They could certainly be used that way. Just look at what DDT and other pesticides have done, and they wheren't even used as a weapon.

Although agricultural herbicides and pesticides are far, far, far more tame than agent orange which was designed to turn lush jungle into deadlands.





They where used in afghanistan, atleast.



Yes... this is why they are called 'cluster bombs' - they are a large quantity of bombs packaged together.





So it's the sheer destructive force of a weapon that makes it a WMD? Then surely the air-fuel bombs must be a WMD?

Yes, I know - your answer will of course be no. But it's a strange scenario where the 'mother of all bombs' is not a weapon of mass destruction, but an antique artillery shell with nerve gas in it is.

The German Chemist who dicover nerse gas was looking for the perest pesticle was disappoint when it turn out it killed dogs,cats, and people also.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by GePap


1. 100% the the prelimenary tests done that "found chemical weapons" were found negative at the end. Until all the tests are done, this is as believable

2. IF that is Sarin, that is no proof that is came from past Iraqi stocks as opposed to being newly created, or from stocks elsewhere. If we remember, it was sarin that the Japanese terror group was able to make on their own.

Makeing nerse gas is very riskist even with than chemicial plant and even more riskly to do in a homemake lab.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


That's the limited recruiting excuse and propaganda tool to make most of the rest of the western world figure they're safe. For the real answers, read Ma'alim fil tariq, and any of a number of works by al Maududi.



A majority of the CW casualties at Halabja had symptoms consistent with exposure to CW agents known to be in Iranian arsenals, but not in Iraqi arsenals. The DIA concluded both sides used CW agents in attacks and counterattacks at Halabja, and for a number of reasons, a majority of casualties were caused by Iranian CW agents. It wasn't that big of a deal because (a) we already hated them, and (b) we didn't need more stuff to demonize the Ayatollahs, we needed stuff to demonize Saddam.

America was the nation that lower the theadhold of useing chemical weapon, We allow Iraq to use Chemical Weapon against Iran and we never said aword about it or told him not to. We veto than UN security counil resolution against Iraq useing chemical weapons against Iran than supid veto. It was the USSR that gave Iran chemical weapons to use back at Iraq includeing Soviet nerse agents and cryan gas which is than blood poison agent.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MrFun



Ah -- inflating my claim to something that I would not stand for.



that's fabulous

It's called reductio ad absurdum

(btw - sp?)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Actually, not caring wether or not something happens does not imply any sort of intention. What it implies is disregard.

Exactly my point.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
There is no reason to think that Saddam has the smallpox virus anyway. It's been eradicated in the wild for years. And we all know how dangerous anthrax is. What? Four or five deaths? Hardly panic material.

Actually, smallpox still exists in the "wild". It's just relegated to small parts of Africa, Asia, and IIRC South America.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kucinich


Exactly my point.

I'm glad you agree with me, then.

[Kuciwalker]

Which means you agree with me. Which means you agree that they did not intend to kill actual people with Agent Orange. Which means that it wasn't a weapon, because a weapon is some object used with the intent to cause injury. Which means that Agent Orange is not a weapon of mass destruction.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Actually, smallpox still exists in the "wild". It's just relegated to small parts of Africa, Asia, and IIRC South America.

Nope.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Which means you agree with me. Which means you agree that they did not intend to kill actual people with Agent Orange.

I thought you just agreed that it was not an intention to avoid killing people, but a disregard for the damage it causes to people.

You can't close your eyes while firing a gun and claim innocence.



It's similiar to how Dresden is often defended - they where targeting industry and infrastructure. They didn't intend to incinerate the city and everyone in it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Nope.

Yup, according to primary source articles we've read in biology recently

It's not an issue, though, because they're talking about places in the middle of the jungle and stuff.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
I thought you just agreed that it was not an intention to avoid killing people, but a disregard for the damage it causes to people.

There obviously was no intention to avoid killing people, but there was also no intention to try and kill people. Since a weapon is some device used with intent to injure someone else, Agent Orange is clearly not a weapon.

You can't close your eyes while firing a gun and claim innocence.

Where did I claim innocence? I'm pointing out that it isn't a weapon.

[General Ludd]

By your definition, there is no such thing as a weapon. Or rather, there isn't untill someone tries to kill someone - at which point a weapon is created.

This artillery shell, had it been left in the stockpile, would not be weapon. Nuclear missles are not weapons. Guns aren't either.

There obviously was no intention to avoid killing people, but there was also no intention to try and kill people

But they knew it would, which is why I say disregard.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Which means you agree with me. Which means you agree that they did not intend to kill actual people with Agent Orange. Which means that it wasn't a weapon, because a weapon is some object used with the intent to cause injury. Which means that Agent Orange is not a weapon of mass destruction.

If they did not intend to kill, it was callous disregard nevertheless -- I doubt it was the case that they never knew that toxic chemicals can harm people.