Except he's the one that quotes article and then claims they say the opposite of what they really do (unprofitable does not mean profitable, alcimedes, just like breaking UN seals means the UN already knew about it).
is your position that there's no way the military could have found something the IAEA missed
well, that's about as clear as it can get. you seem to be implying that since the IAEA has been to this site, they know everything that was there, and that nothing new has been found by the military.
i have no idea what they may or may not have found, but i'm open to the possibility that the military may have come across items that the IAEA missed.
so same question as above, yes or no answer will suffice.
is your position that there's no way the military could have found soemthing the IAEA missed?
what do you mean when you use the words 'could...something...miss?'
For example, as it stands I could answer your question as:
Sure. The military could have found a f-16 that the IAEA inspectors didn't see, but they didn't.
But, hey, if you would rather be a baby instead of admitting that the story was leaked packaged in the term plutonium to get schmucks like you all excited, then go on with BSing like you always do.
Quote:
AirSluf:
They are unless David Albright was testifying on behalf of the IAEA to the Security Council in early March. Or didn't you spend 4 hours watching that.
of course, former inspector that, AFAIK, never went to the facility, does not mean IAEA rep, but I am being overly specific. We do also know that only one small team ever went underground at the complex, and this has been forgotten by even the former IAEA team leader.
However, all detailed reports indicate the material found was already accounted for by the IAEA.
I thought I had already said that there is the possibility of future discovery of undocumented material (but maybe I didn't), though the possibility of finding an actual nuclear program is close to none.
However, any find will be trumpeted as proof of iraqi non-compliance, just like that individual unexamined warhead was, or the 11 or so empty ones found by inspectors.
Quote:
That's MR. DICK to you.
How bout I'll just call you mr. weenie and we'll call it even.
Except the seal breaking is your own opinion as stated above by yourself, not a fact. The IAEA guy that said we broke seals isn't there to see what containers have been opened, so he doesn't know for sure, does he? And if he doesn't, you don't. Those statements are facts.
If they don't know positively there were seals broken, they don't know positively they already know about what is in those containers now, do they?
All evidence points to the fact that UN seals were broken. The marine's embedded reporter, the fact that there were storage sites. According to the Guardian, the reporter was very specific about the material. This is the same material put under seal by the IAEA. Sure there is a chance (albeit tiny as hell) that is unaccounted for material, but the accounts show that that is likely not the case. The IAEA is not in a position to officially state anything one way or the other, but you can be assured (and you can see in their angry statements) that individually they know what happened.
But I guess it's a good thing that you want to suspend judgement. Unfortunately, you are bordering on the edge of ignorant when you stop paying attention to the facts as they line up in front of you.
quote:is your position that there's no way the military could have found soemthing the IAEA missed?
what do you mean when you use the words 'could...something...miss?'
For example, as it stands I could answer your question as:
Sure. The military could have found a f-16 that the IAEA inspectors didn't see, but they didn't.
But, hey, if you would rather be a baby instead of admitting that the story was leaked packaged in the term plutonium to get schmucks like you all excited, then go on with BSing like you always do.
so was that a yes or a no? again, you seem to struggle.
you said
Quote:
Well, we basically do know what they found since they were drums of radioactive material in places the IAEA knows about.
is it possible what the military folks found was something the IAEA missed? YES or NO.
it should be easy, shortest post of your life. a YES or a NO.
man, people think i'm joking about the reading comprehension thing. you should check into some special ed programs. you're A.D.D. or something.
But, hey, if you would rather be a baby instead of admitting that the story was leaked packaged in the term plutonium to get schmucks like you all excited, then go on with BSing like you always do.
you consider "5 days folks. give it five days then let's see what's going on." that phrase to be all excited?
must lead an exciting life.....
(i'd have included this in the post above, but i didn't want to distract you from the Yes or No question)
is it possible what the military folks found was something the IAEA missed? YES or NO.
You can't say 'possible' because ANYTHING is possible. It's possible they found noah's ark. Did it happen? I can confidently say they did not.
But in the barrels? Obviously NO in the one it is known they broke UN seals to get into, and in the other building there is only a possibility in the same sense that there is a possibility that there are green aliens in Area 51. So maybe there are aliens there. But that's pretty unlikely, and I am confident that it indeed was under UN seal as was reported. All we are waiting for with that one is official confirmation, but the reality is clear.
As for the underground complex, one IAEA team did go underground at Tuwaitha, but I don't remember that section of the reports. That part we don't know about, but since the only material in question is housed in a building, it's clear that there is no unaccounted for material underground that has been discovered.
Quote:
man, people think i'm joking about the reading comprehension thing. you should check into some special ed programs.
Have you ever posted anything that stood up to scrutiny? How about when you posted that the US had the largest reserves of oil and it just turned out that it had the largest oil shale resources? How about when you then linked to a page saying it represented a profitable company and it clearly stated the company made no money, even using the word unprofitable!
How about in this thread where you state "we don't know if they broke seals to get to it" when we know they did!
How about when you quoted the end of the article about DynCorp asking if everyone invovled got fired when the entire article was about how everyone at all levels of the company were involved. The firing of the 5 employees as you quoted happened before every other event talked about in the article!
Yet even with this long, long track record (and these are just the big ones I remember from the past week) you say I have a problem with reading comprehension?!?!?! are you completely insane?
Yet even with this long, long track record (and these are just the big ones I remember from the past week) you say I have a problem with reading comprehension?!?!?! are you completely insane?
well, considering i keep replying to you, you could make a case for it.
"You probably got your ass-kicked too many times for being a tubby theater nerd and now you want to get your vengence without actually risking anything."
When did you become such an incredible prick? You're just angry that you were called out on making assumptions...of course, that was tens of posts ago in this flame-fest, so no one is going to care...
...but I am curious as to why you've chosen to be such an amazing dick about it. PM me if you like.
ladies and gentlemen, the amazing GIANT is now speaking out of his ass! watch as he guesses what training folks in the field have! he leaps! he pirouettes!
No rudeness there. You are an absolute saint. You are definitely not someone who comes into threads attacking individuals while having no point whatsoever. Post something relevant or move along.
Comments
Originally posted by alcimedes
a simple yes or no will suffice giant.
is your position that there's no way the military could have found soemthing the IAEA missed?
(here's a hint, there's no math involved in this one)
you can do it giant, i believe in you.
Sorry...
Originally posted by pscates
Sorry...
Except he's the one that quotes article and then claims they say the opposite of what they really do (unprofitable does not mean profitable, alcimedes, just like breaking UN seals means the UN already knew about it).
is your position that there's no way the military could have found something the IAEA missed
well, that's about as clear as it can get. you seem to be implying that since the IAEA has been to this site, they know everything that was there, and that nothing new has been found by the military.
i have no idea what they may or may not have found, but i'm open to the possibility that the military may have come across items that the IAEA missed.
so same question as above, yes or no answer will suffice.
Originally posted by alcimedes
well, that's about as clear as it can get.
And yet you try to talk shit.
let me help you out, little one:
is your position that there's no way the military could have found soemthing the IAEA missed?
what do you mean when you use the words 'could...something...miss?'
For example, as it stands I could answer your question as:
Sure. The military could have found a f-16 that the IAEA inspectors didn't see, but they didn't.
But, hey, if you would rather be a baby instead of admitting that the story was leaked packaged in the term plutonium to get schmucks like you all excited, then go on with BSing like you always do.
AirSluf:
They are unless David Albright was testifying on behalf of the IAEA to the Security Council in early March. Or didn't you spend 4 hours watching that.
of course, former inspector that, AFAIK, never went to the facility, does not mean IAEA rep, but I am being overly specific. We do also know that only one small team ever went underground at the complex, and this has been forgotten by even the former IAEA team leader.
However, all detailed reports indicate the material found was already accounted for by the IAEA.
I thought I had already said that there is the possibility of future discovery of undocumented material (but maybe I didn't), though the possibility of finding an actual nuclear program is close to none.
However, any find will be trumpeted as proof of iraqi non-compliance, just like that individual unexamined warhead was, or the 11 or so empty ones found by inspectors.
That's MR. DICK to you.
How bout I'll just call you mr. weenie and we'll call it even.
Originally posted by AirSluf
Except the seal breaking is your own opinion as stated above by yourself, not a fact. The IAEA guy that said we broke seals isn't there to see what containers have been opened, so he doesn't know for sure, does he? And if he doesn't, you don't. Those statements are facts.
If they don't know positively there were seals broken, they don't know positively they already know about what is in those containers now, do they?
All evidence points to the fact that UN seals were broken. The marine's embedded reporter, the fact that there were storage sites. According to the Guardian, the reporter was very specific about the material. This is the same material put under seal by the IAEA. Sure there is a chance (albeit tiny as hell) that is unaccounted for material, but the accounts show that that is likely not the case. The IAEA is not in a position to officially state anything one way or the other, but you can be assured (and you can see in their angry statements) that individually they know what happened.
But I guess it's a good thing that you want to suspend judgement. Unfortunately, you are bordering on the edge of ignorant when you stop paying attention to the facts as they line up in front of you.
And yet you try to talk shit.
let me help you out, little one:
quote:is your position that there's no way the military could have found soemthing the IAEA missed?
what do you mean when you use the words 'could...something...miss?'
For example, as it stands I could answer your question as:
Sure. The military could have found a f-16 that the IAEA inspectors didn't see, but they didn't.
But, hey, if you would rather be a baby instead of admitting that the story was leaked packaged in the term plutonium to get schmucks like you all excited, then go on with BSing like you always do.
so was that a yes or a no? again, you seem to struggle.
you said
Well, we basically do know what they found since they were drums of radioactive material in places the IAEA knows about.
is it possible what the military folks found was something the IAEA missed? YES or NO.
it should be easy, shortest post of your life. a YES or a NO.
man, people think i'm joking about the reading comprehension thing. you should check into some special ed programs. you're A.D.D. or something.
But, hey, if you would rather be a baby instead of admitting that the story was leaked packaged in the term plutonium to get schmucks like you all excited, then go on with BSing like you always do.
you consider "5 days folks. give it five days then let's see what's going on." that phrase to be all excited?
must lead an exciting life.....
(i'd have included this in the post above, but i didn't want to distract you from the Yes or No question)
is it possible what the military folks found was something the IAEA missed? YES or NO.
You can't say 'possible' because ANYTHING is possible. It's possible they found noah's ark. Did it happen? I can confidently say they did not.
But in the barrels? Obviously NO in the one it is known they broke UN seals to get into, and in the other building there is only a possibility in the same sense that there is a possibility that there are green aliens in Area 51. So maybe there are aliens there. But that's pretty unlikely, and I am confident that it indeed was under UN seal as was reported. All we are waiting for with that one is official confirmation, but the reality is clear.
As for the underground complex, one IAEA team did go underground at Tuwaitha, but I don't remember that section of the reports. That part we don't know about, but since the only material in question is housed in a building, it's clear that there is no unaccounted for material underground that has been discovered.
man, people think i'm joking about the reading comprehension thing. you should check into some special ed programs.
Have you ever posted anything that stood up to scrutiny? How about when you posted that the US had the largest reserves of oil and it just turned out that it had the largest oil shale resources? How about when you then linked to a page saying it represented a profitable company and it clearly stated the company made no money, even using the word unprofitable!
How about in this thread where you state "we don't know if they broke seals to get to it" when we know they did!
How about when you quoted the end of the article about DynCorp asking if everyone invovled got fired when the entire article was about how everyone at all levels of the company were involved. The firing of the 5 employees as you quoted happened before every other event talked about in the article!
Yet even with this long, long track record (and these are just the big ones I remember from the past week) you say I have a problem with reading comprehension?!?!?! are you completely insane?
Yet even with this long, long track record (and these are just the big ones I remember from the past week) you say I have a problem with reading comprehension?!?!?! are you completely insane?
well, considering i keep replying to you, you could make a case for it.
Originally posted by alcimedes well, considering i keep replying to you, you could make a case for it.
True. and that, too. You seem to love making an ass of yourself
When did you become such an incredible prick? You're just angry that you were called out on making assumptions...of course, that was tens of posts ago in this flame-fest, so no one is going to care...
...but I am curious as to why you've chosen to be such an amazing dick about it. PM me if you like.
Originally posted by mrmister
When did you become such an incredible prick?
you must be joking.
ladies and gentlemen, the amazing GIANT is now speaking out of his ass! watch as he guesses what training folks in the field have! he leaps! he pirouettes!
No rudeness there. You are an absolute saint. You are definitely not someone who comes into threads attacking individuals while having no point whatsoever. Post something relevant or move along.
Originally posted by mrmister
You're just angry that you were called out on making assumptions
How exactly did you call me out?
real question
no pinko tricks here just curiosity
Originally posted by pfflam
So, as it stands now . . . where are we . . .did they find it or not?
real question
no pinko tricks here just curiosity
no.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...934345,00.html
they figured out what happened on 4/15....
that would be, say, oh 5 days?
mwa ha ha ha ha.
i stand by my first post in this stupid thread.