Given giant's recent "prove your academic balls are as big as mine before you speak
Nope. When someone posts patently incorrect info I will tell them to do real research. When someone like you forms an opinion from skimming, I will tell them to do real research. What I really am saying is maybe you people won't be so wrong if you actually objectively research before forming your view.
You are just pissed because you invested in an uninformed theory and I called you on it.
And you still seem to be ignoring that everything you accuse me of you do yourself.
Attack the arguments but not the person. i think it should be written in the posting guidelines especially for AO.
AO is not a public trial where people judge the level or the intelligence of others. This is just a place to discuss things outside Apple. BTW it will be silly to consider that any post or thread here, will change the world. People should relax, and take this forum for what it was : lightheart, fun, a drop of culture and brain stimulation. Nothing more nothing less.
Last word : we should be all aware, that it's possible that the infamous asshole living next door, may vote or have the same opinions than ours.
Attack the arguments but not the person. i think it should be written in the posting guidelines especially for AO.
I don't think I'm assuming too much to guess that this comment is directed at my current spat with giant.
I would hope that I myself have been careful to attack arguments, and also approaches to making arguments, but haven't gone too far astray into attacking any person directly. Obviously, however, it's going to start looking personal when there's a whole lot of heated back-and-forth with one person.
Where I've gone astray, I'll endeavor to control myself.
On the other hand, I'm not one who can't be bothered with making distinctions between comments like "skimming is pathetic" and "you are pathetic". Nor am I playing childish derogatory games with the spelling of anyone's name.
giant, can you be serious with this? Are you actually arogant enought to claim that you know "everything" the Bush administration knows? Open Intelligence. My God, what world do you live in?
Do you honesty think the government tells the New Yorker everthing? Do you honestly think that you can get get any information you want on any program or secret intercept or what not through the Freedom of Information Act? In 1995, a secret project named "Verona" was revealed by Senator Moyinhan. The program was WWII and Cold War era one in which the US broke the Soviet cable-code. This program was unknown to even Roosevelt and Truman. Let me say that again: Two US presidents didn't know. No public figure knew for 50 years. But maybe YOU knew.
You live in dream world. How can you possibly think that you have somehow gotten "all" the intel Bush had access to. It's as if you are writing a speculative novel. As if every secret piece of intelligence is just sitting on the web for you to download. Shit.
giant, can you be serious with this? Are you actually arogant enought to claim that you know "everything" the Bush administration knows? Open Intelligence. My God, what world do you live in?
Do you honesty think the government tells the New Yorker everthing? Do you honestly think that you can get get any information you want on any program or secret intercept or what not through the Freedom of Information Act? In 1995, a secret project named "Verona" was revealed by Senator Moyinhan. The program was WWII and Cold War era one in which the US broke the Soviet cable-code. This program was unknown to even Roosevelt and Truman. Let me say that again: Two US presidents didn't know. No public figure knew for 50 years. But maybe YOU knew.
You live in dream world. How can you possibly think that you have somehow gotten "all" the intel Bush had access to. It's as if you are writing a speculative novel. As if every secret piece of intelligence is just sitting on the web for you to download. Shit.
We don't have to have all the intel. The intel that Bush tried to sell the war to us on turns out to be a flat out lie and he knew it.
We don't have to have all the intel. The intel that Bush tried to sell the war to us on turns out to be a flat out lie and he knew it.
Ooohh...where did you learn your excellent "card stacking"? Seriously, it's as if you guys are following 'Slimy Debate Tactics for Dummies" page by page.
"The intel Bush tried to sell...". ALL of it? Because of one document?
Ooohh...where did you learn your excellent "card stacking"? Seriously, it's as if you guys are following 'Slimy Debate Tactics for Dummies" page by page.
"The intel Bush tried to sell...". ALL of it? Because of one document?
Nice try.
IF he knew it wasn't good intel and still went ahead and tried to sell the american people on the war with it, he is a dirty rotten liar undeserving of continuing his term of the presidency. Period. It's just that simple.
Quote:
ALL of it? Because of one document?
Is that what I said? No, it isn't what I said. Pay attention. We all know which intel I am talking about. Stop playing semantics games. You are just being an obstinate jackass refusing to believe your president did any wrong.
So I point out that there are conflicting reports (which a little research would reveal to you, and you link to a press release (not even one of the 4 or 5 actual studies) and consider it case closed. Good job at flat out additmitting you are willing to ignore evidence and only superficialy research in a feeble attempt to prove a point.
No it wouldn't. That's simply false.
Your memory does not serve you correctly. I just advocate actually studying something at least a little before actually forming an opinion. Go back and look, then shut the **** up.
Hello Giant,
Does your ranting never end..?
Do you ever bother to read what people actually say ?
I never said anything about certain chemicals being or not being in Halabja..Read the thread.
Arguing about " conflicting reports " as you put it, was not the initial purpose of my entering the debate ( sic ).
So for the purposes of clarity, allow me to re-iterate my position.
( A ) you set up a challenge..namely that someone prove that any one vial of chemical would kill as many people in a single blow as were killed in 9/1I.
Am I correct so far ?
I merely responded by listing three chemical/agents known to be amongst the deadliest ever created. Ounce for ounce far more deadlier than kerosene.
Note well.....Your challenge said nothing about dispersal methods.
My second repost was to point out that in fairness of objective testing ( from a purely hypothetical stance ) one would have to have two identical buildings with the same numbers of people etc.. One to be hit by the aircraft, the other to have the chemical agent introduced into the air conditioning system...
This is methodologically, the basis of all comparative scientific testing. I would have though that it would have self-evident .
As to my link...I could have posted far more detailed sources, but the link I put up was succinct.
A generalised report ? yes..but if you had actually bothered to read the link you would have noted under the sub-heading " poison's legacy " reference to the use of three other gases in Halabja.. VX, sarin & Tabun. Furthermore, you would have also noted the comments by Professor Christine Gosden.. ( medical genetics )and the work done by the Halabja Medical Institute.
( I also initially suggested that there might be other ways of testing for the presence of certain chemicals ?..not so much in the battle field, but in the effects they have had on their victims....but I realise the difficulty of such an approach , given that the effects can be similar with a wide variety of agents. )
In summary, your request / challenge is mute, unless you would like to carry out a field test that matched the initial 9/11 circumstances and conditions.
But since you consider yourself to be correct, perhaps you would like to prove to us why a gas / chemical agent attack on a building like WTC would NOT have been effective as an aircraft attack.?
But I doubt anyone will believe anything you say unless you put up some of your own precious links...after all
what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
.... you are lying about what was used. The only known chemical used was Mustard Gas. Beyond that the likely chemical used was cyanide or *possibly* *unknown* nerve agent(s).
I gave you a link from people who were at the site, including a respected doctor, the link mentioned these chemicals by name....So who is a liar..?
But your so cocksure, where are your links ? Huh Huh huh. Where is your evidence ? or do we have to take the giant's ( gnat ) word for it ?
Show us your glorified evidence your majesty...
But this is all bumfluff,
What your really doing is desperately avoiding my challenge..namely the comparative WTC scenario..
That is:
Two identical buildings, two methods of attack, one by jet the other by the introduction of a gas/ toxin agent..
let us compare results.
There you are gnat..now you have no excuse..Everyone else reading this thread will see if you have the knowledge to answer it...
It is 1.15am here so you can have all night to come up with an answer to a question that was fair and balanced.
And here is a final point for you to chew on. gnat
If such chemicals weren't as effective as you claim in comparison to what happened at WTC 9/11, then why are many nations across the world seeking to have them banned.?
Don't hear people wanting to ban jets..now do we ?
(1) A report by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) released soon after the deaths.
(a) ?[M]ost of the casualties in Halabja were reportedly caused by cyan[o]gen chloride. This agent has never been used by Iraq, but Iran has shown interest in it. Mustard gas casualties in the town were probably caused by Iraqi weapons, because Iran has never been noted using that agent.? [The Village Voice 5/2002]
(2) A report titled, ?Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War? by Dr. Stephen Pelletiere and Lieutenant Colonel Douglas Johnson of the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute.
(a) ?Since the Iraqis have no history of using these two agents?and the Iranians do?we conclude that the Iranians perpetrated this attack.? [Johnson and Pelletiere 12/10/1990]
(3) Statement(s) by Stephen Pelletiere, former CIA senior political analyst on Iraq throughout the Iran-Iraq War.
(a) He told the Village Voice, ?There is to this day the belief?and I'm not the only one who holds it?that things didn't happen in Halabja the way Goldberg wrote it. And it's an especially crucial issue right now. We say Saddam is a monster, a maniac who gassed his own people, and the world shouldn't tolerate him. But why? Because that's the last argument the U.S. has for going to war with Iraq.? [The Village Voice 5/2002]
(b) In an op-ed piece published by the New York Times, Pelletiere again explained that there was no conclusive evidence that it was Iraqi gas that had killed the Kurds in 1988. He wrote: ?[A]ll we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story. ? This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target. And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent ? that is, a cyanide-based gas ? which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.? [New York Times 1/31/03]
from CCR
And here is the original official US report on the Iran/Iraq war discussing cyanogen chloride:
Oh, and liar boy, chemical weapons are difficult to make airborn in open spaces, much less in an hvac system. We already have had an example of Sarin used in a confined, highly populated area in the Tokyo subway using 5 seperate dispersal sites, and only 12 people died.
While it is true that sarin can be made into an aerosol and become very deadly, it is extremely difficult and requires a large infrastructure and developed labs. The only reason the tokyo cult was able to produce crude sarin (and liquid at that) was because of it's large resources ($1b+) and the membership of highly skilled chemists.
oh, but ANY NERVE AGENTS POSSESSED BY IRAQ WOULD HAVE DEGRADED BY NOW, SO IT DOESN'T MATTER
So since Iraq had no sarin any time recently, and I'm pretty sure it never had sarin in aerosolized form (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm), the threat of a terrorist attack using Iraqi sarin is extremely low. You would be hard pressed to demonstrate the ability of any rouge group to aquire aerosolized sarin, and that source obviously would not be Iraq.
Comments
Originally posted by shetline
Given giant's recent "prove your academic balls are as big as mine before you speak
Nope. When someone posts patently incorrect info I will tell them to do real research. When someone like you forms an opinion from skimming, I will tell them to do real research. What I really am saying is maybe you people won't be so wrong if you actually objectively research before forming your view.
You are just pissed because you invested in an uninformed theory and I called you on it.
And you still seem to be ignoring that everything you accuse me of you do yourself.
Note also that it is you on the attack.
AO is not a public trial where people judge the level or the intelligence of others. This is just a place to discuss things outside Apple. BTW it will be silly to consider that any post or thread here, will change the world. People should relax, and take this forum for what it was : lightheart, fun, a drop of culture and brain stimulation. Nothing more nothing less.
Last word : we should be all aware, that it's possible that the infamous asshole living next door, may vote or have the same opinions than ours.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Attack the arguments but not the person. i think it should be written in the posting guidelines especially for AO.
I don't think I'm assuming too much to guess that this comment is directed at my current spat with giant.
I would hope that I myself have been careful to attack arguments, and also approaches to making arguments, but haven't gone too far astray into attacking any person directly. Obviously, however, it's going to start looking personal when there's a whole lot of heated back-and-forth with one person.
Where I've gone astray, I'll endeavor to control myself.
On the other hand, I'm not one who can't be bothered with making distinctions between comments like "skimming is pathetic" and "you are pathetic". Nor am I playing childish derogatory games with the spelling of anyone's name.
Do you honesty think the government tells the New Yorker everthing? Do you honestly think that you can get get any information you want on any program or secret intercept or what not through the Freedom of Information Act? In 1995, a secret project named "Verona" was revealed by Senator Moyinhan. The program was WWII and Cold War era one in which the US broke the Soviet cable-code. This program was unknown to even Roosevelt and Truman. Let me say that again: Two US presidents didn't know. No public figure knew for 50 years. But maybe YOU knew.
You live in dream world. How can you possibly think that you have somehow gotten "all" the intel Bush had access to. It's as if you are writing a speculative novel. As if every secret piece of intelligence is just sitting on the web for you to download. Shit.
Originally posted by SDW2001
giant, can you be serious with this? Are you actually arogant enought to claim that you know "everything" the Bush administration knows? Open Intelligence. My God, what world do you live in?
Do you honesty think the government tells the New Yorker everthing? Do you honestly think that you can get get any information you want on any program or secret intercept or what not through the Freedom of Information Act? In 1995, a secret project named "Verona" was revealed by Senator Moyinhan. The program was WWII and Cold War era one in which the US broke the Soviet cable-code. This program was unknown to even Roosevelt and Truman. Let me say that again: Two US presidents didn't know. No public figure knew for 50 years. But maybe YOU knew.
You live in dream world. How can you possibly think that you have somehow gotten "all" the intel Bush had access to. It's as if you are writing a speculative novel. As if every secret piece of intelligence is just sitting on the web for you to download. Shit.
We don't have to have all the intel. The intel that Bush tried to sell the war to us on turns out to be a flat out lie and he knew it.
Originally posted by BR
We don't have to have all the intel. The intel that Bush tried to sell the war to us on turns out to be a flat out lie and he knew it.
Ooohh...where did you learn your excellent "card stacking"? Seriously, it's as if you guys are following 'Slimy Debate Tactics for Dummies" page by page.
"The intel Bush tried to sell...". ALL of it? Because of one document?
Nice try.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Ooohh...where did you learn your excellent "card stacking"? Seriously, it's as if you guys are following 'Slimy Debate Tactics for Dummies" page by page.
"The intel Bush tried to sell...". ALL of it? Because of one document?
Nice try.
IF he knew it wasn't good intel and still went ahead and tried to sell the american people on the war with it, he is a dirty rotten liar undeserving of continuing his term of the presidency. Period. It's just that simple.
ALL of it? Because of one document?
Is that what I said? No, it isn't what I said. Pay attention. We all know which intel I am talking about. Stop playing semantics games. You are just being an obstinate jackass refusing to believe your president did any wrong.
Because of one document?
Yah, that one that contributed to the death of dozens of americans under possible false pretenses.
Wholy crapola. If gore did this stunt, his head would be on a pike right now.
Originally posted by giant
So I point out that there are conflicting reports (which a little research would reveal to you, and you link to a press release (not even one of the 4 or 5 actual studies) and consider it case closed. Good job at flat out additmitting you are willing to ignore evidence and only superficialy research in a feeble attempt to prove a point.
No it wouldn't. That's simply false.
Your memory does not serve you correctly. I just advocate actually studying something at least a little before actually forming an opinion. Go back and look, then shut the **** up.
Hello Giant,
Does your ranting never end..?
Do you ever bother to read what people actually say ?
I never said anything about certain chemicals being or not being in Halabja..Read the thread.
Arguing about " conflicting reports " as you put it, was not the initial purpose of my entering the debate ( sic ).
So for the purposes of clarity, allow me to re-iterate my position.
( A ) you set up a challenge..namely that someone prove that any one vial of chemical would kill as many people in a single blow as were killed in 9/1I.
Am I correct so far ?
I merely responded by listing three chemical/agents known to be amongst the deadliest ever created. Ounce for ounce far more deadlier than kerosene.
Note well.....Your challenge said nothing about dispersal methods.
My second repost was to point out that in fairness of objective testing ( from a purely hypothetical stance ) one would have to have two identical buildings with the same numbers of people etc.. One to be hit by the aircraft, the other to have the chemical agent introduced into the air conditioning system...
This is methodologically, the basis of all comparative scientific testing. I would have though that it would have self-evident .
As to my link...I could have posted far more detailed sources, but the link I put up was succinct.
A generalised report ? yes..but if you had actually bothered to read the link you would have noted under the sub-heading " poison's legacy " reference to the use of three other gases in Halabja.. VX, sarin & Tabun. Furthermore, you would have also noted the comments by Professor Christine Gosden.. ( medical genetics )and the work done by the Halabja Medical Institute.
( I also initially suggested that there might be other ways of testing for the presence of certain chemicals ?..not so much in the battle field, but in the effects they have had on their victims....but I realise the difficulty of such an approach , given that the effects can be similar with a wide variety of agents. )
In summary, your request / challenge is mute, unless you would like to carry out a field test that matched the initial 9/11 circumstances and conditions.
But since you consider yourself to be correct, perhaps you would like to prove to us why a gas / chemical agent attack on a building like WTC would NOT have been effective as an aircraft attack.?
But I doubt anyone will believe anything you say unless you put up some of your own precious links...after all
what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Originally posted by aquafire
I never said anything about certain chemicals being or not being in Halabja..Read the thread.
READ YOUR POST:
Originally posted by aquafire Three actually, Nerve V-X agent, Cyclosarin & Sarin.
The latter two involved in the horrific attack on the people of Halabji in Iraq, march 17th 1988.
What the hell is wrong with you?
Originally posted by giant
.... you are lying about what was used. The only known chemical used was Mustard Gas. Beyond that the likely chemical used was cyanide or *possibly* *unknown* nerve agent(s).
I gave you a link from people who were at the site, including a respected doctor, the link mentioned these chemicals by name....So who is a liar..?
But your so cocksure, where are your links ? Huh Huh huh. Where is your evidence ? or do we have to take the giant's ( gnat ) word for it ?
Show us your glorified evidence your majesty...
But this is all bumfluff,
What your really doing is desperately avoiding my challenge..namely the comparative WTC scenario..
That is:
Two identical buildings, two methods of attack, one by jet the other by the introduction of a gas/ toxin agent..
let us compare results.
There you are gnat..now you have no excuse..Everyone else reading this thread will see if you have the knowledge to answer it...
It is 1.15am here so you can have all night to come up with an answer to a question that was fair and balanced.
Ai awaits your response...and so do I.
If such chemicals weren't as effective as you claim in comparison to what happened at WTC 9/11, then why are many nations across the world seeking to have them banned.?
Don't hear people wanting to ban jets..now do we ?
Anyway:
(1) A report by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) released soon after the deaths.
(a) ?[M]ost of the casualties in Halabja were reportedly caused by cyan[o]gen chloride. This agent has never been used by Iraq, but Iran has shown interest in it. Mustard gas casualties in the town were probably caused by Iraqi weapons, because Iran has never been noted using that agent.? [The Village Voice 5/2002]
(2) A report titled, ?Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War? by Dr. Stephen Pelletiere and Lieutenant Colonel Douglas Johnson of the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute.
(a) ?Since the Iraqis have no history of using these two agents?and the Iranians do?we conclude that the Iranians perpetrated this attack.? [Johnson and Pelletiere 12/10/1990]
(3) Statement(s) by Stephen Pelletiere, former CIA senior political analyst on Iraq throughout the Iran-Iraq War.
(a) He told the Village Voice, ?There is to this day the belief?and I'm not the only one who holds it?that things didn't happen in Halabja the way Goldberg wrote it. And it's an especially crucial issue right now. We say Saddam is a monster, a maniac who gassed his own people, and the world shouldn't tolerate him. But why? Because that's the last argument the U.S. has for going to war with Iraq.? [The Village Voice 5/2002]
(b) In an op-ed piece published by the New York Times, Pelletiere again explained that there was no conclusive evidence that it was Iraqi gas that had killed the Kurds in 1988. He wrote: ?[A]ll we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story. ? This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target. And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent ? that is, a cyanide-based gas ? which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.? [New York Times 1/31/03]
from CCR
And here is the original official US report on the Iran/Iraq war discussing cyanogen chloride:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/
Dr. Stephen Pelletiere was the CIA's senior analyst for the Iran/Iraq war.
What your problem is, aquafire, other than being a liar, is that you invest too much in things before actually learning about them.
While it is true that sarin can be made into an aerosol and become very deadly, it is extremely difficult and requires a large infrastructure and developed labs. The only reason the tokyo cult was able to produce crude sarin (and liquid at that) was because of it's large resources ($1b+) and the membership of highly skilled chemists.
oh, but ANY NERVE AGENTS POSSESSED BY IRAQ WOULD HAVE DEGRADED BY NOW, SO IT DOESN'T MATTER
So since Iraq had no sarin any time recently, and I'm pretty sure it never had sarin in aerosolized form (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm), the threat of a terrorist attack using Iraqi sarin is extremely low. You would be hard pressed to demonstrate the ability of any rouge group to aquire aerosolized sarin, and that source obviously would not be Iraq.
You really are a glutton for punishment