This is ridiculous, quote me where I said the words "perfectly safe" with regards to expired sarin, then I'll continue explaining how they should not be considered weapons of MASS destruction...
you didn't specifically say they were "perfectly safe", those were my words to begin with...however you have stated over and over that they do not pose a threat, and that they should not be considered a WMD because they are past some imaginary "expiration date"... http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=4040538&postcount=63 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=4040133&postcount=54 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=4040318&postcount=57 Seems to me still that you are willing to change definitions to fit your own agenda...
1) If you believe there is no expiration date of sarin gas, please point out a scholarly source that shares your misguided and uninformed opinion... 2) Where have I changed a definition? When I stated that IED's are not WMD? Or when I said that expired gulf-war-era sarin/vx/mustard should not be considered WMD?
Jeez man, that first link you posted didn't even have a claim I made! It was just me providing a link and quote to Scott Ritter / UN arms inspector in Iraq ('91-'98)!
I don't know why do you discuss this with these morons when Bush has already admitted that there was no WMD and there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. It is quite obvious that cheerleaders squad is too stupid to understand that this discussion is lost when even the administration that they are cheering for admits to being wrong about WMD. Bush says cheerleaders squad is a joke and there was no WMD in Iraq.
I should have put them in order, from 54 to 57 then to 63... 1. I want to know where we get the expiration date from, I have already asked this...is it stamped on the can or something? Or are people just "assuming" that there is...I think I remember Gtech making a post showing that valid expiration dates cannot be proven scientifically.... 2.You keep saying that expired agents are not WMDs...which gets back to my original question (that you didn't answer)...are they safe, is that what you are saying??
1) No, it's not usually stamped on a can... And it's not hard to determine the toxic level of the chemicals, any NBC specialist in the military can tell you how lethal the substance is, and therefor if it's still a threat... Search for PWCh-1 or click here for basic info ... 2) it's not "safe", but not lethal enough to be considered a WMD... combined with other substances it can be lethal, but then again, so can bleach or other household cleaners... People have claimed because sarin can be combined with an IED that it is a WMD; this doesn't make sense because the damage would not be much worse then the IED itself, therefor the IED would be considered the WMD, not the expired sarin... Trust me, if they found viable WMD in Iraq, bush would be all over the news making sure every American knew we found them...
again, I see that it is fitting that you want to change the definition of WMD to fit your agenda...let me remind you of this post about WMD's... http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1806583&postcount=196
1) Yes, it fits my definition, because the definition I'm using is not wrong... 2) You've already tried that link, remember this post?... I already discussed every one of those links... Also, about those links... GTech used a link to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html on that page... Then later, when I referred to the same link he claimed: here... Before you guys start accusing me of using false logic or inappropriate debate techniques (ie "altering a definition"), I would recommend you (and gtech) not contradict himself, clip peoples quotes mid sentence, or continuously revert the the appeal to emotion logical fallacy (ie, if you question the gov't; you're a terrorist)
I suspect he's only doing this because he hates Bush. It's really a shame too, because it leaves the impression that blind hatred justifies dishonesty. A point I've often raised. You are correct in your summary though. He has been creating his own criteria for WMD here. For example, I presented testimony from an Army Colonel who was testifying about such. He tried to dismiss it, unsuccessfully. He continues to suggest it must meet some pre-determined criteria, be made from a certain time period, be found from another time period, etc. I'll have to go back and check, but he seemed quite determined to avoid the question about plutonium I presented to him. Not sure if he answered it, because he knows what it means The bottom line is, *some* wmd have been found. This is factual, this is what I've argued in the past, this is confirmed by the military. As for those who persistently call Bush a liar and loathe him for going after their buds, but wish to point out words taken out of context regarding what he said...Bush was right, in the sense that the HUGE stockpiles that democrats said existed all through the 90s were not found. Of course, we can't discount the UN's report that "some" were moved to Syria, or the NYT's reports that showed they were looted early on, or the NYT's report that saddam was one year away from a nuclear bomb. So when Bush says none were found, he's talking about the larger picture, and not the few...the *some* that have actually been found. I'm still continually amazed at what lengths *some* will go to, to protect saddam...or deny, despite evidence, because of their hatred for Bush. I guess it's true...blind hatred justifies dishonesty.
1) Who's protecting saddam? Why do you keep bringing that up? Do you think people are stupid enough to believe that's the reason for these types of posts? 2) You accuse others of "changing definitions" and "creating their own criteria"; but remember, you posted a link an article as a source for an argument, then I posted a link to the same article, by the same author, and you stated: (Verify: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=4040089&postcount=53) There's a word for that, I don't use often, hypocrite 3) When you're on the verge of being proven wrong, you revert to false arguments (appeals to emotion), such as the recent one, ^ ... That's a horrible way to debate, and it actually shows that you don't care about honestly discussing something, you're just trying to force your beliefs on others.. GTech, answer this: In your opinion, what is a weapon of mass destruction? Is it a chemical that could have wreaked havoc 14 years ago? Does it need to have the ability to kill any certain number of people? Please, in your own words, what is a WMD?
Still in denial, Keith? Can you refresh my memory...what did Colonel Chu say? And why is answering how many tons of plutonium found so difficult? I've previously agreed with you, when you noted that some wmd have been found. I'm just not sure why you changed your mind.
I asked one question, you couldn't even answer that? And you say I avoid questions? I think you know that as soon as you answer that question I'll be able to prove my point...
Are you saying you have not avoided what I've asked, repeatedly? As soon as you remind us of what Colonel Chu said? Like I said, you've previously agreed that some wmd have been found. We agree on that.
I'm not saying I don't miss questions too, but that's another example of hypocrisy, calling someone out for missing questions, then doing it yourself... About Colonel Chu, there's no shame in being misinformed... I wonder what he would say right now if he was asked "did we find real wmd in iraq?"... Now, please answer my question:
I don't believe you missed it. I presented it several times. He wasn't misinformed. He was very clear on what he said. I asked what he said, not your personal opinion of what you wished he had said. There is no answer. You actually illustrate my point for me here. It's not about my, or YOUR personal opinion or finite criteria. It's about what is, and what isn't. Colonel Chu covered this and noted that it met the definition used for WMD. If it were left up to personal opinions, then *someone* might try to weasel out of accepting the actual WMD that has been found. I can't imagine why anyone would want to do that. Can you?
You're doing a pretty bad job sidestepping the question... It's not hard, define "Weapons of Mass Destruction"... If you don't want to give an opinion, then give a book definition... You know as soon as you answer it, I'll be able to prove my point... Just try... Quit being so proud... This disgusts me... Not willing to take up arms for your country, but you sure are willing to allow our brave men and women to fight an die... Then have the gall to not even answer a simple question in a debate over the validity of the war? GTech, what's your email address? I'll send you a copy of orders I received in '05 for the newly designed "Combat Action Badge"... I'll also highlight the word "heroism", if you'd like... Please, just answer the question, what is a WMD?
Another one discovers that Gtech is just a queen of cheerleaders squad. Gtech the commander in chief of pus*ies who thinks he knows more than Bush. Do you have a badge with word "queen" for Gtech?