If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters) NewsFlash Artillery shell with sarin explodes in Iraq, ignites flame war on Fark   (reuters.com) divider line 1250
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

28165 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 May 2004 at 4:23 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

1250 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-05-17 06:48:31 PM
Joe Rockhead

If you believe Michael Moore, then you are EXTREMELY naive. One of the major themes of this new movie is that the Afghan war was conducted so that we could build a gas/oil line through that country. He is a farking quack.
 
2004-05-17 06:48:35 PM
2004-05-17 06:46:15 PM rowper

You can't even present a rebuttal; all you can do you mentally masturbate yourself into thinking there's just that one way you see on the fuhking television.

Don't try to talk shiat when you have nothing to say, biatchass trick.


I am impressed by your cunning debating skills, respect for your opponent, and your refusal to make this flamewar personal. Good for you!

(fark, I don't even know what side you were on -- you were just being rude)
 
2004-05-17 06:48:46 PM
 
2004-05-17 06:48:54 PM
The Symbol
And, TommyymmoT.
I found one of you.


This hardly the place to post "your two daddies" honeymoon pictures.
 
2004-05-17 06:49:33 PM
Hey Yoda's Ugly Brother,

You're forgetting the vicunas. Very cute, and soft too.

 
2004-05-17 06:49:42 PM
Just for the heck of it, some of my hazmat training from the 1990's comes into play here:

Sarin is a Cholinesterase inhibitor. Cholinesterase is the enzyme that enables muscles to relax when given the proper instructions from the brain. Once Cholinesterase is out of the equation, muscles clench, and they can't unclench. Including the heart. Maybe that's what happened to Cheney. Whatever. Death is quick. SOmeone must have been right on top of the situation to save some lives. That is NASTY sh!!1t.

Atropine, as Albo said, is the antidote. I used to work on Johnston Atoll (READ YER MAPZ!) at something called the Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Demilitarization System (or JACADS for short) during the 1990's in the Instrumentation & Electronics section and in some other capacities in Engineering. Our mission as US government contractors working for Raytheon Range Services, was to support the US Army in this demilitarization effort, destroying obsolete Sarin warheads (and others) before they leaked into the environment.

Nasty Shiznit, my friends.

JACADS

/sorry no political rant, just the facts
sF
 
2004-05-17 06:49:54 PM
Joe Rockhead

No, BUSH's approval rating is down by 5%. Since I can't imagine Republicans suddenly seeing the light, I'm assuming 5% of them just picked up and died!

But now that you mention it...

Any of you mean old terrorists hell bent on attacking the US again, I have two words for you...NASCAR RACE...You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy!
 
2004-05-17 06:50:03 PM
2004-05-17 06:46:41 PM Ghastly

Yeah you're right...

Maybe the US government can come up with a bunch of "preventitive" laws to stop it...people won't mind having their liberties taken away...after all, it COULD happen...you don't mind giving up a few of your basic freedoms for the OVERALL freedom do you? Of course you don't...

/sarcastic, natch...VOTE BUSH OUT in 2004. Thanks.
 
2004-05-17 06:50:28 PM
SmitetheRighteous

The inner workings of faith are too abstract to apply as an instrument of national policy, especially within a diverse body politic.

Right there I can agree with you on. I agree that theocracy *can* lead to more problems than secularism, but not inherently. Thank you for having an intelligent discussion. Catch you on the flip side.

/or how are the kids sayin it these days?
 
2004-05-17 06:51:32 PM
Raicilla, uh, what the fuhk are you talking about? You sound about as bright as most redneck chickenschitts would talking about the 'enemy'. The 'enemy' to Americans are people like the current administration, who send your jobs overseas, destroy the economy and spend your children's educational funds on blowing up little brown people. That 300.00 tax cut sure bought you a lot of Budweiser, huh?

There are good reasons to go to war; Bu$H and his people have not shown any for Iraq. They went to Iraq because they couldn't find schitt in Afghanistan, so they had to do something where they could at least look like they were getting some results for spending 160,000,000,000 US dollars this year.
 
2004-05-17 06:51:34 PM
TommyymmoT

You MAY want to brush up on your funny.
That comeback was about as funny as "Nuh-uh.".
 
2004-05-17 06:52:35 PM
Didn't Saddam, before the war, while UN inspectors were in his country, present a stack of documents about three feet tall describing his WMD programs and disposal. The fact that these documents were for the most part the same as those produced after Gulf War I, somehow proved that Saddam was hiding something, since we had all this intelligence that said he was. Colin Powell had pictures of bunkers and mobile labs and talked of hundreds of tons and thousands of liters.

I think the onus of proof now lies with the US government.
Trot out some of the scientists and technicians, now free from fear of reprisal by their evil masters, who helped make and then hide this stuff AND conceal the evidence that it happened. I've worked in environmental remediation. Outside of digging down to bedrock, a place used to produce chemicals is going to bear evidence of that activity.

You can't keep blaming it on the CIA for poor information and then not even fire the fools who run that show. Unless they know your dirty secrets and are willing to hold them over your head. Want to regain the trust of the American people? An overhaul of the CIA would be a good place to start. Or you could just create a new and bigger deptartment and give more money to the same crew that fell short before, if you don't really care if the proles trust you or not.
 
2004-05-17 06:52:45 PM
****Joe Rockhead****

1st thing I want to say is your name is very appropriate. Do you thing Michael Moore's movie will have video of people jumping out of the WTC towers and bouncing off the pavement, or the beheading of Nick Berg? What everybody fails to see is that this a WAR ON TERROR and is being treated as such.

****WHEN VOTING THIS NOVEMBER ASK YOURSELF THIS: WHO WOULD OSAMA VOTE FOR???****
 
2004-05-17 06:53:19 PM
Alright... I don't understand why people are calling this a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

That military wazzisface, grey hair, relatively distinguished-looking, (Kimmett?) was on CNN a while ago saying that this kind of shell could kill from 10-50 people, depending on proximity (IIRC).

Erm, shouldn't a Weapon of MASS Destruction kill at least a good hundred, five hundred, a thousand? This doesn't really seem like proof of anything at all, and I'm amazed at the number of posters who've called it a WMD when they have no idea of what it can do.
 
2004-05-17 06:54:08 PM
2004-05-17 06:51:32 PM rowper

oh and Raicilla=troll=nothing to see here...

Plz don't feed...:)
 
2004-05-17 06:54:17 PM
wydok

Try using the Up arrow, it's to the left and down of your Enter key. Or the PgUp key, that's up and to the right from your Up arrow. That might help you out.
 
2004-05-17 06:54:45 PM
but utlaw2004 the government told us they knew where they were, they sent teams in to expose them, and beforehand they'd been monitoring and spying on iraq for years, they had insiders giving them the information

and they got squat
 
2004-05-17 06:54:45 PM
utlaw2004 -
I've come to the conclusion that, in the minds of the anti-war loonies, it doesn't matter how many WMDs are eventually found. It will never be enough to have justified the war...If the anti-war crowd were to actually admit that Saddam had WMDs, wanted more WMDs, and would have used said WMDs against American interests if given the chance, I think their heads would a'splode.

What about those of us who supported and still support Afghanistan but believe that Iraq was a bad idea? I am not against all war, just wars that are wasteful, are poorply planned, and distract our attention from the real enemy.

I have no problem admitting that Saddam wanted WMD and would use them if he did. But that doesn't mean he actually had them and it doesn't mean he was going to have them and it doesn't mean he was about to become an imminent threat.

I know plenty of people who would commit murder if they knew they could get away with it. But that doesn't mean they should be arrested, because they will never be able to get away with it and therefore gudgingly abide by the law. Therefore the police should not bother with them and focus on the actual criminals committing actual crimes.

The real threats have been ignored or pushed aside by Iraq. We face a greater threat from Canada than we did from Saddam.

I support war when we have a clear goal, a moraly right reason, and there is indeed a clear imminent threat. It also helps when you have postwar plans and give your troops enough body armor.
 
2004-05-17 06:54:50 PM
****WHEN VOTING THIS NOVEMBER ASK YOURSELF THIS: WHO WOULD OSAMA VOTE FOR???****

Simple, family ties would prevail, Osama would vote BUSH!
 
2004-05-17 06:56:28 PM
rowper,

I'm relieved that at least one patriot had the guts to stand up and say, hey, those Berg guys, a couple have white hands. And they wear a gold ring. And damn, wait a sec, that's a white chair just like at that prison. Hot damn, it's Black Ops. Hot damn hot damn hot damn. We got em now. Nailed to the wall. Hot holy damn, we got.

You know that got past the rest of us. Thank the good lord above for your patriotic discovery. Be careful. With that kind of knowledge, you might be a security threat. I am sure they are pissed as hell about being found out.
 
2004-05-17 06:56:36 PM
The Symbol
"TommyymmoT
You MAY want to brush up on your funny.
That comeback was about as funny as "Nuh-uh.".


Did your daddy tell you that was a good comeback? If so, which one?
 
2004-05-17 06:56:42 PM
"The real threats have been ignored or pushed aside by Iraq. We face a greater threat from Canada than we did from Saddam."

FINALLY! THE AWAKENING HAS BEGUN!

Who wants to help me carve "the heart DON'T go on, biatch" onto the warhead that we're lobbing at Celine Dion's hometown?

[/just kidding... mostly. Damn movie...]
 
2004-05-17 06:57:01 PM
i like boobies
 
2004-05-17 06:57:18 PM
Liberal playbook:

1) One small fact or example of our belief is enough to establish a pattern if it backs up our point of view.
Example: One piece of intel, provided by another country and indicative of a broad pattern of behavior accepted by every nation in the world (viz., Iraq may or may not have tried to buy uranium) means BUSH LIED!!!

2) Multiple examples of a behavior or a fact is not sufficient to establish a pattern if it backs up a point of view that differs from ours. Refuse to deviate from your belief no matter how much contrary evidence is presented.

Examples:
a. The U.N. established the Oil-for-Food embargo and wrote 18 resolutions stretching back to 1991 (they didn't enforce them, but never mind) to deal with Saddam's murderous regime.

b. Every intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam was stockpiling WMDs.

c. Resolution 1441 required Saddam not only to destroy his weapons, but produce proof it had been done. He of course did not comply.

d. Congress voted to give Bush war powers by a huge majority, the U.N. voted unanimously to start more inspections and only France, Germany and Russia DIDN'T want to invade Iraq--and it turns out they were up to their eyeballs in the Oil-for-Food scam.

e. The sarin bomb detonated today is just the latest in a long line of evidence showing Iraq's assistance of terrorists.

None of this matters, though, because BUSH LIED!!!

3) Tout meaningless catch phrases. It sounds like you really did something and you really care.

Examples:
No blood for oil! Bush is a moron! Coalition of the bought-off! Ashcroft wants to take away women's rights! BUSH LIED!!!

4) Memorize the week's talking points and say what every other liberal says.

Example: Abu Ghraib is proof that the war wasn't justified! BUSH LIED!!!

5) When things are getting tough create a fallacious argument that seems to make sense to your average Nascar Dad. Take advantage of the ignorance of your audience.

Example:
It's only one bomb. Besides, they didn't know it had sarin. BUSH LIED!!!

6) Throw out numbers. When the numbers don't look good change the way the rules are figured so they do look good (but don't tell anyone!) If they are unflattering and there is no way to make them good, just act like they don't exist.

Example:
The Red Cross looked around Abu Ghraib and declared in a leaked report (oops!) that 90 percent of its inmates are there by accident.

In related news, the Red Cross interviewed a bunch of Death-Row inmates and discovered they're all innocent!

7) Last resort: when all else fails and you are overwhelmed by good logic get attention away from us if at all possible!

Example:
BUSH LIED!!!

Follow these simple rules and you too can be a self-deluded and self-righteous liberal. Remember... obfuscation is your friend!
 
2004-05-17 06:58:41 PM
TommyymmoT

Dude. Just stop.
You're embarressing yourself now.
 
2004-05-17 06:59:06 PM
Liberal playbook

I want back the bandwidth wasted on that post.
 
2004-05-17 06:59:16 PM
ThreeCircle

By the way, chemical battlefield munitions are not considered WMDs. These are for strategic use on enemy troops, not cities.

Ummm... thanks for showcasing your stupidity. Now go to the dictionary and look up the word tactical.

Hope that helps.
 
2004-05-17 06:59:28 PM
2004-05-17 06:46:33 PM utlaw2004

I've come to the conclusion that, in the minds of the anti-war loonies, it doesn't matter how many WMDs are eventually found. It will never be enough to have justified the war. Whatever we find will be:

(a) Planted there by the US
(b) Remnants of old WMDs that were "lost" by the Iraqis
(c) Small and inconsequential, not a "stockpile"
(d) All of the above

If the anti-war crowd were to actually admit that Saddam had WMDs, wanted more WMDs, and would have used said WMDs against American interests if given the chance, I think their heads would a'splode.


I am in the anti-war crowd (most of the time), and i must say that to me, it doesn't matter if Saddam had WMDs. You see, he wasn't going to use them on us. There was no evidence to suggest otherwise. The only time he used them was before the '91 war, and then we didn't even scold him (hell, we gave him some of the WMDs he had!).

I think Saddam is a bad man, don't get me wrong. I'm glad to see him go. But it wasn't our responsibility to remove him -- it was the Iraqis. Bush's administration decided to go back there after 12 years, even though Saddam was not a threat to us nor a threat to anyone else in the region except his own people and possibly the Kurds. He had been paralyzed by the no fly zone and the trade sanctions, there was no way he could attack Kuwait again, or Saudi Arabia, or Isreal.

Now he is out of power, and everything has gone to shiat. I don't know if there are more citizens dying now then when he was in power (I don't have the numbers), but it is certainly more chaotic. Now with Saddam gone, al Qaeda is in Iraq, any WMD he might have had may in Syria, and some of them may have been taken by al Qaeda for that planned attack in Jordan.

Things may be better for the Iraqis in general, but look what it has done for the region as a whole. Has it really been worth it? Have 700+ US soldiers and countless Iraqis died for a worthy cause, or just a bigger problem?

Now we are there, we have to finish it. I don't like it, but I understand it. We cannot let Iraq turn into another Afghanistan -- I know that. We have to make sure it is stable. That will cost us more US lives, and it will keep our military spread thin while Korea is just waiting for the oppurtunity to rain Hellfire down on us.

We shouldn't have been there in the first place, no matter what WMD he had. There was no proof he was going to use them on us, we were not in danger. There are more important enemies to be worrying about.
 
2004-05-17 07:00:25 PM
Whoever is posting the fluffy bunnies and cute llamas hates America. America is the land of flamewars, where you get a choice between black and white. Cutesey bunnies have no place here. Argue fiercly, argue to win, not to be right. No country can hold a flame to our political bickering. Political cartoons and photoshops that ridicule one side or the other are welcome. Cute bunnies are the work of the mass media, who want to distract the flamethrowers from their real mission.
 
2004-05-17 07:00:48 PM
Tommymmot i dont think you could count my balls and get the same number twice. The prices of goods go up everyday, heck i hear it from the older people "i could go to the movies for 45 cents back in the day" Gas is not an exception. So when you invent a time machine and make prices go lower give me a call.
 
2004-05-17 07:01:31 PM
"With a tiny bit of sarin in it."

Its amazing, they find a chemical that he wasnt even supposed to have according to the weapons inspectors and its not a big deal.

Oh and just for your reference the cult that released sarin in the subway had even less when they decided to attack.
 
2004-05-17 07:01:54 PM
Raicilla

aaaaa,,,hahahahahaa,a,a,a,aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa,

hang on while I contain my laughter!!!!

Russia is run by "proud oligarchs"?? Russia???

Who the hell do you think runs the U.S.??
Common people? Everyday Joes??
Do you think the popular vote elects the President too?
hahahahaha
 
2004-05-17 07:02:19 PM
spoogus - I've seen fifth graders come up with better strawmen. When you decide to refute ACTUAL reasons we oppose invading Iraq, let us know.

And not all of us opposing the war are liberal. Many are moderate and a few are even conservative.
 
2004-05-17 07:04:13 PM
Raicilla,

Uh, no joke intended here, but, are you drunk? That bit about white hands and gold rings, white chairs?? It makes no sense at all.
 
2004-05-17 07:04:17 PM
spoogus

Imagine how many stupid people there are in the world. Now, the people you think of as stupid are probably just a little below average intelligence - now imagine the terrible depths of stupidity below them. Face it, both them damn, America hating, baby-killing liberals and those nazi, fascist, baby-eating conservatives have their share of idiots.

Posting that kind of inflammatory (and, for the most part, false) crap is not going to help you sway anybody's opinions - and that is what you want to do, right? Actually prove that you are correct, rather than resort to the kind of childish name-calling that puts you right in the group of idiots that you hate? Right?
 
2004-05-17 07:04:52 PM
2004-05-17 06:57:18 PM spoogus

Yeah, hem and haw all you like, there's no way you're going to justify this war. There's still no evidence of the WMDs that were PURPORTED to be there and no real reason to invade Iraq other than what some ultra-conservative star chamber decided would be a good strategic Middle East base.

This war's a failure and expensive one to boot. We the American people, are tools of some totally undemocratic nationbuilding, and it ain't gonna stop with Iraq.

Throw the bum out in '04, don't support ANYONE who says America is Defender of the Free World. I don't believe it, and anyone who does is a chump.

Yes, BUSH did LIE, and he uses whatever leeway we give him. Simple as that.
 
2004-05-17 07:05:37 PM
rowper,

I've been patrolling these threads for a while now and without a doubt you are the most persuasive, prepared debater I have seen.

My hat goes off to you. I hope you'll cut me some slack now because your posts have straightened me out about some things. I don't know how I could have been so lost. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I am going home tonight a changed man.

rowper you rawk!
 
2004-05-17 07:05:49 PM
This just proves that if the terrorists didn't have access to WMD before the invasion, they do now and unlike Saddam, have no problem using them against us.

If we offer him enough money, maybe Saddam will take that rat-hole back and put the Radical Muslims there back in their place. It would be like the 1980s all over again. We may even persuade him to invade Iran again.
 
2004-05-17 07:05:51 PM
2004-05-17 06:54:17 PM rowper

Try using the Up arrow, it's to the left and down of your Enter key. Or the PgUp key, that's up and to the right from your Up arrow. That might help you out.

Actually, I would have to use the down arrow. See, I reverse comment order because I am a freak. :)
 
2004-05-17 07:06:34 PM
wha? i read that the insurgents that set us up the bomb likely weren't aware of the chemicals inside. those shells are set up to mix the chemical in flight. asploding it as an IED doesn't produce the desired effect. (hence the limited exposure)
 
2004-05-17 07:09:32 PM
I dunno about you guys, but I have fun skipping all the dribble people write in the "infinity" threads and just looking at the photoshops.
 
2004-05-17 07:10:10 PM
QUAGMIRE
 
2004-05-17 07:10:38 PM
As someone who travels through the NYC subways daily, I would like to note that all of you adopting arguments to the effect of, "it's just one sarin cannister -- no big deal," can fark dogs.

/hoping it's a false alarm like previous field tests
 
2004-05-17 07:10:57 PM
[but utlaw2004 the government told us they knew where they were, they sent teams in to expose them, and beforehand they'd been monitoring and spying on iraq for years, they had insiders giving them the information and they got squat]

However, as you've previously posted, is because they were all working for the CIA. Or the aliens. I'm not sure which at this point.
 
2004-05-17 07:11:14 PM
I hardly think this is what Our Government meant when they said "WEAPONS OF mass DESTRUCTION". They pretty much already admitted they were about that.
 
2004-05-17 07:11:47 PM
The M in WMD is meant to stand for MASS, not MINISCULE.
 
2004-05-17 07:11:55 PM
Oops, ...WRONG about that.
 
2004-05-17 07:12:21 PM
Henchmen
Bring it
We will burn down the goddam white house again...


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

/......hahahahaha
 
2004-05-17 07:13:43 PM
rowper,

shiat man, I guess I am looking dumb here. Or the mods yanked some of your posts already. I thought I read that you had discovered some "inconsistencies" in the Berg video that might point to a little spy v spy activity. But since I cannot find it now, I guess I'll have to retract my compliment. You're back to being a cocksmoker of the highest order.

I am sorry I riled you. You are sure a tough guy to argue with. And you know how to trick the filters. I should have known better. I guess what I am asking is that you throw some more 4 letter bombs my way so I can learn all of your weirding ways.

/dune
 
2004-05-17 07:14:14 PM
OK..I'm getting in on this late, but here's the deal.

It doesn't really matter that a shell with Sarin was found. Hell, in my opinion, it doesn't really matter if an entire palace full of nuclear bombs was found.

I have never asserted that George Bush fabricated the WMD story. I do believe that Dubya is guilty of wanting desperately to find an excuse to invade Iraq, even if that meant listening to and showcasing flawed intel on WMD:

1) Oil - speaks for itself. I hate the fact that this is why we're over there, but I really can't biatch too much as long as I'm typing this on an electricity powered computer and will get in a gasoline powered car.
2) Project American power throughout the Mideast. We can tell the leaders of whatever country that this will happen to him too if they don't play ball with us.
3) Because he wanted to finish daddy's job.

The reason it doesn't matter whether or not we find WMD is that it is a piss poor excuse of a reason to attack Saddam Hussein. First off, of course he had them. We GAVE them to him in the 80s.

Secondly, there is no way that those weapons were ever going to attack America with Saddam in charge. Like some other people mentioned, Islamic terrorists hated Saddam. Saddam would be sealing his own fate by giving WMD to any such characters. Plus, we try to pin stuff on him that he doesn't do. He'd have been REALLY farked if he actually did something we've wanted to pin on him.

Finally, and it is really important for everyone to understand this... This notion of "imminent threat" was always absurd. For the last three years, we've talked about needing to preemptively strike because the old way of using mutually assured destruction to deter people from attacking us does not work with our current enemies. This is true when you're talking about Islamic terrorists, but not when talking about Saddam. The Soviet Union was NEVER going to attack us and we were never going to attack them because, no matter how much we love democracy and no matter how much the leaders of the USSR loved their system, their lives always meant more than thier ideals. With Islamic terrorists, their ideals mean more than their lives. Saddam falls into the category with the Soviet Union. He wouldn't have dared to attack us with any sort of WMD because we would have turned Baghdad into a parking lot.

What we've gotten ourselves into now is a situation where the number of people who value their ideals over their life are now growing. And we have noone but ourselves to blame for it. Look back at the rise of radical governments for evidence. They all rose to power by finding people with serious problems and giving them a scapegoat, often deserved.

First, the undeserved scapegoat. Hitler was able to come to power because he connected with a Germany coping with both the Great Depression and trying to rebuild from World War I. He tapped anti-Semitism that already existed and made it militant.

Lenin came to power because he convinced impoverished Russians that he had a better alternative to Czar Nicholas and other noblemen taking all the money. Lenin was right.

The Ayatollah came to power (we sure do love Democracy in the mideast, don't we?) because he tapped the "Death to America" sentiment. That sentiment existed because we propped up a dictator in the Shah that was as cruel as Saddam Hussein.

As for Islamic Terrorists, they have all kinds of valid reasons to hate us, and they are able to recruit more impoverished, hopeless people to their cause because of it. We continue to support undemocratically elected government because they play ball with us on oil. Plus, we give Israel a blank check and all the weapons they want. How could you not be pissed if the Israelis blew up your apartment and killed your children just because they thought some Hamas guy might be in there? And we may as well stamp "Made in America" for people to read on the bomb casings. They know where it comes from.

So, we can think about addressing the root causes of terrorism or we can continue to give terrorists plenty of material with which to gather new recruits. Who cares, right? We'll just bomb those guys too.
 
Displayed 50 of 1250 comments

First | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report