In message >, Kevin Brooks
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> Why? You're the one who responded to argument with a version of "it was
>> a joke, son, a joke" a few posts back.
>
>And you were the one who said that humor was inappropriate in this
>thread--right up until you wanted to use it yourself. Typical.
No, I didn't - I thought misquotation was a Bad Thing?
I *did* say I didn't find it amusing, but show me where I tried to deny
you permission.
>> Not particularly. You suggested a properly calibrated humour switch was
>> a necessary tool, now you're flying off the handle because it seems your
>> calibration is badly off.
>
>Only because you told us it was not allowed in this thread.
Where? Are you merely confused, or just mendacious?
>> Sorry, we were talking about UNSCR687, not Congressional resolutions.
>> Unless you accept that Iraqi government resolutions that Kuwait was
>> actually the 19th Province and should be reunified immediately were also
>> binding?
>
>Sorry that you can't grasp that our congress decided to actually act in this
>case,
So, UN resolutions are irrelevant? Why are you discussing them, in that
case?
>> No mention of *industrial* production, meaning they had at best reached
>> prototype testing - and certainly not excluding prototype testing.
>
>Actually, no mention of *any* production. Please point to where any
>"non-industrial" production was mentioned in regards to these kind of
>weapons?
So these shells were never produced?
>> No - just no evidence of a production line for the results of the
>> suspected research.
>
>Again, please point to where the UN inspectors point to *any* binary rounds
>being produced as part of this program. No?
Find evidence of *any* binary rounds being produced in Iraq.
>As I said--the UN never mentions
>any evidence of *any* rounds being fabricated,
Despite an apparent research program.
>nor did the Iraqis
>acknowledge producing any such rounds, be they R&D products or not. Which is
>what I have been saying all along--so your point would be...?
That this was a prototype (not production), or even an import. Certainly
no evidence that Iraq produced it, according to you.
>> The first Archerfish prototype was built in a garage in personal time.
>> Now it's part of the US AMNS program. Doesn't mean the first few
>> hand-built prototypes never existed, or that Redfish didn't get lost
>> while surveying Brent Spar.
>
>We are not talking about Archerfish--we are talking about Iraqi binary
>rounds which you indicated the UN report addressed--but in fact the UN
>reports did not ever mention any such rounds being in existance, and was
>only aware that some form of R&D had occured.
How much R&D? Enough for a few prototypes, for example? (Pretty basic
R&D if they didn't even get to basic prototype testing...)
>> To repeat,
>> "These also include Iraq's efforts to develop new delivery means for
>> CW-agents, such as special warheads other than for Al-Hussein missiles,
>> i.e. FROG missile, and real binary artillery munitions and aerial bombs.
>> Evidence of such studies was found in the documents from the Haider
>> farm."
>
>Wow. How many rounds are produced by the usual "study"?
Between five and fifty, in my direct experience - those were guided
weapons, though, so artillery shells would likely be rather higher. Can
be a hundred or more for an experimental round (thinking of the L15
shell as the one I heard about, and that was just an improved HE round)
>Why bother with
>"industrial production" when you can apparently convene a few folks around a
>table, produce a report or two regarding design requirments and feasibility,
>and ...presto, rounds magically appear?
How many rounds, taking how long? (Remember you fire these by the pallet
load in action - prototypes are fine for development but you then freeze
the design and set up a line for mass production)
> The fact is that the UN never
>mentioned the physical existance, or suspected existance, of *any* binary
>rounds--as I told you before.
And they also were explicit that there was no Iraqi production facility
for binary sarin shells found (confirmed by subsequent events).
So I guess that proves the shell can't be Iraqi, if your logic is
correct.
>> So, evidence of studies but not of production lines. And in over a year
>> of searching based first on intelligence, then on prisoner
>> interrogation, there's no sign of any production line that could have
>> produced such a shell.
>
>
>> One option is that this was a pre-91 prototype round. Another is that it
>> was imported, from Syria or Iran as examples. Evidence that it's part of
>> a domestic production program is the thinnest of all - yet that's the
>> mast you've chosen to nail your colours to.
>
>You see Iran as a potential supplier of chemical munitions to Saddam?!
Absolutely not - the concept's ludicrous.
But he's been gone over a year, and I can see Iran (or factions within
Iran) supplying Shi'a resistance with weapons.
>And where is your evidence that
>Syria was a possible source?
Same place as your evidence that the round came from an Iraqi mass
production line
>Paulian conjecture? OTOH, we do have the UN
>acknowledging that the Iraqis were working on binary development, and geee,
>what do you kniow, a binary round turns up in Iraq. Occam's razor says it
>was probably of Iraqi manufacture.
Isn't that what I keep saying? If they had a development program, they'd
have had a few hand-built rounds to test the concept... except,
according to you, they must have managed to go directly from paper
concept to frozen design without a single prototype, and then made the
production line and everyone who knew about it disappear into thin air
before the US arrived.
The UN found hard evidence of neither R&D rounds nor mass production,
but you cannot get to mass production without the development & proving
trials, for which you need R&D rounds. I think you need to look again at
Occam's razor and try wielding it properly.
>> Nice evasion. So why not invade Iraq properly in autumn 1991, when
>> they're thoroughly in violation?
>
>Because we were willing to give them a chance to meet the terms of the
>ceasefire from our then-recent little dance in the desert. And we continued
>to give them opportunities to meet those requirements for the next twelve
>years. Many of us find that a more than reasonable time period during which
>Saddam could have chosen to fully comply with the requirements. But he did
>not do so, and was as you acknowledge in violation on some number of
>issues--too bad for him.
So, go to the UN and get a resolution authorising action and imploring
all member nations to lend assistance.
Or is the UN only relevant when it suits you? If it's not relevant, then
neither is 687. If it *is* relevant, then you need authorisation or
self-defence to invade another member country.
>> There was supposed to be a major, imminent threat. There wasn't,
>
>Not according to our case.
Your case turned out to be badly in error.
>> You mean, "avoid all the issues you find too hard to deal with?"
>
>No, they have been dealt with--you just typically try to continually
>reorient to this "immediate or imminent threat" from WMD that was, in fact,
>not a requirement for our action per the case set forth by our leaders on
>this side of the pond. Sorry, but that is just not an accurate portrayal of
>what was required to justify action, as the White House report I pointed you
>at made clear.
"Baghdad has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents,
probably including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Its capability
was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections and is probably more limited
now than it was at the time of the Gulf war, although VX production and
agent storage life probably have been improved.
Saddam probably has stocked a few hundred metric tons of CW agents."
http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
>> Let's remember that we British apparently used chemical weapons on the
>> Iraqis during the 1920s. Out of interest, would digging up a
>> 1920s-vintage shell filled with mustard gas count as "a violation" and
>> be the complete, absolute justification you seem to consider it?
>
>No.
So is it one shell, two shells or three shells that become the
violation?
>> I am not, and have said so to you repeatedly. Since you're fond of
>> invective, let me now call *you* a liar for repeatedly making false
>> claims despite contradiction.
>
>Have you not continually stated that if we went into Iraq under the
>justifications we have set forth, that we also should *have* to similarly
>and simultaneously address every other WMD-holding state with similar,
>either overt/government approved or covert/non-government sanctioned ties to
>terrorism, etc., in the same manner as we have Iraq?
No. Your fantasy, not mine, falsely attributed to me.
I expressed concern that Iraq presented a much lower threat than several
other nations, and represented a significant diversion of resources
since even the US can only undertake one such operation at a time.
That bears no resemblance to the nonsense you claim I espouse. In
particular, point to when I demanded *simultaneous* action - that
addition is your invention, not mine. (The US doesn't have the available
resources to deal with Sudan at the moment, let alone Iran or Syria...)
>> Where have *I* ever mentioned a "standard playbook for international
>> affairs"? (Your words, this post) That is your own invention which you
>> have falsely, repeatedly, attributed to me. You are a liar.
>
>The "standard playbook" is my accurate paraphrase
"I accurately paraphrase, you're a filthy liar". Yes, extremely
consistent.
I ask why greater apparent threats are considered less urgent (and why
the US is so extending itself with Iraq as to preclude any significant
action against those threats), and you claim I espouse a rigidly
standardised approach that must be undertaken in parallel?
Hardly an "accurate paraphrase", in fact I'd call it a deliberate
distortion.
Go through your list of quotes. When do I say that the US *must* invade
anyone else? I ask when other threats will get the same treatment: I do
not demand parallel operations.
But I suppose only you get to define what "accurate paraphrase" is.
>> Where have I ever stated that only "great numbers of rounds in massive
>> stockpiles" or "only massive amounts", (both you, this thread, June 05)
>> would be convincing? Again, your invention, falsely quoted as being my
>> words. You are a liar.
>
>"A huge lethal pile of WME may still emerge, but the odds continue to
>worsen." 12 Sep 03
Nothing about how much would be *necessary*.
>"One elderly shell isn't a threat. That's a fact we can both agree
>on. You measure chemical weapons in terms of tons of agent." (In this very
>thread)
And completely true - read your Joint Warfare Publications, or whatever
the US equivalent is.
>So, it appears that you do indeed require "massive amounts" if you are only
>willing to consider "tons of agent".
I'd accept "Militarily significant". "Massive amounts" is simply
dishonest: you're presenting it as a direct quotation of my words, when
in fact it's your distortion.
But again, when you do this it's just "accurate paraphrasing".
>Of course, you have also said recently,
>"1998 and earlier, I'm willing to accept a few (call it three, offhand)
>"WME stockpiles" that are - for a rule of thumb - a pallet or less of
>shells, 122mm rockets, or precursors each. 1991 or earlier, I'd raise
>the bar quite a lot higher, because they prepared to fight a defensive
>war and then lost it massively and that's where large amounts of kit go
>missing. (We're still occasionally digging up buried caches of 1940s No.
>76 grenades here in the UK, which is a problem because they're beer
>bottles filled with a benzene, rubber and white phosphorous mixture -
>not nice to accidentally put a spade through one) Post-1998, "a pallet"
>of filled basic munitions or of filler for them,
>or a single weapon that was a significant advance on their previous
>capability, would be conclusive proof. Less than that would be a very
>unwelcome surprise, though not decisive (we know they *wanted* to keep
>their programs going, but the claim was that the programs existed and
>were an immediate threat)" 18 May 04
>
>Which leaves one a bit perplexed as to what exactly you do require-
I thought the above was perfectly clear.
>-it
>ranges from the acceptance of one round of a type they were not known to
>have (which you apparently no longer accept, being as this binary round no
>longer makes your cut-off score),
They were known to be working on it, remember? Weaponised VX, or an
effective BW agent with workable dispersal means, would be appropriate.
Going from "binary lite" to "true binary" with sarin would not.
> to multiple pallets of rounds, to the
>claim that you have to have "tons of agent" in order to be measurable.
Basically, we're looking for evidence that there was an Iraqi threat.
The older the munitions are, the more production they had back then. One
estimate is that Iraq produced something over 200,000 chemical
munitions, of which maybe half were expended during the war with Iraq
(try proving *that* claim solidly).
From 1991 onwards his NBCR facilities were under inspection and
occasional attack, and "it was lost in 1987" or "it was overrun in 1991"
becomes infeasable.
>> Shall I continue? I find your protestations of wounded honour extremely
>> amusing, since you so freely indulge in the conduct you claim to
>> deprecate.
>
>Mine are pretty accurate--your's have been deplorably inaccurate, and proven
>as such.
Your definition of "accurate" here is as incorrect as when you use it to
describe your paraphrasing.
>> Well, it seems the director of your Central Intelligence Agency at least
>> felt he was wrong.
>
>Uhmmm...again, where in the White House's case against Iraq did you find
>thaose descriptive terms? Eh?
Quoted the CIA's white paper at you.
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt
that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most
lethal weapons ever devised." President G W Bush, March 17 2003
"The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses
and produces chemical and biological weapons...
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger
is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know
Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do...
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical
weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists...
Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is
increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer
to developing a nuclear weapon...." President G W Bush, October 17, 2002
Shame about the lack of production lines, isn't it?
>> "Lambasted"? When?
>
>"I'm not really seeing anything funny - I've got family currently being shot
>at because of this."
Lambast, verb. Beat with a cane [syn: cane, flog, lambaste] 2: censure
severely or angrily; "The mother scolded the child for entering the
stranger's car"; "The deputy ragged the Prime Minister"; "The customer
dressed down the waiter for bringing cold soup";
I told you your joke wasn't funny to me, and you call it "severe or
angry censure"? Either you're ignorant, lying or mentally unstable.
>> Then why did you say it if you're not certain?
>>
>> Oh, I forgot - humour and sarcasm. Which are admirable rhetorical tools
>> in your hands, but deceitful lies when used against you. Just as
>> paraphrasing your debator's words is a perfectly acceptable tactic for
>> you, but a filthy deception when practiced against you.
>
>No, you keep forgetting that it was you who took the "nothing humorous about
>this subject" bent.
I thought you claimed I forbade you from using humour?
(Or are you finally withdrawing that false claim?)
>Once you are proven to be a liar, none of
>your words have much weight
Let me know if you ever find any proof, then.
>> No. Why do you suddenly find them credible, and why have you so
>> conspicuously failed to defend them?
>
>What? I find Kay to be quite credible. So if you are not calling him a liar,
>then you must accept his testimony that violations, to include that ricin
>program, were indeed found.
+++++
Weapons of mass destruction do not exist in Iraq and it is "delusional"
to think they will be found, says former chief US weapons inspector
David Kay.
Mr Kay told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that British and American
leaders should simply apologise and admit that they were wrong....
"There were clearly illegal activities, clear violations of UN Security
Council resolutions. We have accumulated that evidence and really have
accumulated that evidence to a considerable degree four months ago.
"There are not actual stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass
destruction."
+++++
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3778987.stm
Still find him credible?
>> You mean, like "massive quantities"? Go on, find me a post where I said
>> that - yet you attributed it to me. Or is it not lying when *you* do it?
>
>See above--your own words always tend to let you down, don't they Paul?
So, you've proved I *never* said "massive quantities" and your claiming
I did, is a lie. (You paraphrased it and passed it off as a direct
quotation, while claiming that doing so is a lie)
>> It's curious that those who are most generous in flinging the charge of
>> "liar" are those who themselves are quite reckless with the truth.
>
>Prove it, as I have in your case.
Done, repeatedly.
>> No, you rattled off a laundry-list of reasons. Were they in order? What
>> was the relative importance? *That* was what you were asked for and you
>> have *still* failed to provide.
>
>You asked for the reasons--you got them...again, and again.
I asked for the reasons and their relative importance. You provided
"some" of the reasons and refused to prioritise them. Again, and again,
and again.
>> I'm being generous because you repeated the laundry list and still left
>> out the order and prioritisation I asked for.
>
>Oh, so sorry!
Thank you.
>Why should I have bothered to prioritize them, when you
>refused to even acknowledge they were given to you?
Because a partial list without the prioritisation is meaningless.
>Is there is
>prioritization system required? No, not that I am aware of.
It was asked for, you repeatedly refuse to provide it, and now you claim
you fully and completely answered the question.
Curious definition of honesty you use over there, Kevin.
>And now you
>wiggle and squirm, and try to claim that I never gave them to you in the
>precise format that you (only later, after they were originally given to
>you) requested.
I don't need to *claim* you refused, you proudly boast of doing so.
>> Now, remember you've left out any priority and importance. Are these the
>> top slice of the list? The least important reasons that are safe for
>> public discussion? A random selection?
>
>You asked "Out of interest, what *were* the reasons? Let us avoid future
>misunderstandings." To which I gave you an answer. You then went on to ask
>for them in a "rough order of importance", which I did not do, seeing as
>there is no standard or approved "order of importance" for such things.
I see - so, in other words even you admit you never answered the
question, providing a partial evasion which you then hid behind
repeatedly.
>> How bizarre. What, exactly, is the "lie" here?
>
>You should be able to find your's quite easily, as they are getting to be so
>darned common. And you left out the quote of your own words: ""It's not
>about the WMD". I
>can only go by what you say, Kevin...Your claiming they were irrelevant was
>something of a hint." (Both are direct quotes from your comments last month)
>Gee, that does not sound like much of an apology to me--more like a
>continued effort to falsely claim that I had made that very statement.
From: Paul J. Adam )
Subject: Re: Sarin in a 155 artillery round
Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
Date: 2004-05-19 13:51:14 PST
"That was a paraphrase, not a quote: I put the name and date on the
quote so it could be traced.
My apologies if the distinction wasn't clear enough."
Now, is that not an apology?
>> Meanwhile, you repeatedly and blatantly conduct exactly the same false
>> attribution, invent bizarre positions such as "defending Hussein" and
>> claim they're mine.
>
>You have defended Hussein--not all of the time, but enough.
When, precisely?
>That whole bit
>about Saddam not knowing about his WMD programs,
Actually, having a grossly exaggerated idea of them.
+++++
From: Paul J. Adam )
Subject: Re: Truman: the buck stops here
Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
Date: 2003-07-15 14:46:54 PST
"I'm personally inclined to believe that Saddam's stated chemical and
biological weapon production was close kin to Soviet-era food harvests:
every Five-Year Plan reports record yields of grain, milk and meat,
while mysteriously food rations are cut (again) - only because
Western-inspired 'revisionists', 'capitalists' and 'hooligans' are
sabotaging the distribution of these bumper crops."
+++++
>and presumably him being
>therefore innocent of these violations,
I don't follow you here. Saddam wrongly believed he had potent
stockpiles of WME and this renders him *innocent*?
How does this constitute "defending him"?
>is a defense of Saddam. Come on, you
>have wasted enough electrons in that sort of tapdance--you should at least
>be able to admit that is a defense of Saddam.
No, I'm afraid you're either mendacious or confused again.
>
>> Depends what you mean - he disappeared in clouds of bluster and
>> killfiled me every time I proved he was talking out of his arse.
>>
>> *He* started calling me a liar when I pointed out you could use
>> precision-guided weapons for close air support and he insisted that had
>> never happened, didn't happen now and could never be considered.
>> Apparently all those LGBs, JDAMs and Mavericks reported expended in CAS
>> missions were just fictions of the pilots' overheated imaginations.
>
>Well, in my case your own words have repeatedly shown you to be a liar.
That's what he said as well. Oh, and he's fond of the tactical
paraphrase too.
>Sounds like a bit of a different situation to me.
No, I think it's remarkably similar. Can't argue the issues? Call your
opponent a liar. Don't get anywhere with that? Resort to invective.
>> Where did I ever claim there was a "standard playbook for international
>> affairs"? You repeatedly use that phrase, in quotation marks, as if it
>> was my own words. Where did I mention the existence of such? Or did you
>> invent it and then falsely attribute it to me?
>
>As I said above, and backed up with repeated direct quotes from your
>numerous posts on the subject, that is an accurate paraphrase--
You presented it in a manner which you claimed made it a quotation. It
is not a quotation, it's a paraphrase, and not even an accurate one.
So, you're passing off your words as mine with intent to deceive? Your
rules, not mine - but they make you a liar.
And a much more determined one, since I *immediately* made clear that
the disputed words were not a direct quotation and apologised for the
error: while you continue to insist that peddling a distortion of my
words as if they were my own, is a fair and decent thing to do.
>"NK and Iran
>are much nearer WME than Iraq, and Syria is widely alleged to have chemical
>warheads on over a hundred Scud copies. Sounds like a threat to me - when do
>we go in? If it was good enough for Iraq, it's good enough for them."
If Iraq is such a threat, why is
>Your
>words. I am guessing you are beginning to hate the long-term emeory quality
>of Google about now; it must truly suck having to face your own words that
>bear out the accuracy of how I characterized your argument in this regard,
>huh?
Indeed: it's very useful to compare your quotes - sorry, when *you* do
it they're just paraphrases - with what I actually wrote and to see how
vague your definition of "accurate paraphrase" is.
Now, if you weren't so in arms about this being a gross and malicious
falsehood when done to *you*, this wouldn't be an issue: your enthusiasm
for distorting positions is obvious and hardly new. It's your
self-righteous hypocrisy that it's perfectly acceptable for *you*, but
malicious falsehood from anyone else, that's so curious.
>> Where have I ever stated that only "great numbers of rounds in massive
>> stockpiles" or "only massive amounts", (both you, this thread, June 05)
>> would be convincing? Again, your invention, falsely placed in quotation
>> marks as though they were my own words. Where did I make those
>> statements? Citations, please.
>
>Already provided above.
No, you posted how I described quantities. You then falsely quoted me as
requiring "great numbers of rounds in massive quantities", words you
yourself have proved I never used.
Oh, I forgot - when *you* change people's words it's just an "accurate
paraphrase".
>> Which I immediately made clear was a paraphrase and apologised for - a
>> point you ignored, while indulging in the exact same conduct yourself.
>
>No, go back and read the record--you did not immediately apologize.
Google shows you raised your protest at 18:38:40 PST on May 18, and I
apologised at 13:51:14 PST on May 19.
How much more "immediately" do you want on Usenet?
>I
>corrected you, rather politely, and you persisted in inaccurately portraying
>my argument,
I'm sorry, it's now that I "inaccurately portrayed your argument"? This
from the person who claims that Hussein's ignorance of his WME programs
is "protecting him"? Who routinely and regularly distorts - sorry,
"accurately paraphrases" - positions he disagrees with and then presents
them as if they were his opponent's own words?
I accept that I paraphrased your words, and that I made it
insufficiently clear that it was a paraphrase rather than a quotation.
>going as far as presenting my actual quote that you claimed
>proved your point. I *then* labled you a liar, and I pointed out that you
>had ignored the "all" and its import to the meaning; only then did you
>weakly apologize, but even that apology was less than full
S it's now not that I'm a liar, but that you didn't like the apology?
>("That was a
>paraphrase, not a quote: I put the name and date on the quote so it could be
>traced. My apologies if the distinction wasn't clear enough.").
>As if your
>paraphrase was still accurate (and you know it was not--you do know that a
>paraphrase can be either accurate or inaccurate, don't you?).
I'm using your standards of accuracy - are they incorrect?
>Then you had
>the unmitigated gall to come back in this thread and claim you *never*
>attributed that paraphrase directly to me--
No, I didn't. Where did I claim you said it? Remember, if it's a quote
then it's traceable.
>Cripes,
>at this point you have lied so much, and so repetitively, that they are now
>piling up on each other.
Or maybe you're just flailing.
>> And where did UNSCR687 say "the suspicion (not proof) of a breach shall
>> justify immediate invasion"? Again, you need to actually *read* what you
>> cite.
>
>Meaningless. The US chose to enforce 687, which was also, if you have
>forgotten, the codification of the ceasefire terms for ODS.
To do so required a further resolution authorising armed force, in the
same way that 660 was followed by 687 as the enabling action for
military force.
That's UN rules, anyway: either go with the UN or not, but don't pick
and mix.
>> Of course, "it's not all about WMDs", it's a completely flexible list -
>> so much so that you proudly boast of being unable to work out what order
>> the reasons might fall in. But then, Hussein wasn't the top threat on
>> any permutation of your list.
>
>The White House did not prioritize them, either. I have yet to see any
>prioritized declaration of war in any other historical conflict; is this
>something new you are proposing for Paulian World? 'Cause it sure does not
>seem to apply here on earth, nor has it ever applied.
Generally there's no need, because there's a simple clear reason. "Get
Germany out of Poland", "Get North Korea out of South Korea", "push the
Germans back out of France and liberate Belgium".
>> Still, the idea that you should deal with the most dangerous threats is
>> obviously foreign foolishness rooted in the notion that there's a
>> "handbook" containing basic wisdom like "biggest risk, biggest
>> response".
>
>I believe your words were: "NK and Iran are much nearer WME than Iraq, and
>Syria is widely alleged to have chemical warheads on over a hundred Scud
>copies. Sounds like a threat to me - when do we go in? If it was good enough
>for Iraq, it's good enough for them." Looks like you are grouping all
>threats into one big pile and advocating equal treatment for all.
No, just comparing threats and wondering why Iraq seemed so urgent when
greater dangers lay elsewhere.
The idea of "one big pile" and "equal treatment for all" is your own
fantasy, nothing I've ever advocated or stated: you continue to falsely
attribute it to me, conduct you clearly state is an unacceptable
falsehood.
>Or were
>you lying when you made that statement?
No, I was asking a question (The question marks indicate that it's a
"question" not a "statement".) The 'Good enough' followup is rhetorical
rather than analytical.
>> Did he ever have the means to support one?
>
>Yeah--those binary components of sarin included in that one round,
Well, that's going to really slaughter thousands.
>a ricin
>program,
Which a competent student could replicate in a domestic kitchen.
>and worse, a demonstrated willingness to both use WMD's (setting
>him apart from all other current national leaders)
Sure, but only because it was the President of Syria's father who used
HCN at Hama in 1982. I'm sure the son is a much nicer man.
>and to directly attack US
>citizens (of which group that former US President and his entourage are
>members).
Oh, tragic. So you've captured his stockpile of WMEs and attacks on US
citizens have stopped?
If those really were reasons, they've both failed to succeed...
>> Send a recce aircraft to photograph Syria's WMD factories and missile
>> bases and see what happens.
>
>If you have not noticed, Syria is not subject to NFZ restrictions.
Can the US fly aircraft freely through Syrian airspace without being at
least intercepted, and if they don't co-operate being engaged?
>> Then you've failed to read. (Syria is Ba'athist just like Iraq was and
>> has similar policies about internal dissent)
>
>Please point to the evidence that the current governments of either nation
>are responsible for mass executions.
Quote of a quote, since Amnesty's web site is down.
+++++
“Some monitors stated: old streets of the city were bombed from the
air to facilitate the introduction of military forces and tanks through
the narrow streets, like the al-Hader street, where homes were crushed
by tanks during the first four days of fighting. On February 15th,
after days of intense bombardment, Defence Minister General Mustafa
Tlass announced that the rebellion was put out, but the city remained
under siege and surrounded. Door-to-door searches along with extensive
arrests continued during the next two following weeks, while various
news leaks talked about atrocities committed by the security forces and
mass killings of innocent city residents. It is not easy to know what
did exactly occur, but Amnesty International mentioned news of a mass
execution of some 70 people outside the city hospital on February 19th
and the annihilation of all residents of the al-Hader area on the hands
of the Defense Brigades (Saraya el-Defaa) on the same day. Other reports
talk of using containers of cyanide gas to kill all inhabitants of
buildings, where rebels were suspected of residing. Also, people were
grouped in the military airport, city stadium, and military camps and
were left there without shelter or food for days.”
The mass murders and mass executions over-step the laws and constitute a
grave violation of the right to live, which is the same sacred right
mentioned in the universal declaration of human rights and the
International treaty regarding human and civil rights (Article 16):
every human has the natural right to live, which is protected by this
law and it is not allowed to take this right from any individual
oppressively. This was an excerpt of a report sent by Amnesty
International addressing Syrian President Hafiz Assad in 1983.
+++++
http://www.shrc.org.uk/data/aspx/d0/1260.aspx
"Other things to see in Hama include the Grand Mosque, which was
destroyed during a 1982 uprising. The uprising was started by the Muslim
Brotherhood and quashed by 8000 troops, supported by air force and tank
assaults. Up to 25,000 people died in the fighting and in following
executions and atrocities. Evidence of the uprising has been hidden by
widespread restoration - the mosque is among the buildings that have had
a facelift."
http://www.lloydstsb.lonelyplanet.com/middle_east/syria/obt.html
For Iran,
+++++
In July 1981, members of the Union of Communists tried to seize control
of the Caspian town of Amol. At least seventy guerrillas and Pasdaran
members were killed before the uprising was put down. The government
responded to the armed challenge of the guerrilla groups by expanded use
of the Pasdaran in counterintelligence activities and by widespread
arrests, jailings, and executions. The executions were facilitated by a
September 1981, Supreme Judicial Council circular to the revolutionary
courts permitting death sentences for "active members" of guerrilla
groups. Fifty executions a day became routine; there were days when more
than 100 persons were executed. Amnesty International documented 2,946
executions in the 12 months following Bani Sadr's impeachment, a
conservative figure because the authorities did not report all
executions.
+++++
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+ir0034)
Presumably, 3,000 Iranians and 30,000 Syrians will now not count as
sufficiently "mass" for you.
>> Or they could have killed themselves in the attempt, or just ruined the
>> shell. (Just because the ingredients of binary sarin aren't nerve
>> toxins, doesn't make them innocuous or easy to handle)
>
>I am not aware that either isoproponol or DF are extraordinarily hazardous
>by themselves.
Wouldn't like to be holding the burster charge if it went off
unexpectedly.
Probably wouldn't be fun if I was taking it apart and ruptured the
containers (bet they don't come out easily...) You'd *probably* only
start a leak in one...
>> Your invention, not mine. Lying again? Please stick to my own words of
>> "militarily significant" when you wish to attribute a description of
>> required quantity to me.
>
>No. You are the one who has repeatedly claimed that "And it was claimed that
>he was hiding hundreds of tons of chemicals and entire production lines, and
>that was why we had to invade and secure that threat Right Now." The US did
>not claim that those were necessary conditions.
They did, however, claim that this was the case. Even your own President
said so.
"It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons."
President G W Bush, October 7 2002
>You also have repeatedly
>claimed that a "immediate or imminent threat" is required; again, the US
>case did not use that verbage.
"Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger
is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know
Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make
any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even
stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?...
....regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great
danger to our nation."
President G W Bush, October 7 2002.
>> So, you're now calling me a liar only because you didn't like the tone
>> of my apology? While multiply doing the exact same paraphrase on my
>> words?
>
>See the earlier details of this "aplogy " of your's (the one where you said,
>"That was a paraphrase, not a quote: I put the name and date on the quote so
>it could be traced. My apologies if the distinction wasn't clear enough." ).
>Odd, nowhere in that statement do you agree the paraphrase was inaccurate.
I'm sorry, I was judging by the standards of accuracy you use when you
"paraphrase" other people's positions.
However, if *that* is what has you so wound up, then I immediately
apologise for the way my paraphrase changed the meaning of your original
quote, as well as for the possibility that it might have been taken as a
direct quotation of your words.
>> For this I'm called a liar while you repeatedly attribute false
>> statements to me.
>
>Prove it.
Have done.
>> So take it to the Security Council.
>
>Nah, we took care of it ourselves.
So the UNSC and its resolutions are irrelevant - so stop mumbling about
them.
>> So who was convicted, since the evidence was so solid?
>
>Can't recall, though I do believe the Kuwaitis had a couple of people in
>jail over that one.
Well, that's thorough, complete and conclusive.
>> Or is "diehard Saddam apologist" another one of those lies you're so
>> free with?
>
>Did I thus label you? No. I said, "Proven to the satisfaction of most,
>except for diehard Saddam apologists."
It was not proven to my satisfaction, therefore you call me a diehard
Saddam apologist.
However, there's a grey area between "Probably him, but not actually
proven" and "Proven" which you are either ignorant of, or choose to
ignore: and whose occupants you describe as "diehard Saddam apologists".
>If you consider yourself a diehard
>Saddam apologist, so be it. I would note that you have demonstrated a
>tendency to project the image of someone who thinks the US did Saddam wrong,
>based upon your defense of him in regards to his WMD violations.
Your fantasy - shame it doesn't connect to reality.
>> Why? Three fugitive murderers are proof of hypocrisy regarding "giving
>> sanctuary to terrorists", but hardly casus belli unless you're really
>> desperate.
>
>Two or three known terrorists receiving sanctuary from Iraq, along with one
>reported terrorist training facility, and behavior such as supporting
>suicide bombers does indeed constitute part of the casus belli.
Funny, that... "supporting terrorism" really is a flexible term when you
use it, isn't it?
>> As would your "standard playbook for international affairs" and "great
>> numbers of rounds in massive stockpiles" so falsely attributed to me.
>
>No, those have been accurate, based upon your own words, as provided above.
No, they are distortions falsely attributed to me.
>You asked where you attributed it--the answer is right there.
You showed how you took my words, twisted them to suit yourself, and
falsely attributed them.
>But you won't
>admit it, ebven when faced with your own words? Figures. You are a lying
>sack of ****.
Is that a reflective screen, Kevin? Looking at yourself, perchance?
>> Seems you're even more of an egregious liar than me, Kevin, and you've
>> never made clear that you were paraphrasing rather than quoting nor
>> apologised for the misattribution.
>
>See where these baseless claims have been addressed earlier in this missive.
>Now, again--you asked, "Which post of yours did I attribute it to? Where did
>I say that the words in those inverted commas were yours and yours alone?" I
>gave you your answer, also in your own words.
And proved conclusively that you're attributing statements to me that I
never made.
>Again, you are proven to be a
>liar.
Only in your imagination.
>> Cite please, where I stated that humour was unacceptable in this thread.
>
>See earlier quote of your response to my initial humorous remark.
"I'm not really seeing anything funny - I've got family currently being
shot at because of this."
What part of that can be read as "Humour is unacceptable"? I just
pointed out that it's not a funny joke. (My cousin turned out to be OK,
in case you wondered)
>> So, where precisely did I state where it could be found?
>
>Paul, 18 May 04: ""It's not about the WMD". I can only go by what you say,
>Kevin...Your claiming they were irrelevant was something of a hint" Note the
>original quotation marks around the initial statement--they were your's.
Just as you routinely put quotation marks around your own words and
peddle them as mine.
>Keep on piling up that evidence of your lying, Paul.
Don't need to, Kevin: you're digging yourself deeper with every post.
>> Just as you've falsely attributed words to me that I never said, and
>> evaded questions I repeatedly asked - and exploited my tolerance on your
>> evasions to pretend a wounded innocence when in fact you are still
>> fleeing the question.
>
>You have offered no proof; you have not challenged the evidence offered that
>demonstrates again and again your own lies.
Offered and demonstrated.
[i]
>> >In my
>> >experience, a fellow like you who has to resort to repeatedly lying in
>order
>> >to try and cover his own missteps, usually is the sort who lacks the
>courage
>> >for such encounters--but you are welcome to prove otherwise.
>>
>> If you want to put it like that?
>>
>> Fort Widley courtyard, dawn, Saturday 19 June.
>>
>> Gauntlet's down.
>
>I said when you are in the area; I have never been to the UK, and don't see
>any chance of going.
Oh, how *marvellously* convenient for you.
>You, OTOH have indicated that you make periodic visits
>to the DC area, right?
No, but I was on holiday there in 2000.
I'll be in New York on the 5th of July, though.
>That is close enough for me--I am more than willing
>to do a little drivetime if it makes you happy. Seriously. I believe that
>makes it "put up or shut up" time to you, does it not?
Certainly does. Shall I see you on the 5th? And will it be swords or
pistols?
>> I thought I didn't apologise? When did your story change?
>
>I said, "..which you say..." No, you really did not apologize for it, as we
>can see from reading the excerpts I included earlier in that regard.
In other words, you missed it and are now scrambling?
>> Actually, they don't.
>
>Yes, they do. ""It's not about the WMD". I can only go by what you say,
>Kevin...Your claiming they were irrelevant was something of a hint". Or are
>you now going to say that Google mysteriously created those words in your
>name?
That's a paraphrase of your position, no less inaccurate than your
"accurate paraphrases" of my words.
>> I had the integrity to immediately clarify that the words were a
>> paraphrase rather than a quotation, and apologise for any
>> misrepresentation: you've extended me no such courtesy in your multiple
>> false attributions to me.
>
>No, you did not,
From: Paul J. Adam )
Subject: Re: Sarin in a 155 artillery round
Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
Date: 2004-05-19 13:51:14 PST
+++++
In message >, Kevin Brooks
> writes
>BZZZ! Now you are lying. You already provided the quote in
> question,
That was a paraphrase, not a quote: I put the name and date on the quote
so it could be traced.
My apologies if the distinction wasn't clear enough.
+++++
>and by this point I have repeatedly shown you did not.
Google sucks, doesn't it, when you lie and get found out?
>> Meanwhile, the challenge is open if you choose to meet it. Will you back
>> your claims, or withdraw them? (Or will you make a weak excuse?)
>
>Already have backed them; you are the only one who has provided zero
>evidence.
No, Kevin. I offered you a challenge and you immediately claimed that
you couldn't meet it but had terrible travel constraints.
Still, I'll meet you in New York on the 5th if you prefer.
>> You are, on Saturday 19th.
>
>Come on, run to me baby. Anytime, just let me know when.
July 5th. I'll pass more details as I have them.
>You sad sack of
>excrement.
Yes, that *really* sums up your intellectual calibre, doesn't it?
--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2
Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk