On 10/25/06, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just heard our president say that one of the disappointments of the Iraq
war is that we didn't find WMDs.
I have to correct myself. Wasn't taking notes. Here's exactly what he
said:
"Other developments were not encouraging, such as the
On 25 Oct 2006 at 10:55, Nick Arnett wrote:
> "Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the U.N.
> headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find stockpiles of weapons
> of mass destruction, and the continued loss of some of America's finest sons
> and daughters."
>
On 10/25/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You mean except the sarin shells and suchlike? Yea. no, he didn't
have nuclear capacity, but chemical and a willingness to use it? Ask
the Kurds.
If he had chemical WMDs when we invaded, then the president of the United
States misled t
On 25 Oct 2006 at 12:14, Nick Arnett wrote:
> On 10/25/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > You mean except the sarin shells and suchlike? Yea. no, he didn't
> > have nuclear capacity, but chemical and a willingness to use it? Ask
> > the Kurds.
>
>
> If he had chemical
On Oct 25, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 at 10:55, Nick Arnett wrote:
"Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the
U.N.
headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find stockpiles of
weapons
of mass destruction, and the continued loss
On 10/25/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"WMD", right. A useless politicised term. I prefer the precise term
"NBC". Which, indeed, he retained the capacity for. They're STILL
finding stashes of decayed chemical warfare shells out there.
Are you saying that when we invaded, Ira
reless handheld.
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.
-Original Message-
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:56:00
To:"Killer Bs Discussion"
Subject: Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 10
On 10/25/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IIRC, there have been some chemical weapons found in Iraq, including a
story I read sometime when insurgents used an old mustard gas shell as an
IED. However, there has not been large enough stocks of sufficient known
manufacture lots to
On 25 Oct 2006 at 12:56, Nick Arnett wrote:
> On 10/25/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "WMD", right. A useless politicised term. I prefer the precise term
> > "NBC". Which, indeed, he retained the capacity for. They're STILL
> > finding stashes of decayed chemical warfar
On 25 Oct 2006 at 12:29, Jonathan wrote:
>
> On Oct 25, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
>
> > On 25 Oct 2006 at 10:55, Nick Arnett wrote:
> >
> >> "Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the
> >> U.N.
> >> headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find
On 10/25/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So...why DO you think Iraq did not still have a chemical weapons
program?
Which part of "when we invaded" do you not understand???
They didn't have a program and they didn't have stockpiles -- when we
invaded.
Thus, as our dear leade
Andrew Crystall wrote:
> Indeed...
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
One shell constitutes an active program???
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1163896/posts
Looks like a right wing loony site. Can you find the same story
from a reputable source?
Like this one:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What are you arguing here?
and then.
> So, Mr Braveheart. Content with being a real hero - but only when you
> play one online?
and then..
> I'm more interested in whatever became of the Anthrax poisoning of a
> few key
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If he had chemical WMDs when we invaded, then the president of the
United
> States misled the entire country this morning.
>
> He was discouraged that Saddam didn't *still* have WMDs, apparently.
Unless, of course, those wea
On 25 Oct 2006 at 15:34, Nick Arnett wrote:
> On 10/25/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > So...why DO you think Iraq did not still have a chemical weapons
> > program?
>
>
> Which part of "when we invaded" do you not understand???
>
> They didn't have a program and t
Nick Arnett wrote:
> I have to correct myself. Wasn't taking notes. Here's
> exactly what he
> said:
>
> "Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing
> of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not
> find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and the
>
On 25 Oct 2006 at 23:02, pencimen wrote:
> Andrew Crystall wrote:
>
> > Indeed...
> >
> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
>
> One shell constitutes an active program???
> > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1163896/posts
>
> Looks like a right wing loony site. Can
On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
They're lying. Period.
Iraq had Saran, at the VERY least. They're *STILL* finding dangerous
Saran shells (and I wish like heck that some of the so-called news
reporters wouls say something about it..I talk to friends of American
soliders
> On Behalf Of Andrew Crystall
>
> Iraq had Saran, at the VERY least. They're *STILL* finding
> dangerous Saran shells (and I wish like heck that some of the
> so-called news reporters wouls say something about it..I talk
> to friends of American soliders out there for the real news, tbh).
I'm
On 26 Oct 2006 at 7:02, Nick Arnett wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > They're lying. Period.
> >
> > Iraq had Saran, at the VERY least. They're *STILL* finding dangerous
> > Saran shells (and I wish like heck that some of the so-called news
> > report
On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And there are no outright "lies". I never said there were. What I
actually said was that the fact over 700-800 shells with chemical
weapon traces, more than the number which were believed he held (400-
500) is somehow NOT considered very n
On 26 Oct 2006 at 13:14, Nick Arnett wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > And there are no outright "lies". I never said there were. What I
> > actually said was that the fact over 700-800 shells with chemical
> > weapon traces, more than the number which wer
On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How you bothered to actually read the evidence rather than taking the
politicans spin? There might be some actual material proving my
point!
Read it? I've posted it.
And my satire of Bush's idea that it was "not encouraging" that we
On 26 Oct 2006 at 14:09, Nick Arnett wrote:
> I haven't denied that. I've just refused to leap to the conclusion that
> A couple of leftover warheads with sarin hardly constitutes a stockpile,
Lies. PLAIN LIES.
You ARE denying it, and "leftover" warheads, right. Over FIVE HUNDRED
leftover wa
quot;Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:09:38
To:"Killer Bs Discussion"
Subject: Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> How you bothered to actually read the evidence rath
On 27/10/2006, at 5:04 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
There WERE useful weapons. Period. A program, possibly. But your
historical revisionism is plain and bluntly sickening. As of *2004*,
Saran shells were still potentially lethal in roadside ambushes.
Once, as far as I can find.
Yes, 2 1/2 ye
On 27/10/2006, at 7:17 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Your name-calling doesn't exactly go far to convince me that all
those
Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get
to the holocaust denial? Because THAT is another logical progression,
from the little popular histori
On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You ARE denying it, and "leftover" warheads, right. Over FIVE HUNDRED
leftover warheads, right.
Oh, I'm sorry, I missed the memo that said we get to count degraded old
non-working warheads as a "stockpile." Must be in this pile of old
On 10/26/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There WERE useful weapons. Period. A program, possibly. But your
> historical revisionism is plain and bluntly sickening. As of *2004*,
> Saran shells were still potentially lethal in roadside ambushes.
Once, as far as I can find.
No, n
On 27 Oct 2006 at 8:52, Charlie Bell wrote:
>
> On 27/10/2006, at 7:17 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
>
> >
> >> Your name-calling doesn't exactly go far to convince me that all
> >> those
> >
> > Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get
> > to the holocaust denial? Beca
On 26 Oct 2006 at 15:56, Nick Arnett wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > You ARE denying it, and "leftover" warheads, right. Over FIVE HUNDRED
> > leftover warheads, right.
>
>
> Oh, I'm sorry, I missed the memo that said we get to count degraded old
> non
On 26 Oct 2006 at 16:03, Nick Arnett wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > There WERE useful weapons. Period. A program, possibly. But your
> > > historical revisionism is plain and bluntly sickening. As of *2004*,
> > > Saran shells were still potentially let
On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well done, you trumped yourself. I never said it, you did. People
REALLY need to think before invoking Godwin's law. It also proves my
point - Godwin's law is itself a paranoid conspiracy meme. (Right up
there with "Won't someone think of
On 26 Oct 2006 at 16:40, Nick Arnett wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Well done, you trumped yourself. I never said it, you did. People
> > REALLY need to think before invoking Godwin's law. It also proves my
> > point - Godwin's law is itself a para
On 27/10/2006, at 9:14 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get
to the holocaust denial? Because THAT is another logical
progression,
from the little popular historical re-writings to the major ones, as
paranoia progresses. Seen it all b
On Oct 25, 2006, at 12:55 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 at 12:29, Jonathan wrote:
On Oct 25, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 at 10:55, Nick Arnett wrote:
"Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the
U.N.
headquarters in Baghdad, th
On OpenMail
playsound "ScoobyDoo-puzzled"
type char, "?"
End OpenMail
Call me feeble minded and dense, because I'm sure you do, but what
point does such an artfully un-commented Comment below make?
- Jonathan -
On Oct 25, 2006, at 8:33 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], J
37 matches
Mail list logo
