"NOYB" wrote in message news:Ud6qc.14427
Depends upon if you're upwind or downwind after a sarin-filled munition is
detonated, eh?

You need to at least learn to read, and comprehend what you have read.
"Sarin filled"????? It was found to have TRACES of Sarin!!!!!!

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:Ud6qc.14427
Depends upon if you're upwind or downwind after a sarin-filled munition
is
detonated, eh?

You need to at least learn to read, and comprehend what you have read.
"Sarin filled"????? It was found to have TRACES of Sarin!!!!!!

And, last nights news quoted Army sources as saying that since field tests
weren't as accurate as lab tests, no conclusions should be drawn about
ANYTHING regarding the issue yet.

And, last nights news quoted Army sources as saying that since field tests
weren't as accurate as lab tests, no conclusions should be drawn about
ANYTHING regarding the issue yet.

Point of reference:

In the early days of the war, we will all recall fresh reports of chemical and
biological weapons on almost a daily basis. Every single case, except for some
10-year old munitions forgotten in the desert after Gulf War I (that had
literally rusted through and were not usable in any form), was ultimately
revealed to be a false alarm based on an inaccurate field test.

If the bad actors in Iraq had chemical or bio weapons, they would be using
them.
If you're willing to behead a guy on video tape, there isn't much that you
would avoid doing.

Is it somehow weird to be sorry there wasn't really a mountain of chemical and
biological weapons in Iraq? Other than vindicating Bush's initial justification
for the invasion, what good would they do?

Let's be glad there weren't any weapons to find, glad Hussein is out of power,
and hopeful that our national adventure in Iraq will come to an honorable end.
Sooner, rather than later.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:Ud6qc.14427
Depends upon if you're upwind or downwind after a sarin-filled munition
is
detonated, eh?

You need to at least learn to read, and comprehend what you have read.
"Sarin filled"????? It was found to have TRACES of Sarin!!!!!!

No dummy, it was found to have "contained" sarin.

"jim--" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:Ud6qc.14427
Depends upon if you're upwind or downwind after a sarin-filled munition
is
detonated, eh?

You need to at least learn to read, and comprehend what you have read.
"Sarin filled"????? It was found to have TRACES of Sarin!!!!!!

No dummy, it was found to have "contained" sarin.

From the Coalition Provisional Authority Briefing, Department of
Defense:

The round had been rigged as an IED, which was discovered by a U.S.
force convoy. A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered
inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of agent.

From NewsMax:
Two former weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and David Kay, said the shell
was likely a stray weapon that had been scavenged by militants and did
not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles of such weapons

From Jihad watch, AP:
"A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable.
This produced a very small dispersal of agent," he said.

Now, where does any of this say that, 1)the bomb was "Sarin filled",
and 2)that this indicates that we've found stockpiles of WMDs, or that
such stockpiles exist?

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"jim--" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:Ud6qc.14427
Depends upon if you're upwind or downwind after a sarin-filled
munition
is
detonated, eh?

You need to at least learn to read, and comprehend what you have read.
"Sarin filled"????? It was found to have TRACES of Sarin!!!!!!

No dummy, it was found to have "contained" sarin.

From the Coalition Provisional Authority Briefing, Department of
Defense:

The round had been rigged as an IED, which was discovered by a U.S.
force convoy. A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered
inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of agent.

From NewsMax:
Two former weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and David Kay, said the shell
was likely a stray weapon that had been scavenged by militants and did
not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles of such weapons

From Jihad watch, AP:
"A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable.
This produced a very small dispersal of agent," he said.

Now, where does any of this say that, 1)the bomb was "Sarin filled",
and 2)that this indicates that we've found stockpiles of WMDs, or that
such stockpiles exist?

Try a bit more googling dummy. The bomb that exploded was reported as
containing 3 or 4 liters of sarin.

Saddam used these bombs on his own people. Are you saying they never
existed? LMAO!

You really are stupid.

"jim--" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"jim--" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:Ud6qc.14427
Depends upon if you're upwind or downwind after a sarin-filled
munition
is
detonated, eh?

You need to at least learn to read, and comprehend what you have read.
"Sarin filled"????? It was found to have TRACES of Sarin!!!!!!

No dummy, it was found to have "contained" sarin.

From the Coalition Provisional Authority Briefing, Department of
Defense:

The round had been rigged as an IED, which was discovered by a U.S.
force convoy. A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered
inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of agent.

From NewsMax:
Two former weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and David Kay, said the shell
was likely a stray weapon that had been scavenged by militants and did
not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles of such weapons

From Jihad watch, AP:
"A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable.
This produced a very small dispersal of agent," he said.

Now, where does any of this say that, 1)the bomb was "Sarin filled",
and 2)that this indicates that we've found stockpiles of WMDs, or that
such stockpiles exist?

Try a bit more googling dummy. The bomb that exploded was reported as
containing 3 or 4 liters of sarin.

Saddam used these bombs on his own people. Are you saying they never
existed? LMAO!

You really are stupid.

I'm stupid? Hell, man, apparently you don't even know how to read. The
stories that you are quoting, are saying that the bomb found had the
POTENTIAL to contain 3 or 4 liters. How to hell stupid are you? THERE
WAS A "VERY SMALL DISPERSAL OF AGENT". Do you understand that?
Probably not.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"jim--" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"jim--" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:Ud6qc.14427
Depends upon if you're upwind or downwind after a sarin-filled
munition
is
detonated, eh?

You need to at least learn to read, and comprehend what you have
read.
"Sarin filled"????? It was found to have TRACES of Sarin!!!!!!

No dummy, it was found to have "contained" sarin.

From the Coalition Provisional Authority Briefing, Department of
Defense:

The round had been rigged as an IED, which was discovered by a U.S.
force convoy. A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered
inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of agent.

From NewsMax:
Two former weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and David Kay, said the shell
was likely a stray weapon that had been scavenged by militants and did
not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles of such weapons

From Jihad watch, AP:
"A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable.
This produced a very small dispersal of agent," he said.

Now, where does any of this say that, 1)the bomb was "Sarin filled",
and 2)that this indicates that we've found stockpiles of WMDs, or that
such stockpiles exist?

Try a bit more googling dummy. The bomb that exploded was reported as
containing 3 or 4 liters of sarin.

Saddam used these bombs on his own people. Are you saying they never
existed? LMAO!

You really are stupid.

I'm stupid? Hell, man, apparently you don't even know how to read. The
stories that you are quoting, are saying that the bomb found had the
POTENTIAL to contain 3 or 4 liters. How to hell stupid are you? THERE
WAS A "VERY SMALL DISPERSAL OF AGENT". Do you understand that?
Probably not.

I did not quote any stories.

Yes, you are stupid. You prove it every day, as you just did.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"jim--" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"jim--" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:Ud6qc.14427
Depends upon if you're upwind or downwind after a sarin-filled
munition
is
detonated, eh?

You need to at least learn to read, and comprehend what you have
read.
"Sarin filled"????? It was found to have TRACES of Sarin!!!!!!

No dummy, it was found to have "contained" sarin.

From the Coalition Provisional Authority Briefing, Department of
Defense:

The round had been rigged as an IED, which was discovered by a U.S.
force convoy. A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered
inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of agent.

From NewsMax:
Two former weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and David Kay, said the shell
was likely a stray weapon that had been scavenged by militants and did
not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles of such weapons

From Jihad watch, AP:
"A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable.
This produced a very small dispersal of agent," he said.

Now, where does any of this say that, 1)the bomb was "Sarin filled",
and 2)that this indicates that we've found stockpiles of WMDs, or that
such stockpiles exist?

Try a bit more googling dummy. The bomb that exploded was reported as
containing 3 or 4 liters of sarin.

Saddam used these bombs on his own people. Are you saying they never
existed? LMAO!

You really are stupid.

I'm stupid? Hell, man, apparently you don't even know how to read. The
stories that you are quoting, are saying that the bomb found had the
POTENTIAL to contain 3 or 4 liters.

Hey Mr. Intentionally Obtuse,
The report said the following:
Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that it
did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent
sarin...

Not "pontential" to contain...*DID* contain.

Actually... If you read more than the area bolded in the story, you will
find this tid-bit of information

"A 155-mm shell can hold two to five liters of sarin; three to four liters
is likely the right number, intelligence officials said."

Granted the portion you quoted does say

"Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that
it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent
sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday."

But the big word in your quote is "ESTIMATED"

It then goes on to say


""A little drop on your skin will kill you" in the binary form, said Ret.
Air Force Col. Randall Larsen, founder of Homeland Security Associates. "So
for those in immediate proximity, three liters is a lot," but he added that
from a military standpoint, a barrage of shells with that much sarin in them
would more likely be used as a weapon than one single shell."

And further to say

"Upon impact with the ground after the shell is fired, the barrier between
the chambers is broken, the chemicals mix and sarin is created and
dispersed."

So technically Basskisser is correct in his statement that the shell did not
contain Sarin, since the Sarin would not be completed without the mixing of
the 2 chemicals.

Semantics are a wonderful thing....

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...


I'm stupid? Hell, man, apparently you don't even know how to read. The
stories that you are quoting, are saying that the bomb found had the
POTENTIAL to contain 3 or 4 liters.

Hey Mr. Intentionally Obtuse,
The report said the following:
Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that
it
did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent
sarin...

Not "pontential" to contain...*DID* contain.