"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.

So because part A and part B didn't mix probably, it wasn't sarin, eh?
You're really grasping at straws now.
Are you chemical Ali?

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.

Keep doing the mental gymnastics thing all the way to Pres. Bush's
reelection.

wrote in message
hlink.net...
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.

wrote:
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.







Don't confuse Nobby....he are an engineer.

Bert Robbins wrote:

Keep doing the mental gymnastics thing all the way to Pres. Bush's
reelection.

wrote in message



Re-election? He was never elected.

"Harry Krause" babbles:

Bert Robbins wrote:

Keep doing the mental gymnastics thing all the way to Pres. Bush's
reelection.

Re-election? He was never elected.

Ahh, but Harry. You've already confirmed in another post that winning the
electoral vote*is* a win, and it has been confirmed time and time again that
Bush did *indeed* win the electoral vote. Many recounts prove it.

Are you off your Zanax and bourbon again? Maybe you're *on* it again, hence
the lapse in memory and judgment.

Awe... poor baby.

Jack

Jack Goff wrote:

"Harry Krause" babbles:


Bert Robbins wrote:


Keep doing the mental gymnastics thing all the way to Pres. Bush's
reelection.

Re-election? He was never elected.


Ahh, but Harry. You've already confirmed in another post that winning the
electoral vote*is* a win, and it has been confirmed time and time again that
Bush did *indeed* win the electoral vote. Many recounts prove it.

Only if you include the electoral votes in Florida he stole...





Are you off your Zanax and bourbon again? Maybe you're *on* it again, hence
the lapse in memory and judgment.
=


I probably drink less in a year than you do in a weekend, jackoff.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Are you off your Zanax and bourbon again? Maybe you're *on* it again,
hence
the lapse in memory and judgment.
=


I probably drink less in a year than you do in a weekend, jackoff.

I think he means he is not drinking bourbon, but is still on the overdose of
Zanax. He is such a trip to watch him going crazy over Bush. I can't wait
till Nov.

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:2OTqc.79670$536.13228757@attbi_s03...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Are you off your Zanax and bourbon again? Maybe you're *on* it
again,
hence
the lapse in memory and judgment.
=


I probably drink less in a year than you do in a weekend, jackoff.

I think he means he is not drinking bourbon, but is still on the
overdose of
Zanax. He is such a trip to watch him going crazy over Bush. I can't
wait
till Nov.


Did you youe the poll out of Cal.......a dead heat at 46-45......even more
telling was that of those votes 80% were voting "for" Bush, whereas only 36%
were voting for kerry, the remainder were voting against the opponent. Talk
about soft support heehee California of all places.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
Keep doing the mental gymnastics thing all the way to Pres. Bush's
reelection.

.....even though such gymnastics are frowned upon in the handbook given to
Bush's supporters, along with the secret decoder ring.