Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-15-2003, 11:37 PM   #1
Aackman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 170
Default Official British Investigation of Iraqi Trailers

An official British investigation of the mobile labs came to the same conclusion many of our own experts have: they are not for producing ABC weapons. I know this revelation is not exactly new news but this appears to be a pretty definitive conclusion.

Bush and Blair have trumpeted these trailers as being chemical weapons labs and justification for their claims of a clear and imminent threat to our safety. Turns out they are just one more highly publicized "find" that is not what the media and government claimed. How embarassing.

Iraqi Mobile Labs Nothing to do with Germ Warfare, Report Finds
Peter Beaumont, Antony Barnett and Gaby Hinsliff
The Observer

Sunday 15 June 2003

An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist.

The conclusion by biological weapons experts working for the British Government is an embarrassment for the Prime Minister, who has claimed that the discovery of the labs proved that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction and justified the case for going to war against Saddam Hussein.

Instead, a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: 'They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.'

The conclusion of the investigation ordered by the British Government - and revealed by The Observer last week - is hugely embarrassing for Blair, who had used the discovery of the alleged mobile labs as part of his efforts to silence criticism over the failure of Britain and the US to find any weapons of mass destruction since the invasion of Iraq.

The row is expected to be re-ignited this week with Robin Cook and Clare Short, the two Cabinet Ministers who resigned over the war, both due to give evidence to a House of Commons inquiry into whether intelligence was manipulated in the run-up to the war. It will be the first time that both have been grilled by their peers on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee over what the Cabinet was told in the run-up to the war.

MPs will be keen to explore Cook's explanation when he resigned that, while he believed Iraq did have some WMD capability, he did not believe it was weaponised.

The Prime Minister and his director of strategy and communications, Alastair Campbell, are expected to decline invitations to appear. While MPs could attempt to force them, this is now thought unlikely to happen.

The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, is expected to give evidence the week after.

The revelation that the mobile labs were to produce hydrogen for artillery balloons will also cause discomfort for the British authorities because the Iraqi army's original system was sold to it by the British company, Marconi Command & Control.

Aackman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2003, 12:31 PM   #2
crimsonedge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 767
Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

28 May 2003

CIA Report Details Iraqi Mobile Biological Weapons Labs
Three mobile labs were outfitted for BW production, report says

A new Central Intelligence Agency report says the three mobile laboratory facilities uncovered by coalition forces in Iraq provide "the strongest evidence to date" that Iraq had a biological warfare program and made substantial efforts to hide it.

The report, issued by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) May 28, recounts the discoveries of the mobile laboratory facilities, which were designed to be used in the manufacture of biological weapons (BW) for the now defunct regime of Saddam Hussein.

In April, Kurdish forces seized a specialized tractor-trailer near Mosul, which was subsequently turned over to U.S. military control. The CIA report said the design, equipment, and layout of the trailer was "strikingly similar to descriptions" provided by an Iraqi chemical engineer who had managed one of the mobile plants that was used for the production of biological weapons.

The report also said that in May, a second mobile facility was discovered by U.S. forces at the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development, and Engineering facility in Mosul.

"Although this second trailer appears to have been looted, the remaining equipment, including the fermenter, is in a configuration similar to the first plant," the report said.

In addition, U.S. forces found a mobile laboratory truck in Baghdad in late April, which the report described as a toxicology laboratory from the 1980s that could be used to support BW production or legitimate research."

"Analysis of the trailers reveals that they probably are second or possibly third-generation designs of the plants described by the source," the report said. "The newer version includes system improvements, such as cooling units, apparently engineered to solve production problems described by the source that were encountered with the older design."

The manufacturer's plates on the fermenters list production dates of 2002 and 2003, indicating Iraq produced these units as late as this year, the report said.

"We have investigated what other industrial processes may require such equipment -- a fermenter, refrigeration, and a gas capture system -- and agree with the experts that BW agent production is the only consistent, logical purpose for these vehicles," the CIA report concluded.

The CIA report can be seen in its entirety on the Internet at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...ts/index.html.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So who to believe ?
crimsonedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2003, 12:43 PM   #3
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally posted by crimsonedge

28 May 2003

CIA Report Details Iraqi Mobile Biological Weapons Labs

So who to believe ?
"Sunday 15 June 2003

An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist. "

Allow logic to decide for you.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2003, 01:52 PM   #4
crimsonedge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 767
Really? Where is the report ? Where are any quotes from the report ? Show me the report and what it says. I linked the "Official" CIA report with their assessment of it. Until you can provide evidence to the contrary, im still inclined to believe the CIAs version.
crimsonedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2003, 03:08 PM   #5
Aackman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 170
Excerpt from an article "Credibility Gap, Anyone?" By Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service June 4, 2003
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16063





There is also growing doubt about the evidence that Bush himself touted this weekend as proof – two truck trailers described by officials as mobile weapons-productions labs. According to a CIA report noted in the 'Slate' Internet magazine, key equipment for growing, sterilizing and drying bacteria was not present in either trailer. Iraqi officials have said the trailers were used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.


Matthew Meselson, a Harvard University expert on biological weapons who 20 years ago single-handedly debunked reports by senior Reagan administration officials – several of whom hold relevant positions in the Bush government – about the use by Soviet allies of mycotoxins against rebels in Laos and Afghanistan, has also expressed doubts about the trailers' purpose, and called for the CIA to hand over the evidence to independent scientists to make an assessment.
From an article in the Observer dated 6/8/03
http://www.observer.co.uk/internatio...973012,00.html

A separate investigation published by the New York Times yesterday discloses that the trailers have now been investigated by three different teams of Western experts, with the third and most senior group of analysts apparently divided sharply over their function.

'I have no great confidence that it's a fermenter,' a senior analyst said of a tank supposed to be capable of multiplying seed germs into lethal swarms. The government's public report, he said, 'was a rushed job and looks political'. The analyst had not seen the trailers, but reviewed evidence from them.

Another intelligence expert who has seen the trailers told the US paper: 'Everyone has wanted to find the "smoking gun" so much that they may have wanted to have reached this conclusion. I am very upset with the process.'

Questions over the claimed purpose of trailer for making biological weapons include:

-The lack of any trace of pathogens found in the fermentation tanks. According to experts, when weapons inspectors checked tanks in the mid-Nineties that had been scoured to disguise their real use, traces of pathogens were still detectable.
-The use of canvas sides on vehicles where technicians would be working with dangerous germ cultures.
-A shortage of pumps required to create vacuum conditions required for working with germ cultures and other processes usually associated with making biological weapons.
-The lack of an autoclave for steam sterilisation, normally a prerequisite for any kind of biological production. Its lack of availability between production runs would threaten to let in germ contaminants, resulting in failed weapons.
-The lack of any easy way for technicians to remove germ fluids from the processing tank.

One of those expressing severe doubts about the alleged mobile germ labs is Professor Harry Smith, who chairs the Royal Society's working party on biological weapons.

He told The Observer 'I am concerned about the canvas sides. Ideally, you would want airtight facilities for making something like anthrax. Not only that, it is a very resistant organism and even if the Iraqis cleaned the equipment, I would still expect to find some trace of it.'

His view is shared by the working group of the Federation of American Scientists and by the CIA, which states: 'Senior Iraqi officials of the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development, and Engineering facility in Mosul were shown pictures of the mobile production trailers, and they claimed that the trailers were used to chemically produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.'

Artillery balloons are essentially balloons that are sent up into the atmosphere and relay information on wind direction and speed allowing more accurate artillery fire. Crucially, these systems need to be mobile.

The Observer has discovered that not only did the Iraq military have such a system at one time, but that it was actually sold to them by the British. In 1987 Marconi, now known as AMS, sold the Iraqi army an Artillery Meteorological System or Amets for short.
Aackman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2003, 03:10 PM   #6
Maximus Faticus
Registered User
 
Maximus Faticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,291
Yeah last I heard they couldn't tell if they were for H^2, or ABC weapons.

That whole article sounds fishy, it's written a lot like a tabloid.
__________________
My Music
Maximus Faticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2003, 03:23 PM   #7
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally posted by crimsonedge
Really? Where is the report ? Where are any quotes from the report ? Show me the report and what it says. I linked the "Official" CIA report with their assessment of it. Until you can provide evidence to the contrary, im still inclined to believe the CIAs version.
You are entitled to believe anything you want. I a merely pointing out that apparently British intelligence is coming forward and stating that the CIA is wrong, afterall. And isn't that possible? They have been wrong on several counts. Furhtermore, they even reported:

"We continue to examine the trailer found in mid-April and are using advanced sample analysis techniques to determine whether BW agent is present, although we do not expect samples to show the presence of BW agent. We suspect that the Iraqis thoroughly decontaminated the vehicle to remove evidence of BW agent production. Despite the lack of confirmatory samples, we nevertheless are confident that this trailer is a mobile BW production plant because of the source's description, equipment, and design."

Aside from the design of the trucks (which are dual purpose), there is no evidence PROVING that they were used in weapons manufacturing.

Again, believe what you will but two rusty 3rd generation trucks aren't "smoking guns".
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2003, 03:35 PM   #8
Aackman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 170
The NY Times article from June 7th mentioned above can be found here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AF0894DB404482
I am not responsible if you think it reads like a tabloid as well. /shrug

You will have to pay to read the whole thing. Here is the lead paragraph:
Some Analysts Of Iraq Trailers Reject Germ Use

By JUDITH MILLER and WILLIAM J. BROAD (NYT) 1498 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 1 , Column 5
LEAD PARAGRAPH - American and British intelligence analysts with direct access to the evidence are disputing claims that the mysterious trailers found in Iraq were for making deadly germs. In interviews over the last week, they said the mobile units were more likely intended for other purposes and charged that the evaluation process had been damaged by a rush to judgment.

''Everyone has wanted to find the 'smoking gun' so much that they may have wanted to have reached this conclusion,'' said one intelligence expert who has seen the trailers and, like some others, spoke on condition that he not be identified. He added, ''I am very upset with the process.''
Looks like Bush and company made just one more misleading *cough* rush judgement. I won't expect them to clarify this any more then they have the inferred connection between Saddam Hussien and 9/11 or any of the other high profile press releases about WMD that have been proven out as wrong.
Aackman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2003, 03:46 PM   #9
Vireil
Disturbing the force
 
Vireil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 2,711
C'mon now folks Colin Powell told the world about these mobile lab trucks back in February. Colin Powell on behalf of President Bush stood up and told the United Nations all about this. So we know for a fact that the Iraqi's had these labs. He had even more information that unfortunately he wasn't able to share at the time, but now the jig is up. In the hands of a homicidal dictator, addicted to weapons of mass distruction these three trucks presented a grave danger to America and all freedom loving people.
__________________
Vireil
Coercer
<Recovering>
Vireil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2003, 04:07 PM   #10
Maximus Faticus
Registered User
 
Maximus Faticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,291
The NY Times article from June 7th mentioned above can be found here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...DAF0894DB404482
I am not responsible if you think it reads like a tabloid as well. /shrug

You will have to pay to read the whole thing. Here is the lead paragraph:
Like I said there have been reports right along that it was possible that the trucks could have been used for H^2. The original link just capitalized on the idea in the "official" investigation exclusive to The Observer.
__________________
My Music
Maximus Faticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2003, 07:37 AM   #11
crimsonedge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 767
So far no one has posted anything specific about the "official" british report. I have yet to see a quote for it or better yet a link to the full article. All we have here is the Observer, which while not exactly a tabloid is a very liberal leaning publication, saying they have inside information about a british report yet they arent quoting it at all but telling you what it says without providing any evidence.

I never said I wouldnt believe the report I just said I would like to see it to be able to read what it concludes. I actually do use logic Lurikeen unlike some irrational people on this board. You however, have jumped to a conclusion based on nothing but an unsubstantiated article. Where is this apparent British intelligence report? I have yet to see any of it quoted or the report it self.

Again Lurikeen I never said they were smoking guns. I never said I wouldnt believe a report the contridicts the CIA . I just provided an official cia report that concludes that they were used for growing potential biological weapons.

You however have twisted facts to suit your view.. No one ever said they were rusty third generation trucks except you. They actually said they were two tractor trailor production facilities found both of which were very new and seem to have been manufactured as late as 2003. They also found a mobile lab facility that was made in the 1980s which could be dual purpose and admited it could be dual purpose. Please try to read and comprehend the article before replying.
crimsonedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2003, 10:16 AM   #12
Aackman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 170
From the NY Times today. Another shift in rhetoric. Looks like Bush has backed off the mobile labs "smoking gun" he was waving around last week. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/17/in...al/17PREX.html




In Speech, Bush Reiterates Threat Hussein Posed, but Makes No Mention of Weapons Search
By DAVID E. SANGER


LIZABETH, N.J., June 16 — President Bush today swept aside criticism that the United States overstated the threat posed by Iraq as the work of "revisionist historians" and said there was no doubt that Saddam Hussein had been "a threat to the United States" for the past dozen years.

But in a speech to small-business owners and employees that dwelt largely on the benefits of the recently passed tax cuts, Mr. Bush made no mention of the so-far fruitless search for Mr. Hussein's chemical, nuclear or biological weapons, which he almost never failed to mention in similar speeches when building the case for an invasion of the country earlier this year.

"This nation acted to a threat from the dictator of Iraq," Mr. Bush said in a hotel ballroom here. "Now there are some who would like to rewrite history — revisionist historians is what I like to call them," he said.

He drew applause from a largely Republican, sympathetic crowd when he declared that "Saddam Hussein was a threat to America and the free world in '91, in '98, in 2003."

He cited Mr. Hussein's refusal to abide by the demands "of the free world" and added, "This is for certain: Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States and our friends and allies."

His decision not to delve into the question of unconventional weapons was notable, because only 11 days ago, addressing American troops in Doha, Qatar, Mr. Bush insisted that his concern about Mr. Hussein's weapons were justified, even while he trimmed back his assertions about what kind of weaponry Mr. Hussein had on hand. At that time, he argued that mobile laboratory trucks found in Iraq showed that the deposed government was "capable of producing biological agents." He did not go that far today.

Mr. Bush's aides insist that he is not backing away from the administration's assertions before the war about the weapons capacity of Mr. Hussein's government, statements that added urgency to his calls for military action. Now, the failure to find such weapons, at least so far, has led to several Congressional inquiries, and sent administration officials to the airwaves to argue that they did not exaggerate the threat.

At the same time, administration officials who said a month ago that they believed that Mr. Hussein was dead are beginning to revise their view, and say now that he may well be alive. In a television interview over the weekend, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, said he was leaning toward that view.
Aackman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2003, 10:18 AM   #13
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally posted by crimsonedge
So far no one has posted anything specific about the "official" british report. I have yet to see a quote for it or better yet a link to the full article. All we have here is the Observer, which while not exactly a tabloid is a very liberal leaning publication, saying they have inside information about a british report yet they arent quoting it at all but telling you what it says without providing any evidence.

I never said I wouldnt believe the report I just said I would like to see it to be able to read what it concludes. I actually do use logic Lurikeen unlike some irrational people on this board. You however, have jumped to a conclusion based on nothing but an unsubstantiated article. Where is this apparent British intelligence report? I have yet to see any of it quoted or the report it self.

Again Lurikeen I never said they were smoking guns. I never said I wouldnt believe a report the contridicts the CIA . I just provided an official cia report that concludes that they were used for growing potential biological weapons.

You however have twisted facts to suit your view.. No one ever said they were rusty third generation trucks except you. They actually said they were two tractor trailor production facilities found both of which were very new and seem to have been manufactured as late as 2003. They also found a mobile lab facility that was made in the 1980s which could be dual purpose and admited it could be dual purpose. Please try to read and comprehend the article before replying.
Crimson, I am certainly not jumping to conclusions. I can read the damn paper and decide for myself what is truth or not.

You stated that you prefer to believe the CIA. Fine, go for it. I really could care less.

As far as "twisting facts" I do believe it is you doing the twisting. If you are so small minded that you can't discern sarcasm (e.g. "rusty" 3rd generation trucks) from facts (CIA reports the trucks are 2nd or 3rd generation implementations), then there is no use in debating the issue with you.

You see, it is you that has decided to ignore facts that you don't like: not me. You don't like the reports provided by Aackman? Bully for you! Just don't come of as one who is being intellectually honest as you tuck your head under a pillow.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2003, 02:33 PM   #14
crimsonedge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 767
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I a merely pointing out that apparently British intelligence is coming forward and stating that the CIA is wrong, afterall
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again I ask where the report that contradicts the CIA is? I would love to read it and draw my own conclusions but no one has been able to find it. Didnt twist a fact there, you did. You said you read it and drew your own conclusions. You only read an article that purports to know whats in the report so how can you draw a conclusion from that ?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You stated that you prefer to believe the CIA. Fine, go for it. I really could care less.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I said I would prefer to believe the CIA over the Observer yes. If the British Government report contradicts the CIA report I would be willing to reconsider my position. You however, could care less about the truth, just what suits your polictical stance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are so small minded that you can't discern sarcasm (e.g. "rusty" 3rd generation trucks) from facts (CIA reports the trucks are 2nd or 3rd generation implementations), then there is no use in debating the issue with you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow cool, personal attacks when confronted that you made a mistake.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't like the reports provided by Aackman? Bully for you! Just don't come of as one who is being intellectually honest as you tuck your head under a pillow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said I didnt like it, I said provide the report. Still waiting.
Again I already said I am willing to reconsider the position that these are mobile bio weapons labs. Very far from tucking my head under a pillow. Y


You apparently would like me and everyone else on the board that finds flaws with your thinking and reading comprehension to just go away and leave you alone. Maybe I will. But then again maybe I will just point them out as you make them.
crimsonedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2003, 02:49 PM   #15
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally posted by crimsonedge
[BAgain I ask where the report that contradicts the CIA is? [/b]
Have you tried looking for the report? If the New York Times and the Observer aren't good enough for you, then the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate how they are lying or misinformed. Pulling out a CIA report that has been rebutted by the Times and Observer and then asking us here for their source material is ludicrous. I think Aackman provided some good sources, but if you are so keen to find the reports email the writers of the articles at the Observer and the New York Times. I am sure they will be happy to give you what you are looking for.

I said I would prefer to believe the CIA over the Observer yes. If the British Government report contradicts the CIA report I would be willing to reconsider my position. You however, could care less about the truth, just what suits your polictical stance.
What a load of bullshit!

Wow cool, personal attacks when confronted that you made a mistake.
I made no mistake, moron. I clearly indicated what I wrote and meant.

You apparently would like me and everyone else on the board that finds flaws with your thinking and reading comprehension to just go away and leave you alone. Maybe I will. But then again maybe I will just point them out as you make them.
Come on back as often as you like to have your ass handed to you, Corkie.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2003, 06:34 AM   #16
crimsonedge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 767
Lurikeen why do you try so hard to be an jerk? Its really unbecoming and this isn't rants and flames this is supposed to be a civil discussion on the happenings in America and around the world since 9/11. If all you can do is offer insults why dont you refrain from posting.

In anycase, if you read the New York times article you will note it says very clearly :

SOME Analysts Of Iraq Trailers Reject Germ Use

It does not say British intelligence it doesnt say US intelligence it says some analysts. It doesnt even identify the "analysts" as part of any team that is "analyzing" them. It just says they saw the trucks we dont know if they saw them from a distance or were allowed to go over them with a fine tooth comb.

One last time, the article that aackman posted does not have any direct quotes from the report nor quotes from any of the authors of the report. How in the hell can you tell me that you know what that report says based on the article he linked ? There is no way. So I reserve judgement on it until we are allowed to view it. How is that so hard to understand.
crimsonedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2003, 08:00 AM   #17
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally posted by crimsonedge
One last time, the article that aackman posted does not have any direct quotes from the report nor quotes from any of the authors of the report. How in the hell can you tell me that you know what that report says based on the article he linked ? There is no way. So I reserve judgement on it until we are allowed to view it. How is that so hard to understand.
Once again, read the articles to find why the sources aren't listed. If you are so keen on getting their source material email the observer and the NYT.

One last thing, you are about as dense as they come. You rolled into the forum not fully reading the article posted by Aackman and attacked it on the basis that the sources weren't revealed. He provided supporting articles from other news sources and the best you could do is claim they are liberal rags and you will believe the CIA. You have been back peddling ever since you engaged me in this "debate".

Lurikeen why do you try so hard to be an jerk? Its really unbecoming and this isn't rants and flames this is supposed to be a civil discussion on the happenings in America and around the world since 9/11. If all you can do is offer insults why dont you refrain from posting.
Look around the postings on this forum. If you can't stand the heat, then you shouldn't have opened up that inflamed pie hole of yours.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2003, 08:35 AM   #18
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Lurikeen, correct me if im wrong.. but didnt you play "Meathead" on Archie Bunker?
Rheaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2003, 08:46 AM   #19
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally posted by Rheaton
Lurikeen, correct me if im wrong.. but didnt you play "Meathead" on Archie Bunker?
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you play "Goober" on the Andy Griffith Show?

Besides, Rheaton, you of all people in this forum know that I am not a "flame monster". Crimson fired the first volley implying that I was incapable of either reading and comprehending the materials in this forum.

Be forewarned, if you are going to start flaming, then I will retalliate. I may even strike first if I feel threatened.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"

Last edited by Lurikeen; 06-18-2003 at 08:53 AM.
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2003, 09:41 AM   #20
crimsonedge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 767
I have read almost all the postings in these forums Lurikeen and you are one of a few that tend to post more flames than debate. Actually you are one of the worst about and continue to flame me for no apparent reason other than thats what you like to do.

I didnt attack Aackmans article just posted a counter point that used an official intelligence document. The article that the observer wrote claims inside knowledge of an official intelligence document but doesnt quote it or anyone associated with it. I also didnt write the article Lurikeen they did, if they have source material that provides evidence to their claims, they should put it in the article. To me it suggests they dont have the goods if they dont use them in support of their position.

As far as backpeddling goes, I am not backing down from my position at all which is show me the goods. Yet I am still open minded enough to think that there could a different conclusion than the CIA's I would just like some supporting evidence not hearsay and innuendo.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be forewarned, if you are going to start flaming, then I will retalliate. I may even strike first if I feel threatened.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dont kid yourself Lurikeen, you strike first everychance you get warranted or not. Really lends a lot of credence to your ideas and opinions and Im sure it sways lots of people to your side when you use childish language and insults.
crimsonedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2003, 10:00 AM   #21
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally posted by crimsonedge
I have read almost all the postings in these forums Lurikeen and you are one of a few that tend to post more flames than debate.
Cry me a fucking river! Learn how to use ignore if you don't like it.

The article that the observer wrote claims inside knowledge of an official intelligence document but doesnt quote it or anyone associated with it. I also didnt write the article Lurikeen they did, if they have source material that provides evidence to their claims, they should put it in the article. To me it suggests they dont have the goods if they dont use them in support of their position.
Do you require that all news sources reveal their sources before you believe the news? That is precisely where you are either being dense or being hypocritical. The Observer didn't reveal the people interviewed at their request. Again, if you are so worked up about this, then email them asking for their source material.

As far as backpeddling goes, I am not backing down from my position at all which is show me the goods. Yet I am still open minded enough to think that there could a different conclusion than the CIA's I would just like some supporting evidence not hearsay and innuendo.
Excuse me, where are the sources listed in the CIA report? You aren't open minded at all. You require from those who disagree with you a level of evidence that you don't require from those with whom you agree.

Dont kid yourself Lurikeen, you strike first everychance you get warranted or not. Really lends a lot of credence to your ideas and opinions and Im sure it sways lots of people to your side when you use childish language and insults.
I really could give a shit what you think. I rather enjoy my interactions with most people here. You are a conservative that has decided he would focus on some flames by a liberal and try to discredit the liberal. Boo Hoo! Go cry about the flaming somewhere else.

Next time you decide to start flaming, check in your pants to make sure you have the balls for it. Otherwise, don't start.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2003, 11:07 AM   #22
crimsonedge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 767
So now your labeling me as a conservative and therefor I'm discredited based on that ascertion. All I am trying to do is find out the facts. I posted a fact based report I am looking for facts to support the article that Aakman posted and so far havent found any. Of course you havent either and instead of even trying to find some, you just flame me cause you dont like me showing that the article is potentially suspect.

You are quite hillarious in your lame flame attempts. Keep it up if it makes you feel better, wouldnt want you to not get all the attention you crave.
crimsonedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2003, 11:29 AM   #23
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally posted by crimsonedge
So now your labeling me as a conservative and therefor I'm discredited based on that ascertion. All I am trying to do is find out the facts. I posted a fact based report I am looking for facts to support the article that Aakman posted and so far havent found any. Of course you havent either and instead of even trying to find some, you just flame me cause you dont like me showing that the article is potentially suspect.

You are quite hillarious in your lame flame attempts. Keep it up if it makes you feel better, wouldnt want you to not get all the attention you crave.
As Trith would say: "pot meet kettle".

I didn't discredit you for being a conservative as you tried to do with Aackman's source. Remember this?

"All we have here is the Observer, which while not exactly a tabloid is a very liberal leaning publication..."

Hmmm... you aren't very honest are you? While you claim, "All I am trying to do is find out the facts" you have done nothing but posted a CIA report discredited in the press and then discredited the sources as being either "liberal" or not able to reveal their sources. Again, neither are a refutation but a dishonest attempt on your part to obfuscate the issue.

You aren't trying to support Aackman's post. Your language betrays you as a conservative (hint: liberals don't discredit reports on the basis they are "very liberal") who rolled into this thread trying to discredit sources revealing the CIA is wrong. Now you are here coming off "holier than thou"... a poor persecuted soul who is wrongly being flamed by the big bad meanie, Lurikeen!

I have no problem doubting an article's truth or entertaining why the information some present may be suspect. I don't like you coming off as being intellectually honest when it is plain you have no intention to investigate the merits of the Observer's article posted here. I am not debating the merits of the article. I am revealing my dislike for your postings. You refuse to answer pertinent questions and ignore facts presented to you. For instance, have you emailed the Observer yet asking for their source materials? Do you require ALL news sources to reveal their sources before you will believe a report? Who are the sources used by the CIA, do you know? They don't cite their source materials and yet you believe them, but if another cites un-named sources you reject the article wholesale. Do you consider that intellectual honesty?
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"

Last edited by Lurikeen; 06-18-2003 at 11:37 AM.
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2003, 01:11 PM   #24
crimsonedge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 767
Yes the Observer is a Liberal leaning publication. That is why it is printing an article that casts both Bush and Blaire in a bad light. Thats fine especially if what they say is true, however they need to support at least part of their argument with fact. So far all they have done is say Bush and Blaire are wrong about these trailors without providing any evidence. Sounds very similar to what many post here. They want to believe Bush and Blaire are wrong and they say they are wrong but they dont back it up with facts.

Again, its not my job to find out where the Observers facts are Lurikeen, it is the job of the writers of the articles to support their conclusion with facts. So far they have neglected to do that.

The CIAs report has not been refuted by anything I have read. There are definately critics of the CIAs reports but I sure havent seen any facts that show they are wrong.

I want to know the facts. If the CIA is wrong and weapons cannot be found, I think most conservatives will not be happy with that outcome, myself included. I want as most do to feel that our highest leader has integrity and if he doesnt then lets get rid of him. At least we have that option, the Iraqs didnt.
crimsonedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2003, 01:24 PM   #25
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally posted by crimsonedge
Yes the Observer is a Liberal leaning publication. That is why it is printing an article that casts both Bush and Blaire in a bad light. Thats fine especially if what they say is true, however they need to support at least part of their argument with fact. So far all they have done is say Bush and Blaire are wrong about these trailors without providing any evidence. Sounds very similar to what many post here. They want to believe Bush and Blaire are wrong and they say they are wrong but they dont back it up with facts.

Again, its not my job to find out where the Observers facts are Lurikeen, it is the job of the writers of the articles to support their conclusion with facts. So far they have neglected to do that.

The CIAs report has not been refuted by anything I have read. There are definately critics of the CIAs reports but I sure havent seen any facts that show they are wrong.

I want to know the facts. If the CIA is wrong and weapons cannot be found, I think most conservatives will not be happy with that outcome, myself included. I want as most do to feel that our highest leader has integrity and if he doesnt then lets get rid of him. At least we have that option, the Iraqs didnt.
Once again you are refusing to answer the questions.
  • Have you emailed the Observer yet asking for their source materials?
  • Do you require ALL news sources to reveal their sources before you will believe a report?
  • Who are the sources used by the CIA, do you know?
  • They (the CIA) don't cite their source materials and yet you believe them, but if another cites un-named sources you reject the article wholesale. Do you consider that intellectual honesty?

You have no interest in knowing facts. You cry about not having a list of sources from the Observer, but when push comes to shove you are just a whinner who will not persue truth. Have you even tried doing a web search to see if the Observer's article is refuted by CIA sources or the British government? I am sure you haven't.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:32 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.