Worst Joke Ever 2024

[Scott]

Some posts removed.  

 

Please get back to the topic.  

[ilostmypassword]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

This link actually highlights the opposite. It details that significant amounts of chemical weapons were around and that troops were exposed to chemical weapons without prior warnings. And this is but a part a partial story - no indication given of how many similar operations were conducted (and if such were carried out by other nations).

You sure your real name isn't Donald Rumsfeld?  There is no record of the Iraqi army using chemical weapons against American troops. Not once. The weapons had been decommisioned. Exposure to these weapons came from the fact that they had been carelessly stored or abandoned

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/100000003173431.mobile.html

[boomerangutang]

                             Tho I'm an American,  I tend to believe French scientific findings - above US findings.  I don't think either is more advanced than the other scientifically, but American experts would tend to be more subjective re; the sarin attack.  Similar to Thailand, if there's a directive from the top banana, then often underlings are obliged to come up with findings which support it.  

 

                          It's like when Trump claimed Obama tapped his phones, .....Trump then directed security agencies and congress to find proof (every time the Feds do anything, it always costs a lot).  If it had been anyone else, besides the president, who made that order, they would have been ignored or laughed at.  But because he's the prez, his orders have to be followed, no matter how ridiculous they sound to reasonable people.

 

                 As for the Sarin attack; were any experts able to garner samples at Syrian airfields/warehouses, or from aircraft which purportedly spearheaded the attack?   When doing a crime investigation, it's good policy to get clues from as many related places/people as possible - to connect the dots.   Months ago, the Russkies were supposed to have been in charge of destroying Syria's stockpile.  Who is surprised if the Russians were not successful in that endeavor?  Granted, not an easy assignment.

 

[craigt3365]

3 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

                 As for the Sarin attack; were any experts able to garner samples at Syrian airfields/warehouses, or from aircraft which purportedly spearheaded the attack?   When doing a crime investigation, it's good policy to get clues from as many related places/people as possible - to connect the dots.   Months ago, the Russkies were supposed to have been in charge of destroying Syria's stockpile.  Who is surprised if the Russians were not successful in that endeavor?  Granted, not an easy assignment.

 

Yes. Samples were obtained.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/samples-from-syrias-deadly-sarin-attack-bear-assadssignature-says-france/2017/04/26/af5d47e0-2a5d-11e7-86b7-5d31b5fdc114_story.html?utm_term=.b529008b8ff1

 

Hours later, the French government released a dossier compiled by intelligence officials stating that sarin samples from the attack site showed that the nerve agent was produced “according to the same manufacturing process” used in an earlier attack attributed to Assad’s armed forces.

[ilostmypassword]

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

You sure your real name isn't Donald Rumsfeld?  There is no record of the Iraqi army using chemical weapons against American troops. Not once. The weapons had been decommisioned. Exposure to these weapons came from the fact that they had been carelessly stored or abandoned

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/100000003173431.mobile.html

I should add that another significant source of injury was the sloppy disposal methods used to destroy these weapons. But the fault for that lies with the U.S. military command in Iraq, not Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi armed forces.

[craigt3365]

13 hours ago, onthesoi said:

 

 

Nearly all news sites report other news stories, the point is that Yahoo News deemed it worthy to put on their news website  ....funny how you didn't seem to mind this when content being reposted is claiming that Assad did something wrong.

 

The source is: IBT or International Business Times ...are you saying they are a  'fake news conspiracy website' ?

 

The larger media sites have their own reporters on site. Typically. And for sure vet their sources better than the smaller ones. No comparison. That's why I try to stick to the larger ones.

 

If you do some research,  you'll see issues around that  MIT "expert". I'll stick with what the French are reporting. Much more credible. Though I know it doesn't support your point of view.

[Morch]

On 4/28/2017 at 6:38 AM, ilostmypassword said:

You sure your real name isn't Donald Rumsfeld?  There is no record of the Iraqi army using chemical weapons against American troops. Not once. The weapons had been decommisioned. Exposure to these weapons came from the fact that they had been carelessly stored or abandoned

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/100000003173431.mobile.html

 

What I'm sure of is that you can do better than resorting to inane remarks. And, in the unlikely case that you missed it, here's a reference from a post above - "... I would agree, though, that it was not enough of a threat to merit the war.".

 

I wasn't making a point that such weapons were used against US forces. Just a convulsed straw man argument you're making.

 

 

On 4/28/2017 at 11:39 AM, ilostmypassword said:

I should add that another significant source of injury was the sloppy disposal methods used to destroy these weapons. But the fault for that lies with the U.S. military command in Iraq, not Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi armed forces.

 

I should add that this have nothing to do even with the off-topic discussion you're on about. The point made was that these weapons were around, and in numbers large enough to be considered a problem.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

What I'm sure of is that you can do better than resorting to inane remarks. And, in the unlikely case that you missed it, here's a reference from a post above - "... I would agree, though, that it was not enough of a threat to merit the war.".

 

I wasn't making a point that such weapons were used against US forces. Just a convulsed straw man argument you're making.

 

 

 

I should add that this have nothing to do even with the off-topic discussion you're on about. The point made was that these weapons were around, and in numbers large enough to be considered a problem.

When found, they were no longer weapons. And a good indication of that is that they weren't used in Saddam's final struggle.  Just negligently decommissioned and allowed to slowly decay. Certainly not weapons of mass destruction any longer.

[Morch]

On 4/28/2017 at 8:12 AM, boomerangutang said:

                             Tho I'm an American,  I tend to believe French scientific findings - above US findings.  I don't think either is more advanced than the other scientifically, but American experts would tend to be more subjective re; the sarin attack.  Similar to Thailand, if there's a directive from the top banana, then often underlings are obliged to come up with findings which support it.  

 

                          It's like when Trump claimed Obama tapped his phones, .....Trump then directed security agencies and congress to find proof (every time the Feds do anything, it always costs a lot).  If it had been anyone else, besides the president, who made that order, they would have been ignored or laughed at.  But because he's the prez, his orders have to be followed, no matter how ridiculous they sound to reasonable people.

 

                 As for the Sarin attack; were any experts able to garner samples at Syrian airfields/warehouses, or from aircraft which purportedly spearheaded the attack?   When doing a crime investigation, it's good policy to get clues from as many related places/people as possible - to connect the dots.   Months ago, the Russkies were supposed to have been in charge of destroying Syria's stockpile.  Who is surprised if the Russians were not successful in that endeavor?  Granted, not an easy assignment.

 

 

No specific reason is given as to why "...American experts would tend to be more subjective". Well, no reason beyond "because Trump". Like all of the US intelligence community is somehow automatically supportive of Trump, or will role over to satisfy his whims. Most of the recent reports relating to Trump's relations with the intelligence community point to a very different relationship.

 

 

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

When found, they were no longer weapons. And a good indication of that is that they weren't used in Saddam's final struggle.  Just negligently decommissioned and allowed to slowly decay. Certainly not weapons of mass destruction any longer.

 

You may want to read the lengthy article you yourself linked earlier. The numbers involved are quite high (and extrapolating from these, actually worrisome). Same goes for the potency, which was higher than expected. If these were "hot" enough to effect teams dealing with their destruction, they could have potentially been used otherwise. The issue of Saddam using them or not isn't the point.

 

And again - Syria. Assad. French report. Nothing much to do with Iraq. Or the usual US bashing.

[Dumbastheycome]

The  pretext   for  war  on Iraq  was   false. It  was  a  manipulated litany  of  half  truths  about a  defunct  capacity  that were  the  residuals  of   munitions  that  the  US in  fact  assisted  and  encouraged production  and  use  of in the  previous   "war"   with  Iran.

How  much  credibility   can there  now  be in  speculative  and  probably   contrived  claims against a  regime that  in simple  terms  primarily "does  not   suit" the  objectives of the   USA !

That  a  sector  of   French   Intelligence  is now  brown nosing that  objective is  suspect.

How  stupidly  fascinating is  it that  the  world  will  still  commit  people to the   mass destruction of  war  on manipulated  speculation   while  even an individual who  commits and  confesses murder  still  has to go through  the process  of a  trial where undeniable  evidential proof and   not  speculation is  required!

 

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You may want to read the lengthy article you yourself linked earlier. The numbers involved are quite high (and extrapolating from these, actually worrisome). Same goes for the potency, which was higher than expected. If these were "hot" enough to effect teams dealing with their destruction, they could have potentially been used otherwise. The issue of Saddam using them or not isn't the point.

 

And again - Syria. Assad. French report. Nothing much to do with Iraq. Or the usual US bashing.

I believe we ended up here because you were under the impression that WMD suspicions before the 2nd iraq war were mainly about nuclear weapons:

"Can't recall Iraq officially disarming itself from chemical weapons. WMD is a general term, chemical weapons is more specific. I doubt anyone claims Iraq did not have the latter. The WMD "thing" was more related to nuclear weapons - which weren't there. Not a bad idea to keep things clear as possible."

[Morch]

@ilostmypassword

 

And I believe you  are being disingenuous. The very first post on this topic was the usual deflection - citing the WMD claims relating to Iraq as pretext for rejecting the current claims made. That's an often raised blanket argument raised, and it does not get any less inane with each repetition. We "ended up here" because you won't let anything stand in the way of a good ol' US bash. On or off-topic. That's pretty much what this is all about. As usual, nothing to do with the topic and can't even help getting your arguments mixed up.

 

 

 

 

[CharlieH]

Several "bickering" posts removed

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

8) You will not post disruptive or inflammatory messages, vulgarities, obscenities or profanities.

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.