Iraq has no chemical weapons!
JIGSAW1695
From: Desmond Coughlan pasdespa...@zeouane.org
Date: 2/12/2003 4:35 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <5arqh-...@zeouane.org>
<<SNIPPED>>
> Why is it that international law is so damned important to you when it
> comes to bashing Texans, but so trivial when it comes to Iraqi chemical
> weapons development?
Iraq has no chemical weapons.
Desmond Coughlan
===============================
I think this will be a statement to remember. Let us hold a roll call. Who
thinks that Dezi is correct and Iraq has no chemical weapons:
John Rennie?
Q!?
Hugh Neary?
Earl?
PV?
Rev Kool?
Jurgen?
drfoody?
Donna?
And those I unintentionally omitted, please add you opinion on Dezis comment.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Texas Approaches 300th Execution ...
> From: Desmond Coughlan pasdespa...@zeouane.org
> Date: 2/12/2003 4:35 PM Eastern Standard Time
> Message-id: <5arqh-...@zeouane.org>
>
> <<SNIPPED>>
>
> > Why is it that international law is so damned important to you when it
> > comes to bashing Texans, but so trivial when it comes to Iraqi chemical
> > weapons development?
>
> Iraq has no chemical weapons.
> I think this will be a statement to remember. Let us hold a roll call.
> Who
> thinks that Dezi is correct and Iraq has no chemical weapons:
I don't think he's right, for the record. Nor do I care whether Iraq
has them. I do not believe that Iraq poses any kind of serious threat
to its neighbours or, indeed, the USA.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"...Base 8 is just like base 10 really... ((o))
If you're missing two fingers." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
Hugh Neary
<jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote:
>In article <20030212170320...@mb-mh.aol.com>,
>jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
>
>> Subject: Re: Texas Approaches 300th Execution ...
>> From: Desmond Coughlan pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>> Date: 2/12/2003 4:35 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> Message-id: <5arqh-...@zeouane.org>
>>
>> <<SNIPPED>>
>>
>> > Why is it that international law is so damned important to you when it
>> > comes to bashing Texans, but so trivial when it comes to Iraqi chemical
>> > weapons development?
>>
>> Iraq has no chemical weapons.
>
>> I think this will be a statement to remember. Let us hold a roll call.
>> Who
>> thinks that Dezi is correct and Iraq has no chemical weapons:
>
>I don't think he's right, for the record. Nor do I care whether Iraq
>has them. I do not believe that Iraq poses any kind of serious threat
>to its neighbours or, indeed, the USA.
>
>Mr Q. Z. D.
The Guardian did an interesting article on the chemical weapons Iraq
was known to have had or could have developed. All would now be past
their "sell by" date apparently, with the possible exception of
Anthrax.
Any attempts to produce a delivery system for those items would have
been obvious and would not leave Britain and the US having to pilfer
outdated documentation on Iraq or continuously pepper their
accusations with "links" to Osama & friends to justify their
aggression.
HN
drdoody
"Hugh Neary" <spams...@junk.net> wrote in message
news:u4ll4v48vsskr5odj...@4ax.com...
> The Guardian did an interesting article on the chemical weapons Iraq
> was known to have had or could have developed. All would now be past
> their "sell by" date apparently, with the possible exception of
> Anthrax.
Most modern chemical weapons are stored as "binaries". This means that two
or more components of the chemical are kept separate in the warhead or
delivery device and not mixed until immediately before impact. This is not
only safer than keeping the chemicals in a fully "mixed" state, but also
allows them to be stored for much longer periods of time. Remember that the
US Army's stockpile at Dugway in Utah is at least as old as 25 or 30 years
and is still quite potent.
>
> Any attempts to produce a delivery system for those items would have
> been obvious and would not leave Britain and the US having to pilfer
> outdated documentation on Iraq or continuously pepper their
> accusations with "links" to Osama & friends to justify their
> aggression.
>
> HN
>
A simple 81 mm mortar shell can distibute enough VX or phosgene to make
quite a mess. For that matter, a lightbulb with anthrax spores inside it can
do a frightfully good job of contaminating a subway station or city bus.
Still, the US and UK are wrong in this one.
Doc: Subverting the entire human race, one sheep at a time.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Iraq has no chemical weapons!
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:07:24 +0000
>
>le 12 Feb 2003 22:03:20 GMT, dans l'article
><20030212170320...@mb-mh.aol.com>, JIGSAW1695
><jigsa...@aol.com> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> Iraq has no chemical weapons.
>
>> I think this will be a statement to remember. Let us hold a roll call. Who
>> thinks that Dezi is correct and Iraq has no chemical weapons:
>
>{ snip }
>
>> Rev Kool?
>
>LMAO !!!
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond @ zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _
>\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
> \ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
> | | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
> |_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!news.tel
e.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp2
12-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-m
>ail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Iraq has no chemical weapons!
>Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:07:24 +0000
>Lines: 24
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <s5tqh-...@zeouane.org>
>References: <5arqh-...@zeouane.org>
><20030212170320...@mb-mh.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1045088011 43689108 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-No-Archive: true
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Scooter-Boy's-Moped:
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/drewls_wifes_scooter.jpg
>X-Scooter-Boy: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/scooter-boy.jpg
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>User-Agent: tin/1.5.14-20020926 ("Soil") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.5-RELEASE (i386))
>
>
Poor Desi, yet another drunken lie! The Dr. Dolly Coughlan archive exists
because Desmond Coughlan lacks conviction in his words. He won't allow his
posts to be archived in Google. Please feel free to use it to your advantage.
Vlad Drac
>And those I unintentionally omitted, please add you opinion on Dezis comment.
>
I think the Americans do know what they gave to the iraqi's.
Rumsfeld personally gave Saddam chemical weapons
So yes, Iraq has chemical weapons delivered by Americans to use
against Iran
JIGSAW1695
Date: 2/13/2003 3:19 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <c5lm4vg0dsa4cglbv...@4ax.com>
===============================
Excellent point!
Apologies for leaving you out.
Jigsaw
Richard J
Climb back up in the belfry, Vlad. It's daytime. time for you to sleep!
Teflon
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in message
news:jonathan-E5BA35...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> In article <20030212170320...@mb-mh.aol.com>,
> jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
>
> > Subject: Re: Texas Approaches 300th Execution ...
> > From: Desmond Coughlan pasdespa...@zeouane.org
> > Date: 2/12/2003 4:35 PM Eastern Standard Time
> > Message-id: <5arqh-...@zeouane.org>
> >
> > <<SNIPPED>>
> >
> > > Why is it that international law is so damned important to you when it
> > > comes to bashing Texans, but so trivial when it comes to Iraqi chemical
> > > weapons development?
> >
> > Iraq has no chemical weapons.
>
> > I think this will be a statement to remember. Let us hold a roll call.
> > Who
> > thinks that Dezi is correct and Iraq has no chemical weapons:
>
> I don't think he's right, for the record. Nor do I care whether Iraq
> has them. I do not believe that Iraq poses any kind of serious threat
> to its neighbours or, indeed, the USA.
>
recognized that behavior in desi before, and you have seen it again
in his post here. It will NEVER go away... since that is one of the
various _weapons_ desi has in his _argument arsenal_ that he believes
can substitute for logical, and perceptive analysis, using truthful
presentations and arguments. But we all drop are heads and
sadly observe -- _desi will be desi_.
I agree with you. Iraq most certainly has them, but the cost to disarm
Saddam is a price too high to pay. One which will be paid in installments
lasting into the decades, IMHO. Now if he were actually to USE those
weapons in a proven attack, that could present another set of response
options.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20030212170320...@mb-mh.aol.com...
been _correct_ in any analysis of the world condition? The answer
to your question, and the general question... must obviously be
a resounding NO.
PV
A Planet Visitor
LOL...LOL...LOL..
You should stick to your standard miserable racist comments, hugh, such as
"I just thank the Good Lord that Europe was cleansed of it's undesirables,"
as you said in
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=v6galugnmfs4s4tkr77u8rdj6i8i7mj3t2%404ax.com
PV
>HN
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> I agree with you. Iraq most certainly has them, but the cost to disarm
> Saddam is a price too high to pay. One which will be paid in installments
> lasting into the decades, IMHO. Now if he were actually to USE those
> weapons in a proven attack, that could present another set of response
> options.
Correct in every regard. It is unlikely that Saddam would _dare_ use
his WMD on his neighbours. The USA would hesitate to respond in kind
but Israel would surely devastate most of Iraq.
In any case, the USA would be fully justified in undertaking quite
extreme military action under the circumstances that you propose.
Hugh Neary
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:17:59 +0000, Hugh Neary <spams...@junk.net>
>
>You should stick to your standard miserable racist comments, hugh, such as
>
>"I just thank the Good Lord that Europe was cleansed of it's undesirables,"
>
>as you said in
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=v6galugnmfs4s4tkr77u8rdj6i8i7mj3t2%404ax.com
>
>
>
>PV
>
>>HN
They were not racist remarks PV, at least not at the time!
Sadly some of the undesirables are returning to cause trouble and
conflict. I just hope the world has a chance to repair the trouble
they will produce.
HN
A Planet Visitor
>On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:34:38 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>wrote:
>
>On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:17:59 +0000, Hugh Neary <spams...@junk.net>
>>
>>You should stick to your standard miserable racist comments, hugh, such as
>>
>>"I just thank the Good Lord that Europe was cleansed of it's undesirables,"
>>
>>as you said in
>>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=v6galugnmfs4s4tkr77u8rdj6i8i7mj3t2%404ax.com
>>
>>
>>
>>PV
>>
>>>HN
>They were not racist remarks PV, at least not at the time!
>
I call 'em, the way I see 'em. When speaking of _cleansed_, and
_undesirables_, no matter what kind of a face you want to have
others believe it shows... the connection is too clear to be ignored.
At best, you should have better sense to connect those words
together. At worst, you did so purposely.
PV
Hugh Neary
wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:17:55 +0000, Hugh Neary <spams...@junk.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:34:38 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>>wrote:
>>
>>On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:17:59 +0000, Hugh Neary <spams...@junk.net>
>>>
>>>You should stick to your standard miserable racist comments, hugh, such as
>>>
>>>"I just thank the Good Lord that Europe was cleansed of it's undesirables,"
>>>
>>>as you said in
>>>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=v6galugnmfs4s4tkr77u8rdj6i8i7mj3t2%404ax.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>PV
>>>
>>>>HN
>>They were not racist remarks PV, at least not at the time!
>>
>I call 'em, the way I see 'em. When speaking of _cleansed_, and
>_undesirables_, no matter what kind of a face you want to have
>others believe it shows... the connection is too clear to be ignored.
>At best, you should have better sense to connect those words
>together. At worst, you did so purposely.
>
Well what's wrong with cleansing an area of undesirables?
HN
A Planet Visitor
>On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 07:28:25 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:17:55 +0000, Hugh Neary <spams...@junk.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:34:38 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:17:59 +0000, Hugh Neary <spams...@junk.net>
>>>>
>>>>You should stick to your standard miserable racist comments, hugh, such as
>>>>
>>>>"I just thank the Good Lord that Europe was cleansed of it's undesirables,"
>>>>
>>>>as you said in
>>>>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=v6galugnmfs4s4tkr77u8rdj6i8i7mj3t2%404ax.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>PV
>>>>
>>>>>HN
>>>They were not racist remarks PV, at least not at the time!
>>>
>>I call 'em, the way I see 'em. When speaking of _cleansed_, and
>>_undesirables_, no matter what kind of a face you want to have
>>others believe it shows... the connection is too clear to be ignored.
>>At best, you should have better sense to connect those words
>>together. At worst, you did so purposely.
>>
>Well what's wrong with cleansing an area of undesirables?
>
Because there is a terrible connection to those two words when
used in the same sentence... and only an imbecile would not
recognize that, regardless of how you argue it was not what you
meant. Oops... okay... I can understand how YOU might be confused.
PV