Gamecat so let me get this straight...you aren't necessarily supporting what Saddam did to the Kurds, but you're saying since so many people opposed him, he was watching out for his own welfare and wellbeing by using the chemical weapons on the Kurds

If you think that, why wouldn't you think he would have WMDs right before the current war to protect himself from others? The same dictator who was so paranoid of his own population attacking and overthrowing him that he used chemical weapons on them...that same dictator wouldnt have WMDs to this day? Did he magically believe all his people would never attempt to harm him?

You can't really make the argument from both sides Gamecat...its going to get you in trouble on this one

8/31/2006 12:46:28 PM

because it's always about winning or losing an argument, not having an argument that's based on the situation that existed in 2003 (and the fact that it was different than the situation that existed in the 80s).

8/31/2006 1:05:04 PM

Quote :

"Motherfucker sounds immortal..."

and how were they supposed to bring him down? with rocks and sticks?

8/31/2006 1:20:36 PM

^^so how was Saddam less paranoid in 2003 than in the 80s?

8/31/2006 1:30:04 PM

it's nothing to do with paranoia, it has to do with resources. in the 80s we were supplying him with weapons. after gulf war I, we weren't (nor was anyone else).

8/31/2006 1:31:19 PM

^ Russia was. At least that's the latest grumbling I've dug up lately.

---

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: If you think that, why wouldn't you think he would have WMDs right before the current war to protect himself from others?"

I've argued that he didn't have illegal WMDs, certainly not to the extent that he was any more imminent of a threat to us than the Taliban or the Shah. Ironically enough, no inspection team sent to Iraq before, during, or since has argued with that conclusion.

The Iraq Survey Group, one of the aforementioned teams, was sent to find WMDs in Iraq, and in their final report on September 2004, said "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."

Perhaps you'd like to argue with that.

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: The same dictator who was so paranoid of his own population attacking and overthrowing him that he used chemical weapons on them...that same dictator wouldnt have WMDs to this day? Did he magically believe all his people would never attempt to harm him?"

No. But he did have reasonable certainty that he'd get caught with them and unceremoniously deposed for it. Doubly so if he ever used them. After all, unlike in the 1980s, UN inspectors spent a hell of a lot of time in Iraq between the first Gulf War and the second--even though they spent 4 years out of the country.

But before you get excited about that, after they were allowed back in for three months, in February 2003 the inspection team stated that they were witnessing substantial progress in the destruction of what was around. The details of what Blix actually said can be found here: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: You can't really make the argument from both sides Gamecat...its going to get you in trouble on this one"

I'm not arguing both sides. I'm arguing facts and history. You're arguing blanket statements, logical fallacy, and positing historically inaccurate understandings of megalithic proportions.

---

Quote :

"Randy: and how were they supposed to bring him down? with rocks and sticks?"

Covertly involving the Kurds would've been a hell of a place to start.

Or were you expecting me to say peace lillies?

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 2:05 PM. Reason : ...]

8/31/2006 2:03:24 PM

if you dont think saddam had WMDs that he either buried or sent to Syria or Iran, you are really naive on your global views

8/31/2006 2:38:55 PM

You think so, huh?

Well. I suppose that's good enough for me.

8/31/2006 2:41:27 PM

i mean, osama must not be in afghanistan or pakistan since we havent found him and we've been looking

8/31/2006 2:42:31 PM

anyone who disagrees with treetwista is extremely naive. also, if you don't think our government should always be trusted to not abuse its power, you are naive.

8/31/2006 2:43:00 PM

Another weak attempt to reframe the debate into: DUR WErE THER DUBYA-M-Ds OR NOT? HYUCK!

The issue at stake was never that simple, regardless of the rhetoric you've taken as gospel.

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 2:45 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2006 2:43:27 PM

sarijoul fears a police state more than salisburyboy

gamecat bashes my analogy instead of realizing its quite possible Iraq DID have WMDs before the war

8/31/2006 2:44:25 PM

it's possible new zealand has weapons of mass destruction. let's go invade!

8/31/2006 2:46:00 PM

Yep. I have no idea that he used WMDs against the Kurds before 2003. Not a clue...

8/31/2006 2:46:27 PM

let me ask you a very very simple straightforward question Gamecat:

Is it possible that Iraq had WMD's shortly before the start of the current war? Simple question, only requires a simple yes or no answer

8/31/2006 3:03:39 PM

one simple question are the lives of 2600+ american soldiers and many more iraqi worth sacrificing for the possibility of WMD's?

8/31/2006 3:14:55 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: Is it possible that Iraq had WMD's shortly before the start of the current war?"

Sure.

And it's also possible that: (1) Bush knew Iraq didn't, (2) Bush and Co. wanted to get that awl, (3) a weak connection between Iraq & Al Qaeda was deliberately forged via rhetoric to incite the invasion, (4) the vast Jewish Zionist conspiracy led by aliens from Rigel 4 infiltrated the US media and convinced large numbers of people of the previous 3, leading them to oppose the war.

What's your point?

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 3:24 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2006 3:22:53 PM

my point, which you just made, was that it was indeed possible that Iraq had WMDs before the war

so why are you so adamant that they definitely didnt when you just admitted they might have

8/31/2006 3:38:20 PM

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mariani/2004/mariani052804.htm

Quote :

" After spending more than a year attacking the Bush administration daily for their supposed failure to produce the WMDs that everyone -- including the United Nations, as well as most leading Democrats -- believed Saddam had hidden, the Left has suddenly gone strangely silent on the subject. The "mainstream" media has been tiptoeing around the discovery of a 155-mm mortar shell containing Sarin gas in Iraq, the contents of which have been confirmed. The shell was used as part of an improvised explosive device (IED) on a road near the Baghdad International Airport, and exploded as it was being disarmed. The shell contained three liters of Sarin -- nearly a gallon. It was a type of shell designed to mix chemical components during flight, which was why the explosion didn't kill anyone (though two soldiers were treated for exposure). Three liters of Sarin is enough, if the components are mixed properly, to realistically kill hundreds, and potentially thousands. A concentration of 100 milligrams of Sarin per cubic meter of air is enough to constitute a lethal dose for half the people breathing it within one minute. This type of chemical warfare shell had never been declared by Iraq -- it was not even known that Iraq had ever made them. The 1999 UNSCOM report on Iraq reported that thirty binary/Sarin shells were known to exist, and stated that all had been accounted for. According to UNSCOM, "Iraq developed a crude type of binary munition, whereby the final mixing of the two precursors to the agent was done inside the munition just before delivery." Someone actually had to physically pour the components of the Sarin (or other type of G-series nerve agent) into the shells before they could be fired. At least, that's how the ones we knew about worked. So, a previously-unknown type of artillery shell is found in Iraq, containing an actual, verifiable chemical weapon. This is front page news, right? Should we expect apologies from formerly doubting Liberals? Newspapers filled with retractions from prominent Democrats? Conciliatory visits to President Bush from Jaques Chirac and Gerhardt Schroeder? Not so fast. Remember: it's an election year. Liberals, Democrats, terrorists and appeasers all want President Bush to lose the election so everyone can get back to business as usual. Terrorists want to get back to their implacable war against Western civilisation, and the others want to get back to trying to placate them. The media, as long as we let them get away with it, will only run stories that attack President Bush and undermine support for him. In fact, Liberals already have their spin on this Sarin find ready to go. The vast majority of them -- when you can get them to admit that the Sarin and the shell are real -- argue that it doesn't matter for one of four "reasons." A. The shell is old, from before the 1991 Gulf War, so it's not what we were looking for. Since the cease-fire that suspended the Gulf War depended on Saddam's handing over to the UN "[a]ll chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities", this shell is precisely what we were looking for, especially if it predates 1991. This shell and others like it is why the UN passed 17 resolutions demanding that Saddam disarm. No matter how old it was, it was still lethal. There is no statute of limitations on weapons of mass destruction. B. There is only one shell, not a stockpile, so it doesn't mean anything. This one shell contained enough WMD material to potentially kill as many people as died on 9/11, all by itself. Is it logical to assume that this is the only one in existence -- or just wishful thinking? The fact is that we still don't know how much Sarin Iraq actually produced. "At first, Iraq told UNSCOM that it had produced an estimated 250 tons of tabun and 812 tons of sarin. In 1995, Iraq changed its estimates and reported it had produced only 210 tons of tabun and 790 tons of sarin." (Yes, that's tons.) At the very least, it tells us that we haven't nearly finished looking for the WMDs that Saddam was supposed to surrender, and didn't. Besides... a shell containing mustard gas was also found. Well, maybe there were only two WMD shells in all of Iraq. C. Just because Saddam had WMDs after all, it doesn't mean Bush didn't lie about them. As ridiculous as it sounds, this appears to be the instinctive, defensive reaction of many Liberals to this news. They so badly need to believe that President Bush lied in order to legitimise their hatred of him that they're capable of this sort of twisted reasoning. The rationale seems to be that WMDs don't count if they aren't exactly where the CIA told us they were, as if they couldn't be moved. D. The terrorists didn't even know it was a chemical shell. Well, they do now. And they know where they found it, too. We need to redouble our efforts to stop the terrorists and find Saddam's WMDs, before they're used to derail the new Iraqi government's formation. The media's refusal to give this news the coverage it deserves can only be due to a calculated attempt to reduce American support for our efforts in Iraq, including that of tracking down Saddam's banned weapons. The Left's deliberate silence on this subject for the purpose of influencing our election only helps our enemies. Joe Mariani Joe Mariani is a computer consultant born and raised in New Jersey. He lives in Pennsylvania, where the gun laws are less restrictive and taxes are lower. Joe always thought of himself as politically neutral until he saw how far left the left had really gone after 9/11. His essays and links to articles are available at http://guardian.blogdrive.com/. "

OMG, MENS NEWS DAILY CRACKED THE MYSTERY! isn't this the stuff we sold them?

BTW, this is the first thing that shows up when you Google "Iraq WMDs"



[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 3:52 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2006 3:49:46 PM

^are you saying that is false? it is 100% true, as is this confession from the #2 man in Saddam's own Air Force!

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

8/31/2006 3:53:22 PM

^^how can you possibly read that and still think iraq definitely did not have WMDs before the war?

talk about denial

8/31/2006 3:57:29 PM

yes, noone has denied they had gas and such

and we have the receipt

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 3:59 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2006 3:58:25 PM

why dont you think that story was in the mainstream news? i thought the media wasnt liberally biased with an agenda to do whatever it takes to bash the president?

8/31/2006 4:00:13 PM

Quote :

"Iraq sarin shell is not part of a secret cache By Scott Ritter DELMAR, N.Y. – In the mid-1980s I served as the intelligence officer for a Marine artillery battalion. Stationed in Twentynine Palms, Calif., I would often find myself deployed in the field, on exercises where thousands of live artillery rounds were fired downrange. In keeping with the Marine artillery motto of "shoot, move, communicate," we were always moving from one firing location to another to simulate modern war. This mobility had us often passing through live-fire impact areas. One thing you quickly learned was not to touch anything lying on the ground, because modern artillery shells had a high "dud" rate, meaning they didn't always function the way they were intended. Tens of thousands of these "duds" were scattered across the desert terrain, not unlike those found in Iraq. What makes this relevant now is the ongoing speculation about the source of the sarin chemical artillery shell that the US military found rigged as an improvised explosive device (IED) last week in Baghdad. If the 155-mm shell was a "dud" fired long ago - which is highly likely - then it would not be evidence of the secret stockpile of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that the Bush administration used as justification to invade Iraq.As a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, I know that the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), the US-led unit now responsible for investigating WMD in Iraq, could quite easily determine whether this shell had been fired long ago or not. Given the trouble the administration has had in documenting its past allegations about WMD, releasing the news of last week's sarin shell without the key information about the state of the shell itself seems disingenuous. As a former UN inspector, I'm also familiar with the level of disarmament achieved concerning Iraq's banned WMD. And during my time in Iraq, 95 percent of the WMD produced by Iraq were verifiably accounted for. But I've always contended that Iraq is a WMD archaeological site, and that if one digs long enough, vestiges of these past WMD programs will be uncovered. Determining whether the discovery of the sarin artillery shell represents such an archaeological discovery, or is part of Saddam Hussein's alleged stockpile of WMD, rests with a full forensic exam of the shell. The key to whether the sarin artillery round came from an arms cache or was a derelict dud rests in the physical characteristics of the shell. The artillery shells in question were fitted with two aluminum cannisters separated by a rupture disk. The two precursor chemicals for the kind of sarin associated with this shell were stored separately in these containers. The thrust of the shell being fired was designed to cause the liquid in the forward cannister to press back and break the rupture disk, whereupon the rotation of the shell as it headed downrange would mix the two precursors together, creating sarin. Upon impact with the ground - or in the air, if a timed fuse was used - a burster charge would break the shell, releasing the sarin gas. Many things go wrong when firing an artillery round: the propellent charge can be faulty, resulting in a round that doesn't reach its target; the fuse can malfunction, preventing the burster charge from going off, leaving the round intact; the rupture disk can fail to burst, keeping precursor chemicals from combining. The fuse could break off on impact, leaving the fuse cavity empty. To the untrained eye, the artillery shell, if found in this state, would look weathered, but unfired. What gives away whether the shell had been fired is the base-bleed charge, which unlike the rest of the shell, will show evidence of being fired (or not). Iraq declared that it had produced 170 of these base-bleed sarin artillery shells as part of a research and development program that never led to production. Ten of these shells were tested using inert fill - oil and colored water. Ten others were tested in simulated firing using the sarin precursors. And 150 of these shells, filled with sarin precursors, were live-fired at an artillery range south of Baghdad. A 10 percent dud rate among artillery shells isn't unheard of - and even greater percentages can occur. So there's a good possibility that at least 15 of these sarin artillery shells failed and lie forgotten in the Iraq desert, waiting to be picked up by any unsuspecting insurgent looking for raw material from which to construct an IED. Given what's known about sarin shells, the US could be expected to offer a careful recital of the data with news of the shell. But facts that should have accompanied the story - the type of shell, its condition, whether it had been fired previously, and the age and viability of the sarin and precursor chemicals - were absent. And that's opened the door to irresponsible speculation that the shell was part of a live WMD stockpile. The data - available to the ISG - would put this development in proper perspective - allowing responsible discussion of the event and its possible ramifications. Given that the US is in the midst of a contentious presidential campaign, it's essential that accurate data about Iraq be available to the electorate. The handling of the sarin shell incident is the greatest justification yet for shutting down the ISG, and the immediate return to Iraq of UN weapons inspectors - if for no other reason than to restore a vestige of credibility to a disarmament effort that long ago lost its moral compass. • Scott Ritter was a UN weapons inspector in Iraq (1991-1998) and is author of 'Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America.' "

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0521/p09s01-coop.html

8/31/2006 4:00:20 PM

Quote :

"Since the cease-fire that suspended the Gulf War depended on Saddam's handing over to the UN "[a]ll chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities", this shell is precisely what we were looking for, especially if it predates 1991. This shell and others like it is why the UN passed 17 resolutions demanding that Saddam disarm. No matter how old it was, it was still lethal. There is no statute of limitations on weapons of mass destruction. "

8/31/2006 4:01:15 PM

Quote :

"why dont you think that story was in the mainstream news? i thought the media wasnt liberally biased with an agenda to do whatever it takes to bash the president?"

um, well, based on what you believe abou the media, you should know exactly why it wasnt in the media, what with liberal bias and all.

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 4:02 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2006 4:01:46 PM

let me ask you this...do you believe that story?

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 4:03 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2006 4:02:53 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: so why are you so adamant that they definitely didnt when you just admitted they might have"

Point out to me where I've said they definitely didn't and I'll answer your question. As it is, I think you're just putting words in my mouth again.

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 4:03 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2006 4:03:16 PM

why dont you bend over backwards to shoot down the article PinkAndBlack just posted

8/31/2006 4:03:37 PM

^^^are you fucking stupid? did i not just say:

Quote :

"yes, noone has denied they had gas and such and we have the receipt"

8/31/2006 4:04:28 PM

^^ No need. sarijouls already done it.

Quote :

"Given what's known about sarin shells, the US could be expected to offer a careful recital of the data with news of the shell. But facts that should have accompanied the story - the type of shell, its condition, whether it had been fired previously, and the age and viability of the sarin and precursor chemicals - were absent. And that's opened the door to irresponsible speculation that the shell was part of a live WMD stockpile. The data - available to the ISG - would put this development in proper perspective - allowing responsible discussion of the event and its possible ramifications."

The ISG is the group I cited before, whose final report's conclusions totally contradict your argument's central--and 100% speculative--thesis.

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 4:06 PM. Reason : ...]

8/31/2006 4:05:40 PM

Quote :

"Scott Ritter was a UN weapons inspector in Iraq (1991-1998) and is author of 'Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America"

nice spin there from the anti-bush UN agenda

noone has refuted that the weapons were sent to Syria, AS SADDAMS AIDS EVEN ADMITTED!

8/31/2006 4:06:19 PM

Quote :

"Point out to me where I've said they definitely didn't and I'll answer your question"

Quote :

"Gamecat: I've argued that he didn't have illegal WMDs"

now you can argue the semantics of that comment to try and weasel out of this one

Quote :

"PinkandBlack: noone has denied they had gas and such"

yes they have...have you not been reading the thread???

btw its funny that none of you have mentioned Saddam's testimony about having WMDs in his ongoing trial...hell its funny that the trial itself has gotten no attention on TWW and minimal media attention

8/31/2006 4:06:51 PM

haha, good one. im guessing "WMDs" only means "big missles" (which existed) and such now, right?

flip-floppers.

8/31/2006 4:08:18 PM

It's not weaseling.

It's called reading.

First, let's examine not a fragment, but the whole sentence:

Quote :

"Gamecat: I've argued that he didn't have illegal WMDs, certainly not to the extent that he was any more imminent of a threat to us than the Taliban or the Shah."

Now let's see you weasel out of explaining how that in any way implies Saddam didn't have any WMDs shortly before the war.

But since sentence fragments are fair game...

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: You can't really make the argument"

OH YAH I CAN HAHA

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: btw its funny that none of you have mentioned Saddam's testimony about having WMDs in his ongoing trial...hell its funny that the trial itself has gotten no attention on TWW and minimal media attention"

I agree. I'm constantly amused at how rarely you contribute to TSB and then bitch that it lacks original content.

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 4:13 PM. Reason : ...]

8/31/2006 4:09:34 PM

Quote :

"I've argued that he didn't have illegal WMDs, certainly not to the extent that he was any more imminent of a threat to us than the Taliban or the Shah"

so...did the UN give some separate resolutions that allowed legal WMDs?

what legal WMDs was Iraq allowed to have?

Or maybe he was allowed to have illegal WMDs, AS LONG AS he wasnt as much of a threat as the Taliban or the Shah?

but i appreciate you trying to argue the semantics of your statement, as I predicted

8/31/2006 4:13:12 PM

Yes, as a matter of fact. The resolutions you're arguing he violated--about which you obviously know absolutely nothing--specified the difference between "big bombs" and "illegal WMDs."

And as a matter of law, if you knew shit about it, the semantics come heavily into play here.

Or didn't we invade over a violation of international law?

Quote :

"what legal WMDs was Iraq allowed to have?"

Anything that didn't go further than 150km for instance.

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 4:20 PM. Reason : ...]

8/31/2006 4:15:09 PM

Quote :

"Since the cease-fire that suspended the Gulf War depended on Saddam's handing over to the UN "[a]ll chemical and biological weapons... "

so Sarin gas isnt a chemical? a bomb with Sarin gas is just a "big bomb"? You obviously know everything, so you're telling me a bomb with a gallon of Sarin gas was a "legal big bomb" and not an illegal WMD?

come on pauly shore

8/31/2006 4:17:54 PM

I'm not going to read sarijoul's article to you. Your argument with that question is more directed at the Iraq Survey Group--a 1400 member team the Pentagon and CIA put together to hunt for suspected stockpiles of WMD--than at Pauly Shore. After all, it was their report which my words corroborate, that said "Iraq had no deployable WMD of any kind as of March 2003 and had no production since 1991," bud-dy.

Quote :

"Gamecat: The ISG is the group I cited before, whose final report's conclusions totally contradict your argument's central--and 100% speculative--thesis."

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 4:26 PM. Reason : ...]

8/31/2006 4:24:01 PM

you made the claim of the distinction of "big bombs" and "illegal WMDs"

please tell me how a warhead with a gallon of sarin shouldnt have been disposed of before the 1991 Desert Storm cease fire

i obviously know nothing as you pointed out, so please explain to the retard how 3 gallons of sarin in a warhead is not a WMD?

8/31/2006 4:26:08 PM

Yep. I said you know nothing. Therefore, I must continue debating with you...

8/31/2006 4:26:57 PM

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/8/21/95442.shtml

Thousands of Kurds agree: dont take out our friend Saddam!

8/31/2006 4:28:12 PM

Thousands of Kurds agree: LET US FIGHT OUR CIVIL WAR

8/31/2006 4:29:45 PM

Quote :

""Entire villages were razed to the ground, as if killing the people wasn't enough," he said, showing the court photos of the bodies of dead mothers and children. "Wives waited for their husbands, families waited for their children to return _ but to no avail.""

8/31/2006 4:30:31 PM

^^^^why arent you answering the questions? maybe you are finally realizing the flaws in your own egotistical "arguments" of rehashed rhetoric? throwing out various political cliches at me to dissuade me from further investigating the disinformation in this thread is supposed to make me concede and admit that iraq didnt break any UN sanctions? i know you think i'm an idiot pothead who's smoked myself retarded so it must really eat at you when I make you question your own incorrect viewpoints, causing you to cease any attempts to defend your point, since i've pointed out the basic flaws...hey at least you are changing for the better

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 4:31 PM. Reason : ^^^^]

8/31/2006 4:31:46 PM

Quote :

"i obviously know nothing as you pointed out, so please explain to the retard how 3 gallons of sarin in a warhead is not a WMD?"

where are you getting three gallons from?

8/31/2006 4:35:39 PM

^oh shit, my bad, honest mistake...3 liters...approximately 1 gallon...still lethal enough to kill thousands

Quote :

"The shell contained three liters of Sarin -- nearly a gallon. "

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mariani/2004/mariani052804.htm

8/31/2006 4:41:24 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: why arent you answering the questions?"

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: i obviously know nothing as you pointed out,"

Quote :

"Gamecat: Yep. I said you know nothing. Therefore, I must continue debating with you..."

My turn for prediction: My lack of response = your victory.

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 4:46 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2006 4:45:02 PM

Quote :

"oh approximately 1 gallon...still lethal enough to kill thousands"

not really. especially if it's old. the shelf life of sarin is only between a few weeks and a few months (it is especially short if it not kept in precise optimal conditions)

8/31/2006 4:46:55 PM

^^well, a lack of response certainly doesnt strengthen your side of the argument

but in actuality

your lack of response = you doubting what you said before and feeling hesitant to continue this without modifying your own opinions

^

Quote :

"Three liters of Sarin is enough, if the components are mixed properly, to realistically kill hundreds, and potentially thousands"

same article

8/31/2006 4:47:25 PM