|
Post by RFisher on Jul 25, 2011 18:51:59 GMT -6
And in their report every weapon they tested as of 1994, including Binary Sarin Shells did not have more than a 20-30 per cent viability rate except for ONE Tabun shell. It seems you are reading from point 8 of the report. But it does not mention binary weapons there at all. Indeed, it speaks specifically about the degradation of nerve agents, not the degradation of their precursors in a binary weapon. Well, it seems you really didn't read my earlier posts 153 and 154 at all, you just tried to attack me. Glad we have that cleared up. I did include paragraph 12 from the report: “12. According to the report of the Iraq Survey Group, in addition to the munitions identified by UNMOVIC, during the period from March 2003 to September 2004, a further 53 chemical munitions (11 155-mm, 41 122-mm and one 152-mm binary) had been found by the Group. They were identified as part of the Iraqi pre-1991 stock, and analysis of the liquid residue in the munitions indicated the presence of degraded chemical agents (mustard, sarin/cyclosarin and binary sarin), their degradation products and impurities. The key parts of a National Ground Intelligence Center report, declassified by the Director of National Intelligence for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, mentioned the recovery of approximately 500 chemical munitions in Iraq since 2003, which contained degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. However, the declassified parts gave no details regarding the purity of the agents.”
Had you READ information I supplied and linked in post 135, you would have realized they were talking about the CHEMICAL AGENTS that included Binary Sarin. But you were far too busy composing a personal attack, that now is rather apparent.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 25, 2011 19:00:25 GMT -6
That's garbage.. We have already been over what HAS to be done for Binary Shells to be long lasting and those things were not done in Iraq. Binary weapons are designed to be long lasting. They have the two stable precursors of sarin, not the sarin itself, in the shell. All that they require, in order to be long lasting, is storage. You have a pet theory that they need to periodically refilled. You have provided no evidence of that. What you HAVE provided is: (a) An argument that because one of the precursors is corrosive, the old shell that contains it would periodically have to have the precursor replaced. But that is nonsense. If the precursor were that corrosive, it would be the shell that had to be replaced not the precursor. Putting fresh corrosive in a corroded shell is no way to maintain the longevity of the device. (b) Evidence that other NON-BINARY weapons could not have retained their viability from pre-1991. But that is irrelevant to whether BINARY weapons could. No it doesn't. You have provided no quote that says that Iraqi BINARY weapons, which were designed and created after 91 FOR THE PURPOSES OF BEING LONG LASTING SO THAT THEY COULD BE STORED FOR FUTURE WARS, would not retain their viability over the long haul. In fact, the UNMOVIC report denies that it has the evidence to talk authoritatively about Iraq's BINARY weapons program 87-91. Gosh, it is hard to believe what a close minded zealot you are. UNMOVIC reported and proved no sarin agents from prior to 1994, whether in a binary shell or not, were even long lasting at full viability through 1994. As shown in paragraphs 8. and 12. But you would have actually had to have read the material you attacked me on, to realize that.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 25, 2011 19:19:49 GMT -6
2. The UNMOVIC report you cited said that they were pre-1991. I took the time to get the 2006 report with the most updated information. That report says the weapons APPEAR to have been from prior to 1991, Wrong. The 2006 UNMOVIC report does not contain the word 'appear'. Not even once. You are ABSOLUTELY right on this point. Congratulations. I was mistaken on this point. What I should have written was from paragraph 12. " According to the report of the Iraq Survey Group," UNMOVIC was reporting what ISG had reported and that included the last sentence, " However, the declassified parts gave no details regarding the purity of the agents."Since ISG did not give details on the purity of the agents, then UNMOVIC could not compare the 40 percent viability rate of the binary sarin shell from 2004 CIA mentioned, WITH THE 20-30 PERCENT VIABILITY RATE THEY HAD FOUND IN BINARY SARIN SHELLS IN 1994. But this is not a good revelation for you. When UNMOVIC wrote about other things they had actually done and reported on, there was no ambiguity that you keep trying to suggest just to make your point. As such, UNMOVIC certified that all chemical agents, including Binary Sarin Agents ( because they specifically mentioned that in the report), had degraded by 1994 well below the level of the shell the CIA foiund in 2004. When ALL THE REST of the chemical agents, including binary Sarin agents had degraded so much by 1994, there is no way the binary agents in the 2004 shell could have remained that high.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 25, 2011 19:26:06 GMT -6
4. Bush himself admits that he was wrong about the ongoing chemical weapons program that Iraq supposedly had in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Bush can say anything he wishes. I don't know why he said that when the evidence PROVES otherwise. Probably it was not worth the effort anymore as the threat of Saddam Hussein to the Middle East was gone. Interesting. You see Bush as a man who defaults to lying when it isn't worth the effort to tell the truth. At last we agree on something. You are obviously confused and refering to Obama. It is hilarious how often he lies and his supporters just keep lapping it up.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 25, 2011 21:54:49 GMT -6
...from prior to 1991. Indeed, since the CIA figured that the weapon in question 'appeared' to be from pre-1991, from its physical appearance and analysis of its residual components, their worry here is that some weapons from pre-1991, thanks to being binary and therefore long lasting, could still be around, and still be viable. This quote proves my point, not yours. Like all the quotes, come to think of it. Silly and deceptive. I have not been arguing how old the shell casing is, just the Binary Sarin Agents in it. But you surely have realized that by now, so you are just using more spin. I'm not arguing about the shell casing either. I'm arguing about the whole thing. Obviously the CIA are worried that there might be long lasting binary weapons kicking around that are still viable. Obviously they aren't worried about long lasting shells that might be refilled since the insurgents don't have chemical weapons production capability. I'm enjoying this. It's so rare that I get to win every exchange in an argument, over and over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 25, 2011 21:59:21 GMT -6
Yeah but you can't 'shred' a f*cking FACTORY. No but the contents of a factory can be emptied or destroyed. We have never found out what all those large trucks were carrying out of Iraq into Syria shortly before the war. You know, that satellite imaging you spoke about? Now, unlike you, I won't make grandiose and deceptive statements about what was or could have been in those trucks. But it is most interesting that happened right before Saddam't time ran out. But the fact that Saddam felt the absolute need to send a convoy of trucks out of the country right before invasion is something that hopefully, we will someday get a real answer on. Lol I love this one. "On the Eve of war Saddam dispatched all his bestest weapons to another country. Then, too late, he realized that keeping your bestest weapons is a good thing to do in time of war." btw I think I spotted some chemical weapons Fisher ---> Look!
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 25, 2011 22:01:49 GMT -6
It seems you are reading from point 8 of the report. But it does not mention binary weapons there at all. Indeed, it speaks specifically about the degradation of nerve agents, not the degradation of their precursors in a binary weapon. Well, it seems you really didn't read my earlier posts 153 and 154 at all, you just tried to attack me. Glad we have that cleared up. I did include paragraph 12 from the report: “12. According to the report of the Iraq Survey Group, in addition to the munitions identified by UNMOVIC, during the period from March 2003 to September 2004, a further 53 chemical munitions (11 155-mm, 41 122-mm and one 152-mm binary) had been found by the Group. They were identified as part of the Iraqi pre-1991 stock, and analysis of the liquid residue in the munitions indicated the presence of degraded chemical agents (mustard, sarin/cyclosarin and binary sarin), their degradation products and impurities. The key parts of a National Ground Intelligence Center report, declassified by the Director of National Intelligence for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, mentioned the recovery of approximately 500 chemical munitions in Iraq since 2003, which contained degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. However, the declassified parts gave no details regarding the purity of the agents.”
Had you READ information I supplied and linked in post 135, you would have realized they were talking about the CHEMICAL AGENTS that included Binary Sarin. But you were far too busy composing a personal attack, that now is rather apparent.What was the extent of the degradation? Does it say that the binary weapons were no longer viable?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 25, 2011 22:13:14 GMT -6
Binary weapons are designed to be long lasting. They have the two stable precursors of sarin, not the sarin itself, in the shell. All that they require, in order to be long lasting, is storage. You have a pet theory that they need to periodically refilled. You have provided no evidence of that. What you HAVE provided is: (a) An argument that because one of the precursors is corrosive, the old shell that contains it would periodically have to have the precursor replaced. But that is nonsense. If the precursor were that corrosive, it would be the shell that had to be replaced not the precursor. Putting fresh corrosive in a corroded shell is no way to maintain the longevity of the device. (b) Evidence that other NON-BINARY weapons could not have retained their viability from pre-1991. But that is irrelevant to whether BINARY weapons could. No it doesn't. You have provided no quote that says that Iraqi BINARY weapons, which were designed and created after 91 FOR THE PURPOSES OF BEING LONG LASTING SO THAT THEY COULD BE STORED FOR FUTURE WARS, would not retain their viability over the long haul. In fact, the UNMOVIC report denies that it has the evidence to talk authoritatively about Iraq's BINARY weapons program 87-91. Gosh, it is hard to believe what a close minded zealot you are. UNMOVIC reported and proved no sarin agents from prior to 1994, whether in a binary shell or not, were even long lasting at full viability through 1994. As shown in paragraphs 8. and 12. But you would have actually had to have read the material you attacked me on, to realize that. Very slippery, Fish. You have changed from saying the weapons were not viable AT ALL to saying that they were not 'FULLY' viable. Heh. Yeah well maybe they weren't FULLY-BULLY-BIFFO as good-as-brand-new a few years after production, but that doesn't mean they weren't viable enough to kill ya. Here's 8: 8. The screening of samples of chemical agents taken by the Special Commission from various types of munitions and storage containers during the period 1991-1994 showed that the nerve agents had degraded to various levels and that the agent content was generally below 10 per cent and sometimes below 1 per cent. In a few cases, the purity of nerve agents remained around 20 to 30 per cent, and in one case inspectors identified tabun with a purity of 44 per cent. This talks about that the degradation of nerve agents (nor precursors) that were SAMPLED (not produced) from 1991-1994. They could, for all it says here, be talking about weapons from the Iran/Iraq war. It simply doesn't say. Here's 12: 12. According to the report of the Iraq Survey Group, in addition to the munitions identified by UNMOVIC, during the period from March 2003 to September 2004, a further 53 chemical munitions (11 155-mm, 41 122-mm and one 152-mm binary) had been found by the Group. They were identified as part of the Iraqi pre-1991 stock, and analysis of the liquid residue in the munitions indicated the presence of degraded chemical agents (mustard, sarin/cyclosarin and binary sarin), their degradation products and impurities. The key parts of a National Ground Intelligence Center report, declassified by the Director of National Intelligence for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, mentioned the recovery of approximately 500 chemical munitions in Iraq since 2003, which contained degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. However, the declassified parts gave no details regarding the purity of the agents. This does talk about the degradation of several nerve agents , and includes "binary sarin" in the list. It's a bit strange because there is no such thing as "binary sarin". Moreover, it doesn't say whether the degradation was so extensive as to make the weapons non-viable. But in any case it doesn't really matter, since the paragraph is not original UNMOVIC research. It is a summary of what the ISG found. And we already know that according to the ISG's conclusion, "Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter..." Everywhere you go Fish, the facts are against you.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 25, 2011 23:30:24 GMT -6
Silly and deceptive. I have not been arguing how old the shell casing is, just the Binary Sarin Agents in it. But you surely have realized that by now, so you are just using more spin. I'm not arguing about the shell casing either. I'm arguing about the whole thing. Obviously the CIA are worried that there might be long lasting binary weapons kicking around that are still viable. Obviously they aren't worried about long lasting shells that might be refilled since the insurgents don't have chemical weapons production capability. I'm enjoying this. It's so rare that I get to win every exchange in an argument, over and over and over again. Emperor HonkeyB has no clothes. You are making the GROSS assumption the only way long lasting VIABLE Binary Sarin and other Chemical shells would be around is because they are all good from the Pre 1991 era and UNMOVIC put paid to that. So sorry for you. However, that is not what the CIA stated and indeed they did not state the reason for that in detail. The other reason is that Saddam had a more active chemical program than was documented and found. Indeed, when a Binary Sarin Shell shows up THAT HAS Sarin Agents in a potency that UNMOVIC details has shown could not be from pre 1991 stocks OR BY 1994 was written in the report, then the only possible conclusion is that the DF canister was replaced AFTER 1994.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 25, 2011 23:31:20 GMT -6
Well, it seems you really didn't read my earlier posts 153 and 154 at all, you just tried to attack me. Glad we have that cleared up. I did include paragraph 12 from the report: “12. According to the report of the Iraq Survey Group, in addition to the munitions identified by UNMOVIC, during the period from March 2003 to September 2004, a further 53 chemical munitions (11 155-mm, 41 122-mm and one 152-mm binary) had been found by the Group. They were identified as part of the Iraqi pre-1991 stock, and analysis of the liquid residue in the munitions indicated the presence of degraded chemical agents (mustard, sarin/cyclosarin and binary sarin), their degradation products and impurities. The key parts of a National Ground Intelligence Center report, declassified by the Director of National Intelligence for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, mentioned the recovery of approximately 500 chemical munitions in Iraq since 2003, which contained degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. However, the declassified parts gave no details regarding the purity of the agents.”
Had you READ information I supplied and linked in post 135, you would have realized they were talking about the CHEMICAL AGENTS that included Binary Sarin. But you were far too busy composing a personal attack, that now is rather apparent.What was the extent of the degradation? Does it say that the binary weapons were no longer viable? I am really tired of posting the same information two or three times before you READ it, thoroughly. Stop being lazy and read the UNMOVIC document.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 25, 2011 23:42:25 GMT -6
No but the contents of a factory can be emptied or destroyed. We have never found out what all those large trucks were carrying out of Iraq into Syria shortly before the war. You know, that satellite imaging you spoke about? Now, unlike you, I won't make grandiose and deceptive statements about what was or could have been in those trucks. But it is most interesting that happened right before Saddam't time ran out. But the fact that Saddam felt the absolute need to send a convoy of trucks out of the country right before invasion is something that hopefully, we will someday get a real answer on. Lol I love this one. "On the Eve of war Saddam dispatched all his bestest weapons to another country. Then, too late, he realized that keeping your bestest weapons is a good thing to do in time of war." btw I think I spotted some chemical weapons Fisher ---> Look! Silly, nothing more than just plain silly. You are suggesting that the Binary Sarin and other chemical weapons were his "BEST" weapons? They knew not to use mustard gas against Coalition forces because of our MOPP gear and protected vehicles. They did not know how well that gear and on the spot injections would make other chemical WMD weapons less effective or hardly effective at all. His BEST weapons were probably his jet fighter aircraft. HE HAD THEM BURIED and did not send thom out to sortie. Everything Saddam did belied the fact he believed he would somehow hold on to power or come back to power after the invasion.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 25, 2011 23:52:36 GMT -6
Gosh, it is hard to believe what a close minded zealot you are. UNMOVIC reported and proved no sarin agents from prior to 1994, whether in a binary shell or not, were even long lasting at full viability through 1994. As shown in paragraphs 8. and 12. But you would have actually had to have read the material you attacked me on, to realize that. Very slippery, Fish. You have changed from saying the weapons were not viable AT ALL to saying that they were not 'FULLY' viable. Heh. Yeah well maybe they weren't FULLY-BULLY-BIFFO as good-as-brand-new a few years after production, but that doesn't mean they weren't viable enough to kill ya. Here's 8: 8. The screening of samples of chemical agents taken by the Special Commission from various types of munitions and storage containers during the period 1991-1994 showed that the nerve agents had degraded to various levels and that the agent content was generally below 10 per cent and sometimes below 1 per cent. In a few cases, the purity of nerve agents remained around 20 to 30 per cent, and in one case inspectors identified tabun with a purity of 44 per cent. This talks about that the degradation of nerve agents (nor precursors) that were SAMPLED (not produced) from 1991-1994. They could, for all it says here, be talking about weapons from the Iran/Iraq war. It simply doesn't say. Here's 12: 12. According to the report of the Iraq Survey Group, in addition to the munitions identified by UNMOVIC, during the period from March 2003 to September 2004, a further 53 chemical munitions (11 155-mm, 41 122-mm and one 152-mm binary) had been found by the Group. They were identified as part of the Iraqi pre-1991 stock, and analysis of the liquid residue in the munitions indicated the presence of degraded chemical agents (mustard, sarin/cyclosarin and binary sarin), their degradation products and impurities. The key parts of a National Ground Intelligence Center report, declassified by the Director of National Intelligence for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, mentioned the recovery of approximately 500 chemical munitions in Iraq since 2003, which contained degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. However, the declassified parts gave no details regarding the purity of the agents. This does talk about the degradation of several nerve agents , and includes "binary sarin" in the list. It's a bit strange because there is no such thing as "binary sarin". Moreover, it doesn't say whether the degradation was so extensive as to make the weapons non-viable. But in any case it doesn't really matter, since the paragraph is not original UNMOVIC research. It is a summary of what the ISG found. And we already know that according to the ISG's conclusion, "Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter..." Everywhere you go Fish, the facts are against you. LOL. Only in your zealot's world. But AT LAST you finally read some of the information provided. Don't give us "could haves" as the UNMOVIC report does not have the ambiguity you would hope is there. Of course there is CREDIBLE and REAL Evidence that something was going on behind UNMOVIC and other inspector groups backs, BECAUSE we found a Binary Sarin shell that could not have come from the Pre 1994 era, according to what UNMOVIC reported. That is CREDIBLE AND REAL evidence Saddam had some kind of DF Canister replacement/ refill program.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 26, 2011 0:51:52 GMT -6
Wrong. The 2006 UNMOVIC report does not contain the word 'appear'. Not even once. You are ABSOLUTELY right on this point. Congratulations. I was mistaken on this point. This is good. I salute you and congratulate you on the fine fellow you are for admitting a mistake. We all make them. I enlarged the part you made up. The UNMOVIC report mentions the word 'binary' in exactly three places: In paragraph 1, where it reports that Iraq had indeed tested such weapons, in paragraph 6, where it again reports that work on binary weapons occurred after the Iran/Iraq war with the aim of making longer lasting weapons, and in paragraph 12, where it summarizes the research of the ISG. Nowhere does it say that binary weapons were found to have degraded to 20-30% viability. Nowhere. The fact that they explicitly mention binary weapons somewhere in the report together with the fact that, somewhere ELSE in the report, they said the weapons they screened had degraded DOES NOT MEAN that they said the binary weapons had degraded. Talk about 2+2=5. Jeez.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 26, 2011 1:04:49 GMT -6
I'm not arguing about the shell casing either. I'm arguing about the whole thing. Obviously the CIA are worried that there might be long lasting binary weapons kicking around that are still viable. Obviously they aren't worried about long lasting shells that might be refilled since the insurgents don't have chemical weapons production capability. I'm enjoying this. It's so rare that I get to win every exchange in an argument, over and over and over again. Emperor HonkeyB has no clothes. You are making the GROSS assumption the only way long lasting VIABLE Binary Sarin and other Chemical shells would be around is because they are all good from the Pre 1991 era It's not an assumption. it's the conclusion reached by the CIA, the ISG, George W. Bush and UNMOVIC. Everyone, in fact, except you. UNMOVIC referred to all the chemical munitions it referred to as 'pre-1991'. If UNMOVIC had screened BINARY weapons and found that they had degraded fast, you would have something on which to base your cockamamie theory. But it does not say that. So you have literally nothing. ^^^^A classic RFisher moment. Saddam had a more active chemical program than anyone found. Only RFisher knows about it. Not by reading any documents, mind, since by his own admission it was not documented, but thanks, I guess, to his private midnight sorties into the heart of the Iraqi desert. If that had happened, then another possible conclusion is that there is a bell curve to the degradation, with the larger percentage of weapons degrading over a couple of years, with a few lasting several years, and with the very occasional batch lasting way longer. However, that's not even what happened. There is no reason to think that the fast degrading weapons UNMOVIC screened were binary. UNMOVIC does not say that they were. And it would be strange if the fast degrading 'nerve agents' UNMOVIC speaks of were binary, since (a) binaries do not contain nerve agents, only the precursors of them, and (b) the precursors are stable, giving binaries a long shelf life. Indeed, that's the whole point of binary weapons.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 26, 2011 1:36:34 GMT -6
What was the extent of the degradation? Does it say that the binary weapons were no longer viable? I am really tired of posting the same information two or three times before you READ it, thoroughly. Stop being lazy and read the UNMOVIC document. I did read it. The only place where it refers to possibly degraded binaries is in paragraph 12, where it reports on the findings of the ISG. It does not report the extent of the degradation there, or whether the weapons remained viable.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 26, 2011 1:40:04 GMT -6
Lol I love this one. "On the Eve of war Saddam dispatched all his bestest weapons to another country. Then, too late, he realized that keeping your bestest weapons is a good thing to do in time of war." btw I think I spotted some chemical weapons Fisher ---> Look! Silly, nothing more than just plain silly. You are suggesting that the Binary Sarin and other chemical weapons were his "BEST" weapons? They knew not to use mustard gas against Coalition forces because of our MOPP gear and protected vehicles. They did not know how well that gear and on the spot injections would make other chemical WMD weapons less effective or hardly effective at all. His BEST weapons were probably his jet fighter aircraft. HE HAD THEM BURIED and did not send thom out to sortie. Everything Saddam did belied the fact he believed he would somehow hold on to power or come back to power after the invasion. Do you think that the trucks also carried the chemical weapons manufacturing facilities off to another country too? How do you think that Saddam managed to fool the experts who went into Iraq looking for weapons into thinking that his program had been dormant since 1991? And how were you, RFisher, the only person to see through his ploy, albeit from the safe distance of your computer screen in Kansas?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 26, 2011 1:46:29 GMT -6
Very slippery, Fish. You have changed from saying the weapons were not viable AT ALL to saying that they were not 'FULLY' viable. Heh. Yeah well maybe they weren't FULLY-BULLY-BIFFO as good-as-brand-new a few years after production, but that doesn't mean they weren't viable enough to kill ya. Here's 8: 8. The screening of samples of chemical agents taken by the Special Commission from various types of munitions and storage containers during the period 1991-1994 showed that the nerve agents had degraded to various levels and that the agent content was generally below 10 per cent and sometimes below 1 per cent. In a few cases, the purity of nerve agents remained around 20 to 30 per cent, and in one case inspectors identified tabun with a purity of 44 per cent. This talks about that the degradation of nerve agents (nor precursors) that were SAMPLED (not produced) from 1991-1994. They could, for all it says here, be talking about weapons from the Iran/Iraq war. It simply doesn't say. Here's 12: 12. According to the report of the Iraq Survey Group, in addition to the munitions identified by UNMOVIC, during the period from March 2003 to September 2004, a further 53 chemical munitions (11 155-mm, 41 122-mm and one 152-mm binary) had been found by the Group. They were identified as part of the Iraqi pre-1991 stock, and analysis of the liquid residue in the munitions indicated the presence of degraded chemical agents (mustard, sarin/cyclosarin and binary sarin), their degradation products and impurities. The key parts of a National Ground Intelligence Center report, declassified by the Director of National Intelligence for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, mentioned the recovery of approximately 500 chemical munitions in Iraq since 2003, which contained degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. However, the declassified parts gave no details regarding the purity of the agents. This does talk about the degradation of several nerve agents , and includes "binary sarin" in the list. It's a bit strange because there is no such thing as "binary sarin". Moreover, it doesn't say whether the degradation was so extensive as to make the weapons non-viable. But in any case it doesn't really matter, since the paragraph is not original UNMOVIC research. It is a summary of what the ISG found. And we already know that according to the ISG's conclusion, "Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter..." Everywhere you go Fish, the facts are against you. LOL. Only in your zealot's world. But AT LAST you finally read some of the information provided. Don't give us "could haves" as the UNMOVIC report does not have the ambiguity you would hope is there. Of course there is CREDIBLE and REAL Evidence that something was going on behind UNMOVIC and other inspector groups backs, BECAUSE we found a Binary Sarin shell that could not have come from the Pre 1994 era, according to what UNMOVIC reported. You're quite wrong. UNMOVIC did not say that the BINARY weapons degraded quickly, so there is no argument that the weapon could not have come from pre-94. There is however evidence that the weapon was from pre-1991. Not only the appearance and residual components, but also documentary evidence. This is from the ISG report: Obviously it doesn't say anything about refilling, and indeed if the weapon was being leak tested as the report indicates then refilling it would foil that purpose. So much, for the thousandth time, for the cockamamie refill theory you made up.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 26, 2011 9:27:42 GMT -6
HonkeyB
LOL. I lost track of how many false straw man arguments you posed in these last few posts, but the one about my supposed mdnight forays in the Iraqi desert was a classic of the type spin and deflection you are so good at. At least it is good you are beginning to read and try to understand the material presented.
I have to give you credit for quantity and zeal you have shown, but not the quality. You have to keep ignoring things until the second or third time I bring something out. This time is no different. Back to the report:
"8. The screening of samples of chemical agents taken by the Special Commission from various types of munitions and storage containers during the period 1991-1994 showed that the nerve agents had degraded to various levels and that the agent content was generally below 10 per cent and sometimes below 1 per cent. In a few cases, the purity of nerve agents remained around 20 to 30 per cent, and in one case inspectors identified tabun with a purity of 44 per cent."
You are hanging your hat on the fact that UNMOVIC did not specifically mention Binary Shells in the report on the degradation of the Binary Shells. This is the action of a zealot.
The above paragraph from the report is NOT ambiguous. It is succinct, but all encompassing of Iraq's chemical weapons. The ONLY WEAPON that fell outside the stated parameters of degradation to 20-30 percent OR LESS was the single Tabun shell. That proves they MEANT to show the ONE, SINGLE WEAPON that was outside the viability percentage they found and reported. Had that been a Sarin Binary shell, your hopes would have been realized. But it was a Tabun shell mentioned and NOT A BINARY SARIN SHELL MENTIONED. So the degradation of ALL OF IRAQ'S CHEMICAL WEAPONS AS OF 1994, except of course for the Tabun we are not discussing, was 20-30 percent or less.
Your spinning and deflection does not change that.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 26, 2011 9:52:22 GMT -6
LOL. Only in your zealot's world. But AT LAST you finally read some of the information provided. Don't give us "could haves" as the UNMOVIC report does not have the ambiguity you would hope is there. Of course there is CREDIBLE and REAL Evidence that something was going on behind UNMOVIC and other inspector groups backs, BECAUSE we found a Binary Sarin shell that could not have come from the Pre 1994 era, according to what UNMOVIC reported. You're quite wrong. UNMOVIC did not say that the BINARY weapons degraded quickly, so there is no argument that the weapon could not have come from pre-94. There is however evidence that the weapon was from pre-1991. Not only the appearance and residual components, but also documentary evidence. This is from the ISG report: Obviously it doesn't say anything about refilling, and indeed if the weapon was being leak tested as the report indicates then refilling it would foil that purpose. So much, for the thousandth time, for the cockamamie refill theory you made up. I congratulate ISG on providing the DIFFERENT Iraqi reports as to the "documentation provided" as to where the shell could have come from and their BEST GUESS as to where the shell may have come from. However, the Iraqi reports they cite vary widely and some are in conflict with other reports. The Ali Mukliff report mentioned is noted that the work was not explained. They also mentioned ALTERNATIVE places the shell could have come from. You did notice they did not make definitive statements, didn't you? And once again you come up with one of your Grandly Gross Exaggerations because the report does not mention the details of how they tested/inspected the canisters for degradation or leaking, The report does not even go into that, but you are trying to make it sound like it states something it doesn't. Another of your classic deceptions.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 26, 2011 10:30:57 GMT -6
HonkeyB attempts to denigrate me and thus discredit my argument in many ways, including this one from his reply 193:
"It's not an assumption. it's the conclusion reached by the CIA, the ISG, George W. Bush and UNMOVIC. Everyone, in fact, except you."
OK HonkeyB. You wrote it, now you prove it. I'm sure the forum would be most interested in your sources and links to back up another of your gross exaggerations.
Even the CIA report we have been discussing that documented the 40 percent Binary Sarin Shell CONCLUDED that:
"The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist.
•ISG has no information to indicate that Iraq produced more binary Sarin rounds than it declared, however, former Iraqi scientists involved with the program admitted that the program was considered extremely successful and shelved for future use. According to the source, General Amer al-Saadi sought to downplay its findings to the UN to avoid heightened attention toward the program.
So even the CIA concluded that the Number One Iraqi Agent representing Iraq with the UN inspectors, was shall we say "not exactly straight" with the UN inspectors.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jul 26, 2011 10:53:18 GMT -6
Well, I have to get ready to go out of town on business for at least a couple weeks. I'll look forward to reading more of HonkeyB's gross exaggerations, deflection, spin when I come back.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 26, 2011 15:36:47 GMT -6
HonkeyB LOL. I lost track of how many false straw man arguments you posed in these last few posts, but the one about my supposed mdnight forays in the Iraqi desert was a classic of the type spin and deflection you are so good at. At least it is good you are beginning to read and try to understand the material presented. I have to give you credit for quantity and zeal you have shown, but not the quality. You have to keep ignoring things until the second or third time I bring something out. This time is no different. Back to the report: "8. The screening of samples of chemical agents taken by the Special Commission from various types of munitions and storage containers during the period 1991-1994 showed that the nerve agents had degraded to various levels and that the agent content was generally below 10 per cent and sometimes below 1 per cent. In a few cases, the purity of nerve agents remained around 20 to 30 per cent, and in one case inspectors identified tabun with a purity of 44 per cent." You are hanging your hat on the fact that UNMOVIC did not specifically mention Binary Shells in the report on the degradation of the Binary Shells. This is the action of a zealot. The above paragraph from the report is NOT ambiguous. It is succinct, but all encompassing of Iraq's chemical weapons. The ONLY WEAPON that fell outside the stated parameters of degradation to 20-30 percent OR LESS was the single Tabun shell. That proves they MEANT to show the ONE, SINGLE WEAPON that was outside the viability percentage they found and reported. Had that been a Sarin Binary shell, your hopes would have been realized. But it was a Tabun shell mentioned and NOT A BINARY SARIN SHELL MENTIONED. So the degradation of ALL OF IRAQ'S CHEMICAL WEAPONS AS OF 1994, except of course for the Tabun we are not discussing, was 20-30 percent or less. Your spinning and deflection does not change that. The problem with this argument Fish is that you have to assume that binary weapons were among the ones the UNMOVIC screened. I admit that IF they were, then the fact that the ONLY weapon not to fall outside of the stated parameters was the single Tabun shell THEN THAT WOULD MEAN that the binary shells didn't fall outside of the stated parameters, and so degraded to less than 10% purity. But there is no indication that binary weapons were among the ones screened. I admit that they say 'various types of munitions and storage containers' but that alone is not sufficient to indicate that they screened ALL kinds of weapons. Moreover, there are several good reasons to suspect they did not screen binary weapons. 1. Primarily, the report itself, in paragraph 6, admits to being unable to determine how much success Iraq had in creating stable binary-sarin or VX weapons after the Iran/Iraq war, because of a lack of evidence. If UNMOVIC had screened binary weapons, as you say, and found them to be unstable, then they WOULD have evidence that the program was unsuccessful. But they claim, in paragraph 6, that they have no evidence. 2. They speak about the degradation of 'nerve agents'. But Binary weapons contain no nerve agents. Only their precursors. 3. There is an explanation for why the weapons degraded so fast if they were weapons from the Iran/Iraq war. During that time, Iraq did not prioritize shelf life because they were expecting to deploy the weapons immediately, and so they skipped a big step in production that would have made the weapons more stable. 4. If the weapons were not from the Iran/Iraq war then it is puzzling why they degraded so fast. Saddam had the technology to create longer lasting weapons even in the 80s, he just chose not to use it with the weapons from the Iran/Iraq war because he expected them to be deployed immediately. 5. Lastly, not least, it is odd, if they screened binary weapons, that all the weapons they screened decayed so fast. The very point of binary weapons is that they don't. Anyone who knows anything about chemical weapons would reject the notion that they screened binary weapons on this basis alone.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 26, 2011 15:52:50 GMT -6
I congratulate ISG on providing the DIFFERENT Iraqi reports as to the "documentation provided" as to where the shell could have come from and their BEST GUESS as to where the shell may have come from. Earlier you were complaining that the inspectors had no good data because when they arrived the Iraqis had just finished shredding and burning the documents and computers. Yet when I show you that they found some documents, you dismiss them as being 'Iraqi' and therefore not credible. Interesting. Sure, but they did make a final assessment. "The binary chemical round detonated near the Baghdad International Airport (BIAP) probably originated with a batch that was stored in a Al Muthanna CW complex basement during the late 1980s for the purpose of leakage testing." On that assessment, which is the most probable according to the ISG, the weapons were most definitely not refilled since they were being leak tested. But none of the alternative hypotheses the ISG takes seriously mentions anything about 'refilling' the weapon. That notion is a figment of RFisher's dreams, and is found nowhere else. Perhaps that was my bad wording. When I said "There is however evidence that the weapon was from pre-1991. Not only the appearance and residual components, but also documentary evidence. This is from the ISG report:" ... I was taking it that the facts about the 'appearance and residual components' were established, since they appeared in the CIA report we have discussed at length. I didn't see the need to post further evidence of that from the ISG report, and I wanted to move on to the documentary evidence. However, since you are such a paranoid and suspicious guy, though quite lovable, here is where they say the exact same thing in the ISG report that was also said in the CIA report:
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 26, 2011 16:24:55 GMT -6
HonkeyB attempts to denigrate me and thus discredit my argument in many ways, including this one from his reply 193: " It's not an assumption. it's the conclusion reached by the CIA, the ISG, George W. Bush and UNMOVIC. Everyone, in fact, except you." OK HonkeyB. You wrote it, now you prove it. I'm sure the forum would be most interested in your sources and links to back up another of your gross exaggerations. They're all over the thread. To save time, the CIA said that they 'appeared pre-1991', and then went on to consider various hypotheses according to which they escaped the destruction of chemical weapons that occurred in Iraq in 1991. They did not indicate that there were any credible hypotheses according to which the contents of the weapon were manufactured later. You will, of course, harp on about the word 'appears', but all you've got is some desperate parsing. The CIA also was quite unequivocal about the fact that binary weapons are long lasting. In a separate report, they said that Iraq tried to address the problem of shelf life in two ways. This was the second: IT BEGAN TO DEVELOP BINARY CHEMICAL WEAPONS. IN A BINARY MUNITION, THE TWO PRECURSOR CHEMICALS ARE STORED SEPARATELY AND ONLY MIXED TO FORM THE CHEMICAL AGENT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE OR WHEN THE ROUND IS IN FLIGHT. THUS, THE SHELF LIFE OF THE AGENT BECOMES IRRELEVANT So much for your theory that the weapon would have to be periodically refilled. This document is at: www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/cia/19960715/071596_cia_72569_72569_01.htmlThe ISG said "Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter..." Concerning the weapons that included the binary weapon in question, UNMOVIC said unequivocally "They were identified as part of the Iraqi pre-1991 stock" (paragraph 12). George W. Bush said... "The main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. Turns out he didn't but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destru... but I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq."
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 26, 2011 16:27:15 GMT -6
•ISG has no information to indicate that Iraq produced more binary Sarin rounds than it declared, however, former Iraqi scientists involved with the program admitted that the program was considered extremely successful and shelved for future use. According to the source, General Amer al-Saadi sought to downplay its findings to the UN to avoid heightened attention toward the program. So even the CIA concluded that the Number One Iraqi Agent representing Iraq with the UN inspectors, was shall we say "not exactly straight" with the UN inspectors. Granted. But the ISG's source not only reported that the results of the successful program were 'downplayed', it also reports that they were 'shelved'.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jul 26, 2011 16:27:45 GMT -6
Well, I have to get ready to go out of town on business for at least a couple weeks. I'll look forward to reading more of HonkeyB's gross exaggerations, deflection, spin when I come back. Have a good trip.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Aug 13, 2011 9:24:34 GMT -6
Who was that Democrat US Senator who said that we had given Saddam plenty of time to move his chemical weapons out of Iraq?
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Aug 13, 2011 9:37:15 GMT -6
President Obama’s choice to be the next director of national intelligence supported the view that Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq sent weapons and documents to Syria in the weeks before the 2003 U.S. invasion.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Aug 13, 2011 10:19:37 GMT -6
An interesting perspective from the man who interrogated Saddam for months: "And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?" Pelley asks.
"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.
"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.
"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.
Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.
"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Aug 19, 2011 18:55:23 GMT -6
An interesting perspective from the man who interrogated Saddam for months: "And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?" Pelley asks. "He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says. "So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks. "It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says. Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most. "He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks. If this is all correct then your ludicrous 'sent them to Syria' theory is blown out of the water. Not that it was really sailing in the first place.
|
|