AnthonyR Posted May 25, 2004 Report Share Posted May 25, 2004 Remember when the lack of WMD's was all over the news? Notice how no ones saying anything about them now? That's because the smaller WMD's have been found, just not covered by our wonderful media here in teh US. You would have thought that the discovery of an actual weapon of mass destruction in Iraq would be big news, especially since it was aimed at American soldiers. But apparently not in the eyes of most U.S. newspaper editors and network television producers, who chose largely to ignore one of the major stories coming out of Iraq this week. On Monday, the Iraqi Survey Group, which is tasked with searching for Saddam Hussein's WMD, confirmed that an artillery round containing weaponized sarin nerve gas was detonated in an improvised explosive device (IED) aimed at U.S. troops in Baghdad on Saturday. Thankfully, the IED didn't kill anyone, and the sarin components dispersed without causing real harm because the 155-mm shell had not been used as an artillery round, as it was intended. The weapon's design required the shell to be fired from a launcher that would have allowed the binary components of the sarin to mix as the shell spun at high speed, which would have turned the relatively small artillery round into a devastating killer. Instead, the device detonated in an IED, and most of the 3-4 liters of sarin were not activated. So how did the major dailies treat this story? They buried it. The Washington Post carried a story on page 14, with a subtitle that dismissed its significance, "Weapon Probably Not Part of a Stockpile, Experts Say." But despite the headline, the story said nothing of the sort. The Post reported that David Kay, the man previously in charge of the Pentagon's search for WMD, "said the discovery did not conclusively prove the existence of stockpiles of concealed chemical and biological weapons," which is very different than saying somehow it proved the contrary. The story goes on to quote Raymond Zilinskas, a former U.N. weapons inspector: "The question is: Was it part of a cache that contains another 10 or 20 of these, or is it one of a kind? ... We have no way of knowing at this point." The New York Times headline on page 11 was also dismissive. "Army Discovers Old Iraqi Shell Holding Sarin, Illicit Weapon." Most of the story was a re-hash of the complaints that the Bush administration had failed to find the WMD the president and his advisers had said Hussein possessed. The Times only grudgingly admitted that the existence of the shell offers "some of the most substantial evidence to date that Mr. Hussein did not destroy all of the banned chemical agent, as he claimed before the war last year." One shell does not a stockpile make -- but where there is one such weapon there are likely to be others, dozens, maybe hundreds. No matter how you slice it, this story is important. But most of the liberal media have been too busy focusing on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal or other bad news from Iraq to pay attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeskier8585 Posted May 25, 2004 Report Share Posted May 25, 2004 any foriegn papers pick this up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnthonyR Posted March 26, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2005 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDude Posted March 26, 2005 Report Share Posted March 26, 2005 Do you know what else the media does not cover. How many inncocent iraqi women and childred have been killed because of this useless war. I believe the number is close to 30 thousand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted March 26, 2005 Report Share Posted March 26, 2005 (edited) Actually they do cover that, in todays issue of the post. Highest count around 19,000 iraqi cilivians. And they are wayyy left. Edited March 27, 2005 by Scoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Che'_Moderator Posted March 27, 2005 Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 Actually it does cover that, in todays issue of the post. Highest count around 19,000 iraqi cilivians. And they are wayyy left.←LOL. We cannot even agree on the numbers.... 19k total, 30k in just women. Wars hells, and usually not needed. Thats not exactly a new concept. But 9000 of us bearly get along here and we all share the same damn hobby. Why do you expect two countries to get along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin390 Posted March 27, 2005 Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 Is anyone ever really "innocent"? In a war like this is there really noncombatants. Charles good point about being 9000 of us here and every opinion differs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDude Posted March 27, 2005 Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 Is anyone ever really "innocent"? In a war like this is there really noncombatants. Charles good point about being 9000 of us here and every opinion differs←This is not even a "war". The U.S did not officially declare this war. And yes, if it was a war, then there are people who are innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Che'_Moderator Posted March 27, 2005 Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 This is not even a "war". The U.S did not officially declare this war. And yes, if it was a war, then there are people who are innocent.←No one is innocent. And if tomorrow a war was leaning in on your town would you stay? Or would you pack up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDude Posted March 27, 2005 Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 No one is innocent. And if tomorrow a war was leaning in on your town would you stay? Or would you pack up?←If some soldiers are chasing a terrorist and the terrorist decides to hide in a house full of women, children, even men who have nothing to do with the terrorist and the soldiers blow up the dam n house killing everyone inside i would say that the people inside that house are innocent.But i do understand what you mean by no one is innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnthonyR Posted March 27, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 haha, when I originally posted this there was one response Now bam, 8 more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDude Posted March 27, 2005 Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 No one is innocent. And if tomorrow a war was leaning in on your town would you stay? Or would you pack up?←And if a war was going up in my town and for a good reason i would fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin390 Posted March 27, 2005 Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 But what side would you choose Ilya? hypothedically speaking with the sides being what they are now with one side being terrorist and the other a foreign nation that had dethroned a dictator? I know in WWII every Russian citizen supported the war in one way or another, if it was as simple as burning their own crops to keep the advancing Germans from using them, sniping at German supply lines and rear support units. Ultimately general winter and stallengrad turned the offensive. But in what you said about if a terroist runs into a house of "noncombatants" why dont the "noncombatants" get the hell out of there. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that hey me and my family are in harms way its up to us to get the hell out of here. The terrorist have a job to do, the soldiers have a job to do and the "noncombatants" have a job to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Che'_Moderator Posted March 27, 2005 Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 And if a war was going up in my town and for a good reason i would fight.←I agree, but if you were killed in fighting for your cause, you were not a noncombatant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt1122 Posted March 27, 2005 Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 No one is innocent. And if tomorrow a war was leaning in on your town would you stay? Or would you pack up?←I would pack the monkey up and move the monkey out FAST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts