The W
Views: 100237145
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.10.07 1237
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Russia helped move that missing Iraqi explosives Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(551 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (22 total)
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 2088/6342
EXP: 33538986
For next: 581112

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 52 min.
#1 Posted on 28.10.04 0352.51
Reposted on: 28.10.11 0359.02
Via the Drudge front page and Washington Times Sources;


    WASH TIMES: Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned. John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, “almost certainly” removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.
Promote this thread!
evilwaldo
Lap cheong
Level: 78

Posts: 1575/1597
EXP: 4351101
For next: 31144

Since: 7.2.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3415 days
Last activity: 3195 days
AIM:  
#2 Posted on 28.10.04 1743.55
Reposted on: 28.10.11 1745.39
Hahahahahahahaha.

No. Not one shread of truth in the entire paragraph.
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 1104/2182
EXP: 6991791
For next: 196845

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 341 days
Last activity: 335 days
#3 Posted on 28.10.04 1755.06
Reposted on: 28.10.11 1755.53
    Originally posted by evilwaldo
    Hahahahahahahaha.

    No. Not one shread of truth in the entire paragraph.



Care to share your proof of this?
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 183/449
EXP: 647700
For next: 12469

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 553 days
Last activity: 419 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on 28.10.04 1829.22
Reposted on: 28.10.11 1831.05
Shouldn't we be looking for some proof FOR the article? There seem to be a lot of baseless and proofless articles getting thrown around recently. Could it be election time?
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 1105/2182
EXP: 6991791
For next: 196845

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 341 days
Last activity: 335 days
#5 Posted on 28.10.04 2028.22
Reposted on: 28.10.11 2029.01
    Originally posted by messenoir
    Shouldn't we be looking for some proof FOR the article? There seem to be a lot of baseless and proofless articles getting thrown around recently. Could it be election time?


Someone posts as a fact that the article has "Not one shread of truth". I want to see his evidence to that fact. If he HAS evidence, great! Then he's right. If he has NO evidence, then it was just a stupid waste of time worthless post.

Let's see where the article was wrong.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 1011/1084
EXP: 2441474
For next: 20390

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2994 days
Last activity: 2991 days
#6 Posted on 28.10.04 2033.11
Reposted on: 28.10.11 2033.40
    Originally posted by Eddie Famous
      Originally posted by messenoir
      Shouldn't we be looking for some proof FOR the article? There seem to be a lot of baseless and proofless articles getting thrown around recently. Could it be election time?


    Someone posts as a fact that the article has "Not one shread of truth". I want to see his evidence to that fact. If he HAS evidence, great! Then he's right. If he has NO evidence, then it was just a stupid waste of time worthless post.

    Let's see where the article was wrong.



It's from the Moonie times, via Drudge. Their accuracy rate is somewhere between zero and one percent.

In fact, the portion quoted says some guy thinks the Russians probably did this. I mean, hell, I'm pretty sure that the Rams' Superbowl loss to the Patriots was fixed, but it doesn't seem to get covered in the paper. And I probably have a lot more evidence for my argument than this guy does for his.
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 1107/2182
EXP: 6991791
For next: 196845

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 341 days
Last activity: 335 days
#7 Posted on 28.10.04 2039.24
Reposted on: 28.10.11 2042.02
    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    And I probably have a lot more evidence for my argument than this guy does for his.


Do you have any evidence that the article is wrong other that your bias to the reporters? Or are you just blowing smoke?
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 1012/1084
EXP: 2441474
For next: 20390

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2994 days
Last activity: 2991 days
#8 Posted on 28.10.04 2042.35
Reposted on: 28.10.11 2043.39
    Originally posted by Eddie Famous
      Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
      And I probably have a lot more evidence for my argument than this guy does for his.


    Do you have any evidence that the article is wrong other that your bias to the reporters? Or are you just blowing smoke?


Can you prove that the Superbowl wasn't rigged, or are you just blowing smoke?

I can't prove a negative, but I can point out that when an extremely unreliable source prints what is simply conjecture on the part of some guy, you should probably take it with a grain of salt.
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 1109/2182
EXP: 6991791
For next: 196845

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 341 days
Last activity: 335 days
#9 Posted on 28.10.04 2051.04
Reposted on: 28.10.11 2053.14
    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    Can you prove that the Superbowl wasn't rigged, or are you just blowing smoke?

    I can't prove a negative,


You can't prove ANYTHING about the article. You WERE blowing smoke.

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    but I can point out that when an extremely unreliable source prints what is simply conjecture on the part of some guy, you should probably take it with a grain of salt.


Yes, I took your post with a grain of salt.

edit-enough of me in this thread for awhile...my point is made.

(edited by Eddie Famous on 28.10.04 1853)
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 1013/1084
EXP: 2441474
For next: 20390

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2994 days
Last activity: 2991 days
#10 Posted on 28.10.04 2106.17
Reposted on: 28.10.11 2109.17
    Originally posted by Eddie Famous
      Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
      Can you prove that the Superbowl wasn't rigged, or are you just blowing smoke?

      I can't prove a negative,


    You can't prove ANYTHING about the article. You WERE blowing smoke.




    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    but I can point out that when an extremely unreliable source prints what is simply conjecture on the part of some guy, you should probably take it with a grain of salt.


Yes, I took your post with a grain of salt.

edit-enough of me in this thread for awhile...my point is made.

(edited by Eddie Famous on 28.10.04 1853)


What point is that? That you take speculation printed by glorified tabloids as the truth?

If you want proof so bad, what proof is there that the Russians moved these explosives to Syria? Why the hell would they do that? Some guy said so, so it must be true! Hell, I'll say that Kerry stole them just to make Bush look bad. It's on the Internet now, and it takes the blame off of the administration, so it must be true!

You can take a break for as long as you want, but I'll be waiting for you to explain how I can prove a negative. I'm sure the entire history of logic would love to hear your insight on this issue.

(edited by eviljonhunt81 on 28.10.04 2107)
Teppan-Yaki
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 834/1083
EXP: 2392744
For next: 69120

Since: 28.6.02

Since last post: 944 days
Last activity: 914 days
#11 Posted on 28.10.04 2110.46
Reposted on: 28.10.11 2111.14
I know you're stepping away from the thread, EF, but if it's true that the KMSP (or is it KSTP? -- I get those Minnie-St. Paul stations mixed up... I know it wasn't KARE... anyhow --) embedded reporter/photog filed the report in Iraq in April 2003?

If that's true, then would it be illogical to say that if there were weapons at Al Qa Qaa in April... that there wouldn't be weapons moved out of there from the Russian Special Forces?
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 1110/2182
EXP: 6991791
For next: 196845

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 341 days
Last activity: 335 days
#12 Posted on 28.10.04 2119.45
Reposted on: 28.10.11 2121.01
I apologize for replying so soon after I said I wouldn't, but...

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    What point is that? That you take speculation printed by glorified tabloids as the truth?


That you and the other poster have absolutely nothing to refute the article other than you don't like the source.

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    If you want proof so bad, what proof is there that the Russians moved these explosives to Syria? Why the hell would they do that?


That's the closest thing to an answer you've posted yet, and it's still a question.

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    Some guy said so, so it must be true! Hell, I'll say that Kerry stole them just to make Bush look bad. It's on the Internet now, and it takes the blame off of the administration, so it must be true!


If you can find one time where I said the article was true...well, you can't because I never did. I questioned the response "not one shred of truth" being used without any backup.

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    I'll be waiting for you to explain how I can prove a negative. I'm sure the entire history of logic would love to hear your insight on this issue.


I've never asked you to prove a negative. I asked if you had any evidence to refute the story. Completely different. If there are no facts to back up your assertion, it's just an opinion on the article.

The entire history of logic can rest now.

Teppan-Yaki. Really, all the film shows is that there were explosives there when they took the pictures. There still could have been explosives there that were taken earlier while others were left behind. Even the station says they don't know if those were the explosives thought missing.

I promise-thats it for me here for awhile.

(edited by Eddie Famous on 28.10.04 1923)
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1357/1528
EXP: 4087736
For next: 103412

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2837 days
Last activity: 2680 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on 28.10.04 2122.08
Reposted on: 28.10.11 2123.09
The source of this article is John Shaw, described as "deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security." Semms as well-sourced as anything else in the news media.

If you're just going to sit here like an ass and carp about the Washington Times, then maybe we shouldn't have this conversation in the first place. After all, this is only a story right now because CBS and the NYT, bastions of journalistic ethics, decided to revive it.

Why we have three threads for this I don't know, but since we do, I'll crosspost something Grimis already brought up.


    NBC News: Miklaszewski: “April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al Qakaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The U.S. troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or RDX, so powerful less than a pound brought down Pan Am 103 in 1988, and can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon. In a letter this month, the Iraqi interim government told the International Atomic Energy Agency the high explosives were lost to theft and looting due to lack of security. Critics claim there were simply not enough U.S. troops to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles, weapons now being used by insurgents and terrorists to wage a guerrilla war in Iraq.” (NBC’s “Nightly News,” 10/25/04)


(Emphasis added)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 4185/4700
EXP: 21600865
For next: 235797

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1276 days
Last activity: 1073 days
#14 Posted on 29.10.04 0601.54
Reposted on: 29.10.11 0606.31
Hey, if you can't defend the message, shoot the messenger.

While I admit, it's a little strange to imagine the Russians doing this, it would not be surprising given that the Russians, like France and Germant, were ass deep in selling weapons to Iraq
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 187/449
EXP: 647700
For next: 12469

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 553 days
Last activity: 419 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on 29.10.04 2248.48
Reposted on: 29.10.11 2248.57
Here's a reply from Rumsy concerning this:

Rumsfeld said, "I have no information on that at all and cannot validate that even slightly."

If you're own boss won't confirm this, there's problems.

So again, Eddie, don't you think an accusation like this with no factual support should be proved true rather then proved false (which also goes to pro-Kerry people here)? Or is partisinship running to wild to admit things like that.
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 1113/2182
EXP: 6991791
For next: 196845

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 341 days
Last activity: 335 days
#16 Posted on 30.10.04 0403.58
Reposted on: 30.10.11 0403.58
    Originally posted by messenoir
    Here's a reply from Rumsy concerning this:

    Rumsfeld said, "I have no information on that at all and cannot validate that even slightly."

    If you're own boss won't confirm this, there's problems.

    So again, Eddie, don't you think an accusation like this with no factual support should be proved true rather then proved false (which also goes to pro-Kerry people here)? Or is partisinship running to wild to admit things like that.


    Originally posted by me
    I've never asked you to prove a negative. I asked if you had any evidence to refute the story. Completely different. If there are no facts to back up your assertion, it's just an opinion on the article.


Please read that paragraph and let it sink in for awhile.


(edited by Eddie Famous on 30.10.04 0204)
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 189/449
EXP: 647700
For next: 12469

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 553 days
Last activity: 419 days
AIM:  
#17 Posted on 30.10.04 0632.03
Reposted on: 30.10.11 0632.10
What evil says has little to do with my point.

Your partisanship in so many of the threads lends some credence to the belief you took the time to post in this thread because you endorse the article. evil has no proof the article is fake, but he doesn't need proof.

The article contains not one single shred of proof to back up the main assertion, simply one man saying "the Russians MIGHT have done something". The Russians also might be planning a terrorist attack in the US, for all that. This article is so singularly ridiculous and lacking in any semblance of fact that we shouldn't be having any sort of discussion as to its merits. It has none, Rumsfeld pretty much calls the claims ridiculous, and until some evidence is provided, this thread shouldn't be here.

And therefore it seems you should be at least making some sort of statement to the effect how it's pretty silly to post this article just as much as you criticize evil for his statement. But you don't, you choose to only focus on evil, and this coupled with your partisanship is why I made my statement.

So again, where is the proof for posting this article?
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 1114/2182
EXP: 6991791
For next: 196845

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 341 days
Last activity: 335 days
#18 Posted on 30.10.04 1052.50
Reposted on: 30.10.11 1053.08
    Originally posted by messenoir
    What evil says has little to do with my point.

    Your partisanship in so many of the threads lends some credence to the belief you took the time to post in this thread because you endorse the article.


    Originally posted by me again
    If you can find one time where I said the article was true...well, you can't because I never did. I questioned the response "not one shred of truth" being used without any backup.


I still don't know if it's true. But NO ONE has presented anything other than bias towards the source to prove it isn't true.

    Originally posted by messenoir
    Rumsfeld pretty much calls the claims ridiculous, and until some evidence is provided, this thread shouldn't be here.


    Originally posted by messenoir
    Here's a reply from Rumsy concerning this:

    Rumsfeld said, "I have no information on that at all and cannot validate that even slightly."


Not the same thing.

    Originally posted by messenoir
    And therefore it seems you should be at least making some sort of statement to the effect how it's pretty silly to post this article just as much as you criticize evil for his statement. But you don't, you choose to only focus on evil, and this coupled with your partisanship is why I made my statement.

    So again, where is the proof for posting this article?


If anyone can come up with anything more than saying "there is not one shred of truth" or "consider the source" to dispute what the article says, then I'll make up my mind whether or not to believe the original article.

In the meantime, since I cannot get an answer to what is an extremely simple question, I'm going to ask another Moderator to look into closing the thread. No sense wasting any more space tilting at windmills here.
evilwaldo
Lap cheong
Level: 78

Posts: 1576/1597
EXP: 4351101
For next: 31144

Since: 7.2.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3415 days
Last activity: 3195 days
AIM:  
#19 Posted on 30.10.04 2355.00
Reposted on: 30.10.11 2355.00
    Originally posted by Eddie Famous
      Originally posted by evilwaldo
      Hahahahahahahaha.

      No. Not one shread of truth in the entire paragraph.



    Care to share your proof of this?


Russian soldiers do not get paid that much if they get paid at all. On top of that their uniforms and equipment are crap so if one of them got their hands on munitions they would be selling it in the alleys for cash not delivering it to other countries.

On top of that they are not the most reliable of people. A bribe of about $20 or a carton of cigarettes will get you through a checkpoint even if you are carrying explosives.
jentos
Cotto
Level: 16

Posts: 15/40
EXP: 16658
For next: 3599

Since: 16.12.02
From: Minneapolis

Since last post: 1967 days
Last activity: 268 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#20 Posted on 31.10.04 0120.53
Reposted on: 31.10.11 0123.18
    Originally posted by evilwaldo
      Originally posted by Eddie Famous
        Originally posted by evilwaldo
        Hahahahahahahaha.

        No. Not one shread of truth in the entire paragraph.



      Care to share your proof of this?


    Russian soldiers do not get paid that much if they get paid at all. On top of that their uniforms and equipment are crap so if one of them got their hands on munitions they would be selling it in the alleys for cash not delivering it to other countries.

    On top of that they are not the most reliable of people. A bribe of about $20 or a carton of cigarettes will get you through a checkpoint even if you are carrying explosives.


After living in Russia for most of my life I can confirm that as a fairly accurate description.
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Call It: Bush or Kerry.
Next thread: Things George W. Bush should never do when the camera is on.
Previous thread: Florida starts things off on the right foot
(551 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Russia helped move that missing Iraqi explosivesRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.191 seconds.