Page 4 of 4

Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:39 pm
by Harrison
I will be sleeping in twenty minutes I hope, but I pray to all that is holy either of them tries to attempt this with a ten foot pole before then.

Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:56 pm
by Tikker
Harrison, you are one ignorant mofaka some days

Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:09 pm
by Tikker
Harrison wrote:No, they do fucking not.

Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a term used to describe a munition with the capacity to indiscriminately kill large numbers of living beings. The phrase broadly encompasses several areas of weapon synthesis, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) and, increasingly, radiological weapons.





ps, feel free to explain how a high explosive bomb does NOT fit your aforementioned description

Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:13 pm
by Lueyen
Tikker has volunteered to be the pivot man.

Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:22 pm
by Tikker
you go for it Lueyen

feel free to explain how they don't fit the bill~


I know it hurts your giant american ego to find out that you're no better than the "terrorists" that you've taken down, but it doesn't make it any less true~

Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:49 pm
by Harrison
You guys can't possibly be serious. Spazz I believe, but you two just aren't that fucking dumb. Impossible...

Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:30 pm
by Tuggan
So are you just going to continue name calling?

Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:30 pm
by Lueyen
Tikker wrote:you go for it Lueyen

feel free to explain how they don't fit the bill~


I didn't argue that they didn't, I simply stated that if that was the given definition of WMD then there was irrefutable proof Iraq under Saddam possessed them and tried to obtain more.

The assertion was made that conventional weapons used in Iraq by the United States were by definition WMD, and that possession and use of these weapons warranted George Bush's execution in that he was just as guilty as Saddam. What those failing to address in this line of thought was that by that logic the smoking gun of WMD becomes irrefutably true. Note that WMD was only one of the many reasons for US military action, however the one that many here constantly harp on is the lack of discovery of WMD, often times to the point of turning a blind eye to the other reasons. I find it in no small way humorous that the assertions of some of these very same people fail a simple logical circle... so either you know you are spouting extreme bs and pretending you honestly believe that, or your positions and arguments when fitted together make absolutely no sense. So tell me, which is it? Spouting bullshit or just being moronic?

Tikker wrote:I know it hurts your giant american ego to find out that you're no better than the "terrorists" that you've taken down, but it doesn't make it any less true~


Lueyen wrote:So tell me, which is it? Spouting bullshit or just being moronic?

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:28 am
by 10sun
I'm with the retard posse here.

WMDs are a different class of weaponary than a simple SCUD. I mean, high explosive warhead.

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 5:09 am
by Harrison
10sun wrote:I'm with the retard posse here.

WMDs are a different class of weaponary than a simple SCUD. I mean, high explosive warhead.


Hey, there IS intelligent life out there.

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:17 am
by Zanchief
Dear god man I wasn't calling for Neo-Hitlers head, I was just pointing out how subjective the term WMD is. It has no definition, if it did you would have found it furiously slamming down on your bile filed keyboard with your fat little fingers, just to inevitably “win” something, thus keeping those razors just one step further on your nightstand.

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:46 am
by Tikker
Harrison wrote:
10sun wrote:I'm with the retard posse here.

WMDs are a different class of weaponary than a simple SCUD. I mean, high explosive warhead.


Hey, there IS intelligent life out there.


Not at your house though

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 5:23 pm
by Harrison
:rolleyes:

I am hardly insulted given what we now know of you guys.