Killer Iraq drones made from balsa, duct tape and two weed whackers

[etech]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You gotta give the US some credit. At least this time, we are exaggerating, instead of sending outright forgeries to the UN inspectors.

How is the US exaggerating?



Did ElBaradei say or imply that the US knew the report was a forgery.

Was the US the only country to supply those reports?

Have a number of countries reported efforts by Iraq to procure items that are possibly related to a nuclear weapons program?

Perhaps having some corroborating evidence in addition to the forgery would help before the administration runs off and presents these things as rock-solid evidence.

Yep. Either US knowingly passed on a forgery to the IAEA or it failed to verify the authenticity or corroborate it with anything. Lying or being negligent, you decide.

I will pose the question again.

WAS THE US THE ONLY COUNTRY TO SUBMIT THAT REPORT?

No, but the only one desperate enough for a war to forge reports. Whether they did it directly or indirectly through a third party is not particularly relevant.

Where is your proof that the US forged those reports.

Put up or shut up.
I think you are lying and have not one shred of proof that the US forged those reports.

 

[sandorski]

How about we wait for a few days, just to see how this pans out.

 

[Infos]

Thanks for the link hagbard

I've got one for you. Did you know his son heads the FCC and he is pushing to eliminate
things like equal access to local switches which would make the bells even more powerful.
He thinks their evolving monopolies and growing size are just a natural part of free enterprise,
The guy is going to screw a LOT of small companies.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You gotta give the US some credit. At least this time, we are exaggerating, instead of sending outright forgeries to the UN inspectors.

How is the US exaggerating?



Did ElBaradei say or imply that the US knew the report was a forgery.

Was the US the only country to supply those reports?

Have a number of countries reported efforts by Iraq to procure items that are possibly related to a nuclear weapons program?

Perhaps having some corroborating evidence in addition to the forgery would help before the administration runs off and presents these things as rock-solid evidence.

Yep. Either US knowingly passed on a forgery to the IAEA or it failed to verify the authenticity or corroborate it with anything. Lying or being negligent, you decide.

I will pose the question again.

WAS THE US THE ONLY COUNTRY TO SUBMIT THAT REPORT?

No, but the only one desperate enough for a war to forge reports. Whether they did it directly or indirectly through a third party is not particularly relevant.

Where is your proof that the US forged those reports.

Put up or shut up.
I think you are lying and have not one shred of proof that the US forged those reports.

Hold on a second, let me forge some proof. 🙂

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Czar
totaly stolen from fark 🙂
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2474171,00.html

Way to be an idiot and ignore the fact that the drone declared in the U.N. report had a wingspan of 24 feet. The picture in your link is NOT the drone in Blix's report.

Actually if you reference the guy in the background (we're talking about the Reuter's pic eh?) to be 6' tall. The wingspan is easily more than twice his height, a little over 3 times his height. Its not 24 feet, but its not that far off.

Edit: This is the actual plane that was in Blix's report to the UN. Blix apparently didnt feel he needed to share the info with the SC. It in fact has a 20 foot wingspan. It was on BBC and Washington Post too.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Czar
totaly stolen from fark 🙂
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2474171,00.html

Way to be an idiot and ignore the fact that the drone declared in the U.N. report had a wingspan of 24 feet. The picture in your link is NOT the drone in Blix's report.

Actually if you reference the guy in the background (we're talking about the Reuter's pic eh?) to be 6' tall. The wingspan is easily more than twice his height, a little over 3 times his height. Its not 24 feet, but its not that far off.

Looks to be about 10-12 feet. Each wing is about the length of person standing there.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You gotta give the US some credit. At least this time, we are exaggerating, instead of sending outright forgeries to the UN inspectors.

How is the US exaggerating?



Did ElBaradei say or imply that the US knew the report was a forgery.

Was the US the only country to supply those reports?

Have a number of countries reported efforts by Iraq to procure items that are possibly related to a nuclear weapons program?

Perhaps having some corroborating evidence in addition to the forgery would help before the administration runs off and presents these things as rock-solid evidence.

Yep. Either US knowingly passed on a forgery to the IAEA or it failed to verify the authenticity or corroborate it with anything. Lying or being negligent, you decide.

I will pose the question again.

WAS THE US THE ONLY COUNTRY TO SUBMIT THAT REPORT?

No, but the only one desperate enough for a war to forge reports. Whether they did it directly or indirectly through a third party is not particularly relevant.

Where is your proof that the US forged those reports.

Put up or shut up.
I think you are lying and have not one shred of proof that the US forged those reports.

Hold on a second, let me forge some proof. 🙂

How many other countries can you get to also support your forgery.

Come up with the proof or just admit that you make things up as you go along.

 

[dahunan]

All you Bush/Republican Haters answer this.....

Well, where is all the phucking ANTHRAX AND OTHER CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL AGENTS THAT MR. BLIX SAID IRAQ STILL HAVEN'T GIVEN PROOF THEY DESTROYED??

Blix shrugs off U.S. charges that he buried damaging findings about Iraqi weapon discoveries in his written report rather than highlight them in last week's speech. Yet the 173-page document presents devastating descriptions of Iraq's illegal arsenal. Besides confirming details of the drone aircraft, inspectors increased their estimates of the anthrax stockpiles Saddam is believed to be hiding, from 8,500 liters to 10,000 liters. The report also warned that the number of shells and bombs filled with mustard gas that Saddam failed to account for is likely higher than an earlier estimate of 1,000.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=679&ncid=742&e=1&u=/usatoday/20030311/cm_usatoday/4933945

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: dahunan
All you Bush/Republican Haters answer this.....

Well, where is all the phucking ANTHRAX AND OTHER CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL AGENTS THAT MR. BLIX SAID IRAQ STILL HAVEN'T GIVEN PROOF THEY DESTROYED??

Blix shrugs off U.S. charges that he buried damaging findings about Iraqi weapon discoveries in his written report rather than highlight them in last week's speech. Yet the 173-page document presents devastating descriptions of Iraq's illegal arsenal. Besides confirming details of the drone aircraft, inspectors increased their estimates of the anthrax stockpiles Saddam is believed to be hiding, from 8,500 liters to 10,000 liters. The report also warned that the number of shells and bombs filled with mustard gas that Saddam failed to account for is likely higher than an earlier estimate of 1,000.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=679&ncid=742&e=1&u=/usatoday/20030311/cm_usatoday/4933945

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You gotta give the US some credit. At least this time, we are exaggerating, instead of sending outright forgeries to the UN inspectors.

How is the US exaggerating?



Did ElBaradei say or imply that the US knew the report was a forgery.

Was the US the only country to supply those reports?

Have a number of countries reported efforts by Iraq to procure items that are possibly related to a nuclear weapons program?

Perhaps having some corroborating evidence in addition to the forgery would help before the administration runs off and presents these things as rock-solid evidence.

Yep. Either US knowingly passed on a forgery to the IAEA or it failed to verify the authenticity or corroborate it with anything. Lying or being negligent, you decide.

I will pose the question again.

WAS THE US THE ONLY COUNTRY TO SUBMIT THAT REPORT?

No, but the only one desperate enough for a war to forge reports. Whether they did it directly or indirectly through a third party is not particularly relevant.

Where is your proof that the US forged those reports.

Put up or shut up.
I think you are lying and have not one shred of proof that the US forged those reports.

Hold on a second, let me forge some proof. 🙂

How many other countries can you get to also support your forgery.

Come up with the proof or just admit that you make things up as you go along.

Proof of what? Al-Baradei said it's "not authentic". Why does it matter how many countries you get to support a forgery, it doesn't make it authentic.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: dahunan
All you Bush/Republican Haters answer this.....

Well, where is all the phucking ANTHRAX AND OTHER CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL AGENTS THAT MR. BLIX SAID IRAQ STILL HAVEN'T GIVEN PROOF THEY DESTROYED??

Blix shrugs off U.S. charges that he buried damaging findings about Iraqi weapon discoveries in his written report rather than highlight them in last week's speech. Yet the 173-page document presents devastating descriptions of Iraq's illegal arsenal. Besides confirming details of the drone aircraft, inspectors increased their estimates of the anthrax stockpiles Saddam is believed to be hiding, from 8,500 liters to 10,000 liters. The report also warned that the number of shells and bombs filled with mustard gas that Saddam failed to account for is likely higher than an earlier estimate of 1,000.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=679&ncid=742&e=1&u=/usatoday/20030311/cm_usatoday/4933945

So we're supposed to believe some guy thats writing an editorial that happens to rename "anonymous"? I can write an editorial too, with unconfirmed numbers thrown at the reader also. Its also very conveniant of you to take the views in that article that support yourself. You failed to include this:

But the U.S. and Britain have had their own credibility problems. On Friday, U.N. nuclear weapons inspector Mohamed ElBaradei disputed U.S. and British assertions that Iraq bought uranium from Niger, saying the claims were based on forged documents. Aluminum tubes that Washington and London had insisted were for a nuclear program were the wrong dimensions for that purpose, he said. And a British report of Iraqi arms violations had to be retracted after revelations that it was plagiarized from a college paper posted on a public Web site.

Or This:

Too often, though, evidence presented by U.N. inspectors, Britain and the U.S. has been based on incomplete information or questionable conclusions.

I dont know about you other people, but it really really annoys me when quotes are taken from documents WAY out of context for the sole purpose of supporting your own view point (unless of course its a history paper than you have to write due in a very short period of time 😀 )

Charrisson: The plane is in the background; the wings stretch back. But I do take back my statement, either that guy is really really tall, or that plane cant be more than 15 feet wingspan.

 

[etech]

Besides confirming details of the drone aircraft, inspectors increased their estimates of the anthrax stockpiles Saddam is believed to be hiding, from 8,500 liters to 10,000 liters. The report also warned that the number of shells and bombs filled with mustard gas that Saddam failed to account for is likely higher than an earlier estimate of 1,000.

Why would the inspectors increase their estimates of the Iraqi anthrax stockpile from 8,500 liters to 10,000 liters.

What are they not telling?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: dexvx[/iSo we're supposed to believe some guy thats writing an editorial that happens to rename "anonymous"? I can write an editorial too, with unconfirmed numbers thrown at the reader also. Its also very conveniant of you to take the views in that article that support yourself. You failed to include this:


I dont know about you other people, but it really really annoys me when quotes are taken from documents WAY out of context for the sole purpose of supporting your own view point (unless of course its a history paper than you have to write due in a very short period of time 😀 )

Tell me where what sources you find credible and I will find the exact same statement quoted by your credible source.

 

[Insane3D]

Same old, same old people. The pro-war crowd will give you the worst case scenario backed up by sources that agree with them, and the anti-war people will give you the best case scenario backed up by sources that agree with them. In reality, the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

How about we wait for a few days, just to see how this pans out.

Shhh....don't try bring the voice of reason into this thread! We need to act immediately before we have all the facts silly. 😉

 

[dahunan]

BTW, I am not PRO-WAR. I hate WAR.. but I dislike people who bash America just because we are sick of Saddams LIES and Trickery and actually want to see United Nations Resolutions upheld

Directly from the United Nations Webpage--scroll down to January 27th
THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003:
AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION


(AS DELIVERED)


Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix

Biological weapons

I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.

As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq's Foreign Minister stated that "all imported quantities of growth media were declared". This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Czar
totaly stolen from fark 🙂
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2474171,00.html

Way to be an idiot and ignore the fact that the drone declared in the U.N. report had a wingspan of 24 feet. The picture in your link is NOT the drone in Blix's report.

there is a picture in my link?😕

and didnt you read about the error correction they sent later? and read that the inspectors have already checked that one out

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: dahunan
BTW, I am not PRO-WAR. I hate WAR.. but I dislike people who bash America just because we are sick of Saddams LIES and Trickery and actually want to see United Nations Resolutions upheld

I am sick of being called an america basher and saddam supporter because i think that war should be used as a last resort and only with UN backing...

the percieved threat that might eventually have whatnot should be bombed, and as soon as possible, oh yeeeah, they are REAL threat right now, let's do it in a few days before they start attacking...

Blix said that the inspections will not take weeks, not years, what they need is months... is it REALLY such a bad thing to wait until they're done? Why the need to go to war right now, Irak has never been a smaller threat to anyone than they are right now...

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Same old, same old people. The pro-war crowd will give you the worst case scenario backed up by sources that agree with them, and the anti-war people will give you the best case scenario backed up by sources that agree with them. In reality, the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

How about we wait for a few days, just to see how this pans out.

Shhh....don't try bring the voice of reason into this thread! We need to act immediately before we have all the facts silly. 😉

The middle would be - Saddam has about 4 to 5,000 liters of Anthrax and that is the point that so many are missing.

1441 was a final chance for Saddam to show that he had changed his ways and was no longer interested in holding onto or acquiring the banned weapons.

He hasn't done that, more inspections will not show that he has and are worthless.

 

[ThePresence]

Why anyone would believe that this is the real Iraqi drone is beyone me. Oh wait, it must be because Iraq said so! They have proven their truthfulness in the past, and they wouldn't have any reason to lie! How naive can you get? Jeez!

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Czar
totaly stolen from fark 🙂
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2474171,00.html

Way to be an idiot and ignore the fact that the drone declared in the U.N. report had a wingspan of 24 feet. The picture in your link is NOT the drone in Blix's report.

there is a picture in my link?😕

and didnt you read about the error correction they sent later? and read that the inspectors have already checked that one out

Nah, but as usual, he just read the posts and thought he should agree... They usually never let information and facts get in their way...