Missing explosives overstated

[ScoobMaster]

Well,
I finally found an answer to a question I needed resolved. According to a Timeline in
This MNSBC article

2003
January
IAEA inspectors view the explosives at Al-Qaqaa for the last time. The inspectors take an inventory and again place storage bunkers at Al-Qaqaa under agency seal.

February
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei tells the United Nations that Iraq has declared that ?HMX previously under IAEA seal had been transferred for use in the production of industrial explosives.? This apparently didn?t include the HMX that remained under seal at Al-Qaqaa.

March 9-15
Nuclear agency inspectors visit Al-Qaqaa for the last time but apparently don?t examine the explosives because the seals aren?t broken. The inspectors then pull out of the country

The last time the explosives were VISIBLY accounted for was in January 2003. When the IAEA inspectors went in in March, they ONLY CHECKED IF THE SEALS WERE NOT BROKEN. It is possible that the material was removed anytime after the January inspection.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
Jesus Christ...look about 3 posts up to my edited post. Then, start READING. You know, when your eyes view letters that form words that form sentences that convey a thought and it's processed by your brain and recognized as information?

Not a hard question, well maybe it is for proven liar, which links say approval for abuse went beyond the general in charge?

Ah...the liar insults again, eh?

You're sticking to that despite the fact that you, Mr. Snipe-and-Run, have NEVER proven I lied. Not once. Not even after I pleaded for just one link proving I lied.

Now, go read and come back when you're finished. Given your reading comprehension skills, I figure that will be about...oh...June 2018.

 

[conjur]

Back to the topic:

A nice summary of the news articles:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
Back to the topic:

A nice summary of the news articles:

http://www.flappinggums.com/

:roll: - I fixed your link.

Oh, and the supposed "nice summary" is spin. Try actually reading things for yourself for once conjur.

CsG

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: conjur
Jesus Christ...look about 3 posts up to my edited post. Then, start READING. You know, when your eyes view letters that form words that form sentences that convey a thought and it's processed by your brain and recognized as information?

Neocons do not read. It is too hard. Rush reads good. They wait for him to explain.


--------------------
BUsh Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: charrison
linkage

The information on which the Iraqi Science Ministry based an Oct. 10 memo in which it reported that 377 tons of RDX explosives were missing ? presumably stolen due to a lack of security ? was based on "declaration" from July 15, 2002. At that time, the Iraqis said there were 141 tons of RDX explosives at the facility.

But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over 3 tons of RDX was stored at the facility ? a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.

The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the start of the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003.



....

The documents show IAEA inspectors looked at nine bunkers containing more than 194 tons of HMX at the facility. Although these bunkers were still under IAEA seal, the inspectors said the seals may be potentially ineffective because they had ventilation slats on the sides. These slats could be easily removed to remove the materials inside the bunkers without breaking the seals, the inspectors noted.

We will never know for sure. It is too bad Dub did not secure anything except oil facilities. He would not be facing these charges. It is nice to see him get burned by his own lies and incompetence. It is sad to see his apologists continue to excuse his every failure.


----------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
Jesus Christ...look about 3 posts up to my edited post. Then, start READING. You know, when your eyes view letters that form words that form sentences that convey a thought and it's processed by your brain and recognized as information?

Not a hard question, well maybe it is for proven liar, which links say approval for abuse went beyond the general in charge?

Ah...the liar insults again, eh?

You're sticking to that despite the fact that you, Mr. Snipe-and-Run, have NEVER proven I lied. Not once. Not even after I pleaded for just one link proving I lied.

Now, go read and come back when you're finished. Given your reading comprehension skills, I figure that will be about...oh...June 2018.

Once again the liar is not backing up his claims. I provided several instances that you lied conjur.

So conjur for sake of your credibility, which link showed the orders for abuse came from above the general in charge. And you do realize the link of the links you provided is suffering from severe link rot. If you are going to make a claim, you gotta back it up.

 

[Strk]

I wish I could understand the logic when people try to downplay missing explosives, especially when they weight is measured in tons

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Strk
I wish I could understand the logic when people try to downplay missing explosives, especially when they weight is measured in tons

you mean especially when it is only a couple of ounces needed per device. everyone will say "eh, not a big deal," until their little brother, dad, or whoever walks past an improvised explosive device. then they'll be up in arms. gotta love the priorities.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: conjur
Jesus Christ...look about 3 posts up to my edited post. Then, start READING. You know, when your eyes view letters that form words that form sentences that convey a thought and it's processed by your brain and recognized as information?

Neocons do not read. It is too hard. Rush reads good. They wait for him to explain.


--------------------
BUsh Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

To be honest, I don't know why I even bothered. I should have known better than replying to charrison. He's the worst offender of the snipe-and-run posting style and now is calling me a liar because he's too freakin' lazy to read.


:roll:

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: conjur
Jesus Christ...look about 3 posts up to my edited post. Then, start READING. You know, when your eyes view letters that form words that form sentences that convey a thought and it's processed by your brain and recognized as information?

Neocons do not read. It is too hard. Rush reads good. They wait for him to explain.


--------------------
BUsh Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

To be honest, I don't know why I even bothered. I should have known better than replying to charrison. He's the worst offender of the snipe-and-run posting style and now is calling me a liar because he's too freakin' lazy to read.


:roll:

You are the one that made the claim, you gotta back it up. Looking over your lovely list of links(many of which are dead and rotted away) I did not see any that implied orders came from above the general in charge of the prison. All I ask is you provide a direct link to your claim, but apparently that is too much for a liar.

 

[drewshin]

first of all, charrison needs to learn how to read. conjur originally stated that higher ups "condoned" violation of the geneva convention. then charrison began to distract from his usual lame arguement with exaggerations by asking who asked for "approval" for the abuse. then in his next post he asks who gave the "orders" for the abuse ---- totally off from what conjur originally said (please look up the definition of the words "condone", "approval", and "order" charrison). hey you'd make a great politician charrison!

well for your link, here is a great one, with a timeline and everything, JUST FOR YOU, big boy!

http://www.hrw.org/reports/200...604/5.htm#_Toc74483704

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../A55703-2004May25.html

General Sanchez denies having seen or approved the rules of engagement posted at Abu Ghraib (although he acknowledged that in twenty-five separate instances, he approved holding Iraqi prisoners in isolation for longer than thirty days, one of the methods listed in the posted rules [my addition: all the rules listed were in violation of the geneva convention].

wow, i thought i would only find people higher up condoning as well, but there was actually approval and orders from a higher general to violate the rules of the convention. rumsfeld also condoned violations, but that was in guantanamo. he seems to have cleared up his tracks better for abu ghraib.

 

[Engineer]

ABC jumps back into the frey....

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: drewshin
first of all, charrison needs to learn how to read. conjur originally stated that higher ups "condoned" violation of the geneva convention. then charrison began to distract from his usual lame arguement with exaggerations by asking who asked for "approval" for the abuse. then in his next post he asks who gave the "orders" for the abuse ---- totally off from what conjur originally said (please look up the definition of the words "condone", "approval", and "order" charrison). hey you'd make a great politician charrison!

well for your link, here is a great one, with a timeline and everything, JUST FOR YOU, big boy!

http://www.hrw.org/reports/200...604/5.htm#_Toc74483704

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../A55703-2004May25.html

General Sanchez denies having seen or approved the rules of engagement posted at Abu Ghraib (although he acknowledged that in twenty-five separate instances, he approved holding Iraqi prisoners in isolation for longer than thirty days, one of the methods listed in the posted rules [my addition: all the rules listed were in violation of the geneva convention].

wow, i thought i would only find people higher up condoning as well, but there was actually approval and orders from a higher general to violate the rules of the convention. rumsfeld also condoned violations, but that was in guantanamo. he seems to have cleared up his tracks better for abu ghraib.

I would like to thank you going through conjurs list of links. It is not that I cant read, or did not want, tt was the burden of proof rested on conjur to proof his statements. Giving me a long list does list of mostly irrelevent links is not proof.

However these links still prove little. The first link relies only on unnamed source. This does not count for much when it comes to hard proof.

The second link is far more interesting and rest solely on how the indivials would dentention would be classified. Such tactics would be against geneva convention for citizens, but maybe not for other types of detainees. It was also a very far from implicating bush, rumsfeld or most of the pentagon.

I am not saying no abuse happened there, or that it was right. It was however largely isolated.

 

[b0mbrman]

Bush lied and invaded Iraq

 

[BBond]

David Kay is on Aaron Brown right now destroying Bush over Al Qaqaa.

 

[polm]

Ha ! Drudge must be feeling pwnwd ! His link to the article concerning the OP just redirects back to his homepage. Oops :roll:

 

[Fingolfin269]

Why would anyone destroy Bush over this incident? It's not like he knew that our ops people decided to ship these weapons back stateside. It's time to start wagging that dog.