Iraq reports "Terrorists" seize imaginary WMD's?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Is the AP an Internet freak?

The AP is reporting the news. How the Internets respond to the news is a different thing.

The OP referred to "imaginary WMD's". If the UN knew about this and didn't see a significant threat and multiple US investigations knew about this and didn't see a significant threat...how could these represent valid WMD's?

Were these the WMD's used to justify the Iraq war? Is that what Beans is saying?

-spence

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by spence

The AP is reporting the news. How the Internets respond to the news is a different thing.

The OP referred to "imaginary WMD's". If the UN knew about this and didn't see a significant threat and multiple US investigations knew about this and didn't see a significant threat...how could these represent valid WMD's?

Were these the WMD's used to justify the Iraq war? Is that what Beans is saying?

-spence

I was saying is if they are not viable weapons then why were they being guarded?

Why did the "rebels" risk lives to take the bunker?

And why is it being reported as news? If they captured an empty bunker?

Since all 3 of those things hapened I tend to believe there must have been at least some of those weapons that were useable, or the damaged oned were since replaced by viable weapons, which would now be in the hands of the "rebels".

In other news: "Rebel forces capture Little Tommy's tree house that was built on the site where a ammunitions building "USED" to be".

[spence]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

I was saying is if they are not viable weapons then why were they being guarded?

Why did the "rebels" risk lives to take the bunker?

And why is it being reported as news? If they captured an empty bunker?

Since all 3 of those things hapened I tend to believe there must have been at least some of those weapons that were useable, or the damaged oned were since replaced by viable weapons, which would now be in the hands of the "rebels".

In other news: "Rebel forces capture Little Tommy's tree house that was built on the site where a ammunitions building "USED" to be".

The Iraqi government has a legal responsibility to dispose of the old munitions. I'm sure it's still toxic stuff but according to the inspectors can't function as intended and poses a much less significant risk.

I don't think ISIS is really concerned with lives. There's a military facility so they take it. Was it even really defended? Doesn't sound like it.

Don't you think if these were known and viable weapons they would have been used to show Saddam DID have WMD as the Bush Administration claimed?

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Don't you think if these were known and viable weapons they would have been used to show Saddam DID have WMD as the Bush Administration claimed?

-spence

I think it is been proven over and over again that President Bush was an honorable man. He did what he thought was best for the country. I believe he took the hit on the WMDs knowing that in the end the truth would come out.
I know you're an expert on lying and truth, as you can clearly define Pres. Obama's lies as being good for us and with purpose. I'm sure then you can then come up with a plausible argument as to why President Bush would not have jumped on the campaign trail during his presidency and claimed there were weapons of WMDs Unlike the current president, it wasn't all about him .
Don't be surprised if WMDs become the excuse for sending ground troops in now . Pres. Obama is going to be looking for one and you will be riding his coattails and calling it brilliant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[iamskippy]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

In other news: "Rebel forces capture Little Tommy's tree house that was built on the site where a ammunitions building "USED" to be".

Just launched my coffee.... Next up ketchup causes cancer is lab rats film at 11.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device