"400 tons" still just a pro-Lurch media event

Patrick · 31st October 2004, 10:09 AM

For a "link" for the link-obsessed, here's one from a liberal media channel where the clueless can get a few facts on the scale of the captured munitions problem in Iraq:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/..._weapons14.asp

No ifs, ands, or buts, the "400 tons" has significance only as a late october well-timed assist for lurch by the liberal media. The arguments that (implicitly) otherwise the IFs would not have material for IEDs is transcendentally silly.

The Fool · 31st October 2004, 01:55 PM

LOL...starting to panic patsie??

corplinx · 31st October 2004, 02:05 PM

Are we going to quit calling him Lurch anytime soon Patrick?

I think a point you want to make about this story would be taken more seriously:
a. don't mock Senator Kerry
b. don't include filter phrases that cause people to dismiss you out of hand, like "liberal media"
c. just as there is no evidence of how much of the munitions were still at the facility when we took over, there is also no evidence of collusion between the press and the kerry campaign on this story

Patrick · 31st October 2004, 02:58 PM

Are we going to quit calling him Lurch anytime soon Patrick?

"WE"??

No, "we" are not.

I think a point you want to make about this story would be taken more seriously:
a. don't mock Senator Kerry
b. don't include filter phrases that cause people to dismiss you out of hand, like "liberal media"
c. just as there is no evidence of how much of the munitions were still at the facility when we took over, there is also no evidence of collusion between the press and the kerry campaign on this story

Here's a flash for you sport - I don't give a flying f__K whether any of the hyperliberals here "take me seriously". I post on internet sites to inform the large number of people who may be passing by who would otherwise never hear some facts or arguments from the LME. Just for your edification, whether someone call's Lurch Lurch or not has nothing to do with the validity of arguments.

geni · 31st October 2004, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Patrick
Here's a flash for you sport - I don't give a flying f__K whether any of the hyperliberals here "take me seriously". I post on internet sites to inform the large number of people who may be passing by who would otherwise never hear some facts or arguments from the LME. Just for your edification, whether someone call's Lurch Lurch or not has nothing to do with the validity of arguments.

Hyperliberal? On this site? Quite someone give him a copy of the new statement. I want to see him have a nevios breakdown.

SlippyToad · 31st October 2004, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Patrick
Just for your edification, whether someone call's Lurch Lurch or not has nothing to do with the validity of arguments.

Actually, Patrick, it does. Calling someone a name falls roughly under the fallacy of ad hominem. It's about the same as dismissing an argument by saying someone is stupid. When you make it clear that your contempt for someone's position is more important than your arguments vs. that person, it becomes harder to take you seriously.

Of course, you don't give a flying fsck about convincing liberals like me, but intelligent conservatives are certainly not running around going "lurch lurch lurch lurch," either, so equally difficult for you to argue that such an approach is effective. You are lowering the common denominator.

I mean, as a liberal I of course find a great deal of humor in poking fun of Bushisms but when I get mad it's about things that are real, and I make a special point of framing my argument in adult terms.

This axe your're grinding about the explosives in Al QaQaa has got to be getting thin. And it's not getting any sharper. The facts are real. The media is going out of their way to highlight this precisely because of the statements Bush himself made at the outset of this adventure; i.e., that we were going into Iraq to make our nation safer, to secure a "gathering threat," and so forth. The Administration's continuing rhetoric of conjuring terrorists and bombers in our midst is playing right into the media's hands, and the picture isn't getting any better. Indeed, it seems to get worse with each news cycle, as more evidence is uncovered that the mission really was bungled.

It is precisely this kind of thing that hand-wringing pansies like myself worried about -- that we would make a bad situation worse. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you continue to insist that there's nothing here to see. Methinks thou doth protest overmuch.

Patrick · 31st October 2004, 07:25 PM

The media is going out of their way to highlight this precisely because of the statements Bush himself made at the outset of this adventure; i.e., that we were going into Iraq to make our nation safer, to secure a "gathering threat," and so forth.

No, they're going out of their way to get their man, Lurch, elected. This tempest in a teapot is as if when Guilianni cleaned up New York by clamping down hard on criminals in NYC, the first time that had happened in decades, some isolated person got mugged, and the NY Times headlined: "Gasp! Guilliani's Crime Fight Not Working!". In fact, if I recall correctly, the liberal media DID do things like that - every time a well-publicized crime happened, it was "proof". Of course, Guilliani succeded in drastically reducing crime - the ignored REAL story.

This is a well-worn device of the LME - portray the particular as the general, like when they furiously hunted down a couple GIs at the end of the main battles and got them to gripe about food, the heat, etc, in support of a "disgruntled troops" story, or when the army got stopped for three days by a dust storm and the LME creeps were falling all over themselves to announce a "quagmire". This is more of the same: less than 1% of the munitions in the country go missing, and Bush's leadership is questioned.

Yaaaawwwwwn. This is lame, and most people will see it for what is - a clumsy october surprise - a transparent attempt to give Lurch a boost at the last minute.

Dorian Gray · 31st October 2004, 11:05 PM

Less than 1% of the munitions that we were supposed to guard.

Oh, yeah, and 100% of the WMDs are "missing". Patrice, bow before the power of factual evidence. I suppose Osama bin Laden coordinated his tape with the liberal media and the DNC, you wacko nutjob?

Questioninggeller · 1st November 2004, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Patrick
No, they're going out of their way to get their man, Lurch, elected. This tempest in a teapot is as if when Guilianni cleaned up New York by clamping down hard on criminals in NYC, the first time that had happened in decades, some isolated person got mugged, and the NY Times headlined: "Gasp! Guilliani's Crime Fight Not Working!". In fact, if I recall correctly, the liberal media DID do things like that - every time a well-publicized crime happened, it was "proof". Of course, Guilliani succeded in drastically reducing crime - the ignored REAL story.
...
Yaaaawwwwwn. This is lame, and most people will see it for what is - a clumsy october surprise - a transparent attempt to give Lurch a boost at the last minute.

If the media is liberal and "getting" Kerry elected is Fox News objective in their reporting?

I'm just trying to understand what you expect out of the media: to side with the politicians or to expose truth by reporting statements made by credible and important parties.

**The media was pretty harsh on Clinton's Oral Office event and didn't focus on the good he was doing...

Crossbow · 1st November 2004, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Patrick
For a "link" for the link-obsessed, here's one from a liberal media channel where the clueless can get a few facts on the scale of the captured munitions problem in Iraq:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/..._weapons14.asp

No ifs, ands, or buts, the "400 tons" has significance only as a late october well-timed assist for lurch by the liberal media. The arguments that (implicitly) otherwise the IFs would not have material for IEDs is transcendentally silly.

I was wondering how long it would take some mindless Bush supporter to start blaming the "media" for the the problems Bush has brought upon himself, and now I have an answer.

Thanks much Patrick!

zakur · 1st November 2004, 03:53 PM

Yeah, that whole "400 tons" number is clearly wrong:

Missing weapons may top 250,000 tons

peptoabysmal · 1st November 2004, 11:15 PM

This grade of explosives like HDX are stored in powder form. It requires a solvent and a catalyst to be mixed into it, IIRC, and then it's poured into a mold. Then you need a powerful detonator to get it to explode. It has to get under a lot of heat and pressure to work.

Where's the dual-use for HDX? Why did the U.N. allow Saddam to keep this stuff in the first place? Mining and civilian construction? ... Don't make me laugh. This stuff has one purpose - thermonuclear warheads.

RDX is one of the components of Semtex as well as a component of HDX, but Semtex is already widely available on the black market. Why risk being shot at to get some RDX? RDX can be made from very common chemicals with a little knowledge and equipment. Working with raw RDX can cause you to go into seizures, if you are not properly equipped. How hard do you think it is for a terrorist to get ahold of some Semtex or C4?

How many canisters / boxes of these powders would it take to make 200 to 400 tons in weight? I'll wager that it would take a lot more than the estimate I've heard of 38 trucks. The trucks can carry so much weight, but what about the volume? Now imagine that this was carried out when soldiers were running all over the place in humvies and tanks. Remember the traffic jams and auto check points?

The whole thing sounds fishy to me.

31st October 2004, 10:09 AM	#1
Patrick Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,224	"400 tons" still just a pro-Lurch media event For a "link" for the link-obsessed, here's one from a liberal media channel where the clueless can get a few facts on the scale of the captured munitions problem in Iraq: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/..._weapons14.asp No ifs, ands, or buts, the "400 tons" has significance only as a late october well-timed assist for lurch by the liberal media. The arguments that (implicitly) otherwise the IFs would not have material for IEDs is transcendentally silly.
Patrick Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,224

31st October 2004, 01:55 PM	#2
The Fool Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 11,558	LOL...starting to panic patsie??
	__________________ And what is good, Phaedrus,and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? R. M. Pirsig. (Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance) Lose half your IQ....Ask me how.

31st October 2004, 02:05 PM	#3
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Are we going to quit calling him Lurch anytime soon Patrick? I think a point you want to make about this story would be taken more seriously: a. don't mock Senator Kerry b. don't include filter phrases that cause people to dismiss you out of hand, like "liberal media" c. just as there is no evidence of how much of the munitions were still at the facility when we took over, there is also no evidence of collusion between the press and the kerry campaign on this story
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

31st October 2004, 02:58 PM	#4
Patrick Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,224	Are we going to quit calling him Lurch anytime soon Patrick? "WE"?? No, "we" are not. I think a point you want to make about this story would be taken more seriously: a. don't mock Senator Kerry b. don't include filter phrases that cause people to dismiss you out of hand, like "liberal media" c. just as there is no evidence of how much of the munitions were still at the facility when we took over, there is also no evidence of collusion between the press and the kerry campaign on this story Here's a flash for you sport - I don't give a flying f__K whether any of the hyperliberals here "take me seriously". I post on internet sites to inform the large number of people who may be passing by who would otherwise never hear some facts or arguments from the LME. Just for your edification, whether someone call's Lurch Lurch or not has nothing to do with the validity of arguments.
Patrick Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,224

31st October 2004, 07:25 PM	#7
Patrick Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,224	The media is going out of their way to highlight this precisely because of the statements Bush himself made at the outset of this adventure; i.e., that we were going into Iraq to make our nation safer, to secure a "gathering threat," and so forth. No, they're going out of their way to get their man, Lurch, elected. This tempest in a teapot is as if when Guilianni cleaned up New York by clamping down hard on criminals in NYC, the first time that had happened in decades, some isolated person got mugged, and the NY Times headlined: "Gasp! Guilliani's Crime Fight Not Working!". In fact, if I recall correctly, the liberal media DID do things like that - every time a well-publicized crime happened, it was "proof". Of course, Guilliani succeded in drastically reducing crime - the ignored REAL story. This is a well-worn device of the LME - portray the particular as the general, like when they furiously hunted down a couple GIs at the end of the main battles and got them to gripe about food, the heat, etc, in support of a "disgruntled troops" story, or when the army got stopped for three days by a dust storm and the LME creeps were falling all over themselves to announce a "quagmire". This is more of the same: less than 1% of the munitions in the country go missing, and Bush's leadership is questioned. Yaaaawwwwwn. This is lame, and most people will see it for what is - a clumsy october surprise - a transparent attempt to give Lurch a boost at the last minute.
Patrick Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,224

31st October 2004, 03:19 PM	#5
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,579	Quote: Originally posted by Patrick Here's a flash for you sport - I don't give a flying f__K whether any of the hyperliberals here "take me seriously". I post on internet sites to inform the large number of people who may be passing by who would otherwise never hear some facts or arguments from the LME. Just for your edification, whether someone call's Lurch Lurch or not has nothing to do with the validity of arguments. Hyperliberal? On this site? Quite someone give him a copy of the new statement. I want to see him have a nevios breakdown.

31st October 2004, 06:07 PM	#6
SlippyToad Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 382	Quote: Originally posted by Patrick *Just for your edification, whether someone call's Lurch Lurch or not has nothing* to do with the validity of arguments.** Actually, Patrick, it does. Calling someone a name falls roughly under the fallacy of ad hominem. It's about the same as dismissing an argument by saying someone is stupid. When you make it clear that your contempt for someone's position is more important than your arguments vs. that person, it becomes harder to take you seriously. Of course, you don't give a flying fsck about convincing liberals like me, but intelligent conservatives are certainly not running around going "lurch lurch lurch lurch," either, so equally difficult for you to argue that such an approach is effective. You are lowering the common denominator. I mean, as a liberal I of course find a great deal of humor in poking fun of Bushisms but when I get mad it's about things that are real, and I make a special point of framing my argument in adult terms. This axe your're grinding about the explosives in Al QaQaa has got to be getting thin. And it's not getting any sharper. The facts are real. The media is going out of their way to highlight this precisely because of the statements Bush himself made at the outset of this adventure; i.e., that we were going into Iraq to make our nation safer, to secure a "gathering threat," and so forth. The Administration's continuing rhetoric of conjuring terrorists and bombers in our midst is playing right into the media's hands, and the picture isn't getting any better. Indeed, it seems to get worse with each news cycle, as more evidence is uncovered that the mission really was bungled. It is precisely this kind of thing that hand-wringing pansies like myself worried about -- that we would make a bad situation worse. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you continue to insist that there's nothing here to see. Methinks thou doth protest overmuch.

31st October 2004, 11:05 PM	#8
Dorian Gray Hypocrisy Detector Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 20,196	Less than 1% of the munitions that we were supposed to guard. Oh, yeah, and 100% of the WMDs are "missing". Patrice, bow before the power of factual evidence. I suppose Osama bin Laden coordinated his tape with the liberal media and the DNC, you wacko nutjob?
	__________________ "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka "Rational arguments don't work on religious people. If they did, there wouldn't be any religious people." - House Additionally to Carlin being funnier than Izzard, I think Dorian is funnier than the Marquis. - Ron Tomkins

1st November 2004, 12:20 AM	#9
Questioninggeller Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,030	Quote: Originally posted by Patrick No, they're going out of their way to get their man, Lurch, elected. This tempest in a teapot is as if when Guilianni cleaned up New York by clamping down hard on criminals in NYC, the first time that had happened in decades, some isolated person got mugged, and the NY Times headlined: "Gasp! Guilliani's Crime Fight Not Working!". In fact, if I recall correctly, the liberal media DID do things like that - every time a well-publicized crime happened, it was "proof". Of course, Guilliani succeded in drastically reducing crime - the ignored REAL story. ... Yaaaawwwwwn. This is lame, and most people will see it for what is - a clumsy october surprise - a transparent attempt to give Lurch a boost at the last minute. If the media is liberal and "getting" Kerry elected is Fox News objective in their reporting? I'm just trying to understand what you expect out of the media: to side with the politicians or to expose truth by reporting statements made by credible and important parties. **The media was pretty harsh on Clinton's Oral Office event and didn't focus on the good he was doing...

1st November 2004, 03:29 PM	#10
Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,294	Re: "400 tons" still just a pro-Lurch media event Quote: Originally posted by Patrick For a "link" for the link-obsessed, here's one from a liberal media channel where the clueless can get a few facts on the scale of the captured munitions problem in Iraq: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/..._weapons14.asp No ifs, ands, or buts, the "400 tons" has significance only as a late october well-timed assist for lurch by the liberal media. The arguments that (implicitly) otherwise the IFs would not have material for IEDs is transcendentally silly. I was wondering how long it would take some mindless Bush supporter to start blaming the "media" for the the problems Bush has brought upon himself, and now I have an answer. Thanks much Patrick!
	__________________ A man's best friend is his dogma.

1st November 2004, 03:53 PM	#11
zakur Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dayton, OH Posts: 3,265	Yeah, that whole "400 tons" number is clearly wrong: Missing weapons may top 250,000 tons
	__________________ "I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -Thomas Carlyle "That's the problem these days: nobody thinks of the tumors." -steinhenge

1st November 2004, 11:15 PM	#12
peptoabysmal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,467	This grade of explosives like HDX are stored in powder form. It requires a solvent and a catalyst to be mixed into it, IIRC, and then it's poured into a mold. Then you need a powerful detonator to get it to explode. It has to get under a lot of heat and pressure to work. Where's the dual-use for HDX? Why did the U.N. allow Saddam to keep this stuff in the first place? Mining and civilian construction? ... Don't make me laugh. This stuff has one purpose - thermonuclear warheads. RDX is one of the components of Semtex as well as a component of HDX, but Semtex is already widely available on the black market. Why risk being shot at to get some RDX? RDX can be made from very common chemicals with a little knowledge and equipment. Working with raw RDX can cause you to go into seizures, if you are not properly equipped. How hard do you think it is for a terrorist to get ahold of some Semtex or C4? How many canisters / boxes of these powders would it take to make 200 to 400 tons in weight? I'll wager that it would take a lot more than the estimate I've heard of 38 trucks. The trucks can carry so much weight, but what about the volume? Now imagine that this was carried out when soldiers were running all over the place in humvies and tanks. Remember the traffic jams and auto check points? The whole thing sounds fishy to me.
	__________________ OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.