Main Restorations Software Audio/Jukebox/MP3 Everything Else Buy/Sell/Trade
Project Announcements Monitor/Video GroovyMAME Merit/JVL Touchscreen Meet Up Retail Vendors
Driving & Racing Woodworking Software Support Forums Consoles Project Arcade Reviews
Automated Projects Artwork Frontend Support Forums Pinball Forum Discussion Old Boards
Raspberry Pi & Dev Board controls.dat Linux Miscellaneous Arcade Wiki Discussion Old Archives
Lightguns Arcade1Up --- Bug Reports --- Site News

Unread posts | New Replies | Recent posts | Rules | Chatroom | Wiki | File Repository | RSS | Submit news

  

Author Topic: Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq  (Read 10077 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #80 on: October 28, 2004, 06:23:58 pm »
They also said the US was warned the materials were there and that it was one of, if not the most dangerous weapon facilities in the country.
- Oops for Bush.  Should have made securing that stuff part of the mission.

cooTer   is two smArt"  mE knott dum like TA says
TA meen two cooTer.

Pretty hefty price to pay.  Bush IS at fault.  He didn't do his homework and people may die because of it.  It is the Presidents responsibility to ensure the safety of our troops.  Bush didn't do it here.  This isn't what happens if you are well prepared for war.  Bush should have known there was explosives there.  It should have been part of the mission to secure it.  Instead they weren't even told to see if it was still there.

Thanks for coming.  My work in this thread is done. ;)

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #81 on: October 28, 2004, 06:26:07 pm »
Is this your response to everything? I addressed your question head on, you don't want to acknowledge my answer because it doesn't fit with the narrative in your head (ie: Bush=God!) so you ignore it

No....
...as far as your answer actually addressed the questions, I refuted them.  Of course, the "we contracted the Iraqis to guard/mopve them and they stole them instead" theory really doesnt need a response.  You don't want to acknowledge my refutation because it doesn't fit with the narrative in your head (ie: Bush=Moron!) so you ignore it



Move along then, why do you debate if you don't want to hear anything from the other side? Seems to me your all about bloviating.

Ah....   You cant come up with a good answer, so you admit defeat.   I guess I should give you credit for being honest - at l;east as honest as liberal can be.

See, I DO hear your side:

-Bush = Moron
-There isnt any way this isnt Bush fault
-There isnt any way the Iraqis took these explosives before we got there
-No matter how difficult (read:impossible) it would be for the Iraqis to transport these weapons, they did it
-Bush contracted Iraqis to move them because we helped the Afghand agianst the Russians.

And THEN you expect to be taken seriously!



TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #82 on: October 28, 2004, 06:31:19 pm »
What is your definition of "heavy looting"?  I picture vehicles being involved.  

Holy Crap!!

YOU imagine vehicles!!  Well, that sure does it for ME!!!

Now think, really really hard....  it might hurt, but try...

What would US soldiers to when they saw Iraqi army trucks, with Iraqis all around them, in a munitions storage complex?



Anyhow, now to my question.  Did Bush know the explosives were supposed to be there?

Wait....   you think that after your answer, it matters?

Why?  You havent in any way answered the necessary questions in a manner that would make anyont think that the Iraqis had the capability to pull the explosives out from under us.

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #83 on: October 28, 2004, 06:32:14 pm »
Quote
You haven't proven anything in your defense, and you are now falling back on "I asked you first!" Weak.

I'm not the one making charges - I dont have to prove anything.  
Well you are the one claiming the subject of this thread is nothing but an "october surprise" and false. It seem pretty clear to me: high explosives where in safe storage; Bush goes gung-ho into Iraq; explosives are missing. You seem to be on the end that has to come up with some to proof if you want to refute this. The proof for "our" case is already there.
This signature is intentionally left blank

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #84 on: October 28, 2004, 06:35:47 pm »
The proof for "our" case is already there.

Except for the part where the explosives were there when we got there.

And that the Iraqis had the capability to move them -after- we got there.


I agree-- these are minor points; in fact they hardly matter at all.  You can ignore them, if they get in the way of your Bush = Moron premise.

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #85 on: October 28, 2004, 06:58:49 pm »
"Except for the part where the explosives were there when we got there."

Turn on the news TA.

The explosives were there and we didn't secure them.  Now they're all gone.  Gulianno says it's the soldiers fault it was stolen.  You can talk to him about that one.

*shuts lights off & locks door*

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #86 on: October 28, 2004, 10:39:49 pm »
Game. Set. Match.  

Cooter is absolutely right, turn on the news. It was the lead story on ABC, NBC, CNN and MSNBC. It's going to be even bigger tomorrow.

Video Suggests Explosives Disappeared After U.S. Took Control.

Report: Video Shows Explosives Went Missing After War

You'll continue to refuse to acknowledge it, but the rest of the country will hold Bush responsible. It is, after all, *his* war, and *his* doctrine of poorly planned preemptive attack.

We'll figure out how these weapons were moved, but probably not until after the election. Just because you can't wrap your mind around it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

To help you out with the rest of your arguments from this point forward and to save everyone else the time, here's shorter TAPilot: "What are ya' gunna believe, me, or your lyin' eyes?"

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #87 on: October 29, 2004, 01:08:57 am »
And for your viewing pleasure (or not) here, sez Tully, my "unbiased media source" ;D


Missing Explosives--A Summary
I've been digging into the evidence (and lack thereof) and reached the following conclusions, arranged in time-line order. None of them require noting the suspicious timing of the report after so many months, the threatened status of El Baradei as he seeks a new term as IAEA head over US objections, or any partisan inclinations on the part of the media outlets involved.

The U.S. asked the IAEA to destroy the stockpiles in 1995. The IAEA refused, citing the explosives as legitimate "dual-use" material. The material was present only because the IAEA under El Baradei refused to destroy it.

In December, 2002 the IAEA found that 35 tons of HMX was missing. The Iraqis claimed that it had been used for legitimate construction purposes. The IAEA began another inventory.

The stockpiles of explosives were last seen in early January, 2003, when the IAEA inventoried them and placed seals on the bunkers they were stored in.

In early March 2003 IAEA inspectors visited Al QaQaa and found the seals intact on the HMX bunkers (holding 192 tons at time of sealing). They were not permitted to check the RDX and PETEN bunkers, and this was noted in their report. NOTE: It is certainly possible for the Iraqis to fake seals in any case. The explosives were NOT "seen" in March. The seals on one set of bunkers were, and other bunkers were not seen at all because of Iraqi interference.

April 3, 2003--the 3rd ID comes through Al QaQaa. Reports differ--by some accounts they had a list of items to look for, and once CENCOMM was notified the items were not where they were supposed to be the 3ID was told to move on. Other accounts say they did not have a list. All accounts agree that they found a cache of "thousands of boxes" measuring 2 inches by 5 inches that contained "three vials of white powder" and chem/bio weapon instructions. The powder was tested and found to be explosives, and it is highly likely that this was HMX or RDX. By all accounts the complex had suffered air strike damage, many buildings were completely destroyed including two large bunkers, and many others severely damaged. There were large quantities of conventional munitions ("AK 47's, ammunition, and artillery shells") to be seen in some of the damaged and collapsed buildings. No reports that any IAEA seals were seen. By some accounts the vials found were destroyed, other accounts do not mention this.

(NOTE: If the "thousands of boxes" were RDX or HMX, it is worth noting that the full amount of 380 tons would have been many millions of boxes. This was not formed explosives, but raw material in a lightweight powder form. More on this later.)

April 10, 2003--the 2nd Brigade of the 101st Airborne, with an NBC embed team along, stops in Al QaQaa for a 24-hour breather. They secure the area and rest. They do not have orders to search for the explosives. Some of the troopers check out the area--naturally, as securing the area requires some inspection. One of them (Ken Stillman) reports seeing two large empty bunkers with obvious signs of heavy traffic--lots of boot prints (not ours) and truck tracks. No signs of either the IAEA seals or explosives are reported.

On either May 7 or May 27 (I saw five accounts, with conflicting dates) the 75th Expeditionary Task Force (75ETF) arrives at Al QaQaa to "I & D"--inventory and destroy. The explosives are not there, and the already-damaged site shows signs of extensive looting. The 75ETF destroys piles of munitions and leaves.

Last date confirmed as actually present: January 2003. Date on which IAEA inspectors were NOT allowed to check all seals: Early March 2003. Dates on which US Troops visited and did not find any IAEA seals at all: April 3 and April 10. Date known for a fact to not be present: May 27, 2003.

A few more points. This is not some super-explosive, but raw material capable of making into plastic explosive roughly 20% to 50% more powerful than TNT by weight. It was not even in usable form, it was a fluffy plastic powder that required fillers, binders, and stabilizers to make usable explosives. When reconstituted, what you would have would be either Semtex or C4, depending on the binders and formulation, and you would still require detonators. All of those are already widely available in the Middle East. Artillery shells and other ordanance, already scattered over Iraq in the hundreds of thousands of tons, contains these materials in their usable form, and has the advantage of having the appropriate matching detonators already in place.

Damage to the two large destroyed bunkers (described by members of the 3ID and 101st as "craters with rubble centers") is consistent with impact detonation of large amounts of raw explosives. Could some have gotten out after we got there, and then left again? Sure, but unlikely. The fact that the boxes that were found were labelled as bio-weapons suggests they were intentionally placed as "scare tactics." The condition of the destroyed bunkers is inconclusive, but they could have had some quantity in them that got wiped in air strikes.

Odds that the material was moved out of the complex before Coalition troops arrived, during the period when Saddam was scattering his munitions all over the countryside, even sending convoys over the border into Syria--considerably good. Odds that part was dispersed by Saddam and that most of the rest went ka-boom in the air strikes, with little left to loot--also good. Odds that millions of boxes of fluffy white powder packed in vials could be moved out through the Coalition lines in bulk after US troops reached the area, all of them on high alert for anything that remotely resembled chem/bio weapons, without one single box being intercepted, and concealed so well that NONE of it has shown up since--just about zilch.

Just my take from an actual review of known accounts. Your mileage may vary.

Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #88 on: October 29, 2004, 01:36:24 am »
patrick, this was a story that was brought up (re-reported) again in an attempt to inflict maximum damage to Bush while leaving him as little time as possible to reply.  

Here, I'm gonna link a CBS site so you can feel comfortable with the source ::)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/iraq/main547667.shtml

If you need a bazillion more links stating the same thing using different words, let me know.  I've got 'em

Yet again, I state that this is a re-reported story that was so miniscule to the press at the time of the report that NO ONE can seem to remember that this was reported on.  And while this isn't the only source for the re-reporting of this story, it should be apparent to you that the story you were initially linked to was a re-issue of a news story over a year ago.

I believe the items in question were there.

My guess as to why this wasn't a headline story is that the powders in question are useless without the necessary ingredients and detonators to make them into something that IS useful, and I'd also be willing to bet that the SMALLER amount now being reported was more in line with what was there, and it was confiscated by the military, to be secured and possibly used by the U.S.

If we haven't found any WMD's in Iraq, and if the powders in question are powerful enugh to bring down a jet airliner all by themselves, then what exactly WOULD be classified as a WMD?

I ask because the press continues to prey on the ignorance of people and pound away at the "These were the explosives used to bring down Lockerbie something or other".     Things said to be able to blow up a plane......lets give out generalities......yet in reporting on WMD's, we're going to need specifics.

Please, someone, keep showing me where the mainstream media bias I speak of is just a fallacy ::)

Good to see you back MrC.  Home for the weekend, I presume?  Headed back out on the trail Sunday?
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

danny_galaga

  • Grand high prophet of the holy noodle.
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8492
  • Last login:March 23, 2020, 04:25:58 pm
  • because the mail never stops
    • dans cocktail lounge
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #89 on: October 29, 2004, 03:11:15 am »
If we haven't found any WMD's in Iraq, and if the powders in question are powerful enugh to bring down a jet airliner all by themselves, then what exactly WOULD be classified as a WMD?


 ;D


ROUGHING UP THE SUSPECT SINCE 1981

danny_galaga

  • Grand high prophet of the holy noodle.
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8492
  • Last login:March 23, 2020, 04:25:58 pm
  • because the mail never stops
    • dans cocktail lounge


ROUGHING UP THE SUSPECT SINCE 1981

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #91 on: October 29, 2004, 04:04:29 am »
patrick, this was a story that was brought up (re-reported) again in an attempt to inflict maximum damage to Bush while leaving him as little time as possible to reply.  

Here, I'm gonna link a CBS site so you can feel comfortable with the source ::)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/iraq/main547667.shtml
Well, I guess I need another link yeah. That link is about a complex which might have the same name. Nothing about looting and/or high explosives. You mean there can be only one article per complex? Maybe the whole war coverage is just a rerun of one news article since they all mention Iraq?

ps Perhaps you are confusing the looting of the Tuwaitha complex with this one?
« Last Edit: October 29, 2004, 08:42:19 am by patrickl »
This signature is intentionally left blank

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #92 on: October 29, 2004, 08:20:10 am »
I think Drew took care of pretty much what needed to be taken care of.

Never mind that we have pictures of Iraqi trucks at the site on March 17 2003:



This reconaissance picture, released yesterday, shows two trucks parked outside one of the 56 bunkers of the Al Qa Qaa Explosive Storage Complex on March 17, 2003, prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
(AP)


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041028-115519-3700r.htm

At this point, you people think the explosives were taken after we got there because you WANT to, not because there is any reason to.


patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #93 on: October 29, 2004, 08:36:51 am »
but then there are the videoimages taken on site that the barrels were still there on April 18th.  Now who is denying the truth?

Wouldn't it be a normal thing to get the ammunition from the depots just prior to an invasion? It strikes me as kinda lame that the pentagon doesn't say that these trucks are in front of the bunkers with the High Explosives. Isn't that something thats highly important? If not all you can say is that there were some trucks loading some stuff.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2004, 08:45:58 am by patrickl »
This signature is intentionally left blank

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #94 on: October 29, 2004, 09:04:41 am »
but then there are the videoimages taken on site that the barrels were still there on April 18th.  Now who is denying the truth?

the truth... that there were barrels there marked "explosive"?

Are there explosives other than RMX and HMX?  Yes?
So what do the videos prove?



Wouldn't it be a normal thing to get the ammunition from the depots just prior to an invasion?

Indeed.
And if these explosives are SO valuable that the Iraqis were willing to try to get them after the facility was overrun, why would they NOT pull them out before the war?

At this point, you people think the explosives were taken after we got there because you WANT to, not because there is any reason to.


patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #95 on: October 29, 2004, 10:33:31 am »
but then there are the videoimages taken on site that the barrels were still there on April 18th.  Now who is denying the truth?

the truth... that there were barrels there marked "explosive"?

Are there explosives other than RMX and HMX?  Yes?
So what do the videos prove?

Experts who have studied the images say the barrels on the tape contain the high explosive HMX, and the U.N. markings on the barrels are clear.

The seal's  critical," Albright said. "The fact that there's a photo of what looks like an IAEA seal means that what's behind those doors is HMX. They only sealed bunkers that had HMX in them."

(ed: the seals which they broke to open the bunkers)

Quote
Wouldn't it be a normal thing to get the ammunition from the depots just prior to an invasion?

Indeed.
And if these explosives are SO valuable that the Iraqis were willing to try to get them after the facility was overrun, why would they NOT pull them out before the war?
No that doesn't make sense at all. But that isn;t the point. There is PROOF that the explosives were there (either January 23, March 15th or April 18th) and they are now not there. Either way they are now gone and this could/should have been prevented. Especially if you set out to counter terorism in the first place.

Are you that blind a believer in Bush that you cannot even see this glaring problem?

Dear lord man. I can (with some problem) understand why Bush doesn't accept his mistakes, but to blame us for "wanting to see things" is rather lame. Come up with some proof and we'll argue further. Now you are just saying something like  "It's not true since I can't understand how terrorist can be clever"

Quote
At this point, you people think the explosives were taken after we got there because you WANT to, not because there is any reason to.
No. I'd rather have that the Russians did really take them home, but it unfortunately seems very unlikely.
This signature is intentionally left blank

Dexter

  • Patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel. -- Irish, darnit!
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
  • Last login:May 22, 2015, 11:52:02 am
  • "MAKE POVERTY HISTORY......."
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #96 on: October 29, 2004, 10:39:45 am »
At this point, you people think the explosives were taken after we got there because you WANT to, not because there is any reason to.


I hate to upset your applecart but...(another pic)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20041028/ts_nm/iraq_explosives_abc_dc

There may have been enough troops in Iraq to secure oil and arms facilities/dumps if the Iraqis had welcomed them with flowers etc like Rummy presumed, but like the generals have been saying all along, there are insufficient numbers to do the job properly. Of course they went missing after the invasion, theres not enough men on the ground for guerilla warfare AND security detail.




patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #97 on: October 29, 2004, 10:55:49 am »
Never mind that we have pictures of Iraqi trucks at the site on March 17 2003:

This reconaissance picture, released yesterday, shows two trucks parked outside one of the 56 bunkers of the Al Qa Qaa Explosive Storage Complex on March 17, 2003, prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
(AP)

As I suspected, the satellite picture proofs nothing:
However, a comparison of features in the DoD-released imagery with available commercial satellite imagery, combined with the use of an IAEA map showing the location of bunkers used to store the HMX explosives, reveals that the trucks pictured on the DoD image are not at any of the nine bunkers indentified by the IAEA as containing the missing explosive stockpiles.

Amazing how they think something so stupid can fool people. Something like: "Uhm, well if we just don't say it's one of the actual bunkers they can never pin it on us and the dumb huddled masses won't see the difference anyway".
This signature is intentionally left blank

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #98 on: October 29, 2004, 11:18:51 am »
Amazing how they think something so stupid can fool people. Something like: "Uhm, well if we just don't say it's one of the actual bunkers they can never pin it on us and the dumb huddled masses won't see the difference anyway".

And so, because these trucks arent at those bunkers, there were no trucks at any other bunkers.

The POINT of the picture is to show that the Iraqis WERE moving things from the facility before the war.

But, of course, none of those things could have possibly been the explosives in question --  no, they were so important, they had to be ignored in March but then moved -after- we overran the facility.


And while its possible that the explosives in the video are indeed HMX/RMX or some other explosive, it -certainly- isnt 380 tons of it.


But then, since the IAEA cant actually say that there WERE 380 tons there in March - who knows how much is actually missing?





 

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #99 on: October 29, 2004, 11:44:17 am »
TA,

You wanted something to support my proposed theory on how 380 tons of explosives could be carted away out the front door, right under our noses?

Here:

"Group claims to have weapons
What's happened to the explosives is a mystery. A video surfaced Thursday in which a group calling itself Al-Islam's Army Brigades, Al-Karar Brigade, said it had coordinated with officers and soldiers of "the American intelligence" to obtain a "huge amount of the explosives that were in the Al-Qaqaa facility." (AP report/MSNBC)


...

"We promise God and the Iraqi people that we will use it against the occupation forces and those who cooperate with them in the event of these forces threatening any Iraqi city," the man added."



Again, I've been imploring you to admit that this was a possibility, and I've shown you something that supports that possibility. Whether it happened like this or not has yet to be ascertained. Long and short of it, the explosives were there after the fall of Baghdad, now they are gone. They left somehow, under Bush's poorly planned and executed war plan. Our troops have been left out to dry by this administration and now they face even more danger because of Bush Co.'s ignorance/arrogance.


mrC

P.S. Drew: Hullo! Yes, I'm taking a needed break from the trail, back out on Sunday in N.H. to GOTV again. Registering single individuals multiple times is hard work....   ;)

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #100 on: October 29, 2004, 12:14:02 pm »

At this point, you people think the explosives were taken after we got there because you WANT to, not because there is any reason to.



Viiiiiiiddddddddeeeeeeeeooooooooo! Say it with me now.....Video.

edit: link added.


« Last Edit: October 29, 2004, 12:16:06 pm by mr.Curmudgeon »

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #101 on: October 29, 2004, 12:19:08 pm »
I guess this one is dead. Plenty of evidence for the people who don't have their head in the sand.

TA, you would really look a lot less foolish if you would now and then fess up on your mistakes. Or if you can't do that at least just let the thread die. It's a bit depressing to see someone defending a lost cases like these. Amazing how you think just keeping on posting is some kind of debating technique. It's just an embarrassment technique really.
This signature is intentionally left blank

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #102 on: October 29, 2004, 12:24:11 pm »
It's a bit depressing to see someone defending a lost cases like these.

Wait....

Because there is video of what -may- be -some- of the explosives in question, it means that the Iraqis stole ALL of the explosoives (that the IAEA cant confirm was actually there) after we overran the facility?

Yeah..




TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #103 on: October 29, 2004, 12:28:51 pm »
Uh oh....

Soldier to brief reporters at Pentagon within the hour that he was tasked with removing explosives from al QaQaa and he and his unit removed 200+ tons... Officer was ordered to join the 101st airborne on April 13 -- to destroy conventional explosives at the al QaQaa complex... Developing...






mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #104 on: October 29, 2004, 01:32:09 pm »
TA,

Saw the press conference with the Soldier...Pentagon flak for Bush. Turned out to be a disaster once the press started asking questions. It was great!

My favorite part:

"Can you definitively say you moved the explosives under IAEA seal?"

"I... I don't know"


...

Then this, "IAEA confirming that the stuff they were just talking about in the press conference does NOT include the plastic explosives. And that the Bushies wouldn't let them in to inspect the sites WE were supposed to be watching."


All this press conference did is muddy the waters and give the Bushies something to hide behind for the next couple of days. This is a total GOP meltdown. It does illustrate one important point. This administration will not hesitate to sacrifice a member of the military when it is politically expedient.

Questions unanswered:
Did one guy move this? If not, who is "they"?

Did you bring an IAEA official with you to al Qa Qaa to help identify seals and materials? If not, why?

Did you document fully and video the movement and destruction of the materials? If not, why?

Will you swear under oath to the events you describe. If not, why?

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #105 on: October 29, 2004, 01:38:28 pm »
Yeah.

After all, its not possible that this guy -did- move some of the stuff.  

And its also not possible that the stuff wasnt there when he got there.

AND its not possible that the Iraqis didnt take it before we got there.

No, no, no!  The only possibility here is that Bush screwed up!!



Its amazing how quick Kerry supporters (and Kerry) are to villify members of the military.




patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #106 on: October 29, 2004, 02:22:33 pm »
Uh oh....

Soldier to brief reporters at Pentagon within the hour that he was tasked with removing explosives from al QaQaa and he and his unit removed 200+ tons... Officer was ordered to join the 101st airborne on April 13 -- to destroy conventional explosives at the al QaQaa complex... Developing...
Ah, some proof finally ... oh no ... just more smokescreen. Interesting theory though.

At least they came off their asses now that there is proof that the HMX and RDX were there on April 18th. Now see if they can really make a case
This signature is intentionally left blank

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #107 on: October 29, 2004, 02:31:06 pm »
Make their case?

You havent made yours.

All you have is that there was (supposedly) 377 tons of explosives in these bunkers in Jan 2003, there was some amount of some sort of explosives in one of the bunkers 18 April 2003, and none on 8 May 2003.

Thats the entire support for your case of Bush "dropping the ball".






patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #108 on: October 29, 2004, 02:35:30 pm »
Proof? Oh no none again. Why do you wake us up when you have nothing?
This signature is intentionally left blank

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #109 on: October 29, 2004, 02:55:43 pm »
Make their case?

You havent made yours.

All you have is that there was (supposedly) 377 tons of explosives in these bunkers in Jan 2003, there was some amount of some sort of explosives in one of the bunkers 18 April 2003, and none on 8 May 2003.

Thats the entire support for your case of Bush "dropping the ball".


Supposedly?

"In January 2003, IAEA inspectors viewed and inventoried the explosives at Al-Qaqaa for the last time. They placed fresh seals over the bunker doors. On March 15, 2003 inspectors visited Al-Qaqaa for the last time but apparently did not examine the explosives because according to their report, the seals on the bunker doors were not broken."

You must believe the Russians sucked it out the air vents.

Sorry, Bush dropped the ball. But if you need to ignore that in order to pull the lever on Tues., so be it.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #110 on: October 29, 2004, 03:24:36 pm »
Supposedly?

Yes.  Supposedly.  The IAEA did not confrim the tonnage on 15 March.

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
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304&page=1

This ignores the issue about not knowing exactly what was in them to begin with, which you will also find in the story I cited.  Its hard to claim that Bush allowed 377 tons to be stolen when they cant say for certain that 377 tons were there to begin with.


So, all you have is that there was (supposedly) 377 tons of explosives in these bunkers in Jan 2003, there was some amount of some sort of explosives in one of the bunkers 18 April 2003, and none on 8 May 2003.

This proves...  nothing.


Now, if you believe that this proves that Bush did drop the ball, and that's what it takes for you to be able to vote for Kerry - so be it.





Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #111 on: October 29, 2004, 04:00:02 pm »
Think about it TA.
"if you believe that this proves that Bush did drop the ball"

SCENARIO 1:  Bush knew the material was supposed to be there, but didn't tell the guys to look for it & secure it.  He dropped the ball in this scenario.

SCENARIO 2:  Bush didn't know the stuff was supposed to be there.  Poor planning, the information was there.  He dropped the ball in this scenario.

I'm not using hindsight, I'm not second guessing, I'm not blaming the troops.  Either come up with a different scenario or accept one of those.  Bush screwed up.  Who care who did what after the fact.  This is straight up ignorance on the part of the Bush administration.

"So, all you have is that there was (supposedly) 377 tons of explosives in these bunkers in Jan 2003, there was some amount of some sort of explosives in one of the bunkers 18 April 2003, and none on 8 May 2003.

This proves...  nothing."


This proves everything.  I don't care what the exact weight was.  It should have been zero.  It wasn't.  Why? Because Bush didn't do his homework.  Either he didn't know about it, or he didn't care what happened to it.

Why are you even questioning the tonnage?  Back on page 1 you were saying:
"You do not "loot" 380 tons of explosives.
You move them with trucks.  Lots of them.  ~40 10-ton trucks, to be more precise."

Your whole arguement rested on there being too much to move.  Now you insinuate there was very little.

My question to you hasn't changed.  Nor has my arguement.  When will you answer?

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #112 on: October 29, 2004, 04:12:12 pm »
Either come up with a different scenario or accept one of those

Scenario 3:
The explosives in question were gone before we got there.

Scenario 4:
We took the explosives and disposed of them.


 This is straight up ignorance on the part of the Bush administration.

Given the evience you have to support your charges, and the timing of its release, its far better characterized as a bitter, partisan effort to affect the election.



This proves everything.

No.   It doesn't.  
It doesnt prove that the explosives were there when we got there
It doesnt prove that the explosives were anywhere near the quantities charged
It doesnt prove the Iraqis took it.

Unles you can do those things, you have nothing.




Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #113 on: October 29, 2004, 04:30:08 pm »
I don't need to prove any of those things.  And you didn't answer.


Did Bush know the stuff was supposed to be there?

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #114 on: October 29, 2004, 09:46:25 pm »
SCENARIO 2:  Bush didn't know the stuff was supposed to be there.  Poor planning, the information was there.  He dropped the ball in this scenario.
what information was there, and who did this information come from?  They were in the area back in April 2003 and this is being reported NOW.  Who had information, what was this information, and where was this information?


Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #115 on: October 30, 2004, 10:55:57 am »
I don't need to prove any of those things.

For the loss of the explosives to be our fault?
Yes.  You do.   Each and every part.


mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #116 on: October 30, 2004, 02:50:40 pm »
For the loss of the explosives to be our fault?
Yes.  You do.   Each and every part.


Only the amount is in dispute, TA, you know that...

There is irrefutable proof that there was a large portion of explosives left unguarded, all of which has gone missing. What is your point? It's *ok* if it was just 200 tons, or 100 tons of material?  Do you care so little for our troops that you'd seek to differentiate between the levels of incompetence in this administration? Making them partial incompetent, or completely incompetent. Why are you so comfortable lowering the bar for Bush? Is that the only way you can support him?

Also, to further bolster the rational case we've made against whatever argument it is you've been trying to put forth (you really aren't doing very well), there is this latest news:

"A French journalist who visited the Qaqaa munitions depot south of Baghdad in November last year said she witnessed Islamic insurgents looting vast supplies of explosives more than six months after the demise of Saddam Hussein's regime."

Put this together with the fact that, Maj. Pearson, when asked at the Pentagon CYA conference, if insurgents could have carried off 150 tons of that stuff in a short period of time as a practical matter. He replied that it seems like a lot, but in fact it could be done really quickly. (ie: given enough time, you don't need vast amounts of heavy equipment), How do you argue against the fact that this shows a large (by any amount) stash of extremely deadly explosives and ammunition (not the same thing), left completely unguarded for an extended period of time?

Again, Game. Set. Match.

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #117 on: October 30, 2004, 02:59:28 pm »
And finally, I'd invite anyone whose even in the least bit curious to actually *watch* the press conference and tell me these guys aren't up a river without a paddle. It's a total GOP meltdown and it's disgusting to watch them hide behind a soldier who probably still has sand in his boots after being swept out of Iraq to cover Bush's ass.


rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/iraq/iraq102904_dod.rm?mode=compact (Real Video Stream/Via: CSPAN)



patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #118 on: October 30, 2004, 05:26:45 pm »
I couldn't watch the video on your link, but I saw the press conference on CNN and I felt really sorry for that army guy too. He was clearly not comfortable with the whole situation and he didn't even know any answers. Just like the satellite picture showing "trucks in front of bunkers loading (or maybe even unloading?) stuff" he "moved stuff from bunkers".

What was even more pathetic was that you could see he was drilled to give the answers he gave. The spokesperson (Di Rita?) was nodding and almost mouthing the words when the soldier spoke his standard catch phrases: "We were there to minimalize damages to bla bla bla bla ...".

But as I said before, at least they came of their asses after the proof was show that the stuff was still there on april 18th. They had a month to come up with a good answer and now all of a sudden they drop this poor guy in the sharktank to cover their asses. Deeply sad.
This signature is intentionally left blank

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #119 on: October 30, 2004, 10:20:02 pm »
Who had information, what was this information, and where was this information?

[Sorry it took awhile to get back Drew]  That info is what I'm trying to find out.  If the IAEA rated that place as one of, if not the most important areas for weapons, why didn't we know about it and want to secure it?  Shouldn't we have studied that kind of information before going in?

So far:
"The explosives were known to have been housed in storage bunkers at the sprawling Al-Qaqaa complex and nearby structures. U.N. nuclear inspectors placed fresh seals over the bunker doors in January 2003. The inspectors visited Al-Qaqaa for the last time that March 15 and reported that the seals were not broken, concluding that the weapons were still inside at the time."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933

So the UN knew the stuff was there, the IAEA knew, wouldn't that make it very easy for us to know?  Then we should have checked to see if it was there at the first visit.  If so, secure it.  It just doesn't make any sense to tell those guys to "rest at the giant explosives depot, then continue to Bagdhad".  Those guys on the videos didn't even know what the seal meant.  The Bush Administration messed up.  That's the only conclusion I can come to.  It's not the field guys fault when they weren't told about it or what the seals even meant.
(enter Bush) It's what you call a... lack of intelligence. (que smirk)
« Last Edit: October 30, 2004, 10:23:25 pm by Crazy Cooter »