Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Do, or do not. There is no 'try'. - Yoda

Brazil Nut
by Lee

If these claims turn out to be true then things for Scotland Yard have just gone from worse to really worse.

Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot dead in the head, was not wearing a heavy jacket that might have concealed a bomb, and did not jump the ticket barrier when challenged by armed plainclothes police, his cousin said yesterday.

Speaking at a press conference after a meeting with the Metropolitan police, Vivien Figueiredo, 22, said that the first reports of how her 27-year-old cousin had come to be killed in mistake for a suicide bomber on Friday at Stockwell tube station were wrong.

“He used a travel card,” she said. “He had no bulky jacket, he was wearing a jeans jacket. But even if he was wearing a bulky jacket that wouldn’t be an excuse to kill him.”

It’s worth making clear that these are just claims by the family, but if any of this is true I don’t see anything but a world of hurt for these cops.

Posted by Lee on 07/28/05 at 02:06 PM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 07/28/05 at 04:48 PM from United States

What about actual witnesses at the time of the shooting?  I think they would be more credible than this looney family.

Posted by on 07/28/05 at 04:58 PM from United States

What do you expect them to say?

Posted by Bobski_UK on 07/28/05 at 05:00 PM from United Kingdom

I agree, this will put the police in a world of shit should the allegations be true. However, they were made by a family member and reported in The Guardian, a paper not exactly reknowned for its lack of bias on issues like this. I also found it interesting that the cousin was flanked by both her lawyer (understandable) but also by “Bianca Jagger, the anti-Iraq war campaigner”.

Could someone please tell me what business Bianca Jagger, the anti-Iraq war campaigner, has being at this press conference, apart from trying to exploit this tragedy for her own political gain?

Posted by Brian at Tomfoolery on 07/28/05 at 05:02 PM from United States

Lee,

Read this part you excerpted again:

He had no bulky jacket, he was wearing a jeans jacket. But even if he was wearing a bulky jacket that wouldn’t be an excuse to kill him.”

She doesn’t know jack!!  It is the same type of wording used in the liberal talking points, i.e. “Even if the memos are fake Bush still got preferential treatment because they were fake but accurate.”

Frankly, I don’t feel sorry for this guy.  The Bobbies have become real pussies over the last few years and if they shot this guy, he certainly brought it upon himself by his actions.  If the Brits lose their balls because of this, many more will die because of their hesitation.  If they really want to blame someone, they should blame the scum who fostered this type of atmosphere.

Posted by Lee on 07/28/05 at 05:20 PM from United States

Frankly, I don’t feel sorry for this guy.  The Bobbies have become real pussies over the last few years and if they shot this guy, he certainly brought it upon himself by his actions.  If the Brits lose their balls because of this, many more will die because of their hesitation.  If they really want to blame someone, they should blame the scum who fostered this type of atmosphere.

I couldn’t agree more.  But it’s because of this attitude that I think that the fallout will be so much worse if these allegations turn out to be true.  It’ll be the British version of Rodney King.

Posted by LandoGriffin on 07/28/05 at 05:25 PM from United States

UK ‘blocked bomb plotter’ arrest

Posted by on 07/28/05 at 05:27 PM from United States

People listen to Bianca Jagger?

Posted by on 07/28/05 at 05:56 PM from United States

Frankly, I don’t feel sorry for this guy.  The Bobbies have become real pussies over the last few years and if they shot this guy, he certainly brought it upon himself by his actions.  If the Brits lose their balls because of this, many more will die because of their hesitation.  If they really want to blame someone, they should blame the scum who fostered this type of atmosphere.

So…

If he wasn’t wearing a bulky jacket…

Didn’t jump the turnstile…

Used a travelcard (which, to those of you who have never been to the UK, means you swipe the card through and wait for a green light to pass through the turnstile.)…

... What did he do that was suspicious, and what “actions” caused him to “bring it upon himself?”

This should scare the shit out of anyone who values freedom. This guy got killed for walking out of the wrong apartment building. 

You can read reports - other than those of the family and the Guardian - and even the head of Scotland Yard has admitted what a monumental fuck-up this was. Bottom line. This guy got killed for no reason and it will HURT the war on terror.

Posted by on 07/28/05 at 08:08 PM from United Kingdom

this looney family

I haven’t read anything to justify this description.  Perhaps you’ll enlighten us, or admit that you’re an ignorant cunt.

Posted by Drumwaster on 07/28/05 at 08:31 PM from United States

I haven’t read anything to justify this description.

You mean besides the fact that the eyewitnesses to the incident - you know, the ones who saw it with their own two eyes[/c] - are saying something directly contradictory to what the loony family - who WEREN’T physically present at the time and couldn’t possibly have known for themselves - is saying? You mean besides the facts?

Now that I have “enlightened” you, perhaps you will admit that you are a smegma-slurping terror apologist. Or not, as your conscience dictates.

What did he do that was suspicious, and what “actions” caused him to “bring it upon himself?”

He ran away from police who were shouting for him to stop, and ran towards the crowded train - where several explosions had occurred over the previous weeks - and the police couldn’t take the chance.

Lights out, game over.

Moral: When the police are nervous, it would behoove you to stop when they tell you to do so.

Posted by on 07/28/05 at 08:47 PM from United States

A M00se once bit my sister ...

Posted by Drumwaster on 07/28/05 at 08:56 PM from United States

No realli! She was Karving her initials øn the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian møvies: “The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist”, “Fillings of Passion”, “The Huge Mølars of Horst Nordfink"…

Posted by Drumwaster on 07/28/05 at 08:59 PM from United States

We apologise again for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked, have been sacked.

Posted by on 07/28/05 at 09:02 PM from United States

Mynd you, m00se bites Kan be pretty nasti ...

Posted by Lee on 07/28/05 at 09:11 PM from United States

You can read reports - other than those of the family and the Guardian - and even the head of Scotland Yard has admitted what a monumental fuck-up this was. Bottom line. This guy got killed for no reason and it will HURT the war on terror.

I tend to agree, to an extent.  I think that the police were understandably jumpy.  They’ve been trained to deal with suicide bombers by shooting them in the head, because a wounded suicide bomber can still blow himself up.  So a guy is told to halt then runs from the police and gets himself shot.  I think a large amount of the blame should go on the guy himself.

That being said, this was obviously a fuck up.  The investigation will reveal the specifics of the case: whether he jumped the turnstile, whether he was wearing a thick coat, whether he ran from police, and so on.  If it is revealed that he did all these things then the police should be given the benefit of the doubt.  If he had been a suicide bomber and they had let him go, can you imagine the fallout?  But if it turns out he was wearing a denim jacket and he didn’t jump the turnstile, then this will fall more into the cops overreacting, albeit perfectly understandable.

Where Gadman is absolutely correct is that this is going to cause all the London cops to hesitate when a situation like this arises again.  And when you’re dealing with a suicide bomber, that one or two seconds of hesitation can mean life or death for a train full of people.  And if this turns out to be a case where the guy did virtually nothing wrong except running, then the Islamist supporters in the UK can and will pull a Jesse Jackson and milk this for all it’s worth, specifically trying to harm the efforts of the police to protect the public.

Let’s hope this one turns out well.

And on another note, Gadman, good to see you back, brother!

Posted by Lee on 07/28/05 at 09:12 PM from United States

Mynd you, m00se bites Kan be pretty nasti ...

You guys… I am sitting here laughing my ass off. :)

Posted by on 07/28/05 at 09:27 PM from United States

Glad to be back…

Gotta tell you Lee…

If I’m walking in NYC on my way to work and all of a sudden armed PLAINCLOTHES MEN start chasing me while waving guns at me, then yell at me to stop, I’m not stopping.  Fuck no!

According to many of the eyewitnesses, they had no idea the men chasing the Brazilian were cops. There were no uniforms and all they were yelling him was “stop” while waving handguns.  There are too many eyewitnesses who claim they never heard the police identify themselves.

Additionally, the police ALLOWED HIM TO TAKE A BUS to the Stockwell tube stop. What the fuck?  If you think a guy is a suicide bomber, why do you let him get on a bus? 

This incident stinks, and the fact that so many of you blindly support it surprises me. I thought conservatives were against overarching police or governmental powers.  The guy got killed for living in the wrong apartment complex.  Wow. Tough shit for him, huh? Fuck it. Guy deserved it, right? 

That blows. 

That so many of you support it blows even more.

Posted by Lee on 07/28/05 at 09:36 PM from United States

If I’m walking in NYC on my way to work and all of a sudden armed PLAINCLOTHES MEN start chasing me while waving guns at me, then yell at me to stop, I’m not stopping.  Fuck no!

Yeah, no doubt.  If they didn’t identify themselves as policemen then I’d probably run too.

Additionally, the police ALLOWED HIM TO TAKE A BUS to the Stockwell tube stop. What the fuck?  If you think a guy is a suicide bomber, why do you let him get on a bus?

Now that’s a damn interesting point, which I had not heard until now.  If this turns out to be true, that certainly puts a whole different spin on things.

Posted by on 07/28/05 at 09:45 PM from United States

Last post on the subject Lee…

You’ve been to London. There are CCTV cameras over almost every square inch of that city. This guy was under police surveillance from the moment he left his apartment complex. He walked down the street, got on a bus. Took it to a tube station. Walked into a tube station. Used his Travelcard at the tube station. Got shot dead. I’ll be you almost every moment is on CCTV.

If he HAD been wearing a bulky jacket. We’d have seen the CCTV shots of it already in order to exonerate the police. The fact that we haven’t is proof, to me, that the jacket wasn’t bulky.

How quickly after the failed bombing attempts in London were the CCTV shots of the suspects on-line? Minutes?  Hours?  It’s been almost a week, and we’ve yet to see a photo of the “bulky coat.” Why do you think that is?

Posted by Aaron on 07/28/05 at 09:51 PM from United States

In other news, the London cops have officially announced that Menezes’ visa expired two years ago and that the ‘stamp’ that allowed him to stay ‘indefinitely’ was fake.

Now, call me a skeptic, but I’m inclined to think that this “cousin” doesn’t know shit, since it was also a cousin who claimed that Menezes had once shown him his visa and that it had years to go.

Posted by Aaron on 07/28/05 at 09:53 PM from United States

It’s been almost a week, and we’ve yet to see a photo of the “bulky coat.” Why do you think that is?

For the same reason every single piece of information coming out of this case is hearsay and witness accounts, and why the cops added so many disclaimers to the visa announcement that they aren’t trying to prejudice the investigation:

All the information around this case is being kept quiet pending the independent investigation. Whether that’s a good policy or not, I don’t know, but that’s how it works.

Posted by Lee on 07/28/05 at 10:03 PM from United States

How quickly after the failed bombing attempts in London were the CCTV shots of the suspects on-line? Minutes?  Hours?  It’s been almost a week, and we’ve yet to see a photo of the “bulky coat.” Why do you think that is?

Fair enough.  However, it could also be that in the first case they were looking for suspects, but in this case, with such an active internal investigation going, they’re getting all their ducks in a row before making a final report.  But you’re right, I bet every second of this guy’s journey from when he left his house was taped.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 05:37 AM from United Kingdom

eyewitnesses to the incident are saying something directly contradictory to what the loony family is saying

No they’re not. 

you, perhaps you will admit that you are a smegma-slurping terror apologist

Perhaps you will explain how my opinions on the police shooting of an innocent man make me a terror apologist.  Or admit you are a chancroid-infected cocksucker.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 07:00 AM from Germany

Let’s postpone this discussion until we see some actual footage.

Posted by on 08/17/05 at 04:46 PM from United States

Posted by Brian at Tomfoolery on 07/28 at 03:02 PM

Lee,

Read this part you excerpted again:

He had no bulky jacket, he was wearing a jeans jacket. But even if he was wearing a bulky jacket that wouldn’t be an excuse to kill him.”

She doesn’t know jack!!  It is the same type of wording used in the liberal talking points, i.e. “Even if the memos are fake Bush still got preferential treatment because they were fake but accurate.”

Frankly, I don’t feel sorry for this guy.  The Bobbies have become real pussies over the last few years and if they shot this guy, he certainly brought it upon himself by his actions.  If the Brits lose their balls because of this, many more will die because of their hesitation.  If they really want to blame someone, they should blame the scum who fostered this type of atmosphere.

Brian -

This is where you get to say.. “Oops. My bad.”

Scotland Yard Fucked Up! Big Time!

From the article…

But the evidence given to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) by police officers and eyewitnesses and leaked to ITV News shows that far from leaping a ticket barrier and fleeing from police, as was initially reported, he was filmed on CCTV calmly entering the station and picking up a free newspaper before boarding the train.

It has now emerged that Mr de Menezes:

· was never properly identified because a police officer was relieving himself at the very moment he was leaving his home;

· was unaware he was being followed;

· was not wearing a heavy padded jacket or belt as reports at the time suggested;

· never ran from the police;

· and did not jump the ticket barrier.

But the revelation that will prove most uncomfortable for Scotland Yard was that the 27-year-old electrician had already been restrained by a surveillance officer before being shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder.

The documents reveal that a member of the surveillance team, who sat nearby, grabbed Mr de Menezes before he was shot: “I heard shouting which included the word ‘police’ and turned to face the male in the denim jacket.

“He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the CO19 [firearms squad] officers ... I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side. I then pushed him back on to the seat where he had been previously sitting ... I then heard a gun shot very close to my left ear and was dragged away on to the floor of the carriage.”

The leaked documents and pictures showed the failures in the police operation from the time Mr de Menezes left home.

A surveillance officer admitted in a witness statement that he was unable to positively identify Mr de Menezes as a suspect because the officer had been relieving himself when the Brazilian left the block of flats where he lived.

Posted by on 08/17/05 at 04:52 PM from United States

Posted by Drumwaster on 07/28 at 06:31 PM

I haven’t read anything to justify this description.

You mean besides the fact that the eyewitnesses to the incident - you know, the ones who saw it with their own two eyes[/c] - are saying something directly contradictory to what the loony family - who WEREN’T physically present at the time and couldn’t possibly have known for themselves - is saying? You mean besides the facts?

Now that I have “enlightened” you, perhaps you will admit that you are a smegma-slurping terror apologist. Or not, as your conscience dictates.

What did he do that was suspicious, and what “actions” caused him to “bring it upon himself?”

He ran away from police who were shouting for him to stop, and ran towards the crowded train - where several explosions had occurred over the previous weeks - and the police couldn’t take the chance.

Lights out, game over.

Moral: When the police are nervous, it would behoove you to stop when they tell you to do so.

Care to revise that statement?  To maybe… “Oops. I was wrong.”

He did NOT run from the police.  In fact, he did NOTHING to deserve getting shot in the head seven times.

Posted by on 08/17/05 at 04:53 PM from United States

Posted by GADMAN on 07/28 at 07:27 PM

Glad to be back…

Gotta tell you Lee…

If I’m walking in NYC on my way to work and all of a sudden armed PLAINCLOTHES MEN start chasing me while waving guns at me, then yell at me to stop, I’m not stopping.  Fuck no!

According to many of the eyewitnesses, they had no idea the men chasing the Brazilian were cops. There were no uniforms and all they were yelling him was “stop” while waving handguns.  There are too many eyewitnesses who claim they never heard the police identify themselves.

Additionally, the police ALLOWED HIM TO TAKE A BUS to the Stockwell tube stop. What the fuck?  If you think a guy is a suicide bomber, why do you let him get on a bus?

This incident stinks, and the fact that so many of you blindly support it surprises me. I thought conservatives were against overarching police or governmental powers.  The guy got killed for living in the wrong apartment complex.  Wow. Tough shit for him, huh? Fuck it. Guy deserved it, right?

That blows.

That so many of you support it blows even more.

Notice the date.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/17/05 at 04:57 PM from United States

Moral: When the police are nervous, it would behoove you to stop when they tell you to do so.

I stand by my statement. (And if you STILL think I’m wrong, I encourage you to try it yourself.)

However, the facts appear to be different than were available to us at the time. That does not change my judgement of those circumstances one iota. Or my judgement of YOU, for that matter.

Feel better now?

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/17/05 at 05:00 PM from United States

By the way, when are you going to concede the WMD argument? Still claiming they don’t exist, aren’t you?

Posted by Poosh on 08/17/05 at 05:02 PM from United Kingdom

Was this cousin with him on the day? Or like saw him before he decided to run away from plain-clothed cops a day or two after 50+ civilians had been blown to pieces…

Posted by Poosh on 08/17/05 at 05:07 PM from United Kingdom

Drumwaster, you’re a factbot. And I can’t be arsed to read the whole 1000 page ISG final report. What did happen to Saddam’s WMD? I know the report concluded that they are no longer in Iraq but what happened to them? Were they destroyed by Saddam as he claimed + was this confirmed by the ISG or what? Or did they just vannish?

Oooh episode 3 of the US hit TV show Lost has just started! I hope those weird things are dinosuars or maybe War of the World aliens or something.

Posted by on 08/17/05 at 05:09 PM from United States

By the way, when are you going to concede the WMD argument?

What are you a WMD salesman?  You can’t seem to get enough of talking about these mythical creatures.

When you have some evidence, present it.  And for Christ’s sake stop posting OBVIOUSLY right-wing analyses as objective reporting (unless you provide the appropriate disclaimer).

Posted by Poosh on 08/17/05 at 05:12 PM from United Kingdom

Damn it!

Fat Guy: Did you see it?
Doctor: No.
Fat Guy: Was it a Dinosaur?
Doctor: No.
Fat Guy: How do you know it wasn’t a Dinosaur if you didn’t see anything?
Doctor: Because Dinosaurs are extinct.
Fay Guy: Oh.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/17/05 at 05:26 PM from United States

What did happen to Saddam’s WMD?

Good question. Next?

Or did they just vannish?

Some were claimed to have been destroyed but no evidence was ever provided to explain when or where or how.

By the way, where do you suppose those buy who were going to detonate 20 tons of chemical weapons from, especially if Al Qaeda “denies” involvement?  (Take a look at a map of the region and see which countries border Jordan, especially that big one to the east.)

And for Christ’s sake stop posting OBVIOUSLY right-wing analyses as objective reporting (unless you provide the appropriate disclaimer).

Would Indymedia do? Is that left wing enough for you, moron?

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/17/05 at 05:29 PM from United States

By the way, where do you suppose those buy who were going to detonate 20 tons of chemical weapons from, especially if Al Qaeda “denies” involvement?

Sigh…

Where do you suppose those guys who were going to detonate 20 tons of chemical weapons got them from, especially if AQ denies involvement?

PIMF

Posted by sneaky_pete on 08/17/05 at 05:32 PM from United States

Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked, have been sacked.

Douglas Adams?

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/17/05 at 05:37 PM from United States

Douglas Adams?

Monty Python & The Holy Grail.

Specifically, the credits at the beginning.

“Large møøse on the left hand side of the screen in the third scene from the end, given a thorough grounding in Latin, French and ‘O’ Level Geography by BO BENN”

Posted by Poosh on 08/17/05 at 05:40 PM from United Kingdom

WHAT

I heard that there was some evidence that some of his WMD had be destroyed by Saddam after 1998 but not much.

This news dones’t bode well.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/17/05 at 05:52 PM from United States

You must have missed this report, too, Poosh. 1500 gallons of chemicals…

“Combined, the chemicals would yield an agent capable of ‘lingering hazards’ for those exposed to it. The likely targets would have been ‘coalition and Iraqi security forces, and Iraqi civilians,’ in part owing to the difficulty anyone deploying the chemicals would have had in keeping the agents from spreading out over a wide area.”

But Minus and Gadfly will ignore it because it doesn’t come from Howard Dean’s lips…

Posted by on 08/17/05 at 06:08 PM from United States

I’m touched that you really care about me drummy.  You provided me with a link that doesn’t have a clear conservative bias.  I thank you.

Now… the link was a piece of shit.

Here’s the headline from Tuesday, May 18 2004.

OFFICIAL: Saddam DID have WMD!

Here’s the evidence.

The Americans say that a 155mm artillery shell containing two constituents of sarin was used by insurgents in Iraq as part of an improvised explosive device.

Here is the summary.

One shell clearly does not make a chemical arsenal.

But if Iraqi insurgents knew where to find this one, there is the disturbing possibility for the US-led coalition that other similar munitions may have fallen into their hands.

I like the parts… “possibility"… “may have fallen into their hands.”

YES!  We have conclusive evidence.

Posted by on 08/17/05 at 06:14 PM from United States

That’s funny.  I thought Howard Dean’s lips were locked around your cock drummy.

A quote from your link drummy:

No one believes at this point that the chemicals predate the fall of Saddam.

Strike 1.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/17/05 at 06:16 PM from United States

So you’re denying that the shell was found? Or that the other caches were found? Or that the 20 tons of chemical weapons were going to be used in Jordan?

If you are going to ignore all evidence, then you will never have to admit that you are wrong, will you? But then you will never be listened to again.

The proof is there, and you simply refuse to see it.

I pity you, you fucking moron.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/17/05 at 06:20 PM from United States

No one believes at this point that the chemicals predate the fall of Saddam.

You chose that one sentence, ignoring the rest of that section.

Here it is, moron, just to shove your nose in it, like any bad puppy who’s too stupid to know better…

No one believes at this point that the chemicals predate the fall of Saddam. That would mean that the chemicals made it into Mosul either by bringing them out of Syria or from a safe storage area in Northern Iraq. Either of those two scenarios could point back to pre-invasion Iraq as the source of the chemicals themselves, however; the former scenario only adds the possibility that Bashar Assad has lost his mind.

The size of this find makes it a significant development, both for the insurgency as it stands now and the sourcing of these chemical components. We may have some radical rethinking to do about the nature of not just the terrorists in Iraq, but also the war narrative that said Saddam had no WMD available for his use.

Better reset that pitch count, loser…

Posted by on 08/17/05 at 06:30 PM from United States

Nope, if the Army says that they found a shell I will believe them.  I wouldn’t call it evidence of WMDs, or even evidence of a WMD program.  It’s a single shell that was found over a year ago.  If our troops had been hit with these same kinds of shells since then… then I would agree that you may be right.

I also believe that 20 tons of chemical weapons were found in Jordan.  These chemicals were found in Jordan and have been linked to Al-Qaida.

What I don’t understand is how you try and link these events to demonstrate that Saddam had WMDs.  Hell it looks like everybody and their brother have access to this crap over there.  However, I doubt that this is really the case because my gut tells me that if they did have them the insurgents would have no qualms whatsoever with using them.

Posted by on 08/17/05 at 06:32 PM from United States

Either of those two scenarios could point back to pre-invasion Iraq as the source of the chemicals themselves

Yeah, you and I COULD be lovers.  I’ll let you answer that one.  Loser.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/17/05 at 06:34 PM from United States

I wouldn’t call it evidence of WMDs,

By “it”, I assume you mean the chemical weapon?

So your sentence is more accurately phrased as “I wouldn’t call {chemical weapons} evidence of WMDs,”, which leads to the question of whether or not you can even define “WMD"…

I’m betting “No”.

WHERE DID THEY COME FROM, YOU FUCKING MORON? These are not kind of the things you whip up in a basement somewhere.

Hell it looks like everybody and their brother have access to this crap over there.

Everybody but the leader of the country, according to you…

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/17/05 at 06:42 PM from United States

Yeah, you and I COULD be lovers.

Only in your dreams and my nightmares, dumbass. When you have two options, either of which COULD apply, you use the word “could” until you find out which one DOES apply.

The question of where these weapons came from remains conveniently unaddressed by you. I’d be surprised, but I’ve seen your style, and I expect nothing else.

You don’t whip up 20 tons of blood and blister agents in the back of a van. You don’t find the recipe in the back of Betty Crocker cookbooks. That kind of thing takes massive support - in short, the level of support one finds at the ‘Nation’ level.

Posted by on 08/17/05 at 06:54 PM from United States

By “it”, I assume you mean the chemical weapon?

By “it” you can assume that I was refering to this from your link:

a 155mm artillery shell containing two constituents of sarin

What were the constituents, and what is their commercial use and availability?

So to answer your question.  No.  I don’t consider this to be a weapon of mass destruction. 

[sarcasm]Hell it looks like everybody and their brother have access to this crap over there.[/sarcasm]

you use the word “could” until you find out which one DOES apply.

I’m comfortable with that.  And when you do find out which word DOES apply… then you start an invasion/occupation.

You don’t whip up 20 tons of blood and blister agents in the back of a van. You don’t find the recipe in the back of Betty Crocker cookbooks. That kind of thing takes massive support - in short, the level of support one finds at the ‘Nation’ level.

I disagree.  I think there are probably a fair number of chemical engineers that could tell you exactly what it takes to create a lethal supply of chemical agents.  I don’t think it takes a “Nation”.  Maybe it takes a “Village”?

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/17/05 at 07:05 PM from United States

Posted by captain_menace on 08/17 at 04:54 PM

By “it”, I assume you mean the chemical weapon?

By “it” you can assume that I was refering to this from your link:

a 155mm artillery shell containing two constituents of sarin

So that’s a “YES”. However, you answer “No.  I don’t consider this to be a weapon of mass destruction.”

That statement immediately disqualifies you from any kind of serious discussion of the subject of WMD. How can you be expected to contribute to a discussion when you can’t even define the most basic of terms? Thanks for letting us know that your opinion is worthless.

then you start an invasion/occupation.

You’re still pulling that old scam?

Pay attention, Minus: We did not go into Iraq to keep Iraq from using the weapons we knew he already had. We went into Iraq TO KEEP HIM FROM GETTING EVEN WORSE STUFF AND GIVING IT TO HIS TERRORIST BUDDIES.

The invasion of Iraq was for several reasons, such as violations of 17 UNSC resolutions, violations of the original Cease-Fire, support for terrorists (occurring publicly, including the $25K payment for each Pali suicide bomber). We weren’t looking for any kind of “smoking gun”, because guns only smoke AFTER they have been fired, remember?

I think there are probably a fair number of chemical engineers that could tell you exactly what it takes to create a lethal supply of chemical agents.

You “think”, huh? That’s news to the rest of us. But your opinion isn’t evidence (as you delight in trying to point out to me).

Posted by on 08/17/05 at 07:15 PM from United States

CDC - Facts about Sarin

Sarin has been around a long time and it is suspected that it was used during the Iraq-Iran war in the 80’s.  Where did they get it then?  I don’t know, but I could make some guesses.  It was also used in the 90’s in Japan.

Sarin was originally developed as a pesticide.

You’re telling me that a SINGLE shell found containing 2 constituents of sarin (not sarin itself) is evidence of WMDs.  I disagree.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/17/05 at 07:32 PM from United States

You’re telling me that a SINGLE shell found containing 2 constituents of sarin (not sarin itself) is evidence of WMDs.  I disagree.

Yeah, because Saddam ramped up an entire production line to make ONE artillery shell. You’re a fucking moron, you know that? Or did you think the concept of a binary chemical warhead was something that the “insurgents” managed to pull off during prayer services one afternoon?

Sarin was originally developed as a pesticide.

Yet your claim that all of those pesticides found on MILITARY AMMO DUMPS, next to all of the empty chemical warhead mortars and artillery shells, were “just pesticides”?

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/17/05 at 07:34 PM from United States

You’re telling me that a SINGLE shell found containing 2 constituents of sarin (not sarin itself) is evidence of WMDs.

First off, they were not “two components of sarin”. They were “two components that when mixed produce sarin”.

In short, either of them individually would be bad enough, but not instantly lethal. It is only when the shell explodes, mixing the two, that you get the lethal gas that kills.

If the bomb HAD exploded, it would have been a sarin gas bomb.

That’s called a binary chemical weapon.

Posted by LandoGriffin on 08/17/05 at 07:41 PM from United States

Yet your claim that all of those pesticides found on MILITARY AMMO DUMPS, next to all of the empty chemical warhead mortars and artillery shells, were “just pesticides”?

Oh damn, Drum. Why’d you have to go and remind him of something he said yesterday?

Posted by on 08/17/05 at 07:42 PM from United States

I think your pussy must be starting to hurt.  You’re getting a little cranky.

For all your talk, you’d think that there was some REAL fucking evidence somewhere of a REAL fucking weapons program.  Not some relics from a war that occured decades ago.

Our administration pitched Iraq as a nuclear threat.  If we were to invade every nation ruled by an asshole with access to lethal chemicals in large quantities we would be fighting half the planet.  I guess that will be on the 2008 Republican agenda.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/17/05 at 07:47 PM from United States

For all your talk, you’d think that there was some REAL fucking evidence somewhere of a REAL fucking weapons program.

I’ve done so, over and over, including examples. Considering the fact that you ignore any and all evidence of those programs (admitted to by Hans Blix, fercrissake), there’s no point in trying to keep pointing them out to you. You can’t even accurately define WMD.

You’re a waste of time, Minus. You should just concede the argument, but your native stupidity won’t let you.

There are none so blind as they who will not see.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/17/05 at 07:47 PM from United States

Our administration pitched Iraq as a nuclear threat.

No, they didn’t. But I wouldn’t expect you to be able to tell the difference.

Posted by on 08/17/05 at 07:55 PM from United States

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/17 at 05:47 PM

Our administration pitched Iraq as a nuclear threat.

No, they didn’t. But I wouldn’t expect you to be able to tell the difference.

Posted by on 08/17/05 at 08:00 PM from United States

Good point, GADMAN.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/17/05 at 08:01 PM from United States

{waiting patiently for Gadfly to get his shit together}

Posted by on 08/17/05 at 08:14 PM from United States

Let’s try this again…

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/17 at 05:47 PM

Our administration pitched Iraq as a nuclear threat.

No, they didn’t. But I wouldn’t expect you to be able to tell the difference.

Another Drumwaster lie.

Meet the Press, Sunday, March 16, 2003

NBC: “And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?”

Vice-President Cheney: “I disagree, yes. And you’ll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community disagree. Let’s talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. … We know that based on intelligence, that [Saddam] has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong.”
===========================
Rice acknowledged that “there will always be some uncertainty” in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
===========================
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Nuclear Capabilities:

“We said they had a nuclear program. That was never any debate.”
Source: This Week with George Stephanopoulos, ABC (7/13/2003).

===========================
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Nuclear Capabilities:

“And he is agressively pursuing nuclear weapons. The region knows that.”
Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the House Armed Services Committee, House Armed Services Committee (9/18/2002).

===========================
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Nuclear Capabilities:

“His regime has an active program to aquire nuclear weapons.”
Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).

===========================
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Nuclear Capabilities:

“[W]e do know they’re currently pursuing nuclear weapons, that they have a proven willingness to use those weapons at their disposal.”
Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the House Armed Services Committee, House Armed Services Committee (9/18/2002).

===========================
President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

“The Iraqi regime . . . is seeking nuclear weapons.”
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).

===========================
President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

“I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program.”
Source: President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Discuss War on Terrorism, White House (7/17/2003).

===========================

I have a whole long list of Iraq/nuclear comments made by this administration, if you want them. You should take them. It will keep you from making an ass of yourself.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/17/05 at 08:30 PM from United States

So you somehow conflate “nuclear program” as “nuclear threat”? Not a single one of those quotes refers to Iraq as a nuclear threat. Feel free to keep trying. But remember that we are looking for the Administration “pitch{ing} Iraq as a nuclear threat”, not just a Google result of ”Iraq + nuclear”.

(You should also include the dozens of Clinton Administration quotes about Iraq’s nuclear weapons programs, just to appear even-handed.)

Posted by on 08/17/05 at 08:43 PM from United States

How disingenous can you be?

What’s the point of bringing up Iraq “Nuclear program” if not to use it as a possible threat?

The whole point of mentioning Iraq and Nuclear in the same sentence is to drive home the point that we didn’t want Saddam to have a Nuclear Weapon. If that’s not a nuclear threat, given the context of the comments, I don’t know what you would consider to be a threat.

Disingenous or just a lie. Either or. Pick one.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/17/05 at 08:47 PM from United States

We were trying to prevent him from being the same kind of nuclear THREAT that Iran and North Korea are today by shutting down his existing nuclear PROGRAM. (We succeeded admirably, too.)

Are you mentally capable of understanding the difference between the words, dimwit?

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/17/05 at 11:34 PM from United States

I guess that’s a “no”, then, eh, Gadfly?

Care to revise that statement?  To maybe… “Oops, I was wrong”? (How’s it feel, fuckface?)

Posted by on 08/18/05 at 12:39 AM from United States

You’re being disingenous.

You’re a sad little man.... and wrong.

Now… onto the subject at hand. The topic of this thread…

Posted by on 08/18/05 at 12:42 AM from United States

The Independent....

Leaked documents, believed to be from the IPCC inquiry suggest Mr de Menezes was sitting calmly in the Tube carriage, surrounded by surveillance officers, moments before police stormed in and fired eight bullets into him.

According to the documents, an officer grabbed Mr de Menezes, pinned his arms down, and pushed him back on a seat before he was shot.

and

Hotel Three stood up and walked to the carriage doors. “I placed my left foot against the open carriage door to prevent it shutting ... I shouted ‘He’s here’ and indicated to the male in the denim jacket with my right hand. I then heard shouting which included the word ‘police’ and turned to face the male in the denim jacket.”

The officer said Mr de Menezes then stood up and walked to within a few feet of him. “I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso pinning his arms to his side. I then pushed him back on to the seat where he had previously been sitting ... I then heard a gunshot very close to my ear and was dragged away on to the floor of the carriage.” Mr de Menezes was shot eight times, seven times in the head, once in the shoulder. Three bullets missed him.

Statements from witnesses had said earlier that Mr de Menezes was followed from his flat in Tulse Hill on to the bus that took him to Stockwell station.

Mr de Menezes was mistakenly believed to be linked to the men who tried to detonate bombs in the failed July 21 attacks. Contrary to earlier police and witness statements he was not wearing a heavy jacket and did not run on to the platform.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/18/05 at 12:52 AM from United States

Compare & Contrast Lesson One:

Program

A system of services, opportunities, or projects, usually designed to meet a social need: “Working parents rely on the center’s after-school latchkey program” (New York Times).

Threat

An indication of impending danger or harm.

Clear enough for you yet, moron?

Now, since I’ve punk-slapped you both coming and going, and the only one who doesn’t see that is YOU, the topic at hand was whether or not you have any of those quotes that show that anyone in the Administration portrayed Iraq as a nuclear THREAT. (Don’t believe me? Check the thread.)

YOU’RE the one who was trying to conflate “threat” and “program”. (Talk about disingenuous.) You failed, but you blame me? Just like a libtard. (I hope that jerking knee doesn’t bug you too much.)

Suck it up, bee-yotch. I hope you like pain, shame and public embarrassment, ‘cause I got lots more, just like that one…

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/18/05 at 12:56 AM from United States

When are you going to concede the WMD? Wassamatter, not man enough to admit a mistake?

Posted by on 08/18/05 at 01:06 AM from United States

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/17 at 10:52 PM

<snip>
Threat

An indication of impending danger or harm.

(NBC, MSNBC and news services, 8 September 2002)

Seeking to build a case Saturday that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was
developing weapons of mass destruction, President Bush cited a satellite
photograph and a report by the U.N. atomic energy agency as evidence of
Iraq’s impending rearmament.

Care to revise your statement?  See that little word in there - IMPENDING.

Game, Set Match.  Sit down, you whining little bicth.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/18/05 at 01:13 AM from United States

An impending REARMAMENT, not an impending harm. The threat comes AFTER he rearms, wouldn’t you say, dumbshit?

Your attempts at trying to conflate that PROGRAM (of rearmament) and the threat IT WOULD HAVE EVENTUALLY BECOME ONCE CARRIED OUT are laughable at best and deliberate falsehood at worst. So, is it that you are stupid or a liar?

I’m of the mindset that I should attribute to evil what can be adequately explained by stupidity, so I’m leaning towards you just being stupid.

(That’s a swing and a miss, IOW. Not even close enough to be a foul tip.)

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/18/05 at 01:16 AM from United States

Make that “should NOT attribute to evil”.

PIMF

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/18/05 at 01:18 AM from United States

Still waiting for that concession on WMD, too.

Posted by on 08/18/05 at 01:19 AM from United States

Keep spinning Drum. Your own words are used against you, yet you’re too much of an ideologue to even admit it.

Next you’ll be telling me it depends on what the meaning of is is.

I’m going to start calling you Clintdrum.  Yeah, that’s it.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/18/05 at 01:22 AM from United States

I just noticed something, too… Your little headline was a description of what some reporter was thinking.

So you can claim that MSNBC might have thought the same way you did, but I’d like to see someone that really mattered say what you so desperately wanted this one to say.

So, not only does your “evidence” not say what you claim it says, it is by someone reporting on, not anyone in a position to be speaking for, the Administration.

I can’t even say that’s a swing and a miss, because you’re standing at home plate with a swimming mask and a bowling ball.

Well done.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/18/05 at 01:23 AM from United States

Still waiting on the WMD concession, Sadman.

Posted by on 08/18/05 at 01:24 AM from United States

Sure thing, Clintdrum. Whatever you say.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/18/05 at 01:25 AM from United States

Dodge, spin, distort.

How’s it feel, bee-yotch?

Posted by on 08/18/05 at 01:30 AM from United States

The United States has not found any usable nuclear weapons in Iraq. I am the biggest supporter of Bush’s military policy. All of you nitwits please spend the weekend resolving this discrepency; all of this fake outrage is just not worth listening to anymore.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/18/05 at 01:37 AM from United States

The United States has not found any usable nuclear weapons in Iraq.

Yet another who cannot accurately define WMD.

I’m beginning to think that this might be the main problem. None of you knows what the fuck you’re talking about, and you obviously cannot be bothered to actually look it up.

I’m gonna quit wasting my time on you. It’s like trying to explain the intricacies of Wagnerian opera to a kindergartener who just picked up his first wooden recorder.

Posted by HARLEY on 08/18/05 at 06:44 AM from United States

Whatever happened with those thousands of gallons of 100% concentrate pesticide that was found buried on Military ammo dump next to mortar shell designed for gas weapons?

Next entry: Boxing Helen

Previous entry: Gulf War Legacy

<< Back to main