After the US is hit with a dirty bomb, will the Liberals explain it is not a 'real' WMD because?

Question

There is a difference between a nuclear bomb and a bomb made from fissal material? This is the same argument the al Qaida allied media is using to downplay the two recent chemical weapons attacks.

Answer 1

As a conservative, i am going to explain somethings to you in an effort to keep you from making an @SS of yourself again.
#1 WMD stands for weapons of mass destruction. These are ANY weapons designed to kill many many people. Nerve gas, Nukes, Chemical Weapons, Biological weapons. Not JUST dirty bombs.
#2 I did not see any media "Downplay" the chlorine gas attacks in Iraq.
#3 The WMD's Bush referred to as being in Iraq were those made by the Iraqi government and stockpiled. They were different chemical weapons, but NONE of them were chlorine.
#4 The Chlorine gas used in Iraq was NEVER part of Saddams WMD. They were trucks stolen from chemical factories. Many many companies the world over use Chlorine gas for many things, most don't involve weaponizing it.

So before you ask a question that is nothing but a childish rant, do your homework kid. Then you will not look like such a moron!

BTW, there is NO way you are in law school. There is not a school in the country who would accept someone with your obvious lack of intellect and childish grasp of current events.

Answer 2

with the intention to lie, you're able to correctly known the fact. Bush ought to no longer have lied via fact that he did no longer understand for advantageous. a million. Bush had intel there have been WMD in Iraq. 2. Bush's intel became no longer the only intel that stated Saddam had WMD. 3. Saddam had threatened Iran with WMD (maybe brinkmanship). 4. If Bush have been so evil, he might have had WMD planted in Iraq to substantiate his place. 5. Saddam became warned u . s . a . became passing legislations that should enable military action against Iraq, he had extra advantageous than adequate time to furnish the weapons to Syria, Russia, or Iran, any of which might gladly customary with the intention to discredit u . s . a ..

Answer 3

What I want to know is how chlorine gas (made from household cleaning chemicals) became known as a dirty bomb (which originated as spent nuclear material), and now a WMD, in just a couple of days time.

Answer 4

by your definition of WMD... EVERY COUNTRY HAS WMD MAKING CAPACITY... because every country has chemicals that could make a dirty bomb... CLEARLY.... chlorine is used in industries in almost every country, and that's what you're talking about in Iraq...

so everyone is a threat... oh no... BANGLADESH WILL KILL US...

if you want to go around twisting the terms to fit your need... go ahead... don't be consistent... don't try and be factual...

I really don't expect any more out of Republicans...

but, some of us like to keep ideas consistent so we know what's going on...

dirty bombs are a threat... but it's fundamentally different than what most consider to be WMD... it's two different issues and if you want to twist the words around to justify your actions because you can't justify them any other way... hey, that's clearly what you feel you need to do...

not calling dirty bombs WMD doesn't mean you don't think it's a threat... just because you don't call a knife a gun... it doesn't mean you don't think it could be a threat...

this isn't complicated... yet you seem EXTREMELY CONFUSED ON THE ISSUE...

Answer 5

They will certainly find some reason to excuse the perpetrators and suggest that we find a diplomatic way to solve the problem, which will go on for 18 years or longer, while in the mean time more dirty bombs will hit.

Answer 6

The media is downplaying chemical weapons attacks (to the point that I never even heard of them) because Bush is making the world safer and therefore they could not have possibly happened. Ask his Dick, the VP. I mean his VP, the Dick.

Answer 7

Did the Chemical attack have nuclear material? If not, then HOW CAN YOU EQUATE THE TWO?

To answer your question, the liberals are at least willing to admit what things are and aren't.

Answer 8

Hmmm as a liberal I would pull a Condi Rice/GWB and say "I don't think anyone could have forseen the use of a dirty bomb" and then I would tell people not to play the blame game.

Answer 9

really?
how about a little history lesson.
during the build up to the invasion of Viet Nam, USA actually destroyed one of their own ship in the gulf of Tonkin, thus giving the republican President the "reason "to go ahead and invade.

The fact of the matter is self evident, and should always cause skepticism of the general population when a Republican says they have absolute proof, that's its a slam dunk, that another country is a threat to the USA.

Answer 10

They'll say it was another inside job perpetrated by Rove. Then they'll go to work to ensure the civil rights of any Muslims who may be apprehended in the aftermath.