Arms entered Iraq through Syrian Firm

[Natoma]

4) I made a differentiation between Nerve Gas and Chemical Weapons

I don't recall making this statement at all. You are going to have to show me where i said this. I recall stating your presented list of chemical weapons provided absolutely no differentiation between Nerve Gas and Chemical Weapons. I suggested tear gas should be classified differently and not included in the same list of threatening chemical weapons as Serin or Mustard Gas.

You stated the following in response directly to me:

firstly Tear Gas is not a nerve gas. Stop trying to exaggerate its purpose by putting it in the same category with Mustard Gas and Tabun.

I have been unable to find anywhere in this thread where I made a distinction between nerve gasses and chemical weapons so that you could state that Tear gas is not a nerve gas. I never made the statement that tear gas is in fact a nerve gas. That was your distinction.

[EDIT]But Tear gas is certainly a chemical weapon, just as Mustard and Tabun are. If you categorize Tear gas, Mustard, Tabun, Sarin, and VX as chemical weapons, who is going to say "Oh well Tear gas isn't lethal, so it doesn't count." I made the distinction that they are chemical weapons. I never made any leap that they had to be classified as lethal. Again, that was your distinction.[/EDIT]

If you can find it, go right ahead. Please do. I'm waiting. On to the next one.

 

[Natoma]

5) Information regarding Iraq's WMD programs in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s, before 1984, was viable

You stated during 1984 at least some of Iraq's WMD programs were common knowledge. You didn't imply as to whom it was commonly known so i assumed you were stating it was so to everyone including the public. I disagreed with your belief it was common knowledge and presented a quote from the author of your link who felt most of the information circulating wrt to the Iraqi WMD or their programs were mostly self contradictory post 1960. With that said i found it hard to believe people could have had a real idea of what Iraq had or their intentions when surrounded by media misrepresentations let alone the real picture be common knowledge.

You stated:

here is the exact quote:

It hardly paints what was printed after '60 as viable information.

.......

Jesus is right Natoma. Confirmation mustard gas was used in Iran by Saddam (a mustard gas of completely unkown origins mind you) is hardly evidence supporting the post 60s speculation mongering or for that matter Saddam's chem weapon manufacturing was common knowledge. It is clearly not the author's intention to try and support the rambelings either as he tries to seperate his work from that of previous authors.

After I had stated:

Legion, it said evidence since the 1960s has been contradictory. They can't speak about the claims from the 1960s to the early 1980s. The whole point of this document was regarding claims from the 1984 Iraqi attack on Iran. Jesus.

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

SIPRI FACT SHEET
Chemical Weapons I
May 1984
Authors: Julian Perry Robinson and Jozef Goldblat

...............

Allegations of the use of chemical weapons have been frequent during the Iraq-Iran War. One of the instances reported by Iran has been conclusively verified by an international team dispatched to Iran by the UN Secretary-General.

................

One of the chemical-warfare instances reported by Iran, at Hoor-ul-Huzwaizeh on 13 March 1984, has since been conclusively verified by an international team of specialists dispatched to Iran by the United Nations Secretary General. The evidence adduced in the report by the UN team lends substantial credence to Iranian allegations of Iraqi chemical warfare on at least six other occasions during the period from 26 February to 17 March

Again, what more evidence do you need??? You sure know how to cherry pick out of context........ :?

I also responded:

I'm now convinced you're arguing just to argue. What did I say? That the article said that the evidence since the 1960s has been contradictory. I agree with you.

However, the point of this article was to discuss the 1984 attack on Iran, which was confirmed by UN Inspectors. They found Mustard Gas and Tabun!

.....

Why in the world are you discussing that with me? I'm not talking about evidence post 1960s, pre-1984. I'm talking about 1984. Let me bold it and super size the font.

1984!

Why did I do all that? Because I agreed that the document stated that evidence prior 1984 was shaky at best. But they came out stating conclusively in 1984 that evidence had been found of Iraq's chemicals.

In all that, I agreed with you, yet you stated that I was trying to pass off pre-1984 information as viable, when I never made that claim. Again:

It hardly paints what was printed after '60 as viable information.

Next I stated:

One quick note that I found that isn't true. Legion, in 1985-1989, it was well known that Iraq had an extensive array of chemical weapons and a very advanced weapons program.

When you asked for evidence I stated:

http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html

One of the chemical-warfare instances reported by Iran, at Hoor-ul-Huzwaizeh on 13 March 1984, has since been conclusively verified by an international team of specialists dispatched to Iran by the United Nations Secretary General. The evidence adduced in the report by the UN team lends substantial credence to Iranian allegations of Iraqi chemical warfare on at least six other occasions during the period from 26 February to 17 March.

For starters. This was quite a simple google. "Iraq Iran War Chemical Weapon"

Tons of links. This was just the one at the top of the list. Have fun. Frankly I thought this was a well known fact. Guess not.

I then followed that statement regarding the UN with:

Allegations of the use of chemical weapons have been frequent during the Iraq-Iran War. One of the instances reported by Iran has been conclusively verified by an international team dispatched to Iran by the UN Secretary-General.

THE POISON GASES IDENTIFIED BY THE UN TEAM

Mustard gas

From an unexploded bomb found at an Iraqi-attack site, the UN team drew a sample which its analysts in Sweden and Switzerland later found to be high-quality mustard gas.

Tabun

The second poison gas identified by the UN team was the nerve-gas tabun. This was found in a sample which the team was assured by Iranian authorities had been drawn by an Iranian soldier from a dud bomb. The bomb was said to have had the same appearance as the one from which the UN team had drawn mustard gas.

Iranian authorities told the UN team that about 400 people had been affected by chemical weapons during the attack from which the tabun sample was said to have originated. The attack purportedly happened on 17 March, while the UN team was in Tehran, and was said to have been delivered by four Iraqi aircraft. Forty of the casualties were in a field hospital which the UN team was taken to visit the following day. The signs and symptoms in the six cases which the UN team had time to examine were quite different from those associated with the mustard-gas sample. The UN team concluded from them that the patients had been exposed to an anticholinesterase agent.

and

However, the point of this article was to discuss the 1984 attack on Iran, which was confirmed by UN Inspectors.

and

The UN verified the use of chemical weapons mortars in Iran during the Iran/Iraq war.

and

The other 10% was with regard to knowledge of Iraq's program and chemical weapons in the 1985-1989 period. That was already established by UN inspections in 1984. You don't think UN members wouldn't know about that information?

In every single case, I made it very clear that I was referring to the UN. Yet you still parroted the notion that I was obviously referring to civilians.

All and all that is very interesting Natoma. Unfortunately it doesn't support your position that Iraq's chem weapons manufacturing was common knowledge.

and

Was it common knowledge to civilians in the west? More than likely not.

and

Oh sweet jesus. When you say common knowledge, who am i to assume you are refering to Natoma?

I responded to your "civilians" comment with the following:

Who cares what civilians know. This is about our governments and intelligence agencies and what they know.

After I had made all those prior statements regarding the UN countries knowing about Iraq. As I said earlier in this thread, I didn't expect to have to hold your hand and feed you mashed 'nannas too.

Your link also provided at least one quote from a US governmental source stating the US gov was sure Iraq didn't have anything beyond tear gas IIRC. You replied wrt the quote the US gov could have been lying. Lying? Why would they have been lying if not to provide some general misinformation to provide for a cover up? Many others in this thread alone have accussed the US gov and many other western agencies of being involved in some form of chem weapons traficing, why should i have assumed anything but you suggesting the same? Again, why accuse them of lying if you believe they had no involvment?

The quote was from when? 1982. The document was writing about conclusively verified chemical weapons from Iraq when? 1984.

http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html

Tear gas: In August 1982, US officials were quoted in the press as being "confident" that the Iraqis did not possess any "deadly chemical weapons", only tear gas.

......

Allegations of the use of chemical weapons have been frequent during the Iraq-Iran War. One of the instances reported by Iran has been conclusively verified by an international team dispatched to Iran by the UN Secretary-General.

What does a nominal reading level tell us? People in 1982 thought that Iraq did not possess anything worse than tear gas. In 1984, the UN inspectors conclusively verified the presence of Tabun and Mustard Gas.

I have not found anywhere in this thread where I tried to pass off information pre-1984 as viable, or made any comments that the context of the "common knowledge" comment should have been taken to mean the general public instead of the UN.

If you can find it, go right ahead. Please do. I'm waiting. On to the next one.

 

[Legion]

I have been unable to find anywhere in this thread where I made a distinction between nerve gasses and chemical weapons so that you could state that Tear gas is not a nerve gas. I never made the statement that tear gas is in fact a nerve gas. That was your distinction.

I think you are misunderstanding my reasoning for making this statement. The whole thread had been concerning WMD chemical weapons, intentional US/Western involvment in Iraqi development of such, and evidence leading to this conclusion. The knowledge that Iraq had nerve gass chemical weapons (classified as WMD) should have been evidence of Iraqi development. I disagreed with this. I took you to be defending such reasoning with various posts you made and wanted to exclude tear gas from the same category of weapon as nerve gasses because of the prior mentioned reasoning. I can't automatically assume a country possing Tear Gas is a country who would possibly decide to develope WMD class chemical weapons.

 

[Natoma]

7) Other countries definitively manufactured WMD for Iraq

When did i accuse you of stating other countries definitively manufactured WMD of Iraq?

I recall stating your link suggested this may be a possibility though at that time an undetermined one.

You stated:

is saying that they don't know where the chemicals were manufactured, whether in the States or in some European country. That would be the same as someone finding a biological agent and trying to deduce based on its genetic fingerprint which country created the strain. Of course that would have no bearing on who ended up using it, as evidenced by this part of the document:

What it does suggest is that chemical components were missing from the variations of the Nerve gasses to identify them as being produced by various western nations. This neither confirms nor supports the theory western nations provided chem weapons or dual use chemicals with the intention of creating chem weapons.

Where did I make any assertion that Iraq was receiving WMD from other nations? Why the need to even bring up this up since the discussion between you and me wasn't even focusing on this aspect?

I have been unable to find anywhere in this thread where I said Iraq was receiving WMD from other nations.

If you can find it, go right ahead. Please do. I'm waiting. On to the next one.

[EDIT]Pasted too much. Not related to this bullet point.[/EDIT]

 

[Natoma]

I have been unable to find anywhere in this thread where I made a distinction between nerve gasses and chemical weapons so that you could state that Tear gas is not a nerve gas. I never made the statement that tear gas is in fact a nerve gas. That was your distinction.

I think you are misunderstanding my reasoning for making this statement. The whole thread had been concerning WMD chemical weapons, intentional US/Western involvment in Iraqi development of such, and evidence leading to this conclusion. The knowledge that Iraq had nerve gass chemical weapons (classified as WMD) should have been evidence of Iraqi development. I disagreed with this. I took you to be defending such reasoning with various posts you made and wanted to exclude tear gas from the same category of weapon as nerve gasses because of the prior mentioned reasoning. I can't automatically assume a country possing Tear Gas is a country who would possibly decide to develope WMD class chemical weapons.

What? Is that admission of an assumption rather than reading what I wrote? Even after I said that I never made any distinction and there was nothing to your claim, did you retract your attribution? Nope.

 

[Legion]

What? Is that admission of an assumption rather than reading what I wrote? Even after I said that I never made any distinction and there was nothing to your claim, did you retract your attribution? Nope.

No, a reasonable assumption based on your very vague presentation. An assumption is anything but a lie. Would you like to apologize for accusing me of lying?

 

[Natoma]

What? Is that admission of an assumption rather than reading what I wrote? Even after I said that I never made any distinction and there was nothing to your claim, did you retract your attribution? Nope.

No, a reasonable assumption based on your very vague presentation. An assumption is anything but a lie. Would you like to apologize for accusing me of lying?

Reasonable assumption that I stated that Tear Gas is a Nerve Gas?

That is not something to be assumed. That is a very direct statement. If you can find:

Tear Gas is a Nerve Gas

Then you have a right to your "assumptions" and "assertions". If not, you have absolutely nothing to stand upon and you're just fabricating, as I've shown in the past 5 or so posts. But feel free to find quotes. You made definitive statements about the things I stated. You didn't say "maybe" or "kinda". You made definitive statements.

firstly Tear Gas is not a nerve gas.

I want to know where I said anything to make you make that statement. This was certainly one of the lesser attributions that I've shown in the last 5 or so posts, but it is a pattern of misattribution on your part. I want you to address the last few posts I've made with your quotes and mine, and please find me where I said any of the things you've stated.

I'm going to bed in a few. When I get up I'm hoping you'll have something concrete surrounded by , and in context.

I've certainly provided oodles of to back up my claims. Where are yours?

 

[Legion]

5) Information regarding Iraq's WMD programs in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s, before 1984, was viable

You stated during 1984 at least some of Iraq's WMD programs were common knowledge. You didn't imply as to whom it was commonly known so i assumed you were stating it was so to everyone including the public. I disagreed with your belief it was common knowledge and presented a quote from the author of your link who felt most of the information circulating wrt to the Iraqi WMD or their programs were mostly self contradictory post 1960. With that said i found it hard to believe people could have had a real idea of what Iraq had or their intentions when surrounded by media misrepresentations let alone the real picture be common knowledge.

You stated:

here is the exact quote:

It hardly paints what was printed after '60 as viable information.

.......

Jesus is right Natoma. Confirmation mustard gas was used in Iran by Saddam (a mustard gas of completely unkown origins mind you) is hardly evidence supporting the post 60s speculation mongering or for that matter Saddam's chem weapon manufacturing was common knowledge. It is clearly not the author's intention to try and support the rambelings either as he tries to seperate his work from that of previous authors.

After I had stated:

Legion, it said evidence since the 1960s has been contradictory. They can't speak about the claims from the 1960s to the early 1980s. The whole point of this document was regarding claims from the 1984 Iraqi attack on Iran. Jesus.

My statements were inreference, as i said much of them were, to your accussation various information was common knowledge. I already provided a response as to why i addressed the post 1960s reports in one of the previous responses.

In every single case, I made it very clear that I was referring to the UN. Yet you still parroted the notion that I was obviously referring to civilians.

What you suggested is that the UN confirmed the material. I took this to mean it acted as medium for other's understanding ergo making it common knowledge. Of course far more goes into my interpretation than this but there is no real reason to go so far in depth.

....After I had made all those prior statements regarding the UN countries knowing about Iraq. As I said earlier in this thread, I didn't expect to have to hold your hand and feed you mashed 'nannas too....

....I responded to your "civilians" comment with the following:

To which i replied:

Oh sweet jesus. When you say common knowledge, who am i to assume you are refering to Natoma?

This should have come to you as an inference i though you to be providing for civilians/govs common knowledge of Iraqi weap programs. Remember the topic Natoma and what it concerns (trafficing etc).

The quote was from when? 1982. The document was writing about conclusively verified chemical weapons from Iraq when? 1984.

Please repond to all the points i stated.

What does a nominal reading level tell us? People in 1982 thought that Iraq did not possess anything worse than tear gas. In 1984, the UN inspectors conclusively verified the presence of Tabun and Mustard Gas.

I have not found anywhere in this thread where I tried to pass off information pre-1984 as viable, or made any comments that the context of the "common knowledge" comment should have been taken to mean the general public instead of the UN.

I again took you to be implying common knowledge factor affecting politicians in the US and the UN. These post 60s reports mentioned in this article and their lack of credibility would undoubtedly affect the knowledge/beliefs of of members of the US and the UN. Agian, remember the topic, one of the dicussed maters was wrt evidence leading to supposed common knowledge of Iraqi chemical weapons and other programs that should have indicated Iraq's capacity and willingness to develope WMD. THis of course comes to us as suggested evidence of collusion. Of course i disagree with this. I took you to be reinforcing this idea with your posts.

 

[Natoma]

Fix your quotes. Lord knows I don't want you attributing something you wrote as something I wrote, and screwing this whole thing up even worse.

 

[Legion]

Where did I make any assertion that Iraq was receiving WMD from other nations? Why the need to even bring up this up since the discussion between you and me wasn't even focusing on this aspect?

Natoma how do you conclude this is an accussation directed at you? I made that statement directing it more to pax et al and the general then to you. It was a reflection on my thought processes at the time. One of the previously held ideas of partakers in this thread was the possibility western nations directly provided Iraq with chem weapons. This is to say we literaly sold them Mustard, VX, and Serin gas.

I have been unable to find anywhere in this thread where I said Iraq was receiving WMD from other nations.

Undoubtedly you won't i can't imagine i was accusing you of anything.

 

[Natoma]

Maybe because you were responding directly to me? That's how I concluded you were directing that accusation to me.

Again, I've given you all these quotes. I'll be waiting for you to come up with some of my quotes to back up your assertions.

Hell some of the things you said, you didn't even remember you said and I had to show that you in fact did. Bad memory I s'pose.

 

[Legion]

Maybe because you were responding directly to me? That's how I concluded you were directing that accusation to me.

You knew well you never said it. Why would you assume that is what i was suggesting you did? I was clarifying valid point using information you provided. It wasn't an accussation directed at you. Natoma, why would i lie? What would be my motive?

Again, I've given you all these quotes. I'll be waiting for you to come up with some of my quotes to back up your assertions.

I've provided you with my thinking at the time. Based on the material you have presented. Do i really need to dig up quotes to provide to you exactly why piece by piece i thought you to be saying something you say you weren't? I think you can see we misunderstood each other.

Hell some of the things you said, you didn't even remember you said and I had to show that you in fact did. Bad memory I s'pose.

Umm, no. I didn't infact say what you suggested or was refering to something i may have misunderstood you to be saying along with other factors. Please do not question my memory as i do have the capacity to read what i wrote and remember what i was thinking at the time while referencing other passages.

 

[Legion]

Reasonable assumption that I stated that Tear Gas is a Nerve Gas?

That is not something to be assumed. That is a very direct statement. If you can find:

Did i state you were suggesting Tear Gas was a Nerve gas or suggest your categorizing of it put it in similiar group. I remember suggesting that nerve gasses are in a whole other ball pack from tear gass and choking gasses. This is wrt to their level potancy, danger, non/lethal state not of being a nerve gas or not.

Then you have a right to your "assumptions" and "assertions". If not, you have absolutely nothing to stand upon and you're just fabricating, as I've shown in the past 5 or so posts.

Not, if infact you mistook what i was saying.

I want to know where I said anything to make you make that statement.

Can you provide me with a statement where i stated you considered Tear Gas a form of Nerve gas?

This was certainly one of the lesser attributions that I've shown in the last 5 or so posts, but it is a pattern of misattribution on your part. I want you to address the last few posts I've made with your quotes and mine, and please find me where I said any of the things you've stated.

Considering i responded well to the greater or the 5 or so post explaing my reasoning i should think this one to be of little concern, but i will continue responding to it anyway.

I'm going to bed in a few. When I get up I'm hoping you'll have something concrete surrounded by , and in context.

Considering many of your five or so posts seemed to be misinterpritations of what i was saying i should think this not to be necessary.

've certainly provided oodles of to back up my claims. Where are yours?

And i have addressed them with oddles of explanations...

 

[Natoma]

If you are responding only to me Legion, quoting me, and you make a statement after saying, for instance, "I don't know why I'm responding to you," and I'm the only one you've quoted, how in the world am I supposed to know that you're actually responding to something Pax said? Or someone else?

That's not how you hold a conversation with someone. These are basic conversational skills we're talking about. You're damn right that causes a problem of miscommunication and misperception.

Since it's obvious now that you weren't doing any of this intentionally, I retract my statement about you lying. But good god your conversational skills truly boggle the mind.

[sarcasm]

Oh just so you know, I wasn't directing any of that prior stuff in this post to you Legion. I was actually talking to DemoCoder and epicstruggle and RussSchultz and Vince and Silent_One and Paul and Joe DeFuria and Willmeister and pax and Chalnoth and everyone else here at B3D because of something they all said in an earlier thread that was rumbling through my mind.

None of what I've posted was actually meant for you. So if you interpreted it that way, I'm sorry, you've misunderstood what I've been saying and who I've been saying it to.

[/sarcasm] :? :?

 

[pax]

I got a real bad cold lately so dunno if Ill ever pick this up again but just one item is that I dont think the US or anyone in the west gave actual wmds to saddam. I was only arguing over the overwhelming facts that shows we entertained trade with him in various dual use products that were entered into boycott only after 90 gf1. Not to mention various means of helping him like sat photos and intelligence and so called agricultural credits.

We clearly helped him fight the Iranians over and above his being a genocidal maniac. Yet had no qualms using those same reasons to take hihim out later when, as you said natoma, the argument over wmds gave way to his being a tyrant.

I dont think anyone said that the west actually sold saddam wmds as such.

 

[Legion]

If you are responding only to me Legion, quoting me, and you make a statement after saying, for instance, "I don't know why I'm responding to you," and I'm the only one you've quoted, how in the world am I supposed to know that you're actually responding to something Pax said? Or someone else?

I understand your misunderstanding Natoma. I was thinking-out-loud with the statement wrt chemical weapons provision by western nations. This was not an accussation against you but rather relating information to other forum goers. Again you need not be upset over such a misunderstanding. It is not as though i am accussing you of lying...

That's not how you hold a conversation with someone. These are basic conversational skills we're talking about. You're damn right that causes a problem of miscommunication and misperception.

And what causes your spontaneous outbursts to misunderstandings on a webforum?

Have you never heard of thinking outloud.

Since it's obvious now that you weren't doing any of this intentionally, I retract my statement about you lying. But good god your conversational skills truly boggle the mind.

Thank you for your backhanded apology. I appreciate it. In the future i will try to better clarify my points. I sometimes lose touch with what i am thinking in relation to what others know of what i am thinking.

If i may make a suggestion, your use of smilies can be rather insulting and irritating. Perhaps in the future you ought to consider such use and obnoxious.

Oh just so you know, I wasn't directing any of that prior stuff in this post to you Legion. I was actually talking to DemoCoder and epicstruggle and RussSchultz and Vince and Silent_One and Paul and Joe DeFuria and Willmeister and pax and Chalnoth and everyone else here at B3D because of something they all said in an earlier thread that was rumbling through my mind.

I hardly see this sarcasm as fitting the scenerio. I contributed information you clearly knew you never stated. The statement was no accusatory but you chose to take it as such.

 

[Legion]

I got a real bad cold lately so dunno if Ill ever pick this up again but just one item is that I dont think the US or anyone in the west gave actual wmds to saddam.

I am glad we can confirm this. I am a little more concerned about others' thinking on the matter. I really want this particular issue put to rest. If the indymedia wishes to selectively accuse the US of providing such, as many other posters here in the past have stated also, why not likewise accuse france of attempting to provide Iraq with nuclear weapons? I think its safe to say there is a clear agenda here that needs to be put aside.

I was only arguing over the overwhelming facts that shows we entertained trade with him in various dual use products that were entered into boycott only after 90 gf1. Not to mention various means of helping him like sat photos and intelligence and so called agricultural credits.

I really don't feel the need to get into this discussion at the moment. I'd have to read up more on sat photo, intelligence and the agricultural credists first.

 

[Natoma]

There were at least a couple places where you made direct attributions to me. I pointed those out with your quotes starting here:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=210644#210644

In that very first post, you made this statement directly to me, I hope.

Oh my, and yet you say Saddam's chem weapons manufacturing was common knowledge?

When obviously I had never made any claim that Saddam could manufacture his own chem weapons in the first place, let alone common knowledge of that fact

In a couple of later posts these came up:

All and all that is very interesting Natoma. Unfortunately it doesn't support your position that Iraq's chem weapons manufacturing was common knowledge.

Now Legion, unless there is another Natoma running around on these boards, who else could you have been making this direct assertion to?

Another directly attributed assertion to me that is covered starting at that link I just posted:

Now i am just confused. You tell me you will directly refer to the subject but you left out exactly to whom your assertions wrt knowing very well. I feel safe in saying you were being deliberately vague.

 

[Legion]

There were at least a couple places where you made direct attributions to me. I pointed those out with your quotes starting here:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=210644#210644

In that very first post, you made this statement directly to me, I hope.

And there are those which you exaggerated and chose to interprit as accussations of somethings. I have provided explanations for all the supposed accussations against you and the reasoning for why i made them.

 

[Natoma]

How can I exaggerate what you wrote?

Also, four posts up you wrote this:

I understand your misunderstanding Natoma. I was thinking-out-loud with the statement wrt chemical weapons provision by western nations.

I can understand the "Iraq is being supplied by western nations" bit, maybe. However, none of the quotes I provided two posts up have anything to do with chemical weapons being provided by western nations. They are about Iraq being able to produce its own chemical weapons, which you stated I said. Your quotes are right there, unfiltered and unchanged.

Look, I'm tired and frankly I don't feel like going through this any further. But there are clear instances where you invoke my name directly, call me out, and say that I said things I did not say. I think I've made this point quite clear to anyone reading that nothing has been exaggerated.