1) Iraq was capable of manufacturing it's own WMD
Please show me where i asserted you said this. Remember the topic of the conversation was Iraq's capacity to develope WMD and our involvment in their development by the provision of biology and chemical samples with direct intent. It is rather common knowledge now that Iraq did infact have the capacity to develop WMD. It has been said they had the most advanced chemical production capacity of all the middle east. My contention with your statements has mainly been over your assertions of common knowledge in the past. We hadn't the knowledge of the extent of Iraq's chemical capacities until well after 1990. Futhermore, nothing has been presented illustrating anything by private sector involvment.
I rightfully assumed when you stated Iraq's ownership of Chemical weapons you meant people knew of Iraq's possession of chemical weapons. I took this to be you saying with this knowledge we shouldn't have provided then chemicals which could be turned into weapons being that having chemical weapons some how implies a capacity to develope them. Hense i challenged this notion and to what degree these matters were common knowledge.
If i did infact accusse of you being off topic it was more than likely do to some vague comments you were making.
3) There is no difference between the lethal nature of Tear gas and Mustard Gas
Again, you provided a list which included Tear Gas and Mustard Gas in the same category. I contested this. Even if you were simply quoting from a list of known chemical weapons in Iraq's possession i'd still challenge the notion Mustard Gas and Tear Gas should be included in the same category of weaponry. Tear Gas, being nonlethal, hardly carries the same implications as Mustard Gas. Remembering that the original topic surrounded the transmission of chemical weapons (and or their precursors) know as WMD i'd say the inclusion of Tear Gas is a tad bit superfluous.
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.
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.
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?
6) Since I said "common knowledge", I meant civilians, even though I repeatedly spoke about the UN, i.e. common knowledge at the UN
Come now, you stated common knowledge on very vague terms. Even if certain programs were common knowledge to various UN nations i'd still assume some weren't convinced of the allegations that Iran made. Again the usage of chem weapons is a far cry from producing them. Even your linked article suggested the notion of Iraqi development was a possibility, but yet unconfirmed. The topic of this whole conversation has been around the traficing of various chemicals with the direct intent of providing Iraq precusors to WMD chemical weapons. A later portion of this debate surrounded issues of various agencies knowing this or that which were apparently evidence of Iraq's creation of WMD. This discussion fit directly into that portion of the debate. Note that the individual (IIRC Pax) i was debating with prior to Natoma appearance was making the suggestion that the very knowledge of Iraq's possession of chemical weapon was some how indicative of a governmental collusion. I took Natoma to be reinforcing this idea.
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.
I want quotes where I stated any of that. Not allegations of saying those things. Not implied meanings. Flat out quotes, just as I asked in that other thread. And you know what? I'm going to post this same post in the other thread to and take it out of this one.
What you are asking for are direct quotes of you stating these things word for word all the while knowing i stated you were vague and were implying certain things. What good would be providing you direct quotes when you would simply deny the implications stating you really meant something else? Am i ultimately a liar because i may have mistook your vague assertions to mean something they weren't intended to inlight of all previous discussions?
Just as Legion said I was referring to some "Anonymous Authority" earlier in this thread where I made no such statement,
Now this is a stretch:
a·non·y·mous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-nn-ms)
adj.
Having an unknown or unacknowledged name: an anonymous author.
Having an unknown or withheld authorship or agency: an anonymous letter; an anonymous phone call.
Having no distinctive character or recognition factor: “a very great, almost anonymous center of people who just want peace†(Alan Paton).
Natoma was mentioning Howard Dean's educational factor as a valid reason to disregard Vince's statements above. We do not know anything about his man's knowledge or understanding of various elements of homosexuality or their psychological implications. These reasons are inpart why i stated Howard Dean was an "Anonymous Authority".
Since Natoma feels the need to try and point to some alleged misrepresentation i made of his statements in this thread i would like to point out an instance of Natoma's use of implication in my defense:
Hmmm. I spent my first year at Yale as a pre-med student and Howard Dean has been practicing medicine for decades now? Yeah, I think I'll trust our interpretations much more than yours Vince, and leave it at that.
p.s.: I notice no commentary in the "Powell says no Al-Qaeda links with Iraq" thread I started yesterday. You were so sure about that one in the "it's getting drafty thread" as well vince.
0-3 now?
After reading these statements from Natoma i took him to be suggesting his understanding/education of/in biology, as well as that of Dean's, to be superior to that of Vince's. Such an understanding of his statements comes from the way they read and the over all condescending nature of the whole post. You have only to look further up the page to see Natoma ridiculing another person's understanding of biology and ultimately all those whom agree with him. Needless to say i called him on this to which he later replied with these statements:
Uhm, first off I never said I knew more than Vince. I said that with my knowledge, and Doctor Dean's knowledge, I would take our interpretation over Vince's, especially considering Dean has been practicing for decades. He made a comment about my level of knowledge and I responded to that in particular.
Interestingly enough i wasn't the only one to make the same interpetation of Natoma's words:
Here is a quote from Silent_One
I was a biology student at the University of New Haven. The first year of General Biology 1 & 2, Chemistry 1 & 2, ect... the next year had Zoology, Organic 1 & 2, Micro biology, ect. Third year had Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy (loved the Cats!), Biochemistry, Genetics, ect...Pre-Med students did not differ too much in course selection, at least in the first two years. So, since you seem to believe your more qualfied than Vince tell us what courses did you take as a first year bio student???
Vince has related to me he also interpreted Natoma in the same fashion via AOL.
Are Silent_One and Vince guilty of lying and misrepresenting Natoma? Could there possibly be a valid reason why they'd interprit Natoma's words in such a fashion? Is it possible Natoma is simply attempting to retract his previous statements by being vague or suggestion some form of misrepresentation?
I want him to show me quotes where I made any of those 7 statements he said I made above.
Why, so you can deny all possible implications but the ones you choose? How will my possible misunderstanding (if there was infact a misunderstanding) be an indication of me lying?
This is precisely what I'm talking about. When Legion has nowhere to go, he brings out the "Well I'm not going to talk to you anymore." instead of backing up his claims with these supposed statements I made.
If you take this to be an admittion of failure on my part then you open yourself up to the exact same scrutiny as well as others. If i were to scour the archieves of this webpage i would undoubtly find a similiar statement made by yourself indicating exactly what you are suggesting as well as possible disappearances from threads.
Could it be that I am being rather matter of fact with you Natoma? That you are making rather personal attacks against my character to which i feel should not be used to derail this thread? I provided you with many possibly media in which you can reach me. How can you possibly take my statements to be saying i refuse to speak to you? I simply refuse to waste time in this thread.
p.s.: Legion you made public accusations and statements attributed to me that I did not make.
Come now, i hardly called you anything akin to a liar in that other thread. Your take on me "accusing" you seems more to me a reflection of a misunderstanding you are choosing to exagerate.
Why should we take it to PM to resolve this? Why should you post your IM information so people can come to you if they think you're wrong?
Anyone of them can discuss these vary matters with me. I will even partake in a group chat conference. As i said before i provided you with media to reach me such that this thread wouldn't be derailed. I am not dodging answering your allegations.
Why can't you vet this publicly since you had absolutely no problem accusing me publicly? You're so absurd.
Lol, I have agreed to appear in a chat conference to with you. Is this not public? Again you over exaggerate my statements to be accussations applying some form of insidious emphasis that simply wasn't present in my posts. Yet you come out publically and accusse me of lying when it is clear i did anything but that. Yours' is a personal attack. One you propegate for sake of bolstering your ego.
