Weapons of Mass destruction found.

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
now, keeping in mind that liberals have stated:
As far as quantities of "WMDs", no amount will satisfy me..
for those who are concerned about the quantities of WMD found in Iraq..
breaking news...

Tests of the artillery shell that detonated in Iraq on Saturday have confirmed that it did in fact contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly sarin (search) nerve agent, Defense officials told Fox News Tuesday.

linky

let's see if this is confirmed.

hmm...3-4 liters..how many could that kill i wonder...just in one shell (thank goodness the liberals have assured us no more of these exist!)
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Chadder007
*CONFIRMED*
Foxnews.com is now confirming that the tests show the chemicals are indeed Sarin.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
Amount was 3-4 Liters

But some experts say that the individual shells themselves don't pose a threat to the masses.

"I'm not as concerned they're going to use a lot of chemical munitions ? they're not gonna use these as improvised explosive devices because they don't have a big blast associated with them, but they do combine those two compounds into the noxious sarin gas. But they can't do it all that well with a small explosive charge," Maginnis said.

"The reality is, they'd have to have a whole bunch of these things, have to find some way of blowing them with a large charge to even create a cloud."


Also, interesting how FOX is the only one to pick up on this so far. Nothing on AP, CNN, MSBNC, Reuters, etc.
 

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
18,450
5,025
136
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
now, keeping in mind that liberals have stated:
As far as quantities of "WMDs", no amount will satisfy me..
for those who are concerned about the quantities of WMD found in Iraq..
breaking news...

Tests of the artillery shell that detonated in Iraq on Saturday have confirmed that it did in fact contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly sarin (search) nerve agent, Defense officials told Fox News Tuesday.

linky

let's see if this is confirmed.

hmm...3-4 liters..how many could that kill i wonder...just in one shell (thank goodness the liberals have assured us no more of these exist!)

So attacking every country with 3-4 L sarin is the best way to prevent loss of human lives?

You've found the weapon. Now you just need to find the victim and the motive.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Chadder007
*CONFIRMED*
Foxnews.com is now confirming that the tests show the chemicals are indeed Sarin.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
Amount was 3-4 Liters

But some experts say that the individual shells themselves don't pose a threat to the masses.

"I'm not as concerned they're going to use a lot of chemical munitions ? they're not gonna use these as improvised explosive devices because they don't have a big blast associated with them, but they do combine those two compounds into the noxious sarin gas. But they can't do it all that well with a small explosive charge," Maginnis said.

"The reality is, they'd have to have a whole bunch of these things, have to find some way of blowing them with a large charge to even create a cloud."


Also, interesting how FOX is the only one to pick up on this so far. Nothing on AP, CNN, MSBNC, Reuters, etc.

Here's an idea, Maginnis. Like maybe, finding a 155MM artillery piece? Nah, I bet it would be nigh impossible to find one of those in Iraq :roll:

New leftist strategy. Now that WMD's have been found:
1) "Not enough! We need stockpiles!"
2) "Those aren't WMD's...I'll show you a WMD!!"
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
if this is a leftover from the Iraq/Iran war then it doesnt take much to see that this is not the wmd's that Bush and co were talking about when they said Iraq had stockpiles of wmd's
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Chadder007
*CONFIRMED*
Foxnews.com is now confirming that the tests show the chemicals are indeed Sarin.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
Amount was 3-4 Liters

But some experts say that the individual shells themselves don't pose a threat to the masses.

"I'm not as concerned they're going to use a lot of chemical munitions ? they're not gonna use these as improvised explosive devices because they don't have a big blast associated with them, but they do combine those two compounds into the noxious sarin gas. But they can't do it all that well with a small explosive charge," Maginnis said.

"The reality is, they'd have to have a whole bunch of these things, have to find some way of blowing them with a large charge to even create a cloud."


Also, interesting how FOX is the only one to pick up on this so far. Nothing on AP, CNN, MSBNC, Reuters, etc.

Here's an idea, Maginnis. Like maybe, finding a 155MM artillery piece? Nah, I bet it would be nigh impossible to find one of those in Iraq :roll:

New leftist strategy. Now that WMD's have been found:
1) "Not enough! We need stockpiles!"
2) "Those aren't WMD's...I'll show you a WMD!!"

WMD != dilated pupils and nausea.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
making LOTS of assumptions..

assuming that sarin weights 1 mg/ml
assuming that .5 mg can kill a person
assuming that the agent was "optimally" released (like a indoor stadium)

3-4 liters of sarin could cause 6,000 to 8000 casualties..

so far
1 vote for a WMD threshold of 1000 dead
2 vote for a WMD threshold of 10,000 dead

average of those voting 7000 dead to be called a WMD

i guess it's a WMD, eh?
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
29,361
2,129
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is as to what constitutes WMDs.

Exactly because the left is going to twist and change the definition to fit their needs.

Doesn't suprise me in the least.

CkG

:thumbsup:
 

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
18,450
5,025
136
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
making LOTS of assumptions..

assuming that sarin weights 1 mg/ml
assuming that .5 mg can kill a person
assuming that the agent was "optimally" released (like a indoor stadium)

3-4 liters of sarin could cause 6,000 to 8000 casualties..

so far
1 vote for a WMD threshold of 1000 dead
2 vote for a WMD threshold of 10,000 dead

average of those voting 7000 dead to be called a WMD

i guess it's a WMD, eh?

Sure but how many has died of conventionel weapons? I'm pretty sure it's no more fun beeing shredded by a 30mm Gunship cannon than dying from sarin.
 

leeboy

Banned
Dec 8, 2003
451
0
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
now, keeping in mind that liberals have stated:
As far as quantities of "WMDs", no amount will satisfy me..
for those who are concerned about the quantities of WMD found in Iraq..
breaking news...

Tests of the artillery shell that detonated in Iraq on Saturday have confirmed that it did in fact contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly sarin (search) nerve agent, Defense officials told Fox News Tuesday.

linky

let's see if this is confirmed.

hmm...3-4 liters..how many could that kill i wonder...just in one shell (thank goodness the liberals have assured us no more of these exist!)

BFD. Keep holding on tight to this one, make you cons look all the more desparate. Maybe next they will find an old bong heavily resinated with THC laying on the side of the road. Weapon of mass consumption coming next.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Another conspiracy theory :

The military was directed to place these there. Kind of convienent this one particular shell happened to be found by a U.S. convoy during a time of Bush's approval dropping swiftly amid criticisms on multiple issues in Iraq.

Also, why would the insurgents and/or terrorists *want* to use a chemical weapon with very limited capabilities but would only serve to show some apparent just cause for the U.S. invasion? That would go against their own propaganda and desires to discredit the U.S.

And why is FOX (a very pro-Bush network) the first and only (so far) to report the "confirmed tests"?
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,531
2
81
can't wait till we trot Bin Laden out in late October....



I feel good that we've spent billions and billions of dollars (what happened to the part about oil revenue helping to pay for this?), 700+ soldiers' lives, not to mention the thousands of maimed/injured, and we've now found a single shell that didn't even hurt two men directly exposed to it. I believe it was Sarin gas, no problems, but was it in any way a threat to us?

Fox is the only one reporting the results so far because they are deperate for pro-Bush news...not sure how this satisfies them, but we'll see...can't wait to see Hannity 'beaming' about this find...yuck
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
And the reconstruction effort??

Fewer Iraqis Working on Reconstruction

WASHINGTON - Fewer than 25,000 Iraqis are working on projects in the U.S. reconstruction effort, tempering expectations that more than $18 billion in American spending would jump-start Iraq (news - web sites)'s economy and trigger a surge in goodwill toward the United States.

U.S. officials blame bureaucratic delays in contracting and the recent increase in violence for the low employment numbers, which represent less than 1 percent of Iraq's work force of more than 7 million.

The Bush administration is aiming to more than double the number of Iraqi workers to 50,000 in less than two months ? when Washington expects to hand over limited authority to a caretaker Iraqi government.

Iraqis are thinking twice about working for the Americans because of the latest violence, which has targeted not only U.S. troops but also Iraqis working with them.
 

ndee

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
12,680
1
0
Yeah, I think we all know that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people, maybe that was a shell of it?
 

josphII

Banned
Nov 24, 2001
1,490
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: josphII
Originally posted by: conjur


Uhh...what chemical weapon are you talking about?

This thread is about the old shell that detonated yesterday before it could be disarmed. This shell had only "very, very small traces" of Sarin (Gen. Kimmit's own words) and no one was killed. A few people were treated and released already.

What weapon are *you* talking about? Do you have knowledge of some weapon that had the potential of killing thousands that has somehow managed to slip past EVERY SINGLE news organization on the planet?

Do tell!


Oh, btw, I'm a "commie-lib? LOL!!!!

you dont know what your talking about. sarin is formed by mixing chemicals A + B. simply because the pinheads didnt know how to denonate the weapon properly doesnt mean the artillery shell wasnt a chemical weapon. thats like saying a nuclear weapon that is launched with a faulty trigger mechanism isnt a nuclear weapon. and if you watched ANY of the major news coverage on this finding youd know that a weapon such as this, if denonated in the right situation, can kill thousands of people. but im not surprised that you think this isnt a wmd. heck saddam could tell us exactly what he did with his wmd and you commie-libs would cry conspiracy - and you know it!

Answer the question.

The shell found yesterday that exploded showed only (and these are in Gen. Kimmit's OWN WORDS), very, very small traces of sarin. That is NOT a WMD. It appears, as Kay and Blix have proposed, that this was an old shell and the contents had deteriorated to the point they were negligible.

So, again, I ask you for proof that another weapon was found that had the potential to kill thousands.

i heard 4 litters of sarin. you? you hear what you want to hear
 

josphII

Banned
Nov 24, 2001
1,490
0
0
It's not "illegal" trying to bluff, unless the UN says it is, which they did not.

funniest thing ive heard all day! the UN is nothing! i really hope you are NOT an american
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: josphII
It's not "illegal" trying to bluff, unless the UN says it is, which they did not.

funniest thing ive heard all day! the UN is nothing! i really hope you are NOT an american
Like you would make other Americans Proud?:roll:
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: josphII
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: josphII
Originally posted by: conjur


Uhh...what chemical weapon are you talking about?

This thread is about the old shell that detonated yesterday before it could be disarmed. This shell had only "very, very small traces" of Sarin (Gen. Kimmit's own words) and no one was killed. A few people were treated and released already.

What weapon are *you* talking about? Do you have knowledge of some weapon that had the potential of killing thousands that has somehow managed to slip past EVERY SINGLE news organization on the planet?

Do tell!


Oh, btw, I'm a "commie-lib? LOL!!!!

you dont know what your talking about. sarin is formed by mixing chemicals A + B. simply because the pinheads didnt know how to denonate the weapon properly doesnt mean the artillery shell wasnt a chemical weapon. thats like saying a nuclear weapon that is launched with a faulty trigger mechanism isnt a nuclear weapon. and if you watched ANY of the major news coverage on this finding youd know that a weapon such as this, if denonated in the right situation, can kill thousands of people. but im not surprised that you think this isnt a wmd. heck saddam could tell us exactly what he did with his wmd and you commie-libs would cry conspiracy - and you know it!

Answer the question.

The shell found yesterday that exploded showed only (and these are in Gen. Kimmit's OWN WORDS), very, very small traces of sarin. That is NOT a WMD. It appears, as Kay and Blix have proposed, that this was an old shell and the contents had deteriorated to the point they were negligible.

So, again, I ask you for proof that another weapon was found that had the potential to kill thousands.

i heard 4 litters of sarin. you? you hear what you want to hear

That news had not yet been released.

And, it wasn't 4 liters of sarin. It was 3-4 liters of chemicals that, when mixed, form sarin.
 

syf3r

Senior member
Oct 15, 1999
673
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
Conjur

Your question to which I replied was:

"How long will it take you to prove that the US supplied Saddam with Sarin?"

I gave you links showing a U.S. firm supplied Sarin components (60 TONS of it) to Iraq.



1. A US firm is not the US.

" a U.S. firm supplied Sarin components (60 TONS of it) to Iraq. "
2. But, if true, which you seem to be saying that it is. What happened to it all?

3. News reports in the 1980's identified the company's owner as Sahib al-Haddad, an Iraqi by birth, who denied that he had shipped any chemicals to Iraq for use in weapons.

Related to 1. It was not the US that supplied those chemicals but an Iraqi by birth if he actually did.


Is that all that the people claiming that the US supplied Iraq with chemical weapons have to go on?


Uhh... not exactly... here's a chronology of events:
A link to the site

What follows is an accurate chronology of United States involvement in the arming of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war 1980-88. It is a powerful indictment of the president Bush administration attempt to sell war as a component of his war on terrorism. It reveals US ambitions in Iraq to be just another chapter in the attempt to regain a foothold in the Mideast following the fall of the Shah of Iran.

Arming Iraq and the Path to War
A crisis always has a history, and the current crisis with Iraq is no exception. Below are some relevant dates.

September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. [8]

February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]

1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]

November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]

November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14]

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]

Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan's Envoy- provided Iraq with
chemical & biological weapons
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]

August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]

August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]

September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." [15]

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]

July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]

August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. [8]

July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]

August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. [14]

June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]." [5]

July, 1992. "The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons." Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. [18]

February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]

August, 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. [4]

This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.


References:

1. Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002
2. Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91
3. Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
4. Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002
5. ABC Nightline. June9, 1992
6. Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
7. Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
8. Timeline: A walk Through Iraq's History. U.S. Department of State
9. Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear
10. Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002
11. Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
12. Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
13. Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com
14. Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate
15. Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal
16. Bush's Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
17. Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair
18. Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez
19. Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War. Washington Post. 15 December, 1986
20. Case Study: The Anfal Campaign. www.gendercide.com

[edited for emphasis]


/syf3r
 

josphII

Banned
Nov 24, 2001
1,490
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: josphII
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: josphII
Originally posted by: conjur


Uhh...what chemical weapon are you talking about?

This thread is about the old shell that detonated yesterday before it could be disarmed. This shell had only "very, very small traces" of Sarin (Gen. Kimmit's own words) and no one was killed. A few people were treated and released already.

What weapon are *you* talking about? Do you have knowledge of some weapon that had the potential of killing thousands that has somehow managed to slip past EVERY SINGLE news organization on the planet?

Do tell!


Oh, btw, I'm a "commie-lib? LOL!!!!

you dont know what your talking about. sarin is formed by mixing chemicals A + B. simply because the pinheads didnt know how to denonate the weapon properly doesnt mean the artillery shell wasnt a chemical weapon. thats like saying a nuclear weapon that is launched with a faulty trigger mechanism isnt a nuclear weapon. and if you watched ANY of the major news coverage on this finding youd know that a weapon such as this, if denonated in the right situation, can kill thousands of people. but im not surprised that you think this isnt a wmd. heck saddam could tell us exactly what he did with his wmd and you commie-libs would cry conspiracy - and you know it!

Answer the question.

The shell found yesterday that exploded showed only (and these are in Gen. Kimmit's OWN WORDS), very, very small traces of sarin. That is NOT a WMD. It appears, as Kay and Blix have proposed, that this was an old shell and the contents had deteriorated to the point they were negligible.

So, again, I ask you for proof that another weapon was found that had the potential to kill thousands.

i heard 4 litters of sarin. you? you hear what you want to hear

That news had not yet been released.

And, it wasn't 4 liters of sarin. It was 3-4 liters of chemicals that, when mixed, form sarin.

so does this mean its a wmd in your eyes now, or still not?
 

josphII

Banned
Nov 24, 2001
1,490
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: josphII
It's not "illegal" trying to bluff, unless the UN says it is, which they did not.

funniest thing ive heard all day! the UN is nothing! i really hope you are NOT an american
Like you would make other Americans Proud?:roll:

sure?

then again you commie-libs probably think myself and every other can-think-for-themselves man is the debil
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |