What are the symptoms...

[flavio]

I say this, flavio. I never said anything about chemical or biological weapons. You did.

You brought up choking agents in your first post.

I'll say this, I don't know what it is and apparently nobody else does either. But, the theory on your link sounds pretty reasonable.

A desert environment can exacerbate respiratory problems.

Obviously many of these guys just aren't used to the temperatures and environment either.

 

[Squiggy]

I wonder if its a reaction to the depleted uranium ammo our guys have to carry...Some people are just sensitive to low level radiation......

 

[a13antichrist]

Since no biological link has been found in the cases, the cause must be chemical in nature.

What part of "We have no evidence to indicate that there are chemical or biological weapons or environmental toxins involved" does not rule out chemical causes?

Pneumonia is caused by several known bacteria and virii. None of these were present

Where on earth did you get that information? THe only thing you were told is that "Ms Kukral said no infectious agent such as a bacterium or virus has been discovered to be common to all the cases. As you yourself pointed out, Pneumonia can be caused by A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT bacteria or virii - the fact that no particular one has been found to be common to all cases actually reinforces the theory that the sicknesses are simply a result of individual reactions to the conditions. If they were all the same pneumonia-causing bacteria, then you might have a case for some deliberate planting.

Another thing you've overlooked is that the investigation has only just begun -

Experts are also being sent to Landstuhl Regional Medical Centre in Germany, where some of the troops were treated after being flown from Iraq.

They will be hunting for a possible common thread.

They are only at the first stage and ALREADY the ONLY thing they have ruled out is biological and/or chemical weapons.

further: you've made the mistake of confusing "biological agent" (as ruled out by the article) with "biological organism". A biological agent refers uniquely to something used to something else (i.e, Man) to achieve a purpose - hence rarely anything other than biological organisms used as weapons. Your clue here is AGENT: 1. One that acts or has the power or authority to act.
2. One empowered to act for or represent another: an author's agent; an insurance agent.
3. A means by which something is done or caused; instrument. A simple germ by itself is not an agent, but merely a germ.

Finally, you jumped the gun one more time. If you're taking about bacteria and virii as they relate to human illnesses, the scientific domain concerned is not Biology but Pathlogy. So, ruling out "biological agents" is saying PRECISELY that they can effectively rule out malicous intent, AND NOTHING ELSE. When a new article is released saying "all possible pathological causes have been eliminated", THEN you can state that it was something other than simple pneumonia.

And stop saying you didn't suggest it was a weapon of some kind. No you didn't say it directly but it was immediately obvious to everyone that that was precisely what you wanted people to think.

 

[a13antichrist]

Sorry, speak up, I couldn't hear your comeback...

 

[Gato_Solo]

What part of "We have no evidence to indicate that there are chemical or biological weapons or environmental toxins involved" does not rule out chemical causes?



Where on earth did you get that information? THe only thing you were told is that "Ms Kukral said no infectious agent such as a bacterium or virus has been discovered to be common to all the cases. As you yourself pointed out, Pneumonia can be caused by A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT bacteria or virii - the fact that no particular one has been found to be common to all cases actually reinforces the theory that the sicknesses are simply a result of individual reactions to the conditions. If they were all the same pneumonia-causing bacteria, then you might have a case for some deliberate planting.

Another thing you've overlooked is that the investigation has only just begun -


They are only at the first stage and ALREADY the ONLY thing they have ruled out is biological and/or chemical weapons.

further: you've made the mistake of confusing "biological agent" (as ruled out by the article) with "biological organism". A biological agent refers uniquely to something used to something else (i.e, Man) to achieve a purpose - hence rarely anything other than biological organisms used as weapons. Your clue here is AGENT: 1. One that acts or has the power or authority to act.
2. One empowered to act for or represent another: an author's agent; an insurance agent.
3. A means by which something is done or caused; instrument. A simple germ by itself is not an agent, but merely a germ.

Finally, you jumped the gun one more time. If you're taking about bacteria and virii as they relate to human illnesses, the scientific domain concerned is not Biology but Pathlogy. So, ruling out "biological agents" is saying PRECISELY that they can effectively rule out malicous intent, AND NOTHING ELSE. When a new article is released saying "all possible pathological causes have been eliminated", THEN you can state that it was something other than simple pneumonia.

And stop saying you didn't suggest it was a weapon of some kind. No you didn't say it directly but it was immediately obvious to everyone that that was precisely what you wanted people to think.

Since I was working, I didn't see this claptrap until now. Obviously, you like to place your limited scope on other peoples words. You don't know why I posted what I did, so, in order to make yourself seem knowledgable, you jump on flavio's bandwagon, and assume what I meant. Nice try, but totally off the mark...again. You know nothing about why I posted what I did, so you decided that it was a chemical weapons claim...which it wasn't. Maybe you should try reading it at face value, and perhaps something will enter your head other than your constant insanely-left leaning views.

As for what I meant from the beginning...I suggest you just wait until the final truth, which will most likely be covered up by the DoD somewhere in the back pages of their news site somewhere.

One more thing...Why would waiting help now, for this, and not for actually finding WMD's? You like to point out that none have been found, but, since that argument fits your agenda, then everything you say is okay. Whatever, dude.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I wonder if its a reaction to the depleted uranium ammo our guys have to carry...Some people are just sensitive to low level radiation......

That, too, is a possibility, Squiggy, but it's going to be "wait and see" if that's the reason...or, perhaps, not see at all.

 

[a13antichrist]

One more thing...Why would waiting help now, for this, and not for actually finding WMD's? You like to point out that none have been found, but, since that argument fits your agenda, then everything you say is okay. Whatever, dude.

Ummm.. show me even one example where I have even shown the slightest interest in whether WMDs are found or not. I couldn't care less. What I do care about however is mindless rantings that have no logical basis whatsoever.

Oh and thanks for countering a grand total of zero of the points of fact in my post. It shows where your priorities lie.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Ummm.. show me even one example where I have even shown the slightest interest in whether WMDs are found or not. I couldn't care less. What I do care about however is mindless rantings that have no logical basis whatsoever.

Oh and thanks for countering a grand total of zero of the points of fact in my post. It shows where your priorities lie.

That's because you made no points. Most folks can see that. All you did was parrot the same opinions of flavio. Nice try, though.

 

[a13antichrist]

so you decided that it was a chemical weapons claim...which it wasn't.

Here it goes...one more time.

Since no biological link has been found in the cases, the cause must be chemical in nature.

The only person in this thread that suggested there was anything chemical about these sicknesses was you. In spite of the fact that this was ruled out by the article at the very beginning.

 

[Gato_Solo]

The only person in this thread that suggested there was anything chemical about these sicknesses was you. In spite of the fact that this was ruled out by the article at the very beginning.

But I never said chemical weapons. flavio started that, and you followed his every move. Stay with me. It isn't that hard.

Perhaps if you knew what chemical weapons actually do, you'd be a bit more resistant to sticking with flavio's claims.

 

[a13antichrist]

That's because you made no points. Most folks can see that. All you did was parrot the same opinions of flavio. Nice try, though.

I can understand that you didn't find any points to argue. My arguments followed logic, and logic obviously plays no part in your cerebral activity (if you even have any).

You need to stop making a fool of yourself. Everything you've said since the second post in this thread has done nothing but convince people of your utter lunacy. Maybe that sand is getting to you, too...

 

[Gato_Solo]

I can understand that you didn't find any points to argue. My arguments followed logic, and logic obviously plays no part in your cerebral activity (if you even have any).

You need to stop making a fool of yourself. Everything you've said since the second post in this thread has done nothing but convince people of your utter lunacy. Maybe that sand is getting to you, too...

One day, when you learn how fragile your style of logic really is, you'll remove your blinders and let some intelligence in.

 

[a13antichrist]

But I never said chemical weapons. flavio started that, and you followed his every move. Stay with me. It isn't that hard.

flavio mockingly suggested that your cause must have been a very selective biological weapon. As in, one in every 6,667 soldiers. I would have said it would surprise me to see that you don't understand simple sarcasm but after the nonsense you've spouted here I don't think it would be possible to under-estimate your mental capacity.

And you need to stop fooling yourself that pretending anything flav says has anything to do with what I say. It's apparent that the idea of "more than one" poses a problem for your obviously-weakened intellect, but just try to get there. It's not hard.

 

[a13antichrist]

One day, when you learn how fragile your style of logic really is, you'll remove your blinders and let some intelligence in.

I don't think any style of logic could be more fragile than the type that reasons that ""We have no evidence to indicate that there are chemical or biological weapons or environmental toxins involved" leads to the conclusion that the cause of the sicknesses must be chemical.

 

[Gato_Solo]

flavio mockingly suggested that your cause must have been a very selective biological weapon. As in, one in every 6,667 soldiers. I would have said it would surprise me to see that you don't understand simple sarcasm but after the nonsense you've spouted here I don't think it would be possible to under-estimate your mental capacity.

And you need to stop fooling yourself that pretending anything flav says has anything to do with what I say. It's apparent that the idea of "more than one" poses a problem for your obviously-weakened intellect, but just try to get there. It's not hard.

Okay. That's enough. You have attacked me twice in this thread, which proves you know nothing of what you speak. You attempt now to elevate yourself over me by saying that I have a weakened intellect, and imply that I don't understand sarcasm. Unfortunately, you are most severely wrong on both counts. All you've done here is quote, and requote, parts of the article which seem to make your discussion valid. The same doubts that you have for my chemical cause are also found in your biological cause. Perhaps, oh intelligent one, you can expound on that. Hmmm? Or perhaps you're too busy trying to insult me than to make a point that would end the doubt. When you learn to debate intelligently, and without trying to drag insults into the conversation, perhaps you can actually accomplish something. I have no time, or interest, to debate with someone who decides what I think, even when they themselves have no clue about what's actually happening. I suggest you think before you make yourself look more foolish.

 

[ris]

i am giving all three of you notice that this thread is treading dangerous ground. gato - i will find it hard to uphold a complaint of personal attacks when you have made similar comments about people being blinkered and infering stupidity.
flavio and a13 i strongly recommend that you also refrain from making comments of a similar nature about gato and argue the topic, not the member.

i would say only this - i find it hard that gato can state he did not mention chemical weapons when, as already noted previously, the opening post of this thread clearly refers to choking agent [which, as has been identified, is considered a chemical agent/weapon], and its symptoms. given the article linked clearly points out that chemical/biological agents are ruled out of the possible causes of illness there seems little reason for the inclusion of the subject of choking agents into the debate unless felt there be specific informative purpose to doing so.

to then deny making statements about and top take offense to the refering to of chemical weapons would seem rather baseless. if the issue of chemical agents is ruled out and of not a part of the debate why mention it in the first place?

the theorising of 3 options was interesting but i think requires further explanation to keep this thread from degenration into debate that appears to be not the purpose of this thread.

suffice as to say the current path of discussion will not be tolerated as it appears to be going nowhere but insults.

 

[Gato_Solo]

i am giving all three of you notice that this thread is treading dangerous ground. gato - i will find it hard to uphold a complaint of personal attacks when you have made similar comments about people being blinkered and infering stupidity.
flavio and a13 i strongly recommend that you also refrain from making comments of a similar nature about gato and argue the topic, not the member.

i would say only this - i find it hard that gato can state he did not mention chemical weapons when, as already noted previously, the opening post of this thread clearly refers to choking agent [which, as has been identified, is considered a chemical agent/weapon], and its symptoms. given the article linked clearly points out that chemical/biological agents are ruled out of the possible causes of illness there seems little reason for the inclusion of the subject of choking agents into the debate unless felt there be specific informative purpose to doing so.

to then deny making statements about and top take offense to the refering to of chemical weapons would seem rather baseless. if the issue of chemical agents is ruled out and of not a part of the debate why mention it in the first place?

the theorising of 3 options was interesting but i think requires further explanation to keep this thread from degenration into debate that appears to be not the purpose of this thread.

suffice as to say the current path of discussion will not be tolerated as it appears to be going nowhere but insults.

Okay, ris. How would you have stated the subject line, if you thought that these folks had gotten into some kind of chemical poisoning? At the time, I couldn't think of any other phrase that fit. As for the blinders reference, I used it because of some refusal to look further into the details. It wasn't an attack. Just a statement on a viewpoint.

 

[a13antichrist]

Ante-Script - ris: I am of the belief that the content of this following post (although admittedly not entirely the previous ones) conforms with the acceptable limits of posting. There are some direct references although I believe that they are valid in the context of the discussion. My apologies if this is not the case, please let me know and I will be only too happy to adjust as necessary.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have attacked me twice in this thread, which proves you know nothing of what you speak.

Your logic there is once more extremely dodgy. Maybe you can present the appropriate evidence that proves conclusively that personal comments are mutually exclusive to knowledge of the subject matter?

You attempt now to elevate yourself over me by saying that I have a weakened intellect, and imply that I don't understand sarcasm. .

As I explained recently to someone in PM, attacking your method of thinking has got nothing to do with "elevating myself". If I think something sounds ridiculous, I'll point that out so that the author might take a second look at what s/he has written. If someone is unable to accept such criticism then s/he maybe better off sticking to the less-topical threads such as "what do you do with the product of your fapping?"
As for the sarcasm, I'm sure you are capable of understanding it. However, you know very well that flavio does not support the war and doubts the existence of such weapons, hence his post to the OPPOSITE effect was undeniably tongue-in-cheek. You know that perfectly too, so your decision to "overlook" the sarcasm in his post to allow you to jump on him for something for which he was in fact saying precisely the opposite, does nothing for your credibility.
The fact remains in any case that you either deicded to not get the sarcasm, or that you simply didn't get it full-stop. Either way, given this result it is perfectly valid for me to suggest that you don't understand sarcasm, as that is precisely what you demonstrated in this thread. If, now, you wish to withdraw your reaction to his post and state that you understood perfectly the sarcasm in his post but decided to take him at face value neverthless, in order to give yourself a "point of attack" that never existed, then I'll be only too happy to withdraw my comment about sarcasm.

Unfortunately, you are most severely wrong on both counts. All you've done here is quote, and requote, parts of the article which seem to make your discussion valid. The same doubts that you have for my chemical cause are also found in your biological cause. Perhaps, oh intelligent one, you can expound on that. Hmmm?

I am forced to continuously re-quote parts of the article because you continuously ignore the relevant sections - the sections that rule out any possibility of choking agent and/or chemical or biological weapon. If you re-read my post where I mentioned "pathology" you will find, unless you choose to ignore everything that doesn't advance your case, all the "expounding" you could possibly hope for. Biological weapons causes are ruled out, along with any chemical ones. Biological naturally-occuring organisms in the environment are NOT ruled out.

Since no biological link has been found in the cases, the cause must be chemical in nature.

What part of "We have no evidence to indicate that there are chemical or biological weapons or environmental toxins involved" does not rule out chemical causes?

Pneumonia is caused by several known bacteria and virii. None of these were present

Where on earth did you get that information? THe only thing you were told is that "Ms Kukral said no infectious agent such as a bacterium or virus has been discovered to be common to all the cases. As you yourself pointed out, Pneumonia can be caused by A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT bacteria or virii - the fact that no particular one has been found to be common to all cases actually reinforces the theory that the sicknesses are simply a result of individual reactions to the conditions. If they were all the same pneumonia-causing bacteria, then you might have a case for some deliberate planting.

Another thing you've overlooked is that the investigation has only just begun -

Experts are also being sent to Landstuhl Regional Medical Centre in Germany, where some of the troops were treated after being flown from Iraq.

They will be hunting for a possible common thread.

They are only at the first stage and ALREADY the ONLY thing they have ruled out is biological and/or chemical weapons.

further: you've made the mistake of confusing "biological agent" (as ruled out by the article) with "biological organism". A biological agent refers uniquely to something used to something else (i.e, Man) to achieve a purpose - hence rarely anything other than biological organisms used as weapons. Your clue here is AGENT: 1. One that acts or has the power or authority to act.
2. One empowered to act for or represent another: an author's agent; an insurance agent.
3. A means by which something is done or caused; instrument. A simple germ by itself is not an agent, but merely a germ.

Finally, you jumped the gun one more time. If you're taking about bacteria and virii as they relate to human illnesses, the scientific domain concerned is not Biology but Pathlogy. So, ruling out "biological agents" is saying PRECISELY that they can effectively rule out malicous intent, AND NOTHING ELSE. When a new article is released saying "all possible pathological causes have been eliminated", THEN you can state that it was something other than simple pneumonia.