Re: Chomsky (was: Christopher Hitchens' Column)
From: Joe Dees (joedees@addall.com)
Date: Mon Oct 08 2001 - 02:16:23 MDT
('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 19:44:25 -0700
> Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com> extropians@extropy.org Re: Chomsky (was: Christopher Hitchens' Column)Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>
>Joe Dees wrote:
>>
>
>> The Al Shifa plant was majority owned by a Mr. Idris, who obtained such ownership a few months before the attack. He is a Wahhabi Muslim (the same kind, a small minority sect within Islam, that form the vast majority of the Al Quaeda network). There were three
>
>Uh huh. Guilt by association.
>
>> separate samples of soil tested; all registered positive for EMPTA, which not only is a precursor of the VX nerve agent, but one formed by only one manufacturing process, the same one terrorists (such as Aum Shinryu and Saddam Hussein) have traditionally employed, mainly because it was the one publicly available in the Web, but not used by either the US or Russia. The question arises as to why such
>
>Incorrect. The chemical claimed is also used in insecticide and
>pesticides. The plant also manufactured for the veternarian
>market. Also, the evidence of this precursor was claimed but
>never produced and no such evidence was found on-site after the
>bombing. Where were these samples? They were never publicly
>produced. The US squelched any international legal
>investigation that would require their examination.
>
These samples were taken from the surface soil within the gates of the plant and tested by three independent laboratories, all of which concurred that EMPTA was present in very significant quantities. The samples were exhausted by the triple-blind testing. And there is NO indication WHATSOEVER that anything that the Al Shifa plant ever admittedly manufactured could have produced EMPTA. If such had been the case, they would have rushed it to the public eye; they didn't, because it didn't exist.
>
>> agricultural pesticides would be found in the soil surrounding this plant, as it was not built in the middle of farmland. The fact that the Al Khifa plant produced pharmaceuticals does not preclude its also being used to produce VX. What the owner did was a slick and savvy move; he hired an American PR firm which propose!
>
>Except that there was zero evidence of it being so used.
>
There were the soil samples, which indicated EMPTA presence in THREE independent tests, however much you may ideologically prefer that this not be the case.
>
>> d alternative explanations for the indisputably existing evidence, knowing that those who were ideologically predisposed to accept such assertions would do so, even in the absence of any proof for them whatsoever.
>
>There was no "indisputably existing evidence".
>
There sure as fuck was, and a CIA operative risked his life slipping past armed gaurds inside a fenced compound to obtain it. BTW, why was a pharmaceutical plant defended with antiaircraft batteres?
>
>Sorry. As for
>"ideological predisposition", the last thing I would like to do
>is find that my country has often acted like an international
>bully and has given reason for some of the hatred that exist
>against us. But my preference to not believe that will not keep
>me from looking to see what seems to be most true.
>
I suggest you purchase lenses that were not manufactured in Khandahar.
>
>- samantha
------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:11:15 MST