Re: Chomsky (was: Christopher Hitchens' Column)
From: Joe Dees (joedees@addall.com)
Date: Tue Oct 09 2001 - 02:09:01 MDT
('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 09:37:25 -0700
> Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com> extropians@extropy.org Re: Chomsky (was: Christopher Hitchens' Column)Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>
>Joe Dees wrote:
>>
>
>> 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.
>> >
>
>If so then I stand corrected. But who was that did these tests?
>
Laboratories affiliated with the US government, such as the FBI and CIA laboratories - which of course means to you that they never happened, since for you and good fundie Muslims, if they're US, they lie.
>
>> >> 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.
>
>Do not excuse me of ideological preferences when you have no
>idea what I ideologically (or otherwise) prefer.
>
Your position highlights your perspective.
>> >
>> >> 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?
>
>It is a rough region? I don't know about these one way or the
>other so I cannot speak of them. But it is not an admission of
>guilt generally to defend property.
>
But with anti-aircraft guns? Who would try to steal medicine with an air attack? And why would any Sudanese try to destroy a plant making medicines? It would appear quite obvious that they were concerned about their covert production plans becoming known.
>> >
>> >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.
>
>And I suggest that you look to your own lenses before you
>believe you can discern what mine are and are not, much less
>advise me on them.
>
Yours are obviously decorated with a star and crescent.
>
>- 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 - 08:11:16 MST