From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Apr 14 2003 - 01:08:12 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> Samantha Atkins wrote,
>
>>Mike,
>>
>>When will you learn that I stopped considering your opinion
>>worth taking into account long ago? No such barrels or weapons
>>grade plutonium were reported in anything I saw. I suspect if
>>something like this was found it would be front page news. If
>>you think they were found then give us the urls to see them
>>oruselves. Otherwise take it elsewhere.
>
>
> Actually, there were a lot of these report on CNN and elsewhere. The only
> problem is that the follow-up tests always showed that they were not
> chemical weapons or plutonium. People who believe there are weapons of mass
> destruction tend to remember all these findings. People who don't believe
> there are weapons of mass destruction tend to remember all the negative
> tests. In the end, both sides remember clearly reports that supported their
> side. Either way, it is too early to tell, and preliminary tests aren't
> accurate anyway. The real answer will come weeks or months down the road.
> We either will find a smoking gun, or there will be no smoking gun.
I follow CNN. At no time did they report thousands of barrels
of VX or weapons grade plutonium being found since we started
attempting to justify this war. So I am not sure you what you
are referring to. Since whatever was found was shown to be
nothing of the kind I would assume that this would be enough to
dispose of the so-called "evidence". What findings? The
findings were that even the supsected things didn't pan out. It
is not "too early to tell" about the particular incidents in
quesiton. They were tested and tested by people that would have
referred a postive finding in most cases. Yet they turned up
negative. There is no doubt about those particular tests on
those particular materials whatsoever. I am very surprised that
you would suggest there is. Either soemthing is weapons grade
plutonium or it is not. Period.
We may find other things that may or may not be a smoking gun.
But there is no doubt whatsoever that we haven't found a smoking
gun yet.
>
> (Or as usual in these conspiracy theories, we will have missiles that go
> slightly over their range allowance, or precursor chemicals that might be
> used to make something else, or witnesses that think they saw something
> which is long gone, etc.... And everybody will think the evidence supports
> their side.)
>
Clearly none of these is adequate to support the claims of
massive WMD that have been made here. It will take a real
smoking gun, the whole gun and nothing but the gun and several
of those.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 14 2003 - 01:09:30 MDT