Re: Abject surrender

[Jarg]

"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:40:55 -0600, Tony wrote:
>
> > Well, we now have the first surrender in the War on Terror. Spain has
> > surrendered to Al Quada and will remove its troops from Iraq.
>
> Spain held an election and the people spoke. Damn democracy!
>
> -Jeff B.
> yeff at erols dot com

And people often get the government they deserve. But I hope that isn't so
in this case.

Jarg

[The CO]

"Jarg" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Yeff" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:40:55 -0600, Tony wrote:
> >
> > > Well, we now have the first surrender in the War on Terror. Spain
has
> > > surrendered to Al Quada and will remove its troops from Iraq.
> >
> > Spain held an election and the people spoke. Damn democracy!
> >
> > -Jeff B.
> > yeff at erols dot com
>
> And people often get the government they deserve. But I hope that
isn't so
> in this case.

Might well be the case.

I wonder if the new Socialist govt realises that AQ hates left wing
almost communists
as much as right wing conservatives? It seems to me that any govt not
based on the
principles of Islam is fair game in their book. We're all just infidels
to them.

The CO

[Tony Williams]

"Tony" > wrote in message news:<WOt5c.5074$%g.3194@okepread02>...
> Well, we now have the first surrender in the War on Terror. Spain has
> surrendered to Al Quada and will remove its troops from Iraq.
> Do the Spanish really think that will be Al Quada's last demand?

I'm as disturbed as anyone that Al Quaeda has apparently influenced
the outcome of a democratic election; in other words, engaged in its
own 'regime change' with a lot less effort than it took in Iraq.

On the other hand we need to remember that the vast majority of the
Spanish people were always strongly against Spanish involvement in
Iraq, and it had always been the opposition party's (now the
government's) declared intention to pull out. Aznar lost the election
partly because the bombs reminded the voters just how much they
disliked his policy on Iraq, but also very much because his government
tried to pin the blame on ETA in a very heavy-handed way, and this
caused great outrage.

It is facile to assume that the Spanish cower before terrorism. If the
bombers had been ETA, the result would have been strong support for
the existing government in its fight against terrorism. It's just that
Iraq has always been an unpopular cause there.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[Charles Gray]

On 16 Mar 2004 00:05:01 -0800,
(Tony Williams) wrote:

>"Tony" > wrote in message news:<WOt5c.5074$%g.3194@okepread02>...
>> Well, we now have the first surrender in the War on Terror. Spain has
>> surrendered to Al Quada and will remove its troops from Iraq.
>> Do the Spanish really think that will be Al Quada's last demand?
>

>
>It is facile to assume that the Spanish cower before terrorism. If the
>bombers had been ETA, the result would have been strong support for
>the existing government in its fight against terrorism. It's just that
>Iraq has always been an unpopular cause there.

And it is very important to note that thier support for the invasion
of Afghanistan never flagged-- FOXNEWs aside, it is possible to be
allies and yet disagree on the course of action one needs to take--
and most of Europe felt that Iraq didn't need to be invaded.
Given that one of hte claims of the U.S. was that "you'll see when
we invade and get all those WMD's", it's unsurprising that the
popularity of the invasion declined even further when the WMD never
appeared.
Al Qaeda may have successfully exploited an issue, but poor ally
managemant put it there in the first place. A wiser-- a MUCH wiser
course woudl have been to thank Spain for their assistance, but not
put the government in the position of going into Iraq-- instead, they
could have aided us even more in Afghanistan, freeing troops for Iraqi
operations and incidentally, helping Spain's (then) government.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Charles Gray" > wrote in message
...
> On 16 Mar 2004 00:05:01 -0800,
> (Tony Williams) wrote:
>
> >"Tony" > wrote in message
news:<WOt5c.5074$%g.3194@okepread02>...
> >> Well, we now have the first surrender in the War on Terror. Spain has
> >> surrendered to Al Quada and will remove its troops from Iraq.
> >> Do the Spanish really think that will be Al Quada's last demand?
> >
>
> >
> >It is facile to assume that the Spanish cower before terrorism. If the
> >bombers had been ETA, the result would have been strong support for
> >the existing government in its fight against terrorism. It's just that
> >Iraq has always been an unpopular cause there.
>
> And it is very important to note that thier support for the invasion
> of Afghanistan never flagged-- FOXNEWs aside, it is possible to be
> allies and yet disagree on the course of action one needs to take--
> and most of Europe felt that Iraq didn't need to be invaded.

Which is ironic given the opinion poll published by the BBC which
shows that more IRAQI's are in favor of the invasion than
opposed it and 70% thought things would be better as a result.

Keith

[Cub Driver]

Saddam Hussein could attack Britain within 45 mins?

Or could unleash battlefield WMDs within 45 mins? By all appearances,
this was a reasonable statement, and one that Saddam would have agreed
with.

But I don't really understand why an intelligent gent like Blair would
have advanced a causus belli that involved the enemy's ability to
retaliate against an invasion. Surely the logical answer to that would
have been: so don't invade!

There's no imminent threat in an enemy's ability to respond on the
battlefield. I doubt Blair argued that, and I know Powell didn't.

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:13:35 -0000, "Simon Robbins"
> wrote:

>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>> Simon, you are conflating two ideas here. I remember no such
>> statement, at least not by Bush or Powell, to the effect that Saddam
>> could attack us with WMDs in 45 minutes.
>
>45 minutes was a central part of Tony Blair's war sales pitch to the UK
>populace.
>
>Si
>

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Simon Robbins]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> Saddam Hussein could attack Britain within 45 mins?

No, the inference I drew was that he could attack his neighbours within 45
minutes.

> There's no imminent threat in an enemy's ability to respond on the
> battlefield. I doubt Blair argued that, and I know Powell didn't.

Then we have a contradiction if those in power knew Saddam's supposed
arsenal was limited to defensive weapons, no? Unless of course the imminent
threat was him providing those materials to terrorist organisations for use
in the region or further afield. Whether there are other countries out there
more likely to have done so is another matter. Seems to me like Iraq was
simply the easiest target to justify based on past-record when quite
possibly it wasn't believed to be the most serious threat.

Si

[Stephen Harding]

Cub Driver wrote:

> Saddam Hussein could attack Britain within 45 mins?
>
> Or could unleash battlefield WMDs within 45 mins? By all appearances,
> this was a reasonable statement, and one that Saddam would have agreed
> with.

Yes, it seems that Saddam himself believed he could
unleash WMDs with a 45 min notice of his forces!

The fact that his scientists were apparently boldfaced
lying to him to keep their heads attached, and a general
belief among the weapons R&D community that "the other"
WMD program was actually making progress even though
"mine" wasn't, doesn't really let him off the hook as
an eventual danger to the US IMO.


SMH

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 21:28:04 -0000, "Simon Robbins"
> wrote:

>> Saddam Hussein could attack Britain within 45 mins?
>
>No, the inference I drew was that he could attack his neighbours within 45
>minutes.

Ah well, given what we knew then, and what we have been able to deduce
since, that seems a reasonable statement. (A wrong statement, in all
likelihood, but being wrong isn't the same as being unreasonable.)

That is, not that he *was* able to attack say unleash WMD on Israel in
45 mins, but that he *believed* he was able to do so. Evidently his
own commanders believed that the guy in the next regiment/division had
WMDs. And, after all, Iraq did indeed launch Scuds into Israel and
Saudi in 1991, and into Kuwait last year. That the Kuwait ones had no
chemical or biological elements seems to have come as a surprise to
everyone.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 21:28:04 -0000, "Simon Robbins"
> wrote:

>Seems to me like Iraq was
>simply the easiest target to justify based on past-record when quite
>possibly it wasn't believed to be the most serious threat.

Yes, I can go along with that.

That's why I personally was against the war--well, no, that's not
entirely true. I was against the war because terrible things can
happen (viz Korea with the Chinese coming in, and Vietnam with our
utter inability to resolve it in an acceptable fashion).

No doubt Bush (and Blair) underestimated the end game--that it would
be so expensive and so complicated. But the war was a walkover, and it
has had a salutary effect on Libya at least. We were incredibly lucky
in Iraq. We may even have been lucky that it played out so poorly,
since that will discourage Bush from trying it again. But North Korea
and Iran can't know that for certain.

Personally, I think the world is a safer place now that it was on
September 10, 2001. Fewer Iraqis are losing their lives, and the
survivors are infinitely better off. Al Qaeda is a shadow of what it
was--with all due respect to the Spanish tragedy, or the Bali one, 200
deaths is on the scale of what the IRA, the ETA, and the Palestianian
groups have been capable of for generations. They are a far cry from
September 11 or even the Cole.

Just my two cents.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Simon Robbins" > wrote:

> Then we have a contradiction if those in power knew Saddam's supposed
> arsenal was limited to defensive weapons, no?

There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological weapon.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Simon Robbins]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...

> There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological weapon.

Why? How is it any different in that respect from any other weapon designed
to kill or maim those you're fighting?

Si

[The CO]

"Simon Robbins" > wrote in message
...
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
> > There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological
weapon.
>
> Why? How is it any different in that respect from any other weapon
designed
> to kill or maim those you're fighting?

Scale. Look up the definition of "Weapon of Mass Destruction"

The CO

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Simon Robbins" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
> > There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological weapon.
>
> Why? How is it any different in that respect from any other weapon designed
> to kill or maim those you're fighting?

Usual problems:

- Effectivity is often indeterminate (you don't always know how much
lag there might be between contact and incapacitation).

- Targetted area is again difficult to constrain. If the wind shifts,
you can be looking at having to deal with your weapon turned back on
you, or you end up taking out your own people who might be in close
proximity to the intended target (close as in miles, rather than meters).

- Area effects can mean that you end up with your own territory being
denied to you for some time, assuming that you even meant to effect your
own territory, rather than just your opponent's.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Simon Robbins" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
> > There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological weapon.
>
> Why? How is it any different in that respect from any other weapon designed
> to kill or maim those you're fighting?

It's not, except that there are all sorts of international treaties
aimed at eliminating them.

And the whole idea of "defensive" weapons meant to kill large numbers of
people (and which, by the way, had been used for very *undefensive*
attacks on Kurdish civilians by Hussein's troops) is just silly.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Simon Robbins" > wrote:
>> Then we have a contradiction if those in power knew Saddam's supposed
>> arsenal was limited to defensive weapons, no?
>
>There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological weapon.

Define "defensive weapon". Is there such a thing as a "defensive"
firearm? If so, why cannot CW/BW be defensive in use also?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Simon Robbins]

"The CO" > wrote in message
...
> Scale. Look up the definition of "Weapon of Mass Destruction"

Considering we're talking about battlefield weapons I don't think the term
"Mass" Destruction necessarily applies, and has in fact been largely
mis-used throughout the past year with reference to Iraq capability (or lack
thereof.)

A mortar shell containing blister agents for example is certainly not a WMD
in the truest sense, but would certainly fall within our leaders'
definitions.

Si

[Simon Robbins]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
> - Targetted area is again difficult to constrain. If the wind shifts,
> you can be looking at having to deal with your weapon turned back on
> you, or you end up taking out your own people who might be in close
> proximity to the intended target (close as in miles, rather than meters).

All good points, but we're not limiting our definitions of WMDs to materials
that have long half-lives or permanent effects. Mustard gas, blister agents,
etc. are all banned same as other NBC weapons, but while nasty don't have
the long-lasting effects that some other materials do.

Si

[The CO]

"Simon Robbins" > wrote in message
...
> "The CO" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Scale. Look up the definition of "Weapon of Mass Destruction"
>
> Considering we're talking about battlefield weapons I don't think the term
> "Mass" Destruction necessarily applies, and has in fact been largely
> mis-used throughout the past year with reference to Iraq capability (or
lack
> thereof.)

I see your point, but I suggest to you that even relatively old chemical
agents like
mustard are persistent and contaminate vegetation and the like. Nasty
stuff.

> A mortar shell containing blister agents for example is certainly not a
WMD
> in the truest sense, but would certainly fall within our leaders'
> definitions.

I'd suspect that some of the things they had were rather nastier than
mustard.
I personally think that whatever they had went to Syria. We're probably a
bit
lucky Saddam thought he had rather more capability than he really did.

Not that I give a ****. He's history and good riddance.

The CO

[Kevin Brooks]

"Simon Robbins" > wrote in message
...
> "Steve Hix" > wrote in message
> ...
> > - Targetted area is again difficult to constrain. If the wind shifts,
> > you can be looking at having to deal with your weapon turned back on
> > you, or you end up taking out your own people who might be in close
> > proximity to the intended target (close as in miles, rather than
meters).
>
> All good points, but we're not limiting our definitions of WMDs to
materials
> that have long half-lives or permanent effects. Mustard gas, blister
agents,
> etc. are all banned same as other NBC weapons, but while nasty don't have
> the long-lasting effects that some other materials do.

That is not really true. Mustard and phosgene can do long term damage, both
to the local environment (look at the historical record of some of the areas
of France that were hit heavily by such agents--vegetation not growing back
for decades, being stunted, etc.). And if you doubt they have lingering
effects against humans, I had a great uncle who could have been evidence
otherwise--he got gassed during WWI, but managed to survive the war.
Unfortunately it still killed a him a few years later, after almost
literally "coughing his lungs up". The term WMD actually comes from the old
Soviet terminology, and did indeed refer to chemical, biological, and
nuclear weapons, regardless of the size of the delivery platform or its
intended target. That is still the generally accepted definition of the
term.

Brooks

>
> Si
>
>

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes
>
> >There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological weapon.
>
> Define "defensive weapon".

That's not my problem. The people who contend that they *are*
"defensive" have to manage that one.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Simon Robbins" > wrote:

> "Steve Hix" > wrote in message
> ...
> > - Targetted area is again difficult to constrain. If the wind shifts,
> > you can be looking at having to deal with your weapon turned back on
> > you, or you end up taking out your own people who might be in close
> > proximity to the intended target (close as in miles, rather than meters).
>
> All good points, but we're not limiting our definitions of WMDs to materials
> that have long half-lives or permanent effects. Mustard gas, blister agents,
> etc. are all banned same as other NBC weapons, but while nasty don't have
> the long-lasting effects that some other materials do.

Tell that to French and Belgian farmers. Within the last few years there
have been reports of plowing and rock clearing in fields resulting in
blister agents being unearthed, with attendant casualties.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> In message >, Chad Irby
>> > writes
>>
>> >There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological weapon.
>>
>> Define "defensive weapon".
>
>That's not my problem.

How about "one used only to repel invasion"?

>The people who contend that they *are*
>"defensive" have to manage that one.

I can see plenty of scope for "defensive" CW, even for "defensive" BW
(though that's stretching it a lot). Never heard of the "chemical
minefield"?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes
>
> >The people who contend that they *are*
> >"defensive" have to manage that one.
>
> I can see plenty of scope for "defensive" CW, even for "defensive" BW
> (though that's stretching it a lot). Never heard of the "chemical
> minefield"?

When you're putting chemical and biological weapons in missiles with
ranges longer than your country is wide, it's *really* hard to call them
"defensive" any more...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Simon Robbins]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> When you're putting chemical and biological weapons in missiles with
> ranges longer than your country is wide, it's *really* hard to call them
> "defensive" any more...

When I raised the question, it was in the context of Saddam's alleged
battlefield weapons, since we're now led to believe our wise and glorious
leaders knew that any "45 minute" claim regarded such battlefield weapons.
(But yes, you could always drive an artillery unit to the border and fire a
3km mortar over the edge.) Besides, we've always described our nuclear
arsenals as "deterents", and as such defensive by means of neutralising the
threat of attack.

Si

[Kevin Brooks]

"Simon Robbins" > wrote in message
...
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> > When you're putting chemical and biological weapons in missiles with
> > ranges longer than your country is wide, it's *really* hard to call them
> > "defensive" any more...
>
> When I raised the question, it was in the context of Saddam's alleged
> battlefield weapons, since we're now led to believe our wise and glorious
> leaders knew that any "45 minute" claim regarded such battlefield weapons.
> (But yes, you could always drive an artillery unit to the border and fire
a
> 3km mortar over the edge.) Besides, we've always described our nuclear
> arsenals as "deterents", and as such defensive by means of neutralising
the
> threat of attack.

What is much more worrisome is the use of that chemical mortar round in
another environment entirely. Against well-trained and prepared combat
troops, chems are not much of a deterrent--witness the willingness of the
coalition forces to go into Iraqi territory during ODS, not to mention
during the latest event (where our forces did indeed believe they were
facing a chemical capable opponent). But that mortar round (or three or
four)), given to the likes of an Abbu Abbas, or an Abu Nidal, or some Anser
Al Salaam nutcase, and detonated in a major metropolitan area (no mortar
tube required) could kill quite a few folks, and cause widespread panic,
etc.

Brooks

>
> Si
>
>

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> I can see plenty of scope for "defensive" CW, even for "defensive" BW
>> (though that's stretching it a lot). Never heard of the "chemical
>> minefield"?
>
>When you're putting chemical and biological weapons in missiles with
>ranges longer than your country is wide, it's *really* hard to call them
>"defensive" any more...

Sure, but that's Israel and Syria, not Iraq. (Not that Iraq would have
minded such a capability, but they never managed to develop it)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes

> >When you're putting chemical and biological weapons in missiles with
> >ranges longer than your country is wide, it's *really* hard to call them
> >"defensive" any more...
>
> Sure, but that's Israel and Syria, not Iraq.

Funny - I don't ever remember even hearing of a *rumor* that Israel has
chemical weapons.

And, by the way, Iraq demonstrated quite directly in Gulf War I that
they had missiles with enough range (and, despite those sanctions that
the UN didn't quite enforce, were building missiles with overly-long
ranges).

> (Not that Iraq would have
> minded such a capability, but they never managed to develop it)

Except that they did, and demonstrated such in the early 1990s.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
> > In message >, Chad Irby
> > > writes
>
> > >When you're putting chemical and biological weapons in missiles with
> > >ranges longer than your country is wide, it's *really* hard to call
them
> > >"defensive" any more...
> >
> > Sure, but that's Israel and Syria, not Iraq.
>
> Funny - I don't ever remember even hearing of a *rumor* that Israel has
> chemical weapons.

You are joking, right? They are a signatory of the Chemical Warfare
Convention, but they have never ratified it; they have refused to even sign
the 1972 Bio Weapons Convention. Senior US military personnel testified
before Congress as early as 1974, claiming that the Israelis possessed an
offensive chemical capability. They have been very tight lipped about their
CBW programs, but they have also been tight lipped about their nuclear
capability as well. See:

www.bsos.umd.edu/pgsd/people/ staffpubs/Avner-CBWart.pdf

Brooks

<snip>

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > Funny - I don't ever remember even hearing of a *rumor* that Israel has
> > chemical weapons.
>
> You are joking, right? They are a signatory of the Chemical Warfare
> Convention, but they have never ratified it; they have refused to even sign
> the 1972 Bio Weapons Convention. Senior US military personnel testified
> before Congress as early as 1974, claiming that the Israelis possessed an
> offensive chemical capability. They have been very tight lipped about their
> CBW programs, but they have also been tight lipped about their nuclear
> capability as well. See:
>
> www.bsos.umd.edu/pgsd/people/ staffpubs/Avner-CBWart.pdf

Okay, there's the rumor, but this is a pretty important quote *from*
that paper:

"For this reason, Israel¹s motivations in the CBW fields, defensive or
offensive, cannot be inferred merely from the existence of research
activities involving potential CBW agents. To do so would be an
unjustified leap. If additional relevant information is available
regarding weaponization or large-scale agent production, however, it
could alter the significance of the basic research."

Thy're surrounded by folks who have been spending huge amounts of money
on way to kill Israelis. They'd be stupid to not work on defensive tech.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > >
> > > Funny - I don't ever remember even hearing of a *rumor* that Israel
has
> > > chemical weapons.
> >
> > You are joking, right? They are a signatory of the Chemical Warfare
> > Convention, but they have never ratified it; they have refused to even
sign
> > the 1972 Bio Weapons Convention. Senior US military personnel testified
> > before Congress as early as 1974, claiming that the Israelis possessed
an
> > offensive chemical capability. They have been very tight lipped about
their
> > CBW programs, but they have also been tight lipped about their nuclear
> > capability as well. See:
> >
> > www.bsos.umd.edu/pgsd/people/ staffpubs/Avner-CBWart.pdf
>
> Okay, there's the rumor, but this is a pretty important quote *from*
> that paper:
>
> "For this reason, Israel¹s motivations in the CBW fields, defensive or
> offensive, cannot be inferred merely from the existence of research
> activities involving potential CBW agents. To do so would be an
> unjustified leap. If additional relevant information is available
> regarding weaponization or large-scale agent production, however, it
> could alter the significance of the basic research."
>
> Thy're surrounded by folks who have been spending huge amounts of money
> on way to kill Israelis. They'd be stupid to not work on defensive tech.

Their early work on trying to replicate VX would point to other goals, as
would their being so tight-lipped about that 747's cargo that went down in
Amsterdam. And why would they have been so careful to classify the *trial*
of that research scientist who was found to be a Soviet agent? Because of
*defensive* development work? That stretches the imagination--the testimony
of the US military personnel just adds to the case.

Brooks

>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.