Subject:
|
How odd ? (Re: A N T H R A X - ... )
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:04:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
696 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> (citing the Guardian)
> > ==+==
> > In May 1989, large-scale anthrax production began at a factory constructed
> > at Al Hakam. Unscom estimated that Al Hakam manufactured 8,425 litres of
> > anthrax bacteria during the course of 1990.
> > ==+==
>
> Thanks for the cite. Does anyone know if this stuff keeps for 10 years in
> powder form? Bacteria are quite resilient but 10 years is an aw'fly long time.
>
> (of course that cite just shows production capability, it could still be in
> production, or Iraq could be totally innocent of this particular perfidy and
> the site destroyed or out of production for years. Who knows?)
As it uses UN data, I did not think it would show anything as far as you
were concerned? Is your head out of the sand now?
Larry:
==+==
I have no faith in statistics that are originated by the UN unless
independently corroborated, and that's a blanket statement. The UN apparatus
is highly politicised and tends to produce answers that are politically
correct rather than actually correct.
==+==
Scott A
>
> What I think is telling is the price/performance ratio here. For the cost of
> a stamp and a little legwork (ignoring production cost), an entire country
> is stirred up and tens or hundreds of millions spent on defense. Highly
> asymmetrical, highly efficient of scarce terrorist resources.
>
> Evil != stupid
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
