Dave Hinz wrote:
On 24 Feb 2005 12:59:16 -0800,
wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:
On 23 Feb 2005 10:02:39 -0800,
wrote:

That situation has. It is a good thing he did not have WMD
since
if he did there is a good chance they would now be in the hands
of fundamentalist Islamic paramilitary groups.

Amazing. Yes, that is a real danger, Fred. How do you propose to
know that this isn't exactly one of the places he got rid of them
to?

What exactly is your antecedent for 'this'?

"them" if you prefer. The destination known as a fundamental islamic
paramilitary group. Grammar games now, Fred?

Your wording was so poor I could not discern what you were trying
to comunicate. It still leaves much to be desired. Are
you suggesting that Saddam Hussein may ahve given WMD to
Islamic paramilitary groups?


That is precisely why IF Saddam Hussein had WMD it was better
not to distablilize Iraq. After all, Saddam Hussein was
not an Islamic extremist, but during a war, he could lose
control of those WMD and they could wind up in the hands of
Islamic extremists.

SH isn't an extremist. Right. Gotcha.

As I wrote: Saddam Hussein is not an Islamic extremist.
... I presume your omission of 'Islamic'
in your dishonest paraphrasal, was deliberate deception.

No, it's a matter of "extremist" being the operative word, and
"Islamic"
being a modifier that doesn't change the fact that he's the sort of
person
who is (wups, "was") likely to be a problem. Although, your
assumption
that word-games intending deception are everywhere, tells me a lot
about
how you think.

No, I wrote:

" Nonsense. Any such attack would be suicide for him. I trusted
only that he would not do something that would mean certain
death for himself."

You replied:

" Yeah, because Islamic extremists _never_ would take on an attack
that was guaranteed to kill them. (sheesh). "

As you know, Islamist extremists, being believers in martydom,
are more inclined to engage in suicide attacks than other
extremists and extremist leaders, in particular, are especially
disinclined to make suicidal decisions.

...
Oh, a variation of "You can find somebody who'll say anything
argument." Quite true. That is why a person must understand the
issues at hand in order to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

Indeed.


Please do so. I do NOT want you to trust me. I want you to
actually seek out information and understand the issues.

....

Why would they hide hydrogen generating trailers, Fred?

As you know I previously responded to your question thus:

As opposed to what exactly, parking them in the open with
a big sign on top that said "NOT BANNED. DO NOT BOMB!"????

Surely I do not need to explain to you the need to conceal
conventional military assets during wartime.


Evidently I was wrong, You do not understand the need to conceal
conventional military assets during wartime. I shall now
explain this to you. During wartime, conventional military
assets will be targeted for aerial attack. Therefor it is
desireable that they be concealed.

Do you understand now?


So, you posted the link saying "Look, even the CIA backs up my
statement",

Now you're lying. I did not say that. Why is it that you
never check back to see what I did say?

OK, Fred, I'll play: "Why _did_ you post that link that says what
you're not saying, then?"

I posted it so that a person knowledgible about the issues could
see that the trailer was not for fermentation. In addition
to the other issues I raised, where is the equipment for
safely handling the deadly materials one would recover from
reaction vessel if it WERE a fermenter?

Um, "not in the trailer" maybe?

If not, how would they get the material from the reactor
to the handling equipment?


hydrogen than would be needed. IOW, the CIA claims that the
gas collection system is much larger than needed for a hydrogen
generator.

More of a "this wouldn't be a logical way to make hydrogen", but
sure, whatever.

Is 'sure whatever' what you say instead of adressing an issue?

No, it's my way of saying I disagree with your assumption.

You need to work toward clearer articulation. Otherwise, people
might get the impression that you are stonewalling becausee
you have no substantive rebuttal.



If so, is it not obvious that it is way, way
oversized for collecting fermentation gasses?

I guess it depends on what you're making and how much of it you
plan to have, doesn't it.

For any particular sized reaction vessel the Al and NaOH reaction,
with proper agitation, will produce gas at a rate orders of
magnitude
greater than fgementation in the same sized vessel. That is
obvious to anyone who has done both.

Why would they hide hydrogen generating trailers, Fred?

As you know I previously responded to your question thus:

As opposed to what exactly, parking them in the open with
a big sign on top that said "NOT BANNED. DO NOT BOMB!"????

Surely I do not need to explain to you the need to conceal
conventional military assets during wartime.


Evidently I was wrong, You do not understand the need to conceal
conventional military assets during wartime. I shall now
explain this to you. During wartime, conventional military
assets will be targeted for aerial attack. Therefor it is
desireable that they be concealed.

Do you understand now?



Don't trust me. Check it out for yourself. Did you notice
that the CIA webpages omitted the part about urea?

No.

So, tell me. If these are to make something benign like hydrogen,
then
why oh why would they have been mothballed and hidden? Is
hydrogen
suddenly a banned substance?

As opposed to what exactly, parking them in the open with a big
sign on top that said "NOT BANNED. DO NOT BOMB!"????

Surely I do not need to explain to you the need to conceal
conventional military assetts during wartime.

If they're doing the "unprecedented cooperation" thing, wouldn't
it be the sort of thing they'd, you know, disclose?

Iraq was NOT required to disclose conventional military assets.
Surely I do not need to explain to you the need to prevent
examination of conventional miilitary assets by foreign
intelligence operatives.

Aside from which, as you know since you were following these
issues closely during the winter of 2002 and 2003, (weren't
you?) the Iraqis had agreed to UNMOVIC inspection of
trailers at that time. It's not clear that these were the
same trailers, after all there is no evidence that Iraq
had trailers of the sort the Bush administartion claimed,
making it rather difficult to determine which of the many
other permitted sorts of trailers should be inspected.


In the Fall of 2002 the Bush administration told us that Iraq
had chemical and biological weapons and an active nuclear weapons
program and demanded UN inspections. Iraq complied and during the
Winter of 2002-2003 UN inspectors had free reign to search Iraq.

Yes. As did the Clinton administration. Do you need the quotes
posted (again)?

No.


They found no evidence of active WMD programs and the IAEA
certified
^^^^^^

The Bush adminstration then claimed that WMD activity had been
moved to other sites. UNMOVIC inspected those other sites,
sometimes within hours of receiving the US intel. IN all
cases the Bush Administration's accusations were proven false.

Interesting wording. Says it all, really.

Rather than being interesting, your wording is too vague to
constitute an honest attempt at communication.

--

FF