Jon Spencer wrote:

> So let me get this straight.  First you postulate that the Americans took
> the materials first to hide the Pakistani connection.  Then you use that
> supposition to say "That's what I've been saying all along: Pakistan is far
> more dangerous to you than Iraq."
> Did I get this correctly?

No. Reread my post. I said the publicly stated, the proximate reason, was so that
recipes for CBW didn't make it into the public realm (which is credible).  The
ultimate reason was that, because of the age of most of the material, there was a
danger that the ultimate source of the technology would become public: the USA to
Pakistan when Pakistan was its client in South Asia during the Cold War.

I'm not suggesting you bomb Pakistan. I'm suggesting you keep your weapons of mass
destruction at home.

> If so, if your first supposition is incorrect
> ....
> Ah, what the heck.  Let's just bomb Pakistan and get it over with.  THEN we
> can bomb Iraq.  No, wait!  North Korea first, then - um - Iran!  Then
> Canada.  And THEN Iraq!
> I got it now!
> Jon
> Marc A. Schindler wrote:
> By now I'm sure all of you have heard of the material the Iraqi
> government turned over to the Security Council. The U.S. took it before
> other Security Council members could look at it, with the excuse that
> they wanted to make sure certain parts having to do with recipes for
> weapons of mass destruction didn't get made public. But this doesn't
> make sense -- all of the countries serving on the Security Council know
> how to make CBW. Rumour has it that the real reason the U.S. is going to
> censor the Iraqi material is....
> ....because it shows that most of its technology came from Pakistan and
> was ultimately paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
> Sound familiar? That's what I've been saying all along: Pakistan is far
> more dangerous to you than Iraq. Another reason, too, but one that's
> pretty well out in the public now anyway (there was an article in the
> November 02 Harpers about this) is how the US has deliberately
> obstructed the petroleum for humanitarian program in order to destroy
> the civilian infrastructure of Iraq. The idea seems to be that if the US
> makes things in Iraq really, really miserable, that the Iraqis will rise
> up against Saddam. Mind you, the U.S. hinted to the Shi'ites in the
> south during Gulf War I that if they rose up, they'd get help from the
> U.S. but by then Iraq wasn't a US concern anymore, and the Shi'ite
> rebellion was brutally put down by Saddam, so one has to wonder how
> stupid the US thinks Iraqis are.
> And I have to wonder if, in 5 or 10 years time, some major terrorist
> action against the U.S. comes from Iraqis, if you'll remember all this,
> or if you'll, once again, just ask "huh? wha' happened?" By then you'll
> be blaming Pakistanis.
> You heard it here first.
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
> ///      ///
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland

“Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick
himself up and continue on” – Winston Churchill

Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///      ///

This email was sent to:

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to