On 14 Aug 2002 at 21:16, Hermit wrote:
>
> [Hermit 1] In contravention of the Convention to Prevent Genocide, the
> United States took and is taking deliberate action designed to cause
> and disseminate lethal pathologies in Iraq in the anticipation that
> this would eventually lead to revolution. Instead about 1 million of
> the children of Iraq have died of these diseases.
>
> [Joe Dees 2] You sound like we are passing out the smallpox blankets;
> pure unadulterated Bullus Shittus of the rankest Hermitian grade.
>
> [Hermit 3] I note you don't read links. Google Search Term "bomb iraq
> water cholera nagy"
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7891/index_iraq.html <-
> Superb, a lot of excellent links
>
> [Hermit 3] I have previously posted the links to the DOD sites which
> contain the referenced declassified documents which show intent. I
> think the onus is now on you to do what you have not yet attempted and
> show why your assertion that this is "Bullus Shittus" is not just an
> angry wail of denial.
>
> [Hermit 3] Here is a sample document providing all the required data.
> Respond to it.
>
> <snip>
>
> [Joe Dees 4] We did degrade their water supplies, but we didn't
> actively infect the people (as the analogy to passing out smallpox
> blankets would have indicated), although we did, and had good reason
> to, suspect that nature would do that for us, in the absence of the
> good sense by the Iraqi population to boil their drinking water prior
> to consuming it. I wonder if Saddam Hussein even tried to tell his
> people to boil their drinking water, and if not, if he refused to do
> so because he was all too willing to have some of them die in order to
> exploit a propaganda point. I wish the US had not taken this action,
> but instead had had the good sense to finish the job of ousting Saddam
> during the Gulf War. We need to finish it now, for everyone's
> benefit; ours, the neigboring countries in the region, and the
> population of Iraq.
>
> [Hermit 5] When an environment contains sufficient vectors it is
> almost impossible to prevent infection. That was why the US expected
> this result. In any case, as the US predicted, most Iraqi have
> difficulty obtaining water at all. In addition, again as predicted,
> they don't have the ability to boil their water as the electricity
> infrastructure was also destroyed (read the US reports). Iraq was an
> industrialized electrified society, so no, most Iraqis don't have fuel
> powered stoves that could use fuel if they could get it. Their
> infrastructure was so badly damaged that making new stoves is not a
> reality and even if they could, most Iraqi couldn't buy them. Most
> Iraqi are broke or close to it.
>
> [Joe Dees 6] They couldn't build fires? Puh-LEEEZE!
>
> [Hermit 7] You really don't think before you speak, do you? Or been
> involved in an aid effort. Lets see. 25 million people. 2-5 gallons of
> water per person per day (emergency minimum levels). Lets say 2
> gallons. Needs to be boiled for at least 5 minutes to kill the cholera
> pathogen. To bring a liter of water to the boil requires a kilogram of
> wood. So 50 million kilograms of wood per day. Or if you prefer 50,000
> tons a day. Also about 50'000 cords of wood. For 10 years 500'000
> tons. A goodly forest will yield up to 2 tons an acre a year. So
> 250'000 acres of forest are needed to make these fires you propose.
> Iraq has a total area of 108 million acres. Unfortunately most of this
> is not suitable for forests. In fact they had only 205'000 acres of
> forest before the gulf war. And their yields were about a third of
> that. So even were they to completely denude the country, they could
> not provide enough fuel. And of course, forestry is expensive. In
> Peru, during a cholera epidemic, ! it was estimated that 40% of
> average income was spent on fuel. Peru is poor. Yet not so poor as
> Iraq. http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html
> http://www.forestry.state.al.us/publication/FORESTS,%20AIR%20AND%20WAT
> ER.PDF http://www.forestworld.com/public/country/Iraq/Iraq_fl.html
>
Dry dung, both human and animal, or burn grass, or use some of that
fucking oil they bitch about not being able to export - now THERE'S a
nifty idea!
>
> [Hermit 7] This is in any case yet another classic example of "blame
> the victim." They didn't have this problem untilo the US attacked,
> destroyed, removed, and rendered useless objects indispensable to the
> survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, crops,
> livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation
> works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance
> value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the
> motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to
> move away, or for any other motive." Well done, America. We have the
> DIA statement that this was caused by the US, "Infectious disease
> prevalence in major Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing
> (Baghdad, Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since the beginning of
> Desert Storm. . . . Current public health problems are attributable to
> the reduction of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water
> purification and distribution, electricity, and the decreased
> ability to control disease outbreaks." Which is what I said.
>
And they didn't have THAT problem until they trotted off like good
Germans, at the behest of their mad dictator, to seize Kuwait, as though
it were Czechoslovakia. But of course, you would have preferred that we
stay our hand as was done until the entire Western European continent
(translation analogy: Arabian Peninsula) was seized, and then have to
shed much more blood, both theirs and ours, in order to retake it. We
didn't have to repeat that historical lesson precisely because we learned
from it, but our failure to pursue the Gulf War until the aggressor saddam
was deposed is costing us dearly, and I most sincerely hope that we
learn THAT lesson Before a similar situation reoccurs.
>
> [Hermit 5] So:The internal documents show that the US was fully aware
> of the probable consequences The internal documents show that the US
> took the illegal actions of destroying civilian infrastructure any
> way. The internal documents show that the US deliberately prevented a
> solution to the subsequent disaster. The external documents show that
> the result has been the death of over a million children.
>
> [Joe Dees 6] The documents show that Saddam himself did not distribute
> either potable water or medical supplies, and apparently did not
> instruct his own people to boil their water, successfully hoping that
> the resutant deaths would influence people like Hermit into embracing
> the satrap Saddam.
>
> [Hermit 7] The DIA report of October 1991, showed clearly that Iraq
> could not provide sufficient water. Again:The primary document, "Iraq
> Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," is dated January 22, 1991. It spells
> out how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its
> citizens.
>
> "Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to
> purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and
> frequently brackish to saline," the document states. "With no domestic
> sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential
> chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations
> Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure
> supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of
> the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not
> epidemics, of disease."
>
> The document goes into great technical detail about the sources and
> quality of Iraq's water supply. The quality of untreated water
> "generally is poor," and drinking such water "could result in
> diarrhea," the document says. It notes that Iraq's rivers "contain
> biological materials, pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless
> the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as
> cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur."
>
> The document notes that the importation of chlorine "has been
> embargoed" by sanctions. "Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply
> is critically low."
>
> [Hermit 7] Blaming the victim doesn't work unless you reject the
> facts. That is what is called denial.
>
They're called wells and oil fires; the Iraqi government couldn't
institutionally chamically purify the water (although I still believe that they
could have boiled it with all that oil), but still the people could've boiled it;
they just were not told to do so, for Saddamic propagandistic reasons.
>
> [Hermit 5] Joe Dees raised a strawman and then tried to say that they
> US didn't create the diseases, so the deaths from them are not the US'
> responsibility even though the US planned for this result, and
> implemented those plans.
>
> [Joe Dees 6] It created conditions where if basic and easily
> implementable precautions, such as boiling drinking water, were not
> implemented, then disease could result.
>
> [Hermit 7] And shown above is why Joe's desperate defense of his
> strawman must failed. But the thing Joe is missing is that even if his
> strawman were provided with a steel skeleton, it would have to fail.
> Because the argument is not that Iraq could maybe have avoided it, it
> is that:In contravention of the Convention to Prevent Genocide, the
> United States took and is taking deliberate action designed to cause
> and disseminate lethal pathologies in Iraq in the anticipation that
> this would eventually lead to revolution. Instead about 1 million of
> the children of Iraq have died of these diseases.
>
And the key word that shoots hermit's argument squarely in the cerebrum
is that simple phrase 'disseminate lethal pathogens', which is CLEARLY
meant to refer to things like anthrax letters or smallpox bombs - and that,
quite simply, didn't happen (although I suspect that the logically
paraplegic Hermit wishes that it would have, just to furnish his
contentions withn some legs).
>
> [Hermit 5] I would suggest that far from disproving "In contravention
> of the Convention to Prevent Genocide, the United States took and is
> taking deliberate action designed to cause and disseminate lethal
> pathologies in Iraq in the anticipation that this would eventually
> lead to revolution.
>
> [Joe Dees 6] The US disseminated nothing. You have not shown that a
> single bacterium or virus was seeded into Iraq by the US. If you can
> provide such proof, then put it up; otherwise shut up concerning your
> egregious, outrageos, hysterical and faalcious claims that the US
> dropped disease pathogens upon the Iraqi people. Disminative
> biowarfare is the object of Iraqi weapons programs.
>
> [Hermit 7] His first strawman having failed, Joe raises a new one.
> Notice that my original statement was that "the United States took and
> is taking deliberate action designed to cause and disseminate lethal
> pathologies in Iraq" not that the US "seeded Iraq". As this attempt to
> mislead is so blatant and so transparent that a fourth grader can see
> through it, I will not address it further.
>
Yeah, you certainaly don't want to address the dictionary meaning of the
word 'disseminate', so I'll do it for you:
Main Entry: dis·sem·i·nate
Pronunciation: di-'se-m&-"nAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -nat·ed; -nat·ing
Etymology: Latin disseminatus, past participle of disseminare, from
dis- + seminare to sow, from semin-, semen seed -- more at SEMEN
Date: 1603
1 : to spread abroad as though sowing seed <disseminate ideas>
2 : to disperse throughout
and clearly the US did not do this.
>
> [Hermit 5] Instead about 1 million of the children of Iraq have died
> of these diseases." the only reasonable conclusion is that my
> assertion was well founded and that it is Joe Dees who is speaking
> "pure unadulterated Bullus Shittus of the rankest Deesian grade."
>
> [Joe Dees 6] And what was that assertion? That the US had taken
> disseminative active action to intentionally infect the Iraqi people?
> That one has not been grounded at all, by any evidence whatsoever.
>
> [Hermit 7] Repeating your strawman fallacy does not make it truer,
> Joe. As we have seen the action taken by the US was expected to cause
> disease and lead to its proliferation. It was predictable. The US
> predicted it. And did it. And as predicted, it has. And such action is
> illegal.
>
As I iterated before, and as I am prepared to reiterate until the cows
come home and lay down and die, and their skeletons ossify and are
mounted in a future museum, the meaning of the word 'disseminate', as
dictionary quoted above, entails that for an action to fulfill its meaning,
that actual viruses, spores or bacteria would have to be intentionally
spread. Quite simply and obvious to the point of being apodictically self-
evident, the US did NOT do this. You are the one proferring the straw
man. and I have burned the bastard to the cold cruel ground.
>
> [Hermit 5] In conclusion, Joe Dees' additional assertion that "We need
> to finish [finish the job of ousting Saddam] now, for everyone's
> benefit; ours, the neigboring countries in the region, and the
> population of Iraq" is as spurious, unfounded and self interested a
> delusion as ever raged, and I challenge Joe Dees to attempt to support
> it with particular reference to the Kurds and neighbors of Iraq. He
> need not support the US interest. That is self-evident.
>
> [Joe Dees 6] The Kurds are only surviving (as are the Shiites) because
> the coalition continues to enforce a no-fly zone that prevents Saddam
> Hussein from continuing to perpetrate his genocidal depredations,
> including chemical warfare attacks, upon them.
>
> [Hermit 7] Turkey's treatment of its Kurds is scarcely more gentle
> than Iraq's Kurdish policies... Ask any Kurd. Yet Turkey is our ally.
>
The Kurds do indeed have problems with Turkey, but Turkey has never
VX gassed villages of them.
>
> [Hermit 7] "By 1998, the chemical weapons infrastructure had been
> completely dismantled or destroyed by UNSCOM (the UN inspections body)
> or by Iraq in compliance with our mandate. The biological weapons
> programme was gone, all the major facilities eliminated. The nuclear
> weapons programme was completely eliminated. The long range ballistic
> missile programme was completely eliminated. If I had to quantify
> Iraq's threat, I would say [it is] zero." -- Scott Ritter, chief UN
> weapons inspector in Iraq for five years, from an essay by John Pilger
> (Guardian 2000-04-03)
>
That was 2 1/2 years ago; what does he think of their capabilities today?
Oh, that's right; he hasn't been allowed in, in direct violation of UN
mandate, in FOUR YEARS!
And what of the testimony of his bosses and colleagues? He seems to
be a rare bird among the UNSCOM flock with such an opinion. And has
anyone checked with John Ritter to ascertain as to whether John Pilger
misquoted him?
"But, seeing what they'll gladly do
Unbribed, there's no occasion to"
>
> [Joe Dees 6] Kuwait remains as a sovereign nation only because the
> coalition expelled Saddam Hussein's annexing force from their land, an
> action which deterred Saddam from his actual goal, an invasion of
> Saudi Arabia and conquest of the entire Arabian Peninsula.
>
> [Hermit 7] The US agreed to the attack on Kuwait. Eight days before
> his Aug. 2, 1990, invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein met with April
> Glaspie, then America's ambassador to Iraq. From the translation of
> the meeting, released that September, press and pundits concluded that
> Ms. Glaspie had (in effect) given Saddam a green light to invade. "We
> have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts," the transcript reports
> Glaspie saying, "such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State
> James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction ... that
> Kuwait is not associated with America." Kuwait is frequently - and
> correctly - described as a royal kleptocracy - and so totalitarian
> that many ordinary citizens of Kuwait cheered when Iraq's armies
> paraded in their streets.
>
That's YOUR story, and of course the story of your Saddam-embracing
sources. But, if it IS truew for those members of Kuwait who posessed
sympathis for saddam, SURELY it wasn't true of the ululating
Palestinians shooting weapons in the air and dancing in the streets when
they heard about the 9/11 attack, the very mention of which incenses you
to no end, hmmmmmmm? I guess it depends upon which dancing tickles
Hermit's fancy.
>
> In March 2002, Iraqi presidential envoy,
> Izzat Ibrahim, and the Kuwaiti foreign minister, Sabah al-Ahmad
> al-Sabah, shook hands and voiced their "total rejection of any attack
> on Iraq." (Guardian, 2002-03-29) Kuwa! it has told the US that her
> territory may not be used, or over flown in an attack. What is wrong
> with this picture?
>
The Kuwaitis fear what the Iraqis have promised to do to them again
before the US forces could once again beat them back, pure and simple.
>
> [Hermit 7] The U.S. supports Saudi Arabia - despite the fact that it
> is fully as totalitarian, if not quite as violent, as Saddam's
> government.
>
But there is a sea-change going on there that even one so biased as
yourself would be hard-pressed to deny.
>
> Any non-Muslim and most women would probably prefer living
> in Iraq. Yet even Saudi Arabia says, "We are against any attack on
> Iraq because we believe it is not needed, especially now Iraq is
> moving to implement United Nations resolutions.
>
But, as I remarked before, it is NOT implementing UNSCOM inspection
resolutions, and recently Kofi Annan voiced doubt that they ever would.
>
>For the government of
> Iraq, the leadership of Iraq, any change that happens there has to
> come from the Iraqi people." Prince Saud al-Faisal (Guardian
> 2002-08-09)
>
And it would, if they could vote in the absence of fear, or if they did not
have to worry about Saddam's spies hearing their oppositional whispers
and his lackeys dragging them away to their dusty death in the middle of
the night, or even in broad daylight.
>
> [Joe Dees 6] Saddam has attacked Israel with SCUD missiles, is paying
> Palestinian suicide bombers a 25k bounty per to slaughter Israeli
> children, is training a force in Baghdad named the Jerusalem army,
> tasked with the purpose of 'liberating' that city, and has threatened
> to use nukes, which he is activly attempting to obtain, upon both the
> US and Israel.
>
> [Hermit 7] Worth noting that no Arab nation or coalition can present a
> credible threat to Israel. That included Iraq at the height of its
> military strength. Iraq knew it and so did not attack Israel until it
> was under attack by the US and had few options other than to respond
> with what it had while it could. And the utter ineffectiveness of
> those attacks emphasis my point. What makes you imagine that the
> strategic playoff will be different this time?
>
At its narrowest point, the state of Israel is only 8 miles across. For them
to be overrun would be an easy thing if sufficient human wave forces
could be brought close enough to the borders so that nukes would
poison the Israelis' own land. And although the Syrians have been
feuding with the Iraqis lately, both countries are ruled by the Baa'thist
party. But you know all this. And do not care.
>
> [Hermit 7] Of course, there will be at least one difference. Last
> time, Israel was prevented by responding by the US. This time Israel
> is lead by a murderous fanatic who has said that any attack on Israel
> will be answered with force. Interesting. An attack on Iraq is quite
> likely to be the only way to provoke that which you claim to be
> wanting to prevent.
>
A US attack on Iraq, if Saddam Hussein responds with an attack upon
Israel, would most likely be unanswered, just like last time, as the Israelis
would understand that others (namely the US) was taking care of it;
however, just let that sicko get hold of a nuke and detonate it either in
Israel of the US, and all nuclear hell will break loose, and at the end of it,
Muslims will no longer be able to brag about comprising 1/5 of the global
population, and much more land than they claim to have presently lost
will remain humanly unusable for five thousand years. If you love the
bastard so much as to risk his insane perpetration of such a global
catastrophe, that's your problem, not mine.
>
> [Hermit 7] By the way, with only 70 suicide bombings in Israel to date
> the strategy appears to be devoid of merit as a motivator. What is
> wrong, do the Palestinians value themselves more than this? Do you
> think that the bombings would increase if he upped the ante? Or do you
> think that it is perhaps a ploy to persuade other states to identify
> Iraq with the Palestinian cause? If not, why not? And why is the
> strategy wrong?
>
ONLY 70????? Oh, that would be hilarious if it were not so travestous.
It apparently has motivated more than a hundred; it's just that many have
been stopped beore they could carry through. I wonded what Saddam
pays the families of duds?
>
> [Hermit 7] And even the Israelis are not in agreement with you. Some
> still have an ethical stance which precludes using genocide of an
> instrument of war.
>
I do not advocate genocide as an instrument of war, and neither do the
overwhelming majority of Israelis, even those who have lost family
members to genocidal suicide attacks. At one time I would have thought
such a despicable canard unperpetrable by you, but now I can clearly
see that there is no lie or slander to which you are not eager to stoop in
your mad rush to memebotic propaganda propagation.
>
>Even when the target are only Palestinians. "Surely
> the extermination of Jews in gas chambers is not comparable to the
> slow death inflicted in Iraqi children by deprivation. But from
> another angle the latter is even more despicable. The genocide against
> Jews was perpetrated in the greatest secret and without the blessing
> of the "civilized world". The crimes against Iraqi civilians are
> committed in full day-light, with the blessing of the ruling
> "civilized nations" and with the tacit support of the educated classes
> in these nations. Those who keep silent and are legally able to speak
> up, are morally accomplices to this crime." -- Elias Davidsson,
> Musician and a Palestinian Jew, 4/16/1999 posted in the open forum of
> www.arabamerican.com
>
I'm quite sure he said this. Kaszynski and McVeigh, and their
sympathizers, have said things, too. Are you as willing to drop your
filters and sucker them in? One thing I agree with, though; the crimes
against the Iraqi citizens need to be stopped, and there is no better or
surer way to do same than to remove that totalitarian tyrant Saddam from
the helm of that poor benighted nation.
> ----
> This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of
> Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=26082>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:19 MDT