From: Adam Flinton 

jeff wrote:

> Adam Flinton wrote:
>
>> Jeff Shultz wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:54:18 +0100, Adam Flinton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Geo. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Oh right, providing Al Qaeda doesn't count?
>>>>>
>>>>> Geo.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Gary Britt" 
wrote in message
>>>>> news:41689aa0$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Because they didn't have and weren't trying to
develop WMD and
>>>>>> weren't a
>>>>>> threat to provide WMD to Al Qaeda.  Its pretty
simple really.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh? What significant support was Iraq
providing for "international
>>>>>>> terrorism"? If GWB was serious with that
statement, why didn't he
>>>>>>> invade Saudi Arabia?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Gas attack on Tokyo underground - 8 dead
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sucessfully prosecuted by Japanese Gov't.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yup &? 8 dead? A bad day on a major road claims more than that. So are
>> roads now WMD?
>>
> What volume of sarin was used.... and was it spread about (aerosol'd) in
> a military fashion?
>

They did their best & it was in a perfect spot i.e. crowded, enclosed
but with a (man made) breeze.

> Let's see... 1 sarin "thing" = multiple deaths.
>
> How many cars travel down the freeway per death?

Irrelevant. You may as well argue that as the majority of rounds are shot
at targets, then a gun is not a weapon.

The point is that Chem is not a mass destruction weapon unless it is
deployed en masse but that also applies to bombers, infantry etc.etc.

WW1 gas useage was in the context of massive gas bombardments as were more
recent useage such as the Fao penisular battle.

BTW mea culpa....11 died however it was released on 3 different commuter
lines in rush hour.

Each operative equipped with conventional explosives could have killed far
more (e.g. contrast with the Madrid bombings & the death toll (approx
200)).

In an underground setting (esp if fire resulted from the explosion) the
death toll in tokyo could have been far higher with conventional HE.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5