SunrayMinor wrote:You were called out and you folded like a cheap suit..
Yup and playground tactics won't make me have more time. Like I said, believe what you want. And we will have to agree to disagree. It happens, such is life. globe-intel often publishes sensationalistic reports devoid of any corroboration, that you are on their mailing list makes neither you nor Gordon right. He's a screenwriter for heaven's sake!
EDIT (I had a few seconds while making an upload):
In any case conspiracy theories about intelligence agencies is a weary task to disprove. "So and so didn't exist? Well you didn't find any record of him because the CIA 'erased' it!"
I don't dispute that such programs exist. I have no evidence but I am sure that they do.
I also do not dispute most of the names and details in the story. I was not there and I do not know.
What I dispute is the alarmist tone and sensationalistic ingerence.
There are already diseases that affect one race more than another. But science is far behind the level of sofistication for the apocalyptic weapons such articles describe.
It's all about timing. Saddam may well have been ab;e to develop a nuke in 10 years or less, but it is now apparent that the mushroom cloud argument for the war in Iraq was hyperbole.
And I contend that this story is as well. Civilian science is far behind what would be needed for such a weapon. We do not even understand genes enough to make a serious effort.
It's possible that the conglomeration of the agencies in the story are that far beyond civilian science but I doubt it. And so do most of the people who verify facts for a living.
As this search indicates news agencies did not give it the time of day either. They didn't even do what they usually do when there is a really juicy story that they have no evidence of; report that it was reported. When the story has gained credibility with anyone it's picked up in the least by reporting that it was reported.
Bush's current criteria for evidence seems to be such that he's be scrawling it on the walls. But he's not.
So, no, I can't prove a nagative here. But I don;t dispute it "out of hand". Being reproachful of a source does not mean the dissent is not the product of careful consideration.
This is a topic I loved for years and I wanted to write a fictional book about it as a teenager.