Dr. George O. Bizzigotti wrote:

:On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 21:56:56 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
:
:In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
:"M.Hamer" wrote:
::But they weren't used. Why? Because they didn't exist!
:
:By this reasoning, chemical weapons didn't exist in any of the
:countries participating in WWII. Clearly specious reasoning.
:
:No, because we've still got facilities at Porton we built to evaluate
:and analyse captured German chemical weapons.

:There are ample, well-documented literature sources describing the
:very large amounts of chemical munitions possessed by Germany. This is
:not, at least as yet, the case for Iraq.

Yes, I know. But go back and read the claim - "They weren't used ...
because they didn't exist!" This is his argument for the
non-existence of Iraqi chemical weapons; that they weren't used, so
must not exist.

BY THAT REASONING nobody in WWII must have had chemical weapons,
either, since they weren't used.

THAT REASONING is clearly specious, since as has been noted, chemical
weapons most certainly WERE held by the participants in WWII and yet
they were not used.

I'm pleased you and Mr Adam agree with me, although the wording
appears to indicate this was perhaps not the intent.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer