Wat Tyler wrote:

> I offer this propaganda in the interest of sorting out the players, if
> that's possible.
> Text copied from another source.
> ================================================================
> Dateline: United Arab Emirates
> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 15:17:54 +0400
> Email: abubakr sidahmed <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
> Title: The Facts about Al-Shifa Factory in Sudan
>
> TEXT:
>
> The Facts about Al-Shifa Factory in Sudan
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/2884/nda/nda980825e.html
>
> Public Opinion and International media began to question the real nature
> of Alshifa factory in Khartoum since it was destroyed in an American
> missile strike. While the US announced that it has credible evidence that
> the factory was involved with chemical precursors including VX nerve gas,
> the Khartoum government still insist that the factory is a mere
> pharmaceutical plant owned to the private sector in the Sudan.
>
> The undisputed fact is that the factory is involved in manufacturing
> precursors for chemical weapons.  Medicine manufacturing is only used to
> cover the real activities of the factory.

Snip

This is interesting and the fact that you call it propaganda is suggestive.
All of the reports that I've been reading on the net from British and European
newspapers is exactly the opposite, i.e., there were no armed guards, the
public could enter through any entrance, the doors, etc., were left open to
the outside indicating that nothing dangerous was being manufactured, etc.

Now I don't pretend to know which of these stories are legitimate or the most
legitimate but this one sounds like it come from the fellow who ordered those
attacks as it nails everything thing down, absolutely, including ownership,
again, contrary to the reports that we've been getting from the other sources
in Europe.  It is so specific that it tends to make one doubt the report...

So, I'm puzzled as we really don't know the sources behind these stories nor
their motivations except that it exemplifies most political stories now a
days, i.e., one tends to believe the ones that corroborate one's personal
viewpoint.   Not having a personal viewpoint (other than to expect supportive
information from those who did the strike and vice versa from the folks who
were struck) we are again left with the usual conflicts in political stories
nowadays.  Apparently everyone tends to agree with the Afghanistan strike,
where we blew up all the stuff we paid for originally and where supposedly
there was still a supply of shoulder fired missiles (which we originally
supplied) capable of downing large passenger planes, etc.  But the one in a
city in Sudan appears questionable according to most sources other than our
CIA.

So, we are back to square one, there is no one in which we can believe,
unfortunately, about the strikes but we can all agree that approving terrorism
on our own part carries a heavy burden.  Apparently, when we do terrorism it
is self defense and when others do the same thing it is terrorism or hostile
military action.  I sure hope that is true but it certainly isn't legal...

Sure wish we could trust some folks out there....

Cordially,

Bob

--
Bob Grimes

http://members.aol.com/bob5266/
http://www.hotwired.com/members/profile/bobinjax/
http://www.phonefree.com/Scripts/cgiParse.exe?sID=28788
Jacksonville, Florida
[log in to unmask]      [log in to unmask]  [log in to unmask]

Man is not in control, but the man who knows he is not in control is more in
control...

Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore....."