Jackmannii
From the CBC - “The Swiss lab examined Arafat’s remains and his underclothes and a travel bag that he had with him in the days before his death in a Paris hospital and found that the polonium and lead amounts could not be naturally occurring. The timeframe of his illness and death were also consistent with polonium poisoning, they said”
“Our results reasonably support the poisoning theory”, "
"Can we exclude polonium as cause of death? The response is clearly `no,’ he said. “Was polonium the cause of the death for certain? The answer is no.”
“He said he could not say unequivocally what killed Arafat — the biological samples obtained just last year were far too degraded to determine the cause of death.”
So, accepting that this is couched the same way as was mentioned up thread without saying it in so many words the conclusion they reached is, “definitely indicates that he was exposed to ridiculously high amounts not consistent with accidental ingestion, can’t say for 100% that’s what killed him but it is consistent with symptoms and course of illness.”
Sounds like a wishy-washy way of saying, “yup, he done ate hisself some polonium somehow.”
So unless you figure he either chose the most extravagant form of suicide possible or stood around open mouthed until a naturally occurring nugget of the stuff flew down his throat, I’m not sure what other conclusion you can reach about how it got into him.
Actually, it was a Swiss group, not Swedes. And I don’t know where you (or if you are accurately quoting the report, the Swiss) came up with “83% sure” he was “POISONNED” to death (the part I read said they couldn’t rule out death from this cause, without even so much as using ALL CAPS, bolding or big font sizes).
What is there to refute? And I note you have ignored the issues raised in my last post (and which have been discussed here before). Simply saying you “don’t trust the Russians” does not impress as a means of dismissing their findings.
And you need to can the righteous indignation about mockery, when you and the OP have indulged in it yourselves.
Arafat survived several assassination attempts. The Libyan plane crash in 1992 is well known.
His health had declined towards the end. He was trapped in his besieged compound for a long time. He probably neglected his health. Could he have been poisoned? Maybe. But it seems unlikely. It was just a matter of time before his health problems killed him anyway. Why take the risk of killing him?
It would be difficult to get someone into his compound to poke him with the radioactive material. I believe the Russians used to get guys by poking them with an umbrella.
I’m not sure what the official ruling was on the plane crash. Accident or deliberate? There was so many enemies that wanted Arafat dead. It’s hard to know for sure.
Yes. The umbrella assassination of the Bulgarian dissident was quite a famous incident. I don’t know of any other incident that would justify implying this is a standard assassination technique, though. ETA: Although I do see now that there was an attempt of a Bulgarian Secret Service assassination (with apparent KGB help) in the same manner of Vladimir Kostov that didn’t work out.
Swedes vs Swiss you got me. Guilty, I buggered up.
Now about that 83% certainty thing that seems to be common knowledge.
Oh yeah and all that stuff about it couldn’t have happened naturally and the results were way beyond what could be explained by other means and all that other hand-wavey stuff. Feel free my man <– note no caps or bolds or anything but stated facts available to anyone with fingers and the internet. Feel free, as I said, ball is in your court.
Note that I didn’t weigh in with “indignation” until it seemed pretty fargin’ clear that the bastage was poisoned by people that, I assume, know a shitload more than either of us.
Shit, I said Swedes instead of Swiss so anything else must be moot.
NB:
I didn’t say anything until today
I gave cites for everything I said
You failed to refute anything said except for mocking (no, not you :S) the use of emphasis - cuz that’s a legit argument.
The option for refutation still exists - since you haven’t bothered to do so meaningfully - so please do so.
Neither Honesty or I have said that someone poisoned him. Honesty said it seemed clear that polonium poisoning looked to be the case. I said an apology was owed. I further said that if the collective “you” can figure out some scenario under which he poisoned himself please put it forward. <– not 2nd hand smoke for Christ’s sake.
I only said that it appears that an apology is in order to Honesty due entirely to those “useless things”* called facts.
As to the Russians and openness, as I said I stand by their record. Nothing against the Russian people.
So please, absolutely feel free to not GO FUCK YOUSELF! or, if you prefer, check out the various cites and come back with something useful.
I accept the likelihood that I will be modded for point #8
There’s your indignation - which was lacking before.
Do you have anything other than my deliberate posting style to buttress your position?
Honesty and I do not know each other and I’m sure he’d prefer I wasn’t on his side - though I don’t know.
I’ve reported this post myself and accept the repercussions.
It’s not just about trusting the Russians, Jackmannii, it’s about the inescapable question: where is the data? It’s difficult to weigh their expert testimony when they haven’t offered their data to be scrutinize by the public. This phenomenon is called transparency, something the Russians have not been regarding this issue or Mr. Litvnenko (then, again, neither has the U.K) or with the data from Arafat’s remains/belongings. The latter can be solved very easily: have the Russians release their (negative) data for public perusal. It’s that simple.
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
That much is obvious.
[/QUOTE]
You don’t have to be a scientist to figure out Arafat was killed by polonium-210. It requires common sense, intuition, and hindsight; it’s that fascinating piece of neural software that allows humans to take the bits of information from the present and combine that information with details of the past in order to project a likely outcome of a situation into the future (or into the past). Paradoxically, this software comes preloaded in the side of the brain that’s antithetical to logic and reason.
“There is an ‘83% probability that he was poisoned’ and results ‘moderately support’ the thesis that polonium caused his death”; note that this is not equivalent to claiming an 83% probability that his death was due to polonium (and even getting that exact on the poisoning probability sounds dubious).
A novel approach.
Alternatively, I invite you to address the points made in my previous post.
Mayhaps I misread the articles. I read them as meaning we are 83% sure that he was suffering from the effects of polonium poisoning and further this constitutes a moderate probability that this is a fact.
Dunno if you know statisticians at all but even 99% sure means nothing more than “a very high probability.” 83% sure and “moderate certainty” would pass - and has regularly passed - in any reputable court. But even 99% can’t be stated as an “unequivocally” sure thing if one were to takes ones oath.
Really, what more do you want? I’ve stated that I don’t trust the unreleased Russian data because it is unreleased. Let them release it and dispute the SWISS (emphasis for your benefit) data then I’ll shut up until better minds than mine settle it. Until then I’ll go with released data and the conclusions arising therefrom.
The points you made previously have been refuted adequately by people that, as I said before, know more than either of us. I defer to them.
As to reporting my own post. I told you to “not GO FUCK YOUSELF” in full knowledge that it would be modded. I made that choice because you annoyed me enough that I was happily willing to take my first warning ever for politely requesting that you not GO FUCK YOURSELF until you read bit and think a bit more.
So please continue to not GO FUCK YOURSELF until you’ve done a bit o’ readin’ and thinkin’ and can talk with the literate.
Jackmani Sincere apologies. I let the angels of my worser nature get a hold on me.
I got pissed because it seemed to me that Honesty got jumped for being outright wrong but didn’t get any sort of conciliation when it turned out that he did have a valid, verifiable point.
It struck me as bullying.
I knee-jerked.
My bad for both my approach and my responses.
That being said; until the others provide their full reports I’ll go with the Swiss and accept that there is reasonable grounds to believe that he ingested lethal amounts of polonium.
No one has said that he was “purposefully poisoned by agents of XXXX”. Rather the bone of contention seems to be whether or not polonium was a likely cause of death. I’m satisfied that it probably was the cause of death.
As to how he came into contact with such a dose I offer no answers - other than it wasn’t 2nd hand smoke.
I simply agree with Honesty that it seems likely that Yassar ingested lethal amounts of it.
