Subject:
|
Re: Thank you, Britain.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 Oct 2001 23:58:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
470 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
>
> > Most have yet to see any evidence (assuming it exists).
>
> I addressed that in another post (it is deep in the "War" war). Lord
> Robertson is either fooled by faked evidence, in on the gag, or the evidence
> does actualy exist.
I guess I should've put "conclusive" in there somewhere.
A couple of excerpts from
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/03/international/03NATO.html (free reg req)
---
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in an interview today with The New York
Times, said administrationofficials had been briefing allies on what he called
"pretty good information" establishing the link between the airplane attacks
and Mr. bin Laden. But, he added, "it is not evidence in the form of a court
case."
One Western official at NATO said the briefings, which were oral, without
slides or documents, did not report any direct order from Mr. bin Laden, nor
did they indicate that the Taliban knew about the attacks before they happened.
A senior diplomat for one closely allied nation characterized the briefing as
containing "nothing particularly new or surprising," adding: "It was
descriptive and narrative rather than forensic. There was no attempt to build a
legal case."
While NATO deemed the evidence sufficient to make the case for an attack,
Pakistan appeared to find it less convincing.
But Riaz Muhammad Khan, the spokesman for the Pakistan Foreign Ministry, said
the American envoy had not provided conclusive proof.
---
If some of the people who presumably know more about it than me are unable to
agree that the evidence is conclusive, I see no reason why I should take Mr
Blair's, Lord Robertson's, or anyone else's word for it.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Thank you, Britain.
|
| (...) There is a HUGE difference between "no evidence" ("any evidence") and "no conclusive evidence". That was a very serious omission on your part, I'm afraid. We convict people of crimes based on strong circumstantial evidence all the time... not (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Thank you, Britain.
|
| (...) I addressed that in another post (it is deep in the "War" war). Lord Robertson is either fooled by faked evidence, in on the gag, or the evidence does actualy exist. (23 years ago, 3-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
118 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
