Subject:
|
Re: Thank you, Britain.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 Oct 2001 15:23:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
485 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> 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.
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 sure that you can consider "circumstantial" as "conclusive". Our
standard in the US is beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt.
For something this large in ramification, caution is mandatory.
Latest from the Beeb on this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1578000/1578860.stm
>
> 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.
This is no longer the case from the latest stories I saw...
A larger question here is this: Is it POSSIBLE to get "conclusive" evidence?
What would constitute that? Anything COULD be faked. Confessions forced,
transcripts, recordings, money trails, physical evidence... all is fakable.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Thank you, Britain.
|
| (...) afraid. No need for fear 8?) The original comment was directed at Mr Blairs assertion that we should "Be in no doubt Bin Laden and his people organised this atrocity,", and I'm afraid (!) I can't just dismiss my doubts because he asks me to. (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Thank you, Britain.
|
| (...) I guess I should've put "conclusive" in there somewhere. A couple of excerpts from (URL) (free reg req) --- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in an interview today with The New York Times, said administrationofficials had been briefing (...) (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
|
|
|
|
