Subject:
|
Re: Thank you, Britain.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Oct 2001 08:49:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
584 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur 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.
> >
> > Well, that's good enough for me... lets bomb them! (not).
>
> Thanks for the snide comment but which of those three choices were you going
> with? Calling him a failed politician isn't an answer either.
Why not?
> Pick one of
> the above or show that I omitted one possibility and let me know what it is?
The fact that the evidence which is been presented is all circumstantial,
very simplistic in nature and collected by agencies who have failed in the
past. When I read the evidence, I have to ask myself why the USA was not on
a highlighted state of alert.
All from http://www.channel4.com/news.
==+==
Much of what's in this document is already in the public domain. That's not
to say it's not a strong circumstantial case for Osama bin Laden's guilt
based on what the police call the MO - the modus operandi - of his past crimes.
==+==
==+==
That "close associates were warned to return to Afghanistan by September 10th...
==+==
==+==
In effect, the government is asking MP's and public to take on trust what
evidence there is to directly link bin Laden to the attacks of September
11th because it comes from intelligence sources, which can't of course, be
verified. Which is why it comes with a candid health warning - that it
doesn't pretend to be evidence that will stand up in a court of law. How big
a stumbling block that will be in weeks to come, no one knows.
==+==
Charles Kennedy, who has seen all the evidence described it as "persuasive"
NOT conclusive.
>
> > What about the "evidence" NATO had when it bombed the Chinese embassy?
>
> This was faulty targeting information, that's way different than crime
> evidence, wouldn't you say? I agree it was certainly naff though. Not relevant.
It is relevant. It shows that our intelligence agencies are not fool proof.
>
> > What about the "evidence" the USA had when it bombed Sudan?
>
> I'm not convinced that we didn't get snookered on that, and that it wasn't
> actually his plant after all.
Can you justify this in any way? I have seen no report which supports that.
> But please provide a cite where I said I
> supported that bombing (or any other bombing by the US for that matter), if
> you would...
Did I say you did?
Please provide a cite where I said the ingredients for current buns do not
include currents.
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Thank you, Britain.
|
| (...) Well can you? Over the weekend that has been used as an example of how things can go wrong. Can you justify your words? (...) Perhaps *I* did not, but *you* did say this: "I would indeed *like* this to be a real war (...) , because I see one (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Thank you, Britain.
|
| (...) Thanks for the snide comment but which of those three choices were you going with? Calling him a failed politician isn't an answer either. Pick one of the above or show that I omitted one possibility and let me know what it is? (...) This was (...) (23 years ago, 4-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
|
|
|
|
