Subject:
|
Re: Thank you, Britain.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 7 Oct 2001 09:56:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
516 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> That's fine. I'm certainly not from the "government can do no wrong" school,
> or even the "government is mostly right" camp.
>
> > I'm not saying (or I think implying) that US (or NATO, or anyone else) >requires
> > conclusive proof that bin Laden organised (or was involved in) the Sep 11
> > terrorism to go in after him. However, as I said above, *I* still have
> > lingering doubt (no matter how small), and I'm not willing to chuck that out
> > the window on Mr Blair's say-so.
>
> I have doubt too. I'm just not sure it's *reasonable* doubt, given the large
> NUMBER of people (from a lot of different camps) who have seen evidence I
> haven't that are all saying they're satisfied.
>
> That said... (we both have doubts), what are you saying then? Is the fact
> that we have lingering doubts enough to say "no don't do it yet" or did you
> just want to get out in front of folks that you have doubts?
>
> That's valid in and of itself. People SHOULD express doubt and keep
> governments honest, but it isn't the same thing as saying "don't act", right?
>
> I think it's time to act. (when I say "time" I don't mean bomb something
> *now*, but more "it's time to do what we seem to be doing")
So what did you mean when you said this : "I would indeed *like* this to be
a real war (...), because I see one as needful"?
>
> What I found heartening is the recent media stories indicating that a
> significant part of this operation is going to be going in and distributing
> aid to those that need it whether the Taliban wants it distributed or not
> and whether the Taliban tries to stop it or not.
That is indeed heartening. Before 11th Sept 4000 tonnes of food was reaching
the starving each day and today it is at about 500 tonnes per day.
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Thank you, Britain.
|
| (...) That's fine. I'm certainly not from the "government can do no wrong" school, or even the "government is mostly right" camp. (...) I have doubt too. I'm just not sure it's *reasonable* doubt, given the large NUMBER of people (from a lot of (...) (23 years ago, 5-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
|
|
|
|
