On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 18:06:37 -0400, Glenn McCorkle wrote: > On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:00:10 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 13:30:28 +0200, Richard Menedetter wrote: >>> Hi >>> Go to http://www.google.com >>> enter weapons of mass destruction into the searchfield >>> and press the I'm feeling lucky button. >>> read and start to think. >>> Naturally this 404 - not found page is meant only as a joke. >>> But it really gives me the creep, if a elected (??) leader of a >>> democratic country can knowingly lie to the world, and get away with it. >> We have no proof that he lied to anyone. He said that he knew for a >> fact that there were WMD in Iraq. He also said that the establishent >> of the "facts" was based on conclusions drawn from the analysis of >> military intelligence reports. >> Most people who know anything at all >> about the value of military intelligence know that the "facts" are >> often not as they might appear to be. > All of the following is IMHO, > Take it for whatever you feel it's worth. > (or disregard all of it as being simply the rantings of a 'raving lunatic')<g> > IMHO, > You are mistaken in that statement. > "FACTS" are ALWAYS EXACTLY what they appear to be. > That is why they are called "FACTS". > http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?fact Note that I had used the word within quotations so as to indicate that the "facts" might not have really been proven as such. > On the other hand..... > "LIES" are not always what they appear to be. > That is why they are called "LIES". > http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?lie > (context... lie[3,verb] ) >> From the very beginning of >> the hype about the WMD that were supposedly hidden in Iraq, the "facts" >> were being questioned. Just because your interpretation and analysis >> of the information on which the "facts" are based are different from >> somebody else's analysis does not mean that the other person is a liar, >> even if you should succeed in proving that he is wrong. Lying is about >> one's lack of moral integrity. Lying is not about one's alleged lack >> of accurate perception. > "FACTS" are not open to interpretation. True, but when you see the word used within quotations it indicates that we are speaking of statements that are open to question. > "FACTS" are pieces of information which have been PROVEN to be TRUE. If by definition all "FACTS" are statements that have been PROVEN to be TRUE, then why do we always hear so many politicians and news analysts using the phrase "true facts"? Is there any such thing as a "false fact"? > "LIES" and "CONJECTURE" and "GUESSES" *are* open to interpretation. > These are pieces of information which have NOT been proven to be true. Some lies have been proven to be lies. Otherwise nobody would have ever been convicted of perjury. In order to convict anyone of perjury you have to prove that he has told a lie under oath. In order to prove that he has told a lie you have to prove that what he said wasn't even true "to the best of his knowledge and belief". This means that you would have to prove that he couldn't possibly have believed that what he was saying was the truth. If a person signs an affidavit saying that he saw some flying saucers and some little green men you can't prove that he is lying unless you can prove that he never believed that he actually saw such things. If it can be proven that the person has been going about bragging and laughing about how he is having some fun by upsetting the civil authorities by starting some UFO rumors as a prank, then you could prove that he is lying about what he claims to have seen, even if he can point out as evidence some crop circles that he and his friends have so artfully created. >> So far we have not found any WMD in Iraq. Absence of evidence is not >> evidence of absence. > Quite correct. > However, > We were told that FACTS existed which would PROVE the existence of the > "phantom" WMDs. It is true that we were told that. It is known that facts existed which would prove that WMD's did exist in some places in Iraq at various times in history. Now we are being told that it isn't known whatever happened to them. The problem with what we were told is that we were told that WMD's existed in Iraq at the time when we recently invaded the country. So far we have seen no proof of that. > So far, all we have been shown is...... NOTHING. True. We ain't seen nothing yet. > Please do not misinterpret my meaning here. > I *do not* say that we have been lied to. > I *do not* say that we have told the truth. > What I *do* point-out is the FACT that we have not been shown the PROOF > that we were told existed. > I *do* DEMAND the we be shown this (as yet), 'phantom' proof. You cannot expect your demands to be met as long as the government persists in claiming that the "phantom" proof is found only in some classified documents. There are a lot of things that the American people *demand* to know about, but the government refuses to release the information. >>> American soldiers and iraqi people have a constant party since america >>> freed them. >>> They sing together, dance together and have fun. >>> Only the oil industry is disappointed, because they could not get hold >>> of the iraqi oil. >>> HEY STOP ... it is exactly the other way round ! >> The only people who have stolen any oil from the Iraqi people are >> Saddam and his terrorist henchmen. > Richard made no accusation of 'theft'. It is my interpretation that he insinuated "theft". > He *did* point-out the proven FACT the the oil companies now have their > hands on oil from Iraq. > This is the same oil which was 'out of their reach' before the > Bush administration attacked Iraq. > So... Your accusation that "Saddam and his terrorist henchmen" had been > steeling the oil from the Iraqi people is a pretty strong accusation to make . > Do you have PROOF of this? > If so...... > Show us the PROOF that the possession of such oil had been in the > hands of the Iraqi people. > Show us the PROOF that such possession was STOLEN from them by > "Saddam and his terrorist henchmen". > Show us the PROOF in-fact that Saddam actually HAD "terrorist henchmen". All of Saddam's goons who carried out the tortures and mass executions of innocent people are his "terrorist henchmen". Most of us are already aware of the proof that exists that shows that such things happened under Saddam's regime. > If you can PROVE these items. > Only THEN do they become FACTS. > Until then... they are ACCUSATIONS not FACTS. > If the TRUTH turns out to show the opposite..... > The accusations have been PROVEN to be LIES. Whenever a country devotes its wealth and resources to building up its military might to a level far exceeding what is reasonable and necessary for providing for the country's defense and security, then the government is stealing from the people. The wealth should be dedicated for expenditures to benefit the people instead of for so much unnecessary weaponry and equipment and personnel for its military forces. > There IS proof the the United States government helped Saddam to achieve > what power he *did* have. > http://images.embarrassing.net/Rumsfeld-vs-Saddam.jpg > This is but one very small piece of such proof. > (many more exist) > So, "from a certain point of view" I suppose that the US government *could* > be considered justified in their actions of simply 'taking back' the power > which they gave to him in the first-place. Right. There are always many strings attached to accepting military aid from another country. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
