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: <snip> >> 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. > "FACTS" are ALWAYS EXACTLY what they appear to be. > That is why they are called "FACTS". > "LIES" are not always what they appear to be. > That is why they are called "LIES". > "FACTS" are not open to interpretation. > "FACTS" are pieces of information which have been PROVEN to be TRUE. Quite correct. However, FACTS are not just FACTS. FACTS are presented and the PRESENTATION can turn a FACT into a LIE. Example #1 A photograph of a lorry in the dessert was presented in the UN. Let's suppose the picture was not faked in a Hollywood studio. Now we have a FACT... but was this a recent picture and did this image realy show a mobile laboratory for making chemical or biological weapons? In the aftermath of the war "FACTS" are presented that those lorries were used to make H2 gas for the inflation of weather balloons. Example #2 Presented as FACTS: Sadam was involved in the Al Qaida terrorist organisation. This terrorist organisation is a threat to the US. So the US has to attack Iraq... The PRESENTATION of FACTS without PROVE as a pretext to launch a war is a deleberated LIE to the public and the soldiers who have to do the dirty and dangerous job. A democratic society can not function if the rulers have a "hidden agenda" or are telling "unverified facts". IMHO "unverified facts" used to manipulate the public are LIES. To be unwilling or unable to present PROVE to the "FACTS" is a shame and does not enhance the credibility of the Bush administration. > However, > We were told that FACTS existed which would PROVE the existence of the > "phantom" WMDs. > So far, all we have been shown is...... NOTHING. > 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. If this phantom PROOF will not show up very soon... we must conclude this war was launched based on FANTHOM FACTS, in other words LIES. If we live long enough we will know the truth... the archives will be open to the public after abt. 25 years. That's how democracy functions in practice... lies are disclosed after 25 years and/or after the last living responsible person died... > If you can PROVE these items. > Only THEN do they become FACTS. > Until then... they are ACCUSATIONS not FACTS. Until then... they are PRESENTATIONS not FACTS > If the TRUTH turns out to show the opposite..... > The accusations have been PROVEN to be LIES. Regards, Bastiaan ************************* Technische Redactie CQ-PA Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ ************************* Attentie: e-mail adres bij Wanadoo niet meer gebruiken! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.hetnet.nl/~ba8tian/index.html -- Virusvrij e-mailen? => Arachne browser/mailer -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client
