----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: Attack
> At 18:22 13-9-01 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > > No, it still would not be appropriate, because it would still be
fueling
> > > hatred. The only reason why I might have less objections is that your
> > > version does not already put the blame on a specific person when there
is
> > > no evidence that this person is indeed guilty.
> > >
> >
> >So, the US government is lying when they say there is very credible
> >evidence?
>
> You never heard me say that.
>
Not exactly, that's why I asked it as a question. You said "The only reason
why I might have less objections is that your version does not already put
the blame on a specific person when there is
no evidence that this person is indeed guilty."
I took "there is no evidence" as meaning that evidence did not exist. Did
you mean something else?
If you just didn't know about evidence, then the usual statement is
"I know of no credible evidence." Stating it as a fact indicates that you
have some basis for stating it, not that it is just an opinion.
>
> > Do you have _any idea_ about what evidence has been made public?
>
> I have not seen any evidence yet. But then, I have not watched much
> television in the last few days (too busy with other things).
>
> So, what evidence *has* been made public by the US government?
>
The name of the hijackers. The fact that the German government has
identified three of them as tied to a known Islamic terrorist group. Where
the hijackers got their training in the US is also known. They were clearly
well financed and organized. The hijackers were identified from at least 1
plane before it crased from a call from within the plane. Luggage of one of
the hijackers that didn't make the fatal flight was opened, and a flight
instruction manual in Arabic was found.
I agree with Gautam that we need not expose our methods in order to prove it
to the public. I suggested letting our NATO allies see the proof. Since
NATO was so quick to declare it an act of war, as did Australia, it is not
unreasonable to assume that they have access to intelligence.
What amazes me is that you continue to make statements of fact which
contradicts what virtually every government of the west is saying. Maybe
it's that 'ol language barrier again.
If you say
"The force of gravity causes rocks to fall" then you are claiming certainty
or near certainty.
If you say
"I don't see how it can be cloudy for 20 straight days" you are clearly
stating opinion.
Misunderstandings will be greatly lessened if you follow this convention of
the English language.
If you say the first and mean the second, the common polite thing to do is
say "whoops, I didn't state that quite right." I'm sure you can go through
my posts and find where I said the first but should have stated the second.
In some cases, it just gets blown off 'cause the reader knows which is
meant. In this case, it probably won't get blown off.
Dan M.
