----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 10:26 AM Subject: Re: "God Is With Us" L3
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 11:12 PM > Subject: Re: "God Is With Us" L3 > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 8:52 PM > > Subject: Re: "God Is With Us" L3 > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 7:25 PM > > > Subject: Re: "God Is With Us" L3 > > > > > Sure, eyewitness accounts are not always right. But, we are talking about > someone who continues to have responsibility in the area of foreign affairs > discussing something fairly mundane that she observed in the course of her > responsibilities. Swamp gas doesn't cause one to see that incubators are > missing. > > There is no arguement that the testimony before Congress was not by an > eye-witness. But, the rebuttal of the testimony did not include, as far as > the references I read from you, reasonable assurance that all the > incubators stayed put during the period of occupation. I saw some > generalities, but nothing that even matches Sheesh Dan........incubators (and plenty of other medical eqipment) may have gone missing, but that doesn't automaticly become premature babies dashed to the floor. Nor are missing incubators a sign that such *might* have occured. I wouldn't argue that there was not theft, the discussion concerns cold blooded murder that did not occur and that there are no witnesses to such murders in the first place. In any reasonable argument the onus is to prove that something actually occured, not to prove a negative. But proof of a negative is exactly what you are asking for. > > > > Now if Gautam were to say onlist that he saw this himself at a time > > when he was at this location in Kuwait it would weigh heavier as a > > fact. (I do not doubt Gautam an iota myself). > > > > But the fact that this "gossip" (in that it is third hand) > > It's second hand...Gautam heard it first hand. Quotes in a news report are > also second hand, as is quoting a news report. Both are a bit more than > gossip, I think. By the time Gautam tells us it is gossip, unless Gautam himself is the witness. Like I've said, I trust Gautam, but have no reason to trust people he knows or has met since I cannot judge them (or their character) for myself. I think the reasons for this are obvious when one discusses a point in contention. > > >is repeated > > by a government employee gives it less creedence these days > > considering the way the truth is mangled with regularity by "Our > > Employees". > > But, as an aside in a blistering attack on Bush II, to show that her > criticism of Bush does not mean she thought Hussein was OK, it's hard to > understand how she was just pushing the party line. Why would "the party line" be required. This person is part of an organisation and has a vested interest in *its* interests. Nothing uncommon in that. > > > > > Maybe a story that came out of Kuwait was personalized, in > > > order to better persuade Congress. Maybe they framed a guilty man. > > Maybe > > > the incubators were removed, but the premature infants were not > > thrown on > > > the ground...they just did without. And, maybe the person from the > > US > > > embassy was flim-flammed. > > > > Mayhaps the Illuminati or the gray aliens are hiding something in > > Kuwait.<G> > > When I worked with field and lab reports, I usually worked to not reject > any field reports out of hand, even if what they claimed was in > contradiction with the lab data that I took. I usually found that there > was something behind the field reports, even though exactly as reported, it > was impossible. In this case, from what I've seen, you and David are > postulating > > Because a false eye-witness account of Hussein's actions was given before > Congress, he didn't do anything of the source. > > I'm arguing > > Taking incubators out of Kuwait for use elsewhere is consistent with what I > know of Hussein's other actions. The fact that the Kuwait's ambassador's > daughter gave a false eye-witness account makes accounts coming directly > from the Kuwait government, or directly from Bush I suspect, because they > knew about the false accounts. But, it doesn't falsify the premise. Thus, > other accounts still need to be considered. I've gone back and read this entire thread twice now. There is absolutely no argument being made concerning the theft of incubators except by you. What's up with that? Conflating the theft of equipment with the murder of premature babies......well it seems intentional Dan. > > Just because OJ was framed, he isn't automatically innocent. :-) > I've always thought it quite likely he was protecting someone else. <G> > > > > I don't doubt that Iraqi soldiers trashed many buildings and did > > bodily harm to many people. I don't doubt that American soldiers have > > done similar things in Iraq. > > Why do you, specifically, doubt that they would steal incubators. I don't. But it is also believable that incubator missing from there proper place could be in some nearby place being stored, out of sight though not out of mind. A handy ploy for those involved in a more than just PR campaign. Get people to tour the hospital and see the NICU minus incubators and move them back when the furor dies down. As I see it the incubator question is neutral. There is no credible evidence they were stolen and none that they weren't. But again, the onus is to prove they were stolen, and not to prove a negative. > Let's > say they knew of hospitals in Iraq that could use them. Why not move them > to where they would "do more good." Why not other medical equipment? Where is the discussion concerning that? If you are going to pillage a hospital, why would incubators be at the top of your list? And the only thing on your list? > > > But not every story repeated will have the same component of truth. > > No, but I try to weight probability as dispassionately as possible. I think the above argument should add a bit to your weighing. There is(are) some element(s) missing from this equation. > Part > of this is an assumption that I have about the general bias of the news > media. The news media is biased towards explanations that provide a good, > simple story. The original story was the eye-witness account. The first > twist was that it was a PR job. Telling the story that it was a PR job > that was set up, but that did happen to claim something that was close to > what actually happened, opens up a can of worms that is not easy to report. > So, the story stays simple. Explaining that someone lied about the truth > wouldn't have much in the way of legs. <G>But that happens all the time. It is a regular part of the life of the court system over here. > > It does illustrate some of the problems with setting up false PR...even if > it turns out to be true later, few will believe you the second time. > And about gullibility the first time also. xponent Working At It Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
