Yes people seem to forget that the people tried at Nuremberg did terrible things also. But this is the only civilized way to handle this. Otherwise you become just like what you're fighting against. Let me repeat that again : You become just like what you're fighting against. In that instance the war on terror becomes pointless as you are just as bad. I understand the emotional need for retribution. But it's just that. An emotional reaction.
If we are to be any better than the animals that perpetrate these acts we need to think not feel our way out of these times.
<strong>Yes people seem to forget that the people tried at Nuremberg did terrible things also. But this is the only civilized way to handle this. Otherwise you become just like what you're fighting against. Let me repeat that again : You become just like what you're fighting against. In that instance the war on terror becomes pointless as you are just as bad. I understand the emotional need for retribution. But it's just that. An emotional reaction.
If we are to be any better than the animals that perpetrate these acts we need to think not feel our way out of these times.</strong><hr></blockquote>I agree. One of the things that bothers me about Bush's policies is that there is an "ends justify the means" approach. It's about winning the war, catching the bad guys, getting Sodom, etc., and the way we do it is not that important. I remember a line from the State of the Union [OK, I went and found it:]
[quote] In all these efforts, however, America's purpose is more than to follow a process -- it is to achieve a result: the end of terrible threats to the civilized world. All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attacks. And we're asking them to join us, and many are doing so. Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others. Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people.<hr></blockquote>This sums up where I disagree with his approach. It IS the process that is important. That's fundamental to the way we do things. We follow laws, we act on principles, we have ethical codes. Even if we don't like the outcome, we still follow them. I'd rather see us lose some battles and always follow the principles, than always win by sometimes ignoring the principles.
RAFs stated mission war to create so much havoc in Germany that the government would start using undemocratic measures to protect democracy and show the true face of capitalism. Luckily they didn´t succeed.
I see a lot of parallels to today. Attacking Pearl Habour? Why on earth would they do that? It would not have done anything to US ability to fight Al Quada. They want to pressure US to show what they think is the true face of the west to stir things up even further in the middle east.
Are they succeeding? Who is ahead in reaching their goal? US or the terrorists? Who would a more careful approach set most back in reaching their goal? US or the terrorists?
[quote]In all these efforts, however, America's purpose is more than to follow a process -- it is to achieve a result...<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Even if we don't like the outcome, we still follow them. I'd rather see us lose some battles and always follow the principles, than always win by sometimes ignoring the principles.<hr></blockquote>
Honestly, I think the best, most realistic, and ultimately most successful answer in somewhere in between. We have those who want to work in the abstractand principled, willing to sacrifice some setbacs now. But we can'tafford to be set back to much. Immediate needs -- results must be obtained. However, results without conscience and a more abstract (moral, princicpled) process are self-defeating, you're just stamping out fires and not extinguishing the source.
<strong>RAFs stated mission war to create so much havoc in Germany that the government would start using undemocratic measures to protect democracy and show the true face of capitalism. Luckily they didn´t succeed.
I see a lot of parallels to today. Attacking Pearl Habour? Why on earth would they do that? It would not have done anything to US ability to fight Al Quada. They want to pressure US to show what they think is the true face of the west to stir things up even further in the middle east.
Are they succeeding? Who is ahead in reaching their goal? US or the terrorists? Who would a more careful approach set most back in reaching their goal? US or the terrorists?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Anders, what would have been your advice to the Jews of preWWII Europe?
What on earth do the quote from me and what you are asking me about have to do with eachother? Are seriously saying that Al quada is to the west what Germany was to the jews (From a strategic and IR pov)?
Please reread what I said above. Al quada is trying to provoke the west into making something that they can use as an (false) example of us trying to keep muslims in general down. Provoke the "bully" to gain sympathy for their cause. Hitler wasn´t trying to provoke anyone. He was actually trying to stay friends with everybody as long as possible. This is clearly not the case for Al Quada. The more force we use the stronger they will get up until the point where there is nothing to defend for us anymore, because we sacrificed the principles in the fight to protect the same principles.
What on earth do the quote from me and what you are asking me about have to do with eachother? Are seriously saying that Al quada is to the west what Germany was to the jews (From a strategic and IR pov)?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. I am. I believe Islam is a real and serious threat to the West. One that will only increase if left to its own devices.
My impression of preWWII Europe is that not many people took Hitler/Nazism seriously, largely dismissing his gangsterism/ideology. It was only Stalin, yes Stalin, that realized Hitler?s potential to do damage. But Stalin knew he wasn?t prepared to take Hitler head on, and alone. So he stalled for time. Stalin needed to rebuild his forces after the great purges. Thus you have this initial strange and awkward alliance between Stalin and Hitler.
I see the same thing happening today with regards to Al Qaeda and radical Islam. Europe is weak, and prefers to turn a blind eye and even play along with the Islamicists. This is clearly seen in the European media, with their almost daily distorted tirades against the US and Israel, and their lack of disclosure and whitewashing of Islamic offensives around the Globe.
Hoping Islam will go away, or will assume a friendlier face is the same kind of attitude Jews had towards Nazism preWWII. They paid dearly for it.
[quote]<strong>
Please reread what I said above. Al quada is trying to provoke the west into making something that they can use as an (false) example of us trying to keep muslims in general down.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think I understood your argument on my first read. Your basic argument is not about principles. (It can?t be). It is about making bin Laden and his ilk take on the role of victims of ?Western oppression?. You?re arguing that having the West use force will make claims of oppression by Islamacists much more poignant. Hitler had much the same argument regards the Jews and their ?Communist? oppression of Germans. I think you?re familiar enough with Hitler?s claims to see the obvious parallels. At first Hitler used terrorist tactics of intimidation. Later he moved to more systematic methods. Therefore, my question to you stands.
[quote]<strong>
Provoke the "bully" to gain sympathy for their cause. Hitler wasn´t trying to provoke anyone. He was actually trying to stay friends with everybody as long as possible. This is clearly not the case for Al Quada.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do not entirely agree with your assessment. But for the sake of argument, let?s say that each had/has their own tactics. The strategy, I think you?ll agree, is the same. Play yourself as the victim of some supposed oppression. Only in this case, the antagonism between Islamacists and Western values is much more real, than any supposed antagonisms Hitler could rationally argue.
[quote]<strong>
The more force we use the stronger they will get up until the point where there is nothing to defend for us anymore, because we sacrificed the principles in the fight to protect the same principles.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Using force does not make your principles any less noble. Just like forcibly removing criminals from civil society does not make civil society any less civil.
You guys were ready to jump down SJO's throat, but she is getting at something important.<a href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/main/essayksmcapture.html"; target="_blank">This analysis</a> shows how extremely sketchy the whole thing is. There are MANY references. Also cited is Robert Fisk. The author here is absolutely right when he says Fisk is highly respected, especially concerning South Asia. He gave a talk here at Medill (typically ranked the nation's premier journalism school) and it was the most high-profile speech I've seen here outside of our MLK day and graducation events. He has also interviewed Bin Ladin.
<strong>Of course, the elaborate conspiracy theory fits perfectly, and because it's so elaborate and detailed, it must be true.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Elaborate and detailed? What did you read? That was a very disjointed mashing of opinion, fact, rumours, conjecture and hyperbole. "there lot's of conflicting stories, contradicting even themselves, so it must mean the official story is BS" type of article.
"They left clothes and books strewn on the floor and took a bundle of dollar bills which were locked in a cupboard. The bedrooms were turned upside down, one door upstairs was broken and they took the new computer."
*Gasp* It must be true with these inane details! They mentioned them right after holding the others in the household (at gunpoint, or at leas they had guns)!
Had you read it (why is this such a problem on AI?), you wouldn't respond with such dim-witted comments. As pointed out, no two stories on this are the same, and even the large US media outlets like Time-Warner, NBC, etc, point out that there are indiscrepancies and that it is not at all certain that he was arrested (if at all) in the manner you guys think he was. Even the information coming from US government sources ids contradictory. In that last sentence would say "in the manner it was reported," except that it was reported. Everywhere. What, do you people not make it past the headline of the first story you see before forming opinions, and then ignore all facts that don't disprove that belief, even if they are only two sentences in? WTF?!?!?!
Had you read it (why is this such a problem on AI?), you wouldn't respond with such dim-witted comments. As pointed out, no two stories on this are the same, and even the large US media outlets like Time-Warner, NBC, etc, point out that there are indiscrepancies and that it is not at all certain that he was arrested (if at all) in the manner you guys think he was. Even the information coming from US government sources ids contradictory. In that last sentence would say "in the manner it was reported," except that it was reported. Everywhere. What, do you people not make it past the headline of the first story you see before forming opinions, and then ignore all facts that don't disprove that belief, even if they are only two sentences in? WTF?!?!?!
Wow, you just have to try and get an insult in don't you?
My powers of premonition told me that you would insult me and and claim I didn't read it, if I so much as negatively commented on your link. Seems to be your way. For the record, because i anticipated your reaction to someone who disagreed with your position, I READ THE DAMN THING 3 TIMES!! Twice on the computer and I printed it out to get a better read. It was still "a very disjointed mashing of opinion, fact, rumours, conjecture and hyperbole"
Wow, you just have to try and get an insult in don't you?
My powers of premonition told me that you would insult me and and claim I didn't read it, if I so much as negatively commented on your link. Seems to be your way. For the record, because i anticipated your reaction to someone who disagreed with your position, I READ THE DAMN THING 3 TIMES!! Twice on the computer and I printed it out to get a better read. It was still "a very disjointed mashing of opinion, fact, rumours, conjecture and hyperbole"</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is no 'position.' At this point you are arguing just to argue. The simple fact is that this whole story is a "mashing of opinion, fact, rumours, [and] conjecture." (What part is hyperbole?) The only way that you can come to any conclusion about this story other than that there is nothing you really know about it requires completely ignoring the MOUNTAIN of facts, many of which are in mainstream American news outlets. That is nothing less than moronic, to use a term you are familiar with.
The only real conclusion of the analysis is that there is no conclusive ANYTHING relating to this story. You don't believe? Look for yourself. The author links to probably every english article witten about this.
What I linked to is what is called a META-ANALYSIS. It is the most comprehensive analysis of this story (by many degrees of magnitude) that you will find anywhere. There are LINKED CITATIONS after every statement. This is not someone's opinion. This is what real research looks like.
Anyone with at least a little intelligence realizes that sometimes your beliefs have to succumb to reality, as when Boit had to drop Newton's theory of optics in light of Foucault's experiment. This is especially true when that belief is presented with a MOUNTAIN of evidence that contradicts it.
The best you could ever say in this situation is that you have faith in the version of the story you bought into (whichever one that is), even in light of all of that evidence that that one is not valid (pick any one). If that's the case, well, I should just remind you that belief in something even when every fact and method of induction says otherwise is the prime symptom of schizophrenia.
The only real conclusion of the analysis is that there is no conclusive ANYTHING relating to this story. You don't believe? Look for yourself. The author links to probably every english article witten about this.
Anyone with at least a little intelligence realizes that sometimes you beliefs have to succumb to reality, as when Boit had to drop Newton's theory of optics in light of Foucault's experiment. This is especially true when that belief is presented with a MOUNTAIN of evidence that contradicts it.
The best you could ever say in this situation is that you have faith in the version of the story you bought into (whichever one that is), even in light of all of that evidence that that one is not valid (pick any one). If that's the case, well, I should just remind you that belief in something even when every fact and method of induction says otherwise is the prime symptom of schizophrenia.
The mountain of evidence contradicts the official story and contradicts every other theory presented.
You are right, the best you could get from that article is that every theory/story presented has evidence against it. If you want to buy into none of them, that's fine.
That analysis simply tried to demonstrate that since there are many other conflicting stories, the official story must be a lie.
A: says it's red
B:says it's blue
C: says it's green
A is the official story, so therefore it must be the lie.
What's the 'official story?' To whom is it 'official?' This is the whole point.
[quote]That analysis simply tried to demonstrate that since there are many other conflicting stories, the official story must be a lie.<hr></blockquote>
yes. If someone tells me, "Elephants fly," and I am presented with a MOUNTAIN of PLAIN-SIGHT evidence that says otherwise, I will assume it to be a lie. This is especially the case when the story greatly benefits the source.
In other words, I highly doubt any of the stories are true. And yes, at best you can say that the version you have bought into is just only equally as valid as the other 20-40. But that's it. It looks like we are back where I started. What was your objection again?
yes. If someone tells me, "Elephants fly," and I am presented with a MOUNTAIN of PLAIN-SIGHT evidence that says otherwise, I will assume it to be a lie. This is especially the case when the story greatly benefits the source.
In other words, I highly doubt any of the stories are true. And yes, at best you can say that the version you have bought into is just only equally as valid as the other 20-40. But that's it. It looks like we are back where I started. What was your objection again?
And if someone told you the elephant could in fact not fly, but you were then presented with a mountain of statements contradicting that, does that make it a lie?
All that analysis did was say there were other stories people were telling. As I have said, no objections to that, but spewing out a bunch of stories the contradict each other doesn't make for a compelling arguement against the 'official' story.
And my definintion of the official story: the one the officials of the admin are currently putting forward.
Comments
If we are to be any better than the animals that perpetrate these acts we need to think not feel our way out of these times.
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>Yes people seem to forget that the people tried at Nuremberg did terrible things also. But this is the only civilized way to handle this. Otherwise you become just like what you're fighting against. Let me repeat that again : You become just like what you're fighting against. In that instance the war on terror becomes pointless as you are just as bad. I understand the emotional need for retribution. But it's just that. An emotional reaction.
If we are to be any better than the animals that perpetrate these acts we need to think not feel our way out of these times.</strong><hr></blockquote>I agree. One of the things that bothers me about Bush's policies is that there is an "ends justify the means" approach. It's about winning the war, catching the bad guys, getting Sodom, etc., and the way we do it is not that important. I remember a line from the State of the Union [OK, I went and found it:]
[quote] In all these efforts, however, America's purpose is more than to follow a process -- it is to achieve a result: the end of terrible threats to the civilized world. All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attacks. And we're asking them to join us, and many are doing so. Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others. Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people.<hr></blockquote>This sums up where I disagree with his approach. It IS the process that is important. That's fundamental to the way we do things. We follow laws, we act on principles, we have ethical codes. Even if we don't like the outcome, we still follow them. I'd rather see us lose some battles and always follow the principles, than always win by sometimes ignoring the principles.
I see a lot of parallels to today. Attacking Pearl Habour? Why on earth would they do that? It would not have done anything to US ability to fight Al Quada. They want to pressure US to show what they think is the true face of the west to stir things up even further in the middle east.
Are they succeeding? Who is ahead in reaching their goal? US or the terrorists? Who would a more careful approach set most back in reaching their goal? US or the terrorists?
[quote]Even if we don't like the outcome, we still follow them. I'd rather see us lose some battles and always follow the principles, than always win by sometimes ignoring the principles.<hr></blockquote>
Honestly, I think the best, most realistic, and ultimately most successful answer in somewhere in between. We have those who want to work in the abstractand principled, willing to sacrifice some setbacs now. But we can'tafford to be set back to much. Immediate needs -- results must be obtained. However, results without conscience and a more abstract (moral, princicpled) process are self-defeating, you're just stamping out fires and not extinguishing the source.
Enought mixed metaphors in there?
<strong>RAFs stated mission war to create so much havoc in Germany that the government would start using undemocratic measures to protect democracy and show the true face of capitalism. Luckily they didn´t succeed.
I see a lot of parallels to today. Attacking Pearl Habour? Why on earth would they do that? It would not have done anything to US ability to fight Al Quada. They want to pressure US to show what they think is the true face of the west to stir things up even further in the middle east.
Are they succeeding? Who is ahead in reaching their goal? US or the terrorists? Who would a more careful approach set most back in reaching their goal? US or the terrorists?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Anders, what would have been your advice to the Jews of preWWII Europe?
Please reread what I said above. Al quada is trying to provoke the west into making something that they can use as an (false) example of us trying to keep muslims in general down. Provoke the "bully" to gain sympathy for their cause. Hitler wasn´t trying to provoke anyone. He was actually trying to stay friends with everybody as long as possible. This is clearly not the case for Al Quada. The more force we use the stronger they will get up until the point where there is nothing to defend for us anymore, because we sacrificed the principles in the fight to protect the same principles.
<strong>
What on earth do the quote from me and what you are asking me about have to do with eachother? Are seriously saying that Al quada is to the west what Germany was to the jews (From a strategic and IR pov)?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. I am. I believe Islam is a real and serious threat to the West. One that will only increase if left to its own devices.
My impression of preWWII Europe is that not many people took Hitler/Nazism seriously, largely dismissing his gangsterism/ideology. It was only Stalin, yes Stalin, that realized Hitler?s potential to do damage. But Stalin knew he wasn?t prepared to take Hitler head on, and alone. So he stalled for time. Stalin needed to rebuild his forces after the great purges. Thus you have this initial strange and awkward alliance between Stalin and Hitler.
I see the same thing happening today with regards to Al Qaeda and radical Islam. Europe is weak, and prefers to turn a blind eye and even play along with the Islamicists. This is clearly seen in the European media, with their almost daily distorted tirades against the US and Israel, and their lack of disclosure and whitewashing of Islamic offensives around the Globe.
Hoping Islam will go away, or will assume a friendlier face is the same kind of attitude Jews had towards Nazism preWWII. They paid dearly for it.
[quote]<strong>
Please reread what I said above. Al quada is trying to provoke the west into making something that they can use as an (false) example of us trying to keep muslims in general down.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think I understood your argument on my first read. Your basic argument is not about principles. (It can?t be). It is about making bin Laden and his ilk take on the role of victims of ?Western oppression?. You?re arguing that having the West use force will make claims of oppression by Islamacists much more poignant. Hitler had much the same argument regards the Jews and their ?Communist? oppression of Germans. I think you?re familiar enough with Hitler?s claims to see the obvious parallels. At first Hitler used terrorist tactics of intimidation. Later he moved to more systematic methods. Therefore, my question to you stands.
[quote]<strong>
Provoke the "bully" to gain sympathy for their cause. Hitler wasn´t trying to provoke anyone. He was actually trying to stay friends with everybody as long as possible. This is clearly not the case for Al Quada.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do not entirely agree with your assessment. But for the sake of argument, let?s say that each had/has their own tactics. The strategy, I think you?ll agree, is the same. Play yourself as the victim of some supposed oppression. Only in this case, the antagonism between Islamacists and Western values is much more real, than any supposed antagonisms Hitler could rationally argue.
[quote]<strong>
The more force we use the stronger they will get up until the point where there is nothing to defend for us anymore, because we sacrificed the principles in the fight to protect the same principles.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Using force does not make your principles any less noble. Just like forcibly removing criminals from civil society does not make civil society any less civil.
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: zKillah ]</p>
<strong>
.
.
You've lost your marbles some of you.
Edit: Yeh, OK Mika, the Israelis like war. Happy now?
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Harald ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
What the hell are you talking about?
<strong>Of course, the elaborate conspiracy theory fits perfectly, and because it's so elaborate and detailed, it must be true.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Elaborate and detailed? What did you read?
*Gasp* It must be true with these inane details! They mentioned them right after holding the others in the household (at gunpoint, or at leas they had guns)!
Had you read it (why is this such a problem on AI?), you wouldn't respond with such dim-witted comments. As pointed out, no two stories on this are the same, and even the large US media outlets like Time-Warner, NBC, etc, point out that there are indiscrepancies and that it is not at all certain that he was arrested (if at all) in the manner you guys think he was. Even the information coming from US government sources ids contradictory. In that last sentence would say "in the manner it was reported," except that it was reported. Everywhere. What, do you people not make it past the headline of the first story you see before forming opinions, and then ignore all facts that don't disprove that belief, even if they are only two sentences in? WTF?!?!?!
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>Skimming is not reading.
Had you read it (why is this such a problem on AI?), you wouldn't respond with such dim-witted comments. As pointed out, no two stories on this are the same, and even the large US media outlets like Time-Warner, NBC, etc, point out that there are indiscrepancies and that it is not at all certain that he was arrested (if at all) in the manner you guys think he was. Even the information coming from US government sources ids contradictory. In that last sentence would say "in the manner it was reported," except that it was reported. Everywhere. What, do you people not make it past the headline of the first story you see before forming opinions, and then ignore all facts that don't disprove that belief, even if they are only two sentences in? WTF?!?!?!
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, you just have to try and get an insult in don't you?
My powers of premonition told me that you would insult me and and claim I didn't read it, if I so much as negatively commented on your link. Seems to be your way. For the record, because i anticipated your reaction to someone who disagreed with your position, I READ THE DAMN THING 3 TIMES!! Twice on the computer and I printed it out to get a better read. It was still "a very disjointed mashing of opinion, fact, rumours, conjecture and hyperbole"
<strong>
Wow, you just have to try and get an insult in don't you?
My powers of premonition told me that you would insult me and and claim I didn't read it, if I so much as negatively commented on your link. Seems to be your way. For the record, because i anticipated your reaction to someone who disagreed with your position, I READ THE DAMN THING 3 TIMES!! Twice on the computer and I printed it out to get a better read. It was still "a very disjointed mashing of opinion, fact, rumours, conjecture and hyperbole"</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is no 'position.' At this point you are arguing just to argue. The simple fact is that this whole story is a "mashing of opinion, fact, rumours, [and] conjecture." (What part is hyperbole?) The only way that you can come to any conclusion about this story other than that there is nothing you really know about it requires completely ignoring the MOUNTAIN of facts, many of which are in mainstream American news outlets. That is nothing less than moronic, to use a term you are familiar with.
The only real conclusion of the analysis is that there is no conclusive ANYTHING relating to this story. You don't believe? Look for yourself. The author links to probably every english article witten about this.
What I linked to is what is called a META-ANALYSIS. It is the most comprehensive analysis of this story (by many degrees of magnitude) that you will find anywhere. There are LINKED CITATIONS after every statement. This is not someone's opinion. This is what real research looks like.
Anyone with at least a little intelligence realizes that sometimes your beliefs have to succumb to reality, as when Boit had to drop Newton's theory of optics in light of Foucault's experiment. This is especially true when that belief is presented with a MOUNTAIN of evidence that contradicts it.
The best you could ever say in this situation is that you have faith in the version of the story you bought into (whichever one that is), even in light of all of that evidence that that one is not valid (pick any one). If that's the case, well, I should just remind you that belief in something even when every fact and method of induction says otherwise is the prime symptom of schizophrenia.
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>
The only real conclusion of the analysis is that there is no conclusive ANYTHING relating to this story. You don't believe? Look for yourself. The author links to probably every english article witten about this.
Anyone with at least a little intelligence realizes that sometimes you beliefs have to succumb to reality, as when Boit had to drop Newton's theory of optics in light of Foucault's experiment. This is especially true when that belief is presented with a MOUNTAIN of evidence that contradicts it.
The best you could ever say in this situation is that you have faith in the version of the story you bought into (whichever one that is), even in light of all of that evidence that that one is not valid (pick any one). If that's the case, well, I should just remind you that belief in something even when every fact and method of induction says otherwise is the prime symptom of schizophrenia.
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
The mountain of evidence contradicts the official story and contradicts every other theory presented.
You are right, the best you could get from that article is that every theory/story presented has evidence against it. If you want to buy into none of them, that's fine.
That analysis simply tried to demonstrate that since there are many other conflicting stories, the official story must be a lie.
A: says it's red
B:says it's blue
C: says it's green
A is the official story, so therefore it must be the lie.
the official story
<hr></blockquote>
What's the 'official story?' To whom is it 'official?' This is the whole point.
[quote]That analysis simply tried to demonstrate that since there are many other conflicting stories, the official story must be a lie.<hr></blockquote>
yes. If someone tells me, "Elephants fly," and I am presented with a MOUNTAIN of PLAIN-SIGHT evidence that says otherwise, I will assume it to be a lie. This is especially the case when the story greatly benefits the source.
In other words, I highly doubt any of the stories are true. And yes, at best you can say that the version you have bought into is just only equally as valid as the other 20-40. But that's it. It looks like we are back where I started. What was your objection again?
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>
yes. If someone tells me, "Elephants fly," and I am presented with a MOUNTAIN of PLAIN-SIGHT evidence that says otherwise, I will assume it to be a lie. This is especially the case when the story greatly benefits the source.
In other words, I highly doubt any of the stories are true. And yes, at best you can say that the version you have bought into is just only equally as valid as the other 20-40. But that's it. It looks like we are back where I started. What was your objection again?
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
No objections, just my original statement.
And if someone told you the elephant could in fact not fly, but you were then presented with a mountain of statements contradicting that, does that make it a lie?
All that analysis did was say there were other stories people were telling. As I have said, no objections to that, but spewing out a bunch of stories the contradict each other doesn't make for a compelling arguement against the 'official' story.
And my definintion of the official story: the one the officials of the admin are currently putting forward.