Conceding the enemy's argument - shame
cleon42 at yahoo.com
Thu Sep 13 15:00:10 MDT 2001
--- Borba100 at aol.com wrote:
> To concede, as many on left are doing, the truth of
> government charge that
> real , independent terrorists (not US government or
> group it has infiltrated
> and unknown perhaps to members directs) have done
> this and then argue - "but
> they had good reason" - this strengthens hand of
Of course, doing your best to try and use any little
discrepancy or lack of data to "prove" that the US
government did it is simply irrational.
> And the holes in this story are getting big enough
> to drive a truck through.
With a lack of data and rumors circulating widely,
this is to be expected.
> Such as: Russian armed forces were on alert shortly
> after first tower was hit
> because US forces were. How did a plane get close
> neough to hit the Pentagon
> an hour later
That is a legitimate question, but hardly one that
"proves" the US is behind it.
> - not to mention miraculously hitting
> the part under
What on earth does that have to do with anything? If
you think the US government was willing to sacrifice
possibly tens of thousands of lives "to rally the
populace," what makes you think they'd give two shits
about which part of the Pentagon they hit?
> Why wasn't Bush immediately whisked
> away? Instead he "looked
> somber for a moment and resumed reading" to children
> at some school.
The reports I've read indicate that he *was* whisked
away as soon as it was known the attack was
deliberate. This "looked somber and continued reading"
bit strikes me as a rumor. In any case, Cheney had to
be physically ushered to safety by the SS.
Adam Levenstein cleon42 at yahoo.com
Svoboda Misli - Svoboda Coda
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message
More information about the Marxism