Arugmentation (Was: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.)

[Jeff A. Henshaw]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Senior" <seniorr at aracnet.com>
To: <plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Arugmentation (Was: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.)


> >>>>> "Scot" == Craighead, Scot D <craighead.scot at vectorscm.com> writes:
>
> >> Why don't you just say what "everyone knows to be the truth".  If
> >> everyone knows it, then it shouldn't be difficult to articulate.
> >> Thanks.
>
> Scot> OK, I'll go ahead and say it.  The attack on the United States
> Scot> on September 11th was done by Islamic extremists for an
> Scot> international terrorist organization for the purpose of scaring
> Scot> the United States out of supporting Israel.
>
> Uh, I think the consensus view of OBL's position is that Israel
> provided little of the motivation, at least not directly.  That seemed
> to be added at the last minute as window dressing.  If you listen to
> what he actually says, the thing that seems to have OBL worked into a
> froth is the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia.  My
> interpretation of this is that it indicates that the US doesn't trust
> Saudi Arabia to defend itself, and that Saudi Arabia, bereft of its
> capacity of self-defense (defined independently of US interests),
> becomes a mere pawn of the US.
>
> Scot> [...] They thought that we would run in terror and let them have
> Scot> anything they wanted to get them to stop.  Instead we pledged to
> Scot> hunt them down and stop them.
>
> Uh, the people who did it were not hard to find.  They were on the
> airplanes that crashed.  The culpability of others really remains to
> be established, to me anyway.  Cheering the misfortune of others
> doesn't mean they actually participated in the attack.  To conclude
> that cheering implies responsibility is an example of the fallacy: A
> implies B; B therefore A.
>
> Jeff exhibits this problem (the general form of fallacy above) too, in
> his whole gold-standard lunacy.
>
> --
> Russell Senior         ``The two chiefs turned to each other.
> seniorr at aracnet.com      Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible
>                          profanity, which, translated meant, `This is
>                          extremely unusual.' ''

There is no proof that the people who they claim were flying the planes ever
boarded those planes.
Your fallacy is basing your conclusion on an unproven premise.
Before anyone tries to persuade me that it is ridiculous to think that those
Arab faces we saw on TV did not actually board the planes, don't bother.
There is a veritable mountain of evidence of the complicity within the
administration for the attack on WTC.
www.copvcia.com will be a good primer for anyone who has the intellectual
honesty and the moral courage to question the spoon fed propaganda you are
enjoying as pablum.
The "attack on freedom"  as GWB calls it is just that;  an attack on
freedom- our freedom from dictatorships.
The USA Patriot Act is an attack on true patriotism,  hence the name.

Does anyone else have a slight problem with jailing people in the middle of
the night without a phone call,  without a record of which jail,  without
attorneys, without confronting the accuser,  without notifying your family,
without a grand jury,  without a speedy and fair public trial, without
evidence, etc. etc. etc.??

Or are your noses so far up the govts ass that you won't even allow yourself
to think about the possibility that there is anything they could ever do
that is not OK?