Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (155656)	1/9/2005 1:01:31 PM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Respond to of 281500

" the Iraqi prosecutors deciding not to prosecutre Saddam for the Anfal campaign, as "proof" of what he's been saying along along: ".. Well Nadine,in a just society, lack of " PROOF " is ample reason to drop charges.Maybe the Iranians were indeed responsible, or maybe the Turks.We may never know who did 'it " , whatever the reality of the " it " is/was. " Why, I'm sure it does. Doesn't mean it's true, though. ".. Of course not,but with the propensity to blame Afarfat for everything that ever went wrong and go hush hush about anything that might point towards Israel's accountability, its easy to see where the path of least resistance lies when the blame is being thrown around. ".................____This evidence is public and known to those who don't wish to close their eyes to it. ".. Well this evidence was reported loudly enough, but never have I seen this evidence produced for scrutiny.I have to just accept it,just like you may have to one day accept proofs and realities that are in opposition to what you thought were truths.Yes? SO AGAIN : Will you be purchasing the book in the interest gaining further insight into the Oslo and Camp david scenarios? Or are you concerned that the testimony of fourty people present at Camp David might not match what you have been lead to believe and have been repeating here on FADG for five years? It's amazing that a book with such profound difference in what has been accepted has gotten so little attention.I mean, this book makes Clinton and gang look pretty incompetent, and I have yet to see the Right miss an opportunity to bash Clinton.But not this one.No sirree.Why is that Nadine? E'M'