Text 5647, 77 rader
Skriven 2004-12-04 09:41:23 av Björn Forsström (2:203/614.61)
   Kommentar till text 5576 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Ärende: Breaking News!
======================

 FS> I don't trust newspapers a great deal.  However I have learned to read
 FS> between the lines -- to determine what they say is *probably* true, what
 FS> is *possibly* true, and what is almostly certainly *not* true.  I've been
 FS> an avid newspaper reader since I was a kid ... other kids would look for
 FS> the comics first while *I* would look for the editorial page.  It's
 FS> because of this familiarity with how newspapers operate that I can say
 FS> because of the *absence* of that N379P story it *almost* certainly is
 FS> false.

It's just as easy for you to condemn things like it is for me then.

 FS> Now you mention that a high ranking politician in Sweden says it's true
 FS> and that she wouldn't risk her career saying something like that when it
 FS> cannot be proven.  I don't know about Swedish politicians but I can
 FS> confidently say that on occasion *American* politicians will make claims
 FS> which can be disproven.

The proof is there. You just won't see them.
Try the Torture Committee at UN. It is/has been up there.
Now even some other Swedish guy in that committee have agreed to trying
to cover it up and even did so to Amnesty.

 FS> Having said all that I must admit that *maybe* your N379P story is *true*
 FS> ... after all there's a *slight* chance that a comet will hit me tomorrow
 FS> ...

That last sentenc was unnecessary....as someone said to me.

 FS>> As for believing *me*, you don't *have* to ... who said you did?  However
 FS>> since it's extremely rare for me to actually lie, you might as well
 FS>> believe me.  Of course why should you believe *that*?  You see, it's
 FS>> because of *that*, that I say I learn about a given person only by
 FS>> conversing with him over a long-enough period of time ... do you believe
 FS>> *that*?  I don't use words as carelessly as you appear to believe.

 BF>> Then we are in the same boat, hopefully rowing in the same direction.

 FS> Maybe rowing upstream ...

You are changing boat after your own conviction.
Now it seems that we are't even in the same stream again.......

 FS>> Your last sentence was unnecessary.  After all, who can tell what another
 FS>> person will *believe* -- *really* believe?  In any event the Marine, upon
 FS>> entering that room said something like, "Watch out!  He's moving.  He's
 FS>> not dead." ... shots ... "he is now" ... then consider the immediate past
 FS>> in that Marine's life.  The day before, or so, he had seen a friend blown
 FS>> up by a "dead" or, perhaps, suicidal terrorist.  He was in a very
 FS>> stressful situation and was right in being extremely cautious in the
 FS>> presence of someone who *might* be "playing possum" (I presume they have
 FS>> opossums in Sweden.)

 BF>> No we don't but I see what you mean.
 BF>> But just because he was moving doesn't mean he must have to be killed.

 FS> That's true however there's the possibility that the Marine saw the
 FS> terrorist had a weapon.  There's no need for him to say something like
 FS> "Lookout!  He's armed!" which would have been recorded on the tape.  He
 FS> might have seen a weapon -- or what he *thought* was a weapon then fired.

Sure, I can agree to that but you can't agree to that it migt even be the other
way
around?
Did he see anything or just took it for granted that he was armed?

 BF>> I understand but we must even see to the past history of the once on the
 BF>> other side as well. They are only humans, all of them. What can he have
 BF>> been seeing and what was his experience of what happend the day before
 BF>> when other Marines took that building.

 FS> True enough, but we'll never know that ...

Not since he's dead, no.

---
 * Origin: . (2:203/614.61)