A Question Of Morality?

Maybe, maybe not.

Either way the crucial point is whether they did or not. An argument that uses capability to try to assert anything more than capability is fallacious.

If you are trying to suggest that this administration lied about 9/11 you are using about as fallacious of a method as can exist for this.

0 Replies

John Webb
I think you are fishing in the wrong pond.

0 Replies

As might be considered during a police investigation, when all hard evidence of guilt may be too well concealed, all that remains is the use of the circumstantial to reach potential conclusions.

Questions might include: did the suspects have anything to gain?; did the suspects have track records of lies and dishonesty?; did the suspects have motive, means and opportunity?

No matter how exalted the position of suspects, an answer in the affirmative to ALL of the foregoing questions would suggest a strong circumstantial case to answer.

Of course, this is entirely hypothetical at this time since, should such suspicions be justified, few in positions of authority would dare raise such matters in public, without risking vilification and endangerment of their personal safety.

0 Replies

JW,

You are right to call it circumstantial evidence. And since circumstantial evidence is not enough for lesser situations I certainly hope you don't seek to use them for such a grave accusation.

0 Replies

No accusations. Simply reasonable questions based upon terrifying track records. As they say, "if you smell smoke, look for a fire!"

0 Replies

Fair enough, yes it is within the realm of possibility that this administration lied about 9/11.

What do you think about the probability though? I think probability is more interesting. I rate it as high that some statement about 9/11 could be contrued as false and low that a significant lie was issued.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Fair enough, yes it is within the realm of possibility that this administration lied about 9/11.

What do you think about the probability though? I think probability is more interesting. I rate it as high that some statement about 9/11 could be contrued as false and low that a significant lie was issued.

Far more probable than not, but would find "some statement" and "lie" in the singular unlikely since, in politics, honesty is conspicuous by it's absence. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

John Webb wrote:

As might be considered during a police investigation, when all hard evidence of guilt may be too well concealed, all that remains is the use of the circumstantial to reach potential conclusions.

Questions might include: did the suspects have anything to gain?; did the suspects have track records of lies and dishonesty?; did the suspects have motive, means and opportunity?

No matter how exalted the position of suspects, an answer in the affirmative to ALL of the foregoing questions would suggest a strong circumstantial case to answer.

I could use the exact same argument and present the case against Al Gore, Bill Clinton or any of a few thousand other political figures from around the world if this is the standard.

If you had actually ever attended a police acad. you'd have learned that this in NO WAY suggests a "strong" case for anything. It isn't even enough to name the individual as a suspect never mind create probable cause for arrest or prosecution.

At best it would keep the individual on the list of possible suspects.

0 Replies

Should a Democrat win in 2004, the urgent shredding of many documents would come as no surprise. Nor would a genuine investigation of the events surrounding 9/11.

Fishin, as far as your candidates go, being out of office would leave them without motive, means or opportunity. Nor, unlike the Administration, had any of them urged the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, PRIOR TO 9/11.

Just coincidence?

0 Replies

John Webb wrote:

Fishin, as far as your candidates go, being out of office would leave them without motive, means or opportunity. Nor, unlike the Administration, had any of them urged the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, PRIOR TO 9/11.

Just coincidence?

Nonsense. You don't think Al Gore had motive to do anything to make Bush look bad? lmao You don't think Gore, Clinton and a host of other from the Clinton administration didn't still have contacts they could rely on? No opportuntity? Come on now. What were Bill and Al up to that was keeping them so busy? Bill was wandering around a vacant house, walking his dog a few times a day and being upstaged by his wife. Al was on hiatus from his teaching job at Columbia Univ. and moping about being ignored by his own political party.

Your being awful selective in your consideration of motive, means and opportunity - another demonstration of your lack of famaliarity with conducting an investigation.

0 Replies

Fishin, your logic is flawed. Clinton or Gore had no reason to seek an action which, sure as night follows day, was guaranteed to turn an unpopular President into one with high approval ratings since, in times of adversity, almost everyone was certain to unite behind their leader.

There was only one group and their friends who profited from 9/11 - and it was neither Saddam or Osama.

0 Replies

Yes, of course.. My logic is flawed while your's remains above reproach.

Ummm.. Bush's popularity was supposed to go up? You haven't been paying attention to the polls have you? He's at least 20 points lower than he was on 9/11 and his ratings are right back where they were pre-9/11. What did he gain? Once again, your lack of investigative skills lead you to ignore questions on the side side of the game. What did each of the "suspects" have to lose? Bush had the Presidency. What about Clinton and Gore? Book writing deals at most.

Why don't you just admit to yourself that you made up your mind long ago about everything and just decided to find selective "facts" to fit your little pet theory.

0 Replies

It cannot be denied that, within hours of 9/11, Presidential popularity skyrocketed and enabled the Administration to carry-out their pre-9/11 agenda. Only recent suspicions of lies, deceptions and financial corruption have resulted in declines to present levels.

You may believe that the invasion of other sovereign States, by fraud, using the most advanced weaponry on earth and the mass-murder of thousands of innocent and relatively defenceless foreigners, possessing no Weapons of Mass Destruction, is acceptable Presidential conduct? Most recent polls would seem to suggest that others are now reaching different conclusions?

Regarding 9/11, my thoughts are "Once a liar, always a liar".

By the way, I hear that under new English anti-terrorism legislation (their version of the Patriot Act), men can only carry handbags in shocking pink providing they possess a certificate guaranteeing their gayness. Why do I have the feeling you would approve of this too?

0 Replies

You have absolutely zero clue as to what I believe so, just like in the the rest of your nonsenical posts, you have nothing but speculation.

Quote:

Why do I have the feeling you would approve of this too?

Because you didn't take your meds today again???

0 Replies

Fishin, I fear that if it looked like a rat, smelt like a rat and sounded like a rat - and Bush told you it was a kangaroo, you would believe it.

0 Replies

John Webb wrote:

As might be considered during a police investigation, when all hard evidence of guilt may be too well concealed, all that remains is the use of the circumstantial to reach potential conclusions.

There is circumstantial evidence, and then there's baseless conjecture. The two are not identical.

John Webb wrote:

Questions might include: did the suspects have anything to gain?; did the suspects have track records of lies and dishonesty?; did the suspects have motive, means and opportunity?

No matter how exalted the position of suspects, an answer in the affirmative to ALL of the foregoing questions would suggest a strong circumstantial case to answer.

No, it wouldn't. Or, at least, it wouldn't without any corroborating evidence pointing to an actual causal connection between the purported actor and the act. Without any evidence of causation, such "circumstantial evidence" is little more than the vague ramblings of a conspiracy theorist, fitter for the tin-foil-hat crowd than a police investigation.

John Webb wrote:

Of course, this is entirely hypothetical at this time since, should such suspicions be justified, few in positions of authority would dare raise such matters in public, without risking vilification and endangerment of their personal safety.

Meanwhile, there are millions of people who still believe that the Jews were responsible for crashing those planes into the WTC. They use much the same reasoning as you've just demonstrated, John Webb.

0 Replies

9/11, the only major atrocity in modern history where a public inquiry has been denied on Presidential authority - and even the official one, with a Republican majority, is being blocked by the Administration at every turn. So much so that they have been forced to go public.

A genuine denial of justice for the families of the victims?

Yet those with nothing to hide need hide nothing!

0 Replies

No Weapons of Mass Destruction? Fear not! They will probably be 'discovered' in 2004, during the election campaign, when they are most needed by the Administration. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

A Question Of Morality?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know