Text 5418, 154 rader
Skriven 2004-11-27 08:48:16 av Björn Forsström (2:203/614.61)
   Kommentar till text 5339 av ED HULETT (1:275/311)
Ärende: Breaking News!
======================

 EH> We aren't at war with Jordan.

That's obvious.

 EH> Zarqawi isn't representing Jordan, he is
 EH> representing al-Qi'ada.

And what country would that be?

 EH> I've read several articles concerning N379P and N8068V and have found them
 EH> lacking evidence of anything untoward. The accounts are full of innuendo
 EH> and wild guesses.

And you expect NSA or CIA or whatewer to tell you the truth?
Why are they then trying to cover it up?
You know, our SÄPO (Swedish Security Police) doesn't tell us a thing what they
are
doing.

 BF>> that what I can read on the Internet about what you suggest is American
 BF>> propaganda.

 EH> I didn't suggest "American propraganda." I suggested you find sources
 EH> other than the propaganda you are now exposed to.

Do you think that our Minister of Foregin Affair have made this up in order to
compromise herself?
How stupid of her! She must be even more stupid then I thought.

 EH> You don't have any idea what my sources are. You are just guessing. I get
 EH> information from all over the world. And no, I don't just accept that
 EH> which agrees with me.

I have told you MY source, see above.

 BF>> If you could agree with some I say it shouldn't be a problem for me to
 BF>> agree with some you say.

 EH> It doesn't work that way, Bjorn. I don't have to agree with anything you
 EH> say just to get you to see the light. Your sources appear to be from the
 EH> extreme left-wing anti-war crowd who are willing to say anything to attack
 EH> America and George Bush.

See, as you say it doesn't have to work in two ways, only in your own one-way
street.
See above for my source.

  BF>> Like your pro American propaganda sites?

 EH> You assume too much, Bjorn. You appear to think that anything that
 EH> disagrees with you has to be a "pro American propaganda" source. How open
 EH> minded of you.

Sigh. Who are assuming too much? And who have an open mind?
You don't even believe what our Minister of Foregin Affair says so why should
I believe in your sources that you don't even can mention?

 BF>>  BF>>  EH> Huh???? The people the US is fighting in Iraq at the moment
 BF>> are NOT
 BF>>  BF>>  EH> Iraqis. They are called "insurgents" by the liberal press for
 BF>> a reason.
 BF>>  BF>>  EH> The new Iraqi military is now fighting along side the US in
 BF>> many places.
 BF>>  BF>>
 BF>>  BF>> Do they have another choise?
 BF>>
 BF>>  EH> Yes.
 BF>>
 BF>> And that would be......?

 EH> They could choose to fight against the US, but they don't. They know who
 EH> is looking out for the best interests of Iraq. That would be the US.

Could it be because that when the war is over they know that all oponents are
gone and then they can do whatever they like with Iraq?
And that could include kicking USA back to where you belong. We don't know that
yet, do we? Time will tell.

 BF>>  EH> How much more specific do you need it?
 BF>>
 BF>> The ISBN nr and page please.

 EH> You think that such a rule has to be printed in a book? So, you'd allow
 EH> someone to kill you without fighting back?

That's a totally different thing. That's selfdefence. Just like they are doing
in Iraq.

  BF>> I have only been talking about that particularty soldier.

 EH> Of whom you know nothing other than a video taken out of context.

Have you seen the whole video, from start to end?

 EH> You don't understand. Zarqawi is Jordanian, but we don't bomb Jordan
 EH> because of one man.

You did bomb Iraq because of Saddam, didn't you?

 BF>> And no one are explaining anything either, just laughing....

 EH> It isn't our responsibility to enlighten you. You don't seem willing to
 EH> believe anything but your anti-American sources.

What is your responsibility then? To cover it all up?
I'm willing to listen to you when you are willing to listen to me and not just
to all your pro-American sources.
Fair enough?

 BF>> So now you agree about that, he might have been a Iraqi and how do you
 BF>> know he was a terrorist when you don't even know from what country he
 BF>> was?

 EH> It is obvious he was a terrorist. He was one of Zarqawi's henchmen! I
 EH> don't need to know what country he was from to know that.

And who is assuming now?
He was in the fight, that's no problem for me, but who says he was a terrorist?
You do. He could even have been a "normal" soldier.

 BF>> And you have listned to whom? Only the American news I guess.

 EH> Don't assume to know what and who I listen to. I get my news from many
 EH> sources. I do NOT watch or listen to US news sources.

Then what are you listening to? Al Quida news? Or is it classified?
I listen to Swedish news, CNN, BBC aso. I do NOT watch or listen to Al Quida
news.

 BF>> Do you read anything that the other side write? Didn't think so.

 EH> You are making yourself a fool. I read many sources outside the US. And
 EH> yes, I read what the other side has to say.

That's good for you but it still haven't made you to see it from another piont
of
wiew than the US way.

 BF>> You know, one should alway read both sides and then make an own opinion
 BF>> about it and then the truth is somewhare in between.

 EH> Then, why do you ignore everything but that which agrees with you?

You still haven't agreed with me in anything.

 EH> And, no, the truth is always where the truth is, not "somewhere in
 EH> between."

So if I say it's black and you say it's white, what's your truth?
I would say gray.

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