From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon Sep 16 2002 - 21:34:29 MDT
On Monday, September 16, 2002, at 07:47 pm, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> a) Saddam and friends never pay anybody anything if it doesn't help
> them, or do you, Harvey, think that Saddam Hussein is an altruistic
> humanitarian?
Of course not. He paid to support a movie that gives his side of the
story. This is obvious to everyone. The real question is whether
this "proves" that anybody who worked on the movie is a traitor. That
part is not so obvious. This "proof" is far from conclusive in my
opinion.
> b) How much access do you think Saddam gave to Ritter to explore
> anyplace he wanted to in Iraq to 'prove' that Saddam has no WMD? Did
> Ritter get carte blanche to inspect every closet and hovel in the
> country? Did Ritter the civilian have any sort of useful intelligence
> upon which to make such decisions if he did in fact have such access?
> Without such intelligence and access, it is factually impossible for
> Ritter to 'prove' that Saddam has no WMD, and therefore any movie he
> produces is nothing but lies and propaganda, in the pay of an enemy of
> the US who has sent teams to assassinate a US president, to sow
> confusion, uncertainty and doubt in the US and the world.
What does this have to do with "proof" that Ritter is a traitor?
You have a plausible-sounding conspiracy theory. Instead of really
being an above-board weapons inspector who believes Iraq has no
weapons and worked on a movie to document the investigation, you
believe Ritter is really a traitor who is part of a conspiracy to hide
Iraq's weapons in return for a small movie deal many years later.
OK. You are entitled to your opinions and conspiracy theories. But
you seem to confuse your "theory" with "proof". Proof or even
evidences would involve witnesses, details, transcripts, pictures,
records, investigations or something. Merely asserting a theory
doesn't "prove" it. As far as I can tell, you don't have any proof.
You just have a theory.
> If you can't see this truth, Harvey, I have serious concerns about you.
I'm sorry that my belief systems require more evidence than just
conspiracy theories about what might have happened. But different
people have differing opinions. Your world view is different than
mine, so we both can look at the same scenario and can assume
radically different versions of what "probably" happened. Nothing
about this is confusing to me, except why you keep using the word
"proof" to describe your conspiracy theories.
But there is no need to have "serious concerns" about me just because
I have a differing opinion.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:06 MST