somebody asked me yesterday how i can separate fact from fiction, determine who's lying.

can't go into it all now, but critical analysis skills are needed... big time.

this morning, on the news i heard it mentioned that the US is looking at a suspected chemical weapons plant. that was the 'headline'. later in the story, they said that it was a chemical plant, which may or may not be used to produce weapons. a quote from a person in the story said that nothing had been found.

the 'outro' to the radio piece said that the US continues to look for evidence although *little* has been found.

*throws flag*. you said in the article that NOTHING has been found. just a tiny semantic difference, interjecting the word *LITTLE*, makes a big difference in people's impressions. it changes the semantics to a statement of fact that there have been some level of chemical weapons found by the US military, when, at least at the time of the broadcast, that was clearly not the case.

headlines have run in news papers with the allegations. when they have to retract, it will be in small type. but the headlines will remain in people's minds. that's how come folks like sceenic are posting this as fact when right now its pure speculation, out of the mouths of folks who have a vested interest in it being true.

the UN weapons inspectors are on record as saying that NONE of the US provided 'intelligence' (sic) panned out or provided any findings -- in all cases they found that rolling terror vehicles were fire trucks, water trucks, etc.


i trust the US military doing weapons inspection as much as i do the rampart cops on a drug bust. think they ain't under pressure to 'plant'?





peace & blessings,

x.

"I'm on the Zoloft to keep from killing y'all." - Iron Mike