leonarde

hezekiah jones

Optional

I. Easy enough to check.

1) Koy. In a quick yahoo search on the history of the man, it seems the historical record would indicate D. was NOT an atheist.

Do you dispute that the historical record would indicate D. was an xian?

2) From your comment above, it seems that you're basing your claim that D. was an atheist on analysis of his writings.

Do you affirm that this is the basis of your opinion?

If Koy's answers are 'no' and 'yes' respectively, leo has not a leg to stand on here.

II. If Koy's answers vary from the above, leo STILL doesn't have a leg to stand on. Complete verification of leo's claims would mean only that IF Koy is wrong about this, it is UNLIKELY he will ever admit it, no matter what argument and evidence is brought forth.

It says absolutely ZERO about WHETHER Koy is wrong about this.

-me

leonarde

I'm afraid, Optional, that that ship has already sailed. On page 5
we have:So Koy doesn't care what historians, biographers, literary critics
or ANYONE else has to say about the matter (for, all those months ago, I did explain that Dostoevsky's Russian Orthodox faith was not in question and in THE VERY THREAD wherein we disputed, I quoted Dostoevsky's own dedication page-----a Gospel quotation of Jesus's words "Verily, verily unless a grain of wheat....." etc. ---from "The Brother Karamazov" but Koy had no interest in further exploring the matter except to say that he "still" thought Dostoevsky an atheist). He hasn't bothered to check on things in all the intervening months and that is telling: he would rather be adamant than accurate. Exactly my point. But let the reader examine the link I posted: it reveals Koy in all his rhetorical "glory".

Cheers!

Optional

Leo, none of that necessarily matters. If Koy's opinions are based on literary analysis rather than historical analysis, then all the historians and biogrophies in the world wouldn't matter a bit. It's entirely possible for a historical figure to seem to be something he was not, and analysis of their writings is a valid means of uncovering something like that. Whether Koy is CORRECT or not is not irrelevant. It's just that he was making a judgement based on ENTIRELY DIFFERENT evidence than what you were presenting.

And even if I'm totally off base there, it still says not a thing about WHETHER Koy is right or wrong in THIS thread.

-me

leonarde

But it says EVERYTHING about whether Koy would ever be willing to admit being wrong . Which was my point.
(But if you are curious, Optional, you need to read the threads referred to).

Cheers!

slept2long

I get only a page of link with this. Could you tell me how to find that article?

From the posted article:

It's not the same as saying they have these materials either. It's saying it can't be said.

It's a conclusion all right. But what's backing it or Powell up? I haven't seen much evidence.

He didn't bother backing it up! Do you not understand that the US has zero credibility to some countries and therefore EVIDENCE must be provided.

leonarde

That's funny: I watched his presentation and I thought I had never seen so much intelligence material presented in a public forum ever . Perhaps you can give us an example of one with more??? No, that's wasn't the problem. That's the point I have made here OVER and OVER and OVER again: the disputes with the other permanent Security Council members were NOT about intelligence evaluations. Those evaluations were in harmony. What was disputed was what to DO about it (ie what political decision to take). No further "evidence" short of an attack on another country would have convinced France and Russia to do anything of any significance. But that was due to their POLITICAL/ECONOMIC assessments of the situation, not what their intelligence agencies were saying.

Cheers!

Sojourner553

Intelligence evaluations about what?

Whether Iraq possessed chemical weapons? Probably
Whether Iraq possessed nuclear weapons? evidence was no.

Whether Iraq appeared to have any intent to attack US? evidence was no.


Should we invade EVERY country that possesses chemical weapons.

What IS your criteria for war? Try and be consistent since the Bush Administration obviously couldn't/can't!!

Also explain while you are at it why North Korea does not fit the criteria for going to war even though it has WMD and appears intent on selling them to terrorists!

slept2long

Bullshit leonarde. No one has disputed whether the US or UK forged them. Nice try though. It is disputed whether they knew they were forged because of the shortcoming that were made public after we turned them over. Which also happened to be after we used them to convince a few congressman who were on the fence.