View Single Post
  #17  
Old June 30th 04, 07:37 PM
Issac Goldberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Mike Weeks) wrote in message ...
From: (Theodore Herzl)
Date: 6/29/2004 17:26 Pacific Daylight Time


It seems rather reasonable
to investigate anew the events surrounding the USS Liberty attack in
public investigation that settles this once and for all.


The challenge for the conspiracy loons


Weeks knows all, sees all. Since he is omniscient, anyone
who disagrees with him is a 'conspiracy loon.' QED

running around on the net is to actually
produce anything which can be considered credible.


So, according to Weeks:

1) the crew members of the USS Liberty are not credible,

2) Captain Boston is not credible,

3) Secretary of State Rusk is not credible,

4) CIA director Helms is not credible,

and the list goes on and on. Weeks is always right,
everybody else is always wrong.

Instead what we continue to
see is simply hot stale air.


All of the hot stale air is being produced
by Weeks. This is demonstrated by his
repeated need to resort to name calling.
If he had a valid argument, there would
be no need to engage in name calling.

Oh, BTW clueless, what's available to be investigated is indeed public,


A nice tautology. It's the material which is not public which
should be investigated. Why, after 37 years, is so much
information about the attack on the Liberty still classified
by the US and Israeli governments?

and the
last really solid piece of material came out of the NSA in July 2003 and State
Dept. in Jan. 2004, and once again as in the other examples, it doesn't support
the claims of the conspiracy loons.


We'll just have to take Weeks word for it, since he doesn't tell
use exactly what the 'really solid' material is. This is natural
for Weeks, since he sees all, knows all. Weeks is omniscient,
and he does not need to provide any evidence. Weeks just knows.

Besides, all we hear from the nuts ...


Anyone who disagrees with Weeks is a nut.

Remaining nonsense snipped.


It is Weeks' arguments that are nonsense. He is so extreme
in his opposition to an honest investigation that one must
ask why? If the attack was truly an accident, an honest
independent investigation would confirm what Weeks says.
But he opposes a new investigation with every ounce of
energy he possesses. Why?