| Topic: | Cant get it, won't get it. | |
| Posted by: | George Knox | |
| Date/Time: | 20/10/14 19:05:00 |
| This gets a trifle tiresome. It's completely irrelevant as to whether I have investigated the claims re the bombing. MB appears to have a (fixed) idea that it was a set up possibly, but I don't know, partly to turn opinion against Muslims. What I am (regardless of what I know about the bombing incident) objecting to is LIMITED to: A) On the latest incident he says "as usual". So in very plain English this means he suggests overtly and consciously that there is a pattern of unacceptable behaviour by the security services. No evidence. Just an assumption. Saying "as usual" makes his stance suspect. No amount of claptrap is getting the majority around to his viewpoint - so it would seem from this thread. B) Even if he is totally correct about the bombing incident ( nothing is impossible) that does not prove or support or corroborate any judgement, assessment or accusation that the authorities have again "as usual" behaved in a way to set up public opinion against Muslims. Does it? Even if they are plotting, it does not mean this particular incident can be included into their patter of behaviour. Does it? Trouble is Michael, you just don't get the meaning of "truth of the day". If you wish to go outside the parameter of this argument you are wasting my time and your electricity. Why you would be unreliable in Court on a jury is because you have already demonstrated that you have jumped to a conclusion based on phooey before evidence has been heard. And despite challenges you are stuck to your position like the proverbial on a blanket. If I found you on a jury with me the judge would receive a short note at the outset. It might then be a Black Maria job. You might get it then-;( |