[Peace-discuss] Fwd: War is illegal - International Declaration

[C. G. Estabrook]

No, I don't think AWARE should get involved with 911 Truthers.

---- Original message ----
>Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 06:17:20 -0500
>From: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>  
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: War is illegal - International Declaration   
>To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>, Peace-discuss <peace-
discuss at anti-war.net>
>
>At 12:48 AM 4/27/2008, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>>I agree with Randall.  The statement clearly aligns signers with the "911 
>>Truth" movement, and I don't think AWARE should limit itself to that.  --CGE
>
>
>I take it to mean, O Great Wordsmith, that if AWARE should not LIMIT itself 
>to petitions circulated by those affiliated with the "911 Truth" movement, 
>then you think it SHOULD sign those anti-war petitions and ALSO petitions 
>circulated by
>other anti-war groups.
>
>If I knew how to draw a Venn diagram on the computer, I'd illustrate the point.
>
>John Wason
>
>
>
>>Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>>
>>>There have been books written about 9/11, both(?) ways, so you will not 
>>>have a definitive answer to your question. I happen to believe that a 
>>>more open and better inquiry about 9/11 would be useful, and since I 
>>>think the rest of the statement is to the point, I'll propose that 
>>>AWARE  sign off on it. Are you not being overly fastidious on this?
>>>--mkb
>>>
>>>On Apr 26, 2008, at 10:28 PM, Randall Cotton wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm not sure how I missed it when I first read this statement, but part of
>>>>it says "well documented evidence shows that the official explanation of
>>>>9/11 cannot be correct." This is in the context of calling for an
>>>>international investigation of the 9/11 events. I support an international
>>>>investigation but while I don't discount the possibility that this claim
>>>>is true, I haven't seriously considered the matter and can neither aver or
>>>>deny the truth of that claim. So I'm not sure I will propose AWARE become
>>>>signatory to this at tomorrow's meeting after all (maybe at a later
>>>>meeting instead). I may revoke my own personal signature to the 
statement
>>>>as well until I clarify this issue (being a well-executed project, one can
>>>>revoke one's signature simply through e-mail, according to information 
on
>>>>the website).
>>>>
>>>>Can anyone provide or lead me to unassailable facts showing the truth or
>>>>falsehood of this claim?
>>>>
>>>>R
>>>>
>>>>PS We can speculate infinitely on this matter of course, but I don't think
>>>>that's useful - I'm definitely not suggesting anyone engage in that on
>>>>this list and hope folks will resist any such temptation. Just facts or
>>>>pointers to such, please.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss