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

[Jenifer Cartwright]

  Clever, John!!  So anyhow... I agree with what Carl was trying to say (and please let's not get into a 20 email quibble on semantics, entertaining as that all is).  I think the petition probably originated w/ conspiracy theorists and that the petition's wording is code for that stuff... So I'm also not in favor of signing it, even tho' I agree w/ the main contentions, just reading it at face value.
   --Jenifer

"John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com> wrote:
  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


       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080427/8ffe0dea/attachment.html