Or does anyone who hints at a probability (without claiming it is fact), for the purpose of debate get critisized or attacked :-)

Also, re Bali bombing, what I presented was the prevailing 'opinion' among a group of international diplomats. The questions were worth asking just as they are in regard to Berg. (You may be a tad confused in your recall of the posts - please feel free to link or quote from them :-)

Also, do you know what the saying 'shoot the messenger" means or conveys.

Well please put your gun away my friend.

Doug Marker

#2 [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=155288|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=155288]

Just wanted to add that I am not immune to the point you are making. In fact I went right out of my way in the link just above, to talk of 'WHAT IF's and put this discussion in such a way that someone like yourself could see this issue as a discussion point (particularly in the Berg case in relation to a lot of conflicting information) rather than anyone making a flat statement of 'fact' or claiming the story isn't true. *I am not doing that*. I am asking questions & posing 'what ifs' - a big big difference (to most of us).

None of 'us' really know the facts of what happened to Berg, we can choose to take the details at 'face' value but when that 'face' has glaring discrepancies, we should question the matter until some clarity emerges. The problem of discrepancies stem from such issues as Berg appearing in the US issue prisoner garb worn by 'Berg', the type of chair he is videoed in (exactly the same model as the ones in the prison scandal photos/videos ?????).

Questioning the questionable **DOES NOT** mean that the events didn't happen as portrayed, but questions do allow us to make sure we test the evidence before blindly accepting a conclusion. To not question when questions have automatically been raised, is to become blind and obedient and slavish.

Let me finish this addendum off by raising the case of the WMD as the justification for invading Iraq, there are some of us here who questioned the Govt WMD premise and produced some credible evidence that went right against the govt's case. The subsequent facts speak volumes for themselves. Those people who accepted the Govt's line and loudly defended it at the time, without question, now have a case to answer. I haven't actually seen *one* person here do so other than to switch to a totally different line of justification unrelated to WMD. Even that line seems to have been blown apart by the prison scandal.