Tom, I don't think its true that its a 'my sources or yours' sort of relativism. Certainly not with the AAI data, the MKO Data, and even in the Salman Pax. I think my post makes that clear. Thats what I was trying to get you to reply to. The standing challenge remains: show how my material boils down to the say so of 1-or-2 unnamed sources. Which yours, BTW and by your own agreement, does

In fact, all I see from you is an unsubstantiated insistance that mine come down to one-or-two-sources.

But suppose we Stipulate that it IS underdetermined, as you claim it is.

Then if it is, we can not say that there was clear and convincing data on the terrorist links.

And if that is our mutual conclusion, then does that not imply that our justifications for this war were flawed, not based off fact and a matter of opinion or belief?

And isn't that kind of the point I'm making, again and agan?

I'm not playing a game here- This is not trying to get you to admit defeat or whatever. Rather, this is about a rather large and profound ethical point: when are we permitted to go to war and when is it unjust? And if it was unjust, should we not hold some set of people responsible and try to correct this nightmare and/or prevent it from recurring.

Davin L.