SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: JohnM who wrote (66415)1/16/2003 2:50:23 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (2) of 281500
 
Are you arguing Saddam is responsible for 9/11?


The point, in case you really missed it, was to show that not-war can have some costs, too, and whatever money was wasted thwarting attacks on LAX or Millenium celebrations, or New York harbor, has in that sense been well wasted, as its costs are small compared to a successful attack.

As for connections between Saddam and 9/11, we'll only find out for sure after Saddam is overthrown. The jury's still out on Iraqi connections to the second WTC attack -- they've only been proved for the 1993 attack. Having been shown in the previous attack, it's hardly ridiculous to believe that a state intelligence service must have been involved in planning 9/11. Just as the extent of coordination between Iraqi intelligence and the Ansar al Islam forces fighting the Kurds now has not been shown conclusively, though there is some evidence. The Ansar-Al Qaeda connections are unmistakable, though.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News