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: michael97123 who wrote (238058)7/27/2007 2:21:04 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (3) of 281500
 
utter inablity to admit that if saddam was still in power (not good), there would be no al quaeda in iraq.

AQ wouldn't be active in Iraq, you wouldn't have such numbers in Iraq, that's true. But does that mean that AQ wouldn't be active anywhere else? They declared war on the US in 1998 mike, did they need Iraq to do it? They began plotting 9/11 in 1996, what was their great cause then?

Where were Zarqawi and Abu Ayub al Masri in 2002? In Iraq. Saddam had something going with Ansar Al Islam, with AQ in Somalia - he had his fingers in some pies there. Not to mention Abu Nidal and the bomber from the 1993 WTC attack - they were in Iraq too. To claim that there was no relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda, as the MSM likes to do, is flat out false. The very nature of the insurgency, where Baathist cash and thugs married up with AQ ideology real quick, puts the lie to no cooperation.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News