Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gulo who wrote (13433)	12/9/2001 4:20:47 PM
From: arun gera	Respond to of 281500

>No, that would not be sufficient evidence. I think it is dangerous to make the leap from "Iraq allowed radicals to train" to "Iraq is an accomplice to Sept 11." To begin with, what groups were trained, and why? Evidence presented so far ties the Sept 11 attacks to Bin Laden's group, which almost rules out much involvement by Saddam. So called "ties" between Iraq and Al Queda do not seem significant.> Good point. If such convoluted logic is being used now to attack Iraq, it raise the question about the true motives of attacking Afghanistan. On one hand there is plenty of evidence of Pakistan's involvement with the Taliban (and therefore Bin Laden). Shouldn't the focus be on Pakistan instead of Iraq?

To: Gulo who wrote (13433)	12/9/2001 4:23:36 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

that would not be sufficient evidence. I would have to disagree Gulo (of course.. :0) Whether it involved training for hijacking the planes involved in the WTC attack, or some other terrorist hijacking, the use of that aircraft for training individuals in hijacking strategy would translate into supporting terrorism. The basic rationale behind this is simple. There is NO LEGITIMATE reason to train non-military/police personnel how to best storm a civilian aircraft and gain control over it. But this is why we need confirmation and verification about the use of this plane would be critical. We'd have to be certain that it was used to train non-military/police personnel, especially if those individuals are not part of some other nation's security apparatus. There were some kind of ties between Atta and Iraqi intelligence according to Czech intelligence. That seems pretty well established. What the linkage was, and whether it is directly tied to the WTC attacks is the only issue that would need to be resolved in that particular instance. But we should remember that this is a war against terrorism, not just Bin Laden and Al-Qaida. Thus, any use of Iraqi facilities for the training of terrorists to hijack civilian aircraft would technically be within the mission scope. But the bottom line is that the US will do what chooses to do, until international pressure builds to reign in US actions. Hawk