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: Win Smith who wrote (42821)	9/9/2002 10:42:01 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

Yes, but the fact that something is BS and known or easily knowable as BS has hardly ever prevented people from posting reams and reams of it here. Chinese Muslims marching into Afghanistan and all that. Not to mention the war in Iraq that's allegedly already started. I take you approve of posting BS here. Perhaps you missed my point. A very serious issue has been the extent to which the US has any information specifically linking Saddam to AQ and the 9/11 attacks. If Richard Perle had actually stated that Atta had met with Saddam in Baghdad, then a huge story had been revealed. The problem was that it was not corroborated, was impossible to corroborate, and was therefore highly questionable ab initio. Before posting that kind of significant information, it is best to see if it can be corroborated elsewhere. If it can't, best not to link it. To CB's credit she said the report was unconfirmed. However, even a cursory check would have lead anyone with a lick of sense to conclude that Perle never said anything about an Atta/Saddam link. There's enough BS in the world without adding to the pile.