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: Hawkmoon who wrote (100339)	6/5/2003 10:42:06 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

OK, so you think Abu Nidal's existence in Iraq justifies our invasion and occupation. We didn't exactly call this out, but never mind. We didn't mention anything he's done, but so what. We didn't demand his handover, or even highlight him until after his death. If that's the greatest connection between Saddam and terrorism then we'll never run out of targets. Perhaps that's the idea? Weak vindication at best; but I think he's a red herring. AQ was the group YOUR government was calling out as the threat. Nidal was so peripheral, he didn't even get a mention until after he died. That implies to me that even Rumsfeld didn't see him as important or as a believable casus belli. You think Abu Nidal's this vital linchpin of imminent evil justifying invasion, occupation, etc...? He's the one inspiring all the others to ever-greater atrocities? Whatever. I disagree, and don't bother preaching to me about it.