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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (112065)	8/20/2003 2:49:38 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, he wasn't so out of touch with reality that he thought Osama would support him. He knew he was an infidel in their terms and they knew he was an infidel. He wouldn't have allowed Al Qaeda to be active within Iraq, and they were not active within Iraq. The terrorism he sponsored was not the terrorism we were after, and it is not on the scale of the Al Qaeda, which as you know is very active in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Chechnya, Philippines, Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Somalia. Iraq was never one of the biggies as far as Al Qaeda activity went. The enemy of your enemy is sometimes one hell of a dangerous enemy to you as well- Saddam knew what he was dealing with in Al Qaeda- and he kept them from operating in Iraq, and he wasn't their friend. In terms of fighting terror all of the targets I mention above are much more important to Al Qaeda then Iraq was. Obviously now with a vacuum of power, and no more secret police, Al Qaeda will be able to expand in Iraq- but under Saddam? I don't think so. I am able to disagree with your apparent ignorance of the facts without becoming annoyed. If you can't reciprocate, we'll simply have to stop chatting like this.