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 (121674)	12/18/2003 12:24:59 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Let me just ask, if the Telegraph's evidence that Mohammed Atta took training in Baghdad with Abu Nidal does pan out, would it change your mind at all? It would take more than just one episode to change my mind, especially an episode like that. Abu Nidal was murdered by Saddam, I'm sure you know. He was a terrorist, but predates Osama by quite a few years, and as far as I know, wasn't part of his network unless you think all Arab terrorists are the same, which I don't believe. It isn't that I believe taking out Saddam is a bad thing. It is what follows him that I question. I question whether what follows will be much better from a [real] US perspective. If what I fear occurs (civil war), there could easily be ripple effects throughout the region, including SA, Turkey, Israel, Jordon, Syria. Plus more not less terrorism worldwide as people pick sides. Let me throw your question back at you: if the Abu Nidal-Atta link does NOT pan out, would that change your mind? I doubt it. Let's broaden the question: if no links between Al Qaeda and Saddam can be found, if Al Qaeda documents that call Saddam an "infidel" and worthy of death are validated, if it turns out that they represent the real attitude of Osama followers toward Saddam (as I believe), would that change your mind? See the article in the next post.