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: GST who wrote (122355)	12/28/2003 1:19:41 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

That's not evidence that Iraq was actually posing a direct threat to the US through the use of Terrorism.. And this is not something we could have known about prior to overthrowing Saddam unless we had developed direct evidence of his complicity and support of terrorist operations directed against the US. But it was pretty damn clear that Saddam posed a potential threat to the US through terrorism by virtue of his providing sanctuary and training to groups and individuals who WERE, OR HAD BEEN, engaged in terrorism against US personnel, citizens, or entities. For one example, Saddam attempted to assassinate the former president of the US, George Bush Sr. We have evidence of that.. But does that pose a direct threat to the US in the same manner as an attack against a city or military base? That's where the definition is much more subjective. Again, the nature of asymmetric warfare makes it extremely difficult to prove a government's actions against us.. It's common for intelligence agencies to use "false flag" operations, where there is little overt evidence, and plausible deniability of state involvement in the terrorist act. Hawk