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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tsigprofit who wrote (8170)	3/11/2004 4:24:57 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

I disagree on Iraq having NOTHING to do with 9-11, but I am starting to think that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia had MORE to do with 9-11. It's something that needs further debate that's for sure. I guess the simple (but not necessarily morally correct) argument is that Iraq was the easier target, militarily, economically, politically, and ideologically. I'd hate to think it was just because of a perception that these two nations are our friends. If instead of going into Iraq, what do you think the world and Islamic reaction would have been if we either 1) went into the regions of Pakistan known to be Al Queda dominated and/or 2) threatened Saudi Arabia to stop supporting terror. Could we have kept either action secret? Could we perhaps be doing either action and keeping it a secret? I'll have to ask our resident conspiracy theorists to help on this one.