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: Ilaine who wrote (134073)	5/23/2004 2:18:25 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You would not argue that, say, Egypt, was behind 9/11 just because Al Qaeda operates in Egypt, would you? No, but he was claiming that there was no link between Saddam and AQ, when current and potential future links between Saddam and AQ were cited as a reason for war. There was never a direct link cited between Saddam and 9/11. Claiming at this date that there is no link between Saddam and AQ when we are fighting joint Ba'athist-AQ forces in Iraq (apparently to the surprise of our policy makers) is a little peculiar to say the least. Which is why I say to them "you may say that Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda, but Al Qaeda is clearly of a different opinion." The usual fall back of the anti-war types, who were arguing before the war that "secular" Saddam could not possibly have had anything to do with Al Qaeda, is to say that they had nothing to do with each other before we invaded, and would never have teamed up if we had not invaded. Looking at the history of Ansar al Islam and Zarqawi, this is not very convincing.