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 (140262)	7/14/2004 1:13:37 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I do not allege anything. And I agree that one should not embrace mere allegation as fact. But it is not made up out of whole clothe, but makes sense to people, given the threats Saddam made during the last Gulf War, against the United States. That is insufficient, of course, but, as I said, it is not indisputable fact that Saddam had no connection to 9/11, the truth is, we do not know. However, we do know who we faced when we liberated Europe, and it is not only well established but widely disseminated, and, in fact, a part of school curricula. Thus, it is a worse ignorance.

To: GST who wrote (140262)	7/14/2004 3:39:34 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

It is obvious that Saddam had nothing to do with the 11 September 2001 attacks. The attack was obviously because Osama and a bunch of his mates figured, correctly, that they could take over a bunch of passive, wimpy, Americans with a few threats and box-cutters, hijack the planes, and with a few flying lessons in their log book, crash them into some big buildings and maybe thereby make the buildings collapse. By doing it at the right time, they'd get a LOT of people. It was only 20 people [one guy missed his flight] and most of them didn't have a clue what was going on except that they knew what to do and follow instructions. There would have been some back up supporters. It wasn't a very difficult plan. I'd come up with the same thing one day while sitting a couple of steps behind the cockpit. Condoleezza says she couldn't have thought of it and nobody could have. Maybe she should get another job. The plan didn't need a lot of brainpower, resources, skill, luck, or much of anything. It helped to have Americans act just as Osama figured they would. Pilots and passengers had been trained to do what they are told. It would be different now, which is why all the aircraft security is a waste of time, bolting the door after the horse has bolted. The pilots will be swinging with the cockpit ax, passengers will be covering the hijackers with blankets, pillows, hand luggage, bashing them with duty-free bottles and overpowering them before they can do much of anything. No more surrender. It involved a small bunch of people buying some one way tickets, on flights leaving about the same time, threatening docile passengers, then steering the aircraft into some buildings. It's not exactly inventing the Theory of Relativity or coming up with the Shrodinger equation. Saddam wouldn't have known anything at all about it and neither would he have funded Osama, who was out to get him as well as the Saudi rulers. Osama and bin Ladens want to take over the world, or at least the oil fields of Saudi Arabia and maybe the whole middle east, under Sharia law with them as the boss. Iraq and particularly Saddam isn't good buddies with the Saudis, nor the Kuwaitis. He wasn't really buddies with anyone! His own generals and frightened close supporters were killed off on a regular basis. His daughters' husbands, generals, and lots of others were killed with enthusiasm. Everybody lived in fear. No doubt Saddam quite liked Osama keeping the USA occupied with attacks here and there, and at most Saddam might have given Osama some money, though I doubt it very much as it would be like the USA giving the Afghan mujahadeen money. It's likely to come back and bite you! Then again, they did, along with a lot of weaponry, to attack Gorby's soldiers in the 1980s. I wonder if anyone now thinks that it was a big mistake for President Carter and sidekick Brezinski to give Gorby his own Vietnam. Gorby should have been left in Afghanistan and things would have been hunky dory and the Twin Towers would still be standing. Russia would probably have had to pull out anyway [due to Saudi funding of Afghan jihad and internal problems all over the place], but attacking Gorby wasn't too bright. Saddam had nothing to do with 911. He said so himself. He said he had nothing to do with it, but thought it a jolly good thing. It's obvious that he had nothing to do with it, and not even as a supplier of money. Americans had a lot more to do with the bombing of Omagh than Saddam had to do with the destruction of the Twin Towers. Saddam also said he had no WMDs and was right on that. He is so arrogant that he doesn't even bother lying, though he did a good job of tricking his sons in law into thinking that they were forgiven, and to come back to Iraq to be murdered by Uday and co. That was weird. Even I could see that they were going to be dead if they went back. That was like dopey Terry Waite going to Lebanon and being kidnapped. What was he thinking? Of course he would be kidnapped. Oh, Google says he's got some more good ideas [Google really can think associatively] dailytimes.com.pk I couldn't remember his surname, so just asked Google for Terry Lebanon kidnapped and bingo, up it came with the latest item right there. <Waite, a Briton, returned to the Lebanese capital this week for the first time since kidnappers released him in 1991. As an envoy of the archbishop of Canterbury, Waite was one of dozens of foreigners kidnapped in Lebanon in the 1980s by pro-Iranian militants. He was seized while trying to negotiate the release of other hostages.> I had told our son [aged 11 at the time] that Terry would get kidnapped too. It seemed so obvious. He was impressed that I could foresee the future so well. Mqurice