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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (68044)	10/7/2005 3:10:21 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Re: "Because until you can show that it is true, then it must be untrue." That is an absurdly, obviously false statement. So absurd in fact, that it is difficult to believe a supposedly intelligent adult wrote it, even on this thread...VBG. Many things which can't be shown to be true in fact are. Mathematicians and scientists exist to prove such things. Every proven concept was indeed as true before it was proven, as it remained after being proven. Re: "When you say something that is not true, then it is a lie." Another absurdly false statement. When one lies, one knows the truth and pretends it isn't so. When one merely speaks wrongly and has therefore indeed said something which isn't true, he has not lied at all, he has simply been wrong (which I know is the worst I can be, regardless of how serious you may think it is if I am). Re: "Same things to be said about WMD or ties to Al Qaeda." Plainly, no they can't. To say those things about anything is to betray your ignorance of basic logic, which you have obviously done quite well here. Little wonder, with you being so prone to get wrong the most basic concepts of logic and truth, that you are so easily led to believe as you do, and to write such absurd opinion as you do. Here's some speculation for ya. Just don't call it "lies" anymore, ok? "Is it possible to declare "victory" in our war against terrorism if Saddam Hussein were left in power? Laurie Mylroie: Absolutely not. Saddam is the biggest terrorist threat to America. He has been attacking this country since the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, in which the mastermind, Ramzi Yousef, sought to topple the buildings. Eight years later, they completed the job. As long as Saddam is in power, he will seek to harm us. Alexandria, Va.: Did any of the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 receive Iraqi passports or other assistance from Saddam? Laurie Mylroie: The mastermind, Ramzi Yousef, arrived in the US on an Iraqi passport, in that name. That's why he is known as Ramzi Yousef (although that's an alias). Yet the key point is that he is an Iraqi intelligence agent. That's where his training (he's very knowledgeable about chemistry) comes from. There is an opposition organization called the Iraqi National Congress. When the first Bush administration saw that the coup it expected was not going to happen, it helped establish the INC, with the aim of overthrowing Saddam in an insurgency. Had Bush won the 1992 elections, most probably it would have proceeded on that course, and Saddam would have been gone by now. But Clinton wasn't really that interested in overthrowing Saddam. It didn't seem so important to Clinton, because he didn't understand the Iraqi threat. Perhaps, by the end of his term in office, Clinton did have a better understanding, but then the task seemed too difficult and risky, so he didn't do it then either. As for the evidence against Iraq, what is very hard for most people to comprehend is that so early in an investigation--just two weeks--there is little meaningful evidence at all. The FBI investigation will take months, if not years. And that's the problem: we can't wait that long. So the previous terrorism, becomes extremely important. That, we can understand. And Saddam was behind the 1993 attack on the Trade Center, as I explain in "Study of Revenge." That can be demonstrated to the high legal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." And once that is done, it raises significant questions as to whether Iraq was not also involved in the Middle Eastern terrorist attacks against US targets that followed. In my view, the dominant theory that there is a new kind of terrorism that does not involve states is simply a mistake." "....Saddam and bin Ladin are both Sunni and that's important. They share enough in common--like hating the US and wanting US forces out of the Gulf--that they can set aside what separates them." discuss.washingtonpost.com Dan B.