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: Cogito who wrote (74888)	4/2/2006 3:05:13 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Re: "I asked why there was no evidence of any further meetings. There's evidence of this one, so why wouldn't there be evidence of others, if they happened? It's a logical question, don't you think?" Logical enough, and it's reasonable to accept the logical answer. I gave you an honest on point answer to the suggestion that nothing came of it, by noting in essence that we can't/don't know. The logical answer to your current question would be that the known meeting which we do know but little about, in fact entailed plans for further discussions, or even just plans for contact methods for discussing possible further cooperation as needed, which passed under the intelligence radar. In further defense of this proposition should it be needed, it seems 911 happened just under the intelligence radar too, so missing intelligence is neither surprising, unexpected, nor uncommon in a reality in which efforts are made to hide and deceive. While a real lack of proof is what it is, reasonable suspicion long held (pre-bush) and backed up by a few other highly suggestive and incriminating if sparsely detailed intelligence reports, remains reasonable suspicion. Suspicions of Iraqi collusion/support of 911-like terrorism if not 911 itself in the end, in fact became even more reasonable after 911 than before it. Going to war with an uncooperative, threatening, and avowed enemy country like Iraq after 911 will always simply seem a reasonable and necessary part of history to masses of people who will all oneday have shed such religious fervor (as seen in the radically religious of all stripes). In this case radical Muslims are at the root of this particular spat of warring - not Christians nor Buddhists nor Jews nor even Moonies - with their horrific acts as applauded by Suddam Hussein himself (Saddam, the mass murdering country invader who spawned an oil for food scandal, U.N. inspection ejections, and massive document shredding post 911 which likely hid much more). Saddam, the "unthreatening" secular dictator of Muslims, as some may insist despite his thoroughly established prior support of terrorist acts). Dan B.