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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KonKilo who wrote (25448)	7/31/2006 12:33:30 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 540859

True, but if the state is an ally, as was the case with Saudi Arabia following 911 If the state is truly an ally (and continues to be an ally) of the terrorist organization than it can be legitimate to attack the state. Saudi Arabia wasn't an ally of Al Qaeda, they did (and still do, if to a slightly lesser extent) indirectly provide some support for it by supporting the radical version of Islam that lies behind a lot of Al Qaeda's ideas, but that isn't enough to consider them an ally. In the past Saudi mainly ignored Al Qaeda. Now they actually fight against its operations in Saudi. They still might not be as determined or effective of opponent as we would want them to be, and they still support a radical interpretation of Islam, so its not like we don't have any problems with them. But they aren't Al Qaeda's allies. To suggest that any of these things amount to "forgetting about bin Laden", is unsupported and unreasonable. I must strongly disagree. All evidence points to the conclusion that GWB never seriously wanted to capture or kill bin Laden, once you get past the rhetoric. Well I guess we're just going to have to strongly disagree. IMO the evidence points in the exact opposite direction.