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 (213787)	1/20/2007 10:52:14 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Cobalt, re: "Well, certainly if you're going to limit "9/11 terrorist" to the hijackers who blew up with the planes, the answer is that there is no known link between Saddam and these 18 men. But the ordinary use of the term means Al Qaeda. If you refuse to acknowledge that Zawahari is/was a key player in Al Qaeda and that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 and that Saddam allowed Zawahiri to operate a terrorist training camp for Al Qaeda in Iraq, then you're ignoring the data furnished to you and the consensus on these issues..." Good thinking. Also, using that same logic, the 9/11 hijackers traveled in the US, some with passports issued by US authorities at a time when the agency in charge of anti-terrorism was aware of their terrorist connections, they trained to fly jets in US flight schools under suspicious circumstances, and they used American owned airplanes as weapons, therefor it is indisputable that the US, the American owned airlines and, in fact, you as a taxpaying American citizen, have ties to those men. Would you prefer that your family be rocketed, bombed, shot, raped and beaten, forced to live without power and sanitation, or do you have some other form of punishment in mind? Ed

To: Ilaine who wrote (213787)	1/21/2007 1:55:59 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Cobalt- there is no link even if we define 9/11 terrorists as Al Qaeda. The one name you gave me as a "link" was the name of a man who had a base in the no-fly zone where Saddam had no power to "assist" him (or arrest him- something he apparently wanted to do), and our own government, after reviewing the "intelligence" on the matter, thinks there was no link. I don't refuse to acknowledge Zarqawi wasn't a player, but you keep ignoring ALL the data that Saddam was NOT connected in any way to Zarqawi, and that Zarqawi's base was in an area Saddam did not control. Your own WIKI article (remember, I quoted it to you, and you still fail to address this) says that there was no evidence Saddam assisted or was connected to Zarqawi. I don't know what you think my "rules" are. All I expect is some minimal logic, an attempt by other posters to follow the main points and address them, and a lack of personal insults. You keep avoiding the main facts- that there is no evidence of collusion between Saddam and Zarqawi (and our government says so, and other governments in the region say so- as per your own Wiki article, among other sources), and the man's camps were in an area Saddam did not control so that saying Saddam "allowed" him to operate there is beyond silly. Now is it possible for you to address those points without telling me I'm defining 9/11 terrorists in a way I am not, and without making up some spurious claim about "rules"? We shall see. Somehow you flipped from Zarqawi to Zawahiri. I'm not sure you meant to do that. If you did, you might want to explain why you suddenly changed. All the facts in question apply to Zarqawi. see here: Message 23203853 Zarqawi not Zawahiri is the man we are talking about And here is where you flip the names: Message 23204153