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 (214246)	1/23/2007 5:53:05 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I never didn't agree that Saddam was a sponsor of terrorism, so don't go thinking you scored some point there. What we were talking about has nothing to do with that. We were talking about the connection between Saddam and 9/11- that's how Al Qaeda came in to it. There is no evidence of a connection between Zarqawi and Saddam, and Zarqawi is NOT a particularly good connection to Al Qaeda, because Osama and Zarqawi hated each other, and we don't even know for sure what Al Qaeda did in 9/11, even if you could put Zarqawi in the frame as some sort of tangential asset. So you think it's just "political fraughtness" that is the problem here? You can't convince me of anything because you have really crappy evidence. If you had good evidence, or some evidence that was even moderately reasonable, I'd look at it. But you've got zip. I've shown you how it is you've got zip- and instead of dealing with the zipness of your evidence, you want to turn Al Qaeda into ANSAR, you want to pretend Zarqawi is the same as the 9/11 gang, and you want me to believe old discredited evidence from Allawi and other informants whom no one believes any longer (except you, apparently). This has nothing to do with beating up on Bush. If Bush had been correct, who would want to beat up on him? Not me. This has to do with making terrible mistakes, and taking crap evidence as real evidence, and having no sophistication about informants, and being absolutely unable to see why certain elements would want to manipulate the US. That's not about the right and the left- it's purely a logical proposition. If there was any logic in your arguments you'd convince me. So get an argument and some logic, and show me what you can do, but giving me Wiki articles that contradict your own positions isn't very impressive. Ok?