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.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (69951)	1/21/2009 2:11:12 AM
From: JF Quinnelly	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

In simple terms its not much of a point. It doesn't call out to be addressed. It doesn't show much of anything about Iraq except that it had very limited ability to attack Israel (and doesn't share a border with Israel). It called out loudly when you claimed Iraq was "a dangerous power". America gets bombed and somebody pays. That's what serious military powers do. Iraq got bombed and did nothing. You're now saying Iraq "had a very limited ability to attack Israel", and concede that the only threat that Iraq posed was to someone it shared a border with. Saddam did allow Abbas and Abu Nidal to live in Baghdad- but both were secular Palestinian splinter groups off of Yasser Arafat's PLO. That doesn't help one bit the claim that Saddam was part of the Islamic terror network. In fact it works against it, since the jihadists regarded secular Arab leaders as infidels. Bin Laden offered to kill Saddam when he invaded Kuwait but the Saudis ignored him. Probably a wise decision since bin Laden then declared a fatwha against the Saudis as well, for letting infidel Americans put military bases on sacred Arabian soil. The 9-11 terrorists didn't train at Salman Pak. They organized in terrorist hotbeds like Hamburg, San Diego, Florida, and Phoenix. There is exactly zero evidence linking any of the hijackings to Salman Pak, or someone would have been quick to supply a name. Salman Pak is as insubstantial as the claim that all of Saddam's WMD's were smuggled into Syria. It's a case of "the lack of evidence proves that the allegation is true". Or something equally unfounded. "The report, released this week says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda." Then why list the next six claims as if there was proof of cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda? This sort of sleight of hand was a hallmark of the Bush administration in its claims about Iraq. Mentioning Iraq and al Qaeda in the same sentence as if there were proof of a connection, then offering no proof. When put on the spot denying any such inference had been made. Colin Powell appearing before the UN stating that there was evidence that Saddam was working on nuclear weapons. Condi Rice debating Scott Ritter on CNN saying "we can't wait for the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud". Followed by the claim that "just about everyone figured he had no nuclear weapons". The rationale for why we needed to invade Iraq has been a moving target. When one rationale appears inadequate it gets discarded for the next.