Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • ... that the right things will now happen for the wrong reasons. Because the American public has been snookered into believing that Saddam played a major role in 9/11, they will believe that "the war is nearly over now!" and go back to work and start playing the markets and investments long instead of short.

    So, life will get better for the US economy, and therefore the world economy, and yet we will be no closer to preventing another Osama Bin Laden attack, at all.

    The right thing happening for all the

    --
    • Randal L. Schwartz
    • Stonehenge
    • I think we're further away from another Al Qaeda attack.

      Contrary to the dominant media meme, there are all kinds of things that link Hussein to Al Qaeda and 9/11. Remember Salam Pak [worldnetdaily.com]? The terrorist training camp in Iraq where agents, including reportedly Islamic Fundamentalists, learned to take over commercial jet-liners?

      Or, how about the fact that there's a lots [newsmax.com] of [miis.edu] evidence [fas.org] linking Iraq to the WTC bombing in 1993. Also, the Son of Sheik Rahman, convicted planner of WTC 1993, later turned up as a top Bi

      • I don't want to challenge your entire claim here -- I happen to disagree, but I'd have to do some research on the articles you cite, which requires time. However, your second and third paragraphs perfectly demonstrate two claims that have nothing to do with war in Iraq, but are used as justification. First, why is a country's having a terrorist training camp a reason to invade it? The US has produced its own wackos in Texas and Montana recently -- would Canada have had a right to invade and capture Clinton? To link "Iraq" to 9/11 in the right way, you need to show connections between 9/11 and the Iraqi government's actions, not just between 9/11 and a couple of random Iraqis.

        Second, other than being aimed at the same target, what do the 1993 and 2000 bombings have to do with each other? Hussein's government being involved in the 1993 bombing is in no way inconsistent with, say, UN sanctions having made him impotent, or his having simply decided terrorism wasn't worth the trouble.

        I'm curious to see how the latest Atta allegations play out, but I just haven't seen good evidence so far, and the two kinds of guilt-by-association or -analogy you mention don't cut it.
          • However, your second and third paragraphs perfectly demonstrate two claims that have nothing to do with war in Iraq, but are used as justification.

          Where did I mention justifications for going to war in Iraq? I don't see where I justified the war in Iraq, even once, in the post to which you are responding.

          The issue at hand is whether I feel safer now. Now, you might infer a justification there and you'd be right. I happen to believe there were and are many many good reasons for going to war in Iraq.