posted
Wow…. You guys make this almost too easy. There is tons of stuff out on the net about this and even a nice big block in the 9-11 commission. Here I was thinking I wouldn’t have time to counter with anything, but the internal network went down here at work today so I had a spare five minutes to look this stuff up. Enjoy.
By the way, I know this won’t convince you die hard Bush haters, but this is more for those who are reading the silly stuff people are claiming and starting to doubt. Enjoy.
So basically you can go with the where there’s smoke there’s generally a fire. And there appears to be plenty of smoke to go around. And this isn’t stuff you’d have out there so it can be traced.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
None of what you posted says that Saddam or Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attack. In fact, much of what you posted specifically said that there was no link between the two. So... maybe I'm a "bush-hater" or 'wacho-extremist' who you can completely disregard because I disargree with you on certain current affairs, but that still doesn't make Saddam or Iraq responsible for what happened on 9/11.
Ruport Murdock News Co. did say there is a possible link, but I would rather expect them to say that, wouldn't you?
The last link does say that there is a possibility that Saddam's regime may have helped support a group of terrorists lead by Osama's brother-in-law, and that a fax was sent from the Phillipines about the al-qaida to Saddam administration. But in my mind, that isn't really damning evidence.
Now, I'm not saying Saddam is a good guy or anything, far from it. But I think that using 9/11 as an excuse to attack, rather than the real, good reasons that are evident is flimsy at the least.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Finances? Giving money to the cause. I have not made any claim that Saddam was involved in Sept 11th. I’m saying that he gave money to terrorists and terrorists did 9-11.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
But these two facts are completely seperate. It's like saying "You give food to dogs, and dogs attacked my cousin two states over, so you hold some responsibility for the attack."
Terrorist groups are many, with many different goals. To catagorize all terrorists in one group and hold all of them responsible for the actions of some is not the most enlightened approach, and probably ends up letting the ones responsible off a lot easier.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
