"Doug Kanter" wrote in message news:vgpDb.12073


Yes. And a meeting between two people in Baghdad doesn't necessarily
constitute a training camp. Or, if it does, then the same thing applies to
a
Muslim house of worship in New Jersey, in which case the port authority
may
be liable for helping terrorists get from Manhattan to Jersey City
repeatedly.

Your point carries in principle, but suffers under realistic examination.
The fact is that because of the way our country operates, with open borders,
etc., just about anyone can come to school here (flight or otherwise), or
come visit a house of worship, without knowledge of the government -- at
least not immediate or timely knowledge.

But the reverse is not true. No one - no one at all - gets into a
mid-eastern country, particularly one of the ilk of Iraq, Iran, Syria, SA,
without the police agencies being precisely aware of the who, where, and
why of your visit. To schedule or attend a meeting with a government
official would increase your 'attention quotient' in spades. There could be
no such thing as a casual meeting in Baghdad involving either a known
terrorist or a government official without security agency knowledge and
consent.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:vgpDb.12073


Yes. And a meeting between two people in Baghdad doesn't necessarily
constitute a training camp. Or, if it does, then the same thing applies
to
a
Muslim house of worship in New Jersey, in which case the port authority
may
be liable for helping terrorists get from Manhattan to Jersey City
repeatedly.

Your point carries in principle, but suffers under realistic examination.
The fact is that because of the way our country operates, with open
borders,
etc., just about anyone can come to school here (flight or otherwise), or
come visit a house of worship, without knowledge of the government -- at
least not immediate or timely knowledge.

But the reverse is not true. No one - no one at all - gets into a
mid-eastern country, particularly one of the ilk of Iraq, Iran, Syria, SA,
without the police agencies being precisely aware of the who, where, and
why of your visit. To schedule or attend a meeting with a government
official would increase your 'attention quotient' in spades. There could
be
no such thing as a casual meeting in Baghdad involving either a known
terrorist or a government official without security agency knowledge and
consent.

OK. Where did they meet in Baghdad?

John Gaquin wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message news:3knDb.12069

No, Einstein. He's pointing out that a terrorists place of training does
not
automatically assign guilt to that country. If the world ran according to
your logic, then the U.S.A. would be guilty of harboring terrorists. After
all, they *did* learn to fly those planes at flight schools here, not
abroad.

There's a world of difference between sending people to a flight school as
innocuous individuals under false pretenses, and setting up a paramilitary
training camp with the express approval and financial support of the host
country. You do see that, don't you?



Indeed, we set up lots of military training camps with the approval and
support of our government. It's OK when we do it, but not when others do it?

Did those paramilitary units invade the United States and take over our
major cities?

Did our military units invade other countries and take over their major
cities?



--
Email sent to is never read.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:3knDb.12069

No, Einstein. He's pointing out that a terrorists place of training
does
not
automatically assign guilt to that country. If the world ran according
to
your logic, then the U.S.A. would be guilty of harboring terrorists.
After
all, they *did* learn to fly those planes at flight schools here, not
abroad.

There's a world of difference between sending people to a flight school
as
innocuous individuals under false pretenses, and setting up a
paramilitary
training camp with the express approval and financial support of the
host
country. You do see that, don't you?



Yes. And a meeting between two people in Baghdad doesn't necessarily
constitute a training camp.

Doug,
The Iraqi gov't issued sanctuary to Abu Nidal. He wasn't living there
clandestinely. If he was meeting with al Qaeda, it was with the full
knowledge of Saddam. All of those issues makes that situation a far cry
from two terrorists meeting in New Jersey.

Probably in the same apartment in which Abu Nidal was gunned down in shortly
thereafter.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:vgpDb.12073


Yes. And a meeting between two people in Baghdad doesn't necessarily
constitute a training camp. Or, if it does, then the same thing
applies
to
a
Muslim house of worship in New Jersey, in which case the port
authority
may
be liable for helping terrorists get from Manhattan to Jersey City
repeatedly.

Your point carries in principle, but suffers under realistic
examination.
The fact is that because of the way our country operates, with open
borders,
etc., just about anyone can come to school here (flight or otherwise),
or
come visit a house of worship, without knowledge of the government -- at
least not immediate or timely knowledge.

But the reverse is not true. No one - no one at all - gets into a
mid-eastern country, particularly one of the ilk of Iraq, Iran, Syria,
SA,
without the police agencies being precisely aware of the who, where,
and
why of your visit. To schedule or attend a meeting with a government
official would increase your 'attention quotient' in spades. There
could
be
no such thing as a casual meeting in Baghdad involving either a known
terrorist or a government official without security agency knowledge and
consent.

OK. Where did they meet in Baghdad?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message news:LIpDb.12075

OK. Where did they meet in Baghdad?

I have no idea where they met, and the where is beside the point. My point
was that it could not have been a "casual" meeting. It could not have
occurred without knowledge and consent of the Iraqi security forces.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:LIpDb.12075

OK. Where did they meet in Baghdad?

I have no idea where they met, and the where is beside the point. My
point
was that it could not have been a "casual" meeting. It could not have
occurred without knowledge and consent of the Iraqi security forces.

That's quite an "absolute". I'm sure Iraq was (and will again become) an
Orwellian nightmare, but when WE have chosen to watch someone, we're capable
of creating the same situation for that person. Still, it's not foolproof,
and various attacks have shown.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:LIpDb.12075

OK. Where did they meet in Baghdad?

I have no idea where they met, and the where is beside the point. My
point
was that it could not have been a "casual" meeting. It could not have
occurred without knowledge and consent of the Iraqi security forces.

That's quite an "absolute". I'm sure Iraq was (and will again become) an
Orwellian nightmare, but when WE have chosen to watch someone, we're
capable
of creating the same situation for that person. Still, it's not foolproof,
and various attacks have shown.



Oops. "AS various attacks...."

"Jack Meholf" wrote in message news:V04Db.540493$HS4.4112918@attbi_s01...
I think we should use the new hi tech bombs to just blow the hell out of
every single democrat in the US, that will teach them to mess around with a
republican president. We will bomb the democrats back to the stone age.

There you go, proof that republicans shouldn't breed. Spoken like a true dolt.

"NOYB" wrote in message news:JVtDb.79121$%
Doug,
The Iraqi gov't issued sanctuary to Abu Nidal. He wasn't living there
clandestinely. If he was meeting with al Qaeda, it was with the full
knowledge of Saddam. All of those issues makes that situation a far cry
from two terrorists meeting in New Jersey.

You sound like Rush/Bush. IF, PERHAPS, etc. Just about as much
substance and truth to your statements as Bush saying his people KNOW
there are WMD's, etc.