"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Does this link Saddam to 9/11?
(Filed: 12/14/2003)


A document discovered by Iraq's interim government details a
meeting
between the man behind the September 11 attacks and Abu Nidal, the
Palestinian terrorist, at his Baghdad training camp. Con Coughlin
reports.


Nidal is a Palestinian terrorist. Not an Iraqi terrorist.
What does that tell you?

What about the fact that many of the the 9-11 terrorists made Florida
their home and in fact received their training there...

Perhaps we should bomb the crap out of Florida.

Florida is part of the US. You're showing your hatred for our country once
again.

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Does this link Saddam to 9/11?
(Filed: 12/14/2003)


A document discovered by Iraq's interim government details a
meeting
between the man behind the September 11 attacks and Abu Nidal, the
Palestinian terrorist, at his Baghdad training camp. Con Coughlin
reports.


Nidal is a Palestinian terrorist. Not an Iraqi terrorist.
What does that tell you?

What about the fact that many of the the 9-11 terrorists made Florida
their home and in fact received their training there...

Perhaps we should bomb the crap out of Florida.

Florida is part of the US. You're showing your hatred for our country once
again.




I see. So it is ok to plan terrorist acts against the USA if you are
*in* the USA...you can do that without fear of being invaded or bombed.

Yeah, I suppose that makes sense. You never know when the next pack of
native-born right-wing conservative extremists will blow up a building.

--
Email sent to is never read.

"NOYB" wrote in message
news

Nidal is a Palestinian terrorist. Not an Iraqi terrorist.
What does that tell you?

What about the fact that many of the the 9-11 terrorists made Florida
their home and in fact received their training there...

Perhaps we should bomb the crap out of Florida.

Florida is part of the US. You're showing your hatred for our country
once
again.

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.

"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?

"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. 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.

"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?

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.

"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.