Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
OT--9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
"thunder" wrote in message news On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 03:31:07 -0400, NOYB wrote: -------------------------------------------------------- So al-Qaeda approached Saddam, and Saddam rebuffed them... It was sarcasm. Despite all of the evidence showing al-Qaeda working in cooperation with several Middle Eastern countries, the 9/11 Commission still goes out of its way to make up stories that discredit the notion that 9/11 was state sponsored. What's this? It sounds like a tacit acknowledgment that there was no al Qaeda-Saddam ties. Hmmm, no WMD, no connection to 9/11, but he was a bad man well worth the loss of 800 American lives and $200 billion. but Iran approached al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda rebuffed Iran so as not to offend their supporters in Saudi Arabia?!?!? Precisely! The dichotomy makes no sense. If al-Qaeda was willing to approach Saddam with disregard to how their supporters in Saudi Arabia would feel, then why would they rebuff Iran? Like I said almost three years ago... Iraq is first on our list because it provides a geographically strategic location to next invade Iran and/or Syria. With troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran is surrounded. That's why Iran has been stirring up so much trouble in Iraq. A US-friendly government in Iraq that allows us to station troops there is bad news for the mullahs. Straight out of the New American Century papers, although they claimed that democracy would soon break out all over the area. I'm still waiting. I would agree with you that, perhaps, Iran posed more of a threat to us than Iraq. But it also has a burgeoning democratic movement that just might survive the mullahs given time. I would also suggest, given the Iraq mess, invading Iran, or Syria for that matter, will be a very hard sell. The only ones who will buy it are the truly rabid. Iran has a 500,000 strong military that hasn't been starved by sanctions. In case you haven't noticed, our military has it's hands full. Or, perhaps, you were thinking we should institute a draft and have a full mobilization. The diminishing trouble in Iraq is from an influx of terrorist insurgents sponsored by countries like Iran. Hitting them head on would almost instantly take care of any trouble that they might be causing. Let me ask you this: if the 9/11 report concludes that any specific country had a hand in 9/11, would you support a full military attack against that country? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT--Hee-haw. Let's get Iran now! | General |