To: SausageDog
Yeah. Maybe not as flippant as that.
If you view what happened on 9/11 as an isolated event unconnected to events in the Middle East, and to Iraq in particular, that is, in my opinion dangerously and foolishly one dimensional.
It is no coincidence that people like Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were living in Iraq. They didn't go there for the mild climate. They were there because it was a welcoming place for people like them.
And it wasn't people in tin-foil hats who brought to light that the Iraqi regime was paying money to people engaged in terrorist acts (suicide bombers).
The world changed on 9/11. The limits on what we realistically thought terrorists might do were obliterated. The terrorists hoped to kill 20,000 people, and we were lucky it didn't happen because the Twin Towers weren't full at the time of the attack.
Do you really think they wouldn't have detonated a nuclear device if they could have got their hands on one? Who in the Mideast "might" have had or be developing nuclear weapons? If the terrorists could have got a suitcase full of Anthrax, do you think for one second they would not have used it? Who in the Middle East had or was developing substances like that?
I don't mean to sound strident here, but when you say "You mean like, if we hadn't invaded Iraq..." I mean, like, yeah. That is exactly what I mean. And I didn't think I was being imprecise. This is nothing personal against you, because I have no idea who you are or what you are like, but the administration did not do this because they thought it would help them politically. They did it because they were on watch, and lived through 9/11 with all the possibilities and implications it carried. I would hope you or I would take it as seriously, if we had walked in their shoes.
92 posted on
12/08/2004 8:23:17 PM PST by
rlmorel
To: rlmorel
"And it wasn't people in tin-foil hats who brought to light that the Iraqi regime was paying money to people engaged in terrorist acts (suicide bombers)."
You mean to families of anti-Israeli suicide bombers? If Israel had a problem with that, Israel should have dealt with it. Why was it our mission to start a war in behalf of Israel?
"The world changed on 9/11. The limits on what we realistically thought terrorists might do were obliterated. The terrorists hoped to kill 20,000 people, and we were lucky it didn't happen because the Twin Towers weren't full at the time of the attack. Do you really think they wouldn't have detonated a nuclear device if they could have got their hands on one? Who in the Mideast "might" have had or be developing nuclear weapons? If the terrorists could have got a suitcase full of Anthrax, do you think for one second they would not have used it? Who in the Middle East had or was developing substances like that?"
No one I or anyone else knows of. You sound like you still think Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks, was developing nuclear and biological weapons, etc. Even the administration has abandoned those arguments.
"the administration did not do this because they thought it would help them politically."
You are being very generous.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson