I never said that Atta did not meet with an Iraqi government official. I have repeatedly said that he would not have shared operational details with the government agent. This is not my personal opinion. Every reputable terrorist expert will tell you the same thing.
Doubt away. Meanwhile, CZECH INTELLIGENCE SAYS THERE WAS A MEETING. For the umpteenth time, your internal feelings and hunches do not change reality. Reality exists independent of your thoughts, and CZECH INTELLIGENCE SAYS THERE WAS A MEETING. Either explain away this piece of data with actual facts (i.e. prove that the Czechs are lying, explain why they would lie, or something...), or don't, but don't expect anyone to be swayed by your personal feelings of "doubt" about the subject just 'cuz you've read some boo.... er, sorry, "studied terrorism".
Not me personal feelings, see above.
You mean, if your personal hunch is correct, then under that hypothetical combined with your mental model of how terrorists behave, then such-and-such would be true? Uh, why is anyone supposed to care?
Repeat after me: Not my personal hunch or mental model, but the commonly accepted view of how terrorist groups operate.
Bullcrap. No, they don't. Says who? They don't "need" to show any such evidence. There may be such evidence, and there may not, and if there were, it would be interesting to see it, but the case for attacking Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 per se. How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in?
Why attack Iraq now and not before the 9/11 attacks?
Post #32: "This alleged link has no credibility. First, the 9/11 terrorists did not need the help of the Iraqi government. Second, terrorists are not going to discuss their plans in the open in a restaurant in Prague." Repeated in Post #121. Which is referred to in Post #123. In Post #223 you take a slightly different tack, "Perhaps you can explain why Atta would share the details of a top-secret terrorist act with an Iraqi government when he did not need his support." You were so impressed with this sentence you crafted that you cut 'n pasted it for Post #224.
Finally you admit in Post #309, "a meeting between Atta and an Iraqi government official could have taken place. I can not prove or disprove that assertion." Three-hundred-and-nine posts to get to this epiphany.
Till then, sorry, but it appeared like you were casting doubt on the meeting itself. Your whole line was "why would they need to meet?" "why would the terrorists need help from Saddam?" "the terrorists I've read about don't behave like that!" Well, evidently they did, because CZECH INTELLIGENCE SAYS THERE WAS A MEETING, and I'm now glad I was misinterpreting all those posts in which you poo-poo'ed the whole thing as if it was just a date for some friendly conversation and shop talk. Like I said, I'm glad we're now on the same page.
I have repeatedly said that he would not have shared operational details with the government agent.
"Would not have"? What does that even mean? He either did, or he didn't. He is a human being with vocal cords, so it is at least possible that they did discuss something other than soccer and girls. You don't think so? Why not, because You've Read A Lot About Terrorists and They Never Do That?
This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you're projecting your mental model of how terrorists behave out on the real world. You don't even realize you're doing it, either. It's just sad. What if somehow some audio tape comes out that records them talking about a terrorist attack? What would you say then? "The tape must be faked because I've read about terrorists and he "would not have" talked about that stuff"? It's pathetic. CZECH INTELLIGENCE SAYS THERE WAS A MEETING. You admit that you have nothing whatsoever to disprove this. So then, what did they talk about, Mr. Terrorist expert? Life? Philosophy? Alternative Rock? Suppose this meeting took place (we have evidence to this effect, and you have no evidence whatsoever to the contrary). Now then, what "would have" they talked about at this meeting, according to your Time-Life books on Terrorism? Enlighten us.
This is not my personal opinion.
Yes, it is. You're telling me that you "doubt" that such-and-such happened. What is an expression of "doubt", if not an opinion? Maybe you need to look the word "opinion" up in a dictionary.
Not me personal feelings, see above.
Oh, right, "above", where you asserted that your personal opinion (Atta "would not have" talked about terrorism with the Iraqi) is not your personal opinion. I see, it's not your personal opinion because you said so two paragraphs earlier. That really clears it up, thanks.
Why attack Iraq now and not before the 9/11 attacks?
Maybe we should've. Next dumb argument?