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?
We don't know what they talk about. However, terrorist groups are very secretive...
Oh, no! Not going to repeat myself... You appear to have a comprehension problem.
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.
Are just plain stupid or really anal? THIS IS NOT MY MENTAL MODEL. Ask ANY terrorist expert and he will agree with me.
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.
Uh, no. If we could authenticate the tape, then I would believe its content.
Link between the 9/11 attacks and the Iraqi government.