Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
If you'd stop sputtering and take the time to carefully write out, edit, and revise what you want to say, we might be able to discuss it. As far as I can see, 80% of what you're saying is absolutely irrelevant to anything that I was trying to talk about.
To facilitate discussion, I will explain what I meant by saying that:
I believe it is at least reasonably arguable (although not susceptible of empirical proof-- certainly not in the short term) that the U.S. invasion of Iraq "may have worsened terror" (which is what Blix said) by (a) inspiring either more persons to support or become terrorists who would not otherwise have done so, or (b) inspiring terrorist strikes which would not otherwise have occurred.
I suppose that this would be more likely to be the case if Hussein's Iraq had only tangential involvement in international terrorism before the invasion. Post-war Iraq is certainly one of the terrorist ground-centrals. I don't think that is a fair characterization of Husein's record, though, because he was definitely heavily involved in the Paelstinian-Israeli conflict which -- while no longer the highlight of global terrorism, is hardly a side-show.
Or, if the above sends you into spasms, just repeat the following meditation aid over and over until you fall asleep:
"Bush is Good. Bush is Good. He does the right thing. He just needs to spend a little less. He will win in November."
S_A_M
|
I read something about the Basque separatists, and some other non-Mid East terrorist groups, where they hooked into Hamas, and maybe AQ for training etc. I'm not mentioning this for an alleged tie-in.
These non-mid east groups were shocked to see the level of supplies/explosives the mid-east groups could afford. Of course, much was SA money, but Iraq oil money did go to at least Palistinian groups in large amounts.
