Iraq Ties to 9/11?
This report reveals that some Arab regime, "possibly Iraq, supplied how-to manuals for Arab operatives working throughout Afghanistan before 9/11, and provided military assistance to the Taliban and Al Qaeda."
The documents were written before 9/11 and indicate that the Arab regime was providing military advice both to the Taliban and to Al Qaeda. In 1999, when these documents were created, the only two Arab regimes identified as providing aid to terrorists were, in fact, Iraq and Syria.
The documents were written before 9/11 and indicate that the Arab regime was providing military advice both to the Taliban and to Al Qaeda. In 1999, when these documents were created, the only two Arab regimes identified as providing aid to terrorists were, in fact, Iraq and Syria.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:16 AM
7 Comments:
The House of Sa'ud also floods mosques the world over with hate-filled lit.
The question is: how to stem that proliferation?
Ditto:
Carol posted an appeal for civility on this blog.
"... Do you want to try some honesty about those facts or do you want to deceive your readers AGAIN."
Would you please stop calling her a liar!
Good try Carol but you have the wrong group of Arabs. MY sources tell me the manual IS from an Arab military, Saudi Arabia's.
Diane Tomlinson
Managing Editor-Terran Affairs
The Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork
The problem is the centuries old agreement between the founder of the Wahabbi sect and the House of Saud. The two are unalterably linked. If the House of Saud tried to eliminate the Wahabbi sect, the sect would bring down the government, as OBL is trying to do since the government is trying to work with the west.
I don't disagree that the material is as likely to come from Saudi as from Iraq, but the government of Saudi is between a rock and a hard place on this problem. That's not to justify it, but it does need to be recognized. It also may have been supplied to the terrorists by some member of the military who was of the Wahabbi sect - since in SA most _are_ - without any government cooperation.
Greg asks, "Would you please stop calling her a liar!"
So Greg, would you have preferred that Dittohead joked that Carol was a pedophile? You apparently consider such rhetoric civil (and apparently hilarious) since you were the only person to have done so on this blog.
If Carol is concerned about being called a deceiver, the answer is really simple--she should stop attempting to deceive her readers.
Just so some of the slower among you have a chance to understand the previous point.
Carol is a well educated, well informed woman, who has spilt many an electron on the topic of the 9/11 commission. As Dittohead noted, since 1999 many sources--including at least one report that Carol must have read--have noted that 1999 conclusion was faulty. Despite all of this, Carol posts "In 1999, when these documents were created, the only two Arab regimes identified as providing aid to terrorists were, in fact, Iraq and Syria."
What is the purpose of writing this statement if it is not an attempt to "deceive" her readers? Why is it considered uncivil to make a factually supported claim that forms a direct rebuttal to the post in question?
Sorry for the belated response.
Twister,
You have accused me severeal times of calling someone a pedophile on this blog. I have asked you several times to show me what you are talking about. I cannot remember ever making any such comment. Maybe I did. But at this time I cannot remember ever having done so.
Once again I ask you, could you please show me the quote where I called someone a pedophile? If it helps, I think in one post you accused me of calling a sitting Senator a pedophile.
Again, I recall no such comment.
Post a Comment
<< Home