Re: Who needs terrorists? We can cause terror allbyourselves...

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 3/27/06, Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com> wrote:
> But in 2001, when 19 people fly planes into buildings, there isn't a
> nation-state to fight against. And I can understand attacking Afghanistan,
> because they were harbouring the chief suspect in the case. But I do have
> trouble understanding the link between Iraq and the WTC attack, and maybe
> this link is likewise difficult to see for other people?
>
> The US top government seems to be very close to the oil industry, and that
> might be introducing a bias into US foreign (and war) policy.

Well at least you're not stating these these things as a matter of fact.

I agree that the connections to Afghanistan are more OBVIOUS, but they
are no way binding. As you stated, of the nationalities of the
attackers, how many were Afghani? On the other hand there has been a
great deal of evidence turning up in Iraq to support the idea Saddam
was helping terrorists - terrorists everywhere, not just in
Afghanistan. Maybe it was just a hunch in the beginning, so be it. In
my mind, "if it saves just one Kurd baby." Or, hey, what about the
environment....how important was that march ecosystem over there
anyway?

Are there other targets around that world that we'll need to start
taking a look at if we're going to "police" the world? Absolutely!
Should we? Not for me to answer alone - vote.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.