but did you even read the article? The terrorists that were captured and killed in Jordan were killed and captured on the April 20th!!!!!!!



How could the RNC have been spouting this for months, when it only happened 10 days ago? And it was Jordan that thwarted this attack, found the chemicals, explosives, and got the statements from the terrorists that said they were trained in Iraq, not the RNC. All this info. came from an Arab source within the past week or so.







As for Osama's family has been business partners with George Bush Sr for many years. Osama's family gave George jr his big business break as his oil company faced bankruptcy - does this connection make the president part of the terrorist plot?





While that is true, are you not aware that Osama's family disowned him long before 9/11 and that Saudi Arabia exiled him (also long before 9/11) because he was too radical for them? That is why he was living in Afghanistan in the first place, Saudi kicked him out of the country. I applaud his family for making a very difficult decision, and the Saudis as well, and I can't fault anyone for doing business with his family's business just because he turned out to be a bad seed.



The USA trained Osama in Afghanistan, maybe the US CIA is part of the attacks too, huh?



First of all, Osama was recruited and given aid(funding/weapons) to help fight the Soviet Union because of his successful fighting techniques and the danger that the Soviets posed back then. He was a known fighter long before the CIA entered the picture. The CIA didn't want him because he was so incredibly docile!



I'm sure you've seen the pictures of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Osama - is Rumsfeld part of the 9/11 terrorist attacks? According to your logic he must be.





So now, in your attempt to bash both me and this administration, you will associate shaking hands with someone years ago, to be the same thing as training terrorists? That has nothing to do with my logic. What can I say but, "WOW, how did you come up with that one!".





Your assumption is that any evidence of terrorist connection with Iraq ties Iraq to 9/11 in some significant way.



No, not at all. I have no idea if Iraq is tied to 9/11. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But I do know that terrorism is tied to 9/11. And Iraq is tied to terrorism. If you haven't noticed yet, this is a war on terrorism we are fighting, not a war on Iraq. Iraq is just one battle in that war. Bush has stated this many, many times, and I believe he is correct in trying to thwart terrorism. Terrorism has been proven to be a credible threat to the national security of this nation, and many other nations as well. PLEASE LOOK AT THE TITLE OF MY ORIGINAL POST, IT CLEARLY STATES THIS WAS MY POINT OF THIS POST--AN IRAQ* TERRORIST LINK, and NOT AN IRAQ*9/11 LINK.







By the way, did you figure out where your "statistical" analysis went wrong yet?



Nope, I haven't. All I have been able to prove so far, is that your original argument against it was fauty. Maybe you have a valid one? I am still waiting to hear from anyone why my analysis was bad. You haven't been able to figure it out yet, and no one has been able to meet your challenge after you failed to, so I don't think anyone will. But I am more than willing to hear from anyone, who understands statistics, and who can prove it/explain it why I am wrong.



Rodney

[ Show Entire Thread ]