From: "J Alex"
References: <email@example.com> <9t2cnSbwNs9w7oWiRTvUqQ@giganews.com>
Subject: Re: trying to fool "the media"
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:10:35 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:10:35 EDT
Organization: RoadRunner - Tampa Bay
"Ron Johnson" wrote
> David Marc Nieporent wrote
> > In article <9t2cnSbwNs9w7oWiRTvUqQ@giganews.com>,
> > "Mark Stahl" wrote:
> > >no, it was not. it was about iraq supposedly being a threat, which it
> > >clearly was not.
> > ...which is exactly what you would have said about Afghanistan, on
> And it would have been true. Seriously, what did the Taliban's being in
> power and sheltering Bin Laden have to do with 9/11. THat's not where
> any of the planning was done, it's where the guy who signed off on the
> mission happened to be living.
As well as financial data that would have been found and used to prevent
funds going to the hijackers. Besides, the point isn't that invading
Afghanistan on 9/10 would have prevented it, it is that on 9/10 nobody
perceived Afghanistan as an immediate threat. Clearly it was, and had been
for many years (however long OBL was living there). If you go back far
enough (say to when the Clinton administration first learned OBL was there),
then invading would have most likely prevented 9/11.
> If the US had invaded Afghanistan in (say) January 2001, September 11
> still happens. And if the US had the domestic security measures currently
> in place, it probably doesn't.
Even *after* Sept 11, universities were whining on NPR about how horrible it
was to have to report to INS the status of everyone on a student Visa. What
makes you think that, and related measures, could have ever happened prior
to Sept. 11?