Quote:
|
Am I to infer what he meant? All I have to go on are his words, and his words very clearly implied that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and "recent Islamic terrorism". I very clearly pointed out that there was. I don't care that it's not al Qaeda - he didn't say that.
|
All depends who you want to call a terrorist really. Secondly Palestinian terrorism (and yes, it is terrorism) is about the state, it is *Palestinian terrorism* first, and its members happen to be Islamic. Whereas Al Queda is Islamic terrorism.
Ill concede my point was at best, inarticulate, on the other hand, yours is moot. Touché.
So if he has no links to Al Queda, and the CIA thinks he is in their own words "low" risk. Why exactly should Iraq be invaded? I mean considering how successful Afghanistan is an all. (can anyone say America's Chechnya?)
Still waiting for slang's OKC/Iraq smoking gun, i could use a good laugh.
Hermit's last point, whether that would be justification is an interesting one. If it could be proven, and it was serious, the answer for me i think would be yes.