Subject:
|
Re: The War That Never Ends
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:59:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
185 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
“The threat is still real because neither invading Afghanistan nor Iraq had
much to do with Al-Qaeda, which is itself a supra-national entity largely
financed from ***** ******.”
I’m sorry, but that line had to be censored... the truth is inconvenient at
this time.
:)
|
Here is one for the conspiracy theorists: what if we know full well that SA
is behind al-Qaeda but attacking her is out of the question (seeing as how
she is supposed to be our ally, but we attacked Iraq instead as a sort of
veiled threat to them. That way we rid ourselves of the slimeball SH AND
send a serious message to the Kingdom that says “we aren’t just whistling
dixie here about going after world terrorism; clean up your act or you are
next”
|
Why not just go after the Saudis *first*? And why not do it economically instead
of via unwarranted war?
Arrange our affairs to break our dependence on foreign oil and voila.(1) (Oil is
too valuable to burn in cars, it needs to be saved to make ABS from, after all!)
1 - non trivial problem left as an exercise for the reader
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The War That Never Ends
|
| (...) Here is one for the conspiracy theorists: what if we know full well that SA is behind al-Qaeda but attacking her is out of the question (seeing as how she is supposed to be our ally, but we attacked Iraq instead as a sort of veiled threat to (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
30 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
