XPost: nj.politics, ny.politics, nyc.politics   
   XPost: or.politics, pa.politics, seattle.politics   
   XPost: tx.politics   
   From: stderr2@backpacker.com   
      
   Clave wrote:   
   >   
   > "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"   
   >  wrote in message   
   > news:3FC7A0A0.BC567EFF@backpacker.com...   
   >   
   > <...>   
   >   
   > > I'm not claiming that Saddam was involved in 9/11. I don't know whether   
   > > he was or not. I know he didn't want to make his links to al Qaeda all   
   > > that obvious. In any case, you have no evidence that Saudi Arabia was   
   > > involved in 9/11, yet you claim just because bin Laden chose to use   
   > > mostly Saudis that that must be the case. Of course that defies   
   > > logic...   
   >   
   > It defies the truth too.  He never claimed any such thing.   
   >   
   Let's see what I said and his response:   
      
   #begin quote   
   > > The stupid claim that Saudi Arabia is at fault because al Qaeda chose to   
   > > use mostly Saudi al Qaeda operatives in the 9/11 attacks. It is fact   
   > > that Saudis, pre-9/11, had a much easier time getting into the United   
   > > States therefore using them makes logical sense.   
   > >   
   > > Furthermore, it is fact that bin Laden has it in for the Saudi   
   > > government and wants to separate them from the United States. There is   
   > > no restriction on the countries that al Qaeda can draw from for it   
   > > attacks, certainly no restriction on Arab countries.   
   > >   
   >   
   > So you have no VERIFIABLE proof that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.   
   >   
   #end quote   
      
   Notice that no claim that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11 was made   
   by me. Bringing one up is a strawman which proves both of you have no   
   brains.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)