Re: What has America lost?

Jeffraham Prestonian wrote:
> "Don Swayser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
>
>> Only an absolute fool would assume the rest of the world wouldn't
>> be an even more dangerous place if Hussein was still supporting the
>> terrorists.
>
>
> You mean if he was *ever* supporting terrorists. Where's the proof,
> Don?
>
It is an established fact that one high ranking terrorist from Al-Qaeda
sought and received medical attention in Baghdad. That fact alone plces 
him squarely in support of know, wanted terrorists. There is also much 
circumstantial evidence such as suspectd training bases and financial 
support. Ansar al-Islam maintained a training base in NE Iraq. That area 
was NOT under control of the Kurds. It was an area which was a no-mans 
land. Someone allowed them to place their training facility there, and I 
hardly think it was the Kurds since they were in frequent armed conflict 
with them. He also harbored Abu Nidal. To question whether Hussein 
sponsored terrorism is as naive as to question whether the Soviet Union 
or Libya did also. There are many reports of high ranking terrorists of 
Al Qaeda meeting with Iraqi intellignce. By its very nature the 
activities of terrorists is clandestine and proof is nearly always 
circumstantial. One of the most telling points is the reduction in the 
activities of Al Qaeda since the fall of Hussein, which mirrors the 
stark reduction in terrorism after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It 
has been reported that bin Laden has squandered most of his 300 million 
dollar fortune trying to keep Al Qaeda. I know I'm not going to change 
your mind since I'm quite sure it's already cast in stone, but others 
should be aware of these facts and reasoning.

--
If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an
equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other.
Carl Schurz (1829-1906)