Gautam wrote:
There's another common thread, Doug, let me help _you_ find it. Not government agents. It's kind of a significant difference.
Except Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi agent, who provided extensive assistance to two of the hijackers whom he met after meeting one Fahad al-Thumairy, later deported for terrorist-related activities.
I'm snipping the Phil Gramm stuff because it's all just speculation - not a fact in there to >tease out at all.
What you are snipping is the heart of the argument which you refuse to address
> Up until about a year ago, the Saudis could probably be best described > as passive sponsors of terror.
Oh, well, that makes it OK then. If it's true. And it's not.
Except it is.
According to Graham there were almost certianly connections between A Saudi agent and two 9/11 terrorists. That's not pasive sponsorship.
You know, arguing with you is remarkably like arguing with Dr. Brin. You know
things. Facts don't really enter into the discussion.
So now, after avoiding the real question again, you launch a personal attack. In reference to facts, please note for the record that Iâve provided actual quotes from a member of the Senate intelligence committee and youâve dropped a name. Youâve been asked several times to justify the classification of details relating to Saudi involvement in 9/11, details that both Graham and Republican Sen. Richard Shelby have said could have been released to the public as (quoting Graham) âIt did not represent concealment of national secrets or of sources and methods by which information is obtainedâ, and have avoided the question altogether.
And everyone who disagrees with you is evil.
How do you get that from what I said, Gautam? We disagree about the extent of Saudi involvement and therefore I think you are evil? Please calm down.
It's quite remarkable. Ask Byman. He helped write the 9/11
report, he probably knows what he's talking about. There's been plenty of scholarship > on this topic - in Foreign Affairs, for example. Or even the report
itself, which you carefully ignore, since it contains
evidence obviously contrary to your beliefs.
What it says is that al-Bayoumi's meeting with the 9/11 terrorists and subsequent support was a coincidence. But as Graham points out, thatâs a real stretch. Why wasn't the intelligence committee allowed to interview the paid informant that al-Bayoumi was living with? Why did the FBI refuse to deliver a subpoena for the intelligence committee?
Well, some of it seems to have come from Germany, but I don't want to nuke Berlin.
Now you're accusing me of wanting to nuke people. Sighâ I plod onward.
You're right. We're finding that out in Iraq, aren't we
Amazing, Doug, you think Iraq is a screw up, so you want to get into something _even worse_. Truly that is policy as the height of rationality. You think the Muslim world is upset now? How do you think they would react if we occupied Mecca and Medina? And what legal justification, exactly, would there be for that? What equivalent to 1441 has been passed? I note that the ruling that governments are not responsible for the unsupported acts of their citizens was established in international law in the 19th century - and a good thing too, otherwise the British would have invaded us when American citizens kept stirring up trouble in Canada.
Except that there seems to be some tangible evidence that the Saudi government may have been involved, and the way this administration handles intelligence it would have been a snap for them to make the kinds of connections they would need to justify attack.
But I agreed with you that it _can't_ be done effectively so your hyperbolic diatribe was a waste of effort.
We can't???? We can force Iraq, a larger, more
heavily populated, more politically and socially diverse country to do our
bidding but we can't force SA?
With an illegitimate government and a large portion of the population that supports us (even now, after so many mistakes)? Yes, that would be an easier task than attacking the holiest places in the Muslim world. If the difference isn't obvious to you, I can't point it out any more clearly.
The question was rhetorical, Gautam. We will fail in Iraq and we would have failed in SA.
But, in fact, isn't it just possible that with the right amount of political pressure, brought to bear by a coalition of concerned governments, that we could have forced greater political reforms on Riyadh than the window dressings that have been altered?
Thatâs it for tonight. I think that these are important questions that need discussion in an open forum. Iâm open to be proved wrong provided convincing evidence. Intimidation wonât work though.
-- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
