[B5JMS] And So It Begins...

[b5jms at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "CaptJosh" <captjosh at phantos.subspacelink.com>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 11:53:11 -0700
Lines: 15

<snip>
> 3. Still no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
<snip>

To answer this one point, while there is no direct connection to the 9/11
attacks, there is a link to Al Qaeda. A week into the campaign, the man
thought to be responsible for the original car bombing of the WTC was
captured in Iraq. And in Saddam's Iraq, if Saddam hadn't wanted hm there,
the only way he would have stayed would have been six feet under. Think
about it.

CaptJosh




=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 26 May 2003 03:14:33 GMT
Lines: 26

>To answer this one point, while there is no direct connection to the 9/11
>attacks, there is a link to Al Qaeda. A week into the campaign, the man
>thought to be responsible for the original car bombing of the WTC was
>captured in Iraq. And in Saddam's Iraq, if Saddam hadn't wanted hm there,
>the only way he would have stayed would have been six feet under. Think
>about it.

Okay.

Mmmmm....nope, sorry.

That the guy was there after the fact doesn't prove that Saddam was involved
before the fact.  Doesn't even hint at it.  It's all ex post facto reasoning.

Wouldn't stand up in any court in the land.

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)