aggienaut | 11 of 30 - Controversial Statement II (Reply)

   While eating my breakfast of pizza at 1pm this morning and reading Time magazine, I had another revelation, one I think may be more controversial than my anticlimatic subsidy declaration:

   The 9/11 Commission recently concluded that there was "no cooperation" between Saddam Hussain's government and al-queda in the 9/11 attack.
   Media sources through-out the galaxy have since concluded that statements that there was "a relationship between Iraq and al-queda" are preposterous lies.
   Because they were not involved in a single highly-secret mission does NOT mean that there is no other contact between them. The logical fallacy of concluding that there was absolutely NO relationship based on the lack of cooperation in a single case is becoming ubiquitous and unquestioned.

   On any account, I never entertained the idea that Iraq had been involved with that mission. Cooperation between al-queda and Iraq was likely always at a minimum because Saddam's socialist baathist regime was the the areligious antithesis of al-queda's goals, but as mutual enemies of the "West" I'd imagine that they did cooperate in certain small ways, probably without even being able to admit it to themselves. As such I would say that I believe there was "a relationship" of some kind between these two enemies. The end.

   My weighing in on this subject of course is not motivated by some new-found urge to express political opinions and sway vulnerable minds, but by an absolute hatred of people accepting logical fallacies.

Picture of the Day

Kris and Alex
Kristinehamn, Sweden
© Chris (lastname?) 1999

This relates to this post because: it'll surely encourage you to take my opinions more seriously.

Posted: 1454 hours