Re: Open apology to Douglas Gwyn
From: Andrew Swallow (am.swallow_at_eatspam.btinternet.com)
Date: 06/14/03
- Next message: \(lurking\): "Re: AES in LibTomCrypt"
- Previous message: Bill Unruh: "Re: A good cryptographic or statistical test"
- In reply to: JohnTromaville: "Re: Open apology to Douglas Gwyn"
- Next in thread: Joe Peschel: "Re: Open apology to Douglas Gwyn"
- Reply: Joe Peschel: "Re: Open apology to Douglas Gwyn"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:33:11 +0000 (UTC)
"JohnTromaville" <johntromaville@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030613205356.27102.00001399@mb-m06.aol.com...
> >
[snip]
>
> LMAO!!! so why didn't US have a go at al qaeda this year? there is no
evidence
> of ANY links between bin laden and saddam - especially since saddam is
secular.
The US Forces did not attack Al Qaeda this year because they
were busy fighting Saddam. One enemy at a time.
If he had been ignored Saddam would have been in the way
for the next 30 years or so. He was removed at the earliest
oppotunity. In romantic noval terms Bin Laden and Saddam
were on the first date. Bin Laden's need for a host state and
Saddam's need for an anti-ammerican weapon would make
them natural allias. The unbeliever Saddam was already
attending the Mosque - so he could pass for a Muslim.
Andrew Swallow
- Next message: \(lurking\): "Re: AES in LibTomCrypt"
- Previous message: Bill Unruh: "Re: A good cryptographic or statistical test"
- In reply to: JohnTromaville: "Re: Open apology to Douglas Gwyn"
- Next in thread: Joe Peschel: "Re: Open apology to Douglas Gwyn"
- Reply: Joe Peschel: "Re: Open apology to Douglas Gwyn"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
