Re:virus: On to Baghdad?: Yes - The Risks Are Overrated

Date: Sun Aug 11 2002 - 21:44:59 MDT

On 11 Aug 2002 at 21:14, rhinoceros wrote:

> [Daniel Pipes, Dec 3 2001 article, posted by Joe Dees]
> Saddam innocent of 9/11: Lord Robertson, NATO's secretary general,
> last month told US Senators there is "not a scintilla," of evidence
> linking Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. Columnist Robert Novak concurs
> that there is "no Iraqi connection."
> Not so. Mohammed Atta, one of the hijackers, met with an Iraqi
> intelligence agent in Prague. Two of his co-conspirators met with
> Iraqi intelligence officers in the United Arab Emirates. Bin Laden
> aides met with officials in Baghdad. Further, Saddam may be behind the
> recent military-grade anthrax attacks, suggested by the presence of
> bentonite, a substance only Iraq uses for this purpose.
> [rhinoceros]
> To Joe: In previous posts, you said there was no known connection
> between 9/11 and Iraq. Did you find out that there is one?
This is the first time I have run into specificities beyond the meetings.
Daniel Pipes is definitely one of the more knowledgeable sources in the
entire discussion (check his bio).
His home site is:

And there are many more essays that are highly germane to our
discussions there.
> ----
> This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on
> Church of Virus BBS.
> <;action=display;thread
> id=26039>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:18 MDT