<<There is much evidence to suggest that OBL was behind the attacks, and even if he wasn't he was funding a terrorist organization that hates anyone other that those of the Islam faith.>>
I agree 100 percent with that statement and I did not see anything in his statement that was contrary to that. I did see what I perceived as rhetorical cynicism, when he said:
"Sometimes, I'm not sure they didn't."
Frankly, our government has given us much to be cynical about and much cause to react to its motives with healthy doses of skepticism and cynicism. Does that mean that what they say is wrong, inaccurate, or motivated solely by ulterior motives? No. But, it sure gives us a rational basis to suspect it.
<<I don't have to refute an idiotic statement to begin a debate.>>
Doing no more than calling it idiotic does not make it idiotic and does little, if anything, to convince anyone that it is idiotic. No one asked you to refute it, you have been asked to explain your position that the initial statement was idiotic. That seems to me to be a reasonable request.
Troy
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
