ST Alpha - "just because AQ claims responsibility doesn't mean they're telling the truth. -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 155

In response to "Because of the legal ramifications of "enemy combatants", no?" by Name Withheld By Request

just because AQ claims responsibility doesn't mean they're telling the truth. -- nm

Posted by loosilu (aka loosilu2) Dec 31 '09, 10:17

(No message)

Responses:

Wanna put odds on it? Yes, there's a chance that they weren't, but there was also a chance on 9/11 that they didn't do it either, but.... - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:20 6
- and no, I don't think we can assume it's AQ at this point. -- nm - loosilu Dec 31, 10:25
- Right, but it can't be used as any kind of evidence, can it? -- nm - loosilu Dec 31, 10:24
- there's a world of difference between (at least) 19 men acting in concert, and one man's failed attack. -- nm - mafic Dec 31, 10:24 3
  - Does AQ have a history of claiming attacks that aren't theirs? I haven't heard much of one. - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:29 2
    - I'm not saying it's not AQ. just that because AQ might be involved doesn't mean that it's a nefarious terrorist masterstroke. -- nm - mafic Dec 31, 10:50 1
      - I'm not saying Blofled's stroking his cat while saying, "Release the Fruit of the Loom bomber on them," but if AQ's involved then by default, it's... - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:55

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.