26. Actually, I think Bolo said (again) that the Olson call isn't a big deal.
Edited on Thu Jun-10-04 06:05 PM by MercutioATC
...something I agree with. It's ONE element that supports the claim that Al-Queda was involved. The case hardly unravels without it. Some people seem to have a problem grasping that.
Why all the controversy over this when there are more basic questions to be answered (that ARE central to some of the conspiracy theories presented here)? If not Al-Queda, who (and how)? There are still some people who'll attack elements of the "official" version while refusing to:
1) present an alternative scenario, and
2) provide responses to the inconsistencies others have found in their claims.
Why can't these questions just get honest answers instead of being ignored repeatedly?
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
