[marshmallow]

The term "conspiracy theory" is not meant to be perjorative. It's meant to be literal. The argument of both Mylroie and Woolsey is that the Islamic terrorists are an Iraqi front, if I understand it correctly. That is the definition of a conspiracy, isn't it?

Again, I won't be rude, but lets just say that's an .....interesting.....theory.

The whole Islamic world is in an uproar. Terrorism is occurring from Indonesia in the east to America and Europe in the west. Fundamentalism is on the march. Iraq is not the mastermind of this chaos, but it is certainly now caught up in it.

[Peach]

So you're ignoring the fact that Iraq's WMD probably went to Syria, according to each person who has been assigned to finding those weapons.

You're ignoring the fact that Saddam was the ATM to terrorists and the world was alarmed at the growing relationship between Saddam and OBL in the 90's.

You're ignoring the fact that Clinton's former CIA director and Clinton's former terrorism and Iraq expert, both of whom know a bit more about terrorism than you, think that Iraq uses "false flags".

You're also ignoring the body of evidence that three people convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing had Iraqi passports.

I assume you'll keep pretending that Saddam was secular, despite the fact he wrote the Koran in his own blood.

And no, the argument is NOT that Islamic terrorists are an Iraqi front. The argument by Woolsey, Mylroie and others is that Iraq has used people before to be the fall guy in the event of capture. So it would look like a particular group was responsible for an event, not a nation state.

There seems to be a lot about all this you don't know.