Glen Contrarian
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 17,688
- Reaction score
- 8,046
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
My answer to the question, not necessarily the "correct" answer to the rhetorical question, but my answer is that it doesn't matter in the end, because it did not happen. What is the difference in dying from the bullets of an M-60 machine gun and dying from a thermonuclear device? Not much that I can see. But that's just me.
And all governments are involved in spooks and spies, not just ours. But ours is damn good, and in the dope business too, at least certain corrupt individuals within the organization.
The Saudis are just as corrupt as the rest of them. For those not studied, most all the visas possessed by the hijackers were issued in Saudi. Trivia, put part of the official story.
What's the difference between an M-60 machine gun and a thermonuclear device? Sure, whether a person is killed by one or the other, that person is still dead...
...but you're engaging in a classic example of a false equivalency...because M-60 machine guns do not have a very real potential to end human civilization on a global scale. Do you really, truly not get that?