Hillwilliam
Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote:
ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote:
ORIGINAL: Moonhead You do wonder what might have happened in 2001 if OBL had been more interested in causing serious damage than a couple of token strikes at mediapathic targets. Dams or nuclear plants, do you reckon? I dunno. Thousands of people murdered, and sending the US economy into a downturn, costing billions (trillions?) or dollars sounds like a pretty successful terrorist attack to me. Actually, the economic downturn had started months before 9-11. The stock markets had already been tanking for a full 3 months. Oh, so the 9/11 attacks actually helped the economy? Firm No they didnt. But, the 9-11 attacks weren't, as some folks claim who are incapable of reading a simple graph, the CAUSE of the stock market decline OR the decline in the economy unless you are willing to claim that the effect can come PRIOR to the cause. AS I said earlier, the market had been declining for months. For instance, the week of March 12-16, the market lost 821 points or 7.70% of its value. I guarantee that if a Al Gore had been inaugurated 2 months earlier instead of Dubya, you would have been blaming him. Since Bush had just been inaugurated, though, something else had to be blamed. The answer is easy. Wait a few years after 9-11, rewrite history and blame Iraq. YEAH, that'll work.
|