I would be interested in people's response. There is not too much that is new. A lot of the evidence has nothing specific to do with the attacks on Sept 11 but relate to earlier attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the USS Cole. A considerable amount of background is also provided including bin Laden's declaration of Jihad against the US. The general strategy is to simply point out that bin Ladn is head of a large terrorist group, that is committed to a jihad against the US that includes terrorist attacks, and that he and the group are prime suspects in several other attacks. There is a final note that there is even more compelling evidence that is too sensitive to share..
Just a few specific remarks and questions:
The evidence states specifically that bin Laden claimed responsibility for attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the USS Cole. I was under the impression that while he applauded them and claimed that they were in accordance with the jihad against the US that he was not responsible for them. Is this incorrect?
Part of the evidence is that bin Laden made a phone call that says that an attack would take place in two days. This evidence was discovered AFTER the attacks. This makes absolutely no sense to me. I posted a source earlier that said that a call to bin Laden's mother had been intercepted in which he said that there would be an attack in two days. Surely this makes more sense. The call was intercepted at the time that it was made. It would be known then wouldn;t it. What gives?
The picture the evidence gives is that bin Laden is something like the CEO of a terrorist organisation and as such of course he is involved in planning major attacks. But if he is how is it that intelligence sources are unable to to know what is going on? Furthermore one of the hijackers is said to have been involved both in the USS Cole attack in some way and in one of the embassy bombings. Surely you would think that intelligence sources would be keeping good track of this guy. How could he come to the US and take part in a hijacking undetected? The evidence does not make intellligence services look even minimally competent.
Cheers, Ken Hanly