Steve
Stephen Philion Lecturer/PhD Candidate Department of Sociology 2424 Maile Way Social Sciences Bldg. # 247 Honolulu, HI 96822
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Ken Hanly wrote:
> The evidence is detailed at: http://www.pm.gov.uk/
>
>
> 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
>
>