>I think the official story - al Qaeda, an organization intimately
>wrapped up with the Taliban - is more or less right. (Even Robert
>Fisk believes that, no?) The U.S. response is a brutal and stupid
>retaliation for that act. It's certainly being used as a pretext for
>all sorts of other nastiness (Colombia, Nicaragua, and if the hawks
>get their way, Iraq), but I think the official story isn't a "simple
>lie" as you said yesterday.
To tell the truth, Doug, I (and I suspect you and others, on and off the list) don't know what organization was behind it (assuming there was an organization in the first place or that said "organization" wasn't made up of largely the ones who died in the planes). Al Quaeda could have been behind it; given the symbolism involved, I'm more inclined to point the finger at one or more radical groups from the ME which might or might not have connections to al Quaeda in the first place. But three facts remain: no person or organization except the U.S. government has fingered a group or person with any claim to certainty, the information that was released from Britain on the "proof" didn't seem to hold up very well to a lawyer's eyes, and I wouldn't trust any government, much less the U.S. one with something this important; they've lied to citizens before, they'll do it again. But being fair never has interested people (especially governments) when they KNOW they're right.
Todd