While Bin Laden may have had some involvement in the acts I believe on the evidence at hand that his direct involvement was minimal and that more likely that he is mostly a model a cult symbol. However, some of the operatives may have had training in Afghanistan - perhaps some were trained by the US to fly. If there were much direct involvement by Bin Laden then surely western intelligence would have some detailed knowledge of what was going on. THere are three possibilities:
i) Western intellligence agencies are hopelessly inefficient to put it milldly.
ii) Intelligence agencies knew but conspired to let the events occur anyway--the conspiracy that has already be advanced in some quarters.
iii) There was no direct involvement by Bin Laden--or very little.
The third possibility seems most probable on the evidence. It is also consistent with the terorrist strategy of operating in small cells with commonunication between cells only minimal and using encryption techiniques and the Internet it seems rather than telephones etc. The whole success of these missions depends upon keeping the numbers involved to the absolute minimum and even then splitting groups up into small cells. Infiltration is difficult, large scale central planning is out. At most there could be specific locales where certain skills might be taught to groups.
The islamic mujahadeen movement is not physically located in one country. There are groups in Algeria, Egypt--terrorising US tourists- Saudi Arabia, UAE, and on and on. Killing Bin Laden will have only the effect of creating a new martyr. I doubt that he has much of a practical role any more. It may be convenient for commentators to think of the movement as having some sort of great web centred in some cave in Afghanistan with BIn Laden at the centre.The movement would never have survivied if this were the model.
Bin Laden role is as a face and name to be put on the enemy, and as one of those persons to be harboured in some country and this enables the operationalising of a response. Afghanistan will obviously be a prime target. However, there are other desired targets from a western or US viewpoint. Hence there will be attempts to link Bin Laden with Iraq, and Libya etc.the case of Iraq this is rather ironic since Iraq has predominantly Sunni muslims who are liberals. Notice the women without veils doing all sorts of jobs and even carrying weapons in the Armed Forces. Damned Liberals. they are. Of course Bin Laden is a product not of Iraq or LIbya but of those staunch conservative allies Saudi Afabia etc. at least some of the terrorist suspects had passports from the UAE.
CHeers, Ken Hanly
----- Original Message ----- From: <lweiger at umich.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 10:28 AM Subject: Re: Nathan corrected
> > Join with me in opposing a military strike against Afghanistan.
> > --
> > James Heartfield
>
> That depends, doesn't it? There's no infrastructure to bomb in
Afghanistan
> and I doubt even the blood-thirsty Bush administration wants to kill loads
> of civilians in retribution (although, unfortunately, we may end up doing
> just that). However, if Clinton and Co had managed to kill bin Laden a
> couple of years ago, many lives probably would've been saved.
>
> -- Luke
>
>
>
>