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

Reply via email to