[ExI] Muslim Threat to Europe- Don't Buy All the Hype

painlord2k at libero.it painlord2k at libero.it
Fri Apr 10 17:14:39 UTC 2009

Il 10/04/2009 14.42, Stefano Vaj ha scritto:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:11 PM, painlord2k at libero.it
> <painlord2k at libero.it>  wrote:
>> I would call it "An inconvenient truth", that bin Laden take
>> responsibility in 2004 of the attacks:
>> http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html
> Sure. And he may heartily approve the attack, even though it is
> uncertain whether it actually contributed to any extent to the success
> of the "Islamist" cause - that is, besides the fact that its
> attribution to Al-Qaeda was a major PR coup for said organisation in
> that camp.

He taken responsibility for the attacks at Dar el Salaam and Nairobi in 
Africa against the USA embassy and the attacks at the U.S. Cole; I 
remember that President Clinton launched attacks against Sudan and 
Afghanistan to retaliate.

> But in, say, a criminal trial, it is not enough that somebody who has
> an interest in taking responsibility for a fact - e.g., a serial
> killer craving media attention - "confesses". He or she must also
> offer evidence that they knew beforehand, or that they are aware of
> details which have never been made public and which they would have
> had no other way to learn.

He gave orders, someone followed the orders. This is enough to give and 
take responsibility for the attacks. And as the military commander of 
al-Qaeda is his right and duty to take responsibility for what his men did.
The problem is that it is out of fashion to declare a war against 
someone for a war act. Government like to act with an UN mandate, for 
"international police actions", "peacekeeping", "peace-enforcing". So 
they use the courts of criminal justice to try people that don't belong 
there. They are warrior; soldier of an unjust cause, not criminals.
They belong to a war concentration camp for prisoners of war (as illegal 
combatants), not to a jail.

> Now, it is at least very unclear to me whether such circumstances have
> been proved or not with regard to the 11/9 attack.

Well, with this standard I suppose that Hitler and Stalin would be 
acquitted and Pol Pot too.
International affairs are a messy thing, more when terrorism and secret 
services are involved. So we do with the few informations we have and 
not with the many we have not.

> And when both parties are quite happy with the official version, one
> wonders whether its actual "inaccurateness" would really change a
> thing as to what the public is led to believe...

Given the number of jihadi killed in the last years (al Qaeda only) I 
wonder what they would had done if not urged to combat the US in 
Afghanistan and Iraq. What do you do with training camps for guerilla 
and terrorism for 1.000's of men in Afghanistan and 20.000 trained men?
Harvest daisies?


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list