Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
bin laden et al are unnecessary logically to explain the attacks.
they could VERY easily have been organized by a small group no-one was looking for.
and such an organization makes more sense.
again, think about it: if you were going to organize an action on that scale, how would you do it?
that bin laden et al would use the events to further their own political position is not a surprise. i see that as an attempt by al qeada to further its own political objectives.
the problem this scenario raises really is that there was no way to prevent the 9/11/2001 attacks and there is no way to prevent another one. a state can only prevent actions from groups it is looking for. it cannot prevent anything undertaken by groups that it is not looking for.
|
So Kalid Sheik Muhammed, captured in pakistan shortly after the 9/11 whose just been transfered to gitmo is a patsy? a stooge? I understand that it
could have been undertaken by no one other than the 19 hijackers, but just because it could have happened that way doesn't mean it did. For the 19 hijackers to have been the be-all and end-all in the attacks on 9/11 they would have had to have left there message somewhere? No? I would imagine there would be some evidence that points to them being independent of any other group. Instead they left it up to the survivors to tell the world why. It doesn't seem logical to me that 19 people would commit a terrorist act, kill themselves along with thousands others and not leave behind a message, but rely on an unrelated terrorist group - al qaeda to give explination and advance their own agenda.