Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Racnad
It means that he hasn't been arrested, so he's not charged.
|
Absolutely and profoundly wrong. When the Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, said, "He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.", he made clear that when people blame Osama bin Laden for 9/11, the only evidence of that is that he may have claimed responsibility in a film long since debunked as fake. This is why when you click on the link on the FBI most wanted web-page, Osama isn't wanted for anything pertaining to 9/11. What the statement means is that if there is evidence, it's not solid enough to charge with. An example of evidence of this type might be weak circumstantial evidence.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Racnad
What did you mean by "no hard evidence" and where did you read that?
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082700687.html
http://www.milligazette.com/dailyupd...en_911_fbi.htm
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Racnad
But if you can shoe that the hijackers and those who directly planned and supervised this plan were part of an organization and Osama ran it, then that is evidence.
|
Who has shown that the hijackers were trained and supervised by the al Qaeda? They were trained in the US, supposedly.