----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 2:31 PM Subject: Re: Secret Military Tribunals
> Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > > > > There's quite a heap of evidence that Iraq was behind this, or at least, > > > offered FAR MORE support to AQ than the Taliban ever did, but we're not > > > bombing their children, are we? > > > > > > > Everything that I read indicates that AQ is actually in Afghanistan and is > > strongly interlocked with the Taliban. Evidence for this is the fact that > > many governments, including Pakistan who also backed the Taliban agree that > > the interrelationship is there. The US government have given the impression > > that they would like to find a smoking gun in Iraq's hand. Multiple > > sources, from a variety of perspectives, indicate that none has been found. > > ..so because a government like Pakistan that was threatened by our > President agrees with us, we should go bomb Afghanistan? You know, a > whole bunch of people used to agree that the earth was flat, but that > didn't make it true. > > > Where is the heap of evidence that Iraq was behind the Sept. 11 attack? The > > only evidence I know of is one meeting. Contrast this with the numerous > > bases that flourished in Afghanistan, the existence of AQ fighters on the > > front lines in Afghanistan, and the known existence of the AQ leadership in > > Afghanistan. > > There's plenty of information pointing to this being a state-sponsored > attack rather than any terrorist organization, Care to provide some of it. I haven't seen it. >here's the saber rattling towards Iraq from the most hawkish of the president's father's > men, etc. Actually, that's a counter indicative. Those folks are itching to get Iraq. If there is evidence, why aren't they screaming it from the rooftops. > If its valid to believe that just because Pakistan thinks AQ > and Taliban are one in the same then its just as valid to believe the > evidence that points towards an Iraqi role in all this. > Ah, Pakistan sponsored the Taliban. Why would they be the ones to finger them? The evidence for AQ's responsibility appears to be extremely strong. First, the public available information is strong in and of itself. Things like bank transactions between a key AQ figure and the man who appears to be the ringleader among the hijackers. I find particularly interesting that the lead hijacker wired money back the AQ figure the day before the attack. Have you seen the numbers of countries that have agreed to help us? Even France, for goodness sakes. The US presented its information to NATO, and NATO proclaimed that it was very convincing. Even Saudi Arabia agreed that the evidence was convincing. Heck, even Iran is cooperating with us here. IIRC, the UN agreed that us taking this action was appropriate, and we have Russia as a nominal ally here. Members of the AQ network are being arrested throughout Europe in connection with this raid. Do you really think that its simply a matter of all these countries knuckling under. In particular, when they also state that, while the evidence is more than sufficient for the present action, they need more information before they could consider signing on for Iraq. If it is clearly Iraq that's behind it, why would our NATO allies state that? Why would countries in the Middle East accept our actions in Afghanistan but not possible actions in Iraq when they had approved our earlier actions in Iraq. > > Why is it always assumed that the enemy lies and we tell the truth? > I certainly don't do that. But, I keep a running mental list of falsifiable statements and their validity or invalidity. The Taliban came out with a number, such as "having captured a number of American troops." or "having shot down a helicopter, but in a site that was so dangerous, only the wheels could be brought out. Or, having not surrender a town, and then admitting they were miles away later that day. Further, there were independent observers in those towns that reported far lower civilian casualty figures on a number of occasions. If you listen to the Pentagon briefings, they were very careful with their words. While I'm sure they would lie from time to time, they seemed to be operating under the assumption that broad and frequent lies will do their cause more harm than good. Dan M.
