> >If you look at patterns and purposes of terrorism,
> > you can see larger bits that don't fit into the neat AQ model. Why did
> > they not claim responsibility?
>
> It fits their pattern to have plausible deniability while still claiming
> credit for all those who know the code phrases. (code phrases here is not
> necessarily in the most technical sense..but more in the line of David
> Duke's code phrases.) One has seen this in earlier attacks. AQ members
> have been convicted for involvement earlier terrorist attacks. I think you
> would have to either accept that this is their pattern or contest the
> validity of earlier convictions. And, since those convictions included
> evidence that includes recordings of cell phone conversations, you would
> have to argue that this evidence is suspect.
>
And of course there a general logical arguement.
1)The attacks of 9/11 were terrorist attacks
2) No group claimed credit for the attacks
3)Therefore at least one terrorist group did not feel the need to claim credit for
this deed.
Since we know that the abscence of claiming credit is a real strategy of at least one
terrorist group we can feel confident Al Qada might have acted in this way.
