Re: Blair's evidence against Bin Laden

2001-10-05 Thread Stephen E Philion
Seymour Hersh was interviewd on NPR the other day and he spoke of his numerous high up contacts in the CIA revealing to him that there's noo way a white paper could be drawn up by the administration today, there just isn't enough evidence that's convincing enough. I think he has an article

Blair's evidence against Bin Laden

2001-10-04 Thread Ken Hanly
The evidence is detailed at: http://www.pm.gov.uk/ I would be interested in people's response. There is not too much that is new. A lot of the evidence has nothing specific to do with the attacks on Sept 11 but relate to earlier attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the USS

RE: Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-03 Thread Austin, Andrew
-Original Message- From: Jim Devine To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10/2/2001 10:14 PM Subject: [PEN-L:17980] Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden BTW, as far as I know, there are NO bin Laden supporters or sympathizers on pen-l. To whom are you referring? I was referring to the Taliban

Re: RE: Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-03 Thread Michael Perelman
Please Andrew, we have better ways of using our time. This seems to be the thread that you started on the Marxism list. I have never said anywhere that we should kill large numbers of innocent Afghans. Elsewhere I have said I am categorically opposed to the US going to war with

Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-03 Thread Doug Henwood
Michael Perelman wrote: Please Andrew, we have better ways of using our time. In other words, no political debate, please, we're economists? I don't get what your standards are, Michael. More transparency, please! Doug

Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-03 Thread Jim Devine
I agree with Doug. Michael, you seem to be rejecting any discussion that's unpleasant. At 10:10 AM 10/03/2001 -0400, you wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: Please Andrew, we have better ways of using our time. In other words, no political debate, please, we're economists? I don't get what your

Fwd: RE: Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-03 Thread Jim Devine
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 08:04:08 -0700 To: Austin, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [PEN-L:17980] Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden At 07:47 AM 10/03/2001 -0500, you wrote: The Taliban is a brutal atavistic and patriarchal regime. so is the Saudi Arabian

Re: Evidence against Bin Laden...

2001-10-03 Thread manuel resende
Hi everybody. Doug says: In other words, no political debate, please, we're economists? I don't get what your standards are, Michael. More transparency, please! He's back! And he's right, IMHO! These are momentous issues that constrain the near term situation, including the economic

Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-03 Thread Michael Perelman
Both Jim and Doug disapproved of my handling of Andrew's post. My response reflected the way I saw Andrew's thread evolve on the Marxism list. If you think that it can lead to a fruitful discussion, then go ahead. I remain skeptical -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State

Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-03 Thread Rob Schaap
Just building on this ObL stuff while I may; isn't there something of a fetish happening here? I mean, I go a good way with Andy's position on the bloke, but I keep harking back to EP Thompson's explanation for why the magistrates couldn't nip the Luddite movement in the bud. Experienced

Re: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-03 Thread Jim Devine
At 01:53 AM 10/4/01 +, you wrote: Just building on this ObL stuff while I may; isn't there something of a fetish happening here? I mean, I go a good way with Andy's position on the bloke, but I keep harking back to EP Thompson's explanation for why the magistrates couldn't nip the Luddite

Re: Re: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-03 Thread Ian Murray
From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] But getting rid of ObL and his cronies wouldn't abolish the social historical forces that gave rise to Islamic fundamentalism as a force to mobilize people to engage in terrorism. In fact, it might easily create martyrs (and US NPR said this morning that

Re: Re: Re: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-03 Thread Jim Devine
I wrote: US NPR said this morning that ObL _wants_ to be a martyr... What, did they talk to OBL on the phone? it's probably based on on dit evidence (i.e., rumor). But it sounds like a plausible possibility. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Blair to make public evidence against bin Laden.

2001-10-03 Thread Ken Hanly
Blair set to reveal bin Laden evidence By Paul Waugh, Stephen Castle and Patrick Cockburn 04 October 2001 Internal links Now the politicians must win the diplomatic offensive Tony Blair will use an emergency statement to Parliament today to make public for the first time Britain's

Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-02 Thread Ken Hanly
From AFP: Washington welcomed both Blair's speech and NATO's response to the evidence it presented, but declined to offer any clues on what that evidence was and flatly rejected a request from the Taliban to be given some of it too COMMENT: So even though theTaliban offered to give up bin Laden

RE: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-02 Thread Austin, Andrew
look certain. Andrew Austin -Original Message- From: Ken Hanly To: pen-l Sent: 10/2/2001 7:20 PM Subject: [PEN-L:17973] Evidence against bin Laden From AFP: Washington welcomed both Blair's speech and NATO's response to the evidence it presented, but declined to offer any clues on what

Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-02 Thread Jim Devine
Andrew Austin wrote: Even if bin Laden's supporters and sympathizers wish to ignore the evidence that is leaking out the pores of official sources all over the world, there is plenty of hard evidence on the series of terrorist actions organized by bin Laden already publically available. Cruise

Re: Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-02 Thread Michael Perelman
I concur with Jim. We have no need to discuss the bin Laden here, expecially when we know so little about him and his organization. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-02 Thread Stephen E Philion
I foresee at some point a man with a white piece of paper in his hand stating, I have here the names of dozens of known Bin Laden supporters in the White House. Steve On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Michael Perelman wrote: I concur with Jim. We have no need to discuss the bin Laden here,

Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-02 Thread Michael Perelman
I have already been hearing resports of intrusive FBI investigations of people who have had no possible connection with the bombing -- for instance, a SF branch of the peace group, Women in Black. On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 05:42:20PM -1000, Stephen E Philion wrote: I foresee at some point a man

Evidence against bin Laden

2001-10-02 Thread Rob Schaap
G'day Andy and Jim, BTW, as far as I know, there are NO bin Laden supporters or sympathizers on pen-l. To whom are you referring? The only way that people on pen-l can be seen as supporting bin Laden is if one makes the Osama bin Laden-type assumption that the world is black and white, so