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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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]
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,
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
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
21 matches
Mail list logo