Mani, I am addressing this post to you because you seem to be the one with the most understanding of the middle east but really, its addressed to everyone on this thread.
Frankly, the more this whole thing unfolds, the more confused I am about the possible suspects and their motivations. I always question when a complicated plot is unentangled very quickly....and that seems to be happening with this one. From the get go, we have been led to believe that bin Laden is the prime suspect. At first, his name was bandied about by the media, then the gov't suggested that he was at the top of their list, and then over time, the gov't has confirmed he is the one we are after.
What I have learned about bin Laden so far is that he is a poor little rich boy....a bit of a dilettante...a 'good' boy raised in a wealthy, Saudi household that are religious fundamentals like most Saudis. He was the youngest of several children and from appearances, it does not look like there was a place for him in the family business [or it did not appeal to him]. So, as a young adult, he drifted until he traveled to Afghanistan where he went from being a religious fundamentalist to a religious zealot. At the same time, he became somewhat political and began to oppose the Saudi regime. He became such a problem that the Saudis eventually stripped him of his citizenship, and eventually he made his way back to Afghanistan where he was given sanctuary. Already, this does not sound like the tale of a terrorist.
From what I can tell, he lost most, if not all, of his inheritance trying to build roads in Sudan.....apparently he is not much of a contractor/businessperson...the cost overruns on those roads were horrendous. And so I am not surprised that the gov't has not been able to come up with concrete evidence that he benefited economically from the WTC attack. I don't think he has any money left to wager [they say that under Muslim law, his family must continue to support him]. And if he does, it may be he didn't wager the money because he was not directly involved in the attack and so did not know its timing and/or the nature of the attack.
In any case, my point is that the case against bin Laden does not sound so cut and dry. I have said before in my post to TGTNDR that I think he is a patsy for someone[s] else. He sounds to me more like the traditional freedom fighter who is an incredible idealist and wants freedom for his oppressed people.....and it doesn't look like the Saudis qualify for that role. He does not act nor look like the type of person who is trying to overthrow the US, or bring on Armageddon.
Furthermore, most individual terrorists very rarely state that its their goal to mess with a superpower like the US...usually its an organization to make such a statement, if anyone. The reason for that is to help to keep some anonymity for the organization's members. But its even more more likely that nothing is said and that's because most terrorists want to operate covertly and stay undetected. They are then able to move around more freely. In this type of situation, a single terrorist would even be more unlikely to advertise his personal involvement.....and yet bin Laden has been more than willing to be public...spouting rhetoric, telegraphing his goals to anyone who will listen. I was blown away with how many interviews he has granted in the last ten years....what covert terrorist ringleader gives interviews...I would not be surprised if he appears on the BBC soon from his cave headquarters in the mts of Afghanistan.
Things just don't seem to add up very well. I can't profess I know a lot about bin Laden and his cronies....I am playing catch up. However, he and his cronies do not seem to be following normal human behavior. And the reason this is important to me is that the more I think about it, the more I realize this crime could have been perpetrated by almost anyone who has an axe to grind with the US. To make it happen, some one would have to go underground, hook up with some religious Muslim fundamentalists who you know will commit suicide for their cause, fund them and then develop a plan like the WTC attack.
The other night someone said on tv that the cost to undertake the WTC attack was less than $1 million. That means that almost any country, or even, any well funded organization could have provided the money. If so, the list of possible culprits is huge. And more importantly, the reason for the attack is not quite so evident.
Anyone else have any thoughts?
ted |
