The Logic Off Topic list

Thoughts from the mind of GAmoore@..., 9/26/01:

>  >Even when it's
>>not yet clear that this same bin Laden was behind it.  Sorry, but I
>>find that weird and somewhat inconsistent.
>>Just suppose... what if the WTC-attack was carried out by a small
>>group of independent individuals, now all dead with their planes?  It
>>wasn't that hard to do, apparently, so the fuzz about "big
>>organisation & loads of money" is just crap.  Then what?
>>Sure, still sufficient reason to want to catch bin Laden, but then it
>>has nothing to do with the WTC-attack...
>
>The US government evidently has a lot of evidence. However why should
>they give away informers and their technological capaibilities, before
>the culprits are caught.

You completely miss the point, not for the first time.

>The US is providing details to the leaders of many countries. Trust your
>own Euro leaders. Now if Tony Blair says "Bush is full of crap, he's got
>nothing on Bin Laden" then I would agree with you.

I never denied the US may have strong evidence against bin Laden 
_now_.  However, we were talking about the state of things one week 
ago or so.  The first sentence quoted above "Even when it's..." was 
explicitly referring to a past state of affairs.  Of course quoting 
things out of context helps in making the muddy waters even muddier.

cheers,
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html