Tantor wrote:Craven, I don't think you've read the evidence about Yousef.
Actually, I have. Extensively.
Quote:Yousef used documentation passing himself off as Abdul Basit, a resident of Kuwait who disappeared along with his entire family during the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. It looks like the Iraqis killed them. Yousef was physically different from Basit, different in aptitude, different in temperament. Yousef was not Basit. The only way that Yousef could have gotten that official documentation was through Iraqi intelligence.
That's one line of thought. He was indeed using said ID. Whether or not Iraqi intelligence entities would have had to have given it to him is certainly not a foregone conclusion.
Many, in fact, think it less likely. Fake documents are very easy to aquire abroad (and even stateside) and there is no real necessity for a state sponsored provision of such a document.
The theory of Iraqi intelligence supplying the documents is more elaborate a scheme than needed and is certainly not validated in any evidence.
I don't think there's any basis for you to declare that the only way said fake documents could be aquired is through Iraqi complicity.
Quote:Craven de Kere wrote:
This is why the US has never alleged this connection theory that perpetuates itself around the internet.
That's false. The Clinton administration chose not to pursue the connection because they did not want to know.
And Bush never tried to make this connection (which is very rhetorically powerful) for what reason?
This administration has certainly been willing to tout stories that tuen out false. So if this is such an open/shut case ("The only way") why wasn't this used for the powerful effect it would have had on political capital?
The very WTC. The mere suggestion would have been powerful if it were nearly as strong of a case as you imply.
Suggesting that the downed serviceman might still be alive was tried. Preponderance of evidence wan't a big issue with the cake, so why wasn't this "self-evident" truth touted by an administration trying hard to set the stage for conflict with Iraq?
Quote:The criminal prosecutors did not see where they had any responsibility to do anything put make a legal case against the defendants. The FBI was prohibited by law from passing the information they had to the CIA. So the CIA was denied the facts it needed about the foreign elements of the attack it needed to pursue the leads to Iraq.
Unfortunately the failure to gather said evidence is not evidence of the existence of said evidence.
Quote:Yousef had a lot of fake passports. He took off from Europe on a stolen European passport. He landed on a fake Iraqi passport and requested political asylum. He operated in the US on Abdul Basit's passport. Yousef's fake Iraqi passport is not what ties him to Iraq but rather the legitimate but altered Kuwaiti passport for Basit.
Which "ties him to Iraq" in only the most coincidental manner.
It works like this:
1) Iraq invaded Kuwait.
2) Passport came from Kuwait.
3) Iraq must be the sponsor.
In the aftermath of a war, I think there was plently of opportunity to aquire documentation without the need to be provided with such by intelligence agencies.
Immigrants in many nations wrangle documents without help from intelligence agencies, concluding that only an intelligence agency could have provided the documents is an assertion based on the most coincidental evidence.
Quote:Craven de Kere wrote:
Ramzi Yousef sponsorship theories remain in the realm of unsubstantiated speculation.
The Basit passport and accompanying legend are not speculation. It's real evidence of Iraqi support. The Kuwaiti government did not provide it. That leaves Iraq.
This is untrue, there are no reasons for you to conclude that only the two governments could have given Yousef the documents.
Again, the overwhelming majority of fraudulent use of documents are in situations in which no government had direct complicity.
Identity theft is relatively easy, even in advanced societies like America. To assert that it could
only have been done by with Kuwaiti or Iraqi governmental complicity is to stretch the circumstantial evidence far beyond its ability to serve as substantiation.
This is why none of the agencies involved make this claim. This is why the US government does not make this claim.
Quote:Craven de Kere wrote:
The claim that "The FBI considers Iraq the sponsor of that attack" is patently false.
"In June 1993, I met with Barbara Jones, the number two person at the New York district attorney's office. She also said there were suspicions that Iraq was behind the bomb. Indeed, in the course of this work, I came to understand that the majority of New York law enforcement - including the New York FBI, as well as other law enforcement agencies - suspected that Iraq was behind the Trade Center bombing."
Laurie Mylroie, "Study Of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America", page 107, first paragraph.
Tantor, individuals reporting individual hearsay is not subject to any sort of burden of proof.
No US governmental agency has voiced support for the conclusions you describe as self-evident.
There are certainly a lot of people who believe in this sort of thing. Just as there are a lot of people who believe Saddam was directly involved in 9/11.
But individuals' opinions are not the same as saying this was the conclusion of the FBI.
The FBI concluded nothing of the sort.
Quote:One of the participants in the bombing, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to Baghdad, were he was given sanctuary from America. He mixed the chemicals for the bomb.
Hi profile persons fleeing from the US tend to go to nations at odds with America. Again this is very flimsy and entirely circumstantial evidence.
Let me put it this way, Tantor.
Why do you think no agency stand behind this conslusion?
Why do you think the administration did not tout it?
Do you think this would hold up in court?
I think that you yourself might admnit that this is not nearly as self-evident of a case as you make it out to be.
