Now I don't much trust confessions coming out of countries known for torturing suspects, but shouldn't those details be followed up on to determine their validity? It sounded a lot more plausible than this crackpot homegrown theory.
Also a simple application of "Ocam's Razor" principle of deductive reasoning, shows that radical Islamic terrorists are more likely to be responsible, as well as motivated to do this so closely to the 9/11 attacks.
Not to mention the basic components of circumstacial evidence in a criminal investigation point to them - motive, means and opportunity.
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out who dunnit.
Anthrax_Scare_List
Go here:
and then click the Anthrax_Scare_List topic to initiate the search! !
All this points directly to the hijackers -- not some radical, home-grown group. Everyone here would have been in too much shock to have co-ordinated this attack to conincide with Bin Laden's attack on the WTC.
IMHO, I think that all this press given to "home grown terrorist groups" is just disinformation so that the American public becomes confused and doesn't demand that we go after Hussein before Bush is ready.
So for that reason I can understand the FBI looking into some domestic groups.
But the FBI has been used in the past to falsely discredit domestic groups ("vast right wing conspiracy") who were just critics of socialists, left wing liberals, of bad FBI policies, of Clinton and of corrupt people in the government who were not adhering to the COnstituion.
Well, Cliffy, let's apply your logic to all the evidence left behind in the car at Logan airport by the kamikaze hijackers, such as the letters, the journal complete with references to killing themselves, the centerfold of ZZ Top bin Laden, the KORAN, etc. Using Van Zandt's logic, we have to dismiss all of that as it is "overkill," and someone "trying too hard to link up to bin Laden." We could consider it all "gratuitous evidence."