Skip to comments.
Pakistan Warehouse Explosion Kills Four(including man wanted in the killing Daniel Pearl )
Washington Post ^
Posted on 12/19/2002 9:00:28 AM PST by milestogo
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 last
To: Aggie Mama
Probably Arab incompetence at work.
To: Aggie Mama
Probably Arab incompetence at work.
To: Aggie Mama
Probably Arab incompetence at work.
To: Aggie Mama
Probably Arab incompetence at work.
To: Aggie Mama
Probably Arab incompetence at work.
To: swarthyguy
Initially, yes.
Then Musharraf basically said that because the crime was committed in Pakistan that he should be tried in Pakistan after giving the US a guarantee that no matter the evidence he would get the death penalty.
The US basically figured it was the best deal that they could get and ran with it.
To: Angelus Errare
>>he would get the death penalty.
Parsing, he never claimed it would be carried out.
Yes, i'm an ubercynic.
To: Poohbah
You owe me some new panties.
68
posted on
12/19/2002 6:54:49 PM PST
by
txhurl
To: swarthyguy
I'm sure a forensic DNA analysis was done if possible; otherwise, a passport or some docs offer incontrovertible evidence. Right. Well, well, well. Lookee here, from today's FNC website.
"We cannot say with complete assurance that Asif Ramzi is included among the dead," Malik said. He said police were searching for Ramzi's relatives to gather DNA samples. Police also found a prepaid mobile phone calling card in the rubble believed to have been used by Ramzi. Investigation chief Leghari said the same phone number and card code had been connected to telephoned terror threats in the past another indication that Ramzi was at the blast site.
69
posted on
12/20/2002 9:12:03 AM PST
by
Coop
To: Coop
Well, coop, how do you judge that statement.
It's hardly unequivocal, they have to do a DNA and the rest of the 'evidence' seems rather circumstantial.
To me that FNC statement doesn't say conclusively that it was Ramzi. How do you read it?
To: swarthyguy
It's not unequivocal at all. I was just responding to your mocking statement that they would not consider DNA to determine the identity.
71
posted on
12/20/2002 10:28:09 AM PST
by
Coop
To: Coop
MY mocking statement had to do with the fact that the original report stated it was Ramzi.
What i was mocking was the swiftness of the declaration that it was Ramzi.
And then you came down on me.
So do you think it's Ramzi?
To: Coop
>>they would not consider DNA
Try and comprehend a little first.
I never said they would NOT DO Dna. Just that the results were in so fast.
To: swarthyguy
Yes, I think it's Ramzi. FYI, the title of this FNC article also states that it is Ramzi, even though the text shows some room for doubt.
74
posted on
12/20/2002 10:50:18 AM PST
by
Coop
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson