thegreekdog wrote:That's why I put "of the myriad reasons" - because I don't think it's the only reason to doubt a conspiracy, just one of the myriad reasons. In any event, because I have been pooh-poohed twice now, I'm going to defend my position (mostly because I'm a little frustrated that you both haven chosen to ignore things in my original post like "of the myriad reasons" and "it would be far more damaging to the US").
If terrorists organizations hate the US and the US government, logically speaking they would want to damage the US and the US government as much as possible. A terrorist attack like 9/11 caused the US to target certain terrorists, namely the group that took responsibility for the attack, in an attack on Afghanistan. Therefore, while it certainly damaged the psyche, lives, and buildings of the US, the attack also resulted in a base of power taken away from the terrorists. Overall, I would say the terrorists accomplished little towards their goals.
If on the other hand, the attack was planned and carried out and/or supported by the US government, from a terrorists' perspective, it would be far more damaging to the psyche of the average US citizen to know that no terrorist organization has taken credit (when, as snorri indicated, terrorists take credit for anything and everything). If no terrorist organization took credit, the average American might have more reason to believe that the US government was behind the attacks, rather than terrorists. This would make many Americans distrust the government, at the least, which would be much more damaging than for us to think a terrorist planned and executed the attacks. This scenario would do far more for the terrorists' goals than a simple attack on the US. It has been shown that bin Laden is a smart dude, so if he hadn't planned the attacks, and he figured out that it would have been far more damaging had Americans believed the US government planned the attacks, he would not have taken credit for the attacks.
Well, I am sorry. I didnt ignore it, I read it, and understood you meant it was only part of it, but I did assume it was the cherry on the top too, not just part of the puzzle. I only was pointing out why someone taking credit for it, from an investigative stance, doesnt really shed any light. Simply put, you cant trust anything like that after the fact, to indicate anything, because it is so easily manipulated. Further, to speculate that he wouldnt have taken credit, simply based on the idea that the public may have assumed the government planned the attacks, isnt secure either. Its just as likely that he thought taking credit for them would actually incriminate the US government. If anything, I think his taking credit for them as much makes it suspicious. But thats just one way of looking at it. My point was more, that it shouldnt be considered, simply because it can be consistent with any scenario.
