"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks,
which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.
"Personal reasons" aren't commonly cited as a rationale for terrorist attacks of any scale except perhaps revenge killings. Reasons are usually political/ideological, and groups go out of their way to clarify their position publicly. bin Laden's suggestion that 9-11 was done for "personal reasons" is a very odd distinction to make.
Even odder is his use of the word "people" rather than "brothers" or some other word connoting shared ideological agenda. I doubt this is a mistranslation. It sounds more like bin Laden was saying whoever did 9-11 is a stranger/outsider to his organization or views.
Also, his statement was broadcast on Al Jazeera to all the middle east shortly after the attacks. Check that. bin Laden told his
target audience he didn't plan 9-11, and even implied that he had no knowledge of the plan.
That's highly unusual behavior for the leader of a terrorist organization, particularly when your followers are happy that the enemy's been given a black eye. They want to see you with your chest puffed out and promising more of the same, not denying you had anything to do with it.
Then there's this from the
Muckraker Report, which deals with a question a lot of us have raised here on DU:
snip...
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000,
to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said,
“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”
snip...
Next is the Bin Laden “confession” video that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.”<2> What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
snip...
The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden “confession video”, to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel openly talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court.
So why is the Bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI?more...
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.htmlLack of evidence? The only evidence the US gov't has tying bin Laden to the USS Cole and African embassies bombings is statements alleged to have been made by captured members of the al Qaeda network. He was indicted in absentia with that evidence. But a video tape where he claims direct responsibility for 9-11 isn't enough evidence?
Finally -- and this might just get this thread thrown into the 9-11 conspiracy forum -- but read about
the unanswered questions about Israelis inside this country pre-9-11 who were hawking artwork at the DEA and engaging in other unusual behavior, including those detained in NJ on 9-11 with their own video showing them celebrating the WTC attacks.