The headline says BinLaden associates may have been behind train blasts as if it were a press release by the police (semantically, it is quite correct, but I dont think wild speculation should be put up as a headline). The author, right at the end, puts one line saying LEJ did somehting, so he thinks they may have been involved. People will do anything for eyeballs, won't they? Lets all cook up fanciful stories and put it up as a statement with a slight disclaimer "may". There may be green flying creatures on the planet nebunon-Z5. Kryptonite may cure cancer and aids at the same go. Heroin may be used to treat an Ebola outbreak.
Seriously, if Bin Laden was involved, why would he use a petrol bomb when he can afford to use some seriously damaging explosives? How likely is that?
RE:Bin laden connection- fact or speculation?
by Free Radical on Feb 23, 2007 06:26 AM Permalink
What exactly is your point? Are you saying that until a Boeing 747 is used to hit the Samjhauta Express, we shouldnt believe that Bin Laden or his associates are behind the attacks?
The article merely states that LEJ, which happens to be a member of Bin Laden's IIF, is a suspect. How hard is that to understand?
RE:RE:Bin laden connection- fact or speculation?
by Maximus Decimus Meridius on Feb 23, 2007 11:13 AM Permalink
What's hard to understand? Havent I written that in the writeup? I said, it is not a police press release but the author's conjecture. He's making up conspiracy theories and putting it up as a headline, as if it were the result of meticulous investigations. How hard is that to understand?
The bin laden-petrol bomb thing was an aside... Do I need to spell that out too?
RE:RE:RE:Bin laden connection- fact or speculation?
by Harish Gurumoorthy on Feb 23, 2007 12:00 PM Permalink
Yaar Maximus, the author is a well known intelligence official, who has served in the RAW, India's external intelligence agency for a couple of decades. Surely his saying something is a lot different what you and I say, isn't it?
