That was part of their aim. The other part was economic damage, and they were equally successful there. I read somewhere about an Al Qaeda video (or net posting, or whatever) boasting that for every dollar they spent on planning and executing the 911 attack, the US has spent a million dollars in its retribution. That's a pretty good return of investment by any standards, and is made even better (for Al Qaeda) by the fact that most of it was spent attacking bin Ladan's enemy.
You might want to inform Zarkowi that Bin Laden is only 'maybe' the titular head, then, because he swore allegiance. On the other hand, Zarkowi might have a better grip on it than you do.
Is that supposed to console the dead?
15 of the hijackers were Saudi but the attack was planned by Khalid Sheik Mohammed and approved by Osama bin Laden; the two of them personally chose the hijackers.Besides the fact that you ignore all the events prior to 9-11 and that Bin Laden was already known to have participated in other attacks and that not only was the US trying to get him extradited but the UN had two resolutions calling for it as well, the fact that one cannot file a search warrant, or any other 'legal' document, in another land, much less conduct a search or perform any law enforcement duties when the thugs of an unrecognized semi 'government' in control deny any and all means, as well as aid, abet and provide sanctuary, is one reason why it is not a 'criminal law' matter.
And just how does one conduct a trial prior to extradition so that, according to you, extradition can take place?
What you fail to 'recall' is your failure.
That is so far off base, uninformed, and nonsensical it would take a week to fix up and I don't have the inclination.
Oh yes, the obligatory "not that I support" statement after postulating every imagined means to support his continued illegal 'war'.
Considering your stated opinion that international law is "comical" and has "very little to do with reality" your opinion of what is, or is not, 'legal' has no validity.
Again, what you fail to 'hear' is your failure or, what I suspect is more the case, what you refuse to hear.
I don't live in the UK, UK laws are not US laws, and the IRA is not Al Qaeda. In short, what the UK may, or may not, have screwed up is their problem.
US law does not extend to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or any other foreign nation, so tell me how, even if US law were 'oppressing innocent citizens', which it is not, it could have possibly made one whit of difference to Al Qaeda or fundamentalist wackos from Saudi Arabia?
Not to mention that in a democracy legal, you know, that thing you find 'comical', legislative, and judicial process are how to resolve matters, not by murdering innocent civilians.
The volume changes associated with phase changes of water make it a very poor choice for the working fluid of a heat pipe.
-- JosephKK
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.