Has one US official yet proclaimed that UBL could of been behind 7.7 ?

[sabra]

I have seen 4 different reports linking it to Iraq, but not one with Bin Laden....

[Joj Bush]

1. I don't think so

that would be the most embarrassing possibility for Bush.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. How could he?

Osama has been dead for three years.

[soothsayer]

9. Yup! Remember Porter Goss' reaction when * said he was still

on the hunt for OBL, at that news conf at the FBI a month or so ago? I thought he'd bust out laffing!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

3. I'm personally curious why the IRA hasn't been suggested.

[mr blur]

8. The government, the police, security services here

who have great experience of these thing are sure that it was not the IRA. They would have claimed responsibility to make their point and have always issued warnings. I think the IRA's bedrock of support is no longer there. They seem to in for organised crime these days, which is stragely fitting as criminals is what they were/are. People who should be in jail are now acting as "respected" politicians in Ireland now rather than making bombs.

[Pirate Smile]

4. The person they were linking it to on CNN radio news was Zaquari,

not OBL. :eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Zarqawi is a member of the AQ network

scream this from the rooftops

[Pirate Smile]

14. Yes, but they are trying to tie it to Iraq.

[hippiechick]

5. Nope ... it's AlQueida, the Iraqi version ...

... odd isn't it how the distinctions have been totally and completely blurred ?

But the world is a safer place with Saddam Hussein and his droopy drawers in prison. :eyes:

[Psychmd]

6. Could we please avoid calling this series of attacks 7.7 or 7/7

I am so sick of everyone referencing the attacks on September 11, 2001 as 9/11. Do we reference Pearl harbor as 12/7? Will every newsworthy event be forever known by its month and date? I hope not.

[sabra]

10. first I ran out of space, also how would you like me to refer to it?

[Psychmd]

15. Sorry, didn't mean to say you did something wrong

I meant could we in general stop referring to these events with "cute" catch phrases. The bombings in London on July 7, 2005 would be a good way to refer to them in historical contexts.

[Straight Shooter]

11. I was just about to say, can we refer to this as the July 7 attack?

Or maybe the London attack? We don't refer to the Madrid terrorist attack as its date. We don't refer to our bombing of Hiroshima as the 8/6 bombing, et cetera.

I don't know if this is a media or a DU phenomenon. :shrug:

edit: sabra, it isn't just your headline, it seems to be in a lot of posts, too.

[CJCRANE]

12. Actually some people use 3/11

for the Madrid attack. But you're intentions are right as it's pretty obvious that al-Qaeda (whover that is) deliberately choose memorable dates that can be used as short-hand to refer to their attacks, thus making them seem a lot more important.

[sabra]

13. it's a September 11 phenomenon, and it's everywhere

my main reason I went with 7.7, was lack of space in the text field...

[Psychmd]

16. Historical descriptions like...

the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor, the battle of Gettysburg and the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima to me better describe the event and not trivialize it with a "pop" reference name. Just my opinion.

[maveric]

17. Self delete