U.S. officials: No credible evidence that terrorists trained Shahzad

[laststeamtrain]

Source: McClatchy Newspapers

U.S. officials: No credible evidence that terrorists trained Shahzad
By Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott, McClatchy Newspapers Thu May 6, 8:08 pm ET

WASHINGTON — No credible evidence has been found so far that the Pakistani-American man accused in the Times Square bombing plot received any serious terrorist training from the Pakistani Taliban or another radical Islamic group, six U.S. officials said Thursday.

"There is nothing that confirms that any groups have been found involved in this for certain," one U.S. official told McClatchy . "It's a lot of speculation at this point."

Faisal Shahzad may have, at the most, had "incidental contact" with a terrorist organization, and he may have been encouraged to act, said one of the officials, who declined to elaborate further.

Four U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials and two other U.S. officials with knowledge of the case spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss classified intelligence or the ongoing investigation publicly.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100507/wl_mcclatchy/3497935

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. All the paid terrorism specialists were talking up that clown & his shitty ass

"bomb". Unless an idiot like that shows up once & a while nobody cares about what they have to talk about.

[Rex]

2. And here we all were saying he was a foreign terrorist, so not only is he not a teabagger

he ends up being a really stupid person from the States. What did he do, go on vacation in Pakistan and come back all mad about western civilization? How did that happen?

[Frank Cannon]

3. Maybe this was his shot at reality TV "fame".

I'm only half-kidding about that.

[rocktivity]

4. If I were one of those terrorist groups

I wouldn't take credit for training such an incompetent bumbler, either!

:rofl:
rocktivity

[Igel]

5. Oh. One did, actually.

It was discounted as not serious evidence.

Then again, he said he was acting on his own. Proudly acting on his own. BMOC acting on his own.

It's very easy to not have evidence when you don't have it. It's also easy when you can managed to not have any--even if it takes a bit of work. One way is to say the guy's only reliable when what he says matches our biases, when others aren't deemed reliable, and when it's just danged difficult to get verifiable evidence that withstands rules of evidence in the US. Convenient, too, and only such evidence is True Evidence.

Saying that the lack of evidence means that something didn't happen is an entirely different matter.

Note that nobody wanted to say he was Muslim until it was clear he was. It's easier to assume or even assert that he's one of the Dreaded Political Enemy class than Muslim. Then nobody wanted to say he had any sort of Muslim motivation. That his house was foreclosed on was hinted at as being a decent cause. One we like. Then nobody wanted to say he had ties to Islamic organizations. When they claim him, when it seems likely, well, we have to find a way to avoid saying it until we're forced to say he was. Because we dn't want to. Especially nobody wants to say he was trained in Pakistan because that would compel Obama and his team to actually press Pakistan on something that they don't think is important. They--the US--have their goals, and this simply would be in the way. They know best, or at least they firmly believe they do.

But I especially like the "serious training" line. Define "serious". 30 contact hours with UBL? 1500 contact hours? Being emailed a manual?

Eh. No True Evidence to be seen. No True Training that is Truly Evidenced.