Dick Cheney: Osama Bin Laden Not Behind 911

Also see:
https://totallyfreepress.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/wikileaks-suggests-911-preplanned/
https://totallyfreepress.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/crossing-the-rubicon/
https://totallyfreepress.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/cayman-islands-see-us-offshore-firm-investigation-again/
https://totallyfreepress.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/cia-raymond-davis-in-pakistan-the-background-story/
https://totallyfreepress.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/osama-bin-laden-and-al-qaeda-operation-cyclone/

Sultan Hijazi | Terminal X Desk
With each new day passing by, many more revelations are coming to the forefront as to why Raymond Davis was caught with sensitive equipment and photographs. The first mainstream medium to establish Davis as CIA was the UK’s Guardian. The American press was requested by officials at Langley not to make mention of this fact days before the Guardian’s publication, as there were “fears for Davis’ life”.

However, now that the British print media had revealed the story, there were adequate reasons and ground for their American counterparts to do so too. Whenceforth Reuters, the NY Times and the Washington Post also published this story, establishing once and for all around the globe that when it comes to national security, Pakistanis do not fire off “conspiracy theories”, there really is something sinister going on.

Intelligence agencies of each country have their own motives for surveillance and espionage around the world in various locations, sometimes even in countries who are “friends” and “allies”. In the case of the CIA, this is one intelligence agency which is even a more complex web than Israel’s Mossad. Whereas the latter specializes in covert operations and assassinations, the CIA deals in global drug-trade, black ops and “fraudulent diplomacy”, as can be evident from the Davis case.

On August 18, 2010, Barack Obama had signed an Executive Order (#13550) for the establishment of a “Pakistan and Afghanistan Support Office”. It states:

Sec. 2. Purpose of the Temporary Organization. The purpose of the PASO
shall be to perform the specific project of supporting executive departments and agencies in strengthening the governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan, enhancing the capacity of those governments to resist extremists, and maintaining an effective U.S. diplomatic presence in both countries.


Sec. 3. Functions of the Temporary Organization. In carrying out the purpose set forth in section 2, the PASO shall:
(a) support executive departments and agencies in efforts to enhance civilian control and stable constitutional government in Pakistan

By “enhancing civilian control”, the Executive Order refers to more funding for the Intelligence Bureau under Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik for upgrading of the apparatus it possesses in an attempt to sideline it and eventually supersede the Inter-Services Intelligence headed by a serving Lieutenant-General. “Maintaining an effective US diplomatic presence” is akin to strengthening the presence of undercover intelligence operatives of the CIA, Xe LLC and Special Taskforce 373 in the US Embassy Islamabad, which is a shadowy dystopian empire in itself.

Speaking to Terminal X on condition of anonymity, a senior intelligence official confirms that the main purpose of the US Embassy is to fortify the IB under the Ministry of Interior in Pakistan and make it the most powerful Pakistani intelligence agency, with the obvious notion that it will receive directives directly from the Pentagon.

“For about three years now, there have been constant attempts to bring the ISI under civilian control. Since that judgment received extensive backfiring from top brass of the Pakistan armed forces, the strategists at the Obama administration have been looking for alternative ways of making their civilian installment in Pakistan a rigid one”, he continued.

“And the primary objective for that is a fully-optimized civilian intelligence agency with handpicked officers who will not even take a minute to nod to the directives they receive”

While discussing the issue of Raymond Davis, several facts and certain public assumptions were confirmed. “He would not be in jail now were it not for the ISI”, the official informed “Do you really expect the police to be so bold and lock him up? He was being pursued by the ISI before the unfortunate incidents happened, and he is under their constant surveillance as we speak. There were reports that Davis will be killed and disposed by his recruiters because of the vital and extremely sensitive cache of classified information he has with him. He is our asset now”

This adds weight to the claims that just yesterday, the Lahore High Court had delivered a request to the ISI for picking up the Davis case as the police officials were not providing required investigative assistance. Police officials have declined to comment on this.

OPERATION ‘RISING SUN’

In March 1974, chief Pakistani nuclear engineer Munir Ahmad Khan had summoned a meeting of leading atomic scientists to initiate work on the atomic bomb. Pakistan’s Atomic Energy Commission had completed the final blueprints for nuclear weapons by 1977.

News reached Langley from where several black-ops agents posing as “diplomats” were planted inside the US Embassy in Islamabad. In 1979, a group of these self-professed “diplomats” was found involved in suspicious activities. Some of them would leave for areas around Kahuta. One of the CIA operatives from the Embassy was picked up in isolation, where he confessed to their actual mission. The ISI’s counterintelligence turned the operative into a double-agent, Codenamed ‘Star’. His leads got the agencies right on target and the whole group of CIA operatives were arrested. This was a major bust. In the following days, all their details were made public and they were sent back to the US only after they had revealed sufficient information. One of the declassified leads was a coordinated attack at Kahuta by these stingers.

Public sentiment back then also was laced with anti-Americanism, which resulted in a massive civilian outburst of anger and the US Embassy Islamabad was attacked on the 21st of November, 1979.

Subsequently, after this major bust, it was a few years later that on March 11 1983, Munir Ahmad Khan and the PAEC carried out the first cold test of Pakistan’s atomic bomb [Reference: "Pakistan Became a Nuclear State in 1983- Dr. Samar Mubarakmand", The Nation (Islamabad) datedMay 2, 2003]

IS DAVIS’ LIFE UNDER THREAT?

As our sources confirm, the ISI has been keeping a rigid watch on Davis at Kot Lakhpat jail. For starters, the food he receives by Consulate staffers each day is checked before it is served. There can be a possibility that after it was made public through his call records that he was in touch with militants in South Waziristan and his on-camera confession of being a CIA agent, he can be killed directly/indirectly. This can range from food-poisoning to a hit-and-run operation. The CIA wants to discard ‘Raymond Davis’ as he is the acting station chief for Pakistan and possesses a dearth of classified information which is vital for the ISI’s counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism wings.

The leads which have been obtained so far and that are yet to be abstracted can open up a giant Pandora’s box for Pakistan’s security infrastructure and find the tail of the Monster of Terrorism fomented by the CIA and MOSSAD which calls itself the “TTP” or Pakistani Taliban.

On June 23, 2009 Press TV had reported that Qari Zainuddin Mehsud, who was once an active militant alongside Hakimullah Mehsud and the TTP, was killed after he distanced himself in time from the terrorist organisation which he revealed was in close coordination with American and Israeli intelligence services.

The CIA can discard of its recruit once their whole institute’s reputation is at stake. History is a witness to a case which took place before:

On June 7, 1998 CNN aired the “Tailwind” report as a feature news segment on their show “Newsstand.” Reported by CNN veteran Peter Arnett, the stories stated that the CIA connected Studies and Observations Group (SOG), then commanded by CIA veteran and Army General John Singlaub, had used the lethal gas during covert operations into Laos. In particular, the “Tailwind” story reported that American defectors were the intended targets of the attacks.

> As many as twenty U.S. defectors were targeted for elimination by
Special Forces troops assigned to SOG in the Tailwind mission into the 
Savan region of Laos in 1970
 
> Sarin gas was employed in the mission

> Defectors were a routine "high priority" for execution on all SOG missions
inside Laos 
 
[Source

As the Express Tribune reports, “The Lahore killings were a blessing in 
disguise for our security agencies who suspected that Davis was 
masterminding terrorist activities in Lahore and other parts of Punjab,” 
a senior official in the Punjab police claimed.

In the coming days, more startling revelations await public exposure step-by-
step as Davis is debriefed. The CIA vis-à-vis the US Consulate Lahore can try to
get him eliminated either silently or through subversive means (tipping-off
a police officer with handsome reward to do their job). This is unlikely, however,
considering that the ISI's field officers are keeping an eye on Davis and his cell
round-the-clock. 

Partial acknowledgment by the White House to Davis' status as a CIA just 
recently is part of a process to "accept the blunder, now let's move on". 
Panetta and Gates both fear another Operation 'Rising Sun' looming overhead 
that can expose all covert American presence in Pakistan, and also the fact 
that the US Embassy is the centre of all foreign intelligence warfare 
taking place in Pakistan today

Former Pakistani intelligence chief Hamid Gul went on the Alex Jones Show today and characterized the unverified assassination of Osama bin Laden as symbolic theater.

Gul said the event was a “make believe drama” designed to be used for Obama’s upcoming re-election campaign.

The supposed hit as described by the government and the corporate media is the “stuff of folk lore, for legend-making and the ballad,” Gul explained.

Read more: Former ISI Chief Gen. Hamid Gul: CIA killed make-believe Obama ~ Terminal X http://www.terminalx.org/2011/05/former-isi-chief-gen-hamid-gul-cia.html#ixzz1LF28O0vL

Obama’s “Big Lie”: White House Propaganda and the “Death” of Osama bin Laden

Obama’s “Big Lie”:  White House Propaganda and the “Death” of Osama bin Laden

by Larry Chin
Global Research
May 2, 2011

On the evening of May 1, 2011, President Barack Obama declared that the CIA, on his personal order, successfully killed Al-Qaeda “mastermind” Osama bin Laden. In a conveniently scheduled Sunday evening telecast, Obama shamelessly wielded tired lies and 9/11 propaganda, while congratulating himself and the CIA. In classic lying George W. Bush fashion, Obama announced “mission accomplished”.

Obama has pronounced Osama bin Laden to be dead. But according to historical facts and extensive documented evidence, he may never have been alive in the way that the official propaganda has portrayed him. Or alive at all.

Osama bin Laden has been a CIA asset in reality, and a propaganda boogeyman in official fiction.

The official Osama bin Laden narrative, along with “Islamic terrorism” and Al-Qaeda, is a CIA military-intelligence fabrication designed to provide a pretext for an eternal global war agenda, and to provide an ongoing propaganda pretext for the “war on terrorism”.

The “Militant Islamic Network”, including bin Laden himself, has been, since the Cold War, an intelligence network that has been “run” on behalf of Anglo-American interests.

The attack of 9/11 was a false flag operation, planned and carried out by Anglo-American intelligence assets, blamed on “Al-Qaeda”, despite no credible supporting evidence.

On the other hand, evidence abounds concerning the manipulation of terror assets, including bin Laden, by the CIA. This milieu was thoroughly examined by Mike Ruppert in Crossing the Rubicon, in which he concluded:

“Given the degree of documented intelligence penetration of al Qaeda; the fact that Osama bin Laden had been a CIA asset during the first Afghan conflict against the Soviets; the fact that a number of the so-called hijackers and/or al Qaeda members had been trained in CIA training camps in Chechnya; had fought in CIA/US-sponsored guerrilla conflicts (e.g. in Kosovo with the KLA in 2000), or had received military training at US installations; given all that, it is reasonable to assume that one or more top al Qaeda officials were in fact double or triple agents…”

“Based upon what is known about successful intelligence penetrations for years prior to the attacks of 9/11, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda could not have sneezed without the CIA or the NSA knowing about it.”

The assertion that bin Laden’s whereabouts have been unknown, that he could have eluded detection for a decade (including the “he’s hiding in caves along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border” and other such fables) was debunked years ago. According to a November 2003 Reuters report, bin Laden received kidney dialysis in a US military hospital in Dubai two months before the 9/11 attacks, and again on September 10, 2001, according to Pakistani intelligence. These and other reports support the conclusion that Osama bin Laden was not only a CIA asset (one whose whereabouts were more than known), but one who was deathly ill. Other reports over the years suggest that the “mastermind” may have certainly died at some point, even while his image continued to be used incessantly to keep the “war on terrorism” alive.

President Obama’s lying before the cameras was as shameless as the clumsiness of the mainstream corporate media dance surrounding it. At the same time Obama stated in his speech that the killing of bin Laden had taken place “tonight” in a mountain hideout in Pakistan, various reporters on competing networks, citing multiple sources, contradicted Obama, stating that bin Laden was killed a week ago in a firefight near Islamabad, and that bin Laden’s body had been tested for DNA since then. This conflict alone raises enough doubt to throw this new official story into the question. In the coming days, there will undoubtedly be more holes revealed.

Seasoned observers have said for years that Osama bin Laden—the mythic figure— would elude capture as long as the Anglo-American elites needed to continue the current course of war in the Middle East and Central Asia. He would never be captured, absolutely never be put on trial, and would not be “killed” unless political expediency demanded it. The elites, for various reasons, have chosen this hour to end this tired and overused trump card.

The “successful kill” of bin Laden comes at a convenient time. Obama’s popularity has plummeted. His political opponents are threatening to unseat him in 2012. The continued US presence in the Middle East and support for the “war on terrorism” is fragile, weakened by popular protests, and ambivalence among Americans.

The “war on terrorism” narrative, the continuing world war carried out in its name, will never end. It is clear, however, that some change in course is in the works; at the very least, a tactical shift.

In the meantime, Barack Obama can now claim to have “finished the job” in Afghanistan, just as he promised to do when elected, and declare himself to be a champion anti-terrorist, a “take-charge” military leader and bastion of justice who has avenged 9/11. Obama will ride this hard for his re-election campaign.

In response to Obama’s victory speech, crowds (of unknown origin) gathered outside the White House chanting “U.S.A.”. Whether this spectacle was staged or genuine is not known. What is known is that the vast majority of the American public remains oblivious to the fact that their own government, Bush/Cheney and Obama administrations alike, have never stopped lying to them about 9/11, the “war on terrorism”, or Osama bin Laden.

Bin Laden died In 2001, 9/11 a false flag

(Says Top US Government Insider Dr. Steve Pieczenik)
Jan 6, 2010, Under: 9/11 , CIA , drama , false flag , government , obl , pakistan , US
Paul Joseph Watson [Prison Planet]

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under three different administrations Steve R. Pieczenik says he is prepared to tell a federal grand jury the name of a top general who told him directly 9/11 was a false flag attack.

Top US government insider Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik, a man who held numerous different influential positions under three different Presidents and still works with the Defense Department, shockingly told The Alex Jones Show yesterday that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001 and that he was prepared to testify in front of a grand jury how a top general told him directly that 9/11 was a false flag inside job.

Pieczenik cannot be dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist”. He served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under three different administrations, Nixon, Ford and Carter, while also working under Reagan and Bush senior, and still works as a consultant for the Department of Defense. A former US Navy Captain, Pieczenik achieved two prestigious Harry C. Solomon Awards at the Harvard Medical School as he simultaneously completed a PhD at MIT.

Recruited by Lawrence Eagleburger as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Management, Pieczenik went on to develop, “the basic tenets for psychological warfare, counter terrorism, strategy and tactics for transcultural negotiations for the US State Department, military and intelligence communities and other agencies of the US Government,” while also developing foundational strategies for hostage rescue that were later employed around the world.

Pieczenik also served as a senior policy planner under Secretaries Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, George Schultz and James Baker and worked on George W. Bush’s election campaign against Al Gore. His record underscores the fact that he is one of the most deeply connected men in intelligence circles over the past three decades plus.

The character of Jack Ryan, who appears in many Tom Clancy novels and was also played by Harrison Ford in the popular 1992 movie Patriot Games, is also based on Steve Pieczenik.

Back in April 2002, over nine years ago, Pieczenik told the Alex Jones Show that Bin Laden had already been “dead for months,” and that the government was waiting for the most politically expedient time to roll out his corpse.

Pieczenik would be in a position to know, having personally met Bin Laden and worked with him during the proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan back in the early 80′s.

Pieczenik said that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001, “Not because special forces had killed him, but because as a physician I had known that the CIA physicians had treated him and it was on the intelligence roster that he had marfan syndrome,” adding that the US government knew Bin Laden was dead before they invaded Afghanistan.

Marfan syndrome is a degenerative genetic disease for which there is no permanent cure. The illness severely shortens the life span of the sufferer.

“He died of marfan syndrome, Bush junior knew about it, the intelligence community knew about it,” said Pieczenik, noting how CIA physicians had visited Bin Laden in July 2001 at the American Hospital in Dubai.

“He was already very sick from marfan syndrome and he was already dying, so nobody had to kill him,” added Pieczenik, stating that Bin Laden died shortly after 9/11 in his Tora Bora cave complex.

“Did the intelligence community or the CIA doctor up this situation, the answer is yes, categorically yes,” said Pieczenik, referring to Sunday’s claim that Bin Laden was killed at his compound in Pakistan, adding, “This whole scenario where you see a bunch of people sitting there looking at a screen and they look as if they’re intense, that’s nonsense,” referring to the images released by the White House which claim to show Biden, Obama and Hillary Clinton watching the operation to kill Bin Laden live on a television screen.

It’s a total make-up, make believe, we’re in an American theater of the absurd….why are we doing this again….nine years ago this man was already dead….why does the government repeatedly have to lie to the American people,” asked Pieczenik.

“Osama Bin Laden was totally dead, so there’s no way they could have attacked or confronted or killed Osama Bin laden,” said Pieczenik, joking that the only way it could have happened was if special forces had attacked a mortuary.

Pieczenik said that the decision to launch the hoax now was made because Obama had reached a low with plummeting approval ratings and the fact that the birther issue was blowing up in his face.

“He had to prove that he was more than American….he had to be aggressive,” said Pieczenik, adding that the farce was also a way of isolating Pakistan as a retaliation for intense opposition to the Predator drone program, which has killed hundreds of Pakistanis.

“This is orchestrated, I mean when you have people sitting around and watching a sitcom, basically the operations center of the White House, and you have a president coming out almost zombie-like telling you they just killed Osama Bin Laden who was already dead nine years ago,” said Pieczenik, calling the episode, “the greatest falsehood I’ve ever heard, I mean it was absurd.”

Dismissing the government’s account of the assassination of Bin Laden as a “sick joke” on the American people, Pieczenik said, “They are so desperate to make Obama viable, to negate the fact that he may not have been born here, any questions about his background, any irregularities about his background, to make him look assertive….to re-elect this president so the American public can be duped once again.”

Pieczenik’s assertion that Bin Laden died almost ten years ago is echoed by numerous intelligence professionals as well as heads of state across the world.
Bin Laden, “Was used in the same way that 9/11 was used to mobilize the emotions and feelings of the American people in order to go to a war that had to be justified through a narrative that Bush junior created and Cheney created about the world of terrorism,” stated Pieczenik.

During his interview with the Alex Jones Show yesterday, Pieczenik also asserted he was directly told by a prominent general that 9/11 was a stand down and a false flag operation, and that he is prepared to go to a grand jury to reveal the general’s name.

“They ran the attacks,” said Pieczenik, naming Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Elliott Abrams, and Condoleezza Rice amongst others as having been directly involved.

“It was called a stand down, a false flag operation in order to mobilize the American public under false pretenses….it was told to me even by the general on the staff of Wolfowitz – I will go in front of a federal committee and swear on perjury who the name was of the individual so that we can break it open,” said Pieczenik, adding that he was “furious” and “knew it had happened”.

“I taught stand down and false flag operations at the national war college, I’ve taught it with all my operatives so I knew exactly what was done to the American public,” he added.

Pieczenik re-iterated that he was perfectly willing to reveal the name of the general who told him 9/11 was an inside job in a federal court, “so that we can unravel this thing legally, not with the stupid 9/11 Commission that was absurd.”

Pieczenik explained that he was not a liberal, a conservative or a tea party member, merely an American who is deeply concerned about the direction in which his country is heading.

Watch the full interview with Dr. Pieczenik below:

Read more: Terminal X: obl http://www.terminalx.org/search/label/obl#ixzz1LTGqI6lb

Osama Bin Laden Has Been Dead Since December 2001

By Feroze Mithiborwala

ccun.org, September 14, 2009
“If they didn’t have an Osama Bin Laden, they would have invented one.”
Milt Bearden – CIA agent, in an interview with anchor Dan Rather of the CBS (September 12, 2001)

The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11″.
(Rex Tomb, spokesman, FBI’s Chief of Investigative Publicity)

Now that even Asif Ali Zardari the President of Pakistan & General Musharraf are stating that Bin Laden is dead, it is high time that we in India began to both debate as well as challenge this sheer calumny.

Basically the truth and the fact of the matter is that Bin Laden has been dead since the latter half of December 2001. So then why did Bush-Cheney & now the Obama-Hillary combine, as well as the Neoconservatives & Zionist ideologues, continue to insist & actively propagate the myth of Bin Laden?

First let us address the ‘Politics of Fear‘, that is an integral part of the flawed ‘Global War on Terror’, which is part of the Neo-Zioncon doctrine of ‘Controlled Chaos’. The ghost of Bin Laden serves multiple purposes both at the Global and Indian context. In India, Bin Laden is used to generate fear in the mind of the Hindu community, the epitome of “Islamic terror” and thus distrust & hatred for the Muslim is its natural corollary.

For the Muslims he is meant to be the “false hero” and to wrongly inspire youth to follow the flawed path of extremism and terror.

The other primary strategy in propagating the myth of Bin Laden is so that every political struggle against US-Zionist Imperialism is converted into a struggle for the supposed cause of Islam and Muslims and thus reduce every struggle to a narrow religio-sectarian agenda, to the negation of all political, economic & social factors. Every Bin Laden message appeals to “Muslims to wage a jehad against Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists”. The agenda is to communalise, divide, confuse and thus weaken society. The agenda is also to further isolate and marginalise Muslims from the mainstream struggles & spread Islamophobia. For example the Palestinian national freedom struggle against Israeli colonial occupation is reduced to a mere Muslim cause as per Bin Laden’s announcements & thus weaken the global Palestinian solidarity movement which is today striving for the total “Boycott of Israel”.

Now let us come to a few facts that will help us establish that Bin Laden has been dead since the last eight years and more.

During the period 4-14th of July, 2001 (only two months prior to the 9/11-WTC terror attacks), Bin Laden was in the American Hospital in Dubai. According to the United Press International (Oct 31, 2001), Bin Laden underwent kidney surgery and treatment under Dr. Terry Callaway. According to both the French “Le Figaro” & the “Radio France International”, Bin Laden was visited by a top US-CIA agent. This report and the one below are further substantiated by CBS anchor Dan Rather, Peter Bergen, investigative journalist Barry Petersen and Prof. Michel Chussodovsky.
More astonishing is the fact that just a day prior to the September 11 attacks, Bin Laden was undergoing treatment in the Military Hospital in Rawalpindi itself (Le Figaro – Jan 28, 2002). So both the Pakistani Military establishment and the ISI as well as the CIA were more than aware of Bin Laden’s whereabouts.

A few days later Dr. Sanjay Gupta (a highly respected Indian-American within the Medical fraternity) gave his assessment that both due to the heavy US bombing of the Taleban areas as well as the fact that kidney dialysis requires a special environment, it is impossible for a patient to survive beyond a week.

According to Pentagon sources, Bin Laden’s voice could not be detected beyond December 14, 2001.
Reports of Bin Laden’s death have been so widespread that it is a wonder as to how the myth of OBL has been kept alive. Now consider the following reports:

Dale Watson, the FBI chief of counter-terrorism said on BBC that he thought that OBL was dead.
In fact the announcement of OBL’s death and the funeral as well, appeared in the Egytian newspaper Al-Wafd on December 26, 2001. Also refer to an article by Robert Burns (26/04/02) on this matter.

Even the Israeli intelligence had announced the death (World Tribune). They also said that the new messages are possibly fabrications.

Reports of his death have appeared in the New York Times (July 11, 2002) as well the Guardian (UK) and the Telegraph (UK).

Both Musharraf and Karzai have been reported saying the same on CNN.

Most recently the most remarkable revelation on this matter was made by none other than the late Benazir Bhutto. In an interview with David Frost on Al-Jazeerah English (November 2, 2007), she made the stunning announcement that Bin Laden was dead and had been murdered by Omar Sheikh. Interestingly Omar Sheikh was an ISI operative and was also responsible for the murder of Daniel Pearl. The most telling part is the deafening silence of the International media.

The BBC did carry this interview but edited this line.

WHY??

If this is not “Breaking News”, then what is?

Does not this statement warrant international attention? Would not have this statement guaranteed higher TRP ratings and increased newspaper circulation? But not a word. The complicity of the corporate media is apparent.

But then people ask me and rightly so that, “what about all these Bin Laden-Al Qaeda tapes?, how do you explain that?”. So lets deal with that issue as well.

Bin Laden tapes have appeared prior to his death in December 2001, but since then the world has been subjected to a barrage of fake tapes. Prof. Bruce Lawrence of Duke University, is the world’s leading expert on these tapes and has studied every tape since then and it is his analysis and that of Diana Lee, Wayne Madsen as well as others that I put before you.

The first fake Bin laden tape was released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001 and found in a deserted house in Jalalabad. It shows a stout and healthy man posing as Laden and making the claims of the destruction of the WTC. The most glaring error in the video is that the Laden duplicate is signing the confession letter with his right hand. Bin Laden used his left!

Another Laden video appeared just prior to the US presidential election on October 29, 2004, a few days after Bush had lost the first Presidential debate to John Kerry the Democratic nominee. The calls for a jehad against America helped to boost Bush’s ratings and was a factor in his ultimate victory.

The Bin laden audio tapes began to arrive in 2002. These tapes were also meant to achieve and create a climate of fear at the global level. However the experts at the IDIAP, the world’s premier voice identification institute based in Switzerland, have clearly stated that the voice on the tapes was not that of Bin Laden.

Bin Laden and Al Qaeda tapes have also appeared in India and the political agenda is the same. Last year (June 8, 2007) an Al Qaeda tape surfaced in Kashmir claiming that Al Qaeda had established a base in India. It appeared only a day after an Israeli Military delegation arrived in India to advice the government to combat “Islamic terror in Kashmir”. Even certain Indian intelligence and military sources rejected the tape as a fake.

But now the pattern at the global level of releasing the Bin Laden-Al Qaeda tapes has undergone a remarkable change. Earlier there would be a direct relay of the tapes without any fanfare. But now unbelievably the release is accompanied with a curtain raiser at a global scale. The release of the tapes is announced a few days prior to the final release. The news of the same appears in practically every newspaper and channel of note the world over. The ground is prepared to ensure that as many people as possible see the tape and register its message of fear and hatred. It is basically akin to a curtain raiser for a new movie or a music video.

Consider the following:

It was on the 6th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks that we were subjected to this mirage. The announcement of the new Bin Laden message flooded the airwaves and newspapers. We then saw a Bin Laden, hale and hearty and with a black beard. The reports stated that Laden’s bodyguard (where did he come from and did he have a name?) had “revealed” that Bin Laden was healthy and was living with his four wives (how cliched!), in a compound (where, which country, city, location?). The media did not ask a single question. Worse was to follow. After a few days we had another Bin Laden photograph plastered all over the front pages, but this time with a “white beard”. Did the dye run off or had he lost his virility?. It was all so ridiculous, but they got away with it.

Then the Mumbai Mirror (29/05/08) reported that a new Laden tape is due in the next 24 hours. What’s more, this time the contents of the tape were also known to the “sources” even prior to the release. So we know then as to who writes all the scripts for these tapes, don’t we?. The report ominously states that the tape “will urge jehadis to use nuclear, chemical and biological weapons against civilians”. It quotes intelligence sources that have spoken to ABC News.
I too was very confused in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks but I began to ask questions and seek answers independent of the corporate media, as the unfolding socio-economic and political scenario did not make rational sense. The incident that made me question and challenge the dominant paradigm was the following.

On the 14th of February 2003, prior to the final US-NATO attack on Iraq, an Al Qaeda tape appeared. It asked the Muslims of the world to unite and wage a jehad against the Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists of the world. I was too stunned because of the simple fact that I was aware that on the next day the Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, people of faith and none, were going to march in their millions across the streets of USA, South America, Canada, Europe, Australia along with their Muslim brethren to oppose the impending war on Iraq. Clearly, the Al Qaeda tape had been released with the specific agenda to divide the masses of the world and further serve to demonise the Muslims. From that day I began to maintain a record of the Al Qaeda tapes and I found a design, a clear objective and purpose that was basically serving the cause of the Zionist empire.

Terror is and has always been an instrument of Imperial Zionist foreign policy. It is the politics of terror that is reshaping the geo-strategic and economic map as well as leading to the deepening of the religio-cultural & ethnic fault lines across the world. It is the myths of terror that seek to confuse and weaken the anti-imperialist masses and their struggles against neo-liberal globalization and perpetuate hatred for Muslims and spread Islamophobia, which itself is now a global phenomenon.

Thus it is imperative that we expose these myths and the lies of Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda. It is actually a very simple task and it must be done.

Osama bin Laden, A.K.A.
CIA Asset “Tim Osman”

Tim Osman (Ossman) has recently become better known as Osama Bin Ladin. “Tim Osman” was the name assigned to him by the CIA for his tour of the U.S. and U.S. military bases, in search of political support and armaments. [...] There is some evidence that Tim Osman … visited the White House. There is certainty that Tim Osman toured some U.S. military bases, even receiving special demonstrations of the latest equipment. Why hasn’t this been reported in the major media? [Full article]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA-Osama_bin_Laden_controversy

https://totallyfreepress.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/cayman-islands-see-us-offshore-firm-investigation-again/

Myths and Questions on bin Laden’s Assassination

By Joseph Fitsanakis* and Ian Allen* | intelNews | 05/03/2011

THE ASSASSINATION OF AL-QAEDA’S leader, Osama bin Laden, has helped dispel several myths about him and the organization he founded in 1988 in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. Among them is the idea that the Saudi-born militant was leading a primitive existence in some remote hillside in Waziristan, sheltered by mountainous tribes that were supposedly loyal to him. Nothing could be further from the truth. Despite his reputation as a hardened mujahedeen, bin Laden had chosen to spend his days in the unmatched comfort of a sprawling luxury compound located only an hour’s drive from Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad. The compound is located in a relatively wealthy suburb of the city of Abbottabad, which is also home to the Kakul Military Academy, Pakistan’s elite army training school.

A COMFORTABLE JIHAD

More importantly, the descriptions of bin Laden’s luxurious hideout fly in the face of the predominant view of al-Qaeda as an organization that knows how to blend in with its surroundings. Not only did the compound stand out, but, according to one American official, it was “eight times larger than the other homes in the town”. It featured 3,000 feet of living space, to house bin Laden, his four wives, and several advisors and guards. It appears to have been custom-built to bin Laden’s specifications in 2005, which would explain the existence of numerous built-in security features, including at least two heavily fortified security gates, seven-foot-high perimeter walls, and even solid blast-proof enclosures on all balconies.

These uncommon architectural features were bound to attract the attention of locals, who soon took to calling the building “Waziristani Haveli” (the Waziristan Mansion). Word of the suspicious compound eventually reached Pakistani and American intelligence officers. Once the latter realized that the otherwise state-of-the-art villa had no telephone or Internet services installed, and that its secretive residents burned their own trash (obviously in order prevent outsiders from snooping through it), it was a matter of time before US forces began monitoring the building and the surrounding area.

DID THE PAKISTANIS KNOW?

Bin Laden’s unlikely hiding place has surprised many security observers, who have blasted the Pakistani government and intelligence services for allegedly knowing the al-Qaeda leader’s whereabouts and sheltering him from the Americans. This view rests on the documented operational ties between the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate and al-Qaeda, especially during the 1980s and 1990s. But this, in itself, does not point to any evidence of high-level collusion between the ISI and al-Qaeda —which would necessarily be required to provide shelter to a figure of bin Laden’s significance. By the same token, Washington maintained close ties with al-Qaeda-linked mujahedeen during the Cold War, when both sides were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. But this does not mean that these ties are still present today.

It is true that Islamabad’s response to the assassination of bin Laden has been muted, to say the least. The offices of the country’s President and Prime Minister, as well as the ISI, have remained silent over the issue. But this silence is more likely rooted in the government’s embarrassment rather than in its guilt over alleged ties with al-Qaeda. It is also true that US President Barack Obama did not thank Pakistan in his address to the nation on Sunday night, despite the fact that the Pakistani government’s permission (expressed or tacit) must have been essential in facilitating the covert operation in Abbottabad. Yet it is equally true that President Obama did mention that intelligence sharing between America and Pakistan had provided some of the initial clues as to bin Laden’s hideout —a claim that was subsequently confirmed by sources within the ISI.

This, however, should not be taken to imply that the US notified Pakistan of the actual assassination operation. It is worth noting that some sources in Pakistan claim that the assassination was carried out by the Pakistani military, and that bin Laden’s body was taken by US forces after he was killed by Pakistani soldiers. But such reports are isolated and unreliable. It would appear more likely that bin Laden was assassinated in an operation commanded strictly by the US, which was initiated from Afghanistan —although some sources insist that it was initiated from within air bases in Pakistan. If the Pakistanis were notified at all, this would have been late in the operation and in very vague terms.

DID THE US INTEND TO KILL BIN LADEN?

There are conflicting reports about the intended goal of the operation. Reuters quotes an unnamed “US national security official” who claims that “this was a kill operation”, and that the US forces’ mission was to assassinate, not capture, the al-Qaeda mastermind. Yet it needs to be remembered that this was an intelligence-led operation involving one of the most lucrative intelligence sources in the US-led war on terrorism. Aiming to kill bin Laden would go against standard intelligence practice, which primarily aims at capturing, not eliminating, crucial intelligence assets. The truth, therefore, must be somewhere in the middle. The primary goal of the operation must logically have been to capture bin Laden alive, if at all possible. Killing him would have been a secondary goal, especially if significant resistance was encountered at the compound. Reports from the ground suggest that bin Laden was shot in the head “while shooting back”. It would be risky to try to assess bin Laden’s psychology at the time of the raid, but, judging by his general religious disposition and operational demeanor, it would be safe to assume that he would have consciously tried to die as a martyr, rather than be captured alive by US forces.

WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

The answer to this question is anyone’s guess. According to CIA Director Leon Panetta, al-Qaeda (or al-Qaeda-inspired groups) will “almost certainly” attempt revenge strikes. Yet this is hardly risky forecasting. It is far more difficult to predict the intensity and general location of possible revenge strikes. Future strikes within Pakistan should be considered near-certain. But is al-Qaeda capable of striking inside the United States? If so, how long will it take it to prepare such strike or strikes? These are the questions currently in the minds of members of America’s intelligence community.

Equally interesting is the question of what happens to bin Laden’s compound, as well as to its contents. One of the more surprising aspects of the entire episode concerns reports that the US forces were in and out of the compound in 45 minutes. This would only make sense if a massive retaliatory attack was expected at the site. One would imagine that the US forces would want to carefully search the entire compound, something which would take hours, if not days, if it were to be done properly. Was the compound searched, and if so, what was found? According to ABC News, three US helicopters left the scene carrying with them “computers”, as well as several male captives.

One final question in this section concerns bin Laden’s body. According to the US government, the corpse was disposed of at sea. The presumed reason for this is to prevent the unintended establishment of a martyr’s shrine —although it can be argued that bin Laden’s hideout may become just that. However, was this the intended plan of action at the beginning of the operation? Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIA’s bin Laden unit in the 1990s, notes that the US actually offered bin Laden’s body to Saudi Arabia (bin Laden died stateless, but was a Saudi citizen for most of his life), but that the Kingdom politely declined the offer.

Wikileaks Document: Afghan Intelligence Said In June 2007 That Osama Bin Laden Died In Peshawar Hospital

Updated 7/26/2010, 2:30 p.m. Eastern

Don’t assume this is correct (I am assuming it is not), but a single-source intelligence report from the Afghanistan National Directorate of Security reported in June 2007 that Osama bin Laden had died in a Peshawar hospital.

According to an intelligence report leaked by Wikileaks:

NDS is also reporting that UBL had been transported to Peshawar hospital in Pakistan for treatment, where he has died. NDS stressed that this was a single source report and had not been verified.

Interestingly, there is virtually no other information about Osama bin Laden or Ayman Al Zawahiri to be found in the files, at least not by name. (There are a few more references to bin Laden in the remaining 15,000 or so records which Wikileaks has not yet issued but which select news organizations have viewed.)

One finds only the barest scraps of intelligence; nothing that points to bin Laden or Zawahiri being located in Afghanistan (no surprise there), and nothing that points to any degree of operational control over Afghan forces by either man. There are less than five references to each man in 76,000 records.

Compare that to almost 400 references to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (an Al Qaeda ally) and his network of fighters, and at least 85 references to Jaliluddin Haqqani (a Taliban Ally) and his network of fighters. There are 70 references to high-value targets — including a handful of named Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders.

There are fewer than 200 references to Al Qaeda. Compare that to 6,000-ish references to the Taliban. Most references to enemy forces refer to ACM (Anti-Coalition Militia) or INS (insurgents), but the comparison between Al Qaeda and Taliban references is very interesting and perhaps telling. I’ve been one to argue that the estimate of 50 to 100 Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan is too low. Does this call that into question? It’s hard to say. There are a number of factors that could skew this sample. But this is certainly one of the most important data points to date.

(Here’s a contrarian point of view citing some documents I haven’t seen in my download from the Wikileaks site and others which I feel are being overrepresented in the article.)

Importantly, there are more than 200 references to Iran — more than there are to Al Qaeda, although dozens are in longish diplomatic cables. Most non-diplomacy citations were in reference to weapons and dozens of reports of IED components which were manufactured in Iran. Additionally, there are references to smuggling routes for both trained fighters and weapons coming from Iran into Afghanistan. One record describes an alleged terrorist facilitator moving Al Qaeda personnel and other militants through Afghanistan to Iran.

Other tidbits:

November 2006: AQ (NFI) trained 30 women (NFI) to execute suicide attacks against all foreigners in AFGHANISTAN. The women trained at a base located in MIRALI/MIRAMSHAH/ PAKISTAN (NFI); they are Chechens, Uzbeks, Arabs and Pakistanis. Seven of them are now located in KABUL (NFI) and they will execute suicide attacks against CF/ISAF (NFI).

Speaking of bombs, there were around 14,000 reports of IED encounters, which is an extremely worrisome number. Even allowing for the numerous false alarms, we’re talking about IED production at a staggering level. With so many incidents, Darwin tells us that IED makers are learning a lot about what works and what doesn’t, and the fittest who survive the war will be extraordinarily dangerous.

Fortunately, thus far, the IED production capacity has been pretty focused on the actual war/insurgency. But eventually we’re going to be gone, or at least less engaged, and the survivors will turn their eyes in a systematic way to training foreigners or traveling abroad to ply their skills. We’ve been lucky that we haven’t had a second Ramzi Yousef yet — a super-competent bomb builder with both ambition and ancillary skills such as language and disguise. But we won’t be lucky forever.

One of the memos records a non-combat meeting in November 2006 attended by military personnel during which a supposedly pro-government fatwa was read on the permissibility of killing Muslims.

a). First if some one kills Muslims, he should be revenged for

b). If a person is married and do have illegal sexual affairs with some one else, then he should be punished to death for that.

c). the third thing is if a Muslim convert to other religions, then he/she should be punished to death.

Revelations by Wikileaks based on classified US military files on the Afghan war contain a trove of interesting and sometimes true information, but an element of falsehood is also there, such as one intelligence report in June 2007 that al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden had died in a Peshawar hospital.

It was the first time that one heard this story about bin Laden dying in an unspecified hospital in Peshawar. It appears that the US military authorities also didn’t take this report seriously as it came from Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security (NDS), the Afghan intelligence service whose performance has left much to be desired. It seems the NDS passed on the unsubstantiated report about bin Laden’s death in a Peshawar hospital to the Americans without crosschecking the facts.

An almost similar report about bin Laden having received treatment in a military hospital in Rawalpindi had also hit the headlines some years ago but was soon forgotten, as it too was unbelievable.

There aren’t many reports concerning bin Laden in the US military files leaked to Wikileaks, which could mean that the US civil and military officials are right when they say that they have lost the trail of the world’s most wanted man. However, the fact that there were so few reports in a log of 90,000 files about the al-Qaeda leader led many people to believe that he is dead.

Two other references to bin Laden in the Afghan war log leaked to Wikileaks are interesting even if both appear to be far-fetched. One says that bin Laden was so pleased with the skills of an Afghan fighter Abdullah in making remote-controlled improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that he presented him with an Arab wife. The report mentions that bin Laden gifted the Arab bride to Abdullah in the northern Kunduz province in July 2007, which means this happened one month after the al-Qaeda leader was supposed to have died in a Peshawar hospital.

The reports mentions Abdullah as a brother of one Qari Najimullah, who was reported to have come with Taliban fighters to Kunduz to start operations against the foreign and Afghan forces after receiving training in Pakistan. Efforts by this scribe to seek information about Abdullah and his Arab wife from Taliban sources failed to make any headway. It seems not many Taliban were aware of this intelligence report even if this was true.

The second interesting reference to bin Laden said that his financial and security adviser named Dr Aminul Haq flew to North Korea in December 2005 where he “confirmed a deal with the North Korean government for remote-controlled rockets for use against American and coalition aircraft.” The report said the deal was closed for an “undetermined amount of money.”

Dr Aminul Haq’s name hasn’t figured much in the past as someone close to bin Laden. Many people were surprised by these leaked intelligence reports that he was bin Laden’s financial and security adviser.

All the above US military intelligence reports about the al-Qaeda leader with $25 million as head money seem incredible and sometimes hard to believe. If this is the quality of American intelligence on bin Laden, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that he is still a free man even after the biggest manhunt for him in history.

Wikipedia:
Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden
(Arabic: أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لادن‎, ʾUsāmah bin Muḥammad bin ʿAwaḍ bin Lādin; March 10, 1957 – May 2, 2011[1][2][3]) was a member of the wealthy Saudi bin Laden family and the founder of the jihadist organization al-Qaeda, responsible for the September 11 attacks on the United States and numerous other mass-casualty attacks against civilian and military targets. As a result of his dealings in and advocacy of violent extremist jihad, Osama bin Laden lost his Saudi citizenship and was disowned by his billionaire family.[4]

Bin Laden was on the American Federal Bureau of Investigation‘s lists of Ten Most Wanted Fugitives and Most Wanted Terrorists due to his involvement in the 1998 US embassy bombings.[5][6][7] Since 2001, Osama bin Laden and his organization had been major targets of the U.S. War on Terror. Bin Laden and fellow al-Qaeda leaders were believed to be hiding near the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan‘s Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

On May 1, 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama announced on national television that bin Laden had been killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan by American military forces and the Central Intelligence Agency[2][8] and that his body was in U.S. custody.[3]

Alleged sightings

After the September 11 attacks, the U.S. government demanded that the Taliban government of Afghanistan deliver bin Laden to face charges of terrorism. The Taliban refused to surrender bin Laden without proof or evidence of his involvement in the September 11 attacks and made a counter-offer to try bin Laden in an Islamic court or extradite him to a third-party country. Both of those offers were rejected by the U.S. government.

Rumors surfaced that bin Laden was killed or fatally injured during U.S. bombardments, most notably near Tora Bora, or that he died of natural causes. According to Gary Berntsen, in his 2005 book, Jawbreaker, a number of al-Qaeda detainees later confirmed that bin Laden had escaped Tora Bora into Pakistan via an eastern route through snow covered mountains in the area of Parachinar, Pakistan. The media reported that bin Laden suffered from a kidney disorder requiring him to have access to advanced medical facilities, possibly kidney dialysis. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s second-in-command and a close bin Laden associate, is a physician and may have provided medical care to bin Laden.

2004

February 27: Iranian news agency IRNA reported that bin Laden had been caught some time earlier in Pakistan. The news was spread by Asheq Hossein, director of the state-sponsored radio station, who mentioned two sources. The first source was a reporter of the Pakistani newspaper “The Nation,” Shamim Shahed, who denied ever telling this to Hossein. The second source was “someone closely related to intelligence agencies and Afghan tribal elders.” Both the Pentagon and a spokesperson of the Pakistani armed forces have denied the capture of bin Laden. Similar rumours have appeared from time to time since the start of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan but none have been confirmed.
October 21: John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 Commission, reported that Osama bin Laden is indeed alive, and that the Pentagon knows exactly where he is. According to Lehman, bin Laden is living in South Waziristan in the Baluchistan Mountains of the Baluchistan region, surviving from donations from outside countries such as the United Arab Emirates and high-ranking ministers inside Saudi Arabia. “There is an American presence in the area, but we can’t just send in troops,” Lehman said. “If we did, we could have another Vietnam, and the United States cannot afford that right now.”

2005

September 23: Bin Laden was believed by Pakistani officials to be on the Afghan-Pakistani border. He is said to have been keeping a low profile, with as little as ten men guarding him.
October 4: U.S. authorities said they had no evidence of whether bin Laden was hurt or died as a result of a 7.6 magnitude earthquake that hit the disputed area of Kashmir, in northeastern Pakistan.
December 11: A letter from Atiyah Abd al-Rahman to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi indicates that bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership were based in the Waziristan region of Pakistan at the time. In the letter, translated by the United States military’s Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, “Atiyah” instructs Zarqawi to “send messengers from your end to Waziristan so that they meet with the brothers of the leadership … I am now on a visit to them and I am writing you this letter as I am with them…” Al-Rahman also indicates that bin Laden and al-Qaeda are “weak” and “have many of their own problems.” The letter has been deemed authentic by military and counterterrorism officials, according to the Washington Post.

2006

January 9: Neoconservative commentator Michael Ledeen writes in a column in National Review that “according to Iranians I trust,” bin Laden died of kidney failure in mid-December 2005 and was buried in Iran. Ledeen claimed that bin Laden has “spent most of his time since the destruction of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan” in Iran and wrote that “The Iranians who reported this note that this year’s message in conjunction with the Muslim Hajj came from his number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, for the first time.”[2]
May 24: Alexis Debat of ABC News reported on rumors that bin Laden was sighted in the Kumrat Valley of Pakistan. The report, on ABC News’s blog, was later removed due to doubts about the credibility of Debat’s reporting.[3][4]
September 21: The French newspaper L’Est Républicain publishes an article by Laid Sammari which cited a September 21 French foreign intelligence document as reporting that Saudi officials received confirmation that bin Laden died August 23 of typhoid fever in Pakistan. U.S. intelligence officials stated that the reporting was unsubstantiated and that the U.S. had received no confirmation of that report. French President Jacques Chirac stated that the report was “in no way confirmed.” Members of the bin Laden family also said they heard nothing to confirm the report.[5]

2007

June: Speaking to al Jazeera, Taliban leader Mullah Bakht Mohammed stated that “Sheikh Osama bin Laden is alive and active. He’s carrying out his duties. The latest proof that he is alive is that he sent me a letter of condolences after the martyrdom of my brother. He advised me to follow my brother’s path.” Mohammed’s brother Dadullah had led military operations for the Taliban until his death in May 2007. Mohammed stated that “Sheikh Osama prefers not to be seen or meet anyone because if he makes himself available to the media maybe he will be facing danger.”[6]
September 7: Former counter-terrorism official Richard A. Clarke speculated that bin Laden’s “phony looking beard” in a recent videotaped message may mean his original beard has been shaved to help him blend into different Muslim communities. Clarke stated to ABC News that beards would stand out in southeast Asia, the Philippines, or Indonesia, and noted that “No one’s thought he was there, but that is an environment where most men, Muslim men don’t have beards.”[7]

2008

July 12: Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik, speaking in opposition to drone attacks in Pakistan, claimed to the British Sunday Times that “If Osama was in Pakistan we would know, with all the thousands of troops we have sent into the tribal areas in recent months. If he and all these four or five top people were in our area they would have been caught, the way we are searching.” Malik claimed that drone strikes in Pakistan were a waste of time, stating that “according to our information Osama is in Afghanistan, probably Kunar.”[8]
November: CIA Director Michael Hayden, in a speech to the Atlantic Council, states that bin Laden is probably hiding in the tribal area of northwest Pakistan and that his capture remains a top U.S. priority. Hayden states that Bin Laden is “putting a lot of energy into his own survival, a lot of energy into his own security. In fact, he appears to be largely isolated from the day-to-day operations of the organization he nominally heads.”[9]

2009

February 17: A report was published by a research team led by Thomas W. Gillespie and John A. Agnew of UCLA. They described using satellite-aided geographical analysis to pinpoint three compounds in Parachinar as likely hideouts of bin Laden.[10]
March: The New York Daily News reported that the hunt for bin Laden had centered in the Chitral District of Pakistan, including the Kalam Valley. According to the report, author Rohan Gunaratna states that captured Al-Qaeda leaders have confirmed that Chitral is where bin Laden is hiding.
April 27: According to the Irish Times, Pakistan’s president Asif Ali Zardari announced that the whereabouts of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden remained a mystery, and there was a suspicion that he could be dead after Pakistani intelligence and officials could find “no trace” of the al-Qaeda chief.
November 29: News report states bin Laden is living in Pakistan and Gordon Brown orders Pakistan to do more to break Al-Qaeda and find Osama bin Laden.[11]
December 4: BBC reports of informant having knowledge of bin Laden in Ghazni, south east Afghanistan in early 2009.[12] Ghazni is a Taliban stronghold and many areas do not permit coalition forces. The detainee was involved in kidnappings and fundraising operations for Taliban operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Former CIA analyst Bruce Riedel is quoted as saying:

“The entire Western intelligence community, CIA and FBI, have been looking for Osama bin Laden for the last seven years and haven’t come upon a source of information like this.”[12]

2010

Nasser al-Bahri, a bodyguard for bin Laden in the late 1990s, writes a book, published in French as Dans l’ombre de Ben Laden (In the Shadow of Bin Laden), with French journalist Georges Malbrunot of the newspaper Le Figaro. According to al-Bahri, bin Laden is hiding in the regions in Afghanistan or along the border with Pakistan. Malbrunot stated in an interview with Mark Colvin of PM that bin Laden is likely “protected by tribes which are very loyal to him. These tribes, bin Laden has known them for the last 20 years. He help them financially and materially in the ’80s and these tribes also, I think it’s an important factor, are more loyal to the religion than to the typical tribal character, which mean that it’s not very easy to bribe them.” Malbrunot noted that “He’s protected by perhaps, he kept three or four people around him from al Qaeda, and he can move with the protection of the tribal leaders and tribal connections in this region along the Pakistan, the Waziristan.”[13]
Feathered Cocaine, a documentary by Icelandic filmmakers Om Marino Arnarson and Thorkell S. Hardarson dealing with the global falcon trade and featuring noted falconer Alan Parrot, claims that bin Laden, an avid falcon hunter, “has been taking part in the sport relatively freely” in Tehran in Iran since 2003.[14][15]
June 7: The Israeli-based intelligence news service DEBKAfile reports that bin Laden and top lieutenants have been living in the remote mountainous town of Sabzevar in northeastern Iran for the past five years, and that Turkish intelligence officials were aware of it.[16]
June 27: CIA Director Leon Panetta, speaking on ABC News’ This Week, stated that that last time the CIA had “precise information” on bin Laden was “the early 2000s.” Panetta states that “He is, as is obvious, in very deep hiding. He’s in an area of the tribal areas of Pakistan, that is very difficult. The terrain is probably the most difficult in the world…All I can tell you is it’s in the tribal areas…we know that he’s located in that vicinity.” Panetta states that “If we keep that pressure on, we think ultimately we can flush out bin Laden and Zawahiri and get after them.”[17]
October 18: A senior NATO official tells CNN claims that bin Laden is alive and well, living comfortably in a house in the north-west of Pakistan and being protected by local people and elements of Pakistani intelligence. Stating that “Nobody in al Qaeda is living in a cave,” the official stated the bin Laden was likely to have moved around in recent years in areas from the mountainous Chitral region in the far northwest, near the Chinese border, to the Kurram Valley bordering Tora Bora in Afghanistan. The official stated that Ayman al-Zawahiri is believed to be hiding close to bin Laden in houses in northwest Pakistan, but are not together. Another U.S. official sated that bin Laden and Zawahiri are “somewhere in the tribal areas of Pakistan near the Afghanistan border,” but that their exact locations are unknown: “If we knew where he was — in a house, an apartment, a villa or an underground cave or bunker — we would have gotten him; we can’t rule out he may be in a cave one day and a house in a city on another.”[18]
October 28, An audio recording of Osama bin Laden threatening France over their involvement in Afghanistan is pronounced genuine.[19]

2011

May 1: President Barack Obama reported that Osama bin Laden had been killed in Abbottabad in a U.S. operation.

Dead or Alive? Osama bin Laden: A Marketing Tool for US-NATO Military Operations

Elizabeth Woodworth
Global Research
September 11, 2009

In 1961, upon leaving office, President Eisenhower warned of the danger of a military-industrial takeover of information, power, and resources in a democracy[1] .

His dark vision has been steadily unfolding. Since September 11, 2001, world, and particularly US military budgets, have grown enormously[2], when the focus of the entire planet should have been on the ecological crisis.

There is no time to lose in mounting effective worldwide action against global warming, and it is now essential that we have the correct information about the events underpinning the war on terror: 9/11 and the role of Osama bin Laden.

A recent survey of news reports covering Osama bin Laden from 2001 to 2009[3] has provided overwhelming evidence that the al Qaeda leader has been dead since December 13, 2001, and that all messages that have been aired since that time have been fabricated[4] [5].

A long-buried 2001 CBS Evening News report, researched by foreign correspondent Barry Petersen and presented by Dan Rather, featured two hospital staff witnesses who saw bin Laden escorted into a military hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on the evening of September 10, 2001. He was there to receive kidney dialysis [6].

One witness reported, “they moved out all the regular staff in the urology department and sent in a secret team to replace them,” to treat a very special person. “The military had him surrounded,” said another hospital employee, “and I saw the mysterious patient helped out of a car. Since that time, I have seen many pictures of the man. He is the man we know as Osama bin Laden. I also heard two army officers talking to each other. They were saying that Osama bin Laden had to be watched carefully and looked after.”[7]

Yet seven years later, President Obama, relying on military intelligence, states that bin Laden is “almost certainly” hiding in the mountains bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan, the “most dangerous place in the world” for the American people[8].

However, only 25% of American want more troops in Afghanistan and almost twice that many want fewer [9].

Many Americans may recall that no messages have been intercepted between bin Laden and his followers since mid-December 2001, which was precisely the time of an unconfirmed funeral announcement, covered by Fox News, that bin Laden had died and been buried in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan[10].

A deeper question should be inspired by the fact that the US Department of Justice has never indicted bin Laden for the attacks, nor does the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorist” page list him as wanted for 9/11. A spokesman openly admitted that “the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” [11]

It appears that bin Laden may be no more than a marketing tool for imperialistic military operations. A brilliant tool indeed, if the obsessive hunt for him were not blocking our response to the foundational issue of global warming.

It is vital to all nations that the many 2001-02 reports of bin Laden’s end-stage renal disease [12], and subsequent death, be resurrected to urge an investigation into who has been issuing fake audio and videotapes since 2001[13].

[efoods]

Indeed world governments should press the United States for an impartial, transparent investigation into the events of 9/11, with subpoena power to interview witnesses who were never called in the travesty that passes as the “9/11 Commission Report” (2004). The Commissioners themselves have publicly condemned C.I.A. obstruction to key witnesses [14].

Meanwhile, the United Nations should be given the responsibility and resources to protect the oil-rich Middle East from further imperialistic aggression. All national troops should be withdrawn and any efforts at stabilization should be led by the UN.

Then finally it might be possible to transform the global military economy into a cooperative alternative energy economy.

Notes

[1] President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Military-Industrial Complex Speech, 1961. “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” (http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html).

[2] “World Wide Military Expenditures” shows current figures ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm). “World Military Spending” shows expenditure increases from 1988 to 2007 in constant 2005 dollars (http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending).

[3] David Ray Griffin, Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? Olive Branch Press, Northampton, 2009.

[4] World Tribune.com, “Bin Laden may be dead, but living on through old sound bites.” Feb. 11, 2008 (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2008/me_terror_02_11.asp)

[5] Mark Tran, “Bin Laden: the ultimate marketing tool,” The Guardian, Sept. 11, 2007 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/11/alqaida.september111).

[6] CBC Evening News, “Hospital Worker: I Saw Osama,” January 28, 2002 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml) Recovered video footage of the report was posted August 22, 2009 to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OW4A-yd9BI.

[7] The full transcript is available at: Michel Chossudovsky . “Where was Osama bin Laden on 9/11? Bush Administration knew the Whereabouts of Osama,” November 16, 2003 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO311A.html).

[8] The White House. Office of the Press Secretary. “Remarks by the President on a New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan,” March 27, 2009 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-a-New-Strategy-for-Afghanistan-and-Pakistan/).

[9] Radio Free Europe, September 7, 2009. “Pentagon Defends Afghan Strategy As Public Support For War Ebbs” (http://www.rferl.org/content/Pentagon_Defends_Afghan_Strategy_As_Public_Support_For_War_Ebbs_/1814766.html).

[10] Fox News, December 26, 2001. “Report: Bin Laden Already Dead,” (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html).

[11] Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006, “FBI says, ‘No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11’” (http://web.archive.org/web/20060610053720/http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html).

[12] CNN correspondent and brain surgeon Dr. Sanjay Gupta, who declined to be Surgeon General to the Obama adminstration, assessed bin Laden’s medical condition based on the videotape released December 27, 2001, which was made sometime after November 16th. Gupta said that Bin Laden’s “grayness of beard, paleness of skin, very gaunt sort of features” is often associated with chronic kidney failure, and noted that bin Laden could not move his left arm, probably due to a stroke resulting from kidney failure. He explained that dialysis machines require electricity, clean water and a sterile environment. Without such a machine, a patient could only survive less than a week. “Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Bin Laden Would Need Help if on Dialysis,” CNN, 21 January 2002 (www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/01/21/gupta.otsc/index.html).

[13] The most obvious fabrication can be seen in a video dated November 9, 2001, known as the bin Laden “confession” video, which was released by the Pentagon December 13, 2001. Extracts may be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhctMpvszqQ. Notice the broad nose, short fingers, and right-handedness. For comparative photos and analysis, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41UAnkQARFs and http://www.welfarestate.com/wtc/faketape/

[14] Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, “Stonewalled by the C.I.A.”, New York Times, January 2, 2008. The commissioners of the 9/11 Commission concluded: “What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html).

Osama bin Ladin: “He’s dead of course,” Says CIA Agent,

“No wonder there’s no intelligence on him.”

 Time | By Robert Baer | 7 December 2009

Time to Give Up the Ghost on Bin Laden

Osama Bin Laden appears in a video aired on the eve of the second anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Salah Malkawi/GettyOsama Bin Laden appears in a video aired on the eve of the second anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Salah Malkawi/Getty

This week the Obama Administration made an unusual admission: It doesn’t have a clue where Osama bin Laden is. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that there hasn’t been good intelligence on bin Laden for years. The National Security Adviser James Jones said the best guess is that bin Laden may be moving back and forth across the Pak-Afghan, a rugged mountain range never governed in history. (See pictures of Osama Bin Laden.)

I asked an ex-CIA colleague who’s been on the bin Laden hunt since 9/11. “He’s dead of course,” he said. “No wonder there’s no intelligence on him.” But what about the audio and video tapes? I asked. He said they easily could have been digitally mastered from old tapes and audio recordings. He quickly admitted the CIA has absolutely no evidence bin Laden died. It’s only a hunch — and years of experience chasing fugitive terrorists.

The theory that bin Laden is dead doesn’t get much currency in Washington because it veers off into the realm of conspiracies. And people that believe it are scared that the moment they air it bin Laden will re-appear the next day. Anyhow, it’s a real possibility bin Laden was killed at Tora Bora in late 2001, and is now buried under tons of rock and never to be found. Or he died of ill health in the intervening years.

But let’s accept for the sake of argument that bin Laden is alive and well. Other than the obvious — he’s living in an ungovernable part of the world — bin Laden maintains an extraordinarily exacting standard of security. It is beyond anything we’ve ever seen. He’s never been on a cell or a satellite phone. He doesn’t use the Internet. And little doubt the people around him adhere to the same strict standards.

But, in the absence of intelligence, that is pretty much all we can say. And by this logic bin Laden may not in fact be living in the mountains along the Pak-Afghan border. For all we know, he could just as easily be in Pakistan’s Baluchistan Province, another piece of Pakistan outside the writ of Pakistan’s government and NATO forces. Or for that matter bin Laden could be in Somalia or, who knows, some remote island off Indonesia.

The Administration’s frankness is refreshing, but it suggests that we should really start considering the possibility that bin Laden will never be found. Sending 30,000 more American troops to Afghanistan is not going to put us any closer to finding Osama bin Laden. If his security is as good as it appears to be, even a door to door search of every house in Pakistan’s tribal regions would produce nothing.

Unless our luck changes, the best we should hope from the Afghan surge — and hope is about all we can be certain of — is that we manage to drain the swamp and keep bin Laden holed up in the mountains or wherever he is. But the question is, assuming we never find him, how will we know when the Afghan swamp is drained?

Baer, a former Middle East CIA field officer, is TIME.com’s intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most recently, The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower.

Operation Cyclone

Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency program to arm the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989.[1] Operation Cyclone is one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken;[2] funding began with $20-30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.

Background

Carter’s national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has stated that the U.S. effort to aid the mujahideen was preceded by an effort to draw the Soviets into a costly and presumably distracting Vietnam War-like conflict. In a 1998 interview with the French news magazine Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled: “We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would… That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap… The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, “We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War.”

The Program
On July 3, 1979, U.S. President Carter signed a presidential finding authorizing funding for anticommunist guerrillas in Afghanistan. Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and installation of a more pro-Soviet president, Babrak Karmal, Carter announced, “The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is the greatest threat to peace since the Second World War”.

The program relied heavily on using the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) as an intermediary for funds distribution, passing of weapons, military training and financial support to Afghan resistance groups. Along with funding from similar programs from Britain’s MI6 and SAS, Saudi Arabia, and the People’s Republic of China, the ISI armed and trained over 100,000 insurgents between 1978 and 1992. They encouraged the volunteers from the Arab states to join the Afghan resistance in its struggle against the Soviet troops based in Afghanistan.

Funding
The U.S. offered two packages of economic assistance and military sales to support Pakistan’s role in the war against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. The first six-year assistance package (1981-87) amounted to US$3.2 billion, equally divided between economic assistance and military sales. The U.S. also sold 40 F-16 aircraft to Pakistan during 1983-87 at a cost of US$1.2 billion outside the assistance package. The second six-year assistance package (1987-93) amounted to US$4.2 billion. Out of this US$2.28 billion were allocated for economic assistance in the form of grants or loan that carried the interest rate of 2-3 per cent. The rest of the allocation (US$1.74 billion) was in the form of credit for military purchases. Sale of non-U.S. arms to Pakistan for destination to Afghanistan was facilitated by Israel. Somewhere between $3–$20 billion in US funds were funneled into the country to train and equip Afghan resistance groups with weapons,[citation needed] including Stinger man-portable air-defense systems.

The program funding was increased yearly due to lobbying by prominent U.S. politicians and government officials, such as Charles Wilson, Gordon Humphrey, Fred Ikle, and William Casey.

Aftermath
After the USSR invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, some believed the Soviets were attempting to expand their borders southward in order to gain a foothold in the region. The Soviet Union had long lacked a warm water port, and their movement south seemed to position them for further expansion toward Pakistan in the East, and Iran to the West. American politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike, ignorant of U.S. involvement, feared the Soviets were positioning themselves for a takeover of Middle Eastern oil. Others believed that the Soviet Union was afraid Iran’s Islamic Revolution and Afghanistan’s Islamization would spread to the millions of Muslims in the USSR.

After the invasion, Carter announced what became known as the Carter Doctrine: that the U.S. would not allow any other outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf. He terminated the Russian Wheat Deal, which was intended to establish trade with USSR and lessen Cold War tensions. The grain exports had been beneficial to people employed in agriculture, and the Carter embargo marked the beginning of hardship for American farmers. He also prohibited Americans from participating in the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, and reinstated registration for the draft for young males.

The U.S. shifted its interest from Afghanistan after the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. American funding of Afghan resistance leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and his Hezbi Islami party was cut off immediately. The U.S. also reduced its assistance for Afghan refugees in Pakistan.

In October 1990, U.S. President George H. W. Bush refused to certify that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device, triggering the imposition of sanctions against Pakistan under the Pressler Amendment (1985) in the Foreign Assistance Act. This disrupted the second assistance package offered in 1987 and discontinued economic assistance and military sales to Pakistan with the exception of the economic assistance on way to Pakistan. Military sales and training program were abandoned as well and some of the Pakistani military officers under training in the U.S. were asked to return home.

Criticism
The U.S. government has been criticized for allowing Pakistan to channel a disproportionate amount of its funding to controversial Afghan resistance leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar,[12] who Pakistani officials believed was “their man”. Hekmatyar has been criticized for killing other mujahideen and attacking civilian populations, including shelling Kabul with American-supplied weapons, causing 2,000 casualties. Hekmatyar was said to be friendly with Osama bin Laden, founder of al-Qaeda, who was running an operation for assisting “Afghan Arab” volunteers fighting in Afghanistan, called Maktab al-Khadamat. Alarmed by his behavior, Pakistan leader General Zia warned Hekmatyar, “It was Pakistan that made him an Afghan leader and it is Pakistan who can equally destroy him if he continues to misbehave.”

In the late 1980s, Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, concerned about the growing strength of the Islamist movement, told President George H. W. Bush, “You are creating a Frankenstein.”

The U.S. says that all of its funds went to native Afghan rebels and denies that any of its funds were used to supply Osama bin Laden or foreign Arab mujahideen. It is estimated that 35,000 foreign Muslims from 43 Islamic countries participated in the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

http://www.powerset.com/explore/semhtml/Al-Qaeda?query=Operation+Cyclone

Terror ‘blowback’ burns CIA

America’s spies paid and trained their nation’s worst enemies, reveals Andrew Marshall in Washington

Andrew Marshall
Sunday, 1 November 1998

THE CENTRAL Intelligence Agency has its own argot for describing the hallucinatory world within which its employees move. None of its esoteric terms are more euphemistic than “blowback”, the term coined to describe operations which end up rebounding against their creators.

But as the Americans slowly unravel the international network surrounding Osama bin Laden, the man they blame for the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, “blowback” is exactly what they are finding.

Last week, it was revealed that one of those under arrest is a former Egyptian soldier named Ali Mohamed, who is alleged to have provided training and assistance to Mr bin Laden’s operatives. Yet Mr Mohamed, it is clear from his record, was working for the US government at the time he provided the training: he was a Green Beret, part of America’s Special Forces.

Mr Mohamed’s arrest seems to be part of a pattern, as the US slowly moves towards the realisation that many of those now arrayed against it with Mr bin Laden were once its allies in the war in Afghanistan. The two sides turned against each other as the war in Afghanistan unwound, and America, not Russia, came to be seen as the enemy.

The US poured cash into Afghanistan throughout the 1980s in an effort to defeat – or at least tie down – the Russians. Its principal ally was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a ferociously anti-communist and militant Islamist leader. The US and Saudi Arabia both sent about $500m (pounds 300m) annually between 1986 and 1989 to fund the mujahedin, and other rich individuals from the Gulf – including Mr bin Laden – spent an extra $20m every month. The US funded the construction of the camps at Khost which it attacked two months ago in response to the embassy bombs.

It had already been known that in those days, the US and Mr bin Laden were on the same side, but it now appears that America may actually have aided Mr bin Laden’s organisation and even trained some of those who it now contends are “terrorists”. Mr Ali may be the missing link.

It had already been known that in 1989, Mr Ali came to the New York area to train mujahedin on their way to Afghanistan. Those visits have put him in the spotlight once before: among those he trained was El Sayyid Nosair, who was jailed in 1995 for killing Rabbi Meir Kahane, leader of the Jewish Defence League, and, along with several others, with plotting to blow up several New York landmarks. At his trial, Mr Nosair claimed that the reason he had military manuals was that he was being trained by the US, not because he was intent on terrorism. It is uncertain whether Mr Mohamed came to New York on official business, but for some of the trips, he was a serving US Special Forces’ sergeant.

Mr Mohamed met the men at the Al-Kifah Refugee Centre in Brooklyn’s Atlantic Avenue, a place of pivotal importance to Operation Cyclone, the American effort to support the mujahedin. The Al-Kifah Centre and the associated Afghan Refugee Services Inc were raising funds and, crucially, providing recruits for the struggle, with active American assistance.

The other end of the pipeline was in Peshawar, where the Services Office co-ordinated the transit of people, equipment and cash to the mujahedin, and to Mr Hekmatyar in particular. The Services Office was run by Abdulla Azzam, a colleague of, and influence on, Osama bin Laden, and was part of Mr bin Laden’s effort to back the mujahedin. Both the Services office and Al-Kifah were also linked to Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, an Egyptian religious leader later jailed for the planned New York bombings.

The US took a benign view of this at the time. The operation was, after all, assisting in the fight against Communism. As Mr Mohamed’s presence showed, those associated with the US military were providing assistance to Al-Kifah. The recruits received brief paramilitary training and weapons instruction in the New York area, according to evidence in earlier trials, before being sent to fight with Mr Hekmatyar. Even Sheikh Abdel-Rahman had, apparently, entered the US with the full knowledge of the CIA in 1990.

But by the mid-1990s, America’s view of Al-Kifah had changed. It discovered that several of those charged with the World Trade Centre bombing and the New York landmarks bombings were former Afghan veterans, recruited through the Brooklyn-based organisation. Many of those the US had trained and recruited for a war were still fighting: but now it was against America. A confidential CIA internal survey concluded that it was “partly culpable” for the World Trade Centre bomb, according to reports at the time. There had been blowback.

How and why did the people behind Al-Kifah turn against America? The US cut off funding in 1991 to Mr Hekmatyar, both because the Russians had withdrawn from Afghanistan and because it had at last started to realise that backing Islamic fundamentalism was perhaps not the brightest idea the CIA had ever hatched. America had also gone to war against Iraq in 1991, and stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, outraging Mr bin Laden and other devout Muslims.

There also seems to have been a huge disagreement over Bosnia. In December 1992, a US army official met one of the Afghan veterans from Al-Kifah and offered help with a covert operation to support the Muslims in Bosnia, funded with Saudi money, according to one of those jailed for assisting with the New York bombings. But that effort quickly disintegrated, leaving a great deal of bad feeling.

There are probably only three people outside the US government who ever knew exactly what role the Al-Kifah refugee centre really played, and how far the US helped to build up Mr bin Laden’s organisation. One was Mr Azzam, the charismatic Palestinian who ran the Peshawar operation. He was killed by a car bomb in 1989. The second was Mustafa Shalabi, who ran Al-Kifah. He was murdered in 1991. The third is Osama bin Laden, and he is not telling.

And the US government is certainly not about to explain whether it helped create what it now refers to as Public Enemy Number One.

Bin Laden Died Five Years Ago, said CIA Agent (2011)

Posted: 2011/05/19
From: Mathaba

Berkan Ashar, former CIA agent in statements to Russian TV

South Journal–Osama bin Laden presumably died five years before his announced killing by a special US command in the evening of May 2.

Nearly 20 years ago, the future “number one terrorist” presumably arrived in Chechnya. These statements were made by a former CIA agent in exclusive interview with a Russia TV channel.

Berkan Ashar, a Chechen national, personally asked for the interview with the TV channel journalist Anton Vernitski to tell him the truth about the death of Osama bin Laden, whom he first met in the early 1990s in Chechnya. According to Ashar “the Americans have only opened the tomb of the leader of Al Qaeda.”

“In September 1992, I was in Chechnya. At that time I first met this person, who was called bin Laden. We met at a two-story house in Grozny. On the first floor there was the family of Gamsajuria, Georgia´s president, who was ousted from his country. We were downstairs and Osama was living there,” said Berkan Ashar.

At that time the former official with Freedom Radio, Berkan Ashar, already had the CIA name of Abu Bakar.

As to the question if the Americans neutralized Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, Berkan Bashar said that he would not believe it even if the whole world believed it.  “I know his Chechen bodyguards very well; they are Sami, Ayub and Majmud, who were with him until his end. And I remember that all these people, plus two from London and another two from the US, in total seven saw him dead.

He was very sick and he turned very thin. They washed him, they buried him,” said Berkan Yahshar and he said that although two Muslim Americans and two Muslim British were Osama´s bodyguards and they saw him dead, they did not took part in the burial. “He was buried only by the three Chechen men, according to bin Laden´s testament,” Yashar said. Osama was buried in the mountains on the Pakistani-Afghan border.

After explaining all this to the Russian TV channel, Berkan Yashar said he feared for his life; in his opinion only a large spread of this information around the world may protect his life against any CIA action.

Article by Noam Chomsky, a professor at MIT

On May 1, 2011, Osama bin Laden was killed in his virtually unprotected compound by a raiding mission of 79 Navy Seals, who entered Pakistan by helicopter. After many lurid stories were provided by the government and withdrawn, official reports made it increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law, beginning with the invasion itself.

There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 79 commandos facing no opposition – except, they report, from his wife, also unarmed, who they shot in self-defense when she “lunged” at them (according to the White House).
A plausible reconstruction of the events is provided by veteran Middle East correspondent Yochi Dreazen and colleagues in the Atlantic(http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/goal-was-never-to-capture-bin-laden/238330/). Dreazen, formerly the military correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, is senior correspondent for the National Journal Group covering military affairs and national security. According to their investigation, White House planning appears not to have considered the option of capturing OBL alive: “The administration had made clear to the military’s clandestine Joint Special Operations Command that it wanted bin Laden dead, according to a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the discussions. A high-ranking military officer briefed on the assault said the SEALs knew their mission was not to take him alive.”
The authors add: “For many at the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency who had spent nearly a decade hunting bin Laden, killing the militant was a necessary and justified act of vengeance.”  Furthermore, “Capturing bin Laden alive would have also presented the administration with an array of nettlesome legal and political challenges.” Better, then, to assassinate him, dumping his body into the sea without the autopsy considered essential after a killing, whether considered justified or not – an act that predictably provoked both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.
As the Atlantic inquiry observes, “The decision to kill bin Laden outright was the clearest illustration to date of a little-noticed aspect of the Obama administration’s counterterror policy. The Bush administration captured thousands of suspected militants and sent them to detention camps in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. The Obama administration, by contrast, has focused on eliminating individual terrorists rather than attempting to take them alive.” That is one significant difference between Bush and Obama. The authors quote former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, who “told German TV that the U.S. raid was ‘quite clearly a violation of international law’ and that bin Laden should have been detained and put on trial,” contrasting Schmidt with US Attorney General Eric Holder, who “defended the decision to kill bin Laden although he didn’t pose an immediate threat to the Navy SEALs, telling a House panel on Tuesday that the assault had been ‘lawful, legitimate and appropriate in every way’.”
The disposal of the body without autopsy was also criticized by allies. The highly regarded British barrister Geoffrey Robertson, who supported the intervention and opposed the execution largely on pragmatic grounds, nevertheless described Obama’s claim that “justice was done” as an “absurdity” that should have been obvious to a former professor of constitutional law (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/osama-bin-laden-death-why-he-should-have-been-captured-not-killed/). Pakistan law “requires a colonial inquest on violent death, and international human rights law insists that the ‘right to life’ mandates an inquiry whenever violent death occurs from government or police action. The U.S. is therefore under a duty to hold an inquiry that will satisfy the world as to the true circumstances of this killing.” Robertson adds that “The law permits criminals to be shot in self-defense if they (or their accomplices) resist arrest in ways that endanger those striving to apprehend them. They should, if possible, be given the opportunity to surrender, but even if they do not come out with their hands up, they must be taken alive if that can be achieved without risk. Exactly how bin Laden came to be ‘shot in the head’ (especially if it was the back of his head, execution-style) therefore requires explanation. Why a hasty ‘burial at sea’ without a post mortem, as the law requires?”
Robertson attributes the murder to “America’s obsessive belief in capital punishment—alone among advanced nations—[which] is reflected in its rejoicing at the manner of bin Laden’s demise.” For example, Nation columnist Eric Alterman writes that “The killing of Osama bin Laden was a just and necessary undertaking.”
Robertson usefully reminds us that “It was not always thus. When the time came to consider the fate of men much more steeped in wickedness than Osama bin Laden — namely the Nazi leadership — the British government wanted them hanged within six hours of capture. President Truman demurred, citing the conclusion of Justice Robert Jackson that summary execution ‘would not sit easily on the American conscience or be remembered by our children with pride…the only course is to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused after a hearing as dispassionate as the times will permit and upon a record that will leave our reasons and motives clear’.”
The editors of the Daily Beast comment that “The joy is understandable, but to many outsiders, unattractive. It endorses what looks increasingly like a cold-blooded assassination as the White House is now forced to admit that Osama bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot twice in the head.”
In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.” In June 2002, FBI head Robert Mueller, in what the Washington Post described as “among his most detailed public comments on the origins of the attacks,” could say only that “investigators believe the idea of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon came from al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan, the actual plotting was done in Germany, and the financing came through the United Arab Emirates from sources in Afghanistan…. We think the masterminds of it were in Afghanistan, high in the al Qaeda leadership.” What the FBI believed and thought in June 2002 they didn’t know eight months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence. Thus it is not true, as the President claimed in his White House statement, that “We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”
There has never been any reason to doubt what the FBI believed in mid-2002, but that leaves us far from the proof of guilt required in civilized societies – and whatever the evidence might be, it does not warrant murdering a suspect who could, it seems, have been easily apprehended and brought to trial. Much the same is true of evidence provided since. Thus the 9/11 Commission provided extensive circumstantial evidence of bin Laden’s role in 9/11, based primarily on what it had been told about confessions by prisoners in Guantanamo. It is doubtful that much of that would hold up in an independent court, considering the ways confessions were elicited. But in any event, the conclusions of a congressionally authorized investigation, however convincing one finds them, plainly fall short of a sentence by a credible court, which is what shifts the category of the accused from suspect to convicted. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that was a boast, not a confession, with as much credibility as my “confession” that I won the Boston marathon. The boast tells us a lot about his character, but nothing about his responsibility for what he regarded as a great achievement, for which he wanted to take credit.
Again, all of this is, transparently, quite independent of one’s judgments about his responsibility, which seemed clear immediately, even before the FBI inquiry, and still does.
It is worth adding that bin Laden’s responsibility was recognized in much of the Muslim world, and condemned. One significant example is the distinguished Lebanese cleric Sheikh Fadlallah, greatly respected by Hizbollah and Shia groups generally, outside Lebanon as well. He too had been targeted for assassination: by a truck bomb outside a mosque, in a CIA-organized operation in 1985. He escaped, but 80 others were killed, mostly women and girls, as they left the mosque – one of those innumerable crimes that do not enter the annals of terror because of the fallacy of “wrong agency.” Sheikh Fadlallah sharply condemned the 9/11 attacks, as did many other leading figures in the Muslim world, within the Jihadi movement as well. Among others, the head of Hizbollah, Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, sharply condemned bin Laden and Jihadi ideology.
One of the leading specialists on the Jihadi movement, Fawaz Gerges, suggests that the movement might have been split at that time had the US exploited the opportunity instead of mobilizing the movement, particularly by the attack on Iraq, a great boon to bin Laden, which led to a sharp increase in terror, as intelligence agencies had anticipated. That conclusion was confirmed by the former head of Britain’s domestic intelligence agency MI5 at the Chilcot hearings investigating the background for the war. Confirming other analyses, she testified that both British and US intelligence were aware that Saddam posed no serious threat and that the invasion was likely to increase terror; and that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan had radicalized parts of a generation of Muslims who saw the military actions as an “attack on Islam.” As is often the case, security was not a high priority for state action.
It might be instructive to ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic (after proper burial rites, of course). Uncontroversially, he is not a “suspect” but the “decider” who gave the orders to invade Iraq — that is, to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: in Iraq, the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country and the national heritage, and the murderous sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region. Equally uncontroversially, these crimes vastly exceed anything attributed to bin Laden.
To say that all of this is uncontroversial, as it is, is not to imply that it is not denied. The existence of flat earthers does not change the fact that, uncontroversially, the earth is not flat. Similarly, it is uncontroversial that Stalin and Hitler were responsible for horrendous crimes, though loyalists deny it. All of this should, again, be too obvious for comment, and would be, except in an atmosphere of hysteria so extreme that it blocks rational thought.
Similarly, it is uncontroversial that Bush and associates did commit the “supreme international crime,” the crime of aggression, at least if we take the Nuremberg Tribunal seriously. The crime of aggression was defined clearly enough by Justice Robert Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States at Nuremberg, reiterated in an authoritative General Assembly resolution. An “aggressor,” Jackson proposed to the Tribunal in his opening statement, is a state that is the first to commit such actions as “Invasion of its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State….” No one, even the most extreme supporter of the aggression, denies that Bush and associates did just that.
We might also do well to recall Jackson’s eloquent words at Nuremberg on the principle of universality: “If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.” And elsewhere: “We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.”
It is also clear that alleged intentions are irrelevant. Japanese fascists apparently did believe that by ravaging China they were laboring to turn it into an “earthly paradise.” We don’t know whether Hitler believed that he was defending Germany from the “wild terror” of the Poles, or was taking over Czechoslovakia to protect its population from ethnic conflict and provide them with the benefits of a superior culture, or was saving the glories of the civilization of the Greeks from barbarians of East and West, as his acolytes claimed (Martin Heidegger). And it’s even conceivable that Bush and company believed that they were protecting the world from destruction by Saddam’s nuclear weapons. All irrelevant, though ardent loyalists on all sides may try to convince themselves otherwise.
We are left with two choices: either Bush and associates are guilty of the “supreme international crime” including all the evils that follow, crimes that go vastly beyond anything attributed to bin Laden; or else we declare that the Nuremberg proceedings were a farce and that the allies were guilty of judicial murder. Again, that is entirely independent of the question of the guilt of those charged: established by the Nuremberg Tribunal in the case of the Nazi criminals, plausibly surmised from the outset in the case of bin Laden.
A few days before the bin Laden assassination, Orlando Bosch died peacefully in Florida, where he resided along with his terrorist accomplice Luis Posada Carilles, and many others. After he was accused of dozens of terrorist crimes by the FBI, Bosch was granted a presidential pardon by Bush I over the objections of the Justice Department, which found the conclusion “inescapable that it would be prejudicial to the public interest for the United States to provide a safe haven for Bosch. ”The coincidence of deaths at once calls to mind the Bush II doctrine, which has “already become a de facto rule of international relations,” according to the noted Harvard international relations specialist Graham Allison. The doctrine revokes “the sovereignty of states that provide sanctuary to terrorists,” Allison writes, referring to the pronouncement of Bush II that “those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves,” directed to the Taliban. Such states, therefore, have lost their sovereignty and are fit targets for bombing and terror; for example, the state that harbored Bosch and his associate — not to mention some rather more significant candidates. When Bush issued this new “de facto rule of international relations,” no one seemed to notice that he was calling for invasion and destruction of the US and murder of its criminal presidents.
None of this is problematic, of course, if we reject Justice Jackson’s principle of universality, and adopt instead the principle that the US is self-immunized against international law and conventions — as, in fact, the government has frequently made very clear, an important fact, much too little understood.
It is also worth thinking about the name given to the operation: Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound that few seem able to perceive that the White House is glorifying bin Laden by calling him “Geronimo” — the leader of courageous resistance to the invaders who sought to consign his people to the fate of “that hapless race of native Americans, which we are exterminating with such merciless and perfidious cruelty, among the heinous sins of this nation, for which I believe God will one day bring [it] to judgement,” in the words of the great grand strategist John Quincy Adams, the intellectual architect of manifest destiny, long after his own contributions to these sins had passed. Some did comprehend, not surprisingly. The remnants of that hapless race protested vigorously. Choice of the name is reminiscent of the ease with which we name our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Blackhawk. Tomahawk,…  We might react differently if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes “Jew” and “Gypsy”.
The examples mentioned would fall under the category “American exceptionalism,” were it not for the fact that easy suppression of one’s own crimes is virtually ubiquitous among powerful states, at least those that are not defeated and forced to acknowledge reality. Other current illustrations are too numerous to mention. To take just one, of great current significance, consider Obama’s terror weapons (drones) in Pakistan. Suppose that during the 1980s, when they were occupying Afghanistan, the Russians had carried out targeted assassinations in Pakistan aimed at those who were financing, arming and training the insurgents – quite proudly and openly. For example, targeting the CIA station chief in Islamabad, who explained that he “loved” the “noble goal” of his mission: to “kill Soviet Soldiers…not to liberate Afghanistan.” There is no need to imagine the reaction, but there is a crucial distinction: that was them, this is us.
What are the likely consequences of the killing of bin Laden?  For the Arab world, it will probably mean little. He had long been a fading presence, and in the past few months was eclipsed by the Arab Spring. His significance in the Arab world is captured by the headline in the New York Times for an op-ed by Middle East/al Qaeda specialist Gilles Kepel; “Bin Laden was Dead Already.” Kepel writes that few in the Arab world are likely to care. That headline might have been dated far earlier, had the US not mobilized the Jihadi movement by the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, as suggested by the intelligence agencies and scholarship. As for the Jihadi movement, within it bin Laden was doubtless a venerated symbol, but apparently did not play much more of a role for this “network of networks,” as analysts call it, which undertake mostly independent operations.
The most immediate and significant consequences are likely to be in Pakistan. There is much discussion of Washington’s anger that Pakistan didn’t turn over bin Laden. Less is said about the fury in Pakistan that the US invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor had already reached a very high peak in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it.
Pakistan is the most dangerous country on earth, also the world’s fastest growing nuclear power, with a huge arsenal. It is held together by one stable institution, the military. One of the leading specialists on Pakistan and its military, Anatol Lieven, writes that “if the US ever put Pakistani soldiers in a position where they felt that honour and patriotism required them to fight America, many would be very glad to do so.” And if Pakistan collapsed, an “absolutely inevitable result would be the flow of large numbers of highly trained ex-soldiers, including explosive experts and engineers, to extremist groups.” That is the primary threat he sees of leakage of fissile materials to Jihadi hands, a horrendous eventuality.
The Pakistani military have already been pushed to the edge by US attacks on Pakistani sovereignty. One factor is the drone attacks in Pakistan that Obama escalated immediately after the killing of bin Laden, rubbing salt in the wounds. But there is much more, including the demand that the Pakistani military cooperate in the US war against the Afghan Taliban, whom the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis, the military included, see as fighting a just war of resistance against an invading army, according to Lieven.
The bin Laden operation could have been the spark that set off a conflagration, with dire consequences, particularly if the invading force had been compelled to fight its way out, as was anticipated. Perhaps the assassination was perceived as an “act of vengeance,” as Robertson concludes. Whatever the motive was, it could hardly have been security. As in the case of the “supreme international crime” in Iraq, the bin Laden assassination illustrates that security is often not a high priority for state action, contrary to received doctrine.
Comments
  1. [...] Originally Posted by ST JAY He wasn't a failure at getting Bin Laden! Or helping countless Americans stay in their homes and keep their health insurance! I hoped for better from our President, but he gets very little help from the right! Osama Bin Laden a.k.a. Tim Osman totallyfreepress [...]

  2. [...] to hide the truth like that? CIA-Osama bin Laden controversy – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia free press view on the issue Reply With Quote + Reply to [...]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s