Yesterday we had the story of Bin Laden.
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Chang ... topic=4246
Today I present you – Al Qaida, the world wide terror network organisation, like the hydra undefeatable, everywhere hidden, the most dangerous issue of our time.
" Al Qaeda is nothing more than an extension of the operatus linked to U.S. intelligence that was allowed, by script, to remove itself as a rogue break away entity of the U.S. government; allowed to de-compartmentalize from oversight, and was run instead by Gary Best rogue black ops specialists for scripted activity outside of the U.S. government, with its funding being orchestrated through the Pakistani secret police, an entity of the U.S. government itself."
--Tom Heneghan, our great heroic American Patriot, Federal Whistleblower
Now that’s a total bogus and fringe claim, isn’t it?
And that guy is a nut…
Maybe. But we should look at some disturbing facts:
The term Al Qaida wasn’t known before 1998
While we now know that al Qaeda was formed in 1988 [do we?], at the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the intelligence community did not describe this organization, at least in documents we have seen, until 1999.
[Simply put: Why not?]
A National Intelligence Estimate distributed in July 1995 predicted future terrorist attacks against the United States-and in the United States. It warned that this danger would increase over the next several years. It specified as particular points of vulnerability the White House, the Capitol, symbols of capitalism such as Wall Street, critical infrastructure such as power grids, areas where people congregate such as sports arenas, and civil aviation generally. It warned that the 1993 World Trade Center bombing had been intended to kill a lot of people, not to achieve any more traditional political goal.
[e.g. like state sponsored terrorism OP Gladio:” 'You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."
as murdering [innocent?] civilians was somehow disputed in most “real” terror groups]
This 1995 estimate described the greatest danger as "transient groupings of individuals" that lacked "strong organization but rather are loose affiliations." They operate "outside traditional circles but have access to a worldwide network of training facilities and safehavens."2 This was an excellent summary of the emerging danger, based on what was then known.
In 1996-1997, the intelligence community received new information making clear that Bin Ladin headed his own terrorist group, with its own targeting agenda and operational commanders. Also revealed was the previously unknown involvement of Bin Ladin's organization in the 1992 attack on a Yemeni hotel quartering U.S. military personnel, the 1993 shootdown of U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopters in Somalia, and quite possibly the 1995 Riyadh bombing of the American training mission to the Saudi National Guard.
[Put up the scapegoat, blame him for all kinf of terrorist attacks to make a future fall guy?]
The 1997 update of the 1995 estimate did not discuss the new intelligence. It did state that the terrorist danger depicted in 1995 would persist. In the update's summary of key points, the only reference to Bin Ladin was this sentence: "Iran and its surrogates, as well as terrorist financier Usama Bin Ladin and his followers, have stepped up their threats and surveillance of US facilities abroad in what also may be a portent of possible additional attacks in the United States."3 Bin Ladin was mentioned in only two other sentences in the six-page report. The al Qaeda organization was not mentioned. The 1997 update was the last national estimate on the terrorism danger completed before 9/11.4
From 1998 to 2001, a number of very good analytical papers were distributed on specific topics. These included Bin Ladin's political philosophy, his command of a global network, analysis of information from terrorists captured in Jordan in December 1999, al Qaeda's operational style, and the evolving goals of the Islamist extremist movement.
[the hot built up-phase? See Abdel Bari Atwan link in Osama Bin Laden thread.]
Many classified articles for morning briefings were prepared for the highest officials in the government with titles such as "Bin Ladin Threatening to Attack US Aircraft [with antiaircraft missiles]" (June 1998),"Strains Surface Between Taliban and Bin Ladin" (January 1999), "Terrorist Threat to US Interests in Caucasus" (June 1999), "Bin Ladin to Exploit Looser Security During Holidays" (December 1999),"Bin Ladin Evading Sanctions" (March 2000),"Bin Ladin's Interest in Biological, Radiological Weapons" (February 2001), "Taliban Holding Firm on Bin Ladin for Now" (March 2001),"Terrorist Groups Said Cooperating on US Hostage Plot" (May 2001), and "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in the US" (August 2001).5
Despite such reports and a 1999 paper on Bin Ladin's command structure for al Qaeda, there were no complete portraits of his strategy or of the extent of his organization's involvement in past terrorist attacks. Nor had the intelligence community provided an authoritative depiction of his organization's relationships with other governments, or the scale of the threat his organization posed to the United States.
I have to repeat me: Why not? Again - incompetence? Or was there nothing to report on?
Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.
Robin Cook, British mp, leader of the commons and former foreign secretary, just a month before his death.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/sto ... 38,00.html
So, let me see if I get that right?
There was no organisation Al Qaida, it was just a list of names of mudjahedeen, maybe even a list on a computer file by the CIA?
Are there furter proofs?
Interview with Bin Ladens doc:
Q: Today in the United States, we hear from law enforcement about Al Qaeda.
Q: But to you that's something different.
A: Well, I [really] laugh when I hear the FBI talking about Al Qaeda as an organization of bin Laden. ... [It's really a] very simple story. If bin Laden is to receive Arabs from Saudi Arabia and from Kuwait--from other regions--he is [to] receive them in the guest house in Peshawar. They used to go to the battle field and come back, without documentation.
Q: What do you mean without documentation?
A: There [was] no documentation of who has arrived. Who has left. How long he stayed. There's only [a nice general reception]. And you go there. And you join in the battle field. ... Very simple organization. Now, he was embarrassed by many families when they called him and ask what happened to our son. He don't know. `Cause there's no record. There's no documentation. Now he asked some of his colleagues to start documenting the movement of every Arab coming under his umbrella. ... It is recorded that [they] arrived in this date and stayed in this house. ... And then there was a record of thousands and thousands of people. Many of them had come only for two weeks, three weeks and then disappeared. That record, that documentation was called the record of Al Qaeda. So that was Al Qaeda. There's nothing sinister about Al Qaeda. It's not like an organization--like any other terrorist organization or any other underground group. I don't think he used any name for his underground group. If you want to name it, you can name it "bin Laden group." But if they are using the term Al Qaeda ... Al Qaeda is just a record for the people who came to Peshawar and moved from there back and forth to the guest house. And moved back to their country. And if they want to follow the number, they must be talking about 20, 30 thousand people. Which is impossible to trace. And I think most of those records are in the hands of the Saudi government anyway, because people used the Saudi airlines, [at] a very much reduced fare. Twenty-five percent of the total fare of a trip to Islamabad. ...
Q: So Al Qaeda ... [is] not a secret organization at all, is it?
A: It's not a secret organization at all. It was common knowledge to many people who went there. ... Al Qaeda was public knowledge. It was a record of people who ended up in Peshawar and joined, and move from Peshawar to Afghanistan. It was very [benign] information. A simple record of people who were there just to make record available to bin Laden if he's asked by any family or any friend what happened to Mr. so-and-so.
Dr. Saad Al-Fagih
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... fagih.html
From here it’s getting worse.
Hints/Accusations that Al Qaida is in fact a western sting operation, controlled via ISI (Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence) and Saudi Arabia
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=national&alt=& ... 5&hn=22982
"...Further more he argued that there is no Al Qaida. According to Kaynak, Al Qaida is the name of the operation carried out by an intelligence service, which is CIA…With this operation an anti-Islam front among the peoples of the world is tried to be created."...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003 ... ssad_x.htm
Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad
Assad doubts existence of al-Qaeda
KUWAIT CITY (AP) - Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview published Sunday that he doubts the existence of al-Qaeda, the terror group blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks and recent strikes in Saudi Arabia and Morocco.
"Is there really an entity called al-Qaeda? Was it in Afghanistan? Does it exist now?" Assad asked, according to the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Anba.
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=national&alt=& ... 5&hn=22982
August 14, 2005
«Countries facing the al-Qaeda threat are awaiting the intelligence Turkish security is to provide. Amid the smoke from the fortuitous fire emerged the possibility that al-Qaeda may not be, strictly speaking, an organization but an element of an intelligence agency operation.
Turkish intelligence specialists agree that there is no such organization as al-Qaeda.
Rather, Al-Qaeda is the name of a secret service operation. The concept “fighting terror” is the background of the “low-intensity-warfare” conducted in the mono-polar world order. The subject of this strategy of tension is named as “al-Qaeda.” »
Such speculation is popular among some in the Arab world who say Washington has manufactured or exaggerated the threat posed by al-Qaeda in order to paint Muslims as dangerous.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/sto ... 04,00.html
Friday October 15, 2004
The Power of Nightmares seeks to overturn much of what is widely believed about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.
The latter, it argues, is not an organised international network.
It does not have members or a leader.
It does not have "sleeper cells".
It does not have an overall strategy.
In fact, it barely exists at all, except as an idea about cleansing a corrupt world through religious violence.
According to Dadullah, al-Qaeda did not exist in Afghanistan and he said he did not know the fate or whereabouts of Osama bin-Laden.
http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/101 ... Qaeda.html
«Al Qaeda does not exist and never has»
«The basic truth is that Al Qaeda does not exist and never has. Al Qaeda is a manufactured enemy who was created by the Bush Administration in order to have an excuse to wage a war for the control of the world"s oil resources.
http://www.gsmpro.com/article/articledt ... ticleId=39
Bashir on Friday accused the United States of inventing both al-Qaida and Jemaah Islamiyah to portray Muslims as terrorists.
Qazi Hussain Ahmed :
«I've never been sure whether the so-called Al-Qaeda has ever even existed. »
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair, London, United Kingdom
July 15, 2005
Commenting on the possible role of Al Qaeda, Blair said, " Al Qaeda is not an organization . Al Qaeda is a way of working ... but this has the hallmark of that approach."
This link needs registration to be followed:
http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/103 ... 0082.shtml
October 29, 2002
''Al-Qaida is not an organization anymore, it is a concept,'' said Jordanian political analyst Labib Kamhawi.
''There is a lot of appeal for the concept itself.''»
«''On balance, I would be surprised if there wasn't any foreign participation,'' he said. ''Al-Qaida does not have
membership cards, and as such, linkages can occur on many different levels.''
I can add a testimony, shown in french filmmaker Mohammed Sifaoui 2003 film "On the trace of Osama Bin Laden" In it, a afghan clan leader says:
"Al Qaida? What should that be- you can search for Al Qaida here, but you won't find it for sure!"
And, as conclusion of the movie:
"As he (OBL) was a product of the CIA."
IS THE “OSAMA VIDEO” RELEASED ON FRIDAY (just before the US presidental vote 2004) THE OCTOBER SURPRISE?
Richard Clarke was on ABC Nightline on Friday evening talking about the Osama video.
— Osama wants Bush to win (to keep the status of “al-Qaeda” in the Muslim world).
— Bush let Osama get away (from Tora Bora).
Al-Qaida would back Bush, says UK envoy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections20 ... 54,00.html
Al-Qaida press relations
Ever noticed how keen al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri is in timing his distribution of statements to the press? This time he preceded Bush's State of the Union speech
Who is behind "Al Qaeda in Iraq"? Pentagon acknowledges fabricating a "Zarqawi Legend"
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, April 18, 2006
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... cleId=2275
George Bush and the Politics of Terror
By Larry Johnson
Wed Aug 16th, 2006
As George Bush said, "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me --- you can't get fooled again." Or, how about the old saying, "if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a duck." Why the snark? Just watch the Keith Olbermann's brilliant presentation - which shows conclusive, indisputable evidence that George Bush and his minions have used bogus terrorist threats to distract public attention from embarrassing political news - and you too will become a member of the reality-based community
Tom Ridge's Mea Culpa:
The Code Orange Terror Alerts were based on Fake Intelligence
by Michel Chossudovsky
www.globalresearch.ca 12 May 2005
"If we simply go to red ... it basically shuts down the country," (Tom Ridge) [meaning that civilian government bodies would be closed down and taken over by an Emergency Administration.]
"What a lot of Americans suspected all along turns out to be true. The color-coded alert system for terrorist attacks was a fraud." (www.North.Jersey.com )
After leaving his position at Homeland Security, Tom Ridge acknowledged that the post 9/11 terror alerts were often based on "flimsy evidence" and that he had been pressured by the CIA to raise the threat level:
The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level… Ridge [said] .he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled.
"More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it…Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert). ... There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?' " (USA Today , 10 May 2005)
A review of the three high profile code orange terror alerts confirms in all three cases that the intelligence had been fabricated.
1. February 7, 2003, Two days after Colin Powell's Feb 5 presentation to the UN Security Council, in the month prior to the invasion of Iraq,
2. December 21, Christmas 2003
July 29th 2004, on the same day as John Kerry's acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention. The code orange alert served to galvanize US public opinion in favor of Bush's "war on terrorism" in the months leading up to the November 2004 elections.
Al Qaida everywhere (it’s useful?)
IRAQ ON THE RECORD
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON IRAQ
PREPARED FOR REP. HENRY A. WAXMA
[The Bush admin made] 61 statements […] misrepresented Iraq’s ties to al Qaeda.
on May 1, 2003, that “the liberation of Iraq
. . . removed an ally of al Qaeda.”
On October 10, 2003, that
Saddam Hussein “had an established relationship with al Qaeda.”
On January 22, 2004, that “there’s overwhelming evidence that there
was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government.”
on November 14, 2002, that within “a week, or a month” Saddam Hussein could
give his weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda, which could use them to attack the United States and kill “30,000, or 100,000 . . . human beings”;
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/docs/i ... record.pdf
Bush: Saddam and al-Qaida were linked
Thursday June 17, 2004
The US president, George Bush, today insisted that there were links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, a day after an independent commission announced that Iraq was not involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.
"There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida," Mr Bush said. With his secretary of state, Colin Powell, to one side and his secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, to the other, Mr Bush told reporters: "This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida.”
"We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, for example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with [Osama] bin Laden, the head of al-Qaida in Sudan."
Yesterday a report by the bipartisan congressional commission investigating the 2001 attacks found no "collaborative relationship" between al-Qaida and the deposed Iraqi leader.
And now, at the eve of the Iran war:
Negroponte: al-Qaida the Biggest Threat
Jan 11, 2007 | The Associated Press
Al-Qaida poses the gravest terrorist threat to the United States and an emboldened Hezbollah is a growing danger, the U.S. intelligence chief said Thursday.
Terror Officials See Al Qaeda Chiefs Regaining Power
WASHINGTON, Feb. 18  — Senior leaders of Al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/world ... ei=5087%0A
Speaking to USINFO February 20 , Alberto Fernandez, the director of public diplomacy in the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, said al-Qaida is seeking alternative means to strike at the United States and has “a track record of attacking economic and oil targets.”
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/displ ... ak0.905697
Why this is not reported?
There is an unwitting conspiracy between four separate powers to represent the worldwide al-Qaeda network as fiendishly clever, powerfully effective and deeply involved in the London bombings.
First, the news media. Al-Qaeda is a “narrative” and a gripping one. Everybody loves a mystery story. Everybody loves a thriller. Everybody needs a plot. All journalists have an in-built tendency to make links between things and find unifying forces at work. A series of random and unrelated facts makes for a shapeless account. Report without implicit explanation is baffling and finally boring. No British journalist I know would invent or consciously distort a report in order to exaggerate the involvement of al-Qaeda; but most of us are drawn to explanations that, well, explain.
Secondly, the Government. I would not be so rude or stupid as to suggest that ministers take any sort of satisfaction from terrorist atrocities. But leadership is made easier if there is a visible, tangible threat; and easier still if it can be represented as completely alien. Us v Them is the narrative a politician is most at home with. The BBC’s The Power of Nightmares made an important point: fear silences opposition, and governments walk tallest when an external threat can be identified and they can lead us against it. “Evil” is a more convenient opponent than stupidity, inadequacy and human dysfunction. We hold our leaders’ hands a little more tightly in the dark.
Thirdly, the security services. The police, British Intelligence, and our counter-terrorism apparatus, are all flattered in their work by headlines that suggest that the enemy is formidable, incredibly sophisticated and hard to catch. Any failure on the part of our security services to detect in advance or prevent a terrorist outrage, or to catch the terrorists afterwards, is easily explained if the terrorist movement is widely agreed to be fiendishly clever and well organised. It is not flattering to a counter-terrorism chief to suggest that his quarry is a muppet. The tale of a police mastermind calls for a criminal mastermind, too.
Finally, of course, the terrorist himself. A reputation for fearsomeness and sophistication is nothing but a boon not only to his self-esteem, but also to his efforts to recruit others to his cause. Never think that speeches about the wickedness and cruelty of al-Qaeda do other than burnish the legend.
From a certain point of view, the journalist, the politician, the police chief and the terrorist can be seen as locked in a macabre waltz of the mind, no less distorting for being unconscious. We should not to join that dance.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 34,00.html
I just wanna shock you, I’m the boogeyman, and I gonna get you, to face the ugly truth.
We're all been duped.
"This war on terror is bogus"
Michael Meacher, British mp
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/com ... 87,00.html