Bin Laden moved to Iraq?
All Posts post a reply | post a new topic

AuthorTopic: Bin Laden moved to Iraq?
topic by
John Calvin
2/22/2002 (19:57)
 reply top
'A close examination of militant outfits and religious groups clearly shows that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are two utterly different entities - in their leadership, in the nature of their followers and in their modus operandi.'


Bin Laden uses Iraq to plot new attacks
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - In the light of Osama bin Laden's background and his international contacts and associations, there are strong indications that the world's most wanted terrorist has taken sanctuary in Iraq after fleeing Afghanistan via Iran. And given the enduring structure of his al-Qaeda network, it is most likely that he is already planning simultaneous terror attacks on United States interests in many parts of the world.

Despite exhaustive efforts in Afghanistan, including the crushing of the Taliban regime, the US has been unable to come even close to capturing the Saudi exile, whom Washington blames for masterminding the September 11 attacks on the US, as well as other acts of terrorism. It is no coincidence, perhaps, that US President George W Bush, in preparing to pursue America's war on terrorism beyond the campaign in Afghanistan, has accused Iraq, Iran and North Korea of being a part of an 'axis of evil'.

A close examination of militant outfits and religious groups clearly shows that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are two utterly different entities - in their leadership, in the nature of their followers and in their modus operandi.

The Taliban, who assumed power in Afghanistan in 1996, were characterized by deep introversion and the rigid application of a quirky strain of fundamentalist Islam, while al-Qaeda members have been noted for their sophisticated, extroverted and flexible approach in consolidating their international terror network since its inception in 1989, at which time they vowed to 'oppose non-Islamic governments with force and violence'.

Although the Taliban and al-Qaeda on the surface presented a picture of co-existence during bin Laden's stint as a 'guest' of Taliban leader Mullah Omar in Afghanistan, the fact is that it was not Mullah Omar's version of Islam that attracted bin Laden and his trusted sidekick, Egyptian surgeon Aimen al Zawhari. Rather, the canny al-Qaeda leaders had ulterior motives. According to sources, despite the extreme rivalry between the Taliban regime and Shi'ite-ruled Iran after Taliban soldiers killed hundreds of Hazara tribesmen belonging to the Shi'ite Muslim community, as well as a number of Iranian diplomats in the the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif, al-Qaeda's wing outside of Afghanistan maintained good ties with Iranian leaders. In fact, outright conflict between Afghanistan and Iran was averted largely through the intervention of Lebanon-based members of al-Qaeda.

Similarly, bin Laden and the al-Qaeda have maintained close relations with Iraqi intelligence since the early 1990s. In 1994, Iraqi intelligence chief Farooq al-Hijazi visited the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, where bin Laden had established a headquarters for al-Qaeda in 1991 to run businesses to provide it with income and support. Farooq and bin Laden met. Also present was Dr Hasan Turabi, the head of the Muslim Brotherhood organization of Sudan. (Bin Laden married one of Turabi's nieces while he was in Sudan.)

This meeting was to prove helpful to both bin Laden and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. In his ongoing fight to suppress Kurdish dissidents, Saddam needed help. This was provided by underground Islamic groups at the instigation of bin Laden. These groups later openly functioned to carry out relief work in Iraq.

Two of bin Laden's senior lieutenants, Abdullah Qasim and Mohammed Abu Islam, met with Saddam, at which time the Iraqi leader agreed to provide military training to Saudi al-Qaeda members and to equip them with arms and ammunition. One of the key goals of al-Qaeda by this time had become to drive US forces out of Saudi Arabia, where they had remained since the Gulf War of 1991.

After this verbal promise from Saddam, Saudi citizens were able to travel to Baghdad without passports, using special routes, to receive training in Iraq. Sources say that al Zawhari also visited Saddam and proposed the establishment of al-Qaeda offices in Iraq. The suggestion was accepted, with guarantees that bin Laden would never use his people to rouse the Iraqi masses against Saddam's rule. Subsequently, Iraq became the center of activity for Egyptian, Yemani and Saudi youths being trained the al-Qaeda way.

At the time that the US started bombing the Tora Bora mountain range in Afghanistan in its search for bin Laden late last year, Asia Times Online reported that the elusive leader had last been seen in Kandahar, the former Taliban stronghold, and that his most likely destination in the face of advancing US troops was Iran. It appears now that bin Laden did indeed travel to Iran, using the maze of smuggling routes over the porous border between the two countries, before moving on to Iraq and making contact with the well-established Al-Qaeda network in place there.

Here he is in contact with Abu Zubaida, his new chief of military operations, to coordinate a new wave of attacks on American interests. Abu Zubaida is the nom de guerre of an influential Palestinian with deep contacts within Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. He is said to be capable of manipulating events in the Middle East. Abu Zubaida, who posed as a honey salesman, was also responsible for running terror training camps in Afghanistan for recruits from around the world for al-Qaeda's declared jihad against the United States. He has been named in an official United Nations list of people with connections to bin Laden.

Investigations show that al-Qaeda took several years to organize the September 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon, with preparations beginning in earnest after the US fired missiles on Afghanistan during Bill Clinton's presidency in retaliation for the 1998 bomb attacks on US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.

Any new attacks will likely also take a long time to plan, but this time Iraq and Iran are expected to play a pivotal role in any al-Qaeda adventures.

((c)2002 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved.

reply by
Barb
2/22/2002 (22:31)
 reply top
Yes, Saddam and Bin Laden would be a scary pair, indeed, for us in the U.S. and abroad.
reply by
John Calvin
2/22/2002 (22:51)
 reply top
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia_china/story.jsp?story=139250

The gruesome video of Daniel Pearl's execution reached the office of the government of Sindh province in southern Pakistan at about 11pm on Thursday, 21 February.. It arrived only hours before the beginning of the great Muslim holiday of Eid, the culmination of the Haj pilgrimage to Mecca.....

the timing of the delivery of the brief, horrific video has a ghastly resonance. The principal event of Eid in the Islamic world is the sacrifice of goats and sheep – a ritual commemorating the rescue of Isaac from the blade of Abraham who sent a sheep to take the child's place. In backyards from Casablanca to Mindanao, the legs of billy goats and rams are bound, a pit is dug in the ground to receive the blood, then the head of the house presses the animal's neck towards the pit and slits it.
And the video, too, showed a swift, ceremonial killing – the killing in captivity of Danny Pearl. According to one who has seen it, the tape shows Mr Pearl speaking directly into the video camera, and saying: 'I am a Jew, my mother is a Jew.' Then the hand of his killer – only his hands are shown – comes into the frame and slits his throat. Like the ram and the billy goat at Eid, he is then decapitated......

The abduction and murder of Danny Pearl bear the scary and paradoxical hallmarks of an al-Qa'ida action: patience, guile, intelligence, capacity for planning, mastery of modern technology, including use of the internet, mobile phones, digital cameras and video – all combined with primitive and remorseless brutality....


reply by
John Calvin
2/23/2002 (9:23)
 reply top
The article in Asian Times makes many assertions which seem plausible but are by no means proved. It seems to be a kind of summary of the CIA, Bush Administration thinking, a basis for their 'axis of evil' formulation. It's what they are able to 'piece together' ( mostly from alleged meetings that occurred in the early nineties.The interesting part of this posting was the way it distinguished between al-Queda and the Taliban.

Of course the report on the video of Pearl's execution is chilling but, again, attributing it to al-Queda is matter of conjecture, and a 'building up' of the image of al-Queda as the supreme and pitless evil in the world.

People should recall that the attitude of 'no negotiations with terrorists' is a relatively new development in human history, quite contrary to the usual way matters like this have been handled. Usually some attempt at negotiations are made, offers put forward. American officials could have suggested that they might release some of their prisoners,or otherwise make concessions, open a dialogue of sorts. This is usually done in domestic hostage situations and has been the practice of sensible diplomats since the time of Julius Caesar.
The 'no negotiations' stance drives those with complaints against the U.S. further and further into a corner, evoking more and more 'pitiless and 'primitive' reactions.

The 'no negotiations' stance indicates a great weakness and lack of magniminity in the American position, which contributed significantly to the fate of Daniel Pearl.

At the very least some sort of negotiation could have opened the door to obtaining more information necessary to finding the culprits.

Of course 'no negotiations' is typical of the 'lunatic logic' of American Administrations, similiar to Bush's recent assertion that Enron and other Corporate executives can't be candid ( honest, open, truthful) with the elected representatives of the American people) unless their meetings and the discussions that take place in them are secret.
This is another example of the total perversion of the English language (like calling the Sept 11 hijackers 'cowards') which is necessary to sustain the normal and expected course of corruption in the government of the United States of America.

reply by
Lynette
2/23/2002 (9:44)
 reply top
I am truely sorry about the death of Daniel Pearl. It was an appalling way to die. They did not have to do such a gruesome thing...totally pointless and achieved absolutely nothing for their 'cause'.It is a well known fact that the cast majority of Pakistani's have an intense dislike of Jews. Even the educated people feel the same way. What I cannot understand is WHY Pearl placed himself in such danger with a baby on the way. Being a Jew on assignment in a muslim country is definately a health hazard in these tense times....especially with the current Intafada raging. Maybe the lure of the 'perfect scoop' has too great a prize to pass up? Rest in peace Daniel.
reply by
Raquel
2/23/2002 (10:42)
 reply top
How do you know that the majority of Pakistanis have an intense dislike for jews?
Don't you think you are making the same type of assesment than muslims that say 'the majority of Americans have an intense dislike for muslims'
Is your affirmation based on empirical evidence? Is it based on your trips to Pakistan? Or is it based on your profound knowledge of both the languages and the etnographic features of the Pakistani society?
reply by
John Calvin
2/23/2002 (13:30)
 reply top
Well this 'totally pointless and achieved absolutely nothing for their 'cause' is the standard mantra that politicians repeat every time the U.S. takes a serious hit- like calling the 9/11 hijackers 'cowards', in the line of steadfastly denying the obvious, the proverbial ostrich burying its head in the sand. And I even heard one analyst say that this wouldn't discourage reporters from going after stories- it would inspire them to be even more aggressive- though, of course, he had to admit most reporters in the region were huddled around their secured hotels- for the time being!

In the book I am reading, 'The Prophets Pulpit' (see no. 25) the author discusses the thinking behind these kinds of actions.. 'Among extremists, even direct provocations, assaults on property, and assassinations have been justified as a kind of modern mass pedagogy which some militants designate by the term ghadab li-allah 'an outrage for God' which might be seen as a variation of the attacks called 'armed propaganda' by Italy's Red Brigade'.'

At the very least such outrages provoke the government of the U.S. to even more inchaote and frenzied efforts to protect 'the homeland' from attacks and pursue the 'al-Queda' to the ends of the earth without regard to the multi-lateral diplomacy and coalition building which is so essential if the 'new world Order' is to work. Outrages such as the execution of Pearl add fuel to the fire of popular support for Bush's campaign against the 'axis of evil'- which has already caused damage that will take years to repair ( in former President Carter's estimation). Meanwhile other situations recieve no attention or effort at all- Africa, Colombia, Indonesia, etc.etc. etc..

as in stratfor.com formulation:

'This troubling spread of instability is rooted in the current
structure of the international system. As the world's only
superpower, the United States' inevitable obsession with al Qaeda
has contributed to this process of destabilization.'

So the execution of Pearl was a great success, as was the attack of 9/11. What trap will the U.S. fall into next?

Negotiations, talks, dialogue, sophistication of analysis, understanding the historical background of such events, knowing the language and culture of Islam would all be important ingrediants in overcoming such challenges. U.S. leaders, however,in their 'arrogance of power'- thinking that having the most and best weapons is all that really matters- have decided to place themselves and the American people at the mercy of every militant in the world with enough money to buy shoe bombs and a copy of microsoft's flight simulator, not to mention what is being done to social welfare and civil liberties at the expense of 'security'.

How could a real patriot be content with the situation?
reply by
Lynette
2/23/2002 (13:37)
 reply top
It is based on the fact that I have been there several times. It is based on the fact that my daughter is married to a pakistani and has converted to Islam. It is based on the fact that many well educated Pakistani's have told me they harbour a dislike of Israel because of the Occupation and the expansion of settlements on once owned arab lands. And lastly it is based on FACT. Almost every Pakistani I have talked to, including Australian Pakistani's feels the same way. It is not that they hate Jews........they hate what Jews do to keep an iron grip in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. I am told that it is a Muslim's DUTY to support a fellow muslim in distress or under oppression.....I think I am safe in saying that the Palestinians fit the bill in that regard, in BOTH categories.
reply by
Barb
2/23/2002 (23:20)
 reply top
What did these cold-blooded terrorists achieve by their gruesome killing of Daniel Pearl except to prove to the civilized world of their barbarism, total lack of humanity and compassion for unarmed innocent civilians.
reply by
liz beech
2/24/2002 (11:40)
 reply top
Today's Observer has a (to me)chilling account of discussions Bush and Blair are having about a military offensive on Iraq in April.

It chills me because it feels, increasingly, as though everything is being set-up through propaganda, to enable the US and the UK to conduct pre-emptive strikes, anywhere they choose, and especially on the basis that Bin Laden is there.

If it wasn't so serious it would verge on the farcical. This 'character' Bin Laden can pop up anywhere that suits the purpose. He certainly suited the purpose of removing the Taliban - not a stated aim at the start of the action which was, I was told by Tony Blair, to capture Bin Laden. This swiftly changed, once the Taliban had been 'defeated', and no reference, at all, was made about Bin Laden for several weeks, but here he is again 'in Iraq', so that's alright then we'll go and deal with Iraq, or, if things change a bit then Bin Laden pops up in.....well you know, one of those despotic little nations that doesn't toe the line.......we'll go and show them what's what too.

I am firmly against war as a way of resolving conflict, but these actions seem to need a different name. The military might that is being employed is so evidently 'superior' to the capabilities of the 'enemy' that, whilst it doesn't solve the problem of 'fanatics' willing to die as suicide bombers etc., it certainly ensures that the US can dictate who 'leads' countries thus destroyed.

The worst of it is that it is so difficult to gain any sense that the majority of people in the 'developed' world really grasp, or care to grasp, what is going on. Ordinary folk are not joining the military in vast numbers, and conscription is mainly a thing of the past, so the military are able to close ranks, and the sort of dissent which occurred during, for instance, the Vietnam war no longer takes place.
reply by
John Calvin
2/24/2002 (14:13)
 reply top
What has the U.S. achieved by the bombing, and sanctions against Iraq, Serbia and Afghanistan except 'to prove to the civilized world of their barbarism, total lack of humanity and compassion for unarmed innocent civilians.'?

One empty pile of meaningless, mindless rhetoric deserves another.
reply by
John Calvin
2/24/2002 (14:25)
 reply top
I doubt that the U.S. will be dictating who leads Afganistan, Serbia, Iraq or anyplace for long, or that the Taliban is defeated.
Bin-Laden keeps popping up for sure. This weekend he was in Iraq, Kashmir and in the mountains somwhere between Afghanistan and Pakistan. This afternoon I read he has been sending out credible messages via the internet.
Nevermind that a commission established by Congress LAST SPRING to study terrorism concluded that the capture and/or killing of bin-Laden would have no meaningful, significance result on the over-all threat from terrorism.

People in the developed world have a very clear grasp on what's going on: Bush has gone completely off his rocker and as a result the World is becoming an increasaingly chaotic and dangerous place. Or, as one Iranian leader said: the man has the brain of a sparrow in the head of a dinasaur, and it behhoves rational human being everywhere to avoid provoking his animal like wrath, hardly a single step above islamic hooligans who go around slitting the throats of Jesus-like reporters for the Wall Street Journal.

reply by
Barb
2/24/2002 (23:15)
 reply top
U.S. Says bin Laden Location Still Unknown

Reuters

WASHINGTON (Feb. 24) - Saudi-born militant Osama bin Laden is probably alive despite U.S. efforts to kill or capture the al Qaeda leader, a top U.S. general said on Sunday.

''It's possible that he is no longer alive, but I think the odds are he probably is alive,'' Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on ''Fox News Sunday.''

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said there was no new evidence that bin Laden survived military strikes against his al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

''There has not been any recent evidence that he's alive. That does not mean he's not alive,'' said Rumsfeld on CBS' ''Face the Nation.''

''He may be in Afghanistan. I think that's the likeliest possibility. He could be across the border in a neighboring country,'' Rumsfeld said on NBC's ''Meet the Press.''

Bin Laden's whereabouts have been unknown for months, with reports surfacing that he had died of a kidney ailment or was killed in U.S. assaults in Afghanistan.

The New York Times reported on Sunday that unidentified U.S. administration officials said they have new indications that bin Laden is living along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The newspaper said other officials said bin Laden may also be hiding in southeastern Afghanistan and adjacent tribal areas in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier and Baluchistan provinces that have been strongholds of Islamic militancy.

In Sunday talk show appearances, the military officials and the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee agreed that even if bin Laden has survived, operations of his al Qaeda network have been crippled.

Rumsfeld said he did not think bin Laden was in a position to engineer additional attacks.

''The real test is, is he able to manage effectively the al Qaeda network and engage in additional terrorist acts. The short answer is no,'' Rumsfeld said on CBS.

And Richard Shelby of Alabama, top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on CNN's ''Late Edition'' that he agreed with estimates there are 100 or more al Qaeda operatives in the United States with enough training to act on their own.

''And I think they will try to hit us from time to time,'' he warned.

Myers said there were probably ''a couple of significant (al Qaeda) pockets left in Afghanistan.''

''We will get bin Laden, but he's not the only one we're searching for. There are several lieutenants yet and higher authorities in al Qaeda,'' he said.
Rumsfeld said only the absence of additional attacks would indicate al Qaeda's demise.

''And what we do know is there have not been many in recent weeks. It suggests to me that they're on the run,'' he said.

''To suggest that they're defeated would be wrong. They're not. Are they having trouble raising money? Yes. Are they having trouble transferring money? Yes. Are they having trouble communicating? To some extent, yes, we believe, certainly more trouble than they used to,'' he said.

Reut18:04 02-24-02

Copyright 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.