EMAIL PAGE TWO
COLUMN SIXTY-SEVEN, JANUARY 1, 2002
(Copyright © 2002 Al Aronowitz)
ABOUT BIN LADIN-CIA MARRIAGE
Re: [AGALIST] COLUMN SIXTY-FIVE
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 22:05:35 -0600
From: Lew Rosenbaum <firstname.lastname@example.org
you think the article you printed is frightening and well documented, get a load
of this one:
9:47 PM -0600 11/25/01, rosetree wrote:
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 22:50:23 EST
Subject: (no subject)
Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:52 PM
GAPING HOLES IN THE 'CIA VS. BIN LADEN' STORY
HOLES IN THE 'CIA VS. BIN LADEN' STORY
8 November 2001]
to the BBC program 'Newsnight,' the Bush administration told the
may have read the article we posted a few weeks ago, with excerpts from a
congressional hearing last year on terrorism in South Asia. In that hearing,
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher charged the Clinton administration with sabotaging
efforts to arrest bin Laden. (2)
more facts come to light it becomes increasingly evident that the claim made by
the U.S. government, whether under Clinton or Bush, that it has been
trying---and failing---to stop Osama bin Laden is full of holes. Here are a few
of the bigger ones.
GULF WAR SCENARIO
to the official story, bin Laden broke with the Saudi and U.S. governments over
the Gulf War.
may sound plausible to Western ears. After all, Iraq is an Arab country and bin
Laden is an Arab.
Iraq and Saudi Arabia are quite different. Saudi Arabia was and is tyrannized by
the fanatical Fundamentalist Wahhabi sect, endorsed by the
Laden spent the 1980s fighting a secular government (which was backed by Soviet
troops) in Afghanistan. Then he returned to Saudi Arabia where, "After
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait he lobbied the Saudi royal family to organize civil
defense in the kingdom and to raise a force from among the Afghan war veterans
to fight Iraq." ('Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,' 23 September 2001 Sunday, Two
Star Edition, pg. A-12, "How a Holy War against the Soviets turned on
US" by Ahmed Rashid)
did he want "to raise a force ...to fight Iraq"?
can seriously argue that the Iraqis intended to attack Saudi Arabia. The
argument between Iraq and Kuwait was over oil, and also over a geography that
was inherited from colonial times. If you look at a map you will see that Kuwait
looks like a tiny but strategic piece chopped out of Iraq. (For map, see http://home.achilles.net/~sal/icons/iraq.gif)
Iraq-Kuwait fight was in fact a local war. All reports indicate that
Sept. 22, 1990, the 'N.Y. Times' published what is apparently an accurate
transcript of a conversation between Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador April
Glaspie. This conversation took place on July 25, eight days before the outbreak
of fighting. We will post the Glaspie-Hussein conversation as soon as possible.
It is most interesting. In it, she suggests that the Bush administration
understands the Iraqi point of view and does not wish to meddle in an Arab
dispute. For instance, Amb. Glaspie says:
have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with
Kuwait...we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E.
and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against
Iraq." ('N.Y. Times, 22 September, 1990)
Hussein wanted to make sure of U.S. neutrality before taking action against
Kuwait, and since Saudi Arabia is Washington's key Arab ally, with huge U.S.
military bases, of which, of course, the Iraqi leaders were aware, it is simply
not conceivable that Iraq planned to attack Saudi Arabia.
bin Laden had no defensive reason to call on "the Saudi royal family to
organize civil defense in the kingdom" let alone "to raise a force
from among the Afghan war veterans to fight Iraq."
why did he take such a provocative stance?
most reasonable explanations are a) that he wanted to crush Iraq because it was
a secular Muslim state and b) that he was associated with the CIA and was
attempting to increase tensions between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, or even to
provoke Iraq into launching a preemptive strike against Saudi Arabia, thus
giving the U.S. an excuse to attack Iraq.
any event, it was clear bin Laden was not upset by the notion of fighting Iraq.
Why then, according to the official story, did the Gulf War so upset him?
official answer is, because it involved a Saudi-U.S. alliance, which he felt
desecrated Saudi Arabia.
is a little much to swallow. Bin laden had worked closely with U.S.
forces---namely, the Central Intelligence Agency---as the representative of the
Saudi 'royal family' in Afghanistan during the decade when the CIA nurtured
Islamist forces to fight Afghan government and Soviet troops.
was no idealistic holy man. He and his family made a fortune off the carnage in
Afghanistan. (This is discussed below.)
should bin Laden suddenly go berserk because the Saudi Arabian government was
doing exactly what he himself had done---as the representative of the Saudi
(according to the official story) the war brought tens of thousands of U.S.
troops into Saudi Arabian bases and this massive infidel invasion desecrated
Saudi Arabia's sacred soil. Horrified, he broke with the Saudi Arabian 'royal
family' and the U.S.
BIDS ARE THICKER THAN WATER
a compelling story, but no cigar. The sacred soil that the U.S. infidel soldiers
supposedly desecrated was located in a series of top secret facilities built
during the 1980s by the U.S. military at a cost (mostly to Saudi Arabia!)
of---are you ready?---over 200 BILLION dollars. This was the largest U.S.
military construction project ever attempted outside the continental USA. As a
Public Television program reported in 1993:
Armstrong: A $200 billion program that's basically put together and nobody's
paying attention to it. It's---it's the ultimate government off the books...
Armstrong: The Saudis have been the principal backers and financers of the
largest armaments system that the world has ever seen, in any region of the
world, that includes over $95 billion worth of weapons that they bought
themselves, includes another $65 billion worth of military infrastructure and
ports that they've put in. We've managed to create an interlocking system that
has one master control base, five sub-control bases, any one of which is capable
of operating the whole thing, that are in hardened bunkers, that are hard-wired,
that is to say, against nuclear blast or anything else. They created nine major
ports that weren't there before, dozens of airfields all over the kingdom. They
have now hundreds of modern American fighter planes and the capability of adding
hundreds more. The Saudis alone have spent $156 billion that I can document line
by line, item by item, on weapons system and infrastructure to support
this." (FRONTLINE Show #1112 Air Date: February 16, 1993 "The Arming
of Saudi Arabia". Scott Armstrong is a top investigative reporter for the
contracts for building those bases, ports, and airfields went in part to Saudi
construction companies. Osama's family company, Saudi Binladin Group (the name
is spelled differently but it's the same family) is intimate with the Saudi
royal family; moreover it is the biggest Saudi construction company (and also a
giant in the telecommunications field).
as sure as death and taxes, Saudi Binladin Group got a nice chunk of that $200
billion. And while the bin Ladens were building those U.S. bases, who did Osama
think was going to be using them? Martians?
back to the matter of construction contracts, consider what happened after the
Khobar Towers complex in Dhahran was bombed on June 25, 1996. Osama bin Laden
was accused by the U.S. of masterminding that bombing, which killed 19 U.S.
airmen and wounded about 500 others.
a new 'super-secure' facility was erected:
facility very likely is the most heavily guarded operational installation used
by the US military. This, clearly, is what retired Army Gen. Wayne A. Downing
had in mind when in 1996 he released a report criticizing security at Khobar
Towers and recommending more extensive force protection measures.
In a supreme irony, the complex was built by the giant contractor, Saudi
Binladin Group---owned by the same family that produced international terrorist
Osama bin Laden, now an outcast in his homeland." ('Air Force Magazine,'
is not exactly the word I would use, but OK.
did some building for the infidels in Afghanistan as well. That was during the
late 1980s. Under contract with the CIA, he and the family company built the
multi-billion dollar "caves" (1) in which he is now, supposedly,
hiding, thus causing the U.S. and Britain to bomb the Red Cross, the Red
Crescent, and other strategic military installations.
brought in engineers from his father's company and heavy construction equipment
to build roads and warehouses for the Mujaheddin. In 1986, he helped build a
CIA-financed tunnel complex, to serve as a major arms storage depot, training
facility and medical center for the Mujaheddin, deep under the mountains close
to the Pakistan border."
('Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,' 23 September 2001 Sunday, Two Star Edition, pg. A-12, "How a Holy War against the Soviets turned on US" by Ahmed Rashid)
DEAR, DON'T SEND THAT AWFUL MAN TO US!
supposedly breaking with the Saudi rulers---though we doubt the story--- bin
Laden went to Sudan. Soon the Sudanese tired of his presence. In March, 1996,
Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, then the Sudanese Minister of State for Defense, offered
to extradite bin Laden either to Saudi Arabia or the United States.
Sudanese security services, he said, would happily keep close watch on bin Laden
for the United States. But if that would not suffice, the government was
prepared to place him in custody and hand him over, though to whom was
ambiguous. In one formulation, Erwa said Sudan would consider any legitimate
proffer of criminal charges against the accused terrorist."
officials turned down the offer of extradition. 'The Washington Post' article
that reported this goes into some length quoting U.S. officials attempting to
explain exactly why they turned down the offer. The officials are quoted
explaining that the Saudis were afraid of a fundamentalist backlash if they
jailed and executed bin Laden, that they resented Sudan, that the U.S. resented
Sudan, that the U.S. didn't have sufficient evidence to put him on trial.
Everything, in fact, except the simplest explanation: that bin laden was a U.S.
asset---either part of the CIA, or someone whom the CIA used. Perhaps the
'Washington Post' writers were hinting at this explanation when they wrote:
there were the beginnings of a debate, intensified lately, on whether the United
States wanted to indict and try bin Laden or to treat him as a combatant in an
underground war." ('The Washington Post,' 3 October 2001)
on the word 'treat' as in 'pretend that he was.'
any case, the Sudanese offer of extradition was turned down.
officials] said, 'Just ask him to leave the country. Just don't let him go to
Somalia,' Erwa, the Sudanese general, said in an interview. 'We said he will go
to Afghanistan, and they [US officials!] said, 'Let him.'"
May 15, 1996, Foreign Minister Taha sent a fax to Carney in Nairobi, giving up
on the transfer of custody. His government had asked bin Laden to vacate the
country, Taha wrote, and he would be free to go." ('The Washington Post,' 3
"We said he will go to Afghanistan, and they [US officials!] said, 'Let
find this chilling.
WOULD BE ILLEGAL!
find it mind boggling that U.S. government officials would try to justify
rejecting Sudan's offer to extradite bin Laden because the Clinton
administration was 'lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time,'
('WP', 3 Oct.) Do they think Americans have no ability to remember what happened
the day before yesterday? That this is the same U.S. government that didn't
hesitate to bomb Sudan, Iraq and Yugoslavia, all of which bombings were the most
serious criminal violations of international law? Not to mention Afghanistan.
Not to mention the Red Cross. (5)
according to the highly reputable 'Jane's Intelligence Review:'
February 1995, US authorities named bin Laden and his Saudi brother-in-law,
Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, among 172 unindicted co-conspirators with the 11 Muslims
charged for the World Trade Center bombing and the associated plot to blow up
other New York landmarks." ('Jane's Intelligence Review,' 1 October 1995)
bin Laden had been named as an unindicted co-conspirator a year before Sudan
offered to extradite him.
couldn't the U.S. government have accepted the offer to extradite bin Laden,
jailed him, put together the best case they could, and put him on trial? What
exactly did the U.S. government have to lose by accepting the Sudanese offer?
The worst that could have happened would have been that
LET HIM GO, OH, ANYWHERE. MAYBE TO - AFGHANISTAN!
the U.S. asked Sudan to expel bin Laden, knowing full well that he would go to
Afghanistan---and Kosovo and Macedonia. (2)
the way, two years later, the U.S. military bombed Sudan, supposedly because the
Sudanese government was allied with bin Laden. Doesn't it sound like bin Laden's
real friends were not in Sudan, as Clinton tried to convince the world when he
sent cruise missiles to destroy a Sudanese medicine factory, but in the U.S.
is so much about bin Laden that suggests he is still in some way associated with
activities in Afghanistan prior to 1990;
activities on the "U.S. side" in Bosnia, Kosovo and, quite recently,
refusal of the Clinton administration to allow Sudan to extradite him in 1996;
very convincing arguments by Congressman Rohrabacher that the Clinton
administration sabotaged efforts to apprehend him (2);
functioning as a lightning rod for dissenters - getting people who oppose U.S.
policy to support his ultra-repressive Islamist politics. This is discussed in
the article, 'Bin Laden, Terrorist Monster.' Take Two!, which can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/taketwo.htm;
amazing transformation regarding the World Trade Center attack. At first he
denied involvement, saying "that dozens of terrorists organizations from
countries like Israel, Russia, India and Serbia could be responsible"
(i.e., it was the work of Satan) and "insisted that al Qaida does not
consider the United States its enemy." But a week later he issued a video
tape where he said "God Almighty hit the United States at its most
vulnerable spot....When Almighty God rendered successful a convoy of Muslims,
the vanguards of Islam, He allowed them to destroy the United States. I ask God
Almighty to elevate their status and grant them Paradise."
latter statement was pre-recorded and released immediately after the U.S.
government started bombing Afghanistan, that is, precisely when Mr. Bush needed
the emotional impact of just such a statement in order to 'justify' yet another
illegal war; (3)
now this report from the BBC that the Bush administration suppressed
investigations into connections between members of the bin Laden family and
possible terrorist groups.
all this point to a working relationship between U.S. covert forces and Mr. b.
ARE DEADLY ENEMIES, SO TAKE THESE 400 TRUCKS, O CURSED ONE!"
I said I doubted the reality of the 'break' between bin Laden and the Saudi
Royals. According to the book, "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and
Fundamentalism in Central Asia,'' by Ahmed Rashid, who is the Pakistan,
just a few weeks before the U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa, the book tells
us..."In July 1998 Prince Turki had visited Kandahar and a few weeks later
400 new pick-up trucks arrived in Kandahar for the Taliban, still bearing their
Dubai license plates''. (Quoted in 'The creation called Osama,' by Shamsul
Islam. Can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/creat.htm
were all, I am told, Toyotas.
final point. Part of the official Osama story is that the elusive Mr. bin Laden
broke with his family because of his extreme Fundamentalist religious-politics.
us consider a few pieces of information which might suggest we adopt a stance of
"His father backed the Afghan struggle [meaning: the U.S.-supported
terrorist war against the Afghan government] and helped fund it; when Osama bin
Laden decided to join the non-Afghan fighters with the Mujaheddin, his family
responded enthusiastically." ('Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,' 23 September 2001)
The entire family is known for its fiercely conservative Islamist (Wahhabi)
views: "His father is known in these areas as a man with deeply
conservative religious and political views and for his profound distaste for
non-Islamic influences that have penetrated some of the most remote corners of
old Arabia." UPI, quoted at http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/3/214858.shtml
It is true that families have feuds. In the typical U.S., family wars
he grew up in the Saudi Arabian city of Jiddah, about 700 miles away across the
Arabian peninsula, those who know him say he retains the characteristics of the
people of this remote Yemeni region: extremely clannish and intensely
conservative in their adherence to strict forms of Islam." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/3/214858.shtml
If such clans do feud, it can get violent. And certainly, it is hard to believe
that Osama would be disowned by this sort of clan-family (as the official story
claims) but nevertheless maintain cordial relations with family members.
Consider this report:
Security] Agency officials have sometimes played tapes of bin
Ladens building U.S. troops' housing By Sig Christenson; Express-News Staff
Laden family members have said they are estranged from their brother, who turned
against the Saudi government after joining Muslim fighters following the Soviet
Union's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan.
Yossef Bodansky, director of the House Task Force on Terrorism and
Unconventional Warfare, said 'Osama maintains connections' with some of his
nearly two dozen brothers. He would not elaborate." ('San Antonio
Express-News,' 14 September 1998)
to articles which discuss the BBC report follow.
'Times of India':
'Taliban Camps U.S. bombed in Afghanistan Were Built by NATO'. Based on
'Bin Laden in the Balkans.' Mainstream news reports that confirm bin Laden's
support for terrorism---and, alas, the 'U.S.' side---in the
"'Bin Laden, Terrorist Monster.' Take Two!," by Jared Israel. Can be
read at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/taketwo.htm
'Congressman: U.S. Set Up Anti-Taliban to be Slaughtered' Comments by Jared
Israel followed by excerpts from congressional hearing. Can be read at
'Red Cross Spokesmen Refute Pentagon Lies'. An Interview by Emperor's Clothes
with the Red Cross about the U.S. bombing of its Afghan facilities. Can be read
our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm.
Receive about one article/day.
* * *
CLICK HERE TO GET TO INDEX OF COLUMN SIXTY-SEVEN
CLICK HERE TO GET TO INDEX OF COLUMNS
Blacklisted Journalist can be contacted at P.O.Box 964, Elizabeth, NJ 07208-0964
The Blacklisted Journalist's E-Mail Address:
THE BLACKLISTED JOURNALIST IS A SERVICE MARK OF AL ARONOWITZ