|
by Jared Israel
emperors-clothes.com, November 8,
2001
Below we have posted an article
from the 'Times of India.' It reports that according to the BBC program, 'Newsnight,'
the Bush administration told the FBI to back off from investigating the
bin Laden family's terrorist connections before the attack on the World
Trade Center.
According to the publication, 'Le
Figaro,' a CIA agent visited Osama bin Laden last July. 'Figaro' reports
that this meeting took place while bin Laden was being treated in the
American Hospital in Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates.
You 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.
As more facts come to light it
becomes increasingly evident that the official story, that Osama bin Laden
broke with the U.S. Establishment and its Saudi Arabian junior partners a
decade ago and has been trying to destroy the U.S. Empire ever since - is
an invention. The claim made by the Clinton and Bush administrations, that
they have tried, but unfortunately failed, to defeat the wily Mr. bin
Laden is full of holes.
Here are a few of the bigger ones.
THE GULF WAR SCENARIO
According to the official story,
bin Laden broke with the Saudi and U.S. governments over the Gulf War.
That may sound plausible to Western
ears. After all, Iraq is an Arab country and bin Laden is an Arab.
But Iraq and Saudi Arabia are quite
different. Saudi Arabia was and is tyrannized by the fanatical
Fundamentalist Wahhabi sect, endorsed by the Saudi 'royal family' and by
the rich bin Laden family as well. Iraq, by way of contrast, was a center
of secular Arab culture.
Bin 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)
Why did he want "to raise a force
...to fight Iraq"?
Nobody 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.
The Iraq-Kuwait fight was in fact a
local war. All reports indicate that Saddam Hussein believed that a) Iraq
was in essence being attacked by Kuwait and that therefore an invasion
would be a counter-attack and b) that the U.S. would not intervene.
On 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:
"...we 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)
Since 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.
Thus, 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."
So why did he take such a
provocative stance?
The 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.
In 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?
The official answer is, because it
involved a Saudi-U.S. alliance, which he felt desecrated Saudi Arabia.
This 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.
He was no idealistic holy man. He
and his family made a fortune off the carnage in Afghanistan. (This is
discussed below.)
Why 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 Arabian government?
Because (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.
CONSTRUCTION BIDS ARE THICKER THAN
WATER
It's 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:
"Scott 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...
"Scott 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 'Washington Post']
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).
So 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?
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION
Getting 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.
Afterwards, a new 'super-secure'
facility was erected:
"The 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,' February, 1999)
'Irony' is not exactly the word I
would use, but OK.
HIGH-RENT CAVES
Osama 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:
"He 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)
OH DEAR, DON'T SEND THAT AWFUL MAN
TO US!
After 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.
"The 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." ('The Washington Post,' 3
October 2001)
U.S. 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:
"And 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)
Emphasis on the word 'treat' as in
'pretend that he was.'
In any case, the Sudanese offer of
extradition was turned down.
"[U.S. 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.'"
"On 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 October
2001)
Note: "We said he will go to
Afghanistan, and they [US officials!] said, 'Let him.'"
I find this chilling.
THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL!
It is 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? For example, that this same U.S. government didn't hesitate to
bomb Sudan, Iraq and Yugoslavia, all of which bombings constituted the
worst criminal violations of international law? Not to mention
Afghanistan.
Not to mention the Red Cross.
Moreover, according to the highly
reputable 'Jane's Intelligence Review:'
"In 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)
So bin Laden had been named as an
unindicted co-conspirator a year before Sudan offered to extradite him.
Why couldn't the U.S. government
have accepted the Sudanese offer to extradite bin Laden? Why couldn't they
have jailed him, gotten together their best case and put him on trial?
What exactly did the U.S. government have to lose? The worst that could
have happened would have been that they failed to convict him and had to
let him leave the country...
JUST LET HIM GO, OH, ANYWHERE.
MAYBE TO AFGHANISTAN!
Instead, the U.S. asked Sudan to
expel bin Laden, knowing full well that he would go to Afghanistan - and
Kosovo and Macedonia.
By 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 President Clinton tried to convince the world when he
sent cruise missiles to destroy a Sudanese medicine factory, but in the
U.S. State Department?
There is so much about bin Laden
that suggests he is still in some way associated with the CIA:
His activities in Afghanistan prior
to 1990;
His activities on the "U.S. side"
in Bosnia, Kosovo and, quite recently, in Macedonia;
The refusal of the Clinton
administration to allow Sudan to extradite him in 1996;
The very convincing arguments by
Congressman Rohrabacher that the Clinton administration sabotaged efforts
to apprehend him;
His 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 emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/taketwo.htm;
His 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." This 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;
And 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.
Doesn't all this point to a working
relationship between U.S. covert forces and Mr. b. L?
"WE ARE DEADLY ENEMIES, SO TAKE
THESE 400 TRUCKS, O CURSED ONE!"
Earlier 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, Afghanistan and Central
Asian correspondent for the 'Far Eastern Economic Review':
"Surprisingly, 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 emperors-clothes.com/analysis/creat.htm.
They were all, I am told, Toyotas.
FAMILY FEUDS?
One 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.
Really?
Let us consider a few pieces of
information which might suggest we adopt a stance of extreme skepticism:
"...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
newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/3/214858.shtml
It is true that families have
feuds. In the typical U.S. family, wars may happen. People fight; they
make peace.
But Osama does not come from a
'typical U.S. family.' He comes from an intensely conservative rural
Yemeni clan. Such families don't have petty fights and stop talking to
each other for ten years and then make up and it's no big deal:
"Though 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." 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 he was) but
nevertheless maintain cordial relations with family members. Consider this
report:
"[National Security] Agency
officials have sometimes played tapes of bin Laden talking to his mother
to impress members of Congress and select visitors to the agency." (quoted
in 'Baltimore Sun', 24 April 2001)
And this:
"Bin Ladens building U.S. troops'
housing", by Sig Christenson; Express-News Staff Writer
"Bin 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.
"But Yossef Bodansky, director of
the House Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, said 'sama
maintains connections' with some of his nearly two dozen brothers. He
would not elaborate." ('San Antonio Express-News,' 14 September 1998)
And, finally, from 'Le Figaro':
"While he was hospitalised [in the
American Hospital in Dubai in July, 2001], bin Laden received visits from
many members of his family as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis."
Return to Table of Contents |