|
At a glance:
Emails fired from Donkeys: Is
Al-Qaeda an American CIA outfit?
Al-Qaeda are the US govts
greatest ally: Since 9-11, and some say including 9-11, Al Qaeda has
practically done everything the US govt would ask its CIA to do.
They have killed Muslims. They have killed their European
supporters. They have timed each bombing to maximize the amount of
criticism they will receive and minimize the support for their
actions. Al-Qaeda are the US govts greatest ally
Al-Qaeda
are the US govts greatest ally: Maybe the only ally!
By Rizvan Anwar
11/20/03: (ICH) Let me
start by saying that I am NOT a conspiracy theorist. I don't think
Russia were involved in the JFK assassination, or that Area 51 is
home to aliens. I am a rational person, who I like to believe,
thinks logically.
So lets look at recent
events in a logical way.
On November 20th 2003,
London was gearing up for a huge protest against the visit of
President Bush. The media had been hyping up the protests, as the
largest protests 'ever seen against a head of State'. More people
were expected to attend than had ever protested against Saddam, or
Mugabe.
However, Bush seemed
unnerved. He would smile when asked about the protests and he said
it didn't affect him at all. I couldn't understand this. This man
was being told he was the most hated man on the planet, and yet he
didn't seem to mind. Almost as if he 'knew' something no-one else
did.
The news of Michael
Jacksons sex scandals were given 2nd rate coverage in light of the
protests, which would culminate in a ceremonious 'toppling' of
Bush's effigy, to replicate the staged toppling of Saddams in
Baghdad.
I was thinking all the
while, unless the world should end, there is no way Bush can divert
the worlds media attention from this. If anything, there was nothing
he could do, to avoid the British public from seeing that his war
against terror was a phoney war. I was hoping the worlds media would
broadcast the protests and images of the toppling effigy would be
beamed throughout the world. Bush's calmness unnerved me.
It just wasn't logical.
On 20th November, I woke
up expecting the news to be full of the protests. But it wasn't.
Someone had bombed the
British consulate and HQ of the HSBC bank in Istanbul. At 09:10 GMT
the first blast had gone off outside the HSBC HQ, and 2 minutes
later, the second bomb went off. At 09:18 GMT, news channels in
Britain were stating 'Al-Qaeda has bombed the British consulate'.
I didn't understand. I
watched the tv, to see how they had already figured out within 6
minutes that Al-Qaeda had done this. I searched frantically and all
I could find were statements being released 'the bombings had all
the hallmarks of Al-Qaeda'. I wonder even now, what these
'hallmarks' are.
I was at work, and I
joked to a friend, that soon an e-mail would arrive at some Arab
newspaper, where Al-Qaeda would accept responsibility. By lunchtime,
a Turkish newspaper had received that e-mail. To this day, Al-Qaeda
hasn't accepted responsibility for 9-11, 'their crowning
achievement'. The faked CIA tape of a fake Bin Ladin, gloating about
9-11, has funnily stopped being shown on tv, since it was ripped to
shreds by all who saw it. Al-Qaeda hasn't owned up to any of the
terrorist acts that it is blamed of. Not until the perpetrators are
in custody, do any admissions come out.
The Bali bombings, the
first WTC, the Karachi hotel bombings, the Kandahar hijacking,
9-11.nothing. Al-Qaeda just don't do that. They don't admit they
have done anything. Well not until recently, well..not until the US
bombed Afghanistan and 'destroyed Al-Qaeda's communications
capability'. Not until, Al-Qaeda's network has been dismantled, and
the cells under close watch, and all communications between Bin
Ladin and his followers, is now being made via messenger boys on
donkeys. When Khalid Sheikh was arrested, he even said that Al Qaeda
was no longer using e-mails or telephones to keep in touch, as it
was too risky, and the CIA had tapped everything.
So I don't understand how
these messenger boys send the e-mails on their donkeys.
It just isn't logical.
As the crowds gathered
for the beginning of the protests, Bush and Blair gave a televised
address to the world. They re-affirmed the war on terror, and cited
the Istanbul bombings as an example of the kind of terror they were
trying to fight.
Bush seemed to have
almost memorised what to say, through days of practice. He condemned
the acts and in his now familiar stage voice told the invasion on
Iraq, was part of the fight against terrorism. I didn't know Saddam
was part of Al-Qaeda until recently. Actually, I don't think Saddam
knew he was part of Al Qaeda until recently.
The news networks all
over the world were showing the picturing of bloodied faces, and the
carnage in Istanbul. There was a small side mention of the 150,000
protestors who had marched through London, and toppled the effigy of
Bush. But nothing more.
I sat there and watched
Bush's interview again. The smile, the confidence. It was just
perfect.
If ever there was a time
that the US and UK needed an attack to occur against BRITISH
interests, it was well.at about 09:10 GMT on 20 November 2003.
Many commentators have
said that the 9-11 attacks happened at the right time for the US.
And I think it is even more clear today that the Istanbul attacks
have happened at just the right time for Bush and Blair.
Either Al-Qaeda doesn't
know what it is doing, or this wasn't Al Qaeda. Al-Qaeda want the
world to see the evil that Bush and Blair are doing. And the
protests would have done that. There was no need to bomb Istanbul.
The only, and reiterate ONLY people to benefit from the bombings are
Bush and Blair. It diverted attention from the protests, to the
'terrorists'.
I wish I had terrorists
like that on my side. The kind that bomb the UN in Baghdad, the day
after the UN say that US forces should leave Iraq. The kind that
bomb a Bali nightclub, the week 250,000 Australians took to the
streets to protest the war. The kind that bomb a Riyadh compound
full of Arabs, when Saudi Arabian citizens are beginning to become
increasingly vociferous in their condemnation of the Iraq invasion
and occupation.
Since 9-11, and some say
including 9-11, Al Qaeda has practically done everything the US govt
would ask its CIA to do. They have killed muslims. They have killed
their European supporters. They have timed each bombing to maximise
the amount of criticism they will receive and minimise the support
for their actions. Is that the actions of the 'biggest threat to
mankind, freedom and democracy' ? Logic tells me, that it isn't Al-Qaeda
at all.
Now tell me, what does
logic tell you ?
Rizvan Anwar, UK
PRAVDA, 21/11/2003
The US military has
confirmed that a civilian plane belonging to international express
courier DHL was hit by a SAM-7 surface-to-air missile over Baghdad
on Saturday.
Cargo
plane hit by missile over Baghdad: US military
The US military has
confirmed that a civilian plane belonging to international express
courier DHL was hit by a SAM-7 surface-to-air missile over Baghdad
on Saturday.
The plane was forced to
make an emergency landing.
"A DHL plane took off
from Baghdad airport this morning and was hit by a SAM-7 surface to
air missile," a military official said who asked not to be
identified.
"It caught fire, it
turned around and came back to the airport where it safely landed.
The fire was taken out. There are no injuries," he added.
ABC News Online 22/11/2003
Richard Perle, a senior adviser to the US defence secretary, said
the US had broken international law, blaming French reluctance to
attack Iraq for leaving Washington with "no practical mechanism
consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam
Hussein".
US hawk admits Iraq war
'illegal'
Shaheen Chughtai
US official: Invasion of
Iraq was not 'consistent with UN rules'
A Pentagon official
widely regarded as the key ideological driving force behind
President George Bush's foreign policy has admitted the US-led
invasion of Iraq is illegal.
Richard Perle, a senior
adviser to the US defence secretary, said the US had broken
international law, blaming French reluctance to attack Iraq for
leaving Washington with "no practical mechanism consistent with the
rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein".
"I think in this case
international law stood in the way of doing the right thing," said
Perle in London in comments published by the British media on
Thursday. "International law ... would have required us to leave
Saddam Hussein alone."
Perle was speaking at an
event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London on
Wednesday.
The influential Pentagon
official’s comments represent a clear break with official White
House statements. President George Bush, presently on a state visit
to the UK, has always insisted the war was legal either because of
existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq or as an act of
self-defence.
Bush’s main ally in the
invasion of Iraq, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, has always said
existing UN resolutions legitimised the attack on Iraq.
Critics astonished
Antiwar campaigners told
Aljazeera.net on Friday they were astonished by Perle’s admission.
"It’s an incredible
admission that Bush and Blair’s war in Iraq is illegal," said Andrew
Burgin, spokesman of the Stop the War Coalition in London. "It
underlines everything we’ve said about the so-called war on terror
being an illegal campaign."
Burgin said the recent
bomb attacks in Istanbul showed the illegality of the Bush-Blair
campaign was "fuelling the level of terror around the world".
A British lawyer and
leftist politician who has frequently criticised Washington's
foreign policy, Louise Christian, told Aljazeera.net she was
"greatly concerned" by Perle's admission and its implicit disregard
for international law.
Prince of Darkness
Dubbed the Prince of
Darkness by his critics - and a few awed admirers - because of his
powerful behind-the-scenes influence, Perle is a senior member of
the Pentagon’s defence policy board, which advises the US Defence
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
He resigned from the
board's chairmanship amid controversy in March, however, after
allegations of commercial conflict of interest.
Perle is also a key
member of the Project for the New American Century, a rightwing
think tank closely linked to the White House and credited with
inspiring much of the Bush administration’s foreign policy.
He has been a hawkish
advocate of projecting US power both diplomatically and militarily
without the restraint of international bodies such as the UN.
Aljazeera 21/11/2003
The human rights group
said it had sent a letter to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
demanding clarification whether the demolitions as a form of
collective punishment or deterrence was officially permitted. A
Pentagon spokesman acknowledged that US forces had destroyed
"facilities," including houses, in the course of recent military
operations but emphatically denied they were intended as a form of
collective punishment or retaliation for attacks.
Rights group questions
demolitions in Iraq
WASHINGTON: Amnesty
International said Friday US forces appeared to be destroying houses
in Iraq as a form of collective punishment for attacks on US troops
and warned that that would violate the Geneva Conventions. A
Pentagon spokesman emphatically denied it.
The human rights group
said it had sent a letter to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
demanding clarification whether the demolitions as a form of
collective punishment or deterrence was officially permitted.
"If such proved to be the
case, it would constitute a clear violation of international
humanitarian law," the group said in the letter.
A Pentagon spokesman
acknowledged that US forces had destroyed "facilities," including
houses, in the course of recent military operations but emphatically
denied they were intended as a form of collective punishment or
retaliation for attacks.
"We have destroyed
facilities that were being used by former regime loyalists or
terrorists either as a place from which to stage attacks, or as a
safe house to avoid capture, or as a facility from which to
construct improvised explosive devices," said Lieutenant Colonel Jim
Cassella.
AFP 22/11/2003
Top
Home | 