We noted in our previous reports on this subject that Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah was reported in the world press to have been arrested in Karachi, Pakistan, on 11th September 2002, exactly one year after the attacks he and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed allegedly masterminded. The fact that he was arrested on the anniversary of the attacks was commented upon excessively by some American writers, who seemed to make a big deal out of numbers and dates and who claimed the arrest was no more than a publicity stunt, staged by the Bush administration in much the same way the Mars rover landed on the red planet on the 4th July. These armchair conspiracy theorists, whose previous observations included spotting the face of Satan in the smoke bellowing out of the World Trade Centre and who were peddling the fallacy that bombs were planted in the buildings, were desperate to latch onto a new conspiracy theory to distract serious investigators and to create confusion in the minds of the public. Would Bush be so stupid to claim an arrest when none were made, we asked at the time. It would only take one disgruntled Pakistani Ranger or one FBI agent with Democrat sympathies, we reasoned, to blow the whole story apart. We did not think Bush would risk claiming Ramzi’s arrest if it did not happen but shortly after the claimed arrest one Islamic website hosted at DV2.COM in Atlanta, Georgia, also claimed that Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah had not been arrested and was still with the Mujahideen.
We did not see the original posting on Jehad.net which denied the arrest had taken place and so our knowledge of the denial comes from second hand sources. We wondered why an American service provider in Georgia would have anything to do with Mujahideen associated with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-thinkers and we were surprised to learn that Jehad.net was a reliable source of information for so-called Islamic fundamentalists. Yosri Fouda, the Al Jazeera journalist who claimed to have conducted an interview with Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah and KSM in April, May or June, depending on which version of the story he was relating, claimed to have contacted the Mujahideen via the above-mentioned website and described the website as a reliable source of Mujahideen news. We were doubtful and, all these years later, we still are.
Atlanta, Georgia, it seems, was quite a hot-bed of so-called Islamic extremist activity back in 2002. In addition to posting the denial of Ramzi’s arrest, the same website also claimed responsibility for a shooting attack on a US marine in Kuwait and praised the attack in the following terms: “We hail this courageous and successful operation … that caused huge losses to the Americans.” Incredibly, other so-called Islamic extremist websites operating in Atlanta were ratcheting up the threat level too, with one site providing advice about kidnapping Americans and another divulging plans to poison American food supplies and kill people in restaurants. Yet another Atlanta based website posted instructions for bomb-making and explosives. What on earth could be happening in Georgia, we wondered. Had the epicentre of international ‘terrorism’ miraculously shifted from Afghanistan and the Arab world and put down its roots in Atlanta, GA? The Whois details for jehad.net are correct for October, 2002:
Whois Information from “whois.arin.net” about http://www.jehad.net/
OrgName: Net Depot, Inc.
Address: 55 Marietta St NW
Suite 1720 Atlanta GA 30303
AdminName: Hinkle, Jeff
TechName: DV2 Engineering
AbuseName: DV2 Abuse
The question of who owned and ran Jehad.net is an important one because many state intelligence agencies run fake Jihadist websites to entrap aspiring fighters by harvesting their internet protocol addresses. All it takes to discover this ruse is a simple ‘whois’ search to discover who the registered owner of a website is and in which country the website is hosted. And while it is true that a ‘whois’ search cannot definitively identify a fake Islamic website, there would obviously be cause for concern if the website was hosted in America, for example, or Saudi Arabia, where the internet is closely monitored by government security agencies. We mention all this in passing because according to another website, Jihad Unspun, which itself was described as suspicious by Azzam Publications, individuals posting messages on Jehad.net were emphatic that the raid in Karachi had not netted Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah and that Ramzi was safe with the Mujahideen.
Perhaps all this is confusing to someone who has not followed this story before, especially when Azzam Publications categorically refuted the information being disseminated by Jihad Unspun and implied that the webmaster of Jihad Unspun was an American government agent. According to the webmaster of Azzam Publications, Jihad Unspun was trying to discredit Azzam with the information that Ramzi had not been netted and damage their reputation as the ‘authentic voice of the Mujahideen’. It is interesting to note that Azzam publications did not attack the website which first published the claims, Jihad.net, but instead chose to attack the messenger, Jihad Unspun, perhaps because it was an easy target and easier to discredit because it was run by a female Canadian convert to Islam and had, as Azzam succinctly put it, slick graphics and a well-designed lay-out, again implying the website had been set up by government agents. We should add at this point that we do know the identities of the webmasters concerned but do not feel the need to identify them here as doing so may cause difficulties for them. The webmaster of Azzam publications did not cease his attacks against Jihad Unspun with a single report but went on to make quite a meal of the story, claiming at a later date that because Jihad Unspun charged their readers money to view the Saeed Al-Ghamdi confession video, to cite just one example, that this indicated that Jihad Unspun was a government set-up designed to entrap radical Muslims by getting their credit card details. In short, a war of words broke out. And as we followed the story we could see that there was a lot more to it than two competing webmasters trying to come to grips with facts associated with the arrest or non-arrest of Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah. We thought we could discern the outline of an intelligence operation in full swing although, to be honest, we really didn’t know what was happening. Now we think we do know and that is the reason we are compiling this report. In this particular case, however, we can’t say with any certainty that we know, for sure, what exactly happened. We do have a viable theory, which makes very interesting predictions. As usual we would like assistance from anyone who has knowledge of these events and we can be contacted via email@example.com or via firstname.lastname@example.org. We are only interested in the truth of the matter as the questions that are at the forefront of our thoughts have been brewing for quite some time.
As if the story wasn’t complicated enough, with competing webmasters contradicting each other and then making accusations of being government agents, we came across what we think is important information on a website named eramuslim news. We reprint the information here because the link is now dead. We downloaded the document on Sunday, 10th August, 2003, and the link we got the file from is: http://lists.eramuslim.com/archive/news/2002-November/002774.html By the time this was posted, the Azzam website had closed after a campaign of harassment led by Johnathan Galt, one of Glen Jenvey’s associates. Galt had written to Azzam’s hosting company, complaining that they were hosting terrorist websites and making demands that the site be closed down. When no action by Azzam’s hosting company was taken, Azzam Publications formed the opinion that the authorities actually wanted to keep their website alive so they could monitor it, hence the decision to close it down. Azzam Publications were not content to let the issue of Ramzi’s arrest fade away with the closure of their website, however, and posted the following information on eramuslim news:
3. The ‘front’ behind Jihadunspun.com is supposedly a middle-aged Canadian businesswoman who is said to have accepted Islam after 11 September 2001. The Muslims can draw their own conclusions from this, bearing in mind the tenfold increase in the budgets and manpower of Western intelligence agencies in the post-September-11th World.
4. We re-iterate and reconfirm the capture of Ramzi bin Al-Sheebah in Karachi in September 2002 regardless of any claims made by JUS or on any Arabic discussion boards. Furthermore, we put our credibility and the credibility of every news item we have provided over the last six years, on the line to confirm that Ramzi bin Al-Sheebah was arrested in Karachi, that the photograph the media alleged was him was not him but someone else, that Ramzi bin Al-Sheebah was not arrested following a shootout in an apartment block and that the remaining people that were captured or killed by the Pakistani authorities were ordinary Arabs with no connection with Al-Qaida whatsoever – they were neither commanders, leaders nor ‘terrorists’. They were simple people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. As for Ramzi bin Al-Sheebah himself, he was just an ordinary Mujahid who was said to have attempted to enter Afghanistan after the American attack in November 2001, just like thousands of other Muslims. He is certainly not a senior Al-Qaida official nor a ‘terrorist’ – such claims are made by the US authorities in order to brainwash the American people that America is succeeding in this war against Islam. Various Arab discussion boards circulated reports that Ramzi bin Al-Sheebah was not captured because the person in the photograph of Pakistani newspapers was not him. These reports were translated by JUS, who published them in a special feature, which we interpreted as an indirect attack on our credibility.
We think what happened is that the chorus of protests that Ramzi had not been arrested were growing and spreading through ‘various Arab discussion boards’ like wild-fire – but still, interestingly, Azzam chose not to attack the originators of the source material – but instead intensified their campaign against Jihad Unspun. The original claim made by Jihad Unspun was that Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah had not been arrested and that a youth, Abdullah (Safar), had been taken into custody after an anonymous individual tried to claim the reward money by claiming that Abdullah was in fact Ramzi. Jihad Unspun also reprinted eyewitness testimony from Abu Shihab Al-Qandahari Al-Yemani – a nickname – which was first published on http://www.marsad.net. The eyewitness denied that Ramzi had been taken and assured readers that “Ramzi was safe and sound.” While we find this information interesting in itself, it is full of loopholes in our opinion, and does not explain events in any meaningful way. If we were to disclose to the Australian police that their most wanted criminal lived at a certain address, and that information was subsequently discovered to be false, we would have no chance of claiming any reward money and could end up being charged. Pakistani police procedures aren’t any different from Australian ones so the information that the reward money provides a meaningful explanation simply doesn’t cut any ice.
Our initial premise was confirmed, in our opinion: that an intelligence operation involving the Pakistanis and Americans was in full swing. We decided that the competing claims were a smoke-screen to hide the real situation. Please bear with us while we attempt to explain how we arrived at our conclusion.
A raid took place in Karachi on 11th September, 2002 and the Americans claimed that Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah had been arrested. Self-evidently, he was or he wasn’t. The information was either true or false. Photographs of the blindfolded alleged 9/11 conspirator were taken by the press as he was taken into custody and were published in major newspapers throughout the world. Bush trumpeted the event as a major breakthrough, describing Ramzi as “just another killer – and we’ve got him.” The problem arose for this version of events when ‘various Arab discussion boards’ refuted the claim. As reported by Jihad Unspun, Ramzi’s brother said that the person photographed bore no resemblance to his brother. Claims were made on Jihad.net and repeated by Jihad Unspun that Ramzi was safe with the Mujahideen.
These assertions were vehemently denied by Azzam Publications, who saw the claims as an attack on their credibility, in what appeared to be a case of wounded pride. But appearances can be deceptive because of the nature of webhosting on the internet. A statement dated 24th September, 2002 and posted on http://www.Taliban-News.com had this communication from Azzam Publications:
Sometime in November 2001, our web-site was transferred to hosting companies in South-East Asia and we began to provide daily, uninterrupted news on the events in Afghanistan. The site continued to remain online until July 2002. During this time, whilst tracking the continuing efforts of Mr Galt, we realised, as we thought at first, that the FBI was ensuring that our site remained online, even though officials at the US State Department cited concern over our site, in news reports that were carried by major news organisations. A number of discussion boards specific to web hosting companies, e.g. webhostingtalk.com, revealed threads stating that companies wanted to shut down service to the web-hosting companies hosting our sites, but they were specifically instructed by the FBI that ‘this site must remain open at any cost’. We concluded that US Intelligence wanted our site to remain open for two reasons:
(i) To use it for gathering intelligence on events happening on the ground in Afghanistan and perhaps that our news bulletins might lead them to capture ‘Mujahideen suspects’.
(ii) To gather intelligence on the infrastructure behind the site. Mr Galt and Co., apparently not convinced of the ‘benefits’ of the FBI’s strategy, continued to pressurise both the FBI and the web hosting companies, to remove our web-site, and this tit-for-tat saga continued until July this year. In June and July 2002, American forces in Afghanistan took heavy casualties and many of the incidents in which these casualties occurred, were being daily reported by us. By the end of July 2002, the Americans concluded that there was no useful intelligence to be gleaned from leaving our site open and they decided that enough was enough. During the South-East Asian ‘Anti-Terrorism’ Summit in July, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s delegation personally delivered a written order to the local authorities asking them to immediately shut down our site. Our site has remained shut since then, but we have continued to post daily news bulletins on other web-sites, such as Waaqiah.com.
We can see from the above information that Azzam’s own website shut down in July 2002 and so it is difficult to definitively attribute anything posted after that date to them. Statements posted on eramuslim news or anywhere else for that matter, could be written by literally anybody and attributed to Azzam rightly or wrongly. But the story gets interesting from our perspective because Azzam Publications – long considered to be the ‘authentic voice of the Mujahideen’, appeared to be backtracking with their statement on eramuslimnews. After previously confirming the arrest took place in Karachi, they then claimed that well, yes, it did take place in Karachi but not at the place the Americans said it did. They also claimed that the photograph of the arrested Ramzi wasn’t him, despite the fact that they took offence when Jihad Unspun and Ramzi’s brother said the very same thing. Their article (if genuine) posted at eramuslimnews, implied that Bush was lying when he claimed Ramzi was arrested after the shoot-out in Karachi, a position which was now exactly the same as the position adopted by Jihad.net and Jihad Unspun. Why bother arguing? Of course the additional information provided by Azzam was that Ramzi had been arrested – but not following the shoot-out.
In the past, we have criticised American researchers who read newspaper claims often attributed to anonymous sources and who then proceed to cite these sources to reinforce their own agenda. We find this method sloppy and consider it is inappropriate to cite the American media on almost anything except the weather and then consider the story ‘confirmed’. Whether or not we agree with their conclusions, the investigators at CIT did a very good job going on a field trip to Washington and interviewing Sergeant William Lagasse. That’s the kind of research 9/11 investigators should be undertaking instead of sitting at home with their feet up reading half baked American media reports about 9/11 and then citing the information as ‘confirmed.’ The worst culprit for doing this was Mike Ruppert although he is by no means alone in acting in such a way. If you’re like us and stuck millions of miles away from a source it’s still possible to pick up the telephone or send an email and we have discovered it’s much better to send a letter if a postal address can be obtained. Investigators who simply cite news reports can’t be trusted as a general rule and they’re guaranteed not to find new information. Having said all that and apologising to our readers for being so hypocritical, we ourselves found a news report which, if true, would support Azzam’s assertion that Ramzi was arrested – but not at the shoot-out. The link is here: http://www.thehindu.com/2002/09/16/stories/2002091604181200.htm
Whether or not we should do so based upon the available evidence, the authors of this report conclude that as a result of the claims and counter-claims, we believe that Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah was not arrested in Karachi following the widely publicised shoot-out at the apartment. That cannot be the end of the story however, because there are other threads of evidence to consider. It is conceivable that Secretary of State Colin Powell requested local authorities to close Azzam Publications at the anti-terror summit in July as part of the operation to capture Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah and Khalid Sheikh Muhammed. It seems reasonable to assume that the interview with these two accused conspirators by Yosri Fouda, the Al-Jazeera journalist, needed to be carried out in a kind of vacuum – a situation which could be achieved with the closure of the website long considered the ‘authentic voice of the Mujahideen’. Please remember that Mr Yosri Fouda dated his interview with KSM and Ramzi first to June, then May and finally April. He did so, he claims implausibly, because if the need arose to contact the Mujahideen in relation to the interview, he could confirm he was talking to the right people if they knew the interview took place in May. Despite the fact that Mr Fouda is a Muslim and we are sure that he is a good one, the most likely course of action to take in the circumstances would be to create a password that only he and the participants knew. Lying about the date of the interview seems a very clumsy way of verifying a person’s bona fides, and Mr Fouda is well aware that he is stretching people’s credulity with such an implausible claim. Having said all that, however, it is also conceivable that the operation that raided the Karachi apartment and resulted in the shoot-out was carried out with the knowledge that Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah was not in the apartment but was designed to flush him out because authorities knew he was in Karachi and had unspecified links to the apartment. With the ‘authentic voice of the Mujahideen’ offline and silenced, the sting operation could proceed as planned. With blanket saturation coverage of the raid in Karachi and the reported arrest of Ramzi and early reports indicating KSM was killed in the operation, the CIA could have anticipated a flurry of telephone calls and communications from or to their target which could be intercepted by the NSA’s much trumpeted Carnivore eavesdropping system or perhaps more specific intercepts of telephone numbers in the hands of American or Pakistani intelligence. Is this what happened?
We need to place these events in a much broader context at this point to get a better understanding of what in fact occurred. Back in September 2002, the question of who masterminded 9/11 was by no means certain although, as pointed out in his excellent, landmark report, Chaim Kupferberg documented that the Americans ‘rolled out’ KSM as their chief suspect in June. This month also coincides with the date Yosri Fouda first claimed as the date of his interview with KSM and Ramzi. We take pleasure in reprinting here part of Mr Kupferberg’s analysis but also implore our readers to take the time and read the whole essay if they want to find out about 9/11 instead of absorbing the usual 30 second snippets that are usually delivered to the gullible population via the internet and television: The seminal essay can be linked to here but the section relevant to our investigation can be read below:
The Official Legend of 9/11 as a prefabricated set-up.
As we will see, the Moussaoui indictment had lain the groundwork for the eventual Khalid Shaikh Mohammed/ Ramzi Binalshibh/ Mustafa Ahmed nexus that really gets rolling in June 2002, when Khalid is first introduced as the 9/11 “mastermind”, then proceeds through Binalshibh’s choreographed arrest in September 2002, and culminates with the simultaneous arrest of Khalid and Mustafa Ahmed in March 2003. Further, we will see how FBI Director Mueller uses the details in the Moussaoui indictment to explicitly pair up Khalid and Mustafa Ahmed – a full nine months before these characters end up sharing news space for their own simultaneously choreographed apprehensions.
The unsealed December 2001 Moussaoui indictment also set out two “unindicted co-conspirators” who had yet to play their final roles in the unfolding 9/11 Legend – Ramzi Binalshibh and Mustafa Ahmed al-hawsawi (the “official” paymaster)…
Of the various pivot points in the unfolding 9/11 Legend, the time period of June 4-5 2002 was among the most significant.
…Around the same time that the joint Senate-House Inquiry was proceeding under the co-chairmanship of Bob Graham and Porter Goss (the September 11 breakfast partners of Omar Saeed’s reported ISI “handler”), Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was formally introduced as the operative mastermind behind 9/11. John J. Lumpkin of the Associated Press wrote the definitive article, courtesy of the revelations of an anonymous “top U.S. counterterrorism official”
…Lumpkin’s key June article served as a guidepost as to how the unfolding 9/11 Legend would finally crystallize. As reported by Lumpkin, in the same article where Khalid was introduced as the new 9/11 mastermind, he was also “accused of working with Ramzi Yousef in the first bombing of the World Trade Center [in ’93]” in addition to working with Yousef on a 1995 plot (code-named Bojinka) to bomb a dozen airliners headed to the United States
…It was not by accident that the 9/11 paymaster – now officially dubbed as Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi – was mentioned in an article introducing Khalid as the mastermind. As it turned out, about the same time that Lumpkin’s article was making the rounds, Robert Mueller was making a statement before the Senate-House Committee, narrating the full details of the money trail story (as set out in the Moussaoui indictment), but this time adding the role of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who, according to Mueller’s statement, shared a credit card with Mustafa Ahmed “Alhawsawi.”
Thus, Mueller inserted Khalid into the Money Trail Story by way of a direct connection with the “Mustafa Ahmad” alias. And now, thanks to Lumpkin, “Mustafa Ahmad” was not to be thought of as simply a convenient pseudonym, but rather as a real person, bin Laden’s bona fide “financial chief”…
…Once Lumpkin’s June 2002 article on Khalid was out, further incriminating details were coming out fast and furious. According to CBS News, U.S. officials now had “evidence” that Khalid had met with “some of the 9/11 hijackers at their Hamburg, Germany apartment in 1999.” Presumably, Ramzi Binalshibh – Mohammed Atta’s Hamburg roommate who was also thought to be a potential “twentieth hijacker” – was among them. Lumpkin’s key June article also mentioned Binalshibh as part of Atta’s Hamburg “cell.” And as Binalshibh was paired with Mustafa Ahmed as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Moussaoui indictment, we have perhaps an indication that Khalid, Binalshibh, and Mustafa Ahmed were part of a concerted strategy touched off in early June 2002 to bring this phase of the 9/11 Legend to a close. Conveniently timed for release on the very next day – June 6, 2002 – further news followed that, according to National Security Agency intercepts, Khalid was heard talking on the telephone with hijacker Mohammed Atta. Moreover, for the very first time, authorities were now reporting that Khalid was actually the uncle of Ramzi Yousef. In other words, when the nephew failed to bring down the Towers in ’93, the uncle took up the slack in ’01.
Perhaps it was this sort of conceptually artistic symmetry that made Khalid so attractive as the designated mastermind. Through Khalid, one had a direct connection to the first World Trade Centre attack, providing a smoking gun continuity leading directly to al-Qaida. Prior to Khalid’s June 2002 public promotion, he was lurking on the official terror lists merely as an indicted conspirator in the 1995 Bojinka plot masterminded by Ramzi Yousef. Thus, while Khalid had not previously been directly connected to the 9/11 plot, he did make the “most wanted” cut based on his alleged 1995 collaboration with Yousef. With that in mind, one can almost picture sitting in with the members of the National Security Council on a balmy Spring morning in late May 2002, leafing through their photo albums as they argued over the most appropriate candidate to close off the official 9/11 Legend. As it turned out, they chose the guy with the unibrow and the hair shirt.
What was the official reason for revealing the role of Khalid at this point in time? According to CBS News, it was senior al-Qaida figure Abu Zubaydah (captured a few months previously) who had “fingered [Khalid] as the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks.” Abu Zubaydah, the first “big fish” captured in the War On Terror, had previously – and conveniently – been fingered as a major al-Qaida player by Ahmed Ressam…
… As we will see, once Ramzi Binalshibh’s number comes up for apprehension (in September 2002), followed by the capture of Khalid and Mustafa Ahmed in March 2003, another version will be offered for the timing of Khalid’s introduction as 9/11 mastermind. But first, we should take note of James Risen’s June 5, 2002 article for the New York Times, in which Risen reported that the authorities “had begun to suspect soon after the [Sept. 11] attacks that [Khalid] had some role in the hijackings. But in the next months, a detailed financial investigation of the money trail from the plot led officials to believe that he had a more prominent role than previously suspected.” In other words, as Risen had framed it, Khalid had first garnered notice for 9/11 by way of his connection to the money trail. Was this a retrospective addition into the record? – for Khalid most certainly did not make it into the Money Trail Story as of December 2001, when pretty much all the details of the money trail were crystallized within the Moussaoui indictment. On the other hand, there is a possibility that Khalid was intended from the very beginning to be featured as the 9/11 mastermind, yet perhaps he could not be safely inserted back into the Legend by way of the money trail until that nasty confusion over the “Mustafa Ahmad” alias was resolved…
…By June of 2002, the contents of the Moussaoui indictment could indeed be viewed as the clear signpost pointing the way to the manner in which the final loose ends of the Official 9/11 Legend would be tied up for posterity. With Ramzi Binalshibh and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi already tied together as unindicted co-conspirators in the Moussaoui case, FBI Director Robert Mueller would, by this time, explicitly weave in Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, pairing him up with Mustafa Ahmed and thereby inserting this newly-christened 9/11 mastermind into the Money Trail Story. The Associated Press’ John Lumpkin would reference all three in his key June 2002 article. It is as if the powers-that-be were putting this trio of nefarious characters on notice – from here on, their fates were to be indelibly entwined.
If habitual coincidence is the mother of all conspiracy theories, then one must surely raise a discerning eyebrow at the revelation that, around this time – after more than a decade of staying hidden in the shadows – Khalid Sheikh Mohammed suddenly was stricken with an urge to conduct his very first interview, with none other than Ramzi Binalshibh at his side. The journalist chosen for this honour was the London bureau chief of Al-Jazeera, Yosri Fouda…
…On September 9, 2002, the die was cast. Al-Jazeera was broadcasting Part I of Fouda’s historic interview with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh. For the first time, millions would hear – from the planners themselves – exactly how the September 11 plot was put in motion. It was al-Jazeera’s version of VH1’s Behind The Music, featuring guest commentaries from Vincent Cannistraro and Lyndon LaRouche. Unfortunately, viewers would only get the audio feed of Khalid and Binalshibh, as Binalshibh and Khalid purportedly had confiscated from Fouda his videotape of the proceedings before he had taken leave of them back in June.
In more ways than one, September 9 was an ideal launch date for the interview broadcast. By then, the mainstream media had the whole summer to feed the public – and themselves – with various leaks, revelations, and “official” comments concerning Khalid and Binalshibh’s newfound place in the 9/11 pantheon. Set-up and payoff. Moreover, the interview was now being broadcast in the immediate lead-up to the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, thereby further raising the profile of this historic broadcast…
…It was practically a seamless propaganda extravaganza, except for one small detail – Fouda had gone on record as dating the interview to June of 2002, thereby raising the prospect of two plausible scenarios. Scenario One: Khalid and Binalshibh’s respective roles in the plot were first discovered solely due to Fouda’s contact with them; or Scenario Two: The decision to send Fouda on his interview errand was made at the same time that a decision was made to market Khalid as the new 9/11 mastermind. Of the two scenarios, the first one was far more palatable – from a propaganda perspective – as at least it could be kept within the borders of plausible deniability, and only Fouda would get burned by it. The second scenario, however, would raise the prospect of one of those uncomfortable coincidences that could conceivably expose the 9/11 Legend as a pre-fabricated set-up.
Only two days after the initial broadcast of Fouda’s interview with Khalid and Binalshibh – on the first anniversary commemorating the 9/11 attacks – Pakistani forces, accompanied by FBI agents, raided an apartment complex in Karachi. After a “four hour” gun battle involving “hundreds” of Pakistani soldiers and policemen, the authorities captured, among a few others, Ramzi Binalshibh himself. Their original target, however, had been Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whom they had been tracking for months throughout Karachi. While Khalid had just barely slipped away only a few hours before Pakistani forces had arrived at his door, the authorities were reportedly “surprised” to discover that they had netted Binalshibh in the process. At least that is now the official version of the day’s events…
…With the well-timed arrest of Ramzi Binalshibh in September 2002, journalist Yosri Fouda was in a bind. Only days before, he had gone on record – repeatedly – as dating his interview with Khalid and Binalshibh to June 2002. Up to the time of Binalshibh’s arrest, the official legend had it that Khalid’s pivotal role as 9/11 mastermind was revealed to U.S. authorities through their interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, who was captured in March 2002. Now, in the aftermath of Binalshibh’s capture, word was circulating that perhaps authorities had learned of Khalid’s true role by way of Fouda. That contention, of course, would remain most plausible if Fouda’s interview could definitively be back-dated to a time before early June 2002 – that is, to a time before Khalid was first publicly announced as 9/11 mastermind. The alternative scenario quite simply pointed to a conclusion that would have to be denied at all costs – that the decision to out Khalid publicly as the 9/11 mastermind was coordinated with the decision to send Fouda on his interview errand with Khalid. Had Fouda erred, then, by initially claiming that his historic interview had taken place in June 2002? Had he possibly exposed a seam pointing the way to a coordinated set-up?
Soon after the Binalshibh arrest, Fouda took the opportunity to revise the date of his interview for the record, revealing to Abdallah Schleifer of the Kamal Adham Center For Journalism:
Fouda: “Actually, this question of dates is very important for another reason. All of these Islamist websites that were denouncing me alluded to my interview as taking place in June. That’s what I mentioned both in my article in The Sunday Times Magazine and in my documentary – that I met them in June.”
Fouda: “I lied.”
Schleifer: “But you’re going to come clean with [us], right?”
Fouda (laughter): “Yes, of course. I lied because I needed to lie. I’ll tell you why. Because I thought, maybe even expected, that if something went wrong and I needed to get in touch with them through a website or a statement or a fax … they would be the only ones who would know that I had met them one month earlier than I let on, and so I’d know I was talking to the right people.
So after the first wave of denunciations a pro-Qa’ida website “jehad.net” put up a statement online in the name of Al-Qa’ida clearing me of any blame or connection with Ramzi’s arrest and I knew this was an authentic communiqué because it alluded to the interview taking place in May.”
Apparently, Fouda had lied again, for on March 4, 2003 (i.e. a few days after Khalid’s eventual arrest), Fouda offered up this newest version of his 48-hour encounter to The Guardian:
“It was late afternoon, Sunday 21 April 2002, when I packed my bags before joining Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-shibh for a last prayer before saying goodbye.”
That, as they say in legal parlance, is a very definite recollection. In short, Fouda had impeached his own testimony through these two explicitly detailed, contradictory dates. Fouda, through this compounded lie, was now calling into question the very credibility of his entire interview with Khalid and Binalshibh…
…Recall that, back in June 2002, the “official” legend at the time had it that it was Abu Zubaydah, back in March 2002, who had spilled the goods on Khalid. Yet with Khalid’s March 2003 apprehension, this one aspect of the legend was duly revised. As revealed by Keith Olbermann in a March 3, 2003 MSNBC.com item: “Ironically, it would be [Fouda’s] interview that would point out, to U.S. intelligence, that [Khalid Shaikh] Mohammed and Binalshibh were the brains behind the 9/11 attacks”…
Now, despite the fact that Mr Kupferberg is gifted and we admire his analysis, he does have some facts mixed up. To begin with, Yosri Fouda’s documentary, Top Secret: the road to September 11th contains no audio of KSM and only voice distorted audio of Ramzi. There have been allegations on the Jehad.net website that the interview never took place and that the audio delivered to Al Jazeera was provided separately, along with Abdul Aziz Al-Omari’s confession video. Mr Kupferberg then appears to accept at face-value the September 11th 2002 arrest of Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah and the March 2003 arrest of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, which we have seen – in the case of the former – and will see, in the case of the latter, is based on very flimsy evidence indeed. In the case of Ramzi, serious doubts and divisions arose from the alleged arrest and in the case of KSM, the Sunday Times and The Independent of England questioned the American version of events. Robert Fisk of the Independent went one step further in reaction to the alleged arrest of KSM and said quite simply: I’ll believe it when I see it.
We can also see Mr Kupferberg relying unreasonably on news reports of events, specifically the Olbermann report, as we are willing to concede that Lumpkin’s report may be part of the pre-fabricated set-up Mr Kupferberg refers to. There are two important factors for the reader to consider: firstly, why would anybody accept at face value anything the Americans said at a time when they were brazenly lying about weapons of mass destruction and using forged documents to reinforce the case for war; secondly, how is it that American society has progressed to such a pitiful state that an anonymous “top U.S. counterterrorism official” can provide information to a private organisation and people so willingly accept the corporatization of news and do not protest about it? Yes, okay, we are willing to concede that some Americans do protest against the situation and at the time Bush administration officials were desperate to murder hundreds of thousands more Iraqis, on top of the million plus already killed, the Traprock Peace Centre shone like a beacon of real American values in a climate of fear and loathing and lies. We congratulate Traprock for this and advise them that without their contribution some of us would have lost faith in all non-Muslim populations irrevocably, and viewed the Muslim Ummah as the only population capable of dealing with the truth.
Thus far we have dealt with reactions to the arrest of Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah, some of which accepted the arrest at face value and others that did not. We have not dealt with evidence of the arrest itself, the actual operation, because evidence is very, very scarce. We have seen that a large number of people in Pakistan and elsewhere denied the arrest took place and that number was not limited to the webmaster and her associates at Jihad Unspun. What possible evidence of the arrest can be considered at this point? As we pointed out in a previous post on this subject, there are photos, presumably taken in the police or army barracks in Karachi, of the alleged Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah holding a board with a name written on it. We have published this evidence before but will do so again because the evidence causes a great deal of controversy because Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah may not be his real name.
his real name is umar
The person photographed looks, to us, to be the same person who was later photographed by the Red Cross in Guantanamo. But he is holding a board of some kind which identifies him as Umar Muhammad ‘Abdallah Ba’ Amar. Had the Pakistanis and the Americans failed to correctly identify him at this point of time and, if that was the case, why did the board positively identify him as Umar Muhammad ‘Abdallah Ba’ Amar? That’s a very important question as far as we’re concerned and, we suspect, takes us to another level: namely, to ask the question: what is his real name? Is he the same person who allegedly sent money from Hamburg, Germany to Zacarias Moussaoui using the alias Ahad Sabet? Is he the same person who allegedly tried to enter the United States only to be knocked back as an overstay risk? Do two separate identities – two entirely different people – have their identities merged in the official American 9/11 narrative, to create a kind of cut-out, a composite identity created solely to support the narrative?
If the world wasn’t quite sure who Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah was, Terry McDermott, in his book Perfect Soldiers, was quick to give us the answer. He lived in Germany with the identity of a Sudanese named Omar and applied for refugee status only to be rejected, Mr McDermott informed us – citing unnamed German intelligence reports. He then returned to Germany under his real name, with an equally real Yemeni (passport # 000852243) identity and applied for refugee status again – and this time was accepted. We remember at the time reading the relevant passages, stopping, and forcing ourselves to read it again. It wasn’t the easiest thing to digest because it frankly didn’t make sense. If there was nothing wrong with his own identity, why had he taken the risk of using a false Sudanese one. Add to that there can only be so many officially sanctioned channels for individuals seeking refugee status in Hamburg and it seems impossible, on the face of it, that he wouldn’t be recognised as the same individual who previously applied with a Sudanese identity. The situation is further complicated by the information that Ramzi was always known as Omar whilst living in Hamburg, even after he returned to Germany with a Yemeni identity with the first name Ramzi. Mr McDermott, despite his unparalleled access to BKA reports, was off to a shaky start, we thought at the time. Quite frankly, we didn’t believe a word of it.
We can see from this visa application (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/OG01126PA.jpg) that the immigration officer dealing with the application has noted that the applicant was travelling back and forth to Jordan. That’s very interesting because Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah is also said to have travelled to a summit (http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=fahad_al-quso) of Al Qaida terrorists in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in the year 2000. That particular meeting provides the central narrative for the 9/11 Commission Report and recounts how American intelligence first heard about the planned meeting by wire-tapping the phone of an alleged Al Qaida hub (http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&projects_and_programs=complete_911_timeline_yemen_hub) in Yemen. The CIA allegedly requested Malaysian Special Branch monitor the meeting and they allegedly did so – photographing the participants poolside at the apartment and also “ducking in and out of internet cafes” in Malaysia’s splendid (http://www.kualalumpureguide.com/attraction.php) capital city.
So much emphasis has been placed on this meeting in Malaysia by the 9/11 Commissioners and associated newspaper reports that at one stage we thought the Americans would run out of paper rehashing the story of Al-Hazmi and Al-Mihdhar slipping through the American dragnet. The narrative is central to Americans’ understanding of the planning for 9/11 and the pretence that the CIA made errors of judgement and were asleep at the wheel. The participants of the meeting allegedly included Hambali, Yazid Sufaat, Nawaf Al-Hazmi, Khalid Al-Mihdhar, Tawfiq bin Attash, Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, Fauzi Hasbi (possibly a spy) and Ramzi bin Al-Shibah. Malaysian Special Branch allegedly photographed Ramzi bin Al-Shibah next to Tawfiq bin Attash and there is also said to be video evidence of his presence. Despite this, we are led to believe, both Al-Mihdhar and Ramzi bin Al-Shibah left Malaysia and participated in the attack on the USS Cole later in the year. The Prime Minister of Yemen declared that Al-Mihdhar was involved but left Yemen a few days later. American intelligence sources later ‘confirmed’ to Al-Jazeera journalist Yosri Fouda that Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah was involved.
Are we to believe that Al-Mihdhar and Ramzi bin Al-Shibah engaged in this frenzy of Jihad activity and then attempted to enter the United States using their real names? Do the 9/11 Commissioners seriously expect us to believe that if the aforementioned information is true that the CIA couldn’t co-ordinate their activities with the State Department and lay a trap for two obvious terror suspects? Again, the suggestion doesn’t make sense. We understand that the 9/11 Commissioners contend that the agency was guilty of incompetence but this suggestion doesn’t cut the mustard, in our opinion. After all, the CIA requested Malaysian Special Branch monitor the Malaysia meeting and they allegedly did so. They also forwarded a report and photographic/ video evidence to the American agency. The participants were known and so were monitored in Singapore, Bangkok and K.L. Why weren’t they stopped if the narrative is essentially correct?
At the very least, after two and possibly three of the participants of the Malaysia meeting allegedly took part in the attack on the USS Cole, why wasn’t action taken? The drowsy driver must surely have woken up by now – or was he catatonic?
The narrative isn’t sustainable and when it is scrutinised it breaks down. Common sense enters the equation; common sense informs us that if these two weren’t watch-listed they weren’t who the Americans say they are or they were deliberately allowed to proceed.
A good method of confirming this contention is to look at the small print. In the United Nations Consolidated List we see that Ramzi bin Al-Shibah’s Sudanese identity and a variety of different names, including the one the Pakistani’s identified him by and published first on this website, simply will not go away. We suspect that the reason for this is that the Americans might be able to run an FBI investigation but they can’t control an international one. What results do we get when we turn to German sources, for example? The same ambiguity with two nationalities, two birthdates. The 1973 birth date links him to Khartoum, Sudan while the 1972 birth date links him to Yemen. We’re think we are looking at an unknown individual with an identity constructed from two separate, equally real identities. The fact that Zacarias Moussaoui was convicted partly on the basis of the Ahad Sabet evidence should make Americans mobilise for political and constitutional reform.
We mentioned already that our theory makes some very interesting predictions and it is not surprising that these predictions have generally come to pass. Our theory predicts that the Americans cannot produce Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah in a court of law because he isn’t who the Americans say he is. Neither can they produce audio of him at the military tribunal in Guantanamo, despite the fact that the audio of KSM and ‘Ammar Al-Baluchi, and an all star cast of other alleged 9/11 conspirators, has been placed in the public domain. It should be pointed out that there is audio of Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah in the public domain already, speaking at a Hamburg wedding, and so the audio at the Guantanamo gulag would obviously be expected to match. Does the suggestion that they could not match explain why there is no Guantanamo audio of Ramzi? Does this also explain why the audio of the interview in Karachi was distorted? Thus far the Americans have derailed the prosecution of two alleged co-conspirators in Germany and, again in our opinion, a miscarriage of justice occurred in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, because of the authorities’ refusal to allow Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah to testify. The instance that took place at the military tribunal was particularly illuminating from our point of view as tribunal members noted that Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah was delusional and refused to attend the hearing. Has Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah’s condition been diagnosed, we wonder. Is it a symptom of his condition that he is claiming to be someone else?
We became aware that the American military junta and its Wall Street backers recently withdrew charges Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah would have faced had he fronted a civilian court. We think he now faces further prolonged detention until his eventual appearance at a tribunal hearing (audio redacted) or his death. This isn’t justice, one way or the other. After all the misery that has been caused in Afghanistan and Iraq, and New York, for that matter, the Americans should be held accountable and should bring any evidence into the public domain. Judge Leonie Brinkema presided over a terror trial and her name was not kept secret as is the case with the tribunal members in the gulag of Guantanamo Bay. Also the evidence should be made public, not just for the sake of people who criticise the Americans like us – but for the benefit of American society. The behaviour of prosecutors and the judge in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial was unacceptable, in our opinion, because large portions of the evidence were subsequently redacted. And yet that particular side-show took place in the glare of public scrutiny, with reporters present at various times, and proceedings reported upon regularly. What hope can there be for a more transparent process, where the Star Chamber inquisitors have their names redacted and have their fingers poised over an electronic button which cuts the audio feed?
Of course we could be wrong about this and we won’t mind admitting it, unlike some American writers who claimed OBL died at Tora Bora and who now claim that his recent demise is faked. We haven’t dug ourselves into a hopelessly entrenched position by asking these legitimate questions. As we pointed out earlier, the raid at Karachi may have taken place to bring Ramzi into the open and he may have been netted in a separate raid. But that possibility does not explain the question of his identity. Nor does it explain Zacarias Moussaoui’s insistence that Ramzi was not Ahad Sabet. Even when Moussaoui realised his goose was cooked he continued to make the point, which is very strange in the circumstances, if indeed it is true.
Mr Kupferberg refers to a pre-fabricated set-up – a set-up he imagines involves members of the press. A more realistic picture emerges when we consider “Top Secret: the road to September 11th” in a much wider context and focus on the claims made about the documentary by Yosri Fouda himself. Mr Fouda claims to have exposed the true nature of the plot as a coup for Al Jazeera and for himself personally but when we study the entire song and dance routine, the claim falls flat on its face. Upon his return to the Al-Jazeera offices after playing the role of the 9/11 caped crusader, details of Mr Fouda’s interview were examined by the Emir of Qatar, who subsequently gave information to the CIA. In an interview with Salon.com, the author of the One Percent Doctrine, Ron Suskind, another privileged insider with ties to various unnamed intelligence officials, makes the following claims:
“Bin al Shibh, no. I’m not talking about the bin al Shibh stuff or the KSM stuff. Ultimately, we ended up getting the key breaks on those guys, KSM and bin al Shibh, from the Emir of Qatar, who informed us as to their whereabouts a few months before we captured bin al Shibh. That was the key break in getting those guys. KSM slipped away; in June of 2002, the Emir of Qatar passed along information to the CIA as to something that an Al Jazeera reporter had discovered as to the safe-house where KSM and bin al Shibh were hiding in Karachi slums. He passed that on to the CIA, and that was the key break. Whether Zubaydah provided some supporting information is not clear, but the key to capturing those guys was the help of the Emir.”
Assuming Mr Fouda’s interview took place in Karachi, which is by no means certain, we hereby express our doubts that Mr Fouda knew where he was in the city, as elaborate security measures were put in place to prevent him doing so. Mr Fouda recounts that he was driven around blindfolded to disorient him and, unless he was wearing a tracking device, it is difficult to see where security broke down. Mr Fouda may have heard evidence that there was a mosque nearby – or a hospital, for instance, and this information may have been forwarded to the Americans by the Emir of Qatar. We can now see from information in the public domain that the interview itself – or perhaps reports of the interview, played a largely undetermined role in creating the Legend of 9/11. But can we go on to claim that parts of the legend were deliberately obscured? Is it safe to make the assumption that KSM’s reported links to Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaida leadership in Afghanistan, for example, were created by Al Jazeera and the Emir of Qatar, in conjunction with a pro-western intelligence service, if not the CIA?
We have an indication that this may be the case from two related sources: in the transcript of KSM’s tribunal hearing in the Guantanamo gulag, KSM denies telling Mr Fouda that he was head of Al-Qaida’s military committee, contradicting the Al Jazeera journalist who made the explicit claim. Mr Fouda also makes the highly interesting claim that he agreed not to divulge KSM and Ramzi’s real operational names as a condition to getting the interview. We would like to focus on this particular statement for a moment, to see if we can uncover some facts.
As members of the public who are supposed to buy all this caped crusader stuff, we thought we already knew KSM’s operational names:
Khalid Sheikh Mohommad alias Mohommad the Pakistani alias MP (ISI jargon)
During the past decade, law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies have identified Khalid to use (sic) at least 50 aliases. They are Walid Muhammad Salih Ba Attas; Khalid Shaikh; Khalid Al-Shaikh; Mohammad Khaled; Khalid; Salim Ali; Ali Salem; Muhammed Khalid Al-Mana; M Almana; Ashraf Refaat Nabith Henin; Ashraf Refaat Nabih Henin; Nabih Hanin; Fahd Bin Abdallah Bin Khaled; Muhammad Muhannadi; Ashraf Ahmed; Ashraf; Ahmed Refaat; Khalid Abdul Wadood; Khalid the Kuwaiti; Babu Hamza; Mukhtar; Al-Mukh;Muhammad Ali Al Balushi; Mukhtar Al-Baluchi; Abdul Rahman Abdullah Al-Ghamdi; Khalid Mohammad Mohammad; Khalid Shaikh Mohammad; Khalid Mohammad; Khalid Al-Shiekh; Khalid Abdul Wadood; and Khalid Saeed Muhammad. Although Khalid appears older, Khalid frequently uses two birthdays – April 14, 1965 and March 1, 1964. In addition to using forged and adapted passports, Khalid uses several fraudulently obtained passports – African (Sudanese), Middle Eastern (Saudi) and Asian (Pakistani). For instance, his Saudi Arabian passport is no C174152 with expiration date April 23, 2005 lists his date and place of birth as September 24, 1968 and Saudi Arabia respectively. Similarly, he received Pakistani passport numbers 488555, issued at the Pakistani Embassy in Kuwait and 113107, issued at the Pakistani Embassy in Abu Dhabi on July 21, 1994, the latter with an expiration date of September 18, 1997. In 1995, the FBI retrieved a photograph of Khalid from Yousef’s Toshiba laptop, the first indication that he was an important terrorist. Even before the FBI and the CIA knew the link between Khalid and bin Laden or Khalid and Al Qaeda, Khalid has been a wanted terrorist. Nonetheless, by using multiple identities, Khalid has evaded law enforcement authorities worldwide and operated on every continent including in Latin America. For instance, operating under the Egyptian name Ashraf Refaat Nabih Henin, Khalid obtained a Brazilian visa no 194-95 (C0077250) issued in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. (Source, Rohan Gunaratna, Al Qaeda’s Trajectory in 2003.)
We also thought we knew Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah’s operational name: Abu Ubaidah and his other aliases. So it is interesting to ponder which additional operating names Mr Fouda agreed to keep quiet about. Were they names, we wonder, which tie KSM or Ramzi – or both – to the Pakistani ISI by any chance? And if not, why did KSM and his collaborators allegedly distribute video on behalf of the National Movement For The Restoration Of Pakistani Sovereignty, whose demands included the delivery of F16 planes that Pakistan paid for and never received? Isn’t that a strange demand for an Al Qaida ‘terrorist’ to make? Source, Pearl murder video. (author refuses to provide link). Can the reader now see the fingerprints of an intelligence operation upon the events we are dealing with? And whose fingerprints are they? Who are the obvious suspects once the implausible suspects have been eliminated from the investigation?
We also wish to point out that in the aftermath of the raid in Karachi which allegedly netted Ramzi, there were persistent reports that KSM was killed in the shootout and that his wife and two young children were taken into custody. Please remember that we extracted the screenshots of Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah holding the board from a video called The New Al-Qaida, a BBC production available at archive.org. There is also additional footage in the same section we haven’t previously extracted frames from, and interestingly there are additional frames of KSM at the time of his arrest. While these photographs of KSM are obviously in the public domain, they are not widely known about and have not been published until now to the best of our knowledge. In our view, they strongly suggest that ‘KSM’ and ‘Ramzi’ were detained at the same time and that the photos of KSM with his clothes in disarray were not taken at the place of his arrest. We have come to this conclusion for the following reasons: firstly, the film has unique, bluish tint which is unlikely to have been used in both Karachi and Rawalpindi. The same batch of film showing both accused terrorists strongly implies that the film was used to photograph the accused at around about the same time. Numerous reports have circulated, moreover, that the wall behind ‘KSM’ – the wall with the peeling paint on it, is not to be found at the address in Rawalpindi where ‘KSM’ was arrested. This could be explained if the photographs were taken in the Pakistani police or army barracks where they were taken after their arrests sometime in September, 2002. Furthermore, ‘KSM’ is identified in the film not by holding a board but by caption. We think this is unlikely to have occurred at the place of his arrest but at a subsequent detention centre, after the accused had been identified by Pakistani authorities.
is this the same batch of film?
All of our reports except the humorous ones carry a direct message which goes way beyond the facts. We pointed out, time and time again, that the American government and its gullible population cannot be trusted to deliver the truth on 9/11 and the ongoing ‘War on Terror’ partly because of government secrecy and partly because American investigators employ sloppy methods and refuse to go out to interview people. Even the so-called shining stars of the 9/11 truth movement, such as Paul Thompson, really do nothing more than compile newspaper reports and then make often incorrect assumptions based on them. A good example to illustrate this perspective are the repeated assertions that General Ahmed instructed Saeed Sheikh to transfer $100,000 to Muhammed Atta while the latter was allegedly in Florida. Those who wished to gain a modicum of respectability and therefore distanced themselves from the thermite in the dust crowd, repeated this propaganda claim by Indian Intelligence ad infinitum, so that eventually the story acquired a life of its own – but the information eventually led nowhere, as it was a dead-end no-brainer to start with. Because of the way Americans investigate, all any author had to do was use Google to find the original story in the Indian press, copy and paste the url – and hey, presto, the story became embedded in the 9/11 narrative. There are many, many similar examples we could use to demonstrate this fact. Whereas the American investigator is in a good position geographically to conduct an investigation, they always waste their opportunities with a combination of a priori assumptions and unwillingness to take any risks. Let us demonstrate to our readers what we mean by this.
There are a large number of Americans who have valuable information. We can think of a number of them without mentioning their names. Usually they had high-level clearance in the Bush administration but now most of them have retired or moved on. There are also a large number of people in the current administration who possess important information that could be used to help derail the American putsch into the Muslim world. Has anyone in America even thought about asking these people about the real story? Has an informal approach been made to even 1% of them? Last night on the television news it was reported that an additional 5 Americans were killed in Afghanistan, four in one incident and another in a separate one. That, we might add, is in addition to one Australian soldier killed and another hospitalised with life threatening injuries. For previously loyal intelligence officials, and some serving military personnel, these casualties are their weak spot. A large number of them could be persuaded to talk in the right circumstances, especially after rapport building and trust has been established. And while it is possible to do this by making phone calls, writing letters or emails, the American investigator is in a far better position than we are because they can sit down face to face.
It can be argued, of course, that Americans are not unique in this respect. In this particular report we have looked at events in Karachi, which is in Pakistan, and not the USA. Has anyone even contemplated going along to the apartment and asking questions? Is this really asking too much for a population who instinctively know that they are being lied to? Is it too much to ask that an independent investigation be undertaken, instead of letting the intelligence services and the controlled press define the moment? Stokely Carmichael once described the ruling class in America as ‘masters of definition,’ as they control language and the media to reinforce their rule. Thus, one particular group are defined as terrorists while the favoured group are described as freedom fighters. The myth of democracy is used to reinforce this perspective although the opposite is the case. One particular armed group can be portrayed as diligent citizens who are upholding their constitutional right to bear arms, while another group, such as the residents at Waco, Texas, are accused of stockpiling weapons in a sinister and conspiratorial way. Why do Americans allow the ruling class to define language in the way they have done? This author firmly believes that the best way of taking this privilege away from them is to establish local committees of inquiry – whatever the subject – and to steadfastly maintain the independence of those inquiries with no government interference or involvement.
This methodology has been effective in two examples that immediately spring to mind here in Australia. In the first of our two examples, a people’s investigation was effective in exposing the ASIO bombing in Sydney, back in the 1970’s. Asio, a branch of the Australian secret services, exploded a device near the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting – and then blamed Amanda Marga, an Australian religious sect, for the crime. An Australian Trotskyist group conducted the investigation and the end result was that the then Australian Attorney General was persuaded – some would say forced – to personally lead the raid on the ASIO offices with a search warrant in his hands. Another example that springs to mind is the investigation of some deaths in custody – murders committed by generally white, redneck police officers – against members of Australia’s indigenous community. The case we wish to illustrate: John Pat. Where did all the calls for a Royal Commission into his death lead? Did we tell you at the time that a Royal Commission would only result in a cover-up? Were we proven right? And where did the independent investigation lead? Can you remember?
We mention all this in passing because the same mistakes are being made again. Americans who doubt their government is telling the truth are again being led in the direction of calling for a new inquiry. They have effectively no chance, one way or another. Assuming that the government eventually accepted the demand, the terms of reference would be restrictive; members of the defence forces and intelligence services would be exempted from giving evidence as the ruling class in America have no interest in allowing the truth to emerge. In terms of general chatter within the wider intelligence community, there is a significant faction who has formed the opinion that Saddam Hussein ordered the American embassy bombings in Africa, to cite just one example. We haven’t got access to all the information they have but we know what they’ve been saying because they’ve told us. What could we make of the decision to attack Afghanistan and Sudan with cruise missiles with that little nugget of information up our sleeves? What does that say about Hilary Clinton and her sometimes husband and their commitment to upholding the truth?
We maintain that aside from the damage done to individuals’ lives, with Star Chamber Inquisitors at the Guantanamo gulag still running the show with their fake military credentials and their overwhelming sense of priorities, that the entire ‘War On Terror’ is essentially based upon a lie. It is interesting to note that Azzam Publications, the website mentioned earlier in our analysis of the Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah episode, were the last major source of information that Osama Bin Laden did not organise or have involvement in the September 11th attacks. In fact the majority of so-called Islamic websites including Azzam, The Unjust Media and a host of others, all maintained his innocence and preferred to believe him and the Taliban when they issued their denials. What has changed in the meanwhile? Has the growth of the police state and the drive to maintain the permanent war economy had anything to do with the fact that these websites were forced to close? We call for an independent investigation and we call on our supporters to establish a meaningful website, properly constructed and not on a free server, with multi-lingual writers who are committed to the truth – and we call on members of the public to support that effort collectively. Our aim should be to expose the War On Terror and confine western military forces to their barracks, at least as a first step.
“Think not of those who are killed in the way of Allah as dead. Nay, they are alive with their Lord, and they are being provided for. They rejoice in what Allah has bestowed upon them from His bounty and rejoice for the sake of those who have not yet joined them, but are left behind (not yet martyred) that on them no fear shall come, nor shall they grieve. They rejoice in a grace and a bounty from Allah, and that Allah will not waste the reward of the believers.” [Quran 3:169-171]
additional links and photos soon to be added.