Is Osama bin Laden a red herring?

It's been a little over a month since the first American Tomahawk came slicing through the chilly night sky over Afghanistan's harsh, undulating mountains in response to the 9-11 attacks.

Though evidently a culmination of months - if not years - of meticulous preparation, the aerial attacks allegedly perpetuated by Al Qaeda, the infamous international terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden, the formidable US intelligence machinery was said to have been taken by complete surprise.

There is, however, evidence available in the public domain that suggests that the September 11 terror attacks had been in the making for at least ten years, and that the US repeatedly ignored signs and warnings that should have got it on its guard.

A little research into middle-east politics and the evolution of Islamic terrorism makes it clear that there was more than one terrorist network working towards attacking US citizens on their own soil, including perfecting the technique with which they eventually got the World Trade Centre come ignominiously tumbling down that terrible, terrible September morning.

One such network was the Algeria-based Armed Islamic Group (GIA), which in December 1994 hijacked an Air France Airbus carrying 171 passengers with a sinister motive in mind: plunge the jetliner into the Eiffel Tower. A particularly vicious group that was held responsible for a series of subway bombings in Paris in the mid-90s, the GIA hijackers nearly succeeded in their suicidal mission.

They were prevented from doing so because they had overlooked one little detail: none of them could fly a plane. The plane was eventually stormed by the police in Marseilles and liberated, but the event had sowed the seeds for the 9-11 attack in New York city.

Also preparing diligently towards the attacks that shook the world's sole-surviving superpower out of its customary smugness was Iran. At least that's what is suggested in a 1933 paperback Target America: Terrorism in the U.S. Today (Shapolsky Publishers Inc, NY; ISBN 1-56171-269-8).

One of five books on the subject authored by Yoseff Bodansky, Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, the book makes for a stunning revelation on the systematic manner in which Iran went about training terrorists for strikes against the West in general and the US in particular.

It also explains how "masterminds" like Osama bin Laden and Abu Nidal are used as diversionary fronts to protect the real leadership behind terrorist attacks like that of September 11.

According to Bodansky, the plan to launch a major terrorist-guerrilla offensive inside the United States through an aerial suicide mission has been the publicly stated goal of Iran-based Islamist Jehad since the late 1970s. For this purpose, he says, Iran put at least two terrorist training facilities at its disposal.

One of these is a western-built airport at Wakilabad near Mashhad where several former Iran Air and Iranian Air Force pilots, including some trained in the United States, impart skills on carrying out aerial attacks. At hand, the book says, were a Boeing 707, a Boeing 727 and a Boeing 747 owned by Iran Air, which also took on terrorists as crewmembers on its passenger jets for a first-hand experience.

Some of these pilots were also reportedly sent to the Won San air base in North Korea to undergo a year's training under Korean instructors, known for their kamikaze skills. Bodasnky also points out that the February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre in New York - probably the inspiration behind the book - was but one of the first strikes carried out by these Iran-trained terrorists and should've been warning enough for the US. Especially when it was discovered that the plotters had meant to topple the towers and packed the truck bomb with cyanide.

US intelligence officials are also believed to have repeatedly turned down vital information on Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders in the years leading up to the 9-11 attacks. On two occasions, they even declined an offer to extradite or interview key Al Qaeda operatives arrested in Africa, where a suspected bin Laden cell used truck bombs to blow up the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya within minutes of each other, killing 220.

By the mid-90s, Osama bin Laden had set up Al Qaeda in Sudan (and not Afghanistan as some reports seem to suggest) and declared war on America, but soon after the State Department persuaded Sudan to kick him out.

But that was about the only success the US had with him. By Clinton's final year of presidency, the then CIA raised the bin Laden issue so often that some lawmakers suspected he was just trying to scare them into coughing up money for other activities.

The moot question then is: Should the US really consider Osama bin Laden the "principle suspect" behind the September 11 attacks? It's hard to say at the moment, before the evidence the US claims to implicate him is made public.

In all probability, he was certainly involved at some stage of the operation - which had his fingerprints - but he couldn't have done it all without some Islamic nation's backing.

What's for sure is that the US underestimated its adversaries and that its intelligence agencies have no justification for failing to anticipate 9-11 considering that its counter-terrorism budget has jumped from $2 billion to $12 billion over a decade and it spends some $30 billion a year in intelligence-gathering activities.

What's even more instructive is the fact that for the past 5 years, intelligence officials have been burning the midnight oil in a chamber deep in the bowels of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) headquarters at Langley, trying to put together the jigsaw on Al Qaeda.

Very interesting, particularly in light of Osama's declaration - just the other day - that he was responsible for 9/11. That is, he hadn't really stated this before.

I think bin Laden was certainly involved, but I tend to think that he was working with a somewhat more organized Islamic state (something that really IS a state, unlike al Quaeda or even Afghanistan). Red herring? Probably.

But I hope it's a double-edged red herring, so to speak. That is, while he is attempting to mislead us and throw us off the scent of whoever is controlling him, we are trying to mislead them by pretending to believe that bin Laden is solely responsible. Or maybe that's too much to hope, after 8 years of Bill Clinton's magic sleeping potion.

I don't think lax immigration laws are the crucial issue here - rather lax attention to the world and it's clear and present dangers. OBL and his cronies have been on the move for twenty plus years and they have slowly gathered support and credibility by knowing how to exploit the genuine concerns of many people. We have let this happen under our very noses. And by us I don't just mean dozing Reagan/ Bush/ Clinton/ Clinton/ Bush administrations and Congress but also a careless and carefree people who ignored the writing on the wall. We were so busy chasing adultery and dot.com wealth bubbles we ignored terrorism. An interesting article. There is an increasing number of really useful material come from various world news sources. Very little pro OBL - in fact virtually none that I can find - but lots of material that really gives insight into what people in the world are thinking about terror, about OBL, and about us.I find some hope in it.

Is that because their intellignce was to investigate and audit Republicans, conservative non-profit groups, church groups, and busting down innocent Americans doors because they might be smoking a joint?

What did the Clintons do after the 1993 bombings? Spend millions on lawyers taking them to trial?

What did they do after TWA 800? Blame Boeing?

What did they do after the OKC bombing? Deny any terriost connections!

What did they do after the embassy bombings, take out a couple of tents and camels on the day Monica testified?

What did they do after 17 sailors were killed in a direct attack on one of our ships? Nothing! Still waiting!

It's this weakness coupled with Torrecelli's bill to not let criminals give us intellignece and all along the leader of their party and the country was being run by one of the biggest crimials in history!!

If anyone is seriously interested in understanding the Islamic terrorists, I would recommend reading Yossef Bodansky's books:

TARGET: AMERICA - discusses why we are targets and how a new Pan-Asian alliance has been formed between Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Korea and China to wage a terrorist war against America.

TERROR - discusses how the terrorist network is organized along with all the training

BIN LADEN: THE MAN WHO DECLARED WAR ON AMERICA - describes how Al Quaida was set up and its links to other terrorist networks

Another chilling book is CRISIS IN: KOREA where the North Korean link to the terrorist network is explored, as well as NK's commitment to developing FIRST STRIKE capability against the South and the USA.

But in the Urdu version of the article, Bin Laden does not threaten to use nuclear or chemical weapons.

How much of the US media is going to mention the fact that the BBC caught this discrepancy

I posted the fact that CNN reported this discrepancy two days ago. two versions

Highly unlikely that India would want to provoke such a war. India has the second largest Moslem population in the world. (larger than Pakistan's) If their Moslem population is endangered, India is endangered. I think it likely that OBL et al would love to prokoke something in India so that India turns on its Moslems. That would destabilize the country. A huge bomb plot was thwarted in New Delhi not so long ago. These terrorists work by provoking - provoking countries to react in ways that expose their values to doubt. Example - provoke the US to clamp down on freedoms. That is their basic MO. That is how they win. That is why in a war with terrorist we need the heavy guns but also top notch strategists/ chess players.

No doubt about it - these attacks have been long in the making and planned right beneath our eyes. I honestly don't think it makes sense to blame any one group of Americans for being asleep at the wheel - we ALL were. The Khobar barracks where we lost so many Marines; WTC1 in 1993; the Embassy plots; the USS Cole - to mention just a few connected incidents. There are so very many more - some successful, some thwarted. And then that BBC story of how we had Bin laden in our grasp last July when he was in an American hospital for dialysis. Why did we not grab him then? Can there be any validity to the story that we held back because of pressure from the Bush family and their connections with the Carlyle group? While it is wise to keep an open mind for possibilities of all kinds - even the wildest conspiracy stories - it is vital to keep a grip on reality. Having crazy stories does not help sort through the entanglemnets of money, policy, history, oil, etc. "Follow the money" though is not a bad thread to keep in mind even though money means nothing to religious fanatics. And now Bin Laden seems to be taking credit for WTC but denying all knowledge of Anthrax. I do think that if that was connected with Al-Qaeda then they would have made a bigger thing of it than this seems to be.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.