Osama Bin Laden’s Nephew Has Been Working For The U.S. Department Of Defense For Six Months

Bin Laden’s nephew works at the Pentagon

WASHINGTON, D.C.- A senior level source from within the United States Department of Defense has confirmed that 9/11 mastermind Osama Bin Laden’s nephew has been working at the Pentagon for the past six months and has access to secret military documents including weapons systems that are currently being developed by the U.S. military and numerous private contractors hired by the DoD.

The whistleblower, who agreed to speak with Inothernewz.com only on the condition of his anonymity, says Bin Laden’s nephew, Ali Abdul Bin Laden, was originally hired in late June and was immediately assigned to be the aide of a high ranking general who he declined to name for this expose.

“Bin Laden’s working alongside a very high ranking general and his position consequently  entitles him access to crucial documents that, if passed onto the wrong hands, could have dire repercussions to the United State military,” said the source. “An enemy of the United States could easily develop the plethora of classified information into numerous weapons of mass destruction. I wanted the citizens of our nation to know what’s going on at the Department of Defense. They have a right to know who’s working for their country. Bin Laden is being paid with tax dollars just as I am.”

The source says Bin Laden was hired under an assumed identity and introduced at the DoD as Hamid Hussein. The alias however could not cover up the striking resemblance to the man who died at the hands of Navy SEALS in Pakistan on May 1, 2011.

“The resemblance was absolutely uncanny,” said the source. “It was like staring right at Osama Bin Laden’s face. You can imagine how unnerving that was for me and the other employees at the DoD. We knew right away he was not Hamid Hussein. I have top level clearance at the DoD so I accessed the files I needed in order to reveal Mr. Hussein’s real identity. I was floored when I received confirmation of who this man really was.”

When asked why the source had waited so long to reveal this information, he said, “It ate at me for a really long time, knowing Osama Bin Laden’s nephew was in the same building as me and my coworkers. It gnawed at me to the point where I couldn’t sleep for days. After a while I told my wife and we agreed it would be in the best interests of the country if I came out with this. So here I am.”

“It’s hard to trust someone when they’re so closely related to one of the most hated men in recent memory,” said the source. “My fellow coworkers and I get up every day and head to the Pentagon knowing it’s our job to help protect our nation from terror threats. Sometimes you wonder if the biggest threat is walking around in the same building.”

Inothernewz.com has left numerous messages for the media relations liaison at the Department of Defense. We have yet to hear back as of this article breaking.

We will continue to update this breaking story as details become available.

WHY THE WESTREN MEDIA THINKS OSAMA IS ALIVE WHY THE AMERICANS MADE A LAW TO THREAT ANYBODY WHO SAYS OSAMA IS ALIVE

Bin Laden is alive and being kept at Guantanamo Bay

WASHINGTON, D.C.- In what is sure to be the biggest scandal to rock the nation’s capital in its long and often scandal-filled history, Inothernewz.com has learned through a source in the Pentagon that the world’s most feared terrorist Osama Bin Laden is alive and being kept at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp under a false name.

According to the source, who spoke with Inothernewz.com under the guarantee of anonymity due to the obvious sensitive nature of the matter, Bin Laden has been housed in solitary confinement since his capture on May 1, 2012 when numerous Navy Seals from Seal Team Six stormed Bin Laden’s heavily fortified compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

“The world thinks Osama Bin Laden is dead but that’s just not true,” said the source. “I have documentation to prove that he’s being kept at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba under a fake name. The American people have a right to know they’re being lied to. This is the biggest cover-up in our history.”

“Ask yourself. Has a post-mortem picture of Osama Bin Laden been released?” said the source. “Of course not. That’s because he’s still alive and has been under rigorous interrogation since the day we captured him. A man once thought unbreakable has been divulging Al Qaeda secrets at will. Torture does that to a man.”

Inothernewz.com contacted the Pentagon for comment but we were told they had nothing to say at this time and publication of any article relating to the possibility of Osama Bin Laden being alive and kept at Guantanamo Bay would be punishable by a hefty fine and possible prison time.

The source, who spoke to Inothernewz.com over a course of three weeks for the publication of this article, went on to describe how Osama Bin Laden was being treated at the infamous detention camp on the island of Cuba.

“As you well know, it’s official U.S. policy not to torture,” said the source. “That may not be the case for Bin Laden, however. He has been constantly tortured both physically and mentally. There are several memos in my possession which point out that he’s asked his captors to put a bullet in his head. He has begged for death numerous times. He’s kept in solitary round the clock, twenty-four hours a day. He’s given three square meals a day and allowed outside away from the other prisoners for one hour each morning.”

And what exactly has Bin Laden given up to U.S. authorities while in captivity?

“He’s been a treasure trove of information, especially while under duress,” said the source. “Bin Laden has been responsible for divulging key Al-Qaeda hideouts in Pakistan that have led to numerous covert drone strikes resulting in the deaths of many terrorist operatives. He’s also been very forthright about how the inner Al-Qaeda finances work- who the money suppliers are and how the money is transferred from one cell to another. We have reason to believe much of the money supplying Al-Qaeda comes from wealthy families from Saudi Arabia- a well known ally of the United States.”

“He’s been out of the loop since his capture so he hasn’t been much help when it comes to future attacks against the United States and our allies,” said the source. “As you can imagine, averting any future attacks are key to defeating Al-Qaeda.”

***Inothernewz.com pledges to keep our readers abreast of this monumental scandal as we attain more details. We are the only media outlet our source has agreed to speak to, ensuring us exclusive details our readers will find no where else. Please check back for further updates.

Dream Of Usama Bin Laden - Sehra Se Darya Tak

          ======== شیخ اسامہ شہید رحمہ اللہ کے بچپن کا ایک خواب ============

1966کی صبح ایک عرب بچہ فجر سے کچھ پہلے اپنے والد کو جگا کر کہتا ہے ابا جان میں آپ کو اپنا ایک خواب سنانا چاہتا ہوں ۔ والد نے سوچا شاید بچے نے کوءی ڈراؤنا خواب دیکھا ہے ۔ انہوں نے وضو کیا اور بچے کولے کر مسجد کی طرف چل پڑے ۔ راستے میں بچے نے بتایا کہ میں نےخواب میں خود کوایک وسیع میدان میں پایا۔ میں نے دیکھا کہ سفید رنگ کے گھوڑوں پ

رسوار ایک لشکر میری جانب بڑھ رہا ہے ۔ اس لشکر میں سے ایک گھڑ سوار جس کی آنکھیں چمک رہی تھیں میرے برابر آکر رک گیا اور کہنے لگا: کیا آپ اسامہ بن لادن ہیں ؟ میں نے جواب دیا جی ہاں۔ اس نے پھر سوال پوچھا کیا آپ اسامہ بن لادن ہیں؟

میں نے جواب دیا جی ہاں میں ہی ہوں۔ اس نے تیسری بار پھر پوچھا کیا آپ ہی اسامہ بن لادن ہیں؟ تب میں نے اسے کہا خدا کی قسم میںہی اسامہ بن محمد بن لادنہوں۔ اس نے میری طرف ایک جھنڈا بڑھایا اور کہا کہ یہ جھنڈا القدس کے دروازے پر امام مہدی(محمد بن عبداللہ ) کو دے دینا ۔ میں نے وہ پرچم لے لیا اور میں نے دیکھا کہ وہ لشکر میرے پیچھے پیچھے چلنے لگا۔ والد اس خواب پر بہت حیرانہوءے لیکن پھر کسی کام میں مصروفیت کی بنا پر خواب کو بھول گیے ۔ اگلی صبح نماز سےکچھ پہلے جگا کر بچے نے پھر وہی خواب سنایا۔ تیسری صبح پھر ایسا ہی ہوا تووالد کواپنے بچے کے بارے میں تشویش ہوءی وہ اسے لے کر ایک عالم کے پاس گیے جو خوابوں کی تعبیر جانتے تھے۔ انہوں نے خواب سن کر بچے کو غور سے دیکھا اور پوچھا کیا اس بچے نے خواب دیکھا ہے والد نے فرمایا جی۔ انہوں نے بچے سے پوچھا، بیٹے تمہیں وہ پرچم یاد ہے جو تمہیں اس گھڑ سوار نے دیا تھا ؟

اسامہ نے کہا، جی ہاں مجھےیاد ہے۔ وہ عالم کہنے لگے ذرا مجھے بتاؤ وہ کیسا تھا؟ اسامہ نے کہا، تھا تووہ سعودیعرب کے جھنڈے جیسا ہی مگر اس کا رنگ سبز نہیں تھا بلکہ سیاہ تھا اور اس میںسفید رنگ سے کچھ لکھا ہوا بھی تھا۔ عالم نے اسامہ سے پوچھا کبھی تم نے خود بھی لڑتے ہوءے دیکھا ہے اسامہ نے کہا، اس طرح کے خواب تو میں اکثر دیکھتا رہتا ہوں۔ پھر انہوں نے اسامہ سے کہا کہ وہ باہر جاءیں اور تلاوت کریں۔

پھر وہ والد کی طرف متوجہ ہوءے اورپوچھا آپ لوگوں کاآبایی تعلق کہاں سے ہے ؟ انہوں نےکہا، یمن کے علاقے حضرت موت سے ۔کہنے لگے کہ اپنے قبیلے کے بارے میں بتاءیں۔ انہوں نے کہا ہمارا تعلق قبیلہ شنوءۃ سے ہے جو یمن کا قحطانی قبیلہ ہے ۔ عالم نے زور سے تکبیر بلند کی پھر اسامہ کو بلایا اور ان کو روتے ہوءے چومنے لگے ساتھ فرمایا ، قیامت کی نشانیاں قریب آگیی ہیں اے محمد بن لادن آپ کا یہ بیٹا امام مہدی کے لیے لشکر تیار کرے گا اور اپنے دین کی حفاظت کے لیے خطہ خراسان کی طرف ہجرت کرے گا۔ اے اسامہ مبارک ہے وہ جو آپ کے ساتھ جہاد کرے ، ناکام ونامراد ہو وہ جو آپ کو تنہا چھوڑ کر آپ کے خلاف لڑے ۔ 

بحوالہ : شہید اسامہ صحرا سے دریا تک

Saudi Arabia, Syria, Chemical Weapons & Paid Salafi Mullahs.

Since the start of this Syrian Crisis, the Mullahs in Pakistan particularly the Saudi Arabian paid and backed Salafi-Ahl-e-Hadith or Wahhabi Mullahs are trying their best to justify US Attack on Syria. One should listen to their demented logic wherein they bring in the Scripture to justify such attacks on Syria while completely forgetting that the same Syria was once an ally of the same Saudi Arabia under USA during the First Gulf War in 1990. Even more tragic is the fact that these Mullah attack the Prrint and Electronic Media for narrating the facts regarding Saudi role in the recent crisis in the Middle East. They say that people should not pay heed to the Media who is after maligning the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia whereas the same Mullahs quote the Western Media against the Syrian Government. Quite a tragedy! Muslim in general and South Asian Muslim in particular praise the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Revival of Ottoman Caliphate in the same breath, whereas it was the House of Saud and Hanbali Cleric Sheikh Muhammad Bin Abdel Wahab who revolted against Ottoman Caliphate around 200 years ago. When Saddam invaded Kuwait - [Immediately a Fatwa was issued against Saddam - "During the Iran-Iraq war, Saudi Arabia bankrolled the Saddam Hussein regime with the express approval of Washington DC which at that time saw Saddam Hussein as a bulwark against Shia fundamentalism. It came as a terrific shock to the Saudi Royals when Saddam Hussein turned his attention to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Again, the Royal family turned to the Ulema and obtained (with difficulty) a Fatwa, permitting the use of non-Muslim foreign troops on Saudi soil to defend Saudi Arabia against a foreign invader - one the Ulema regarded as a secular apostate. Thus the Saudi Royal family invited the USA to send it its troops for Operation Desert Storm- the operation to defend Saudi Arabia and liberate Kuwait - largely at Saudi expense." As per 9/11 Commission Report “In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bin Ladin, whose efforts in Afghanistan had earned him celebrity and respect, proposed to the Saudi monarchy that he summon mujahideen for a jihad to retake Kuwait. He was rebuffed, [Saudi Fatwa issued in 90s against Osama Bin Ladin -Ibn-Laadin-Al-Khaarijee Usama Ibn Ladin Al-Kharijee (our position toward him and his likes) - By Abdul Aziz Ibn Abdullaah Ibn Baz ] and the Saudis joined the U.S.-led coalition. After the Saudis agreed to allow U.S. armed forces to be based in the Kingdom, Bin Ladin and a number of Islamic clerics began to publicly denounce the arrangement. The Saudi government exiled the clerics and undertook to silence Bin Ladin by, among other things, taking away his passport. With help from a dissident member of the royal family, he managed to get out of the country under the pretext of attending an Islamic gathering in Pakistan in April 1991.” The most Funny thing is the fact that Saudi Backed/Paid Pakistani Mullahs praise Saudi Arabia and Osama Bin Laden in the same breath and never ever quote what the Saudi Mullahs said on Osama Bin Laden. Please do note how the Saddam Hussein was supported by the same Saudi Arabia during Iran Iraq War in the 80s.

Why USA is hesitant when any Saudi involved with Osama

Osama Bin Laden, the world's most wanted man, has connections to a leading Saudi dissident based in London, BBC Radio's Five Live Report has revealed. The programme provides evidence that Saad Al-Fagih, a key figure in the London-based campaign opposed to the Saudi regime, bought a satellite phone that was later used by Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda organisation. On 30 July 1998 one of the suicide bombers who blew up the US embassy in Nairobi telephoned the satellite phone number: 00 873 682 505 331. Eight days later the suicide bombers struck in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam killing 247 people. The satellite phone was the very same one that had been bought by Saad Al-Fagih in November 1996. Al-Fagih was also involved in a campaign to stop the deportation of another Saudi dissident, Mohammed Al-Masari, from Britain. The campaign to stop Al-Masari's removal by then Conservative Home Secretary Michael Howard finally succeeded in early 1996. 'Same Cause' Al-Masari admits he has talked with and helped Osama Bin Laden in the past and would do so again, telling Five Live Report: "Yes, why not?" The programme asked Al-Masari why he had helped Osama Bin Laden in the past, he said: 'It's the same cause." When asked if he would still help him he replied: "Yeah, if we can help anything, why not?" Labour MP George Galloway was also part of the campaign to keep Al-Masari from being deported to the Caribbean island of Dominica in 1995. The MP - who had a blazing row at Westminster this week after he was called an apologist for Saddam Hussein by a government minister - told the programme: "I have never seen any evidence that either Al-Masari or Al-Fagih were in any way connected to violence and if you have uncovered any I will listen to your programme with interest.' "To attempt a smear by association with that widely supported campaign is disreputable," Mr Galloway said. There is no suggestion that the MP knew about the purchase of the satellite phone. Evidence that Saad Al-Fagih bought the satellite phone later rung by one of the men who blew up the US embassy in Nairobi emerged during a New York trial in 2000, when four al-Qaeda suspects were found guilty of the African embassy bombings. United States attorney Kenneth Karas told a grand jury what was in Exhibit 1623: an order form for an Exact-M 22 Satellite Telephone, dated 1 November 1996: "and for the record, payment portion, Saad Al-Fagih." The order was signed 'S. R. H. Al Fagih.' When asked about the purchase of the satellite phone, Al-Fagih said: "Go and ask anybody else. I do not confirm anything here. "I do not even confirm there have been any details about purchase or not purchase.....I have no comment on this." He told the programme: "Everybody knows that I am totally committed to peaceful agenda." In 1997 the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges investigated a complaint that George Galloway had not declared an interest when speaking on Saudi Arabia the year before. MPs threw out the complaint but looked more closely into the question of Galloway acting as a financial intermediary. Mr Galloway was paid £5,000 in cash by Al-Fagih in late 1995 to early 1996 to repay costs incurred on behalf of others during the campaign to prevent Al-Masari's deportation. He was also given £1800 in cash by Al-Fagih to pass on to academics to help with the same campaign. Mr Galloway has never identified the academics. Full record In the parliamentary committee's concluding report they found that: 'It is unacceptable for any member to be involved in recycling cash between third parties. "It is also highly undesirable for any member to act on behalf of any organisation where no full record is kept of all financial transactions with which the member is associated. "It is bound to be susceptible to misinterpretation and risks bringing the house into disrepute. We are particularly concerned that Mr Galloway's actions were on behalf of an overseas interest.'

Mystery surroundin Bin Laden Raids

Top 5 myths surrounding the bin Laden raid from AEI

Man who helped find OBL lands jail time

Who really killed bin Laden?

New details on bin Laden burial at sea

Anatomy of a Raid: Osama bin Laden's Final Moments

Did Bin Laden’s Widow Lie?

The troubling questions about Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts didn’t stop with his death last May in Pakistan. On the contrary, they grew louder and angrier following the discovery that the al Qaeda leader had been living with his three wives and several of his children only a mile or so down the road from the Pakistani equivalent of West Point. Now the subject has turned hotter than ever, thanks to the revelation of testimony given to Pakistani investigators by his youngest wife, Amal Ahmad Abdul Fateh. The investigators’ report tells an intriguing tale of the family’s travels all across Pakistan in  the past ten years. The paraphrased summary, first reported by the English-language daily Dawn, claims not only that bin Laden lived in Pakistan for almost 10 years until  his death, but also that Fateh also gave birth to two of his children in government-run hospitals as the family repeatedly moved from safe house to safe house before settling down in Abbottabad.

Pakistani police officers stand guard as authorities use heavy machinery to demolish the compound of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan on Feb. 26, 2012. (Anjum Naveed / AP Photo )

But did the 30-year-old widow tell the truth? “She is embellishing and, in some cases, outright lying about the circumstances of bin Laden’s life in Pakistan,” Shaukat Qadir told The Daily Beast in a telephone interview. After bin Laden’s death, Pakistan Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani granted Qadir unrivaled access to the al Qaeda leader’s house and to Army officials involved in the official investigation. The retired Pakistan Army brigadier has spent months—and more than $10,000 of his own money—investigating the circumstances whereby bin Laden took up residence in Abbottabad, and he says his findings don’t mesh with the information provided by bin Laden’s youngest widow. “They lived in Haripur, this is true, but those children were not born in any government-run hospital as alleged by her,” he says. Asked to elaborate, he implied that Pakistan’s intelligence agencies may have had a hand in bin Laden’s concealment, but stopped short of saying so. “They [the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate] were doing a lot during those days. A lot. But I cannot discuss that further.”

The leaked document, dated kept Jan. 19 and apparently kept under wraps for more than two months, couldn’t have come at a worse time for Pak-U.S. ties. A day prior to its release, Centcom chief Gen. James Mattis and Gen. John Allen, the head of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, held top-level talks with Kayani and Gen. Khalid Wynne, the chairman of Pakistan’s joint chiefs of staff. The four generals discussed cross-border coordination—a sticking point ever since Nov. 26, when NATO forces mistakenly engaged Pakistani forces at two border posts on the Salala ridge, killing as many as two dozen—and other bilateral matters. The discussions appeared to signal a softening of Pakistan’s turn against America –particularly against NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan.

A day earlier U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani met on the sidelines of a nuclear summit in Seoul and pledged to restore ties that have yet to recover from last May’s U.S. raid on Pakistani soil, which resulted in bin Laden’s death. “I welcome the fact that the Parliament of Pakistan is reviewing, after some extensive study, the nature of this relationship,” Obama told journalists at the event. “I think it’s important to get it right. I think it’s important for us to have candid dialogue, to work through these issues.” Gilani seemed amenable to  that hope. “We want stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” the prime minister said. “We want to work together with you.”

“Until we know which it was—incompetence or partnership—U.S.-Pakistan relations will be haunted by this question.”

That won’t be as easy as it might sound. Pakistan’s Parliamentary Committee on National Security is working to establish a new framework for relations between Pakistan and the United States. Today the committee’s head, Sen. Raza Rabbani, announced that the committee would present its recommendations to the National Assembly next week. The committee’s report is likely to  include a demand that America end all drone attacks inside Pakistan in exchange for reopening NATO’s main Afghan supply route, which was shut down in retaliation for the Salala incident. As unattainable as that deal may be, it’s far more realistic than the committee’s earlier demands, which included a civil-nuclear agreement and an arrangement to shift half of NATO’s supply transport to the beleaguered Pakistan Railways. In any case, analysts predict that the committee’s report—however unhelpful—will have little effect on the Pakistani-U.S. peace process.

But how will Washington deal with suspicions that Pakistani intelligence may have helped bin Laden escape justice for nearly 10 years? The belief that the ISI was complicit in hiding him is hardly new—Qadir’s words have been echoed by Pakistani lawmakers, analysts, former soldiers, and even retired CIA officials. Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow in the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center at the Brookings Institution and a regular contributor to The Daily Beast, has argued that the ISI was either complicit or clueless about bin Laden’s whereabouts. “His wives knew how to find him and he directed a global terror empire from his hideouts, ordering murder around the world,” he told me via email. “Until we know which it was—incompetence or partnership—U.S.-Pakistan relations will be haunted by this question.”

Or maybe they won’t. “It is very unlikely that the U.S. will pursue this issue,” says Hasan-Askari Rizvi, an independent political and defense analyst who travels between Pakistan and America. “The major concern right now is restoring the NATO supply lines—not worrying about something that is now ancient history.” Besides, he says, there’s no way to verify Fateh’s claims: “For all we know, she could be lying.” With regard to her testimony, he says it would be in Pakistan’s best interest just to close this chapter and move on. In fact, the police summary ends with an order that she and her five children be deported immediately, since they are residing in Pakistan illegally. In order to avoid further embarrassment and repair its U.S. ties, Islamabad could do worse than follow this advice

Peter Bergen’s Manhunt: The Decade-Long Hunt for Osama bin Laden

A year after the commando raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, we have a terrific new book on the decade-long search for high-value target No. 1. Peter Bergen’s Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for Bin Laden from 9/11 to Abbottabad is the first in-depth study of how the CIA found the emir of al Qaeda and how the SEALs brought justice to him.

It is very appropriate that Bergen is the author of this tale. He was one of the very first journalists and analysts in America to recognize the importance of al Qaeda and bin Laden. He traveled to Afghanistan to interview the Saudi terrorist, and he has written a series of excellent books on the man and his organization. For this book he got unique access to bin Laden’s hideout in Abbottabad from the Pakistani authorities before they demolished it and to their interrogations of bin Laden’s wives. He also interviewed many of the Americans involved in the search for bin Laden, including myself, over the last decade, and especially those involved in the successful manhunt in 2010 and 2011.

The result is a fast-paced narrative that takes you into the search for the most-wanted man in human history. Bergen reveals that the key to the outcome was not some swashbuckling James Bond spy, but rather the meticulous hard work of professional intelligence analysts. Catching HVT1 was more the work of Hercule Poirot than Bond. And many of the best analysts were women who used their “little gray cells” brilliantly to put together a plan to find bin Laden by studying his work habits, family, and those he trusted most. It was not without danger. Al Qaeda was determined to fight back, and in December 2009 a Jordanian triple agent used the bait of the whereabouts of bin Laden’s deputy and heir, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to get access to a CIA base in Afghanistan and blow up seven CIA officers.

Two fascinating portraits also emerge in Manhunt. The first is about the final years of bin Laden himself. He spent almost six years in his last hideout in self-enforced austere house arrest, surrounded by his wives and children. As Bergen notes, it was “a comfortable retirement.” He was not a recluse, however, as the documents and electronic chips recovered by the SEALs from his lair revealed. Bin Laden to his dying day was the CEO of the world’s first truly global terror empire. He was communicating via his courier with his lieutenants and supporters across the Islamic world, constantly pressing them for more terror against America. He was making personnel decisions, even micromanaging his subordinates’ lives. As the drones began killing more and more of his best operatives, bin Laden became depressed and even delusional to a degree. The Arab revolutions in Egypt, Yemen, and Syria made his message of terror more and more irrelevant in the final months of his life.

The other portrait is of his nemesis, Barack Hussein Obama, who had campaigned on the promise that if elected, he would not hesitate to take unilateral action inside Pakistan to kill bin Laden if he could find him. President Obama is a thoughtful and deliberative decision maker who values debate and data. I learned that in chairing for him the strategic review of American policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan at the start of his administration, which set as its goal defeating al Qaeda. Obama is also a risk taker and gambler. The odds that bin Laden was in the hideout were only 50-50, and the risk of encountering a Pakistani Army patrol in Abbottabad was considerable. Bergen reveals that two of Obama’s top three aides, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, advised against sending in the commandos; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was for the operation. She had criticized Obama’s promise to go after bin Laden into Pakistan during the campaign. But when the moment of truth came, she told the president to forget about Pakistani sensitivities and strike. The result was a devastating blow to al Qaeda that it is still struggling to recover from.

There are unresolved mysteries about the manhunt and the hideout. Bergen gives little attention to the question of how bin Laden operated from deep inside Pakistani territory for so long without the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, discovering his presence. He was communicating with other terrorists in Pakistan who have intimate connections with the ISI, like the leadership of Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the Mumbai massacre in 2008 just after Obama’s election. When one of his wives was released from Iranian detention in 2010, she seemed to have had no problem finding her way to Abbottabad.

Bergen reveals the debate within the Obama team about whether to tell the ISI about the hideout or to give the Pakistani government warning that the commandos were coming. In the end, Obama decided not to do either. It was an extraordinary decision. By 2011 Obama and his predecessor George W. Bush had given Pakistan almost $25 billion in military and economic aid precisely to fight al Qaeda. But when the decisive moment came, the president rightly decided he could not trust the Pakistanis with the vital information about bin Laden.

Perhaps they were simply incompetent in searching for bin Laden. If so, what else are the generals who run the world’s fastest-growing nuclear arsenal clueless about?

No one believes Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, knew about bin Laden’s hideout. His wife, Benazir Bhutto, had been murdered by terrorists loyal to al Qaeda, according to the United Nations investigation into her assassination. Rather, suspicion is focused on the generals. After all, most of Pakistan’s top-ranking officers are graduates of the Kakul Military Academy, which is less than a mile from the hideout itself in Abbottabad. Many retire to the town. Perhaps they were simply incompetent in searching for bin Laden. If so, what else are the generals who run the world’s fastest-growing nuclear arsenal clueless about?

THE PLAN TO ARREST OSAMA-BIN-LADEN WAS FOILED BY MUSHARRAF

WASHINGTON, Oct 3: The US Central Intelligence Agency had trained some Pakistani commandos in 1999 to enter Afghanistan and capture Osama bin Laden, but the plan was shelved when the Nawaz Sharif government was displaced by the military. The revelation is made in a story published by The Washington Post under banner headlines. It says the operation was arranged by Nawaz Sharif and his chief of intelligence with the Clinton administration, which in turn had promised to lift sanctions on Pakistan and provide an economic package the precise steps that the Bush administration is now undertaking following Islamabad's pledge of support for the US-led campaign against terrorism. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage refused in a television interview on Wednesday morning to comment on the Post story, saying intelligence matters could not be discussed in public, but unnamed administration officials were quoted as confirming the report. The Post also said a proposal by Sudan in 1996 to arrest Osama, who was then in that country, and deport him to Saudi Arabia had fallen through after Riyadh refused to agree to accept Osama. Talking of a record of "missed opportunities" in the drive against Osama and Al Qaeda, the Post said the US-Pakistani intelligence plan was set in motion less than 12 months after American Tomahawk missiles were launched on Afghanistan. The Pakistani commando team trained by the CIA "was up and running and ready to strike by October 1999", according to one official, when the plan was aborted after the Oct 12 overthrow of the Sharif government by Gen Pervez Musharraf and the army.

The Post says Gen Musharraf, who has now committed himself to back the US, had refused to continue with the operation despite attempts at persuasion by the Clinton administration. It adds: "The record of the CIA's aborted relationship with Pakistan two years ago illustrates the value - and the pitfalls - of such an alliance in targeting bin Laden." The paper says Pakistan and its intelligence services have valuable information about what is occurring inside Afghanistan. "But a former US official said joint operations with the Pakistani service are always dicey, because the Taliban militia that rules most of Afghanistan has penetrated Pakistani intelligence." According to the Post, president Clinton's national security adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger says Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were the number one security threat to America after 1998 (the year when, in August, 200 people were killed in bomb attacks at the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania). "It was the highest priority and a range of appropriate actions were taken"

LET US GO INTO PAST Bin Laden’s mentor Sheikh Abdullah Azzam is killed by a car bomb in Afghanistan

Bin Laden’s mentor Sheikh Abdullah Azzam is killed by a car bomb in Afghanistan. The killing is never solved. Azzam has no shortage of enemies. Suspects include the Mossad, CIA, Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the ISI, and bin Laden. The reason bin Laden is suspected is because he and Azzam were increasingly at odds over what approach to take since the Soviet Union had been driven from Afghanistan earlier in the year (see February 15, 1989). [Slate, 4/16/2002; Coll, 2004, pp. 204] In 1998, Mohammed Saddiq Odeh will be arrested and later convicted for a role in the 1998 African embassy bombings. He reportedly will tell US interrogators that bin Laden “personally ordered the killing of Azzam because he suspected his former mentor had ties with the CIA.” However, it is not known if Odeh was just passing on a rumor. [Gunaratna, 2003, pp. 32] Regardless, in the wake of Azzam’s death, bin Laden takes control of Azzam’s recruiting and support network, Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK)/Al-Kifah, and merges it with al-Qaeda, which was formed the year before (see August 11-20, 1988). [Slate, 4/16/2002; Coll, 2004, pp. 204]. R

Kamran Khan Exposes Al-QAEDA & Supports USA - 3 b (GEO TV JULY 2008) 

"Who didn't want to kill Azzam?" asks journalist Ismail, who worked with Azzam and covered the anti-Soviet resistance throughout the 1980s. He counts the possibilities on his fingers: "There was the KGB and KHAD [the intelligence service of the communist government in Afghanistan] because he was a powerful leader in the jihad. Israel and Mossad, because he helped found Hamas. The [Pakistan] government of Benazir Bhutto, which came to know that he helped instigate a no-confidence vote against her in Parliament." There were the Americans, because Azzam objected to their efforts to reconcile the mujahedin with the Afghan government after the Soviets left; Shi'ite elements in Iran who saw him as chief of the Sunnis; Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a powerful Afghan warlord who resented Azzam's support of a rival; and other Arabs, who were concerned about his growing power. "The only person I can say for a fact didn't kill him is myself, because I was getting married in Jordan that day," says Ismail. 

Kamran Khan Exposes Al-QAEDA & Supports USA - 4 (GEO TV JULY 2008) 



A Multitude of Motives

For all that bitter history, on the rare occasions that the Afghan Arabs once allied to Azzam meet, few believe that the enmity between him and al-Zawahiri led to the assassination. "Zawahiri was a nobody," scoffs Umme Mohammad. "He didn't have the power or the following to do something like that." Muzhda, Azzam's translator, isn't so sure: "Peshawar was a city where if you had money, you could pay to get any work done, from street-cleaning to assassinations." That is doubtless true, but there were others besides al-Zawahiri and his supporters who could have availed themselves of the same services, and had every reason to want to. As the Soviets withdrew, the Afghan mujahedin factions, deprived of a common enemy, fell upon each other in the beginnings of a brutal civil war that would last five years and eventually usher the Taliban into power. The Afghan Arabs were forced to take sides. Most, including al-Zawahiri, allied with Hekmatyar, a fearsome Pashtun warlord who also benefited from support from Pakistan's intelligence agencies — the very people who would have run any investigation into Azzam's assassination. Azzam backed Hekmatyar's great rival, Ahmad Shah Massoud, an ethnic Tajik whom he anointed "the new hero of jihad" — and who was eventually murdered by an al-Qaeda hit squad two days before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Azzam's embrace of Massoud infuriated Hekmatyar. "The first thing that came to mind when I heard the news of Azzam's death was that Hekmatyar was behind it," says Abdullah Abdullah, Massoud's aide and later Afghanistan's Foreign Secretary. "There was a lot of money being channeled to Hekmatyar at the time, and Azzam's support for Massoud would have had an impact on that."

Kamran Khan Exposes Al-QAEDA & Supports USA - 5 (GEO TV JULY 2008) 

Still, argues journalist Ismail, there were other groups who would have had more invested in seeing Azzam dead. Like al-Zawahiri, Azzam saw Afghanistan's potential as an international jihad training ground. Soon after the launch of the Palestinian intifadeh in 1987 and the formation of Hamas, an openly Islamist branch of what had up to then been a Palestinian resistance dominated by secular nationalists, Azzam started taking young men from Palestine to Afghanistan to train in special camps. The Palestinians went in under false passports, to protect them from Israeli intelligence. But the existence of the camps came to light after a foiled car bombing at a Marriott hotel in Tel Aviv. The would-be bombers confessed, which led to the discovery of several militant cells throughout Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. "They didn't know anything about each other," says Ismail. "Their only common link was that they had all trained against Israel in Azzam's camps." A blunt warning to Azzam arrived by a curious messenger — a representative of Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization, which Azzam had long dismissed for its secular ideology, went to Peshawar. "Israel is after you," the envoy told Azzam, according to Ismail. "Take care." "That was the beginning," says Hutaifa. "Mossad knew that my father had built a very strong foundation against Israel, and that after Afghanistan, it would be Israel's turn." Jamal, Azzam's nephew, is convinced Mossad was behind his death.

Kamran Khan Exposes Al-QAEDA & Supports USA - 6 (GEO TV JULY 2008) 

The Israelis may indeed have had a motive. But nobody has come close to showing that they killed Azzam. Ahmad Zaidan, a Syrian journalist who covered Azzam's assassination, throws up his hands in exasperation when asked who might have planted the bomb. "It's an enigma," he says, "just like the others. Who killed [John F.] Kennedy? Who killed Benazir Bhutto? I can't make up my mind who would have wanted to kill him the most." Would history have been different if Azzam had lived? He was no angel, by any standards other than those of jihadis. But many believe that he would have been a moderating force on bin Laden, and that his scholarship and charisma would have tempered al-Zawahiri's crazy radicalism. Azzam's son-in-law, Anas, thinks that Azzam would have continued his mission to liberate Muslim lands from the grip of infidels. "He called people to fight in Afghanistan because it was occupied by the Soviets," Anas says. "If he saw what happened in Iraq and what is happening in Palestine he would say the same thing. But what is going on in the name of jihad, killing civilians, kidnapping, hijacking airplanes, explosions in the public places — that is not what Abdullah Azzam called a jihad." It is a comforting thought, up to a point, but we will never know if it is well founded. Nor, probably, will we ever know who blew up a car in Peshawar 20 years ago. A lot of people wanted Abdullah Azzam dead. 

OSAMA BIN LAWAN IN ACTION AGAIN

What happened when taliban took kabul

When the Taliban were about to enter Kabul Ahmad Shah Massoud offered Najibullah twice to flee Kabul. Najibullah refused believing the Taliban would spare his life. General Tokhi, who was with Dr. Najibullah until the day before his torture and murder, wrote that when three people came to both Dr. Najibullah and General Tokhi and asked them to come with them to flee Kabul, they rejected the offer after losing their trust in Ahmad Shah Massoud who knowingly fired rockets at the UN compound where Najibullah and Tokhi had taken refuge. This proved to be a fatal mistake. Najibullah was at the UN compound when the Taliban soldiers came for him on September 27, 1996. He was castrated and his fingers were broken, before the Taliban dragged him to death behind a truck in the streets. His blood-soaked body was hanged from a traffic light. His brother Shahpur Ahmadzai was also with him throughout this whole ordeal at the UN compound, and was shot to death. REFERENCES: "President of hell: Hamid Karzai's battle to govern post-war, post-Taliban Afghanistan". The Times. "Flashback: When the Taliban took Kabul". BBC.. 

On this date in 1996, the man who once ruled ruled Afghanistan under the aegis of a superpower succumbed to the tender mercies of his country’s fundamentalist insurgency. Mohammad Najibullah was the last president of the Soviet-backed Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. Unfortunately for Najibullah, he was on the job when Moscow decided to throw in the towel on the Soviet-Afghan War. After losing the subsequent civil war, the former President was trapped for a nervous few years in Kabul — blocked from joining his family in flight to India by the offices of former Soviet client and present-day American client Abdul Rashid Dostum. When Kabul finally surrendered to the Taliban in 1996, the hated onetime Communist viceroy — whose stepping-stone to that post was heading the hated Afghan secret police — had a problem. At the instigation of future Taliban second-in-command Mohammad Rabbani, Najibullah and his brother were hauled out of the U.N. compound where they had taken refuge, publicly beaten, tortured and castrated, and strung up on a traffic barricade. There was a new sheriff in town

Osama Bin Laden is dead – prove it

Osama Bin Laden is dead – prove it

By Michael Caronna

 

ABOTTABAD | AL QAEDA | BIN LADEN | FAKE | PAKISTAN | PHOTOSHOP

When news broke that Osama Bin Laden was dead, the Reuters Global Pictures Desk in Singapore could think of only one thing: We have to see the picture of the dead body. The world needed a genuine photo to confirm that the elusive Islamic militant leader was dead. We also knew that the first news agency to publish a picture of his dead body would lead the way on this historic story. Sending out a fake picture could be very embarrassing.

A few hours later a picture was circulating on the Internet. It appeared to be Osama Bin Laden’s bloodied face in a video transmitted by a TV station in Pakistan. But was it really Bin Laden?

Some media claimed that the source of the picture was the U.S. military, but editors on the Global Pictures Desk found inconsistencies in the image that made them suspicious. There was odd pixelation and blurring on his face, which was also darker in some areas. The picture also looked familiar. After a quick search of our pictures archive, we found that the bottom of Bin Laden’s face was similar to a picture of the al Qaeda leader speaking at a news conference in 1998. After overlaying the 1998 photo with the picture of the dead Bin Laden we had a perfect match. The mouth, ear and beard were identical. It was a fake and the desk did not transmit it.

However, the fake Bin Laden was used by numerous news websites and even appeared in print in Pakistan.

We’re still waiting for the genuine picture of Bin Laden’s body.

(See below for the two images overlaid in an animation. Notice the mouth never changes.)

Osama is Dead; Photos from a historic party at Ground Zero

MAY 2, 2011

On a gorgeous September day almost ten years ago, I had just started my morning as the editor-in-chief of an upstate newspaper when one of my reporters told me a plane had hit the World Trade Center. Five minutes later, he told me about the second one, and I knew everything was about to change. Every impulse in me in a reporter told me to drive the 300 miles and be in the thick of it, but I had to manage everything, including an afternoon edition, so I sent out someone else.

Now, I finally strapped on a camera and headed for Ground Zero, but I was met with a site of raucous celebration, not despair. Osama is dead; we even have the body so there won’t be Osama sighting for the next 50 years, and New Yorkers were in the mood to celebrate. Given that it was 1 a.m., most of the ones really ready to celebrate in public were the college kids who were ready to go anyway, which ensured the atmosphere would be of revelry, not contemplation, though we were among the graves of Osama victims.

But if any city is ready for an impromptu rally at 1 a.m., it’s this one. And I’m glad to call it my home.

UPDATE: I wasn’t there to do video, but here’s a quick one I took to just get a sense of the crowd. Also, my friends at B&H Photo asked how I did this technically, given that it was 1 a.m. under low and very tricky lighting. Images have very little editing as befits photojournalism, but I knew I’d have to capture action in near-darkness, so I brought my “night vision” set-up: Two Nikon D3s‘s with the Nikon 24mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, and Sigma 85mm f/1.4. Under sodium-vapor streetlights, white balance gets truly wacky, so I used Nikon Capture NX2 to process, as it has the best white balance control of any program I’ve used.

Otherwise, the main skills were things I learned in years as a newspaper photographer, such as how to politely elbow your way through a surging crowd and get where the action is.

Students, including a girl on her 21st birthday, use street poles to show their patriotism.

Revelers spray champagne onto the crowds below

After spraying the crowd, he enjoys some of the champagne for himself

Who knew New Yorkers had so many spare flags?

And the crowd goes wild for the cameras

A woman walks past a one-man candlelight vigil

Nothing says pride like face paint

The crowd chants for peace

Marching past the 9/11 memorial

Scaling Mount Patriotism…

“Lady, do NOT go up there! You are wearing a DRESS!”

City worker takes it in…

Moments like these are more important than car hoods

The only time I have ever seen a New Yorker happy to be stuck in traffic.

The sign of the night…

Let your colonial flag fly…

Tossed toilet paper hangs above as the crowd surges

Texting in the USA…

I can’t get enough of these guys.

Carried above the crowd

Vigilant.

UPDATE: There’s a lot going on in the comments, some of it I find quite distasteful. Here’s my view as someone who was there, in it if not of it:

I would prefer Osama have come quietly, but, he didn’t. I don’t really trust these events to be related truthfully given the value of propaganda, but the whole “firing back and using a wife as a human shield” thing, if true, makes me pretty comfortable with their decision to fire back.

One thing I was VERY proud of. Nowhere in all of the NYC revelry that I saw in person or on the news was there the scarcest bit of anti-Muslim sentiment. A guy with an “I’m a Muslim, don’t panic” t-shirt was cheered everywhere he went. No one denigrated or desecrated Islam except for OBL himself. (Online and in some other parts of the country, yes, but that’s not what these celebrations were about)

What’s hard to understand if you weren’t there is that there’s a very simple reason for the atmosphere … it was 1 a.m. These were 90 percent college kids who decided to hook a left instead of heading to the bars. No hatred, no burning people in effigy, just good news meaning an excuse to hang from a light pole on a day where the cops would cheer you on for doing so. Does it really make sense to set a car on fire because your team won a basketball game? Sure, if you listen to your id.

I didn’t think it was the tone I would have wanted, but the more I see people give high-handed criticism of a bunch of people gathering in the streets just to sing songs and share a sense of glad togetherness, the more protective I feel.

I mean, dude. I saw a hippie go up to a military offer and say “Do you mind if I just … give you a hug?” And they hugged. I saw police officers laughing gleefully at people committing (victimless) crimes, yelling “just don’t get hurt!” And 400 people cheering on a Muslim guy waving an American flag I saw New Yorkers not caring about a traffic jam. No hatred, but a sense that we did something right, something we said we’d do, and brought him to justice. (And if the raid went down the way they said, it seemed to have been handled justly).

The atmosphere was joyous and inclusive. When someone shouted “Hooray for the troops!” everyone cheered, then chanted “Bring them home!” The chant merged into “End the wars!” and someone responded with their own chant: “Don’t get greedy!” Everyone laughed. This is how it felt. While the wars aren’t funny, while death isn’t funny, and while the people here took their convictions seriously, even when they opposed each others’, you laugh when anything happens that relaxes your tension just a little bit. You put 1,000 people together who are happy about anything, and it becomes a party.

Do you think none of the celebrations would have happened if he’d come along quietly? If the announcement was “We’ve got him!”

I think there would be countless debates later about what to do with the guy, but I think there would have been just as many people in the streets, and if so, then they weren’t really there cheering for death, and sanctimoniousness must be tempered.

We did the conga when Hitler died, but we also went out into Times Square and kissed nurses when Hirohito … didn’t die.

Personally, I am cheering one of the most successful, precise military actions in history. It would have been easy, but terrible and a disaster, to just send in a Predator and destroy the place. We finally made a series of right, difficult decisions after a series of incredibly competent intelligence gathering. I mean … incredible effective government decisions? Incredibly competent intelligence agencies? And it all worked together to absolutely minimize any impact on civilians? That’s a stopped clock worth cheering.

In short, Americans aren’t particularly obsessed with death — we’re absolutely obsessed with WINNING. And in asymmetric warfare, the events of May 1, whether he had come quietly or not, is as close to a win as we can possibly come.