Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 27, 2013

Hersh On The Osama Raid

What does Seymour Hersh know that we do not know?

Seymour Hersh on Obama, NSA and the 'pathetic' American media

Don't even get him started on the New York Times which, he says, spends "so much more time carrying water for Obama than I ever thought they would" – or the death of Osama bin Laden. "Nothing's been done about that story, it's one big lie, not one word of it is true," he says of the dramatic US Navy Seals raid in 2011.

Posted by b on September 27, 2013 at 15:30 UTC | Permalink

next page »

That's great, SH, but at this rate the world will have an intelligent and honest discussion about the false flag attacks of 9/11 in say about 2065.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 27 2013 15:48 utc | 1

Here's what I believe, have believed since 2003: we got Bin Laden at Tora Bora. But that was too quick and we needed him to hang around for a while to justify our continued GWOT (global war on terror). The U.S. would put out tapes, reputedly produced by Bin Laden whenever the Bush Admin needed a little "spice" to keep people focused. Obama comes along and decides to "kill" Bin Laden as he is no longer useful; at leaast he can get a boost in the ratings - one last gift the Bin Laden legacy could provide before putting that story to bed. Seriously, where was the body? Where are the photos of the body? We had no problem showing photos of a hanged Saddam, or a tortured Qaddafi, but we wanted to show Bin Laden some respect and dump him in the ocean?? Puhlease...

Posted by: skuppers | Sep 27 2013 16:01 utc | 2

great article on hersh. thanks!

Posted by: james | Sep 27 2013 16:43 utc | 3

Watch for Hersh's sudden and mysterious demise.Hope he prints it quick.
And of course there was some kind of scam,as this whole WOT is a scam.

Posted by: dahoit | Sep 27 2013 16:43 utc | 4


Every level/incident of America's War on Terror has been found to have been based up whole-cloth lies and fabrications - every one - yet we are told to believe that The Event that got everything rolling is the God's honest truth and the mainstream parameters of our discourse are strictly modeled according to said tenet. Humanity can slowly keep peeling the onion for years and years - all the while ever newer layers of incidents/lies accrete and the criminals peacefully die off in their beds - or it can take a huge leap forward and start framing the entire War on Terror - including/beginning with 9/11 - as the largest act of aggressive war since 1939.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 27 2013 16:45 utc | 5

Think about it;From no air defense to tails 1 half? mile away from fuselage,to the twin towers falling exactly? on their footprint,to miraculous passports,to dancing Israelis,24 hr picts of alleged perps,building seven,airline futures,radio screwups,command center screw ups,wreckage shipped to China,the zero in charge,who was warned repeatedly,made a hero,lies about Iraq,Jessica Simpson,Abu Ghraib,Afghan,Iran,Syria,Pakistan,Somalia,Kenya,Sudan,Guantanamo,the list is endless.

Posted by: dahoit | Sep 27 2013 16:52 utc | 6

The article is good.
So are many of the comments, like the one of which this is a part:
"...Operation Mockingbird was a secret campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, it was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA. The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA's views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA. (Wiki)
"Operation Mockingbird has grown immensely and now the NSA and CIA have complete control of US media. Firing the editors will have no effect as the entire media has been captured. For example, the New York Times would not report the Guardian story that the US shares Americans' raw data with Israel without legal restrictions. Nor would the Wall Street Journal or ABC, CBS and NBC. The entire media exists only for propaganda.
Journalism in the US began to die with Operation Mockingbird and now exists as pure propaganda of a secret, fascist police state that spies on all its politicians, judges, academics .. in fact, everybody. It spies on all journalists too and everyone has some skeletons in their closet.
Here is the WSWS critique of the New York Times which has traditionally represented the best in US media. The NY Times has mastered the art of converting news into propaganda to serve its masters:
"In a front-page article Tuesday, the New York Times reported that a United Nations report released the day before on the August 21 chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus “strongly implicated the Syrian government.”
"In fact, the report did no such thing. The story’s headline, “UN implicates Syria in using chemical weapons,” is a cynical distortion of reality tailored to meet the needs of the US government for war propaganda.
"On Monday, the Times public editor Margaret Sullivan was compelled to respond to a barrage of emails from readers demanding to know why the newspaper had failed to write one line about the secret NSA documents released by Snowden showing that the agency was funneling raw data, including the telephone calls, emails and other online communications of American citizens, to Israeli intelligence...."

It is interesting too that the following comment appears to be from the political "right"
"...Thank you for your post. We live in the twilight zone.
I wish more of my fellow #TeaPartyers who believe the government is way to big would side with whistleblowers like Hersh, Snowden, Assange, & Liz Warren but instead, listen to Rupert Murdoch et al's "Divide and Conquer" song and dance..."

Posted by: bevin | Sep 27 2013 17:07 utc | 7

@ 4. Watch for Hersh's sudden and mysterious demise. Hope he prints it quick.
You already know why that won't happen, even if you're not conscious of it.
Hersh is 100% certain to have left a time-bomb marked "Open only in ???? circumstances".

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 27 2013 17:47 utc | 8

Hersh is a just a convenient conduit for some faction within the CIA - it's very obvious when you view his work as a whole.

He tells us what his CIA contacts tell him. His CIA contacts tell him what they want us to know. that is all.

Certain types here will of course immediately put him on a pedestal, because that seems to be what they need to do - create and praise cartoon "heroes"

And Bin Laden wasn't in Tora Bora in 03.

F'n no one was in Tora Bora,

That's what annoyed the Brit Military so much about Tora Bora 03.
so much so that they started giving Press statements that almost came out and said that the whole Tora Bora story was a just a piece of stupid theatre, from start to finish

Posted by: hmm | Sep 27 2013 18:01 utc | 9

You already know why that won't happen, even if you're not conscious of it.

it won't happen because Hersh has protection - he's a front man for a faction

Posted by: hmm | Sep 27 2013 18:02 utc | 10

@ "And Bin Laden Wasn't in Tora Bora in 03."

Oh right. He was hiding out in a compound in Pakistan. And then the seals came, and a helicopter crapped out, and we shot him, and dumped his body in the ocean...

So what's your theory about Bin Laden and his fate?

Posted by: skuppers | Sep 27 2013 18:59 utc | 11

Don't let me down, M of A. I'm looking for the Truth.

Posted by: tsisageya1 | Sep 27 2013 19:16 utc | 12

Hersh. Hersh. Osama raid? Is there an evil human somewhere that is into bullshit? Karl Rove, perhaps? Cuz I can't even, exactly.

Posted by: tsisageya1 | Sep 27 2013 19:22 utc | 13

"Certain types here will of course immediately put him on a pedestal, because that seems to be what they need to do - create and praise cartoon "heroes"..."

Hmmm, that's an interesting theory: anyone who appears honest, such as Hersh, is actually a very cunning liar. Hersh has kept his cover, posing as a journalist while actually working for the CIA for about half a century.

But Hmmm found him out, what lucky readers we are to be at the receiving end of such a fount of secret knowledge!

It is people like Hmmm, who constantly suggest that we are doomed, there are no "heroes" the villains control everything who do the ruling class's work for it. There is no alternative, the CIA and the colonists in Israel know all, control all and there is nothing to be done about it. I hope the money's good, because the work is very dirty.

Posted by: bevin | Sep 27 2013 19:25 utc | 14

Sure. Let's do the controversy thing.

Hello, NSA. You suck and I will do everything in my power to vanquish you. I hate and despise you. Oh, thanks for the headsup, Kanye, you douchebag.

Posted by: tsisageya1 | Sep 27 2013 19:30 utc | 15

To say that Bin Laden was not in Tora Bora in 03 requires no alternative competing theory from me.

It was clear, to me, in 03, from some of the reported statements made by Brit Brass at the time, that the Tora Bora op was considered by them to be nothing but theatre. And they seemed pretty annoyed about it to.

All it was was Camera crews following around Marines as they blow up the entrances to some of the many many caves to be found there.Looked great on the nightly news. That's all it was for

Posted by: hmm | Sep 27 2013 19:33 utc | 16

I hope the money's good, because the work is very dirty.

The Feral Chihuahua strikes!

Posted by: hmm | Sep 27 2013 19:35 utc | 17

I'm so disgusted I don't even want to speak.

I've got nothing but disgust. Yes, it's a terrible thing.

Posted by: tsisageya1 | Sep 27 2013 19:42 utc | 18

Musical interlude for all you Bonny Tyler Fans out there

Posted by: hmm | Sep 27 2013 19:45 utc | 19

The media treatment of the "White Widow" is text book even down to the delicate family member hospitalized by the stress of the disgrace. Schlondorff and Boll nailed it in "The Lost Honor of Katarina Blum."

Didn't play too well in America with "Tania" but maybe that was because of the absence of "rustic" relatives waiting in the wings.

Posted by: Tazor Raoule | Sep 27 2013 19:58 utc | 20


What I read he said was that Hersh was a conduit. This is a quite plausible theory. But hmmm needs to explain us the inside out of his theory, specially the why part. Since having a psy-op group inside the security apparatus of any state sound legitimate to me, I am curious to know what he thinks about the purpose for feeding such information.

Posted by: ATH | Sep 27 2013 20:56 utc | 21

I'm a great enthusiast for Hersh, but here he was evidently going on during a visit to London, and he was handing out his views to the journalist who would listen.

"Nothing's been done about that story, it's one big lie, not one word of it is true,"

I could believe it, but does he mean Osama was not killed at that time? Or that the way it was done is a lie? I could believe the latter. I would think he means that the heroic story of Americans landing and killing Usama, while he was raising an AK47, is false.

That he was shot down, unarmed, and without justification, is pretty well known.

Is Hersh talking of something else?

Posted by: alexno | Sep 27 2013 21:09 utc | 22


"That he was shot down, unarmed, and without justification, is pretty well known."

Really?? How do u know that?? The fact of the matter is u DO NOT! All of what we think we know of that alleged raid comes directly from the Presstitute Media.
There is evidence which suggests Bin Laden died a long time ago(2001?) of natural causes, some disease he had, from what I remember.

Posted by: Luca K | Sep 27 2013 22:08 utc | 23

To me, the least credible aspect of the official OBL narrative is that Uncle Sam supposedly didn't place a high priority on capturing him alive so that he could be interrogated.

I suspect that if he was actually alive in 2011 and was the subject of that raid, that he was 'rendered' to a secret prison for interrogation. Whether he is still alive would depend on how much the Kerik/Clapper types value his ongoing usefulness.

Posted by: Watson | Sep 27 2013 22:26 utc | 24

I have to, of course, agree with bevin. There is something truly odd about launching an attack on the reputation of a lone reporter and placing him in bed with those he has repeatedly fought over the years. Especially without a shred of evidence.

Frankly it is libelous and dishonest. More the work of a soulless provocateur than a genuine critic.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 28 2013 0:50 utc | 25

@ 23

Agree... Osama was reported to have been in hospital in Germany? for dialysis sometime after 9/11/2001 iirc

My opinion is he died about that time...

Posted by: crone | Sep 28 2013 0:51 utc | 26

I sit corrected...

"... On September 10. 2001, “Enemy Number One” was in a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi, courtesy of America’s indefectible ally Pakistan, as confirmed by a report of Dan Rather, CBS News."


Posted by: crone | Sep 28 2013 0:55 utc | 27

. There is something truly odd about launching an attack on the reputation of a lone reporter

Oh poor lonely Sy. All trembing just cos of lil ole me?

Placing him in bed with those he has repeatedly fought over the years.

Just out of interest, where/how do YOU think he get his stories/leads?

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 2:08 utc | 28

This thread is funny.

Watson (for sure he's not Sherlock) "suspects" he was alive in 2011, but doesn't provide us with the deductive reasoning.

Everyone else has an "opinion" or a "belief" with nothing to back it up.

You missed some of the more entertaining theories, such as his head was removed as a trophy for the Skull and Bones clubhouse (which is why the rest of his body was dumped in the sea).

The post by Mr. Luca K is the only sensible one. We don't know shit. At least we should know the all we think we know is likely all a crock of shit.

Posted by: DM | Sep 28 2013 2:43 utc | 29

You missed some of the more entertaining theories,"

One of the most entertaining theories was the "Bin Laden holed up in mountain fortress"

Complete with cartoonish graphic rendition of said "mountain fortress"

Russert: The Times of London did a graphic, which I want to put on the screen for you and our viewers.

This is it. This is a fortress.

This is a very much a complex, multi-tiered, bedrooms and offices on the top, as you can see, secret exits on the side and on the bottom, cut deep to avoid thermal detection so when our planes fly to try to determine if any human beings are in there, it's built so deeply down and embedded in the mountain and the rock it's hard to detect.

And over here, valleys guarded, as you can see, by some Taliban soldiers. A ventilation system to allow people to breathe and to carry on. An arms and ammunition depot.

And you can see here the exits leading into it and the entrances large enough to drive trucks and cars and even tanks. And it's own hydroelectric power to help keep lights on, even computer systems and telephone systems.

It's a very sophisticated operation.

Rumsfeld: Oh, you bet. This is serious business.

And there's not one of those. There are many of those.

And they have been used very effectively. And I might add, Afghanistan is not the only country that has gone underground. Any number of countries have gone underground.

The tunneling equipment that exists today is very powerful. It's dual use. It's available across the globe. And people have recognized the advantages of using underground protection for themselves.

A few weeks after the "Meet the Press" interview, US special forces and their Afghan allies occupied Tora Bora. They painstakingly searched Gree Khil mountain and the surrounding area.

They found no underground fortress, no hydro-electric power plant, no 2000-room hotel, no ant farm, no iron doors, no ventilating shafts.

The troglodyte Lair of Bin Laden turned out to be mythic.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 3:11 utc | 30

Yep. For sure Rumsfeld is a seriously funny guy.

What happened to that old bastard? He still alive?

Posted by: DM | Sep 28 2013 3:50 utc | 31

I think he had a sex change, dyed his hair red and goes by the name of "Samantha" now

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 4:18 utc | 32

Rumsfeld doesn't stray too far from home nowadays.
Donald Rumsfeld-Wikipedia In 2004, Rumsfeld was charged for war crime in Germany according to the Code of Crime against International Law (Völkerstrafgesetzbuch, VStGB). The case was dropped in 2005. The federal prosecutor general Kay Nehm argued, that the key item of the complaint that the United States Justice does not want to prosecute political and military responsible persons could not be held. 2006 Rumsfeld was charged again under the same law, as in the meantime seven US soldiers were convicted, but none of their supervisors. The case was extended and included juristic advisors, other military leaders, and other witnesses like Mohammed Al-Qahtani, where the command line up to Rumsfeld can be proofed. This time it took the federal prosecutor 4 years to decide that they abstain from pursuing the case. This time because it is allowed to drop a case if the crime was committed abroad,there is no relation to Germany, and the suspect is not to be expected to come to Germany.

So Donald, along with most of the Bush 'regime', doesn't stray too far from safety.

Posted by: Jim T | Sep 28 2013 4:42 utc | 33

@dahoit #6:

I might be projecting, but I think you meant Jessica Lynch and not Jessica Simpson. If so, it's an honest mistake. I get media inventions mixed up all the time myself.

Posted by: Monolycus | Sep 28 2013 7:12 utc | 34

all those (that I know of) that asserted in the first years following 9/11 that OBL was dead were neocons, or Pakistani or Israeli intelligence officers, or somehow involved in 9/11 events or investigations

so instead I think he was a Cia asset/ally send to Pakistan, after 9/11, under the protection of Musharraf, practically in hiding; he was harmless by then;

but he probably stood in the way of the new hierarchies needed for new uses western and arab intelligence services wanted to make of jihadists in the "arab spring" that had begun a few months before

Posted by: claudio | Sep 28 2013 8:52 utc | 35

come to think of it, of course Us and others couldn't start massive aid of jihadis until OBL the bogeyman was alive, it would have been unacceptable to public opinion

Posted by: claudio | Sep 28 2013 8:54 utc | 36

of course Us and others couldn't start massive aid of jihadis until OBL the bogeyman was alive

I spose you meant 'while' rather than 'until'

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 9:58 utc | 37

Who knows? Doubt any and everything.

Posted by: Maracatu | Sep 28 2013 10:58 utc | 38

'while' :-)

anyways, I would bet there is a connection between the raid (in which, I admit, I believe OBL was killed - waiting to read what Hersh has to say on this) and the new uses jihadists have been put;

one hypothesis could be that OBL's rhetoric has always been strongly anti-Israel, whereas his successors prefer to target fellow Muslims and independent states that resist Israel

so OBL could have been a leader that cooperated on some issues with the Us, but with an autonomous strategy, whereas today Al Qaeda (at least in the ME, not necessarily in North Africa) is really only a global mercenary army

Posted by: claudio | Sep 28 2013 11:49 utc | 39

Report: Bin Laden Already Dead, Dec 26 2001

Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader. "The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfil their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead," the source said. Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi (sic - RB) belief. About 30 close associates of bin Laden in Al Qaeda, including his most trusted and personal bodyguards, his family members and some "Taliban friends," attended the funeral rites. A volley of bullets was also fired to pay final tribute to the "great leader." The Taliban source who claims to have seen bin Laden's face before burial said "he looked pale but calm, relaxed and confident."

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 28 2013 12:15 utc | 40

the only thing anyone here knows about OBL is what they have been told by the media, and the media generally, where OBL is concerned, get their stories from members of various State Security services,

Members of various State Security Services are generally not known for their devotion to truth and honesty

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 12:22 utc | 41

hmm, you don't have to justify yourself for not holding a pet theory over OBL, we understand you can't be everywhere

Posted by: claudio | Sep 28 2013 12:58 utc | 42

Well the neighbors of Binny’s so called ‘compound’ have denied the official story. Curiously, a neighbor recognizes the man in the house as ‘his neighbor’ whom he knew well, that is, not OBL. So maybe the neighbor was one of the famous (or infamous) OBL look-alikes :)

BBC vid

Global research text, trans. of Pakistani newspaper

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 28 2013 13:00 utc | 43

the new uses jihadists have been put;

I don't see jihadists being put to any "new" use.

they have always been used in this fashion. That is what they are for. The only difference now is that it's just so blatant only an idiot could deny it

right now, in Syria, ZATO Jihadists are attacking both the citizenry and a Socialist(ish) secular gov't.

In afghanistan in the 80's ZATO jihadists were also attacking both the citizenry and a Socialist secular gov't.

so, where's the "new"

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 13:02 utc | 44

"hmm, you don't have to justify yourself for not holding a pet theory over OBL, "

You've got some bizarrely narcissistic thought-processes claudio.

anyone stupid enough to want to form any silly theories on OBL is free to do so or not.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 13:07 utc | 45

hmm @44 - yes, they returned to their old habits; with OBL they took a different turn; jihadists attacked Us soldiers in Iraq, and a Saudi residential complex

Posted by: claudio | Sep 28 2013 13:14 utc | 46

plus, OBL aired an incessant anti-Israel rhetoric, and pointed to "the Crusaders" as the main enemy of Arabs and Muslims

Posted by: claudio | Sep 28 2013 13:15 utc | 47

hmm, relax, you too are free to dismiss the whole of Al Qaeda and OBL stories as unworthy of consideration

Posted by: claudio | Sep 28 2013 13:20 utc | 48

like I said c, if you're stupid enough to want to form silly theories on OBL, you're free to do so. I would not dream of preventing you from spouting whatever silly waffle, regarding OBL, that you might find that you want to spout.

Feel free to say any silly thing about OBL that pops into your head.

Kind of surprised you felt the need to justify yourself to be honest

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 13:25 utc | 49

hey, that was pompous! I'm not justifying myself, I'm simply playing the game most of us play here at MoA, trying to make sense of events; rather, I was trying to reassure you: you are insisting so much that discussing OBL is useless, I thought you were trying to justify yourself for being too tired to give a look also at that corner of the world;

see, hmm, usually, when one doesn't want to talk of something, all he has to do is remain silent, please do so if you wish, I already told you don't need to justify yourself

Posted by: claudio | Sep 28 2013 13:41 utc | 50

whatever is going on in Syria, it's a complex situation--I find b more credible than the media. But, it's amazing how the narrative in Syria is black and white. That's all the proof one needs to know that "journalists" are nothing but stenographers for the CIA. And, in Syria, we don't have intel assets on the ground, by that I mean those who gather intel. Rather, we have the CIA as an advocate and partisan, and in those cases intel (an endeavor that always returns with doubts and caveats--lots of grey if you will) has given us that black and white narrative--again, eagerly parroted by Ignatius and company.

Posted by: scottindallas | Sep 28 2013 13:42 utc | 51

hmm @44 - yes, they returned to their old habits; with OBL they took a different turn; jihadists attacked Us soldiers in Iraq, and a Saudi residential complex. Posted by: claudio | Sep 28, 2013 9:14:36 AM | 46
In the first place, it is not so unusual for a CIA-affiliated pseudo-gang to kill US soldiers. It gives them unarguable street cred. The CIA takes the attitude reportedly enunciated by Henry Kissinger: “Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” In the second place, if these are the Saudi bombings you mean, they are much earlier and they have an odd feature in common:
On Nov 13 1995 a car bomb destroyed the Office of the Programme Manager of the Saudi National Guard in Riyadh, killing five US airmen and wounding 34. On Jun 25 1996, a massive truck bomb exploded at a building in the Khobar Towers complex, which housed USAF personnel, killing 19 US airmen and wounding 372. The Riyadh and Khobar bombings had a common operational feature. As noted by the head of the bin Laden unit at the CIA, Michael Scheuer, in both cases, the vehicle was not parked so as to bring the entire building down. If the team executing the Khobar bombing had parked parallel to the security fence rather than backing up to it, says Scheuer, it would have destroyed the entire building. The same thing had happened in the Riyadh bombing.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 28 2013 13:54 utc | 52

"you are insisting so much that discussing OBL is useless"

actually I'd be more of the opinion that discussing OBL is useless without first acknowledging that you actually 'know' nothing about him. Everything one might claim to know is fed to you by media or State security.

Bin Laden blames US for global warming

Friday, 29 January 2010

The authenticity of neither tape has been verified.

But IntelCenter, a US group [rn by a woman called rita Katz] that [claims to] monitor Islamist activity, has said the voice on the earlier tape appeared to be that of Bin Laden.

"All industrial nations, mainly the big ones, are responsible for the crisis of global warming," the latest tape says.

"This is a message to the whole world about those who are causing climate change, whether deliberately or not, and what we should do about that."

Bush the son, and the [US] Congress before him, rejected this [Kyoto Protocol] agreement only to satisfy the big companies

The tape criticises the administration of former US President George W Bush for not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol on combating climate change.

"Bush the son, and the [US] Congress before him, rejected this agreement only to satisfy the big companies."

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 13:56 utc | 53


"In the first place, it is not so unusual for a CIA-affiliated pseudo-gang to kill US soldiers

apparently it is . . . . . in claudio-land

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 13:57 utc | 54


1995 Saudi National Guard
1996 Khobar Towers
1998 U.S. embassies in East Africa
2000 U.S.S. Cole

yes, that's the point I'm trying to make;
activity in Iraq was the latest and less significant for the point I am trying to make, since after 2001 OBL was basically "hibernated"

can anyone see the difference between those attacks and present-day jihad activity in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq?

Posted by: claudio | Sep 28 2013 14:04 utc | 55 understand how all this works OBL is an *essential* topic.

The last time OBL was in public that is strongly attested to was at his son's Mohamed (then 19) wedding in or near Kandahar in Jan 2001.

Marie-Claire ran a huge spread on this ‘exotic desert wedding’ - complete with the standard fantasy orientalism - it is not on the net and I can’t find pix from it - and I doubt they made it up or photoshopped etc. One curious guest at this wedding was the “Fat Binny” (goog: Fat Bin Laden - aka “Fatty”) - one of the later look-alikes or stand ins. (The Cia is not involved with Marie Claire.)

Remember, at the time, OBL was a poster boy, one son of a rich Saudi (US ally!) commercial empire, with some original (!) pol. opinions - appearing regularly on MSM tv outlets in the US, being groomed for his terrorist role. I reckon it was understood he was very ill and would not live long.


Jason Burke on rense


One of OBL’s sons was killed in the Abbottabad raid according to the official story. Some say Hamza, some say Khaled. Kahled has more articles for his death, incl. from Pakistan. Apparently this ‘minor’ detail can’t be worked out by the MSM or is if no import.

Esquire tells a Navy Seal’s story (killed Khaled...yeah! err...)

Google : “Mark Owen Seal”

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 28 2013 14:26 utc | 56

and to understand how the whole OBL thing works it is probably useful to read up on Rita Katz, Israeli citizen, "ex"-Israeli Military and the founder of the SITE Institte

Profile: Rita Katz :- Owner of SITE Institute

Rita Katz was a participant or observer in the following events:
September 7 and 11, 2007: US Analysts Obtain New Bin Laden Tapes Before Al-Qaeda Releases Them

A frame from Osama bin Laden’s 2007 video.
[Source: Intelcenter]

US analysts obtain two new videos of a man thought to be Osama bin Laden (see September 7, 2007 and September 11, 2007) before al-Qaeda makes them available on the internet.

A video released on September 7 is obtained by the US-based SITE Institute, which provides it “to government agencies and news organizations at a time when many well-known jihadist Web sites had been shut down in a powerful cyberattack by unknown hackers.”

The next tape is obtained by a web designer known as “Laura Mansfield,” who manages “to scoop al-Qaeda by publicly unveiling its new video, a feat she has accomplished numerous times since 2002.”

Although SITE’s founder Rita Katz declines to comment on how it obtained the video, the Washington Post says that SITE, Mansfield, and others like them obtained the videos, whose release was publicly announced in advance, “using a combination of computer tricks, personal connections and ingenuity to find and download password-protected content.” [Washington Post, 9/12/2007]

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 14:38 utc | 57

And why, if I may ask, would we be interested in the exact circumstances and whereabouts of OBL in the first place?

OBL had one and a half raisons d'etre (in relation to anything zusan): To detract and concentrate the public focus from anything of any real relevance whatsoever re 9/11 and to then become a useful symbol, useful to zusa, that is, for a war planned since long ago.

The Bin Laden family is filthy rich and thanks to an "information" bombardement by our wunderfully free and oh so independent media everyone and his dog, too, knew about that. Thanks to some "free reporters" picking up some "leaks", we also "know" that the Bin Laden family was closely related to, if not directly engaged in the oil business and that the bush family was closely related to the oil business, too. (HINT!!! Wake up, citizen! Did you get the hints or do we need to put you through another round of "secret", "insider turned honest", and "leak" information campaign?)

Properly "informed" now, we can understand why OBL was the right choice for zusa.

I didn't check it but hmm may well be right in saying that the brits got pretty pissed hunting a phantom in the Afghan mountains. But then, isn't it one of the very reasons to establish a phantom that it can magically - and usefully - appear at any place one desires? Or even at multiple places at the same time, say in Sudan, in Pakistan, and in Afghhanistan at the same time. Very handy that.
Now, "knowing" about OBLs being exxxtreeemely dangerous and being able to comfortably circumvent the super-duper-high-tech-supremacy-bla-bla zusan defense shield and to remote-kill thousands of innocent people (sparing jews, though), one doesn't even need logic or arguments; simply saying "undisclosed intelligence suggests ..." is ample enough "reason" for yet another military operation. After all, OBL is not an elderly and severely ill single man sourrounded by some "ragheads" with Kalashnikovs and some 30 year old simple weapons! Didn't you watch TV? This man is capable of bending the laws of nature, this man is able to have his associates "business cards" (passports) survive a fire hell perfectly unscathed where steel just melts away.

Man, am I glad that OBL didn't send ufos against the west. Probably he would have done that if only he wasn't to afraid of the power of the zamericans. But enough for now. That fairy tale shall be for another time.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 28 2013 14:39 utc | 58

One should also be aware, before one starts to pontificate about the alleged actions of OBL, that various media carried reports that OBL initially denied all responsibility for the events of Sept 11 2001

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 14:54 utc | 59

I know this article now comes back regulary, but it is like dreaming aloud
US braces for possible government shutdown ... The defence department has advised employees that uniformed members of the military will continue on "normal duty status", but "large numbers" of civilian workers will be told to stay home...

Posted by: Mina | Sep 28 2013 14:58 utc | 60

For those interested in (the frighteningly few) fact known:

zusa established bases in zaudi arabia and some even very close to holy muslim sites. There have been protests since long and there have been demands for the zamericans to get out for very long.

There have been hundreds of clear statements by Muslims that they simply want zusa to leave their countries. There have also been statements by Muslim "terrorists" stating clearly that their goal is to get rid of zusa in their countries. In THEIR countries. They were not fighting zusa and they clearly stated that it was *not* their interest to fight in zusa or against zusa.

Accordingly the only "terror attacks" against zamerican targets that *really* took place have been against zusa targets in Muslims countries (e.g. against the uss cole).

All "attacks" in zusa ground have been invented and/or staged by the zamericans themselves or by israeli organizations.

If zusa wants no more "muslim terror attacks" all they need to do is to leave the muslims countries alone.

Ceterum censeo israel delendum esse.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 28 2013 15:12 utc | 61

hmm at 9: Hersh is a just a convenient conduit for some faction within the CIA - it's very obvious when you view his work as a whole.

US media space deliberately embraces a few allowed, accepted challengers, dissidents, critics, etc. who go along their merry, lucrative ways as long as they don’t break taboo barriers or provide ‘proof’ (solid evidence, etc.) at the wrong time, that is too early, or in a clumsy, ignorant way, like facts that could be checked. Opinion is all!

A must: support the official 9/11 tale.

Chris Hedges, Naomi Klein, Amy Goodman, Chomsky, many more, all understand where their bread is buttered, or what would face them if breaking silence.

This serves :

> to attest to the ‘open’ quality of US media, look ma! clean hands - no media control or prop here!

> to channel public doubt and opposition in certain directions and keep part of the suspicious on board as there are some figure they can agree with, admire, adhere to, champion -- news and flash revelations are ongoing and one must pay attention; etc.

> to serve as a sharp warning to wannabees, this or that is accepted, not more. No fancy home for you if you even step an inch forward. Cold dark graves loom.

The CIA has no need to intervene here...more is the pity. In the sense that if such opinions and news were forced or coerced in some blatant way other events would be taking place.

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 28 2013 15:26 utc | 62

Sorry Noirette, I don't think any of the people you've listed will "support the official 9/11 tale."

Despite it being a convenient talking point against leftists (all that you listed, ALL, despite their important work on so many other topics), the idea that those you listed would simply line up with the GWOT and take the governments simple line "we are at war with al Qaeda, we have always been at war with al Qaeda" "terrorism bad, USA good" "you are with us or against us" is a complete mischaracterization and you know it. Chomsky himself - the most often attacked in this manner - has said that the idea that the government let the attacks happen is plausible. Every "disaster capitalism" (perhaps in this case, "disaster fascism") theory of Naomi Klein would, in fact, point towards the suggestion that the event was invited if not allowed to take place even if she doesn't say so.

The fact is that whenever you hear the statement you are making, that they "support the official 9/11 tale", it is in regards to their not putting their reputations on the line for the most outlandish, idiotic, and implausible "Loose Change" portions of the 9/11 "theory" (the missiles, the drone planes, the implosion of towers 1 & 2) when pressed by provocateurs seeking to goad them into an impossible position to place them under exactly the same dim light you are seeking to place them in. All of that horseshit is every bit as implausible as the idea that the government was simply blindsided by the attacks (and likely comes from the same corrupt source in my opinion).

All the people you list know far too much about CIA creation and funding of Al Qaeda, about the US alliance with Israel and the Saudis, about the Bush connections to the Bin Laden family, about the machinations of deep states in "democratic" countries, and about the overall untrustworthy and murderous way that the United States behaves across the globe and at home to simply "support the official 9/11 tale."

Thankfully, the CIA hardly has the world as stitched up as you have just presented it.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 28 2013 15:49 utc | 63


The fact is that whenever you hear the statement you are making, that they "support the official 9/11 tale", it is in regards to their not putting their reputations on the line for the most outlandish, idiotic, and implausible "Loose Change" portions of the 9/11 "theory" (the missiles, the drone planes, the implosion of towers 1 & 2) when pressed by provocateurs seeking to goad them into an impossible position to place them under exactly the same dim light you are seeking to place them in. All of that horseshit is every bit as implausible as the idea that the government was simply blindsided by the attacks (and likely comes from the same corrupt source in my opinion).

What a load of horseshit.

clearly you, when you hear that they "support the official 9/11 tale", go on to think all the horseshit that you just listed above, but not everyone is like you.

all that anyone of those individuals has to say it is that clearly the "Official Story" is nonsense, and then demand a full independent public enquiry.

they can all simply refuse to offer competing theories to the "Official Story", point ot the obvious holes in the "Official Story" and just keep repeating the need for a public enquiry. I'm no expert on most of those named, but I don't ever remember seeing them doing that.

It's only people like you that introduce all that other irrelevant red-herring crap.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 15:58 utc | 64

for all we know OSL was handed back to his mom on life support for a proper goodbye... in 2001? 2011? yesterday? given the family closeness to the Bush's etc, it was never likely we would see a public dismembering of OSL, but interesting that he did not claim credit for 9/11 and his work as head of A-Q. faded out.
there are not two black-and-white competing truths. ever.

Posted by: anon | Sep 28 2013 16:16 utc | 65

sorry, OSL is OBL !!

Posted by: anon | Sep 28 2013 16:17 utc | 66

p.s. regardless of how you guys. feel about each other's comments, they all have a right to be heard, right or wrong, stupid or not. When you guys switch to attacking each other personally, it makes you look really bad and colors my reaction to some otherwise interesting comments.

Posted by: anon | Sep 28 2013 16:23 utc | 67

Again, you accuse them of "accepting the official story" as if they signed their names to the 9/11 commission report. As if they haven't put in the real work to expose US foreign policy as a complete fraud over decades and decades. You simply act as though all of their investigations and criticism into the war on terror and surrounding events amounts to nothing.

But it benefits people like yourself to attack a few minor radio personalities, some professors, and some small time intellectuals instead of the people who are really responsible for the act and all that follows. Attack them, and who is left to talk back when you want to call US foreign policy flailing a "strong position"?

"If only Amy Good man demanded an inquiry! That's what's missing here!"

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 28 2013 16:26 utc | 68

@67 I think it says more about the person making the endless ad hominem comments.

Posted by: dh | Sep 28 2013 16:27 utc | 69

All of the ludicrous "Loose Change" garbage is part of a powerful campaign that the intent of which was to capture the imagination of the public as what it means to question 9/11. It has the methods of Cointelpro written all over it.

Every single person that wants to call not subscribing to it "not believing the official story" just feeds that impression.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 28 2013 16:33 utc | 70

"Again, you accuse them of "accepting the official story="

You have some fairly serious basic english comprehension issues. Other than pointing out that "I don't ever remember seeing them [pointing out the holes in the "Official Story"]," I never accused any of them of anything.

Arguing against silly strawmen doesn't make what you say sound any less ridiculous.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 16:41 utc | 71

@70 Every single person that wants to call not subscribing to it "not believing the official story" just feeds that impression.Posted by: guest77 | Sep 28, 2013 12:33:06 

Well if you see any of em, do make sure to point em out.

So far YOU are the only person here talking about "Loose Change"

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 16:44 utc | 72

Graham`s hierarchy of disagreement

Posted by: somebody | Sep 28 2013 16:55 utc | 73

What is going on between US and Iran? A massive sellout by the Iranians?

Posted by: Paul | Sep 28 2013 16:57 utc | 74

@74 There seem to be two major ways of looking at it. Either it is a victory for Western diplomacy/pressure or the gullible West has been duped by evil Iranians.

Posted by: dh | Sep 28 2013 17:03 utc | 75

@72 Excuse me asshole, but you responded to my comment to Noirette earlier.

Maybe you are confused about the course of the argument due to not having been previously involved in it.

The people Noirette listed in no way subscribe to the "official tale" - if you'll bother to follow the course of the argument you have chosen to go on half-cocked (probably literally) about. But of course you admit you don't know much about those listed, so why you bothered, I'm not sure.

Okay, that's my last ad hominem fun. I apologize to b and the rest of the commenters, I just never have been able to bear with the such dishonest assholes as hmmm.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 28 2013 17:19 utc | 76


reading your rant it strikes me that you're as much a tru-believer as any Fox News couch-potato. You're essentially just a left wingnut ready to come out swinging dare anyone have the temerity to question any of your "heroes".

That's the problem with people like you, as I mentioned right at the beginning: You are addicted to "heroes" and have not noticed that the "Hero"(™ ® ©)-Dealers have been cutting their product, with something akin to strychnine, quite heavily, and for quite some time.

Your need for an epic narrative replete with suitably heroic "Heroes"(™ ® ©) is probably already factored into the programming.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 17:21 utc | 77

The people Noirette listed in no way subscribe to the "official tale"

as far as I know the people she listed have not publicly questioned the "Official Story" - which no matter what you might claim, is the issue under dispute,

I'm sure you must have some sort of evidence that contradicts that though, given your several rants on the subject, so I'm just a little surprised that you have neglected to post anything here to justify your several frothing-at-the-mouth rants

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 17:27 utc | 78

But of course you admit you don't know much about those listed, so why you bothered,

Wrong again as usual.

I said I was "no expert on most of those individuals" which, even a ranting loon such as yourself would have to admit, is not the same thing at all.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 17:29 utc | 79

People who think skyscrapers disintegrate into dust because they get hit by planes have no right at all to call other people assholes. But you know how it goes. Some people try to pick up girls and get called assholes. This never happened to Pablo Picasso. Not in New York.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 28 2013 17:34 utc | 80

Let me suggest something probably more constructive than pointing at each other (or chomsky or ...) with diverse accusations.

Because there *are* very interesting factors about 9/11.

One that strikes the eye is the question whether zusa had/has or had/has not the capability to spot - and defend against - such dangers.

If the official story is true that necessarily means that zusa did not have the capability to detect airplane deviations early on - and - to protect airspace portions of high priority.

If it is not true one has to ask what is of such high strategic value to zusa (or those in power) that to basically "confess" that they are not able to protect even the highest value airspaces was comparably cheaper than to tell the true reasons and causes.

Another question that seems important is: *If* 9/11 was a false flag, why did the government act so bluntly? Why, for instance, did they simply disappear critical evidence rather than, for instance, discretly replacing it with prepared "clean" evidence?

Frankly, I feel that *all* sides must be looked at critically. Simply saying "It was cheney" or "it was OBL" isn't good enough.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 28 2013 18:16 utc | 81

Now that I think about it "Unintended Consequences Theorist" might be a somewhat useful descriptor for our ranting friend

That Afghanistan is, since the ZUSA invasion, the world’s principal heroin producer is an unfortunate reality, but obviously to claim any deliberatly foreplanned connection between the invasion and the result in herion production is just nuts, right?

An oldie but a goodie . . .
Unintended Consequences Theorists click here

The headlines are "Drugs, warlords and insecurity overshadow Afghanistan's path to democracy". In chorus, the US media is accusing the defunct "hard-line Islamic regime", without even acknowledging that the Taliban  --in collaboration with the United Nations-- had imposed a successful ban on poppy cultivation in 2000. Opium production declined by more than 90 per cent in 2001. In fact the surge in opium cultivation production coincided with the onslaught of the US-led military operation and the downfall of the Taliban regime.

From October through December 2001, farmers started to replant poppy on an extensive basis.

The success of Afghanistan's 2000 drug eradication program under the Taliban had been acknowledged at the October 2001 session of the UN General Assembly (which took place barely a few days after the beginning of the 2001 bombing raids).
No other UNODC member country was able to implement a comparable program:

"Turning first to drug control, I had expected to concentrate my remarks on the implications of the Taliban's ban on opium poppy cultivation in areas under their control... We now have the results of our annual ground survey of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. This year's production [2001] is around 185 tons. This is down from the 3300 tons last year [2000], a decrease of over 94 per cent. Compared to the record harvest of 4700 tons two years ago, the decrease is well over 97 per cent.Any decrease in illicit cultivation is welcomed, especially in cases like this when no displacement, locally or in other countries, took place to weaken the achievement" (Remarks on behalf of UNODC Executive Director at the UN General Assembly, Oct 2001, )

United Nations' Coverup

In the wake of the US invasion, shift in rhetoric. UNODC is now acting as if the 2000 opium ban had never happened: 

"the battle against narcotics cultivation has been fought and won in other countries and it [is] possible to do so here [in Afghanistan], with strong, democratic governance, international assistance and improved security and integrity." ( Statement of the UNODC Representative in Afghanistan at the :February 2004  International Counter Narcotics Conference, , p. 5).
In fact, both Washington and the UNODC now claim that the objective of the Taliban in 2000 was not really "drug eradication" but a devious scheme to trigger "an artificial shortfall in supply", which would drive up World prices of heroin.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 18:18 utc | 82

"Because there *are* very interesting factors about 9/11."

Of course there are, but "Ranto-matic(™ ® ©) 9000", above, just wants to scream "Loose Change is fer dickheadz!" everytime Noirette tried to broach the subject

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 18:43 utc | 83

Because there *are* very interesting factors about 9/11.

Of course there are

But strangely Mr. "Ranto-Matic 9000" (™ ® ©), above, just wants to scream "Loose change is fer Co-Intel-Pro D**kHeadz!" everytime Noirette tried to broach the subject

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 18:48 utc | 84


I've read many well educated and intelligent comments by guest77 and I therefore refuse to simply point fingers at him or to attack him personally.

In cases, where his point of view is far apart of mine, I tend to seriously look at his arguments, consider them, and to comment at them rather than attacking him.

From what I've seen so far, you are strong minded enough to rely on your own intellectual achievements and on your understanding of other users posts and other sources. I would expect from you to offer more - and on the matter - rather than pointing fingers or doing ad hominems.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 28 2013 18:58 utc | 85

I've read many well educated and intelligent comments by guest77

just not today and not on this thread

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 19:27 utc | 86

On the other hand most of hmm's posts today have been extremely informative and the very epitome of enlightened opinion.

Posted by: dh | Sep 28 2013 19:59 utc | 87

Well, I don't like to brag

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 20:07 utc | 88

You are too modest. Seriously I think you are a credit to the board. I can overlook the occasional lapses which are probably due to youthful indiscretion and the excitement that goes with having and eager audience for one’s invaluable pontifications.

Posted by: dh | Sep 28 2013 20:16 utc | 89

My goodness. I’m surprised. > guest 77 @ 63.

And my post went in the direction of the CIA.. *not* controlling!

The ppl quoted do accept the official tale in its broad outlines, some terror Islamist attack, as they never question it, refuse to discuss, just lament, and quickly move to the consequences, etc.

Chomsky’s stance on 9/11 is well-known, crystal clear, consistent.

Chomsky, Sept. 11 2013, once more just recently, questioned by Amy Goodman:

“I will respond to that, though I—my own view is that we should be concentrating on the first 9/11, the one in Chile, which was a much worse attack, by any dimension. But the one here was very significant. It was a major terrorist act, thousands of people killed. It’s the first time since the War of 1812 that U.S. territory had been attacked. The United States has had remarkable security, and this, therefore, was—aside from the horrible atrocity—a very significant, historical event. And it changed attitudes and policies in the United States quite considerably.”

This is not cherry-picking, simply an ex. of the usual.

Amy Goodman is a total left-gatekeeper. I’m at a loss of what to post, as she never says anything really except about tragedy, comfort, Americans having to get together, etc.

(Note she was there on 9/11, right on the front lines but back enough, and watched the whole tragedy. On the spot before it began. Heh. Filmed but refused to be questioned.)

Chomsky at least has been clear and has taken a public stance, gingerly based on the ‘blowback‘ scenario.

Hedges, to his credit, has also been somewhat clear in his refusal to enter that topic:

Here is Amy Goodman questioning Hedges in 2012:

Hedges: “9/11 attacks were horrific”

Link limit?

People do not do 'good work', when they obfuscate, duck, lie, or refuse to take on important questions. I understand they justify themselves by thinking they ‘do good’ or try to wake ppl up of whatever, and that to do that they cannot cross certain red lines, so they don’t, that is then excusable, they think. Klein and too long.

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 28 2013 20:27 utc | 90

@67 - ditto..

Posted by: james | Sep 28 2013 20:34 utc | 91

"People do not do 'good work', when they obfuscate, duck, lie, or refuse to take on important questions. I understand they justify themselves by thinking they ‘do good’ or try to wake ppl up of whatever, and that to do that they cannot cross certain red lines, so they don’t, that is then excusable, they think."

The Bonnie Tyler Fan Club obviously define "good work" differently than you do

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 20:37 utc | 92

If a MIHOP advocate proceeds to pontificate or insinuate that blowbackers are ineffective (purposely or not) advocates of anti-Zionism or anti-imperialism (American) or non-intervention (again, American) he or she is behaving insolently, but should be tolerated nonetheless and judged on their overall perspective as related to the latter subjects, as often they have accepted as well some of the myths presented as fact.

Posted by: amspirnational | Sep 28 2013 21:45 utc | 93

I don't think Noirette is being at all insolent when she claims that the people mentioned are little more than gatekeepers. (Paraphrasing)

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 22:14 utc | 94

re OBL dead at Tora Bora,

The American Dictionary of Slang says that in a snipe hunt, "an uninitiated person is left to watch for a 'snipe' ... while his supposed hunting companions, the hoaxers, leave him to discover the joke." That's the meaning Col. Wayland Parker learned the hard way at his Jacksonville, Florida, high school." They took all the new guys out to the beach on a snipe hunt," he said. "Of course, not a single snipe showed up and we were left there to figure it out on our own. I waited there for a couple of hours." Then he leaned closer." Believe it or not, they actually have snipes here in Afghanistan," he confided. "If you go out to the stadium, we'll herd them in to you."

British led Operation Snipe from the Guardian 5 May 2002

Posted by: dan of steele | Sep 28 2013 22:16 utc | 95

MI5 questions Britons on Tora Bora cave list

By David Bamber 12:01AM BST 08 Sep 2002

Anti-terrorism officers are questioning 25 British Muslims whose names were found in files abandoned by al-Qa'eda members in the Tora Bora cave complex in Afghanistan.The list, recovered by the SAS earlier this year, contains 25 names and addresses of Britons who appear to have been in contact, at mosques, with the organisation's leader, Osama bin Laden, or radical clerics.

Officers from MI5 and Special Branch detectives from Scotland Yard have been interviewing those on the list whom they have been able to trace.In four weeks the joint investigation has resulted in 13 men being questioned. None has been charged.

Officers still want to question the other 12 who have not yet been traced.One police officer said: "The list appears to be of a subscription or a mailing list, but we do not know what was being sent out. We have to take this seriously and we are investigating whether any of the men has connections to al-Qaeda."

The cave complex in Tora Bora - bin Laden's command centre in eastern Afghanistan - was seized by SAS and American Green Beret soldiers on December 5 last year. In a second mopping-up operation in February, supported by Royal Marine Commandos, previously undiscovered caves were entered.

The list was found in a subsequent sweep of the area.

MI5 and Special Branch began to contact those on the list at the beginning of August.

One of those interviewed, a businessman from Leicester, was visited by Special Branch and a police officer at 7am on August 3.He did not wish to be named but said last week: "I refused to allow them into my house as they did not have a warrant. I told them, 'if you want to talk to me, you'll have to arrest me'."

Muddassar Arani, a solicitor from the firm of of Arani and Co in north London, is representing other Muslims on the list. She said: "MI5 claim that they found this list in caves in Tora Bora and it has the names and addresses of Muslim men in Britain. They have been contacting people saying 'can you explain why your name is on this list?'"

I now represent a few of these men and I can tell you they had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda and are mystified that their names have been found."

Ms Arani said her office had been inundated recently with calls from MI5 officers. She said: "You can't get them off the phone.Over the past few weeks every time I put it down another one rings up. It's almost getting to the stage of harassment and stopping me doing other work. My clients have no information that could help MI5 and I'm astonished that they are taking this list so seriously."

She said that she had no idea why the British men's names were on the list.It is understood the security service is having trouble finding some of the men and that some of the addresses have turned out to be inaccurate or fictitious. Detectives have already arrested more than 30 Muslims in Britain since September 11. Most were subsequently released without charge although some are still in custody.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 23:04 utc | 96

Posting outdated links from The Telegraph!! You're really floundering now sonny Jim.

Posted by: dh | Sep 28 2013 23:15 utc | 97

You really are a clown.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 28 2013 23:20 utc | 98

What's up son? Don't like you're own medicine?

Posted by: dh | Sep 28 2013 23:25 utc | 99

Now tell me you're should be your.

Posted by: dh | Sep 28 2013 23:26 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.