70 replies to this topic

[Rational Madman]

With the suspicious death of Ilyas Kashmiri, it appears that al-Adel has emerged as the undisputed leader of Al-Qaeda, since Kashmiri was his chief rival, and had ample motivation to part ways with the leadership. One has to wonder if information about Kashmiri's whereabouts was leaked from a patron in the security services, or perhaps al-Adel himself---but more likely a proxy.

Edited by Rol82, 06 June 2011 - 03:42 AM.

[rwac]

That was my first thought too. Seems awfully convenient to have him be taken out just when he was going against al-Adel.

And now they're eulogizing about how important he was to AQ...
Sounds a bit like smoothing ruffled feathers.

And it appears that not only was Ilyas Kashmiri snubbed by the Shura Council, but deprived of his post as external operations chief.

I wonder if it had something to do with race. He definitely hailed from the subcontinent, and looked it.
Would AQ accept anyone other than an Arab head.

Edited by rwac, 05 June 2011 - 04:41 PM.

[tham]

" If the funeral took place 10 days before this article
was published in al-Wafd and The Observer of
Pakistan, this would put the death of Osama bin-
Laden around the 16th or 17th of December 2001.
Israeli intelligence officials also told reporters in
October 2002 that they and United States officials
believe that Osama bin-Laden had been killed in
December 2001. "

http://littlecountry...h-murdered.html


16 December 2001 ties up with this :

Translation of Funeral Article in Egyptian Paper:
al-Wafd, Wednesday, December 26, 2001 .

" News of Bin Laden's Death and Funeral 10 days ago. "

http://www.welfarest...nladen/funeral/



" During the period 4-14th of July, 2001 (only two months
prior to the 9/11-WTC terror attacks), Bin Laden was
in the American Hospital in Dubai. According to the
United Press International (Oct 31, 2001), Bin Laden
underwent kidney surgery and treatment under Dr.
Terry Callaway. According to both the French “Le
Figaro” & the “Radio France International”, Bin Laden
was visited by a top US-CIA agent.

More astonishing is the fact that just a day prior to
the September 11 attacks, Bin Laden was undergoing
treatment in the Military Hospital in Rawalpindi itself
(Le Figaro – Jan 28, 2002). So both the Pakistani
Military establishment and the ISI as well as the CIA
were more than aware of Bin Laden’s whereabouts.

According to Pentagon sources, Bin Laden’s voice
could not be detected beyond December 14, 2001. "

http://empirestrikes...-december-2001/

[Rational Madman]

That was my first thought too. Seems awfully convenient to have him be taken out just when he was going against al-Adel.

And now they're eulogizing about how important he was to AQ...
Sounds a bit like smoothing ruffled feathers.

And it appears that not only was Ilyas Kashmiri snubbed by the Shura Council, but deprived of his post as external operations chief.

I wonder if it had something to do with race. He definitely hailed from the subcontinent, and looked it.
Would AQ accept anyone other than an Arab head.

I think Kashmiri's outcome was determined more by his disagreement with the strategic focus of Saif al-Adel, whom preferred a less costly strategy of attrition---mostly entailing guerilla warfare and low intensity bombings of military targets. Conversely, Kashmiri had more faith in a boundless jihad that targeted enemies both near and far----which was a strategy that al-Adel vehemently condemned. But I don't think al-Adel felt compelled---or secure enough---to strike against Kahmiri until his unruly behavior threatened to split the organization, and alienate sponsors from various security agencies---orchestrating the killing of the two colonels, recruiting members from other militant groups, and waging an indiscriminate war against Pakistan. As for the matter of race and national/regional identity, I've seen no evidence to suggest that al-Adel shared the bigoted and racist views of his predecessors---Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri. Rather, his likely deputy is of Mauritanian origin, and when he had more influence over Bin Laden, he encouraged the leadership to capitalize on the grievances of African Muslims---especially in Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania. Anyway, I suspect al-Adel won't stop with Kashmiri's death, because his vision is also seriously at odds with figures like Hakimullah Meshud and Anwar al-Awlaki. However, neither of these rivals could credibly usurp al-Adel as chief executive, so their possible deaths might be preceded by an ultimatum. And in consideration of al-Awlaki's immense popularity, he's more likely to be the recipient of such an ultimatum, which is an offer that a dispensable "Young Turk" like Meshud is much less likely to receive. Finally, al-Adel may also consider making a move against al-Zawahiri, who seems to be impotently and indirectly urging a rebellion through one of his favorite mouthpieces---Adam Gadahn. Zawahiri would probably be less of a priority, though, since his influence was heavily dependent on his closeness to Bin Laden.

Edited by Rol82, 07 June 2011 - 02:38 AM.

[rwac]

As to the racial issue, I was actually wondering if that played in role in the choice of al-Adel (snubbing Kashmiri) to lead AQ.

Oh, but is Kashmiri really dead ?

U.S., Pakistan authorities dispute militant's death

Edited by rwac, 07 June 2011 - 01:27 AM.

[Rational Madman]

As to the racial issue, I was actually wondering if that played in role in the choice of al-Adel (snubbing Kashmiri) to lead AQ.

Oh, but is Kashmiri really dead ?

U.S., Pakistan authorities dispute militant's death

By "outcome," I was referring to Kashmiri's possible death and demotion, and by illuminating his attitude towards African Muslims, my intention was to demonstrate his cosmopolitan attitude----meaning that he believes religious identity, rather than national identity, should be the most important dividing line. Regarding the death of Kashmiri, I think it's too early to reach a conclusion, and perhaps I was too hasty in accepting recent reports. But regardless of his current status, I think his death is all but inevitable, because he has thoughtlessly made enemies out of a number of former friends---both state and non-state---and has publicly taken a position that would be exceedingly difficult to reconcile with the posture of the new leadership.

Edited by Rol82, 07 June 2011 - 02:34 AM.

[Rational Madman]

It's kind of interesting that the journalist that interviewed Kashmiri last year---where he clearly tried to contrast himself with al-Adel, et. al----was recently kidnapped and murdered. The journalist, Syed Saleem Shahzad, was one of the best in the business---even if his politics were fucked----and will be sorely missed. Lately, he has written a number of articles, and a wonderful book that has shone some light on some of the dark areas of the ISI. According to friends, he was threatened by a member of the ISi, whom claimed that he would meet his death if his name was found in the personal items of an unnamed militant. I can only assume that this ISI officer was referring to Bin Laden, and the intelligence that was left behind after the raid on his compound. As I suggested earlier, someone is clearly cleaning house, and though this might be a stretch, I'm wondering if some members of the security services suspected that Shahzad tipped off the authorities about Bin Laden's location. This is probably unlikely, and would only be true if Shahzad had been allowed to visit Kokal for an off the record interview with Bin Laden----for use in his new book. The only reason I'm entertaining this very slim possibility is because Shahzad is one of the few journalists that Al-Qaeda and Tehrik-I-Taliban feels comfortable with, and has the distinction of being the only one to ever interview Ilyas Kashmiri and Baitullah Meshud. So conceivably, especially due to the former's closeness to Bin Laden, he might have been able to get access to Bin Laden---either through correspondence, or in person. However, I'm doubtful that the very security conscious Bin Laden opened communications with Shahzad, but perhaps he had contact with one of the two important links to Bin Laden: Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, or Umar Patek. Anyway, I'm taking a leap with this line of speculation, though, and am still more inclined to believe that Shahzad was killed because of the embarrassing revelations of his journalism. If he indeed was killed for suspicion of collaborating with the "enemy," though, I would assume that suspicion was without substance, and a part of broad effort of guilty members of the security services to neutralize all possible liabilities.

Edited by Rol82, 08 June 2011 - 11:10 PM.

[Rational Madman]

New addition to the Bin Laden support network/conspiracy: Nadeem Taj

Taj was formerly Musharraf's right hand man----he was a poor judge of friends---but apparently one of his rewards for helping to secure the passage of the general into the office of the Presidency was the right to install several loyalists into positions of power at Abbottabad's military academy. On one hand, this influence might have allowed him to provide shelter to Bin Laden, but alternatively, Taj may have just wanted to help ensure that the next generation of officers are more in sync with his philosophy. However, Musharraf credited Taj with "cleaning" up the ISI, he has never come off as a religious zealot, and furthermore, he was present in the same vehicle as Musharraf when it was targeted by Al-Qaeda/Tehrik-I-Taliban. But you never know, because it's entirely possible that Taj was an ardent Musharraf loyalist publicly, and privately, an Al-Qaeda sympathizer or supporter. For quite some time, It has been clear that Taj should be considered a person of interest, but I thought he was more aligned with the interests of Hamid Gul and the like. For instance, his order to immediately hose down the scene of Bhutto's assassination should raise some eyebrows, since I doubt forensic evidence is an alien concept to the top echelon of the Pakistani military. Anyway, even with his closeness to Musharraf, I'm doubtful that the former President's guilt extends far beyond poor judgement and varied crimes against the constitution, but there's a very slim possibility that Musharraf managed to pull off the most masterful acts of deception in the history of domestic and international politics.

[Alex Libman]

Assuming that this news is true (which, in absence of objective evidence, is a leap of faith), the Osama story is still a massive case of government failure all around.

• The U.S. government funded him in the 70s - which might have been a lesser evil at the time, but could have been managed a lot better.
• The U.S. government gave him plenty of legitimate excuses through their meddling in the Middle East, including subsidizing the U.N.-imposed socialist state of Israel.
• The U.S. government monopolized all airline security and air defense functions, wasting countless billions of dollars and doing little to prepare for actual threats.
• The U.S. government screwed up the investigation of 9/11 so badly and did it with so little transparency very little can be said about what actually happened on that day with full scientific confidence.
• The U.S. government spent hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of dollars, and got the a-hole at least one decade too late.
• The greater-evil commie administration (Obama) got the credit, even though all he did is not get in the way of what was set up by the lesser-evil commie administration (Bush) before him.
• The U.S. government has been in bed with the government and intelligence agencies of Pakistan for a very long time. It might have been a lesser evil when India got in bed with the Soviets, but fighting evil with evil only results in more evil. With Osama living right under the Pakistani military's nose, now we are yet again supposed to believe in government incompetence rather than complicity... (See also: allegations of ISI funding of 9/11.)
• Capturing an a-hole alive is always much preferable to getting him dead, but it looks like they weren't even trying. In a restitution-based justice system, there would be much innovation in less lethal means of capture, and unnecessary killing would be considered a botched job.

Edited by Alex Libman, 06 September 2011 - 02:45 AM.

[Rational Madman]

Assuming that this news is true (which, in absence of objective evidence, is a leap of faith), the Osama story is still a massive case of government failure all around.

• The U.S. government funded him in the 70s - which might have been a lesser evil at the time, but could have been managed a lot better.
• The U.S. government gave him plenty of legitimate excuses through their meddling in the Middle East, including subsidizing the U.N.-imposed socialist state of Israel.
• The U.S. government monopolized all airline security and air defense functions, wasting countless billions of dollars and doing little to prepare for actual threats.
• The U.S. government screwed up the investigation of 9/11 so badly and did it with so little transparency very little can be said about what actually happened on that day with full scientific confidence.
• The U.S. government spent hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of dollars, and got the a-hole at least one decade too late.
• The greater-evil commie administration (Obama) got the credit, even though all he did is not get in the way of what was set up by the lesser-evil commie administration (Bush) before him.
• The U.S. government has been in bed with the government and intelligence agencies of Pakistan for a very long time. It might have been a lesser evil when India got in bed with the Soviets, but fighting evil with evil only results in more evil. With Osama living right under the Pakistani military's nose, now we are yet again supposed to believe in government incompetence rather than complicity... (See also: allegations of ISI funding of 9/11.)
• Capturing an a-hole alive is always much preferable to getting him dead, but it looks like they weren't even trying. In a restitution-based justice system, there would be much innovation in less lethal means of capture, and unnecessary killing would be considered a botched job.

First, there's no evidence that any organ of the United States directly funded the mujahideen that eventually constituted Al-Qaeda, since the recipients of aid were determined by the Saudi Mukhabarat, and the ISI---not the United States. Anyway, it doesn't really matter, because the organization that preceded Al-Qaeda wasn't particularly active in the civil war. At the same time, though, the insurgents Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani were quite active, but even so, they only have regional ambitions, and whatever alliance they ostensibly have with transnational groups is concerned with expediency for the most part.

Second, Israel has a 200 billion dollar economy, and in terms of market capitalization, its private sector has one of the largest positions on indexes like NASDAQ. So Israel clearly has little need for subsidization, and moreover, the amount that is allocated for aid has more of a symbolic---rather than substantive---importance. Indeed, rather than directly altering the balance of power, the aid represents an indication of commitment---which serves the dual purpose of tempering Israel and it's neighbors' behavior. For Israel, the track record is admittedly imperfect, because a positive impact is functionally related to the far from static credibility of the donor state. However, there is both a theoretical and empirical basis for expecting the behavior of an actor to worsen if its relative perception of security is changed, which is especially true if the state has an offensive advantage in some important measures---airpower, nuclear weapons, and quality. Consequentially, if Israel were to feel sufficiently insecure---the threshold is already very thin, it has the capability to cause a great deal of mischief in an exceptionally price sensitive region. Therefore, stability, and the balance of power are paramount in this calculation. Because one of the chief reasons that we've been relatively more supportive of Israel is because the likely alignment in most potential conflicts would place it at a distinct disadvantage, and as evidenced by multiple instances of hostilities, limited intervention runs the risk of unfavorably altering the incentives of Israel's neighbors. So by disproportionately supporting Israel, we're simply trying to move towards an equilibrium point of conflict occurrence. But in all honesty, though, throwing approximately 1/1200 of annual spending their way doesn't strike me as being extravagant---or unreasonable. And as for our supposed "meddling," we live in an unfailingly multivariate universe, so it's pretty silly to reduce the present state of affairs to the actions of the United States---especially with the competing explanations of the Ottoman Empire's imperial overstretch, culturally mediated insularity, the "resource curse," the pernicious influence of the international communist movement, geology, centuries of monarchic rule, and the crushing failure of Arab nationalism.

Third, there weren't enough precedents, and given the volume of information, there wasn't sufficient cause to prepare for a terrorist incident that resembled the attacks on September 11th in any meaningful way. Moreover, we can't prepare for all existential threats, and because of this, we can only make policy calibrations that have a basis in precedence, proximity, and probability. And to be plain, what happened on September 11th was unlikely to be predicted by these measures, and was thus, a "Black Swan." But we're still standing, the direct costs were marginal, and based on the available information, a recurrence would seem to be both unlikely, and of a limited aggregate cost. And further, the question of privatization seems erroneous to me, because I don't see any clear correlation with the incidence of terrorism---which is more often rationalized as a response to undesired state behavior.

Fourth, let's put aside the weight of evidence that validates the official narrative of the events on 9/11, and move onto the more important question of "why?" Why, in an era of enfeebled intelligence agencies, acute public scrutiny, and with alternatives of much lower risk, would any actor other than Al-Qaeda attempt to carry out attacks that would be metaphysically certain to be discovered? And little transparency, are you serious?

Fifth, there were multiple goals that were advanced by targeting Bin Laden, which I illustrated in one of my previous posts. But one of the takeaway themes was that official rationales are meant largely for public consumption, and because these rationales are often unifying, they reflect the bargaining and disunity of bureaucratic entities. As for the price tag, are you seriously suggesting that "trillions" was spent on one man? Wouldn't that be a gross simplification? Rather, it could be accurately said that over a 10 year period, a variable sum in the low trillions was spent prosecuting two different wars, helping to administer the targeted states, pursuing a vast network of terrorists, increasing our country's defense preparedness, and paying ancillary costs that have arisen in this campaign.

Sixth, let me ask you again to cease making facile analogies to communism, since their use adds nothing productive to discourse. And although I think it's pointless to discuss the relative contribution of the last two administrations, I think it's extremely unfair to devalue the policy changes made by the Obama administration---increasing drone penetration, bilateral aid, the number of advisors, and the quantity of intelligence assets.

Seventh, since we suspended military aid to Pakistan in the late eighties, and began a regime of sanctions the following decade, I wouldn't say that bilateral intelligence cooperation blossomed as a result. As for bilateral cooperation post 9/11, it's indisputable that the relationship has become strained, but it would also be exceedingly sloppy to reduce international relations to good vs. evil. Because at least with the case of Pakistan, there are factions within the sphere of politics that have been admirably helpful, restrained, and in limited instances, complicit with forces that we're being targeted. Therefore, the truth is more grey, because for instance, the aforementioned compound had been under joint-surveillance for over a year, Bin Laden has never been stationary, and because the commanders of local forces were probably independently concealing Bin Laden for yet to revealed reasons. But really, there are a number of actors that go off the reservation in Pakistan, so the circumstances should be hardly surprising.

Eighth, are you seriously suggesting that we should have involved ourselves in the inevitable legal nightmare of placing Bin Laden on trial, or in custody? Indeed, I think we've understandably wised from recent experiences. In any case, though, witness accounts have confirmed that the soldiers appropriately followed the rules of engagement, and even if this was not the case, existing statutes and executive orders provide more than sufficient cover for so-called "kill/capture" operations.

Edited by Rol82, 09 September 2011 - 03:32 PM.

[Alex Libman]

First, there's no evidence that any organ of the United States directly funded the mujahideen [...]

You're right - the funding and aid might have been indirect.

Second, Israel has a 200 billion dollar economy [...]

I am very much aware of Israel's achievements (ex), but they are minuscule compared to the inputs of human capital and investment that Israel has received. What you're describing is a consequence of Western investment, not what would have still existed in its absence. For example, a large fraction of the post-9/11 "security industrial complex" has profited Israel greatly. By far the oldest and most durable of USA's current free trade agreements has been with Israel, meaning un-free trade with the rest of the world. Much of this investment is politically and ideologically driven, and without those biases should have gone to economically freer countries like Singapore instead. Singapore, BTW, is a comparable example that is also a young migrant-built strategically-located small country that is surrounded by Muslim neighbors, and it outperforms Israel by leaps and bounds!

If the Western countries had a more open immigration policy, Israel would have been unnecessary, and even much of the Holocaust could have been avoided.

And the U.S. interventionism in the Middle East isn't limited to supporting Israel.

Third, there weren't enough precedents, and given the volume of information, there wasn't sufficient cause to prepare for a terrorist incident that resembled the attacks on September 11th in any meaningful way. [...]

So the reason why the U.S. government was spending billions of stolen dollars to have an Air Force and hundreds of interceptor jets all over the country was for decorative purposes, right? All those air control towers get their radar and GPS signals an hour late? The myriad of U.S. government's well-paid risk assessment professionals never conceptualized something that was already attempted in the past (ex. Samuel Byck)? The Pentagon MASCAL exercise was just kids playing with toy airplanes?

Look, the fact is that the U.S. government's monopoly has forced the marketplace into a condition of total helplessness - everyone was supposed to have blind faith in Mommy Government keeping everybody safe. Airlines were shielded from liability. The pilots were disarmed and told not to resist. Etc, etc, etc. When you have a monopoly - the government providing all security services for everybody -- the incentive to deliver quality, efficiency, and innovation is greatly reduced.

Government monopolies always deliver excuses. The free market always delivers results.

Fourth, let's put aside the weight of evidence that validates the official narrative of the events on 9/11, and move onto the more important question of "why?" Why, in an era of enfeebled intelligence agencies, acute public scrutiny, and with alternatives of much lower risk, would any actor other than Al-Qaeda attempt to carry out attacks that would be metaphysically certain to be discovered? And little transparency, are you serious?

Yes, I'm serious. Any capacity for "public scrutiny" has largely been wasted on insane "bombs in the buildings" / "no planes" theories, to the point where all skepticism of the government story is treated like flat-earthism, and critical thinking is never applied. The government is so powerful it can get away with pretty much anything, but any suggestion that all this power might corrupt somebody is total taboo. It may be incompetent at running DMV's, because its power doesn't much depend on customer satisfaction, but there is much institutional incentive to create sensational crisis, from "evil terrorists" to "global warming", in order to justify and expand their grip on power.

The U.S. military interests needed an excuse for war precisely at that very time. All that it would take to pull this off is look the other way as some deranged Islamic idiots fumble their way onto an airplane, and possibly install some hardware hacks to make sure they don't miss. Only a very small team of people would need to know the truth. The real Muslim idiots would have been a lot more interested in attacking Israel instead, but nothing of comparable scale has ever happened there, even though their small airspace would be a lot more difficult to defend. (By "small airspace" I particularly mean the proximity of foreign countries, as well as compared to the distances hijacked planes were able to fly off-course on 9/11.)

So a government conspiracy is very much plausible, and the burden of proof was on them to make all evidence transparent - which they've largely failed to do. Some pieces of evidence are only still being released, 10 years later! For photo / audio / video evidence, anything more than a few minutes delay makes the evidence invalid, because it can be so easily faked.

[...] As for the price tag, are you seriously suggesting that "trillions" was spent on one man? [...]

Of course not, but he was a crucial part of the marketing campaign to sell the war in Afghanistan, which according to CostOfWar.com has already cost almost half a trillion, and, to a lesser degree, the more expensive war in Iraq.

The exact cost of the power-enabling benefits that the government received from 9/11 is incalculable. Governments must always come up with external threats and other excuses for their existence - all government spending ultimately depends on this.

Sixth, let me ask you again to cease making facile analogies to communism, since their use adds nothing productive to discourse. [...]

I used the slang term "commie" to express that both administrations in question are a lot closer to communism relative to myself. I have no plans of ceasing.

[...] Therefore, the truth is more grey [...]

I understand that the U.S.-Pakistani relations and their geopolitical implications are complex, but my original point remains.

Eighth, are you seriously suggesting that we should have involved ourselves in the inevitable legal nightmare of placing Bin Laden on trial, or in custody?

Yes. Justice is not justice unless it is carried out transparently and by the book. Some exceptions of collateral damage might sadly be unavoidable in some large-scale military conflicts, but in this operation taking him alive should definitely have been preferable.

People who base their judgment on objective evidence rather than blind faith in whatever the government tells them have no reason to believe he was killed that day. Maybe it was all staged to boost Obama's popularity before the 10th anniversary (without making the timing too obvious this time), or to help with the "Arab Spring". Or, maybe they had an agreement to let him live out his days in that safe-house under the protection of the ISI, and stage this after he died of natural causes. The foremost measure of a scientific mind is knowing when to say "we just don't know".