Archive for September, 2006


September 27, 2006

Musharraf: Iraq war makes world more dangerous

CNN | September 27 2006

The war in Iraq has not made the world safer from terror, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has told CNN, saying he stands by statements on the subject he makes in his new book, “In the Line of Fire.”

In the book, Musharraf — a key ally who is often portrayed as being in complete agreement with U.S. President George W. Bush on the war on terror and other issues — writes he never supported the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

“I stand by it, absolutely,” Musharraf told CNN’s “The Situation Room.” Asked whether he disagreed with Bush, he said, “I’ve stated whatever I had to … it [the war] has made the world a more dangerous place.”

He also addressed allegations that Pakistan was a less-than-enthusiastic recruit into the war on terror and that former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told a Pakistani official that the United States would bomb Pakistan “back to the stone age” if it did not cooperate with Washington after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Armitage has denied making the threat. He told CNN he gave Pakistan a tough message, telling the Muslim nation it was either “with us or against us.”

“I have written whatever I heard, and my intelligence director did say that,” Musharraf told CNN. “I would leave it at that. He didn’t contact me. He didn’t say that to me.”

Whether the threat was made, Musharraf said he agreed to cooperate in the war on terror in the interests of Pakistan.

“The first thing that came to my mind was Pakistan, Pakistani interest, Pakistan security,” Musharraf said.

“So as far as Pakistan interest is concerned, we ourselves are victims of terrorism and we ourselves are against al Qaeda or any form of terrorism related to [the] Taliban. … However, we took into account, certainly, that we are a nuclear state. Destabilizing a nuclear state would certainly cause a lot of upheaval in the world.”

Musharraf would not be drawn into a debate over Bush’s comments last week to CNN that he would send U.S. forces into Pakistan if he had credible information that Osama bin Laden was there, instead of letting Pakistan handle the situation itself.

“It’s a very sensitive issue,” he said. “We should not be discussing how and who is to deliver the blow, but whenever we locate him, we have to deal with him. And let’s leave it at that and let’s not get into the sensitivities of who and how it will be done.”

Musharraf bristled when asked why the United States could operate in neighboring Afghanistan but not Pakistan.

“Please don’t compare Pakistan with Afghanistan,” he said.

“Pakistan is a very, very stable country. We have a strong government. We have a strong military. We have a strong intelligence system, and everything in Afghanistan has broken down. … We don’t want our sovereignty to be violated, whereas in Afghanistan, there was an issue of terrorism in Afghanistan after 9/11 and law and order was broken down.”

Musharraf also was critical of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who he said is “turning a blind eye like an ostrich” to the situational realities in his country and pointing the finger at Pakistan. (Bush downplays tensions)

He denied that a deal worked out with tribal leaders along the Afghan-Pakistan border offered amnesty to al Qaeda and the Taliban, as critics had claimed.

Asked whether he would be interested in appearing alongside Karzai on a future episode of “The Situation Room,” Musharraf said there would need to be “the proper atmosphere and proper attitude.”

“There needs to be harmony in Afghanistan, Pakistan and [the] allied forces, especially the United States,” he said. “… I think, at the moment, there is total misunderstanding of the environment by Afghanistan and Karzai. I know Karzai knows the environment, but he is denying the realities.”

Planning an Attack

September 23, 2006

Senior intel official: Pentagon moves to second-stage planning for Iran strike option

Larisa Alexandrovna / Raw Story | September 21 2006

The Pentagon’s top brass has moved into second-stage contingency planning for a potential military strike on Iran, one senior intelligence official familiar with the plans tells RAW STORY.

The official, who is close to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking officials of each branch of the US military, says the Chiefs have started what is called “branches and sequels” contingency planning.

“The JCS has accepted the inevitable,” the intelligence official said, “and is engaged in serious contingency planning to deal with the worst case scenarios that the intelligence community has been painting.”

A second military official, although unfamiliar with these latest scenarios, said there is a difference between contingency planning — which he described as “what if, then what” planning — and “branches and sequels,” which takes place after an initial plan has been decided upon.

Adding to the concern of both military and intelligence officials alike is the nuclear option, the possibility of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons targeting alleged WMD facilities in Iran.

An April New Yorker report by Sy Hersh alleged that the nuclear option was on the table, and that some officers of the Joint Chiefs had threatened resignation.

“The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning,” Hersh wrote. “Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran�without success, the former intelligence official said.”

The senior intelligence official who spoke to RAW STORY, along with several military intelligence sources, confirmed that the nuclear option remains on the table. In addition, the senior official added that the Joint Chiefs have “come around on to the administration’s thinking.”

“The Joint Chiefs have no longer imposed roadblocks on a possible bombing campaign against Iran’s nuclear production facilities,” the intelligence official said. “In the past, only the Air Force had endorsed the contingency, saying that it could carry out the mission of destroying, or at least significantly delaying, Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon.”

Preparation for such a strike would require contingency plans for securing oil transport lines and dealing with possible riots, as well as assessment of issues that arose during the Iran-Iraq war.

“Bahrain will be a battleground as it is majority Shi’a and has had Shi’a riots stimulated by Iran in the past,” the official said. “The US Fifth Fleet is also based there. A system for [protection of] oil transport in the Gulf will have to be devised by the US Navy to protect against attacks.”

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to repeated emails requesting comment.

Deployment orders

With allegations of a plan in place and contingency scenarios in play, several military and intelligence experts see this as proof of a secret White House order to proceed with military action.

Last week, a military intelligence official described to this reporter the movement of Naval submarines and a deployment order sent out to Naval assets of strategic import, such as minesweepers, that could indicate contingency planning is already under way to secure oil transport routes and supplies.

On Sunday, Time Magazine confirmed much of what the military intelligence source had described.

“The first message was routine enough: a ‘Prepare to Deploy Order’ sent through Naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters,” Time’s Michael Duffy wrote. “The orders didn’t actually command the ships out of port; they just said be ready to move by October 1. A deployment of minesweepers to the east coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed, but until now largely theoretical, prospect has become real.”

Retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner also expressed concern about the deployment orders, but cautioned that these particular ships are slow-moving and would take “a month or so” to arrive in position.

“Minecountermeasures, the four ships mentioned, are generally not self-deploying,” Gardiner said Wednesday. “When previously sent to the Gulf, they were transported on the decks of heavy lift ships. The earliest they would arrive would be around the first of November.”

Although some claim the Defense Department has denied the deployment order, no official denial has been made. The Pentagon does not comment on operational plans, not even to issue a denial.

Lawmakers in the dark?

Attempts to contact members of the Senate Armed Services Committee provided little help in confirming allegations of the deployment order made to this reporter and Time. Senate offices that were available for comment would not do so on the record.

From all appearances, however, it would seem that at least some members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have not been briefed on deployment orders or on any strike plans, even contingency plans. The Senate Intelligence Committee is attempting to get a grasp on what is and has been going on.

A source close to the Committee, who asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the information, explained that a series of briefings will be going on this week and into next.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has “embarked on a much more aggressive review of what the intelligence community knows and is doing regarding Iran,” the source said.

“In fact [the Committee has] a number of Iran related briefings this week and next before the senators leave town,” the source added. They “will cover the full spectrum including various aspects of their nuclear program and all U.S. collection efforts.”

The Decline Of The West

September 20, 2006

Can the West defeat the Islamist threat? Here are ten reasons why not

LET US SUPPOSE, for the sake of argument, that the war declared by al-Qaeda and other Islamists is under way. Let us further suppose that thousands of “terrorist” attacks carried out in Islam’s name during the past decades form part of this war; and that conflicts that have spread to 50 countries and more, taking the lives of millions — including in inter-Muslim blood-shedding — are the outcome of what Osama bin Laden has called “conducting jihad for the sake of Allah”.If such war is under way, there are ten good reasons why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated in it.


1) The first is the extent of political division in the non-Muslim world about what is afoot. Some reject outright that there is a war at all; others agree with the assertion by the US President that “the war we fight is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century”. Divided counsels have also dictated everything from “dialogue” to the use of nuclear weapons, and from reliance on “public diplomacy” to “taking out Islamic sites”, Mecca included. Adding to this incoherence has been the gulf between those bristling to take the fight to the “terrorist” and those who would impede such a fight, whether from domestic civil libertarian concerns or from rivalrous geopolitical calculation.

2) The second reason why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated is that the strengths of the world community of Muslims are being underestimated, and the nature of Islam misunderstood. It is neither a “religion of peace” nor a “religion hijacked” or “perverted” by “the few”. Instead, its moral intransigence and revived ardours, its jihadist ethic and the refusal of most diaspora Muslims to “share a common set of values” with non-Muslims are all one, and justified by the Koran itself.

Islam is not even a religion in the conventional sense of the term. It is a transnational political and ethical movement that believes that it holds the solution to mankind’s problems. It therefore holds that it is in mankind’s own interests to be subdued under Islam’s rule. Such belief therefore makes an absurdity of the project to “democratise” Muslim nations in the West’s interests, an inversion that Islam cannot accept and, in its own terms, rightly so. It renders naive, too, the distinction between the military and political wings of Islamic movements; and makes Donald Rumsfeld’s assertion in June 2005 that the insurgents in Iraq “don’t have vision, they’re losers” merely foolish. In this war, if there is a war, the boot is on the other foot.

3) Indeed, the third reason why Islam will not be defeated, as things stand, is the low level of Western leadership, in particular in the United States. During the half-century of the Islamic revival, it has shown itself at sixes and sevens both diplomatically and militarily. It has been without a sense of strategic direction, and been unable to settle upon coherent war plans. It has even lacked the gifts of language to make its purposes plain. Or, as Burke put it in March, 1775, “a great empire and little minds go ill together”. In this war with Islam, if it is a war, the combination bodes defeat.

4) Next is the contribution to the disarray of Western policy-making being made by the egotistical competitiveness, and in some cases hysterics, of “experts” and commentators on Islam. They include hyperventilating Islamophobes as well as academic apologists for the worst that is being done in Islam’s name. On this battleground, with its personalised blogsites to assist self-promotion, many seem to think that their opinions are more important than the issues upon which they are passing judgment; and amid the babel of advisory voices, policy has become increasingly inconsistent.

5) The fifth disablement is to be found in the confusion of “progressives” about the Islamic advance. With their political and moral bearings lost since the defeat of the “socialist project”, many on the Left have only the fag-end of anti-colonial positions on which to take their stand. To attribute the West’s problems to our colonial past contains some truth. But it is again to misunderstand the inner strength of Islam’s revival, which is owed not to victimhood but to advancing confidence in its own belief system.

Moreover, to Islam’s further advantage, it has led most of today’s “progressives” to say little, or even to keep silent, about what would once have been regarded as the reactionary aspects of Islam: its oppressive hostility to dissent, its maltreatment of women, its supremacist hatred of selected out-groups such as Jews and gays, and its readiness to incite and to use extremes of violence against them. Mein Kampf circulates in Arab countries under the title Jihadi.

6) The sixth reason for Islam’s growing strength is the vicarious satisfaction felt by many non-Muslims at America’s reverses. Those who feel such satisfaction could be regarded as Trojan horses, a cavalry whose number is legion and which is growing. For some, their principle — or anti-principle — is that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. Others believe their refusal of support for the war with Islam, if there is such a war, is a righteous one. But the consequences are the same: Islam’s advance is being borne along by Muslims and non-Muslims together.

7) The seventh reason lies in the moral poverty of the West’s, and especially America’s, own value system. Doctrines of market freedom, free choice and competition — or “freedom ’n’ liberty” — are no match for the ethics of Islam and Sharia, like them or not. Yet in the “battle for hearts and minds” the US First Cavalry Division saw fit to set up “Operation Adam Smith” in Iraq to teach marketing skills, among other things, to local entrepreneurs. There can be no victory here. Or, as Sheikh Mohammed al-Tabatabi told thousands of worshippers in Baghdad in May 2003: “The West calls for freedom and liberty. Islam rejects such liberty. True liberty is obedience to Allah.”

8) The next indication that Islam’s advance will continue lies in the skilful use being made of the media and of the world wide web in the service both of the “electronic jihad” and the bamboozling of Western opinion by Muslim spokesmen. It is also a political enterprise in which Muslims and non-Muslims can now be found acting together in furthering the reach of Islam’s world view; the help being given by Western producers and broadcasters to al-Jazeera is the most notable instance of it.

9) The ninth factor guaranteeing Islam’s onward march is the West’s dependency on the material resources of Arab and Muslim countries. In April 1917, Woodrow Wilson, recommending to the US Congress an American declaration of war against Germany, could say that “we have no selfish ends to serve”. American levels of consumption make no such statement possible now. The US is, so to speak, over a barrel. It will remain so.

10) Finally, the West is convinced that its notions of technology-driven modernity and market-driven prog- ress are innately superior to the ideals of “backward” Islam. This is an old delusion. In 1899, Winston Churchill asserted that there was “no stronger retrograde force in the world” than Islam. More than a century later, it is fondly believed that sophisticated hardware and Star Wars defences will ensure Western mastery in this war, if it is a war.

But as the Saudi “scholar” Suleiman al-Omar declared in June 2004: “Islam is advancing according to a steady plan. America will be destroyed.” As things stand, given the ten factors set out here, he is more likely to be proved right than wrong.

David Selbourne is the author of The Losing Battle with Islam, which was published in the United States in November last year


September 18, 2006

Exclusive to Canada Free Press and Northeast Intelligence

Adnan el shukrijuma

By Paul L. Williams

& David Dastych

Saturday, September 16, 2006

Urgent news from Abu Dawood, one of the newly appointed commanders of the al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan:

Final preparations have been made for the American Hiroshima, a major attack on the U. S.

Muslims living in the United States should leave the country without further warning.

The attack will be commandeered by Adnan el Shukrijumah (“Jaffer Tayyer” or “Jafer the Pilot”), a naturalized American citizen, who was raised in Brooklyn and educated in southern Florida.

The al Qaeda operatives who will launch this attack are awaiting final orders. They remain in place in cities throughout the country. Many are masquerading as Christians and have adopted Christian names.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban will also launch a major strike (known as the “Badar Operation” against the coalition forces in Afghanistan during the holy month of Ramadan.

The American people probably will be treated to a final audio message from Osama bin Laden which will be aired some time later.

The announcements from Abu Dawood were obtained by Hamid Mir, the only journalist to interview Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Taliban leader Mullah Omar in the wake of 9/11. Mir earlier reports regarding the resurgence of the Taliban with support from Iran and Russia and an unofficial truce (reported by some Western sources) between President Pervez Musharraf and al Qaeda have been panned out by the press in recent months.

Mr. Mir interviewed Dawood (no specific date indicated) at the tomb of Sultan Mehmud Ghaznawi, on the outskirts of Kabul. Dawood and the al Qaeda leaders who accompanied him sported short beards and were dressed casually, for disguise. The al Qaeda commander had contacted Mir by cell-phone to arrange the meeting. The contents of the encounter are as follows:

Q: How did you have my local mobile number?

A: We watched you on Geo TV walking in the mountains near Kabul with British troops. You were embedded with our enemies. We were sure that you are staying in one of the few hotels or guest houses in Kabul. We were looking for you in Serena and Intercontinental hotels, but then some Taliban friends informed us that they had your phone number and you might visit them in Zabul [an Afghani province]. We got your number from Commander [Muhsen] Khayber. [Khayber was responsible for a homicide bombing in Casablanca that killed 32 people]. Don’t worry about that. We will not make any harm to you. We just want to warn you that you better don’t take any rides in the tanks and humvis of the Western Forces; they are not safe for any journalist in Afghanistan.

Q: Thanks for your concern; can I know your name?

A: Yes my name is Abu Dawood, if you remember, we have already met in Kunar two years ago, but at that time I had a long beard, now I have a small one. You were there in the mountains, close to Asadabad [a small village in the Kunar province of eastern Afghanistan] and you met some Al Qaeda fighters. I was among them.

Q: OK. I just want to say that I am a journalist, I have to speak to both sides of a conflict, for getting an objective view and that is why I was traveling with the British troops; now I am sitting with you and that is my real job. I have interviewed Osama bin Laden as well as Condoleezza Rice, General Pervez Musharraf and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan. I hope you will appreciate my objective approach?

A: You have claimed to be objective, but you and your TV channel have always given much time to the propaganda of our enemies. Anyhow, it was our moral responsibility to warn you that you better try to avoid traveling with the British, American, Canadian, French, Spanish and Italian troops in Afghanistan, we will target all of them, we don’t want that people like you suffer by our attacks, it is not good for you, and at least you should not be killed with the enemies of Islam. I am sure, brother Khayber have informed you that the Taliban will launch a big operation against the Crusader Forces, in the holy month of Ramadan; don’t come to Afghanistan in Ramadan. You will see a lot of fadaee amalyat [“suicide bombings”] in the coming days, Kabul will become a graveyard of NATO and ISAF.

Q: Yes Khayber told me about the “Badar Operation” in Ramadan. I think you are an Afghani but you are not a Talib, are you a member of Al Qaeda?

A: You are right. But we are with the Taliban, just helping them, fighting under their command. Every Al Qaeda fighter can become a Talib, but every Talib cannot become Al Qaeda.

Q: So where is Sheikh Osama bin Laden?

A: I don’t know exactly, but he is still in command of Al Qaeda, and he is in contact with his Mujaheddin all over the world.

Q: Why there was no new video statement from him, in last two years?

A: Because the CIA can feed his fresh picture to the computers fitted on their Predator planes, and these planes can get him, like Nek Muhammad or Akbar Bugti. But he has released many audio messages this year. Listen to him carefully. Don’t underestimate his warnings. America is playing with the security of Muslims all over the world, now it is our turn again. Our brothers are ready to attack inside America. We will breach their security again. There is no timeframe for our attack inside America; we can do it any time.

Q: What do you mean by another attack in America?

A: Yes a bigger attack than September 11th 2001. Brother Adnan [el Shukrijumah] will lead that attack, Inshallah.

Q:Who is Adnan?

A: He is our old friend. The last time, I met him in early 2004, in Khost. He came to Khost from the North Waziristan. He met his leaders and friends in Khost. He is very well known in Al Qaeda. He is an American and a friend of Muhammad Atta, who led 9/11 attacks five years ago. We call him “Jaffer al Tayyar” [“Jafer the Pilot”]; he is very brave and intelligent. Bush is aware that brother Adnan has smuggled deadly materials inside America from the Mexican border. Bush is silent about him, because he doesn’t want to panic his people. Sheikh Osama bin Laden has completed his cycle of warnings. You know, he is man of his words, he is not a politician; he always does what he says. If he said it many times that Americans will see new attacks, they will definitely see new attacks. He is a real Mujahid. Americans will not win this war, which they have started against Muslims. Americans are the biggest supporters of the biggest terrorist in the world, which is Israel. You have witnessed the brutality of the Israelis in the recent 34-day war against Lebanese civilians. 9/11 was a revenge of Palestinian children, killed by the US-made weapons, supplied to Israel. The next attack on America would be a revenge of Lebanese children killed by US-made cluster bombs. Bush and Blair are the Crusaders, and Muslim leaders, like Musharraf and [Afghani President Hamid] Karzai are their collaborators, we will teach a lesson to all of them. We are also not happy with some religious parties in Pakistan and Egypt, they got votes in the name of Mujaheddin, and then, they collaborated with Musharraf and [Egyptian President] Hosni Mubarak. Now look at all of them, Musharraf and Karzai don’t trust each other, the CIA and ISI don’t trust each other, all the hypocrites and enemies of Mujaheddin are suspecting each other; this help to us is coming from Heavens. Allah is with us.

Q: But if you attack inside America again, then Muslims living in America will face lot of problems, why would you like to create new problems for your brothers and sisters?

A: Muslims should leave America. We cannot stop our attack just because of the American Muslims; they must realize that American forces are killing innocent Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq; we have the right to respond back, in the same manner, in the enemy’s homeland. The American Muslims are like a human shield for our enemy; they must leave New York and Washington.

Q: But your fighters are also using the American Muslims as their shield, if there are no Muslims in America, then there would be no Al Qaeda, may be the Americans would feel safer?

A: No, not at all. We have a different plan for the next attack. You will see. Americans will hardly find out any Muslim names, after the next attack. Most of our brothers are living in Western countries, with Jewish and Christian names, with passports of Western countries. This time, someone with the name of Muhammad Atta will not attack inside America, it would be some David, Richard or Peter.

Q: So you will not attack America, until Muslims are there?

A: I am not saying that, I am saying that Muslims must leave America, but we can attack America anytime. Our cycle of warnings has been completed, now we have fresh edicts from some prominent Muslim scholars to destroy our enemy, this is our defending of Jihad; the enemy has entered in our homes and we have the right to enter in their homes, they are killing us, we will kill them.

Al-Qaeda’S NUKES

September 16, 2006

Al-Qaeda’s Hidden Arsenal and Sponsors: Interview with Hamid Mir

By: Ryan Mauro

Hamid Mir truly has deep access inside Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. He is best known as the last journalist to interview Osama Bin Laden, and the only one to do so after the attacks of September 11, 2001. He is currently the Bureau Chief of Islamabad for Geo TV and is writing a biography on Osama Bin Laden. He has interviewed countless members of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in many countries over the years.

Mir has had remarkable reliability. For example, most recently he said that Osama Bin Laden was going to issue a new tape, but the mainstream media did not report it. A few days later, a tape was released. He was the only one to predict the event.

RM: What governments have sponsored Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden over the years?

HM: I think it was the Taliban government which sponsored Al-Qaeda from 1996 to 2001. In between, the U.S. government engaged the Taliban in talks, some of which were arranged by Pakistan. Islamabad and Washington started covert operations against Al-Qaeda in 1999 (under Clinton and Nawaz Sharif) but they failed. After 9/11, it is the present Iranian regime which is secretly helping Al-Qaeda because the U.S. is supporting Israel openly.

RM: What governments have been friendly to Al-Qaeda in the past? Were/are there links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, Syria, North Korea, etc?

HM: I don’t think that Iraq had any direct link with Al-Qaeda. Saddam tried to contact Osama Bin Laden in 1998 but he was not entertained. Syria is a safe haven for Al-Qaeda now but the Syrian government is not trusted by the Al-Qaeda commanders in Iraq. I will not comment on North Korea. This is a point on which I am still not clear and am still trying to investigate.

RM: Can you give us some detail about the Russians advisors you said were helping the Taliban? Why would the Russians help them? What are they helping them with? And how long has Russia provided assistance to radical Islamic movements like Al-Qaeda?

HM: What I said was that Russia is covertly supporting Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. The spokesman of the Afghan Interior Ministry, Lutaffulah Mashal, told me in September 2005 in Kabul that the Taliban are getting modern Russian-made weapons. He suspected that Russia may be taking revenge on the U.S. for supporting the Afghan Mujahideen against Russia in the 1980s.

I met a Taliban commander in Ghazni last year who showed me a small mobile phone bomb. He said that they will use that bomb against the British troops very soon in southern Afghanistan. How can they make mobile phone bombs on their own? The Taliban are receiving weapons from Al-Qaeda also, which are being smuggled in from Iran.

RM: It has been reported that you believe Al-Qaeda has nuclear weapons. How did you come up with this conclusion?

HM: I came up with this conclusion after eight years of investigation and research in the remote mountain areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. I traveled to Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Syria, Uzbekistan, and Russia and met dozens of people. I interviewed not only Al-Qaeda operatives but met scientists and top U.S. officials also. I will have the details in my coming book.

At least two Al-Qaeda operatives claimed that the organization smuggled suitcase nukes inside America. But I have no details on who did it. But I do have details about who smuggled uranium inside America and how.

I am very careful when speaking about Al-Qaeda’s nuclear capabilities. I’ve met many people in Al-Qaeda who have claimed that uranium and nuclear bombs were smuggled to America, and I’ll quote them in my book. However, when I speak for myself, I don’t rely on claims by Al-Qaeda. I rely upon my own investigations.

RM: What’s the name of your book? Will new details and proof of Al-Qaeda’s acquisition of nukes be presented?

HM: My publisher has not authorized me to disclose the name of the book, but it will be a biography of Osama Bin Laden in which I will disclose his future plans and details of his nuclear designs. The world will come to know that which is the real Al-Qaeda.

RM: How many nuclear weapons does Al-Qaeda possess?

HM: As far as I know, they smuggled three suitcase nukes from Russia to Europe. They smuggled many kilos of enriched uranium inside America for their dirty bomb projects. They said in 1999 that they must have material for more than six dirty bombs in America. They tested at least one dirty bomb in the Kunar province of Afghanistan in 2000.

They have planned an attack bigger than 9/11, even before 9/11 happened. Osama Bin Laden trained 42 fighters to destroy the American economy and military might. 19 were used on 9/11, 23 are still “sleeping” inside America waiting for a wake-up call from Bin Laden.

RM: If Al-Qaeda has tactical suitcase nukes, not just “dirty bombs,” why would they deploy them to Europe instead of the United States?

HM: Actually, I lost track of the three suitcase nukes after they were smuggled into Italy. I tried my best to get more information about those bombs but I am only one man. I only received one tip that Chechen members of Al-Qaeda wanted to smuggle one bomb into London, one into Paris, and one into California, but some dispute developed with the Italian underworld over the method of payment. This was in the year 2000.

RM: Were actual tactical nukes deployed to the US? And is the leader of the nuclear plot Adnan el-Shukrijumah as believed by some experts?

HM: Al-Qaeda leaders claimed to have deployed their tactical weapons inside America. But when I tried to track the transportation of those weapons from Georgia, I lost track in Italy. I don’t know the location of these today because my source left Afghanistan for Iraq last year. On the other hand, they claimed to me that weapons were smuggled to America through Mexico.

According to my notes, the man responsible for organizing the nuclear attacks inside America is not Adnan but is Muhammed Sher Khan, but this may be an alias for Adnan.

RM: When is your book coming out?

HM: I am just putting on some finishing touches to the manuscript. I am planning to publish the book this year. I am going to reveal the secret world of Osama Bin Laden through my own eyes. I don’t think it would be difficult for you to understand that writing some facts about Osama Bin Laden is not an easy job in Muslim countries today.

Yes, our governments are against him but he is popular among the masses. Common Muslims do not believe he is responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and I am going to write about how 9/11 was planned and implemented by Osama Bin Laden. What happened to Osama Bin Laden after 9/11? How did he escape from Tora Bora? Where has he spent his last four years? Where and how did he organize the new insurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq?

I think I will face a lot of criticism for my Iran/Al-Qaeda chapter from the Muslim media. I am going to reveal facts that nobody can deny. I am very careful. I wrote each and every word only after many cross-checks. I even cross-checked the claims made by Osama Bin Laden. I will definitely raise some issues like why he is still at large, and I’ll have to talk about the weaknesses of the Pakistani and American secret services. I will not enjoy the publication of my book because I do not live in an ideal democracy. I am not bothered by who might benefit from my research. I have only one objective in mind; to keep the historical record straight.

RM: How can you be positive that the information regarding Al-Qaeda’s nuclear capabilities isn’t disinformation meant to frighten their enemies?

HM: That was the argument many U.S. experts presented in 1998 when Osama Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. Don’t underestimate your enemy. You may dislike them but they don’t lie. They may give a deadline to Muslims sometime to leave America and then they will attack. That is what was discussed in one of the Al-Qaeda meetings in Kunar in 2003.

RM: In a recent interview, you described a nuclear test in Kunar province in the year 2000 where an Egyptian scientist lost an eye. Was it a radiological “dirty bomb” or a more serious tactical nuclear weapon?

HM: It was a radiological dirty bomb.

RM: You have said that you think Al-Qaeda may use the nukes once Iran is bombed by the U.S. Is that your opinion or is this what you’ve been told?

HM: This is my opinion. No Al-Qaeda leader has ever admitted that they are working with Iran. I also think that, maybe, the Iranians will organize some attacks inside America and you will accuse Al-Qaeda.

RM: Do you know when Al-Qaeda’s nuclear weapons were forward deployed?

HM: I think they transferred their materials inside America between 1999 and 2001, before September the 11th.

RM: Why hasn’t Al-Qaeda used nuclear weapons if they possess them?

HM: They are waiting for the proper time. They want the U.S. to be involved in a mass killing of Muslims, so that they will have some justification. That is what I was told by a top Al-Qaeda leader in the Kunar Mountains of Afghanistan.

RM: Where did Al-Qaeda get the training to handle and detonate nuclear weapons? Some experts believe that Soviet-era nukes have sufficient security measures to stop their unauthorized use.

HM: They trained dozens of boys who can make dirty bombs by purchasing material from some medical stores and then they will detonate these materials with some uranium and X-Ray machines. They are not just dependant on Soviet nukes.

RM: How would Al-Qaeda be able to defeat American capabilities to detect the nuclear weapons? Are they disguised?

HM: I think that these materials are disguised. The U.S. needs some political strategy to address this issue. It is not only the U.S., but many European countries that are the targets of Al-Qaeda’s nuclear attacks. The world is not safe. An attack in California or London will not affect only the West, but it will affect the whole Muslim world.

There needs to be a well-coordinated effort to make the world safe. I am very much concerned because I have a lot of friends in America. I like common Americans. They are a good and frank people. Why should they pay the price of their government’s bad policies? We have to move to stop both Al-Qaeda and Bush.

RM: The Muslim world was in an uproar after the US invaded Iraq. Why wasn’t that viewed as appropriate justification?

HM: Saddam Hussein was not popular in the Muslim world. Osama hated him. Iran hated him. He was once considered an American agent. The majority of Muslims were initially happy that Saddam was dislodged, but then anger spread against the U.S. after the Abu Ghraib jail scandal. Now Muslims think that America invaded Iraq for oil, not for WMDs. Where are the WMDs? America must answer this question NOW.

RM: Does Al-Qaeda possess advanced chemical and biological weapons?

HM: They can make anthrax but they don’t have advanced biological weapons. Their plus point is their suicide bombers. They have planned nuclear and biological attacks using suicide bombers.

Nuclear Attack on AMERICA

September 13, 2006

Osama bin Laden



Dubai, 12 Sept. (AKI) – Osama bin Laden is planning to carry out new, more destructive attacks inside the United States, and there is someone working on this terror plot currently in the US, according to Hamid Mir, the famed Pakistani journalist who obtained the only post-9/11 interviews with Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. In an interview quoted on the website of the al-Arabiya television network, Mir spoke about his last trip to Afghanistan and his meeting with al-Qaeda members and Taliban leaders.

In his interview with, Mir said that the al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters referred to attacks targeting the US-led coalition forces during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan which begins on 24 September, and that the al-Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden was in “good” health during a meeting he had recently with the Taliban leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar.

Mir also said that bin Laden has assigned a man named Adnan Al-Shukri Juma to carry out a new attack within the US which is intended to be larger than the 11 September, 2001 attacks. According to Mir, Adnan Jumaa has smuggled explosives and nuclear materials into the US through the Mexican border over the last two years and is hiding somewhere in America where the FBI has not been able to locate him.

The Pakistani journalist also gave a brief background on Adnan Jumaa. Born in Saudi Arabia, he moved to the US where he met a group of a Al-Qaeda members in the Al-Farouq mosque in New York in 2000. He then traveled to an Arab state and from there to Pakistan then Afghanistan. He left there two years ago and since then has smuggled nuclear material from Mexico to the US. Jumaa has earned the nickname “Al-Qaeda nuclear whizz” and is tagged to play the same role in a future attack as Mohammed Atta did in the 9/11 attacks.

In March 2003 the FBI announced that it was seeking a link between Adnan and others accused of terroris, saying Adnan Jumaa “or maybe one of his several nicknames” had appeared in intelligence information gathered after the arrest of Khalid Sheik Mohammad.

Western media had reported in earlier times that Adnan Jumaa was a Saudi pilot, but the Saudi Ministry of Interior security spokesman lieutanent Mansour Al-Turki said in a statement to Al-Watan newspaper two months ago that Adnan Jumaa is not a Saudi citizen, he was living in the kingdom until he was eleven years old and left along with his parents, who are not Saudis, twenty years ago.

Adnan Al-Shukri’s name has been mentioned in many Western media reports claiming that Al-Qaeda has acquired nuclear technology. The American writer, Paul Williams, in his book ” The Al-Qaeda Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime, and the Coming Apocalypse”, says he was among a number of Al-Qaeda members trained for the nuclear technology.

On another issue, Hamid Mir spoke to of his last trip to Afghanistan and his meeting with a leader of Taliban named “Khaibar” in Zabul who claimed that 300 Taliban suicide bombers had managed to sneak into Kabul and Jalalabad to carry out attacks against coalition troops during Ramadan.

Mir alleges that there was a meeting between Bin Laden and Mullah Omar several few weeks ago in the mountain area of Zabul where they planned more attacks, “I received this piece of information from one of the Taliban leaders who attended the meeting himself and I met him recently in Afghanistan” Mir said. “He told me that this was the second meeting between the two men since last year and that Bin Laden’s health seemed good while he was eating with Mullah Mohammad Omar.

The Pakistani journalist expressed his surprise of the changing situation in Afghanistan; saying that the Taliban had come back to rule some areas and spread their special courts, their special administrations, nothing that even some police officials follow their orders.

September 11, 2006

Soviet Nazi mass murderers Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky Unburied dead in a Ukrainian cemetery The New York Times whitewashed Stalin’s ruthless murder and deliberate starvation of tens of millions of Soviet citizens – Referring to the deliberate starvation of 5 million middle-class Ukrainians whose continued existence Stalin saw as a threat to his dictatorship, the New York Times editorial staff and Walter Duranty remarked as follows: “There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be.” (New York Times, November 15, 1931, page 1) “Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.” (New York Times, August 23, 1933) “Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please.” (New York Times, December 9, 1932) “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” (New York Times, May 14, 1933) “What are a few million dead Russians in a situation like this? Quite unimportant. This is just an incident in the sweeping historical changes here. I think the entire matter is exaggerated.” (New York Times reporter Walter Duranty, in a private conversation with fellow journalists in Moscow, as recorded in An American Engineer in Stalin’s Russia: The Memoirs of Zara Witkin, 1932-1934, University of California Press)

The New York Times won a Pulitzer prize for publishing articles assuring its readers that the maniacal dictator of Nazi Germany was a stabilizing influence – His threats to exterminate European Jewry, the Times said, were intended only for the “internal consumption” of the German people, and should not be taken seriouslyIn January 1933, when Adolf Hitler seized power in Germany, the New York Nazi Times viewed this as a very positive development. The Nazi Times insisted that Hitler was not a dictator like Benito Mussolini in fascist Italy.

“We must not rush to judgment about Herr Hitler,” the New York Times opined in the 1930s of the worst monster in human history

“We must not rush to judgment about Herr Hitler” – The shrunken head of a Buchenwald inmate, preserved as a grisly memento by a Nazi officer of the death camp

In news “reports” whose lies equaled those of Soviet propaganda organs like Pravda, the New York Times claimed that “Papa Joe” Stalin was a beneficial influence on Russian society

An infamous image from the lying pages of the New York Times In September 2000, the Times ran a photograph purportedly of an Arab beaten by an Israeli policeman on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount. In fact, the bloodied victim was a Jewish student from Chicago who had rushed to the policeman for protection after being beaten and stabbed by an Arab mob. Sharp-eyed observers pointed out that there are no gas stations on the Temple Mount, but the Times stubbornly refused to publish any retractions until a public outcry forced it to do so.

Ann Coulter was blasted as “cruel” for courageously attacking a small group of 911 widows whom the media turned into “sacred cows” for its left-wing agenda – But the media showed no such hatred for Ted Rall, who only six months after September 11th drew a cartoon, published in the New York Times, attacking all of the 911 widows as money-hungry “terror widows” who were the “scourge of the media.” (Rall (inset) laughingly defended his sick work in television interviews. In one cartoon panel, a widow says that when her husband called her from the burning World Trade Center, she knew that he would die because “he was on fire.” Another widow remarks that her millions from the Red Cross “keeps me warm at night.”)

Anti Semitism Growing

September 8, 2006
Anti-Semitic Hate Wave Rolls Across Britain and Australia
13:48 Sep 06, ’06 / 13 Elul 5766
by Hillel Fendel
  The month of July was one of the worst, in terms of anti-Semitism, in both England and Australia. In Canada, as well, Jewish leaders are concerned. in Australia reports that anti-Semitism is on the rise across university campuses in the country. Grahame Leonard, the president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, says July had the most anti-Semitic incidents – no fewer than 141 – since records began in 1945. Never before had there been more than some 90. The July attacks included phone calls, hate e-mails and graffiti, as well as violent incidents – with the big jump being on campuses in Victoria.

Recent incidents include:
* An enraged Monash University lecturer gushed expletives upon an Australasian Union of Jewish Students representative for his pro-Israel stance.
* A Young Liberal member in Monash staffing an Israel stall was grabbed by the throat and threatened, and the table was kicked over.
* Jewish students were pushed to the ground and spat upon in Sydney.
* Israel’s Ambassador to Australia recently visited Melbourne University, but Socialist Alternative members disrupted the meeting and were asked to leave by, of all people, the Lebanese Students’ society.
* Also at Melbourne University, security staff intervened to keep apart left-wing students and another group of students waving Israeli flags.

“There’s a real feeling of threat,” Deon Kamien, Victorian president of the Union of Jewish Students, was quoted as saying. “It’s not something I can put in words. A lot of students who would feel very comfortable wearing a kippah or T-shirt with Hebrew words on it now feel they are being targeted as Jews – not supporters of Israel, but Jews.”

In Britain, as well, The Times of London reports that attacks on Jews have soared, and that even the national government has taken notice. On Thursday, an all-party parliamentary inquiry will state that anti-Semitic violence has become endemic in Britain, both on the streets and university campuses. The report will call for urgent action from the Government, the police and educational establishments.

The Times attributes the hate wave to the war in Lebanon. “Synagogues have been daubed with graffiti,” the paper writes, “Jewish leaders have had hate-mail, and ordinary people have been subjected to insults and vandalism.”

Mark Gardner, of the Community Security Trust, said, “In July, when the conflict in Lebanon began, we received reports of 92 incidents, which was the third-worst month since records began in 1984.” In 2000, the monthly average was between 10 and 30 incidents. He said the incidents in July were “more dispersed than usual” and “were very widespread across the country.”

There have been several attacks in various Jewish neighborhoods in London of late. In one incident last month, a Jewish restaurant in Golders Green was targeted by two young men who threw chairs, punched workers and threatened to kill the owner, Ruth Cohen, with a knife. In Hampstead Garden Suburb, swastikas and the words “Allah” and “Kill all Jews” were daubed on the house and car of a local Jewish doctor.

More recently, a 12-year-old Jewish girl was stomped upon and brutally kicked on a public bus in London. Accosted and asked if she was Jewish, she replied, “I’m English.” Unimpressed, four girls, accompanied by three boys, then pushed her to the floor, stomped on her face and repeatedly kicked her.

In Canada, as well, fear of increased anti-Semitism are on the rise. The Toldos Yakov Yosef-Skver Orthodox Boys School in Montreal was targeted with a Molotov cocktail this past Sabbath morning, causing 150,000 Canadian dollars’ worth of damage. Local Jewish leaders said they are concerned that further violence will be directed at the community, in light of the recent war in Lebanon.

Rabbi Reuben Poupko, a member of the city’s Jewish community security council, told The Hamilton Spectator,
“It’s a fair question to wonder whether or not the [recent] gathering of 15,000 Quebecers under the flag of Hizbullah -unfortunately further legitimized by the presence of politicians – whether that creates an atmosphere where fanatics draw the conclusion that violence against Jews is somehow acceptable.”

On September 1, a Hassidic man was removed from an Air Canada Jazz flight from Montreal to New York when he began to pray. CBC Montreal reported that the plane was heading toward the runway for takeoff when he began to pray. Swaying back and forth, he attracted the attention of at least one flight attendant, who told him that his praying was making other passengers nervous. A witness later said, “The attendant actually recognized out loud that he wasn’t a Muslim and that she was sorry for the situation, but they had to ask him to leave.” Air Canada Jazz later said it received more than one complaint about the man’s behavior, and that “the crew had to act in the interest of the majority of passengers.”

Jewish leaders in Montreal criticized the move as insensitive, saying the flight attendants should have explained to the other passengers that the man was simply praying and doing no harm. B’nai Brith Canada offered to help give Air Canada crews sensitivity training, CBC reported.


September 8, 2006
South Asia

Sep 8, 2006

‘Taliban taking over’
By Sanjay Suri

LONDON – The Taliban have regained control over the southern half of Afghanistan and their front line is advancing daily, a group closely monitoring the Afghan situation said in a report this week.

The report on the reconstruction of Afghanistan marking the fifth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US is based on extensive field research in the critical provinces of Helmand, Kandahar, Herat and Nangarhar.

“The Taliban front line now cuts halfway through the country, encompassing all of the southern provinces,” says a report by the

Senlis Council, an international policy think-tank with offices in Kabul, London, Paris and Brussels.

The report from Senlis, which has reported extensively on Afghanistan over recent years, says: “A humanitarian crisis of starvation and poverty has gripped the south of the country.” The report blames “the US-and-UK-led failed counter-narcotics and military policies” for this situation.

“The subsequent rising levels of extreme poverty have created increasing support for the Taliban, who have responded to the needs of the local population,” the report says.

“We are seeing a humanitarian disaster,” said Emmanuel Reinert, executive director of the Senlis Council. “There are around Kandahar now camps with people starving, kids dying almost every day, and this is obviously used by the Taliban to regain the confidence of the people, and to regain control of the country.”

The poppy-eradication program has been a disaster, he said. “It is a direct attack on the livelihood of the farmers, so there is a clear connection between the eradication and this humanitarian crisis. All this is being used by the Taliban to say … ‘When we were there we were maybe hard and cruel, but you could feed the family; now look what’s going on.’ They are more and more providing support [and] social services to the local population.”

The US-led nation-building efforts have failed because of “ineffective and inflammatory military and counter-narcotics policies”, the report says. “At the same time, there has been a dramatic underfunding of aid and development programs.”

The disastrous policies could have created the very circumstances for a growth of terrorism that the United States set out to fight, the report says.

“The US policies in Afghanistan have re-created the safe haven for terrorism that the 2001 invasion aimed to destroy,” Reinert said. “The reason that the international force [has been in] in Afghanistan for the last five years is to make sure that Afghanistan will never again be a safe haven for international terrorists.”

But the rise of the Taliban is still short of a rise in terrorism, he said.

“Right now we cannot say we see a lot of foreign elements; we see the Taliban in Afghanistan,” he said. “We see basically the neo-Talibans as they are called – they are Afghans, they are people from the communities, they are from the Pashtun tribes who have been fighting in the south for so many years. In a way it is a civil war which is being waged over there.”

Hunger is leading to anger, the report says, adding that lack of funding from the international community means the Afghan government and the United Nations World Food Program are unable to address Afghanistan’s hunger crisis. “Despite appeals for aid funds, the US-led international community has continued to direct the majority of aid funds towards military and security operations.”

Reinert said: “Five years after [September 11, 2001], Afghanistan is still one of the poorest countries in the world, and there is a hunger crisis in the fragile southern part of the country. Remarkably, this vital fact seems to have been overlooked in the funding and prioritization of the foreign policy, military, counter-narcotics and reconstruction plans.”

Consequently the international community has lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the Afghan people, the report says..

The report warns of difficult conditions in makeshift, unregistered refugee camps of starving children and civilians displaced by narcotics-eradication and bombing campaigns.

These camps also accommodate families who have left their homes because of violence and fighting, the report says. Some are there because their homes have been destroyed by coalition forces’ interventions in the “war on terror” and the current heightened counter-insurgency operations, it says.

“Right from 2001, the US-led international community’s priorities for Afghanistan were not in line with those of the Afghan population,” said Reinert. “It is a classic military error: they did not properly identify the enemy.”

The report says military expenditure outpaces development and reconstruction spending by 900% – US$82.5 billion has been spent on military operations in Afghanistan since 2002 compared with just $7.3 billion on development.

The large numbers of civilian casualties and deaths have also fueled resentment and mistrust of the international military presence, the report says. There were 104 civilian casualties in Afghanistan in the month of July alone.

Faced with the return of the Taliban, the US and the international community must immediately reassess the entire approach in Afghanistan, the report says.

“Emergency poverty relief must now be the top priority,” said Reinert. “Only then can we talk of nation-building and reconstruction.”

The rise of the Taliban is rapid, he said. “You cannot make peace with the real command of the Taliban. We have to attack the root cause of the growing power of the Taliban, which is poverty [and] the counter-narcotics policy. We have to cut the Taliban from their base so that they will become what they were five years ago, a very small group of isolated terrorists. That’s not the case anymore. Now they are a large part of the population because of the failure of the development policy.”

Reinert said: “In a year we will have a situation where the legitimacy of the Kabul government will be weakened to a point where [it] will not be able to [keep] the country together.”