- British Prime Minister Tony Blair made a 4-hour stopover
in Islamabad on Friday evening for talks with President Pervez Musharraf
on the situation arising out of the September 11 attacks on the United
States and the role that Pakistan has pledged to play in the American and
UK government's planned joint action against Osama Bin Laden and the
Taliban
regime.
-
- Blair's visit came only a day after his government
released
a 70-point "evidence document" on Thursday purportedly
"proving"
Osama Bin Laden's responsibility for the September 11 attacks. But only
nine of the 70 points in the document relate to the attacks on the World
Trade Centre and the Pentagon, and even these rely more on loose
conjectures
and even looser assertions than on hard evidence.
-
- For one thing, the document itself begins with a
disclaimer:
"This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against
Osama Bin Laden in a court of law. Intelligence often cannot be used
evidentially,
due both to the strict rules of admissibility and the need to protect the
safety of sources. But on the basis of all the information available Her
Majesty's Government is confident of its conclusions as expressed in this
document."
-
- For another, if the "evidence" contained in
the document is not sufficient to "provide a prosecutable case against
Osama Bin Laden in a court of law," as the British government itself
admits, how is it sufficient evidence to justify going to war against him
and the Taliban regime?
-
- Be that as it may, the conjectures and assertions
contained
in the document are unlikely to rally the Arab world to the West's
"war
against terrorism." In Riyadh, visiting US Defence Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld admitted on Thursday that the Saudi government is worried about
the "secondary effects" of a "war on terror."
Anti-American
feeling is reported to be running high in throughout the Arab Middle East,
including in the Gulf states and Egypt - Rumsfeld's next
destination.
-
- In its introduction, the British document says: "The
clear conclusions reached by the government are: Osama Bin Laden and Al
Qaeda, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the
atrocities on September 11, 2001; Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda retain the
will and resources to carry out further atrocities; the United Kingdom,
and United Kingdom nationals are potential targets; and Osama Bin Laden
and Al Qaeda were able to commit these atrocities because of their close
alliance with the Taliban regime, which allowed them to operate with
impunity
in pursuing their terrorist activity."
-
- All these "clear conclusions" are, in fact,
no more than assertions for which the document furnishes no evidence. If
the British government has any hard evidence to substantiate these
assertions,
it should make it public. Until it does, the jury on its case will have
to remain out. Anybody can say that this or that group "retain the
will and resources" to carry out atrocities; proving it is something
else. Similarly, anybody can say that this or that country and its
nationals
are "potential targets" for terrorist attacks. But if the Blair
government contends that the UK and UK nationals are potential targets,
it should come out with the facts on which this contention is based.
-
- In the absence of any hard evidence, the Blair
government's
contention that "Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were able to commit
these atrocities because of their close alliance with the Taliban
regime,"
is also only an assertion that, again, could be made by anybody about any
individual or group in any country. Assertions are not facts, no matter
how often they are repeated. The only known fact in this regard is that
Osama Bin Laden has been living in Afghanistan since 1996, when he had
to leave Sudan due to US pressure on the Sudanese government. But does
Bin Laden's mere presence in Afghanistan make him the mastermind behind
the September 11 attacks?
-
- Point 2 of the British document says: "The material
in respect of 1998 and the USS Cole comes from indictments and intelligence
sources. The material in respect of 11 September comes from intelligence
and the criminal investigation to date. The details of some aspects cannot
be given, but the facts are clear from the intelligence."
-
- It is amazing that the document places so much reliance
on intelligence sources. If these intelligence sources are so
knowledgeable,
how is it that no American or British intelligence agency had the slightest
inkling that the September 11 attacks were in the offing, or that anything
like them was even planned? In fact, as a US congressman said in a CNN
interview on the evening of September 11, the attacks represented a
"massive
failure on the part of the American intelligence agencies." The
congressman
went on to say that the US government had "failed the American people
today."
-
- The British document tries to get around this awkward
fact by saying: "The document does not contain the totality of the
material known to Her Majesty's Government, given the continuing and
absolute
need to protect intelligence sources." Again, just how good are these
intelligence sources, and just how reliable is their information? The
answer
to this question has to be that these sources are neither very good nor
very reliable, given the fact that they had no clue that the attacks were
coming. Yet we are expected to believe that these same intelligence sources
have now suddenly become a fount of reliable information and
evidence.
-
- The document says: "The relevant facts show: Al
Qaeda is a terrorist organisation with ties to a global network, which
has been in existence for over 10 years. It was founded, and has been led
at all times, by Osama Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida have been
engages in a jihad against the United States, and its allies. One of their
stated aims is the murder of US citizens, and attacks on America's
allies."
-
- In this context, it's all very well to say that "the
relevant facts show," but just what are the "relevant" facts
the document does not say. Second, all this talk about "a global
network"
(talk that is also being heard endlessly in the Western media since the
September 11 attacks) will remain no more than talk until it is backed
up by hard evidence. So far, that evidence has not being forthcoming,
neither
from the Americans nor the British nor anybody else.
-
- The document says: "Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda and
the Taliban regime have a close and mutually dependent alliance. Osama
Bin Laden and Al Qaeda provide the Taleban regime with material, financial
and military support. They jointly exploit the drugs trade. The Taleban
regime allows Bin Laden to operate his terrorist training camps and
activities
from Afghanistan, protects him from attacks from outside, and protects
the drugs stockpiles. Osama Bin Laden could not operate his terrorist
activities
without the alliance and support of the Taleban regime. The Taleban's
strength
would be seriously weakened without Osama Bin Laden's military and
financial
support."
-
- The point to be noted here is that there was no Osama
Bin Laden in Afghanistan when the Taleban emerged in Kandahar in 1994 and
proceeded to take over most of the country over the next two years,
capturing
Kabul in 1996 and ousting the coalition government of Burhanuddin Rabbani,
Ahmed Shah Massoud and company. If the Taleban didn't need Bin Laden's
military or financial support in those days, why has this support become
so crucial now, when the Taleban control 95 per cent of Afghanistan and
the opposition Northern Alliance only 5 per cent?
-
- In this context, it is significant that Ahmed Shah
Massoud,
the commander of the Northern Alliance forces, was quoted as saying in
his last published interview (three days before he was fatally wounded
in a bomb attack) that he knew only too well that the Northern Alliance
could not capture back any more territory from the Taleban or ever defeat
them and get back into power in Kabul. That was the considered view of
the Northern Alliance's most celebrated military commander. Yet the British
government's document contends that "the Taleban's strength would
be seriously weakened without Osama Bin Laden's military and financial
support."
-
- The document says: "After 11 September we learned
that, not long before, Bin Laden had indicated he was about to launch a
major attack on America. The detailed planning for the terrorist attacks
of 11 September was carried out by one of Osama Bin Laden's close
associates.
Of the 19 hijackers involved in 11 September 2001, it has already been
established that at least three had links with Al Qaeda. The attacks on
11 September were similar in both their ambition to previous attacks
undertaken
by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and also had features in
common..."
-
- The question, here, is, how was it that the British and
the Americans learned only after September 11 that Osmaa Bin Laden had
indicated, "not long before," that "he was about to launch
a major attack on America"? If the British and the Americans have
such good sources of information, why didn't these same sources tell them
about what Bin Laden's "close associate" was "planning"
before the attacks occurred?
-
- http://jang.com.pk/thenews/oct2001-daily/06-10-2001/world/w6.htm
-
-
- MainPage
http://www.rense.com
-
-
-
- This
Site Served by TheHostPros
|