--- Begin Message ---
x ** TOP_VIEW ** x
The Bigger Picture
2.08.02
Pro-bush NewsMax: BinLaden NOT 911 Mastermind (FYI, GW!!)
The fact that this article -- which irrefutably delineates exactly HOW
and WHY OBL and his Al Qaeda SCREW-UPS could NOT POSSIBLE have been the
MASTERMIND(S) of the September 11 WTC attack -- was published by the
SHAMELESSLY pro-bush cheerleaders at NewsMax.com, would seem to be
worthy of some comment... from SOMEONE... such as the upper echelon
"bosses" of the "ShrubMob". Of course, nary a peep has issued from those
arch-traitor slimesucking satanist swine(s).
However, WE definitely think it's worth a comment -- from King Shrub
himself, in fact.
Yo dub, you just MIGHT want to give thissy here item a quick gander,
pal! (Better put down the pretzels for a sec, eh?)
= = = = = = = =
http://www.rense.com/general19/whoiz.htm
Osama bin Laden Had Nothing To Do With 911 Attacks
Who Is Osama bin Laden? And Does He Have Anything To Do With The Sept.
11 Attack?
By Lev Navrozov
NewsMax.com
One example may be sufficient to show how difficult and important the
struggle against terrorism is: Even if the FBI finds the anthrax-by-mail
terrorist(s) tomorrow, the fact will remain that the bioterrorit(s) in
question was/were at large for about four months.
Hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans could be killed in four
months by really up-to-date large-scale bioterrorists stealing a
five-pound bag of that same antiquated anthrax, to say nothing of later
and far more potent and effective "biopreparations."
A far easier way was to personify the terrorism as Osama bin Laden, with
his al-Qaeda, and rush in hot pursuit of the villain who "planned and
carried out" (as Prime Minister Tony Blair put it) the terrorist attack
on the United States of Sept. 11, 2001.
But who is bin Laden? Why did the CIA choose this feeble-minded
nonentity in the 1980s to create the Services Office for the recruitment
of guerrilla soldiers in 50 countries for the war against the secular
pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan?
He had inherited $300 million, and hence the CIA was able to funnel $5
billion through him, which he could pass off as his own money and thus
leave the CIA behind the scenes. Officially, the United States did not
participate in the war.
In 1978, the per capita income in Afghanistan was $168 a year. In other
words, $1,000 a year was a fortune. For $300 million, "bin Laden" (that
is, the CIA) could recruit 30,000 guerrilla soldiers to serve for 10
years for $1,000 a year per recruit.
A guerrilla soldier learned in a training camp how to ambush Soviet and
pro-Soviet soldiers, fire a Kalashnikov at them, and flee to his "base"
in the mountains or caves. Most of the 30,000 guerrilla soldiers
survived the war and were far better off materially in Islamic countries
like Afghanistan than the average-income person, to say nothing of those
who were starving.
The CIA no longer needed guerrilla soldiers, so bin Laden inherited them.
In print and on Barry Farber's radio talk show in the late 1980s, I
explained that Soviet Russia securely held Afghanistan. Not because of
"tactical nuclear weapons," discussed by the U.S. government following
Sept. 11, 2001, but by creating a single infrastructure so that finally
the guerrillas would starve and die out in their mountains and caves, a
strategy by which Russia had conquered the Islamic Caucasus in the 19th century.
Why, then, did Gorbachev withdraw from Afghanistan? For the same reason
he withdrew from East Germany and many other territories, for which he
was made a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.
Until 1992, the Western public did not know that Gorbachev was
developing Superweapon No. 3. He withdrew from Afghanistan and East
Germany because he believed in world domination via Superweapon No. 3,
not via old-fashioned territorial expansion.
But Gorbachev's geostrategic withdrawal from Afghanistan was perceived
by the West (and the Islamic world) as a Soviet rout. This imaginary
Soviet debacle transformed the nonentity bin Laden, the CIA's financial
screen, into a megalomaniac - a new Muhammad who had rallied Moslems in
50 countries and defeated Soviet Russia with the help of his (the CIA's)
Services Office.
Now, if he had defeated Soviet Russia, he could certainly defeat the
United States, too. He had hated the secular pro-Soviet government in
Afghanistan because it had introduced universal school education that
included girls. He hated the United States even more: The American
permissiveness with respect to females was even worse than the Soviet
indulgence, and American troops were on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia!
So, in the late 1980s, he renamed the Services Office, created by the
CIA in 50 countries, as The Base (al-Qaeda) to fight "the Jews and the
Crusaders" (that is, Christians). But the feeble-minded megalomaniac did
not take into account the cardinal difference between a guerrilla
soldier and a terrorist.
Millions, or dozens of millions, of Moslems would find it quite
attractive to be guerrilla soldiers in a war for $1,000 a year and live
happily after the war. But all terrorism is mortally dangerous, for a
terrorist in New York or Washington cannot flee into the mountains or
caves of Afghanistan. He is in the position of the most dangerous and
most wanted criminal in a foreign country.
Besides, the most effective terrorism is suicidal, and there is a
psychological chasm between a guerrilla soldier surviving a guerrilla
war and a "martyr" who sacrifices his life. Bin Laden could, in October
and November of 2001, have attacked his enemies in Afghanistan and died
in a terrorist act. But so far he has been good at fleeing and hiding,
not at sacrificing his life.
Was there a single terrorist in al-Qaeda? The U.S. war on the Taliban's
Afghanistan began on Oct. 7, 2001. Any real terrorist organization would
have retaliated within days, if not hours. Indeed, bin Laden brandished
his alleged nuclear and biological weapons verbally, and the U.S.
government warned that retaliation was drawing nigh.
But these were bin Laden's megalomaniacal theatricals. Where was his
al-Qaeda in 50 or 68 countries when the war in Afghanistan was on? As
for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, its members seemed to be bad even as
guerrilla fighters recruited by the CIA in the 1980s, but they behaved
just as bureaucrats do when their office is attacked: running away or
even surrendering. There was not a single case of terrorism or of any
bold counterattack.
Considering the poverty in the Islamic world, the CIA and, later, bin
Laden could have hired millions or dozens of millions of Moslems, but
what were they good for besides wearing 10-cent badges saying "Beware! I
am bin Laden's suicidal terrorist" and then fleeing, with bin Laden
fleeing faster than any of them.
Bin Laden actually redefined the definition of who is a terrorist: "A
terrorist, and especially a suicidal terrorist, is a man who runs away
for his dear life from his enemies faster than anyone else."
Arabs often look like Jews, since both are Semitic. Much as bin Laden
hates Jews and imagines himself to be an Arab holy war daredevil, who
defeated Soviet Russia and will defeat the West, he looks like a 19th
century Russian Jew, terrified by pogroms. His premature senility and
grave ailments do not add to his heroic holy war self-image either.
Before 1999, even those terrorist acts that were ascribed (falsely?) to
bin Laden and his al-Qaeda had been so few and insignificant that the
U.S. State Department had not included al-Qaeda on its list of 30 (as of
1997) Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs).
Before me is the State Department's 16-page document of Oct. 31, 2001,
entitled "Significant Terrorist Incidents, 1961-2001: Chronology." <1(1)
In 1999, the first year the State Department included al-Qaeda on its
list of FTOs, there were 12 "significant terrorist incidents," but not
one of them was claimed by, or ascribed to, al-Qaeda.
In 2000, there were nine such "incidents," and in only one of them, in
Yemen, "supporters [?] of Usama bin Laden were suspected [!]." It is not
clear why two terrorists could not carry out this terrorist act on their
own without the support of al-Qaeda. A "small dinghy carrying explosives
rammed the destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 sailors." This is a humdrum
terrorist act of the 19th century.
The money to buy the explosives? An American taxi driver "without a
medallion" nets $100 a day. Characteristic is the word "supporters"
above. The United States has made bin Laden an evil world celebrity for
the West and hence a heroic world celebrity for terrorists. Quite
recently, a born-and-bred 15-year-old WASP American, Charles Bishop,
rammed a stolen plane into the Bank of America building in Tampa and
expressed in his suicide note his support for bin Laden. What does this
mean? Nothing, except that bin Laden is now a household name, due to the
U.S. media.
Had we not known the story from the police in detail, the U.S. media
would have been likely to use that magic word "link" and say that Bishop
was "linked" to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, from which the public would
conclude that Bishop was an al-Qaeda "operative" and that al-Qaeda had
actually "planned and carried out" Bishop's terrorist act, while Bishop
was just a cog in its wheel.
In its report of Jan. 17, 2002, from Washington on the Philippine
Islamic Abu Sayyaf, which has "up to 2,000 members," the World reporter
notes that "some of them" (how many? Two percent, one percent, 0.1
percent?) "trained in Afghanistan." <2(2)
This is quite possible. Way back in the 1980s, the CIA set up camps to
train 30,000 recruits in the use of automatic weapons for the guerrilla
war. Possibly, two percent, one percent, 0.1 percent of the 2,000
terrorists of Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines are former guerrilla
fighters in Afghanistan. This is enough for the report to conclude that
Abu Sayyaf is "linked to al-Qaeda" and conjure up once again the
obsessively reiterated image of al-Qaeda "planning and carrying out"
terrorist acts in the Philippines as well.
In this way, it is easy to further aggravate the American obsession with
bin Laden by assuring the public that his al-Qaeda has been "planning
and carrying out" all terrorist acts in the world, from the Sept. 11,
2001, attack to Bishop's ramming of the Bank of America, since someone
or something in each terrorist act is "linked" to bin Laden, a world celebrity.
To finish the State Department's list of "significant terrorist
incidents": In 2001, before Sept. 11, there were six "incidents," and
none has ever been "linked" by anyone in any way with al-Qaeda.
A bomb in a Jerusalem restaurant killed 15 Jews and wounded 90, but as
usual it was claimed by Hamas, as was a bomb in a Tel Aviv nightclub
that "caused over 140 casualties." Bin Laden had put Jews before
Christians as enemies in his verbal holy war theatricals, but not a
single terrorist act in Israel has ever been ascribed to al-Qaeda.
A huge, inept bureaucracy, al-Qaeda is not only useless for terrorism
but also harmful and dangerous for it. For example, its bureaucrats
scribbled a list of those who were assigned to bomb U.S. military ships
in Singapore. The plan was megalomaniacal, a megalomaniac's dream.
As the al-Qaeda bureaucrats were fleeing and surrendering in
Afghanistan, they dropped the records and videotapes, because he who
flees the lightest, flees the fastest.
The U.S. military picked up the records and videotapes, and on Jan. 11,
2002, those listed by the al-Qaeda pen-pushers were duly arrested in
Singapore and can now be sentenced to death on the strength of al-Qaeda
bureaucrats' scribblings. <3(3)
That is, the irresponsible al-Qaeda bureaucracy has been acting not out
of malice, but out of sheer bureaucratic indifference as a collective
agent provocateur, describing megalomaniacal terrorist acts, complete
with the names, and then losing the records.
Useless and destructive for terrorism, the al-Qaeda bureaucracy has
nonetheless been serving bin Laden as his giant PR exhibit, with the
United States as his PR agency, sensationalizing the PR exhibit as the
last word in global terrorism the global terrorist mastermind, "planning
and carrying out" terrorist acts all over the world, and in particular,
in the United States.
The American publicity, representing the feeble-minded megalomaniac as
the most dangerous villain in recorded history, has been reflected
upside down in the anti-American Islamic media, which represents bin
Laden as the new Muhammad who has conquered the United States
spiritually. The Americans have been able to think of nothing and no one
except him as their most dangerous foe they have been determined to kill
or capture at the price of a war in Afghanistan and no matter what.
But sadly lacking in his global Islamic glory (created by the United
States) were great deeds military victories in that holy war bin Laden
had been talking about for more than a decade. And here came, on Sept.
11, 2001, an event that the United States represented as equivalent to
the Second World War on American territory.
Never mind that the act took place and caused more casualties than in
1993 because of the American unpreparedness for any hostile military
activity on American soil. Surely no one nationally visible and audible
in the United States said that! Instead, Christiane Amanpour of CNN, for
example, spoke of the event as unprecedented "in recorded history"! What
a grandiose Islamic military victory worthy of Muhammad's military victories!
Yet the new Muhammad did not claim credit for this grandiose Islamic
victory. Nay, in his interview of Sept. 12, he expressly denied any
involvement in it. Of course, he hailed it. He also said that "the
majority of the dead were innocent people," but so also were those
killed, for example, by Western aviation. He then spoke of "hundreds of
Osamas," to suggest modestly (modesty is the best ornament of a great
leader) that the United States was obsessed with him and refused to
think of hundreds of other Osamas.
No nationally visible and audible American was surprised: A criminal
always lies to conceal his or her crime. No nationally visible American
seemed to understand that for most Moslems the event, magnified by the
United States to infinity, was not the most heinous crime in recorded
history, but the greatest (glorious and divine) military victory for the
new Muhammad to be proud of. Certainly he had no fear of the United
States at that time.
Because of his megalomania (created by the United States) he could not
imagine the forthcoming debacle of the Taliban and the flight (or
surrender) of his al-Qaeda in November and December. In September, the
megalomaniac refused to leave Afghanistan, and the Taliban refused to
extradite him and thus avoid the war.
Yes, in September, the megalomaniac still challenged the West, the U.S.
armed forces, as well as the 42 tribes hostile to the Taliban of the
Pushtun tribe. Certainly it was not fear of the United States at that
time that prompted bin Laden to expressly declare publicly that he had
nothing to do with what was to most Moslems the greatest (glorious and
divine) victory of Sept. 11, 2002, in that holy war that he had declared
on the United States. What prompted him to make such a public statement?
There had been a lesson for him in the past. When President Clinton
automatically accused him of a 1995 assassination attempt in Addis Ababa
against Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, he did not deny the
charge. Actually, this terrorist act had been planned for more than a
year and carried out by Gama al-Islamija of Egypt, as its members
explained to Western correspondents.
So bin Laden looked like a braggart, stealing the bona fide holy
warriors' deed. If he had "planned and carried out" the terrorist attack
of Sept. 11, 2001, the greatest victorious battle in the holy war, then,
as soon as the fourth airliner crashed, he, and most of more than 1
billion Moslems as well as the anti-American Islamic media would have
screamed that the new Muhammad had at last achieved a grandiose military
victory worthy of Muhammad's victories in the 7th century.
But he had not (as we will see below) had anything to do with that
greatest victory in the holy war, and he did not want to repeat his
experience of 1995 and to hear those who had done it and his numberless
Islamic enemies branding him as a liar, a fraud and a scoundrel,
deserving to be assassinated by the bona fide terrorists in accordance
with the code of honor in the holy war.
Hence, he expressly stated publicly that he had not been involved in any
way in that greatest victory in the holy war.
To justify the attack on the Taliban's Afghanistan on Oct. 7, 2001,
Prime Minster Tony Blair of England had addressed, on Oct. 4, the House
of Commons (as was shown by the American commercial mainstream
television) with a 16-page "intelligence report," according to which bin
Laden, at the head of al-Qaeda, harbored by the Taliban, had "planned
and carried out" the epoch-making terrorist attack.
If Blair had presented any evidence showing that bin Laden financed the
attack, that might have been an impudent lie, based on fabrications, but
at least it would have been a plausible lie. But he said nothing about
any financing, while his assertion that bin Laden "planned and carried
out" from Afghanistan the attack in the United States was an implausible
lie, for no one could "plan and carry out" from Afghanistan the training
in the United States of pilots and hijackers in the respective flight
schools and sports gyms, the 19 terrorists' buying airline tickets in
the United States according to the local airline timetables, the pilots'
calculations of the time to reach all the targets simultaneously (to
avoid interception), as well as the hijacking and the ramming themselves.
Blair's 16-page "intelligence report" must have seemed implausible even
to the British prime minister himself, for more than a month later, on
Nov. 14, 2001, he released a 23-page "intelligence dossier," according
to which bin Laden was the perpetrator of the epoch-making terrorist
attack of more than two months earlier because he praised it to the
skies as the "battle" that "has been moved inside America." <4(4)
Blair thus postulated that if bin Laden had not "planned and carried
out" the attack, he would have condemned it as a crime. The American
commercial mainstream television showed Blair addressing the British
Parliament, which, instead of shouting "Idiot!" shouted "Yea!" after
every other sentence Blair uttered in triumph.
To think that this was the Parliament of the nation that produced Swift,
Dickens, John Stuart Mill and Orwell.
Finally, on Dec. 11, 2001, the U.S. government released a privately-made
videotape (made in mid-November) on which bin Laden lied with
unrestrained megalomaniacal abandon to his several worshippers about how
he had "planned and carried out" (as Tony Blair had put it) that
terrorist act that the United States had sensationalized into what most
Moslems perceived as the greatest (divine and glorious) victory in the
holy war.
Bin Laden's motivation was obvious. He still did not want to take credit
publicly for the greatest victory in the holy war lest those really
responsible for it and yet alive call him, the new Muhammad, a liar, a
fraud and a scoundrel, to be heard by his foes, as numerous as his worshippers.
A privately-made videotape was something quite different. Of course, the
Americans would get hold of a copy, and the American television would
give it world publicity. Well, if those really responsible for the
greatest victory in the holy war and alive challenged his claim, he and
his worshippers would say that the videotape was an American
fabrication. But if no one challenged his claim on the videotape, most
Moslems would know, owing to both American and Islamic television, that
the new Muhammad had won that greatest victory in the holy war.
The videotape was hailed as the "smoking gun" by those nationally
visible and audible Americans who were obsessed with bin Laden: The
criminal told the gospel truth (what a truthful man!) and made a clean
breast of his heinous crime in the belief that never, ever would a copy
of the videotape stray beyond his trusted circle.
Actually, the videotape proved beyond reasonable doubt that bin Laden
was a liar, a fraud and, in terms of the terrorist code of honor, a scoundrel.
Again, if he had said that he had financed the terrorist act, by paying
all the terrorists' expenses, that might have been a lie, but at least
it would have been a plausible lie. But in mid-November nothing had been
said publicly, as yet, in the United States about the terrorists' United
Arab Emirates account or about the training in American flight schools
and sports gyms, for which they paid by drawing on that UAE account.
Hence, bin Laden did not know that either, and said nothing about the
finances and the UAE account. He obviously believed that the terrorists
had not been financed from any outside source at all, since they had not
needed the money to pay for their training in the United States:
according to the videotape, there was no such training - bin Laden did
not say a word about it.
On the other hand, he had certainly heard the British prime minister's
idiotic declaration that he, bin Laden, had "planned and carried out" -
in Afghanistan! - the terrorist hijacking and ramming of three buildings
in the United States, and in his feeble-minded megalomania, bin Laden
explained that this was precisely what he had been doing in Afghanistan.
Thus, "we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy,
who would be killed based on the position of the [World Trade Center] towers."
Well, the "number of casualties" depended on the general capacity of the
two towers, on which floors the airliners rammed, on whether the two
towers would collapse, on the time when they would collapse, on the
number of the people still there at the time, and on details like the
flight of the elevator operators.
Hence, the "number of casualties" in the two towers could be anywhere
from 300 to 50,000. After mid-November, when the videotape was made, the
number of casualties was revised repeatedly. But bin Laden and his
experts in Afghanistan had "calculated in advance the number of
casualties" by "the position [!] of the towers."
At the same time, bin Laden said that they were not sure that the towers
would collapse. How did they "calculate" the "number of casualties" if
they were not even sure that the towers would collapse? Only bin Laden
himself foresaw it (and made a separate calculation of the "number of
casualties"?) because he knew that the gasoline in the airliners would
melt their steel structure.
That is, bin Laden parroted what the American "television experts" were
saying in mid-November. Now, in December, the American experts began to
say in the media that the cause of the collapse was "faulty
fireproofing": on Dec. 13, the New York Times even published (page B8)
photographs of 1993 and 1994, showing faulty fireproofing or the total
absence of fireproofing already in those years.
Had bin Laden spoken in December, he would have lied about how he
foresaw faulty fireproofing as the cause of the collapse. But he spoke
in mid-November, and parroted what the American "television experts"
were saying at that time.
The fact that the terrorist act of Sept. 11 germinated from a cell of
college buddies at a major technological institute in Hamburg became
known only on Nov. 28, 2001, and hence bin Laden had known nothing about
it. As a result, he represented the terrorists as strangers to one
another, who "didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter."
Bin Laden was unaware of the fact they had been learning in the United
States how to pilot airliners without taking off or landing them, that
is, to ram them, and how to hijack them by knife-fighting and
kick-boxing. His absurd megalomaniac lie was meant to represent the 19
suicidal terrorists as 19 cogs of his bureaucratic machine that he (that
is, the CIA) had created.
Bin Laden explained to his worshippers that he knew the time when each
airliner would ram its target:
They [the Islamic television viewers] were overjoyed when the first
plane hit the building, so I said to them: Be patient. The difference
between the first and the second plane hitting the towers was 20
minutes. And the difference between the first plane and the plane that
hit the Pentagon was one hour.
That is, bin Laden did not even understand that these differences in
time were the inexperienced pilots' distance: speed = time
miscalculations, which could lead to interception. He represented these
dangerous mistakes as the time differences he had planned and
calculated, and hence, while those worshippers of his were overjoyed by
the first hit, he knew that the second one would follow in 20 minutes
and the third in an hour.
Planning! Calculation! Science and technology in the 21st century! From
Afghanistan, the scientific-technological genius of bin Laden "planned
and carried out" the operation in the United States, as Tony Blair's
"intelligence report" had put it on Oct. 4, 2001. Bin Laden had seen him
on the Islamic television, with captions in Arabic, and out-Blaired Tony Blair!
Curiously, bin Laden said nothing about the fourth airliner. What was
its target? The American media (and the FBI) did not know, and hence he
did not even mention the fourth airliner.
By his videotape the feeble-minded megalomaniac proved beyond reasonable
doubt not only that he had nothing to do with the hijacking and ramming
of Sept. 11, 2001, but also that he was mentally unfit to mastermind any
suicidal terrorist act, even if he had been personally present on its site.
The 19 suicidal terrorists were 19 individuals - 19 biographies, each
worthy of Dostoyevsky's pen. But bin Laden, whom the United States has
made better known than any writer or thinker alive, has been a
bureaucrat whose bureaucracy was created for him by the CIA, and those
terrorists whom he mentions by name on his videotape, because the
American media had been mentioning them by name, are to him like
construction workers he once hired for his family construction
corporation. No need to know anything about them.
In his bureaucratic perception, reflected by the videotape, suicidal
terrorists were just like, for example, bricklayers, except that their
trade was not to lay bricks, but to sacrifice their lives, without him
remembering even the names of all of them as listed by the FBI on the Internet.
He did not explain why at least eight, if not 15, of them were Saudis,
and not one of them was from Afghanistan. Who cared where the
bricklayers were from? Theirs was to die as unknown bricklayers, and bin
Laden's was to be a world celebrity, better known than anyone else
alive, owing to the United States, and seated in his high office,
"planning and carrying out" global Islamic terrorism via expendable cogs
of his bureaucratic machine (built by the CIA).
If bin Laden and his al-Qaeda bureaucrats had been personally present in
the United States in 2000 and 2001 to "plan and carry out" the terrorist
act of Sept. 11, there would have been no such act. The bureaucrats,
headed by a feeble-minded megalomaniac, dealing with suicidal terrorists
as with bricklayers hired by a construction corporation in Saudi Arabia,
would have ruined the spirit of joint self-sacrifice, would have brought
the suicidal idealism down to the level of their own earthly and
cowardly selves, and would have replaced the exalted martyrdom with
megalomaniac administrative orders, inevitable grudges against them,
wrangling, rivalries, cowardice and other awakenings of earthly egoism,
leading the would-be terrorists into the FBI's custody.
Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda bureaucrats ran away in the war in
Afghanistan and dropped behind their records incriminating would-be
terrorists. How could they be in charge of unanimous suicide in whatever
transcendental cause? Quite likely, the 19 suicidal terrorists would
have first assassinated bin Laden and his entourage as insolent frauds,
cowards and agents provocateur.
It is not for nothing that Dostoyevsky argued that the freest (and most
dangerous) person is someone ready to commit suicide. On Jan. 16, 2002,
it was reported that John Walker, an American who had fought for the
Taliban, said that he had seen bin Laden before Sept. 11, 2001, and the
man told him about the forthcoming terrorist act. So, bin Laden blabbed
about a terrorist act involving 19 terrorist lives to an American as to
a friend so close and trustworthy as to be absolutely sure that the
information would never reach the CIA.
For many years the media will keep publishing such lies, allegedly
showing bin Laden's ubiquitous masterminding of global Islamic
terrorism. But no lies can disprove bin Laden's videotape in which he
demonstrated, owing to his stupidity and megalomania, that he had
nothing to do with the hijacking and ramming of Sept. 11, 2001, much as
he and all those obsessed with him have wanted to prove the opposite.
Source Notes 1. See http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_chron.html <1aReturn
2. See http://www.smh.com.au/news/0201/17/world/world1.html <2aReturn
3. Barbara Starr, CNN, Jan. 12, 2002. See
http://asia.cnn.com/2002/US/01/11/ret.singapore plot/ <3aReturn
4. See http://washingtontimes.com/world/20011115-67453174.htm, pp. 1-2. <4aReturn
***
This is an excerpt from Lev Navrozov's book in progress, "Out of Moscow
and Into New York: A Life in the Geostrategically Lobotomized West in
the Age of Terrorism and Post-nuclear Superweapons.
PUBLISHERS: Should you consider publishing this book (please bear in
mind that a substantial advance is expected), the 27-page Proposal and
the first 106-page section of the book can be mailed to you if you apply
to me ([EMAIL PROTECTED] tel. 001 718 796 6028) or to my literary agent,
Lenny Cavallaro, Janus Literary Agency ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
All Rights Reserved NewsMax.com
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/2/4/05600.shtml
--- End Message ---
