See other 9/11 Articles
Title: WikiLeaks Reveals Al Qaeda Boss Was Seen at Village Meetings - Despite CIA Claims They Were Clueless
Source:
Daily Mail Online
URL Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art ... den-seen-village-meetings.html
Published: Jul 28, 2010
Author: Mail Foreign Service
Post Date: 2010-07-28 15:17:40 by AGAviator
Keywords: None
Views: 4797
Comments: 280
Glimpses of Bin Laden: Now WikiLeaks reveals Al Qaeda boss was seen at village meetings - despite CIA claims that they were clueless By Mail Foreign Service Last updated at 10:16 AM on 27th July 2010 Bin Laden spotted in meeting with Taliban chief in 2006 'Spotted': Among 91,000 leaked U.S. documents are claims that Osama Bin Laden was last seen in 2006 The claims are among 91,000 U.S. military records obtained by whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, said last month that there have been no firm leads on Bin Laden's whereabouts since the 'early 2000s'. But a 'threat report' from the International Security Assistance Force regional command (north) on suicide bombers in August 2006 suggested Bin Laden had been attending regular meetings in villages on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. It said: 'Reportedly a high-level meeting was held where six suicide bombers were given orders for an operation in northern Afghanistan. These meetings take place once every month.' According to the Guardian, which has received the documents, the report went on: 'The top four people in these meetings are Mullah Omar [the Taliban leader], Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Dadullah and Mullah [Baradar].' If true, it could mean forces came close to having the opportunity to wipe out the senior leadership of the Afghan insurgency that has so far claimed the lives of 320 British soldiers. The war logs also show that Bin Laden had a hand in a plot to poison coalition forces by adding a powder to food and drink consumed by troops as they passed through villages. Toll: An Afghan girl in hospital in Helmand after being injured by coalition forces in an air strike in 2007 These documents also suggest coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in so-called 'blue on white' incidents which were never reported. The leak is said to be U.S. Army intelligence expert Bradley Manning, 22, who boasted he had downloaded hundreds of thousands of documents, according to computer hacker Adrian Lamo. The 22-year-old, pictured above, is said to have contacted Lamo out of the blue and then claimed he had saved high-security files onto CDs, ready to hand to Wikileaks, while pretending to listen to Lady Gaga. 'Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format, to the public,' he apparently told Mr Lamo. The hacker got in touch with the U.S. military and later met with them in Starbucks to hand over a printout of his conversations with Manning. Manning has already been charged over a separate leak of a classified helicopter cockpit video earlier this month. It showed U.S. soldiers laughing as they gunned down Afghan civilians and two journalists in a firefight in Baghdad in 2007. He was picked up in Iraq, where he was working. Manning is said to be locked up in a military prison after being shipped across the border to Kuwait. He faces trial by court martial and, if found guilty, a heavy jail sentence. Mr Lamo believes Manning did not work alone, saying he did not have ‘the technological expertise’ to carry out the gathering and leaking of the documents. 'I believe somebody would have had to have been of assistance to him,’ he said. They include claims that 16 children were among those shot or bombed in error The leaked military logs also reveal how a secret 'black' unit of crack special forces hunt down Taliban leaders for 'kill or capture' without trial - and voice concerns that Pakistani intelligence and Iran are supporting the insurgents. Downing Street said it 'would lament all unauthorised releases of classified material' and the White House condemned the ' irresponsible' leak of the files. And military and intelligence experts warned yesterday that the leaks could imperil the lives of British forces in Afghanistan. Colonel Stuart Tootal, who in 2006 commanded 3rd Battalion Parachute Regiment in Helmand Province - where more than 320 UK soldiers have been killed - said the information 'could impact on the security of our soldiers'. He insisted Nato forces now put a 'huge emphasis' on avoiding civilian casualties. Tory MP Patrick Mercer, a former Army captain, said: 'Although much of this information is in the public domain, the details are particularly damaging to the credibility of the coalition. 'Our enemies will be quick to exploit the propaganda element of it. 'If there are details of operational matters - locations, equipment, troops movements, resources - then soldiers' lives could be placed at risk.' Details of the secret files, detailing military operations between 2004 and 2009, were published yesterday by the Guardian, New York times and Germany's Der Spiegel while more than 75,000 records were made available on the WikiLeaks website. The files list 144 incidents involving Afghan civilian casualties, in which 195 died and 174 were injured. They detail coalition forces - fearful of suicide bombers - shooting unarmed drivers and civilian motorcyclists, and record an incident when French troops opened fire at a bus full of children because it came too close to a military convoy. Other leaked documents record a U.S. patrol machine-gunning a bus, killing or wounding 15 passengers, and Polish troops mortaring a village, killing a wedding party including a pregnant woman. They reveal details of undercover operations by a U.S. special forces unit named task Force 373, formed to hunt down and kill or capture taliban and Al Qaeda commanders. According to Julian Assange, the founder of the website, the files contain details of 'thousands' of potential war crimes. At a press conference in London, he defended his decision to publish the files and claimed the high level of civilian casualties reported was in fact lower than the true figure because military personnel 'downplayed' the number or reported them as insurgent deaths. Mr Assange said: 'We have tried hard to make sure that this material does not put innocents at harm. 'All the material is over seven months old so it is of no current operational consequence, even though it may be of very significant investigative consequence. 'The revelation of abuse by the U.S. and coalition forces may cause Afghans to be upset, and rightly so. ‘If governments don't like populations being upset, they should treat them better, not conceal abuses.' Professor Malcolm Chalmers, a defence expert at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, said that the leaks could undermine already faltering public support for the war. Read more: Bin Laden Seen Village Meetings Poster Comment: There has never been any proof that Bin Laden has died or been killed. He has repeatedly been reported to be in a very rugged area surrounded by people fiercely loyal to him. OBL is not and has never been in direct command of operations. He sees himself as someone providing motivation and logistical support to people actually carrying out day to day operations.
Al Qaeda boss 'had hand' in plot to poison UK troops
Secret files claim British soldiers shot 16 children
Military experts: leaks could put our troops in peril
Taliban missile brought down Chinook helicopter Secret files leaked about the war in Afghanistan have revealed tantalising glimpses of Osama Bin Laden despite public CIA claims that they are clueless as to the whereabouts of the Al Qaeda boss.
IS THIS SOLDIER BEHIND LEAKS? This fresh-faced soldier could be responsible for leaking a massive file of secret military documents revealing chilling details of the Afghanistan war and civilian deaths.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 141.
#2. To: AGAviator (#0)
Osama died in 2001. The man is dead. Please do not bother replying.
Claims need to be supported and sourced. Wikileaks has tens of thousands of facts they have published vetted and researched, which were previously unknown. Conspiracy theorists claiming "Obama died in 2001" have nothing.
Yes, so where is the supporting evidence that bin Laden really is still alive? That was more than likely planted info, perhaps the biggest reason the "leaks" occured in the first place.
Yes, so where is the supporting evidence that bin Laden really is still alive? That was more than likely planted info, perhaps the biggest reason the "leaks" occured in the first place. Always look for the wheels within wheels. Yes, Bin Laden has likely been dead since somewhere around Dec. 2001 to Jan. 2002.
So you and Lurker both think that a)the leaks were planned so that b) planted info suggesting that OBL was still alive would c) be reason enough( despite the fact there were other very damaging to the war effort revelations ) for gubment to justify to the grass eaters that the Afghan War was still a necessary thingy to pursue? Hmmmm...interesting theory...especially since most of the damaging revelations appear to involve US and coalition forces plugging innocent Afghan civilians who the grass eaters by and large could care less about....
So you and Lurker both think that a)the leaks were planned so that b) planted info suggesting that OBL was still alive would c) be reason enough( despite the fact there were other very damaging to the war effort revelations ) for gubment to justify to the grass eaters that the Afghan War was still a necessary thingy to pursue? Hmmmm...interesting theory...especially since most of the damaging revelations appear to involve US and coalition forces plugging innocent Afghan civilians who the grass eaters by and large could care less about.... The intel people are perfectly capable of doing that. Assembling a package of information that is ultimately already known, and then planting disinfo in there. That way you get people accepting the disinfo because "it must be true it was leaked".
What bothers me about your BS posts is that you NEVER produce a serious FACT to support your own windy BS.. You are just a stinky poster, dude.
All you do here is insult people buck. You add nothing of value to a discussion, and appear to enjoy massive flame wars. It seems to be the ONLY reason you are here.
Meanwhile, time after time you and your pal, O_I, have admitted your own lies and deceit PROVING your own indignity and incapability for any truth of and about discussion concerning contemporary events. I no longer trust either of your two respective posts, FL and O_I posts. Both of you are liars and deceitful POS.
Meanwhile, time after time you and your pal, O_I, have admitted your own lies and deceit PROVING your own indignity and incapability for any truth of and about discussion concerning contemporary events. I no longer trust either of your two respective posts, FL and O_I posts. Both of you are liars and deceitful POS. What is your problem Buck? A disagreement upon an issue means you have different points of view. Neither does being factually wrong on a point equate to a lie it means that I was wrong on a point. So far I have twice conceded your point that Hanjour did somehow manage to get a Commercial Pilot Certificate. Because I don't think he deserved it and was an incompetent pilot does raise legitimate questions on what circumstances prevailed for him to get that license. If you don't like my qualifications on the point - well, tough. Deal with it - I disagree that he was qualified to receive one, and HE WAS an incompetent pilot. Deal with that. That is what all the facts indicate. His instructors repeatedly stated that as a professional opinion etc., .... So, a disagreement is NOT a lie - except perhaps in the buckieverse. It does not mean someone is lying merely because they do not agree with you or drink the same flavor of kool-aid. I do have to admit, and apologize, that I have been a little rough on you over the last couple of threads, but it is not like you did not provoke me. However, I'll try to be a good boy.
And I've repeatedly said the issue is not whether he was a competent pilot, who must have a high standard to survive numerous danger factors intact, but a competent suicide hijacker, able to take over an already airborne craft, navigate it to a predetermined target, and crash it at high speeds into the target. To which you've never given any satisfactory response.
Your distinction is one without a difference. It is gobbledygook. It is not proven even that Hanjour was behind the stick and that is at best an unproven hypothesis. And the maneuvers that plane went through are well beyond any skill evidenced by Hanjour at any time on a type of aircraft which he was incompetent to fly, had never before flown, never trained on and in fact at no time had he ever flown ANY KIND of jet aircraft. Never in fact had he ever flown anything larger than a twin engine, propeller driven, 4 seat, Piper Apache, and by the testimony of his instructors who uniformly, without exception, characterized him as anywhere from barely able to fly a single engine propeller driven Cessna 172 to unable to even safely fly that. Your confabulation of somehow supposing that he wanted to kill people so therefore he magically could fly belongs in the same category as "Peter Pan" it is, to put it kindly, balderash.
You keep repeating the SOS with zero proof alleging any and all available evidence is wrong, without being able to supply anything sother than arm-waving denials of your own. Repetition does not make proof except perhaps to you and a few self-hypnotized Six Percenters. A 1/2 G descending turn is not even beyond the capability of a student pilot. A holder of a commercial pilot certificate can become completely type certified using flight simulators. Flight computer are made for safety and ease of use, not for difficulty. More basic aircraft without flight computers are more difficult to fly and maneuver than aircraft provided with flight computers. This is why ATP pilots wishing to go out for rides in smaller single engine craft must frequently get retrained and why the Chief Instructor said that Hanjour's need for training was "not that unsusual" which as usual you leave out of your cut and pick quotes. 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
Why do you project your misdeeds onto others? You ignore any and all actual evidence, make things up as you go, such as your implied claim that a VORTAC navaid can read the pilot's mind and decide where he wants to go, and accuse US of being "k00ks". You cling to your beliefs, which relies on various impossible and/or improbable feats, such as your belief that Hanjour could have flown a 757 jumbo jet like a master pilot even though he was a totally inept "pilot" who had serious problems controlling a single engine Cessna 172. You ignore the fact Flight 77's autopilot was engaged practically the entire flight, thus requiring the knowledge of how to correctly utilize the flight management computer onboard the 757, one which Hanjour had never seen before in his life. Then you toss in this VORTAC distraction which has nothing to do with Flight 77 since the autopilot was engaged. You can't describe what a pilot would need to do to change the course on a Boeing 757 flight management computer with autopilot engaged, but try to sell the idea that ANYONE could do it, it's so simple, it has to be simple because YOU say so, yet YOU CAN'T describe how it's done. One moment you try to sell the idea that Hanjour was a "qualified pilot" just because he somehow managed to "buy" his license, yet without exception, EVERY flight instructor who delt with him described him as totally incompetent, a bad pilot, a person who basically couldn't fly at all. Yet you want us to believe that this person who couldn't even fly a proper circle around an airport and land a Cessna 172 was able to correctly utilize the flight management system onboard a 757, a cockpit he never sat in before in his life, disengage the autopilot near Washington, perform some precision descending turns, level off at treetop level while flying at 400 mph, then descend to 20 feet off the ground at 530 mph in order to strike a 71 foot tall target. All this without EVER flying a jet before in his life. Uh huh, sure thing, we're the ones who ignore evidence, and you're the fountain of truth. In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. And that IS EXACTLY what you've been doing here.
You continue to ignore the explicit quotes of the exact same person you base your k00ktales upon, where he says "There is no question" that Hanjour even though lacking adequate conventional piloting skills, nevertheless had sufficient controlling hijacked aircraft skills to take an aircraft over mid air and crash it into a target. All your blather about flight computers, navigation, conventional piloting is nothing more than obfuscation of a simple and direct statement made by someone whom you yourself is choosing as a source: Hanjour was able to take over and crash a hijacked plane into the Pentagon. Half Truther cherry picking at its worst. As far as replying to all the other crap, like claiming not giving you a step by step description of how to disconnect a VORTAC from a FMS means something - when it's actually a bull$hit question because a VORTAC linked to a CDI works independently of the FMS - is not going to be addressed because you have nothing credible to go by yourself, and all you can do is nit pick on other people's accounts which actually have some research and subject matter expertise behind them.
A) Hanjour did not allegedly hijack Flight 77 over Washinton DC and crash it into the Pentagon. You're beating a straw man to death. Hanjour allegedly hijacked the airliner over Ohio, set the flight management computer onto a new course (one which he had never seen and didn't know how to use), disengaged autopilot once on the way to DC, reengaged it (all functions of the flight management computer), and then disenaged it once near Washington DC. He then performed several precise descending turns, fooling the air traffic controllers into thinking it was a military jet with the way it was manuevered, then flew at tree top level at over 400 mph, accelerated to 530 mph, and descended down to 20 feet off the ground over the Pentagon lawn in order to hit the 71 foot tall Pentagon wall. So NO, he did NOT crash it, and he didn't hijack it over Washington, as you falsely try to claim. B) The very person who you like to cherry pick words from had a LOT more to say concerning Hanjour, and you KNOW that, since I've REPEATEDLY posted the various quotes for you over the past several days, at LEAST once on this thread already... Here again are the actual reports concerning Bernard and what his employees said, and nowhere do I see what YOU claim he said; From Al Qaeda’s Top Gun
Aggravator has his talking points and can't, or won't, see past them. He is hopeless and if your goal is to reach him with the truth I think your time can be put to better use. You know that old saying, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. I am afraid that is the case with aggravator and buck.
It's more like Aggravator is trying to get the final word on this, and declare any real evidence just "cherry picked" k00k stuff, where it's quite obvious to me at least that he's the one who cherry picks a quote out of context and presents it as the ultimate final say on what Hanjour was capable of, ignoring the other 99% of what evidence there is in terms of Hanjour's actual capabilities as opposed to how Flight 77 was actually flown once the alleged hijacking took place. I just want to make sure he knows that WE all know he's lying, and we also know that he is just here to spread disinformation.
I think you have done a good job with that. You and several others--if buck and aggravator had any sense of shame they would probably be thinking of ways to shuffle off this mortal coil.
There are no replies to Comment # 141. End Trace Mode for Comment # 141.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: Horse (#2)
(Edited)
#5. To: AGAviator (#3)
Claims need to be supported and sourced.
#10. To: FormerLurker (#5)
Claims need to be supported and sourced.
#12. To: Original_Intent, FormerLurker, AGAviator (#10)
(Edited)
Always look for the wheels within wheels. Yes, Bin Laden has likely been dead since somewhere around Dec. 2001 to Jan. 2002.
#22. To: scrapper2, FormerLurker (#12)
Always look for the wheels within wheels. Yes, Bin Laden has likely been dead since somewhere around Dec. 2001 to Jan. 2002.
#23. To: Original_Intent (#22)
The intel people are perfectly capable of doing that. Assembling a package of information that is ultimately already known, and then planting disinfo in there. That way you get people accepting the disinfo because "it must be true it was leaked".
#43. To: buckeroo, Original_Intent (#23)
What bothers me about your BS posts is that you NEVER produce a serious FACT to support your own windy BS.. You are just a stinky poster, dude.
#48. To: FormerLurker, Original_Intent, AGAviator (#43)
All you do here is insult people buck.
#54. To: buckeroo, FormerLurker, christine (#48)
All you do here is insult people buck.
#59. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#54)
Deal with it - I disagree that he was qualified to receive one, and HE WAS an incompetent pilot. Deal with that. That is what all the facts indicate. His instructors repeatedly stated that as a professional opinion etc., .... So, a disagreement is NOT a lie
#61. To: AGAviator (#59)
#99. To: Original_Intent (#61)
(Edited)
Your distinction is one without a difference. It is gobbledygook. It is not proven even that Hanjour was behind the stick and that is at best an unproven hypothesis. And the maneuvers that plane went through are well beyond any skill evidenced by Hanjour at any time on a type of aircraft which he was incompetent to fly, had never before flown, never trained on and in fact at no time had he ever flown ANY KIND of jet aircraft
#111. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent (#99)
(Edited)
You keep repeating the SOS with zero proof alleging any and all available evidence is wrong, without being able to supply anything sother than arm-waving denials of your own.
#118. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#111)
You cling to your beliefs, which relies on various impossible and/or improbable feats, such as your belief that Hanjour could have flown a 757 jumbo jet like a master pilot even though he was a totally inept "pilot" who had serious problems controlling a single engine Cessna 172
#135. To: AGAviator, abraxas, RickyJ, IRTorqued, Original_Intent, James Deffenbach, christine, ALL (#118)
You continue to ignore the explicit quotes of the exact same person you base your k00ktales upon, where he says "There is no question" that Hanjour even though lacking adequate conventional piloting skills, nevertheless had sufficient controlling hijacked aircraft skills to take an aircraft over mid air and crash it into a target.
In August 2001, less than one month before 9/11, Hanjour took flight lessons at Freeway Airport in Bowie, Maryland.24 As the New York Times observed, Hanjour "still seemed to lack proficiency at flying". When he showed up "asking to rent a single-engine plane", he attempted three flights with two different instructors, and yet "was unable to prove that he had the necessary skills" to be allowed to rent the plane. "He seemed rusty at everything," said Marcel Bernard, the chief flight instructor at the school.26 The Washington Post similarly reported that to "the flight instructors at Freeway Airport in Bowie", Hanjour "was just a bad pilot." And "after supervising Hanjour on a series of oblong circles above the airport and Chesapeake Bay, the instructors refused to pass him because his skills were so poor, Bernard said. ‘I feel darn lucky it went the way it did,’ Bernard said, crediting his instructors for their good judgment and high standards."50 The London Telegraph also reported that Hanjour claimed to have 600 hours of flight time, "but performed so poorly on test flights that instructors would not let him fly alone."51 Newsday reported that when flight instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner took Hanjour on three check rides, "they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172."52 The Los Angeles Times reported, "‘We have a level of standards that we hold all our pilots to, and he couldn’t meet it," said the manager of the flight school. Hanjour could not handle basic air maneuvers, the manager said."19
#139. To: FormerLurker (#135)
#140. To: James Deffenbach (#139)
You know that old saying, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. I am afraid that is the case with aggravator and buck.
#141. To: FormerLurker (#140)
Replies to Comment # 141.