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: 5292
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 # 63.
#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.
My how quickly you forget. First off, he more than likely could not have figured out how to change the course on the flight management computer, which HAD to have been used since the autopilot was on, and he couldn't have pulled off the manuevers witnessed by not just the air traffic controllers at Dulles International, but manuevers that had to be performed to strike the 71 foot tall Pentagon wall as it did in light of the trajectory and the damage. He didn't CRASH the airplane, he allegedly flew it INTO the Pentagon wall. He COULD have crashed it into the roof (an area of 22 football fields), possibly taking out Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and/or a LARGE number of other people. But no, whoever was flying the aircraft went to great lengths to hit the LEAST occupied section of the Pentagon, and did so by pulling off an aerodynamically impossible manuever, ie. flying 20 feet off the ground in a 757 at 530 mph. To which you've never given any satisfactory response. You know that is untrue. Both myself and Original_Intent have repeatedly explained to you that are you wrong, he DID NOT CRASH the plane, ie. an uncontrolled descent hitting the ground, nor did he simply dive and hit the Pentagon, which he COULD have done and WOULD have done if whoever was flying the aircraft wanted to inflict maximum damage and casualties. There's also the fact he would have needed to know who to work the flight management computer, yet he never trained on it, and never saw the inside of a 757 cockpit before. It's also apparent (from the earlier thread) you either don't know what VORTAC is, or are purposely misrepresenting how it is used in navigation. You claim a pilot only needs to enter a 4 digit code and it tells the pilot how to steer the plane. That is ludricrous. For one, you need TWO VORTAC signals, thus TWO frequencies need to be set into the VORTAC receiver, then by observing the bearings between the aircraft and the 2 VORTAC stations, and taking the air speed into consideration, the current position can be calculated by triangulation and fixed onto a navigational map. THEN a heading between the current position and destination can be plotted, and the heading changed in order to fly towards the destination. Yet all that is a moot point since autopilot was engaged for most of the flight, including where the heading was changed to turn the plane around and bring it to Washington DC. In order to do that, the Flight Management System had to be utilized, and it is very unlikely that Hanjour would have known how to do that.
Wrong. According to one report the flight computer was turned off mid flight, had its destination changed, turned back on after course change. So somebody knew enough to know when the computer should be turned off, why it should be turned off, how to turn it off, how to change the computer programming, how to turn it back on after the changes. That speaks of someone who knew how to use the computer. You can learn the computer from simulators or manuals or videos and other teaching materials, if it is considered that important. I've stated that several times, and you keep going back to your assertions that are simply not true. Another serious and deliberate error. You only need 1 signal and a radius along with a distance measurement. Two radials are only needed when you don't have distance and a Course Deviation Indicator which tells you exactly what heading you need to be on, as well as exactly how far to the nautical mile distance you are at any moment.
#68. To: AGAviator (#63)
According to one report the flight computer was turned off mid flight, had its destination changed, turned back on after course change. No, YOU are wrong. The NTSB chart indicates that the autopilot was engaged the entire time the "hijackers" turned the plane around over Ohio, and set it to fly towards Washington DC. A little before reaching the midway point between Ohio and Washington, it was turned off momentarily, the course was corrected as it was a bit off, and then turned back on. Not an obvious set of commands for someone who doesn't know the first thing about a Boeing 757 flight management computer. So somebody knew enough to know when the computer should be turned off, why it should be turned off, how to turn it off, how to change the computer programming, how to turn it back on after the changes. That speaks of someone who knew how to use the computer. You dont't really "shut off the computer", it is responsible for controlling critical aircraft systems. Turning off the autopilot is a function of the flight management computer, but you don't turn it off to do that. And as I said, the autopilot was NOT disengaged when a new course for Washington was entered into the computer, whoever flew it knew enough about the sytem as to utilize the computer correctly. Thing is, Hanjour had never laid his eyes on a Boeing 757 flight management computer his entire life, so it couldn't have been him that did all that. He couldn't have learned it on a simulator, since he tried taking lessons on a 737 simulator which besides utilizing a totally different flight managment system from the 757, he usually skipped class and when he WAS present, did extremely poorly since he could barely understand English, and he was a very poor student as well as a very poor "pilot" to begin with.
You only need 1 signal and a radius along with a distance measurement. Two radials are only needed when you don't have distance and a Course Deviation Indicator which tells you exactly what heading you need to be on, as well as exactly how far to the nautical mile distance you are at any moment. Granted a VORTAC aid will give you your bearing in terms of where the plane is in relation to the VORTAC transmitter, ie. distance and heading in relation to the VORTAC station. Ok, so I guess I was looking up some older info in terms of using two VORTAC stations to triangulate current position. You still need to plot your course using your current position as determined by the VORTAC and a navigational map, taking your current air speed into account in order to determine where you'll be in several minutes (waypoint). THEN, once your new heading is determined, you can change the heading once you've hit the location you've calculated as your waypoint and utilize the VORTAC to guide you to your new destination. It won't determine the new course for you obviously, you need to do that yourself. Hanjours instructors said he had very poor navigational skills, so I doubt he could have done all that if he needed to, but he obviously didn't need to since the plane was flown on autopilot, thus utilizing the flight management computer.
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
#62. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent (#59)
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.
#63. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#62)
My how quickly you forget. First off, he more than likely could not have figured out how to change the course on the flight management computer, which HAD to have been used since the autopilot was on,
There's also the fact he would have needed to know who to work the flight management computer, yet he never trained on it, and never saw the inside of a 757 cockpit before.
For one, you need TWO VORTAC signals, thus TWO frequencies need to be set into the VORTAC receiver, then by observing the bearings between the aircraft and the 2 VORTAC stations, and taking the air speed into consideration.
Replies to Comment # 63. 
#71. To: AGAviator (#63)
Another serious and deliberate error.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 63.