HERE'S An Interesting One: Afghans Have Bin Laden Under House Arrest? : LUSENET : Poole's Roost II : One Thread

If true -- and no one will confirm that it is -- maybe the Afghans realize that they face the very real destruction of their nation if they don't do something to make amends, and quick.

-- Anonymous, September 12, 2001


I'm not sure that would atone for this, though. Funny, we didn't hear much mention of this at the time ... but the Taliban has a LOT of explaining to do. I'm not sure turning Bin Ladin over to the US would do it.


-- Anonymous, September 12, 2001

Even if true it's a clumsy move as transparent as Arafat giving a unit of blood. Best it buys them both is the Terry Nichols "Gee, I didn't think he'd do it." defense.

-- Anonymous, September 12, 2001

By the way: I haven't been able to confirm this one anywhere else, so it's probably spurious. If it were true, it would be BIG news, and it's hard to believe that the media at large would ignore it.

I have to conclude that it's not true.

-- Anonymous, September 13, 2001

Rumor, pure bs, we have no information Binnie is in chains presently.

-- Anonymous, September 13, 2001

http://www.fbi. gov/contact/fo/nyfo/nyfohome.htm

-- Anonymous, September 13, 2001

LOOK WHERE THE "STORY" CAME FROM. (Don't miss the last line.

From:  Roleigh Martin <roleigh @p...>
Date:  Thu Sep 13, 2001  9:32 pm
Subject:  Four sources indicate Bin Laden is head of Afghanistan Military

Right after I got this reply from Joseph, he wrote the
excellent article at friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24468

intro only shown here -- but my letter to WND's editor
follows -- thought this egroup list would be interested
in this story -- I think it is the most major story
being missed by the media and government (intentionally?).
Credit goes to Matt Drudge (and now Joseph Farah) for not
letting this disappear.  By the way, I reformatted my email
here to avoid line-wrapping.  Be sure and read the above
link, Joseph Farah found additional sources to confirm what
Drudge initially reported.

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit 24468

Thursday, September 13, 2001

Is bin Laden under arrest?
Earlier reports say he is leader
of Afghanistan's military forces

By Joseph Farah


While an Arabic online newspaper reported the Taliban had placed bin Laden under house arrest in the wake of the suicide attacks that destroyed the New York skyscrapers, damaged the Pentagon and killed as many as 30,000 Americans Tuesday, earlier United Press International dispatches reveal he might actually be in command of Afghanistan's military.

> Delivered-To:
> Reply-To: <>
> From: "Joseph Farah" <>
> To: <>
> Subject: RE: from one of your prior "expert interviewees" - on WTC now
> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 21:46:37 - 0700
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
> Importance: Normal
> it won't be ignored any more...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roleigh Martin []
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 7:24 PM
> To:
> Subject: from one of your prior "expert interviewees" - on WTC now
> Hi Joseph,
> I was interviewed by one of your reporters on the
> issue of "statistical skewing" in the Bush- Gore
> election.  I want to bring to your attention a
> very important point only being made (impliciitly) by
> the Drudge report but nowhere else, including WND
> as far as I know.
> Note this very important story being ignored by
> all the media but Drudge:
> QID=216037
> Thursday, 30 August 2001 9:58 (ET)
> Taliban slammed over bin Laden appointment
> MOSCOW, Aug. 30 (UPI) -- Russia's Foreign Ministry on
> Thursday condemned the appointment of Saudi terrorism
> suspect Osama bin Laden as the commander-in-chief of
> the armed forces of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban
> regime, the official RIA Novosti news agency reported.
> Bin Laden's appointment confirmed that a center of
> international terrorism is being set up in Taliban-
> controlled territory, the ministry said in a statement.
> "Pseudo-religious values are being used as a cover to
> prepare a bridgehead for expansion of militant
> extremism and separatism far beyond the region's
> borders," added the statement.
> This month, Russian media quoted Pakistan's Nation
> daily as saying that the Taliban had named bin Laden
> commander of their troops. Afghanistan's civil war
> concerns the Kremlin as hundreds of Russian border
> guards monitor the Afghan-Tajik border and a potential
> spill of violence could plunge the whole region into
> chaos.
> Moreover, the Taliban's aim to build an orthodox
> Islamic state has given rise to many Islamic extremist
> movements in the former Soviet republics in Central
> Asia. In recent years, Islamic insurgents from
> Afghanistan launched raids on Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan
> and Tajikistan.
> The Taliban's ongoing clashes with the Northern
> Alliance movement backing ousted President Burhanuddin
> Rabbani -- the leader of the government general
> recognized by international organizations -- have
> alerted Russia and its partners as arms smuggling, drug
> trafficking, kidnapping and other crimes have
> flourished along the Afghan-Tajik border.
> On Thursday, Moscow also condemned the appointment of
> Juma Namangani as bin Laden's deputy. Namangani, an
> ethnic Uzbek, was liked to a number of raids on
> Kyrgyzstan's Batken district over the last three years.
> Namangani advocates creation of an Islamic state run by
> a regime similar to the Taliban's and spreading over
> Central Asia.
> "Incorporation of the international terrorists' leaders
> into the ruling structures of the Taliban shows the
> need to take decisive measures to collectively counter
> global challenges that are put forward from the
> Taliban-controlled territory," said the statement.
> --
> Copyright 2001 by United Press International.
> All rights reserved.
> The point is that if Bin Laden is the culprit, then
> the Afghanistan government has to share the blame and
> that means a very tough enemy -- for they outlasted
> the Russians.  Is the major media and the government
> downplaying this because they don't want to do battle
> with such a hard-to- beat enemy?
> What is happening now is if FDR in 1941 had declared
> war on Yamamoto instead of Japan; it is as if the
> media all declared that the attack on Pearl Harbor
> was the fault solely of Yamamoto and that there was
> no need to consider War with Japan.
> How absurd.
> I hope that WND brings this absurdity to the nation's
> attention.  It is only implicitly being  noted at the
> Drudge report.
> Keep up the good work.
> Sincerely,
> Roleigh Martin
> Minnesota State GOP Delegate, 2000

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2001

Moderation questions? read the FAQ