|
It has
become a common myth that Bin Laden has admitted to the attacks. This simply
isn't true. Bin
laden denies terror attacks and points finger at Jews. Annanova
news. 2.6.1 http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_410936.html?menu=news.latestheadlines
Bin laden denies attacks as Taliban talks holy war. ABC news online Sept
17 2001. 2.6:2 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2001/09/item20010917010639_1.htm
Bin Laden denies being behind attacks. JS Online Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Sept
16 2001 2.6.3 http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/sep01/binladen-denial.asp
Bin laden Denies US attack says paper. Middle East News 2.6:4 http://www.metimes.com/2K1/issue2001-37/reg/bin_laden_denies.htm
Bin laden says he wasn't behind attacks CNN sept 17 2001 2.6.5 http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/index.html
Bin Laden denies role in attacks. newsday.com Sept 17
2001 2.6.6 http://www.newsday.com/ny-wobin172369727sep17,0,7370581.story
Taliban says Bin Laden denied role in attacks. Yahoo news Sept 13
2001. 2.6:7 http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/denies-reuters-taliban.htm
Osama Bin Laden claims terrorist attacks in USA were committed by some American
terrorist group. Pravda Sept 12 2001 http://english.pravda.ru/accidents/2001/09/12/14910.html Bin laden's
supposed confession is based entirely upon a video tape released by the
Pentagon. The tape is a fake, and the translation is fraudulent. First here is
general evidence that such confession tapes released by those doing the accusing
have no credibility. Video technology now makes it difficult to
distinguish between a real video confession and a fake. When seeing and hearing isn't
believing. by William M. Arkin. Washington Post Feb 1
1999 Last word in High Tech
trickery. by David Higgins Sydney Morning Herald. May 16
2002 2.6:9 http://smh.com.au/articles/2002/05/16/1021415016681.html Here is
specific evidence that the tape is a fake. 2.6.10 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2001/12/19305.html For further
doubts about the authenticity of the video and other indications of a preplanned
agenda to fabricate evidence against Bin Laden Sept 11 attacks- evidence of
US collusion by Steve Grey. (Read the
section called "Evidence please!") 1.2.2http://hamilton.indymedia.org/newswire/display/922/index.php Bush U- Turn on Bin Laden
Evidence. BBC Sept 25, 2001 2.6.11 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1562751.stm U.S. split on Bin Laden
evidence. BBC Sept 26, 2001 2.6.12 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1563958.stm If the govt
was genuinely surprised by the attacks, how it did they manage to name the
mastermind within a few hours? And yet, nearly 3 years later, no
formal charges have been laid against the accused. 2. 7 In September 2001, when Bush was threatening an invasion of
Afghanistan in retaliation for Sept 11, it slipped his mind to tell us that
the invasion had already been planned before Sept 11. "Us planned attack on Taleban"
BBC News report by George Arney. Sept 18, 2001. 2.7.1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm U.S. Planned for attack on Al
-Qaida. White house given strategy two days before Sept 11.NBC news. May 16
2002 2.7.2 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2002/msnbc051602.html US planned to hit Bin Laden
ahead of September 11 By David Rennie UK. Telegraph. 2.7.3 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/05/walq05.xml US Tells of covert Afghan
plans before 9/11 By Bob Drogin. LA Times May 18 2002 2.7.4 http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/articles/usplansbefore9-11.htm After
initially denying any prior warnings, Bush vows to avenge
attacks. Associated press Sept 11 2001. 2.7.5 http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/sep01/attack-bush091101.asp the White
House later changed its story, citing warnings of 'non-specific" threats
as its explanation for why the invasion of Afghanistan had already been planned
prior to Sept 11. We are expected to believe that it was so interested
in Bin Laden that it had planned a pre-emptive war against him, but was
somehow unaware of the specifics of the Sept 11 plot. Notwithstanding the
difficulties with this story, it has some explaining to do in relation
to a) why the
Clinton administration had already turned down an offer for
the extradition of Bin laden in 1996 - after naming him as wanted for
the 1993 WTC bombing. b)
allegations that Bin Laden had met with the local
CIA station chief in Dubai in July 2001 - after the US had already begun its
planning for the war against him. c) why key
members of the Bush administration and their close associates maintained
business relationships with the Bin Laden family. This leads us on to
section 3. CLICK TO CONTINUE TO
SECTION 3 |