Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Bin Laden Admits WTC Attack
Osama bin Laden has for the first time admitted his al Qaida group carried out the September 11 attacks. The Sunday Telegraph newspaper says it has obtained previously undisclosed video footage in which bin Laden makes his confession. In it he says that "history should be a witness that we are terrorists".
(Filed: 11/11/2001)
OSAMA BIN LADEN has for the first time admitted that his al-Qa'eda group carried out the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Telegraph can reveal.
In a previously undisclosed video which has been circulating for 14 days among his supporters, he confesses that "history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents".
In the footage, shot in the Afghan mountains at the end of October, a smiling bin Laden goes on to say that the World Trade Centre's twin towers were a "legitimate target" and the pilots who hijacked the planes were "blessed by Allah".
The killing of at least 4,537 people was justified, he claims, because they were "not civilians" but were working for the American system.
Bin Laden also makes a direct personal threat against Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, for the first time, and warns nations such as Australia, Germany and Japan to stay out of the conflict.
The video will form the centrepiece of Britain and America's new evidence against bin Laden, to be released this Wednesday.
The footage, to which the Telegraph obtained access in the Middle East yesterday, was not made for public release via the al-Jazeera television network used by bin Laden for propaganda purposes in the past. It is believed to be intended as a rallying call to al-Qa'eda members.
In the video, bin Laden says: "The Twin Towers were legitimate targets, they were supporting US economic power. These events were great by all measurement. What was destroyed were not only the towers, but the towers of morale in that country."
The hijackers were "blessed by Allah to destroy America's economic and military landmarks". He freely admits to being behind the attacks: "If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism then history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents and this is legal religiously and logically."
In a contradictory section, however, bin Laden justifies killing the occupants of the Twin Towers because they were not civilians - Islam forbids the killing of innocent civilians even in a holy war.
He says: "The towers were supposed to be filled with supporters of the economical powers of the United States who are abusing the world. Those who talk about civilians should change their stand and reconsider their position. We are treating them like they treated us."
Bin Laden goes on to justify his entire terror campaign. "There are two types of terror, good and bad. What we are practising is good terror. We will not stop killing them and whoever supports them."
He directly threatens the lives of President Bush and Mr Blair. "Bush and Blair don't understand anything but the power of force. Every time they kill us, we kill them, so the balance of terror can be achieved." He also calls on all Muslims to join him. "It is the duty of every Muslim to fight. Killing Jews is top priority."
Bin Laden warns other nations to keep out of the conflict, implying that they could face terror attacks if they do not.
In the video, he also claims responsibility for an unspecified terrorist outrage in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which he claims was sparked by secret messages in one of his videos.
He admits for the first time using public pronouncements on video to whip up terrorism - a danger about which the British and American governments have warned broadcasters.
It is significant that throughout the video he uses the personal pronouns "I" and "we" to claim responsibility for the attacks. In the past, he has spoken of the attackers only in the third person.
Bin Laden has publicly issued four previous videos since September 11, always denying carrying out the atrocities.
He now claims to have access to nuclear and chemical weapons. Bin Laden made the claims on Friday night during an interview with the English language Pakistani newspaper Dawn.
He said: "If America used chemical or nuclear weapons against us, then we may retort with chemical and nuclear weapons. We have the weapons as deterrent."
Defence analysts dismissed these claims. They said that although bin Laden could have access to nuclear material through links with Pakistan or former Soviet republics, he was unlikely to have the technology to cause an explosion.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: "We know that he was looking for that capability. We believe he does not have it."
Emergency powers to imprison suspected international terrorists indefinitely using special closed courts will be announced this week. The measure, which will require exemption from human rights legislation, will be used to round up about 20 suspects hiding in Britain beyond the reach of existing laws.
OSAMA BIN LADEN has for the first time admitted that his al-Qa'eda group carried out the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Telegraph can reveal.
In a previously undisclosed video which has been circulating for 14 days among his supporters, he confesses that "history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents".
In the footage, shot in the Afghan mountains at the end of October, a smiling bin Laden goes on to say that the World Trade Centre's twin towers were a "legitimate target" and the pilots who hijacked the planes were "blessed by Allah".
The killing of at least 4,537 people was justified, he claims, because they were "not civilians" but were working for the American system.
Bin Laden also makes a direct personal threat against Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, for the first time, and warns nations such as Australia, Germany and Japan to stay out of the conflict.
The video will form the centrepiece of Britain and America's new evidence against bin Laden, to be released this Wednesday.
The footage, to which the Telegraph obtained access in the Middle East yesterday, was not made for public release via the al-Jazeera television network used by bin Laden for propaganda purposes in the past. It is believed to be intended as a rallying call to al-Qa'eda members.
In the video, bin Laden says: "The Twin Towers were legitimate targets, they were supporting US economic power. These events were great by all measurement. What was destroyed were not only the towers, but the towers of morale in that country."
The hijackers were "blessed by Allah to destroy America's economic and military landmarks". He freely admits to being behind the attacks: "If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism then history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents and this is legal religiously and logically."
In a contradictory section, however, bin Laden justifies killing the occupants of the Twin Towers because they were not civilians - Islam forbids the killing of innocent civilians even in a holy war.
He says: "The towers were supposed to be filled with supporters of the economical powers of the United States who are abusing the world. Those who talk about civilians should change their stand and reconsider their position. We are treating them like they treated us."
Bin Laden goes on to justify his entire terror campaign. "There are two types of terror, good and bad. What we are practising is good terror. We will not stop killing them and whoever supports them."
He directly threatens the lives of President Bush and Mr Blair. "Bush and Blair don't understand anything but the power of force. Every time they kill us, we kill them, so the balance of terror can be achieved." He also calls on all Muslims to join him. "It is the duty of every Muslim to fight. Killing Jews is top priority."
Bin Laden warns other nations to keep out of the conflict, implying that they could face terror attacks if they do not.
In the video, he also claims responsibility for an unspecified terrorist outrage in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which he claims was sparked by secret messages in one of his videos.
He admits for the first time using public pronouncements on video to whip up terrorism - a danger about which the British and American governments have warned broadcasters.
It is significant that throughout the video he uses the personal pronouns "I" and "we" to claim responsibility for the attacks. In the past, he has spoken of the attackers only in the third person.
Bin Laden has publicly issued four previous videos since September 11, always denying carrying out the atrocities.
He now claims to have access to nuclear and chemical weapons. Bin Laden made the claims on Friday night during an interview with the English language Pakistani newspaper Dawn.
He said: "If America used chemical or nuclear weapons against us, then we may retort with chemical and nuclear weapons. We have the weapons as deterrent."
Defence analysts dismissed these claims. They said that although bin Laden could have access to nuclear material through links with Pakistan or former Soviet republics, he was unlikely to have the technology to cause an explosion.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: "We know that he was looking for that capability. We believe he does not have it."
Emergency powers to imprison suspected international terrorists indefinitely using special closed courts will be announced this week. The measure, which will require exemption from human rights legislation, will be used to round up about 20 suspects hiding in Britain beyond the reach of existing laws.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$185.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
No mention of where or when the public will see this video. I haven't found any other corroboration yet, muslim or western. I noticed that picture used by the Telegraph was taken from an article that can be found at http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/top1.htm . It is an interview with Osama, in which he does not claim responsibility for the attacks.
Let's keep our ears and eyes open, and our brains in full critical mode as the "facts" reveal themselves.
to rest.
if they posted the picture of mir standing with osama then somethin sounds fishy, check out the dawn interview, and just wwait for the truth to slither out
hit a hippie!
That said, why do you wish "the video's real"? So your hippie-ass can feel justified in supporting the mass slaughter of Afghans? I believe that all terrorist groups should be swept away but don't believe that bombing and starving the people of Afghanistan will in any way contribute to increased security for americans. Alleviation of injustice, hopelessness, and misery and methodical, discriminate, and intelligent targeting of known terrorist cells is the only possible means of getting a hold on this problem. The US government -- a state that routinely and systematically aids, finances, and administers terror around the world -- has no interest in doing either however.
Here's a clue:
--------------------
“The Twin Towers were legitimate targets, they were supporting U.S. economic power. These events were great by all measurement. What was destroyed were not only the towers but the towers of morale in that country,” the paper quoted bin Laden as saying.
The hijackers were “blessed by Allah to destroy America’s economic and military landmarks,” bin Laden said.
Bin Laden also made statements that the paper said amounted to admission that he was behind the attacks.
“If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism then history should witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents and this is legal religiously and logically,” said bin Laden, according to the paper.
------------------------
Bush, Mossad, Cheny, BinLaden got together to destroy the World Trade Center so that Bush could grab even more power in the US.
Right.
Next you're gonna mention the very true fact that Elvis and Bin Laden have never been photographed together in Roswell, New Mexico, so logically........
and all those quotes from bin ladin NOT saying he did it: so what do you think about that, that we should just assume he did it because he said those things? Whether he actually did it or not, was responsible for it or not, you cannot convict him from those quotes.
"There are conspiracies in history but history is not a conspiracy."
Sure, it's technically possible that WTC and the Pentagon bombings were an inside job, that forces within the US government new of and allowed these attacks to take place in order to justify US military expansionism etc. I don't begrudge you, Nessie, for entertaining the idea, however, you evince too much certainty on the matter for my taste. In the murky world of terrorism ostensible enemies frequently have connections with one another. I'm all for uncovering these "paradoxes". However, radical analysis of today's world doesn't consist of drawing lines between dots. Conspiracy theory doesn't explain capital's laws of motion, nor the perogatives of our rulers; if anything it leads to paralysis and mystification because it posits rootless, evil, ahistorical forces as the real movers in history. For instance, who do you mean when you say "fascist elements" within the Anglo-American world? Are these "fascists" distinct from the US/UK capitalist ruling class and its geo-strategists and war-makers? If so, do they have an agenda that conflicts with the presumably less-malign agenda of capital? If not, why refer to them as fascists?
Suppose you were making a lot of money in the Oil business, specifically buying oil cheaply and reselling it to Americans in the many forms that Americans consume oil. Gasoline of course but also there are over 500,000 known other uses of oil: Fertilizers (farms/food supply), medicines, plastics, insulation, computers, asphalt, inks & toners, paints, glues, solvents, antiseptics, golf balls, CDs, trash bags, nail polish, detergents, chewing gum, etc.
Suppose you knew that your current sources of cheap oil were drying up and you knew where the next and probably last large oil reserve was (Kazakhstan) and had already invested very heavily in that exploration but in order for this oil to remain cheap and exploitable it has to be piped through Afghanistan. And the ruling government refused to allow
you your pipeline.
Suppose you were an unpopular President needing to boost the economy. Needing to protect the Nations oil supplies. But you also wouldn't mind having more power over the citizenry, and wanted to erode civil liberties. Suppose you believed that the best way to boost the economy was by pumping money into the largest corporations in the world. And by pumping money into the military, defense contractors and weapons manufacturers, after all these are the very ones that helped pay my way into office. Suppose you believed that you needed a war to accomplish all of these things at once, what would the main obstacle be? Why the people of the country could never stand for a war for economic reasons! They would clearly see that the government is bought and paid for by
campaign contributions. Suppose you also wanted to teach the Taliban a lesson for threatening to kill christian woman! The people still wouldn't support a war over that.
What would it take for the whole country to get behind a war against Afghanistan? What if we could get them to attack us first? Well so it would be hard to get them to do that, but we would need an attack on US soil to get the kind of support that would carry the war effort. Suppose we could get those terrorist that hate us so much to attack us? Or
suppose we knew they were going to and just let them. Then we could attack Afghanistan claiming that we were attacking the terrorist that they harbored. This would accomplish all that this president needed.
We can now continue with our plans to pipe oil through the new government that we install there. We get a boost in the economy. The president becomes popular as the war would be popular "Protecting US interests and All". We can easily pass new laws giving hugh amounts of money to the very people that put me into office as an economic stimulus
package, and increased military spending, and by consuming arms we'll of course need new ones to replace those. New laws giving hugh un-heard of powers to police agencies.
How else could we protect these interests and maintain public, worldwide support?
Who would offer the most support for this? Look at the map. If oil is piped through Afghanistan, it has to also go through Pakistan, and to a major port there (Karachi), undoubtedly increasing Pakistan's wealth. Pakistan is a big supporter of the White Oil Pipeline Project. Which is also supported largely by Britain's Shell Oil Company. And Britain seems to be very big supporter.
Now the president wants the power to keep his records and those of his father and all other presidents private forever. Overruling the current 12 year privacy rule.
Proof?...
http://www.runningonempty.org/oilcrash.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/news/2001/0211.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html
http://www.dawn.com/2001/09/18/ebr9.htm
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11839
http://www.opensecrets.org/payback/issue.asp?issueid=EC1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,586470,00.html
http://www.opensecrets.org/payback/index.asp
http://www.indybay.org/2001/11/108862.php
http://www.lpdallas.org/features/draheim/dr991216.htm
http://www.newscoast.com/headlinesstory2.cfm?ID=35115
http://www.indiaabroadonline.com/PublicAccess/ia-10132000/Economy/Pakistanfuel.html
What if the bad guys really were working with the cia, in order to incite a wanted war, for the final evolution of a dying oil economy.
Would we be able to tell?
I'll confess I have sort of an axe to grind when it comes to conspiracy theory. I feel that it tends to drive away critical-minded people from the movement for radical change (to the extent that it is associated with radical political analysis) while drawing uncritical people into it. Staking one's opposition to the present set-up on conspiracy theories -- which can rarely be proven definitively -- when there is such an abundance of reasons that can be conclusively documented seems to me pretty dangerous. This isn't to deny that conspiracies occur, nor to argue that crazy machinations shouldn't be investigated.
The problem with conspiracy theory generally is that it treats the system as if it were ruled in an air-tight and absolutist manner. Capitalism isn't a monolithic system -- there are competing capitals which simultaneously have shared and conflicting interests; in the political realm, competing management strategies for capitalism dual it out(to quote a friend, "democracy is the language of common sense in a world where capitalism controls the senses"). Within tightly restricted parameters there is chaos. Government agencies aren't utterly politicized; inertia, fear, and understood norms carry the day. Many basically decent people, in other words, administer and reproduce a system that is based on exploitation and is rapidly destroying the planet.
A conspiracy along the lines laid out in the above post necessarily assumes that there is a tight, rock-solid chain-of-command and that not one person betrays it (out of how many? it would have to be quite a few is my guess) by revealing such sinister, "unpatriotic" plans. This is my main reason for doubting that this is an inside job....
There's more to say, but i'm about to pass out. I'm sure this debate will continue!
I wandered to this site about six weeks ago because I had some questions in my mind about the way the government was moving against rights and freedoms.
Unfortunately I have been turned completely off of Indymedia and what is written here because of the preponderance of, well, looney ideas - and,yes, in my eyes a complicated conspiracy by the Bush family aligned with the CIA and the Mossad is a looney idea.
And this is just one case in point. I've read about the Beatles stealing people's songs, robot guided planes, something about having the calendar changed by Bush to include two moons in one month.
My impression is that this Nessie guy/gal is part of the conspiracy - a Bush agent to chase away people like me (leaning but not yet totally converted)
Is there any website that includes news of protests and other actions without this bizarre stuff?
Like I said in my other post, but failed to underline in my last, I'm all for investigating "crazy machinations". In other words, I'm for exposing conspiracies if they have occured. However, I believe that in lieu of rock-solid proof -- as opposed to pure conjecture -- radicals should not go around blathering about the likelihood of a government conspiracy. It is far more beneficial to drive home a radical critique of global capitalism, the terrorist realities of US foreign policy, and the real interests and goals involved in this latest US war.
Conspiracy theories can rarely be proven, and even when they are, don't necessarily lead to a broader understanding of the system we live under nor shed light on what to do about it. A radical analysis, on the other hand, can be developed through hard documentation and by definition leads to a deeper understanding of the system as well as the means to fight for something much better.
Whether you like it or not, most critical minded people are turned-off by talk of conspiracies (partly because it makes them feel totally powerless) and view the conspiracist as a wing-nut.
For what it's worth, I'll quickly give a few reasons to question the existence of a conspiracy:
1. I think annhilating massive numbers of innocent American civilians would elicit a whistle-blower somewhere down the line. Simply too many people would have had to be "on the same page", and given the egregiousness of the attack, that seems unlikely. In contrast to "accidentally" killing large numbers of civilians in the 3rd World, deliberately killing US civilians here in the US goes against what most patriotic types consider acceptable. To bank that NOT ONE PERSON would balk at such an idea seems pretty implausible.
2. The WTC and Pentagon bombings hurt capitalist interests and certainly didn't help the US economy.
3. The bombings made the US look vulnerable world-wide.
4. The Bush administration (or whoever) could have manufactured a far less risky pretext for waging war with Afghanistan than blowing a hole in the Pentagon and collapsing two sky-scrapers.