Articles

The Financing of 9/11:

Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate & the CIA

The financial trail prior to and post 9/11

A short investigatory text with a complete referenced list of sources reproduced in full

The reference system:

Superscript references e.g. 5 are used in this document.

The number refers the reader to a page number where the relevant paragraph is highlighted for clarity.

General

This document contains additional material which is supplied for the reader to delve more deeply into the subject matter.

All the information herein is already in the public domain but has not always been collated in a useful manner. Hence the existence of this document.

This report does not pertain to be a fully comprehensive exposure of the story concerned but rather a collation of current publicly available information.

The author hopes the Federal Bureau of Investigation is given the mandate and influence to complete its enquiries.

Until that time no other option exists but to personally examine all the available evidence for ourselves.

 

The ISID Connections to 9/11 Finance

This document is the result of an investigation into the financiers of 9/11 and their connections.

The age old adage applies: Follow the money.

Following the money trail proved to be a fairly straight-forward task as all the evidence necessary to form a picture is already in the public domain. Albeit scattered across many published articles.

Douglas911finaThis account is the result of days spent at the British Library Archives in London pouring over microfilm. It also became necessary to survey the appropriate electronic database which allows access to the Lexus-Nexus™ archives.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has been following the money trail of the 9/11 hijackers for some time and found several important leads.

After working with Indian authorities the FBI has been able to ascertain the sources; or at least the conduits for the money used to facilitate the 9/11 attacks.

Douglas911finaIt is not presently known why the FBI has been unable or unwilling to bring about criminal proceedings as a result of these findings. Unfortunately many of the key players in the case are now either dead or maintaining a reclusive lifestyle.

In summer 2001 the ringleader of the hijackers Mohammed Atta (right), received a wired money transfer of $100,000 64. The FBI traced this payment after 9/11 to a man in Pakistan called Saeed Sheikh121, remember his name, he becomes rather important.

The plot thickens at this juncture; our man Saeed Sheikh (picture above left) was actually a secret agent for a Pakistani organization called the ISID55. The FBI report that orders for this money transfer came all the way from the chief of the ISID64.

The next part of our story begins in Washington DC on September 4th 2001, just a week before the most horrific attack on the US mainland in our history.

On the 4/09/01 a senior Pakistani official, General Mahmoud Ahmed arrived in Washington DC for several meetings with top US officials; including the head of the CIA George Tenet13.

Douglas911fina

Shockingly; the same General Mahmoud Ahmed (picture above) was the head of Pakistan’s ISID (Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate).12

The General was still in Washington on 9/11 itself having meetings at the Pentagon with senior US officials26.

 

Douglas911finaAlthough numerous mainstream newspapers reported these facts they did so in isolation. Only one paper (The Guardian Sept 10th 2005)126 actually reported all the facts and the connections between the persons involved.

Why the lack of press exposure? This is probably partly because the only journalist who got really close to the story in Pakistan ended up being killed, most sources state at the hands of the ISID64. He was an American reporter who most of us should remember, his name was Daniel

Pearl and he had flown to Pakistan to investigate the ISID and its funding of Al Qaeda78.

(Above right: Daniel Pearl before being murdered; probably on the orders of Pakistan’s ISID)

In 2002 a man was sentenced to death in Pakistan for Daniels murder, his name (what a co-incidence) was a certain Saeed Sheikh87.

 

So to collate all that into one paragraph:

The FBI know an ISID agent financed the 9/11 hijackers and that he was ordered to wire the money by the head of the ISID General Ahmed. The same General Ahmed was visiting the head of the CIA George Tenet (Below left) on the week of 9/11 in Washington DC.
Douglas911fina
No attempt has been made to even interview General Ahmed by the US authorities127 and the only journalist to fly to Pakistan to look into it ended up dead at the hands of the ISID. There are one or two reports probing the possibility that Pearl may have been feeding information to the CIA97.
If this is the case the CIA either had not briefed Pearl properly or Pearl had ignored security advice. His getting into a strange car in Pakistan’s underworld seems a very odd course of action83.

It appears to me Pearl was either extraordinarily naïve or incredibly brave. 

A report from a Taxi driver confirms the identity of Saeed Sheikh as being in the car with Pearl the last time he was seen alive66. Does this make him the murderer?

Pearls family don’t think so123, strangely enough Saeed was condemned to be executed for his murder in 2002. Many acknowledge his undoubted involvement as a probable kidnapper, however there is little to place him as the actual killer88.

I believe that Saeed was condemned to ensure he would not be extradited and awkward questions asked.

The ISID has been funded and used by the American CIA for decades to do their dirty work9. It was the very same ISID that trained the Afghan fighters in 1986 to kill Soviets with state of the art CIA supplied military hardware5.

The CIA and ISID are very, very close associates and have been for decades.

 

“Pakistani military intelligence funded by the U.S. and Saudi governments and “charitable” organizations, had turned groups of nineteenth-century Arab tribesmen and several thousand Arab volunteers into a force that had crippled the mighty Red Army. The stinger* had been the final element they had needed”

(Against All Enemies, Richard A. Clark, page 50, Para 4)

Clark was the head of American counter terrorism until 2003
                                                *Shoulder launched US military grade missile

All intelligence agencies have ‘media contacts’, to whom are released ‘red-herrings’ and misinformation in order to lead the public (and other people) astray. However in this case the fate of Daniel Pearl who was investigating these stories certainly gives them a very high level of credence.

The above information is studiously ignored by the 9/11 Commission who make two seemingly unbelievable statements on the matter of who financed 9/11.

“To date the US Government has been unable to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks, ultimately the question is of little practical significance”

“We have seen no evidence that any foreign government or any foreign government official supplied any funding”

                                                    (The 9/11 Commission Report, page 172, Para 2 & 3)

Below a selection of quotes from articles I hold to support my statements.

“The General, the second most powerful man is Pakistan’s military government has just returned from Washington after talking to George Tenet, the Chief of the CIA, and other senior US officials”
                                                                                     (The Times, 18th September 2001)

“Pakistani police say that until recently Sheikh was an agent of the Pakistani secret service and was greatly valued for his covert activities”
                                                                                      (The Times, 19th February 2002)

“The British born mastermind behind the gruesome murder of US reporter Daniel Pearl helped bankroll the September 11 attacks on America with a payment of $100,000 to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta”
                                                                        (The Sunday Herald, 24th February 2002)

“General Mahmoud Ahmed, director general of the ISI, had been forced into retirement after FBI investigators uncovered credible links between him and Sheikh in the wake of September 11”
                                                                        (Sunday Times, 21st April 2002)

“Significantly Sheikh is also the one who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta”
                                                                        (The Guardian, 22nd July 2004)

Douglas911finaWhen the General’s involvement was made public we would like to think he would be immediately arrested and extradited to the USA. However the head of Pakistan President Musharraf was simply pressurised by the US to ensure General Ahmed retired quietly and kept out of sight64.

(Left: Pakistani President Musharraf with General Ahmed)

As far as we know the man who paid for three thousand innocent men and women to be murdered is happily living under close watch in Pakistan64.

Neither the General nor Saeed have ever been sought by the US for questioning related to their roles in funding the 9/11 operation.127

There are also very recent reports of the ISID funding and training groups in Pakistan who intended to commit terrorism in the UK132 + 133. Given the public post 9/11 US alignment with Pakistan this is very disturbing.

See the ‘author’s conclusions’ on page 134 for further discussion.

 

Copyright 1999 Guardian Newspapers Limited
The Guardian (London)
October 14, 1999
SECTION: Guardian Leader Pages; Pg. 21
LENGTH: 1274 words
HEADLINE: The panic button; Tariq Ali Pakistan spends billions on nuclear weapons and makes its poor eat grass. Now comes an army coup

BODY:

Pakistan is, once again, in the throes of a serious crisis. The country is
under martial law. The elected prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, his brother,
Shahbaz and General Ziaudin, the head of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) are
under house arrest. Ever since its foundation in 1947, the Pakistani state has
been plagued by a failure to establish strong democratic institutions. The
reason is simple. From 1951 onwards, when the country had become a US pawn in the cold war, Washington felt that the army was the best guarantor of Washington's interests in the region. General Ayub Khan's dictatorship (1958-68) was openly backed by the US state department, till it was swept aside by a popular uprising that lasted three months. General Zia's monstrous regime (1977-89) was spawned by the Pentagon and the Defense Intelligence Agency, eager for a proxy to take on the Russians in Afghanistan.

For the third time in its traumatic history, the army has seized power, this
time, apparently, against the advice of the US. The people - disillusioned,
apathetic, weary - appear indifferent to the fate of their venal politicians.
There is widespread disgust at the inability of successive governments to
control the scale of corruption. For several years now, the decay at the heart
of the administration had become a national scandal. Politicians were so busy
lining their own pockets that they had little time to ponder the welfare of the
country and its people.

In 1997 a palace coup, orchestrated by her own hand-picked president,
removed Benazir Bhutto. It was alleged that she and her husband, Senator Asif Zardari, had used Prime Minister's House to amass a large private fortune,
estimated at somewhere close to $ 1bn.

In the subsequent general elections, her long-time opponent, Nawaz Sharif
scored a triumph, winning 80% of the seats in parliament, but on the basis of an exceptionally low turn-out. Only 25% of the electorate bothered to vote.
Benazir's supporters punished her by staying at home. The new government had promised a great deal, but nothing changed.

The country continued to rot. Pakistan has never been able to provide the
bulk of its population with either free education or health, but in the past it
could offer food to the poor at subsidized prices and protect innocent lives
from random killings. No longer. Everything is falling apart. A country that
spends billions to fund its arsenal of nuclear weapons, forces its poor to eat
grass. The suicide rate among the poor, driven insane by poverty, has risen
sharply over the last decade. Last January a transport worker in Hyderabad, who had not been paid for two years, soaked himself in petrol and set himself alight outside the Press Club. He left behind a letter: 'I have lost patience. Me and my fellow workers have been protesting the non-payment of our salaries for a long time. But nobody takes any notice. My wife and mother are seriously ill and I have no money for their treatment. My family is starving and I am fed up with quarrels. I don't have the right to live. I am sure the flames of my body will reach the houses of the rich one day."

The Sharif brothers and their father, strong believers in globalization and
neo-liberal economics, helped create an enterprise culture in which they
genuinely believed that everything was for sale, including politicians, civil
servants and, yes, generals. There were widespread rumors that, in order to buy time and make yet more money, the Sharif family had provided sackfuls of
general-friendly dollars to bolster their support in the army. A section of the
high command was enraged by this civilian interference.

The immediate cause of the latest coup was Sharif's decision to sack the
army chief, General Musharraf while he was on an official visit to Sri Lanka and
appoint General Ziaudin in his place. Just as Pakistan TV was showing Sharif
appointing and congratulating the new army chief, the old army pulled the plug and the country's TV screens went blank. Ziaudin, as the ISI boss, is the main supplier of the Taliban army in Afghanistan. He is sympathetic to the
fundamentalist cause and loathed by officers, who value the secular side of the army and enjoy drinking whisky to the tune of bagpipes at regimental dinners.

Musharraf's supporters inside the army moved swiftly. Once Nawaz Sharif's
instruction that the plane returning the general to Pakistan be diverted to a
foreign country was ignored and Musharraf landed at a Karachi Airport secured by the army it became obvious that the government would be toppled. The bloated Pakistan army - one of the Pentagon's spoilt brats in Asia - hated becoming a cold war orphan. 'Pakistan was the condom the Americans needed to enter Afghanistan,' a retired general told me last year. 'We've served our purpose and they think we can just be flushed down the toilet.'

Last year the army, fearful that a forced rapprochement with India might
lead to a relegation of its status and power and a reduction of its budget,
played the nuclear card. This was followed by an adventurous border clash with India in Kashmir during which Pakistan received a severe drubbing. This
increased tensions with the government which tried to pin the entire blame for
the botched operation on the army. Now General Musharraf has seized power in the country, but in changed conditions.

The army is no longer a unified institution. Well organized groups of
Islamic zealots have penetrated its core. Unlike the older and more traditional
religious parties, the Soldiers of the First Four Caliphs, the Soldiers of
Muhammed, the Soldiers of Medina and the Volunteers are all hungry for power.

Their preferred model is that of the Taliban and earlier in the year one of
their factions seized several villages in the North-West Frontier province and
declared the area to be under 'Islamic law'. A public destruction of TV sets and
dish antennae took place in the village of Zargari. If such a faction were ever
to take over the Pakistan army - and the possibility is not as remote as it
seemed a few years ago - then the possession of nuclear weapons would acquire a frightening new significance.

If Washington refuses to tolerate a new dictator, the most likely scenario
is a caretaker government staffed by IMF-approved technocrats. That, too, will
achieve little, for the only serious and rational alternative to domestic chaos
is a long-term treaty of friendship and trade with India, a new permanent
settlement which could form the basis of a larger EU-style confederation of
south Asian republics. For over 50 years, Pakistan has turned its back on India, imagining it could replace its giant neighbor by cultivating links with the
gulf states and Saudi Arabia.

The strategy has been a political and economic failure, leaving the country denuded of a skilled labour force and incapable of
meeting its own basic needs. In recent years there have been a few signs in that politicians of the main secular parties were beginning to explore a new economic deal with India. Pressure from the fundamentalists and the army sent their heads quickly back into the sand.

And yet this remains the only rational solution in the medium term. All other options are bleak beyond belief. The ISI-armed fundamentalists are waiting in the wings. If they decided to split the army it would unleash a bloody civil war, with devastating consequences for the region. If the politicians of the sub-continent fail to devise a way of living together,
they might end up dying together.

Special report on the Pakistan coup at www.newsunlimited.co.uk/pakistan
LOAD-DATE: October 14, 1999

 

 

 

Copyright 2001 Times Newspapers Limited
The Times (London)
September 18, 2001, Tuesday
SECTION: Overseas news
LENGTH: 804 words
HEADLINE: Afghan troops threaten Pakistan
BYLINE: Zahid Hussain in Islamabad

BODY:

THE Taliban were reported yesterday to have moved missiles and thousands of troops to the border with Pakistan as tension rose during a last-minute attempt to persuade them to hand over Osama bin Laden.

A Pakistani officer near the Khyber Pass reported that the fundamentalist
Afghan regime had deployed between 20,000 and 25,000 fighters just across the border from the Khyber Pass as Pakistani forces spread out along the 900-mile frontier.

Others, however, doubted the size of the Taliban deployment, which was said
to have gathered about 20 miles from the border, believing that it numbered no more than 3,000. The Taliban have Scud missiles, but a report that these had been moved close to the border was unconfirmed.

The Taliban troop movement was most visible near Torkhan in North West
Frontier Province as the tension between the two nations mounted. Most of these Afghan posts were not manned until last week. The border at the Torkhan crossing was closed to everything but food; refugees were barred from coming through, Pakistani officials said.

"We are also forming our forces, but there has been no firing," Captain Abid
Bahtti, a Pakistani officer at a checkpoint just two miles from the frontier,
said. Asked whether the mood was warlike, he said: "Definitely, but it is not a
declared war."

The heightened tension came as the fundamentalist Afghan regime closed its
air-space and said that bin Laden's fate would be settled at a special meeting
of clerics today. The meeting comes after the attempt by a high-level delegation from Pakistan to persuade the Taliban to hand over bin Laden.
Rashid Qureshi, a spokesman for President Musharraf, Pakistan's military
ruler, said that although the delegation had been expected to return yesterday "it seems they are going to extend their visit by another day".
However, the regime looks unlikely to reverse its long-standing decision to
protect bin Laden. A Taliban spokesman, Abdul Hai Mutamaen, last night told the

Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press that while the talks had been mainly
positive, the bin Laden issue had not been resolved.
Led by Lieutenant-General Mahmood Ahmed, head of the country's powerful
Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), the delegation met Mullah Muhammad Omar and warned him that his refusal to surrender bin Laden would result in an imminent military assault.

Mullah Omar, who seldom meets foreigners, received General Mahmood in his
new fortified house in southern Afghanistan, which has been built for him by bin Laden at the foot of a barren hill outside Kandahar. The city is also the
spiritual headquarters of the Islamic movement. The general, the second-most powerful man in Pakistan's military Government, has just returned from Washington after talking to George Tenet, the chief of the CIA, and other senior US officials.

Pakistan's decision to back the US coalition against terrorism has, however,
created internal problems. Religious groups have called for demonstrations on
Friday to oppose any attack on Afghanistan.
Mullah Omar has already threatened to declare holy war against the United
States and any country that helps it.

The ISI, which has been closely linked to the Taliban movement from its
emergence, played a crucial role in its spectacular battlefield victories
against rival Afghan factions. General Mahmood has met the reclusive leader
several times.

According to a senior Pakistani military official, the message to the
Taliban leader was simple: hand bin Laden to the United States or be certain
that you will be hit by a punishing retaliatory strike from the US-led
international force. Although no deadline has been set, a senior military
official said that the Taliban leaders were told that a strike could occur as
early as the coming weekend.

Pakistani officials are said to have taken with them documentary evidence
showing bin Laden's alleged involvement in the terror attacks in New York and
Washington. There is no indication, however, that the hard-line leader would
yield to the pressure and show any flexibility. Mullah Omar has said that his
"honorable guest" does not have the capacity to carry out the attacks and that he was innocent.

Pakistan also kept up the pressure on the wider diplomatic front. Moinuddin
Haider, the Interior Minister, said: "The delegation is motivating and advising
Mullah Omar and the Taliban leadership that they should consider the pros and
cons of not co-operating with America and others on matters of terrorism,
because if Afghanistan does not do the logical, balanced attitude in this regard
it will be a problem for Afghanistan and its people."

Yesterday Taliban officials were reported to have begun to flee Kabul,
heading for remoter regions to avoid the prospect of missile attacks.

 

 

Copyright 2001 Times Newspapers Limited
Sunday Times (London)
September 23, 2001, Sunday
SECTION: Features
LENGTH: 3801 words
HEADLINE: Hold tight for war
BYLINE: Richard Woods

BODY:

After the sorrow comes the struggle. Britain and America are braced for a
battle they cannot afford to lose. Richard Woods reports
'First I want to thank you for being brave enough to fly today," said the
pilot as passengers settled into their seats.

It was Saturday evening, a week ago, on a plane heading from Denver to
Washington. Airports were reopening and flights were resuming after the suicide jet attacks had murdered more than 6,000 people.
"The doors are now closed and we have no help from the outside for any
problems that might occur."

The pilot, recalled a woman executive who was among the passengers, then
enumerated the risks. Guns should have been dealt with by airport scanners.
Bombs were not worth worrying about. "If you have a bomb, there is no need
to tell me about it, or anyone else; you are already in control."
That left knives, "box-cutter" knives, bits of wood or any other object that
might be used as a weapon.

"Here is our plan and our rules. If someone or several people stand up and
say they are hijacking this plane, I want you all to stand up together. Then
take whatever you have available and throw it at them. Throw it at their heads.

The best protection you have against knives are the pillows and blankets. Try to get a blanket over their head. Once that is done, get them down and keep them there. We will take care of them. There are usually only a few of them and we are 200 strong."

The pilot then referred to the American constitution, which begins with the
words "We, the people ..."
"That's who we are," he said. "The people. And we will not be defeated."
Passengers began to applaud, people had tears in their eyes. The flight
attendant then began the safety speech.

"One of the things she said is that we are all so busy and live our lives at
such a fast pace," recalled the woman executive. "She asked that everyone turn to their neighbors on either side and introduce themselves, tell each other
something about your families and children, show photographs, whatever.

"She said: 'For today we consider you family. We will treat you as such and
ask that you do the same with us.' Throughout the flight we learnt that for the
crew this was their first flight since the tragedies. It was a day that everyone
leant on each other, everyone was stronger than any one person alone."

There was applause again as the plane landed at Washington, where the
president of the people of America was preparing to lead the world in
confronting a threat that none can face alone: the fanatics who murder in the
name of god.

For the civilized of all faiths and races, it was time to make a stand.
This was new territory for George Bush. His worst crisis while governor of
Texas had been comforting a family that had lost its home in a flood. "It broke
my heart," he told reporters last year.

Now thousands of hearts were broken and thousands were dead, and Bush had to find the statesmanship to lead his shaken country. In public he had faltered but in private he was firm. If he was going to attack Afghanistan, it would not be a knee-jerk response.

"When I take action I'm not going to fire a $ 2m missile at a $ 10 empty
tent and hit a camel in the butt," he told a group of senators from New York and Virginia. "It's got to be decisive."

One of those senators was Hillary Clinton, and the reference to her
husband's failed bid to destroy the terrorist chieftain Osama Bin Laden with
cruise missiles was clear. This time there would be no half-measures, no
ambiguities.

All angles would be pursued, all leverage used. On Bush's orders, American generals and admirals began to prepare for a warsuch as they have never fought before -against an elusive and fanatical worldwide enemy.

Far away Bin Laden was also making preparations. He was reported to be in
Kandahar, a town in the dusty hills of southern Afghanistan where he has one of his terrorist training bases. He entrusted immediate control of his Al Qaeda
organization to two aides, according to reports in Pakistan, and then headed out on the 300 miles of rutted, potholed track that used to be the road towards Kabul.

From there he continued on horseback, like a fugitive from another time,
galloping from America's spy planes and satellites. The hills of the Hindu Kush,
a haven from bombs, beckoned.

BY chance, one of the few outsiders who knows the medieval politics of
Afghanistan intimately was in Washington 12 days ago when the terrorists struck. Lieutenant-General Mahmood Ahmed, head of the powerful Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency in Pakistan, was on a quiet visit that was believed to have included a meeting with George Tenet, head of the CIA.

He was hauled in by Bush's advisers. "Forget about the past," one shouted,
banging the table. "This is a whole new beginning." The time had come for the
Taliban, Afghanistan's rulers, to surrender Bin Laden. And it was time for
Pakistan, one of only three countries that has recognized the Taliban
government, to help: Pakistan was either with America or against it.

By last Sunday night the tough-talking Punjabi general was heading for
Kandahar to tell the Taliban that their entanglement with terrorism would bring
doom upon all their heads unless they handed over Bin Laden.

He entered a country that -after 10 years of Soviet occupation, seven years
of civil war and five years of Taliban rule -is in ruins. Although the Taliban
rule has imposed a measure of peace, its forces are still fighting rebels in
many provinces.

The Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, a one-eyed recluse, met Ahmed in
his fortified house constructed by Bin Laden. The intelligence boss handed over
a letter from General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president. It made plain the
American demands.

The mullah is not receptive to new ideas. The debate went back and forth,
complete with citations from the Koran, but to no avail. "Osama will be the last
person to leave Afghanistan," was Omar's private message, according to one
Pakistani diplomat. In public, the mullah said the shura, Afghanistan's supreme
council of clerics, would decide what to do about Bin Laden.

Ahmed flew back across the border to report to Musharraf. The Pakistani
leader faced his own unpalatable choice: did he side with the Taliban because of fundamentalist pressures in Pakistan, or did he work with America? He chose to confront the terrorists, deciding that the survival of his nation, itself born of religious strife, was at stake.

It was a brave decision. Hamid Gul, former head of intelligence, warned that
the army might rebel and Musharraf -who threw out a corrupt civilian government two years ago but has been promising elections -feared the same. An editor who met Musharraf last week noted that he "knows he has perhaps signed his own death warrant".

On the streets of Karachi, demonstrations erupted. At one intersection, a
hawker was selling fake beards for those who had spontaneously decided to
conform to the Taliban creed.

Back in Washington, Bush sent a signal to worried Muslims. Between the
military planning and services for the dead, he visited an Islamic centre. He
took off his shoes before entering the mosque and was at pains to distinguish
between ordinary Muslims and fanatical terrorists. However, some of his less diplomatic remarks played more awkwardly worldwide.

"There's an old poster out west that says, 'Wanted, dead or alive'," he told
America. It was an honest reaction, although not entirely off the cuff. He had
tried the phrase on his friend, Vincente Fox, president of Mexico, who had
approved. Sophisticates did not. They also shuddered when he spoke of a
"crusade" against terrorism. Was he about to ignite a conflagration that would
harm millions of innocent people?

There were certainly calls within Bush's inner circle for retribution on a
broad front. Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defence, and Lewis Libby, chief of staff to the vice-president, Dick Cheney, urged attacks on suspected
terrorist bases in Iraq and Lebanon, as well as Afghanistan.

Hard-line conservatives circulated a letter calling on Bush to "make a
determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power". The mood elsewhere was also grimly determined. Benjamin Netanyahu, the former Israeli prime minister, barely paused when a television interviewer suggested that "taking out" Bin Laden hiding in Afghanistan would be as difficult as as finding a needle in a haystack.

"No, it's not difficult at all," growled Netanyahu. "You take out the haystack."

Behind the aggressive rhetoric, however, American diplomacy had gone into
overdrive. Colin Powell, the secretary of state, was building a coalition of
allies across many divides. Bush, Powell and their teams had been burning up the telephone lines to Europe, Russia, Asia and, in particular, the Middle East,
calling Ariel Sharon, the ultra-hawkish prime minister of Israel, and Yasser
Arafat, the Palestinian leader. If Sharon and Arafat could not agree peace while America did battle against terrorism, the Middle East could explode into war.

Powell piled on the pressure until Sharon finally saw the light. He sent
Omri, his son, to dinner with Arafat. The Palestinian leader cut pieces of
kunafeh, a traditional honey and cheese dessert. "You look hungry. Eat it all
up," Arafat told Omri. "Eat, and tell your father we can reach an agreement."
The dinner lasted two hours. The next day Arafat and Sharon announced a
ceasefire. There were doubts that it would hold but it was a remarkable
achievement.

IN suburban America and the back streets of Britain, passions were running
high. At the Surplus Store on Venice Boulevard in Los Angeles, middle America
was busy buying gas masks. "We've sold hundreds in the past few days," said John Edell, the owner.

An Indian immigrant was shot dead at a petrol station in Arizona. The man
held for questioning allegedly shouted: "I stand for America all the way." The
victim was not even Islamic; he was a Sikh. Congressman John Cooksey said anyone "wearing a diaper on his head" at airports ought to be pulled over for extra questioning. He later apologized, although he added that America would never win the war "if we have to stop every five minutes to make sure we are being politically correct".

Several Asian passengers checking in at American airports experienced scenes
that contrasted sadly with the comradely "We are the people" flight from Denver to Washington. In San Antonio, Texas, Ashraf Khan, 32, a mobile phone salesman and permanent resident of the United States who was trying to get to his brother's wedding in Pakistan, was ordered off a Delta Airlines flight. The plane's captain, Khan said, told him that the flight crew did not "feel
safe flying with you".

"There was no apology, nothing," said Khan, who missed the wedding. "Because of my name, the colour of my skin, the pilot thought I was a bad person." In Orlando, Florida, two businessmen from Pakistan were ordered off a US Airways flight bound for Baltimore. In Minneapolis, three Middle Eastern looking men were denied permission to board a Northwest Airlines flight to their home in Salt Lake City. Ticket agents expressed concern, according to a police report, because they appeared nervous.

Police questioned them about their nationalities and itineraries and then
escorted them to the departures area, but an airline official told them: "The
crew and the passengers refuse to go with you guys, so you're not going."
One of them, Kareem Alasady, 36, a taxi driver who went to America in 1994
and became a citizen in 1999, said afterwards: "All the people were looking at
us like we were guilty."

In Britain a fire bomb was thrown at the central mosque in Burton-upon-Trent; Muslims in Bradford were advised not to walk to mosques alone. Ten pigs' heads were strewn around the car park of the Islamic Centre for the South West in Exeter; at the central Manchester mosque notes pushed through
the door read: "Kill Muslim scum" and "Muslims follow Satan". Abhorrent though the incidents were, few acts of physical violence were reported to the police in Britain. The only people calling for blood were fundamentalists. Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, a Syrian who arrived in Britain in the 1980s after being expelled from Saudi Arabia, denounced Pakistan for helping America. Its leader, he said, should be killed.

Suddenly a fresh reminder of the savagery of the hijackers cut through all
the arguments: details emerged of how an airline stewardess on one of the
hijacked planes had witnessed the terrorists' actions.

Madeline Sweeney had managed to make a call from American Airlines flight
11, reporting that it was being hijacked. Two crew members had been stabbed, she told a ground controller. "A hijacker also cut the throat of a business class passenger and he appears to be dead," she said. Business class America never expected such bloodiness.

Sweeney saw four Middle Eastern men and tried to give their seat numbers.
The pilot was apparently trying to alert air controllers by surreptitiously
clicking his radio button. Sweeney was asked their position: "I see water and
buildings." It was the Hudson River and New York; the plane was heading for the twin towers.

"Oh my God. Oh my God." They were her last words. The awfulness of what followed her call is best understood in the makeshift office of Dale Downey, the head of DMort , the disaster and mortuary operations unit in New York. He has the task of gathering the remains of people slaughtered
in the World Trade Center. On his office wall he keeps a tally of the dead.

The gruesome ritual starts with the rescue workers at ground zero, as the
wrecked site is called. When they find a body or a body part, they place it on a
hospital trolley or in a white plastic bucket to be taken to a nearby tent.
There, other hands sort the pieces into body bags: a torso gets its own bag;
other lumps are loaded in together. These jumbled remains of people travel via
refrigerated truck to the makeshift morgues where teams of pathologists examine
them. One severed hand was identified by the mobile phone it still clutched. A
priest is nearby to comfort those overwhelmed by what they see.

Every 12 hours Downey's list of remains is updated. One day last week
"Bodies (full)" were rising beyond 180; "Body parts (identified)" numbered a few score; "Body parts (unidentified)" were piling up to more than 1,600. Several thousand more people were still missing.

As the rescue work went on, America's forces were already on the move to
seek retribution. To the chirpy refrain of the timeless Broadway song, New York, New York, the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt pulled away from a pier in Norfolk, Virginia, on Thursday with thousands of sailors, immaculate in
dress-white uniforms, lined up on its decks. It was an awesome display of
military firepower and an unmistakable signal to the world that Bush is about to get serious in his war on terrorism.

Yet the sight of a US carrier -nicknamed "the Big Stick" -steaming off with
a battle convoy of two cruisers, a destroyer, a frigate, two attack submarines
and other support vessels did little to calm concerns. There are fears that
America's superpower military assets are likely to prove less than conclusive in
what may quickly turn into a long, dirty and clandestine war against largely
invisible targets scattered across thousands of miles of hostile mountain
terrain.

More than 85% of Americans approved of Bush's "dead or alive" stance. In
Britain, 70% said America and its allies should be ready to take action against
countries "giving aid and comfort" to the terrorists. But there were currents of
grave doubt. Fewer than half of Britons surveyed supported military action if it
led to the deaths of many civilians or British troops. More than three-quarters
feared that an attack would ignite a wider conflict between the West and the
Islamic world.

There were geopolitical dangers, too. Pakistan, already unstable, had
nuclear weapons that could fall into fundamentalist hands. If America used Saudi Arabian bases, it might spark a violent backlash by radical opponents to the Saudi ruling family. The Pentagon was counting on using the Combined Air
Operations Center at the Prince Sultan Air Base, 70 miles southeast of Riyadh,
completed only six weeks ago. But the Saudi government was resisting the plan. An outright refusal threatened to undermine the broad coalition the
Americans were working to build.

FLYING through the anxiety and turmoil, Tony Blair was reading the Koran. He
had taken it on holiday and was looking at it again while engaged in an
extraordinary burst of shuttle diplomacy. "He is trying to understand the real message of Islam, which is patently not that being peddled by those who attacked America," one official close to him confided.

Blair flew to see Gerhard Schroder, the German chancellor, and Jacques
Chirac, the French president. With his wife Cherie and closest advisers Alastair
Campbell, Jonathan Powell and Anji Hunter, he headed for Washington.

Also on board his chartered BA plane were four "defence planners and
intelligence experts" drawn from MI5, MI6 and the defence ministry, as well as
Sir David Manning, the prime minister's special adviser on intelligence. From the plane Blair called Mohammad Khatami, the Iranian president. Patched through interpreters in London and Tehran, the two leaders spoke for 15 minutes.
It was the first official contact between the two countries for more than 20
years.

Afterwards Blair emerged looking tired, shoulders hunched. No pleasantries,
no toothsome smile. "It is a huge responsibility," he told journalists, "which
is why we must deliberate carefully. This form of terrorism has no boundaries,
it knows no limits."

Although he understood the risks of inflaming the Islamic world he saw, too,
the dangers of doing nothing. He asked, rhetorically, what would happen if
suicide terrorists achieved their goal of acquiring biological, chemical or
nuclear weapons. It was the compelling reason why the West had to act. His
conversation with Khatami had been "remarkable", one he "could not have imagined having two weeks ago". Now Iran had closed its border with Afghanistan and was offering support to the West.

In Washington, Bush was refining his aims, preparing a speech for Congress.
Disturbing evidence was surfacing that some of the hijackers had used false
identities. Some of those accused of being suicide hijackers appeared to be
alive and well. The trail to Bin Laden remained tenuous.

Bush and Blair dined at the White House on scallops and veal, with a blue
cheese salad. Then they marched out together to the Roosevelt hall at the front of house, shoulder to shoulder. Blair was, said Bush, "my friend and a friend of America". In return, Blair invoked the spirit of the Blitz when one nation and one people above all had stood by Britain and "that nation was America and that people was the American people. We stand side by side with you now".

The leaders disappeared upstairs to the president's private apartment. There
Bush produced the speech he was preparing. Blair read, advised and approved. Bush had been working hard on the speech with Michael Gerson, his youthful chief speech writer. A devout Christian, Gerson once coined the phrase "compassionate conservatism"; now from his office in the west wing he gave voice to the grand sweep of the president's vision of a war against terrorism.

When the president addresses Congress, the vice-president normally sits on a
dais just behind. But on Thursday, as Bush rose to speak, Cheney was absent,
secluded elsewhere. America still feared attack: if another suicide jet wiped
out Congress, the country would not be leaderless.

Bush stepped forward. America listened. Well before the end, people across
the country were weeping and whooping at the power of his rhetoric. Gerson had helped to transform a tentative president into the reassuring leader that
Americans craved. His message to the Taliban was blunt: "Deliver to the United States authorities all of the leaders of Al-Qaeda who live in your land. Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp."

But as he warned his country to prepare for a long and arduous war, Bush
asked Americans to remain calm in the face of danger. "Live your lives," he
said, "and hug your children."

ON the other side of the world, as the bombers and warships of the West
gathered, Afghans packed their few belongings and took to the dirt tracks and
broken roads. Margalara, 27, was one who made her way to the border with
Pakistan. Taliban guards tried to stop her before they took her money and let
her pass. "We hate the Taliban," she said. "We hope this time the Taliban will
be finished."

Others were hoping to escort relatives to safety before returning to fight.
Many more were just hoping to survive.

The Taliban, once welcomed as liberators, are now despised for their
administrative incompetence and theocratic authoritarianism. Thousands of
Afghans have given everything they had to be smuggled to the West.

"Our culture has been destroyed, our customs destroyed," said one refugee
who has spent the past three weeks on a ship hoping to reach Australia. "If you were in opposition to the Taliban, they would imprison or kill you."
Food is desperately short, drought is withering the fields. The infrastructure has fallen apart. The once vibrant city of Kabul is a rag-bag of rubble and scavenging dogs.

"There is no fighting, no thieves," said one aid worker in Kabul. "But there
is also no work and no money." Gesturing at women and children begging, another said simply: "These people don't have any home, food and income."
More than 1m have already sought refuge in Pakistan; more than 1m in Iran.
Yet last week western aid agencies, on whom a further 3m villagers relied for
food, were advised to leave by the Taliban.

"It was already set to be the world's worst humanitarian crisis, a looming
catastrophe," said Stephanie Bunker of the United Nations humanitarian
operations. Now Afghanistan is heading into the unknown.

THE REPORTING TEAM
London: David Leppard, Adam Nathan, Nicholas Hellen, Robert Winnett, John
Elliot, Margarette Driscoll, Will Iredale.

With Tony Blair: Eben Black. Islamabad: Michael Sheridan
Washington: Tony Allen-Mills. New York: Eliza Griswold. Brussels: Nicholas
Rufford. Tel Aviv: Uzi Mahnaimi. Los Angeles: Chris Goodwin

LOAD-DATE: September 24, 2001

 

Copyright 2001 The Telegraph Group Limited
SUNDAY TELEGRAPH(LONDON)
September 23, 2001, Sunday
SECTION: Pg. 14
LENGTH: 1010 words
HEADLINE: Pakistan's 'godfathers of the Taliban' hold the key to hunt for bin
Laden The CIA now depends on a foreign agency for information on Afghanistan, explains Julian West in Islamabad
BYLINE: By Julian West

BODY:

THE KEY to the success or failure of America's hunt for Osama bin Laden lies
largely in the hands of Pakistan's powerful and feared intelligence service, an
organization referred to by many Pakistanis as "the invisible government".
At first glance, the headquarters of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence
Agency (ISI), set behind high stone walls on Khayban e Suhawardy Avenue in
Islamabad, might be mistaken for yet another drab military building. Most
Pakistanis do not even know what is behind its nondescript gates.

It is this organization, staffed by about 100 officers who run an internal
and external intelligence network of many thousand agents and freelance spies, that America will have to lean on heavily to track and find bin Laden in the barren mountains of Afghanistan.

Pakistan's many-tentacled ISI - equivalent to Britain's MI5 and MI6 combined
- has long possessed the world's finest and most accurate human intelligence
within Afghanistan. It also functions as the predominant power-broker in
Pakistan and Afghanistan.

American officials are publicly enthusiastic about the offer of co-operation
from Pakistan's intelligence agencies. "This is a crucial development that will
change everything," one said. "Pakistan has better links to the Taliban, and
knows more about them, than anyone else in the world. Its agents walk the
streets and talk the talk."

Lt Gen Mahmood Ahmed, the head of ISI, was co-incidentally in Washington as the terrorist attack in New York took place, having arranged to visit senior
administration officials several weeks earlier. After talks with CIA chiefs, he
met Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State.

"There was an extremely candid exchange from our side, one that left little
room for misunderstanding," an administration official said. "It is safe to say
the rules have changed." Porter Goss and Bob Graham, who respectively chair the House and Senate intelligence committees, met government officials in Islamabad in August to promote better ties with Pakistani intelligence.

American officials are aware of the great care that must be taken in
evaluating information from the ISI, an organization that has spent much of the past 10 years supporting and encouraging the Taliban. "These guys are the only people we can use," said one administration ally, "but that doesn't mean we can rely on them."

Employing a vast spy network of Pakistanis who speak Pashto and Farsi, the
local languages, the ISI has also recruited many hundreds of Afghans, luring
them with money and promises of sanctuary for their families in Pakistan.
"It's easy to recruit Pakistanis, a hotel doorman here earns only $4 a
month," said a Western intelligence officer in Islamabad. "They also use Afghans who are afraid for their families. They tell them 'work for us, we'll look after your family here and you can come and see them'."

Described as "the Taliban's godfathers and parents", the ISI is credited with
fostering and nurturing the Taliban movement in the mid 1990s. It is also
believed to have had access to bin Laden himself in the past. It was an ISI
delegation, led by its deputy chief, Gen Faiz Gilani, that flew to Kandahar and
Kabul early last week in a failed attempt to pressurize Mullah Omar, the
Taliban's secretive, one-eyed leader, to give up bin Laden.

ISI military "consultants" are to be found on the Taliban's frontlines alongside several thousand Arabs loyal to bin Laden. The agency has covertly
armed and funded the movement for many years. "The ISI has its fingers in every pie," said a Western diplomat. "That's why America had to get their co-operation. America has no worthwhile agents on the ground in Afghanistan. If anyone can catch bin Laden it's the ISI."

Gen Hamid Gul, the head of ISI from 1987-1989, remains bitter at the way that he was treated by America which, he claims, had him sacked from his position because of his ideological commitment to the fundamentalist cause. Gen Gul turned the organization into a state within a state with its own Islamic agenda. Although it failed in trying to install a fundamentalist government in
Afghanistan during his leadership, his influence over the organization remained
crucial when in 1994 it became responsible for turning the Taliban into a force
capable of taking over Kabul.

"The Americans thought they could use the fundamentalists to fight the
Russians and drop them," said Gen Gul. "This is what they do, they build
something up and then destroy it. They did the same with ISI. When George Bush senior felt we were becoming too independent and ideologically-motivated he said 'clip the wings of ISI' and had me sacked. Now they want the same institution to share information with them."

The Pakistani intelligence organization has long been viewed by most of its
countrymen as a sinister and shadowy force. Conceived in the 1950s by Gen Ayub Khan as a means of keeping watch on politicians, its power grew after he took over the country in 1958, effectively becoming the army's political wing. In the 1970s, the Prime Minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, began using the agency against his political enemies and it became known as a "dirty tricks" brigade. It ran smear campaigns against politicians, prominent figures and journalists. Visitors to Pakistan can expect to be tailed by mysterious men, or find their telephone conversations and e-mails are tapped.

The ISI only became seriously active in Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghan
war when it helped the CIA to arm, train and fund the mujahideen. During the
power vacuum created by the Soviet withdrawal in 1989 when Afghanistan was torn apart by warring mujahideen groups, the ISI grasped the chance to wield power in the region by fostering a previously unknown Kandahari student movement, the Taliban. "If you want to do anything in the region, you have to have the ISI on your side," said a former CIA official. "These guys speak the languages, wear the clothes and walk the streets.
"No one knows Afghanistan like the ISI."
[PS]News: [ES]
LOAD-DATE: September 23, 2001

 

 

 

Copyright 2001 Associated Newspapers Ltd.
The Evening Standard (London)
October 3, 2001
SECTION: Pg. 6
LENGTH: 1179 words
HEADLINE: US must decide whether to invest in satellites or spies;
the terrorist crisis
BYLINE: Richard J Aldrich

BODY:

This year the US will spend $ 27.8 billion on global surveillance.
After 11 September many are asking, what does it get for its money?
Espionage expert Professor Richard J Aldrich analyses the range of
international security agencies now fighting terrorism

CRITICS claim that the vast American intelligence community is still
populated by Kremlin-watchers with degrees in Russian Studies.
Transforming this into a machine for watching threats in more than 150
countries is like maneuvering a supertanker at sea.

Even new threats are viewed through a Cold War prism with 80 per cent of
America's spy budget spent on supporting conventional military operations.
In 1990 Saddam Hussein was kind enough to present America with a
conventional challenge. But few of America's new opponents are likely to repeat such an obvious mistake.

Billions are now being spent on the latest Star Wars defence shield, at
locations such as America's vast electronic spy base at Menwith Hill in
Yorkshire. The real threat has turned out to be men armed with knives and
box-cutters. American intelligence has not begun to reshape itself for the
unconventional struggles of the 21st century.

Should America invest in more human spies, or depend on technical
surveillance by satellites and codebreakers? The solution is a matter of bitter
argument. Visual imagery satellites are useless when looking for terrorists.
Thus, some techno-freaks pin their hopes on America's largest and most secret
spy agency - the NSA - which conducts electronic eavesdropping.

But the NSA is in crisis. For a decade officials have struggled to deal with
the fact that anyone (including terrorists and drug dealers) has been able to
buy high-quality encryption. Indeed the real truth is far worse - the NSA cannot
even process and interpret the flow of messages in clear language.
They are swamped by a globalizing world whose email traffic is growing
exponentially. Somewhere amongst a trillion emails stored in the NSA's enormous Cray computer banks are probably the few facts about the terrorists that George W Bush really needs. But no one knows how to find them quickly.

The CIA (which runs America's human spies) has fared no better. It is a
tiddler compared to NSA and receives only 15 per cent of the US spy budget.
Moreover, its operational wing that does real spying in the field is very
small compared to the legion of well-paid analysts who drive desks at its
Virginia headquarters. Among the analysts, few can speak anything other than
Russian or Chinese. Its operational staff have almost no independent capacity in the countries of central Asia. Meanwhile, lavish American funding has allowed Byzantine rivalries to grow. The CIA hates Donald Rumsfeld’s Department of Defense.

Defense responded by setting up its own super-secret human spy agency.
US Congressional investigators attempted to probe it, but could discover
only that it owns an aircraft hangar outside Washington that contains a fire
engine and several black Rolls-Royces. There is much to be done if the American intelligence community is to ready itself for what George W Bush has called the first war of the 21st century.

Perversely, Britain's troubles in the 20th century have bequeathed an
intelligence community better adapted to the 21st. Throughout the Cold War,
Britain devoted only part of its espionage to opposing Moscow. At least equal
effort was devoted to coping with the consequences of the British decline as a
world power. The result is an intelligence community with a wider focus.

Impecunious British services lacked the resources to duplicate each other
and have remained small enough to maintain genuine cooperation. Britain's "spies of slender means" have a profile more suited to following the events which are now focused on Afghanistan.

Getting a general picture of what's been going on in Afghanistan is easy,
even for a troubled intelligence community like that of the US. Intelligence officers need only to travel in the relative safety of surrounding states to encounter innumerable-middle-ranking figures who have fled Afghanistan, including former members of Taliban.

In addition, over 90 per cent of Europe's heroin supply emanates from
Afghanistan. Most groups, including that of Bin Laden, are involved and drug
traffickers move in and out of the country with impunity. For a decade
Afghanistan has been subjected to particular attention by the British SIS's
burgeoning Global Tasks section that targets new world order issues such as
drugs, organized crime and nuclear proliferation. However, getting specific intelligence on Bin Laden is difficult.

Effective terrorist organizations conduct ruthless counterintelligence sweeps, murdering potential infiltrators on the slightest whimsy of suspicion. The cell structure protects any competent terrorist group from wholesale penetration.

Bin Laden, like the Iraqis, was well trained by American intelligence in the
1980s and knows better than most how to secure his people. Both SIS and the CIA are staking a lot on "third country operations". This means using states around Afghanistan, together with their local secret services, as platforms for operations. But in the current climate even the most friendly allied secret service finds it hard not to put a little spin on intelligence passed to Washington.

Pakistan's fearsome Inter-Services Intelligence -ISI - is the original backers of the Taliban. The Americans and the ISI have long been bedfellows. Indeed, the ISI chief Mamoud Ahmed was in Washington on 11 September and was
reportedly scheduled to visit the Pentagon later that morning. The ISI is doing
everything possible to dissuade the CIA from backing rebel coalitions in the
north of Afghanistan as these rebels have been supported by the Russians and by the Indian secret service.

Further afield is Israel's world class secret service Mossad and another
wayward partner of the CIA. Mossad is determined to link the attacks on New York with Palestinian and Iraqi networks. It is now suggesting that the Lebanese operative Imad Mughniyeh, head of the overseas operations for Hezbollah, planned the attacks on the New York Trade Center. Remarkably, the State Department now says that Washington is also receiving intelligence on Bin Ladin from the arcane secret services of Libya, Syria and Sudan.

Even with reform, the Western intelligence community will never be able to
guarantee warning of every terrorist outrage. But it should be able to inform
strategic judgments, support special operations and help convict perpetrators.
It is over the long campaign that intelligence is likely to show its true
value. If secret services can secure enough evidence to build a convincing
public case against those behind the attacks on the US, such a limited success
should not be underrated.

Richard J Aldrich is Professor of Politics at the University of Nottingham.
His latest book, The Hidden Hand, was published by John Murray in July.

LOAD-DATE: October 4, 2001

 

 

Copyright 2001 Guardian Newspapers Limited

 

The Guardian (London)
October 17, 2001
SECTION: Guardian Home Pages, Pg. 1
LENGTH: 863 words
HEADLINE: 3.30am news: New offer on Bin Laden: Minister makes secret trip to
offer trial in third country
BYLINE: Rory McCarthy in Islamabad

BODY:

A senior minister from the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has offered a
last-minute deal to hand over Osama bin Laden during a secret visit to
Islamabad, senior sources in Pakistan told the Guardian last night.
For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in
a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first, in return for
a halt to the western bombing of his country, a source close to Pakistan's
military leadership said.

But US officials, who are leading the campaign against Afghanistan for
harboring Bin Laden, suspected mastermind of last month's attacks on New York and Washington, appear to have dismissed the proposal. Instead they are hoping to engineer a split within the Taliban leadership. It is unclear whether the Taliban would have the ability to seize Bin Laden,
who has his own fighting force.

The offer was brought by Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the Taliban foreign
minister and a man often regarded as a relatively moderate figure. He met officials from the CIA and Pakistan's ISI intelligence directorate in Islamabad on Monday. US officials pressed the minister for a sweeping change in
the Kabul regime. "They are trying to persuade him to get the moderate elements together," another source said. Mr Muttawakil's visit coincided with the arrival yesterday in Islamabad of the US secretary of state, Colin Powell.

After several hours of talks with Pakistan's military ruler, General Pervez
Musharraf, Mr Powell admitted that Taliban moderates would play a role in talks on a future Afghan government. "We would have to listen to them or at least take them into account," he said. Mr Powell also met envoys sent by Zahir Shah, the former Afghan king who lives in exile in Rome, and a representative of the opposition Northern Alliance, sources said.

The Taliban foreign minister asked for face-to-face talks with the US
secretary of state but no direct meeting was held. Mr Muttawakil returned to
Kabul last night and the Taliban have publicly denied he was ever in Islamabad. His visit came as the re gime's forces in Afghanistan came under renewed pressure from the bombing campaign and opposition advances.

And in the early hours of this morning, Australia announced it would begin
deploying military forces over the next two weeks to join the US-led coalition
against terrorism. The latest onslaught, which included more than 100 western aeroplanes and five cruise missiles, continued yesterday. Lieutenant-General Gregory Newbold, director of operations for the US joint chiefs of staff said that more than 2,000 bombs and missiles had been used so far in the 10-day campaign. Troops from the Northern Alliance were said yesterday to be closing in on the key northern town of Mazar-i-Sharif. Lt-Gen Newbold said they had reached the edge of the airport and were "extremely close" to reaching the town itself. The Taliban forces were "in danger of being cut off right now".

Some reports yesterday suggested that the Taliban foreign minister had
defected and was now in the Gulf. But sources in Pakistan confirmed that he had returned to Kabul and said there was still no clear rift in the Islamist regime. Instead, his offer appears to indicate that Pakistan is applying pressure on moderate Taliban elements to negotiate their way out of the crisis. Pakistan has made clear that it wants the bombing campaign to be brief and that it does not want the Northern Alliance, backed by its enemy India, to return to power in Kabul.

Gen Musharraf said yesterday that he wanted to see "moderate Taliban" in the next Afghan government. Pakistan was intricately linked to the emergence of the Taliban as a military force and has backed the movement financially and
diplomatically. Pakistan is now the only country to maintain diplomatic
relations with the ostracized regime.

Until now the Taliban have consistently said they have seen no convincing
evidence to implicate the Saudi dissident in any crime. Bin Laden is wanted for
the September 11 attacks and for instigating the bombings of two US embassies in east Africa in 1998 in which 224 people, almost all of them Africans, were killed.

"Now they have agreed to hand him over to a third country without the
evidence being presented in advance," the source close to Pakistan's military
said. The US administration has not publicly supported the idea of a trial
outside America. It also appears intent on removing from power the Taliban
leader Mullah Mohammed Omar and the hardliners in the regime.

Some in Pakistan have suggested Saudi Arabia, the land of Bin Laden's birth,
as a location for any court proceedings against him. "The Pakistan army would be supportive of anything with a Saudi link," said the source.

Mr Muttawakil's clandestine visit to Pakistan was planned in advance. The
Taliban ambassador in Islamabad, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, went to Kandahar, the Taliban headquarters town in southern Afghanistan, to talk to Mullah Omar about terms for the visit.

One US report yesterday suggested that Pakistani intelligence carried the
foreign minister in a small aircraft.

LOAD-DATE: October 17, 2001

 

 

Copyright 2001 Newspaper Publishing PLC
The Independent (London)
October 26, 2001, Friday
SECTION: COMMENT; Pg. 5
LENGTH: 1181 words
HEADLINE: FAREWELL TO DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN;
'FAR BETTER TO HAVE A MUBARAK OR KING FAHD THAN LET MUSLIMS VOTE FOR A REAL GOVERNMENT THAT MIGHT OPPOSE US POLICIES'
BYLINE: Robert Fisk Two Pakistani soldiers in Islamabad admire a medium-range Shaheen; II missile being driven past during a National Day military parade Saeed; Khan

BODY:

ARMOURED WARFARE schools, signals headquarters, artillery ranges, military
museums, cavalry lines, infantry battalion compounds... every few hundred yards in every city, you come across them. Driving around Pakistan is like touring a barracks.

Cross the Indus river at Attock and the thump of shellfire changes the air
pressure as General Pervez Musharraf's tanks move down the range. Along the roadsides are artillery pieces dating back to the Raj, 45-pounders and French amour and old Sherman tanks on concrete plinths to remind Pakistanis of their heroic martial past.

Their national defence journal carries stirring tales by former chiefs of
staff and extracts from the 1962 war diaries of the East Pakistan Rifles. And
this is supposed to be a nation threatened with Islamic revolution?
It's an odd phenomenon, but there are times when the West seems to be more worried about the "Islamisation" of Pakistan than Pakistanis are themselves.

For has a military dictatorship ever been more blessed than that of General
Musharraf? General Zia-ul-Haq was held in contempt by the West when he hanged prime minister Bhutto - but he was elevated to ally and friend the moment that we needed his help in the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan. However, by 1993 Pakistan was almost declared a "state sponsor of terrorism" by the United States because of its support for Kashmiri Muslim guerrillas.

When President Clinton arrived in the subcontinent last year, he paid a
state visit to India but gave General Musharraf - who had still to declare
himself president - only a few hours, favouring Pakistan with a one-day return
trip, a lecture on the evils of Osama bin Laden and an appeal to General
Musharraf not to hang the prime minister, Nawaz Sharif.

Nor can General Musharraf have been too pleased with Colin Powell's ode to
liberty last January. "There should be no question in any world leader's mind
that the most essential ingredient for success in this 21st century is a free
people and a government that derives its right to govern from the consent of
such people," the US Secretary of State announced: "...America stands ready to help any country that wishes to join the democratic world."

Then came 11 September and General Powell produced a new song sheet.
"President Bush," he told us on 16 October, "asked me... to demonstrate our
enduring commitment to our relationship with Pakistan... we are also looking
forward to strengthening our co-operation on a full range of bilateral and
regional issues... we're truly at the beginning of a strengthened relationship,
a relationship that will grow and thrive in the months and years ahead." All of
which just goes to show what the loan of a few air bases and the arrest of a fewgovernment-sponsored Islamists can do. General Musharraf had taken "bold and courageous action" against "international terrorism".

And in the blinking of an eye, there was General Powell promising to take up
the Kashmir dispute with India - the very nation that almost persuaded America's State Department to put Pakistan on its "terrorism" list in 1992. Newsweek outlined the US government's view with alarming, if unconscious, frankness. "It may be a good thing that Pakistan is ruled by a friendly military dictator," the magazine concluded, "rather than what could well be a hostile democracy."

This, of course, is the very policy that dictates Washington's relations with the Arab world. Far better to have a Mubarak or a King Abdullah or a King Fahd running the show than to let the Arabs vote for a real government that might oppose US policies in the region.

Corrupt, lawless, drug-ridden, and inherently unstable Pakistan may be, but
General Musharraf allows a kind of freedom of speech to continue. Anyone used to the arid wastes of Arab journalism can only be surprised by the debate in the Pakistani press, the often violent anti-Musharraf views expressed in the letters pages and the columnists who argue forcefully for a return to democracy. If General Musharraf has to allow Islamists their freedom to "let off steam" - as Pakistanis like to say - then he has to give equal space to the democrats.

Aqil Shah put it very well when he wrote in Lahore's Friday Times last week
that, by allying himself with America's "War on Terror", General Musharraf had
secured de facto international acceptance for his 1999 coup. Suddenly, all he
had wished for - the lifting of sanctions, massive funding for Pakistan's
crumbling industry, IMF loans, a $ 375m (pounds 263m) debt rescheduling and
humanitarian aid - has been given him.

While General Powell mutters a few words about political freedom - and none
at all about Pakistan's nuclear tests - we hear no more of General Musharraf's
widely publicized "roadmap" to democracy. The problem, as Mr Shah points out, is that future peace and stability requires sustained investment in solid secular democracies - not in stable dictatorships. Yet the United States is now laying the foundations of a long-term autocracy in Pakistan, a dictatorship not unlike those that lie like a cancer across the Middle East.

The United States likes to call this a "strategic engagement" and is already, in its embassy's private press briefings, reminding journalists of the corruption that smeared the democratically elected Sharif government. Far better, surely, to have an honest, down-to-earth, clean military man in charge.

Of course, we must forget that it was Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence
(ISI) outfits - the highest ranks of the country's security agencies - that set
up the Taliban, funneled weapons into Afghanistan and grew rich on the
narcotics trade. Ever since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the ISI
has worked alongside the CIA, funding the mullahs and maulawis now condemned as the architects of "world terror".

Most Pakistanis now realize that the ISI - sanctioned by Washington rather
than Pakistan's own rulers - turned into a well-armed and dangerous mafia, and while money was poured into its smuggling activities, Pakistan's people lacked education, security and a health service. No wonder they turned to Islam and the madrassa schools for food and teaching.

But will anything really change? Pakistan's military is now more important
than ever, an iron hand to maintain order within the state while its superpower ally bombs the ruins of Afghanistan. Driving past all those compounds and cavalry lines and barrack squares in Pakistan, one can only be shocked by the profound social division they represent.

Outside in the street, Afghan refugees and Pakistan's urban poor root
through garbage tips and crowd on to soot-pumping buses to work in sweatshops and brick factories. Inside, behind the ancient, newly painted cannons and battalion flags, rose bushes surround well-tended lawns and officers' messes decorated with polished brass fittings.

No rubbish litters this perfect world of discipline. Why should anyone
living here want a return to corrupt democracy? Especially when America is their friend.

LOAD-DATE: October 26, 2001

 

 

Copyright 2001 Guardian Newspapers Limited
The Observer
October 28, 2001
SECTION: Observer News Pages, Pg. 15
LENGTH: 7864 words
HEADLINE: Focus Special: Fight to the Death: The making of the world's most
wanted man: What drove a rich Saudi boy to become a terrorist mastermind? After months gathering startling new testimony from al-Qaeda associates and enemies around the world, Jason Burke in Peshawar sifts fact from rumour to provide the fullest account yet of the life of Osama bin Laden: 'He prayed, he read - and then the Russians invaded': 'He was frustrated, sickened by the squabbles. He is a very honest, clean man' Former Mujahideen fighter: Sudan: smuggling and recruiting: 'He used charm, and organized the import of 3,000 Toyota Corollas to give to families of Taliban casualties': 'He denied everything and nothing'

BYLINE: Jason Burke

BODY:

AT EVERY CORNER in the darkened village, guards stood with their
Kalashnikovs and rocket-launchers at the ready. Sitting on rugs spread on the
dirt floor of a mud-brick and wood house, two men ate a meal of rice, grilled
mutton and vegetables. High above, the warplanes of America could be heard
growling in the night.

The men, both in their mid-forties, bearded and dressed in the local
traditional baggy long shirt and trousers, washed, ate, prayed and then talked. Osama bin Laden, the world's most wanted man, and Mullah Mohamed Omar, supreme leader of the Taliban regime, had a lot to discuss. A few days earlier, at 8.45pm on 30 September, US and British cruise missiles had started hitting targets across Afghanistan in retribution for the terrorist attacks that had killed 5,000 people in New York and Washington nearly three weeks earlier.

Now death and destruction had come to villages, cities and military camps throughout Afghanistan. Several missiles had landed near the village where the two men were meeting. Many more had landed on the southern city of Kandahar, the spiritual and administrative base of the Taliban. The two men were there to decide their response to the war they had suddenly found themselves fighting.

The meeting, revealed to The Observer by sources in a Gulf intelligence
agency, did not last long. That was partly due to security concerns: a
well-placed Tomahawk cruise missile could have wiped out both of the Pentagon's main targets. Partly it was because the two were in agreement on almost everything. Mullah Omar reaffirmed his support, affection and respect for his Saudi-born friend. Bin Laden replied in kind.

The two swiftly reached a decision on tactics. They would jointly resist any aggression, they would work to create and exploit divisions in the coalition ranged against them, and they would exploit the humanitarian crisis - and any civilian casualties - to create global anger against the bombing campaign. Then the two embraced and went their separate ways. They are not thought to have met since.

I n 1930, a powerfully built dockside laborer, six feet tall and with one
eye, decided there was more to life than loading ships in the ports of his
poverty-stricken native province of Hadramaut in Yemen. He packed a bag, bought a place on a camel caravan heading to the newly created kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and set off on a thousand-mile trek to seek his fortune.

The man, who would go on to father a terrorist sought by the military might
of the Western world, got his first job as a bricklayer with Aramco - the
Arabian-American oil company --earning a single Saudi riyal, about 10p, a day.
He lived frugally, saved hard, invested well and went into business himself. By
the early 1950s Mohamed bin Laden was employed in building palaces for the House of Saud in Riyadh. He won the Bin Laden's big break came when a foreign contractor withdrew from a deal to build the Medina-Jedda highway and he took on the job. By the early Sixties he was a rich man - and an extraordinary one.

'He couldn't read or write and signed his name with a cross all his life,
but he had an extraordinary intelligence,' said a French engineer who worked
with him in the Sixties. The engineer remembered that the former laborer never forgot his roots, always leaving home 'with a wad of notes to give to the poor'. Such alms-giving is one of the fundamentals of Islam. Bin Laden senior was a devout man, raised in the strict and conservative Wahhabi strand of Sunni Islam.

Later he was to boast that, using his private helicopter, he could pray in the
three holiest locations of Islam -Mecca, Medina and the al-Aqsa mosque in
Jerusalem - in a single day. Visiting the former two sites must have been
especially satisfying, for it was the contract to restore and expand the
facilities serving pilgrims and worshippers there that established the
reputation of his company, confirmed its status as the in-house builders of the
Saudi ruling clan and made him stupendously wealthy.

Though at one stage he was rich enough to bail out the royal family when they fell on hard times, the tatty bag he had carried when he left the Yemen remained on display in the palatial family home. He was killed when his helicopter crashed in 1968.

Mohamed bin Laden had, in the words of the French engineer, 'changed wives
like you or I change cars'. He had three Saudi wives, Wahhabis like their
husband, who were more or less permanent. The fourth, however, was changed on a
regular basis.

The magnate would send his private pilot all over the Middle East to pick up
yet another bride. 'Some were as young as 15 and were completely covered from head to toe,' the pilot's widow recently recalled. 'But they were all
exceptionally beautiful.'

Bin Laden's mother, Hamida, was not a Saudi or a Wahhabi, but a stunningly
beautiful, cosmopolitan, educated 22-year-old daughter of a Syrian trader. She
shunned the traditional Saudi veil in favour of Chanel trouser suits and this,
coupled with the fact that she was foreign, diminished her status within the
family. She was Mohammed bin Laden's tenth or eleventh spouse, and was known as the 'the slave wife'.

Mohamed bin Laden gave even his former wives a home at his palaces in Jedda and Hijaz. Hamida was still married to the millionaire when he died and so, amid a huge family and the solid gold statues, the ancient tapestries and the Venetian chandeliers, this is where Osama bin Laden, Mohamed's seventh son, 'the son of the slave', grew up.

Born in 1957 - the year 1377 of the Islamic calendar - he was 11 when his
father died. He never saw much of him. A flavour of the bin Laden household
comes from a document provided to the American ABC TV network in 1998 by 'an anonymous source close to bin Laden'. It offers unprecedented insights into Osama's childhood. 'The father had very dominating personality.

He insisted to keep all his children in one premises,' it reads. 'He had a tough discipline and observed all the children with strict religious and social code At the same time, the father was entertaining with trips to the sea and desert,' the document goes on. 'He dealt with his children as big men and demanded them to show confidence at young age.'

Brian Fyfield-Shayler, 69, gave the then 13-year-old bin Laden and 30 other
privileged classmates attending al-Thagh school, an elite Western-style Saudi
school in Jedda, four one-hour English lessons a week during 1968 and 1969. He described bin Laden as a 'shy, retiring and courteous' boy who was unfailingly polite.

'He was very courteous - more so than any of the others in his class.
Physically, he was outstanding because he was taller, more handsome and fairer than most of the other boys. He also stood out as he was singularly gracious and polite, and had a great deal of inner confidence,' said Fyfield-Shayler. Bin Laden was 'very neat, precise and conscientious' in his work. 'He wasn't pushy at all. Many students wanted to show you how clever they were. But if he knew the answer to something he wouldn't parade the fact. He would only reveal it if you asked him.'

In bin Laden's early teens there was little sign of the fanatic he would
become. In 1971 the family went on holiday en masse to the small Swedish copper mining town of Falun. A smiling Osama - or 'Sammy' as he sometimes called himself - was pictured, wearing a lime-green top and blue flares, leaning on a Cadillac.

Osama, then 14, and his older brother Salem had first visited Falun a year
before, driving from Copenhagen in a Rolls-Royce flown in from Saudi Arabia.
Oddly, they stayed at the cheap Astoria hotel, where the owner, Christina
Akerblad, recalled them spending the days out 'on business' and the evenings
eating dinner in their rooms. 'I remember them as two beautiful boys - the girls
in Falun were very fond of them,' she said. 'Osama played with my two (young)
sons.'

Akerblad remembered the wealth she found on display when cleaning the boys' rooms. 'At the weekends we saw they used the extra bed in their rooms to lay out their clothes. They had lots of white silk shirts packaged in cellophane. I think they had a new one for every day I never saw the dirty ones. They also had a big bag for their jewellery. They had emeralds and rubies and diamond rings and tie pins.'

Nor was there any sign of incipient fervour in a bucolic summer at an Oxford
language school in the same year. Bin Laden and his brothers befriended a group of Spanish girls and went punting on the Thames.

Last month one woman showed a Spanish newspaper a photos of herself and
girlfriends - one in hotpants - with three bin Laden boys. Bin Laden, wearing
flares, a short-sleeved shirt and a bracelet, looks like any other awkward
teenager. His two older brothers look more assured. The young Saudi even once stayed on London's Park Lane. He had forgotten the name of the hotel his Saudi parents had checked into, he told a reporter several years ago, but he recalled 'the trees of the park and the red buses'.

Quite how much of a personal fortune bin Laden had inherited is uncertain.
It may well be a lot less than the huge sums (up to Dollars 250 million) often
cited. The young bin Laden was never interested in money for its own sake. In
fact, the very things that had made the father huge riches had begun to trouble the son. The early Seventies were a time of huge cultural change in the Middle East.

Oil revenue, the wars with Israel and, above all, increasing contact with
the West forced a profound re-examining of old certainties. For most of Mohamed bin Laden's numerous progeny, the answer lay in greater Westernization and the elder members of the family set off for Victoria College in Alexandria in Egypt, Harvard, London or Miami. But not bin Laden. Like tens of thousands of other young men in the region at the time, Osama had become increasingly drawn to the cool, clear, uncluttered certainties of extremist Islamist ideology.

1974-84: THE DEVOUT SCHOLAR
TURNS HOLY WARRIOR

AFTER FINISHING high school in Jedda in 1974, bin Laden decided against
joining his siblings overseas for further education. Salim, the head of the
clan, had been educated at Millfield, a Somerset boarding school. Another,
Yeslam, went to university in Sweden and California. Osama entered the
management and economics faculty at King Abdul Aziz University.

There are some reports, again unconfirmed, that he married his first wife, a Syrian related to his mother, when he was 17. Salim, the elder brother who had run the bin Laden corporation after their father's death, hoped Osama would take up a useful role in the family business and ensured that a key element of his university course was civil engineering. Bin Laden himself preferred the Islamic Studies component of the course. Later, he was to combine the two in a radically effective way.

At university he heard tapes recorded by the fiery Palestinian-born
Jordanian academic Abdallah Azzam, and these had a powerful impact. Azzam's recorded sermons - much like Osama's videotapes today - brilliantly caught the mood of many disaffected young Muslims.

Jedda itself - and King Abdul Aziz university - was a centre for Islamic
dissidents from all over the Muslim world. In its mosques and medressas (Islamic schools) they preached a severe message: only an absolute return to the values of conservative Islam could protect the Muslim world from the dangers and decadence of the West. One bin Laden brother, Abdelaziz, remembers Osama 'reading and praying all the time' during this period. Osama certainly became deeply involved in religious activities at university, including theological debates and Koranic study. He also made useful contacts, striking up a crucial friendship with Prince Turki ibn Faisal, a young royal and the future chief of Saudi intelligence services.

But events were to overtake him. In February 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini
returned to Iran, overthrew the Shah and established an Islamic Republic. A
shudder of excitement and fear ran through Muslims everywhere. In November - and bin Laden was later to refer to this as a crucial, formative event - Islamic
radicals seized the grand mosque at Mecca and held it against Saudi government forces. Bin Laden, young, impressionable, increasingly devout but still unsure of himself and his vocation, was stunned. Eventually, after much bloodshed, the rebels were defeated. 'He was inspired by them,' a close friend told The Observer last month. 'He told me these men were true Muslims and had followed a true path.'

Sooner than anyone expected, bin Laden got his chance to follow them. In the
last days of the year Soviet tanks rolled into Afghanistan.

IT IS JUST 30 miles from the Afghan border to the febrile Pakistani city of
Peshawar. The road winds down through the Khyber Pass, through the badlands ruled by the violent and unruly Pashtun tribes, past the relics of battles fought by men from a score of armies - Greek, Arab, Mongol, Sikh and British - and then disappears into the choking mayhem of the city's bazaars.

In the spring of 1980, with yet another army's tanks parked up against the
frontier, Peshawar was seething with soldiers, spies, gun-runners, drug dealers, Afghan refugees, exiles, journalists and, of course, the thousands of
sympathisers who had flocked from all over the Muslim world to fight the Soviet
forces.

One of them, distinctive in his carefully tailored shalwar kameez and
English handmade leather boots, was Osama bin Laden. 'I was enraged and went there at once,' he has told interviewers. He was 23 and had found the cause he had been looking for.

Bin Laden's time fighting the Russians was critical. It was during this
period that he changed from a contemplative, scholarly young man to a respected, battle- hardened leader of men. And though he had yet to fully develop his extremist ideas, the war in Afghanistan gave him crucial confidence and status. 'He came to the jihad a well-meaning boy and left a man who knew about violence and its uses and effects,' said one former associate interviewed by The Observer in Algeria last year.

According to Gulf intelligence sources, bin Laden's first trip to Peshawar
lasted little more than a month. He returned to Saudi Arabia and started
lobbying his brothers, relatives and old school friends to support the fight
against the Soviet Union. When he went back to Pakistan with the huge sum of money he had collected, he took with him several Pakistanis and Afghans who had been working in the bin Laden company. They set about organising an office to support the Mujahideen and the Arab volunteers.

Within weeks of his first arrival in Pakistan, Osama had been introduced to
Abdullah Azzam, the charismatic preacher whose taped sermons had made such an impression at university. The pair got on well. The energy, administrative talent and contacts of the young Saudi complemented the profound Islamicknowledge and commitment of the older man. Azzam, then 38, was a founder of the Hamas guerrilla group on the occupied West Bank and Gaza and thus had theexperience to run a major organization. For the next two years, bin Laden commuted between the Gulf and Pakistan. All the time his relationship with Azzam grew stronger.

At first, bin Laden kept a low profile. Journalists in Pakistan at the beginning of the Eighties remember hearing stories about the 'Saudi sheikh' who would visit wounded fighters in the university town's clinics, dispensing cashew
nuts and chocolates. The man would note their names and addresses and soon a generous cheque would arrive at their family home. Such generosity - perhaps learnt from his father with his wad of notes for the poor - is something that almost all who have fought for or alongside bin Laden mention.

Some - such as one former al-Qaeda member interviewed by The Observer in
Algeria - speak of Dollars 1,500 donations for marriages, others talk of cash
doled out for shoes or watches or needy relatives. His followers say that such
gifts bind them to their emir as effectively as the bayat or oath that many of
them swear.

Sometimes his time was as valuable as his money. One former Afghan
Mujahideen remembered how he had befriended bin Laden because he wanted to learn Arabic. The young Saudi spent many hours tutoring him, in the language of the Koran. Despite his tough reputation, he was still the quiet and softly spoken young man his teachers had remembered.

BY 1984, bin Laden and Azzam had rented a house in the Peshawar suburb of
University Town and established a logistics base for the thousands of Arab
fighters arriving in the city. It was called Beit-al-Ansar (the House of the
Faithful).

'Bin Laden would receive the Arab volunteers, vet them and then send them on to the various Afghan factions,' said one former associate. The venture was
condoned by the CIA, the powerful Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, and
the Saudi agency, the Istakhbarat, soon to be headed by his old friend Prince
Turki. None, though, gave bin Laden any American aid.

Beit-al-Ansar was on Syed Jalaluddin Afghani Road, a quiet backstreet full
of bougainvillea and large houses built for the local elite. By the mid-Eighties
the area had become a centre for the Afghan resistance. All the leaders of the
various groups had offices there. There were two newspapers - one published by Abdullah Azzam and bin Laden. There was even a 'neutral' office, in a building rented by bin Laden, where Mujahideen groups could thrash out their differences.

Conditions were spartan - almost deliberately so. The volunteers, and bin
Laden too, used to sleep a dozen to a room on thin pallets laid out on the hard floor of their offices. According to former associates, bin Laden used to sit up late into the night discussing Islam and Middle Eastern history. The young Saudi was yet to develop his radical ideology. Instead his views were a mixture of half-remembered history and heavily skewed, and often ill-informed, analyses of current affairs. Bin Laden was particularly angry about what he called the betrayal of the Arabs by the British after the First World War. He also criticized the Saudi royal family, saying they had exploited the Wahhabi to gain power.

At other times bin Laden would lead religious debates among the volunteers.
Many centered on Sura Yasin - the key passage known as 'the heart' or 'the
source' of the Koran, when Muhammad the prophet reveals the message and the task that God has entrusted him with. 'He used to talk a lot about the warriors of Islamic history such as Salauddin (Saladin),' said one associate. 'It was as if he was preparing himself.'

 

1984-90: THE BATTLE-HARDENED
FANATIC TASTES POWER

JUST OVER THE border from Peshawar into Afghanistan is the small village of
Jaji. In 1986 the Soviet garrison there was under heavy attack from the
resistance. One morning a senior commander was sheltering from a bombardment by Russian mortars in a bunker when a tall Arab dived through the door as explosions shook the earth. It was bin Laden. His 'ground war' had started.

In the mid-Eighties - partly due to a massive increase in American funding
for the resistance - the war in Afghanistan intensified. Thousands of young
Muslims were filling the university town dormitories. Though their motives were
varied - some came for adventure, camaraderie or to escape from the law - most came for one reason only. 'I went to fight for my faith,' one Egyptian former mujahid told The Observer in London last year.

Through the summer of 1986 bin Laden was in the centre of the fighting
around Jaji. Once, with a force of about 50 Arabs, he fought off a sustained
assault by Soviet helicopters and infantry. 'He was right in the thick of it,'
Mia Mohamed Aga, a senior Afghan commander at the time and now with the Taliban, said last week. 'I watched him with his Kalashnikov in his hand under fire from mortars and the multiple-barrelled rocket launchers.'

Over the next three years, bin Laden fought hard, often exposing himself to
extreme physical danger. One leader of the hard-line Hezb-i-Islami group said he remembered bin Laden holding a position under heavy bombardment after being surrounded by Soviet soldiers. At least a dozen other senior veterans, many of whom are now opposed to bin Laden, corroborate the accounts of his combat role. They all mention his lack of concern for his own safety. The devout boy was turning into the holy warrior.

Bin Laden's fanaticism was shared by his men. 'I took three Afghans and
three Arabs and told them to hold a position (during the battle for the eastern
city of Jalalabad in 1989). They fought all day, then when I went to relieve
them in the evening the Arabs were crying because they wanted to be martyred. I told them that if they wanted to stay and fight they could. The next day they were killed. Osama said later that he had told them that the trench was their gate to heaven.'

Bin Laden shared more than their fanaticism. 'You never knew he was so rich
or the commander of everyone. We used to all sit down together and eat like
friends,' another veteran said.

On some occasions he took it on himself to broker truces between Afghan
factions. His self-assumed responsibility for supplying the Mujahideen
continued. CIA sources estimated he was bringing in at least Dollars 50m a year for the jihad. One veteran said that during the fighting for Jalalabad, he had seen the Saudi by a roadside, caked in mud, organising food, boots and clothes for the Mujahideen.

However, there were tensions with those who did not share his hard-line
Islamism. Said Mohamed, another Afghan veteran, said bin Laden had refused to deal with him during one battle because he was clean shaven. Bin Laden was learning the power of the media too. Reports of his exploits, by Arab
journalists based in Peshawar, were published throughout the Middle East. They brought him a flood of recruits as well as a respect and a status that he had never had before. The 'son of the slave' was now a sheikh himself.

In 1979 the Soviet forces pulled out of Afghanistan and left a puppet
government in Kabul. The Mujahideen were now battling other Afghans. - and each other. There was little to keep the thousands of battle-hardened fighters of the Arab 'international brigade' in Afghanistan. Many left to continue their jihad in their home countries. Bin Laden, hating the internecine squabbles, was one.

'He was very frustrated by it all. He is a very honest, very clean man, and
when he saw the Arabs were arguing among themselves he was sickened by it,' said Jammal Nazimuddin, a former fighter. 'He used to tell them that they had defeated the Soviet empire alone because they were united and Allah had blessed them. If they were not united, he said, they could not do Allah's will.'
Bin Laden, aged 33, went home.

1990-96: SAUDI DISILLUSION
AND EXILE IN SUDAN

PRINCE ABDULLAH , the effective regent of Saudi Arabia, placed a soft, plump
hand on his young compatriot's shoulder, smiled and spoke of friendship and
loyalty. His words were smooth and conciliatory, but there was no doubting the harsh threat that lay beneath them.

'The family of Mohamed bin Laden have always been faithful subjects of our
kingdom and have helped us greatly in our times of need,' he told the gathering. 'We are sure that nothing will be allowed to mar our good relations in the
future.'

It was the autumn of 1990 and Abdullah was addressing Afghan veterans in a
beautifully furnished lounge in his palace in Riyadh. Although the men nodded
respectfully at the prince's words, the man to whom they were directed could
barely conceal his anger. 'He was seething,' one of the Afghan commanders said. 'You could see it in his eyes.'

A few months earlier, on 2 August, Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait. Osama bin Laden, then living in his home town of Jedda, had immediately sent a message to the Saudi royal family offering to form an army of 30,000 Afghan veterans to defeat the Iraqi dictator. The men who had defeated the Russians could easily take on Saddam, he said, and he was clearly the man to lead them.

Bin Laden was in for a rude - and profoundly upsetting - shock. The last
thing the House of al-Saud wanted was an army of zealous Islamists fighting its war. Bin Laden was received by senior royals, but his offer was firmly rejected. Worse was to come. Instead of the Islamic army he envisaged protecting the cradle of Islam, the defence of Saudi Arabia - and thus of the holy sites of Mecca and Medina - was entrusted to the Americans. Bin Laden, seething with humiliation and rage, could do nothing but watch as 300,000 US troops arrived in his country and set about building bases, drinking Coke and alcohol and sunbathing. Bin Laden saw their presence as an infidel invasion.

It even appeared to defy directly the dying words of the Prophet Muhammad: 'Let there be no two religions in Arabia.' The 33-year-old started lobbying religious scholars and Muslim activists throughout the Gulf. Playing on his celebrity status, he lectured and preached throughout Saudi Arabia, circulating thousands of audio tapes through mosques. He started recruiting his army and sent an estimated 4,000 men to Afghanistan for training. The regime grew uneasy, raided his home and put him under house arrest.

Bin Laden's family, worried that his activities might jeopardise their close relations with the ruling clan, tried to bring him back into the fold but were forced eventually to effectively disown him. The pressure mounted.

In late 1990 an escape route appeared. Bin Laden received an offer of refuge
from Hassan al-Turabi, the charismatic Islamist scholar in effect running Sudan.
Turabi believed that the total defeat of Iraq and the discrediting of 'secular'
Arab regimes would lead to an opportunity to set up a 'pure' Islamic government across the Muslim world. It was a seductive message. And the Saudi regime were thankful for an opportunity to get rid of him. They pushed bin Laden further in the hope that he would leave.

Bin Laden cracked. He fled Saudi Arabia for Khartoum, the Sudanese capital.
He was never to return to his homeland. BIN LADEN set up a home in a rich suburb of Khartoum with his four wives, his children and a core of close retainers. Then he flew in several hundred Arab veterans from Afghanistan to provide the basis of a broader organization.

Life in Sudan was odd. There were football matches and bathing trips to the
Blue Nile, and long junior common room-type arguments over whether Shia and Sunni Muslims should unite to fight the common enemy, and points of Islamic doctrine. Bin Laden even opened a personal bank account in his own name. And most of the time of 'the sheikh' was spent making money, rather than spreading global jihad.

'The biggest myth concerns his wealth,' Ghazi Algosaibi, Saudi Arabia's veteran ambassador to London, said recently. 'I have read reports that he has
Dollars 300 to Dollars 400 million stashed away. This is simply not true. When
he left Saudi Arabia he did not take anything like that amount of money, and the Saudi authorities have taken great care to make sure he does not receive any money from the kingdom.'

In the group's offices in Khartoum, bin Laden, as befitted the boss, had the
largest office. The group was run like any other organization. There was a board of directors, a series of sub-committees and too many meetings. Employees nursed grievances over wages, healthcare, and alleged favoritism. Perks included travel (using the passports of Arab volunteers killed in Afghanistan), free tea and groceries.

The organization ran a trading company called Laden International, a foreign
exchange dealership, a civil engineering company and a firm running farms
growing peanuts and corn. In payment for building a 700-mile road from the
capital to Port Sudan, the government gave Bin Laden the monopoly on sesame seed export. Sudan is one of the world's three largest sesame producers, so it was extremely lucrative.

Other ventures were less successful. A plan to import bicycles from
Azerbaijan was a total flop. Other hare-brained schemes were hatched,
half-implemented and then went nowhere.

But there was still enough cash to keep al-Qaeda's core business ticking
along. The chief executive never lost sight of his main purpose. More than
Dollars 100,000 in cash went to Islamists in Jordan, funds were sent to Baku to set up an operation smuggling Islamic fighters into Chechnya, another Dollars 100,000 went to an Eritrean Islamist group. At one point bin Laden bought a plane for Dollars 250,000 and hired a pilot. The plane soon crashed.

He also set up several military training camps, and hundreds of Algerians,
Palestinians, Egyptians and Saudis received instruction in bomb-making and
terrorist tactics. Many of them had fought in Afghanistan and now, like bin
Laden, were at a loose end. There was talk of assassinating President Mubarak of Egypt, though nobody was sure how to go about it, and there was some haphazard surveillance of possible targets for a bombing in East Africa, including the Nairobi embassy of the US.

There also appears to have been an unsuccessful attempt to buy components
for nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe and a bid to smuggle hundreds of Kalash nikovs on camels across the desert to Egypt. A shipload of guns was sent to Yemen and operatives dispatched to help tribesmen fight US troops in Somalia. The CIA claim that bin Laden was behind the attacks on their troops in Mogadishu in 1993.

However, there is little evidence that al-Qaeda were heavily involved. 'During bin Laden's stay in Sudan anti-American incidents happened in many places but none were conducted by his group in the usual sense of an order passed down a chain of command,' one intelligence source said. 'They were done by people who had trained in Afghanistan and had enough anti-American drive. Bin Laden may have sanctioned them but that was all.'

It was a pattern that was to be often seen in the years to come. A car bomb
in Riyadh in 1995 was blamed on him, with the Saudis producing video
'confessions' from four Afghans for the attack. The Khobar Towers bombing a year later was also blamed on bin Laden, though Iranian agents are now the prime suspects.

In 1994, when the Saudis publicly withdrew his citizenship, bin Laden's
response was to exploit the power of the media. It is believed he set up a
London office called the Advice and Reform Committee (ARC). Its job was
allegedly propaganda, issued vitriolic criticism against the Saudi regime. It
was run by Khalid al-Fawwaz, now fighting extradition to the United States from the UK.

By January 1996, Khartoum was increasingly uneasy about its guest. Turabi
contacted the Sudanese ambassador to Afghanistan, Atiya Badawi, who was based in Peshawar. Badawi, who had learnt the Pashtun language while fighting the Russians, had excellent contacts with his former comrades among the Mujahideen and, with Afghanistan split into hundreds of warring bandit fiefdoms, it was easy to persuade three of the most senior commanders in the Jalalabad area that a wealthy Saudi under their protection might give them an edge over their rivals. The three men - all of whom are now dead - flew to Sudan to ask bin Laden to return to the land of the jihad.

 

1996-98: BUILDING AN ARMY OF TERROR

IT WAS A cool autumn evening in Kabul. Outside a high-walled house in the
northern suburb of Wazir Akbar Khan were a dozen Japanese pickup trucks. The guards and drivers lounged against them. Though the area had escaped the worst of the fighting in the seven years since the Russians had withdrawn, shrapnel scars still pitted the walls and sandbags were stacked around every home.

It was October 1996 and Osama bin Laden was in Kabul to meet the Taliban. It was his first visit to the city and his first encounter with the hard-line Islamic
militia army who had captured it a month earlier. In May a specially chartered
cargo plane carrying the 39-year- old, three of his four wives, half a dozen
children and a hundred of his Arab fighters had landed at Jalalabad airport. But
the three Mujahideen commanders who had invited him back from Sudan had since been ousted and bin Laden, politic as ever, knew he needed to ingratiate himself with the new regime.

A month earlier he had sent a Libyan associate to Taliban leader Mullah Omar
in Kandahar. Omar ordered Mullah Mohamed Rabbani, the deputy leader and mayor of Kabul, to meet bin Laden and see if he was as much of a friend as his
subordinate had claimed. Their meeting was wary but friendly. Bin Laden spoke first. Ignoring their doctrinal differences, he praised the militia's aims and achievements and pledged his unconditional moral and financial support. Rabbani, pleased and flattered, offered the protection of the regime. 'Everybody left smiling,' a witness said.

The meeting signified more than an alliance between the world's most wanted
terrorist and the world's most reviled regime. It was the start of the final -
and most critical - phase of bin Laden's development. Having secured the
Taliban's protection, he was free to start building the most efficient terrorist
organization the world had ever seen.

The jihad against the Russians had given bin Laden much-needed confidence,
contacts throughout the Islamic world and a taste for fame, respect and
adulation. His authority and profile had been boosted further by his stance
against Saudi Arabia and exile. And in Sudan he had been able to start the
serious work of building al-Qaeda - a global umbrella group of Muslim extremists dedicated to overturning 'unIslamic' governments throughout the Middle East and further afield. But in terms of military capacity and strategic thinking bin Laden's group was st