Thursday, November 02, 2017

The Bin Laden documents: do I smell a US propaganda scheme?

Of the Bin Laden documents, I read yesterday and today 1) the Bin Laden "journal"; 2) and the document pertaining to the relations between Al-Qa`idah and Iran.  Here are my conclusions:
We should treat all these "documents" released very belatedly by the US government as suspect--until their authenticity is proven beyond a doubt.  But the US government sat on them and only released its version of their spin for years and now suddenly they are released.  I am most skeptical especially that I see lies surrounding the release. 1) regarding the Ben Laden "Journal".  It is not a journal.  I don't know why the US government is insisting (along with the obedient media) on calling it a "journal".  It has none of the features of a "journal' or diary.  In fact, it is more like a transcript of a regular session in which the Arab uprisings--or more accurately--Al-Jazeera coverage of them--are discussed in the presence presumably of Ben Laden.  They don't seem to be written by the same person and sometimes (see above) there is more than one handwriting on the same page.  And sometimes different pens on the same page.  The language of the journal is not consistent: sometimes it is less religious and seems secular in tone.  This also raises suspicions.  Sometimes Ben Laden is talked about in the first person and other times in the 3rd person.  What makes me more suspicious is the leaks by the US government (and the complaint media), in that they wanted only their spin.  It is true that Aljazeera is approvingly mentioned but there are also references to New York Times (but why would Bin Laden who knows English refer to the New York Times as "New York Time"?  Also, did Bin Laden have a satellite dish in Pakistan? I thought he did not. How is he managing to follow the TV coverage so closely and cite various experts who appear on Aljazeera or on Western media?  Also, there is a reference at least three times in the notebook to a vision Bin Laden have about Prince Nayif in military uniform and how they were fighting the communists.  Why did this not make it into the convenient leak by the US government? And the references to Prince Nayif were rather respectful.  I did not see that one in the Western media references (they were all recipient of what the US government wanted to stress).  But the language of the notebook does not resemble the language of Bin Laden.  Those transcripts were more like note taking of a session in which people discussed a roundup of developments in the Arab uprisings.  On another page, there is a reference to Iran and how they support protesters in Bahrain to pressure "the kingdom".  And there is a sentence in which it is said: "Aljazeera with God's praise is the carrier of the banner of the revolutions".  The second reference to Prince Nayif and the vision appears and its said that he appeared yet again in military uniform and that he did not appear as a hostile party.  On another page, there is a reference to the development of Yemen and its transition from "one age to another" by none other than Abdul-Nasser. How odd is it for an Islamist of any kind to make a favorable reference to Nasser?  2) then there is that 19-page document (unsigned) and it is ostensibly is a document showing ties between Iran and Al-Qa`idah.  This one is the hardest to believe.  The document does not make sense: at several points it talks about Iranian regime being very pragmatic and another point it talks that the enmity between US and Iran is very real and not fake. But this last contention is totally against all the beliefs of Islamists (of the various kind) who are convinced that the US and Iran are allies under the table.  The paper also alleges that Iran offered to send Al-Qa`idah members to train at Hizbullah camps in Lebanon.  This is clearly a fabrication and shows a clumsy effort to implicate Iran in a relations with Al-Qa`idah. But why would Iran need to send Al-Qa`dish fighters who are allegedly in Iran already to Lebanon to train? Why not train them there in Iran?  Also, the document itself then says: that Iranian governments arrested all of them and they had to go into hiding.  This document in particular clearly is fabricated--I venture--and I don't know who wrote it.  It also struck me as less religious in tone than what we normally read form those quarters.  And as for the porn collection that Bin Laden had: I also don't believe it.  The US never explained what it was and where it was (remember that Bin Laden did not have internet in his house).   I believe that Bin Laden is a sincere fanatical kook, unlike say other of this type, and for that I discount the story of the porn cache.   Do you remember when US dropped fliers into Afghanistan showing a manufactured "picture" of a clean shaven Bin Laden in a suit and tie allegedly to tell the people that he fled and left his fighters behind?