Captured Al-Qaeda kingpin is case of ‘mistaken identity’

$kelet0r

Tank
Joined
Dec 13, 2004
Messages
4,415
Reaction score
0
Captured Al-Qaeda kingpin is case of ‘mistaken identity’
Christina Lamb and Mohammad Shehzad Islamabad



THE capture of a supposed Al-Qaeda kingpin by Pakistani agents last week was hailed by President George W Bush as “a critical victory in the war on terror”. According to European intelligence experts, however, Abu Faraj al-Libbi was not the terrorists’ third in command, as claimed, but a middle-ranker derided by one source as “among the flotsam and jetsam” of the organisation.
Al-Libbi’s arrest in Pakistan, announced last Wednesday, was described in the United States as “a major breakthrough” in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden.



Bush called him a “top general” and “a major facilitator and chief planner for the Al- Qaeda network”. Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, said he was “a very important figure”. Yet the backslapping in Washington and Islamabad has astonished European terrorism experts, who point out that the Libyan was neither on the FBI’s most wanted list, nor on that of the State Department “rewards for justice” programme.

Another Libyan is on the FBI list — Anas al-Liby, who is wanted over the 1998 East African embassy bombings — and some believe the Americans may have initially confused the two. When The Sunday Times contacted a senior FBI counter-terrorism official for information about the importance of the detained man, he sent material on al-Liby, the wrong man.

“Al-Libbi is just a ‘middle-level’ leader,” said Jean-Charles Brisard, a French intelligence investigator and leading expert on terrorism finance. “Pakistan and US authorities have completely overestimated his role and importance. He was never more than a regional facilitator between Al-Qaeda and local Pakistani Islamic groups.”

According to Brisard, the arrested man lacks the global reach of Al-Qaeda leaders such as Ayman al-Zawahiri, Bin Laden’s number two, Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, or Anas al-Liby.

Although British intelligence has evidence of telephone calls between al-Libbi and operatives in the UK, he is not believed to be Al-Qaeda’s commander of operations in Europe, as reported.

The only operations in which he is known to have been involved are two attempts to assassinate Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, in 2003. Last year he was named Pakistan’s most wanted man with a $350,000 (£185,000) price on his head.

No European or American intelligence expert contacted last week had heard of al-Libbi until a Pakistani intelligence report last year claimed he had taken over as head of operations after Khalid Shaikh Mohammad’s arrest. A former close associate of Bin Laden now living in London laughed: “What I remember of him is he used to make the coffee and do the photocopying.”

What is known is that al-Libbi moved from Libya to Pakistan in the mid-1980s before joining the jihad in Afghanistan. He married a Pakistani woman and is said to specialise in maps and diagrams. He is thought to have joined Bin Laden in Sudan with other Libyan nationals in about 1992 and to have become Al-Qaeda’s co-ordinator with home-grown Pakistani terrorist groups after 9/11.

Some believe al-Libbi’s significance has been cynically hyped by two countries that want to distract attention from their lack of progress in capturing Bin Laden, who has now been on the run for almost four years.

Even a senior FBI official admitted that al-Libbi’s “influence and position have been overstated”. But this weekend the Pakistani government was sticking to the line that al-Libbi was the third most important person in the Al-Qaeda network.

One American official tried to explain the absence of al-Libbi’s name on the wanted list by saying: “We did not want him to know he was wanted.”

Whatever his importance, al-Libbi is the sixth Al-Qaeda figure to have been caught in Pakistan, suggesting that the country is now the organisation’s centre of operations. The interior minister, Aftab Khan Sherpao, conceded that Bin Laden and his deputy might be hiding in a Pakistani city.

“But the capture of al-Libbi will have made them very apprehensive. Whether big fry or small fry, they’re on the run, I can tell you that.”
 
Im honestly not suprised at all. I've just stopped believing western media when it comes to terrorism now; don't trust them one bit.
 
* Slaps both Pressure and CptStern and then takes away their space cakes *

Any way, this doesn't surprise me at all. These exaggerations have become so common that I don't even blink an eye any more.

Hey, Bush. Why don't you just say that you captured Satan next time?

One American official tried to explain the absence of al-Libbi’s name on the wanted list by saying: “We did not want him to know he was wanted.”

Ha! Sure, buddy. Hey, if that's apparently how it works, why do you even have a ****ing wanted list in the first place?
 
Seth Macfarlene couldn't even come up with that :).

“What I remember of him is he used to make the coffee and do the photocopying.”

They captured Bin Laden's coffee boy...
 
Razor said:
Seth Macfarlene couldn't even come up with that :).

“What I remember of him is he used to make the coffee and do the photocopying.”

They captured Bin Laden's coffee boy...

Hah! Now, they have no coffee or photocopies! How will they stay up late at night and discuss evil plans over maps of America now?
 
jondyfun said:
Hah! Now, they have no coffee or photocopies! How will they stay up late at night and discuss evil plans over maps of America now?


ummmm shadow puppets over by the firelight? ...bush uses them
 
burner69 said:
Im honestly not suprised at all. I've just stopped believing western media when it comes to terrorism now; don't trust them one bit.
And Al Jazeera is going to give you more fact oriented news?

Meh. I'd just be thankful we managed to capture ANYBODY.
 
I don't trust either news sources, they all try to feed you respective propoganda.
 
gh0st said:
And Al Jazeera is going to give you more fact oriented news?

Meh. I'd just be thankful we managed to capture ANYBODY.

Probably about the same really.

I like it how people are so anti Al Jazeera when they've never seen it and base their opinions on the western media's portrayal of it... because of course the western media dosen't have an agenda against ol' Al Jazeera.
 
burner69 said:
Probably about the same really.

I like it how people are so anti Al Jazeera when they've never seen it and base their opinions on the western media's portrayal of it... because of course the western media dosen't have an agenda against ol' Al Jazeera.
An of course ol' Al Jazeera has no agenda at all.
 
Foxtrot said:
An of course ol' Al Jazeera has no agenda at all.

Please read my post. I said they're the same; implying they both have an agenda. Read between the lines buddy.

Peace
 
burner69 said:
Probably about the same really.

I like it how people are so anti Al Jazeera when they've never seen it and base their opinions on the western media's portrayal of it... because of course the western media dosen't have an agenda against ol' Al Jazeera.
I've never seen Al Jazeera? I look at their website all the time. I base my opinions on the fact that once a news corporation becomes sufficiently large it ceases to become a news reporting corporation and a money making corporation. They all have lobbyists and someone pays and invests in Al Jazeera just like they do Fox, or CBS. Your complaints against 'western media' are equally applicable to Al Jazeera and other arab news agencies.
 
gh0st said:
I've never seen Al Jazeera? I look at their website all the time. I base my opinions on the fact that once a news corporation becomes sufficiently large it ceases to become a news reporting corporation and a money making corporation. They all have lobbyists and someone pays and invests in Al Jazeera just like they do Fox, or CBS. Your complaints against 'western media' are equally applicable to Al Jazeera and other arab news agencies.

You are correct.

However, you missed the subtlety of burner69's post.

Quoted again for emphasis:

burner69 said:
Please read my post. I said they're the same; implying they both have an agenda. Read between the lines buddy.
 
gh0st said:
Isnt that what I said?

Not exactly. You were saying:

"But Al Jazeera is just the same as the Western media!"

Whereas burner69 said in the first place:

"Al Jazeera has an agenda, just like the Western media."


Meh, never mind. We're not actually arguing over who was right or not. We're agreeing, but arguing over how we agree about it. :LOL:
 
Pogrom said:
Meh, never mind. We're not actually arguing over who was right or not. We're agreeing, but arguing over how we agree about it. :LOL:
You know that means I win the argument right :p
 
Pogrom said:
You are correct.

However, you missed the subtlety of burner69's post.

Quoted again for emphasis:

Ha ha! Didn't think all that'd happen. Cheers mate.

Think I've added all I wanted to in this debate;

Take it easy guys.
 
Well someone's mistaken. I'm not ready to say who yet, since the article could just as likely be at fault. I'll wait and see how this pans out.
 
Well someone's mistaken. I'm not ready to say who yet, since the article could just as likely be at fault. I'll wait and see how this pans out.

Well, it seems like Pakistan was the one to concoct these claims if this article turns out true. However, I suppose it is easier to blame Bush without even reading!

"until a Pakistani intelligence report last year claimed he had taken over as head of operations after Khalid Shaikh Mohammad’s arrest."

Furthermore, I would like to at least see a source for this article. I dont see it on CNN, FOX or the other biggies yet.
 
seinfeldrules said:
Furthermore, I would like to at least see a source for this article. I dont see it on CNN, FOX or the other biggies yet.


here ya go:


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1602568,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Faraj_al-Libbi

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8775.htm


from wikipedia:



"This is not the Anas al-Liby who was indicted for an "operational role" in the bombings of two American embassies in East Africa in August 1998. The forms 'al-Libbi' and 'al-Liby' are alternative transcriptions of the same Arabic name (الليبي), meaning "the Libyan." In the May 8 article in The Times it was stated that "some believe the Americans may have initially confused" Anas al-Liby with Abu Faraj al-Libbi."
 
I would still like to see some confirmation from somewhere else (US Govt, large media source). Besides, like I pointed out, if the rumor is true it was started by Pakistan, not the US.
 
Back
Top