12-08-09

Osama and Omar Were Assassinated October 16, 2001 so Why is General David Petraeus Lying To the World When He Says Omar Stays in Pakistan?

The New York Times published an article by Scott Shane October 10, 2009 entitled A Dogged Taliban Chief Rebounds, Vexing U.S. which started out "In late 2001, Mullah Muhammad Omar’s prospects seemed utterly bleak. The ill-educated, one-eyed leader of the Taliban had fled on a motorbike after his fighters were swiftly routed by the Americans invading Afghanistan. A wanted poster for Mullah Muhammad Omar, who remains largely a mystery. His followers praise his humility and bravery. The New York Times article is/ was a lie. General David Petraeus is mouthing basically the same lie as told by the New York Times two months ago when UK Daily Times quoted General Petraeus as saying "Mullah Omar stays most, if not all, of the time in Pakistan."

The guy to the left of bin Laden is Mullah Omar, photo to the left. Omar was the head of the Taliban when he was killed at the same time bin Laden was killed October 16, 2001. Wikipedia publishes the BS photo of Omar and states that Omar was 14 years younger than bin Laden and that Omar would be 38 years old, all incorrect statements. The Rothschilds Rockefellers had them killed because the communi$t$' knew Omar and bin Laden could expose their Sept 11 blame the Arabs scam.

General Petraeus, Ottie Sluzburger and other communi$t$ making war on the USA know bin Laden and Omar are dead but choose to say they are alive for some BS reason, probably in the hope of giving the US Congress an excuse to shred the US Constitution more. Obviously, General Petraeus would rather be a somebody who kill kids than a good nobody.

Since all thinking people know Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar were assassinated October 16, 2001 the question becomes why is the New York Times and General Petreaus lying to the world now when they say Mullah Omar is alive and well somewhere? The New York Times and General Petreaus are making war on the United States engaging in treason on the United States when they create an enemy to the United States, Mullah Omar, which does not exist.

By the way another favorite communi$t lie is that bin Laden is alive. Probably the New York Times and General Petraeus telling the world the lie that Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden are alive and well are in honor of the House and Senate Armed Services committees hearings where Gen. Stanley McChrystal tells his lies tomorrow, Tuesday December 8, 2009. The Generals in the US military are making war on the United States because they want the power of ruling the United States by Martial Law. In order to put the USA under Martial Law rule the USA must be at war. One of the reasons the Generals say Mullah Omar is in Pakistan is because they want an excuse to invade and conquer Pakistan. Will the US Congress give Obama and the General authority to invade Pakistan as required by the US Constitution? No. No. No. Congress directing the President to authorize our military to invade Pakistan would be the US Constitutional way to operate. What is going on in the USA now is establishing a military dictatorship to rule the USA and that means operating in outward violation and defiance of the US Constitution. The US military is going before the House and Senate Armed Services committees to get their blessing to rule the United States by military dictatorship. Congress and the military are both engaging in war against the the United States and are in what logic dictates are the final stages of setting up the laws and structure to turn the ruling of the USA over to the military and ruling the USA by martial law.

Mullah Omar stays most of the time in Pakistan: Petraeus

http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\12\05\story_5-12-2009_pg7_15

* US commander says Haqqani network in North Waziristan a ‘big concern’ * Washington helped create extremist organisation

Daily Times Monitor

LAHORE: Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar stays most, if not all, of the time in Pakistan, US Army General David Petraeus told the National Public Radio (NPR) on Friday.

In an interview with NPR, Petraeus said Pakistan had taken important steps against the Taliban in the last nine months. “I think there was a major development there about nine months ago that is very worth discussing. And that is a recognition by the Pakistani population, by virtually all of the political leaders, including the major opposition figure, Nawaz Sharif, and the bulk of the clerics that the most pressing threat to the very existence of Pakistan is the extremist syndicate, again, and, in particular, the Pakistani Taliban,” he said. He particularly mentioned the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) as an existential threat to Pakistan.

Petraeus said the TTP and the Afghan Taliban were “a threat to our Pakistani partners or even a trans-national threat in terms of extremism”.

Haqqani: The US general said the Siraj Haqqani network, believed to be operating from North Waziristan, was a “big concern”.

“The leader of the Haqqani network is a big concern because, although their leadership tends to be occupying an area on the Pakistani side of the border, the Haqqani network is one of the syndicate of extremist elements that operate in the eastern part of Afghanistan.” “[Haqqani] is the head of an organisation that causes significant problems in Afghanistan and also can cause problems for Pakistani authorities as well.”

Extremist creativity: The US general said Washington had been party to the creation of these militant groups. “The existence of these organisations, their initial development was actually a reaction to Soviet occupation [of Afghanistan] and funded by, among others, some of the US contribution to the anti-Soviet occupation of Afghanistan,” he said. “We funded many of them when they were the mujahideen who were fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.”

He told NPR that the Afghan Taliban were located “in various locations in Pakistan... typically in Balochistan. It’s called the Quetta shura”. “I’m not sure that folks will say [the Taliban] right inside the city [Quetta] or precisely — it will move around and so forth. But... has historically been centred on that city,” Petraeus said. “And when the Taliban were ejected, defeated along with Al Qaeda and other extremist elements that were located in Afghanistan prior to 9/11... they dispersed in these very rugged areas of eastern Afghanistan, the tribal areas of Pakistan and then down in the Balochistan as well”.

He said there were limits to how fast the world expected Pakistan to overcome terrorism. “The fact is that they have shifted a substantial amount of their military capability from, for example, the Indian border, from other locations, indeed to deal with this extremist threat. And I think you cannot underestimate how important the steps they have taken in the last nine or 10 months have been,” he said.

“They have also taken very significant casualties in these fights with the extremists. And their civilians have suffered severe losses as well, as these extremists have fought back,” Petraeus said. “And again, a good bit of this fighting, of course, has been from the [TTP] former Baitullah Mehsud organisation and from some of the other extremist elements that have — as the Pakistani forces, the frontier corps and the military have gone after them — have indeed then blown up innocent civilians in marketplaces, visiting cricket teams, [and] of course all the way back to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.”

------------

10-26-2001

(Caveat: Unconfirmed) China News Service and Yomiuri Report Osama and Omar Were Assassinated

FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum" [ Latest Posts | Latest Articles | Self-Search | Bookmark | Abuse | Settings | Help! | Old Style ] Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works. (Caveat: Unconfirmed) China News Service and Yomiuri Report Osama and Omar Were Assassinated

Foreign Affairs
Source: Zhonghawa Shinwen and Yomiuri Shimbun
Published: 24 October 2001 Author: China News Service (from Reporter Sugiyama of Yomiuri in Beijing)
Posted on 10/24/01 1:07 PM Pacific by AmericanInTokyo

Strong Caveat: This is the first and only such report that appeared several hours ago, off of Chinese and Japanese news wires, and is unconfirmed. Therefore it is just an advisory that such a report has been filed. Merits considerable skepticism while checking its validity.Report by China News Service quoting Japanese source in Tokyo per the following (translated by AIT from Chinese from the site at: http://www.chinanews.com.cn/2001-10-24/26/133210.html/ in Chinese, and http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/05/20011024id36.htm in Japanese):"Chinese News Service Reports: Osama bin Laden Killed?"Filed by Hiroyuki Sugiyama, Yomiuri Shimbun Reporter based in Beijing. Based on Japanese sources in Tokyo, news report (s) has been received that on October 16th, both the leader of Taliban Afghanistan Omar and the leader of AlQaida, Osama bin Laden, were both shot and killed in Afghanistan, by elements within their ranks. However at this time no other news sources have confirmed the assassinations.The CNS news report stated that it is reported that Omar and Bin Laden had returned to one of the underground Taliban bases near Kandahar in the south, at approximately 11 a.m. local time in Afghanistan on 16 October. As the two and others were entering the underground base, it was reported an ally fired upon his (Omar's) back from the rear. The report is that Omar was hit in the upper torso, and bin Laden was hit once in the chest and once in the upper left shoulder area. Both expired at that location.The report goes on to say that accompanying bin Laden were one of his sons and this son's wife, who were also hit with gunfire in the chest, waist and shoulder areas, and they too have reported suffered fatal wounds from this attack. The second eldest son of Omar also suffered a gunshot wound to the right side of his lower torso, and escaped the shooting, but expired on the following day." End of Text

Speculation Abounds, but Officials Concede No Idea Where He Is

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/12/06/us-has-no-idea-where-bin-laden-is/
by Jason Ditz, December 06, 2009

As the last defense secretary of the Bush Administration and the current defense secretary of the Obama Administration, Robert Gates is probably in a better position than any official to explain the failure of the US to capture Osama bin Laden over the past several years.

His answer is quite simple: the US doesn’t know where bin Laden is, and hasn’t had any reliable intelligence on this in years. “If we did, we’d go get him,” Gates insisted.

That may be about to change, as National Security Adviser James Jones says responded to the question of whether or not the Obama Administration was going to try to go after bin Laden with a none-too-assertive “I think so.”

Jones added to this with speculation that bin Laden was somewhere in North Waziristan, and that he is sometimes also in Afghanistan, adding “and we’re going to have to get after that.”

A recent Senate report said that bin Laden was “within reach” in December of 2001. Since then the al-Qaeda leader has been trotted out by officials as a justification of the Afghan War, but they have never again come close to capturing or killing him.

------

Who's in charge -- generals or President Obama?

By DAVID ROGERS | 12/6/09 10:34 PM EST

Top Democrats fear that unless Obama is more assertive, the military chain of command will undermine his July 2011 target.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, goes before Congress this week, and with him comes this question: Who’s really in charge here, the generals or President Barack Obama?

The long-awaited hearings, beginning Tuesday before the House and Senate Armed Services committees, are a bookend of sorts to Obama’s address last Tuesday at West Point committing 30,000 more troops to the war effort in Afghanistan. Implicit in the president’s decision is an effective cap of about 100,000 for the American force, but top Democrats fear that unless Obama is more assertive, the military chain of command will undermine his July 2011 target to begin some U.S. withdrawal

“The president’s decision is already being softened and made mush of,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told POLITICO. And within the House and Senate Appropriations committees, senior Democrats — themselves veterans of past wars — have grown increasingly concerned by the political clout of a generation of younger, often press-savvy military commanders.

McChrystal and his strong ally, Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the U.S. Central Command, are quotable stars in today’s modern media; their wartime budgets not only are large but also give them exceptional discretion that is the envy of their foreign policy partners in the State Department.

The September leak of McChrystal’s confidential report on the need for more troops helped box in Obama and quickly became grist for the Republican political mill. Even before that, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House defense appropriations panel, complained of what he saw as a pattern of news reports from the military in Afghanistan promoting a buildup. And while Obama has a retired general of his own in National Security Adviser Jim Jones, the 65-year-old Marine four-star has not been the counterweight that many of his admirers had predicted.

“I’ve always believed that the president of the United States is the commander in chief,” said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), who was awarded the Medal of Honor in World War II. “It concerns me when I see my president, the commander in chief, having to debate with generals. They can do that privately, but he should be able to say to General A, ‘This is the way we’re going to do our business.’ ... I would expect generals to advise the president but not to go public.”

The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, retired Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry — whose own cables critical of a military buildup were leaked in November — appears alongside McChrystal this week. And having them side by side underscores the need for greater clarity and cooperation going forward.

“The pace [of withdrawal] is condition-based. The location is condition-based. But what wasn’t condition-based is the beginning,” Levin said of the July 2011 date. “I want to see if McChrystal says, yes, he understands that.” .

“Second, does he support it? He’s not obligated to. I’m asking for his honest personal opinion. If he has a different opinion, he should tell us. He’s obligated to tell us. ... Their advice should be private, ... with the one caveat [that] if they are asked by a congressional committee for their best professional opinion, they are duty bound to give it to us.”

----------

Posted on Tuesday, December 8, 2009

McChrystal: Getting bin Laden key to defeating al Qaida

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/80287.html

WASHNGTON — Days after his boss said that there was no new intelligence on the whereabouts of al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan told Congress Tuesday that killing or capturing bin Laden is critical to defeating the terrorist organization.

Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top Afghanistan commander, said, however, that he could not promise that his new military strategy would lead to bin Laden's capture because when the al Qaida leader moves outside of Afghanistan, chasing after him "is outside my mandate."

McChrystal's comments underscored a key contradiction in President Barack Obama's new Afghanistan strategy: While it dedicates thousands of additional troops to combating the Taliban in Afghanistan, it adds few resources aimed at the policy's stated goal: "disrupting, dismantling and defeating" al Qaida.

"I believe he is an iconic figure at this point whose survival emboldens al Qaida as a franchise organization across the world," McChrystal told the Senate Armed Services committee. "I don't think we can defeat him until he is captured or killed."

In the last week top administration officials have offered conflicting statements about what the United States knows about bin Laden's whereabouts. While McChrystal suggested Tuesday that bin Laden is in neighboring Pakistan, retired Marine Gen. Jim Jones, Obama's national security advisor, said Sunday that bin Laden sometimes crosses the Afghan-Pakistan border.

And over the weekend, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told ABC's "This Week" that the United States had not had strong intelligence on bin Laden's whereabouts for years.

Bin Laden has eluded U.S. capture since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, most notably at the battle of Tora Bora in Afghanistan in late 2001. The special operations task force assigned exclusively to find bin Laden was disbanded by 2005.

"If, as we suspect, he is in North Waziristan, it is an area that the Pakistani government has not had a presence in, in quite some time," Gates told ABC.

McChrystal and Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. envoy in Afghanistan, appeared before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees on Tuesday to answer questions about the Obama administration's new Afghanistan strategy, which calls for the deployment of between 30,000-35,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan by next summer. Most of those troops are to be assigned to southern Afghanistan, where the Taliban controls large swaths of the county.

Besides improving security, those forces are expected to train Afghan security forces to take over. McChrystal said that he expects the Afghan security forces — police and army — to expand to 300,000 by July 2011 — when Obama said U.S. troops would begin to withdraw. The total currently is about 188,000, with 96,000 of those belonging to the army.

McChrystal said he had not recommended July 2011 as the date to start the withdrawal. But he said that that date provides the United States enough time to weaken the Taliban's hold and build up the Afghan security forces. He did not say what the United States would do if U.S. forces hadn't made that kind of progress by then.

Eikenberry, who had expressed doubts about the strategy during the administration's three-month deliberation, said Tuesday he supported the strategy.

Military officials believe a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan will provide safe haven to al Qaida and its leadership. McChrystal estimated that between 24,000-27,000 full-time Taliban fighters operate in Afghanistan.

In the past, officials have said that killing bin Laden is not critical to defeating al Qaida, saying that they believe al Qaida's leadership is decentralized and that stabilizing the countries where they operate is a more attainable goal.

On Tuesday, however, McChrystal said that the goals are interlinked. "Rolling back the Taliban is a prerequisite to the ultimate defeat of al Qaida," he said.

There are currently 69,000 U.S. troops and 41,000 coalition troops in Afghanistan. The first of the surge troops are slated to arrive by Christmas.