10-11-09
Leader of Taliban Afghanistan Omar and bin Laden Were Killed October 16, 2001, so Why is the NY Times Bringing Omar Back to Life?
The
leader of the Afghanistan Taliban in 2001 was killed
at the same time bin Laden was killed October 16, 2001 so it is strange and
interesting the New York Times is bringing Omar back to life. The real Omar is the guy on the left of bin Laden. The Omar which
is now being resurrected bears basically no physical resemblance to the Omar
who was killed with bin Laden in 2001. This one has the added Hollywood look
of being blind in one eye. So for some reason this Omar is totally and completely
fabricated, just as the bad guys fabricated Muqtada
al-Sadr, probably for the same reason. Al-Sadr was a fiction (Al-Sadr existed
it is just that al-Sadr had no real relationship to the Mahdi Army) of the bad
guys and put in charge of the Mahdi
Army which the bad guys did build to stir up trouble in Iraq. So logic dictates
the bad guys are building up the Taliban again in Afghanistan and need a fictional
leader and have chosen a dead man who had a big name in the past, Omar. So the
bad guys, even though their al-Sadr scam was debunked over and over, have decided
to go with the same type if scam in Afghanistan, created a fictional head of
the Taliban killing our soldiers. What is becoming exceedingly clear is that
the bad guys are manufacturing and building the armies who are killing our brave
soldiers. Just as the bad guys built and ran the Mahdi Army in Iraq and used
their creation to kill those people the bad guys wanted killed in Iraq, including
our brave soldiers, the bad guys are building up the Taliban in Afghanistan
to kill the people they want killed in Afghanistan including our brave soldiers.
Logic dictates the United States will one day have fictionalized guys making war in the United States. It will be interesting to find out who our first manufactured al-Sadr and now the newly manufactured Oman will be in the United States. How do we know the bad guys are building an army in the USA to kill who they want killed? Because creating armies and putting some fictional head in charge of it is the bad guys Mode of Operation. It is my guess, since General McChrystal has such a shady past, that General McChrystal is in charge of Omar's army as well as the United States' forces in Afghanistan. The wars the United States are fighting are totally and completely scripted and we are financing and running both sides. Why? Because war is the necessary ingredient to debase the US Constitution. Without a war the bad guys would not be able to get the laws passed which are shredding the US Constitution.
The bottom line is that Omar is being brought back from the dead for the purpose of the bad guys using his name and setting him up as the fictional head of an army the US is creating for the US to fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan which is treason because it war against us, and killing our brave soldiers. This US army we are fighting in Afghanistan will, one day, be swapped for a real army fighting us, the Russian Army.
I Ching - Are the bad guys using the name Omar, the Taliban leader killed at the same time bin Laden was killed in 2001, to build an army to kill our brave soldiers in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
50 the Cauldron - The cauldron is a vessel for refining by heat, whereby something new is obtained.
-------
--- ---
------
------
-------
--- ---
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
A Dogged Taliban Chief Rebounds,
Vexing U.S.
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: October 10, 2009
WASHINGTON — 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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/world/asia/11mullah.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all
Much of the world celebrated his ouster, and Afghans cheered the return of girls’
education, music and ordinary pleasures outlawed by the grim fundamentalist
government.
Eight years later, Mullah Omar leads an insurgency that has gained steady ground in much of Afghanistan against much better equipped American and NATO forces. Far from a historical footnote, he represents a vexing security challenge for the Obama administration, one that has consumed the president’s advisers, divided Democrats and left many Americans frustrated.
“This is an amazing story,” said Bruce Riedel, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer who coordinated the Obama administration’s initial review of Afghanistan policy in the spring. “He’s a semiliterate individual who has met with no more than a handful of non-Muslims in his entire life. And he’s staged one of the most remarkable military comebacks in modern history.”
American officials are weighing the significance of this comeback: Is Mullah Omar the brains behind shrewd shifts of Taliban tactics and propaganda in recent years, or does he have help from Pakistani intelligence? Might the Taliban be amenable to negotiations, as Mullah Omar hinted in a Sept. 19 statement, or can his network be divided and weakened in some other way? Or is the Taliban’s total defeat required to ensure that Afghanistan will never again become a haven for Al Qaeda?
The man at the center of the American policy conundrum remains a mystery, the subject of adoring mythmaking by his followers and guesswork by the world’s intelligence agencies. He was born, by various accounts, in 1950 or 1959 or 1960 or 1962. He may be hiding near Quetta, Pakistan, or hunkered down in an Afghan village. No one is sure.
“He can’t operate openly; there are too many people looking for him,” and the eye he lost to Soviet shrapnel in the 1980s makes him recognizable, said Alex Strick van Linschoten, a Dutch-born writer who lives in Kandahar, where Mullah Omar’s movement was born, and who has helped a former Taliban official write a memoir.
“There are four or five people who can pass messages to Omar,” Mr. Strick van Linschoten said. “And then there’s a circle of people who can get access to those four or five people.”
Rahimullah Yusufzai, of The News International, a Pakistani newspaper, who interviewed Mullah Omar a dozen times before 2001, called him “a man of few words and not very knowledgeable about international affairs.” But his reputed humility, his legend as a ferocious fighter against Soviet invaders in the 1980s, and his success in ending the lawlessness and bloody warlords’ feuds of the early 1990s cemented his power.
“His followers adore him, believe in him and are willing to die for him,” Mr. Yusufzai said. While even Taliban officials rarely see him, Mullah Omar “remains an inspiration, sending out letters and audiotapes to his commanders and fighters,” the journalist said.
A recent assessment by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top American commander in Afghanistan, identified the Taliban as the most important part of the insurgency, coordinating “loosely” with groups led by two prominent warlords. He concluded that “the insurgents currently have the initiative” and “the overall situation is deteriorating.”
The statement from Mullah Omar, one of a series issued in his name on each of the two annual Id holidays, offered a remarkably similar analysis. He, or his ghostwriter, praised the success of “the gallant mujahedeen” in countering the “sophisticated and cutting-edge technology” of the enemy, saying the Taliban movement “is approaching the edge of victory.”
For a recluse, he showed a keen awareness of Western public opinion, touching on the history that haunts foreign armies in Afghanistan (“We fought against the British invaders for 80 years”), denouncing fraud in the recent presidential election and asking of the American-led forces, “Have they achieved anything in the past eight years?”
American military and intelligence analysts say the Taliban have definitely achieved some things. They describe today’s Afghan Taliban as a franchise operation, a decentralized network of fighters with varying motivations, united by hostility to the Afghan government and foreign forces and by loyalty to Mullah Omar.
The Taliban have deployed fighters in small guerrilla units and stepped up the use of suicide bombings and improvised explosive devices. The movement has expanded military operations from the Taliban’s southern stronghold into the north and west of the country, forcing NATO to spread its troops more thinly.
Day-to-day decisions are made by Mullah Omar’s deputies, in particular Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, a skilled, pragmatic commander, who runs many meetings with Taliban commanders and “shadow governors” appointed in much of the country, analysts say.
Mullah Omar heads the Taliban’s Rahbari Shura, or leadership council, often called the Quetta Shura since it relocated to the Pakistani city in 2002. The shura, consisting of the Taliban commanders, “operates like the politburo of a communist party,” setting broad strategy, said Mr. Yusufzai, the Pakistani journalist. General McChrystal wrote in his assessment that the shura “conducts a formal campaign review each winter, after which Mullah Omar announces his guidance and intent for the coming year.”
Thomas E. Gouttierre, director of the Center for Afghanistan Studies at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, said that “as a symbolic figure, Omar is a centrifugal force for the Taliban,” playing a similar role to that of Osama bin Laden in Al Qaeda. But Dr. Gouttierre credits the Taliban’s success not to any military genius on the part of Mullah Omar but to more worldly advisers from Pakistan’s intelligence service and Al Qaeda.
Western and Afghan sources agree on the bare outline of Mullah Omar’s biography: He was born in a village, had limited religious schooling, fought with the mujahedeen against the Soviet Army and helped form the Taliban in 1994. Some accounts say he is married and has two sons.
His emergence as the leader of the puritanical students who later fought their way to the capital, Kabul, may have resulted from his very obscurity, some experts say. He was not a flamboyant warlord with allies and enemies, a likely plus for the Taliban’s sponsors in Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate. “He had an unaligned quality that made him useful,” Mr. Strick van Linschoten said.
In jihadist accounts, his story has the feeling of legend: “At the height of his youth, he stepped forward against the disbelievers and terrorized their ranks,” says an undated 10-page biography from an Islamist information agency, which also describes how he once refused cream and other delicacies, preferring “a bowl of plain soup with some hard, stale bread.”
Taliban folklore tells of his bravery in the 1980s in removing his own injured eye and fighting on; of his dream in the mid-1990s in which the Prophet Muhammad told him he would bring peace to Afghanistan; and of how in 1996, he donned a cloak reputed to have belonged to the prophet and took the title “commander of the faithful.”
That was the year that Mr. bin Laden moved his base to Afghanistan. Ever since, the central question about Mullah Omar for American officials has been his relationship with Al Qaeda.
In 1998, two days after American cruise missiles hit a Qaeda training camp in an unsuccessful attempt to kill Mr. bin Laden, Mullah Omar telephoned an astonished State Department official, Michael E. Malinowski, who took the call on his porch at 2:30 a.m. Mullah Omar demanded proof that the Qaeda leader was involved in terrorism, according to declassified records. (Mullah Omar also suggested that to improve American relations with Muslim countries, President Bill Clinton should step down.)
Mr. bin Laden courted the Taliban leader, vowing allegiance and calling the far less educated man a historic leader of Islam. A letter of advice from Mr. bin Laden to Mullah Omar on Oct. 3, 2001, found on a Qaeda computer obtained by The Wall Street Journal, heaped on the praise (“I would like to emphasize how much we appreciate the fact that you are our emir”).
Despite intense pressure from the United States and its allies to turn over Mr. bin Laden, Mullah Omar declined, and paid a steep price when the Taliban fell.
Richard Barrett, a former British intelligence officer now monitoring Al Qaeda and the Taliban for the United Nations, argues that Mullah Omar has learned the lesson of 2001. If the Taliban regain power, he said, “they don’t want Al Qaeda hanging around.”
He added, “They want to be able to say, ‘We are a responsible government.’ ”
Indeed, in his Sept. 19 statement, Mullah Omar made such an assertion: “We assure all countries that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, as a responsible force, will not extend its hand to cause jeopardy to others.”
Mr. Riedel, who helped devise the Afghanistan strategy now being rethought, scoffs at such pronouncements as “clever propaganda.”
“We’ve been trying for 13 years to get the Taliban to break with Al Qaeda and turn over bin Laden, and they haven’t done it,” Mr. Riedel said. “Whatever the bond is between them, it’s stood the test of time.”
Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington, and Pir Zubair Shah from
Islamabad, Pakistan.