LoungeMachine
06-20-2005, 09:06 PM
Plot to Kill US Ambassador after hinting bin Laden in Pakistan
(21.06.2005)
Three Pakistani men have been arrested in Afghanistan for apparently plotting to assassinate the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan.
The plot has come at a time when the U.S. military have stated that an increasing number of foreign militants have been entering Afghanistan. It also follows comments from the U.S. ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, indirectly suggesting that Osama bin Laden may be hiding in Pakistan.
As our readers will recall, we have already said that he is in Pakistan (near Chitral) and that certain members of the U.S. government (including some Pakistan officials) know exactly where he is.
It was interesting to hear a comment from the CIA chief, Porter Goss, supporting this belief, who when asked if he had a good idea where Bin Laden is, he replied "I have an excellent idea of where he is. What's the next question?" He did not mention Pakistan by name, but his further comments left no doubt that this is what he meant.
Zalmay Khalilzad has left Afghanistan, to take up his new post as U.S. ambassador to Iraq.
One wonders whether Zalmay Khalilzad was getting just a little too close to the truth and those hiding Osama bin Laden in Pakistan felt it might be better to keep him quiet. But as you will see from our other article, it is not just the Pakistani's that are "looking after" bin Laden. What good timing for Khalilzad to be "moved".
If Zalmay Khalilzad became a target for treading on dangerous ground, perhaps Porter Goss can expect a change of job shortly as well?
Osama bin Laden is still involved with so called "terrorist" actions, but there is some confusion on who he is actually working for. Our recent article concerning Al-Qaeda and the future attack on Iran my give some clues on this.
It is our hope that by publishing this information, any attempt at repeating the 9/11 attack may be avoided. However, this is not to say that an alternative "target" won't be chosen, but if it is, the details of the attack should be investigated very closely indeed. Do not automatically assume that things are what they seem.
As Bush tried to say once "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me"
(21.06.2005)
Three Pakistani men have been arrested in Afghanistan for apparently plotting to assassinate the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan.
The plot has come at a time when the U.S. military have stated that an increasing number of foreign militants have been entering Afghanistan. It also follows comments from the U.S. ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, indirectly suggesting that Osama bin Laden may be hiding in Pakistan.
As our readers will recall, we have already said that he is in Pakistan (near Chitral) and that certain members of the U.S. government (including some Pakistan officials) know exactly where he is.
It was interesting to hear a comment from the CIA chief, Porter Goss, supporting this belief, who when asked if he had a good idea where Bin Laden is, he replied "I have an excellent idea of where he is. What's the next question?" He did not mention Pakistan by name, but his further comments left no doubt that this is what he meant.
Zalmay Khalilzad has left Afghanistan, to take up his new post as U.S. ambassador to Iraq.
One wonders whether Zalmay Khalilzad was getting just a little too close to the truth and those hiding Osama bin Laden in Pakistan felt it might be better to keep him quiet. But as you will see from our other article, it is not just the Pakistani's that are "looking after" bin Laden. What good timing for Khalilzad to be "moved".
If Zalmay Khalilzad became a target for treading on dangerous ground, perhaps Porter Goss can expect a change of job shortly as well?
Osama bin Laden is still involved with so called "terrorist" actions, but there is some confusion on who he is actually working for. Our recent article concerning Al-Qaeda and the future attack on Iran my give some clues on this.
It is our hope that by publishing this information, any attempt at repeating the 9/11 attack may be avoided. However, this is not to say that an alternative "target" won't be chosen, but if it is, the details of the attack should be investigated very closely indeed. Do not automatically assume that things are what they seem.
As Bush tried to say once "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me"