Newsgroup: it.cultura.antagonista
Titolo: alQaeda ha voluto la guerra?

da «giorgio torrieri» in it.politica.internazionale (IPI)
Douglas Jehl del New York Times spiega come Ibn al-Shaykh Libi, un
importante rappresentante di alQaeda, di origine libica, fu catturato
nell'autunno 2001 e affermò negli interrogatori effettuati dalla CIA che
l'Iraq avesse fornito a alQaeda addestramento per le armi chimiche e
biologiche. Successivamente ritrattò tutto. Fonti libiche affermano che le
torture lo indussero a confessare quello che gli era chiesto. Il
giornalista afferma, invece, che le dichiarazioni erano parte di una
strategia di al Qaeda tesa a far scoppiare conflitti tra Usa e paesi
islamici, cominciando da Afghanistan e Iraq . Cosa che si è verificata....
------
Questa sarebbe proprio l'ultima delle ironie.
O no.    Il ragionamento non e' incredibile.
http://www.juancole.com/2004_07_01_juancole_archive.html#109125286487494616
Douglas Jehl of the New York Times explains how Ibn al-Shaykh Libi, a
high al-Qaeda official of Libyan extraction, was captured in fall of
2001 and alleged to CIA interrogators that Iraq had provided al-Qaeda
with training in chemical and biological weapons.
Later on, Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaykh Muhammad were captured in
Pakistan. Abu Zubaydah was wounded in the course of being captured and
was put on heavy duty pain killers, and was interrogated in part while
under their influence. Both he and KSM maintained that Bin Laden had
forbidden any operational cooperation with Iraq, because it was ruled
by an infidel secular Arab socialist regime.
When the CIA came back to Libi with these statements of his
colleagues, he folded and admitted he had lied.
What is going on here? It has been suggested that Libi told the CIA
whatever they wanted to hear because they tortured him. But there is
another possibility, which is that he deliberately misled them. Libi
is also the source of a report in January 2002 that al-Qaeda had
targeted the US naval base in Bahrain. That allegation was never
confirmed, and it is possible that it was also a lie, intended to draw
US resources away from Afghanistan, or to make the US cautious about
using the base.
I think Bin Laden and his lieutenants wanted to provoke wars between
the US and Muslim states. I think they knew that the 9/11 attacks
would guarantee a US war on Afghanistan, and that they were confident
they could draw the US into the country and defeat it, as they had the
Soviets.
That they were trying to provoke a US/Afghanistan war and knew their
actions would provoke one is suggested in several ways. First, they
made no effort to have the hijackers on 9/11 employ aliases or cover
their tracks. A toddler could have traced Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid
al-Mihdar back to al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. They made their
reservations under their own names! All of the hijackers had.
Counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke was astounded that these men
had even been let on the planes under those names, many of which were
well known to US intelligence. Likewise, Bin Laden hand-picked the
Saudi "muscle" that he sent along at the last minute, from among young
men personally loyal to him, and who would be known to be his men.
September 11 was a way of waving a huge red flag from Afghanistan at
the American bull.
Two days before 9/11, al-Qaeda agents posing as Algerian newsmen blew
up Ahmad Shah Masoud, the gallant leader of the Northern Alliance.
Clearly, Bin Laden had gamed out the aftermath of 9/11 and understood
that the US might well try to partner with the Northern Alliance
against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and he wanted to reduce the military
effectiveness of the NA by eliminating its most talented strategist,
Massoud.
Bin Laden, in choosing the "muscle" to be 15 Saudis, also was clearly
attempting to alienate the US from the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in
hopes of weakening the regime in Riyadh and preparing it for overthrow
by radical Islamists.
Libi's story about Iraq training al-Qaeda, delivered after 9/11, is of
a piece with the rest of this strategy. It was aimed at instigating a
war by the US on Iraq.
All of these wars were intended to stir hatred of the US invader
throughout the Muslim world, to weaken the "puppet" governments of the
Middle East that were allied with the US and make them ripe for
overthrow, and to mire the US in a series of Islamic quagmires that
would sap its will and strength and ultimately force its withdrawal
from the region.
In form, the Libi strategy resembles the Maoist hope that the rural
third world could be brought into a confrontation with the
industrialized capitalist countries, one in which contradictions would
be sharpened and the capitalist minority ultimately surrounded and
overwhelmed by socialist villagers. Substitute "radical Islamist" for
"socialist" and you have the Libi plan.
If al-Qaeda wanted wars between the US and Muslim countries, why would
Abu Zubayda and Khalid Shaikh Muhammad have told the US the truth? I
can only speculate, of course. But Abu Zubayda may have been debriefed
while badly wounded and heavily sedated, and may not have had his wits
entirely about him, so that he reacted with anger and hatred at the
Baathist regime when it was brought up. Khalid Shaikh Muhammad was not
arrested until March of 2003, and may have delighted in revealing to
the US that it had been duped after the war began on March 19.
Even though Libi recanted his earlier disinformation, Vice President
Dick Cheney has continued to rely on his allegations. Note that it
should no longer be necessary for the US to depend on a single
unreliable source such as Libi, since it has captured the Baath
intelligence files and should by now know pretty much exactly what the
Baath government was up to with regard to terrorism. If the US does
not know, it would be because it irresponsibly gave those intelligence
files to Ahmad Chalabi.
Chalabi was playing the US from the other side, feeding it
disinformation about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaeda
ties that was just made up out of whole cloth.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz allowed themselves to be
manipulated by Libi and Chalabi because it suited them.
The question is whether letting ourselves be duped in this way suits
the American public.

